DLC chief: "I don't think there's a lot of room to the right of Hillary in the Democratic Party"

[draft_mario_cuomo]

This comes straight from the godfather of the Republican-lite (Holy Joe/HRC) wing of the Democratic Party...HRC is essentially Holy Joe with a popular last name and different biological plumbing.

==As for the notion of challenging Clinton from an "electable" right, From said, "the difficulty is that Hillary takes up that space. ... I don't think there's a lot of room to the right of Hillary in the Democratic Party."

So Clinton finds herself with what may turn out to be a blessing -- or a curse: She has the right of the Democratic primary field largely to herself.

"She's the most hawkish candidate in the field; she's integrated the DLC into the regular party," said Byron Shafer, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin. "Unless she lurches left, second-level DLC guys say, 'There's no space for me.'"==

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/3867.html

[oasis]

1. "hawkish ": code for "strong on national defense". (nt)

[Alexander]

7. "hawkish": code for "supports stupid, unnecessary wars".

Going to war in Iraq has definitely made us weaker on national defense, not stronger.

[oasis]

9. It's Bush's war. Hillary did not start it, but has vowed to end it. (nt)

[Alexander]

10. She voted for IWR when many were wise enough not to.

No, it isn't Hillary's war. But she enabled it.

So I don't need to vote for her in the upcoming primary.

[oasis]

16. "...bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations

more likely, and therefore, war less likely" HRC.

I rest my case.

[Alexander]

18. "Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that the President has the authority..."

"...to call forth the militia to preempt a perceived threat." - Senator Robert Byrd, 10/4/2002

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.' - Representative Abraham Lincoln of Illinois

I rest my case.

[oasis]

21. Ask Sen.Byrd who he thinks is responsible for "Bush's War".(nt)

[Alexander]

24. So? Hillary Clinton enabled Bush's war.

For all his faults, Byrd was wise enough not to.

[JNelson6563]

59. "I'm going to take the President at his word"

I rest my case.

[wyldwolf]

80. "I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. "

I rest my case.

[JNelson6563]

82. Ass-u-me

For someone who was willing to go on national television and say there is a vast right wing conspiracy, I expected a little more insightfullness when it came to trusting Little Boots. Perhaps there's something to be said for lowering one's expectations. Just as there's something to be said for setting a bad example.

Julie

[wyldwolf]

83. Tell Howard... who said that on National TV.

[Alexander]

98. It's votes that matter most, not words.

Hillary Clinton for IWR and for every supplemental bill until very recently.

Many in Congress were wise enough not to vote for this. They clearly demonstrated better judgment than Senator Clinton.

[ProudDad]

15. Actually, "Hawkish" is code for

spending TOO MUCH GOD DAMN MONEY on the Amerikan Imperial war machine!

She's WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

We need to EVISCERATE this bloated war machine, get out of the war business and get into the diplomacy and persuasion business.

[oasis]

17. You'll discover that most Americans want our military to be "second to none".

To borrow a phrase from the "hawkish" JFK.

[Alexander]

19. JFK didn't invade Cuba when the "hawks" were telling him to.

Thank God he didn't follow their advice during the Cuban Missile Crisis, or we'd all be irradiated dust.

[oasis]

20. Hillary will have the added benefit of a smarter bunch of advisers. (nt)

[Alexander]

26. But will she be as good at decision-making as JFK?

I don't give a flying fuck who her advisers are. JFK proved that a good leader can have the good sense to ignore advisers when they're giving bad advice.

I care about her - Hillary Rodham Clinton's - ability to make her own decisions based on the evidence that's available. On the Iraq War we are now finding that no evidence was available, and what's more, there was plenty there to suggest Bush concocted a phony story. Yet she voted for it, and claims she was fooled, like Edwards does. I'm not buying it.

Do you know these advisers? Are these people you would trust personally? If they're so good, why didn't they advise her to vote against the war, or did she come to make that decision on her own?

[ncrainbowgrrl]

161. That sounds really familiar... didn't we all say that about shrub?

"Well, he's dumb as a brick, but he'll have smart advisors."

Not that I'm comparing HRC to shrub.... Just interesting that we'd be saying that...

[Greyhound]

56. I'm thinking that second to none doesn't mean it has to be more expensive

than the rest of the world combined. As Gravel put, "who are we afraid of"? Who is going to invade the US, Canada, Mexico? There is no threat left, how can she or anybody justify bankrupting our nation to maintain a military that can serve no good purpose, especially when our nation is literally falling apart?

See, this is one of those moments when great leaders tell American the truth, in spite of what they want to hear.

Leadership, that's what it is about.

[Tellurian]

63. CHINA!

[Greyhound]

67. LOL!

You are joking aren't you?

Just in case you are not, you should know that the Chinese military, huge in numbers though it may be, poses absolutely no threat to us. The Chinese have not endeavored to bankrupt themselves, like the Soviets did, developing the latest and greatest weapons systems, and therefore, are technologically backward, strategically unsophisticated, and literally unable to move any place that they cannot walk to.

