Seventeen anti Hillary threads currently on this forum

[MODemocrat]

There are so many issues we should have with Bush and his crooked administration, but it seems
that there are people here that love helping Carl Rove do his dirty work.

If Hillary is unelectable, then let those of us who happen to like her, in on your secret. We are
wondering why she's ahead in the polls, yet all the others are the ones who are electable. :shrug: :puffpiece:

[politicasista]

1. I agree about helping Rove do his dirty work

:hi:

[Beausoir]

2. It is pathetic. n/t

[natrat]

73. it's pathetic that the right wing and msm have tried to jam hrc down our throats

[roguevalley]

93. I would suggest that many of the threads are about the legitimate

concerns of people as well as the crap. But it appears that whenever you express the serious concerns you have about any candidate, you get hated on. Hillary has been around a long time and she has a track record that people are motivated by. If we cannot have discussion here about this, then where? And don't tell me that everyone who posts about her as someone they don't trust, etc, is a hater. They aren't.

[mike_c]

3. I don't give a rat's buttocks whether Senator Clinton is "electable..."

...or not-- I have no doubt that she is electable. I mean, a country that elected George Bush is certainly capable of electing someone who consistently triangulates on positions just marginally to the left of him.

My problem with Senator Clinton is precisely that she IS electable-- and that she is the wrong person to lead America away from the neocon agenda. She has expressed support for some of the worst excesses of that agenda, and her intention to continue them. I'm not the least bit afraid that she cannot be elected-- I'm much more afraid that she will be.

[Cha]

4. Yeah, it feels good to know

there are others out there who don't think she's prez material.

[asthmaticeog]

5. Hey, remember when John Kerry was the "electable" candidate? Because he was SOOOO popular?

Wonder whatever happened to that guy.

Lesson: when a centrist says "electable," s/he means "corporatist" and/or "shut the fuck up and do what we tell you, liberal."

[politicasista]

7. He is a hard working senator now

working hard to end the war and address other issues that may not be on the radar.

[asthmaticeog]

9. He's in the Senate! Cool! Good to know he was electable to something.

:freak:

[politicasista]

30. Can you name ONE lawmaker

that has exposed more government corruption than Kerry? Or name ONE Dem that stuck his neck out on many battles and defended his fellow Dems when they were smeared, when they should have done it in 2004?

[asthmaticeog]

70. Can you name one Dem who DIDN'T defend himself when he was smeared,

even though it cost him the presidency, and who didn't fight against election fraud, even though it disappeared his votes in a crucial state? JOHN KERRY. Fuck 'im sideways, he was a useless candidate, but we HAD to take him, he was the ONLY electable one! :eyes:

Blather on all you want about what he does in the Senate. It not what we're talking about and it's irrelevant to this discussion. We're talking about the "electability" meme and the groaning homunculus of a shit candidate it gifted us with last time around. Buh bye now.

[karynnj]

85. It is years later and that has been thoroughly addressed

In saying Kerry didn't fight you transfer blame that should go to Bush & Co for the sleasiest slimiest set of attacks I have ever seen - and I saw the Bush I and Nixon attack and to a media that ignored that they had solid proof that these people were lying before the August attacks.

There was far more but these 2 things ALONE should have more than sufficed:
- In April, Kerry put 140 pages of Naval records - all but medical records - on his web site. These included fitness reports that completely covered the nearly 4 years he was in the service.
- They had the Nixon tapes - that were recorded when they never thought they would be public - saying that they found that he really was a war hero and was squeaky clean. Nixon even said he did a tremendous job at the hearings. They then were ordered to destroy him.

The SBVT on their side did not offer a single piece of proof to counter the official records. Not one cable, diary entry, official record, or photo - nothing.

When the SBVT book came out in August, the Kerry team gave the media an additional 30 plus pages of provable discrepancies and lies. SBVT claimed to be places that the records show they weren't. They also linked them directly to Bush donors.

Having provided all this solid proof, it is hard to believe that ANYONE would think that it was not enough - Kerry had made a very solid case that they were lying and that their motivation was political.

