... of the overt sophistry in the attacks against her.

The wingers hate her is a good enough reason to consider her....

The level of demonizing that goes on is Pyrrhic at best

The issues listed in the OP ARE an issue for me. But all you hear from the right-wingasphere is a nonsense. I find myself supporting Sanders but also defending Clinton (while pointing out my concerns about her.)

It seems the things that have them riled up the most are RW issues, especially Benghazi. The problem we have is that when the right latches onto a "scandal," they beat it into the brains of voters as fact and those who don't play close attention (as we do) buy it hook, line and sinker. As for the original question, the only out-of-bounds questions about Hillary would be about her attire, hair style and similar BS.

dragon. It can be done. Google 'Army-McCarthy hearings' to actually see it (via YouTube clips).

Yeah, they don't have an agenda, do they? Her polling is through the roof in Iowa. But leave it to Joe to find some concern trolls to showcase. LOL!

... whether there are legitimate concerns that people want to have talked about and looked in to, or outright slanderous and ludicrous crap from the right that is also being thrown out there.

This has been happening with Obama too. Many of us are thankful that at least Obamacare has made the strides of putting in place some mechanism to get people access to health care coverage who were dying before, but many of us aren't happy that we didn't do an honest job of trying to get a lot of the parasitic costs of insurance companies, etc. out of the system that wasn't made a part of the negotiating. At least Obama seems a lot more strident in trying to push the limits on Fast Track and TPP than he did on the public option or single payer then.

But when that got lumped in with the crap of "Obama is a socialist and a fascist" that typified some of the Tea Party "critiques" of him, then it was very hard to get the media to have an honest dialogue with the public on where Obama was really not doing what he could to help in areas that he could have done better in, when it was just pushed aside as part of the "public hates Obama" meme they've been pushing. That didn't help Obama do much of anything, and most of all, by design the media did it this way to avoid having a national discussion on many of the important issues that are being ignored now.

THe same kind of lumping together of Bengazi with the other issues mentioned in this OP are happening with Clinton, that I would say are by design by the corporate media that want to minimize an honest discussion focused on a more honest discussion of the more important issues, and to just make it sound like we're all "attacking" Hillary Clinton now.

When they were beating the Clintons to death in the 90s the public yawned, just like they yawn now at Benghazi.

they were aware of those BS scandals but rather than caring about them they did not care. They tended to believe there was smoke but supported her anyway and believed she was the democrat who would and could win in 2016. The party voters are behind her which suggest to me that those of you not supporting should at least defend her or we are going to get a republican in the white house who will destroy the country and make the courts, all of them right wing for the next 40 years.

There is a special place in hell reserved for those on the left doing the right wing's work. I am not referring to you Vinca since I have no idea if you are one of those people. There are many of those people on this site though and they should be ashamed. Plus their comments should be deleted since this is called Democratic Underground. I don't know if the same rules apply here as on dkos. But there you can not campaign against the eventual nominee or for third parties. I hope that is the case here.

I have no issue with someone legitimately disagreeing with her policies and choosing another candidate during the primaries.

What I dislike is reading on a Democratic site post after post using RW talking points. If I want to read that crap, I can just go to a conservative site and skip the middleman.

Policy questions and the truthfulness of particular statements are fair game and that is where it should be kept.

How about the numerous posts from DUers with thousands of posts repeating Peter Schweizer's talking points?

Ultimately an argument stands or falls on its own, independent of the question whether some crazy person has made it at some point, I would think.

Peter Schweizer wrote the now infamous book 'Clinton Cash.' From the very beginning of the coverage of it, outlets like Media Matters were debunking the claims in it. But the anti-Hillary people on DU were salivating over the prospect of her getting 'caught.' Even when the author admitted he had no evidence and essentially pulled 'facts' out of his ass, DUers were still spreading his shit.

Here's an anecdote for you. Back in the early 2000s an acquantance of mine loved sending those right wing emails that made all manner of slanderous claims - and I'd methodically debunk each one and send back to his email list. He admitted to me once he knew they probably weren't true but the end would justify his means. I see that same mentality in some DUers. The irrational hatred of Clinton runs so deep that lies are spread purposely in an attempt to bring her down.

Why do I say they're lies? Because DUers pride themselves in having 'advanced research skills' and claim to be better informed than the average voter. I've seen DUers run down a story and prove its false before the media even gets the story through it's first news cycle. But with Clinton? Some are more than happy to repeat every FOX News or Karl Rove talking point they hear.

