I have tried to stay out of this Clinton bashing long enough

[thewiseguy]

What has happened to DU has been inexcusable. Hillary and Bill Clinton worked their butts off for president elect Obama.

Yet, I am seeing articles from WASHINGTON TIMES posted on DU claiming otherwise!

What is next? Posting Free Republic articles about Hillary on DU to make your point? :wtf:

Enough is enough.

Just for the record, I was 100% behind Obama from the start.

[janx]

1. Agreed.

I've stayed out of it until today as well. It's deplorable.

[trueblue2007]

78. I agree. Clinton bashing on the Demo Underground sucks.

Y'all who wanna do this, head to freeperpartytown.com why don't you?

[Enthusiast]

106. Agree with you!

This is bullshit! Obama is the one making the decisions.

[niceypoo]

134. The poster of the Washington Times article has been consumed with Hillary for a solid year

And shows no sign of slowing down. I feel sorry for people who do that to themselves.

[FormerDittoHead]

185. What? Are you some kind of "Hillbot"?

...but they're just "discussing" issues and policies while insulting people here!

[1corona4u]

2. Yeah!! You tell em.

Too bad they don't care that they are stinking up the board. It's pathetic, the behavior here recently.

[janx]

4. I'm glad to see Seamus on the board!

Nice!

[Bunny]

3. Someone else mentioned this in another thread, and I think it's true.

For some people, the need to hate anything Clinton was/is far, far stronger than the need to support Barack Obama.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Wash Times isn't Free Republic--unless someone can prove that

their articles are factually incorrect. It doesn't exist to help Democrats, though, it's true--I rank them with the WSJ editorial page as far as anti-Dem spin goes, but they're usually a legitimate source, IMO.

[grasswire]

9. you are wrong

The Moonie-owned Washington Times has been attacking America for decades. The WSJ-Drudge-WashTimes-FOX-talk radio team has developed an entrenched, embittered right wingnut faction through the dissemination of lies.

[TwilightGardener]

10. I think I can analyze and assess the accuracy and quality of what I

read and watch for myself, thanks.

[11 Bravo]

14. The Moonie Times ran TWO front page, above the fold stories about John Kerry's "intern problem" ...

during the run-up to the '04 election. After the issue was debunked by the girl in question and her parents, the Times continued to run with the story, simply moving it off of the Front Page.
Perhaps this will assist you in "assessing the accuracy and quality" of what you read.

[Whisp]

88. can you name me the papers that didn't toot the horn for the Iraqi war?

they were all wrong, dead wrong.

so please. the nat'l enquirer hasn't made such horrific costly mistakes in judgement than the big fat media gloms (that love war, btw)..


pleeeeeeeeeze

[grasswire]

16. yeah, well you are still wrong. (eom)

[grasswire]

22. further..........

....Media Matters, which keeps track of liars, has 155 pages of incidents where the WashTimes has strayed from objectivity.

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/tags/the_washington_times


155 pages.

[BzaDem]

161. Well, apparently not. n/t

[Patchuli]

155. Hopefully, with the departure of *, good times

will be over for the 'Mooney Times.' That guy is a psycho and * has let them run rampant. Perhaps some regulations may be in order for printing and disseminating trash soon...*crossing fingers* The same goes for hate radio. Enough!

[Danger Mouse]

93. The Washington Times is a rightwing shitrag. We don't need filth like that here.

[RoyGBiv]

154. The Washington Times is garbage ...

And, yes, they run factually incorrect stories, constantly.

As a related aside, they run regular Civil War pieces for reasons I've never quite figured out, which is how I first became exposed to them, and then I started picking apart some of the articles in my spare time and eventually did a full-blown critique of a pattern of Lost Cause Mythos regurgitation that comes off as intentional and not the result of ignorance of the writers and editors.

Now one may say, "Oh, that's history puff pieces." No, it isn't. They run these coinciding with current stories of national interest that bring out some of the same issues of race, class, and gender difference. And they push the old Lost Cause mythology, which is "factually inaccurate" to prop up the view portrayed in current stories, also often with factually inaccurate information, that picked by the editorial staff to further a specific worldview as "normal" that never was and hopefully never will be.

Even in cases where their factual information is correct, they err by omission or, as noted, providing side commentary in different stories that seek to paint the original story in a specific light.

And if you think this doesn't work well, go to a League of the South meeting and see what newspaper they've got sitting out for you to read.

[CoffeeCat]

6. I'm failing to understand the freak out...

Anyone who was on DU during the primaries, understands that there is a large
contingent of people who disagree with the Clintons--their policies, their hardball
politics, etc.

What is the big freaking deal if someone doesn't like the Clintons?

I've never seen anything like this on DU.

We were all allowed to express our opinions during the primary, why
is a negative opinion on the Clintons cause for complete meltdowns,
attacks, name calling and whining?

I don't get this.

I support Obama. I just don't agree with Clinton as SOS choice. Does
that mean everyone goes nuts, and that I should hide under a desk?

I supported Obama wholeheartedly, worked my ass of and I was a precinct
captain. I'm sure that Obama doesn't mind that I have AN OPINION.

[janx]

11. The point is that our opinions, in the end, really don't matter.

We don't have a say in this, and therefore it's ridiculous to whine about it. Some of the most ardent whiners are those who have what looks like an unreasonable attachment to a politician whom they wanted put in the SOS position. The degree of the bashing is just infantile. And I'm not putting you in that category.

You have every right to your opinions, but the degree to which the anti-Hillary sentiment is posted on this board is beginning to bother those of us who have no emotional stake in the SOS decision. When it gets to the point where those of us who have remained fairly neutral have really had it, it's getting pretty bad.

:shrug:

[musicblind]

13. You have bashed Sen. Clinton since before Iowa. In fact, that is why I remember you are

from Iowa. You put up rants about how everyone hates her... and so on... and so on...

