Looks like nails to me. Bam! Bam!

That particular schtick - Enough!!1!

This site is a joke.

those who hold monkey wrenches in both hands. Not now. Not ever.

The level of vitriol is beyond what is normal for an election that's more than 2 years away and when no one is yet running.

Therefore, their opinion on Hillary has ceased to matter. They are the fringe, just as Free Republic is the fringe within the GOP.

Noisy, though. I won't ignore them. I have nobody on ignore.

I have never placed anyone on ignore or alerted on any post. I abhor censorship. What I meant is that when I see comments from the group that despises her, I will simply dismiss their comments as they cannot be objective about her. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, their opinions have ceased to have any merit.

I can't recall any other recent cycle in which, more than two years before the election, someone who was not the incumbent President or Vice President was so widely perceived to be such a strong favorite to win the nomination. Pollsters have made similar comments. IIRC, some of Clinton's supporters on DU have trumpeted a finding that 69% of Democrats currently favor her for the nomination, a level completely unprecedented in these circumstances.

The natural result is that the focus on Hillary Clinton is beyond what is normal for an election that's more than two years away. That produces more support (which, if you want to denigrate the DUers who disagree with you, you refer to as "adulation&quot and more criticism (which, if you want to denigrate the DUers who disagree with you, you refer to as "vitriol&quot .

My title isn't hypocritical -- I was using the parallel loaded words in the hope that both sides could thereby recognize that slinging around such dismissive terms doesn't advance the serious discussion on DU.

As for your final paragraph, I take it as meaning that those of us not currently committed to backing Clinton for the Democratic nomination constitute a fringe. We are irrelevant, i.e., there is no possible scenario in which we will have any impact on the contest for the nomination. The logical implication is that the Clinton campaign team (if she enters the race) can and should completely ignore us. They should proceed on the assumption that the nomination is hers for the asking if she wants it. There's no need to consider what the irrelevant fringe might do, and anyone who runs against Clinton will ipso facto be part of that irrelevant fringe that can be ignored. Pre-Convention campaign planning can be limited to writing the acceptance speech and vetting possible running mates.

As a progressive Democrat who doesn't want to see Clinton as our nominee, I certainly hope that her campaign staff takes this advice. Alas, I think they're too smart to agree with you about all opponents being irrelevant.

I'm referring to the daily pillorying by the self important people who feel the need to initiate threads proclaiming how they will never vote for her no matter what, or the ones who spew RW memes.

Therefore, I find those people's opinions irrelevant. As for Hillary's popularity, yes she polls the highest of any non incumbent in the history of the Democratic party. That's a fact, it's not hype. On the other hand, it's the media that has decided to push the inevitability meme. They abhor a vacuum and controversy sells papers and brings eyeballs to the TV and computer screens. They are vultures.

I have no idea whether Hillary will run or not, but if she does, I'm going to work my fanny off to help her get the nomination. The people who don't like her, can do whatever they want with their vote. I don't really care.

If not here, where? If we, the inner core of the party, not just talking about the future of our party, but perhaps the very real demise of our Country, we are attacking our leaders, and our own people.. There isn't any vote on the presidency for 2+ years, and there is a nominee that is being beaten up and poisoned within the party by the most loyal of it's core.

I blame both the opponents and the proponents, of Clinton.. However, I place a special blame on Clinton and her people for this corrosive strategy, much the same way they did when their plans were failing in 2007-8, attacking viciously and no prisoners left alive. I want to hear all sides without the slash and burn tactics.

BUT, I DON'T WANT TO BE TOLD MY OPINION DOESN'T MATTER..

I will vote for her if she is our nominee, or whomever is our choice, but I don't want us to do the work of the GOP, and poison our own before they even get started..

Hillary supporters are not attacking other Democrats 24/7 and with a level of vitriol that is normally reserved for the other party. I'm expressing my opinion, not her people's opinion. To me, the non-stop trashing of Hillary on this board has made me stop caring about anything they have to say.

Why are you blaming Hillary's supporters? We are only defending her and ourselves. The vitriol is mostly coming from those who dislike her, not the other way around. Haven't you seen all the posts?