The only military threat they have to use against us are their nuclear weapons, which our military has no way of countering, if they were ever suicidal enough to use them.

[Tellurian]

78. Who do you think is funding the Iraq War for us?

No I'm not joking at all. Bush has borrowed us into our great-grandchildren's future..
Think about this..If China calls the note and demands to be paid, we go into servitude.

[Greyhound]

84. First China can't "call the note" as you put it, and as a member of the Senate Armed Services

Committee HRC is well aware of where all the money went.

But, the question was who are we arming to fight? Who is the threat? No body could beat us even if they tried, which they won't because it makes no sense, there is nothing to be gained.

[Tellurian]

85. Anyone that want to hurt us..

is most likely already here..Just as the were for several years before 9/11. Are you talking long range missiles or some such? Poppycock. All anyone has to do is disturb our way of life by the simple quantity of resources we have such as, electricity, water, food, petrol, banking, all the major internal infrastructure we depend on in our daily lives. Throw the country into a tailspin and the end result is chaos. Then a major takeover. Heck, our own government can do that to us in a heartbeat. Who's going to stop them?

[Greyhound]

118. Yes that's true, but the issue is spending nearly a trillion dollars a year (not including

the mass murder in Iraq) on a military that serves no purpose. The military we do need is vastly different from what we have and would cost a fraction of what is being stolen from us.

Our military is designed to wage an old fashioned war on a nation. As has been clearly demonstrated, it is utterly incapable of dealing with the conflicts we will face through the 21st century.

Even the factions that do hate us and will undoubtedly try to harm us would be completely neutralized by our expending less than 10% of our military budget. For that money we can provide food, water, education, health care, reproductive health services, and education to, literally, the entire world. If we did that, how many terrorists do you think could be recruited to kill us? Why would they want to?

This is the big lie and none of our leaders will even mention it as they try to out macho each other.

[ProudDad]

129. The bloated fascist amerikan war machine

is already bigger than ALL OTHER COUNTRY'S war machines COMBINED!!!

We could afford to cut it by 3/4 and STILL BE BIGGER and BADDER and MORE DEADLY and FASCIST than any other fucking war machine on the planet.

What the FUCK more do the stupid ass "Americans" fucking want????

[mmonk]

35. "hawkish" :code for stupid and blustery on "defense".

We need someone with some diplomatic skills following all this crap IMO. Not someone out to prove how tough they are.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

136. "Hawkish" is code for "She will not get my vote" (nt)

[Telly Savalas]

151. Au contraire. "Hawkish" is code for "being reminiscient of this guy:"

[w4rma]

2. Woah. This quote says it all about Obama's issueless campaign.

…
In fact, DLC Chairman Al From argues that the leading Democratic candidates are centrist in their domestic policies.

"As the candidates start laying out their agendas, you'll see enormous influence from the DLC," he said.

"The overall message of the Obama campaign has been the kind of message that we've tried to bring to this party for a decade and a half -- of hope and responsibility and opportunity," he said.
…
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/3867.html

[CTLawGuy]

8. come on

that's like saying that I'm a Republican because I agree with Bush that child molestation should be illegal.

are you saying that Edwards' message is of fear, finger pointing and despair????

[w4rma]

29. Obama's campaign has from the very beginning been about nothing but his personality.

He covers up who he really is. He's a con-artist.

[Alexander]

33. Both Obama and Edwards are pretty faces.

There. I said it. Someone needed to. Neither one has very much experience or gravitas. They're smart and good-looking, but so are many people, and that doesn't make them charismatic or even a decent leader.

[w4rma]

39. Unlike Hillary? (nt)

[Alexander]

99. No, she's just benefitting off her husband's fame.

I can't imagine how being First Lady qualifies one to be president. What's next? President Pickles?

[CTLawGuy]

36. its also fuckin

10 zillion months before any primary. Give them time to come out with their stuff.

I like Obama, becuase with him we can move on from all the Dems who have to explain away their votes to authorize this war. We need someone who was not part of that mistake, and Obama is that person.

All our candidates are very similar on positions, but on character, judgment and the like, certain ones are better than others.

[w4rma]

41. Certain ones are definitely better than others. I don't see any plan from Obama to come out with

any substance between now and the primary elections. His campaign is being run almost exactly like Hillary's campaign, without any substance.

They'll save the substance for the general when the progressives are forced to vote Democratic or 3rd Party. That's when Obama (and Hillary) will show their true non-progressive colors.

[CTLawGuy]

44. So Obama is not a progressive

the guy who spoke out against this war in 2002 when it was more popular than baseball and apple pie is NOT a progressive,

but a guy who not only VOTES for IWR, but COSPONSORS it, and doesn't realize it was a dumb idea until 5 years later is a super awesome progressive :eyes:

[w4rma]

46. No! That's what I'm saying. He's not a progressive. Progressives don't obfuscate their

positions on issues when they are trying to sell themselves to progressive voters (who are the largest voting block in the Democratic primaries).