However, all of that was fine then because that was during the PRIMARIES. There WAS a different set of rules for the primaries as Skinner pointed out.

Now that the primaries are over... we go back to our old rules. Sen. Clinton is no longer Obama's opponent. In fact, Sen Clinton now has a leading role in the new democratic administration and is fourth in succession to the presidency. She is now a figure head for our party and a trusted advisor to Obama.

That is the difference. After the primaries the people who bashed Obama had to stop. That was required. Now that the primaries are over the people bashing Clinton have to stop as well because she is now a high ranking part of the new administration.

It is one thing to say "I don't agree that Clinton is the best choice for SOS." It is another to lie and claim she could have used money that was only legally allowed to be used for the GE to pay off primary debts or to claim that she plans to stab Obama in the back.

One is a reasonable opinion about her qualifications to be SOS. The other is hatred reminiscent of the primaries.

[CoffeeCat]

23. I expressed my opinion....

...about Hillary Clinton. You might not agree with it, but I don't recall agreeing
with EVERY opinion I read on DU.

I disagree with her as SOS because my core complaints about her are her stances
on foreign policy. I also don't like her slash-and-burn political behavior--which
I think is more in line with Rove than it is with Obama.

I don't understand why Obama would want to work with someone like that.

I don't call that bashing. I don't call that hate.

I'm entitled to my opinion.

I think the thought police need to calm down a bit.

[snake in the grass]

141. "I expressed my opinion"...

...or something similar if often the lead in to start spreading absolute falsehoods and juvenile invectives. Fox uses it all the time along with the famous "some people say".

[1corona4u]

26. Yeah, we got your opinion, and we're sick of hearing the same

drivel over, and over, and over, and over....it's like eating a Big Mac for the rest of your life....it gets OLD. And annoying.

Get. Over. It.

[Cha]

82. I always like to read your

well thought out opinions ever since the Iowa Caucus Days, Two Sparkles.

My stance on this SOS is I'm giving everything Obama does a chance because he's earned it from me and I want him and Biden to accomplish the gigantic task of getting our country out of its downward spiral and back on track..as I know we all do.

[Patchuli]

156. I agree. We need to trust the man we just elected

I am sure that if any of his appointees do not accomplish what President Obama expects of them, they will be replaced. Also, I have not always agreed with the Clintons either, but I do think we owe them a huge thank you for the huge push they gave our candidate. I also remember living much better under Clinton than any other president in reason history. I was really disappointed with Hillary and Bill's behavior during the primary but I think I owe them a debt for a damn good decade to give Hill a chance to shine. If she screws up, I'll speak up.

Bottom line: I voted for Barack Obama because I instinctively trust him. I have to trust his decisions and not rushing to judge is part of that. The blogosphere is plenty big enough and Obama knows that much of his support and big bucks came from her. I think he'll listen.

[Cha]

183. Precisely!

"Bottom line: I voted for Barack Obama because I instinctively trust him. I have to trust his decisions and not rushing to judge is part of that. The blogosphere is plenty big enough and Obama knows that much of his support and big bucks came from her. I think he'll listen."

I supported him in the primary because I instinctively trust him and he's only built on that trust.

[Patchuli]

184. I think we made a good choice...

by the way, I adore your picture. Tahiti or the Islands?

[Cha]

186. I love the pic, too.. a

DUer let me keep her's..it could be anywhere tropicalB-)

Shout out to No Surrender:fistbump:

[Patchuli]

187. Love the fist-bump!

:fistbump:

[Cha]

190. Yeah, it's better for

me than the toast:fistbump:

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beacool]

8. Thank you!!!

I don't get it, both Clintons are great party leaders and they are treated here worse than if they were conservative Republicans.

Some people seem insistent on driving a wedge between the two primary camps. This is not making for a united board, nor does it make those of us who supported Hillary welcome. I thought the purpose of this board was other than to eviscerate two of the best politicians the party has ever had in decades.

It's frankly infuriating and depressing.

:-(

[msongs]

12. clintons WIN - their administration is being recreated in DC 16 yrs later nt

[Blu Dahlia]

15. Is the story true or false? That is the question

[ProSense]

17. Can prove the story false? Equating the Washington Times to Free Republic is idiotic.

Can you prove they fabricated the FEC report, the quotes from the letter and Philippe Reines?

We know the part about the transfer of money is true:

Hillary's $7.5 Million Problem

ABC News' Tahman Bradley Reports: Hillary Clinton continues to carry $7.5 million of debt owed to vendors from her failed presidential bid which ended in early June, her campaign finance report covering the month of October shows.

Even though the election is over, Clinton can continue to raise money for unpaid bills, as long as contributors clearly designate their contributions as being specially for retiring presidential campaign debt. There's no time limit on how long a candidate can carry debt.

The campaign retired a few hundred thousands dollars of debt in October after bringing in $774,299 last month.

Clinton lost all opportunities to get back the $13.1 million in personal money she loaned the campaign. Campaign finance law restricts the amount of time a candidate can pay back personal loans in an effort to limit candidates from self-financing campaigns. Clinton needed to pay herself back by the final day of the Democratic convention.

If Clinton accepts the position of Secretary of State, or some other post in the Obama administration, she would be barred by The Hatch Act of 1939 from soliciting and receiving political contributions. The Clinton campaign organization, however, can continue to raise money for the purpose of retiring debt even if the senator accepts an appointed position in government. Raising a small amount of money from loyal donors without help from Clinton might be doable, but raising $7.5 million without the candidate seems like a tall order.

Campaign finance law is pretty flexible in a candidate's ability to retire debt after a presidential election is over and a little innovative campaign treasury maneuvering could yield a faster way for Clinton to erase most of the remaining debt. On August 28, Clinton's Senate account received $6.4 million in contributions that were first designated for the presidential campaign for use in the general election. That money could theoretically be transferred back to the presidential campaign and used to knock out vendor debt.

