If you don't want Senator Clinton to be our nominee....

[senseandsensibility]

what are you doing about it? I really think this is crunch time. Posting anti-Clinton threads is fine, especially if they're factual, but it's not going to get it done, people. And I have to admit that sending a fifty dollar check to one of her challengers as I did, won't cut it either. The base is going to have to flex its muscle.

If you're fine with Senator Clinton as the nominee, great. Just sit back and enjoy it. But until she HAS won, the rest of us can criticize her until the cows come home. If you support her, you have the corporate media and the repugs on your side and I would think you'd be enjoying it. This is the easy part, after all. As soon as she wins, the swiftboating and smearing will begin, and things won't be so fun anymore.

Edited to add that I am not a Clinton hater. I don't refer to her as "Hillary" for example, because I think it's sexist. However, we can do better as our nominee, and now is the time to say so IMHO.

[Captain Hilts]

1. I'm going to vote for Dodd or Biden in the primary. nt

[Colobo]

2. I'm supporting Obama with my wallet and by talking about him to anyone

who is willing to listen.

[msongs]

3. DU is a fringe of the dems, hardly the base nt

[Colobo]

7. So, what's the base like?

[silverojo]

37. A lot more moderate

Which is why I worry that Hillary Clinton will win the nomination.

[defendandprotect]

41. I don't think so . . Democratic Party is liberal, not moderate --

especially when they understand the issues ---

Same is true of general pubic -- liberal ---

[defendandprotect]

42. I'm pushing for Edwards and think corporations are wary and therefore DLC --

so I think we'll not only have an attack on Edwards from the Republicans but also from the
right-wing DLC ---

a attempt at replaying their success at side-lining Dean?

He's not going to be an Establishment favorite --

[MGKrebs]

47. Hillary is for universal healthcare, pro-choice, LGBT rights, environmental controls,

stem cell research, anti-war, global women's rights and human rights, and arts funding.

Isn't that a large part of "the base"?

[sniffa]

48. very wrong on two counts

she's not for universaL heaLthcare, and she's not pro GLBT rights. not by a Long shot.

[MGKrebs]

50. What's not universal about

"ensure that every man, woman and child in America has quality, affordable health care."?

Also:

Federal Marriage Amendment: Hillary Clinton voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment (S.J. Res. 1) which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and included language which could have prevented recognition of civil unions and domestic partnership benefits. The amendment failed by a vote of 49-48.

Hillary Clinton and Gays in the Military: Hillary Clinton supports the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and supports the rights of gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military."It hurts all of our troops, and this, to me, is a matter of national security," she said to a group of HRC supporters.

Employment Non-Discrimination: Clinton said she would work to pass a federal law outlawing employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and propose another measure extending benefits to the partners of federal employees in March 2007 at an HRC fundraiser.

Hate Crimes and HIV Support: Hillary Clinton, in line with HRC, co-sponsored legislation to bring Medicaid coverage to low-income, HIV-positive Americans and the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act which would expand federal jurisdiction to reach serious, violent hate crimes perpetrated because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation or disability of the victim.

Gay Immigration Rights: Hillary Clinton did not co-sponsor Uniting American Families Act that would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide same-sex partners of U.S. citizens the same immigration benefits legal spouses of U.S. residents enjoy.

Gay Adoption: Hillary Clinton supports giving gays and lesbians equal rights in adopting children.
Hillary Clinton and Gay Marriage: Some gay and lesbian voters don't feel like Hillary Clinton has done enough to support gay and lesbian rights, while others believe she is the best candidate for gay and lesbian issues. Clinton opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions between members of the same sex. During her husband's administration, she supported the Defense of Marriage Act, a law preventing the federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman." - Hillary Clinton, opposing same-sex marriages, quoted in The New York Daily News.