Do you have any? It might help your argument.

...by trying to cast doubt that DUers ever latched onto that book and author.

I'm just pointing out that it would help your argument if you gave some examples.

Clearly you don't have any.

I don't support Hillary, but I will defend her against phony RW arguments. I love going toe to toe with people, but RW talking points, memes, and personal attacks against Democratic candidates have no place in the Democratic party.

times to count HRC supporters here screaming at the top of their lungs that pieces by such folks as Zephyr Teachout and John Cassidy are parroting Schweizer talking point. It's bullshit. It's false. I've been told over and over again that Vox, Salon, Slate, Vanity Fair are right wing outlets out to get HRC.

To HRC supporters everything that is critical of HRC is right wing- unless it comes from Mother Jones and then it'sa left wing slur.

Best to just ignore that nonsense.

how does a person scream while keyboarding? I have rarely even seen a person use all caps. You are way over exaggerating and weakening any point you might have hoped to make.

I like and respect Bernie Sanders. But he is never going to be the President and he would not approve of your behavior here. He doesn't want to spoil this election and get a republican elected and would tell you to stop helping do that.

Most of the attacks are laughable and amusing especially since they come from right wing resources. Hillary has been attacked for over 20 years and doesn't seem to mind it. Why should her supporters mind? We have a forum to keep track of the good things she has done all of her political life and to hash out things we might not agree with her on. I see no reason for the attacks to stop until TPTB stops them.

How much of the nation's air time gets devoted to that as opposed to the real issues?

The media would have no stories if they were not attacking Hillary. Attacks sell.

There are enough stories that need coverage. H-1b for one. Perhaps BENGHAZI!!1 is considered a useful distraction.

Those who choose to use those type of attacks are going to no matter what I think. Hillary does not seem to be bothered by them so I say let the haters do their thing. It just makes them look stupid.

She has her own accomplishments and record to stand (or fall) on and drawing any conclusions on how she would govern based on her husbands record belittles what she has done (good or bad) as an individual.

I would agree that this should be avoided.

and she is widely recognized as his top advisor and lobbied on behalf of policies she was involved with, I think that's a little silly.

and she was an advisor but no one seems to mention when that advice wasn't followed (she was initially against NAFTA thinking health care reform was much more important) and she also gave that famous UN speech about women's rights being human rights against the urging of the WH to soften the language because it may offend China (she ignored that urging).

Here's what we know she was personally involved in (policy-related) while First Lady:

• Universal Healthcare Reform (unsuccessful)
• State Children's Health Insurance Program (successful along with Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch)
• Got increased research funding for NIH for childhood asthma and prostate cancer
• Pushed for research into Gulf War Syndrome
• With Janet Reno, helped create Office on Violence Against Women at the Dept. of Justice
• Was instrumental in getting the Adoption and Safe Families Act passed
• Instrumental in the passage of the Foster Care Independence Act
• Helped create Vital Voices, which encourages women to participate in political processes in their countries
• Encouraged Irish women to get involved in the peace processes there
• She vetted Presidential appointments for the new admin and her choices filled at least 11 top-level positions and dozens more lower-level ones
• She spoke out against how the Taliban had been treating Afghani women (no one was really talking about that then)

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

Yes, she advised President Clinton, along with many other advisors and we have no way of knowing what advice was followed and which advice was ignored. We do know they didn't always agree and as such, the President, not the First Lady, had final say on what was done and what wasn't. So, if you want to compare her to her husband, at least have facts instead of generalities to compare with.

The general "Billary" BS is dehumanizing (and was originally a conservative talking point to belittle and undermine the President and his then very successful policies).

Whether you like her or not, she is her own person and has been involved with policy long enough to be judged by that and that alone.

Thank you.

shame on you. He had lots of advisers. She was his top adviser. However she disagreed with him and still had to keep her opinions from the public because it was not her place to criticize him in public. What good would that have done him, her or the country? You would not, nor would anyone else say any of his male advisers would preside just like him just because they had advised him in the past. Your opinion is sexist and you really need to revise your thinking on this.

no public show of support for a policy or position of Bill's.

If she was an outspoken advocate as the First Lady for, say, the continuance of the drug war, then yes, that is fair game. Both she and her husband share the same beliefs, have expressed as much in public, and deserve to be rightly criticized and discussed.

but blanket statements are unfair. She did not agree with everything the President proposed but could only go so far publicly as First Lady. She has also recently acknowledged they have differences of opinion but believes those differences should be kept private.

