What if?

[MadHound]

What if Hillary wins it all. . .

What if she refuses to get us out of Iraq for months or years, will you still support her then?

What if she continues to outsource jobs under new and expanded free trade agreements, will you still support her then?

What if she continues to support or even expand the unConstitutional portions of the Patriot Act, will you still support her then?

What if she continues to inflict the very damaging NCLB and continues to allow it ravage our public school system, will you still support her then?

What if her health care plan is nothing more than a Bandaid, designed to silence critics and still make obscene amounts of money for the health care industry, will you still support her then?

What if her economic policies continue to favor the rich over the poor, thus facilitating a widening of the wealth gap between the rich and the rest of us, will you still support then?

What if her energy policy is nothing more than to gloss over our real, looming problems, while allowing Big Oil to continue making obscene profits and our country continue to approach the twin disasters of Peak Oil and global warming at a breakneck pace, will you still support her then?

All of these questions and more are pertinent, because Hillary has exhibited, by word or by deed, that she will take each and every one of these actions. These, and many others. are the reasons that so many here vehemently refuse to support Hillary in the primaries or the generals.

So, if you don't support the policies that I outlined above, why would you vote for Hillary? If you do support the policies I outlined above, why are you in the Democratic party?

And if you support Hillary, are these really the policies that you want to line up behind? Will you continue to support her if she enacts them? Can you understand why so many are so vehemently opposed to her?

I've got a morning full of things, I'll check back in later.

[Clintonista2]

1. Fear mongering is the only tactic used against Hillary these days

Why look at the "what ifs?" Why not look at her actual senate record, which is far more progressive than Obama/Edwards? www.progressivepunch.org

[Totally Committed]

3. Did you read that post? That isn't fear-mongering, that's genuine concern.

WTF is the matter with you HRC Supporters? You all act like any of us with genuine concerns about her policies are just a**holes with nothing better to do than ask a lot of questions!

Just because you and her other supporters can get up in the morning, put on the blinders and feel none the worse for it, doesn't mean we all can, fercripessake. The arrogance is astounding... and disrespectful, frankly.

If you have ever paid attention to the Clintons you will know one thing: What they say and how they vote one time, is no guarantee as to what they will say or how they will vote the very next day. What if, in your unshakeable belief in her, she is voted in, and then does proceed to do all those things? The OP is asking you to consider that. How will you feel, having backed her? Will you feel remorse? Anger? Will you feel hurt that she deceived you/us, and you fell for it? Will you feel badly that you never considered any of this, and now the rest of us are stuck with your "certainty" about her?

Jeez... just get off your high horses for two seconds and consider the feelings and misgivings of those of us who are not as certain as you all are about her. The LGBT community was one of the most devoted blocs to the Bill Clinton campaigns. Why? He made a lot of promises to them about how he would improve things for them once he was elected. They were as certain about him as you are about her. What did he give them for their faith in him? "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", DOMA, "maybe" civil unions somewhere down the road, etc. Ask them how they feel about being thrown under the bus for expediency after backing THAT Clinton to the hilt. All the OP is asking is how are you going to feel as you look back on the HRC campaign from under that same bus, because I believe she will do or say or vote for ANYTHING that is politically expedient to her, aeven if that's OUR necks.

Tell me something to make me feel better about her, or lay off! Those of us with questions are not necessarily the enemy, we could be the canaries in the coal mine!

TC

[Clintonista2]

4. Like I said, why not look at her senate record?

I gave you the link to do so. While in the senate she voted with progressives 92% of the time, more than either Obama OR Edwards.

[Totally Committed]

8. And, like I said... it is no guarantee to what she will do or say or how she'll vote next.

She triangulates. She votes for wars even WE knew she (or ANY Democrat) shouldn't vote for. Her campaign is flooded with corporate money. Who do you think, once elected, she will support -- us or the corporations. We only vote with ballots, they vote with $$$, and we can't compete with that!

We will have Universal Health INSURANCE, because she owes the Big Insurance Co's, Big Pharma, and the AMA. ---And that's only ONE example. How can she be trusted not to throw us all under one bus or another, as she sees fit?

You can't se that THAT'S a HUGE worry for a lot of us?

That's what I was saying. Anyone can read her record, and I have. But, can she be trusted to deliver on ANYTHING she ever says? I honestly cannot say I trust her to do that.

TC

[Clintonista2]

13. The same can be said of Obama

See my post about Obama voting "present" on every abortion bill while in the state senate.

[MadHound]

15. It truly is stunning, this disconnect among Hillary's supporters

You bring up legit concerns and they say you're smearing her. You point at her record and they say you're full of it. Deny and attack, deny and attack, it seems to be all that her supporters can do. Well, I can sort of understand, I wouldn't want to be running on her record either.

