are actually Democrats.

It stuck.

You state yourself, "it's called a primary" then have the audacity to say this to the poster? So we're not allowed to have opinions unless they align with yours? We don't even know who is running yet. There are legitimate concerns as to where HC's loyalties lie. But why bother with that? You don't want anyone supporting anyone but her so forget the democratic process.

can have opinions and that we MUST share those opinions or we are 'disloyal' to something or another known only to them.

What I responded to was not honest debate.

Hence, the debate part. Keep up the good fight! We're winning!

Soon I believe a true progressive will emerge that we can ALL rally around, even the Hillary supporters, who, of course, have every right to support their chosen candidate. That, however, does not give them the right to engage in dishonest debate tactics.

Speakin of which, I can't tell you how many times I've been attacked personally, made to address false "straw person" arguments, and been accused of all kinds of bad intentions - "Hillary hater" seems to be the preferred invective - merely for expressing my opinions here on DU detesting the "sabre rattling", pro-Wall Street, anti-Main Street, etc etc policies Hillary is well known for.

That doesn't mean, however, I don't respect Hillary's right - and that of her supporters - to take more conservative positions to the right of my preferred candidates. I just ask that those defending Hillary do so in a mature and honest way, as you seem to be saying, and as many do. I tip my hat to them and say let's go at it and may the best candidate win.

A bigger concern, however, is that Hillary also engage in a more honest debate with the voters. Hillary HERSELF is showing signs of not being completely open and honest - certainly not with the base - and we will soon start to hear more of her poll-tested phony comments about income inequality and the need for more shared wealth.

I want TRUE, BELIEVABLE progressive candidates to represent me - authentic ones like Obama who started pushing those issues, and Bernie and Elizabeth who have done such a wonderful job continuing that debate, BEFORE they became popular, and indeed, made them so. Not ones who, with their finger constantly in the wind, have to pretend they feel the pain of the "common folk." Some of Hillary's comments are downright embarrassing and cringe worthy, for instance, that she and Bill were "dead broke" cuz they had to make payments on two mansions while putting Chelsea through private and Ivy League schools. Those kind of amateurish comments, which need to be walked back time and time again, are as phony as a three-dollar bill, and EVERYONE can see right through her.

The fact that Hillary - and Bill quite frankly - needs an image "makeover" and she has already started hiring literally dozens of high-paid consultants to advise her what positions to take to make her more popular with the base and seem more palatable so as to get her elected tells me we're making a HUGE mistake if we go with her as our candidate. I could be wrong - I thought I was once, but was mistaken - but truly believe we can do better.

I sincerely hope that many here, like myself, who very much want to see a truly progressive candidate from the Democratic Party elected as the next POTUS, and who plan to devote enormous amounts of time to the campaign to see that it happens, will agree and rally behind a more authentic progressive candidate when the field finally shakes out.

Okay, I'm off my soap box.

Peace.

Sorry, obviously misunderstood your first reply.

I agree with everything you said as to debate and people's right to choose and defend their candidate. I also see much too much attack on people who don't want Hillary as the democratic nominee. I don't even want her in the primary.

Where I disagree with you is, I have no respect for Hillary Clinton. I have always said I will never vote for anyone who voted for that horrible, illegal war. I won't. If she ends up being the nominee, I will have two choices with DU. I will either stay out of all presidential election posts, or i will leave.

Additionally, she has Larry Summers as her main adviser. This is the man that Elizabeth Warren said came to her, when she was first elected, and told her what she has to do to be included with the ptb. A threat. He is also the author of the End Game Memo that brought down the world economy. There is no excuse for her involvement with him and it just shows, to me, her dishonesty.

Thanks for your clarification. Again, sorry I misunderstood

And, yes, Hillary's IWR vote is a "deal killer" for me - at least as far as the primaries are concerned - along with a half dozen other detrimental positions she has taken. Unfortunately, the likely alternative to voting for Hillary is going to be FAR worse, as I'm sure you can appreciate.

So, I'm struggling between remaining true to my principles, like you, or majorly "holding my nose" and voting for the lesser of two evils (ugghhh!). I remain hopeful that it won't come to that "Hobson's choice," but, if it does, so be it.

I still believe the winning progressive issues are on our side. We just need to stay positive, work hard for our candidate to defeat Hillary in the primary - assuming she even runs (starting to doubt it more and more lately, based on the "tea leaves" I'm reading) - and then let's win this thing!

Let me clarify one thing, it will be a cold day on the sun when I vote for any Republican. I meant a third party candidate. I hope it doesn't come to that. But I will not part with my principles on this.

Because he said he was progressive.

