Progressives Don't Buy Hillary

[randyconspiracybuff]

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=19831

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com

Don't look now, but apparently not even all the progressives are backing Hillary Clinton - for Senate re-election, let alone her 2008 White House dreams. A CounterPunch commentary by National Security Whistleblowers Coalition founder Sibel Edmonds and board member William Weaver calls the New York Senator "a Fool's Vessel," and urges Empire State voters to reject her bid for re-election this fall.

It goes on to cite Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as "an elected senator who has served six years in her seat, never taking a strong stand in support of her constituents on any serious or controversial issue; ... an elected official who has no record of conducting investigations into cases that are matters of great concern to her constituents and to our nation; a senator who has consistently stood quietly on the sidelines when the issues at hand demand public hearings ­waiting to determine the direction of each blowing wind; a politician who has spent all her focus and energy on a campaign of shallow publicity glitz and her PR empire behind it."

It follows with specific examples on each charge, then concludes with, "We have confidence in the sophistication of our New Yorkers. We believe they'll say: 'Ms. Clinton, fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice shame on us.'" - ST

Staff Reports - Free-Market News Network

For the full Edmonds/Weaver Editorial click here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2800953

[The Magistrate]

1. Always Entertaining, Sir

To see the ultra-right joining hands with the ultra-left in a follie deux....

Here is an excerpt from the "Free Market News" mission statement: "Technology breaks down regulatory barriers. In the early 21st century, the world, and the West in particular, is seeing convulsive change. While more and more laws are passed and taxes levied in pursuit of public solutions, a groundswell of support for the benefits of private enterprise is evident in numerous websites and blogs on the 'Net."

"Counterpunch", of course, is notorious as the left auxiliary of the R.N.C., as its sentimental radicals spend all their time and energy assailing Democrats, and usually with exactly the same lines Republicans use. They live in the childish hope that, if the Democratic Party is destroyed, then the workers will turn to them as leaders in revolution....

[WA98296]

2. Left or Right, what they said is true.

[Warpy]

4. Yes, it is. She's taken few public stands

and her notoriety seems to be mostly from her support of Stupid's war.

However, her voting history gets a 90% positive rating at http://www.progressivepunch.org, so maybe CounterPunch should have considered that in the article.

Perhaps some day she'll realize her husband is as full of shit as every other male conservative speaking about the war and she'll abandon such a losing policy of support for it.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[randyconspiracybuff]

3. You Are Wrong About Counterpunch

While Alex Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair are far to the Left of most Democrats, they have no connection or liking for the RNC or the Bush Administration. They simply refuse to shill for the Democratic party.

Personally, I consider myself a moderate on most issues- and I cannot tolerate Hillary Clinton. I don't believe we should shill for inauthentic politicians, whatever their beliefs.

[The Magistrate]

5. No Thorough-Going Leninist, Sir

Would have a moment's hesitation in charging them as agents in fascist pay, for the objective result of their activities is to benefit the reactionary right, and it is quite clear they know that is the effect of their efforts. What a person does knowingly is what they intend to achieve; the noises that emerge from the mouth are of no signifigance.

The two reptiles you mention are in fact out to build the power of the Republican Party, and if they are doing for free, then they are even more foolish than general opinion imagines.

[randyconspiracybuff]

7. Do You Have Any Evidence of This Claim?

"The two reptiles you mention are in fact out to build the power of the Republican Party"

That's a fairly bold accusation- but I've seen on evidence of it.

[The Magistrate]

8. You Have Read What They Write, Have You Not, Sir?

They spend their time attempting to tear down prominent Democrats. The result of encouraging splinterism on the left is augmentation of Republican power. That is how the system works.

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

[randyconspiracybuff]

12. Actually, They Tear Down Both Parties

...with good reason. Most of the Democrats in the House and Senate have gone along with the warmaking policies of President Bush. Should Democrats be immune from this type of criticism?

Counterpunch is no fan of the Democratic Party and would love to see a progressive Democrat or a Third Party candidate- but that's a far cry from being in the pay of the Republican Party.

[The Magistrate]

18. Close Enough To Break Knees In An Alley, Sir

"Politics ain't bean-bag."

[CollegeDUer]

40. Hackey Sack?

[MrPrax]

6. Actually CP are a bunch

of old commie hacks -- hence the humourous CP tag.