The Clinton presidential campaign this week was still hunting for help with unpaid bills, sending supporters an e-mail asking for money.

Her Senate campaign committee, which had $6 million in the bank at the end of September, could agree to pay off her presidential campaign debts.

The Senate account received $6.5 million in donations from supporters who initially had given the money to finance Clinton's general-election campaign had she won the Democratic presidential nomination. They gave the money instead to her Senate campaign rather than request a refund.

link

That's a Bloomberg report, and it looks like Hillary's own supporters don't want to help pay off her debt.

The question is is the $6.5 million still there?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

20. it is hardly "idiotic" to compare the two

[ProSense]

150. It's completely idiotic

Obama had the Washington Times traveling on his plane as part of the Press for two years up to Nov. 1:

The Washington Times, which has had a reporter traveling with Sen. Barack Obama's campaign for nearly two years, was kicked off the candidate's press plane on Friday.

"The decision came just three days after the editorial page endorsed John McCain," Times Executive Editor John Solomon said. "I hope a candidate who says he wants to unite the country isn't using a litmus test for who can cover him."

The Obama operation also ejected reporters for the New York Post and Dallas Morning News, which have recently endorsed McCain. Room was suddenly made for black-oriented magazines that have not been constant fixtures on the plane: Essence, Ebony and Jet.

Obama adviser Anita Dunn said that the issue is one of limited space and that "anyone who suggests a linkage with editorial endorsements is just plain wrong." Dunn noted that "two of our largest editorial critics are ensconced on that plane, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal." Obama's hometown papers, the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times, each received an additional seat. Dunn said that adding a second plane, a common practice in past campaigns, would slow things down and hamper the candidate's ambitious schedule.

link

I guess he had Free Republic on his plane, huh?

[Danger Mouse]

94. They both serve the same purpose.

[BzaDem]

162. Woah! Clinton basher defending the Washington Times! I'm so surprised! n/t

[riqster]

18. Those who are deriding the Clintons are basing their attacks on personal feelings

...rather than actual facts and the capability of Hillary (and Bill during his presidency).

[AtomicKitten]

31. Those defending her on this do so blindly, and that's based on their personal feelings.

Two scenarios emerge regarding the dust-up de jour:

* either *

1) Hillary lied to the FEC. That's a problem for Obama in that she cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

* or *

2) Hillary admitted continuing to twist arms all the way to convention looking for the magic number for a coup. That's a problem for Obama in that she cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

Count me among those that are concerned for Obama's presidency; others remain loyal to all things Clinton first and foremost.

[Lyric]

41. The constant slander that

anybody who DOESN'T deeply dislike/mistrust/despise anything Clinton MUST be a Clinton-worshiper is getting really tiresome.

Just because other intelligent, thoughtful, rational people do not share the CLINTONHATECLINTONSMASHCLINTONEVIL!!!111 psychosis, that does NOT automatically mean that they're Clinton-loyal "first and foremost."

To suggest otherwise is a classic "false dilemma" logical fallacy. There are other positions than the AMUPs and the PUMAs.

Speaking of "false-dilemma" fallacies--are you seriously suggesting that there is NO POSSIBLE alternative scenario to the two you named above?

Whenever someone tells me that there are ONLY TWO options in regard to a complex and murky issue, that's a pretty good sign to me that said person's opinion probably shouldn't be taken very seriously.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. LOL

"The constant slander that anybody who DOESN'T deeply dislike/mistrust/despise anything Clinton MUST be a Clinton-worshiper is getting really tiresome."

"Just because other intelligent, thoughtful, rational people do not share the CLINTONHATECLINTONSMASHCLINTONEVIL!!!111 psychosis, that does NOT automatically mean that they're Clinton-loyal "first and foremost."

Do you realize the irony of these comments?

[CitizenPatriot]

110. well said.

Food for thought: where did this worshipping meme come from? I hear it all of the time from my self-described "independent" (i.e., msm/ freep drinkers) acquaintances. "You're a worshipper!" is supposed to negate all opposing reason and logic? Really? Nothing like assuming only the broadest possibilities as defined by the msm to generate intelligent debate and thoughtful response. And nothing says GOP faster than the best defense is a good offense. Snoooooze.

Yo, all you "worshipper!" accusers: that thing you just hit your head on? Cognitive dissonance. Head's UP!

[AtomicKitten]

127. that would have been a great story if only I had actually used the word

I never used the word "worshipper." I used "loyal to" which is very different. Dramatic license was taken to which you responded. It's like a bad game of telephone.

What we are talking about is allegiance to a political power couple. The Clintons are up to their armpits in circuitous finances and foreign entanglements and have elected to litigate the SoS vetting in the press, and this bit of manipulation opens the door to discussion in the body politic. And so we talk about it.

However, in almost every discussion about the Clintons, a chorus of "hater" is heard in a lame attempt to shut down discussion. Apparently facing the reality of what the Clintons actually do and say simply does not compute among the faithful.

So they deflect, and project, and accuse. Just another day on DU.

[CitizenPatriot]

158. hey, I wasn't referring to you so take it easy... nt

[AtomicKitten]

159. good to know

thanks

[CitizenPatriot]

179. No prob:-)

I coulda been more clear. I was referencing my freep colleagues, who just got on my nerves after 3 straight days of them accusing me of being a blind supporter for no reason and not listening to the reasons I gave. No matter how I try to ignore them, they come outta the blue and say shitty things like "well, your people in congress really screwed that up..." blah blah blah. "your liberals..." "You only voted for Obama because you're a liberal" (as if this is true AND a crime).... etc.

Well, if you've ever watched Fox, you know how it goes from there. I ignore it for the most part, but the failure in logic is irritating and I welcomed the chance to vent.