I'm not anywhere near claiming that there are things she did as First Lady that we all can't be critical of but we must also acknowledge that part of the First Lady's job is to support the President. I think that, in her own way, Hillary Clinton tried to overcome that perception and failed spectacularly because of Bill's wandering penis. In order to save his legacy, she had to fall in line (or leave him) and support him. I think her standing by him is what "saved" him in the long run.

P.S. I'm not a Hillary supporter (I haven't decided whom I'm supporting yet) but I just hate to see anyone treated unfairly for things they necessarily had no control over. There are plenty of things HRC has done on her own to be critical of (or support her for) and I think also piling on in a general way because of what her husband did does a disservice to all. I also think had she not hitched her wagon to Bill, she'd actually be further left than she appears to be now. There's also a small part of me that thinks that if elected President, she'd surprise everyone by going further left--that she's playing the political game to garner the votes needed to get in office and then will govern in a way that is surprising to most. I could also be very, very wrong.

Often Bill & Hillary sold themselves as a team. She can't undo all of that.

While it is true that she may not have agreed with all things, the perception can be that she is waffling. She said she supported something in the 1990's. She says now she did not. Which is true? Both? One or the other?

Out of the two, I think Hillary is far more of a hawk than Bill was. I just can't accept that she would play the game and then vote more liberal in office. Bill did not. Obama did not. Hillary did not as a Senator nor as SoS.

.... she was routinely advertised as Bill's "right hand man" and I don't see a shred of evidence she was against NAFTA, repealing Glass-Stegall, ending "welfare as we know it", the Telecommunications Act, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act or anything else Bill had a hand in other than Monica Lewinsky.

Folks can't have it both ways. Bill's record IS her record also.

Want to oppose her IWR? Know yourself out. Calling her a "warmonger" is over the line.

lot's of people think that's a good thing. No one thinks "warmonger" is a positive attribute.

When faced with stories of children being injured by unexploded bomblets, Hillary was one of the few Dems that voted against the ban on the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

You should have brought it up when Barack Obama chose him as vice president. Let's him give him the benefit of the doubt and say he didn't know. You should call the White House and demand that Barack Obama demand that Joe Biden resign as vice president right now.







What sort of Democrat votes to continue using them?

And I condemn Biden's vote, but this isn't about Biden. And it's not about one discrete vote. It's about Clinton and her history of hawkishness. Now you can deny that all you want, but that doesn't make evidence such as this just vanish.

I am certain Team Obama vetted Joe Biden, was aware of the vote, weighed his pluses and minuses, and came to the conclusion he would be an unparalleled vice presidential candidate and vice president. Team Obama's wise judgment has stood the test of time.

I look at people , not just candidates, in their totality... I don't judge them on their best moments nor do I am judge them on their worst ones.

absurd. And if you honestly looked at the totality of Clinton's record and rhetoric regarding military intervention, you'd see that there's a solid body of evidence that indicates that she's more pro military intervention than President Obama- who I think has done well in some regards- and not so well in others. Libya being an example of not so well.

That was the first I had heard of him and Hillary voting against the ban and I was disgusted by it. Cluster bombs are criminal. In all honesty I had never paid attention to that before, that's not exactly a topic the media spent their time covering other than when Princess DI talked about it. I would like an answer to your question of "What sort of Democrat votes to continue using them?" also. If you are trying to make a point with the rest of your post you failed massively. Because quite frankly the only other choice we had to vote for at that time was a fucking republican and the grifter he had chosen as his VP.

Frank Lautenberg, Joe Biden, Jay Rockefeller, and Chris Dodd among others.

Democrats who made a poor decision, a decision I wouldn't have made.

I would have to go back and read what their rationales were...Frank Lautenberg was seen as a fairly liberal guy as was Dodd and Rockefeller...

If you want to argue against a position or action, knock yourself out. But the use of a subjective pejorative has no place within the Democratic party, IMO.

I think Bernie Sanders would agree with me.

but RW memes with little or no evidence over and over gets boring.

From your list; just for example. You can decide that Hillary is wrong, but you should do so in context without a bunch of twisted, one-sided rhetoric.

