I'm getting so tired of the dumb attacks on Hilary Clinton

[yardwork]

it's making me more inclined to support her than I was before.

I don't mind the intelligent attacks on Hilary Clinton - there is a lot to criticize in what she has said and done. But the dumb attacks are just....dumb.

[jgraz]

1. Duuuuh -- Hillary's a poopy-face

[dipsydoodle]

2. Here's a contributory reason

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2965732

'Nuff said ?

[BlooInBloo]

3. DUers love going along wholeheartedly with whomever republicans tell them to hate.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

58. But you're a DUer too.

[Perry Logan]

59. And the anti-Hillarites are the worst of the lot.

[DURHAM D]

4. Hillary bashing.

The bashing here is a major part of the reason I recently made a decision to support her.

As an old feminist I realized I was standing on the sideline of the most important game of my life time. I decided since she has the guts to continue in public service and can take the hits at a whole new level the least I could do is try and get her back. She doesn't need to win for us to win.

I am grateful that she reminded me to never give up.

[yardwork]

7. Hi there Durham D! I've been thinking the same way.

[Kelvin Mace]

14. Feminism has nothing to do with my opposition

to her.

My bones of contention with her are:

1) Her arrogant refusal to admit she made a mistake giving Bush carte blanche on Iraq.
2) Her refusal to support gay marriage.
3) Her refusal to hold Bush accountable.
4) Her predilection for doing what is "pragmatic" rather than what is RIGHT.
5) Her slavering support for lobbyists and contempt for people who object to that support.

That said, I would support Chief Justice Clinton before I would vote for a second President Clinton. When she isn't pandering for votes, she a pretty decent person.

[DURHAM D]

16. And those positions are different from the other top candidates how?

[Kelvin Mace]

24. And who said I support the "top condidates"?

The closest is Edwards, who at least admitted his mistake on Iraq and is for civil unions.

[DURHAM D]

26. He is not for gay marriage.

So you are splitting hairs.

As for the mistake - hasn't he apologized and admitted he was wrong on other votes as well. How many will you forgive him for?

[Kelvin Mace]

51. I said "at least"

I haven't given him an endorsement. I just said at least he is for civil unions (not marriage) and he admitted error on the AUM. This makes him more palatable than Hillary Clinton.

[DURHAM D]

54. You may be confused - she is for civil unions.

Has been for many, many years. John just recently made the trip to the other side on gay issues/civil unions. Did you watch the Logo/HRC forum?

I don't know what AUM stands for but with regard to his vote on Iraq that he apologized for - so what. I get tired of people who make mistakes and then try to fix it with an apology. My response is - stop making them in the first place. John was on the Intelligence Committee - Hillary was not. He was in the room that was inside the room in the run up to the war. He didn't even read the intelligence reports that were available to him but not others senators. How can you find that more palatable?

[Kelvin Mace]

56. Then I stand corrected on that issue

AUM was the bill to attack Iraq.

John may have been on the Intel Committee, but Hilary had been in the White House for eight years, so I am guessing her sources had to be good as well.

That aside, I am NOT giving Edwards a pass, he is just as guilty as she is.

My views of people who supported the war who claim they were misled is not very flattering. Either they believed Bush, and only an idiot would have believed a known pathological liar like Chimpy, or they wanted to attack Iraq and are warmongers.

Idiocy and blood lust are hardly qualifications for public office.

Again, he at least said he made a mistake. Hillary refuses to own up to that at all, and continues to gauge her stand based advice from the DLC, at best a "center-right" group.

I find NEITHER candidate palatable, just one less revolting than the other.

I'll take Al Gore for $1000, Art! At least he has learned his lesson and has been GENUINELY critical of BushCo long before the "Kewel Kidz" were.

[DURHAM D]

61. Revisited . . .

The IWR - Iraq War Resolution was intended for use by Bush to go to the U.N. with a full compliment of our U.S. strength in order to have a stronger bargaining position in the negotiations with other countries. Clearly, neither Clinton or Edwards (and most of the other national office holders and 80% of the country) realized at that time that Bush was certifiable, secretly wanted to go to war (while assuring our national officer holders it was not on the table) and would skip the U.N. process.

