Dear DU Hillary supporters:

[cali]

Please stop acting like her nomination is a fait accompli. It's not. Yes, she's well in the lead, but it's still 4 months to the first primary. I understand that you're enthusiastic, but all the crowing, isn't making a case for her.

[Colobo]

1. It's part of their strategy.

Wyld and Elmer are very talented in that regard.

[liberalnurse]

4. I fail to see your

evidence to that claim.:shrug:

I was impressed with Elmer's research links and debate qualities. I am now a Hillary Supporter/ 100% as a direct result of their effective presentation of facts.

[Colobo]

5. I'm glad you are for Hillary

Now, I don't consider polls showing Hillary way ahead in every single race, assumptions that Obama is Hillary-lite, not ready, naive, etc., are facts.

[Ethelk2044]

10. What Facts. They do not present facts.

Pass me some of what you are on

[ronnykmarshall]

16. I agree.

They post polls and info about Hillary and the typical responce from non-supporters is "oh why should we bother voting" and crap like that.

[William769]

19. And you have no strategy what so ever for Obama.

Yea right. :eyes:

You really showed your true colors with that comment buddy.

[here_is_to_hope]

24. wyld was so good in fact, made my ignore list...

..and finished turning me off to any hillary thread...'cept this one.
The HRC supporters need to check themselves and, IMO, stop being so self righteous.

[BenDavid]

71. If it tis part of their strategy. then it

must be working. Obama has not made any gains and even lost a few points and Edwards well, enough of him. One thing that is working is folks that support HRC realize she is the one that will fight back. Yes, she has experience. Yes, she has the knowledge. Yes, she can enunciate words corectly so others can understand.
In the latest CNN/Gallup poll HRC has achieved something the Obama and Edwards folks thought would never happen. Her negatives are down and her positives are up..... 51% approval and 39% negatives....
Yes, there is four months till the Iowa voting begins and of course anything can happen, but if you expect something too then please do not hold your breath....

I do thank you
Ben David

[MrModerate]

2. I guess I've missed the crowing . . .

Because I haven't been looking for it.

But surveying the field of dem candidates, it's a pleasure to look around and say to myself, "She'd be a good president . . . and he'd be a good president . . . and so would he . . ." etc.

Especially when you look at the angry, lying, nutjob, empty-suit, phony 'Lican slate.

If dems don't stupid themselves into defeat, we'll end up in control of the White House and Congress with a workable majority.

[zulchzulu]

3. Get out in the streets and support a candidate

It's easy doing the online thing...it's harder to be out in the street and talk to people right in the eye and tell them why you prefer your candidate. The experience is like the difference between seeing the movie and being in the movie.

I support Clinton supporters to sell their candidate. I do wish it was more than just about national polls however. It wish it was more than just about who her husband is.

I'd like to have a discussion with a Clinton supporter in the street, but they are either very timid or a rare breed in my experience.

National polls at the moment mean nothing this far away from the election season. Just ask President Gephardt sometime.

[cali]

6. No thanks.

I'm not supporting anyone at the moment. And generally, I volunteer for localor statewide candidates. Not as glamorous, but far more satisfying.

[Capn Sunshine]

69. "On the street" Clinton supporters are hard to find all right

For example, I looked really hard in Santa barbara last weekend. I looked for them in LA the weekend before that. before that I was in the freaking Capitol building and grounds in Sacramento. Couldn't find any, not even at the Crobar. While there's just no end to them on DU.

It's a wonder they can keep their socks straight

Oh, and to the Hill supporter who asked for evidence about the inevitability strategy, I guess you didn't attend any of her organization meetings. That was job one on poster board one on day one.

[Cameron27]

7. I really haven't seen that happen too often,

but I think Clinton's supporters are deluged with so much negativity here, that they almost have to fight harder than other support groups.

[Ethelk2044]

11. Not really They bash Obama Supporters along with Edward Supporter

(ie DMC)bash Obama Supporters

[Cameron27]

14. Yes I've seen that,

and it was a combined effort that's hard to fight against. But Clinton's guys have to fight everyone all the time, and I have to give them props for doing a decent job of it.

[Adelante]

15. I agree

They're good fighters and for a small band very effective. I remember when Kerry supporters in 2003 held the title even without Kerry having the lead. I admired them for it.

