The reason I am concerned about the division on DU...

[kentuck]

There are many friends here that do not support the same person that I support for the nomination. I am concerned that many are taking this primary battle too seriously. Too seriously, they say! With the future of the world at stake and we are taking it too seriously? Yes.

In the end, your friends are worth more than this political battle between Hillary and Obama. Honest differences should be discussed without hate or civil war. Some words are poison. They are bitter like quinine. We should be more conscious of our words and our friends.

All of this shall pass. One of the candidates will be the nominee. Some of us will be very happy and some of us will be very sad. But we will have to live with the result. We can choose to work together or we can drift farther apart? That will be our choice.

I ask that we consider the feelings and emotions of others. If I feel like I want to scream some hateful venom at one or the other candidates, I'm sure I am not alone. There are others that feel similar emotions, I am sure.

This is a test for all of us. Some of us are not absolutely right and some of us are not absolutely wrong. It is not that black and white. We only have different opinions. I know we will continue to battle like the devil is at the door but let us try to preserve one tiny bit of civility for the time that is yet to come...

[Swamp Rat]

1. AMEN!

[IndianaGreen]

2. Saying that you are going to nuke Iran goes beyond "honest differences"

and should alarm every rational person in this country.

[stratomagi]

3. Yeah I mean even McCain only went so far as to say Bomb. nt

[Catherina]

4. Thank you! n/t

[madeline_con]

7. Hear! Hear!

Thank you for that.

[Evergreen Emerald]

18. This is part of the problem. People attack Clinton after they take her

words out of context and distort her meaning and then vilify her for it. It is getting old and tiresome.


I thought the people on DU were smarter than that.

[Pacifist Patriot]

20. Well considering the context...

Saying she would obliterate another country should they do something highly unlikely in the first place is irresponsible and dangerous in my opinion. It was enough to alarm the British foreign office. So clearly I'm not the only person whose ears pricked up when they heard her say that.

[tigervalentine]

45. And, of course, that never happens to Obama. n/t

This is in response to #2, not #18.

Sorry.

[Bake]

31. My God, what a fucking liar!

She did not say she was "going to nuke Iran ..." Prove it, bigmouth, show me the fucking link!

I know what she actually said, and it wasn't what you claim it was.

Another liar for Obama.

Bake

[IndianaGreen]

33. Google will list several instances of Hillary threatening a US nuclear first strike

Many of these articles were posted and discussed in DU at the time.

Published on Thursday, April 12, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

Awful Truth About Hillary, Barack, John… and Whitewash
by Norman Solomon

The Pentagon’s most likely next target is Iran. Hillary Clinton says “no option can be taken off the table.”

<snip>

A year ago, writing in The New Yorker, journalist Seymour Hersh reported: “One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.”

For a presidential candidate to proclaim that all “options” should be on the table while dealing with Iran is a horrific statement. It signals willingness to threaten — and possibly follow through with — first use of nuclear weapons. This raises no eyebrows among Washington’s policymakers and media elites because it is in keeping with longstanding U.S. foreign-policy doctrine.

<snip>

Earlier this year, David Rieff noted in The New York Times Magazine on March 25, “Vice President Cheney insisted that the administration had not ‘taken any options off the table’ as Iran continued to defy United Nations calls for it to abandon its nuclear ambitions. The response from Democrats was not long in coming. Senator Clinton helped lead the charge, reminding the president that he did not have the authority to go to war with Iran on the basis of the Senate’s authorization of the use of force in Iraq in 2002.

“But what Senator Clinton did not say was at least as interesting as what she did say. And what she did not say was that she opposed the use of force in Iran. To the contrary, Senator Clinton used virtually the same formulation as Vice President Cheney. When dealing with Iran, she insisted, ‘no option can be taken off the table.’”

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/12/467/

Published on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 by the Bangor Daily News (Maine)

Terrorism and the Forgotten Threat
by John Buell

If a decision is made to launch nuclear strikes from U.S. bases using B-52s, it can be done without any telltale unusual movements of assets. A single B-52H can put over 6 megatons of nuclear power on target anywhere on the planet within 30 hours from the time the order is received.”

