Hillary Hostility Growing

[illinoisprogressive]

Hillary Rodham Clinton is learning the downside of being the front-runner - more Democrats are getting antsy, finding her answers noncommittal, even Republicanesque.

At the seventh Democratic debate, staged at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, the audience response to her "I'm not going to answer that" stance was almost hostile.

The former first lady proved critics wrong when she worked hard to be elected twice to the Senate from New York, where she had never before lived. Now she seems so confident of getting her party's presidential nomination that she is already moving to the center of the road to do battle with a Republican opponent, whoever that would be.

Centrism was her husband's strategy, and it ushered them both into the White House in 1993.

But that was before the war in Iraq. It was before 9/11. It was before President Bush began beating the drums to confront Iran about its nuclear ambitions. It was before Israel attacked Syria. It was before actuaries decided that providing Social Security to 80 million people is impossible without higher taxes or lower benefits. It was before her failed effort to reform health care probably doomed the nation to doing nothing for decades. It was before immigration erupted as a political issue.

Candidate Clinton, who voted to authorize the current war, refuses to say U.S. soldiers would be brought home before 2013, a position many Republicans hold. As American casualties mount and all-out civil war looms, the clamor among Democrats is for the troops to come home now.

Increasingly, Clinton is cautious. She calls for yet another commission to examine Social Security, without seeming to have any answers herself. She won't comment on whether Israel would be justified in bombing Iran. She says U.S. troops might have to stay in Iraq to confront al-Qaida operatives. She refuses to concede that her failure to compromise on health care was a mistake (but endorses a plan she refused to consider a decade ago). She bristles when her judgment is questioned on what she has called the most important vote of her career - invading Iraq.

In some ways it's hard to fault her strategy. Primary elections are fought on the edges, with candidates desperate to win the party's base. But in general elections, the nominees sound broader themes, desperate to attract independent voters. In an evenly divided country, nobody can be elected president without winning voters outside his/her party.

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070929/EDIT/709290309/1003

[jgraz]

1. Nice to see people are catching on

[Tesha]

121. One can only hope enough people "catch on" soon enough! (NT)

[Exultant Democracy]

2. If the democratic party nominates her, then I will no longer be a democrat.

And I'm not some keyboard commando, long before I came to DU I was dropping everything every other year to work full time for either the Party or a candidate. From my point of view Clinton and Bush are both members of the same gang and I will work to end their dynasty come what may.

[MetalCanuck]

7. That is true.

All you have to do is a google search.

[pnwmom]

17. "Members of the same gang"? Nonsense.

Hillary is pro-choice, pro-environment, pro legal rights for gay couples, pro higher minimum wage, pro universal health care, supports the U.S. constitution AND she voted against the last appropriation bill for Iraq and has pledged not to vote for any appopriation bill that doesn't include a timeline for getting out.

She and Bush are nothing alike.

[emilyg]

27. You can't get through to a mob-mentality.

[bvar22]

52. Hillary is NOT pro Universal HealthCare!!!

Hillary IS Pro-FOR PROFIT-Mandatory Health Insurance and simply calls it Universal HealthCare!

HillaryCare does not resemble "Universal HealthCare" as it is known in the rest of the Civilized World!

[pnwmom]

55. Bush is about to veto S-CHIP, the very successful children's program.

Clinton is for a combination of private and public health insurance, making health insurance affordable for everyone. She is for universal health care -- and her plan is similar to those of Obama and Edwards -- but she's not for single-payer alone.

Clinton has spent her career working on children's issues and health issues.

Bush has spent his career proving his theory that government can't be trusted.

[Froward69]

60. HER pro profit, pro insurance stance has

what made me turn my back to her. it is the insurance co's. that created this mess. she hasn't been in need for years and years. she will burden the middle class even more than bushyboy.

[sendero]

88. Pro.,...

.... all the pissy little things PALE INTO UTTER INSIGNIFICANCE when put aside issues like the phony-ass war on terror, health care, being generally subservient to corporate interests and foreign lobbies.

Really, the issues you cite are fucking trifles compared to the real issues, and it only goes to show how much you are willing to sacrifice for nothing.

[cyclezealot]

103. John Nichols summarized the Hillary plan nicely.

From the Physicians for a National health care plan.
$$
The reality is that the Clinton plan is about as socialistic as a Ronald Reagan corporate tax cut.
The Clinton plan maintains the current system of for-profit, insurance-industry defined health care delivery. The only real change is that, in return for minimal requirements regarding coverage of those with preexisting conditions, the government would pump hundreds of billions in federal dollars into the accounts of some of the country’s wealthiest corporations. The plan’s tax credit scheme would buy some more coverage for low-income families, which is good, but it would do so at a cost so immense that, ultimately, Clinton’s plan will be as tough a sell as the failed 1993 “Hillarycare” proposal
**
Instead, she chose to propose a scheme defined not by the needs or desires of the American people but by the demands of existing insurance firms and a dysfunctional for-profit health care industry

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/september/clintons_prescripti.php

[fightindonkey]

28. Then Don't Let The Door Hit You On The Way Out

Democrats are better off without people like you. If you are a Democrat, you support who the Democratic nominee is. If you are an American, you support who the Democratic nominee is. Enough with the phony baloney whining routine. If you want more Neocon Supreme Court members, you're crazy. Hillary and Bush are no way the same thing, and I'm tired of hearing it.

[JTFrog]

48. Really?

So if the dems decided to run Lieberman for president, you'd vote for him?

