Instead Of All The Anti-Hillary BULLSHIT

[ruggerson]

Why don't you write something positive about whom YOU favor for President?

The Republicans are watching with glee as some of you viciously attack Hillary every chance you get.

Far more productive to lay out the case for YOUR candidate instead of all the negativity.

[jsamuel]

1. Proudly I have

This was from a post that I made discussing problems with Hillary and Lieberman.

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

Just to let you know, I feel that these two Democrats represent exactly what is wrong with the Democratic Party, Hillary and Lieberman. I have decided that I wouldn’t support them for my city council, let alone senator or president. Here is what I am seeing time after time after time online:



- Posturing on important issues that make no decisions and give no real position.

o Example: Iraq war, not really for or against or anything in between. Just muck and a vote for the war in 2002.

- Taking sides on the right of center on non-important fluff issues to make them look more Republican.

o Video Games: They are blaming all of society’s problems on video games. But instead of suggesting programs to help society, they want to censor video games. For example, they are more concerned with zombies eating each other in a fantasy video game than with speaking out against a REAL war or REAL death in Pakistan, New Orleans, Iraq, or any number of places in REALITY. By the way, video games ALREADY have a rating system MORE sever than movies that prevent children from buying violent or other problem video games, and after that, the PARENT needs to make sure they are PARENTING.

o Flag Burning: Hillary just co-sponsored a bill to make flag-burning illegal. While I understand the concern, the problem is that it contradicts her own views on not supporting a constitutional amendment banning flag-burning. Either the constitution already allows for them to outlaw flag-burning or it doesn’t. The idea of co-sponsoring a bill that tries to make something illegal that you don’t believe is able to be made illegal is insanity. Or it is political posturing and I am woefully tired of that.



These are the kind of Democrats that I am proud of:



John Murtha – Offered an Iraq exit plan that calls for “phased redeployment” of troops out of Iraq in 6 months to a year. While Republicans are calling this a “cut and run” strategy, if you actually read the bill, it is effectively a regional security force placed in surrounding friendly countries that can be called into Iraq at the first sign of trouble. Troops will be withdrawn from Iraq while allowing the US to protect its interests in the region and protecting against the Iraqi government falling. I think this is a pretty good plan myself. If not after the elections in Iraq, then when will we ever leave? Never, and that is the way Dick Cheney and Halliburton want it.



Dennis Kucinich – I agree with him on just about everything. (not everything though, but just about) As of right now, he would be my choice for President in 2008.



Russ Feingold – He will probably filibuster the renewal of the Patriot Act which even by Bush’s own advisors has been called into question as violating the constitution of what extreme powers the President can have over citizens. Such as keeping someone, anyone, forever in jail without ever charging them with a crime. By the way that is one of the big reasons for the American Revolution was the King’s power in Britain to do just that, hence why the founding fathers put that in the constitution. There are many, many other problems with the Patriot Act, for example, they aren’t even allowed to say what is in it. We don’t even know what the law is. This kind of secrecy in government is open door for corruption and misuse against the people.





There are many more Democrats that I am happy with right now, but I feel like the party needs to be purged of the purely political and replaced with high thinkers and people who don’t position themselves on everything looking to make a few more points at the polls. So far, I think the party is already much better off than in 2004. The Republican party seems to be overcome with corruption right now. The Democrats seem to have some problems with that of their own, but the Republican Party needs to be completely overhauled. Just read that as many as 60 Republican congressmen may be involved in the Abramoff scandal, including already indicted on a separate charge, Tom DeLay. Duke Cunningham just resigned and is going to jail for a while. It seems that his scandal could go further too. At first it seemed like an isolated incident, but there is evidence that the contracts he gave to the defense contractors may have caused the Republican Party to be able to funnel money from taxpayers directly into the party’s re-election campaigns in 2004. I also feel like this is what is happening in Iraq since the beginning. Oil is nice, but the main problem is that all the taxpayer money for the war is being funneled directly to companies owned by top Republicans. They are making hundreds of Billions of dollars from taxpayer money.



I will NOT support Hillary Clinton, if she runs, in 2008 and I hope she looses the Democratic Senate Primary in 2006 to a Democrat who is worth voting for. The same thing goes for Lieberman.

Maybe I will change my mind, but I don't do that very often.

Thanks for reading,
jsamuel

[LaurenG]

2. ....

humm :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. Care to share?

[LaurenG]

11. Yep here you go

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: you might need a lot.

[Horse with no Name]

5. Got any butter for that?

:popcorn:

[LaurenG]

12. And extra popcorn

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[timtom]

3. I'd have to go with someone

who clearly speaks truth to power. That is the case I wish to lay out.

I voted for Kucinich in the 2004 primary.

I WOULD vote for Kucinich again, Barbara Boxer, John Murtha, Ron Paul, or Cynthia McKinney. Truth to Power.