Obama supported his Senate mentor Lieberman over Lamont in the primary giving the pro-war people more help in continuing the war. Obama has also voted for every single pro-Iraq war bill that he has had a chance to vote on while in the Senate.

[CTLawGuy]

48. are you talking about funding

defunding the war won't bring our troops home. Do you honestly think king "I don't listen to anyone" Bush is going to leave Iraq just because he doesn't get all the money he wants?

Bush would leave them there to perish and blame it on us. I don't fault anyone for voting for funding. After all we oppose this war in large part because we care for the welfare of our soldiers.

We have the power to end the war because of conditions we can now attach to the funding.

[w4rma]

49. I'm talking about any and every pro-Iraq War bill that he's been given a chance to vote on. (nt)

[CTLawGuy]

51. like what?

NT

[w4rma]

53. Name it, he voted for it. (nt)

[CTLawGuy]

70. you name it

you brought it up, or are you done with your trashing for the day?

[wyldwolf]

71. how about these?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3189244&mesg_id=3189244

[CTLawGuy]

73. ok he votes with Hillary, your point being?

NT

[wyldwolf]

77. did you not ask for which Iraq war bills he voted on?

[ripple]

87. You are incorrect

Lieberman was not Obama's mentor. He showed him the ropes when Obama was first elected to the Senate, as did other Senior Senators. Obama has said that Paul Wellstone has had a strong influence on him and lately, Senator Durbin seems to be someone he respects and looks up to a great deal. One only needs to look at Obama's voting record in the Senate and his position on a number of issues to realize that Lieberman has had very little ideological influence on him.

Obama did not vote for "every single pro-Iraq bill". He voted to provide funds for a war that was underway before he even started in the US Senate- a war he staunchly and publicly opposed, by the way. If you want to paint Obama with a pro-war brush for voting yes for funding and until recently, in a republican-controlled Senate, you will need to paint all but a couple of other Senate Dems with the same brush. And while you're at it, you might want to include the candidate you support- the one who actually co-sponsored the IWR.

Obama is indeed a progressive and actually, he is pretty close to Edwards when it comes to his message and ideology. That's one reason Edwards is my second pick, despite the terrible decision he made as a US Senator.

[Tellurian]

66. Obama is doing his best to use plans and programs from Edwards and Clinton..

Obama doesn't have the ability to think things out because he hasn't done the research and the work involved putting things together himself.. It's like taking a thesis off the internet, turning it in, and calling it your own.

After listening to his speech in Detroit, I found myself thinking, the prolific posters on this board know more than he does.

[ripple]

90. His book is evidence to the contrary.

In fact, one could also say that Edwards and Clinton have framed some of their talking points based on Obama's insightful analysis of today's issues. Do I believe that has happened? Of course not, any more than I believe Obama is somehow stealing plans from Clinton and Edwards.

It's clear that Obama has a great understanding of the issues of the day and he has carefully laid out a thoughtful and intricate (nuanced, even ;-) ) platform from which to present his plans for solvency.

[tomp]

68. kucinich is "that person" and more.

but, of course, he's not as pretty.

[CTLawGuy]

72. Kucinich is a perennial candidate who hasn't proven

he's serious. I admire the guy but come on...

[tomp]

133. excuse me?

you mean, i assume, not a "serious contender" and not that he's not serious, right. of course, assuming the former, the only thing he needs to be a "contender" is for others to be as serious as he is...or perhaps, a face-lift and a makeover. alas, that's american democracy for you.

[CTLawGuy]

135. No

I think he needs to do more to show he's personally serious about winning the presidency, raise more money, have a better organization. You don't need rich friends to raise a lot of money, ask Howard Dean.

When I was in NH in 2004 there wasn't even a Kucinich field operation there. You can't possibly compete in a retail-politics state like NH without a field operation.

Dean only gained media attention because of the grassroots money and support he attracted.

[Tellurian]

64. There you go! :)

Thanks, I'm glad to hear someone else can see through the facade of next sock-puppet we'd have to endure if he's elected.

[NoPasaran]

65. Excuse me, isn't this a Hillary-bashing thread?

Shouldn't Obama-bashing have a thread of its own?

Or, god forbid, how about a positive thread about a candidate?

[Clark2008]

81. An Edwards fan calling someone a con artists?

:rofl:

Hey, pot... the kettle is also black.

Iraq War
PATRIOT Act
Yucca Moutain
The banking industry and predatory lending
The bankrupcy bill 2001
No Child Left Behind

[rinsd]

91. Its infuriating really.

Edwards is a good candidate but the touting of the man's campaign rhetoric vs. what his voting record actually was borders on absurd.

[TankLV]

155. I can't disagree with you there...

Something stinks about Obama - he's my "broken clock" candidate (even a broken clock is occasionally right - at least twice a day - but by ACCIDENT - the clock is still BROKEN)...

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[w4rma]

27. Obama groupie. (nt)

[CTLawGuy]

37. Edwards has already proven he can't win

in the primary or the General. He couldn't even bring in North Carolina for goodness sakes. Time for someone new.