However, in October 2006 Hillary Clinton was quoted by 365gay.com as saying,"I believe in full equality of benefits, nothing left out. From my perspective there is a greater likelihood of us getting to that point in civil unions or domestic partnerships and that is my very considered assessment."
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/HillaryClinton.htm

Not perfect, but pretty strong.

[sniffa]

51. weLL

i want to make sure that everyone is required to buy their own insurance, save for the poverty LeveL, isn't universaL heaLthcare; it's universaL insurance.

and i don't care for her mush mouthing. she doesn't support the FMA? good. quite a few shitbag repubs don't either.
she's for civiL unions and against gay marriage. that's not a friend to the GLBT community.
i aLso don't doubt for a moment, that she wouLd throw us under the bus if it was poLiticaLLy expedient to do so.

[ChiciB1]

56. Oh, I So Agree With What You Have Said... And WHY Is It That Others

think she is pro-gay marriage. I know two neighbors of mine who actually "thought" she was, until we talked yesterday! I was so surprised that THEY thought she was. I told them I was an Edwards supporter and they said they really DO like him a lot, but didn't think he could get elected! I then said as long as you keep saying it and not doing ANYTHING about it, then it won't happen.

I DO know many people who support Edwards, but BECAUSE of how MSM has Hyped her ALL THE TIME, the word is out that NO OTHER Democratic candidate will beat her. BTW, both of my neighbors left with a new perspective about Edwards, and they do know how political I am. I feel they have changed their minds and basically said so. They both are "snow-birds" and I'm sure can vote in their states. I live in Florida and don't know what's up yet.

But for me, I get the word out as much as possible. I also think Clinton WILL NOT be an effective President and especially DISLIKE her habit of saying "I won't answer that question" not to mention her laugh or cackle whichever you prefer. I will go a step further and say that IF she gets the nod (and I will do what I can against that) the race will have to be close for me to vote for her in the GE. I DO NOT happen to think Guilliani can sustain his lead as things trickle down, and Romney has turned many off, and Thompson seems to have shot himself in the foot.

Frankly, I have seen NO Clinton bumper stickers in my area... NOT ONE! I HAVE seen several Ron Paul ones and some for Edwards and Obama! And the Ron Paul ones are VERY BIG! Watching C-Span every morning, his name comes up all the time and it makes me wonder just how he will actually "play" in the end!

[MGKrebs]

58. OK, but to be clear, your definition of universal health coverage

is different than most others. The Dem "base" so far seems to be OK with Clinton's interpretation of universal healthcare. Whether the bookkeeping is done by the service provider or the government or insurance companies (as it is done in France, considered the best system in the world), the fact remains that everybody gets health care.

Also, how does one reconcile taking a pro-separation of church state position with government sanction of marriage? You really can't, so one supports full rights and equal benefits under the law and leaves the ceremonial marriage part up to each denomination. Even if one disagrees with that, it is hard to argue that there is a strongly held belief among many Americans that would have a problem with gay marriage at this time. This might take some time to fix, if we can cross the church/state barrier at all. In any event, Clinton has been strong ally of the LGBT community for a long time on a wide variety of issues.

[defendandprotect]

64. For me, the only positive thing about Hillary is that she is female . . ..

No -- I don't think she's be as crazy as the "messianic" Bush still striving to attack Iran . . .
but we are over the top in this Iraq situation -- shouldn't have happened. That reality has to be addressed.
Turning Congress' rights re war over to Bush was a betrayal of the Constitution.

Health Care -- as far as I know Hillary both times has kept insurance companies in-
Insurance companies are as big a problem in health care as Blackwater is in Iraq!

We have to get third parties out of medical care --
The easiest and fastest way to do this deal is to EXTEND Medicare to EVERYONE . . ..
It can be done simply and quickly -- very quickly.

I haven't heard Sen. Clinton talk much about the environment -- and we are in desperate shape there!!
She'd have to be talking about nationalizing our oil and taking it back from the few private families controlling our natural resources. And about Electric Cars/"WHo Killed The Electric Car?"

