On the Hillary obsession here at DU

[niceypoo]

The media in this country has been obsessed with her for a long, long time as has the republican party. The circular firing squad here at the DU and their freeper allies are becoming consumed by her. They know who they are. Of course there are many who's critique of her is rational and not obsessive and whom I largely agree with. Ironically, the hatred of Hillary here has turned into hatred of Bill Clinton also, by many. It is as if a lot of DUers are metamorphosing into republicans. Hatred is irrational. I personally find the whole mess disgusting, top to bottom. Critique is one thing, but many have gone way beyond that. It is degrading the overall tone of this community.

This obsession is of the type once unique to the republican party. It reminds me of the republicans in yahoo chat back in the late 90s with their endless, mindless ranting and their ever growing laundry lists of attacks. It must be a creepy feeling knowing that some of your allies here are lurking freepers; seriously. Some times, 1/4 of the new threads are about Hillary this, and Hillary that. It is becoming absurd. Of course anybody who stands on the sideline and points out the irrationality of the whole mess is attacked as some kind of Hillary sycophant, as I expect I will be for posting this.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Bingo

"It must be a creepy feeling knowing that some of your allies here are lurking freepers;"

[Cameron27]

2. I'll happily recommend.

[Forkboy]

3. Unwittingly you've illustrated half the problem.

There's five instances in two paragraphs where you compare those people to freepers and republicans.

Ironically, those very same people often say the biggest problem with Hillary is she's too much like the republicans.

It's a funny ole world.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. I Think That's Called A Paradox

DSB

[Forkboy]

7. I don't care how many it is.

:evilgrin:

[iconocrastic]

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

It's all about power.

[robinlynne]

88. Thank-you. I noticed that too.

[sufrommich]

4. K & R

Getting strange around here.

[kstewart33]

6. Yep, we are eating our own.

I'm tired of the hate-Hillary threads, too. I want a winning candidate, that's all. IMHO, they're all capable.

[Generator]

24. No

Many of us have real worries that she is not and will not be "one of our own". We fear that she will not stop the Iraq war, will indeed possibly decide that politically or by listening to the wrong advisers or just to look tough (it ain't a woman thing-most of the Democrats have been doing this for years) continue on the path to another war with Iran.

Those are real fears. Nothing you or four thousand words from someone like Nance Greggs says dismisses them. They are real.

We are tired of the far right turn this country has taken. We don't want it to continue down the right turn by "one of our own." In fact that is worse! We don't need another eight years of triangulation. THAT is why Mark Penn is so worrisome. Forget Blackwater if you can. He's the one that brought us down this road-if we just act more like Republicans we can win! Yes, and we have SO much to show for that philosophy don't we. It has gotten us NOTHING.

And we continue to ask-win WHAT exactly? If we have more wars, more privatization, more jobs lost, what have we won? Oh it's a win because there's a Democrat behind that?

[robinlynne]

90. You speak for me. well put.

[Armstead]

120. You nailed it

----We are tired of the far right turn this country has taken. We don't want it to continue down the right turn by "one of our own." In fact that is worse! We don't need another eight years of triangulation.


Exactly.

[George II]

123. If she becomes our candidate...

Will you support her? Would she be worse than any of the republican candidates? What is your alternative?

It is this precise divisive attitude, in the name of Ralph Nader, that put bush in the White House and essentially signed the death warrants of thousands of Americans and tens/hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

[peace frog]

125. Right on

and thank you.

[papau]

132. Everyone has a right to their reasons & fears, but to me they sound silly -I liked peace & prosperiy

I also know - from my political work in DC in 93 and 94, that Hillary is more liberal than both Bill and, indeed, most on DU. While compromise is what Obama is selling in his "changed atmosphere" concept, and while compromise is necessary if anything good is to get done (witness how we lost any ability to get federal audits of the 08 election via DUers that refused the Holt Bill because it was not pure enough), Hillary is less of a compromiser than Bill was - so the use of "triangulation" as a political swear word that applies to Hillary seems at variance with the facts as I know them.

[LWolf]

8. The only obsession with Hillary I see at DU

is the obsession her supporters have with trying to rationalize her to her critics.

Really, I'll bet that most of us who just flat out don't like her wouldn't give her the time of day on DU or in our thoughts if we didn't keep running into her name everywhere.

Responses come automatically when she's always in our face.

That's not obsession. It's kind of like taking a flyswatter to pests.

[msongs]

9. thanks for telling us the hillary slimers are actually supporters trying to rationalize :-) nt

[LWolf]

26. Reading comprehension is valuable. n/t

[BootinUp]

11. Unreal. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Calling Your Opponents "Pests" Who Need To Be Hit With A Flyswatter Is So Progressive

eom

[sufrommich]

12. "trying to rationalize her to her critics"

That's called debate. Should Clinton supporters stay out of anti Clinton threads?

[LWolf]

25. No, not at all.

Of course they should debate their opponents.

Can you acknowledge that strongly opposing HRC is no more an "obsession" than strongly supporting her, and that starting threads or making posts that express opposition to her candidacy is also debate?

[sufrommich]

30. I wholeheartedly acknowledge "expressing opposition"

should be encouraged. Where do the "cackle" threads and attempts to attach blame to her for right wing attack pieces without any evidence whatsoever fit in with that? How about this: Someone posts a thread to inform those interested that Clinton is on with Olberman and the very first post is" God, who did her hair?" Are posts like "expressing opposition?

[LWolf]

119. No.

Those are in the same vein as the "elf," "too short," etc. that is said quite regularly at DU about my favorite candidate.

Neither are appropriate. There is plenty of substance to disagree with, or to support, and that's where the discussions ought to focus.

[Cameron27]

13. Most supporters

spin and rationalize all the negatives about their own candidates. It drives me crazy, although on your other point, it seems to me that more than half the threads about Clinton are posted by those who oppose her.

[LWolf]

23. That could be true.

I only click on about 10% of threads with Clinton in the subject line, so I'm not seeing whole picture.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

36. Hillary probably has fewer "supporters" on DU than anybody

Half the people you see as supporters are actually agnostics who defend her out of basic decency. Some of us are genuinely offended by Right Wing Lies and are not flexible or amoral enough to do the Molotov-VonRibentropp (probably mispelled) pivot every time the wind shifts.

For example... did anyone on DU attack Sandy Berger when "Berger-gate" when it was going down. Yet dozens of people have piled on to Berger recently as the second coming of Klaus Fuchs.

Out of curiosity, how many of those folks had taken both sides of that issue over the years?

[LWolf]

45. I have no idea.

That's the problem with any one person, or any small group of people, claiming "obsession," or anything else.

I only click on a small fraction of DU posts on any given day. And then, usually only topics that actually interest me, unless something just pisses me off and I want to rebut or debunk.

I wouldn't know how many people have taken one side, another, or both, outside of the dozen or so threads I might read or post in.

I generally avoid HRC posts, because there's nothing constructive to be gained. You're not going to convince me that she's anything but bad news, and I'm not going to convince her supporters to drop her. Why fight about it?

It's only when I'm sick of seeing some stupid (imo, of course) talking point repeated like a mantra that I am tempted to click and offer some opposition.

[Bitwit1234]

10. You didn't post also that the absolute swift boating of Hillary

mostly by Obama supporters has turned those who did like Obama to wondering what kind of person he could be, if he attracts these type of republican attack people. It's not fair to Obama but it works both ways. They spew and every body else holds their nose.

[ellacott]

19. Obama bashers seem to get a free pass around here

It's not true to to say that the critics are mostly obama supporters. I've read a lot of the anti clinton threads and it's not a majority of Obama supporters who are posting. That's unfair and completely dismisses the legitimate areas of criticism. It's easy to call a person a hater when you don't want to listen to person's point. It's also easy to blame it all on Obama when you know he's her closest competitor. By placing the blame on Obama supporters you try to transfer that onto Obama himself.

There are 3 very troubling Clinton supporters on this board who tend to insult more than they discuss. I know this is not representative of Hillary and would never try and make that connection.

I honestly question the political acumen of many of the posters here. Sometimes this place is like high school and people are campaigning for the homecoming queen.