However, anyone reading the sidebar on their site and looking at the titles of their articles (Oh gawd don't read any of them) would be a little hard pressed to arrive at the conclusion that they unwitting dupes of the GOP. In fact, saying so, only proves one's lack of reading skills.

But could you give us a small spiel about how Hillary embodies the principles and 'hope' of the Democratic party...her CV is admittedly a little slight and her stand on the Iraq war, Latin America, etc actually places her closer to the Bush Administration that the editors of Counterpunch...so I don't quite understand how they attack her along 'the same lines Republicans use'.

What does Free Market News have to do with anything...because Lindorff is involved? But so what? CP writers and contributors are involved in FreePress.com as well as The Nation. The Nation is not a big Hillary fan...are they GOP dupes?

Jeez...

[The Magistrate]

9. Do You Really Think Me Unable To Read, Sir?

"Enquiring minds want to know."

[MrPrax]

10. Well...

Yes...I don't really consider Dr.Fred Schwarz tactics on 'outing' the communist to be advanced reading? ;-)

Or were we not suppose to notice that some old guy jumping up in a room and shouting, 'commie'--which is usually the shared response of both democrats and republicans, to decry some insidious plot of intellectuals (on a donor web page) spreading subversive opinions about politicians they like or don't like...perish the thought in a democracy.

I mean they seem pretty clear on their VIEW that Hillary is really no better than Bush. So how you would come to the conclusion that their criticism (some bad/some good) of Hillary HELPS the GOP...I don't know.

(edit -- typo'ed on the name)

[The Magistrate]

11. The Whole 'Not A Dime's Worth Of Difference' Line, Sir

When pressed from the left, provides material assistance to the Republicans.

It tends to depress voting on the leftward end of the spectrum, without doing any corresponding damage on the rightward end.

The Republicans spend most of their political energy exaggerating differences between the parties, and in away calculated to convince as many as possible that one side is comprised of angels and the other of demons. This works to their benefit, because elections are about group identity, and the clearer the lines between groups, the greater the need to choose and the firmer the identification once choice is made. Those on the left who insist on blurring the lines between the parties in their presentation of issues and attacks on persons act to weaken the need to identify with the Democrats and to loosen what identification with the Democrats is made despite their efforts. Where one party to a contest is working efficiently to its own benefit and the other party is engaged in counter-productive behavior, the outcome is easily predictavle.

[MrPrax]

22. Too far apart...

on the basic definitions of relativism, elite formation theory, partisanship and democracy for any intelligent exchange of ideas on this shop-worn observation that the democrats embody the 'left'.

But sure if people don't 'identify' with the democrats, they become disenfranchised and lose their right to participate as far as your concerned...they become a threat.

Sure...so to you the Left's traditional dissent is something to fear, not listen to

...and you are sure your on the Left, right? :eyes:

[The Magistrate]

25. Just As A Matter Of Polite Correction, Sir

It is a violation of the the rules of Democratic Underground to call another member a rightist, whether openly or by insinuation. If you seriously imagine me to be a rightist, your proper course would be alert on some comments of mine that seem to establish it, and leave the matter to our due process in such instances.

Beyond this, the recitation of in-group jargons that have no purchase at all in the general cours eof political life as the people of the country experience it establishes no position for you, but merely indicates you prefer a condition of political isolation to one of involvement, and have little interest in effective opposition to the worst extremes of reaction in our polity.

[MrPrax]

30. rightist?

Where did I use this term? Either insinuated or openly?

I merely disagree with your version of what constitutes legitimate 'dissent' in a free and democratic society...that's all.

[The Magistrate]

31. Crawfish, Sir

Make an excellent bait for blue-gills: you use just the tail, and experiment a little to get the right depth off the bobber....

[sendero]

23. Equally entertaining..

... to see so many "progressives" join hands with the GOP to push for the nomination in 2008 of the one candidate they are absolutely certain they can beat.

[The Magistrate]

26. An Interesting View, Sir

In 1980, most Democratic strategists were over-joyed to see the impending nomination of Reagan, who they were certain would be an easy foe to defeat.