He said he was against fast track on trade agreements, for govt transparency, for financial regulation, for labor, for getting out of Iraq...you know all the left wing things us Democrats are for.

But for some reason, you equate being progressive with being for Romney.

I think your logic is illogical. I think its incredibly sad the people here & out there who are fighting for Democrats to be Democrats and for that to mean something (like being different from Wall Street loving, war-loving Rethugs) are being called right wing here. That's so messed up, there aren't words. Other than maybe triangulation.

Which is a good thing. A primary campaign and the GE are different things.

Obama is not perfect. Hillary is not perfect. Any one of the wannabes on the right would be a full blown disaster for the country. I'll support whoever can beat Walker, Bush, Perry, Rubio, Paul, Cruz and other assorted crazies.

And one of those things is likely celestial choirs.

... but don't want her as our candidate. Her pro-war, pro-TPP, pro-Wall Street, pro-XL pipeline, pro-H1B Visa and other stances do not make her an acceptable candidate, in my opinion. Her willingness to give Henry Kissinger the time of day is reason enough alone to rule her out.

We need someone who embodies the progressive policies that Hillary does embrace, but is also willing to fight Wall Street, the war hawks, big oil, etc.

I would say +100 but I do not admire her. Exactly the reasons you stated. And I don't admire anyone that is so willing to sell out herself, her party and her country. That's what her "TPP, pro-Wall Street, pro-XL pipeline, pro-H1B Visa and other stances" do. They sell us out.

No disrespect. I admire you. Just don't completely agree this time

It's about policies, and I have little good to say about HRC's view of the issues that are important to me, my family, friends, and others in similar circumstances to us.

I'm looking for a representative. For me, that person is not Hillary.

I guess I'd hold my nose and vote, but I sure as hell won't work for her.

Last edited Sat Feb 21, 2015, 10:07 AM - Edit history (1)

And no, I don't think HRC was responsible for the PUMAs.

Supporters are enthusiastic. Some enduringly so.

things. This is what I expect from the Party, what I have always been presented and what I expect in this next Primary, Bernie would break that pattern but the rest of them have long histories of being on the socially conservative side opposing the basic human rights of others. 'Do we pick the lifelong Democrat who opposed marriage equality for 17 years or the newly Democratic formerly Republican who supported Reagan and Bush's horrific anti gay policies?' Some questions are just lacking in good answers, and that's the Democratic Primary, whoever wins will be against me and my community to some degree or another.

You write:

We don't know who is going to run and who is not going to run yet.

The thing I noticed about the primaries back then was that Obama supporters and Hillary supporters hated each other, but Obama and Clinton did not hate each other.

I think it is still like that to this day, to some degree, for a lot of people who just really hate one or the other.

As much as I would like to see a very very liberal president get into the White House (as president, I should be specific there), I really do NOT want to see fucking Jeb Bush there. Hell, I would take my chances with Lee Mercer, Jr. if I thought he was our best chance at keeping Jeb Bush all OUT of our house with his Republican disease.

Think of the millions in MoveOn & DFA...

This article in the New Republic will get you up to speed~

Or do we divide our support equally between all democratic contenders? Or do we take one day for one, the next for another, etc?

Please let us know. We don't want to have actual debates about who would be the best nominee. We will do just what we're told to so as not to upset or disagree with you.

The author is reading a whole lot into things. I think only a narrow band of Obama supporters felt any actual animosity towards Hillary. And I think she assuaged most of that by working closely with Obama as SOS.

I was enthusiastically hopeful in 2008 about Obama, by 2012 that was lukewarm.
I'm tired of the corporate wing of the Democratic party backing off on all the things the Democratic party stood for.

.... to playing the race card during her campaign. I remember that much, I was astounded.

"didn't want to be left behind by the glory train when it rolled through Baghdad"?

Ancient history, I suppose, but that is one devastating assessment, imo.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a33248/drums-along-the-potomac-how-this-country-never-learns-anything/

It's hard to imagine some here don't have an ulterior motive.

Because she plans to run and calls herself a Democrat? We should just skip the primaries altogether? It's your opinion or fuck off?

What exactly is the point of all these anti-Hillary bs? What purpose does it serve?

MANY of us don't like her, don't trust her and don't think she is good for the party or the country. She's being shoved down our throats and we are letting people know we won't allow that. There are not any Democrats that are planning to run I wouldn't put ahead of her.

What is the point in disparaging people who don't want her to be the nominee? Why not allow for discussion and reply with why you agree with her policy and want her, or disagree with what people say against her policy, instead of going after the poster?

The first paragraph of the OP speaks to some of the issues. It isn't new and it hasn't changed. Address that. Address the reasons for the discourse 7 years ago and explain how it's irrelevant if you think it is.