[ronnykmarshall]

18. ........

:spray:

Point out posts when Obama supporters are told to "go to hell".

[ronnykmarshall]

20. Thank you ...

When you're told to "go to hell" and that we "should be ashamed" of ourselves, you kinda gotta fight back.

[Cameron27]

21. A lot of ugly things get thrown

at Clinton and her supporters that shouldn't be allowed here. I haven't seen that level of personal attack happen to any other group, and it's just unfair and insulting. It happened to me simply because I'm an evil Clarkie with an opinion, and I had to put the person on ignore, something I never thought I'd do here.

Alls fair in the primary wars, except that crap IMO.

[Adelante]

26. I was called a scumbag 8 times in one thread

For being an evil Clarkie :rofl:

[Cameron27]

30. Yeah I know,

we should probably lose the torches and pitchforks, and the voo-doo dolls don't seem to be going over very well either.:evilgrin:

[Adelante]

66. Call *me* a scumbag 8 times, will you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=201918

}(

[Debi]

33. Well of course you did you evil Clarkie!

:hi:

Great respect for the General and hope that he is advising candidates this go around since he hasn't thrown his hat in....yet.

Seems Clark supporters (just as Gore supporters and us undecideds) have the opportunity to see each and every candidate before falling in line with just one.

Why is that seen as evil by the rabid supporters of just one?

Makes no sense to me.

[Adelante]

38. Clark will be on Blitzer Sunday, Debi

He has a new book out. :)

He has advised Obama, I know. But you know how he is, if any of them want it they can ask for guidance and Wes will oblige.

[Debi]

39. The sign of a true diplomat! Thanks for the tip on Sunday. n/t

[Bitwit1234]

8. I am definetly for Edwards

but is makes me absolutely angry they way the Obama people are constantly bashing and slurring. They are ridiculous. Maybe Hillary is going to get the nomination, but the only people patting themselves on the back are the Obama supporters who just get thru a bashing job.

[ellacott]

9. Everyone bashes

I've seen many Obama bashers here also.

[Adelante]

12. That's the truth, but it's a kind of selective blindness that occurs

among supporter groups. Nobody sees their own bashers bashing other candidates. Every group has bashers and will claim they don't, instead it's Look! Over there! Sometimes it's a matter of fighting back and sometimes it's a matter of attack first. It's primary politics, essentially, and that's always rough contact.

[ellacott]

25. You're right, very rough contact n/t

[renie408]

45. Ahhh...campaign season on the DU. Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy...

Well, you get the idea.

[wyldwolf]

13. Dear cali

Has it occured to you that there are considerably LESS Hillary supporters on DU than for any other candidate?

Have you bothered to do a count of other posts in favor of candidates compared to the number of those for Hillary? I think you'll find pro-Obama posts outnumber pro-Clinton posts.

So essentially, what I'm gathering from your OP is this:

You don't like to see pro-Clinton news because you're opposed to her. Your opposition to her is probably exaggerating the number of pro-Clinton posts in your mind.

[PurityOfEssence]

31. No, she just doesn't like the snotty triumphal bandwagon approach

Me? I just accept it as human nature. Some of the Obama supporters have copped this attitude at times, and the Dean and Clark supporters were fulsome with their inevitability schtick the last time around, so it's hardly anything new.

Trying to trample opposition with the repeated chorusing of it being a done deal is a tiresome tactic, but it's not being done by all that many of her supporters as far as I can see.

Whatever. Strut and fret as you please. I'd imagine that some of the dynamic is literally BECAUSE her support is thinner here than it is for the other two major candidates; this naturally gets the disconnect needle red-lining and gets her supporters making fatuous pronouncements based on the seemingly overwhelming voice of the outside world.

Things don't happen in a vacuum, and people are sharper than most would think.

Remember, though: lefties aren't as succeptible to the crushing will of the majority as conservatives are, so eliciting support by dismissing or ridiculing rivals just doesn't work as well. Since she is the most conservative of the bunch, though, it wouldn't be that surprising to find that her supporters tend to be hobbled by that same mindset and confused to such a degree that they think it'll work around here.

So, with that bit of advice, I'll bid you adieu to your fait acompli. I hope it's not the case, because I don't think she can win the general election.