[riqster]

63. That assumes that there are only two ways of looking at the situation

...and that the topics noted above are the only aspects worth considering.

[AtomicKitten]

64. She either lied to the FEC or she lied to the party about conceding.

She either continued to run or she didn't. She isn't above the law. There are no gray areas; Clinton has boxed herself in on this all by her lonesome.

Like I said above, it's a problem either way for PE Obama and probably only part of why he hasn't formally offered her the job of SoS.

edited to include:

"The committee continued to actively contest for delegates at the state and local delegate-selection events during the month of June," campaign treasurer Shelly Moskwa wrote in a letter to the FEC dated Nov. 20. "Nothing in Senator Clinton´s remarks indicated that she was withdrawing from the race.

"While she indicated that she was suspending her campaign, the term 'suspension' has no legal meaning," Ms. Moskwa wrote.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7917956&mesg_id=7917956

[riqster]

97. OK, we could say the same thing about PE Obama and public financing

OR, we could say, he adapted to circumstances as we expect a good executive to be able to do. Same with HRC.

[AtomicKitten]

111. LOL

Edited to respond in more detail. Wow. What do you say to something like that. You don't see what the difference is and, if I answer, you've drawn me into more Clinton drama. Suffice to say, on a questionnaire which the other contenders didn't bother to fill out, Obama answered "yes" on a question regarding public financing, yes - with an explanation. And he hand-wrote a note that said he would try to come to a mutually agreeable plan with the GOP nominee. I read his team met with McCain's and the meeting lasted about 15 minutes. Done and done. As far as I'm concerned, Obama did EXACTLY what he said he would do.

So, there it is. Clinton either BS'd the FEC to rearrange her campaign debt or she really was trying to overturn the primary results and continued to run. Neither of which is anything to be proud of much less defend.

The Clintons seem to have lost their touch. They keep stepping in their own shit.

[Whisp]

84. that could be true, I have very personal feelings about wars,

and making shit up out out nothing like sniper fire, and laughing about it while real men and women are dying from shots in Iraq...

I have a lot of feelings about NAFTA, Colombia union skull busting, stuff like that.

and big fat sleazy liars.

[AtomicKitten]

92. ditto

[riqster]

95. Hatred does not lead to clarity of thought. nt

[Whisp]

98. Idon't hate the Clintons, I just don't trust them

they've proven that they are liars and Hillary conducted herself without dignity in the primaries.

the hate thing I reserve for bush jr. that man I do hate and not ashamed to admit it.

[AtomicKitten]

113. again ditto n/t

[bvar22]

19. Is the Washington Times story true?

Thats all I care about these days.

You can run around in circles flailing and screaming, kicking up dust, clouding issues, attacking messengers.....I don't care. Wear yourself out.


Is the story true true?

[DeepModem Mom]

21. K&R

[Arkansas Granny]

24. There are some here who, IMO, became addicted to bashing the Clintons during

the primaries and just can't give up the habit. I have quit trying to talk with these people as they are impossible to reason with. I had hoped that the derogatory statements would pretty much disappear after the primaries were over and she endorsed Obama and tirelessly campaigned for him. However, any mention of her name seems to bring out the same detractors who just can't seem to get enough of the trashing.

[mtnsnake]

25. Not just the primaries

Clinton bashing has been vogue here for at least 3 years or longer. Some of it is legit, but so much of it simply stems from hatred, jealousy, or from being a cleverly disguised mole, IMO. How it's allowed to flourish to the ridiculous extent that it does here on a Democratic forum is a mystery to me.

[PresidentObama]

37. Mtnsnake is correct. Before the primaries, Clinton bashing was the thing to do.

Remember when I defended Clinton when the other Kerry supporters tried to claim Bill and Hillary purposely caused Kerry to lose in 2004? That was my first taste of the Clinton hate on DU.

It's pretty disgusting. And about a year or more before the primaries.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. Was that about Kerry's joke?

The one where Kerry joked about how stupid it was to get stuck in Iraq, and Hillary Clinton took the Rush Limbaugh side of the issue and criticized Kerry for "attacking the troops?"

Or was it some other issue?

[PresidentObama]

43. Obviously you aren't paying attention, or you would know the answer.

We're talking about 2004, if you didn't read my post. Some Kerry supporters, and at the time I support Kerry before he announced he wouldn't run again, claimed Clinton was partly responsible for Kerry losing and that Clinton "wanted" Kerry to lose. It was crazy.

Pay attention. It helps.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. You also said it was about a year before the primary.

After Clinton's viciousness towards Kerry.

[mtnsnake]

65. Nice way to change the subject and attempt to open old wounds.

but then again, that seems to be what people on this forum enjoy doing the most, opening old wounds for sake of creating divisiveness instead of unity.

Look nobody is referring to "Clinton's viciousness towards Kerry" or vice versa. What we were referring to had nothing to do with what Kerry or Clinton did or said, concerning one another. We are referring to what posters said, period.

[ClarkUSA]

27. Many say Drudge is biased but he did break the Monica Lewinsky story and got it 100% right.

The Washington Times story outlining Hillary v. FEC seems very easy to source and I have yet to see a denial or a debunking from any quarter.

[last1standing]

28. Its possible to think Hillary as SOS is a bad choice without bashing her.

I think Howard Dean is a great Democrat but he would have been an equally, if not worse, choice for the position. the problem I see with choosing Hillary for a cabinet position is that Obama risks losing control over his foreign policy agenda because so much of the spotlight will be on the person, not the position. That doesn't mean I think she should have been left out in the cold. I have always supported her to replace Justice Stevens when he steps down next year. Hillary would make an excellent Supreme Court Justice and being in a technically non-political position would take the spotlight away after the initial novelty wore off.

