Hillary Supporters - You're Angry at the WRONG Person(s)

[SaveAmerica]

and I don't think you realize how difficult it has been for many of us to come to the decision to not put our support behind Hillary. From the moment I heard rumors swirling that she was considering running for president, I was so excited. Not only could I support and vote for the first woman president in America but I liked what she stood for. That was before she couldn't bring herself to say that her vote to go into Iraq was wrong, before she started voting against bringing the troops home ASAP, before she decided to be a part of the insanity that will be Iran.

If you want to be angry at someone, TAKE IT OUT ON HILLARY!! Write her and ask her why she voted like this, why is she acting more like a Republican than a Democrat? We did not make her vote as she did, her votes made us decide to give our support elsewhere.

[cali]

1. I don't support Hillary, but ever since the full frontal DU

hate-on began in earnest, I've been defending her against bogus charges- like that she's acting more like a repub than democrat. Hate her votes on Iraq and Iran, and that's why I can't support her, but her voting record does NOT support your accusation.

[book_worm]

11. Me too, I'm not supporting Hillary either, but people go overboard

attacking her and tend to then invent things or intentions that are not there which causes a backlash I think among those who don't necessarily support her for president, but don't dislike her either. Then we get posts like this where the attackers blame her supporters for the tone of this board.

[YOY]

13. When I see posts about her laugh or other thinly-veiled irrevelant BS it makes me angry too

You know I'm no Hillary fan Cali, but it really belittles any objection to her to state one's discontentment based on anything more than past record or proposed actions.

I quite agree.

[mondo joe]

16. More than anything else, the anti-Hillary hysteria has made me inclined to support her.

The BS arguments that she's Bush-lite are the same arguments used against Gore in 2000.

[SaveAmerica]

18. Her votes in regards to what the majority of Americans feel is most important

is what I'm talking about. That's the main idea behind my post. Remember when I wrote that I had plans of voting for her? That would be the time when her voting record, in general, was good and one I could stand behind. Her record, of late, is not and the reason so many people are looking elsewhere. You missed my point which was to ask you to be understanding of those of us who had plans of supporting her but now can't. Please direct your anger to her. The hate-fest is not coming from the group of people that I am talking about.

[mondo joe]

22. But I think her voting record is not out of line with what most Americans want.

Of course the final vote is what determines what most Americans want.

And questioning the thoughtfulness, or sincerity or intentions of those willing to support her is what engenders resentment. The sooner the Hillary-haters give upon that, the sooner the backlash will end.

[Armstead]

25. Do you really think most Americans.....

...want to help Bush build up his stack of bogus excuses for attacking Iran?

[mondo joe]

31. No, but I think you're extrapolating.

The American people have some real conflicts about the war, and about how to protect the US.

There isn't a simple concensus. I think Hillary is trying to bridge that.

[Armstead]

32. Without a fear campaign, most would not favor attacking Iran

Just as Iraq was steadily built up into a "threat" and a "crisis" by propaganda, so is Iran.

There are too many parallels in the hype.

[Armstead]

27. IT's NOT PERSONAL

I like Hillary as a person. I'd be happy to see her as a Senator for life.

But what she represents does make me extremely angry and frustrated that we are going along with it, in terms of the political agenda and economic policies that are being rammed down our throats once again.

She is the figurehead of the Corporatist DLC who have undermined the concept of a liberal Dempcratic Party.

She is the figurehead of the Wall St. Elite who think they liberal, while espousing economic behavior that is destroying the middle class and which has subverted the nation's political system.

So it's not the idea of Hillary personally that gets so many angry. It is the brand of Corporatist, Anti-Liberal Democratic Politics that isreasserting itself and telling all liberals to just shut up and get back in your place.

[demnan]

2. Exactly.

K&R

[liberal N proud]

3. I once was a Hillary supporter - She lost me

I much like was exited at the possibility that Hillary would run for the President. Her stand on too many issues chased me away. Couple that with the way she has been crammed down our throat by the MSM and I had to wonder what is in it for them?
Yes it is Hillary who lost us.

[madame defarge]

6. She hasn't lost me as much as...

her supporters have. The hate & vitriolic statements made by many of her supporters about other Democratic candidates & those who support them have turned me off on Hillary. We don't need any more of that kind of crap; we've got enough of it with the extremist republicans.

