Just so you know, you are like so pushing me towards Hillary Clinton.

[LoZoccolo]

I like both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Policy-wise they seem about the same to me, but Obama seems to be best at positive campaigning and giving people a vision they'd really like to stand behind, while Clinton's assertiveness and ability to keep landing on her feet despite all the attacks is really impressive.

But I will say one thing: the attacks on Clinton are getting more and more desperate, and I don't want our candidate hamstrung with a disingenuous charge the way the Deaniacs (of which I was one) did to Kerry with the "flip-flop" charges. If people are going to force me into investing more and more time defending her against spurious and mendacious junk, she will only be more and more attractive to me as a candidate because I will learn more and more about her. You can put your focus on your own candidate, or you can put the spotlight on Hillary Clinton; it is your choice!

[jmp]

1. Again ... Is anyone supposed to care?

What is it with the "look at me!" threads?

[LoZoccolo]

2. They are like a good number of the other threads.

I'm assuming that people post things on here to change peoples' minds; well I'm just letting you know what's going on in mine so people know how what they do affects what I think.

[superkia]

92. So you will support her because she is being attacked?

Did she say this in 2002 before voting yes and if so why would you want someone that voted this way to control our children's future? Dennis Kucinich said that there was no evidence to go to war but Clinton ignored the evidence and spewed propaganda about Iraq, Saddam and Al Queda just like Bush did and led us into war where thousands of innocent people have died. What exactly makes her fit to run our country? Why did she want to go to war? What was her agenda? It certainly wasn't looking at the facts and making a sound choice for the people. The people certainly didn't benefit from this war but allot of wealthy folks did.

Is this the person you think should lead our country just because people attack her? She deserves to be attacked, she took part in the killing of thousands of innocent people. To me that is unacceptable and unforgivable, she should not be in control of that dangerous weapon ever again. Read this and you would think that it was Bush saying it in 2002. Clinton wants to point a finger and call this Bush's war but sorry to say, the blood is on her hands too!

Clinton in 2002, sounding like Bushco and pushing for an illegal war as she voted YES. Please wake up, our children's future is at stake and some of us care about the thousands of innocent lives that could be lost once again. Making a huge decision because someone attacks someone is not sound decision making.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President(That would be Evil Bush), or any future President, TO BE IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE POSITION TO LEAD OUR COUNTRY in the United Nations OR IN WAR. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.

[iconocrastic]

96. "Results oriented thinking" - The logic doesn't have to make sense, it just has to advance the cause

It's all about power.

[MadHound]

3. What I find amusing is that before LZ took his little sabatical

He was posting pro Hillary stuff, and jumping to her defense so much that it was obvious that Hillary was "his girl". Now he comes out with this breathless announcement like it's supposed to mean something, or effect some sort of change.

[LoZoccolo]

5. Let's see it.

Go ahead and post some links; I won't hit the button on you. It should be easy enough since you have a star and can do advanced search.

Author: LoZoccolo
Keyword: Hillary

While you're at it, look for those pro-Lieberman posts people keep talking about too. The ones before the primary that wouldn't have gotten deleted.

I'm sorry if my posts confuse some people into thinking weird things; the best advice I can give is maybe you should put me on ignore and see if later you can make sense of them.

[MadHound]

17. Nah LZ, I'm not going to put you on ignore. First, you're I think that you're too amusing

Second, unlike some people, I believe in hearing all viewpoints, including yours.

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3588631>
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3078454#3078482>
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3002132>
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3110955#3111758>

These are just a sampling, just to refresh your memory. Enjoy:hi:

[LoZoccolo]

26. Sure, I stand by those.

#1 was posted because, as I say in this post, I don't want any candidate hamstrung with a disingenuous attack. Do you?

#2 was posted because people were threatening not to vote for her in the general. I have an established reputation as being against third-party votes. I mention specifically that you do not have to vote for her in the primary.

#3 is the same; a third-party threat.

#4 was written to show that the right wing has an interest in promoting a splinterist candidate, straight from their mouths.

None of these express a preference for Hillary above other candidates, while pledging support for her should she be the Democratic candidate in the general election. Like I was saying, it takes a certain mind to understand that; the ones that can't should really just avoid being confused and stay away from what I post here.