[w4rma]

38. Are you kidding? Obama has *never* won a competitive election in his life.

Edwards won his Senate seat in conservative North Carolina against a very well financed Republican. That's no small feat.

[CTLawGuy]

40. Ill. Democratic primary ring a bell?

and everyone knows Edwards was NOT going to be re-elected in 2004...

everyone knows he was brought on to the presidential ticket to pull in a southern state and he couldn't do it.

[w4rma]

42. Any success against a competitive Republican? No. None.

Obama doesn't have much experience in much of anything, actually. Lightweight.

Heck just mentioning his middle name scares off a third of middle America.

[CTLawGuy]

45. he's still in the Senate

unlike Mr. not a senator, not president and not vice president.

[w4rma]

47. Senators have six year terms, the last time I checked.

Edwards would have had to run for reelection *while* running for the Presidency/Vice Presidency if he had stayed.

Obama was handed his senate seat on a silver platter by the Republicans who ran the weakest candidate in the entire country.

[CTLawGuy]

50. Edwards was not going to win again

he was hideously unpopular. In fact so much, he failed to even make North Carolina COMPETITIVE for Kerry. You can't say that's not pathetic.

[w4rma]

52. The Kerry campaign made the decision not to spend money in NC. It wasnt an important state that year

Ohio was the major swing state that year.

[CTLawGuy]

69. I dunno maybe he thought a politician could win his own home state

NT

[Prophet 451]

79. I worry about Obama's experiance

Or rather, his lack thereof. The guy's smart, charismatic as all hell but he does have very little experiance. I do, however, think he'd make an ideal VP pick which gives him that experiance and makes him the logical next in line.

[karynnj]

94. His experience is roughly equiveilent or better than Edwards

Public Advocate, Civil rights lawyer, Constitutional Law professor is more relevent than trial lawyer. 8 Years on the Illinois Senate plus 4 years in the US Senate (what Obama will have at the time of election) is at least equivilent to 6 years in the US Senate.

This is why I am hoping Gore enters or Dodd gains momentum. It won't happen, but I would love it if Kerry jumped back in.

[Prophet 451]

102. I wouldn't go for Edwards either

My preferences right now are:
1. Gore
2. Kucinich
3. Dodd
4. Obama
5. Everyone else

That said, we have a very strong crop of potentials this time. Any one of them would make a decent president, it's just a question of which one of them would be better than the others. Obama has everything it takes to be a great president. He's bright, charismatic, passionate and a superb public speaker (which is a nice change after six years of Captain Malaprop). It helps that he's a good looking guy and a sharp dresser (let's be honest, it never hurts). His only weaknesses are the fact that he smokes (seriously, I have seen people attack him for that) and his lack of experiance. Hence, 4 or 8 years as VP would cure his only major weakness.

[mnhtnbb]

109. That is pure BS. Edwards favorable/unfavorable ratings as Senator

in July 04 in NC were 56 favorable 37 unfavorable. Source from link and below
it full chart of ratings for NC senators back to Sam Ervin. Note that the ONLY other Senator with such high favorable ratings was Sen Sam Ervin. Remember him from Watergate?

http://www.southnow.org/southnow-publicati...


I would like to draw attention to one statistic. Frequently, on these
boards anti-Edwards folks assert that there's no way Edwards would
have won re-election to the Senate. Interestingly, he had
a 56% positive vs. 37% negative approval rating as Senator in a poll
dated 07/04. That suggests that he might have won re-election to me.
This table is on p. 5 of the citation above, the article on 2204 NC
Election Primer


US Senator/Term Date1 Pollster2 % Pos.3 % Neg.4
Ervin, D-3 1964 LHP 55 22
Helms, R-2 10/83 CP 46 42
Helms, R-3 10/87 MD 39 55
Sanford, D 2/89 N&O 40 45
Helms, R-4 10/92 MD 44 55
Sanford, D 4/92 MD 41 56
Faircloth, R 9/96 MD 46 47
Helms, R-4 10/96 N&O 50 40
Edwards, D 10/99 CP 36 27
Helms, R-5 10/99 CP 45 43
Dole, R 4/03 EU 48 39
Edwards, D 7/04 R2 56 37
1 Month and year the poll was conducted.
2 Pollster = who conducted the poll: CP - Carolina Poll (UNCCH);
EU - Elon University Poll; LHP - Louis Harris Poll;
MD - Mason-Dixon Poll; N&O - News & Observer/FGI Poll;
R2 - Research 2000 Poll.
3 % Pos. = % of the respondents giving the senator positive
marks for his or her performance - approve, excellent, good, etc.
4 % Neg. = % of respondents giving the senator negative marks
for his or her job performance - disapprove, fair/poor, etc.

[CTLawGuy]

120. well whatever that poll is it sure didn't translate

to making NC competitive for the Dem ticket.

[mnhtnbb]

138. The top of the ticket is important. A "MA liberal" will not play in the South, no matter

who is VP.

[Hard_Work]

103. Gotta correct you there...

Obama was actually beating the tar out of a well funded and popular repub before said repub had to drop out of the race due to a sex scandal. Crazy-man was brought in from out of state when the republican party couldn't find a legitimate replacement candidate who could beat Obama.

