How dare they question American political royalty!

I guess they are just "haters" too.

They'll just say "she was lied to", not realizing how badly it reflects on her decision making skills.

believe her, but as you pointed out the alternative wears their extreme right wing banner on their arm and flaunts it.

into office. I believe that it was Bush's policies that reversed the employment and wage gains made under Clinton. If you believe it was more a delayed effect of NAFTA rather than Bush's responsibility you are welcome to your opinion.

So I guess Obama is a liar, and Newt Gingriches nafta was a success. Amazing how people will tie themselves in knots defending republican neoliberal trade policies.

NAFTA since it includes Canada and Mexico and would make NAFTA obsolete.



US wages bottomed out in 1994-95 and rose throughout the rest of Clinton's term in office. Wages fell shortly after Bush came into office. If you want to blame that on NAFTA and not Bush be my guest.

The percentage of the workforce in the US and every other developed country employed in manufacturing has been declining since the mid-1950's long before any trade agreements came into being.

I think liberal European trade policy beats republican policy any day.

Again nice try.


And I also prefer European trade policy, Norway is doing a great job, Spain and Greece on the other hand? Not so much.

Europe followed the liberal policy on trade after WWII and established a 'free trade' zone of 500 millions people as well as trade agreements with many other non-European countries.

Imports are 13% of our GDP. They are 35% of Germany's, 30% of Sweden's, 25% of Greece's. A flood of imports is not our problem.

International trade is 22% of our economy. It is 74% in Germany, 62% in Sweden and 51% in Canada. If trade caused economic problems, the US workers would be much better off than workers in Germany, Sweden and Canada. We are not. The answer must be something else - legal support for strong unions, high/progressive taxes, an effective safety net and health care system?

The republicans are now even more extreme right wing then they were when NAFTA was passed, and they acknowledge that proudly

Bill Clinton did OK for himself after leaving office, this part of the country still hasn't recovered from that atrocity he signed.

Lots of Democrats got thrown out of work, lots of businesses left for Mexico, lots of good-paying jobs lost forever, lots of people the Democratic Party lost as voters after fucking them over.

Clinton lost me when signed that bill into law.

I trust Hillary just as much as I trust Bill.

Party Unity My Ass Except We Might Have President Cruz So Party Unity Or Else!

LOL

What...no SEXISM !!!1111 ??

You dont expect the same from sexists?

Oh yeah. Thinly veiled, but there all the same

Bring it...

No one 'hates' Hillary. No one 'hated' Bill

Hillary has already lost one Democratic primary. If she's game to 'bring it' to another, then good for her

No one hated Bill and no one hates Hillary.....I guess no one hates Obama either right?

messages and dogwhistles during the 2008 primary, and Hillary didn't say a word to even try to talk back the things said in her name.

you had Hillary supporters calling Obama supporters sexists and Obama supporters calling Hillary supporters racists. It was interesting because once the nomination was decided, people seemed to go right back to pretending that ONLY the repukes were racists and sexists.

If you oppose either of those politicians then you will, perforce, find yourself on the same side of the fence with some racists and sexists.

The moral of the story is that being opposed by bad people for bad reasons is not a sufficient guarantee of merit.

If there's a Democratic primary between (for example) Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley, there will be sexists voting for O'Malley because they aren't comfortable with a female President, and I will be voting the same way they do. If either of those candidates wins our nomination and goes up against Allen West, there will be racists voting for the Democrat because they (still!) aren't comfortable with a black President, and I will be voting the same way they do. I won't let the bigots define my choice.

vote for her if necessary, and blue dogs or not real democrats who are here and elsewhere to try and bring the party down and give it to the cons.

I get a kick out of it all, as if there is an actual liberal (politically, not personally) anywhere in America who has any chance, at all, of winning the WH...

The ONLY chance that could happen is if a Mark Zuckerberg or someone like him was wiling to spend their own money to run and run on a real liberal platform.

And even then I dont know what would happen.

Hillary is who she is, and like her husband and President Obama and Joe Biden and fill in the blank, cozying up to Wall Street to some degree is vital to survival.

This is NOT a criticism of the person, WE put them in this position by not DEMANDING severe and real campaign financing reform.