The democratic party is a party that used to stand for core values of fairness and humanity. Those values have been changed beyond recognition because of people like you who say we must accept whatever the party forces down our throats. So you enable our leaders to run on the "just barely better than a republican" platform instead of sticking to the values that attracted their members to begin with. If the party wants to remain strong, then they should return to the values of the party that I joined years ago. If not, well then I don't feel an ounce of guilt for not supporting them. I will continue to stand up and fight the system until there is a new party that represents our old values.

FUCK THE DLC. They can't buy my vote with the crap they have to sell.

[pnwmom]

56. None of the Dems running are anything like Lieberman.

Every one is a progressive who is worthy of the job, with the possible exception of Gravel. Though even he would be better than any of the Rethugs.

[JTFrog]

57. Sorry I disagree.

Wholeheartedly.

[blm]

104. How did Clintons differ from Lieberman from 2001-2006 on war policy?

And what powerful Dem voice said on LKL right before 2006 election that Connecticut Dems were lucky to be in the position to vote for either one as a win/win situation.

How accurate a statement was that?

[Andromeda]

120. I agree with you pnwmom.

.

[iconocrastic]

63. "If you are an American, you support who the Democratic nominee is." is the worst I've heard

as a reason to vote for HRC, and I've heard some sick reasons.

Unbelievable.

[ginchinchili]

79. I second that.

And I'm getting pretty damn sick of HRC's supporters trying to threaten me if I don't support their candidate. She's started with a lot of enemies and her supporters are fast creating a lot more.

[Tesha]

122. Funny how that didn't work in Connecticut in 2006.

Strangely enough, when a leftie won the Democratic
nomination for U.S. Senate, there was very little of
the hue and cry from the National Party about how
Democrats *HAD* to support the party nominee. Instead,
*THE BEST* we got from some members of the national
party was silence, and the worst of them actively
campaigned for the non-Democratic candidate in the
race.

Since then, I'm no longer *AT ALL SUSCEPTIBLE* to
the argument that we must support right-wing
Corporatists nominees just because the party or
their Chair Force Insurgents say we must.

Tesha

[durrrty libby]

43. The world is full of ignorant assholes, isn't it?

[Exultant Democracy]

54. You got that right 76 of them just voted for Kyle/Lierberman.

[superkia]

67. some of the same assholes voted for a war about oil in 2002.

This was Dennis Kucinich, the ONLY person with the strength to stand up against the war and the candidate so many democrats insult and say he is unelectable. This is one candidate that has always tried to do whats best for the American people, not the wealthy and their corporations.

PLEASE READ THIS FOLKS AND THINK OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IT BEFORE YOU MAKE THAT PRIMARY VOTE. WHY DID SO MANY VOTE FOR A WAR WITH NO GOOD EVIDENCE? ASK YOURSELF THAT AND FIGURE OUT HOW THEY WOULD BENEFIT THE PEOPLE AS PRESIDENT IF, WHAT THEY DO DOESN'T REFLECT WHAT THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED THEM TO REPRESENT THEM WANT. HUMAN LIVES WERE AT STAKE WHEN THEY MADE THEIR DECISION.

In October 2002, eight days before the House and Senate approved the war-authorization resolution, Kucinich released his own analysis of intelligence and information that accurately predicted subsequent events, discoveries, and consequences. It pointed out that there was no connection between Iraq and the events of 9/11 and that there was no credible evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. He led the fight in the House against the war and rallied more than 120 other Congressman to oppose the resolution. Kucinich's analysis also argued:

"This language is so broad that it would allow the President to order an attack against Iraq even when there is no material threat to the United States."
"A unilateral attack on Iraq by the United States will cause instability and chaos in the region and sow the seeds of future conflicts all over the world."
"Unilateral action against Iraq will cost the United States the support of the world community, adversely affecting the war on terrorism."
In an interview today, Kucinich said, "Any candidate willing to continue risking the lives of our brave men and women in uniform, continue destroying the lives of millions and innocent Iraqis, and continue embracing the corrupt foreign policy that led us into Iraq and keeps us there is not fit to serve as President of the United States of America."

[ginchinchili]

74. I'm feeling the same way.

I've never felt less a part of my country. I can't just blame the Republicans or the media. Or even the military-industrial complex. It's the people. We're seeming to fall short of being adequately intellectually equipped to run a democracy. I'm sorry if that ruffles people's feathers, but that's how I feel. Nor do I think I'm smarter than everyone else, but I seem to be a pretty good predictor of political events and if Hillary gets the nomination I see this election going pretty much the way the last one did, and it's not based on who I favor. It's based on being able to read the political landscape in an objective way. And afterwards Democrats will be blaming the media and the Republican's dirty tricks, all of which will have some truth, but the outcome will be the same and nothing will change. America gets screwed. What a shame. It's like watching a loved one die a slow death and not being able to do anything about it.

[lligrd]

85. Far Better To Stay And Fix The Party

But I am with you regarding the dynasty thing. And if the DLC dems hold power and continue the status quo, I will be in the streets protesting their every move too.

[oasis]

106. Why not leave now and avoid the stampede?

:hi: see ya

[Exultant Democracy]

110. You probably shouldn't be so smug. History proves that Dems don't win when

they run away from their base.

[oasis]

114. History won't elect the next president, moderate Americans will.(nt)

[Exultant Democracy]

116. Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it, remember Nader?

The extreme left gave that election to Bush. Shoot I was one of the people trying to get them to vote for Gore instead.

Count on this, the people who voted for Nader won't be voting for Bombs Away Clinton, and I assure you there are a lot more people who have a problem voting for Clinton then ever had a problem voting for Gore.