[mtnsnake]

132. I agree. Edwards is unelectable just like Kerry was. Obama knows how to connect

and he doesn't have to try and schmooze over the voters by putting up a phony "populist" front.

2008 will be a breath of fresh air because we'll actually have someone who's electable this time.

[Forkboy]

156. Reagan knew how to connect too.

And can't the people who don't buy the populist front also be getting being schmoozed over by a different front?

Why do you assume you can't be fooled by someone as easily as Edwards is fooling everyone else?

[TankLV]

157. Obamabot...

[ShortnFiery]

74. Politco.com has as much credibility here as The National Review.

Whoa? What does that say about those who LOVE to quote the web site that Dear Leader promotes during his press conferences. :wow: Hum...

[mikelgb]

3. politico

[draft_mario_cuomo]

4. The quote comes straight from the DLC's founder and CEO

[rinsd]

89. Its fairly deep in the article. Do you make a habit of reading politico for Hillary dirt

[BobRossi]

5. No shit.

Hillary, the DINO queen.

[ulysses]

6. ya think?

[LWolf]

11. I don't think so, either. n/t

[ProudDad]

12. She's also the biggest loser

when matched with the other two leaders against the repuke likely nominee:

"Obama beats the leading Republicans by larger margins than any other Democrat: besting Giuliani 50 to 43 percent, among registered voters; beating McCain 52 to 39 percent, and defeating Romney 58 percent to 29 percent.

Like Obama, Edwards defeats the Republicans by larger margins than Clinton does: the former Democratic vice-presidential nominee outdistances Giuliani by six points, McCain by 10 and Romney by 37, the largest lead in any of the head-to-head matchups. Meanwhile, Sen. Clinton wins 49 percent to 46 percent against Giuliani, well within the poll’s margin of error; 50 to 44 against McCain; and 57 to 35 against Romney."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505030/site/newsweek/page/2/

[primative1]

28. Which makes me wonder ...

A quick look at those numbers says the average american is considerable LEFT of both Hillary and the Dem party ... There is potential in that, unless the result just reflect a anti hillary bias based upon her persona and not her politic.

[rinsd]

88. LOL. She also kicks the crap out of those Democrats and is now beating every single Republican.

That Hillary can't win the general meme that anti-Hillary people are desperately clinging to is swirling down the drain.

[ProudDad]

130. Are you sure you read my post

her numbers are WORSE than Obama and Edwards, not better...

[elocs]

13. Let the canabalism begin.

So Hillary is a Hawk and a DINO and Edwards has a message of fear, finger-pointing and despair. I can't wait until Christmastime.

[enough already]

14. One more reason I'll never, EVER vote for her. n/t

[illinoisprogressive]

22. anymore right and she'd be a full blown republican instead of repuke lite.

[bling bling]

25. Nonsense.

She didn't vote for their Supreme Court justices. That count for anything?

It might be a good idea for you to have a look at her record sometime. Please.

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

[Alexander]

30. Agreed.

I'm not for Hillary, but she's far better than any of the Republicans.

[AtomicKitten]

31. if I might butt in

Really nice to hear and somewhere to start in looking for common ground here at DU: common ground - a legendary place I hear with rainbows and unicorns.

There are several Dems I'd rather see get the nod, but I'll take any Democrat any day over a Republican. We've seen their work.

:toast:

[Pushed To The Left]

32. I can sincerely say that I would proudly support and vote for ANY of our great candidates in the

General Election! I'm supporting Barack Obama in the primaries, but I agree with you that ANY of our Democratic candidates is 100 times better than any of the Republicans running.

[Alexander]

34. Unfortunately it is easier to divide than unite.

I'm all for whichever Democrat wins the nomination. I'm personally for Gore but will take anyone from Hillary to Biden to Mike Gravel if he somehow wins.

I just wish I could get that kind of pledge from more DUers. It's a good way of uniting people towards the cause - electing Democrats.

When people say "I won't vote for so-and-so if he/she wins" or "I'm staying out unless my candidate wins", then it becomes more about loyalty to certain people and less about loyalty to Democrats.

[Forkboy]

58. There are times when loyalty to country,or simply to fellow humans, trumps loyalty to a party.

I'd rather people approached every election like that.It's a nice feeling when there's a candidate you can support that fulfills all three desires.

[Alexander]

100. True - but I'd still vote for HRC if she won the nom.

And I take great joy in poking holes in the notion that anyone against Sen. Clinton in the primary automatically "hates" her or is a right-winger.

[DFW]

116. You have that pledge from me!

Also a Gore supporter, but will be supporting, and hard, whoever our nominee will be.

The obsession of some to post one anti-Hillary infomercial after another is boring.
It is SO easy to be against someone or something. Show us who you are for, and why.
That's interesting. All the "I hate (fill in the blank)" posts are getting to resemble
whining, and whining resembles Republicans.