[jackpan1260]

39. Murtha?

What do you like about him besides his views on Iraq?

[Tom Joad]

6. Instead of talking about candidates, why don't we talk about issues

Like how to stop the war. How to bring down the Bush regime (sure as hell can't wait until Jan 2009). How to stop future wars of a President's choosing. Universal health care.
We need to organize and be on the streets. We can't wait for saviors.

[Warpy]

14. Agreed, the only reason Clinton's name keeps coming up here

is because CONSERVATIVES keep pushing her.

It's premature to talk about candidates. Any polls that are taken now are name recognition polls, only.

Besides, the Senate isn't the greatest stepping stone to executive office. We need to be looking at Democratic governors right now, deciding on which one may best represent the issues we as rank and file party members care about.

I suggest we look at Schweitzer, for one, an unabashed progressive populist who won easily in one of the reddest of the red states in this country, Montana.

That is where the real debate is. Let the conservatives piss and moan to each other about Clinton.

[LaurenG]

15. Mr Joad, WE are the saviors, is that what you're trying to say?

Because that is the truth. There is no getting around it.

[Tom Joad]

27. Yes, all of us acting collectively who are opposing the war,

fighting for social justice... we are the things that make things happen. Not Party Leaders. They don't do a thing unless we act first.

[yurbud]

37. part of solution getting the right people in office who listen to public

not just the chamber of commerce.

[merh]

7. They keep trying to force her down our throats.

They don't have to watch - they know she will never win the election, that is why they want her on the ticket, imho!

[billbuckhead]

9. Saying Hillary can't win just isn't true

Now, Russ Feinstein can't win, that is true.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. Russ Feingold, John Conyers, Dick Durbin, etc.

These fellows have been true to their duty to support the Constitution. They work hard in the trenches, and they aren't afraid to speak out. I would support any of them if they run for President. I'm tired of supporting folks who act not on what is right but what they think is popular with the voters.

[Lerkfish]

10. boy, the anti-anti-Hillary crowd are sure touchy.

:)


I prefer a Conyers/Boxer ticket or Boxer/Conyers. They have worked tirelessly for what I consider progressive values.
Every time we here at DU have said "gee, I wish democrats would...." , there is Boxer or Conyers or McKinney doing exactly that.

[mod mom]

13. Now that would be a dream ticket!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

16. Check out my avatar

The President of the United States

Al Gore.


I could handle Clark and/or Dean as VP.

[Clark2008]

44. Will you be my surrogate Grannie?

I lost my last Grandma in May.

I'm in Tennessee and, obviously, love the three you just mentioned. :hug:

[walldude]

17. I did.. and my post sank like a stone to make room for

Brad and Angelina's baby...

[longship]

18. Because it's two years until 2008 election season begins.

That's why. Right now I have made no choice at all for a Presidential candidate. We don't even know who may jump into the race. It could be anybody.

However, I *can* tell you two putative front runners who I will *not* be supporting if they choose to run, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.

Hillary will not get my support because of her lunatic position on Iraq. I am not normally a one issue voter, but I am making an exception for Iraq. Because Clinton is so wrong on this issue, I cannot support her prior to the nomination and may not even support her in a general election unless she issues a major mea culpa on Iraq. Likewise, electability is not normally one of my criteria. However, regardless of Dem support, Clinton is not electable. She will get zero comfort from me.

For Kerry, it's simple. In November, 2004 it took him precious few minutes to go back on the one pledge to the voters of any importance, that he would not concede until all the votes are counted. His concession that night was a cave-in that I cannot forgive. No, I will not support John Kerry in 2008 should he decide to run. But, if he gets the nomination, I will relunctantly support him again in the general election. My opinion, and my hope, is that Kerry will not get the nomination.

[CTyankee]

32. Really? Tell me something

If Hillary gets the nomination of the Democratic Party in 08 and the Republicans run John McCain, and there is no 3rd party candidate running, would you

-vote for McCain

-not vote

-vote for Hillary

I wonder how an activist Dem can do the first or second option. I myself voted for one 3rd party candidate in my life and that was John Anderson. It probably didn't matter because Reagan was gonna win anyway but I do regret my vote for him. I happened to meet him a few years later. I went up to him, told him I had voted for him, and extended my hand to shake. He looked extremely bored, gave me a limp handshake and said NOTHING to me.

Lesson: I liked Ted Kennedy. I thought some of Jimmy Carter's policies were not liberal enough. I feel that I lost big.

Not trying to compare elections here. Just relating my experience. I think Carter looks very good, if a bit boring, now, compared to the level we've got.