In fact, if you could actually go back in time to that period (October of 2002) I doubt if you were thinking that Bush was a pathological liar. If you did, you would be in a small minority. We had never in history had a President who made decisions based entirely on rotted personal pathology and emotional tantrums. I think many of the people who are now so angry at the various national figures who voted for the resolution have actually forgotten that they held the same view at that time - it was a resolution that didn't mean nearly so much at the time but later came to have great significance. Part of the anger at them is really anger at ourselves.

Note: I think that resolution was poorly worded and frankly, I blame Senator Daschle for that mistake. Daschle completely underestimated the sociopaths but he was working with/talking to/meeting with face to face while sorting out the wording of the resolution. As for your comment about wanting to go to war - probably only one or two Senators would have actually wanted to go to war at the time the IWR was being processed through congress - Lieberman being one of them. To me, he is the only true blood luster in the entire Senate .

Hillary has said she made a mistake. She has owned her mistake. I don't understand those who demand an apology. The idea that she must apologize is a right wing construct served up to the public through the main stream corporate media and is just a talking point that has found its way to the graveyard for right wing talking points - the DU. What possible difference could it make? She said she was wrong.

As for John - he not only was in the room by virtue of the fact he was on the Senate Intelligence committee - he was a co-author of the IWR if I remember correctly. To move forward in his presidential bid he had to apologize for completely political reasons. I find absolutely no weight to that apology - it was for purely political purposes. As I said earlier - I wish he would have done his job better at the time.

As for the DLC reference - I can't think of any weight that carries in 2007. Seems like a throw off.

Since you use AUM instead of IWR I would guess you are/were in the military. Cheers.

[Kelvin Mace]

65. As a war protester

who took to the streets after congress abdicated its authority, I opposed the war on numerous grounds, including Bush's lack of integrity. There was more than sufficient evidence for me and other who BOTHERED to look that Bush was a liar, that the war would be a fiasco and would cause far more problems than it would solve.

Edwards and Clinton (and many others) failed in their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution which EXPLICITLY gives only congress the power to declare war.

Now some folks can argue about the Iraq invasion not being a "war", but such people are morally bankrupt and are unworthy of engagement.

We went to war. Worse, we ILLEGALLY invade another country that had not attacked us as was demonstrably not a threat to this nation. This is a war crime. Clinton, Edwards, et al, permitted a war crime, and that by itself is enough to disqualify both for high office.

Edwards at least showed contrition, whether it was genuine contrition can be argued.

Clinton refused to show ANY contrition and stands by the vote.

You seem to assume I support Edwards. I don't. I simply point out that at least he apologized, Hillary didn't.

If anyone other than Gore or Kucinnich is the Dem choice, I will probably abstain. I haven't made up my mind yet, but I am VERY tired of voting for evil people.

[rinsd]

23. You're famous now

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3475168&mesg_id=3475168

[DURHAM D]

30. That's pretty funny - didn't know about the site.

Guess I will need to start checking it out when I feel overwhelmed by the fake progressives here at DU.

[Alamom]

57. It helps. eom

[William769]

35. Congrats! You just made the big league! And took DU along with you!

:applause:

[DURHAM D]

43. TNX -

You might enjoy a portion of something I posted here last night -

Senator Biden reminded us that in the coming decades there is less room for error than at any point in our history and I knew that of all the candidates Hill would need the least amount of on-job-training.

But still I held back.

One day I realized I was holding back out of my own fear. Holding back because I just didn't want to re-experience all the sexism that I knew was coming, esp. the unrecognized sexism that is so often displayed here.

I didn't want to be reminded of all the personal pain of the 50s and 60s or the failed promises of the 70s. But then I realized that if she was willing to take more abuse, more abuse than she had already experienced because of her personal commitment to public service, the least I could do is get her back.

I have been a feminist all of my life - even before there was a word for it. And there I was - stupidly hiding on the sideline instead of getting into the game of my life time.

I thank her for reminding me of the earlier promises, of raised hopes, of a better world, and for making me want to take to the streets one more time.

[frogcycle]

64. You're supporting her because people raise legitimate objections???

Yeah, there is bashing, but this is not one of them. She is so gunshy over the healthcare debacle in 1992 that she is walking on eggshells. Meaning she is saying whatever she thinks it takes to grab the prize.