[Clintonista2]

23. Actually, I was the one who pointed to her record

Because it is, as I said, more progressive than either Obama or Edwards' record. Take a look at it at www.progressivepunch.org

[MadHound]

38. Ah, so you're telling me that she didn't vote

For the IWR, for continued funding of the war, for the Patriot Act, for NCLB and so much more?

OK there, I suggest that you get in touch with reality.

[Clintonista2]

51. I'm not saying that, what I'm saying is

Obama voted the exact same way as Hillary on every Iraq vote (including renewal of the patriot act). If you look at ALL issues, Hillary votes more progessive.

[MadHound]

80. First of all, you're assuming I'm an Obama fan, I'm not

Secondly, pointing out that other candidates share the same position as yours doesn't do anything for your candidate. It's just that little neener neener game of "He did it too!" Not very mature. I want to know if your candidate has had a change of heart, a change of strategy or a change of vote. She hasn't, and that's all I care about.

Sure, looking at all the issues, that might make Hillary look better. But I, like many others, aren't interested in the minutia of all of her positions. What I care about is the war, civil liberties and her corporate ties, and frankly none of that looks good for her. Sure, if I were Hillary, with such an abysmal record on the big ticket items, I too would be trying to distract, but really, it is a ploy that insults the intelligence.

Look, you're in a tough spot, I know. But that's what happens when you back a war mongering corporate candidate.

[Totally Committed]

25. The thing I've noticed about this tactic is, it is used almost identically across the board

with all her supporters. It's like they went to a secret clubhouse one afternoon and decided, "this is how we'll reply when any questions are raised.", "This is the wording we'll use when we attack or criticize." -- you know? It's so orchestrated. Most days, I don't know whether to throw my hands up in the air in exasperation or admire the hell out of their organization. LOL!

So, I know what you're saying, and I agree.

TC

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. As opposed to Edwards, whose Senate record includes support for the war, bankruptcy reform and

free trade? How can we know he will do, except by his past actions?

[Milo_Bloom]

21. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh

You can't talk about what Edwards did in the past. We all know that history is not a good judge of the future.

Where would we be as a society if we paid attention to history?

[Mythsaje]

31. It's only a matter of time

before someone accuses you of "parroting RW talking points," even THOUGH all of these things are liberal/progressive issues with her.

Many of the Hillary supporters here can't debate for shit. It's injured innocence and "RW talking points" and "Hillary Basher" ad nauseum. They remind you a little of Bushbots, when you get right down to it.

[MadHound]

12. I am looking at her record, and not only her Senatorial record

Though that is bad enough. Voted for the IWR, voted for the Patriot Act, has continued to support the war by voting for continued funding, has shown by word and by deed that she will continue the war and continue to be a tool of corporate America.

She caved on her healthcare plan, and has refined it down to another corporatist, capitalist health plan, screwing over millions and far from being a universal health care plan.

These aren't rhetorical what ifs pulled out of thin air, these are based on words and deeds she has said or done. Now, to you wish to discuss the question or will you simply try to sweep Hillary's true intentions under the rug, much like her campaign is doing?

[Clintonista2]

20. How about taking a look at Obama's record while your there?

How do you think Obama voted on the renewal of the patriot act? On the continued funding of the war? Or maybe you should take a look at his record while in the state senate, such as his "present" vote on every abortion bill.

[MadHound]

39. Excuse me, but I'm talking about Hillary here.

If you wish to discuss Obama, go post your own thread. This whole deal that HRC supporters try "So and so did such and such too" doesn't excuse your candidate for the wrongs that she has committed. And the fact is, since she is the frontrunner right now, it behooves us all to examine just whom we're promoting.

[Clintonista2]

47. Of course you are

Don't let the facts stand in your way.

[snappyturtle]

2. Hillary lost me when she voted for the war....we even knew better. n/t

[sellitman]

5. She lost me when she wouldn't disavow her vote. NT

[snappyturtle]

48. I KNOW.....me too! n/t

[Clintonista2]

6. Obama lost me when he voted "present" on every abortion issue

While in the state senate.

[cascadiance]

29. Abortion isn't the ONLY issue here. And it IS one that corporatists don't care about!

So it is one that she can pander to the Democratic base without fear of retribution from her corporatist sponsors.

I don't disagree that abortion is important, but as noted it is only one of many issues to be concerned about. We need a candidate that's going to do more than stand on peripheral Democratic issues that do NOTHING to shut down the corporate takeover of this country. She is a part of the problem in that regard not the solution. We need FUNDAMENTAL changes that she won't deliver on.