[EST]

19. I do write, and have written, quite a bit of positive about her.

I would like to suggest something, a bit bigger picture, so to speak, for your perusal. We are all aware that Sen. Clinton, is burnishing her image as a centrist, and, to the consternation of the majority, her idea of center, as well as that of the DLC, is far rightward of what we would consider the ideal candidate.
It seems that, no matter how loudly we yell and no matter how many of us do it, the DLC and Hillary cruise blithely on, self assured in their momma-knows-best attitude, mediumly to totally innocent of the stand it's going to take to get this country aimed toward its better future.

The harshness we generate is observed and echoed gleefully by the stunted brains looking for divisiveness and a chance to pummel the people of decency and compassion.
They do get their jollies that way, which is great!

Why?

Because they will chirp, on and on, about how the loony lefty liberals, millions and millions of 'em are angry at Hillary and threatening to short circuit her candidacy, and this she will hear and listen to.

If this is the most effective, as well as the most available channel, circuitous though it is, why not use it?

So let's shout it loud and angrily--"Hey, Hillary, you are steering way too republican to get a firm base of support and the enthusiastic backing of the vast majority of us, and even if you are hearing this by way of FAUX nooze, you can assume, this one time only, this is the truth!" Act and lead like a democrat and you will have my enthusiastic support!

Republican=Liar, but once in a great while they stumble, will-he-nil-he, into the truth. I don't want to have to support a DINO, disappointedly, simply because she may be electable or simply another anybody but boosh offering.

[Clark2008]

46. EST, without getting into a shout-fest about Hillary, it may

very well be one of two reasons:

Some of us aren't Democrats. I'm a progressive-independent who happens to vote Democratic more often than not, but I really don't care for the way the Party has lost touch with the common worker.

And, two:

Some progressives simply want the Party to change. By giving us Hillary, it's proves to them that they learned nothing from 2004. I can actually, even as a moderate, for the most part, understand that greens, progressives, liberals and lefties really want a Party that promotes things that a Kerry or a Hillary or a Biden aren't doing and the only way to change it is to make the Party - and the country - hit rock bottom.

I'm not sure I'm advocating such a thing, but I understand the argument.

[EST]

49. Similar to the country.

Historically, our society has never done anything that accomplishes sweeping change just because it is the ethical thing to do.
I'm not even sure we can.

We just blunder along, pendulum swinging permissive to restrictive, PC to in-your-face pox snooze. Of course, this view ignores the hordes of little and not so little people, working away furiously to bring about that change.

It may be that the country needs the dip into fascist governmental policies so deeply that the results are unmistakable and unspinnable. Could it have been true that electing and installing John Kerry would have been the worse mistake imaginable, merely putting off the day of reckoning, rather than letting this organized criminal empire continue to foul the well until all are sick and forced to confront the combined idiocy of the r/w, fundie, flim-flam operation for what it is. Maybe this confrontation will be the cure for a lot of political ills, including the over chewed example of voter apathy.

Future history is not yet technologically available so we can plug in the variables and test the result, more pity us. The number of people who can quote something like "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them," without the foggiest notion of what they are saying or any evidence that they've learned anything, is astounding.

[TahitiNut]

20. Some folks say "Anti-Hillary" like Repukes say "Bush-Bashing"

It's a really handy way of tossing babies out with bathwater ... even when there's little or no bathwater.
:eyes: :crazy: :eyes: :crazy: :eyes: :crazy: :eyes:

[Uncle Roy]

21. so if it's "Anti-Hillary" then it's "BULLSHIT"?? That's Hillaryous!

The original post, in its substance and in its style, almost begs people to respond in kind, with belligerent Anti-Hillary rhetoric. Surely that wasn't the intent?

[troubleinwinter]

22. Peoples' views on Hillary,

even if negative, are legitimate topics on DU.

So what if republicans take glee in it? I don't taylor my remarks here for the sake of republicans or freepers.

Honest discussion of flaws, shortcomings or bad positions of any democratic congressmember is an important discussion.

The fact that you regard it as "BULLSHIT" is just your opinion. If you want to taylor your comments to republican readership... go right ahead. But I disagree with the idea that we have to shut up about an issue because 'republicans are looking'.

[ruggerson]

23. No one told you to shut up

Can you read the words in the OP? "Why don't you...".

"Why dont' you" is a suggestion, a suggestion to stop being so negative.

I am free to make such a suggestion, you are free to ignore it.

And if you lie about my intent, I am free to refute you.

Knock yourself out; have a field day bashing any Democrat your little heart desires.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. Al Gore.

I think he will make a fine President. Integrity, vision, brains, and the kind of solid environmental sensibilities that this planet NEEDS right now more than ever.

FWIW, only reason I posted a poll on Hillary was because those of us who disagree with some fundamental positions she's taken were being told we should 'take our minority viewpoint elsewhere'. Sorry, but I think it's clear that a large portion of DU does have some problems with where she sits, politically, right now. That's not to say we should continually play circular firing squad. In my mind, we shouldn't.

