RW talking points? I don't think so.

[Mythsaje]

Interestingly enough, most of the criticism of Hillary Clinton here on DU has no resemblance to what the Rwers might find to criticize about her. We don't need to lean upon her alleged "cackle," her "shrillness," or anything else the RW might consider a negative. Frankly, most of us don't give a SHIT about any of that. Our issues are with her policy positions. We're not even concerned about her "electability." Or, should I say, I'M not concerned about that. I think it's a non-issue. I think ALL of the Democrats are electable versus the crackpots the Republicans have to choose from.

My first criticism is her comment about lobbyists; that they "represent real Americans." Well, some do. Some, on the other hand, represent multi-national corporations and industries themselves. The only way either count as such are by a warped and twisted definition of "real American."

My second criticism is that her primary issue with the Iraq war seems to be the way it's been conducted, not that we were lied into it in the first place.

My third criticism is that she knowingly helped a man who's proven himself to be willing to take the smallest opportunity to do something stupid the cover necessary for him to be an idiot with regards to Iran...the same way he was given the chance to be an idiot with regards to Iraq.

My fourth criticism is that she's unwilling to admit to a mistake, be it with her IWR vote or her vote on this newest initiative regarding our position on Iraq. When someone makes an obvious mistake, they need to learn to recognize it and admit it to themselves, if not to the rest of us. I see no evidence she's done so.

My fifth criticism is regarding the kind of person she has put in charge of her campaign strategy.

My sixth criticism is a reform of healthcare that puts entirely too much power into the hands of the very people who've helped put us IN this position in the first place.



Oh, there's plenty to criticize. I'm sorry if her supporters don't want to hear it.

[cali]

1. I largely agree with you- just a few things to nitpick

1) The criticism in GDP IS bearing a greater resemblance each day to the right wing attacks. Wish it weren't so, but it is. She is frequently labeled as Queen Hillary, her laugh is attacked, so is her staying with her husband. I've certainly seen her called Shrillary and Shilary and many other things.

2) She didn't hand bush a chance to do something re Iran. She lent him cover if he does it. He already has the chance. That said, giving credence to what bushco is saying about Iran, is terrible judgment.

I pretty much agree with you on the rest, except for your criticism of her supporters. I've noted very few people who support her who do what you suggest they do. And in any case, that shouldn't be included in your criticism of her.

[Mythsaje]

2. Okay...I fixed it.

You know, I haven't seen any of those threads you mention, calling her names. It's not a very effective method of dealing with the issue, as far as I'm concerned.

[cali]

4. Excellent.

Good job. I wish more of the criticism of Hillary was grounded in reality.

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. These points are made over & over on this site 100 times a day.

You folks have anything positive to say about anybody for a change? The mantra is getting pretty dull.

[Mythsaje]

5. I've done that too.

But I strongly oppose her candidacy and I'm not going to stop doing so because people are whining.

[mod mom]

46. That right repetition is our friend. We need to educate the lurkers/newbies as to why

we are so vehemently opposed to her.

[dickbearton]

49. Mod mom, you sound like a Republican stooge...

unless you are vehemently opposed to the Criminal Bush and the
Corrupt Republicans and only somewhat opposed to her; then you
are as ignorant and stupid as the Corrupt Republicans. Don't
be a stooge, or like the Criminal Republicans, you will be
vehemently opposed.

[Mythsaje]

61. Some of us are vehemently opposed to corporatism

no matter what colors it wears.

[robinlynne]

33. These are dark times.

[saracat]

6. Great post Mythsaje! All true.

[jgraz]

7. I guess you just want the GOP to win

:P

Plus you are very very sexist.

And you hate puppies.

Edit: And you voted for Nader

Edit 2: who also hates puppies

[Mythsaje]

8. Yeah, that's it.

It must be.

[jgraz]

9. Seriesly, excellent post

But I'm still not sure about you and puppies.

[Mythsaje]

10. Shhhh. Don't let my dogs hear you talking like that.

They might take it out on my kitten.