[OKNancy]

14. I've had a weird reaction: the more irrational hate

spewed the more I'm inclined to support her. The more people post that all those polls are
wrong and there is a conspiracy, the more I support her. The more people stretch every connection she has into a vast evil plot, the more I support her.

The thing is, two months ago I didn't really have a candidate. I just can't stand hand-wringing or irrational and illogical spew. It pisses me off.

I love pissing off the Hillary haters too.

President Clinton... get used to it. DU is not the Democratic party.

[sufrommich]

15. I agree Nancy.

There seems to be a lot more visceral hatred here for Clinton than the others running. No matter how many times it's proven that the top 3 candidates are not that different in terms of political ideology,she gets a pounding here out of proportion to her plank.I can't help but feel some just don't care for her personally or still have caustic reactions to ambitious women. I'll still be happy,at this point,with any Democratic president in '08.

[Lucinda]

17. She's moved into my second place slot , in part,

because there was so much distorting going on that I really started digging.
I like a lot of what I've been finding. And she handles attacks VERY well. Which I think is going to matter in the general.

[Joe Chi Minh]

128. That how you reacted to the rage against Lieberman too?

The fundamental premise of this thread is laughable anyway. In any honest election, Hillary would not represent the least threat to Edwards - or to Kucinich, for that matter; she would have no chance.

You don't endear yourself to the country, when your husband has been on such friendly terms with Bush, senior, and you demonstrate such an extraordinary complacency towards the agenda of the military-industrial complex, as fronted by Bush, junior.

[regnaD kciN]

18. FWIW, I used to be a HIllary supporter...

I used to love taunting Publicans who talked about "Bush 41 and 43" with a reply of "Clinton 42 and 44."

But that was before she became a Senator, and I got to see her track record. Now, I'd rather vote for Nader. :puke:

And the cheerleading by "Hill's Shills" here (mostly dedicated to the notion that the race is already over, and that everyone else had better jump on the bandwagon right now "or else") doesn't increase my willingness to reconsider my opposition. "You lost, get over it" is just as annoying coming from fellow Democrats as it is from Bush supporters (particularly when the race hasn't even started yet).

[creeksneakers2]

34. That's the kind of post I give nasty responses to

You write:

And the cheerleading by "Hill's Shills" here (mostly dedicated to the notion that the race is already over, and that everyone else had better jump on the bandwagon right now "or else") doesn't increase my willingness to reconsider my opposition. "You lost, get over it" is just as annoying coming from fellow Democrats as it is from Bush supporters (particularly when the race hasn't even started yet).

I've yet to see any Hillary supporters do anything like you describe. Your post is an unfounded attack on DUers who are tying to defend one of our candiates against unfair attacks. Your post makes me angry.

[Bumblebee]

38. "Hill's Shills" by itself is highly offensive. Obama does not have

"shills," and neither, god forbid, does Kucinich! Is it because "shill" rhymes with "shrill"? Scratch a surface, and there is sexism rearing its ugly head...

[silverojo]

114. It's not sexism, it's rhymism

"Shill" rhymes with the first syllable of "Hillary". I do wish the Hillary supporters would stick to issues, instead of screaming "sexism" every time somebody dares to critique Her Highness. :eyes:

[hfojvt]

63. just because you have yet to see it, does not mean it is not happening

I think there have been dozens of "Person X endorses Hillary"

and that seems to be her lead campaign platform from her website. Instead of issuing press releases talking about issues, she has five or six a day, it seems of, "another bigshot endorses Hillary".

To a degree that is undestandable. If any other candidate was getting endorsements, they'd be bragging about them too. But with all of these endorsements it is like the bigshots are deciding (just like the big donors) before the little people even get to vote.

[creeksneakers2]

99. Announcing endorsements

is a long way from telling people, "You lost. Get over it."

[hfojvt]

103. it's not that far

"And the cheerleading by "Hill's Shills" here (mostly dedicated to the notion that the race is already over, and that everyone else had better jump on the bandwagon right now "or else") doesn't increase my willingness to reconsider my opposition. "You lost, get over it" is just as annoying coming from fellow Democrats as it is from Bush supporters (particularly when the race hasn't even started yet)."

Yet another endorsement shows that 'everyone else is jumping on the bandwagon.' 'Look at the latest poll numbers.' 'Look at the fundraising totals.' 'Support the Dem nominee, even if it is Hillary. (or else)'

Endorsements by the UAW and General Clark. Those are pretty darn hugh, even if they say nothing about where Hillary stands on the issues.

[George II]

126. Precisely!

"Your post is an unfounded attack on DUers who are tying to defend one of our candiates against unfair attacks. Your post makes me angry."

That emotion is why I spend less time here reading threads, I'm getting tired and angry from reading anti-ANY Democrat.

[superkia]

78. (mostly dedicated to the notion that the race is already over, ...

and that everyone else had better jump on the bandwagon right now "or else")

This is the part I agree with you on, I don't feel she is even close to the top of who should lead our country and I would rather see some posts of substance on her. Maybe then we can all come together and support the best candidate but I don't see any substance, only bragging of polls and the fact the she is the next president. I feel this is so disrespectful to all Americans that have yet to vote, why not further the process and enlighten everyone on why you like her and why she should be the next president.

I like Kucinich because:

He spoke the truth in 2002 and tried to save lives instead of spread Bush's propaganda. (He stands alone here.)
He wants to take the profit out of our health care. (He stands alone here.)
He wants the patriot act repealed. (He stands alone here.)
He is speaking out about the privatization of Iraq's oil and against the hunt oil deal. (He stands alone here.)
He wants to cut the military budget to help with the deficit(military industrial complex influence on policy)(He stands alone here.)
He is speaking out about the governments attack on the constitution. How this isn't important to more people?

I could go on about why I support him, I would just love to see what it is everyone else's candidates are doing that makes them their choice. Maybe then I could see that I have a better choice out there instead of being told the race is over and I should give up.

Please enlighten me on your candidates and what they are doing to speak for the people, that is what our elected officials are supposed to do, represent us, right?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. We're Not Allowed To Call Out Individual Posters

You can peruse the front page and see for yourself..

One poster took an article , totally misrepresented it, and substituted Clinton's name for Bush to suggest she, and not Bush is a drag on her party...

Another poster said there was an article that said Hillary Clinton is behind the "Obama Is A Muslim" meme when there is no mention of Clinton at all in the article cited ...

[niceypoo]

21. I saw a thread last night that suggested Hillary planted the Edwards/Enquirer story

These are republican tactics and I suspect that at least some of these sort of threads are posted by lurking freeper types.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. That's What Rush Limbaugh Suggested On His Radio Show Firiday

eom

[Froward69]

27. I agree

Rational discussion is difficult to achieve here. I Still try. I am not a "Freeper" lurking, nor am I a Repube trying to be decisive. I am a Democrat! Albiet a conservative Dem. Dut Democrat none the less. Ive gotten accused of bieng a muckraker more than once. I simply think we here need to take those talking points from the rethugs. expose the lies, and rationally discuss the issues presented, for a rebuttal. Remember beyond Democrat we are American, and Looking out for whats best FOR America.

[2rth2pwr]

28. Hatred is a very powerful, yet ultimately self-defeating

emotion. Some attacks that get the most attention are motivated by hatred and degenerate into attacks about appearance, image, and name calling.

This isn't a description of the attacks on Hillary, but what passes for political commentary over the last few years. Some habits are hard to break.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. She's Fair Game

It is the attacks on her via innuendo that offend...

They are not only anti-Democratic, they are anti-American...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

35. Part of the problem may be that during non-election periods DU cultivates absolutism and fantasy

I have never liked deranged and/or false attacks on Bush because 1) they undermine essential tenets of objectivity and rationality, and 2) they let him off the hook. It's like propaganda about how Hitler only had one testicle, or that his mother was a Jewish servant girl... a guy kills millions and we're supposed to worry about how many testicles he has, or whether he's a Jew?

Objectivity and perspective do not enable evil, they reveal it. Objectivity and perspective allow us to see that Bush is a monster and Bill Clinton is not, even though both men killed human beings based on worthless intelligence about Iraqi WMD.