The statement Republicans are pressing for Sen. Clinton's nomination requires assent to some underlying presumptions that are by no means facts. One of these is that any reporting on her prospects for the nomination is part of a Republican script being followed by all commentators. But the fact is that on grounds of name recognition, fund-raising capability, committed cadre of skilled and loyal operatives in her employ, and general popularity among the rank and file of the Party, Sen. Clinton does indeed have an excellent chance of gaining the Presidential nomination, and a political commentator who omitted to note this would not be demonstrating much in the way of knowledge of the process by which nominees are selected.

It is certainly true that Sen. Clinton is energetically hated by a considerable proportion of Republicans, and that these might be especially ardent against her should she run in '08. There are also a considerable proportion of Democrats who rather like her, and a considerable proportion who would view voting for her as a chance to express affection and loyalty to President Clinton once more. There are a number of conflicting trends, and it is difficult to predict how their inter-play would work out....

"The future is hard to predict on account of it ain't happened yet."

[sendero]

28. A couple of points..

... I'm not claiming the "aura of inevitability" surrounding the nomination of HRC is a coordinated effort, I'm claiming if the right didn't want it we wouldn't be hearing it. A minor, but important point IMHO.

Secondly, I consider HRC to be the Guiliani of the Democratic party. She's famous for being famous. Hardly a solid foundation to run on.

And lastly, I think we'll be facing John McCain in 2008. Mr. McCain is going to capitalize on his (largely false) image as a maveric moderate - and we are going to have a hard time beating that even with a good candidate. Much less a person with a record of fence-sitting, hated by damn near every Republican and a goodly proportion of Democrats.

God save us from ambition senators who cannot win.

[JNelson6563]

24. Be that as it may

I would be very interested to see a rebuttal of Sibel Edmunds' statements that are cited in this article. I found her to be rather spot-on quite frankly and I am no destroyer of the Democratic party. On the contrary, I am on my fourth year of full-time work for no pay for the Dem cause.

Julie

[The Magistrate]

27. Nothing In That Bothers Me Much, Ma'am

It is the lot of persons consumed with indignation and wrath in particular matters to be disappointed in the response of people with broader concerns and responsibilities.

[CollegeDUer]

39. "exactly the same lines Republicans use"

Yes, the pro-Palestinian activists those Republicans have are very entertaining, along with the universal healthcare, anti-big business freaks the RNC usually calls up.

[MH1]

69. I guess you missed the Counterpuke articles in October 2004

advocating to vote AGAINST Kerry.

:shrug:


(to be honest, that's what did them in for me. you can advocate all those wonderful "progressive values" all you want, but when you work to re-elect a Bush, it shows those "values" were just empty words all along.)

[MH1]

61. Ah, thank you, Sir!

"Counterpunch", of course, is notorious as the left auxiliary of the R.N.C., as its sentimental radicals spend all their time and energy assailing Democrats, and usually with exactly the same lines Republicans use. They live in the childish hope that, if the Democratic Party is destroyed, then the workers will turn to them as leaders in revolution....

Very well said.

IMO Counterpuke deserves no more respect at DU than fearrepublik.

[karynnj]

13. Counterpunch is beyond redemtion

and shouldn't be counted as a serious progressive voice. I am not a Hillary fan, but how they think that she could conduct investigations when the Democrats have no supoena poweris beyond me. The Democrats were in control of the Senate for only a few months - from when Jeffers chose to caucus with the Democrats till Jan 2002 - about 6 months, where the Congress was in session only a few months - as there was summer break, election time and Christmas break.

[rinsd]

14. Liberals love Hillary!

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=77ca4b7e-ec24-4213-a4d6-f5053467ebf4&x=1206,3

[Le Taz Hot]

34. That's name recognition only.

Check the blogosphere where you'll get a more accurate reading of grassroots support, or lack thereof -- there is no way in hell progressives will support her and she can't win without us.

[CollegeDUer]

38. Progressive Democrats of America already on the record for opposing her

As well as practically the entire ideological left of The Nation, The Progressive, all the leftist organizations.

She has too much money and airtime to lose to Tasini, but we all know Tasini is closer on the issues than anyone else.

[rinsd]

54. 80% is name recognition?

These are approval polls.

"Check the blogosphere where you'll get a more accurate reading of grassroots support, or lack thereof "

Last I checked the blogosphere putting its full muscle behind supposedly the most hated man in the Democratic party was able to eek out a 4 point victory in the primary where the more devoted Democrats are the main bloc of voters.