[MadHound]

29. Yeah, yeah, but the thing is, you are constantly doing this in defense of Hillary

And none of the other candidates. Time and time again you come rushing to her defense over anything. Hence, I stand by my original comment upthread.

[LoZoccolo]

34. Uh...

Can you guess why that might be? You are not allowed to guess that I'm a closet Hillary supporter. It is something other than that. I'll give you five guesses, but the first one is used up by the closet Hillary supporter allegation, so you have four left.

[MadHound]

40. Sorry LZ, I don't play guessing games

I go by what I see and evidence presented to me.

[LoZoccolo]

41. Sure, but then your mistaken impression is your problem. n/t

[CreekDog]

30. Okay, I read all the old LoZ posts and you are wrong

The only "pro" Hillary post is referring to voting for her in the general if she gets nominated --that's way different than advocating for someone in the primary.

You know, the fact that you post this as proof that someone is pushing for Hillary rather than simply defending her against unfair attacks really undermines your credibility which makes your arguments more suspect. So while I think you shouldn't have offered this as evidence, it did help shed some light on your unfairness when it comes to argument.

And I've defended Edwards, Gore, Hillary, Obama, Kerry, Clark, etc. all on this board from unfair accusations and it never meant that I was voting for any of them in the primary and anybody who says it does, well then based on who I defended, who was I supporting? Hmmmmmmmm?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

38. You can disagree and still be polite. n/t

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

50. If you don't have the facts, pound on the table.

Something like that.

[CreekDog]

51. I don't care if Madhound is polite to me, he should just stop being dishonest

about another poster.

[CreekDog]

49. I'm jumping on you because you are being dishonest

You started this nonsense.

And I explained very thoroughly that your reasoning that defending someone makes them a supporter was bogus.

But what bothered me most was your mendacity in saying that the links you posted show a defense so vigorous that anyone would conclude LoZ was a Hillary supporter. But when i read them, they actually weren't much of a defense at all, and the strongest I could find was saying if she's the nominee to vote for her.

That just made me mad.

Play fair Mister.

[oasis]

43. CreekDog, your correction of the poster is commendable and spot on.

Methinks he doth protest too much.;-)

[LoZoccolo]

45. Score one for oasis. n/t

[Forkboy]

87. Score one for people who agree with me!!!

[1932]

97. It would be significant if he said, "you're driving me to Nader."

Or, perhaps, I should do an OP,

"You should know, LZ, that all your posts are driving me to Nader."

[emilyg]

47. I care.

[Clintonista2]

60. I do aswell. nt.

[truebrit71]

82. I don't know....I think I'll go and start one of my own!

:evilgrin:

[TwilightZone]

4. Reminds me of the '04 primaries - it was sometimes difficult to separate the candidates

from their supporters. I had to keep reminding myself that what a candidate's supporters said shouldn't reflect on the candidate.

Never mind that that's almost impossible. :)

[LoZoccolo]

9. The problem with the Deaniacs, and I watched with dismay from the inside...

...was that they were so enamored with their own power as members of the campaign (and Dean himself was partially to blame by attracting people with the slogan "you have the power"), that they were co-opting it to mean whatever they wanted, and spreading the messages they wanted with whatever means they wanted. There was this idea that we would write personalized campaign letters to voters in Iowa, and some of the stuff people were talking about that they put in there was making me shudder.

I brought this up later to someone, way after the election, as a pitfall of the Dean style of campaigning and they, as a strawman, sarcastically said something to the effect of "oh yes, everything has to be completely controlled". I'm like YES OF COURSE! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND IT IS NOT YOUR CAMPAIGN; YOU ARE GETTING BEHIND SOMEONE ELSE'S MESSAGE AND THEY GET TO CONTROL IT.

[TwilightZone]

12. Interesting

Dean was largely considered the "internet" candidate, of course, and many people seemed to take personal credit for his ascendancy in the polls, thanks to their involvement in grass roots efforts. Maybe as part of that, they felt that they should be involved in campaign decision-making.