[Carrieyazel]

3. Hillary's making a devastating mistake

She has in no way secured the Democratic nomination, but she has begun a general election campaign months before the first primary votes are cast. It's foolhardy, that's for sure. Hillary is getting tight. Her bristling and refusal to answer the questions (unlike Obama, who took his questions on directly) is insulting to many. She may be sealing her fate, and those of us supporting other candidates need her to keep this arrogance going.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

26. Okay, it's a bad thing that's she's running a genral election strategy because????

What's your concern? That she will lose the primaries? That's what you want. Are you worried that she will be in a stronger position for the genral if she somehow wins the primaries? Shouldn't that be a good thing, that whoever wins the nomination be in a good position for the general?

How does one keep her arrogance going? It seems that pretending to support her would be the only thing to keep her arrogance going.

[amandabeech]

69. Refusing to answer questions isn't going to get her far with the independents.

I'm willing to be that the Cub/Yankees thing will get extrapolated to other areas of concern.

Lots of people like the Cubs and wish them well, even those who root for the Cubs's rivals. True Cubs fans stick with them through thick and thin, but it looks like she's not one of them.

Not a lot of folks outside New York like the Yankees.

Sports metaphors are still big here in the U.S., and I think that she blew that answer.

[AdHocSolver]

84. Clinton is campaigning now, as if it were the general election, as a tactic to win the primary.

She wants to present her nomination as a "done deal" so that people will think of her as the "electable" candidate, just as Kerry ran his campaign in 2004. As soon as the groundswell for Kerry as the most electable candidate took off, I immediately predicted that Bush would be pResident for another four years.

Why? Because Kerry was a liberal elitist running on a premise that he would be elected by the "anybody but Bush" vote, and so he could sit on his laurels and glide effortlessly into the Whitehouse. He made no effort to win votes in "Red" states, and he promoted an image of what he and his handlers thought was "Presidential", but which antagonized rightwingers and independents in sufficient numbers to vote for Bush.

This made the election very close and the vote count rigging in Ohio and elsewhere gave the Republicans the ability to steal another election.

Clinton is running the same kind of campaign and, if Democrats make her the nominee in 2008, the Republicans could run Alberto Gonzales and win the election. The election has nothing to do with platforms, proposed policy statements, or Republican malfeasance.

It has everything to do with TRUST. Clinton projects deviousness, manipulative tendencies, and a suck up attitude based on consultants, focus groups, and poll watching. Of ALL the current Democratic candidates, she generates the LEAST TRUST in the general population. She will bring out people to vote Republican who were going to stay home on election day. The election will be close, and we will witness another Florida or Ohio debacle.

Someone once defined insanity as doing the same action over and over again and expecting a different result. If Democrats make Clinton the nominee in 2008, we will get eight more years of a Republican presidency. This country cannot survive such an occurrence. It won't make a difference if people get upset and leave the party. This party will become poitically irrelevant.

[Carrieyazel]

94. Excellent analysis. She is the worst national candidate we can put up

and because she will lose to an awful Replicon candidate, our nation will be on the verge of disaster. She will score about the same as Kerry, you're exactly right. There is NO WAY she gets to 270.

This'll be tragic: We will rightfully be the majority party in the Senate, House, Governorships, State Legislatures, and localities. BUT WE WILL FAIL to put a Democrat into the White House again, giving the Replicons undeserved national power at the very top. Unforgivable. And all because we will nominate a disastrous, unlikable, untrusted, unelectable candidate like Hillary Clinton, and blow it again. I just hope the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina can save us.

[hedgetrimmer]

4. Perhaps the fix is in. n/t

[illinoisprogressive]

5. Levi, I feel the same. I turn in my democratic card if Hillary gets the nod.

[MetalCanuck]

8. Welcome to independent land:)

I do not affiliate myself to a political party anymore in Canada either. They have to work for the vote.

[Exultant Democracy]

9. It may not be my party, but it is still my country and it is still MY vote!

The way I see it is, if Clinton get the nod then the best thing that could happen for the democratic party would be a huge loss, after that they might just finally dump the DLC and do their job as an opposition party.

Look at how effective the Republicans are as a congressional minority, and then look at where the Democrats have allowed us to be taken over the last 7 years. I'm done electing people who won't do the job I sent them there for.

[MetalCanuck]

11. Good man, this is all I am saying.

Make them pay for what they do. THere are independent Candidates. At this point it doesn't seem to matter who is there.

[Exultant Democracy]

15. I'm glad it makes sense to someone.

[jgraz]

34. Makes sense to me too

Unless we have a convincing answer for their "who else are ya gonna vote for" taunt, they're going to continue taking our money and our votes and doing nothing.

[Douglas Carpenter]

95. do you have any idea just how bad a Giuliani Presidency would be?

Obviously I am not a supporter of Sen. Clinton's presidential bid. And I will not be an apologist for some of her policies. But let's be realistic.

I don't think anyone can claim that Sen. Clinton would be worse than Bush/Cheney.

a Giuliani Presidency would be far, far, far more dangerous than Bush/Cheney. And the catastrophe caused by four years of a Giuliani Presidency will be permanent and irreparable damage. Make no mistake about it. Imagine the Supreme Court and the Federal Courts after four more years of hardliner right-wing appointments. Imagine even more catastrophic war in the Middle East. Granted Sen. Clinton does not hold the best positions on these issues either. But is it likely that a President Clinton would be anything in the league of a President Giuliani? I don't think so.

Admittedly it is hard to imagine a presidency that could be more disastrous for the world than Bush/Cheney. But Rudy Giuliani leads all other Republicans by significant margins. And in polling of possible general election match-ups he is well within striking distance.

To put some context on just how extreme Giuliani actually is..he just appointed Daniel Pipes -- a racist extremist nut just as far out in his extremism as David Duke is in his particular brand of fanaticism.

some links:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2003/05/we_420_01.html

From Harpers: Pipes Joins Up With Giuliani by Ken Silverstein

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90001048

"I think it’s fair to say that Pipes is even further out ideologically than Norman Podhoretz, another Giuliani adviser. Readers unfamiliar with Pipes can check out his profile at Wikipedia."