This week on NPR it was reported that Hillary met with Warren and has adopted some of the Warren language and positions regarding financial regulation. Since Hillary represented NY (Wall Street!) as a Senator, she naturally was obliged to represent their interest. Other than that, the Clintons have been one of the Democrats who have successfully cracked the "big money" donors that have haunted Democratic campaigns in light of Citizen's United even though Hillary has openly said CU needs to be repealed. (Don't shoot me, that was the discussion on the radio from several commentators). Even though no one likes the big bank overlords, the banks were forced to pay fines this week, and the world we live in is not perfect. Is Hillary's strategy of matching the GOP PACs with her own allies perfect? Maybe not, but it's fair to consider...would Hillary be a tougher regulator than Obama over Wall Street? We really don't know at this point. Certainly Obama hasn't done much. Any President is going to have real trouble getting control of the banks no matter what they think.

Hillary has openly stated the Iraq war and her vote was a mistake. Like many others, most of congress did not anticipate what Bush/Cheney were going to do and the extent of involvement it would lead to a decade later. Congress did not give Obama war authority when he asked for it a year ago. It seems obvious that congress is not willing to get involved again. Personally, I don't think Obama has kept a few of his promises about Gitmo and US involvement; so maybe it's not so easy to just pull out. If you want to bash Hillary on this topic, who would you support instead? Is Bernie realistic? Would Bernie support Israel in a way consistent with most DUers? Comparing candidates is fair if it's not just personal attacks. Whose mideast position is best? Webb? Warren? If you "bash" then please provide the contrasting side!

Hillary had some role a few years ago with the TPP, but it's not clear how much she "wrote" or how many ideas were what she personally wanted. At any rate, she is legally banned from discussing the TPP, it may have changed since she was involved, and she has a deal with Obama not to criticize each other (his policies and her campaign) as reported on another radio show a couple weeks ago. Hillary has provided a "position statement" about trade agreements that is fair game to discuss if people like (or don't like) the statement. It's fair to note that among the candidates, Hillary has the most first hand experience with trade agreements and what other countries actually want - so that is a plus for a US President.

If DUers are objective, they should look at candidates good and bad. Hillary fans have to consider her weaknesses, just like some Bernie supporters should think about his possible mistakes (like gun liability and the Robin Hood tax). Warren supporters should do the same if they think she is running; Webb supporters the same.

Bernie is right; looking at the issues is a better strategy than "bashing" the candidates.

Bashing on a few old issues also takes things out of context. To win, candidates need to get votes on big issues. Honestly, the three issues you named as "bash-points" are NOT all that important in purple states as reported by many polls. Immigration, women's rights, minimum wage, and the environment are voting issues (at least here in Florida). None of those are on the "bash" list, so they don't resonate much with the independents. A fair conversation should eventually look at where candidates are on issues that are necessary for a Democrat to win!!! In fact, our big military in Florida, the "millionaires" here, and the big international tourism here would be in FAVOR of the "bashes" that are critical of Hillary's position. If you want cross-over votes to win a Presidential election, you have to be realistic. Obama obviously was successful at doing that...he has supported big energy for example and not been a friend of the environment. Obama has been a disappointment on education. Would Hillary do better? She has been very active on education in her past - much more than Obama. What will get votes in 2016?

I remember wondering if Carter (a Naval Academy graduate) would be militaristic, and I was glad when he turned out to be a negotiator. At that time, we were excited to be out of Vietnam, get the 18 year old vote, and return integrity to the WH, but Carter was a question mark as a new President. There were some Carter "bashers" with the hippy crowd who saw Carter as a Bible-waving, military, RW, conservative pretending to be a Democrat. He was not what the bashers expected at all.

The same with Hillary - we can't assume she will she will agree with Bill (she already differs on crime policy for example) on every issue, or even make decisions the same way. Taking a stand with a loser won't help. I will vote for the Democratic candidate. I would appreciate fair and balanced discussion of the issues as opposed to endless posts attacking the candidate who is not someone's favorite.

Of course not. Hillary has been proven to be liberal in both values and actions for many decades. Almost all objective and subjective ratings and assessments put her in the progressive/liberal ranges. This has been documented on other threads.

Would you please tell me about the meetings between Warren and O'Malley, Webb, or even Sanders? Why not?
Because Hillary is the only one so far who clearly is working on a realistic position. Bernie's Robin Hood tax has already been shown to be less than well-thought out for example.