Please don't take that personally.. I understand your point, but, I get the feeling that Hillary supporters want a coronation not a dialogue, or any primary..

I would like to hear what someone new has to say.. That said, I have no problem supporting Hillary if she is our nominee..

It's about attacks on her that are based on irrelevancies and partial truths. Who the nominee will be will depend on how the primaries go, who chooses to run, and how well they present their case. There is no reason that Hillary Clinton should not run to be the nominee, and if she ends up being that nominee, almost all Democrats will vote for her in the general election.

That she is polling so strongly this far in advance of even the announcement of her candidacy is a clear sign that she will be a formidable candidate and hard to beat during the 2016 primaries. A lot of the negative stuff about her being posted on DU and on a wide range of other Internet outlets is emotionally rather than factually based. A lot of it is just "I don't like Hillary Clinton and won't vote for her." Vague stuff is used as evidence. In some cases people are bringing old negative opposition research used by the right wing in 2008, when she was also running to be the candidate.

That's what I'm reacting to in this thread, and in my replies in Hillary-bashing threads. As I have said, I will probably vote for either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren in my state's primary elections, if one or both decide to run for the Democratic nomination. It's far too early to be declaring that one won't vote for Hillary in the general election if she is the candidate. That's especially true if the person making that declaration isn't providing positive information about a different candidate.

We will all vote for the candidate we prefer in the primaries. Almost all of us will vote for the candidate nominated at the Democratic National Convention in 2016, as well. Hillary bashing at this stage in that process, without declaring support for someone else is disruptive and tends to detract from the very important mid-term elections in 2014, which are far more important than the 2016 races right now.

I also don't have anyone on Ignore, but maybe I'm just glossing over threads that you're scrutinizing.

Most of the negative stuff about her that I see posted on DU is along the lines of: She voted for the Iraq War, as Secretary of State she was complicit in the TPP negotiations and didn't kill the Keystone pipeline, she has not supported stronger regulation of the financial industry, she was for a long time an opponent of marriage equality, etc. All of this is factually based. Of course, one can argue specifics -- on Iraq, how much of a pass should she get through the argument that she voted on the best information available at the time, and was being lied to by Bush? -- but both sides have made arguments that were factually based.

She's also been criticized based on some of the actions taken by her husband as President. Few or no DUers would assume that a married woman is automatically just an extension of her husband. On the other hand, both she and Jeb Bush are in the unusual situation of having an immediate family member who's a recent President. It's legitimate to ask both of them: What's your assessment of your husband/brother's administration? What are the major points where you disagree with decisions he made? For example, I don't know whether she's specifically addressed NAFTA or welfare reform, but people who are unhappy with those policies have a right to bring them up. People have also addressed health care, where the situation is clearer because she was functioning as one of the President's key (albeit unpaid) staff people on that issue.

You write, "In some cases people are bringing old negative opposition research used by the right wing in 2008...." I haven't seen that. DUers for the most part haven't been raising the cattle futures deal or accusing her of murdering Vince Foster or the like. OTOH, if right-wingers raise some valid argument, it doesn't become invalid merely because of its source. There are some extreme right-wingers who are hostile to the TPP because they see it as a surrender of American sovereignty. I, personally, am also concerned about the extent to which it would surrender the power of democratically elected representatives to make laws -- and I don't even own an American flag lapel pin, let alone a tricorn hat. When Bill Clinton was President and was pushing NAFTA, he was on the same side as Newt Gingrich, while I as an opponent was on the same side as Pat Buchanan. Regardless of what you think about NAFTA, you must admit that one of those certifiable right-wingers was correct.

It's pretty simple.

If you stay, then you are choosing to deal with the good and the bad that this site offers.

Your choice.

Truly it is not. Everyone has his or her own reasons for participating on DU. We all deal with the good and bad on the site, and we do that by participating in the discussion.

All the cool kids pick on Hillary.

band geeks. They're just not recognized yet.

thread with a similar title. It is satirical in nature. In the other thread, the OP offered no information, and this OP also offers no information. That's the point of a satirical copycat thread. Now that the two threads are separated by time and in the GD thread list, I'm taking a moment to explain why this OP was posted, just in case that isn't clear any longer.