[CreekDog]

52. As an early Dean supporter who went over to Clark

I can say that Dean was less of a liability to himself than his supporters which were all over DU at that time.

One characteristic of many of his supporters back then was name-calling and condescension towards people who said nice things about other candidates, that criticized Dean and a lot of the "inevitability" that we were all supposed to swallow which was not a sin then, but to the same people is a sin when they hear it from Hillary supporters (but actually I only hear inevitable from Hillary detractors --but I digress).

Probably the worst I ever got here regarding Dean in 2003 was when I pointed out that in a Russert interview, Dean was very cautious and did not rule out war with Iraq and in fact, had a position not very distinguishable from the rest of the pack (save Lieberman, or better, forget him).

The point I was making time and time again and got hell for was that Dean was actually a very moderate, very sensible Democratic governor who was taking centrist positions but using opposition rhetoric. In retrospect, I think he would have been a better nominee, however, his campaign volunteers of true believers seemed to piss off Iowa caucausers and New Hampshire voters who don't like being told what's best for them and that was the end of that.

And it was a shame, but I blame Dean less than his supporters actually because he was a damn good guy and good candidate.

[Dawgs]

6. Are you going to post the same thing every day?

And, quit trying to pretend that you're not already a Hillary supporter.

[LoZoccolo]

7. Just because I'm not a mendacious jerk toward a decent Democrat doesn't make me a Hillary supporter.

n/t.

[JTFrog]

8. We all make mistakes.

If you're into making big ones, then you're on the right track.

I'll pass on more war and corporate brotherhood. With your reasoning you'd be in love with Lieberman if he were running in '08.

Why not give a valid reason for your support since you've learned more and more about her? Or perhaps you could explain how Profit trumping health care, Profit trumping domestic jobs, Power trumping peace is an appealing platform to you.

[LoZoccolo]

10. Well, ratings of her voting record for one.

Which I wouldn't have known about if she wasn't fending off lame accusations of being "corporate".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3602202&mesg_id=3602202

[CreekDog]

53. Cut the Marxist-oriented name calling

And debate substance.

I am much more liberal than Hillary is on economics, but none of the broadsides about her being a corporate whatever, especially when not accompanied by a lick of evidence are swaying me towards actually listening to those criticisms.

You know who you sound like? Ralph Nader, he talks like that, and I should mention that he owns a hell of a lot of stock too, but the rules here that make one a corporate whatever only apply to Hillary.

Or maybe it's just front runneritis, but there is a lot of it here.

[JTFrog]

61. I didn't say Hillary was the only

corporate "whatever". But the thread was about Hillary. I'd throw any of the top candidates into the same corporate brotherhood.

Her votes on Iraq and Iran coupled with the massive handout to the insurance companies laid out in her mandatory health insurance plan and her stance on outsourcing are very much a part of what form my opinion of her. Of course none of those things would be considered "corporate whatever". :eyes:

[Froward69]

11. I agree

If you really look at it She flip flops all by herself... it drives me nuts. The repukes are taking notes. mark my words, I find it pointless to defend a candidate who doesn't stand firm on ONE position.

[CreekDog]

33. They will call all the candidates flip floppers, even Kucinich

for his changeabout on abortion.

If you want the Republicans to select your candidate for you, just state that right here and now and your opinion will be noted.

I want to support whoever wants what I want and can get elected to accomplish that. They will almost all be attacked using the same game plan, so I'm not going to let the oppo game plan decide who I like --I'm just not.

And I don't think Dems on this board should be throwing around Republican talking points to undermine Democratic candidates for the nomination.

[Froward69]

48. Agreed

Knowing ones enemy is always a smart thing.

[creeksneakers2]

83. Agreed about the GOP talking points

The other day there was BS story about Hillary calling an audience member a "plant." The same yarn was here and on Limbaugh.

[Froward69]

93. We all know republican talking points are

designed to be distractions, and/or attacks. usually they are half truths mixed with lies. I feel, instead of dismissing them outright we should analyze them, kick them around a bit. to ultimately deflate them appropriately. Exposing the lies, with analyzing the criticism. Dismissing them outright simply gives the lies some traction.

[BootinUp]

13. Its already happened

to me. ;)

I went through a very similar process.