[Ikonoklast]

5. The truth is what's going to sink her

If Hillary's last name wasn't Clinton, and she wasn't an ex-presidents' wife, but just another moderate senator from New York, your opinion of her as a candidate would change.


Think about it.

[DURHAM D]

6. If she hadn't married Bill Clinton she would have run for

President long before now. He has been a drag on her career.

You think about it.

[Ikonoklast]

11. That is a good one

I plan on supporting a progressive for president.

Something Hillary ain't.

[DURHAM D]

17. Who is your progressive? eom

[kimmerspixelated]

12. I see it as just the opposite.

And I just get the feeling like her running is like saying, "Na-Nanny-Boo-Boo- it's MY turn!" and it's weird, not dignified and mature at all.

[DURHAM D]

25. You are the joke - clearly you don't know her early history. eom

[Ikonoklast]

45. You mean as a "Goldwater Girl"?

Or Young Republican?

That early history?

[DURHAM D]

49. Yes - and the rest.

Just for the record I was a young Republican and a Goldwater Girl also. Back then, among other unattractive things, the Dems represented segregation. The only black Senator was a Republican.

Like most thinking people my age - during Nixon/Agnew we changed affiliations. What party would you have belonged to in the early 60s?

[Ikonoklast]

60. Born a Democrat, will die a Democrat

Like most thinking people my age, we fought Nixon tooth and nail BEFORE he was elected.

[movonne]

21. are you kidding??? this is a joke, right???

[yardwork]

9. Yeah, I'd be looking at her as a viable female candidate for president

without all the baggage.

[Ikonoklast]

19. Then take the *female* part out

And what would you have?

A *male* Senator from New York that is a political moderate, DLC supporter, that wants to remain in Iraq.

Would you support THAT person?
Does nothing for me.

[yardwork]

36. I'd support that person over the Republican, you betcha

and a third-party candidate vote is a vote for the Republican.

[Ikonoklast]

44. So, you expect the minimum from the Democratic candidate

I see now why you support Clinton.

[liberalnurse]

46. If she had not the "active" participating experience

of her being The First Lady of Arkansas, then First Lady of the United States of America then an elected leading U.S Senator, well then you might be right.... As I see it, she can start uniting this country and rebuilding international credibility yesterday. Her resume is much bigger that the current job assignment.............

Think about that.........O8)

[lovuian]

8. Actually I love all the candidates and Hillary but she is to

Hawkish... her support of the Iraq War is one thing I disagreed with

I just wish she would change her tune on the Iraq War and support getting the hell out of there right now

otherwise she isn't so bad at all

[yardwork]

10. I agree with you about her stance on the war.

I don't agree with a lot of Hillary's positions - she's far to the right of me. However, some of these attacks on her are completely over the top. It's one thing to point out legitimate concerns.

Quite another to gnaw like a rabid dog over every single thing she says.

Sheesh.

[DURHAM D]

13. Unless you are supporting DK -

who has no chance of making it into the office but I would respect your choice - you might want to take an in-depth look at everyone's position. There is not a dimes worth of difference in the positions.

Don't rely on anything the hate Hillary people state as fact here at the DU - it is all spin.

DU has become a cesspool of right wing talking points - Rove should be so proud.

[JTFrog]

63. You say that as you spew a right

wing talking point about DK?

:eyes:

[DURHAM D]

67. There are no right wing talking points about DK.

They have no need. He is not on their radar.

For DK - his viability is a political reality. Sorry but that is a fact - no spin needed.

I know for his supporters it would be easier if one could find a giant conspiracy against him - but no energy is being spent on such activity.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

15. What's her position on drugs? So far, the only decent one I've seen was Kucinich

While this may seem small, I think that ending this prohibition and allowing us the freedom to put what we want in our bodies is a truly progressive step. He values treatment over incarceration, and has supported the legalization (or at least decrim) of MJ.

[Kahuna]

18. What a ringing endorsement...'she isn't so bad at all.'

:crazy:

[Cha]

69. Too BAD the thing

hillary is bad on is the one issue I gage my candidates by..the BLOODY WAR ON IRAQ. Are they mindless, political creatures with no conscience and do they actually care about killing innocent people for profit?