[PATRICK]

21. Warning

Just about every candidate, but especially "frontrunners", have many who go into aggressive mode. Sometimes it is just as simple as your affectionate loyalty for the local sports team suddenly turned onto the victory/glory trail. Look out! That is a natural emotion if not the sanest or most polite. I would paint neither the candidate nor the supporter in that peculiar state with freeper foam at the mouth. The frustrations on this board are always consistent and consistent with a shared, human nature.

No everyone simply unites behind ONE progressive candidate, ONE smart candidate, but usually THE final candidate. We never have. In this general mix, unfortunately, it does get personal and offensive. Would that we could step back, as important as it all is. But if it was so important why can no one simply be the universal choice of DU?
Absent the progressive Messiah, Mahdi or Bodhisattva(thank you, Spellcheck!) we should look to ourselves for the unity the moment- not the POTUS choice alone- requires. It requires that we stay united to effect change no matter what hand the election deals America. And it could be far worse than any Dem candidate and we would still have to soldier on under really dire, physically personally threatening circumstances. If the nation falls again the hoopla and tempers of these primaries, as all others preceding, will shrink to a childish display in retrospect.

[librechik]

4. I'm angry at the RW media machine who turned our best candidate toxic.

They did it to Gore, too. (that's why he is right not to run until that little problem is fixed--they would just do it to him again!)
Just like Hillary, the oppo research is already done and paid for. It's not her fault, she is acting more or less flawlessly (to get elected--not to please her base.) But they will fuck her and fuck her bad if she is the candidate. I just can't stand to watch that. And the idea that she is pushing ahead anyway, just as if she doesn't know what's about to happen, makes me think her ambition is off the scale. Or something. Bush is so happy she's going to be next. That makes my spider sense all tingly. Yikes. The shit that makes Bush happy is too too scary, and add Hillary to that list? Again, Yikes.

[MrModerate]

7. It's not ambition -- it's brains and confidence.

I think she knows exactly what she faces -- and thinks she can beat it back. At the same time, the 'Lican field is extremely weak on the fundamentals. They can all be Swiftboated without having to lie.

When the campaign heats up it's gonna be one nasty mofuh.

[MrModerate]

5. Hillary has more brains than heart; and while she is (reportedly) . . .

Warm and genuine in person, on the stump she appears positively machiavellian.

I think she's done the math: If she wins the primary, she's got left-of-center (all the way out to the furthest frontiers) locked up. Who else are they going to vote for? Giuliani? Paul? Some unnamed third-party candidate?

So what she needs to become president is keep the left-of-center from actively revolting and staying away from the polls (her biggest risk, IMO), while appealing to the fickle, shallow, easily-cowed "undecideds" by appearing "moderate," "thoughtful," and "strong." She'll never get the 33% that still thinks Schimpanski is a competent non-criminal.

So she tacks to the "center" as defined by the DLC. Utter bullshit, but if you're counting electoral votes -- and want to be sure that you snag enough so that the 'Lican election stealing machine can't hijack the presidency for a third time, then you do what Hillary is doing.

Do I wish she were more genuine and principled? Yes. Do I think she could win, even if she were more genuine and principled? Well, yes -- but hypercaution is another of her faults.

Do I think, despite everything, she's going to pull it off?

Yes.

[ozone_man]

8. It's a decision based on principles.

It saddens me that the first credible woman candidate is such a Republican type of Democrat that I can't vote for her. And it also saddens me that Obama, being the first credible black candidate, I can't support for some of the same reasons. Both are war hawks and a vote for them seems to be a vote to prolong the Iraq War and occupation of Iraq. Consequently, I can trust neither.

If that was all, just the Iraq War issue, I might be able to overlook that, but it goes way beyond that to outsourcing policies, what looks like a corporate handout to Wall Street in the way of a national 401K policy similar to privatizing Social Security. Corporatism in general.

On the plus side, she is a social liberal. So, if I weight that equal to her corporate views and War views, she comes out with a 1/3 rating from me.

I think Kucinich comes out with 3/3 rating. Everything is a tradeoff in life, and I doubt Kucinich will win the primary, but he or Gravel has my vote of conscience. Unless maybe Biden can catch on. Or Gore. The mainstream Democrats like Biden or Gore are tradeoff candidates, a tradedown from Kucinich, but a big tradeup from Hillary Clinton.

I'm holding out for a populist candidate, one that reflects core Democratic principles not the corporate view.

[niceypoo]

9. The anger comes from the Hillary attackers, mostly

Who rant and rage endlessly about her. Lately they have began attacking Bill Clinton too. Any freeper can come to the DU, rage freely about the Clinton's and they have instant allies in the circular firing squad club here who join them in their guffawing and attacks. I find it disgusting.