One of Bush's greatest crimes is promotion of binary thinking in an complex world... "with us or against us." But black-white thinking is often applauded here, to the point that every figure, no matter how loathsome, who criticizes the war is cast as a hero.

When you develop a culture that delights in ad homonym attack and celebrates subjectivity in attacking real monsters like Bush and Cheney it's no surprise that that becomes the accepted mode for dealing with anyone the mob subsequently decides is "bad."

Next thing you know, George McGovern is Senile, Wes Clark is bought and paid for, Lewis must have caught one too may police billy clubs to the head back in the day (I made that one up), etc..

And the attacks on people that are most repeated and most reveled in are the ones that are flat lies. As Kurt Vonnegut noted, all human groups are defined by the lies they believe in common.

There's a reason for this. Falsehoods are better at defining a group than truths because someone outside the group may believe the same truths, but is unlikely to believe the same lies.

[niceypoo]

39. Amazing

Simply amazing insight.

[Cameron27]

42. Right on the nose!

I wish I could recommend your post.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

61. You can always copy and paste it as a post of yours. No different than posting a blog entry you like

I am reluctant to make that reply a new post because people think I'm a real asshole.

[Sparkly]

79. So what?

If at least some people didn't think you were a real asshole, it'd probably be an indication that you weren't saying much.

[Cameron27]

86. I would love to post that for you Kurt,

but it's hit or miss getting online lately, especially over the weekend & I wouldn't be able to keep up with the replies. You should post it though. I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see someone nail a point without any pontificating or condescension. :thumbsup:

(be prepared to see your words distorted beyond recognition though, just ask poor Sparkly)

[Sparkly]

107. LOL

:hi:

[2rth2pwr]

52. I was attempting to say what you just

did. I feel so inadequate. "sniff"

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

62. You guys are so nice! I'm blushing.

[incapsulated]

54. Very well said and insightful

Thanks. :)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

65. Thanks. Sorry for bailing on you on the Gore thing.

I really like Gore and I feel sorry for his supporters because I agree with them in my heart, but I think they're not very critical thinkers about politics.

So I don't want to cause them any pain.

That said, it's pretty weird that in GD:Politics any discussion of an actual aspect of electoral politics (aas opposed to who's a nazi) sinks like a stone.

[incapsulated]

68. hehe

I was really just kidding. I'm happy to leave that alone, myself. :)

[BootinUp]

69. Someone pointed me to

your post here, I must say it was very well stated.

[creeksneakers2]

76. Great post!

Misreadings of reality push activism down the wrong roads.

[Sparkly]

77. Excellent post!!!

:applause:

[denem]

115. Wonderful n/t

[Adelante]

116. Oh my goodness, is that substance?

I barely recognize it, it's been so long :toast:

[sufrommich]

118. You really should turn this into a thread.

Many of us would recommend you to the greatest page. Wonderful reasoning.

[papau]

134. Good points - but "Falsehoods are better at defining a group" is not that logical - all the rest I

agree with.

"Falsehoods are better at defining a group" is an old saying used by those wanting to put down groups such as the religious or any political party or any group of scientists that are saying your new theory does not seem correct. To associate the word "falsehoods" with your opponents is considered good game playing.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

139. Falsehoods are not always malicious lies. Think of football fans...

Vonnegut was writing about all kinds of things that are not true, like nationalism or supporting a football team. All football fans overestimate their team's chance of winning, and that lack of objectivity marks them as members of a group of fans of that team.

To determine who is a "real" American, you would look for falsehoods. Everyone in the world would say that, "America is the richest country." So that has little use in defining who is a real American.

Only a "real" American would say, "America has always been virtuous." It's not true, so it's a test of inclusion. Even citizens of our staunchest allies would not agree with the statement. Only an extreme nationalist sub-set of Americans would say that.

Vonnegut was talking about how all volunteer Fire Departments think they are somehow intangibly superior to other volunteer fire departments, simply as a form of camaraderie. They can't ALL be the "best damn volunteer fire department!"

Think of how almost all parents believe heir children to be "above average." Or spouses... we expect our spouse to be more devoted to us than we deserve. Nobody wants to hear, "I love you and I promise to love you as long as you remain lovable." People want something more... a foray into the non-rational realm. "I will love you forever." That statement is de riguer, though no person can offer it as a literal, factual statement... nobody knows what they will feel in ten years.

(I will always love you is similar to "My country, right or wrong." We want our family and loved ones to stick with us even when we are wrong... that's the nature of unconditional love.)

On DU people use extreme arguments to demonstrate that they are true believers. It is an arms race of public virtue that leads to tolerance (if not acceptance) of things like "The Pentagon was not hit by a plane." It is hard to believe more than a handful of people actually believe that, but it's a useful bit of short-hand that says, "I take a maximalist position on the immorality of the Bush crowd."

As Bush become less popular nationally it becomes harder and harder to define ones self as being on the cutting edge of anti-Bushism, so the petty lies of inclusion become more and more extreme. Otherwise, DU would not have an identity.

Consider that 50% of Americans currently agree with most things posted on DU back in 2003. 50% of the country is not very "underground" so the target must keep moving. It used to be edgy to (correctly) identify Bush as a fascist. Now it's not so edgy, so the fascist label must spread to include Steny Hoyer or Hillary Clinton.

If the point is that certain positions prevail, we have largely won the battle of ideas. If, however, the point is to seperate ones self from the "sheeple" the task becomes harder and harder.

Unless the average person on the street thinks a statement is nuts, the statement has little use in defining a group as "on the edge."

Disregarding polling data is a big source of recreation on DU, unless that data supports a pre-existing conviction. The most extreme expressions of the "Polls are all fake" attitude is so irrational that it's hard to believe that anyone thinks that literally, but it's a reliable marker of some identity. It is literally an article of faith.

I am reminded of Mitt Romney saying "I think Guantanamo should be doubled." The statement has no meaning... it is gibberish. But everyone in the room understood that is was a claim of inclusion in a certain group, not an actual policy position.

[Bumblebee]

31. It's sad to see such strong hatred which was once -- rightfully so -- directed

solely against Bush and his regime, and was a "uniter, not a divider" for us all, now used against a Democratic candidate and divides us so much. I realize we all have strong feelings but so much expressed here against Hillary has been utterly excessive, inappropriate, sexist, and below the belt! Argue with her positions as much as you want to; better yet, champion your candidate and explain why he is so great -- but this blind hatred toward her, no matter what she does, is very corrosive and should still be reserved on this forum only for the likes of Bush and Cheney, imho. Or just establish a separate forum and leave the rest of us out of it!

[JohnnyLib2]

32. Recommended.

[beaconess]

33. My sentiments exactly!

[ncabot22]

37. I wish you would have also addressed the vile treatment

Obama and his supporters receive at the hands of some of the Clinton supporters. Under the thread "Clinton Rips Obama a New Ass" on this page is this gem:

"this is a dumb thing for obama to attack on. He has no credibility. He's been an absentee do-nothing senator while he's been running for prez"

Nice, isn't it? So polite. So respectful. So full of shit.

[ellacott]

46. They don't see that

They purposely ignore that.

[niceypoo]

49. What is the ratio of threads attacking Clinton to those attacking all other candidates combined?

Perhaps 4 to 1 or higher? There is vitriol on all sides, definitely, but it just seems to be disproportionately lopsided against Clinton; just an observation.

[ellacott]

50. to me it doesn't seem that out of balance

I would say it's pretty even.

[niceypoo]

51. So you believe all of the other candidates combined recieve the same vitriol as Clinton does alone?

How is this in balance or even?

[ncabot22]

64. Please

Go to the thread titled "Obama says Clinton is more conventional" and see a post regarding Obama. The poster, a vitriolic Clinton supporter, manages to use a Barack as Borat poster that alludes to the fact Obama has no experience, and uses his "African muslim" father and his "Atheist mother" as negatives against him. I hope you speak out against that, too.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

40. I'll take a shot at intellectual honesty.

First let me state my position:

I think Gore is the clear choice for our party, our country and our planet.

And I object to her as the nominee. I believe her disingenuous IWR vote and many others disqualify her as a good candidate at a time when our civilization is in crisis, and thus we need a great one. I do believe she is qualified to be a senator and I hope she remains there for a long time.