[wyldwolf]

35. no, she just doesn't like the fact Clinton is winning and doesn't want to be reminded of it

[PurityOfEssence]

43. Maybe. Those of us who aren't psychic just have to guess, though...

Personally, I always rankle at the "shut up, you losers; you don't have a chance" approach. Call it a personal failing.

Another personal failing would be the assumption that certain others don't have a slave mentality or extreme self-esteem problem that would cause them to knuckle under to such tiresome strong-arming. Then again, I could be wrong. Since you're gifted enough to know what's in this person's mind, perhaps you could be gracious enough to do me the favor of helping me clear up what's on mine.

Grey: it's a nice color; it's so consistent with its own concept that we're even allowed two different spellings for it.

[renie408]

47. Yes, that is certainly it. I know that when Joe Lieberman won the nomination...

Oh, you mean after leading in the polls as long as he did in '04, Lieberman didn't win?? Gee, and I thought that leading in the polls four months ahead of the election meant you were WINNING.

WINNING doesn't always equal WON.

[wyldwolf]

48. oh, silly! Lieberman didn't lead in the polls very long!

[PurityOfEssence]

49. Aw, be fair: he took second in Delaware

Of course, he only wrested it away from Edwards by 26 votes, but it's still a real-live second place finish...

[rinsd]

50. Guess who was leading the 1st week of 9/03....Kerry! (at least in 2 polls)

Foxnews/Opinion Dynnamics

9/9-10

John Kerry 17
Howard Dean 14
John Edwards 4
Wesley Clark n/a
Joe Lieberman 16
Dennis Kucinich 2
Al Sharpton 2
Someone else/Other (vol.) 7
Wouldn't vote (vol.)/Not sure 26
Dick Gephardt 6
Carol Moseley Braun 3
Bob Graham 3

Time/CNN

9/3-4/03


John Kerry 16
John Edwards 7
Howard Dean 11
Al Sharpton 5
Dennis Kucinich 3
Other 9
Not sure 21
Joseph Lieberman 13
Dick Gephardt 7
Carol Moseley Braun 4
Bob Graham 4

[renie408]

52. Lieberman was only out of one of those by one point, within the MOE..

And you get the point. It is early enough to be excited about your candidate, sure. I think that is good for the whole party, no matter WHO your candidate is. But it is still too early to be smug about the polls. Any candidate is just one foot-in-mouth moment or one scream from a fall from grace. And I am not sure how much I believe these polls. I can't figure out who they are polling or where. The national polls are calling her a winner, but nowhere that I go on the net or in 'real life' are the majority of Dems excited about Hillary. I am not saying that she won't win. I am saying that it is all too amorphous at this point.

[rinsd]

55. Its just that 2008 is not 2004.

One cannot brush off Hillary doing well in polls by referencing 2004 because of several factors

A) the "don't know" numbers are lower this time around (usually around 10 to 15% while in 2004 right up to IA it was 20 to 25%).

B) None of the candidates in 2004 topped 30% in national heats, let alone 40%

C) None of the candidates in 2004 had a lead greater than the don't know numbers.

D) Most of the candidates in 2004 struggled to top 20%. This year two have been above that all year. Edwards in 3rd has a higher percentage than some poll leaders did in 2004.

E) None of the candidate in 2004 had the name recognition of Hillary. In fact at this stage of the game the big 3 for the Dems have far better name recognition (90% or greater) than the field in 2004.

[renie408]

56. Well, when you put it like that, why even hold the primaries?? Let's just give it to her and save

a whole lot of time and money.

[rinsd]

57. You're missing the point.

One can argue the fluid nature of polls without the lazy shorthand of President Lieberman or President Dean.

[renie408]

58. Well, I know I feel properly chastened. I will try to frame much longer winded, more pseudo

intellectual arguments from now on.

And, you know, I didn't miss the point. The point was that Lieberman or Dean's lead in the polls in 2004 was an illusion, but Hillary's lead is THE REAL THING. My poor little lazy point that polls mean zippity doo dah just seems to be getting lost in the spin. The thing that I think is a little weird is that we ALL know that the polls say what the person quoting them wants them to say. I REALLY don't have a problem with Hillary as President (I think I am supposed to, but I guess I am too lazy to try and figure out why). But I don't think that her biggest selling point is how well she is doing in the polls. I think it is kind of sad that a candidates biggest asset is their name recognition. Now, I guess that makes me naive AND lazy.