Hillary's business contacts, Edwards' house and hair, I mean I'll read it the first
time. The fiftieth time, it gets older than Pat Robertson's daily emails from God.

I have a nagging feeling that Gore really won't run, so I'm keeping my pick open for
now. Maybe Gore will jump in if he feels there is no momentum in any one direction.
It could still happen, but I'd prefer it didn't. If the momentum is so much on our side
that the Republicans start acting themselves like 2008 is a lost cause, then it will
become a self-fulfilling prophesy. They'll start acting like 1996, knowing there is
no way they get the White House (and then watch out, because they will do ANYthing to
get it back 4 years later, now that they know how it's done).

[draft_mario_cuomo]

105. Holy Joe is reviled by Dems yet HRC is our front-runner. What is in a name?

Apparently everything. HRC is essentially as conservative as Holy Joe.

[The Magistrate]

159. Because There Is No Real Similarity Between The Two, Sir

It is a very tired wheeze for you to try and couple together a leading Democratic Presidential candidate with a renegade figure despised by just about everyone here, that is seen through for the most wretched of hyperboles by most everyone who reads your repeated trottings out of the tired and tiresopme formula.

[mtnsnake]

43. Hillary is ten times more liberal than Edwards and that's a fact, Mr Hillary hate spouter

John Edwards has already been proven to be THE candidate that's right of center, as proven by his voting record in the Senate when he was described as being somewhere between moderate and conservative, all except for his last year in 2003, the year he decided to run for president. Compared to HIllary, Edwards, the co-sponsor of the IWR, looks like Newt Gingrich!

[w4rma]

54. Who are you trying to con? She's a former Wal-mart board member who is anti-union.

She helped Sam Walton keep Wal-Mart union free for six years while he called her his "little lady".

And under the Clinton Presidency Wal-Mart made the largest gains of every single corporation in the entire world as the Clintons pushed for 'free' trade bills which helped Wal-Mart and looked the other way as Wal-Mart engaged in union busting.

Hillary is no where close to being in the ballpark of being progressive.

[mtnsnake]

61. Nobody. You don't know WTF your talking about. Hillary is 1 of THE most progressive...

Hillary is no where close to being in the ballpark of being progressive

You obviously don't have a clue and your only purpose on this forum is to rant and rave about Senator Clinton and litter the board with propaganda about her.

FYI, the Goddess of Peace just happens to rank as the 15th most progressive Senator out of 100 Senators. Obama is one ahead of her at 14th. Compare that to someone like Kerry who is only 30th. So enough of your cluesless rants about Hillary not being progessive. Wake up.

http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?member=HI1&search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&zip=

:smoke:

[ShortnFiery]

76. OMG, not Idol worship?!?

"FYI, the Goddess of Peace just happens to rank as the 15th most progressive Senator out of 100 Senators" :wow: :crazy: :wow:

Excuse me, I have to go blow chow. :puke:

[karynnj]

96. Maybe the metric is wrong?

[Alexander]

101. Oh, the irony...

"You obviously don't have a clue and your only purpose on this forum is to rant and rave about Senator Clinton and litter the board with propaganda about her."

Yeah, like calling her the "Goddess of Peace" when she voted for IWR and continues to saber-rattle with Iran isn't propaganda. :eyes:

Pot, meet kettle.

:rofl:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

108. The "Goddess of Peace" also votes to continue financing Bush's war

[Alexander]

115. Yeah, but Edwards co-sponsored IWR, so I'm not happy with him either.

I have made no secret of my preferred candidate for 08, who sadly is not running yet.

[mtnsnake]

123. If he wasn't unemployed, he'd be funding & co-sponsoring the next 2 or 3 wars, too.

The "populist" candidate. What a friggin joke! Jimmy Carter he is not.

The only true blue peace candidate is Dennis Kucinich. He's the only candidate with any rocks, too.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

125. Um...Jimmy Carter, like FDR, JFK, and RFK was also very wealthy when he ran for prez

As far as Kucinich goes, his income is in the six figure range as well. There is no poor or middle-class candidate this year--as there never is...

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

148. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

126. I understand that. He made a huge mistake with the IWR

Personally, I look to what the candidates want to do on Iraq now, but I understand why many people rule out voting for someone who voted for the IWR or are uncomfortable with such a person. I hold his vote on the IWR against him too but I favor his plans going forward on Iraq over what HRC and Obama want to do. I support Edwards for his views on domestic issues, though, not Iraq.

[mtnsnake]

122. Edwards co-sponsored it & if he wasn't unemployed, Im sure he'd vote to fund it too

He ought to fund his next $400 haircut with his own money while he's at it instead of the taxpayers. How embarrassing for him when he got caught.

"Ummm, it was a mistake. The haircut got billed to the taxpayers by accident both times."

Suuuurrrree.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

124. Edwards advocates de-funding the war, unlike the "Goddess of ("warispeace") Peace"

He was wrong to support the IWR and had the courage to admit it. The IWR was almost five years ago. The question is what to do now. Edwards and apparently several in the Senate such as Feingold, Kerry, Kennedy, and Harkin favor de-funding the war. Others favor continuing to finance the war while rhetorically "opposing" what they are financing. Today, Edwards is right. The "Goddess of War" is still wrong on Iraq.