:)

[etherealtruth]

11. All legitimate criticisms of HRC

I don't know that I am a person that could be called an HRC supporter ...she's fairly low on my list of favorites ... however, some of the assertions on this board are eerily close to pure fabrication (those relating to her voting record, especially ... many like to pretend that she is to the right of George Bush and Attila the Hun; she is neither). There are so many legit concerns r/t HRC why would we bring in personal attacks and (yes, I'll say it) right wing talking points?

Thanks for presenting clear and concise criticisms w/out the garbage.

[ixion]

HRC has been unimpressive in her term as Senator, IMO.

primarily because of her (continued) support for the IWR, her blatant use of triangulation, her close ties to the DLC and her willingness to support the fascist tendencies of the GOP.

I had high hopes when she was elected. She has failed those hopes miserably, IMO.

It takes a village...under heavy surveillance.

[OneBlueSky]

64. when I voted for Hillary, I expected her to be my senator . . .

and to work like hell opposing BushCo and all their illegalities . . . instead she's spent her time running for president . . . as far as I'm concerned, she's not doing the job I elected her to do . . . and that bothers me . . . a lot . . .

[blondie58]

12. that about spells it out- you've pegged it

I would love to have a woman president- but not Hillary. She would be more of the same. I'm sure that I have more to add- but I have to wake up first. These are all some of the reasons why corporations would love to have her win. Thank you, Mythsaje.

[dickbearton]

50. I did not like Hillary, but the more I hear from people like you...

the more I like her. Some of you are as ignorant and stupid as
the Corrupt Republicans. More of the same, you think she is
another Criminal Bush, like I said... And as for corporations;
yes, the candidates will be determined by corporations. 

[QueenOfCalifornia]

55. Good reason to vote for her

to spite us ignorant Democrats. Makes sense to me.

[Mythsaje]

62. Corporations, in case you weren't aware, aren't PEOPLE.

They were never meant to be in charge of our government. And as long as they are, we will oppose their control. Even if it means having to deal harshly with quislings.

[Virginia Dare]

69. The Supreme Court said otherwise in 1886...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juristic_person

one of the worst, most damaging decisions in our history IMO.

[bluetrain]

13. I agree with all your qualms about her and would just like to add her

co-sponsorship of The Workplace Religious Freedom Act (i.e. allowing pharmacists the legal right to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives) as another problematic moment in her record.

[Mythsaje]

14. She sponsored that?

Add something else to my list, then.

I've got REAL problems with that crap.

[bluetrain]

15. Yeah, she did. And, honestly, I don't get it at all because the one thing she had going

for her was her record on Choice...but she blew that.

[creeksneakers2]

39. No, She didn't vote for that

The ACLU theorized that if a very unlikely Supreme Court ruling would be handed down in the future that those types of cases could possibly happen if the bill passed. The Supreme Court never ruled the way the ACLU theorized. They'd ruled the opposite in every similar case before the the law Hillary voted for passed.

This yarn about Hillary is the type that I suspect starts out from a group of RNC interns in a ops research office somewhere.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

56. Hmmm. Are you high?

I think she did, along with John Kerry:

Co-Sponsors of S. 893, The Workplace Religious Freedom Act

Sen. Evan Bayh (IN)
Sen. Sam Brownback (KS)
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY)
Sen. Norm Coleman (MN)
Sen. John Cornyn (TX)
Sen. Jon Corzine (NJ)
Sen. Larry Craig (ID)
Sen. Michael Crapo (ID)
Sen. Elizabeth Dole (NC)
Sen. Richard Durbin (IL)
Sen. John Ensign (NV)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (UT)
Sen. John Kerry (MA)
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (CT)
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (MD)
Sen. Patty Murray (WA)
Sen. Charles Schumer (NY)
Sen. Gordon Smith (OR)
Sen. Arlen Specter (PA)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (MI)
Sen. Jim Talent (MO)
Sen. Ron Wyden (OR)
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0514,lombardi,62680,6.html

http://tools.isovera.com/organizations.php3?action=printContentItem&orgid=54&typeID=82&itemID=8156&User_Session=6a5da444fd53d0fc0780de6742dc6b1a

I believe my lying eyes. Oh, yes...