<snip>

Even Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton seeks to establish her tough image by refusing to rule out nuclear strikes.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/17/4645/

Published on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 by The Progressive

Hillary Clinton and the Woman Thing
by Ruth Conniff

Could a woman win a Presidential election in this country and be personally appealing and progressive enough to excite people like me? Any woman who is going to hold her own against those big male egos in our bizarre political culture is likely to come off as cold and overbearing. If she were warmer, she would no doubt be criticized as soft. If she were not so pro-military, we’d have to endure all the questions about whether a woman could find the strength to drop bombs on America’s enemies. Remember, during the Reagan years, when you heard people argue that a woman couldn’t be President because she would not be able to bring herself to “push the button” and start a nuclear war?

No one suggests that Hillary wouldn’t push the button.

You could say that’s evidence of how far women have come . . . I guess.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/27/2129/

[napoleon_in_rags]

5. "like the devil is at the door"

I seriously feel at this point that the devil is already in the door, its just that people can't see it yet with all the distractions. I heard a number tonight that said Hillary supporters in PA were ow up to 45% going to stay home or vote for McCain if Obama gets the nod, which is the last number in a steady increase on both sides. A transformation has already started to occur in the political landscape that there may be no end in sight to.

[onehandle]

6. Good luck.

Nice post, but there will be deep scars for a long time.

I think the DU owners handled this conflict poorly.

I'm glad I'm on neither side.

[UALRBSofL]

17. I have to say I think DU is more representative of America then you think

I think the candidates will come together for the General Election but for many people, especially the Obama supporters, they have such a deep seeded hatred of America and anything anti-Obama that the wounds will heal too slow to come together with the Hillary supporters. I also believe people perceive Obama as a racist when he made the statement about his grandmother being "just a white person", and, his comparison of people with guns, religion, and, antipothy has creadted such a wedge that these people can't forgive and forget what he said.

[BigBearJohn]

8. I'm sure there are many here who agree with you - and count me as one of them.

Thanks for putting it in perspective. :hug:

[taught_me_patience]

9. It is black and white on one issue for me

if Hillary steals the election by pursuading superdelegates to override the delegate count... I'll never call myself a democrat again. If she wins fair and square, then I'll vote for her.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

25. In a way, it would be fair

superdelegates were "invented" to give the "aged sages" a way to offset the unwashed ignorant masses who might vote for an unelectable wild candidate.

In this race, the two leaders are not all that far apart on most issues. So I agree the committed delegate count should hold.

I might not like the outcome, but I'm still going to vote "Dem" in November.

[SoCalDem]

44. It's past the point of no return.. there is no "fair" way for her to win.

Like a pundit said today.. How do we explain to the world that:

he won more delegates
he had more popular (non-counting) votes
he won more states
he raised more money
he drew bigger crowds
he brought in more new voters


and a few party poobahs took it away from the black guy and gave it to Clinton's wife..

[davidpdx]

10. When talking points like

latte liberal and Micheal Dukakis are used, it makes me wonder what else some will say to get Hillary Clinton elected.

[crankychatter]

11. I'm rubbernecking a train wreck

like a voyeur

I have some convictions and hope... I go through this every four years

I'm not a political junkie

I think true believers of any persuasion are dangerous

I think the stridency you describe is less relevant than we imagine

this world here is microcosmic, only of the rhetoric, not of the 3-D folks behind the screen names... or behind the polls

people vote their minds... then they go home and mow their lawns...wave to their neighbors... go to church... whatever

This party has been over for a long time... since the Dems in congress rolled over for the Bush Junta and failed to derail his juggernaut to hell

it's time to get War Profiteer money out of the electoral process... and all the rest is either a symptom or bullshit

corruption is the core issue

not race, gender and religion... or any other erroneously general "demographics"

SUPPORT CLEAN ELECTIONS

[kentuck]

12. Interesting perspective.

Thanks.

[H2O Man]

13. Yes, but

the tomb-stoned ones are dead to me.

[Coexist]

16. lol!

[Marrah_G]

14. Too late. The damage is done.

For me anyway.

[Armstead]

15. Kentuck, You are Dead to Me Now.

:)

[kentuck]

21. Thanks Armstead.

:-) I suppose I am dead to a lot of people and on a lot of "ignore" lists. But, I fail to see how anything positive can come from simply attacking each other over the candidates?? With that said, I will confess to being as guilty as others in their support of their candidate.