At any rate, Donna Brazil was on the NPR radio show and she obviously represents main stream Democrats - and she "rated" Hillary to the left of Bill and Obama, and as least even with Warren. That's paraphrasing, but you can find the link, and lister to the show. I posted it several times in other threads.

In other words, you are parroting "bashing" blather and not looking at the issues. Regardless, even though DU is excited about big banks, to most independents it's not a defining issue that will win or lose their vote. As such, Obama hasn't been hurt by catering to Wall Street, so you can see it's a fairly inconsequential issue outside of the far left. Hillary will likely not have any position that will win or lose the election purely on an economic policy.

It looks like the only important thing to you is winning the election, and what happens afterwards is okay to be up in the air. That's fine for you, but it is not fine for me. Hillary has not said or done one thing that would sway my support from Bernie to her, and there really is nothing she can say or do in the future that would get my support. I will be voting for Bernie in the primary. Bottom line. This is what primaries are for. I look forward to the debates.

any of the candidates would be better than Jeb. If I see Bernie or Webb or O'Malley or Hillary able to win in Florida; then I'll support them. Right now, Hillary is way ahead around here.

I often post about gun control which is an issue for me. I very much disagree with Bernie's vote to allow gun makers to avoid liability.
Also, I'm a big union support and an officer in my union. Our retirement is completely dependent on large investments in various funds. Even though I've been in education for 40 years, I disagree with Bernie's Robin Hood tax. It would be better to fund education with a capital gains tax or some other method.
Finally, Bernie has been called out for support of Israel's policies that many Americans disagree with...at least he doesn't seem to be willing to support a two-state solution as far as I've seen. I haven't seen a clear Bernie position on this yet, but I'm sure it will be a question.

Hillary has been a long-time supporter of education, seems to have an insider's knowledge of many international issues, and was one of the first to really call for universal health care. I can overlook some of her ideas that I don't like, as long as I see her as the best candidate for Democrats. More importantly, she has supported women's rights and immigrants path to citizenship. Those are critical to me in Florida and really to the entire US.

As the primary goes on, we'll see what platforms are developed and how voters react to them. Bernie has not faced a full-blown attack by millions of TV dollars in a national primary. When he does, real weaknesses and complete lies will flood the airways and postboxes. Then a war chest becomes necessary to win in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. That's where the national elections are won and lost - and it takes big bucks to fight the Koch brothers. Rick Scott spent 70 million of his own personal money running for Governor in Florida. It takes a billion to run a Presidential campaign now. That's simply the way it works.

sturm and drang and lies and promises - just auction off the presidency and everything else on ebay. Or display various war chest totals in Times Square, and the biggest amount wins. That would be a lot more honest.

but I also supported the ERA in the 1970's and it's still not ratified by 2/3rds of the states!!! I was very pleased by Bill Clinton's renewal of Title IX which makes a big difference in education, so sometimes Presidents matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment
Without the Southern states, no constitutional amendment can win 38 states.

As such, getting a SC ruling is the next chance. That's is one reason that Hillary and other candidates realize that appointing SC judges is the key for the next President to overturn Citizen's United. A path to citizenship could turn the Southern states blue in a very few years. In Florida 25% of the people were born outside of the US now! In reality, Texas and Florida probably have about a third who are immigrants if they were countable.

Can you imagine Texas and Florida as solid blue like NY and CA? If so, then look for a path to citizenship for 10-15 million immigrants. That's a reality as important as the $'s!

Which her supporters claim is a positive.

That track record includes things she did do, and things she did not do. She did not propose to re-regulate banks while in the Senate. Why should we expect that she has suddenly changed her mind on that subject?

She's pushing immigration reform now. Why did she not introduce bills to accomplish immigration reform while she was in the Senate? Sure, they would have failed to pass, but it would back up her current claim of deeply believing in immigration reform.

And so on. When she makes a claim today, it can be measured against her history. On many subjects, that history does not show her working towards what she now says is important. That difference either needs and explanation (like "I believed W's lies&quot or it becomes pretty obvious pandering for votes.

Hillary represented NY, including Wall Street. Your expectation might include Senators from Iowa submitting bills to get rid of farm subsidies, or Senators from Florida putting a federal tax on tourism? It's an unrealistic observation.

That does not mean that as President, Hillary would not regulate crazy banks. After the last economic meltdown, it has become obvious to many that we need a resistant congress to tighten up the rules, but there's not much that can be done by a President alone. Obama was not strong on banking reform, but he did find Warren and put her in the limelight! If Hillary consults with Warren on what can be done, it is at least more than some other candidates appear to be doing.

Every smart politician on the national level should look at immigration reform now. As an issue for NY state, it may or may not be on the top of the list. As a current issue for the US, it's clearly something that Obama should have addressed and his lack of action likely caused a low turn out from Hispanics in the last elections.
In fact, many think that Gore lost Hispanic votes in Florida that would have won the election because of some actions and comments that turned off the Miami crowd.

Hillary is very smart to see immigration reform that is a winning issue for many voters in 2016. She was the first and most assertive to come out with that proposal.

You can't be critical for not introducing something (when it was illogical to do so) and then be equally critical when some introduces something when it is entirely logical to do so. That strategy would be a looser in every political race down to dog-catcher.

But that explanation has to be actually given, not just blindly assumed. Because far too often, politicians lie their way through a campaign. As a result, the public doesn't trust any of them.

When rhetoric does not match history, history will be more trusted. So if a politician has actually evolved, or believed that their previous constituents wanted something else, they need to say so. Otherwise the public will trust history and assume the politician is lying for votes.

is that what you mean?

I also think meetings with both Obama (where it's reported they talked about TPP) and Warren over the last couple months indicate an examination of positions. NPR reported she agreed with Obama that she would not criticize TPP and other current efforts and he would not criticize her campaign specifically.

We also know she has openly come out against Bill Clinton's 1994 crime bill and stated there need to be revisions to federal sentencing (including children, non-violent crime, etc.). That's another more or less recent change in position since the 90's.

Hillary has openly stated that Citizen United needs to be repealed, and it was a litmus test for her appointments to the SC. That ruling was not existent (2010) when Hillary was in the Senate.

Hillary may not act as I would like (Obama certainly hasn't been good for somethings: Gitmo, education, unions, etc.). I'm not sure any candidate would be a perfect progressive, but I will still vote for the Democrat.

Saying "I was wrong" mostly covers the change in position. Explaining "Why I was wrong" would also be good.

be they Democrat or Republican or Green or Other. Asking questions to understand which way they voted on an issue or what they said in a particular speech, policy statement or questioning by the press or other groups is completely fair. I believe that it can be a civil discourse (most likely will not be) without attacking anyone no matter what their party or positions. We can favor on candidate over another or agree with some or none of their viewpoints without being unpleasant about it.

something far, far worse. BTW, Bernie voted against attacking Iraq.

with you.

I disagree with her on this and probably other issues, but I don't need to call her or anyone else names or being mean-spirited.

And Yes, as a supporter of Senator Sanders I do know that he voted against attacking Iraq.

particularly polite. (That's giving HRC the benefit of the doubt.)

Where is the prize?

warmonger and a terrible socialist? Come on folks, some consistency please.

Edit to add: Same goes for Bernie even though he is not officially a Democrat.

But perhaps you could clarify.

Democratic candidates are fair game in the Democratic primaries...always have been.

official website has this on the first page:
"Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are officially in the presidential race. If you’re in too, add your name to make sure we elect a Democrat in 2016."

So the official Democrats say Bernie is one of two Democrats running for President, but you say they are incorrect. An attack on Bernie and on the Party Democratic.

That seems to have died down, though.

Have you seen the Republican agenda?! All these criticisms of Democratic candidates does is strengthen the Republican party. Posting attacks accomplishes nothing, no one is changing their minds. The only thing we should be concerned about is defeating Republicans.

Those candidates aren't going to be walking into fluffy bunny land in the general election. They're going to be attacked. If they can't even handle the relatively mild attacks in the primary, they are utterly unprepared for what they will face from the Republicans.

Hillary needs to be sorted into the dustbin of history for her past "accomplishments" and the "friends" she keeps.

There is a motto in Greek on a crest at my alma mater that reads "?????????? ?? ?ί???" which means "known among friends" or more precisely, "a person is known by their friends." If Hillary Clinton's character and qualifications can be known by the friends she keeps and has kept, that's a damning criticism.

Hillary Clinton is not only someone that knowingly sold America on a war based on a lie...she also personally profited from it, using it to bolster her foreign policy credentials to be appointed Secretary of State. That makes her a warmonger.

She's not just a free-trader...she profited from it as a board member and shareholder of WalMart. That makes her a robber-baron capitalist.

Let's not even get into the people she pals around with.

that "But Hillary wasn't voting for war . . . she was voting to give Bush the authority to use miitary force." Argh. The blood of 1,000,000+ Iraqi ghosts cries out for accountability and none comes.

"people she pals around with"

realizes that Hillary Clinton has connections to disreputable people who work against the interests of the American public for personal gain?

If Hillary Clinton needs to be protected this much from her own record and associations...she's less qualified to be President of the United States than even the grifter from Wasilla, AK. She should withdraw her candidacy.

Maybe you shouldn't be surprised by other DUer's reactions.

not what ifs or how comes. We have lots of issues that need to be addressed going forward. All people make mistakes and if we hold them against anyone there won't be anyone left to vote for. Thats how republiCONs work, not us Democratic Voters.
Right now Bernie is my man but it matters not when it comes down to the general election I WILL vote for whomever we nominate. I will not be bashing anyone except maybe and note I say maybe one of the clown car occupants.

"What ifs or how comes" is how you can measure a politician's rhetoric against what they will do in office. Stump speeches are not binding contracts.

The only way we can measure if their speech is truthful or pandering is by comparing their speech against their past acts. Say a politician voted for DOMA, DADT, "religious freedom" bills, and has never said that was a mistake or other indication that they have actually changed their mind. Now they say they're all about LGBT rights in their stump speeches. That's a pretty clear sign that their speech is just pandering for votes, and not an indication of what they would do if elected.

"What ifs or how comes" are the most important part of deciding who is a good candidate.

you have to attach your political opponent rather than promoting the positive attributes of your candidate, you are backing up! GOP is proof!

Hillary Clinton is not untouchable here. We need to vet our candidate.

Why not take a page from the top two candidates themselves and talk about support the candidate of your choice?

The comparison is rough but wouldn't it be like going to a Cleveland Cavaliers message board and criticizing LeBron James?

I suspect anyone doing so, is doing it for the same reason.

they should just shut up? The board should be nothing but "OMG!! LeBron James is SOOOO awesome!!"?

And if someone on that board thought James as no longer performing well


He:










and her:

It's a discussion board. People discuss. When they do, they will disagree. People should not have to censor themselves because of polling.

Outside of it being cathartic for her detractors I just don't see the efficacy of it all... How many posters have you seen here say "that's it...I liked Hillary Clinton but I read something at DU about her and now I don't like her any more."


Oh, I agree with you about LeBron James...He's not what he was but who would be after playing twelve years in the NBA. He has a lot of mileage on him.

But there's somewhere around 10x to 100x the lurkers to posters.

If you feel strongly enough about a candidate, you'll post. You are also unlikely to be swayed - you already feel strongly.

If you don't feel strongly about a candidate, you'll read but not post. You may or not be swayed by the discussion, and you are extremely unlikely to post if someone changed your mind - your support is still not that strong.

I can't find it on the site any more but there used to be the number of members listed and it was well over 100,000. How many regular posters do you think there are? 200? 300?


Hard to operationalize regular but I would define it as someone who posts three times a week.

It will go negative. But there is a difference between negative criticisms and personal attacks or mudslinging. Negative criticisms are necessary to win.

The point is to discuss things. That inevitably means someone will have the opposite position, and will want to discuss that difference of position.

I thought that is what the nomination process is about. Not all of us have conceded her the nomination yet, and believe Sanders would be better for the party and the country.

She is our candidate and the next President of the Unired Srates. As citizens it is not our place to criticize our leaders.

mean nothing. After she wins the primary the haters will have to STFU or leave. Before that I expect the bashing to continue unabated. The DU Bernie bubble will have it's way, for awhile.

Because it's like freeperville here now.

That was the latest incarnation of stupid here on DU.

I vote on issues, not personalities and I`m not into coronations or Democratic website black-outs on fresh ideas that might go against Corporate Headquarters` talking points.

As I see it, this country is in quite a mess, so the same-old....go along to get along....just won`t do this time around. We can turn things around with a message that resonates with voters. In order to find the most effective message, we have to consider some new ideas. I don`t care who those new ideas come from and this site is a good place to sort things out.

Hillary Clinton has made some remarkable contributions to this country and I applaud her for that, but don`t applaud her destructively hawkish Iraq War vote or those 1-percenter speaking fees.

Bernie Sanders, with the wild hair so many foolishly take issue with, has done far, far more for working folks than any current standard-hair Republican and most standard hair Democrats. Whenever I`ve heard him, his speeches have been free and they`ve been held in some old, far from modern Vermont community building. He`s a man of his word that doesn`t need an image-maker to tell him what to believe in.

he has not done much at all because he has no real allies in congress or the senate. Most of the legislation that he has worked on which has passed has been done in partnership WITH Hillary Clinton. Did you know they have worked together many times? Did you know that he has taken money from HillPac? Did you know he supported the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and Kosovo?
Be careful who you judge and why.

Has it encouraged me to sway towards Bernie, no, it does not work. Bernie has to sell himself.

race in June of 2008 in the hopes that Obama would be assassinated. Keith Olbermann used that smear against her in 2008, and the Obama campaign pushed it and then backed off.

nt

Here is an ineluctable truth; you will not change one damn mind. You will upset a lot of people. Give me a dollar for every Hillary supporter who says "I read something about Hillary on Democratic Underground and I don't like her any more" and I'll give you a dime for every Hillary supporter who doesn't and let's see who ends up with more money.

Those on DU who demean Hillary (and those who would happily vote for her), do nothing to help their preferred candidate.

To oust Hillary, some other candidate will have to convince other democrats (who would happily vote for Hillary) that their candidate would also beat any GOP candidate in the General.

Attacking Hillary, and those who support her, does nothing to advance their own candidate in this regard.

At one time, DU included some very bright thinkers on political strategy.

Now its dominated by smear campaigns and knee-jerk outrage driven commentary.

So none of it is unfair, it's just not very effective. Might as well be demanding a primary of Obama in 2012. Oh wait, that happened here too.

Attacking Hillary endlessly will be just as effective.

The bashing, trashing, constructively criticizing Hillary is cathartic for her opponents here...It's the rhetorical equivalent of a high colonic. They feel better after the purge. For her supporters all it does is upset them.

Often, its the same folks who've incorrectly predicted, often at the top of their lungs, all kinds of evil actions/intent to President Obama.

And when they are wrong, they either take credit for the bad thing not happening, or they just drop it and move on to the next outrage.

They've become the Boy who cried Wolf.

I often ask myself WWHD; What Would Hillary Do? She doesn't let the constant criticism and invective get to her so why should I let the constant criticism of her get to me...

But it's hard to ignore here...

I tend to watch it like you might watch a slow motion train wreck.

I skip down through those threads, and along the way I see all of the same angry folks saying the same angry things whether they apply to the situation, or not ... outrage meters pegged to 11. Obama and Hillary, driving America into a Mad Max like hell-scape.

Also, its not consistent of posters who are strong supporters of Obama to criticize Hillary for her policies. These politicians' approaches are virtually identical. Pragmatic, moderate, negotiating with Wall Street, banks, insurance industry, big Pharma, gas and oil.... Obama and Hillary have very similar approaches. Sadly for our country, I believe that this is what is necessary to get elected, but that's another post.

Bottom line, it makes no sense to support Obama and be against Hillary. Now I can understand supporting Sanders, but I would expect Sanders supporters to be critics of Obama.

... Obama and Hillary ran on almost identical platforms. Obama was slightly to Hillary's left, but not far off at all.

Obama only beat Hillary when regular rank and file Dems came to believe that he would definitely beat any GOP challenger, just like she would.

Bernie has that same challenge. Rank and file dems are very confident that Hillary will beat any GOP candidate. And THAT single reality trumps everything else. At this point, they will not risk losing the entire election to the GOP. They'll happily stick with Clinton. And efforts from the left, or right, to tear her down, won't change that.

So Bernie has to do what Obama did ... make himself look like a sure winner over the GOP candidates.

Regular Dems won't even consider Bernie VS Hillary unless they already believe Bernie VS GOP is a sure bet. With that settled, Dem voters would be willing to consider switching from Hillary to Bernie, but not before.

One of the reasons 08 was so personal is because it was so close and HRC and BHO's positions were virtually indistinguishable.

A whole lot of people projected what they wanted onto Obama in 2008. They were let down, because they were reading what they wanted between the lines of all of his speeches.

Obama the President is a whole lot like Obama the Senator, and slightly to the right of Obama the 2008 candidate (he had to make some room between himself and Clinton).

So you could support Obama the 2008 candidate (or even worse, the projection of your dreams) while not supporting Clinton the 2016 candidate.

You could also believe Obama was the best we could get at the time, and believe it's time to move further left. Meaning you support Obama as the best we got at the time, and now want someone even more liberal.