Contrast this to the vaunted Clinton machine - their GOAL was merely to get a response out to every charge within the news cycle. The draft story lasted over a week, as did the Gennefer Flowers story - in both cases with Clinton's story changing. Compare the 2 - a reasonable person should have seen that it was very very likely that Kerry's war service waswhat the official Navy recordssaid it was. At best, the same person might thing - the Clinton accusations were not important, ambiguous or at minimum not particularly honorable.

Kerry was a victim of a the Republican party and the corporate media on this one.

As to Ohio, he did not have a case at the time it was needed - and there is STILL not enough to prove in court that he won. (Just as in FL, you could not simply "correct" the obvious misvotes that happened in Palm Beach County. There is NO big Holocaust survivors for Buchanan group. In Ohio, many of the Badnarik and Peroutka votes in inner-cities were likely Kerry votes. In fact, it is amazing how many ways they used to keep Kerry's votes down in Ohio.)

[politicasista]

88. Nice of you to dodge the question and change the subject

Sounds like you fell for the spin. Yep. Keep letting Bush, Rove, the GOP and the Dems that didn't back the candidate up when he was smeared, the media, and an inept DNC chairman who's job was to protect and secure the vote OFF THE HOOK.

Your posts show that you don't care about the truth or facts. You just want to slam Kerry.

Another bitter primary supporter and Kerry hater. Too bad. :boring:

[asthmaticeog]

90. YOU changed the subject.

The subject was the electability meme. His accomplishments in congress are immaterial to that discussion. And don't blame Ken Mehlman for failing to do the candidate's job. He sucked, but he didn't run the Kerry campaign. I'm not seeking a "PERFECT" candidate. Neither am I looking to buy another ticket in the DLC betrayal sweepstakes. Keep piling on the strawmen, though, it's fun to watch.

And hey, if I'm bitter, maybe there's A FUCKING REASON?

[politicasista]

94. Nope. And I asked you to name ONE lawmaker that has exposed more

to name ONE lawmaker that has exposed more government corruption than any other lawmaker in modern history and you didn't answer. Instead you changed the subject to naming one candidate that allowed himself to be smeared.

The truth and facts were posted above about the campaign and the timing of the response, but you would rather dump on Kerry and not blame the Rove slime machine and people that sat on their asses and did nothing while he was smeared. It still sounds like you bought into the spin that Kerry didn't defend himself. Luckily, there was C-SPAN and the debates to see a different view.

To answer sandnsea's question below, what are you doing to help end the war or help end the disasters of this criminal administration? Are you planning to protest the war next month? Are you calling your congressmen or senators? Or are you just wanting to sit around and complain?

That is what ELECTABLILITY is about. Kerry was elected to serve is MA constituents and the country at large. And he is focused on ending the war, holding this criminal administration accountable, pushing for healthcare, climate change, and so on all as a true patriot and statesman.


I would rather support Democrats that are doing productive things. Rehashing the past and blaming Dems for the war and not the corporate media only helps Rove and the Repukes. But hey, to each his own. :hi:

[asthmaticeog]

96. You asked an irrelevant question.

I was and still am talking about a presidential campaign, not a senate career.

I dump on Kerry because he is the one who in fact did nothing in the face of the Rove slime machine.

Questioning my activism is insulting. I owe you no explanations of how I conduct my fucking life, internet stranger. All you need to know is that I have nothing to be ashamed of.

Electability is all about being inaugurated. And not backing down from a fight or five would have made Kerry electable.

Pimping DLC candidates is what helps Rove and the Repukes. But hey, to you your own.

[politicasista]

98. You're the one questioned and downplayed Kerry's electablity,

So that's why I asked an electability question. Because Kerry was elected to the Senate for a reason. And there is NO lawmaker that has exposed more government corruption than Kerry. There are very few in Congress that has done more for veterans than Kerry. Looks like the people in Iowa, New Hamphshire and other primary states would disagree with you. They saw a different view.

Sad. Why don't you dump on Senators that are doing less or dump on the Repukes. But you would rather eat your own than blame the criminal buffoon SOB that caused all this mess. You should walk a mile in the man's shoes before dumping on him.

As I said, hopefully you will find a perfect candidate that will do everything you say you want. Good luck cause they are hard to find.


I stand by my comments and I am done with this thread. Bye.

[peace13]

12. John should have stood and been counted.

He had another plan. Hope it worked for him.