You can quote all of those "progressive rating" percentages up the wazoo. Many do. Lieberman did this too. There are a LOT of token issues that inflate their rating and are DESIGNED to do so to mask their non-votes (i.e bankruptcy bill in Hillary Clinton's case) or no votes on critical issues.

You really need to deal with the substance of the concerns the OP is bringing up specifically, or it just sounds like you're trying to dismiss him without substantive reason.

Other items I'd add to the OP's list is whether she would support would be:

1) Public campaign finance reform. We absolutely need this to take away corporate power over goverment. Hillary on the other hand this time around ditched the existing public matching fund system earlier than any other Dem presidential candidate has, and seems to be embracing the big money political campaign conributions full tilt to get elected. That's hardly someone I expect to lead us on fixing this issue.

2) Breaking apart the media consolidation that has us strangled now in terms of a decent free press check and balance on our system. When she's so much in bed with Rupert Murdoch, and her husband helped pass that monstrous Telecomm act instead of vetoing it or promoting changes to it to prevent the consolidations we have today, I'll be she won't change this either!

3) Sibel Edmonds has her, along with Joseph Lieberman, as one of her "dirty dozen" politicians that were up for election last time that were standing in the way of true protections for whistleblowers to come forward and give us the truth about the deep corruption in our government.

[Clintonista2]

30. Clinton is the corporatist? Why do CEO's favor Obama over Clinton?

MONTVALE, NJ--(Marketwire - August 23, 2007) - According to a recent survey by Chief Executive magazine, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is the best and Arizona Senator John McCain is the worst Republican presidential candidates for business, while Illinois Senator Barack Obama is the best and New York Senator Hillary Clinton is the worst Democratic presidential candidates for business.

The survey, which asked 258 C-level executives to vote for each party's presidential candidates regardless of their affiliation, found that 43 percent of the respondents rated Obama as the best Democratic candidate and 34 percent rated Romney as the best Republican candidate for business.==

http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=763644&k=


By the way, I know you simply brushed off the whole issue of a womans right to choose, but no candidate who votes "present" on such issues would ever get my vote.

[cascadiance]

34. Hmm... This sounds like comments similar to Karl Rove!

Using the reverse reverse psychology that KKKarl did a few weeks back... And absolutely NO specifics on why they feel the way they do.

And BTW, I favor Edwards over Obama or Clinton at this point. You can question his not having a recent voting record like the others have, but Edwards DID support a progressive candidate in Ned Lamont vs. Lieberman when everyone else was "absent" then. All that could change of course if Gore gets in the race, who I would send a donation to the day he were to announce if that comes.

I DO feel that abortion is an important issue, but it would be political suicide for ANY Democratic nominee to try helping overturn Roe v. Wade and not find ways to protect it. This issue is NOT one to look at when evaluation our nominees in the primary process. The fundamental issues that are VERY important for us that are decided NOW and not in the general election is how much power do we want to take away from corporations. The Republicans won't do this. If we want to have a Dem nominee that does shut down the corporate gravy train it HAS to be done in the nomination process. The General Election will be too late if we don't have the right person in place as the Dem nominee.

[Clintonista2]

36. I have no problem with Obama OR Edwards on a personal level

My problem is with their supporters who fear monger (HILLARY IS A CORPORATE WHORE!), (HILLARY IS FAR RIGHT-WING)without looking at the facts (CEO's favor Obama and Edwards over Hillary, Hillary has a more progressive voting record than Obama/Edwards).

Regading abortion: "This issue is NOT one to look at when evaluation our nominees in the primary process."

Huh? You're taking seriousley the "what ifs" with regards to Hillary, but you don't think Obama's past record is any indication of how he would govern?
========================================================================
Bills HB 382 and SB 230, which would have prohibited a procedure referred to by its critics as "partial-birth abortion." Obama voted: PRESENT

Bills HB 1900 and SB 562, two parental notification abortion bills. Obama voted: PRESENT

Bills SB 1093, 1094, 1095 that sought to protect a child if he or she survived a failed abortion. Obama voted: PRESENT

========================================================================

Pretty convienient that we "shouldn't count" Hillarys progressive senate record (unless it comes to the Iraq vote, we should count that!), and we also "shouldn't count" Obama's conservative anti-choice senate record.

[cascadiance]

37. All this does is throw SOME questions about Obama...

As I've said, I'm concerned about Obama being about as "corporate" in many ways as Hillary is. That's why I'm supporting Edwards. You're post here gives me no reason why I should vote for Hillary over Edwards.

A "progressive" voting record which just tries to rate it based on a whole slew of votes that doesn't count how much of those votes are for *important* votes that affect corporate donors heavily. Therefore, I DON'T look at that as definitive reasons to vote for someone. I want to understand what those ratings REALLY mean!