I also notice neither Kos or Moveon will touch Tasini with a ten foot pole. Why is that?

"there is no way in hell progressives will support her "

Even if she's the nominee?

[Le Taz Hot]

57. Let me qualify my statement

I was referring to her presidential candidacy -- not her Senatorial. The good people of New York will have to decide that one. On the national stage, however, she'll have the DLC's corporate sponsorship to keep her warm at night which will be her ONLY support.

[rinsd]

58. Fair enough in regards to electability

"On the national stage, however, she'll have the DLC's corporate sponsorship to keep her warm at night which will be her ONLY support."

I don't think so. If she gets the nomination, she will have plenty of support. No one on the left wants another 4 to 8 years of a GOP president.

[Le Taz Hot]

59. You don't seem to understand the depths

of hatred most of us have for the DLC-sponsored corporate whores. We've been told to "shut up and vote" for years now. No more. This is it, if the Democrats want to win they need to sponsor someone who espouses Democratic values and quit selling out the poor and middle class for corporate dollars. Hillary, Warner, Kerry, Biden and any other DLC puppet can forget it. Once again, no candidate will win without the grassroots and the grassroots are the progressives. It's not up to us to US to change our thinking -- WE haven't gone anywhere. It's up to the Democrats to come back to the democratic values. You guys can howl at the moon all you want but it's not going to get you anywhere.

[The Magistrate]

62. Who Is This 'Most Of Us', Ma'am?

A national convention of all who whose vote will be guided by hatred of the D.L.C. could be comfortably pitched in a high school gymnasium. To say it is a non-issue with the voting populace would be to exaggerate its weight a great deal.

[Le Taz Hot]

63. And all those who

write with phony, tired, affectations should be on the stage. Now, you want to address me as a regular person? Fine. I'll play. Until then, put me on ignore.

[ChiciB1]

76. I'm A Liberal And Have A Fervent Wish That She Won't

even TRY to run in '08!! IMO, if she does. we LOSE again!! Just look at how "her" backers are sticking a knife in "our" backs now.

Just mentioning the names should be enough for most of us. Rahm Emmanuel... picking fights with those who disagree with "his" agenda. James Carville saying in essence Democrats are going to lose by stating outright that if Dems lose this time around they have serious serious problems in the Party! Then there's Begala, Brazille, Lieberman and if I wanted to I could name more!

Where's Bill Clinton? I would think he would be out there doing some stumping for the current candidates. As I said in another post, I COULD have missed something.... but I haven't seen much of him other than his stint with Mr. Lie and sleeping at a ball game.

[rinsd]

15. Democrats Love Hillary!

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=77ca4b7e-ec24-4213-a4d6-f5053467ebf4&x=1205,2

[wyldwolf]

17. facts are a terrible nuisance.

[randyconspiracybuff]

19. Yeah, Unfortunately...

New York Dems need to be better educated about Hillary's record.

[The Magistrate]

20. Disagreement With You, Sir, Indicates No Lack Of Knowledge

The fact is that the view Sen. Clinton is a rightist, no Democrat, etc., is a distinctly minority view, held only by a few persons with an ideological pre-disposition towards it.

[CollegeDUer]

32. Held by such like Zinn, Cohen, Chomsky, Vidal, and

other riffraff who have endorsed Tasini over his pro-war, corporate dinner party opponent Hilary Clinton.

[The Magistrate]

33. The Word 'Riff-Raff' Was Your's, Sir

But will get no quarrel from me as an accurate enough characterization of the usual suspects along these lines you have named....

They can be relied upon in a pinch to sway literally hundreds of votes, so extensive and dedicated are their followings.

[CollegeDUer]

35. "The most important intellectual alive" and other such rantings

from the New York Times about Chomsky, as well as being leaders in Civil Rights and ending the Vietnam escapade -- I suppose the far seeing eyes of Hilary Clinton and her many failed initiatives and big business sympathy are the important things here in this world.

[The Magistrate]

45. Goodness, Sir: The Most Important Intellectual Alive?

Must be worth at least half a skilled electrician, then, on the open market, and might even trade equal for a good plumber, were the bidding shrewdly handled....