As far as haircuts, the $400 haircut was dumb but that still pales in comparison to the Goddess of War's $1,500 haircuts.

[Alexander]

137. He didn't bill anything to the taxpayers. Quit your dishonest rhetoric.

What he did do is charge it to his campaign. Meaning if anything, it was billed to donors, not taxpayers.

Still doesn't make it right, but you could use some fact-checking.

[mtnsnake]

145. Donors, taxpayers, whatever. The point is the same. Glad you agree it was wrong. nt

[Alexander]

149. Wrong again. Taxpayers = illegal. Donors = legal, if wrong.

We can agree it's wrong in either case, so I'll take what I can get.

[mtnsnake]

152. I'm cool with that. nt

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

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

[Alexander]

150. How was mnhtnbb's last post "propaganda"? It was factually accurate.

You might also want to check user profiles sometime - mnhtnbb is not a "dude".

[mtnsnake]

153. It's called giving and getting. nt

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

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

[draft_mario_cuomo]

107. Al From knows a conservative Dem when he sees one. He founded the GOP-lite wing of the party

Random HRC supporter: "Hillary is 1 of THE most progressive."
DLC founder and CEO: "I don't think there's a lot of room to the right of Hillary in the Democratic Party"


I'll take Al From's word on this over the posts of an anonymous HRC supporter on the internet. From knows when he sees a Republican-lite. He saw one in Bill Clinton. He sees one in Holy Joe, who the DLC still aids and abets. And he sees a conservative Democrat in HRC too.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[draft_mario_cuomo]

127. That is a false smear

I have only one name. I know how some HRC supporters like to believe there is always a vast conspiracy out to get here but what you see at DU is real grassroots opposition to her among progressives. Maybe if she listened to progressive Democrats more than DLC (Republican-lite) consultants who told her what to do in order to be Republican-lite for general election purposes she would have more support among progressives...

[Forkboy]

55. And 20 times more conservative than Kucinich.

;)

[mtnsnake]

62. Well then that makes John Kerry 40 times more conservative, since Hillary is 15th & Kerry 30th

on the progressive scorecard.

http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?member=HI1&search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&zip=

...but Dennis Kucinich rocks!!! Go DK!

:hi:

[Forkboy]

92. But only 73% more liberal than 41% of the 16% of Conservatives that vote Green.

I think. :)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

110. The National Journal ranked her 33rd in 2006, only four spots ahead of Holy Joe

The rankings she/he cites are only on one metric, not an overall ranking.

1) Durbin, Richard, D-Ill. 87 95 95 95.2
Boxer, Barbara, D-Calif. 87 92 98 95
Kennedy, Edward, D-Mass. 87 88 98 93.7
Leahy, Patrick, D-Vt. 83 96 94 92.5
Harkin, Tom, D-Iowa 83 96 92 92
Reed, Jack, D-R.I. 87 89 88 91.3
Sarbanes, Paul, D-Md. * 87 93 79 89.7
Murray, Patty, D-Wash. 87 96 76 89.3
Mikulski, Barbara, D-Md. 87 80 88 88.8
10) Obama, Barack, D-Ill. 87 77 85 86

12 Kerry, John, D-Mass. 87 89 72 85.7
33 Clinton, Hillary Rodham, D-N.Y. 63 80 62 70.2
37 Lieberman, Joe, ID-Conn. 73 74 54 67.5

http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

106. Al From, the hero of the Republican-lite wing of the party, disagrees with you

Al From--the leader of an organization that both HRC and Holy Joe are members of--is the godfather of the Republican-lite wing of the party. Him saying this is analogous to the Pope saying it is hard to be more Catholic than person X.

If HRC disagrees with Al From on this perhaps she will leave his organization...We know that won't happen and we won't hear HRC complain about what he said because it is essentially true and consistent with HRC's strategy since 2000.

Hate? This is a quote directly from the DLC's leader. Does he hate HRC too? Is he part of the conspiracy to deprive HRC what she is entitled to as well?

[mnhtnbb]

139. What planet are you on?

[mtnsnake]

144. I think Hillary will someday have a planet named after her, 1 of those new ones

that just got discovered. Yeah

[mnhtnbb]

160. LOL. More likely a supernova.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova

[nealmhughes]

57. Why did Mrs. Clinton vote against Feinstein-Leahy Amendment restricting cluster bombs to military

targets only? Hell, we know what that is "code for" if people around here want to hem and haw, her Nay was for the defense industry and the only country that was then currently laying down cluster bombs for kids in southern Lebanon to pick up and play with.

Hell's Bells! Feinstein is a Jew herself and wasn't afraid of the big bad Likud in America -- je m'ajuste -- AIPAC.

Who played politics to keep the Ryan White monies flowing whole tap wide to NYC when the demographics demanded that they move southward? HRC, Madame Healthcare, that is who.