Hillary was ABSENT on the bankruptcy bill. Looking at votes like that to me is FAR more important to distinguish Democratic candidates who will take on the corporate power structure than those of abortion. Abortion is an important issue, but as I said before, WHY do corporations care about it? They DON'T! It is their religious right base that they curry favor with for Republican votes. But they realize that the Republicans are likely to lose this time, so they want to make sure that their corporate issues are protected by the likely Democratic winner. They only care about abortion as a means of distracting us from other issues which they DO care about. And you are falling right into the corporate trap of using that one issue to DISTRACT us from these other issues that are FAR more important for us to debate in the nominating process where there are far more substantive differences in Democratic candidates than there are on issues like abortion.

Come back to us when you can break down the issues in DETAIL that the OP posted and I put in an earlier post and explain WHY Hillary is a better choice with her positions and history on THOSE issues and then get back to us!

[eridani]

76. Clinton and Obama are both corporatists

Edwards isn't, but does the appropriate pro-imperial saber-rattling when necessary. Why else do you think the pro-corporate MSM push them as front-runners?

[snappyturtle]

49. Let's see....abortion? War? The way I see it the war effects everyone....

abortion focuses on half the population for about half their lives....it's only going to be important to me if the SCOTUS tries to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

[Clintonista2]

50. "Abortion focuses on half the population"

Women's rights affect everyone. Sorry that you don't think that women should have rights because it "only affects half the population"

[cgrindley]

55. wait wait wait

haven't men been told explicitly that they cannot have a valid opinion on abortion? or are men allowed to have an opinion on the issue now?

the poster sort of has a point...

plus, abortion rights don't mean squat to those women who would like to see abortion outlawed...

[Clintonista2]

57. Put it into context now

The topic was Obama voting "present" on every abortion bill that came his way. The poster said that doesn't mean anything because abortion "only affects half the population"

[cgrindley]

60. Obama always votes like that in sticky issues

eg read about his tenure at the Harvard Law Review... he listens to both sides of an issue, repeats their words to each other, and then basically negotiates around the issues until everyone forgets what he was talking about. this is actually what I like best about him. his utter reluctance to do anything.

as a Canadian, this is a good strategy. it kept us out of Iraq after all. In government, doing nothing at all is always better than doing something stupid.

[snappyturtle]

71. Excuse me....thank you for telling me what I think. My reply's point

is that abortion as an important point in choosing a candidate it nothing compared to the war issue which effects us all....women,men,children,young,old,Christian,Jew,Budhist...whatever, everyone. In comparison, TO ME, abortion effects women who make up approximately half of the population.

Edit: imho

[NaturalHigh]

110. I've been told exactly that.

Men aren't supposed to have opinions on abortion, but we're always supposed to vote for the pro-choice candidate. WTF?

[snappyturtle]

Oh contraire....I believe it is solely a woman's issue...sorry. nt

[cgrindley]

73. What about the execution of retarded people

you're not retarded... does that mean you don't have an opinion on the issue?

[Clintonista2]

77. Are gay rights soley a gays issue?

Why the fuck should you care, it doesn't affect you after all.

[Katherine Brengle]

79. Which, of course, makes it less important than other issues.

Clear as a bell.

[Book Lover]

52. What, we have madonnas being impregnated immaculately everywhere now?

Thanks for the heads-up! :thumbsup:

[snappyturtle]

72. Abortion. Men get abortions? nt

[Book Lover]

75. Pregnancy. Women get pregnant without men? nt

[malta blue]

53. ...

and you are from what planet?
:wtf:

[Kutjara]

54. Of course, because men don't give a shit one way or the other...

...about having children, right?

Or about the health of their wives, girlfriends, SOs?

Or about the manifest injustice of consigning every woman to sexual bondage?

Nice.

[cgrindley]

56. since when does a man have a say in abortion?

as has been made clear, a man cannot either force a woman to carry a child nor force her to abort it.

[Kutjara]

61. So, because a man can't "force" a woman, that means he's not "affected"?

I can't force Bush to do anything, but I'm damn sure affected by his idiocy.

Also, a person can have a say in a decision without having the final say. For example, a woman may consider having an abortion and then ask the child's father for his opinion. That opinion may even help the woman decide what to do.

I can't "force" my wife to do much of anything (even if I wanted to), but she does consider my views.

Are you suggesting we all just shut up about things we can't force others to do? I can't see the sense in your question.

[Clintonista2]

63. Bingo.

Full disclosure: I AM A MAN! Yet to me, abortion is one of the most important issues today, because it symbolizes the idea of universal human rights. If one single person in society is being oppressed, then society as a whole suffers.

[Kutjara]

67. Exactly.

It's in the interest of the status quo to segment people into "special interest groups." If we only concern ourselves with those things that affect us directly and personally, we've already lost the battle to create a better society.