[rinsd]

60. And why were Dean & Lieberman's leads illusionary? Because they did not exceed the don't knows.

So yeah your "I remember when Lieberman won the nomination" is lazy.

Its comparing apples and oranges.

"I think it is kind of sad that a candidates biggest asset is their name recognition."

Umm that is true of virtually every election isn't it?

If voters don;t know you how can they support you?

[truebrit71]

67. "Winning"? Winning WHAT exactly?

HRC hasn't won a damn thing...

[William769]

17. Dear cali

I don't moan about who you support, I should receive the same consideration.

[YOY]

22. Ohhh. You stirred up the pot something good Cali

:popcorn:

[cascadiance]

23. All it takes is one sentence from Al Gore, and all of those posts are USELESS then!

It's too early to play the "we're winning" game. This is the stage where we should still be trying to figure out who best represents the party and giving them a voice instead of focusing on "who's ahead". Doing that last time had us ignoring all of the substance and some people cheerleading Lieberman for pete's sake, if the same pattern happened last time!

[emilyg]

29. Not to this person

Go Hillary.

[Tom Joad]

27. dear hillary supporters. the issue is a war of aggression thatHillary has supported from day one.

She must not be nominated.
She with her friends guilliani and thompson are a threat to world's children.. and they must all be stopped.

[Lucinda]

28. Who elected you hall monitor?

I'm actually leaning more towards Edwards....but I appreciate the posts that are made re:Hillary. Information is a good thing.

[collegegirl211]

32. HRC is running the best campaign all the others are just jealous

She is leading in all the polls and will be the Democratic nominee and hopefully madam president. I can't imagine how the men in the race feel getting their ass kicked by a woman.:rofl:

[Debi]

34. Your last comment doesn't really help

Why would anyone treat a man or a woman differently in a campaign? This isn't log rolling or weight lifting - it's politics. And there is no proof that gender makes on sex better at governing than the other.

As for Clinton leading in all the polls - I wonder if you've been able to keep track of ALL the polls. Like Iowa for instance (which seems to have a different poll with a different leader each week). This week Clinton is on top, last week Edwards - bet next week it will be Obama.

The race it too fluid to say and one candidate has Iowa locked up. Gloating and false pride won't make it so.

[ellacott]

37. I agree, this is like a game to many people n/t

[collegegirl211]

40. Come on you know most men hate being beat by a woman at anything lol

You know at night they have got to be saying "damn im gettiing beat by a woman?". and most Dem voters think she is tougher than all the men in the race. ouch! now you know that must reallly be a blow to their ego.:spray:

[renie408]

44. No, I don't think they are saying anything like that. It is hard to believe that anybody thinks

they are saying that.

Oh wait. "Thinks"...that probably explains it.

[cascadiance]

51. If you want a woman, why don't you recruit Condi Rice to run!

Then you can had have a minority AND a woman to root for. Do you see where this is going?

I as a man would frankly LOVE to see someone like Barbara Boxer as a woman kick everyone's butt and run herself, but she's not running and won't run.

This isn't about just voting for someone because they are a woman, or because they are of minority descent. It's about picking the right PERSON that will lead us out of the worst rut this country's been in probably since the great Republican depression of the last century. It's going to take great leadership skills and someone that can stand apart from corporate influence to truly fix things and get us back on a track to being a stable and peaceful nation again. I have a lot of doubts that Hillary is that person. And if I hear anyone say that I don't want her BECAUSE she's a woman, then I know precisely why they are screwing up in supporting her. They are ONLY paying attention to that fact and not the substance behind what her stances are and the agendas of those supporting her.

You folks really need to be focused on the substance of who we put forward this coming election. We ABSOLUTELY NEED an equivalent to FDR to be elected to get us out of the mess we're in.

[Debi]

73. No, I don't know that. Maybe the men you hang around with are that chauvinistic

But my husband and the other men involved in politics that I spend time with believe women are their equals and don't make sexist comparisons, nor do they need to beat a woman at anything to keep their egos intact.

I don't find the humor in it.

[renie408]

41. Cockle Doodle Doo.

I just love it when people engage in a thoughtful analysis of events.