Both sides have them...ask Eric Cantor...

look up the definition.....

your actions...

not worth arguing about the word

Ideologues are the opposite of realists

Dictionary desk calendar?

It's not "a new favorite word."

we need to recognize what the Ideologues of the Right are doing to their party....and understand...OURS will do the same....and damn the rest of us!

Was it his "moderate" efforts to repeal ObamaCare?

Perhaps his "centrist" refusal to fund disaster recovery?

Maybe the "middle of the road" Teabaggerism?

How the fuck is he not an ideologue? He makes Sir John of Orange seem dawn near liberal and Boner is a funkiness ideologue, himself literally weeping to bailout banksters.

Ask Cantor what exactly? This angle is unhinged with more than a mild case of highly selective amnesia.

Anyone trying to reframe Eric fucking Cantor as anything resembling moderate is a first magnitude liar or ignorant as hell.

Why are you desperately trying to push the political spectrum HARD RIGHT?

how far they will take you....now even HE has been purged by them!

If had it to do over, he'd just be more loony. Mr. Smarm has no lessons to impart that you would suggest, your thinking pattern and ideology forces you ever to the right based on how low the TeaPubliKlans are willing to go.

That is an insanely dangerous anchor point, I can't follow you there and chain myself to a ton of iron heading to the bottom of the deepest point in the deep sea. This is more crucial once you see the reason the anchor is so massive is that it comes with a drill.

There isn't enough chain on the face of the Earth, much less our ship.

I also think you somehow don't quite get that one can be an ideologue anywhere in the spectrum, plenty of steadfast and vehement corporate footpads and warmongers steadily flapping their mouth about being "centrist" and don't give an iota unless bribed like gangsters running a protection racket while watering down a larger effort as best they can, essentially acting (and sometimes openly) as the opposition representatives in our internal negotiations.

Wirds have meaning

I am not thatI will vote for ANY democrat.....you wont say that.....because that inclues supporting HRC

No President in my memory has been perfect in retrospect, and that includes my favorite, President Obama.. But IMHO, President Clinton was the closest to my idea of what was needed for the time and place for our Country, and I think history will bear that out..

That said, as a man, he couldn't have disappointed me more, and made me ashamed that he was a Democratic President at the time. What he did was disgraceful, and brought shame to the White House, but, what he did to Hillary was in my eyes was truly, unforgivable..

I would love to have some better choices in 2016, but I'll vote and work for this fine woman if she wins the nomination, and I hope the Jerk behaves himself as a husband, because I still don't trust him..

Are you 12?

as I detest much of his politics. I actually liked Bill and I certainly don't personally dislike Hillary.

Who is she kidding??

Very few are buying it anymore. Even among their most loyal followers.

anywhere. It's not even a choice. But she isn't a liberal, that's for sure.

I am excited for Elizabeth Warren to get more experience and run. She has the ability to make her ideas sound like the common sense that they are!

Draft EW!!!!

Bill was less....hmmmmm......self-centered.

Bill the philanderer? Are you for real?

childish joke of " are au a real person" everytime I post something "controversial" within the majority's thinking on this board.

Yes because ideologues must be taken seriously.....how did that work out for Eric Cantor?

You can bash many Dem polls in this board, especially when the are loosers...Ben when it comes to point a little flaw in Hillary....HELL NO!!!!! " you are a RWinger"......and so on.....

in the primaries, I will not be surprised to see "I'm just asking" Vince Foster type OPs at this point.

oppose her corporate policies, her vote to support Bush's war in Iraq, to fund it etc etc but I have not seen any references to those right wing false charges against the Clinton's on DU except for this one of course.

My, thats some blind devotion.

Perhaps you should remove the blinders and pay attention.

What do they have to say??????

killing gays in Uganda that doesn't mean The Family Org. in other countries and US are in favor of such action. Certainly it is not surprising that some factions in Uganda are in favor of killing gays, that solution has been used in Uganda for other reason(political etc.)
I understand there are individuals in this country and many others that would use killing individuals to solve their differences. Many civilized countries have no problem though,using an all out act of war to accomplish the same. I got off the track, sorry.
Just hope slaughtering Gays doesn't materialize in Uganda.