Meanwhile. . .. Hillary is corporate -- Hillary is DLC -- and those are the main points which lead me to think she is not what we need.

We don't need more DLC -- we need an end to DLC in the Democratic Party --- !!!
******************************************************************************

[Captain Hilts]

52. Take it from a pollster, DU is FAR more liberal than the Dems as a whole. nt

[wyldwolf]

62. really?

Writer Will Pitt (whose stripes change depending on what Democrat he’s working for), said it best.

I hear a lot of stuff… about anti-war left-wing types being the base, and Kerry better not piss us off, or Kerry better court us, or Kerry has already pissed us off, so screw you guys, I’m going home.

I hate to break it to you, but anti-war left-wing types are not the base of the Democratic party.

Union members are the base of the party, particularly in the northeast and Pacific northwest. Women are the base of the party, particularly in the northeast, far west, and portions of the midwest. African Americans are the base of the party all across the country.

Anti-war left-wing types are the single most unreliable voter group in America. Unless you are simon-pure, you are unworthy of support from that group. As no politician in 21st Century America (with a snowball’s chance of winning a national election) is simon-pure, they are not likely to bust their asses to get anti-war left-wing support.

Anti-war left-wing support, by the way, is buried by the aforementioned real base. Yes, anti-war left-wing support can swing an election, but because of the aforementioned unreliability problem - anti-war left-wing voters will bolt at the first sign of impurity, even in a tight race (See: 2000) - it is too often a hopeless exercise to try and court that group with any real vigor. The real base outnumbers anti-war left-wing types 10-1. That’s where the focus goes.

So all you anti-war left-wing folks should probably stop referring to yourselves as the base of the Democratic party. Don’t feel bad; I’m a anti-war left-wing type, too, and so I’m out of the fun as well. We were close to being the base, but blew up in 1968 because we couldn’t stand it anymore. The party looked at us and said, “OOOOkay…let’s look elsewhere.”

See, the base of the party are working class men and women of differing races and levels of “liberalness.” Many are regular church goers and many shop at Wal-mart.

Rank and file Democrats are not one issue voters. Our base - our most reliable voting block - are only aware of the “progressive” crutch of “corporate malfeasance” from news reports about Enron.

Who is the “base?” Democrats get most of the homosexual vote. Democrats get most of the black vote. Yet more blacks than whites DISAGREE with gay marriage (a Pew research survey found 43% of African Americans didn’t rank gay marriage an important issue with 60% opposing it.) African Americans also more likely to oppose abortion according to an ABC news poll.

Who is the base? Blue collar union workers - often very religious, often anti-abortion. Women, most concerned with health care, education, their children, jobs and the economy.

See, the base is a hodgepodge of beliefs that conflict with the “progressive” mindset displayed so often in the blogosphere. Parts of the base are religious. Parts are anti-abortion and pro-gun rights. Parts are anti-gay marriage. Yet the base consists in part of women and gays.

If the base was “anti-corporate progressives,” as often floated in the netroots, corporations would not be flourishing as they are in blue states. With the country pretty evenly split, I don’t believe only Republicans are doing business with corporations.

To state it bluntly - if anyone within the Democratic party IS NOT the base, it is the “progressive” types. They voted third party against Harry Truman in 1948, would not support John Kennedy in 1960, sat out the 1968 presidential election, led the party to ruin in 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, and aided in putting George W. Bush in office in 2000. In effect, “progressives” look at politics the way they do Indie music. In their mind, they have superior music tastes and everyone else is a sell-out.

But politics is not pop music.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Poorer, More African American , Older, And Infinitely Less Ideological

eom

[mmonk]

4. My problem is I'm uncertain where she stands on some things.

I'm waiting for the rinsd thread on her so I can find out.

[Windy]

12. Ah yes...catapulting the propaganda....

[mmonk]

14. In reference to?

[Windy]

20. the ad nauseum posts of Rinsd and crew....

the hillary diehards.