[CollegeDUer]

47. Ok please stop the condescension all the time

This isn't one of Hilary's black-tie affairs with Murdoch; we need not such elaborate dialogue.

[The Magistrate]

Do You Think That Line Helps, Sir?

Intellectuals are froth on the wave: they move nothing. In this country, they meet exceptionally unfavoreable ground: it is hard here to damn a man more effectively than to saddle him with the title of intellectual, and to refer to him as the most important such alive is to venture into negative quantities, rendering him a hole rather than a pile....

[rinsd]

21. Stupid people! Don't they know that we know what's best for them!

[CollegeDUer]

36. They actually do not agree with Hilary in almost all opinion polls

They disagree with her on most issues. They generally approve of HER as opposed to a Republican opponent. The cowardly Mistress Clinton has refused to debate Tasini for a reason.

[SaveElmer]

41. Cite your sources...

If they disagree with her on MOST issues they are not Democrats!

[CollegeDUer]

42. Maybe they just aren't HILARY democrats

I don't find much to gloat over the prowar corporate princess Hilary, and neither do New Yorkers. Good thing she has the money to float herself against a grassroots rival. That way the facts that she has tipped to the pro-business agenda in every arena can be very much obsfucated.

[SaveElmer]

43. Again...

Cite your sources...

[CollegeDUer]

44. Look up how NYers feel on the Iraq War

QED will see you at General Discussion without the DLC minority here to back you up.

[SaveElmer]

46. Again...

Cite your sources...you said liberals disagreed with her on MOST issues...

So far all you have provided is the boilerplate anti-Hillary rant typical around here. If you have actual evidence that liberals disagree with her on MOST issues, please provide it!

[The Magistrate]

48. The Problems With The Effort You Are Making Here, Sir

Are first that the continual chant in some quarters that Sen. Clinton is a bloody-handed war-monger is false, and second that the widespread dis-enchantment with the war among the people is compounded of very different elements than those who subscribe to that chant seem to suppose. The people's opposition to the war is based on a view that it is a bungled failure, not that it is an exercise in wrong and criminality. They want the venture liquidated, but not on terms that seem to embody defeat or cheer the enemies of the country. They want it done carefully, and are in no hurry.

[CollegeDUer]

49. She voted to give the President powers for an aggressive war

It doesn't get more bloody-handed warmonger. She is liable under international law to be imprisoned and put away for life in authorizing aggression.

[SaveElmer]

50. That is of course false...

Read very carefully Senator Clinton's floor statement explaining her vote for the IWR...

I'll help you...here is a link...

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

[The Magistrate]

51. Thank You For The Laugh, Sir

Please be good enough to cite the paragraphs of law that would expose those in the Senate who voted for that resolution to crminal liability....

[rinsd]

56. Here's how NYers feel about the war

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/447592p-376834c.html

"A Marist poll last week found 68% of New York Democrats think the Iraq war should be a "major" campaign issue. But it also showed Tasini with only 15% support against Clinton."

And they are so angry with Hillary Clinton about it in the same poll they prefer her 80 to 15 over the anti-war candidate.

[CollegeDUer]

73. A relative unknown vs a superstar

Says nothing about their views on the positions.

This is child's play political science, but I don't expect the incumbent supporters here -- like their Lieberman ilk -- have any interest in the facts.

[rinsd]

74. What facts have you posted?

Seriously.

You have posted argument after argument without any evidence and you have ignored evidence showing the contrary.

[rinsd]

55. ANY facts? Any at all? Or are you going to continue with BS assertions?

"The cowardly Mistress Clinton has refused to debate Tasini for a reason"

LOL...yeah she's up over 60 points. For the sake of consistency was Cynthia McKinney a coward for not debating her primary opponents before she was forced into a runoff?

"They disagree with her on most issues"

They? Who is they? And what issues? Other than anti-war sentiment, Hillary is very much in line with New Yorkers. You do not get 80% + approval ratings from Democrats and Liberals for name recognition.

[rinsd]

16. Republicans and Conservatives Hate Hillary!

[CollegeDUer]

37. Practically no one agrees with her views, I agree

nt

[The Magistrate]

52. Except Of Course, Sir

The overwhelming number of New Yorkers who express approval of her as a Senator....