There are literally thousands of people in these Family groups. No doubt some of those might have desires to settle their differences by killing individuals.
Using such smear tactics against in this political debate either for against Hillary Clinton is hitting way below the belt.

Does this mean that all those thousands of so called Family members favor the killing of Gays?
One Ugandan, I believe, affiliated with English leadership had proposed this in Uganda.Doubt it is a popular concept by most members.

Oh right.....they haven't.

... or joining the group was a political calculation... which indicates her personal ambition trumps any religious beliefs she has. Either answer is troubling.

...the "just asking" part and went straight to assertions that are (if unproven by any real evidence) outright slander.

I refer to the meme about Hillary being in bed with (so to speak) "The Family," and there are numerous posts at DU about it in just the past couple of days. At any moment I expect the same people to assert that she participates in Satanic rituals involving live puppies in the catacombs beneath the C Street House, because already it's been asserted here that because she prayed with some of their members at some point, she therefore approves of the slaughter of gays in Uganda.

Facts? who needs 'em?

take a look at this dumbass post, for instance:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025111835#post13

That's why anything they say is water off a duck, as far as I'm concerned.

Same old, same old attempt to create the impression, that opposing people based on policies equals 'hate'.

Why are you getting in the way of the democratic process?

I guess this is going to be the tactic to dissuade any opposition to the 'pre-selection'. It's a pretty weak tactic and way overused. So unlikely to work in favor of the candidate, more likely to have the opposite effect.

And if Hillary doesn't win the primaries we will again see the PUMA meltdown we had in 2008. It is seriously fucked.

Here is my advice to the BOG/HCG:
Make your case for the merits of your candidate. Make your case for why the other candidates suck. Stop with the "it's her turn" bullshit. Nobody, nobody, is entitled to the nomination.

My ballot is not yet filled in.

Nobody that might have a chance is going run against her. I am pretty sure they wouldn't want to get ran over by her Rolodex and war-chest. Her corporate owners have already got it in the bag

My ballot is not yet filled in.

Who on DU has said "it's her turn"?

This familly Clinton has enough runned the party....for themselves and their club: Carville, MacAuliffe......

does. Thats called sour grapes......and unless you are commited to vote fr whomever wins the primary.....even if it is HRC.....then you are against the principle of the primary....and or an Independent or an ideologue...

Thats actual hate....bless your heart. Jumping on smear trains is evidence

Praying with them doesnt count

There are many prayer groups to spend 15 years of one's time with, many of which are not evil, why not seek fellowship with them?

Also, did she really have to support their leader by touting him as a mentor? A warning about him would have been far more appropriate, but go ahead with your beautiful denial, it is far less depressing I am sure than the actual realities of this world.

disagree with policies 'the devil' and 'actual haters'?? I hope that works well for you in your campaign to persuade people to vote for her.

I posted FACTS regarding Hillary's years long membership in the Family's 'Prayer Cell'. Are you saying she never was a part of that prayer group? Don't lie about me, I will correct lies every time I see them.

Took the bait as expected.....

for people who go on discussion boards to "bait" others.

Been using it all day.....

I dislike Hillary's corporate ties and I distrust her bottom line allegiences and associations. But I don't "hate" or even dislike her.

Same with Bill. Wen he gave that speech at the last Democratic convention I went "right on Bill."

peoblem is that Bill didnlt walk his liberal/populist talk and did just the opposite too many times.

But you got to wonder if some doth protest too much?

that it reduces all variances of opinion down to an either/or false choice. Same thing fundamentalists do.

Everyone who opposes Clinton, or is skeptical of her, or has mixed feelings is simplified into one big category of "haters."

Same with those who are not happy about Bill's performance.

That's just as moronic and misleading as claiming that everyone who supports her -- or is even mildly supportive of her or open minded is a DLC puppet.

My point wasn't about whether people should praise or criticize Clinton (or any other politician). THis is a board yo discuss politics and issues.

My point WAS about the idiocy of painting everyone who has an opinion pro or con about a particular candidate as "haters" or other divisive simplistic generalizations.