. . . but I think you have a blind spot.

Most Hillary supporters here appear to be dyed in the wool liberals. They don't agree with you that Clinton is 'pushing rightward'. Dowd is certainly not her ally.

Too much buying into the DU rhetoric about Clinton and not enough acknowledgement that she has been a strong advocate for women, immigrants, and many other traditionally liberal issues and concerns.

And the old chestnut about 'paid operatives' at DU??

I've never understood how people who advocate one point of view can be so secure accusing those with differing opinions of being 'operatives' or the like. What do you believe insulates you from that judgment? It's certainly not your consistency on issues; as evidenced by this fractured, misdirected, and contradictory rant.

The idea that there is something Third Way, as we've been told, about such positions is absurd.

Politicians come and go, but human rights are always central. I don't get the fixation on personalities, particularly when we aren't yet voting for presidential candidates. Additionally, people clearly disagree greatly about what is left and right. If someone thinks the issues this OP talks about are unimportant or a sign of some insidious centrist creep, I don't see how they can be considered leftists at all. America does not exist for white men only, and the notion that the issues of everyone but them are unimportant is as reactionary as it gets.

...but fiscally conservative. They can best be described as Republicrats.

as the far right. I didn't think people like that existed anymore except for on the far fringes of the right, so I certainly never expected to see any calling themselves liberal. I never met any in the universities I've studied and worked in, in Democratic organizations, or in the many protest and civil liberties groups I've participated it. Or at least they never articulated those ideas in public. There really is little more reactionary than excluding the majority of the population from the body politic. It hails to a time before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an era some have admitted to longing to return to, and an era when people like me and members of the dreaded HOF and BOG stayed in our place

I've known quite a number of Marxists through the years, and not a one of them insisted that there was anything Republican about equal rights. Of course, the advantage of having some background in Marxist and other political theory is that one understands the nature of the American economy and the role of the capitalist state, rather than buying into the national mythology that so many still cling to. I can understand how it would be frustrating if you actually believed the crap you were fed about government by the people and for the people and didn't know enough history to understand that has never been the case in this country or the great majority of others. What I don't quite understand is how people can imagine all of this only suddenly developed. That part puzzles me a great deal.

.

"Most Hillary supporters here appear to be dyed in the wool liberals. They don't agree with you that Clinton is 'pushing rightward'.

Well, we could play quotes and try to paint pictures. Now, I am not going to call out members of DU as that is agaisnt the tos, and, despite the fact i argue with them, I do respect them. However, have I heard the "left" being spoken of here with contempt, especially when Clinton is discussed, yes I have.

My issue is that when people raise questions about stuff where she is on the right such as her war policy, that does not mean we hate the woman that tried to make a health care policy. It means that we do want a more leftist war policy (as in less of) and we would want Hillary to know that we do.

As far as paid operatives, it has been bragged about. On Tampa talk radio, people brag about trolling left wing sites like here and FDL. Keep in mind, Tampa radio spawned Glenn Beck, so we have a lot of imitators hoping to be the next Glenn Beck.

Am I saying everybody is one, no. There are people who hold beliefs that do so in good faith, which is why at the very begniing of the article I stated that my "rant" is NOT addressing them, but the folks who mistakenly think that they can cheer women being marginaliozed, rant on minorties, and still say, without a hint of paradox in their voice, "I am a liberal!"

"I am not going to discuss those who are paid operatives."

"The folks I discuss are the people who claim they are Democrats, but they seem to be angry that minorities and women and the lower classes are also making demands for respect. "

Funny thing, I think I know exactly who I targeted, especialy since they are responding against me, with all the precision of Swiss Clockwork. And if you feel it is "misdirected" because I pointed out that there are some who like Hillary precisely because she is NOT so Liberal, then I would offer you have been looking in the wrong direction ever since she hired Mark Penn and Dick Morris, or when she proclaimed "Assad must go!" as if she were Empress of the World. I, unlike Hillary, am not courting liberals and conservatives with equal gusto.

and Like I said, I repeat the loyalty oath: If she wins a primary, hell, even if she were to mangle the idea of a primary (not that she would), I would vote for her in 2016. That does not take away my right to call for impeachment five minutes minutes afterword, especially if she picks a Veep like Liz Warren who I know would be better for this nation.

. . . by claiming some affinity with her. I'm not buying it.

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

at least not in the Holocaust.

Now Dietrich Bonhoeffer - he died http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer

There are, of course, some centrist Democrats who don't HATE the GOP at all. Just because you are on one team does not mean you need to hate the other team. We are all supposed to be Americans here.

I hate politicians who lie, harm the people, and fill their own pockets, but I generally do not hate the people who are duped into voting for said politicians. I want to tell them "open your eyes" and not "I hate you".

"but I generally do not hate the people who are duped into voting for said politicians. I want to tell them "open your eyes" and not "I hate you".

Oddly enough, I do not "hate" those who honestly believe what they do. Granted, I do nto see how a Republican that looks at Facts can honestly believe what they do, but I can understand the Reagan Dems who really are acting in good faith. However, the problem that many of us in the minority have is that the centrists can go full agressive on us, joining GOP "friends" in attacking us, and then we are supposed to be polite. The simple fact is, respect is earned, and if people wish to be polite, we can be polite. Frankly, some of the nonsense we have seen is not polite, and cheering as we see people that DO vote democratic get marginalized is anything BUT polite.

MY point is NOT to start a war. If anything, that is what the GOP wants, which is why, while my politicsare closer to Nader than Hillary, I have repeatedly said I will vote democratic. Frankly, the Democrats could nominate a dog as their candidiate, and I would sleep better with that dog in charge than Rand Paul, Christie, or whatever criminal the GOP will try to sell. I wish i meant that as a joke, but frankly, the GOP is non compos mentis, and while I may not hate all of them, I will NOT give them the keys to the car.

That being said, the purpose of this OP is to tell the centrist, Hillary and otherwise, that we are not dragging the keys out of the GOP hands so that they can run over our feet and laugh with the GOP buddies.

Fuck