Prohibiting workers from other companies from supporting striking workers by joining the picket line, was one of the key methods the UK government used to destroy union power in the 1980s. So-called flying pickets were banned and workers were only able to picket their own firms in the event of a strike.

Those in power recognize that a divided populace is a weak populace. We should understand this too. What harms a few of us harms all of us.

[cgrindley]

68. I don't think it symbolizes human rights at all

firstly, I can see a situation where enforced abortion could become a reality not only in China but in other nations as well as the earth slowly sinks into the abyss (which is certainly coming)

secondly, abortion doesn't really work as a human rights poster child as it is always subject to a variety of restrictions... abortion on demand at any time during pregnancy just doesn't exist

thirdly, I don't really know if you can make a case that restricting abortion (especially in the second and third trimesters) oppresses anyone

if anything, abortion is a symbol for gender politics and the conflict between secular and religious political will

[cgrindley]

66. I don't know what I think, I was just trying to posit what the other

poster meant...

actually, I don't know... I suppose I should care about issues that don't affect me... but perhaps I should care less about issues that purposely exclude me... I have never bothered to think about this issue in this way before. I daresay that I don't really know what to think.

If I am excluded from the right to voice a negative opinion of an issue, it sort of makes my at least partially positive opinion a little meaningless. If I am excluded from exercising a right, then why, realistically, should I defend it when that right basically disenfranchises me from itself?

I strongly support the existing status quo as far as abortion is concerned, but this whole post has got me thinking. Perhaps I should actually not have an opinion on the issue at all. I just don't know.

[Clintonista2]

58. By the way, war doesn't affect me

I'm not serving in it.:eyes:

[cgrindley]

62. It actually has much larger ramifications than abortion in my life

I pay child support, debt consolidation and student loans in Canada. I live and work in the US. Since this idiot country randomly invaded Iraq, the Canadian dollar has gone from 70 cents to 96 cents, costing me tens of thousands of dollars per year. I now make the equivalent of 20 thousand dollars less per year than I did in 2003. It's a huge problem and it's all due to this moronic war.

So think carefully. Can you really say that the war doesn't affect you in some way?

[Clintonista2]

65. yea it does

I'm Canadian aswell, so I geuss it's a bonus for me? By the way, I forgot the sarcasm button in my last post. My point was, just because an issue doesn't directly affect you, doesn't mean it doesn't indirectly affect you.

[cgrindley]

69. Hardly a bonus

tell me, since 2001, have prices on goods dropped by 40% (back when the loon was 62 cents)? where the hell is that money going? basically, the loon has become more and more valuable on world currency markets--which has all but killed Vancouver's film industry and has severely hurt Canadian exports--and yet have prices on imported goods deflated like an old beach ball? no way. Canadians, as always, are getting ripped off.

at least my man Chretien kept us out of harm's way, though. I'll always love him for that.

[snappyturtle]

74. Thank you. nt

[Katherine Brengle]

78. Fuck off.

At least you let us know exactly what you think of women.

[Totally Committed]

86. That's a disgusting, misogynystic post.

Don't you know ANY women you care about?

Jeezuss.

TC

[noamnety]

105. Thank you.

If someone posted that slavery wasn't so bad, it only affected black folks, I'd expect to see a tombstone next to their name.

Sure is something to see where people's heads are at.

[Perry Logan]

7. Just the usual smears, turned into rhetorical questions. Thanks for dropping by.

[Totally Committed]

9. Your arrogance is astounding, and sadly disrespectful.

You are making more and more enemies for your candidate every day. YOu ought to all get together and strategize more, because this strategy of belittling and dismissing any and all posters who don't agree with you is so utterly disrespectful, some won't even consider voting for your candidate even if she is our only choice based on those actions alone.

TC

[cgrindley]

70. ha ha ha ha

and the constant Clinton bashing isn't disrespectful? grow up.

[MadHound]

14. What, you deny reality?

You deny her initial and ongoing support for the war? You deny her role and support for an ever increasing police state? You deny her role in helping destroy our public schools? You deny this and more? Must be nice living outside of reality.

These aren't smears, this isn't a hit job. I'm truly wondering what her supporters see in her, given her record, and how they can continue to support her despite her record.

But I think that I'm already seeing a pattern, deny the facts and shoot the messenger. Sad, really.

[ericgtr]

24. Which is why

if she takes the primary, I will most likely jump sides and vote Republican as much as I hate to say it. At least you will know what you are getting is along party lines. The initial post looks like a laundry list for a stark Republican.

[LWolf]

10. I don't support Hillary now.

If I expected that she would do anything worthy about the issues you mention above, I could at least hold my nose. I don't.