------------

This Article from Huffington Post by Stephen Schlesinger

Giuliani: Worse Than Bush

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-schlesinger/giuliani-worse-than-bush_b_61412.html

"The Republican presidential front runner, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, has just written his foreign policy credo for Foreign Affairs magazine. It is a truly unnerving pronouncement -- even worse than Bush-ism. Not unexpectedly, Mr. Giuliani backs all of the most brazen features of the Bush administration's global agenda. But he tosses in several deeply scary initiatives of his own that George W. never touched."

"He promises to pursue Bush's strategy in Iraq relentlessly to "eliminate the export of terror," and warns that, as in Vietnam, any withdrawal would be a sign of weakness and "an invitation for more war." He does not conceive of, admit to, or even mention the possibility of a region-wide political settlement which even now the Bush Administration is apparently contemplating. In addition, he would "press ahead" with an anti-ballistic missile system -- regardless of its outsized costs or ineffectiveness. And he would, as he says, "pursue the gains made by the USA Patriot Act and not unrealistically limit electronic surveillance or legal interrogation." Sounds a lot like an embrace of unrestricted presidential power and possibly torture.

For Israel, he now opposes the "creation of another state" in Palestine -- a repudiation of Bush's own stance. On Iran, "should all else fail," he would destroy that nation's nuclear infrastructure -- a mini-Cheney on steroids. More broadly, though, he would ratchet up our public diplomacy, expand the old Cold War radio stations, ditto with Internet networks, and insist that our US ambassadors "clearly advocate for US policies" -- a kind of in-your-face proselytizing of the sort the former mayor practiced so fervently when he ran New York City.

But Mr. Giuliani's most peculiar innovations are with the United Nations and NATO. Predictably, he is anti-UN -- as he was as mayor of NYC. But he goes further and argues that the UN has "proved irrelevant to the resolution of almost every major dispute of the last fifty years." This is a breathtaking display of incomprehension. Just a reminder: the UN stopped the invasion of South Korea; settled the Suez crisis of 1956; assisted in the ending of the Cuban missile crisis of 1963; ousted Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991. It brought peace to conflicts in Guatemala, Angola, Mozambique, El Salvador, Cambodia and helps keep the peace in Cyprus. More recently, it aided Haiti in holding an election and ending violence, pushed the Syrians out of Lebanon, enforced a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon and presently supports a dozen or so other peacekeeping missions.

Now we come to the ex-mayor's most bizarre suggestion -- that NATO be encouraged to act "globally," be reconfigured to confront "significant threats to the international system," and "we should open the organization's membership to any state" -- though it is a European-based body. Is Mr. Giuliani thus proposing that NATO replace the UN as the world's arbiter? And why not? Since the US dominates NATO, this would give Washington a direct means to extend its security purvey over the entire planet. This is a vision consistent with the authoritarian instincts with which Mr. Giuliani governed NYC. Still his retro-policies appear to be out of kilter with the times. He will have a lot of explaining to the American electorate about his foreign policy weltanschauung. It should be an illuminating exercise that may actually remind voters of why the only elected post he has ever risen to is mayor."

-------------

Giuliani's proposal for endless Middle East wars" by Glenn Greenwald

link (by paid subscription but a free 24 hour pass is available):

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/21/giuliani_israel/index.html?source=newsletter

"Plainly, the last thing most Americans want is for the U.S. to expand its involvement in Middle East wars, particularly when doing so is on behalf of the interests not of the U.S., but of another country. Yet here is Giuliani advocating that we do exactly that -- embrace an obviously radical strategy opposed by the overwhelming majority of Americans, likely vehemently opposed -- and the silence is deafening."

-------------------

A Giuliani presidency would actually be more dangerous than the Bush/Cheney debacle; much more dangerous. What is scary is that many Americans mistakenly believe that Giuliani is a moderate because of his position on some social issues. But make no mistake about it -- a transition from Bush/Cheney to Giuliani would be a transition from out of the frying pan and into the fire. A Giuliani presidency would mean a dark and sinister future for those who strive for peace.

And it could happen ...just check a cross section of polls..he is leading all other Republicans by significant margins..and his chance of winning if nominated cannot be dismissed:

Republican Primary Polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm

General Election Polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

It would not be an exaggeration at all to say that electing Giuliani would be like electing David Duke with better p.r. cosmetics:

DNC Condemns Rep. King (top Giuliani adviser) for saying there are too many Mosques in the U.S.

Rep. King is Rudy Giuliani's Homeland Security Adviser

CBS News
DNC Condemns King's Mosque Comments
By Daniel W. Reilly

Sep 19, 2007

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/19/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3279950.shtml

"(The Politico) Not long after Politico released its interview with Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) , the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, the Democratic National Committee attacked King's comment that "there are too many mosques in this country."

"Congressman King's comments are deplorable and he should apologize immediately," said DNC press secretary Stacie Paxton. "This type of bigoted language has no place in public discourse."

The DNC went one step further, calling on GOP presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani to dump King as his campaign's homeland security adviser."

-------------------

[Exultant Democracy]

111. Kyle/ Lieberman. You are more then welcome to do what you will with your vote

but I would rather be punched in the face then stabbed in the back.

[Douglas Carpenter]

112. Kye/Lieberman is a travesty. But a GOP Presidency would still be far, far, far worse

And I would prefer lesser risk and lesser damage to maximum risk and maximum damage.