Having said all of that, I believe there are many good things to say about Hillary:

1. She's a very effective politician;
2. She has shown career-long committment to important issues such as children's health, etc.;
3. She's extremely gifted and a very hard worker; and
4. She has worked effectively with both sides of the aisle and is well respected in the Senate and by senior military officers.

Also, what you say about the RW attacks since 1992 is true and well documented by dailyhowler.com and elsewhere.

She showed tremendous courage in tackling universal health care against massive RW opposition.

Now as to my opposition of her candidacy. I believe her vote in favor of the IWR was craven. In other words, she knew what she was doing and chose perceived presidential viability over the moral course when American and Iraqi blood was on the line. In other words, I believe she "flunked" her Profile-in-Courage moment. As a result, I am not confident of her ability to step up and do what must be done, if elected. That is, mobilize the planet to a war footing against global warming. I just don't believe she has that level of committment.

In contradistinction, Gore has passed his Profile-in-Courage moments with flying colors. One of the most memorable was his courageous opposition to the Iraqi invasion when he was the putative nominee for 2004 (i.e. his September 2002 speech in San Francisco). Another is when he flew to Kyoto in 1997 to save the stalled treaty talks at a time when his political advisers strongly advised him not to do so, saying he was risking his presidential ambitions in 2000.

I hope that clarifies my feelings and demonstrates that I'm not a Hillary "hater." Sometimes I become intemperate in my repsonses, but those are usually on a pro-Gore thread, when someone boosts another candidate or attacks Gore.

In conclusion, if she is the nominee, I will most likely vote for her because the GOP is so bad, Supreme Court nominations are vital, etc. But having said that, hope that my children will thrive or even survive, will be greatly diminished if Gore is not the next POTUS. I believe the correct choice both morally and pragmatically, is Gore.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

41. FWIW,

I meant to include that I hope this is perceived as a respectful response to a fellow Democrat, in the hope of honest discourse.

[incapsulated]

44. Those are all legitamite reasons not to support her

I'm not going to get into Gore since he isn't running.

But I have no problem with honest critiques of any candidate, although given it is primary season, even that can degenerate into flames as supporters will defend their candidate against any and all arguments. That is their "job", though, they are advocates. It's the outright lies, smears and personal attacks that are so transparent and tiresome and Hillary is the number one recipient of them.

[cuke]

47. I agree

As a Clinton supporter, I have no problem with sincere and reality based criticisms and yours was obviously sincere. It's those who think that HIllary's hair, cleavage, and thighs (etc) are legitimate grounds for criticism

[BootinUp]

71. I just have to speak up

for the IWR vote as being so misunderstood. There is no doubt in my mind that for almost all the dems it was simply a vote to force full compliance with the UN from Sadaam. Is there anyone here who thinks he cooperated fully before the threat of invasion? In hindsight, the UN had done a marvelous job despite his obstinance and his WMD program was worse off than believed by many.

But there was justification for forcing his hand, there was not however justification for an invasion. The problem was how to get one without the other and how to know that Bush really was going to force an invasion. I don't care to hear people out of government saying "I knew". What else have you "known" in your life that you turned out dead wrong about. That kind of hindsight quarterbacking is really quite lacking in terms of an argument.

So what else do you base your charge on that she was craven? Just the fact she is a politician that wants to be President? Well thats unusual.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

83. That dog won't hunt!

You are pushing the bounds of credibility. Everybody knew what that vote meant. It was an up or down vote on invasion. BushCo had been building toward war since the "axis of Evil" reference in the 2002 State of the Union speech in January. Everyday on CNN and Fox we were assaulted with graphics entitled "Path To War" and dramatic music. The American people knew that is what the vote meant. That's why many of us were marching in the streets. Most of the Dems in the House voted against it. A majority of Dem Senators who weren't planning to run for president voted against it. The name of the resolution itself is a small clue: Iraqi War Resolution

Al Gore knew what it meant:

"I want to talk about the relationship between America's war against terrorism and America's proposed war against Iraq." San Francisco, September 23, 2002.
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html

Here's the basis for my assertion that her vote was craven. Everyone knew this was the only vote Congress would take on the invasion. No American president has ever asked for a second authorization vote on one military action. She either knew or should have strongly suspected that BushCo was acting in bad faith.

Again, Al Gore:

"Fifth, back in 1991, President George H. W. Bush purposely waited until after the mid-term elections of 1990 in order to push for a vote at the beginning of the new Congress in January of 1991. President George W. Bush, by contrast, is pushing for a vote in this Congress immediately before the election. That in itself is not inherently wrong, but I believe that puts a burden on the shoulders of President Bush to dispel the doubts many have expressed about the role that politics might be playing in the calculations of some in the administration. I have not raised those doubts, but many have. And because they have been raised, this has become a problem for our country's effort to build a national consensus and an international coalition. Already, just to cite one example, the German-American relationship has faced a dire crisis because of the reprehensible comments of a minister in that government about President Bush's alleged motivations as she saw it. Now, they've apologized and perhaps we can move on past that, but look at the entire German election campaign. It revealed a profound and troubling change in the attitude of the German electorate toward the United States. We see our most loyal ally, Tony Blair, who I think is a fantastic leader, getting in what they describe is serious trouble with the British electorate because of similar doubts that have been raised.

Rather than making efforts to dispel these concerns at home and abroad about the role of politics in the timing of his policy, the president is on the campaign trail two and three days a week, often publicly taunting Democrats with the political consequences of a "no" vote. The Republican National Committee is running pre-packaged advertising based on the same theme - all of this apparently in keeping with a political strategy clearly described in a White House aide's misplaced computer disk, which advised Republican operatives that their principal game plan for success in the election a few weeks away was to "focus on the war." Vice President Cheney, meanwhile, has indignantly described suggestions of any such thing as reprehensible, and then the following week took his discussion of the war to the Rush Limbaugh show." (see link above)

Finally, I do not believe it is any accident that every then-Senator now running voted the same way, i.e. Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, because the misguided conventional wisdom of that time was that they had to vote for the war in order to be a viable Democratic presidential candidate (viz. Kerry). Bush's poll numbers were sky high and it was a only a year since 9/1/1.

She put her ambition above human suffering. That's why I say it was craven.

[BootinUp]

84. I'll give you an example that supports the dog

Why would Wes Clark bother to tell Senators that he knew Bush was planning to invade anyway if they obviously already knew it? Clue: there was disagreement by many on that and promises made by the administration to the Senators that assuaged that fear.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

85. Because of Bush's sky-high

poll numbers, a lot of weak-minded people either gave BushCo some credibility or at least were afraid to publicly express the complete skepticism that they have always deserved. People often have to testify about that which is obvious. Think Valerie Plame.

Was Hillary incredibly naive or just craven? Either interpretation disqualifies her from the biggest job in the world.

[BootinUp]

89. I think she believed the UN

inspections would be allowed to continue until there was no case for an invasion.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

93. Do you think she suspected bad faith by BushCo?

If so, how could she adopt such a Pollyanna view? Gore told us why Bush was not to be believed. She's applying for the biggest job in the world. Shouldn't she be really good on matters of war and peace? Such pathetic trust of a dishonest scumbag like Bush is hard to rationalize. The reasons not to trust him were already numerous and in the public record.

If not, she wasn't paying attention or was ... craven.

[BootinUp]

95. Its not just about the dishonesty

its also about the stupidity. I knew that Iraq would be the mess it is today if we invaded, I think she did too, I think we both thought there is no way in hell that Bush and the military would try to do this without more help from the UN. It would obviously be a total catastrophe.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

97. The military didn't get a vote.

You are still giving arguments of naivete. We had already gotten speeches on Al Qaida in Iraq, mushroom clouds, etc. Bush had been lying like a rug since he started running in 1999. She already knew or should have known he had stolen an election with FelonGate in Florida.

All of the neocons in the Pentagon and elsewhere in the administration were talking about how we would be greeted as liberators. Please, for the love of Christ, keep it real!!!!