[book_worm]

12. Exactly

and then they act like they are the injured party.

[MuseRider]

10. I was never crazy about her but

was excited to have the chance to vote for a woman IF she stood up for what I call the traditional Democratic values and gave a very good reason why she voted the way she did on several issues. I was never certain I would want to vote for her but to think I had the chance to vote for a woman was pretty exciting so I cut her some slack. Not anymore and that is too bad.

Same with Pelosi. I was never a fan of hers, did not really care for her at all but watched as she took the gavel because it was history (herstory) and was very excited to witness it. She has been such a disappointment to me. I always worry that when a woman gets the chance and blows it it will set us back another decade. I have been proven wrong on that here in my state so I can hope the nation does not hold that against all women running for high office. I would have thought (hoped) she would have had more courage than she has shown, or some courage anyway.
***
"If you want to be angry at someone, TAKE IT OUT ON HILLARY!! Write her and ask her why she voted like this, why is she acting more like a Republican than a Democrat? We did not make her vote as she did, her votes made us decide to give our support elsewhere."
***
I understand that there are many who would take issue with what I have said but this is how I feel. Perhaps Clinton's supporters believe she voted properly. :shrug: People here pay so much attention that if they still support her that seems to be the reason.

[melody]

14. Exactly - I would love to wholeheartedly support a female Presidential nominee

But I won't support ANY female Presidential nominee. I'm not going to make the same error
of sexism we criticize in men who only vote for a male candidate.

I will, however, vote for a Democratic toaster if it has a chance of getting the neocons out
of the White House.

[marions ghost]

15. I guess this needs to be spelled out over and over...

(sigh). Thanks for doing that SaveAmerica...

We who do not want to see Hillary as the Dem candidate are not all "Hillary Haters." (What do ya think--we're the same as Fundies and Neo-cons?!)

It is a painful decision not to support a woman candidate since obviously a woman president would be a social milestone. Ask yourself why a lot of feminists aren't supporting her candidacy though.

I admire Hillary for "playing the game" as well as she does, but it's time to reinvent the game and make some big changes. She is not the person to do that. We need to go beyond Hillary's constricted views and pandering compromises.

Above all I think we should be very- very -skeptical of a conservative media-promoted, predetermined candidate. For reasons that would take an essay to cover. Those who cringe at the thought of what we will all endure should the media have HRC to kick around are giving voice to a very real gut feeling based in a large amount of fact. We are already to the point of nausea and it's only the beginning.

Ignoring our strong gut feelings on critical issues has not gotten us very far.

[SaveAmerica]

20. Hilllary said in one of the debates that she has experience taking on

the people who have been after them for so long, I cringed. I crave a new time in America where we have a President who is making good decisions for Americans and we have some degree of peace amongst us.

[cali]

26. Then you've somehow managed to miss

the great number of posts that spew hate at her and her supporters, attacking her for anything from her laugh and her marriage, to questioning whether she'd appoint better Justices than Rudi. Really ridiculous and offensive stuff. and how about calling her supporters hillbots- and worse? Is that OK with you?

[marions ghost]

30. No, I haven't missed them

though I tend to stay out of the fray.

Since I'm not a Hillary supporter, I guess it's easier to ignore the superficial crap that idiots post about her laugh and her marriage and her lack of femininity or whatever--all that rightwing radio garbage. I tend to instantly reject personal attacks whipped up about any of the candidates. If someone does that, I know they don't have a clue & I don't read further. But of course it's easier to be more objective when it's not your preferred candidate. I guess if she was my candidate, I'd really have to look at why people target her on a personal level and what that means for her candidacy.

Why would you assume from what I said that I agree with anybody spewing hate on anybody? I'm saying that I'm NOT a hater of any kind, and a lot of us arguing against her candidacy aren't. But if she's the candidate, you just watch what the REAL haters do. You ain't seen nothin yet. Hillary supporters are gonna have to be really tough, so maybe this is an exercise in doing that.

I've heard worse slurs than "Hillbots"--there also seem to be Dennisbots, Johnbots, Barackbots, Albots, even Joebots--anybody who at this point has a strong preference is all the term means to me...but since it implies zealots I probably wouldn't use it. In our political snake pit, the personal attack is the stuff of hours and hours of daily media coverage. The media knows that half the country will base their votes on some personal aspect of a candidate, rather than finding out what they really stand for. So of course people naturally sink to this stuff. I haven't and won't & so please don't put me in that convenient category.