[Totally Committed]

11. Exactly! You are a prime example of my point about her!!

Iti's a "trust" thing.

Thank you!

TC

[MadHound]

17. I could hold my nose too

I've been holding my nose for over twenty five years, so I realize that my perfect candidate isn't going to get the nod and we all have to do some compromising. But how much are we willing to compromise away? Big money giveaways to corporate America? I've come to expect that. Disbanding our manufacturing sector from under working Americans? It becomes quite a bit harder to swallow, but I can still do so in hopes that it is reversed in the future. Continuing to kill American soldiers and the Iraqi populace for an illegal, immoral war? Well, I draw the line there. Yet sadly, on this of all issues it is apparent that Hillary and our so-called leaders are perfectly willing to play politics with peoples' lives.

This is where the madness stops for me, this is where I am unable to compromise and I think many, many others are as equally unwilling.

[LWolf]

46. I've done plenty of nose-holding myself.

This is exactly the point: I'm only willing to compromise so far, and no farther.

I, too, draw the line where politicians play politics with people's lives.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Totally Committed]

16. Kick

:kick:


TC

[Milo_Bloom]

19. Ask the same questions of any of the candidates...

The question is will any of candidates be willing to stand up to the system enough to NOT do the things you list? Edwards? He's already proven himself a political coward incapable of standing up for principles over politics. Biden?, Dodd? Unlikely either has the strength to buck the system.

Obama? I want to believe it, but I see nothing in his history to suggest he is willing to risk his political future for doing what is RIGHT over what is popular and/or easy.

To NOT DO the things you suggest would mean altering the status quo... and against a TIDE of negative press.

Someone would have to have the strength to stand up to the following (I am not saying any of the following is true, but this is the type of press they will be facing):

Pulling out of Iraq is not supporting the troops.

Stopping outsourcing and free trade agreements means consumer prices will rise.

Removing the patriot act is making us more vulnerable to attack.

We can go on about each one and show the "counter attack". Heck, John Edwards' announced tax policies already accomplish this ("What if her economic policies continue to favor the rich over the poor, thus facilitating a widening of the wealth gap between the rich and the rest of us, will you still support then? ")


From where I sit, with the exception of Kucinich, there isn't a Candidate who will actually have the strength of will to accomplish these goals and I don't believe Kucinich can win (I wish I felt different).

So what candidate do you think won't cave and please point to things in their political history where they proved they don't cave to pressure. Show me an instance of them standing up for what is right, over what is popular at the risk of their political career.

Show me a Howard Dean moment where one of these people risked signing a law with only 35% support 6 months before a re-election vote because they thought it was the right thing to do.

[MadHound]

40. Which is why I'm backing Kucinich

I realize that some or all of the points that I bring up can be said many of the candidates. I bring it up in regards to Hillary because she is the front runner currently, and the one candidate that seems to be getting shoved down our throat by our so called leadership.

[rinsd]

22. What if Hillary eats babies, will you support her then.

:eyes:

[ericgtr]

26. Come on now

I don't think anyone would believe she could do such a thing. I do think she would outsource babies to other countries though.


:P

[MadHound]

42. Ah the post of a person who is intellectually bankrupt

What, those aren't her positions? Those aren't votes and positions that she has taken?

I just love Hillary supporters, when confronted with facts and asked to explain them, they react with either insults or take the topic off course into the absurd. I can see why though, I'd hate to try and have to explain large parts of Hillary's record too.

[bunkerbuster1]

98. Snort.

good one.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Hillary isn't Satan, and (fill in your favorite Democratic presidential aspirant here) isn't Jesus.

[MadHound]

100. I fully realize that, which is why I'm not insulting or demonizing her

I'm asking questions concerning her well known positions on various key issues. In reply I get insults and snark. I suppose it must be hard defending the indefensible.

[wyldwolf]

27. boy, what a work of fiction.

[MadHound]

43. Fiction? Really? Show me where.

What, you're now claiming Hillary didn't vote for the IWR, the Patriot Act, NCLB, etc. etc. ad nauseum? Boy, that's a sad statement when the best Hillary supporters are now resorting to outright fabrication and denial. "I did not have voting relations with the IWR.":eyes:

[Clintonista2]

81. Madhound, did Obama vote to renew the patriot act?

Just curious.

[MadHound]

83. Lirwin, are we talking about Obama here?

No, we're not, I started this thread on Hillary, yet in some mistaken impression that I support Obama, you keep trying to drag the conversation that way. I fully understand that your position vis-a-vis Hillary's record is a tenuous one, but you could at least try to stay on topic.

[Clintonista2]

85. So you dont think it's relevant to mention that Obama has done all the same evil things as Hillary?

As has Edwards.