[mmonk]

24. I still want to see if they can inform me.

I find it curious that she is the candidate in the limelight with all the media play and yet I still have no idea what she would do.

[alteredstate]

46. hmmmmm

scary, huh?

[mmonk]

49. Yes, in a way, it is.

[MGKrebs]

60. There are many, many resources to get a sense of where

any candidate stands on issues. Here are a couple:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

Also, many issue oriented groups ask candidates for statements relative to their issue and sometimes make endorsements, such as NARAL:
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/

As you mention, Clinton has been getting very much media attention, and I think she has been quite clear on where she stands on many issues. DU can be a good resource for issue positions if you can figure out how to filter the BS. I even posted some stuff earlier in this thread. It has been my experience that when someone is repeatedly told something and they still don't understand it, they may not really want to hear what is being said.
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research

[ChiciB1]

57. Funny How We Know Their Names By Heart... I Know I Do & It Really

makes me wonder what's going on with them. They say they aren't paid and I generally accept people's word, but THEY constantly and I mean constantly do a "hard push" when it comes to her.

I just don't get it myself, so as I said... it makes me wonder!!!

[Trajan]

5. Yes ....

And I understand Hitler has himself turned in his grave, and offered a 'thumbs up' to Hellary 'Clintoon '.... (Clinton haters LOVE that 'Clintoon' Nom De Guerre)

I understand she also has the support of Pol Pot, Jack The Ripper, Wayne Gacy and Snidely Whiplash ..... (Nyut uh uh ! )

Sound like Sour-Grapes-Before-The-Fact .... I am no Hillary Supporter, but I will support the Democratic Party candidate .....

Sounds like you won't be a Democratic Party supporter if that happens .... So I definitely look forward to the unifying commentaries you will be sharing then .....

[senseandsensibility]

9. I absolutely will support her if she is the nominee

I neither stated nor implied any such thing in my OP or in any other thread on DU. In other words, you are putting words in my mouth. The rest of your post is nonsensical hyperbole, no doubt intended to be sarcastic, but having no relation to what I actually wrote.

[Trajan]

17. You are estabishing that you dislike the likely nominee ....

and that you will support her at a later date ....

Ah yes ... I see ..... Philosophical consistency which does not resemble hypocrisy in the least .....

Yes .... nonsensical hyperbole, associated with your fallacious assertions that the GOP and the corporate owners of media are aligned with those HERE who would express support for Hillary .....

Will you also be a stooge of the GOP, like we are today, when you voice support for the Democratic party nominee come that day ("I absolutely will support her if she is the nominee") ? ..... Or are WE the only lackey, sheep-like stooges who support the same candidate that the GOP and media support, as you so elegantly stated in your original post ?

You will condemn those NOW who will do exactly as you do THEN ? .....

Sorry: The hyperbole had a valid purpose ..... they revealed that associations between the GOP, the media, and those who would vote for Hillary in DU are fallacious, intentional, abusive ad hominems ....

There was sense in there, but you chose to ignore it .... fine ... whatever ....

As I said: I await your unifying but hypocritical statements come that day ....

[senseandsensibility]

19. So, according to you, no criticism of the likely

nominee even before he or she wins? I do apologize for calling your prose hyperbole. It has now graduated to absurd. I will not be following your "rule", I'm afraid.

[Trajan]

27. NOT what I am saying

1) STOP trying to insult your fellow Democrats by insisting they are sheep of the opposition : This is a classic ad hominem .... You want to debate policy ? .. great ! ..... do that, but mere smears against your fellow DUers is nothing but useless insult .....

2) The purpose of DU is to provide a forum for like minded members of a political party, the Democratic Party specifically .... It is so stated by the owners and administrators of this website: To use valid criticism of a nominee in the primary process is fully expected: to simply go about casting insults at those who support someone you don't like is NOT valid criticism of the policies or philosophy of a candidate .....