[karynnj]

86. He worked his heart out for over a year

He likely did as well as anyone could have considering how stacked the deck was - and he has never stopped woorking for what he believes in.

[peace13]

89. I hear you.

I've never met anyone from Ohio that felt that way though. The entire country should have been up in arms over what went down with Blackwell but we are all just too complacent. We were at the Statehouse every Saturday for a month while Americans did their Christmas shopping. Oh well, I have no question as to how we got into this mess. Peace, Kim

[karynnj]

97. Peace - and you are right

Other than here - and a MSM article that dismissed the Ohio protests, we in the rest of the country did not here about it. Kerry did speak about the suppression several times in 2005 and since - in the Senate and outside it - and he was attacked each time. The rest of the party absolutely did not stand behind him - other than a few like Conyers and Boxer. (Clinton less than 2 weeks later was speaking of how he liked both Bush and Kerry - and knocking Kerry as not strong enough on national defense to have won.) What is scary is that so little is being done that we can see on the national level to prevent it happening again.

It has to really hurt when you were fighting and it appeared the rest of the world didn't care. (It also must have been beyond frustrating for Kerry,who did win against the Bush administration using the entire government illegally against Kerry and a very hostile media - and to have it stolen. Then to have to see all the things Bush has done since 2004.

But, Kerry knew what it really meant for the world for him to win - I can't believe if he had any more than a snowball's chance in Hell of winning that he would have not contested it. Here is a tiny Utube of him speaking at an open forum in MA this year. Listen to his voice as he speaks of the West Bank and what he could have done as President - he wanted to win and for all the right reasons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXd66eae9K8

[book_worm]

19. After Kerry that "electable" shit doesn't mean a thing. I was for Dean in '04

and remember all the reasons why we couldn't have him as the nominee: "Another McGovern" "unelectable" and yet the polls showed that he ran roughly as well as Kerry did against Bush. I know one thing--Dean would have not allowed himself to be swiftboated and waited a month to respond.

[politicasista]

28. Looks like you give Bush and corporate media too much credit

And the Democrats that sat on their tails and didn't back Kerry up when he was smeared. It's easy for bitter primary supporters and Kerry haters to put themselves into his shoes. If you don't think they would have smeared Dean or any other candidates, then you are wrong. The Rove slime machine, a fear-minded public, a lack of party or media support and an inept DNC Chairman would have done this the any of the candidates, regardless of who was the nominee. And if you or anyone think they won't do that again, then you are in for a rude awakening.

April 14, 2004 - The website for SBVT was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman, the information technology manager for Gannon International, a St. Louis company that has diversified interests, including in Vietnam. (1) (note - Gannon International does not appear to have any relationship to Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the fake reporter.)

May 3, 2004 - "Kerry campaign announced a major advertising push to introduce 'John Kerry's lifetime of service and strength to the American people.' Kerry's four month Vietnam experience figures prominently in the ads." (2)

May 4, 2004 - The Swift Liars, beginning their lies by calling themselves "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", went public at a news conference organized by Merrie Spaeth at the National Press Club. (1)

May 4, 2004 - "The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event...The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.' " (3)

May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).

Jul. 26, 2004 - Jul. 29, 2004 - Democratic National Convention held in Boston. John Kerry's military experience is highlighted.

Aug. 5, 2004 - The Swift Liars' first television ad began airing a one-minute television spot in three states. (7)

Aug. 5, 2004 - "the General Counsels to the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign faxed a letter to station managers at the relevant stations stating that the ad is 'an inflammatory, outrageous lie" and requesting that they "act immediately to prevent broadcast of this advertisement and deny any future sale of time. " ' " (4)

Aug. 10, 2004 - Democracy 21, The Campaign Legal Center and The Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that the Swift Liars were illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections. (4)

Aug. 17, 2004 - the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges. (4)

Aug. 19, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced its own ad "Rassmann." (4)

Aug. 20, 2004 - The Swift Liars' second television ad began airing. This ad selectively excerpted Kerry's statements to the SFRC on 4/22/1971. (7)

Aug. 22, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced another ad "Issues" which addressed the Swift Boat group's attacks.