[CoffeeCat]

17. You and I agree philosophically...

It is very sad to realize that our own Dem frontrunner has done
the things you've said.

It makes me terribly afraid for our country. In a time of peril--
when we're in the middle of a lie-based war and on the brink of
a new war with Iran---the Democratic party should be leveraging
a candidate who unequivocally says they will put an end to this
madness---and restore our Constitutional and Civil rights.

Hillary is NOT that. She barely addresses the most critical
issues of our day.

You and I agree on all of that. While I do agree that we should
write Hillary, I think it's imperative to speak out about her warmongering
and her silence (which is compliance) as our democracy is dismantled
piece by piece.

The real power in this country--lies in our votes. It's the people
who decide what direction in which our country will turn. It's
the people who will decide to vote for Hillary, thus perpetuating
the madness that Bush started. I don't know when Hillary and Bill
got folded into the neocon, warmongering, corporatist fray, but they
did. It's sad. It's awful and it rocks your core. However, it's
reality.

I'm greatly concerned because I feel that as voters, we have the power
to stop this train wreck--and Hillary supporters are openly choosing to support
a candidate who will hop in the train and travel at breakneck speed on the
same track--offering very little real leadership and making critical changes.

That does anger me. It worries me.

I also think it's important to openly discuss Hillary's views--and examine
her votes and the things she does and says. If we simply sit back and
say nothing, while people post that they want to vote for Hillary because
she "seems nice" or because she has an interesting healthcare plan--I think
it's also important to shine the spotlight on her compliance in a time of
national crisis and her silence on so many issues.

I'm not angry, per say--at anyone or at any Hillary supporter. I'm angry
that this situation exists---that our nation stands at a crossroads, where
our very democracy and so many things are at stake. We need a candidate who
has the courage and integrity to turn it all around. Hillary is not that
candidate.

It's the people who have the power in their hands, so it's important
and essential to talk about all of the candidates---and examine their actions
(or inaction) and their views in these very troubling times.

[tomreedtoon]

19. Republicans and Democrats switch places!

For the longest time, since the 1960's, Republicans came to their convention knowing exactly who their nominee would be. Oh, they gave lip service to the other people who pretended to run for the nomination. But everyone knew that Nixon, Bush and Bush were the anointed ones.

The Democratic Party, however, had its candidates battle it out. Who would have guessed that Carter or Dukakis would wind up as candidates? They were the survivors.

This year, everyone is assuming that Clinton will - MUST - be the candidate. And Republicans seem to be battling each other in hopes of running ahead of the pack - although I sometimes think they were forced to run, and they are each trying to lose the nomination to avoid taking blame for Bush's war and incompetency.

Weird, ain't it?

[ElizabethDC]

23. I'm a Hillary supporter, but I'm not angry at anybody

:shrug:

[Javaman]

24. Wait! wait!!

:popcorn: okay, go on...

[GrpCaptMandrake]

28. While I disagree with Senator Clinton

on a number of her positions, I am also sickened by the sounds of the SwiftBoat machine cranking up.

The ad parody that Phlush Phlegmball played a couple of days ago (you can hear it over at www.mediamatters.org), which included the words "I forgot she stood by her husband even after she found out he raped Juanita Broderick" and made references to Senator Clinton's "shameful past," just reminded me that the the Reich-wing has spent FIFTEEN long years building the machine they'll use to destroy her is she's our nominee.

Senator Clinton says she knows how to fight back. How? This ain't 1992 and it's not the War Room and the media WILL NOT allow her to fight back.

Please remember that for every minute of progressive speech on the radio, there are in excess of ten minutes of Repiglican talking points. For every hour of Keith Olbermann, there are hours and hours of O'Reilly, Hannity, Scarborough, and the lapdogs on the terrestrial broadcast networks.

Senator Clinton's candidacy, by definition, will also have to repeat the same mistakes of the last two democratic nominees: foregoing entire regions of our country to battle for a handful of big electoral states. That's a direct contravention of Dr. Dean's "Fifty State Strategy," but Senator Clinton will have no choice. She doesn't have a prayer in states like Alabama or Mississippi or Texas or even Arkansas. We will remain a nation divided.

All that having been said, I remain, albeit tenuously, committed to voting for her if she is my party's nominee. After all, Senator Clinton at her worst is better than any Repig nominee by so large a factor that it is almost incalculable by current mathematical standards.

Get on The H.O.R.N.!
America's Liberal Voice
www.headonradionetwork.com

[nashville_brook]

29. wow -- you hit the nail on the head.