[IA_Seth]

32. I'm getting there as well...

To this point I've remained undecided, but as the petty BS gets posted more and more I find myself leaning in that direction.

Who knows where I'll end up, but the negative shit surely isn't getting the desired effect with me.

[Cameron27]

59. Same here,

all the bashing won't necessarily make me support her, but the longer I defend her, the more positive I've become about her.

[itsrobert]

14. Flamebait posting by you already makes it clear you are solidly in the Clinton Camp

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3586947

But, nice try anyways.

[LoZoccolo]

16. That connection is an invention of your own mind.

The point of that post was that:

- DU opinion has no bearing on the wider Democratic Party.
- If you want DU opinion to have bearing on the wider Democratic Party you are going to have to work for it.

If anything, I celebrated both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton:

If you want to go right now and try to stuff the box so that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama get bigger numbers to line up with the rest of the real-life Democrats in America, go ahead, lol!

I was actually solely in the Obama camp until Clinton started showing an impressive ability to fight.

[itsrobert]

18. LoZoccolo "Maybe the stuff I wrote at the bottom is"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3586947#3586951

hmmmmm, you even admitted to flamebaiting. You are not looking too credible here.

[LoZoccolo]

20. Then don't believe me. n/t

[JNelson6563]

101. Yeah, I caught that. Astounding.

I always get a kick out of the "Who you gonna believe?? Me or your lyin' eyes??" routine.

Julie

[Armstead]

15. If that's all it takes...

If the personalities of some of the people who oppose Hillary is all that is required to make you support here, then go for it.

All that really matters is whether you feel comfortable with a candidate, their positions and their associatiates.If you feel comfortable with her, fine.

Personally, I don't think we need more of the gridlock status quo we've had for 20 years, and we should not be abandoning liberalism and further empowering the corporate elite by nominating Hillary and letting the DLC complete their takeover.

But if the fact that I or some others who feel similarly may get too strident in our frustration, then go ahead and support her.

[elaineb]

19. You do realize, don't you, that if everybody's mind works like yours...

that you are pushing a HELL of a lot of people into voting for Nader, should he run again?

:P

[ShortnFiery]

23. ...

"you are pushing a HELL of a lot of people into voting for Nader, should he run again?"

IMO, Concise and Spot ON! Bravo! :applause: :thumbsup:

[LoZoccolo]

28. OK, I admit that this one was good.

But on further thought, the difference is this: when people are spurred to look for the truth about Hillary, she looks better. For Nader, it gets worse.

[elaineb]

42. Nah, the difference is only in your mind

For some who look further than your bizarre rantings about Nader, they find he's not as reprehensible as you make him out to be. For some, looking further into Hillary Clinton's political statements and record, she might not be as desirable a candidate as they thought she was, based on cursory knowledge. Or they might find her MORE to their liking. The point is, attacks on a candidate draws more focus on them, whether it turns out to be positive or negative for them.

Your initial point is well-taken though. There ARE people who are going to give someone a second look if the attacks on them are vicious enough, and some of them might find them much more to their liking than they would have been without the focus that the attacks drew in the first place.

Which means my point about your rantings on Nader ought to be well-taken by you too! ;)

[LoZoccolo]

44. That hasn't been bourne out by my own experience though.

For instance, I knew that Nader was using the Republicans to violently attack Americans, but I did not know that thirty years ago he was openly speaking of civil war. That was new to me, and I've been attacking Nader for four years. Just the fact that I've been going that long shows that I haven't changed my mind due to what I've found.

[applegrove]

21. Wise advice. But I do think it is great Clinton isn't getting a pass from

her democratic competators. Will make her stronger and prepare her for the GOP slime to come.

[zulchzulu]

22. Think for yourself

Measure your ideas on issues you care about and see where candidates measure up. Look at both what they are saying now with what their voting record is.

Supporting a candidate based on how much others attack him or her and thus supporting them more seems a bit spurious to me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. So you'd vote for Clinton out of spite?

I guess there's got to be at least one reason to vote for her.