[creeksneakers2]

70. I'm sober. Are you aware of what I wrote?

I didn't say Hillary didn't cosponsor the Religious Workplace Freedom Act. I said the act doesn't allow pharmacists to refuse to supply anything. It was a bill to protect the religious freedom of workers who want to, for example, take off on their Jewish holiday. It only covered situations where no work interruptions are concerned.

You are describing the bill the way the ACLU did in a far fetched hypothetical case.

[robertpaulsen]

72. ACLU far fetched? Uh, thanks for letting us know where you stand. n/t

[NC_Nurse]

23. Wow. I didn't know that.

Chalk up another reason to be uncomfortable with her as the nominee. That is some bullshit.

[jgraz]

28. So much for that pro-choice bogeyman they keep trying to scare us with

Roe? Griswold? Looks like Hillary would be happy to throw them under the bus in order to look "presidential". :banghead:

[jgraz]

29. bluetrain, this needs to be an OP

I wonder what all the people banging the Hillary drum will have to say about it.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

57. that

she eats babies too... Every time I have ever pointed out a political flaw of amazing size and proportions regarding Hillary... I get the "And she eats babies" crap.

[robertpaulsen]

32. I would like to second jgraz's request to make this an OP.

The only reason I possibly had to vote for Hillary in the GE is that she would nominate SCOTUS judges who would uphold Roe and Griswold. Now that reason is completely dubious.

[creeksneakers2]

40. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. n/t

[Capn Sunshine]

59. however, the Congressional Record is pretty reliable

and that's available for anyone to read about Hill's vote, internet or not.

[JTFrog]

66. Your cognitive dissonance is glaring.

You were proven wrong but don't want us to believe the proof. Keep the faith buddy, it's all you've got left.

[ima_sinnic]

67. ???!!! sheesh! arrrgh! I really really REALLY detest that woman!

there is absolutely NOTHING sincere about her! she is a two-bit phony. she stands for NOTHING. she is an Equal Opportunity Whore: she'll do anything for whoever pays her, no matter who it is. she apparently will do anything for money. as a public servant, her first commitment is supposed to be to those whom she represents in Congress and whose taxes pay her salary. It is obvious that the perks and payola she gets from her wealthy lobbyist johns are worth a lot more to her than the paltry sum paid by the taxpaying riff-raff whom she cares NOTHING about.

FUCK YOU HILLARY CLINTON. May the voters SOON wake up and vote your sleazy ass OUT OF CONGRESS.

[lvx35]

16. I like Hillary, but I deeply agree with number 2.

"My second criticism is that her primary issue with the Iraq war seems to be the way it's been conducted, not that we were lied into it in the first place."

Its true she plays ball with corporations, which is why she is the frontrunner with lots of money... To some extent that's negotiable with me. But the point you made there: that's THE problem to me, THE scary part about her. The problem with the Iraq was was that it was WRONG, and it has been based on bullshit from the start. Why she can't say that, why almost nobody can say that except Kucinich, Gravel, and Ron Paul bothers the crap out of me.

[lonestarnot]

17. Me too.

[Froward69]

48. Biden said it was wrong as to why we are there

so we have to have a plan to leave.
got 20 min?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhCJ6h_p0GA&feature=RecentlyWatched&page=1&t=t&f=b

[lvx35]

65. Thanks for the link. Good to see Biden's perspective.

I have wanted some more depth on that guy, I see he has some good plans and the strategic thought to make it real. What I don't like is the assumption that lies behind saying that we will have to send our children back in 15 years. I just don't subscribe to the world views that the affairs of other countries are intrinsically our business to fix, or that the world "wants us to lead them". I think the world actually thinks of us as a partner and equal.

[B Calm]

18. I been hearing Obama, Osama a lot lately. I tell them....

you really don't want to bring up Osama bin Forgotten... It usually shuts them up pretty damn quick!