To quote Noam Chomsky on why he strongly preferred John Kerry over George W. Bush -- and I do think the comparison is roughly equivalent:



link: http://blogs.zmag.org/ee_links/bush_kerry_differences

"The most uncontroversial differences have to do with the large majority of the population of the United States. For example, those who will have to bear the burdens of essentially freeing the rich from taxes and other social responsibilities. Or of destruction of Social Security and the limited health care system. Or workers who will not received the limited but real protection of OSHA. Or our grandchildren, who might like to have air to breathe. Or who will suffer from the effects of the huge deficits that are being consciously piled up. Etc. On these matters, the differences between the groups around Bush and those around Kerry are quite significant.

For the world, the differences have to do with the likelihood of international violence, including possibly terminal nuclear war. Bush sharply accelerated militarization of space (including "missile defense") and dismantled the international regulatory apparatus (treaties, not as good as they should be, but not zero either), leading, as anticipated, to rapid increase in development of military capacity by those who feel particularly threatened, Russia and China in particular. The rapid increase in offensive military programs under Bush is so disturbing to mainstream strategic analysts that some go as far as to say that they are leading to "ultimate doom" (John Steinbrunner, in the journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences). These things matter a great deal to the population of the world, which is why there is such extreme opposition to Bush and his cohorts worldwide. That includes potential targets of direct aggression.

It doesn't take a microscope to see these differences. Many on the left seem far too casual about them, in my opinion. Not only is that wrong in itself, but it completely nullifies any possibility of appealing to the natural constituency of the left, at home or abroad. How far do you think one will get organizing people by saying, for example, we simply don't give a damn about the fact that you'll suffer more from Bush-style dismantling of the progressive achievements of the past century than by the programs of the political opposition?"

[Exultant Democracy]

115. First let me say thank you, it is refreshing to see someone engage the issue instead of

just making a personal attack.

That being said I have to disagree with you. The right will always be the right, that is just that way it is. It is when the left is controlled by the right that we face the most danger. Just imagine if in the last 7 years the Democrats had shown half the backbone that these Republicans have shown in the last 9 months.

Now stop and ask yourself why? Shoot check out the archives on DU from before the invasion of Iraq, you would think we were freaking prognosticator, we knew there were no CBRN weapons in Iraq even before they got renamed WMDs by the publicists. So why? Why did Bush get to run ramrod over.. well over just about everything? The short answer is the DLC has been pulling the string for the democratic party.

The good news is a Clinton defeat might be just what it takes to get the party to drop the DLC and all the bullshit that come with it. The only way we will ever be safe is when the Democrats start to oppose the Republicans. Even under Bush we could have been safe, all we ever needed was 41 real democrats in the Senate.

[Douglas Carpenter]

117. if the election of a genuine progressive in 2012 could repair all the damage done by four more years

or a Republican presidency, I would tend to see your point.

However awful some of Sen. Clinton's positions and some of Sen. Clinton's votes have been on Middle East issues it still pales in comparison to the blind Neocons ideologues and shameless war profiteers of a likely Republican presidency. It is terrible that Sen. Clinton voted for Kye/Lieberman. Some of her other votes on Middle East issues are equally awful. But who would be far more likely to actually launch a new catastrophic war in the Middle East? President Clinton or President Giuliani? One of the most credible complaints from across the political spectrum about Sen. Clinton is that she is so political, so slick and so calculated in everything she does. I cannot imagine any calculated politician who thinks five minutes ahead actually launching a trumped up war against Iran. She is just too sophisticated and too political to over look the long term consequences -- This is distinctly a different mindset than the blind racist ideologues like Dan Pipes and Norman Podhoretz who are Giuliani's brains when it comes to Middle East issues. If they cause the mess they openly advocate causing in the Middle East -- the damage will last a thousand years. And this is no exageration.

When it comes to Supreme Court and other federal court appointments. I don't think there can be any doubt but what four more years of hardliner right wing ideologue lifetime appointments will have devastating consequences for us all for generations to come.

When it comes to Sen. Clinton's position on other purely domestic issues. Well she's not Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich, but her record really is not all that bad and certainly far more progressive than any Republican. Somewhat better than average for a Democratic Senator.

http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?search=selectName&member=NYI&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=74&y=12

.

[oasis]

118. Excellent, informative post. (eom)

[pnwmom]

18. As you know, Obama's record in the Senate is extremely similar

to Clinton's, both consistently scoring above 90% on progressive issues.

www.progressivepunch.com

Why can't you support your candidate without trying to tear another one down? Why don't you talk more about what you like about Obama and less about what you hate about HRC?

[regnaD kciN]

21. Because I cannot support a candidate...

...who never met a war against a Muslim country that she didn't love. And I cannot support a candidate whose "universal health care" plan is, essentially, "you are hereby ordered to buy a policy."

No how. No way.

[gateley]

24. OT Interesting site. I was just tooling around it and boy,

Kennedy ranks WAY up there. Boxer's not far behind.

[jgraz]

33. I also hear that Clinton and Obama take very near the same number of bathroom breaks

Which is about as significant as your stat.

[durrrty libby]

45. Now THAT'S worth throwing a party for. Can't wait

:party: :bounce: :toast: :applause: :woohoo:


:applause: :woohoo: :thumbsup: :bounce: :party:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

61. We'll sure miss you.

MKJ

[MetalCanuck]

6. Thank you, wonderful post. RIGHT ON!

[leftofthedial]

10. there is no "-esque" about it.

she's a repuke--on health care, the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, the elimination of Constitutionally-guaranteed civil liberties, the rights of corporations as pre-eminent over people and the planet . . .

she's a repuke.

[Colobo]

12. With Obama we all win.

[MetalCanuck]

13. If Obama renouced CFR membership I would be all for him

He sounds fine..just drop the Cheney fan club.