[BootinUp]

98. The roll out of the greated as liberators stuff was after the IWR IIRC

The threatening drum beating leading up to the vote was not a clear indicator of intentions, as that is pretty standard tactics to force a confrontation that does not always lead to military invasion. The election of 2000 has nothing to do with this. A politician lying to achieve political gains has nothing to do with this. You can say I'm naive and you are more prescient, I guess you are never wrong then?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

100. The 2000 election IS relevant.

It was already a matter of public record that Bush had subverted the Constitution by stealing the 2000 election. That showed BushCo's fundamental contempt for the people and the Constitution. It showed his willingness to do anything to acquire power. His call for the vote before the midterms was further evidence of Bush's desire to use war for political gain.

So I ask you again, did she suspect bad faith or not?

[BootinUp]

101. I missed the matter of public record

that he subverted the constitution, you mean because he filed a case with the Supreme Court? Look we can be pissed off that Gore was out maneuvered by slime bags, but lets stick to the facts. It was dirty politics yes.

His call for the vote before the midterms was evidence he wanted to kick Dem butts in the midterms in addition to having the resolution with as much latitude in it as possible. All Presidents think they are right about everything and don't want to kneel before Congress. Nothing spectacularly revealing there either.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

104. You've never heard of FelonGate?

Greg Palast and others have exhaustively documented that Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris and her lieutenants collaborated to knock tens of thousands of innocent black Floridians off the voter rolls prior to the 2000 election. It was extensively reported around the world but the spineless US MSM wouldn't touch it. But it happened.

"Nothing spectacularly revealing there either?" Bush 41 WAITED till the troops were deployed for invasion before asking for a congressional vote to invade Kuwait. Bush 41 WAITED until after the midterm elections in 1990, so as to depoliticize the congressional vote. He called the Congress back in January of 1991, the honorable way to proceed.

Sorry, I don't suffer fools gladly. You won't answer my direct questions, you make up arguments that strain credibility and you keep changing the subject to yet another topic you know nothing about. I'm ready to let the audience decide who is closer to the truth. Over and out.

[BootinUp]

106. Great close, NOT.

The Resolution was to be for a threat to get full UN inspection access to every building in Iraq. Your arguments are weak and I was answering you not jumping from subject to subject.

[flyarm]

109. Even the Methodist church did a press release Aug 30, 2002 about * going to war w/iraq!

Mods..this was a press release and it is now out of print..i have retained it in my files as i knew one day it would be unavailable to retrack..

The Head of the Methodist church was doing all he could to try to stop * and his war against Iraq..

this is *hes church..and any congress person at the time could have read it , in fact it was sent to every member of congress

I have kpet this in my files..and at the time even i was sending it to every member of congress...and i made hundreds and hundreds of copies of it to hand out at all dem meetings!
and at book stores and grocery stores and every where i could..every memver of my internet group nationwide did as well!


please check out the date..

fly


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Press Statement

Aug. 30, 2002

For immediate release

Bush Urged to Turn Back From War

The following is a statement of General Secretary Jim Winkler of The United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society:

The Bush administration has declared its intent to launch a war against Iraq, ignoring the advice of its allies, many members of Congress, key experts, and millions of U.S. citizens. With unprecedented disregard for democratic ideals and with an astonishing lack of evidence justifying such a pre-emptive attack, the President has all but given the order to fire.

I ask United Methodists to oppose this reckless measure and urge the President to immediately pursue other means to resolve the threat posed by Iraq. The United Methodist Church has called for "Support for Self-Determination and Nonintervention" for all nations (2000 Book of Resolutions #277). Our Church categorically opposes interventions by more powerful nations against weaker ones. We recognize the first moral duty of all nations is to resolve by peaceful means every dispute that arises between or among nations.

United Methodists have a particular duty to speak out against an unprovoked attack. President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are members of our denomination. Our silence now could be interpreted as tacit approval of war. Christ came to break old cycles of revenge and violence. Too often, we have said we worship and follow Jesus but have failed to change our ways. Jesus proved on the cross the failure of state-sponsored revenge. It is inconceivable that Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior and the Prince of Peace, would support this proposed attack. I beseech the President and Vice-President to provide leadership into a new era of Christian discipleship.

This matter can and should be dealt with by the United Nations. Our Church "support(s) regional and international negotiations arranged in cooperation with the United Nations and held without resort to political posturing." (2000 Book of Resolutions, p. 684) No member nation has the right to take unilateral military action without the approval of the UN Security Council, approval the United States has not received. Without such approval, the United Sates will stand in violation of international law. The administration's proposed attack is essentially a unilateral U.S. effort that uses as its rationale Iraq's non-compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 requiring full compliance with UN weapons inspectors. Arab and European governments strongly oppose an invasion of Iraq. Their views cannot and should not be disregarded. The question of weapons inspection non-compliance should be a matter for the United Nations.

There are those who argue that some military actions are just, however this would not be a just war. No proof has been provided that Iraq has nuclear weapons mounted on launchers aimed at the United States or troops massed on its borders or has developed deliverable weapons of mass destruction. No case can be made that a war against Iraq is justified for the self-defense of the United States. Further, Iraq's neighbors are not calling for assistance from the United States.

A pre-emptive war represents a major and dangerous change in US foreign policy. It also sets a terrible precedent for other nations. For example, what would then stop India or Pakistan from carrying out such an attack on one another on the grounds they themselves might be attacked? Pre-emptive war cannot become a universalized principle lest disaster and chaos result.

There are questions yet to be asked and answered about many matters including the potential loss of life on all sides, the financial cost of a war and its aftermath, and consequences for the future of Iraq. Congress must exercise its constitutional responsibilities and vote on the question of undertaking an invasion of Iraq. The length of conflict, level of long-term involvement, and final outcome are by no means assured. Presumably, Baghdad, a huge city filled with innocent civilians, must be a major objective of attack. Accidentally or not, we have seen the deaths of too many noncombatants in Afghanistan in recent months as the result of poor targeting and decision-making. How many more civilians will die? What is the reasonable chance of success in this war? How long would it take to rebuild destroyed areas? Can the United States effectively carry out regime change?

The regime of Saddam Hussein has carried out many atrocities against its own people and has been a highly negative influence in international and regional affairs. We all yearn for a just and peaceful government in Iraq. The Iraqi people have suffered greatly for many years and our prayers are with them. The United Nations estimates its own sanctions, the most severe to ever be imposed on any nation, have already resulted in the deaths of one million people.

If we, as United Methodists, are to take seriously the words of Jesus to become peacemakers and seek justice and peace with one another (Matthew 5:1-12), we must speak out now - to the president, members of Congress, and our local media - that the path upon which the President seeks to embark is counter to the teachings of Jesus, inconsistent with the position of the United Methodist Church, and is one that threatens the rule of law as a fundamental principle of democracy. That the ends justify the means is the weakest of all possible arguments. Our nation deserves better, and the world expects better of us.

General Conference is the highest decision-making body of the United Methodist Church. The General Board of Church and Society is mandated by General Conference to seek the implementation of the Social Principles and other policy statements on Christian social concerns through forthright witness and action.



Back : News Archives 2002 Main

[BootinUp]

112. This would fall under

People who "knew", know they "knew", and who knows what else the "know".

I believe I addressed that already with the other poster. Or in some other thread in recent days.

[papau]

136. The other point is that for the 45 days befor the IWR vote Bush was sending out word he did not need

UN resolutions or inspections or Congressional votes as we were at war and he was a war time president and he knew what was best and that only history could judge him. Indeed the IWR was considered a victory by the left as it slowed him down and held out hope for reports from the inspectors - it was not until Dec that we knew that Bush was a con job as he dumped on the 5 CD 12,000 page truthfull report that Iraq released on all their weapons programs as they tried to avoid war. The we heard that the weapons inspectors had gone just about everywhere and found nothing - and that our intel people/Cheney were refusing to tell the inspectors where to look next for those weapons that Cheney was saying he knew the location of - followed by Bush ordering the inspectors out before they could report "no WMD weapon programs" as their conclusion.

Dec was the first point we had proof Bush was forcing a war - before then the assumption that no president would violate his office and take us to war for personal reasons was the working assumption for the vast majority of Americans.