[Bluebear]

20. You're right. We should be concentrating on INTELLIGENT attacks on her!

O8)

[yardwork]

37. That is correct. That is exactly my point.

Let's discuss the actual facts, instead of howling like a pack of dogs every time Hillary Clinton's name comes up. By all means, attack the candidates when they are wrong.

[BuyingThyme]

22. Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite.

If the Washington-based party can't get up and fight, we'll find someone who can.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0120-30.htm

[Disturbed]

28. I will not bash Sen. Clinton.

[yardwork]

38. How's that workin' for you?

By my count, everytime the Democrats act that way a Republican - each one worse than the last - gets the White House for two terms.

[Truth2Tell]

42. When you say "everytime the Democrats act that way"

do you mean everytime we nominate a corporatist Repub-lite?

Yes, too true.

[porphyrian]

27. Who would you prefer we made dumb attacks on? - n/t

[DURHAM D]

29. Mitt Romney. eom

[porphyrian]

31. OK. Mitt Romney's so dumb, he spells his name with an "i" instead of an "a."

Dumb enough?

[emilyg]

48. Bush & Co.

[porphyrian]

53. OK. Bush is so lame he declared war on Iraq so the people in his administration would like him.

He wanted some friends so he could see if he could pick their noses. Is that dumb enough?

[Pastiche423]

32. And so tired that you spelled her name incorrectly?

There have been many reasons stated on this thread as to why some people do not want Hillary that are not "dumb".

Her history has proven that she is no progressive. On a site that is FOR progressives, it isn't difficult to understand why she is not supported by many here.

I have one vote for president and I will not give away my vote to someone that has and still does go against progressive issues.

[yardwork]

39. So sue me. Obviously, I'm not a very big supporter or I'd get her name right.

Posts like yours are exactly why I started this thread. Did you actually read my OP or did you just pounce on the misspelling and start hammering on your keyboard?

[Pastiche423]

47. I din't catch the typo

until I began typing a response to your OP.

So yeah, I read your entire post before I responded.

Btw, you can reread my ENTIRE response as to why I do not want Hillary to be president.

[bobthedrummer]

41. Checkmate!

:)

[Pastiche423]

52. Thank you, Bob!

[Katherine Brengle]

66. I was about to say the same thing lol. On a different note, DU is not *for progressives* - it's

*for Democrats* as we've so often been reminded of late.

[Pastiche423]

68. That reminder is wrong

It says so in the rules.


OFF TOPIC -

I noticed that you live in Fall River. Are you involved w/the proposal for the LNG terminal?

We've been fighting them here, in southern Oregon for four years or so. In 2003, I got on the NoLNG Yahoo list and have been watching what is going on there.

[Bitwit1234]

33. Well if your opponent was slipping the way Obama has started to do

you would go ape and try to bash Hillary hoping to pick up votes. In the meanwhile Edwards is drawing near and I hope he passes.

[yardwork]

40. I like Edwards better than Clinton. I like Kucinich waaaay better than either.

I find Obama to be about the same as Clinton in the spectrum.

I'm sick of this country's two-party system. I'm sick of the lack of health care. I'm sick to death of the corporatists running everything. And in 2008, when we have a chance to get the White House back from the criminals (literally) who stole it, I fear that I'll watch the Democrats turn on one another yet again and let another Republican take office.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

50. LOL I Totally Hear Ya!

It makes me want to support her more too. It's almost out of spite for joy after she's elected, to laugh my ass off towards not only the repubs that would be cryin the next day, but also the ones here you're referencing. It almost makes me really really want her to win.

[Cha]

55. So support her. I've

seen nothing but accurate analysis from concerned people on why she should not make into the general. I just don't read anything that looks like drivel.

[yardwork]

62. Good. Keep it that way.

By all means we should respond with thoughtful, critical analysis to the stands and comments of the candidates. Let's just keep the level of conversation above drivel.

It's not just Clinton. I've seen unbelievably stupid comments against Edwards here today. The lies told about Kucinich could have been made up by KKKarl Rove.

We're not helping the cause of democracy when we repeat stupid stuff.