That's not to say that some here aren't just rabid Hillary bashers, because they are definitely represented at DU. And quoting Washington Times or Insider Israel is just trolling, in my opinion.

[xultar]

29. Isn't it sad you have to state Just for the record, I was 100% behind Obama from the start.

around here as a credibility pledge or something?

Even if the OP supported Richardson or Edwards from the start the statement posted by the OP would still be true.

[MasonJar]

30. The point is not the right wing rag WT, but to stop bashing the Clintons.

I wasn't an Obama supporter; I was a Hillary supporter, but I came on board big time when O got the nomination. The anti-Clinton bashes on DU are way out of line, whatever source is documented. Hillary went all out for Obama. He is rewarding her expertise. I just wonder if Obama DU supporters would have backed Hillary had she won, like we Hillary supporters did Obama. It looks unlikely when she and Bill are constantly bashed still and they lost. STFU about Bill and Hill.

[suzie]

79. The Clinton supporters who came out and supported Obama

certainly earned my respect and gratitude when we were all working together to try and deliver votes for Obama.

Bashing Hillary and Bill at this point seems to serve no purpose except to alienate people who listened to their candidate and put the divisiveness of the primary season behind them.

[PresidentObama]

32. It's disgusting and vile. And utter NonSense n/t

[LostinVA]

35. OMFG

:rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. I myself am sick and tired of all this Clinton loving.

It's not our fault Hillary Clinton sucks.

[PresidentObama]

36. I'm sorry we like good Democrats.

And I'm sorry that some on this board attack the Clintons obsessively.

Seek help. Now.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. I like good Democrats as well.

Which is why I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton.

[Beacool]

45. But it is your fault that you are such a hateful individual.

And for the record, millions of people would disagree with you.

Not all of us were ga-ga over Obama, would that make it acceptable to start thread after bloody thread bashing him?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. That's true.

It's Hillary Clinton's.

"And for the record, millions of people would disagree with you."

And 59 million people voted for John McCain. Fuck 'em.

"Not all of us were ga-ga over Obama, would that make it acceptable to start thread after bloody thread bashing him?"

You never had any legitimate reasons to hate Barack Obama.

[Beacool]

55. Since the primaries are over,

I won't list the reasons that I had for not supporting Obama during the primaries, I still have my doubts about him. But, as opposed to some of you who keep bashing Hillary endlessly, I'm willing to give the guy a chance to actually do the job before I criticize him. How about giving the same benefit of the doubt to Hillary?

:shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

69. If your criticisms can't remain valid after the primaries...

then they never were valid to begin with.

[Maru Kitteh]

131. Let it fucking go.

Oh yeah, my bad.

You probably actually DON'T have anything better to do.

[BzaDem]

163. I think you would have nothing to do all day if HRC weren't there for you to bash.

It is perfectly reasonable to be critical of Obama but not to constantly bring up those criticisms after the primaries (when the rules and tenor of DU changed). The fact that the poster you are referring to was able to do that, and the fact that you apparently weren't able to do that, shows us who is the baby and who is mature.

[laugle]

160. The same old people that continue to

bash, and create conflict and division on this board, say more about themselves than Hillary or Bill. I see them do it over and over, they should be ignored..............

Note: Constructive debate and criticism is productive--Hate is not........

[apocalypsehow]

115. "Not all of us were ga-ga over Obama" - And you hid it so well. n/t.

[Beacool]

137. Oh, sorry, I didn't know I was supposed to hide it.

:eyes:

[JVS]

46. !

:yourock:

[Lucky 13]

56. !!

:applause:

[MoonRiver]

86. Looks like President Elect Obama intensely disagrees with you.

Shall I now serve you up a large helping of cognitive dissonance for your dining pleasure?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

102. Possibly.

It wouldn't be the first time I've disagreed with Obama.

"Shall I now serve you up a large helping of cognitive dissonance for your dining pleasure?"

How about you serve up an explanation of why it's cognitive dissonance.

[wisteria]

174. LOL, at least in my opinion Hillary sucks. n/t

[NoodleyAppendage]

34. Ahhh.. The old straw man technique to squelch discussion that might be embarrasing to Clinton.

Nice try. See...here at DU we welcome free discussion and critical thinking. Your post would be welcome at Freeperland, which provides delicious irony to your point.

J

[thewiseguy]

40. ...

:eyes:

Yes, here at DU we are invested in bashing good Democrats around the clock by using questionable sources.

Perhaps as a good DU citizen, I must post articles from Larry Johnson about Barack Obama and ask the board to discuss them!

[bridgit]

38. Yes, the whole sordid back & forth is sad; sadder the disclaimer is required...

"I was 100% behind Obama from the start" but there it is. Cause if DUer's don't provide that they will come thriving on their conflict; they swarm as do bees, piranha, and brain police soon they will have stung, chewed away or beat everything decent into a pulp.

[Beacool]

50. Yeah, because God forbid a Democrat could have possibly

had the temerity of not supporting Obama during the primaries!!! I guess that was against some unwritten DU rule.

Well, I'm more than relieved that outside blogs like this one, KOS and Huff, people think and act abiding to normal parameters of behavior and not blind hate.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. Plenty of people ran in the primaries.

Not all of them resorted to slander and racism.

[PresidentObama]

53. Racism? Bullshit n/t

[Beacool]

58. Oh geez, not that crap again!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, Hillary is a racist, Bill is a racist, for all I know Chelsea and Seamus are racists too.

Whatever..............

:crazy:

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[Beacool]

87. Thank you,

I don't know why I waste my time responding to these individuals. They live to hate and are hopeless.

:(

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

118. In what respect, Charlie?

[IndianaJones]

119. you always come up with the most clever ways to get the slurs in. lulz. nt.

[apocalypsehow]

123. Kinda hard to play the wounded party when you're the one who made the accusation.

Just sayin'.