Aug. 25, 2004 - The Kerry-Edwards campaign ... dispatched former Sen. Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann, to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas to deliver to the President a letter signed by Democratic Senators who are veterans. (The letter was not accepted.) (4)

Aug. 26, 2004 - The Swift Liars' third television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's claim to have been in Cambodia in 1968. (7)

August 26, 2004 - Mary Beth Cahill sends letter to Ken Mehlman detailing the "Web of Connections" between the Swift Liars and the Bush Administration, and demanding that Bush denounce the smear campaign. (5)

August 26, 2004 - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) submits FOIA request "with the White House asking it to detail its contacts with individuals connected to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT)." (6)

Aug. 27, 2004 - The DNC ran a full page ad in the Aug. 27, 2004 New York Times terming the Swift Boat campaign a smear. (4)

Aug. 31, 2004 - - The Swift Liars' fourth television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's participation in the medal-throwing protest on 4/23/1971. (7)

Kerry defends war record
Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=40a0d9b1-0386-41ef-bc...

May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event. (Above are, r-l, Wade Sanders, Del Sandusky and Drew Whitlow). Senior Advisor Michael Meehan said, "The Nixon White House attempted to do this to Kerry, and the Bush folks are following the same plan." "We're not going to let them make false claims about Kerry and go unanswered," Meehan said. He said his first instinct was to hold a press conference with an empty room where veterans could testify to their time spent in the military with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Spaeth Communications, which hosted the event, "is a Republican headed firm from Texas which has contributed to Bush's campaign and has very close ties to the Bush Administration." Lead organizer John O'Neill, a Republican from Texas, "was a pawn of the Nixon White House in 1971." Further some of the people now speaking against Kerry had praised him in their evaluation reports in Vietnam.

John Dibble, who served on a swift boat in 1970, after Kerry had left, was one of the veterans at the Kerry event. He said of Kerry's anti-war activities that at the time, "I didn't like what he was doing." In retrospect, however, Dibble said, "I probably should have been doing the same thing...probably more of us should have been doing that." He said that might have meant fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial and that Kerry's anti-war activities were "a very gutsy thing to do."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/interestg/swift050404c....

Kerry campaign's quick response to Swift boat vets
By Marie Horrigan
UPI Deputy Americas Editor
Washington, DC, Aug. 5 (UPI) -- The campaign for Democratic Party presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts issued an exhaustively researched and extensively sourced 36-page refutation Thursday of allegations Kerry lied about events during his service in Vietnam, including how and why he received medals, and had fled the scene of a battle.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040805-012143...

Kerry: Bush lets attack ads do 'dirty work'
McClellan points out criticism by anti-Bush group
Friday, August 20, 2004 Posted: 2:37 PM EDT (1837 GMT)
BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry accused President Bush on Thursday of letting front groups "do his dirty work" in questioning his military service during the Vietnam War.

"The president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that," Kerry told a firefighters' union conference in his hometown of Boston.

"Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/19/kerry.attacka... /

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

[jgraz]

39. Too bad they decided to smear someone who was unequipped to handle it

And that we selected a candidate too weak to even stand up against an obvious frontal assault on our democracy.

[karynnj]

92. He stood up to it better than anyone else would have

By November, most people, including likely nearly anyone he ever had a chance to get, said the SBVT were lying. The attack hurt as it was a drag on the campaign. THis was not like McCain, whose campaign imploded over a similar campaign. Hindsight is actually not 20/20. Had the party been able to secure the election process better in Ohio, he would have won. The story would then have been that Kerry's dignity and srength in fighting them by using the truth to dispell the stories was part of why he won. (Oddly they might even have resurected the anti- SBVT words before the Firefighters.)

It wasn't that the media did not have the proof from Kerry to refute it - they did - even in April! They simply opted not to use it.

[sandnsea]

47. Dean couldn't handle Democrats' attacks

How in the hell do you think he would have stood up to Rove??

[cgrindley]

66. I was for Dean too

Dean is awesome. As a side note, I think it's great that after the zombie war he finally gets to be president after Colin Powell dies in office.

[karynnj]

87. The polls did NOT show he ran as well against Bush

Dean ran poorly against Bush. Dean reacted to the swipes by Gephardt by saying "he did not want to be a pin cushion". That fight was over who distorted his own record and others on things like Medicaid - nothing like the swiftboating attacks. The media in APRIL had more than enough to have rejected the SBVT out of hand. They challanged OFFICIAL RECORDS without providing even ONE piece of proof. The first response in August was to show they were linked to Bush and to give the media 30 plus pages refuting lies. How many lies are people usually allowed before they are considered discredited.