[MadHound]

87. No, I don't. If you want to do a "compare and contrast" amongst all the candidates,

Post your own thread on the subject. I'm specifically dealing with the "what ifs" of a Hillary victory, yet you seem to be unable to keep on topic. Why's that?

[Clintonista2]

88. Why target Hillary?

The newest tactic of the Obama fan base seems to be to claim not to be supporting Obama in an attempt to appear more legitimate.

[MadHound]

89. Par a noi a the des troy er

Geez louise, go back and search my posts. Nowhere in them do I say that I'm an Obama supporter. In fact if you will look on this thread you will find that I'm a Kucinich supporter, thank you very much. Also if you go waaaay back to 2003-04 presidential season, you will find that I was a Kucinich supporter then.

Perhaps you should put the mouse down and back slowly away from politics. It is obvious that so much exposure has fucked with your head, since you're seeing paranoid conspiracies around every corner and in every post.

As far as "targeting" Hillary goes, I do so simply because she is the front runner, seemingly the annointed one for the party. Being that this is primary season I figure people should do some thinking on her record, her mistakes, and whether or not we really want her as our standard bearer. This is, after all, what primary seasons are for, people get to kick the tires, slam the doors, listen to their neighbors and friends about what they think politically, you know. It happens every four years.

It isn't some sort of grand anti Hillary conspiracy OK. People have legitimate concerns vis-a-vis her record on the war, civil liberties and her corporate ties. If you can't take that sort of criticism, like I said, back away from politics, they're apparently fucking with your head in a major way.

You might as well come to expect this, the frontrunner in every primary campaign attracts outsized attention, whether it is Hillary, Kerry or Ed Muskie. Sometimes that attention brings them down, sometimes it makes them stronger. Either way, it's a good thing.

[Clintonista2]

90. Oh Kucinich supporter

No point arguing, it's not like you're competition lol.

[Clintonista2]

91. Oh Kucinich supporter

No point arguing, it's not like you're competition lol.

[MadHound]

92. Yeah, that's what they said about McGovern, but back to the main topic

How can you vote for a candidate who will continue the war, further erode our civil liberties and who puts corporate interests ahead of peoples' interest any day of the week and twice on Sunday?

Do you want more innocents to die? Do you want to have your rights further restricted? Do you want to live in an increasingly corporatized country? Is that why you support her?

These are the big issues of the day, and she is on the wrong side of everyone of them. I'm interested in hearing a calm, concise explanation why people support her, and by extension these policies. So far all I've gotten is bullshit and insults, but hey, you can change that.

[MadHound]

93. Whoops, there it is

I ask for somebody to address the topic of this thread and avoid the insults and BS and look what happens. They disappear. All I hear is crickets in the distance.

[enid602]

28. r u Karl?

Hey, Karl Rove: is that you? Are you in there?

[wyldwolf]

32. No, a "progressive," which is the opposite side of the same Karl Rove coin

[MadHound]

44. Ah the other side of Hillary supporters

When they can't deny her record, they insult the messenger. Good show:eyes:

[superkia]

33. Yes they will! Its like bushs failed foreign policy

he wont give up even though he knows hes wrong, cant admit that. I see Clinton supporters the same way!

[yodermon]

35. Don't you get it?

Once she's president, she won't need to triangulate any more. She'll become the progressive liberal that she truly is. All this corporate/rightist pandering is just a ploy to get elected. Once she's in the WH, she'll drop the facade and let out her inner Kucinich and drop out of NAFTA.

Oh except for re-election. Hmm. So it'll be 2012 before she unveils single-payer universal healthcare.
Damn, then there's the mid-terms; make it 2014 before we withdraw from Iraq.

Hey, will Chelsea be 35 by 2016?

[MasonJar]

41. Those same what ifs could be used against all our candidates, so what is your point?

[MadHound]

45. Actually if you look at their records, the same can't be said of some of the others

Especially Kucinich, whose been right on the issues for a long time now.

But frankly the reason that I'm bringing this up vis-a=vis Hillary is because right now she is the frontrunner, the candidate that is getting shoved down our throats, and I think that there are some pertinent questions that need to be asked in this rush to her coronation.

[cgrindley]

59. NCLB is basically a good idea

There's really nothing wrong with a national standard for school curricula, nothing really wrong with standardized testing (eg it works for the provinces of Canada and in the UK), and nothing wrong with holding teachers, administrators and schools responsible for crappy test scores. The system can be tweaked a bit, but it's basically a sound idea.

[MadHound]

82. You obviously haven't been in a classroom lately

NCLB is a disaster that is ruining our schools and doing a grave disservice to our students. Especially since it is an unfunded mandate imposed from above.