3) Given the vitriolic hatred expressed by some against various candidates in the heat of the 'battle', it is difficult to imagine they will be at OUR side, supporting someone whom they have SLAMMED and SLURRED for over a year running ... In short: We would not expect those who attack so viciously now to turn against their own words and support someone whom they hate ..... Why should we ? .... Why would you be expected to support Hillary then ? ..... Where is your OWN personal integrity ? ... I assume you possess integrity, and therefore will not turn against your own fully expressed feelings regarding this issue .....

I am NOT a Hillary supporter ..... I am NOT a supporter of ANY specific candidate, But Iam sure I express the disappointment of MANY DUers who watch as their fellow Democrats pull out their metaphorical hatchets to chop the likely candidate to pieces ..... It's ugly ... It's mean ..... These ad hominem attacks show this .....

Yeah you Hillary supporters: You are JUST LIKE THE GOP ! .....

Bullshit ...... NOT true ......

[senseandsensibility]

29. Okay, I get it.

You're not serious. That's the only thing that oould possibly explain your insistence on putting words in my mouth. I never said or implied that Clinton supporters are just like the GOP. I said she has the support of the GOP. Please read my OP and respond to what I have actually written. If you are unable to, I'll just let it go. I'm done with this silliness.

[Demeter]

6. I Expect That Little Problem Will Take Care of Itself

The support is a mile wide and an inch deep.

[Mojambo]

8. Why is "HIllary" sexist?

I don't really get it. What am I missing?

This is like one of those personalized license plates that I sit there and read over and over trying to figure out.

[senseandsensibility]

11. I have never heard of a male politicain being referred to by

only his first name.

[Mojambo]

13. Oh okay. I get it.

The way you capitalized the I after the H had me trying to figure it out.

[senseandsensibility]

16. Well, I fixed that

Thanks for the heads up. My typing skills are really deteriorating.:blush:

[TreasonousBastard]

28. "Ike" was sexist?

[senseandsensibility]

30. Before my time, but I don't believe that Eisenhower

was referred to costantly as Ike on news programs during serious news coverage.

[TreasonousBastard]

33. Weren't all that many news programs back then, but...

there were plenty of newpapers and magazines, and he was Ike from wartime to his death in general conversation and in headlines.

No, he'd never be introduced like that in formal circumstances, just like LBJ or JFK wouldn't, but all Presidents are asked what they would like to be called, and Ike asked to be called Ike. If it was good enough for "Ike" to bust Hitler's ass, it was good enough for "Ike" to be President.

It seems Hillary likes being called Hillary, or at least is going with the flow. Should she be elected, the headlines will say Hillary, but she will be addressed as President Clinton. Just the way Ike had it, and not at all sexist.

[MGKrebs]

63. ...

[robcon]

61. He was never referred to as Dwight

in headlines, but by a shortening of his last name.

[silverojo]

38. I guess you've never heard of Dubya, then

Within the Bushes' own family, this George Bush is called Dubya to differentiate him from his father, the former President.

He's commonly referred to as Dubya by his colleagues and supporters. Yes, even in Freeperville.

Whenever you have two people with the same surname, first names are going to come into use. Especially when the 2 people in question are both Presidents (or in Hillary's case, a potential President).

If you look at any news story, she's always referred to as "Clinton". It's no worse for us to say "Hillary" than it is for Republicans to say "Dubya".

What's ridiculous is dwelling on irrelevant crap like this, instead of talking about where HILLARY stands on the issues.

[Captain Hilts]

54. Right, like 'W', 'Hillary' is meant to differentiate. nt

[Captain Hilts]

53. It's a hangover from being "First Lady." Since "Eleanor" FL's have been referred to by first names-

because it's clear which person you're referring to.

So, in THIS case, it's not sexist. In most others it is.