Obama's full speech does not read like he saw all of the above coming - but he gets credit - as do many in the Senate - for worrying that Bush might be a con job. His was the better judgment - and now he has finally got off the shaky "I was against the war" (on the day we invaded the whole of the Dems that I know were against the invasion but that was a time to support the troops as it was too late to continue to argue for more UN inspections) and is instead using the fact that no one can really argue with - namely that he showed better judgment.

But as has been noted - DU discussions about Hillary tend to be tryouts of right wing produced phrasing that the RW may use in the general if Hillary is the nominee - and those phrases as with all things GOP have little to do with truth telling..

[BootinUp]

138. bravo

I concur.

[TheDoorbellRang]

121. I'd like to recommend your post, Admiral

my sentiments, exactly. I'm all for Gore as president. That being said, what I do admire about Clinton is her facility in cutting through all the toxic BS thrown her way. I know it's said that she and Gore don't get along, but I'd see them as an effective team together, with her as the veep to clear the way and cut thru the poisonous crap -- something Al admits he has little patience for.

[rucky]

43. 24 Years of rule by two families.

Who's obsessed, again?

[sandnsea]

48. Some people NEED CHANGE

It's a literal matter of life and death. Other people don't NEED that change themselves, but they understand the dire straights the people and the planet are in.

And then there's the Clintonites and the DLC, who have a vague inkling that somebody might be suffering somewhere, but will never make the personal sacrifices necessary to correct the wrongs.

[cuke]

59. You mean like when Hillary fought and won to make Plan B available?

Or are you referring to how Hillary single-handedly forced * to increase funding for the Ryan White Care Act ?

[sandnsea]

72. Oh that's controversial

:eyes:

Hillary was joined by Murray, Boxer and a number of other senators and organizations fighting or Plan B.

Ryan White Act gets increased funding almost every year because it's very popular, Schumer got credit for it back in 2004.

http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR02478.html

She hasn't taken the lead on anything difficult or truly controversial - EVER. She never will either.

[cuke]

82. Yes, Plan B is controversial

and Schumer also gets credit. I never denied it. But Murray, Boxer and the others werent the ones who put the hold on *'s EPA nominee. It was Hillary.

And there is no denying that Clinton also fought for it, which undermines your incorrect claim that Hillary has never fought for people.

"She hasn't taken the lead on anything difficult or truly controversial - EVER. "

Gee, I guess the 1993 Managed Care debate never happened. I guess she hasnt just released another proposal for UHC. I guess she never worked pro bono for a number of non-profit orgs.

[sandnsea]

102. It is not controversial

A handful of right wing idiots oppose it and she lets them run her around by the nose. I think just about every Dem Senator has put a hold on one of Bush's EPA nominees, at one point or other. Health care in 1993 also was not controversial, although she managed to lose that battle when most of the country wanted a drastic change. And a big so what to her latest plan, the candidates have picked apart John Kerry's 2004 plan, and Hillary added a mandate without any real assistance to working families.

I work/worked pro bono for a number of non-profits. So What.

We need a visionary leader and she isn't it.

[cuke]

105. Plan B is controversial

and Hillary fought for it against the repuke majority. She was able to reach across the aisle and work with repukes to oppose a repuke policy.

"I think just about every Dem Senator has put a hold on one of Bush's EPA nominees, at one point or other."

Wrong, but keep making stuff up

"Health care in 1993 also was not controversial,"

Yeah, right.

"And a big so what to her latest plan, the candidates have picked apart John Kerry's 2004 plan, and Hillary added a mandate without any real assistance to working families. "

I know that there are some Obama supporters who give a big "so what" to issues of concern to older people (like universal health care, something the audacious Obama won't offer). I invite you to continue making your disdain for the elderly obvious.

"I work/worked pro bono for a number of non-profits. So What."

So did I. I mentioned it because you falsely claimed that Hillary never sacrificed anything for other people.

[zulchzulu]

53. When you have a divisive, pro-war candidate who plays the "Inevitability Card" by proxy...

...you are going to get resistance. This is the primary season and this election cannot be any more important. To sit back and do nothing or be told to shut up for the sake of "inevitability" is not what being a Democrat is all about.

Plying the pedestrian notion that putting the Clinton dynasty under scrutiny is somehow off limits because it's considered "metamorphosing into republicans" simply proves that her candidacy is particularly bad for the Democratic party.

To sophmorically call someone who would dare put Clinton's continuingly opposing statements to her previous statements into scrutiny a "lurking freeper" is weak at best.

To defend one's other candidate against a rabid Clinton supporter who wants to spread lies is sincere dedication to the truth and setting the record straight.

Since Hillary Clinton wants to bring her husband Bill Clinton into the "package", there is certainly a lot that can be discussed about his record as President. You don't even have to mention the obvious stuff that put their own marriage's weakness on display.

Does American want family dynasties? Do Democrats want to give the Republicans the chance to empower their base with a Clinton X 2 nomination? Do we want to discuss her voting record on the war and recent votes on perhaps helping start the next war?

The discussion is not "becoming absurd". It is not "hatred". It is democracy.

I just got back from some grassroots work today for my preferred candidate, Barack Obama, and it's not my fault that at least a few dozen people made a point of telling me that they do not want Hillary Clinton as the nominee. I didn't ask them anything. They felt the need to let it be known. These are not "rapid freepers" or "lurking Republicans". They are mostly women and from I could tell very intelligent and current on the issues of the day.

Are they part of the "obsession" that was "once unique to the republican party"?

They want a choice for real change and they will make it known when they vote.

[PurityOfEssence]

55. The problems with Bill are not a new thing for some of us

This, like many other posts on the subject makes some very serious leaps of logic that also start from what I consider to be incorrect premises.

Republicans aren't the only ones who are close-minded, lock-step ideologues; many lefties are too. It's human nature: many people are strident, don't like or understand nuance, and have a friend/enemy mentality. We don't have a lock on virtue.

DU Clinton opponents are NOT allies of "freepers" and other reactionaries. This is either a subtle attempt to dismiss all of her opponents as vile creatures or sloppy rhetoric that accomplishes this without trying.

I've always had a bunch of problems with Bill Clinton, and they date back to when he first crossed my radar back in '91. My dislike and my admiration of him have both increased drastically since then; he's a mixed bag, and I've been saying so for years. Much of the unqualified worship of him from many leftists comes from the fact that he won and he "got away with it", when in fact, he didn't really get away with that much at all. By dragging the party to the right, he messed up this country in many, many ways. Yes, his tax, deficit and debt policies were great and successful, and yes, keeping the barrier up between corporate accounting and investment banking was visionary and honorable, but so much of what he did was, in my opinion, wrongheaded, conservative-appeasing and just plain BAD.

This kind of thread-starter reminds me of justification arguments from believers in religion: everything good comes from the faith, but anything bad that happens from it MUST be from people who merely feign belief. God is good, but Jim Jones was faking it. Hitler wasn't REALLY a christian who used evocation of the faith to help get and hold control. Any Democrat who is a dick or disgruntled with popular Democratic politicians is obviously a Conservative in sheep's clothing. It just ain't so. There are plenty of leftists who are muling babies demanding everyone to take care of them while they do nothing. There are plenty of them who feel they have a lock on virtue and the rest of us must bow down to them regardless what they do. Human nature has some icky facets, and assholism is an equal-opportunity affliction.

Hillary Clinton engenders EXTREME emotions. This is simple reality. To march blindly along is ridiculous for two reasons: if she's not what she says she is (which I believe to be the amply proven case) then she could set us back many years, and if we don't air all the dirty laundry now, we'll never see if she can take the hits and survive. The idiotic idea that we shouldn't say what's on our minds and get it out in the open because the reactionaries will then use it is ridiculous. They're MUCH BETTER at slagging someone and finding weak spots; there's nothing we will or can say now that they won't find for themselves and make hay with. If the primaries ended a month or so before the general election, there might be some merit to this argument, since it takes some time to see what particular mud sticks, but with this year's idiotic schedule, that simply isn't the case. There'll probably be a nominee-apparent on February 5th, which leaves nine full months to explore every avenue of derision to find the really compelling slander. As such, we actually OWE IT TO OURSELVES TO BE HARSH NOW, so we can see who has the staying power. That was the beauty of the old primary season, and we've neutered it with this top-loading foolishness.