[IndianaJones]

125. who's wounded...I've dealt with racists my whole life. especially the old hateful variety. nt.

[apocalypsehow]

128. Zingers aren't slurs; and disagreement with you in and of itself scarcely constitutes "racism." n/t

[IndianaJones]

129. oh...I've had dealings with this one in the past...but thanks for the concern. nt.

[bridgit]

60. Oh sure, and as though foretold one can hear the buzzing see the waters churing...

all round where people are just trying to state a couple very basic premise regarding civility. It might be better to report that it's surprising/shocking; but for me things that are seen in advance are predictable and as plain as day maybe in the end, "ho hum"

[scheming daemons]

48. Hint: A lot of the posters here are freepers in disguise..... they've admitted it in several of ...

the threads on their site.


They are here to spread discontent.

[bridgit]

52. Imo, this post of yours is a prescription for further attacks upon DUer's with differing views...

[scheming daemons]

59. Go read what they say over there. They talk about how they want to breed discontent here.

[bridgit]

61. Firstly, I don't "go over there" wherever that is, and secondly; it is my belief we have ample...

argumentative facets right here. So I continue to suspect that the bulk of your post, as flat as it is, establishes an excuse for less than civil behaviors that some of us ourselves may find comely for whatever reasons...imo of course

[PresidentObama]

54. Bingo n/t

[mtnsnake]

57. Aint that the truth. According to what's been said on other sites, many of them have stars, too

I was reading this one despicable site a couple years ago, and several of their posters were bragging how they were longtime posters on DU and had gotten stars for a minimal price so they could do searches for a year and to make it look like they were legit.

[last1standing]

62. The lurkers among us! Dah-dah-DAH!!!

Your post reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode where the aliens are using a neighborhood's fears to turn them against each other. Not that you're meaning was such but it did remind me of it.

There have always been freepers with stars over here who think they do some great service for the Mother Limbaugh by subverting the board. I happen to know at least one DUer who does the same over there. It doesn't accomplish anything but if it makes them feel important or tricky, more power to them. To be honest, this is like grade-school psychology. Billy tells Jane that Tommy doesn't like Angela so Jane tells Tommy and Tommy hits Angela so Angela makes friends with Billy which is what Billy wanted to begin with.

Nearly everyone here is honestly trying to convey their thoughts and opinions on various subjects. Sure we can pull a McCarthy and blacklist suspected freepers, but what good would that do? For every real freeper you nail, a dozen good DUers are erroneously trashed.

Once again, I'm not suggesting that you, specifically, want to do this. I'm just stating where it all leads to once we move down that road.

[LostinVA]

72. One was able to become a mod

[last1standing]

74. I've been a moderater here. It's not the all powerful position some think.

It really stands as more a testament to that particular mole's lack of personal self worth that they would spend so much time and energy to worm their way into the deepest secrets of DU only to find there aren't any.

Note to admin: Sorry if I let the cat out of the bag, Skinner. Maybe you wanted posters to think we all got Barack Obama's personal phone number. :rofl:

[pecwae]

91. No one knows better

how little real power Mods wield than a former Mod :toast:

[LostinVA]

149. I know, but it was the point I was making -- how they insinuated themselves

I will state that I had them on Ignore.

[JVS]

121. Do you mean the FR freepers or the PUMA/hillaryis44-style freepers?

[TexasObserver]

66. If it's from the Moonie Times, you know it's got to be good!

Good compost, that is.

[BlooInBloo]

68. I'm happy to hold off on calling the race-baiter a *lying backstabbing* race-baiter...

Until the story is confirmed by other more reputable sources. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[JVS]

71. You're all heart I tell ya. Always giving the benefit of the doubt.

:loveya:

[BlooInBloo]

73. "MagnanimousBloo" they call me sometimes....

:P

[last1standing]

75. Better turn that hearing aide up.

Cause that aint what they's a sayin'. :D

[BlooInBloo]

76. You tell the story your way, I'll tell it mine. :P

[jesus_of_suburbia]

164. Obviously Barack is THRILLED to nominate the race-baiter. *kisses*

[BlooInBloo]

178. In the immortal words of Bring It On...

Dude, you just *lost*.

:rofl:

[blue_onyx]

70. People bash her because

they love the drama...the drama they (not Hillary) create. Hillary did a great job for Obama during the election and I'm sure she'll do a great job in his administration.

[DevonRex]

77. Agreed. And I was also for Obama from the get-go.

Some people have legitimate reasons to prefer someone else at SoS. And disagreement is fine. In fact, we thrive on it here.

BUT, using the appointment as an opportunity to divide and conquer is not okay IMHO.

[ecstatic]

80. " Seriously, I can't wait for Hillary to become President

I really, really admire that woman!" - Me in 2003

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=807916&mesg_id=808170

I made countless posts just like that. But new information requires new understanding of the situation. After reviewing some of her actions, my conscience no longer allows me to support her. You may not care if a wealthy woman rips off poor, working folks, but I do. I see it as a moral issue and won't be compromising my values anytime soon.

That being said, I still think the world of Obama, but he really needs to watch his back as long as she's near.

[TahitiNut]

83. Amen.

:thumbsup:

[Beacool]

89. Ahhhhhhhh (insert big sigh).

How many times do you need to be explained that campaign finance laws did not permit her to use that money for debt reduction?????? She either had to return it to the donors or ask them to fill out a form that authorized the campaign to transfer that money to her senate reelection campaign.

Is that so difficult to understand? Hopefully Obama will throw a couple of fundraisers after he's in office to help her pay the debt. She did raise over 10M for him in the GE and now she could use his help.

[ecstatic]

90. There was an abc article that said she could transfer it back if she

wanted too. I do hope you're right, since she will be the SoS regardless.