[leftchick]

19. it is all the Iraqis fault

don't you know? That is why Iraq is such a MESSOPOTAMIA!!! The Iraqis need to stand up!!! Otherwise our noble brave fearless wonderful glorious Troops have performed perfectly! It all would have been perfect except for those lazy Iraqis.

:sarcasm: on my part but that is Hil speak.

[Major Hogwash]

20. It's just like when people were defending Lieberman saying he was a liberal.

Liberal my eye! The fact that he carries water for AIPAC every single time when he makes a decision about how to vote for war makes me sick.

I'm not voting for any DLC members for any office in 2008.
If the candidate who wants to replace Craig in the Senate next year is a DLC member, then he won't get my vote, period.

The DLC supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and they support the bombing by Bush of Iran.

[B Calm]

21. Al Gore started the DLC.. People need to realize this too..

[Major Hogwash]

24. Al From and Will Marshall started the DLC. Gore was a member ages ago.

But, since he endorsed Dean in 2003, the anti-DLC Democratic candidate - the candidate that the DLC viciously propagated several angry articles railing against Dean - I don't think Gore much cares for the middle of the roaders at the DLC.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

58. I Salute You!

Sir, Yes Sir!

[MethuenProgressive]

22. If she's our nominee will you vote for her?

And, while your making lists, what are the negatives, in your opinion, of the other contenders?

[Lerkfish]

26. off point, actually, but consistent withe the OP

he's discussing tactics, and you just employed another favorite: You cannot question her policies without someone saying "If she's our nominee, will you vote for her?"

a tacit accusation that to express dismay at her rightist leaning policies makes you somehow not a democrat.

its getting really, really, old.

and, again, it allows you (you think) to completely avoid addressing the valid concerns.

Prove to me this is not a tactic, and address the issues brought up in the OP, avoiding ad hominem innuendo.

if you cannot or will not, then your post is just another very tired tactic.

[MethuenProgressive]

27. Lerkfish, your ad hominem attack act is getting old.

I asked a question because I wanted to know an answer.
You see that as a "Clinton tactic"?
What a strange world it is that you've constructed for yourself.

[Lerkfish]

31. can you address the issues of the OP?

thought not.

and btw, pointing out your ad hominem is an ad hominem. yes, you're right, Your nonarguments are getting old.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[Danger Mouse]

44. Calling a poster a child. Way to go.

You're a class act.

[robinlynne]

34. Actually if you look at the Du poll done today, she is by far the candidate with the most negatives.

Noone else even comes close.

[MethuenProgressive]

36. That's a DU poll, It has little to do with anything but DU.

And DU, if you look at the actblue page, decided long ago who they don't support.

[robinlynne]

37. DU is a good representative sample of liberals across the country. I don't understand

what you mean to say about actblue.

[MethuenProgressive]

38. I respectfully disagree. And regarding actblue:

DU members can route their donations through DU via the ActBlue link, and a look at who is being supported by DUers shows (to me at least) a real representation of who DU strongly supports.

[emilyg]

51. No it's not.

[Capn Sunshine]

60. I usually disagree with these guys, but trust me DU is NOT the real world

It's not even close. 9 out of ten real world activists have never heard of our little message board floating in cyberspace.

How do I know? I'm a member of the DNC, my State Central Committee, and an AD Delegate. I've worked on campaigns for years. Even Bills. I've met Hillary numerous times. She's urbane, charming and seductively powerful. I attend every manner of Democratic function, National and State, even local. I always ask the room "who is a member of DU?" If there's a hundred people in the room, two might raise their hand.

Now, that said, DU can influence stuff if enough get on board; working symbiotically with the other websites. I've seen it happen before, and it can happen again.

But the struggle here for hearts and minds over the Hillary thing is almost parody. It's like Hillary's camp tries out memes here or something.

But representative? Not hardly.