[LoZoccolo]

27. No, you don't get it, read it again but don't come back if you still don't. n/t

[saracat]

35. OMG! That is hilarious! That is precious!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

"So you'd vote for Clinton out of spite?
Posted by Bornaginhooligan
I guess there's got to be at least one reason to vote for her."

[LoZoccolo]

98. It doesn't really have anything to do with spite.

It's more a matter of Hillary gaining more of my time to consider candidates due to the focus being on her. I predict that by primary time, Hillary will be the candidate most familiar to me (despite the fact that Obama is one of my senators).

[Forkboy]

25. I'm sure that took a hard shove.

Or not.

[saracat]

37. I vote NOT.

[rucky]

31. We know what you stand against.

What do you stand for?

[LWolf]

46. I never expected you to step outside of the clobama box,

so I don't really think I'm "pushing" you anywhere, lol.

[ProudDad]

54. No "flip-flop"

Hillary has been CONSISTENTLY pro-corporate all her life.

That's WHO SHE IS -- a pro-corporate stooge...


"Why Hillary? First, the potent Clinton political apparatus enables her to raise prodigious sums. Second, she has proven in places like upstate New York that she can attract independent support. Third, she is a real charmer, having worked with Republican senators on legislation of joint interest -- people who initially viewed her as the arch-fiend.

"She also has an uncanny ability to charm reporters. New York magazine recently ran an adoring cover piece illustrated by Hillary taking the presidential oath as Bill lovingly looked on. The writer confessed to initial skepticism, but after following her around for a few weeks was totally won over. Last week, the left-wing Nation magazine (The Nation!) ran a story almost as worshipful.

"This does not mean, however, that Hillary is a lefty. On the contrary, she is consciously positioned in the political center, deftly fine-tuning her rhetoric on abortion, casting some pro-business votes, and sounding tough on defense. Like Bill."

And the "political center" in 2007 is about where Barry Goldwater was in 1964 - alas...

[alfredo]

55. That's what happened with me. Criticize, but be truthful. Hillary

has had to deal with false propaganda all the time. What it has done has made her a more sympathetic character. When people see her in person, they see her, not the monster the right wing has tried to sell to them. That discredits her critics.

[Arugula Latte]

56. You're the guy who loved Joe Lieberman ...

So, forgive me for failing to put much stock in your opinion.

[LoZoccolo]

58. When was this?

Find the threads. Shouldn't be hard.

Author: LoZoccolo
Keywords: Lieberman
Dates: 1/1/2006 - 9/1/2006

Let's see them.

[Arugula Latte]

94. Here ya go ... And this is just a small sample of where you prop up that asshole at every turn:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
(I love how you agreed that Lieberman would win the debate)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
This is hilarious. You're all for PARTY LOYALTY. Your boy Joe sure didn't have any, did he?

[JVS]

57. Is this like the way you push people to Nader/greens?

[ThomCat]

62. Of all the opinions here at DU I respect and put stock in,

you're nowhere on the list. I truly couldn't give a damn who you support or why. :shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

66. That is why your mama is on crack rock. n/t

[ThomCat]

68. My moma would never buy the shit you sell.

:rofl:

[LoZoccolo]

69. I couldn't find your mama. She said "meet me on the corner of Walk and Don't Walk." n/t

[flvegan]

63. Score one for Oasis!

Er, I mean Hillary.

If you want attacks to convince you for whom to vote for, head over to FR or ** or ** and enjoy the carnage. Do let us know who the Freeps convince you to vote for.

[Ethelk2044]

64. Bull shit post. The Hillary supporters have been hitting Obama everyday and you are posting this

Bull shit. Either you are drinking or you are already a Hillary Supporter and want to Post Bull Shit. Get a grip and be a man or woman about who you are supporting. I am sick of people stating people are nasty to Hillary when the nastiest comments on this board have been from Hillary supporters.

From looking at some of your posts, you are already a Hillary Supporter.

[maximusveritas]

77. Exactly. And they never give any evidence of unfair attacks on Hillary

They just whine about it.
Sure, Hillary gets attacked more than anyone else here and there are occasional posts that cross the line, but I also see the same kind of thing from Hillary supporters directed at other candidates, if not more so.