[sandnsea]

45. End it in September

He's working with MoveOn to get people out to an anti-war rally on Tuesday. What have you done lately?

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[sendero]

6. Dude.....

.... let me clue you in. Our best chance for getting this mess cleaned up is to elect a president who isn't part of the problem.

WHAT IS SO FUCKING HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT?

HRC IS PART OF THE GOD DAMNED PROBLEM. She was FOR the god damned war until it was politically impossible to be for it. Which is the real HRC? I know, why don't you?

[peace13]

10. I love your response!

I feel your pain! Peace, Kim

[Stephanie]

16. Why can't I recommend individual posts?

We really need that feature. :hi:

[havocmom]

22. A-fuckin-MEN!

GOP lite is not a solution.

If there weren't so many reasons to dislike HRC as a nominee, and SO MANY PEOPLE who dislike her, there probably wouldn't be so many anti-Hillary threads. The fact that there ARE so many is a big clue about SOMETHING!

[Poll_Blind]

34. Amen Sendero! n/t

PB

[jgraz]

41. Short, to the point, and totally fucking on target

:toast:

[TahitiNut]

48. Indeed. That's at the core. Same ol', same ol' ... it's not satisfactory.

Far too much has been lost and destroyed to have ANY taint of Vichy in 2009.

[HughBeaumont]

60. This post is spot ON.

America needs a leader, not more of the same with a different party name.

Another thing, what's with the "If I knew then what I know now" BS? Once again, HE'S A BEWSH!!! He lies, he cheats, he steals. His DAD lied, cheated and stole. That's what they DO. Surely they as insiders who see how politics are played on the Mall and with any modicum of history should have known this. What did NO one understand about their chicanery going in?

How painfully obvious was it to the WORLD that Bewsh was going to be president in 2000 and 2004 come hell or high water?

They knew the level of power the Bewshs operated on; most of it unethical, some of it illegal . . . and yet, they still supported and trusted them.

Yeah.

[leftchick]

62. thank you

thank you! :)

[cgrindley]

67. If you want to elect someone who wasn't part of the problem

then don't elect Edwards. He and that bonehead Kerry actually LOST to Bush. if that's not being part of the problem, I don't know what is.

[AngryOldDem]

74. Maybe they'll understand THAT

Thank you for posting.

You spoke for a lot of us out here, my friend.

[truebrit71]

79. Agreed 100%

Right on!

[bvar22]

82. HRC is still FOR the WAR.

She is only against the way Bush* is running it.
Hillary has assured AIPAC/MIC/OilCorps that she will keep the WAR/Occupation going for YEARS.
She has promised to keep US Combat Troops in Iraq indefinately.

[peace13]

8. If you believe the polls then you must believe the 'exit' polls 2004

I wonder why you can't see that she is just another Bush. Do you not think it weird that her husband and pappy bush have their heads snuggled together. The Clinton's were involved with Wal*mart in the early years. Is that not weird? Look at the changes we need to make in the world and choose leaders that can accomplish thaose changes. Every once in a while the high schoolers send an ugly duckling to the Kings throne. The way I see our country's leaders is cheerleaders and quarterbacks from our high school days. Just when will people grow up?

[JVS]

11. She must be as unpopular as teh pr0n!

[EFerrari]

13. Not backing Senator Clinton doesn't equal backing Rove.

Please.

[havocmom]

24. Gotta laugh AND cry at the HRC supporters who use rovian tactics to try and intimidate critics.

If you don't like the war - you hate the troops

If you don't support the pResident, you hate America

If you don't worship HRC, you (pick one or more):
Hate women
Are some sort of freeper prev
Are a GOP sock puppet
Are Karl Rove, posting on DU
Hate America
Hate the troops


It all starts to sound all too familiar. And then, there is the effort to send anti HRC threads to the DU equivalent of a 'FREE SPEECH ZONE' so no one will see/hear dissent from the corporate media proclaimed DEM candidate.