[Mythsaje]

63. Only the internet savvy policy wonk type of Democrats...

We're far more issue oriented than a lot of baseline Democrats--we're out here in the digital hinterlands discussing them day in and day out. We read, analyze, and debate it all far more avidly than a lot of folks.

We're NOT particularly indicative of Democrats across the board. It does make a difference.

[Lerkfish]

25. well said, and truth to power.

recc'd

[dickbearton]

52. Lerkfish, truth to power...

I like truth to power. There is only one problem, power shits
on truth.

[HughBeaumont]

30. Read this one and add it too . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3156226#3156245

That's MY sore spot, as well as all the points you made.

We need a CHOICE, not a settling.

[creeksneakers2]

41. Your reasons are valid policy differences you have with her

I respect your reasons.

There are right wing talking points being used here though. There was a flare up two nights ago with a false accusation that Hillary called an audience member at a campaign event "a plant." Hillary said nothing like that. DUers also spread yarns about Hillary losing her temper at the audience member. A tape shows Hillary having to firm up her voice to get her answer off. She was in control the whole time.

The false story about Hillary was spread around the right wing and mainstream media with the same falsehood. I heard the same tale on Rush Limbaugh today. So I truly believe that some of the anti-Hillary stories are right wing agitprop that either intentionally or unintentionally drifted into DU.

Twisting quotations and assigning unsupported meanings to what was said is a favored right wing tactic.

[ima_sinnic]

68. she IMPLIED he was a plant -- whether she used that exact phrase

is, to me at least, irrelevant. What concerned me the most, and should concern everyone, was the gist of the message--that someone asking an honest question, even though a bit misinformed, is accused of "being sent" by someone or "setting her up."

Focusing on whether or not the exact words "a plant" was said is just another RW tactic: distract from the gist, from the essence of the message. This was the exact same tactic used to get everybody to look away from the question, was jr. shit-stain given a pass during the Vietnam War because of sr. shit-stain's influence and chain-pulling, by focusing on the false premise that a memo written in ~1972 was a "forgery."

Then the questioner was falsely portrayed by a Hillary supporter as a "nutcase"! Talk about RW talking points--that is sooo classic RW: instead of responding to the question or trying to make a case for the indefensible HRC forked-tongue constantly changing triangulated spin, ridiculing and minimizing the questioner! Investigation of the questioner turned up a very cogent and sane LTTE that gave no hint of "nutcasery." No evidence could be found of a "nutcase," yet the HRC supporter felt no qualms about dismissing him as such.

So stuff a sock in the "favored right-wing tactic" bullcrap when her followers (not fans or supporters, but deluded, apparently easily manipulated followers) have all of it down to a science.

[creeksneakers2]

71. Its on tape

And its nothing like you describe.

RWs twist meanings. Lefties like exact quotes and context. See Media Matters.

[porphyrian]

42. Yep. - n/t

[Major Hogwash]

43. This election season reminds me of what happened 4 years ago soooo much.

At this time in 2003, Howard Dean was the "invincible one" and yet 150 days later, he hadn't won a single primary.
I remember reading all those threads here about "Dean will do this" and "Dean will do that" once he gets into the White House.

But, the one thing that is different this time around is that Bush isn't teetering on invading a country or isnn't using fear tactics to scare Democrats away from supporting real liberal candidates from the left wing of the Democratic party. At least that much has changed, huh?

Or has it?

[Danger Mouse]

45. all good points. all reasons she will not be my choice.

nice work.
but you're a socialist. or a green. pick one! :P

[BlueJac]

47. I with you on Hillary............

Not to be trusted, let's end the royal BCBC Regime

[NoGodsNoMasters]

53. My stance exactly...

I like Edwards, Kucinich better, but she's the most likely... Independant isn't worth the risk at this juncture, and let's face it theres' no fucking way i'm voting republican. as I've always said elections are about choosing between mediocre and godawful. I know which one I'd prefer.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

54. Very good.

The best I've seen and I appreciate it. Of course you are correct and I am certain that you will be bombarded with "and she eats babies" comments...

Bravo.