[mtnsnake]

99. Oh good gawd I cant believe I'm still hearing some of this preposterous same old crap

After reviewing some of her actions, my conscience no longer allows me to support her. You may not care if a wealthy woman rips off poor, working folks, but I do. I see it as a moral issue and won't be compromising my values anytime soon.

That being said, I still think the world of Obama, but he really needs to watch his back as long as she's near

What a pantload of silly banter that is. lmao

[BlooInBloo]

116. Holy shit. It LEARNS!

:P

Thanks for demonstrating to others that admitting error really isn't that big of a deal.

[Beacool]

138. So, there's hope for you yet...........

:eyes:

[BlooInBloo]

142. Hope is not a plan.

[laugle]

165. Talk about Irony......oh no, please don't send me one

of those incoherent reply's.......lol...

[jesus_of_suburbia]

167. I thought the same thing.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

166. Barack loves Hillary! Deal with it!

[laugle]

169. That's true, and

they just can't reconcile that......Have you watched their body language(Hill/Barack) in the last month, so touchy/feely.....I think they really like and respect each other.

That's what happens when expectations are too high. Don't worry, when Obama becomes president, they will have a shitload of complaints about him, and that is where the focus should be, on the president, not the SOS!

Hillary supporters had low expectations, so they have been pleasantly surprised.........

[QC]

146. Let's not get carried away. n/t

[Orsino]

81. They "worked their butts off" for Obama?

Well, after their having worked their butts off to defeat him, enough IMO to poison the well, I saw that they had plenty of butt left.

As they do now. They still look pretty damned comfortable.

It's okay to appreciate that they decided to join us, and their efforts (a net positive IMO) cannot be completely discounted, but let's keep some perspective here. They were among many factions promoting an Obama presidency. Most of us on the ground have a better claim to having lost pieces of our anatomy in the recent campaign.

[Whisp]

96. that's what I say in this 'work butts off' - the ground crew worked a lot harder

and longer ,
but it's the fat rich butts that take the try to take the big gravy credit for what they did. so typical..

[Catherine Vincent]

85. The Clinton-haters will never give up.

Thanks for trying to keep the peace.

[mtnsnake]

101. That's for sure. They're only here for 1 reason, to spread the seeds of hatred

by going after two of the most popular Democrats in the universe, Bill and Hillary Clinton.

It's one thing to have a legitimate difference over an issue or two with any politician, but you know damn well that most of the biggest Clinton haters in the world are either Right Wing ignoramuses or a few unappreciative "Democratic" assholes who can do nothing other than hate some of their own. I can't imagine how any Democrat can be filled with such hatred. The sad thing is, it seems like all of them have been attracted like flies to DU. In real life I've come across some Democrats who don't think as highly of the Clintons as I do, but they're never nearly as hateful and disrespectful as what we encounter here every single day. They reall do their best to make this place sickening sometimes.

[sniffa]

103. "some Democrats who don't think as highly of the Clintons as I do"

:rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

105. They're just unappreciative.

I voted for LBJ, dammit! Those uppity people owe me one!

[JVS]

122. That shit was hilariously awful.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

104. Bill and Hillary are the two most popular Democrats?

How interesting.

[mtnsnake]

107. Maybe not here in Bizarro World but in the rest of the world, yes

You really should get out more often. :)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

108. I guess I am in bizarro world.

Because I seem to remember a months long series of contests where it was determined that Hillary Clinton was not the most popular Democrat.

[JVS]

124. Don't you remember how popular they were among the white hard-working Americans of KY and WV?

Whenever you think about how fucked up our country is remember that it's probably because we haven't been taking our cultural cues from WV and KY. ;-)

[Beacool]

139. Actually she was, she won the votes of more registered Democrats than Obama in the primaries.

:shrug:

[laugle]

172. So true..............

The democrats that eat their own and couch their hate in "constructive debate," NOT!

Hey, that rhymes.........

Couch their hate in constructive debate........I like that!

Hey Mtnsnake, what are we doing here........LOL.......still nice to see you........I miss T!

[TheKentuckian]

100. All I can see is that some will bash the Clintons if they ushered in world peace

and others that would defend them tooth and nail if they ate the poster's baby right in front of them.

Anyone in any semblance of a middle ground is made out to be on one fringe or another. Some people should accept that on a very liberal/progressive board that the Clintons will take some real heat, even at times from people who like them in general terms. The Clintons often side with the well funded folk and corporations at the expense of workers and certainly the environment and they deserve some pressure for that. By the same token they have worked very hard on positions and issues that speak well for them and advance the party's goals.

I don't get why the Clintons have to cursed or revered or why there is so much hubbub about them either way. I'll slam them as I see fit and praise them as I see the merit for it too and have done both. Admittedly, I don't see them as saints or the devil incarnate but as a couple of brilliant minds that are on our team but subject to self importance and over-competitiveness that will have them doing ANYTHING to win. Both sides of the spectrum need to allow these people to be human. One group needs to lose the deity factor and the other needs to accept that people make errors and/or see things differently than they do.

Its a dumb reality that has been created here where these people must be worshiped and held in the highest esteem or there will be a flamewar and then there are those that seem to insist that if you're withing seven degrees of separation with these people that you're the devil or at least a demon.

[emilyg]

109. Clinton bashers are sick people.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

114. I'm thinking the same thing about Clinton apologists.

[BzaDem]

168. It's such a shame that the vast majority of Americans disagree with you.

In general, if two people make opposing arguments, but one of them is indirectly calling the 2/3 of Americans who support Hillary as SOS "Sick", that helps me decide which argument is valid and which is laughable.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

112. Is it still

okay to rake Lieberman through the mud?

What kind of idiot uses the Washington Times as a news source? :wtf: is right.

[Lilith Velkor]

117. Absolutely

and ProSense, in that order.

[Colobo]

120. Hillary vindicated herself during the campaign. She was an Obama soldier.

[ruggerson]

126. She was a huge Obama asset

but had nothing to "vindicate" herself for.