[Armstead]

22. I doubt you're on many ignore lists....You're too reasonable for that

Even when you are raising difficult points, you are not inflammatory.

Me, on the otehr hand.....

[kentuck]

24. You're reasonable enough...

:-) Seriously, you're one of the first posters that I look to read when I sign on to DU...

[jody]

37. Delete, mea culpa. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Some Of Us Don't Like One Another

It is what it is...

I really don't care if someone likes me or not as long as it is for the right reasons...

[gsaguyCLW54]

23. I will make my contribution aftern the convention......

...because I care about winning in November. Too many Obama supporters refuse to see how vulnerable he is in states we have carried in the last two elections. Like i said, Ill vote for Obama and Ill donate $$ to Obama.....but people who think that he's going to win just dont know history, or refuse to see it.

[yardwork]

26. Well, yeah. k&r.

[KoKo]

27. Thanks, Kentuck...for posting about this. K&R

[kentuck]

28. KoKo01...

It is important that we at least try to keep it all in some sort of rational perspective. This campaign will eventually end. We will have one or the other of the candidates as the nominee. Then what do we do? Thanks for your attempts also.

[KoKo]

30. Here's what I posted about all this "hate" last night...on another thread...

(I don't support Clintons...and am undecided about Obama...but I find all the vileness towards Clintons to be really divisive...so that's why I posted this)

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

KoKo01 Donating Member Wed Apr-23-08 11:53 PM

Response to Reply #118
119. The "source" of this hate is really Bush/Cheney and that our Dems have done nothing to Impeach them

or hold them accountable for ANY OF THEIR CRIMES... That's the hate. And, that hate has morphed over to Bill and Hillary because, in our minds, they somehow set us up for the HELL we've lived through under the Bush Crime Family.

I think we are playing into Repug hands...by taking our anger over all of this and putting it on Bill and Hillary's Backs. They deserve much of our wrath but the Repugs deserve it more and by allowing this to get projected onto the Clintons we play right into their hands for the Primaries and the General Election.

I know that the Clinton Presidency in the "rear view mirror" looks worse to us Dems than it did back in 2000 and there are many new folks here who don't remember how we Dems agonized over Al Gore having the election stolen from him and how we worked so hard to bring change supporting the NEW Internet...and the Liberal Web sites that sprung up. It's old news to many and old news to those of us who are so angry that Bush Crime family is never held accountable. But, trashing our fellow Dems...about Clintons only serves to hurt Dems who don't know "the rear view mirror" of the Clinton Presidency. It allows the McCorporate Media and Repugs to get great enjoyment about how they can star fights amongst us.

That's all I'm trying to say...and maybe I'm saying it badly but it's what I've observed...so just passing it along.

[kentuck]

32. I would agree that Bill Clinton laid a good foundation...

..if the election of 2000 had been different? But, it wasn't. I do not agree with those that say Al Gore should have run on Bill Clinton's coattails. Bill Clinton had high ratings after he left office. At the time of the campaign, he was a disgraced and impeached President in many American's eyes. Al Gore made up a large deficit by running as a "populist" - for which he was severely criticized for doing by the likes of Al From and the DLC. We know the rest of the story.

But, Bill Clinton had left the economy in good shape, even after the tech bust. Unemployment was at 4.0% and the budget was running a surplus. We had the funds to do what needed to be done for the people, such as saving Social Security and Medicare but that dream was shattered by the radical Republicans under Bush and Cheney and the neo-cons. Whatever Bill Clinton accomplished, it was only temporary. There were no large Democratic programs to help the common citizens. Not only that, we lost good majorities in both the House and Senate while he was in the White House. Now we will have to re-build the Party and the country from scratch.

Many Democrats still have ill feelings towards Bill Clinton for his conservative policies and some of the laws that he signed his name upon. Many say he was the best Republican President ever. The good economy, which was more of a lucky draw than anything that Clinton did, was mostly due to the high-tech revolution of the 1990's. It spurred a really good economy. Now, the Democrats are hoping to repeat that type of growth with the new "green" technology. Perhaps it will work and perhaps it will not? The sad truth is that the Republican Party has done tremendous damage to our country and our economy with their voodoo economic policies of tax-breaks for the rich and their trickle-down theories.