[gateley]

25. Don't discount somebody just because they're a member of the CFR -- I

don't think it's as nefarious as we like to believe. Plus, we need an Obama on it, right?

[fightindonkey]

31. Obama Will Never Win, Obama Doesn't Have The Goods

This isn't the time to play around. People do not feel comfortable voting for a person with no experience. Obama needs way more time in the senate to prove himself. The fact remains, people feel more comfortable with a Clinton Administration than anyone else.

[Laurab]

68. I don't.

I don't feel comfortable with a Clinton administration at all. And, I'm not sure where exactly her supposed "experience" comes from. Being First Lady? Being an average Senator? Her "experience" IMO is way overrated. Obama has as much - in fact, I think the three "front runners" are really about equal experience-wise. I'm more interested in common sense, intelligence, and a person who knows they work for the people who elected them.

If you're looking for experience, Biden would probably be the best choice - and I also think he could win the general, unlike Hillary. Dodd and Richardson also have far more experience. I'd be comfortable with Obama because I've read his books, listened to him, and trust him far more than I do Hillary. I'd be very comfortable with Biden, as well. I'd be more comfortable with Edwards, Dodd or Richardson than I would with Hillary - she'd maybe do an adequate job, but she is so hated by the right that it would be a nightmare if she won.

I don't know anyone in my actual real life who feels comfortable with the possibility of a Clinton Administration, and I'm not sure why you would post that as fact. It is not fact.

[2rth2pwr]

83. DU doesn't represent the Dem party, here is how Iowa voters see

Hillary -

NEWSWEEK Poll: Sept. 29, 2007 (Iowa registered voters)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21036143/site/newsweek/
24. Now, I have a few questions about Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. In general, is your opinion of her very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly UNfavorable, or very unfavorable?

BASED ON DEMOCRATIC VOTERS
Total                               Likely Democratic
                                                   Caucus-Goer

28 Very favorable 30
52 Mostly favorable 47
12 Mostly unfavorable 15
5 Very unfavorable 6
* Never heard of (VOL.) 0
3 Can't rate 2


26. If Hillary Clinton is elected president, some people think having Bill Clinton back in the White House would be a good thing for the country because his ideas and political skills might help the new administration govern more effectively. Others think having Bill Clinton back in the White House would be a bad thing for the country because he might repeat the kind of embarrassing behavior that led to his impeachment. Which comes closer to your view?

BASED ON DEMOCRATIC VOTERS
Total                   Likely Democratic
                  Caucus- Goer
79 Good thing because of ideas/political skills 79
11 Bad thing because might repeat embarrassing behavior 12
10 Don't know 9

[Lugnut]

82. Which people would those be?

If you're counting me as one of the people who feel more comfortable with a Clinton Administration than anyone else you would be wrong. I guess that's not so much fact as it is fiction.

[elizm]

89. What 'people'. nt

[laugle]

108. Hey Katz....do things ever change around here??

I voted over 35 years now straight democrat.....and I only really supported one candidate....Bill Clinton!

People should vote for their favored candidate in the PRIMARY--and vote their PARTY in the general election....the alternative is UNTHINKABLE!!!

I have always voted AGAINST THE REPUBLICANS...not necessarily because I liked the democratic candidate!!

The stakes have never been so high...and all this bickering will not help our party.

What say you???

[jillan]

14. One week ago, she was my #2. I thought if Biden doesn't break through

than I would have no problem supporting Hillary.

After everything that happened this week - including the GQ story, the 2 fundraising stories..and what was mentioned in this article,
she is at the very bottom of my list. Should she pull it off and win the nomination, I would vote for her because she is a step above the Repugs, but that's it. It will take alot for her to earn back my respect.

[Yael]

53. She dosen't give a rat's ass about your respect

she wants your vote and that is all she cares about.

Sorry -- going with the others here. "You must buy health insurance" (with the guaranteed rate increases that will be hard wired into the bill) is not the answer.

ABC.

[creeksneakers2]

76. I don't understand how the GQ story matters that much

All they had was a story about a quarrel within Hillary's campaign staff. Hillary got the piece zapped in exchange for an interview with Bill. If she hid some major scandal by threatening a media outlet I'd think that was a big deal.

[saracat]

16. Great post! I have major problems with a Hillary nomination.

[ToeBot]

19. A Clinton nomination will be the last "slap in the face" I'll suffer as a Democrat, next! nt

[fightindonkey]

29. Yeah, sure.

Next.

[regnaD kciN]

20. If HRC gets the nomination...

...the most I could promise is that I, living on the West Coast, would hold off casting my vote until the absolute last moment that Tuesday night. If it looked like Washington state was going to be "the decider," I'd hold my nose and vote for her to keep a Giuliani, Romney, or McCain from becoming President. If the election was already decided one way or another, I'd vote third-party or write-in Gore as a protest vote.

However, over the past couple of weeks, Hillary's Iran War Authorization vote and No Insurance Company Left Behind health care plan leave me wondering if I could even vote for her as the lesser of two evils. (And I'm the guy who spent most of the last week of the 2000 election trying to convince Naderites around the country that we needed to unite around Gore to protect us from another Bush presidency. I wish I could honestly make the same argument this time around, but I can't.)

[fightindonkey]

30. People Are Here Want Candidates Packaged With A Pretty Bow

If you're going to vote third party, you have no business being here. Hillary's Iran War Authorization was non-binding and a political tool to get her on the record. The health care issue needs to be handled one step at a time. No one is going to jump full into Universal Health care. It is not going to happen overnight. You need to let people see the difference and move away from insurance.

If Democrats want to win, you need to vote and support period. The end result will be more Right wing judges, and more sinking of the country. Democrats, at least here, do more bickering and sliming than the media could ever do.