[PresidentWar]

79. Except when she joins them in the war drum banging.

Then there's lots of love to go 'round.

[warrens]

29. Fine senator. President? Not so much. YMMV

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[MannyGoldstein]

72. Just Curious?

What's Slick charging for a pardon these days?

[paulk]

75. always fascinating when those on the left

use right wing talking points to attack a Democrat with.

[PresidentWar]

84. Who says he's Left?

I'm sure you've heard of infiltrators, or APs (agent provocateurs).

[MannyGoldstein]

88. Left is Left, RIght is RIght. Honest is Honest, Dishonest is Dishonest

Sorry, I live in a triangulation-free zone.

[paulk]

92. that's not an answer

the fact is - you use right wing talking points to attack Democrats with.

Period.

You can pile your "triangulation" bullshit as high as you want.

It still stinks.

[MannyGoldstein]

93. Even A Stopped Clock...

... is correct twice a day.

[PresidentWar]

83. Who, Slick Bush?

I guess we won't know for about a couple more years. My guess it's quite pricey, considering what his "base" is.

[Tom Joad]

60. another lieberman. who needs her? vote Tasini

http://www.tasinifornewyork.org/

He opposes the war in Iraq. Opposes trade agreements that hurt workers.
And he does not apologize for supporting abortion rights.

[IndianaGreen]

64. Here is Hillary's crime according to Sibel Edmonds

We don't need no damned dynasties. This is not a monarchy. No more Bushes, and no more Clintons!

Published on Monday, August 28, 2006 by CommonDreams.org

Senator Hillary Clinton: All Show and No Substance

by Sibel Edmonds & William Weaver

James J. DiGeorgio and Carl Steubing died in ways no war veteran should. They were subjected to illegal drug experimentation by employees of the Stratton Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Albany, New York; killed by servants of the very government they fought to protect. Scores of other veterans were injured in these experiments, and only by the courage of whistleblowers Jeffrey Fudin and Anthony Mariano was any measure of justice achieved for these misdeeds. One person was convicted of manslaughter, but investigations into other officials collapsed because of a lack of institutional nerve to follow the investigation to the end. A scape-goated employee went to prison, while those who supervised, facilitated, and reaped the benefits of the lucrative, illegal drug testing went on to other VA positions with promotions and raises.

Between 2000 and June 2006, numerous contacts with Senator Hillary Clinton over the Stratton tragedy went unacknowledged, or glossed over, or shuffled around to various offices with no substantive action. No less than five Clinton staff members heard presentations and received documentation about the experiments, and Senator Clinton herself is personally aware of the detailed facts of the case. This personal knowledge did not translate into action, for though Senator Clinton carefully scripts her numerous public appearances to give the impression of caring and concern, her actions speak otherwise. She noted "our nation made a pact with those who serve their country in the Armed Forces – a commitment that those who served would have access to quality health care through the VA hospital system . . . and they deserve to be treated as the best." But while Senator Clinton was issuing such lofty statements and mugging for photo opportunities with active duty military, she did nothing about the systematic abuse and murder of veterans within her own constituency. The Veterans Affairs Whistleblowers Coalition, and more recently the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, sent numerous letters and e-mails and copious documentation, pleading for help from the Senator to investigate and address the crimes committed at Stratton, including unrelenting retaliation against the whistleblowers who brought these matters to public attention

Notably, the VAWBC recognized that the motivations and incentives that led to abuse at Stratton were present at many hospitals throughout the VA system, and that greed and poor management in the VA guaranteed that the events of Stratton would be repeated elsewhere. The most vulnerable people, the sick and dying with nowhere to turn but to the VA, were exploited and killed by those tasked with their medical care, and their suffering and death were ignored by Senator Clinton. It is doubly offensive that this woman sits on the Armed Services Committee, which, along with the Veterans Affairs Committee, has the duty to provide for the well-being of current and former military service members. For all her posturing; for a senator who advertises herself as a hawk and pro military; how does she show it in action? By abandoning our veterans and war heroes in need!