Your reply is much more divisive than the OP. And you attack a 4 year DUer with the accusation of ulterior motive because it isn't pro HC. How is that even close to right or helpful?

Seems like the anti-Hillary bs is being shoved down everyone's throat. She hasn't even announced yet and you feel she's being shoved down your throat? Calm down, there will be primaries.

Yeah, I am the one that needs to calm down. I accused a Democrat of having ulterior motives.

If you only see anti HC posts, you're not paying close attention.

Yes, there will be primaries. My point exactly. Glad you got it.

At the moment, they're about even. Go back a little further and there are more for than against.

Regardless, your comment, as I said, was more divisive than the OP. It was uncalled for as well.

Done with this. Have a nice day

All I did was point out that primaries will happen.

Seriously? All you did was point out that primaries will happen? Did you really just say that?

Your first reply to this OP: "This bs is so divisive, and to post it on a site called Democratic Underground...

It's hard to imagine some here don't have an ulterior motive."

It was me that first mentioned the primaries to you, not the other way around.

The posts that are against HC are newly about equal to the ones pushing her. They are in response to having her shoved down our throats. They are in response to people like you who accuse anyone against her to have ulterior motives and should not be on DU. People that alert on posts that are not to your liking. People who constantly act as though their opinion is the only one that matters. Because unlike the people that are showing how HC is not good for the country, people like you won't allow anything but pro HC propaganda.

I shouldn't come back after I say I am done. Just can't believe the audacity you have, especially with your words right there for everyone to see.

In 2008 when I was trying to decide between the two of them, I found little to separate them. I chose Obama based on my expectation that his foreign policy would probably be slightly less aggressive.

I think if someone "loves" Obama and "hates" Hillary, then they don't really have a realistic understanding of their (Obama and Hillary) politics.

But I admit I didn't see it coming.

And I think that's why President Obama picked her for SofS....an effort to heal the party that was bitterly splintered when he won. Her husband openly showed his disdain, but her campaign workers and supporters were cool, and just bided their time till the next election.

the primaries were over. And I know many people who felt the same way.

Dredging up a primary battle from almost 8 years ago is really quite silly. Yes, both sides were passionate about their candidate. But almost everyone was able to put that aside once the primaries ended and work towards getting our nominee elected.

I remember the insistence in the media (and then by extension on DU) that there would be some epic battle on the convention floor. Hillary supporters would never give up so quietly! We'd have multiple ballots for the first time in decades. There was fretting about how much it would damage us.

Oh, but it never happened. Turns out, it was just the corporate media trying to sow division and discord among Democrats.

That's what I remember.

It didn't work then and it's sure as hell isn't going to work now.

Dredging up the past, as you put it, is always important when you're talking about the highest office in the land. Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it. I'm sorry but I am very surprised at the comment.

We don't even know who is running yet. Let's wait until we have a nominee before the veiled accusations that someone is trying to divide the party. If the nominee is Clinton, then that's who we'll back. But until that happens, let's act like we have a vote in the primary

I remember that HC speech and I remember being appalled.

I can't tell you how much I hope that we're able to get a strong candidate in that is an actual liberal and not bought and paid for, as well as show Clinton for who she really is

MSM & every other media outlet it seems is leading us to believe she is our only choice. They're pushing that meme hard. I truly hope our party is more than this, and better than HRC.

Though you might miss it if you only read some of the posts about HC. I hate using HRC because I don't want to align a great organization with a bank stooge.

and your post!

Not to mention the frothing left, a group unable to elect people to local school boards in liberal enclaves.

really between Hillary and Obama politically. But a Hillary presidency would be a continuation of the status quo, that has to change. Health care reform was a very important need as far as Hillary was concerned and would have fought for a public option where Obama just talked bout it.

Any news article telling us how much "we" hate someone or other has to be questioned; not many people really engage in "hate" - its much more a RW attribute. People who hate generally imagine that everybody hates.

And that's a good thing when a candidate brings more voters into the electorate. But they've seen six years relentless attacks on Obama from the right and they've realized it isn't really about the man but about the idea and who is best equipped to win and preserve that legacy.

Divide and conquer.

that is because she was running directly against Obama.

It is now 8 years later.

unistic opposition Senator with a hawkish track record willing to play along with the Bush Iraq war plan. We haven't forgotten, but it's not the pre-2008 Hillary we really worry about. It's Madame Secretary of State who's been bloodied by wars in the Mideast she had a major role in starting, and still doesn't seem to regret it.

Yes. Hillary, too. She was the real mover behind the Libya-Syria operation.