Those are two reasons why I will not support her even so much as even to go to a rally should she deign to come to my already written off district (even though we haven't even had a Republic challenger for the House in 6 years. . .)in my already written off state.

Anyone who is a member of an invite only group gets no support from me when there are pro-labor, pro-universal health care, pro-peace candidates out there.

[mmonk]

60. I'm going to be brutally honest here.

She scares me. I believe many democrats and liberals are hitching a ride on this campaign on false impressions. I'm willing to take criticism from her supporters here for saying so, but I'm being honest. I believe if the PNAC is going to reform into something and hitch a ride on a candidacy, this is most likely the one. I believe it will be a neo-liberal movement. Quite frankly, I'm looking for a different approach that will use diplomacy as its most effective tool. I invite comment over my fears because I don't get anything out of what she says in debates or speeches.

[ShortnFiery]

75. I fear you may be right.

But IMO, they will lose the war (Presidency) in the end because you just can't bully Democrats into supporting someone they DO NOT TRUST. :shrug:

p.s. It freaks me out but we just may be saying President "Rudy" in 2008 - only because the Bushites hate him and are pushing Romney but "the people" are disgusted with hyped religious issues and the candidates who gravitate in those circles.

Gosh, but rather Rudy than her Mittenfurer? :shrug:

[mmonk]

114. Oh I hope not.

I think he would be inept. I'm willing for people to make their case to me regarding her but it's a tough sell. The people connected to her campaign alone give me the shivers (McAuliffe, Carville, the party endorsements of a who's who among the DLC).

[dflprincess]

86. Sorry I can't ease your mind -

I agree with you. I also have the most uncomfortable feeling that the fix is in on this. All these states rushing to move their primaries and caucuses to earlier dates that will only favor the candidates with the most money.

The other thing that worries me is that we'll lose Congress if HRC is the nominee. I know a lot of people who are saying they'll stay home on election day if she is the canidate. I'm going to concentrate on convincing them to at least show up to vote in the House and Senate races, but I don't think I'll be able to sell them on voting for a presidential candidate I don't want to vote for myself.

[karynnj]

95. I am as concerned as both you and the person you are responding to

That she has already elbowed out some who could have been strong opponents, if people become concerned about Edwards' and Obama's relative inexperience. Some were more conservative than I would like but Warner and Bayh would look good vs Hillary. Either Gore or Kerry would be wonderful.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

111. Republicans who believe they will lose in 2008 are already rallying around HRC

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/05/02/BL2007050200485.html

Conservative leader Bruce Bartlett:

=="If I am right, conservatives are going to have to make an important decision at some point. Do they go down with the sinking Republican ship, or do they try to have some meaningful influence on the next president by becoming involved in the Democratic race? . .

"To right-wingers willing to look beneath what probably sounds to them like the same identical views of the Democratic candidates, it is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton is the most conservative. John Edwards is the most liberal, and Barack Obama is somewhere in between . . .==

"On economics, it is reasonable to assume that Sen. Clinton's policies would not be altogether different from Bill Clinton's. This is not a bad thing. On trade, his record was outstanding, and on the budget was far better than George W. Bush's . . .

"At some point, politically sophisticated conservatives will have to recognize that no Republican can win in 2008 and that their only choice is to support the most conservative Democrat for the nomination. Call me crazy, but I think that person is Hillary Clinton."==

[SoxFan]

93. I've got a question

You do realize that DLC president Bruce Reed is a close friend and policy advisor to Edwards, don't you?

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

104. Lots of people acting like parrots

Some for the DLC as well as against. I distrust both.

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

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

[draft_mario_cuomo]

112. And Colin Powell is reportedly advising Obama. There is nothing wrong with either

It is refreshing that we have candidates who are willing to hear different viewpoints, which is a stark contrast to the current occupant of the White House. The DLC is not wrong on every issue and neither is Colin Powell. When they are right, we should support them. However, on the overall picture both the DLC and Powell are wrong. Thankfully, Edwards and Obama do not agreed with them on those things, although the DLC apparently views Obama as acceptable, either due to his actual views or due to Al From hedging his bets in case Obama wins the nomination.

I am sure you noticed that From apparently had no praise of Edwards, although he did praise HRC and Obama. ;)

[SoxFan]

119. From and Obama

Al From has been a fan of Barack Obama for years. In 2003, then-state senator Obama was featured in the DLC's rising star publication, "One Hundred to Watch".

As was yours truly, I might add...:hi:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

128. That is awesome, congratulations!

[tomp]

134. colin powell is a treasonous war criminal.

fuck obama for giving him the time of day.

[mnhtnbb]

141. Colin Powell lost all credibility when he went to the UN with his

Bush/Cheney/Rummy Iraq war dog and pony show.

I agree. Obama should avoid him like the plague--or take the consequences.

[TankLV]

158. That's ANOTHER reason I don't like him at all...

[Cha]

113. Got any proof?

Cause, I thought bruce reed is a policy adviser to attila the hun.

[mnhtnbb]

142. Not this time around. He had more influence in 04.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1574171,00.html