[MadHound]

37. Gee, you are new around here

I would suggest that you read the rules before you go telling off people as to where and where they not be. It specifically states that Democrats and progressives of all stripes are welcome here. So you just might want to cool your jets before you start thinking about taking over the admin's job and deciding who to purge or not purge.

[iconocrastic]

64. "non-binding and a political tool to get her on the record" is everything that HRC does

Everything with her is a tool and the record is whatever needs to be said in the moment. But it will be something opposite a week or two later. Her record is being on all sides of every issue - NONBINDING - as she demands it to be.

[snowbear]

22. Speaking of Hillary, what's the deal ....

Why do her supporters cash it in so early every night?

I mean.. I'm sure she has a nightowl out there somewhere? ... maybe?


But DAYUM.. When the wee hour hits.. seems like there's no one left here but the party-hearty non-DLC types...

[Hardrada]

23. And that is as it should be.

[liberalla]

32. I'm not complaining! I like it when they're few and far between...

these are the best hours to browse the DU

Love your band!

[Alamom]

35. An "Opinion" by Ann McFeatters is not worth the time....nm

[durrrty libby]

49. or maybe some of us have lives to live

I’m an R.N. and work a lot of nights, plus I take agency assignments, and teach at a local university.

I run a family and household.
Due to a recent move I am spending more time on a new business plan

However, I find I spend a lot less time here in general. Ignorance and stupidity bore me

I only log in here while doing something else



Most importantly, My boys of summer just clinched the AL East. I spend quality time with them

[laugle]

109. Amen to that!! nt

[NoPasaran]

50. Sorry to disappoint

Most of us have jobs and lives and stuff. We just can't keep vampire hours.

[snowbear]

73. Yeah, baby..

Those of us on the graveyard shift don't have jobs.. or lives.. or (as you said) ..."stuff".

I'm on 4 on, 4 off and depending on shifts, you're absolutely right.. I have to keep vampire hours.

There's plenty of times I'd rather be on here than responding to a head-on collission with a bull moose, but hey.. -- what'cha gonna do?

You are funny!!

[durrrty libby]

86. And some of us just roll our eyes at the silly little twits

[ShortnFiery]

36. For the simple FACT that our founders never intended the anointment of Political Royalty...

I thank Heavens that many Americans are catching on.

Hello!?! This is about transferring ABSOLUTE power of "The Unitary Executive" and sharing it with Bill, Poppy and the rest of the Girls and Boys who want to RULE OUR COUNTRY.

Political Royalty, especially with regard to The Presidency, is POISON for the sustainment of our Democratic Republic.

IF ANYTHING, we need to elect democratic leaders who will not only END these illegal/immoral occupations but will also sonorously forward bills to "roll-back" the ABSOLUTE power of The Executive Branch.

The United States was founded on THREE (3x) Co-Equal Branches of Government. It is up to CONGRESS to balance the scales by *removing* all the excess power this Administration has signed-over to The Executive Branch. :thumbsdown:

It's *The Unitary Executive's* excesses in power that proves to be the GREATEST DANGER to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. :scared:

[Perry Logan]

38. I look forward to the departure ofthe anti-Hillarites. The party will be much stronger without them.

I hope they join up with a third party, like they're always threatening to do--so their votes will be wasted for the rest of their lives.

[Larkspur]

39. I won't be leaving the Dem Party. I'm secretary of my DTC and plan on staying

I will support the Dems that I can support. Hillary is not one of them.

[Maribelle]

41. I think that prior post refers to the anti Hillary campaign here on DU. n/t

[iconocrastic]

65. No, the party would be stronger if HRC had an ounce of integrity

You have it upside down.

[JVS]

93. No whining if their absence causes her to lose the election then, ok.

[Maribelle]

40. Fake headline. McFatters says "almost" not "growing". Sheesh. Don't hillhates read?

It seems the "librul" Cincinnatti Post is quite free to make up their own headline on syndicated stuff, even if it's not related to the article and even if it plays loosely with the truth. But then again, the useful idiots might not know the meaning of "almost".


McFatters' real headline was "The downside of being the front-runner"

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/27118

[Nedsdag]

59. So, just because you disagree with McFeatters,

you have to go after her with a slur about her weight?

Please tell me that was a typo you made.

[Maribelle]

91. It was a typo

if she's not fat

:donut:

[The Backlash Cometh]

42. We're just tired of weasels and weaseling. It's bad enough that Bush

pretended to come in as a Centrist, then ruled right. But it's just unbelievable that the next election belongs to a Democrat, and we're looking at electing the biggest weasel in the group. She's got a track record, and it's more Wall Street, than it is middle America.

[ncteechur]

44. It will be Clinton v Romney in the general.

I don't necessarily want it that way but that is how I see it.

It's going to get very ugly soon between Romney and Guiliani and I thikn Romney will prevail.
McCain doesn't have the $$.
Thompson doesn't have the longevity as a candidate.
The rest will just drop by the wayside.

Hillary is so far out in front. I like Edwards or Biden but I don't think they can catch her--nor can Obama.

I will never vote for Mitt.

It will be Hillary for me if necessary.

[amandabeech]

71. I think that the republicans are very unhappy with their choices.

They're looking for the second coming of Ronzo, and so far, he's staying in heaven.

Of course, lots of us are looking for the second coming of Al Gore. We have a better chance.

Seriously, though, I think that there will be a lot of nose-holding on both sides of the aisle in 2008, and that's not what the country needs right now.

[elizm]

90. Not a small number of those Republicans....

WANT to vote for Obama.