It was a primary. And not an extremely acrimonious one at that. As these things go.

And credit goes to both Barack and Hillary for how speedily they moved beyond it.

[LostinVA]

148. Great post, ruggerson

I wish I could recommend it!

[laugle]

170. I believe she campaigned at

70 different events for him.

Are you aware that when Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter in the primary and lost, he would not even endorse Carter. Just wanted to show the contrast..........

Women have always been held to a higher standard, but that's another story...........

I always liked you Katz, you never participated in the Vitriol, congrats to you!

[rosesaylavee]

130. Agreed.

I think a bit more restraint would be wonderful. Let's say the griping is over and move on. We voted for Obama - and if his choice is Senator Clinton as Secretary of State - so be it. It's his choice to make. Period.

Funny thing is - neither one of them has started in their newly assigned roles and yet from the way this site reads this week, you would think they had been stinking up Washington for the last year with bad decisions.

People. You need to get out in the fresh air more. Leave your computer for a few hours a day and spend some time with family and friends.

[davidpdx]

132. I think what is labeled as "Hillary bashing" is subjective

I've stated since it came out that I've not been really happy about her appointment (or pending appointment if you want to look at it that way) to the SoS position. Also I have voiced concern about the fact that her husband has a great number of business dealings that need to be gone through before her confirmation. Obama has much more to lose in this battle, if something happens during the confirmation of one of his cabinet members (any of them), it will set back the agenda to get stuff done.

Having said that kind of stuff before (and read similar things) I think some people are quick to scream murder when it isn't necessary.

[grantcart]

135. some posters have posted dozens, literally dozens of anti Clinton

threads, at a rate of 4-5 a day, taking almost all of their charges directly from the Washington Times.

[davidpdx]

143. Grant, no arguement from me, the Washington Times is a rag

but I've also seen people shooting their mouths off in threads other then the ones your mentioning.

[Marrah_G]

144. and yet they are still here

and some really good posters that they baited and baited and baited throughout the primaries are gone forever.

It is infuriating.

[Skittles]

133. YOU KNOW IT

some DUers sicken me to the core :puke:

[grantcart]

136. The irony is that since Obama is not only considering her seriously but

apparently will soon be appointing her, all of the anti Clinton threads are also anti Obama threads.

[Beacool]

140. The irony is that not all Hillary supporters want her to be his SOS.

I respect her decision, but would prefer if she stays in the senate where she is independent and has a power base. I'm not thrilled to see her in a job where she serves at the president's pleasure.

:shrug:

[Marrah_G]

145. yup

As long as they are allowed to continue, they won't stop. They learned along time ago the most that would happen to them is a deleted post or MAYBE a locked thread.

[Arkansas Granny]

153. Yep. That's what they learned.

[LostinVA]

147. Exactly -- I KNEW this would happen if Obama won -- they would turn on him

I just wasn't sure how. HRC as SOS was their perfect vehicle -- it allowed them to continue the disgusting, very Freep-like Clinton bashing, and smear OBama with the same brush, all while seeming very concerned.

Some should have been banned months ago, and they certainly should now, you know? Because, this isn't Primary Wars anymore, it's fucking Fifth Column garbage.

[wisteria]

173. I have to tell you my dislike of Hillary Clinton and good old Bill

goes back years- not just from the primaries. And, my disgust at her being SOS steams from the fact that this woman really isn't qualified for this positon or many others she has pursued. Her ego is a lot larger than her resume. And, what she has actually accomplished could be written on a piece of scrap paper. The woman is nothing more than a name.

[laugle]

176. Could it also be that maybe

you were hoping Kerry would get the SOS job...........come on Wisteria--fess up.........

"Nothing more than a name?" Well at least you said dislike and not hate, that's an improvment.........I'll take that...........

[ProSense]

151. "all of the anti Clinton threads are also anti Obama threads."

Ludicrous!

[Odin2005]

152. Obama threatens the Naderites' "no difference between the 2 parties" meme so the Naderites are...

...having an all-out push to discredit him. They are little different then various types of Marxists and Anarchists that think society must be made to collapse so that they can create their utopia.

Make no mistake, I am absolutely not against CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM of Obama (like some reasonable critiques of Obama's economic team posted), but there is a difference between constructive criticism and spewing Naderite talking points.

[cboy4]

157. It's an outrage. When you can read the same bullshit here

that you can read at FR or on a FOX News message board, there is something seriously wrong.

[wisteria]

175. No, they love Hillary at FOX and promoted her during the primaries.

Makes you wonder what side she is really on and from there you have to wonder about what would possess Obama to pick someone so unqualified and such a diva for a serious positon like this.

[cboy4]

177. You watch Fox? Makes you wonder what side you're on.

See, I can be just as ridiculous as you.

[PresidentObama]

188. Wisteria, don't you have some Obama attacking to do? n/t

[Jamastiene]

182. I wish I could recommend this post.

That is exactly what I was going to say.

[wisteria]

171. I had huge doubts about Obama and now I know why.

This is going to be the third clinton administration only this time the wife has a more important positon. Oh, where would Hillary be without Bill?

[TK421]

181. What does that say about Obama? You don't think he is capable?

Do you think Hillary's main intent would be a total power takeover? She would come into the Oval Office and tell him what to wear? Is this the same evil Hillary Clinton? And what was that about Bill?

Another Clinton administration my ass....that administration was 10 times better than this last torturous eight fucking years, and I'm tired of hearing about his fucking blowjob!!! They are fairly common!

[Dinger]

180. Agreed,

And even though it was Wes Clark, Hillary, then Obama for me, it shouldn't make my opinion any less (or any more) than anyone else's.

[Phx_Dem]

189. Leave Hillary alone!!!!

:cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:
:cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry: