if it makes sense keep it, if not please edit

I believe she speaks French so sometimes I have to decipher what I am reading.

If your favorite candidate can't stand to be criticized by his/her own positions, he/she must have some awful flaws.

-No threads from the OP about the plight of our glbtq brothers and sisters

-No threads from the OP about the plight of our Latino brothers and sisters

-No threads from the OP about the plight of our African American brothers and sisters


-No threads from the OP about the perfidy of the Republicans


-Just a barrage of criticism for one lady.


SMH

NT

Meh- Indifference; to be used when one simply does not care.

If one doesn't care about issues of importance to the glbtq, African American, and Latino communities and the perfidy of the Republicans that's their problem and not mine.

NT

Just because they do not address the same issues that you do, does not mean what you want to believe about them.
So please chill, and get a grip on things.
Thanks.

Can you please provide links that show Hilary screamed at some gaffe made by Kerry in 2006? Can you please provide links that show Hillary was not loyal to Obama during her tenure at the State Department?

2006. She madz a statement saying his comments were "inappropiate" . Maybe but doing this she joined the Faux Noise crap asking public apology knowing that at the time a serious challengers might have been forbid to run due to less to the gaffe than the brouhaha thar followed Of course ag the time still not so much saw Obama s chances
With Obama, she sided timrs with republicans on Keystone, and the war in Syria....at the time tha Administration walked back ad supported négociations to push Assad surrender chemicals weapons.
At the beginning yes, they advocated for military strike. But when it was possible to use diplomacy Obama didnt hesitate.

And I agree with her statement.

However - I don't agree we are a nation - we are a country - so she starts from the wrong place.

We should have interests - not friends. Thank you Monsieur D.

NT

We are not talking about a general election.
If Mrs. Clinton is the duly elected candidate I shall vote for her.
If there are alternatives who care more about the environment, and trade agreements, than Mrs. Clinton does, than I shall vote for one of them.
I have always been of the mind that in a primary, I vote with my heart. In the general election, I vote with my mind.
I voted for Dennis Kucinich in the primary, because I felt that he said a lot that agreed with me. Obama has always been too far to the right for me, but I voted for him in the general election, because it was the correct way for me to vote.

People who think that we should all follow lock-step, like little jack-booted thugs as RepubliCONs do in their elections, behind ONE candidate, are not very patriotic, as far as I am concerned. They are stifling free speech, and the open display of alternative ideas. These ideas, if taken by the Party, and used in their platform, could result in a better candidate, that will address more of those concerns on the Left.
So many people I see here are only concerned with a few issues, and not mentioning what I consider the two main issues which should be spoken about more by the candidates. They are the environment, and ending poverty. Well all the candidates that have declared. Surely Sanders has spoken about these key issues, but many see him as "unelectable," because he is "socialist." Bernie is NOT socialist. He is a democratic socialist. There IS a difference.

And as far as the key issues that I mention:
1) The environment is a key issue, because without a clean environment, we will not be able to survive. There is no plan(et) B in this case. We are extracting far too much in the way of fossil fuels from the planet, with the effect of harming our environment to the point where in several generations this planet will no longer be habitable for human life. We desperately must address this issue.
2) It has been shown that when a society has more people who are doing better financially, they have more opportunities to better themselves in many areas. Education is one of them. If I cannot afford food and rent, I cannot afford books. If I have to work three jobs, I don't have time to read, even if I can scrape up a few bucks for books, or get them for free.
So, when people are doing better, they are feeling better, and the government can function better, especially a democratic republic, which relies on participation from more people (more than are currently involved) for it to be successful.

Sid

But if she ends up being the nominee - at DU we can't run around supporting an opposition candidate in the General Election.

Understand - if she is elected - women will not see all of our rights to privacy in health care ripped away.
She will hold the line on voting rights.

Show me one candidate in that Republican Clown Car that we say that about. We can't.

Is she my choice? Nope. But neither were Warren or Sanders.

As for me I would be glad if Warren had run and still looking forward to Sanders.

But all that "loyalty demands" re HRC ... well it is supposed to be primary campaign isnt it?

All looks weird. Even Bob Kennedy had serious challengers!

and I don't think threads that pretend the Democrats are making them are helpful.

"Even Bob Kennedy had serious challengers!"

It doesn't reflect that well on the Democrats that there are few other people put forward as alternatives; it seems to show the party has not been working well at the state level, where successful governors can rise to be presidential candidates. Thinking about those inside Congress, no-one suggests that Nancy Pelosi might run, and I don't know why. Sanders stayed outside the party for many years, officially; that is going to give some people second thoughts (and the label of 'socialist' would be used endlessly to try to scare centrist voters if he did win the Democratic nomination).

I didn't want to put the word "socialist" out there - because I do not fear it. I just think the one rising PAC that could support him - won't because of it. Truthfully - he has great ideas. But I'd prefer someone who has been a Democratic Party voter since their first election they were eligible to vote.

Bobby Kennedy had "serious" challengers because he declared his candidacy after the primaries started and there already was a candidate.

I'm not seeing it.

If its at DU - you just wait until O'Malley declares. The pm's I've received from other fellow believers . . .


If it is in the media - understand they came to get paid. They need the horse race to make a buck.