[Tatiana]

38. You speak the truth.

We were left without a majority in the House and Senate and there was no safety net for citizens to fall back on in case of hard times.

If Bill Clinton's Presidency illustrates anything, it is that ALL that major social programs must be proposed and passed at the outset of Democrats gaining Congress and the Presidency. If we try to wait till the tail end of the first term or the second term, the dynamics may have changed in ways that make passing and signing such legislation impossible.

There are advantages to starting off with a front-loaded legislative agenda. Passing universal health care will guarantee a Democratic second term (and possibly keep control of the government in Democratic hands for years to come). Senior members of Congress like Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, and Russ Feingold must have the bills already written and ready to be introduced soon after the Democratic President is sworn in.

We cannot afford to be lazy or overly cautious this time. We cannot be complacent with the Republicans. We've got to be ready to govern "from day one."

[Two Americas]

46. scapegoating Clinton

What people seem to forget is that virtually all Democrats agreed with and supported what Clinton was doing; politicians, Dem activists, and people right here right up until fairly recently.

I say this as an outspoken critic of Clinton and the other Dem leaders for more than ten years. It was a very lonely position all of that time. Now we are to believe that millions all "saw the light" simultaneously? If so, and if that is genuine, then why is that still not reflected anywhere else or on other issues except as it is convenient to put to use in the cause of Obama partisanship?

[LilBitRad]

29. K&R

During the four years I've been reading DU and the more than three years I've been a member, the divisiveness during this current primary season has been the most disappointing to me.

I don't post much; I come here to get the news, to see what others are thinking and what we, collectively, can do to straighten out this mess we call a government.

I'm normally content to merely observe and refuse to become involved in cults of personality on the board.

Though I have "favorite" posters I have no one on my buddy list, nor do I have anyone on ignore. I find that sometimes I learn from posters with whom I don't see eye to eye.

It's called being open to new ideas.

Unfortunately, many of our members seem to have forgotten; DU is a big tent and there is room for difference in opinions and the key to convincing someone to accept a different POV is well reasoned arguments and not by insulting another poster on a personal level.

Lest we forget, no candidate is "perfect". Some candidates reflect individual views better or more in alignment than others, in the sense of being most closely in agreement with what we, as individuals, are looking for.

My favorite candidate suspended his run shortly before our primary (yes, I voted for him, because he was still on the ballot), so I'm reduced (bad word) to voting for the nominee in November.

Which of the two remaining on the ticket I would prefer I'll leave unsaid, simply because the damage being done to this forum saddens me and I have no desire to become involved in arguments of that type

I've seen posters who were friends (or at least friendly) put each other on ignore and I'm not at all certain there will be a healing process when this is all over.

I fear the damage done to the forum (at least in the GS-P threads) has hurt us all.

The one saving grace is, many posters at DU do not post on the GD-P threads...it may save us.

[BlooInBloo]

34. There is actually very little division. It's almost entirely the squeaky wheel artifice.

[Shakespeare]

35. Great post, Kentuck. Thank you. n/t

[rucky]

36. You're not allowed to be concerned on DU.

even though everybody seems to appreciate it when people are.

:shrug:

[jody]

39. kentuck, good points however IMO some/most of the divisive rhetoric is from young people

who are idealistic to the point of being politically naive.

I wish all DUers would join me in flying the Yellow Dog Democrat banner because the most important goal is for we Dems to control the White House and Congress so we can dictate who the next Supreme Court nominees are and pass laws that withdraw from Iraq & Afghanistan as quickly as possible and with minimum casualties on all sides, and focus on rebuilding the national infrastructure that Dubya has virtually destroyed.

[kentuck]

40. I was once naive, also.

And young and foolish. And now, I am just old and foolish.

[jody]

41. Join the crowd.

:toast:

[kentuck]

43. Cheers !

:toast:

[SoCalDem]

42. I never look at the name when someone bashes me, and of course I never

remember it or hold grudges..

That's how I deal with it.. If people hold them against me.. well, that's their issue..

I don't like their candidate..it's nothing personal.. people make bad link-ups all the time, or the divorce rate would be zero..:)