I'm a rather far left liberal: a capitalist who believes in lots of socialistic controls and regulation. My dislike of her comes from the left, not the right, and not from some dismissable far-left bolshevism, either, from a middle-class, professional-class, member-of-society disgust with corporatism and evasive positioning to curry favor and succeed.

This season SHOULD be a bit rancorous; it's our best tool and something that gives us an edge over the right; whereas they march in lock-step and obey Reagan's eleventh commandment, we hash it out in public on the question of issues. Sometimes this leaves bitterness and divide as it did in the '92 nomination where Brown couldn't stomach endorsing Clinton, but usually, if left to its natural course--like this--it works to our advantage.

[niceypoo]

56. It all boils down to rationality

Freepers attack based on emotions. Reasoned, non emotional, arguements, either for or against, do not fall into the, 'marching blindly along,' catagory.

Any freeper can come here, start an account, post a few dozen neutered posts, then launch into one Clinton attack after another and have many, many DUers come and join them; they are allies in this sense. They don't intentionally ally with them but they do so by default. Sad but true. Same goes for those who spew vitriol for any democratic candidate.

[ChiciB1]

58. EXACTLY How I Feel... As A Liberal, I Voted For Bill Twice, But

ALWAYS, ALWAYS knew I was to the "left" of him! I stood up for him because Ken Starr and his cohorts were simply CREEPS and I think perhaps Tripp & Lewinsky were in it together! But he IS a moderate, and his associations with the Bushies have bothered me for a long time!

Plus I have never understood what Hillary's 2 trips (at least) to visit Kay Bailey Hutchison in Texas were all about.

I was asked the other day to "explain" why I felt the way I did, I could have gone on with quite few things, but decided it's not ALL about links to any one thing, it's a combination of many! The Hsu connection, her Kyl/Lieberman vote, her ease in stating she's not going to answer particular questions, the fact that even though she doesn't support the WAR anymore, she simply won't say anything about her vote. Then her statements that she wants to leave soldiers in Iraq as combat forces. I know we have a huge embassy there, thanks to THE IDIOT, DECIDER and it will need guarding, but COMBAT troops don't cut it with me! Perhaps she feels it makes her more "hawkish" but I've had enough of HAWK myself!

And as I've said before, I too was once a supporter, but now she really turns me off. But that does not mean I HATE her, I just don't agree with some of her positions and I don't like the way that MSM has ALREADY made a choice for me, or so it seems!

It's not THAT complicated, and if someone disagrees with her, well we're nuts or something! And when I hear statements like, all those who don't agree with her only MAKES that person support her more is something I don't really understand. It doesn't make sense to me! She's NOT an underdog or anything... so we have been told, so call me STUPID, but it just doesn't make sense.

And I AM NO FREEPER! A long time Democrat who comes from a long line of Democrats!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. Because The Rethuglicans Wanted Her To Attack Clinton In 00 And She Refused

"Plus I have never understood what Hillary's 2 trips (at least) to visit Kay Bailey Hutchison in Texas were all about."


I once saw all the women senators on Larry King and they all pledged not to attack one another personally...

[sandnsea]

74. I lived in AR in '87

Clinton had been governor a LONG time by then, and it SUCKED. Retelling my story would involve giving away more details about my life then I care to, but there wasn't anything there that I would want to replicate. I had tried living there in 1980 too, and it sucked then as well. I understand people who have their roots there, everybody loves their home. But the economy and government systems leave A LOT to be desired.

[creeksneakers2]

80. Repeating falsehoods convinces more people they are true

Like the "Hillary is divisive" or "engenders extreme emotions." Where does that idea come from? I think she's basically a centrist and a uniter. I don't know of any positions she's taken that are extreme. Other than exposing the vast right wing conspiracy, I don't see her attacking often.

The idea that Hillary is at fault for what happens to her is a right wing creation. I'd believe it though if I ever saw any true evidence. I haven't seen any yet. Just repeats of a myth that can't bring any positive results or make her stronger.

[cuke]

91. The repukes always blames dems for what they do

The repukes go after that family with the 12 yo kid saying that the family shouldnt have politicized their children, as if the parents should have known the republicans would attack them and make anonympus death threats for telling their story.

The repukes started the war on Iraq, but somehow it's the dems fault.

And now, the anger that years of right-wing propoganda has stirred up is somehow Hillary's fault.

I'd like to see a liberal tell me exactly what she said or did that engenders such anger from the left, and don't tell me IWR because there were dozens of Dems who voted for it whose name we never see mentioned on DU. Certainly, IWR is a part of it, but it just as certainly does not explain it all.

[niceypoo]

108. That is my feeling exactly

We have heard anti-Clinton vitriol for years repeated over and over and over. It doesn't matter which democrat wins the presidency, the right wing attack machine will do it all over again. It is what the republican party has degenerated into.

Had Al Gore taken office in 2000 the republicans would have immediately began one hearing and investigation after another after another, and tried to impeach him. Same thing with Kerry; had he taken office in 04, they would have immediately began attacking, smearing and trying to impeach him too. Remember them going after Kerry's wife? Just imagine what that would have degenerated into once he took office. She would be treated exactly as the republicans treated Hillary in the 90s.

[ginchinchili]

57. That's funny, I was getting the same impression, only about Hillary's supporters

A lot of people don't like Hillary Clinton. You'd better get used to it.

[eridani]

60. Maybe it's an anti money driven coronation obsession?

Since when do Freepers bash Hillary for having ties to Blackwater?

[niceypoo]

67. So your argument is as follows:

A: Hillary detractors attack Hillary's ties to Blackwater.
B: Freepers support Blackwater
thus
C: Freepers don't attack Hillary

Er, um....ok.

This is a logical fallacy is known as, 'affirming the consequent.'

[eridani]

110. My point was that they attack her for being a LIBRUL.

They approve of unionbusting and Blackwater, and would probably like Mark Penn a lot. We don't.

[L0oniX]

73. ./ ignore Hillary posts

fixed ..........ah much better

[surfermaw]

75. It will change after the primaries

All for one and one for all, now that is how it has to be, other wise we will see another man the caliber of Bush, may even be worse if we get Fred T.

[Imagevision]

81. DUers aren't metamorphosing into republicans, they simply can see beyond her *act*

Even Bill rang the bell for invading Iraq by stating; saddam has WMD's and he will use them" remark leading up to Bush's ill-planned invasion.

[illinoisprogressive]

87. the media bends over for the Clintons.

[cuke]

92. homophobic much?

.

[DrFunkenstein]

94. In Worship?

Alternatively, there seem to be heterosexual practices that involve the act of bending over, as well.

[cuke]

96. Worship?

If that's what you think the phrase refers to, you might want to do a little research

Ever hear of BOHICA

[KaptBunnyPants]

113. Only for this primary.

The media is usually very antagonistic against the Clintons. The fact that they are overtly supportive of her bid now only confirms what many of us suspect; the media is fully controlled by its Republican owners and they want to see Hillary in the general election. Not only does she give them the best chance to win, she is also the least threatening to entrenched power. If she wins the primary the love affair will end.

[wiley]

111. DU is not a "community".

It is a bunch of hacks desperate to post meaningless "events" in their candidate's campaign as if anyone not supporting that candidate is listening or cares.

It is a clearinghouse for Republican morons to test drive their latest anti-Hillary ideas.

It's the place to see Democrats and other people say exactly the same thing as Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter say, while actually believing they are different than either of them because they are just expressing their opinion or pointing out some "fact".

Now you're making the statement that hatred of Hillary has turned into hatred of Bill. There is no fucking irony in that. The Freepers and psychotic Republicans have been there for years.

Those whose support for a candidate has morphed into justification of attacks or expressions of hatred or the "I just won't be able to vote" feint have already become bottom feeders.

Even if your candidate wins, you will have personally lost more than you will be able to recover. Like with crystal meth addiction or alcoholism the disease always wins before any realization of morbidity occurs.

Very ugly to watch.

I'm changing the channel.