[creeksneakers2]

84. Another example

The other night a yarn resurfaced about Hillary sponsoring legislation to protect pharmacists who refuse to provide birth control pills. That scenario was based on a far fetched scenario of an future unlikely Supreme Court ruling. The post make it look like the pharmacist situation was Hillary's prime intent. Others joined in the thread asking for the post to be a new OP. None of the Hillary bashers took two seconds for skepticism about a yarn that paints Hillary as the exact opposite of what she's always been, pro-choice.

[Larkspur]

65. Your reseaoning for supporting Hillary is shallow

And "None of the Above" is my candidate in '08

[LoZoccolo]

67. Did you read?

Did you read?

[Larkspur]

78. Yes I did

[LoZoccolo]

80. Please do not read any more of my posts.

Thank you.

[Larkspur]

86. Then stop posting on DU

[Forkboy]

88. Stupidest request ever.

You do realize this is a message board, do you not? :eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

89. It's not a request.

It's advice.

[Forkboy]

91. Ok...stupidest advice ever.

:shrug:

[incapsulated]

70. Everyone saying this is stupid reasoning is *wrong*

I voted for Bill Clinton and was overjoyed a democrat won that race.

But the more the repukes attacked and hounded him, I became a foaming at the mouth defender of Bill like I was his personal fucking bodyguard.

The more you make outrageous and hate-filled attacks on someone, pretty soon not only do people stop paying attention to anything you have to say, they start to think YOU are the prick. And defend the person under attack. Which leads to sympathy.

Acting like a pack of wolves out to destroy Hillary, who IS a democrat, will not help your side and will only make people protective and defensive of her.

My god, I used to bash Hillary mercilessly. Now all I do is ridicule people who attack her for simply existing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. I'm Looking At A Post Card I Got Thanking Me For Contributing To The Edwards Campaign

I will describe it in detail if someone doubts my veracity... I started this campaign as liking Obama, Edwards, and Clinton in that order... I didn't dislike Ms. Clinton but she struck me as formulaic ... However the attacks against her are so mean spirited it's as if they were attacking my own mom and I respond accordingly...

I wouldn't be surprised if that dynamic is repeated elsewhere...

Oh, it has nothing to do with her gender...If she was a male it would be as if my dad, may he rest in peace, was attackked...

Make out of it what you will...

[Lerkfish]

72. and the constant whining about perceived "attacks" on Clinton is driving everyone else

the other direction.

:shrug:

but I AM amused by the idea that you had to be pushed towards her.

:crazy:

[LoZoccolo]

73. I still remember you trying to hypnotize me off of DU.

lol

[Lerkfish]

81. look into my eyes....

what do you see?

eyes!

nyah nyah nyah.

(three stooges reference)

[sandnsea]

74. Like you so weren't there to begin with

:eyes:

You think we don't know your politics by now?

[LoZoccolo]

79. You are welcome to try, like all the others who went down in shame...

...to try to find where I prop up Hillary above Obama, or even put down Obama.

[ulysses]

75. right. you get any closer to her

and she'll need a LoZo Tote in which to carry you around.

[tkmorris]

76. How shocking

And here I had you pegged as a Kucinich supporter. Silly me.

[Forkboy]

90. I thought he was voting for his true love...Nader.

[creeksneakers2]

85. It happened to me too.

The more I defend Hillary, the more I identify with her. Also, the more I don't want to see the people who smear her win.

I probably wouldn't have started defending her if it wasn't for the enormous volume of attacks against her here. Its as if its no longer Democratic Underground. Its more like a bash Hillary site. The same group starts thread after thread and they all vote up each other's threads so that the greatest spots all go to Hillary bashing.

If feels like a takeover attempt that must be resisted.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

95. In other news: Ice is cold and water is wet

:eyes:

[Colobo]

99. You are not being pushed...

You have always been there...

[LoZoccolo]

100. You are welcome to try to substantiate that any.

I've thrown down the gauntlet like four times in this thread and only one person has even tried. They did such a crummy job that other people started defending me. So go ahead: find any exclusive support of Hillary, or any denigration of Obama at all. It shouldn't be too hard to do a search of the last three months for any posts of mine mentioning "Hillary" or "Obama".