I look forward to Senator Clinton helping to advance an agenda of universal health care, true energy independence, unapologetic protection of the environment, civil liberties, personal freedoms, and the rule of law -- and a re-structuring of our fiscal priorities away from some of the overbloated crony complexes on the gravy train, from the military-industrial to the prison-industrial... hopefully under a Gore Administration.

[LWolf]

25. Been there, done that.

Why is it ok to dish it out to others, but not to Hillary?

[AntiCoup2K4]

26. It's the PRO Hillary Bullshit that's eating up the board.

Please, people.

We are talking a ONE TERM SENATOR here. She is NOT qualified to be President of the United States, and her constant pandering to the right wing makes her even less desirable as a candidate.

She has not earned my vote, and she will NEVER have it. I will never again vote for a Republican, whether or not they have a "D" after their name.

[AntiFascist]

28. I would gladly support Hillary....

if she could do something about the neocon influence over the DLC. The Clintons made the DLC what it is, they should be able to do something about it.

[DancingBear]

29. So far, I am on my third bowl

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[OneBlueSky]

30. "Draft Robert Redford!" . . . he's tanned, he's rested, he's ready . . .

he's also an intellectual, a progressive, a committed environmentalist, and one hell of attractive candidate . . .

who also, btw, is not compromised by connections to/reliance on corporate donors/sponsors . . . unlike ANY elected official we might nominate, Redford would be able to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" . . .

[Catherine Vincent]

31. hear hear!

Thanks.

[SomewhereOutThere424]

33. Just like...you're doing? (n/t)

[SomewhereOutThere424]

34. And to add....

ELECT FRICKLES MUDCAT. HE IS NICE.

[rniel]

35. Yeah man

Fox news has already decided she's the nominee so you guys should just accept it.

Everything's going as planned... ;)

[matcom]

36. did your keyboard break within the last 1/2 hour?

i'm on pins and needles waiting for YOUR positive contribution!

[ruggerson]

38. I've posted positive threads on Mark Warner

and on Brian Schweitzer, John Edwards and Russ Feingold.

Is there a problem with that?

[Bucky]

40. DLC doops, RW hacks, PNAC stooges, undercover Peronistos...

Clearly you are in the thrall of the Illuminati. Because you do not support Candidate X, you are insane.

[ruggerson]

41. So I've noticed n/t

[cry baby]

42. Wouldn't it be far more productive to focus on 2006 right now...

instead of complaining about someone that doesn't like Hillary in 2008?

And I've seen lots of positive posts on most all possible candidates. There is just a lot of Hillary bashing because she is to the right of most people here. She is focusing on an anti-flag burning bill right now, for heaven's sake, when there is so much more she needs to speak out about. I am reserving judgement until I see something from her. I really do think she would try to get a universal health care program going - that is my favorite thing about her.

[Clark2008]

43. Of course they're watching us attack Hillary, while still pushing

her as our candidate of choice.

You know why, don't you? She'll lose a general election.

I have nothing against the woman, personally. I MUCH rather have her as my senator that Bill Fucking Frist (I'm in Tennessee), but I just don't think she can win a national election.

Oh - and I've posted many of things positive to my candidate of choice and my second candidate of choice.

However, I still want Hillary-lovers to understand how even Dems in the purple states don't want her, so don't give her to us. Please!! :hi:

[ruggerson]

47. She's not my first choice either

but I fail to see how it is productive to have non stop bashing of her. If she DOES get the nomination (and I share your sentiments about that occurrence) I will support her 100% and pray that all this self inflicted crap doesn't come back to bite us in the ass.

[Clark2008]

48. I don't bash her, so I don't know if its productive or not.

I just live where I live and know that she hasn't a shot in hell. I want to flip some red state - really I do!

:)

[Moderate Donkey]

45. Perhaps they don't have anyone they favor?

Perhaps it's easier to hate?
Perhaps they're afraid to put the candidate they like under scrutiny.

All Dems have skeletons.

[AgadorSparticus]

50. Perhaps she is her own worst enemy? Perhaps people are tired

of the constant pandering from their own party? I, and many others, get tired of the same proHillary meme:

1. when you disagree, you are "bashing"
2. if you don't like Hillary, you are a troll, freeper, bad democrat, hater, mysogynist, etc.
3. if you don't tow the party line, you are a pseudo democrat

People have already given examples of better candidates: BOXER, Conyers, Murtha, Edwards, Cleland...someone who isn't beholden to their corporate interests. But no one wants to listen to that. They'd rather just bash the "Hillary-haters" and get self righteous about how "Hillary-haters" have no legitimacy.

[oasis]

51. After Barbara Boxer endorses Hill, they'll call Barb "a shill for Hill".

In the meantime, Barbara and Hillary are hard at work making America a better place for ALL Americans.