Clinton was the strongest voice within the Administration inner circle for a more activist US military role in regime change operations across the region, as the NYT reports: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/in-behind-scene-blows-and-triumphs-sense-of-clinton-future.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I remember a conversation with my sister (a rethug) and she was upset when Hillary became SOS. I said she was a helluva lot better than Condi & there would be fewer wars now & we'd be safer for it. That was one of many long distance phone calls with my dear misguided sis that one of us hung up on the other. LOL

But then I watched how Hill used that position to be a pimp for corporations & do the war-mongering thing. Still think she's much MUCH better than Condi, but that is when I realized who Hillary really is, when she was our SOS.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026257035

the hating is tiring.

if that's all you can add.

And letting it show.

i provided the snark.

It is no small irony that Obama has achieved the most when he has rejected his own politics of unity and hope schtick.

Stephanopoulos was the moderator if that narrows it down.

Hillary Clinton takes an early dig with the "cling to guns & religion" then moves on to the "electable" talking points.

He will be a formidable candidate(McCain); there isn't any doubt about that. He has a great American story to tell. He's a man who has served our country with distinction over many years, but he has the wrong ideas about America, and those ideas will be tested in the caldron of this campaign.

But I also know, having now gone through 16 years of being on the receiving end of what the Republican Party dishes out, how important it is that we try to go after every single vote, everywhere we possibly can, to get to those electoral votes that we're going to need to have the next president elected.

<snip>

I mean, obviously, that's why I'm here. I think I am better able and better prepared, in large measure, because of what I've been through, and the work that I've done, and the results that I've produced for people, and the coalition that I have put together in this campaign, that Charlie referred to earlier.

Obama was able to gain unprecedented support in the Presidential election. Much higher than average youth turnout & other demographic support though Early Voting was key behind this and the RW curtailed over half of the early voting days in Ohio & Florida since 2008 if there are any days left remaining.

Obama
Let me be absolutely clear: It would be pretty hard for me to be condescending towards people of faith since I'm a person of faith and have done more than most other campaigns in reaching out specifically to people of faith, and have written about how Democrats make an error when they don't show up and speak directly to people's faith, because I think we can get those votes, and I have in the past.

The same is true with respect to gun-owners. I have large numbers of sportsmen and gun-owners in my home state, and they have supported me precisely because I have listened to them and I know them well.

So the problem that we have in our politics, which is fairly typical, is that you take one person's statement, if it's not properly phrased, and you just beat it to death. And that's what Senator Clinton's been doing over the last four days.

And I understand that. That's politics. And I expect to have to go through this process.

But I do think it's important to recognize that it's not helping that person who's sitting at the kitchen table who is trying to figure out how to pay the bills at the end of the month.

And Senator Clinton's right: She has gone through this. You know, I recall when, back in 1992, when she made a statement about how, what do you expect, should I be at home baking cookies? And people attacked her for being elitist and this and that.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4670271&page=6

I won't go overboard on the posting but Sen. Clinton (though the question was asked by the moderator) used the Jeremiah Wright opportunity with a very clever slam. "I was asked a personal question, Charlie, and I gave a personal answer. Obviously, one's choice of church and pastor is rooted in what one believes is what you're seeking in church and what kind of, you know, fellowship you find in church." Brings up the pastor's 9/11 comments & a "you get to choose your pastor" which she made sure to say twice.

She turned the "sniper fire" question into positive & references Bosnia as one of 80 countries that she visited that will be advantageous in her campaign against McCain.

Again question that was asked which Clinton used the opportunity to slam him for his relationship with Bill Ayers

I'll close by posting this -- http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4670271&page=13

Hillary Clinton caused me to feel especially ill -- Hillary Clinton references the Kuwaitis, UAE, & Saudi Arabia's "concerns" over Iran acquiring a nuke. Letting the Iraqis know the "blank check" ends? Manholes everywhere, mangled guard rails, litter everywhere. Two years after the other half of the Iraqi population (Sunnis & Kurds) had legitimate concerns over the PM the US chosen for them.

It is easy to see why since I can imagine Clinton supporters jumped on board with her arguments which was in-fact many of the very same things McCain used against Obama which those were pretty weak "scandal" material. Clinton obviously pandering with using tools of the executive branch to go after energy traders & enforcing low prices. Obama is excellent on Green Energy & his closing statement... I can see why he did receive unprecedented support. Her references to the # of the Generals that have endorsed her scares me away rather than closer -- In any case, I'd vote for Obama over Clinton again.

It was interesting to go back there, jog the memory & remember specifics, but it makes me dread the upcoming election process. "The Inevitable" is going to be inevitably painful to listen to all over again.