Senator Clinton’s failure concerning Stratton is not an isolated event; it is part of a pattern of studious avoidance of principled action in the face of serious government misconduct, and the refusal to come to the aid of those people who expose that misconduct. When Bunnatine Greenhouse exposed extraordinary graft and impropriety in government contracting with Halliburton, when Sergeant Samuel Provance reported prisoner abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib, when Russ Tice disclosed violations of the Constitution by the National Security Agency, and when Jay Stroup, Thomas Bittler, Jim Griffin, and Ray Guagliardi exposed serious defects and negligence in the Transportation Security Administration that puts travelers at risk, Clinton did nothing. No words of support, no calls for investigations, no efforts to prevent the lives and careers of whistleblowers from being destroyed. Documents on numerous cases were shared with her office, offers to brief her and her staff have been made on many occasions, pleas for her to live up to the words she so casually utters, have all been ignored, or even ridiculed.

In her six years as senator she has done nothing but attempt to position herself for the presidency, done nothing but avoid acting out of principle and justice, done everything to offend no one.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0828-24.htm

[The Magistrate]

65. Crime, Ma'am? Who Has Ever Been Put Into Jail For That?

"Once you have gilded it, it no longer is a lily."

[ChiciB1]

77. I Don't Agree With You About How Well Liked Hillary Is Overall, But

I will agree that her status in NY is pretty well entrenched. I doubt she can be beaten, but that DOES not necessarily mean that Liberals or all Democrats support her as much as you are touting.

Very few of my friends are giving her a second look. In the beginning my non-support was because I feel the Repukes want so badly for her to be the nominee so they could attack her and she is "target bait" with a long history.

But now, most of us feel she has stepped over the line too many times trying to be "more" moderate but coming across as being a little too conservative. And if you want to make the argument that she is only taking a stand on various issues so she will appeal to Independents and Moderates, I find this type of "politikkin" to be untrustworthy. For me, stand up for what you REALLY believe in from the get go. That's just how I see it.

I live in a "red" state and a "red" county and have some very "red" classmates back in Texas who just can't wait for her to be the nominee! I say "no thanks!"

[Pawel K]

67. Can you name a single Democratic senator that doesn't fit in to that

They are all cowards. We need some real change in our leadership and it needs to happen soon.

[theanarch]

68. I used to think there was only one subject...

...that, at the mere mention thereof, could instantly transform the most mild-mannered and open-minded DU'er into the democratic equivalent of a frothing-at-the-mouth Freeper...as this 'counterpunching' thread attests, it seems there are two such topics. CP's thoroughly unoriginal sin is exposing the dark (or under-) side of a Democratic Party that is institutionally corrupt, in the sense that it campaigns on the claim to represent ordinary people, but legislates on behalf of its big (corporate/ideological) donors, against the interests of ordinary people. With the exception of a few recess appointments, and all the "star chamber" policies enacted (illegally and in secret) without benefit of Congressional sanction, there isn't anything Junior's regime has achieved without the cowardice and/or complicity of Democrats--two wars/occupations; evisceration of the Bill of Rights (Patriot Act, etc); Big Pharma's gorging on the donut of "medicade reform" while taxpayers and seniors get the hole; supply-side tax cuts; industry-written bankruptcy 'reform'; taking welfare from the poor and (after adding a zero or two) giving it to the rich; ANWAR drilling; cabinet and court appointments; NCLB (aka, no public school left standing); fill-in-your-favorite-blank. And what they weren't allowed to ratify with their votes, they legitimized with their silence (torture, FISA violations, signing statements) or their cheerleading (WOT; Israel's egregiously one-sided 'nation-destroying' war on Lebanon).

In addition to being 'corrupt' (or 'corrupted', if you will), the DP is also institutionally tri-polar: the (activist) liberal/progressive soft left; the (fundraising) Dixiecrat/DLC hard right; and an increasingly alienated (because they are unrewarded) rank and file that sympathises with the left on issues, but votes for the right because the right pre-selects the candidates (whose chief virtue is not being a Republican, however much one often needs an electron microscope to discern the difference).