[rodeodance]

46. What ever!!

[wyldwolf]

47. An article like this is to be expected just as her positives rise, her negs fall, and she pulls away

:shrug:

[Exultant Democracy]

101. Onward Christian Solider eh?

Sucks to be Iranian.

[kickysnana]

51. This post says mortgage doonboogle started under Clinton. n/t

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=114&topic_id=28837&mesg_id=28841

[Vincardog]

58. What makes the OP think she can win the votes of the majority of Democratic voters? We do not need

another Neo-ANYTHING.

[Guaranteed]

62. Yeah. That's because she has no business running for President.

If she was a leader, she had plenty of opportunity to prove it. She has chosen not to- and now she wants to be President. Forget it.

[iconocrastic]

66. Bingo. HRC is no leader. She wants control, that's all, as if it's her right and destiny

... and she's really not intelligent enough to fake it as a leader, no matter how hard she tries. It's pathetic, really.

[amandabeech]

72. She's very intelligent, but she's not a natural leader.

I guess I'll have to disagree with you there.

Bill could have lead somewhere, but he liked triangulation better than leadership.

We need another FDR, but I just don't see him or her in any of the candidates right now, although some are better than others.

[iconocrastic]

80. She is cold and calculating

and that is not an intelligent way to live, nor a mark of intelligence.

And she's not bright enough to keep her lies straight.

She thinks that whatever she believes in the moment must be true, because she proclaims it to be.

She's not bright enough to know other people see through her.

[amandabeech]

92. I think that we're talking about two different types of intelligence.

Her academic record speaks for itself on her ability to retain and analyze data, at least to me.

However, her ability to understand and deal with people shows a general lack of people skills.

I think that she knows when she is being inconsistent, but just thinks that most people won't remember what she says, and that she can either brush off or intimidate the media.

Right now, she's in the lead with the dems, and it looks like not everybody sees through her, so perhaps her calculations have been correct.

Are you from the U.K. or just an admirer?

[iconocrastic]

98. Hey thanks for the response

I'm from one of the Caribbean colonies. I thank the Brits for my proper Engish education and upbringing.

The fact that HRC is in the lead doesn't mean that people don't see through her. They just ...

1) agree with her general direction (grasp for power)
2) think she can win, and
3) want to be on the winning side.

Wheras Barak's followers are more ideological, i.e., based on reason, not power.

The propagandists of the WWII era did not value people who had ideological principles and stuck to them. They were regarded as dangerous to the cause.

They wanted people who were willing to change their story on demand to suit the occasion, and then change it again upon the next occasion, which they were often asked and willing to do. They do not value consistency. They see it as coming from weakness.

Like the HRC crowd.

[amandabeech]

102. I lean Edwards, myself, and for ideological reasons.

My parents are of the WWII era, and watching Ken Burns's "The War" on PBS brings to life many of the things that they talked and talk about.

I don't understand your reference to the WWII generation.

[iconocrastic]

105. Was referring to the Nazi propagandists. Sorry if I wasn't clear. n/t

[amandabeech]

107. Thanks! Your comment makes plenty of sense now.

n/t

[MethuenProgressive]

70. Who was surprised to see the ObamaLogo in the OP? Anyone? Anyone?

Someday, not soon, but maybe someday, the Obama fan club will start posting about Obama.
Until then, just more negativism.

[saltpoint]

75. I'd like to see Senator Clinton sack anyone on her staff who was a

player in her husband's campaigns.

I'd like to see Senator Clinton find a way to move more toward the Feingold / grassroots emphasis and away from the triangulation / corporatist emphasis.

She could use speech coach. I think she's uninteresting as a speaker, likely by design. Her public comments are bland and blunted.

She is not doing a very good job at all of speaking to traditional Democratic constituencies and to traditional Democratic issues. John Edwards does far better on the poor. Joe Biden does far better in foreign policy. Barack Obama has the community-building experience she lacks and doesn 't speak of.

She's running a Nebraska-line campaign so far and for all the cash she's raised, she's still only barely ahead in Iowa; and New Hampshire, ever-volatile, is by no means in the bag.

[creeksneakers2]

77. Hillary's numbers don't show her losing support

She's ahead of all the Republicans now too.

[Trajan]

78. I find these divisive threads are incestuous ...

The same people presenting their own writings as 'news' ..... All in the course of promoting THEIR candidate over the others ....

The provenance of the story is questionable ....

I know I am not alone in wondering what this poster will be doing here after the primaries are over .....

[Cameron27]

81. Not according to her numbers,

so it looks like the OP has posted just another bs opinion piece. McFeatters, keep trying.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[Imagevision]

96. Ultimately I believe Obama is correct stating that Hillary will be Bushlite

[Arugula Latte]

99. Definitely. I can't believe some DUers are eager for another DLC appeaser.

Frankly, it makes me sick and furious that an opportunity of a lifetime of getting an actual progressive in office is being squandered so blatantly.

[laugle]

113. Oh really.....in what way?? nt

[McCamy Taylor]

97. Her Iran vote will hurt her. NBC and the Pentagon will make sure Dems dont forget

The Pentagon does not want war in Iran. NBC is the Pentagon's mouthpiece. They no longer trust Hillary. They are now looking at Edwards. It will be up to Bill Clinton to convince them that he can rein in his wife.

[Carrieyazel]

100. After all the grief she's gone through on her awful Iraq vote,

Which consultant advised her to vote this way on Iran??? Is it Bill? Is it Patti Sully Doyle???
Did she make this bad call herself??? If she is deviating from the rigid Hillaryland script and going out on her own, its even worse for her. She's not good enough to do that.

[ProudDad]

119. The big problem hillary has is that once people

find out what she REALLY stands for (and for whom she's standing in) they REALLY GET PISSED!!!