[Perry Logan]

117. Nothing recommends Hillary more than the cheesy criticisms leveled against her.

Here's a thing that was posted here the other day by Lirwin2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3602202

I reproduce it here because it further proves the critics of Hillary are out to lunch:

The following are polls from progressive groups, rating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on how often they vote for progressive issues. For each group, the percentage on the left is right is Obama's score. Sources: http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php
===============================================================================================================================Hillary Clinton Vs. Barack Obama (progressivepunch)
Overall Progressive Score: 92% 90%
Aid to Less Advantaged People at Home and Abroad: 98% 97%
Corporate Subsidies 100% N/A
Education, Humanities and the Arts 88% 100%
Environment 92% 100%
Fair Taxation 97% 100%
Family Planning 88% 80%
Government Checks on Corporate Power 95% 97%
Healthcare 98% 94%
Housing 100% 100%
Human Rights & Civil Liberties 82% 77%
Justice for All: Civil and Criminal 94% 91%
Labor Rights 91% 91%
Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful 94% 90%
War and Peace 80% 86%

[George II]

122. Great observations

I noticed this phenomenon months ago. The Hillary bashing has reached an all time high (I'd call it a low, actually) and is now at the point where I don't even read many of the threads started about Hillary. These posts and threads are playing into the hands of the republicans.

Sadly, I'm almost at the point where I'll only visit DU on Monday morning for the "Top Ten Conservative Idiots".

Maybe your post will snap some people back to reality and the fact that Democrats have to stand TOGETHER against the republicans.

"United we stand, divided we fall"!!

[RestoreGore]

124. Gore: "Politics requires tolerance for triviality, artifice, nonsense I have found in short supply."

And Mr. Gore's words are proven true every day not only here but on blogs in general. That is why I never comment about any candidate here. That is why I have stayed completely out of any such derision and bickering because I find it pedantic. And Al Gore does as well which is why contrary to what some here keep pushing into our brains everyday, he is not a candidate. Therefore, I do think there are those also who come here with the express intent of just deriding other candidates because they want him to enter this horserace, which actually defeats their purpose. They are using the same tactics he claims to deplore to support him... talk about bizarre.

Anyway, as far as the candidates go including Hillary Clinton, I will say that they are all on equal footing to me in assessing any issue or policy, since the system they are running in is the same status quo military industrial complex system we have had for years that from all accounts the people of this country on the whole seem content with even for all the "outrage" about it since it is still with us... So as far as choosing one of them yet (and as much as I really despise the political system will vote for the Democratic candidate because to me at this juncture we can't afford not to) that will depend on their environmental plans (and a letter is going out to them all regarding that) and I have seen Edward's and Obama's and heard Dodd talk about a carbon tax. I am waiting to then see what the rest do as there is still time to bring it forth as Al Gore also stated at the UN, and because now that he has won the Nobel Peace Prize and so far surpasses all of this rhetoric, his endorsement should he decide to give one will be an invaluable tool for the candidate who works to deserve it...again, if he decides to.

Until then however, the nasty games being played along with the nonsense, triviality, arguing over clothes, weight, how "good" someone looks, or polls/petitions that prove nothing in the end instead of discussing issues and the future are nothing but a turnoff to me and yes, really don't make those doing it look any different than those on the other side who do nothing else because that is all they have. Hillary Clinton may or may not be the best candidate and I am neither for her nor against her, but there is no doubt her candidacy in and of itself has made history and in all honesty as a woman, on one level that does make me proud. Perhaps if we discussed our similarities as Democrats in lieu of the other BS we might actually see that the larger enemy before us is what we should have our eye on now. At least I believe that any of these Democrats who may someow make it there can have their feet helf to the fire. I am not so sure otherwise.

[LibDemAlways]

127. As long as Hillary continues to be the r and media's choice

for the nomination, I'll continue to be wary of her. She's been all but annointed partially because they plan to dump on her bigtime if and when she's nominated, and partially because if she does manage to pull it off despite everything, they know she's the candidate furthest to the right and gives them the least to fear.

[niceypoo]

129. The republicans want Hillary to be president?

They want 8 more years of the name, "Clinton," in the whitehouse? Reeeeaaally? lol. Where were you in the 90s? She is their BIGGEST fear. Go over to Freerepublic sometime and do a search on her name then post a few of the threads by her, 'republican supporters.'

[sufrommich]

130. Or right wing radio,

they're peeing their pants.This argument that "the right wing" is skipping merrily at the thought of a Clinton campaign is laughable.

[LibDemAlways]

131. I should have differentiated between the lunatic fringe who

despise Hillary and always will - no dispute there. I'm thinking more in terms of the republican establishment - people like Bush Sr. who's worked with Bill, the 49 republicans who've co-sponsored legislation with her, the republicans she attends prayer breakfasts with. Hell, even Rupert Murdoch has cozied up to her and given her money. She'll never be beloved by republican voters, but the insiders don't hate or fear her.

[niceypoo]

133. Should they hate and fear her?

?

[LibDemAlways]

142. Of course not. No reason to. She's part of the Washington

establishment.

[papau]

137. insiders don't hate or fear her - Do you mean she would bring the nation back together? interesting

n/t

[LibDemAlways]

143. As long as Rush and the rest

of the rw noise machine has influence, the populice will continue to be bitterly split on Hillary.

[TriMetFan]

135. Thank you for your post.

I wasn't a "Hillary" supporter up until last night. I was going to vote for John Edwards, but the hate and unnecessary attackers that I have been reading here on DU are just crazy. Like you wrote, "Critique is one thing, but many have gone way beyond that. It is degrading the overall tone of this community." this is one of the reasons why I haven't not post here in a very long time. I just come to read some of the post, then leave. DU is not the same place it was 4 years ago. I will still give money to Skinner when I can. But I will ask this one crazy question. If and that is a Big If. If Hillary is the the Democratic Nominee, will the rest of the Hillary Haters vote for her or will they let another Nazi style Repuke into the White House????

[City67]

140. What bothers me the most

One of the things that bothers me the most about modern day politics is that people are not as civil as they could be. I am a middle aged guy and can remember when Democrats and Republicans were civil to each other and would usually set political differences aside and worked together for the greater good of our country. I am not sure when or why that level of civility disappeared. It is easy to blame it all on 'the other guy' of the opposing party but we all live in glass houses to a certain degree. I was reading a blog recently and saw some quotes of Hillary verbally abusing her secret service detail a number of times. I checked most of the links referenced and while they looked suspect at first glance some googling seemed to confirm what they said. I would gladly vote for Hillary if we choose her as our standard bearer but I find the sort of behavior attributed to her rather disturbing.

[niceypoo]

141. Civility disappeared when Reagan took over

...and especially when Bush sr. was president. Bush used to talk about, "the 'L' word," which likens the word, "liberal," to the F-word. He went after the dem's with the Willy Horton ad and his campaign was based largely on smearing and attacking the Democrats as liberals.

This carried over when Clinton took office and, once obscure, talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh started in with their endless smear campaigns and lie filled drumbeat of accusations. Richard Melton Scaife started funding people like Ann Coulter, and the like, and the republican congress took Scaifes cue (and his money) and went on a, "get Bill Clinton," rampage.

All of this sent the republican base into a downward spiral of rabid, liberal hating, and neo fascism, that has led to the level of discourse that we see today. It only gets worse and worse, 'Chimp' Bush is proof of that. It now has started seeping into the democratic party, on a small level.

The whole mess is proof that the two party system is fatally flawed and cannot survive in it's present form. The longer the US is stuck in this two party system, the more polarized the country will become and the government will steadily grow more dysfunctional.

The Right is a rabid hate machine and the Democrats talk of, "time for healing," which repubs just laugh at. God help us.

[City67]

144. Well this is the article I was talking about

And before anyone starts squawking, yes, it seems to be a winger site, but I try to read all sides. Better to know thy enemy as they say.

But its a winger that cant stand Bush from what I read.

http://www.thatpoliticalblog.com/serendipity/permalink/Hillary-Clinton-to-Secret-Service-Detail-Get-Fucked!.html

I would also really like to know as much as possible about the people I vote for. How else can you make an informed decision?

[niceypoo]

145. Your link is exactly what I am talking about

Unsubstantiated BS mostly from books written to smear her. The 90s saw one after another, all written by right wingers, mostly funded by Scaife.