Democrats should not scorn the criticism(s) of the Left. As was pointed out to me a long time ago by an old movement comrade, liberals (and by extention, the DP) are at their best when challenged from the Left (think FDR/New Deal v. Norman Thomas/Socialists in the 1930's; the civil rights/anti-war movements of the '60's), and at their worst when confronted by the Right (McCarthyism in the '50's; everything since 1988). This is because, unlike the (ministry-of-) propaganda/primal scream therapy of the Right, the Left's criticisms are actually constructive. The anger expessed in much of the Left's rhetoric about Democrats is mostly rooted in the personal disgust we have for DP "leaders"--their lack of vision, purpose and/or nerve (not to mention the natural human reaction to being called the vile names so carelessly thrown about here, against Greens--or counterpunch readers--for instance). And it is distressing to see how much of the polemics here are driven by the (us v. them) reactions of fear of Republicans, rather than a pragmatic ('we're all in this together') discussion based on realistic hopes.

[MH1]

71. THEY ADVOCATED VOTING AGAINST KERRY IN 2004

What part of that do you not understand????

I saw articles that outright lied about Kerry, to attempt to justify voting against him.

They are JUST AS BAD as freepers.

[wyldwolf]

80. who did?

[The Magistrate]

81. Those Stalwart Enemies of Reaction At 'counterpunch', Sir

You know, the ones on whom we rely at all times for guidance in defeating the right, the people with their thumbs on the political pulse of America...or perhaps it was their fore-arms across the wind-pipe of the left, that last: these things blur lately....

[wyldwolf]

82. ah, yes

I thought the implication was of the DLC. Glad it was clarified.

[MH1]

85. Sorry 'bout that!

I was responding to the first few sentences of the post I replied to...I thought it was clear that they were referring to Counterpuke.

There was a time when I actually liked to read some of their stuff...but after 2004, forget it. They do not have the interests of the people of this country at heart.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[PresidentWar]

78. Hillary is a proven advocate of this stupid war and remains so

That is the OPPOSITE of Progressivism. Period.

[theanarch]

87. The Democratic Party is where...

...progressive ideas and movements go to get neutered, lobotomized, and/or euthanized, for the benefit and convenience of the DP's A-list of corporate/ideological, dialed-for-dollars donor base, which isn't all that different from the GOP's. The reasonable presumption is that most people here share some sort of affinity for 'liberal' or 'good' causes; yet it is stunning to see how many also compromise (or abandon) their hopes by voting for Democrats who represent little or nothing of what "we" believe or want, all because the fear of (re-)electing a Republican is so overwhelmingly lizard-brain frightening, an emotional reaction that trumps rational thought. Given the choice between (legislative) perps (the GOP) and their enablers (most Dem's), the more progressive-minded naturally have little problem voting for neither (actively for a 3rd party/indy someone else; passively by not voting at all).

Re-electing HRC isn't going to end the occupation one day sooner, or one dollar cheaper, than Junior's junta wants, or is compelled, to. Whether Democrats win or lose the election, her re-election isn't going to stop the military tribunals or the torture, isn't going to repeal the Patriot Act, and it's not going to enact universal, single-payer health care...because it's not in her presidential playbook to do so, and it jeapordizes the cash flow from the special interests that would be hurt if she did. Hell, if i lived in NY, i'd vote for Tasini in the primary and Howie Hawkens (GP) in the general, just as i'd vote for someone else besides Ricky "Bizarro" Santorum and Bob Casey Jr. in PA. But i'm not dogmatic about it: if i lived in CT., i could vote for Lamont; and if i lived in VA., i could even vote for Webb. And since i live in NJ, i probably will be voting for Menendez (over Tom Keane JUNIOR)...because Lamont, Webb and Menendez oppose the war/occupation, while Clinton and Casey do not (triangulating their position between not opposing it without seeming to support it either).

[CollegeDUer]

89. Hilary is a political dud, anyway

The strong progressive movement will reject her at the polls in the primaries and if she survived that she could never win a national election.

[PurityOfEssence]

86. Hell, I wouldn't even RENT Hillary

Deft maneuvering is a necessary skill in her neck of the woods, but it really does bring up the question of just what she'll actually stand her ground about and fight.

[AtomicKitten]

90. self-delete

[AtomicKitten]

91. There may come a time when people here may need to deal with her

if she is selected as the Democratic nominee in 2008. I wonder if that thought ever occurs to anyone here at DU. I can't say I'd vote for her in the primary, but I will support her in the general if she is chosen by a consensus of Democrats in the primary.

For those here that will support her in the general if she gets the nod, the 180-degree turn won't be so embarrassing if the caustic rhetoric (trash-talking) is curbed just a teensy bit.

Just a thought.