The more heavy handed the tactics to squelch critical discussion, the more I distrust the motives of the powers that push HRC

[EFerrari]

25. Maybe those tactics work on somebody. Not on me. n/t

[havocmom]

31. They probably don't work on many here at all

It is the similarity to tactics of the junta in trying to silence dissent that really concerns me.

[EFerrari]

83. Did this happen in the last primary cycle? I wasn't here then.

I have to take some kind of pledge not to post to pro or anti HRC threads. People already know what I think and repeating my position adds nothing to the discussion -- as far as we actually have one. Time to be a grown up or something. :(

[Poll_Blind]

33. I would have thought your message was hyperbole but I've seen...

...countless examples of that, especially in the last few days. It's so OVER the top- that a HRC supporter would come in and effectively say "You don't like HRC in the primary? Then you're hoping republicans win!"

  It'd be silly if, ya know, there weren't so many threads getting swept under the rug with like 150+ recommendations, without any comment whatsoever...you know what I mean?

  Anyway, I agree. The heavier-handed the tactics are the more distrustful I become of the motives.

PB

[jgraz]

44. Actually, quite the opposite from all indications

The Rethugs can't wait to get their hands on Hillary in the general. You practically could see Rove drool as he performed his reverse political jujisu this Sunday.

[Warpy]

14. Face it, a lot of people out here don't like her

Whether it's her voice, her lack of executive experience, her support of the GOP war, or her corporatist economics, a great many people here think making her the nominee is a huge mistake.

Instead of counting the threads, why not tell people what's so great about her?

[HughBeaumont]

61. For me, it's her corporatist economics.

That's the back-breaker. I cannot support someone who thinks there are American labor benefits to job offshoring. That's predatory economic theory with a right-libertarian bent. We need the exact opposite if this economy is going to work for all peoples, not just the heavily-degreed and privileged.

[Canuckistanian]

15. Bingo!

I had 17 in the pool.

Pay up, dudes.

[uppityperson]

17. Only 17?

[ComerPerro]

49. that was my first thought too, lol

[progressoid]

57. me too! n/t

[BlooInBloo]

18. It's just how DUers are. They hate Clinton more than literally anyone else alive.

[emilyg]

20. Not all DUers. I love Hillary.

[BlooInBloo]

21. You're an outlier. As am I (I'm mostly indifferent). Overall, sentiment is as I said...

... modulo hyperbole, of course.

[NYC Liberal]

36. And with no real reason either.

"corporatist" "war-mongerer" "right-wing", etc. are all nice sharp rhetorical jabs but they don't have any actual truth behind them.

[jgraz]

50. We can always count on BlooInBloo to push us to previously unimagined heights of hyperbole

Animal rights supporters are psychopaths
DUers hate Hillary more than literally anyone else alive

Careful, Bloo...you're going to have a hard time topping yourself after today. :rofl:

[LibDemAlways]

81. Disagree. I don't think many DUers "hate" Hillary. I think

those who don't want to see her nominated distrust her or disagree with her more than "hate" her. I don't support Hillary's candidacy, but I certainly don't "hate" her. I save that for the Bush Crime Family.

[B Calm]

23. She still hasn't answered the question why she is taking money from

the lobbyists of corporations. She answered with something stupid about those lobbyists represent working people, but she left out the part about corporations who want us to be slaves..

[msongs]

26. you say her answer was stupid? your not likely to give her credit for any answer

[B Calm]

54. I said her answer was stupid because she left out the part of answering it

directly!

[JTFrog]

56. Yet those lobbyists

representing working people have to put out PAID ads calling her out on Health Care. They obviously didn't donate enough not to be invisible to her.

Give her a couple weeks and a focus group and she'll come up with a better answer and a different spin on her stance.

[HughMoran]

27. I will say that the posts are repetitive and boring to read after a while

I mean, how many different ways can a person say "I fucking hate HRC and she better not get nominated or I will scream and pout a lot (then vote for her)"

[cynatnite]

29. Just wait a while...it'll get worse the better she does....

My RW mom doesn't like Hillary, but she doesn't hate her as bad as some here do. I'm not sure I even want to be near this place should she get the nomination.

[dweller]

32. will this be 18?