If it is from the leadership/organization committees - I turned my back in them in 2013 when they threw a flawless candidate to the wolves. They played a dangerous game with the people of NJ and it wasn't a win for them - because Christie isn't going to be the nominee or vp selection. Same people supported Grimes - who I can't relate to at all.

And Sanders - though technically doesn't HAVE to register as a Democratic Party member - should. No Labels doesn't have the kind of arsenal to push him - and I don't think they would support him anyways. Huntsman himself or someone like Webb but not Sanders.

You are all stressed out over this and it's only April 20th . . . 2015.

I think you are going to hate us Malloy supporters - because from what I've seen at DU? And in real life? Warren isn't really one of us and Clinton won't push our Green Infrastructure Agenda.

There - I said it.

AND no I dont hate O Malley supporterz.

Bur loyalty demands.... tvey come from any of what you pointed. Especially from Dem powerstructure and media. Media has been overcovering anything Clinton has done since she left Administration.... Af if some prepared since months within imposing her image everywhere and make look her as almost the only Dem leader. And that discuraged surely others to lauch a fight to confront her.
Our own media has done the same woth Sarkozy. For ten years ( before and during his presidentiqn tenure) hz was here, there and everywhere. And it had pissed of many in all our political spectrum, including RW.

Différents countries and parties, same corp media and strategies.

Because he hasn't declared so we are tending to keep quiet.

The media is salivating at the chance to take us on their Clinton Smear Campaigns again. They love smearing that woman. And in America - we love tearing down the golden girl, the heroes, the winners. It's what we do and it makes for great ratings. You can't tear her apart if you don't have her out there to tear.

Don't buy the M$M's bullshit.

You are falling for it by believing their "story line" that she is inevitable.

And understand that those of us who came of political age during the Clinton Administration (first President I voted for ) will go apeshit ballistic if they start their smear campaigns while still supporting our chosen candidate.

She's not a shape shifting villain. Do what O'Malley is doing - don't focus on the cult of personality - keep positive and focus on making America a formidable force in the future.

I denounced numerous how LSM has planted in the minds the idea of HRC inevitable meme. I side with you re. that.
I dont know O'Malley ...but I warmly welcome any possible countender for the sake of real primary and real debates.
Even if I personnaly favor Bernie.

On DU, we constantly talk about Elizabeth Warren too; but we're not demanding loyalty to either her or to Hillary Clinton.

Add a crossword puzzle and I'll cancel my Boston Globe subscription.

Besides English?

None.

English isn't the OP's native language. Perhaps an apology for your snarkiness is in order.

Takes a real scholar to use that.

Real brain-power at work.

I may not agree with all of her positions, but, for now, Hillary is the only Democrat who has announced her candidacy and the only person I see who has a chance of defeating any and all of the Republican opponents.

In the end, I will vote for the Democratic nominee, because the possibility of Republicans controlling the White House and both houses of Congress scares me, badly.

Thanks Arkansas Granny. I think as you do.

And they wonder why so many are cynical?

It is not even time for the primary yet. Why erect straw men just to be a victim?

The right wing loves to go on about how the left loves to be considered victims. Don't make them correct.

I remember this:

If you criticize Mrs. Clinton in the specific group for her, even if it is constructive criticism, you shall be banned, as I was.
So it goes all the way to here.
Follow the Party Line, in lock step, or get ostracized, and even outright banned.

now appears to be a vast left-wing conspiracy. I said "appears," and probably only to me, not the whole United States.

What is fueling the hesitancy that Dems have about declaring their presidential intentions, and what is fueling the notion that Hillary can win the presidency without a "normal" campaign with crowds and speeches by supporters?

Especially, what candidate has as much baggage as her and is loathed by so many in, no, all the Republican Party?

When you figure that she'll get no votes from Republicans, and is supported by only 3rd Way Dems, how is she a shoe-in to win?

There's something unwholesome and un-American about this whole process, the likes of which I have never seen since I was a poll worker in Kennedy's election of 1960...

So I will ask my questions as civilly as possible.

If Ms. Clinton is as universally disliked as you suggest and is only supported by Third Way Democrats while is she leading all her Republican challengers in the polls:



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_walker_vs_clinton-5335.html



If Ms. Clinton is as universally disliked as you suggest and is only supported by Third Way Democrats while is she leading all her Democratic challengers in the polls:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html




If Ms. Clinton is as universally disliked as you suggest and is only supported by Third Way Democrats while have forty percent of House Democrats and sixty percent of Senate Democrats already endorsed her candidacy:

But the reason for my post was that I can't figure out why everything you say is true, but it seems nobody in the real world likes her.

Something wrong with the polls or people's opinions are given under some sort of threat of retaliation if they say something negative, or the loss of some position in the government. Why am I so suspicious? Can't remove the spots, as they say...

The hosts of many programs, msnbc and cnn, do not sound as tho they favor her, but sound resigned to support her for the good of the party.

And if you repeat something often enough, people believe it. This is what I think is going on.

I like you, Dem since birth, and thanks for your courteous response.

Stay strong.

While they can say that there aren't "demands", exactly, nobody can deny the pressure in many comments and replies.

The message implied is this:

Shut up. You're a hater. You're helping the Republicans. If you aren't with us you are against us.

It's very unproductive.

And you are right, democracy requires openness and choices.

Some folks don't want that.