[BeyondGeography]

42. Juvenile

Then again, I guess you're still in college. :eyes:

[Ethelk2044]

46. If she was running the best campaign. She would not be copying

Obama.

[LittleClarkie]

59. Ya wanna know something. It's not Hillary herself who turns me off so much

as it's her supporters.

The smug factor is a real turn off.

Just remember that at this point DEAN was the frontrunner last time. And we all remember how THAT turned out.

So does the bestest campaign ever include taking money from a crook?

[Trajan]

36. I hate the crowing on ANY side .....

That kind of breast beating self aggrandizing CRAP is lame no matter which party is involved ....

Nevertheless: She is building a strong moment .... and will most likely succeed in her quest ....

[quinnox]

53. talk about generalizations

Not every Hillary supporter is posting polls showing Hillary winning all the time.

This reminds me of Daily Kos, where people regularly say all Hillary supporters are mean and cruel and nasty people.

And why is it so bad for Hillary supporters to be excited for her candidacy and post good news about her campaign?

Singling out Hillary supporters for that when other candidates supporters do the same thing seems biased.

Anyway, I don't think your attempt to tamp down excitement and enthusiasm for Hillary from her supporters will be successful. I'm afraid you will have to deal with it until the process is over.

[ileus]

54. She's had it in the bag since 2000.

[PatSeg]

61. As soon as a supporter of any candidate

starts bashing another Democratic candidate, I tune out and move on.

[illinoisprogressive]

62. I started fighting when the Hillarybots kept trashing Obama. I just got sick of it

and since I'm competitive and I get my french side up, I just fought back. but, I never, ever, called a supporter a name or trashed them personally. I kept my bashing to Hillary.
when I see there is no Obama trashing going on, I don't post. I also try to balance an anti Hillary article with 3 or 4 or more just pro Obama posts to wipe out their negative trashing.

[ronnykmarshall]

64. .....

Oh my god. That's such bullshit.

Old, Uneducated, Unhip?

Please. Take the halo off your head.

You must have beautiful brown eyes.

[robcon]

63. I have never, ever seen a Hillary supporter say "it's all over"

But Hillary-bashers have responded to my posts about her dozens of times in that way - sarcastically. There are several examples of this, even on this thread - suggesting counter-factually that it is Hillary's SUPPORTERS who say it all over.

I think the Hillary-bashers doth protest too much.

[ronnykmarshall]

65. yeah ....

we should all just "go to hell".

Sorry but I don't recall that being said about other candidate's supporters.

But then again ... I don't shit on positive threads about other candidates.

[Colobo]

68. Gobama!

[gateley]

70. I'm new to DU and was just moseying around the different posts

and thinking what an amazing resource this is. I felt a wellspring of gratitude and was seriously thinking of posting just an "I love DU" thread. I've been amazed at the LACK of name-calling, impressed with the respect with which those of differing opinions treat each other. Like a harbor of sanity.

Then I read this thread.

I haven't been exposed to any of the vitriol mentioned here, and I'm distressed to hear it. Why doesn't DU ban those who post such stuff?

We have to remember that we're ALL the 'good guys' here.

[Debi]

74. Welcome to DU

:hi:

Things will settle back down and we will all regroup after the primaries, hope you stick around for it.

Imagine what banning posts (or posters) just because they advocate for their candidate with a bit too much enthusiasm? Better to allow the discussion to run it's course than to bar conversation that could end up being constructive eventually.

Hope you have fun here - this is a GREAT place! :bounce:

[renie408]

75. Well, there's free speech. People get really whacked out of shape

when you infringe on their free speech around here.

And, honestly, this bickering is more like the way you fight with your brother. You know, the brother that is just enough older than you to 'know everything' and hold you down and spit in your face.

It is a fabulous resource. But it is filled with people. A lot of people. Some of them smart, some of them not, some of them WAYYY left, some of them more in the middle...but the one thing they all have is an opinion. And a keyboard. And the will to express what they think. Ok, that's three things.

Anyway, it will get rougher. Much rougher. Right up until the convention people will be fighting like junkyard dogs for the candidate of their choice. Primary season on the DU can get SCARY. But it is well worth the ride. Just hang on.

[TankLV]

72. Hey - whatever works for them...

Sorta like bunkerboy sitting in that fake oval office setup right on Election Day 2000...