:shrug:

dp

[RufusTFirefly]

35. You, you bastard people!!!

Those of you who don't unconditionally kiss the feet of Hillary are just Rove-hypnotized misogynists.

(And that's my one thousandth answer)

[jgraz]

38. "I hate you and I hate your ass face"

:rofl:

[RufusTFirefly]

51. If you were counting on borrowing my "Remains of the Day" lunchbox, well sir,...

... you can just think again.

[illinoisprogressive]

37. Howard Dean was concider inevitable and beating everyone in the polls exactly 4 yrs ago

[cgrindley]

68. And Dean would have beaten Bush

but Kerry and EDWARDS somehow managed to fucking well lose to Bush in the end...

[politicasista]

91. No, the former inept DNC chariman didn't protect and secure the vote

Seems like people would rather blame the victims instead of the people that were supposed to be doing the hard job. :boring:

[mikelgb]

40. 0 Donations from DUers to Hillary:

http://www.actblue.com/page/du-presidential

[emilyg]

52. I donate on Sen. Clinton's site.

[sandnsea]

42. And some days there's 17 anti Edwards or anti Obama threads

Everybody doesn't like 'your girl', get over it.

[The Straight Story]

43. It's a contest - and these folks want us to employ one of them, so yeah we scrutinize

This ain't no 7/11 cashier job, this is someone who will wield great power. Damn right I will bitch about them and hold their feet to the fire.

HRC is not the most liberal candidate we have, and being liberal it kind of upsets us. She IS liberal on some things. But her leadership has waned on everything from impeachment to stopping the war. A couple big ticket items. And we call out other candidates with positions similar.

She has a lot of power right now, and sometimes uses it well. When she doesn't I don't see a problem with people venting here that a fellow dem, and employee of the people, says/does things they don't like.

If this was top chef, she would voted off the show for the worst main dish, even though the side dishes were good.

[Raster]

53. "...worst main dish"!!!!!!!

Dude!

[Raster]

46. Playing the KKKarl card, eh! If you diss HRC then Rove will win?

This is the primary season. We ain't doing anyone's work. We're doing our own discovery. And if your candidate, or anyone else for that matter, can't handle the heat, then get off the message board!

Wake up America!:kick'

[B Calm]

55. No one said she's unelectable. We're pissed about about where she

is getting all her money from, because payback is a bitch!

I also know her roots and that scares the hell out of me! President of the Young Republicans, damn.....

[Tesha]

64. I've said she's unelectable. I hope I'm wrong, but I've said it. (NT)

[sniffa]

58. she fucking sucks

and many here obviousLy agree.

[Vinca]

59. Rove wants Hillary . . . badly. He's licking his chops.

You can only imagine what they've got waiting in the wings.

[Tesha]

63. Perhaps you should conclude that a *LOT* of us lefties really don't like her?

And we've all told you our reasons a lot more than once, so
if you don't inderstand them yet, the fault lies with you and
not with us.

Tesha

[cgrindley]

65. They're only attacking Clinton because their candidates

are unelectable.

[Vidar]

69. Seventeen isn't enough, but it shows promise.

[ThomWV]

72. Before this day is over I'll try to make that at least 25

Because I really don't need for someone to destroy the Democratic Party like George has done to the Republicans. She could do that.

[mmonk]

75. It depends on what you mean as anti-Hillary.

I've seen a few but I've also seen some posts that raise reasonable questions.

[natrat]

76. she is the antichrist...cant you see?

[watercolors]

77. I usually ignor all of the political threads

Dont't care to get into the arguements. I think we hurt our cause a great deal in this heated discussions. Back whom you like, but quit bashing the other candidates. We sound so imature.

[Yael]

78. Because they are only polling Democrats?

[youthere]

80. I'll bet this will turn into # 18.

[BuyingThyme]

84. How many elections do you have to witness before you catch on to the fact

that this is how they work?

[BenDavid]

95. Is this all they have? HATE?

Trust me, you can't beat a Clinton with lies and stupidity. You'll have to do a lot better than this if you plan to stop her. If Hillary is the anti-Christ that most of you haters claim she is, why do you have to fabricate quotes to make her look bad? If she's so wrong for America, why not quote her correctly instead of making shit up? If you can't beat her with the truth, go ahead and lie.
After all, it's politics, right?

I do thank you
Ben David