You want to improve education? First, get rid of NCLB, second, raise the pay of teachers across the board by fifty percent(at least) Make teaching an economically attractive job that with bring in our best and brightest rather than funneling them off into other professions like law, etc.

Once we've got that on board, then we can start talking about assessment programs. Until then, all that NCLB is doing is driving our public school system into the ground, to be replaced by an even worse privatized education system. Is that what you want?

[Totally Committed]

84. You must be joking.... This is a joke, right?

Have you seen the curriculum changes since NCLB was enacted? The kids aren't learning creatively anymore. They're only learning the stuff that'll be on the tests. It's just another way for the RW-ers to make sure our kids only learn what they want them to learn!

NCLB is a STUPID idea.

TC

[illinoisprogressive]

64. I applaud you, madhound. How can anyone support someone who stands for the above.

[ecstatic]

94. Things were good under the Clintons. Bad under Bush...

get it?

[MadHound]

95. Good if you were well off and well connected

If you were working, your job was outsourced. If you were on welfare, you were "reformed". If you were gay, you weren't asked. If you were rich you watched as the gap between you and the rest of the population opened to a record breaking chasm.

Clinton was simply another corporatista, keeping up that game of political good cop/bad cop to fool the public, all the while the rich and well connected made out like bandits.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

97. Not really.

[MadHound]

102. What, you deny that Bill took these stances?

That he didn't outsource jobs, "reform" welfare, kissed corporate ass, and rewarded the rich and well conncected at the expense of the rest of us? Geez, go read some history, start with NAFTA and go from there.

Sorry, but Bill was no liberal god, just another corporate hack doing the bidding of his corporate masters( or have you forgotten the '96 Telecom Act, among many other things).

[obnoxiousdrunk]

104. I was not

well off or well connected but did better than doing now. Nothing about Bills stances.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

96. Reminds me of Dick Cheney

trying to scare the shit out of me in 2004. If you don't vote for us AlCIAda Terrarists will hit us. The left have their own scare tactics the big WHAT IF ??? OMG! OMG!

[MadHound]

99. Yeah, but there's a difference

Cheny was basing his statements on massaged intelligence, what I'm citing vis-a-vis Hillary are actual positions that she has stated and taken. Or will you simply deny reality or hurl insults like the rest?

I'm not trying to "scare" you into anything, I'm wondering how people can support a candidate who has taken these stances, consistently, year in, year out. If you're scared, well that sounds like a personal problem.

How do you think that electing a pro-war canididate will end the war? How do you think electing a supporter of NCLB will actually help our education system? How do you think electing somebody who so easily throws away our civil liberties is actually going to make us a freer, more open and tolerant society?

[obnoxiousdrunk]

101. There is really only

one anti war candidate who can't win.

[MadHound]

103. Gee, with an attitude like that, no, he cannot win

But I'm not here to push Kucinich. I'm here asking questions about Hillary's positions, and so far I can't get a decent explanation for why she takes these positions. Instead I continue to get snark and insults. That in and of itself is very telling. Hard to defend the indefensible eh?

[Moderate Dem]

106. Yes, I'll still support Hillary

One thing I like about her is that she understands that the presidency carries a great responsibility. If she wins, she's not just the President of the left, she's got to make decisions for the good of the country.

The mess Bush created may bring certain responsiblities, and a responsible Presdient must act on those responsibilities.

[MadHound]

107. So you think that it is in our interests to continue this war?

To further erode our civil liberties? To outsource our economy even more? To sell out our government to the highest corporate bidder? These are all good things to you?

These aren't issues of right or left or center. These are issues of life, death and our country's prosperity. How can her stances on these issues bring anything good to pass?

[Moderate Dem]

108. I don't know, and I'd bet that you don't either

Again, from what I see, Hillary will be a responsible President, and will do what is needed to protect American interests. I'm not a foreign policy expert though, so I can't say what will happen.


Again, I'm not making a policy statement, I'm talking about responsibility.

[MadHound]

109. Oh, yes, it's real responsible to start and support and illegal, immoral war

It's real responsible to help shred our Constitution. It's real resonsible to run up massive deficits to fund this war and give tax breaks to the wealthy. It's real responsible to destroy our public education system. Yeah, these are all real responsible things, NOT!
You don't have to be a foreign policy expert to realize that none of these actions are either good for our country, or the responsible thing to do. All you need is a little common sense. Is it responsible for you to rack up massive amounts of debt? No, so why is it responsible for us to do it on a larger scale? Is it responsible for you to go shoot your neighbor? No, but Hillary advocated doing just that on a larger scale.

Rather than blindly trusting somebody just because they have a D behind their name, I suggest that you do the responsible thing, look at the facts, use your own intelligence and common sense instead of relying on others to do so for you. It is called being a responsible, informed citizen.