[emilyg]

34. It's not. She actually prefers it.

[redqueen]

59. It's not. n/t

[Windy]

10. Agreed! n/t

[Robson]

15. Wall St now favors Clinton

When the moneyed interests on Wall St now favor Hillary that's good enough for me. She's not going to be working in the interests of the people as a populist. Big business has seen the writing on the wall with the GOP and know that they won't win in 2008, so they are busy buying the Democrats. Business has had 28 good years under Reagan, GHWB, Bill Clinton and GWB and it's time for an anti-business President (D or R) to reverse some of the crap that they've done to the American middle class.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/02/the_skinny/main3317840.shtml

[defendandprotect]

65. Another sign that Sen. Clinton is not what America needs to recover from . . .

this corporate-fascist threat to our liberties ---

It's time to end corporate rule and restrengthen government so that the people's government can stand up to corporations and their lawyers -- power has been moving in the wrong direction there.

Bill Clinton also opened our nation up to these trade agreements which are doing us such harm.
Will Sen. Clinton reverse them--????
Is Sen. Clinton speaking out against them -- ???

We need to nationalize our natural resources an take back control of them from the few private families profiting from them --

It is urgent that we stop the burning of fossil fuels -- all fossil fuels

[2rth2pwr]

18. It's not sexist to refer to her as Hillary

she has chosen her campaign literature to match the way she is known. She is famous, think of other people that are refered to only by one name, Ghandi, Cher, Madonna, Elvis, etc..

[senseandsensibility]

21. You have a point

And I don't criticize others for referring to her as such, at least I didn't intend to. Sorry if it came out that way. I, personally, find it sexist so I don't call her that.

[silverojo]

39. I think we've found the winner

Thanks for the most sensible post on this thread. :)

[LittleClarkie]

22. Well, for one, I have this bumpersticker on my car

.

[Redneck Socialist]

23. Posting snarky replies at DU of course...

What?



:evilgrin:

[senseandsensibility]

25. LOL

Nothing; sounds like a plan to me.:)

[illinoisprogressive]

26. I am working for my candidate. I volunteer and I donate. I do what I can.

[zulchzulu]

31. I am out in the streets doing grassroots work for Obama

That's what I'm going "to do about it"... with over 2,000 people signed up and more on the way, I am doing what I can. And despite what you might hear from some, there is a LOT of support for Obama.

Also, like you, I refer to Hillary Clinton by her last name only. I can't stand it when people use "Hillary"... why none of the other candidates' first names?

[daninthemoon]

32. Yeah, but we already had a "Clinton". I agree, it can sound dismissive

or disrespectful, but it's not unprecedented. Until he fell so far from favor even with the MSM, I think bushler was refered to as "W" or "George W" quite a bit. I still see the damn bumper sticker from time to time.

[Hieronymus]

35. I don't like her. Meanwhile I read posts from people slamming my

favorite, Edwards, constantly. Deal with it.

[silverojo]

36. One point I'd like to make

What's wrong with calling her "Hillary"? That's her name. It's used to avoid confusion with Bill, who also shares the surname Clinton. Being that both of them are in the news, it helps to differentiate the two, to make it easier to see at first glance whether the subject is the Presidential candidate or the former President.

If using her name bothers you that much, HRC is always an option. But for crying out loud, people are crying sexism for really stupid stuff lately. Sexism would be, for example, saying she's not fit to lead because women aren't good leaders, or because she's going through "the change" and can't think straight, or whatever.

Calling someone by their first name is NOT sexist. Is it sexist to call a certain lardass pill-popping talk-radio hatemonger "Rush", as so often happens here? It's hardly an insult. Now, calling him Rush Limpballs, Flush Limbaugh, etc. is insulting (hee-hee). But using a first name isn't insulting or sexist in the least.

[calteacherguy]

40. The base is flexing it's muscle...that's why she's doing so well. nt

[gorekerrydreamticket]

43. Self delete

[alteredstate]

45. Great post

If you don't support Hillary Clinton, get out there and work for your candidate!!!

[L0oniX]

55. Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel