I'll have to do with one.

you won't address the multiple polls that shows she beats ALL Republicans!

Did you not experience the most recent vote? If you think any Democrat can beat Any Republican....YOU have another think coming...

Ask Herman Cain or Rudy Giuliani about being the "invincible front runner."

multiples show her at 64% approval AND beating ALL Republicans. I for one do not want to experience Republican rule of all three branches....you play defense.....you don't go with an experiment.

No one else has declared they are running. No Democrats, no Republicans. It's just Clinton. As i said, she's coming in first in a one-person race. It's not exactly a great achievement.

Once other people declare their intent on running, those numbers Clinton enjoys will sink. Once primary campaigns begin, they will sink further. And once the general campaign begins, if Clinton is our nominee... I'm sorry to say she will be destroyed. She has lukewarm support among liberal democrats - "better than a Republican" sums it up there. The Republicans hate her more than anything else. and the "undecideds" will be easily swayed by the revisiting of twenty years of Republican mudslinging at the clintons.

Right now you're looking at a heavily-insulated poll result garnered from there only being one person with a declared candidacy. Once the season kicks into gear, things will inevitably change. And to be quite honest, yelling out clinton's name every ten minutes isn't going to be doing her coming campaign any favors.

We don't want Republican rule OR subservience...that's why we want Liz Warren and cannot stand Hillary Clinton. Is she pining for the Nepotism vote? Thats a bad idea. Your polls are not 64% anymore first off...you were claiming those numbers months and months ago...AND it's irrelevant because as always they never hold.

then those single digits nearly everyone else has means what?

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

She has great name recognition. But too many negatives. I wish I trusted and liked her. If she was a good person and actually cared about us there would be no stopping her. But she's a sham.

If you have to spend so much time convincing Democrats how much everyone wants Hillary then the problem is obvious. The question is the answer. Hillary is a sell-out. I know a Progressive can win if they talk about the things that centrist neocon lovers like Hillary don't. You just have to be a fighter. No Walter Mondales, Michael Dukakises...we need fighters like Elizabeth Warren because in case you haven't noticed WAR has been declared on average American citizens by those who aspire to be Nazis and Hillary reminds me of Vichey collaborators. Jeb Bush will be the Republican nominee and we can't run against Nepotism if we nominate Hillary. No thanks. I'm not agreeing to neuter our advantageous position. Give it a rest. Hillary inspires only moderated centrist policy wonks. I used to think she would energize the female vote but I believe there is just too many negative reactions to her on both sides. Polls are meaningless this early. I remember when Tom Harkin had a huge lead in the polls one year before the election. This is two years. If Hillary really wanted to help anyone she would be out there with protestors from Antiwar to OWS to Ferguson where she could have a real effect. But she would never dare.

...democrates, in general, are ready for Hillary. It's the Democrats on DU that need convincing.But you are right that it's very early and polls aren't very relevant yet.

She has name recognition for those who don't and as usual once it gets near to election time people will take a closer look and see what they always see...a disingenuous opportunist enthusiastically serving the 1%.

...enthusiastically support her.

Obama won. And with independents she has little chance. Losing to Jeb Bush will split the party. Things are dynamic and fluid. Snapshots of yesterday don't hold the future. Visionaries do.

...for your consideration: http://www.thirdway.org

and MOST DO want Hillary!

She stops supporting murdering families with her atrocious wars, stops supporting mass incarceration and the racist drug war and stop repping for Goldman Sachs and the 1%... All she is doing is giving good democrats a bad name.

You must WANT to change...

Lets start with the drug war mkay?

She does not oppose mass incarceration just like her husband. That's a fact. And she has not come out supporting medical marihuana or legalization. She's wishy washy at best and triangulated like her husband for votes. Next you will be telling me she's not a war hawk.

those are actual public RECORDS!!!

Found easily right here...
http://ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm


YOU have your own bullshit ...and THAT is a FACT!

She has tepid support for medical marijuana and only for "extreme" conditions... Her words. And no support for legalization. How could she? Her husband arrested more people annually for weed than her mentor, Bush Sr. She supports corporate welfare and private prisons.

Medical marijuana maybe ok; states decide recreational use

[This week], New York lawmakers approved legislation that would make it the 23rd state in the country to permit medical marijuana use, according to the Marijuana Policy Project. Voters in Alaska and possibly Oregon will decide in November whether to join Colorado and Washington in allowing the sale of marijuana for recreational use.
As the momentum behind marijuana legalization grows, the issue is becoming inescapable for potential presidential contenders in 2016. The latest to weigh in was Hillary Clinton, who was asked about marijuana last week during her book tour. She seemed slightly more open to medical marijuana than she was during the 2008 campaign, saying it was appropriate in limited cases, but that more research was necessary.
"On recreational, you know, states are the laboratories of democracy," Mrs. Clinton told CNN interviewer Christiane Amanpour. "We have at least two states that are experimenting with that right now. I want to wait and see what the evidence is."
Source: Beth Reinhard in Wall Street Journal, "Third Way" , Jun 14, 2014
Reduce sentencing disparity for crack, but not retroactively

Q: The US Sentencing Commission recently limited the disparity in sentencing guidelines for those convicted of crimes involving crack cocaine versus crimes involving powder cocaine. Should that change be retroactive?
A: I believe we’ve got to decrease the disparity that exists. It is really unconscionable that someone who uses five grams of crack cocaine, compared to 500 grams of powder cocaine would face such disparate sentencing. And it’s further compounded because the possession of crack cocaine really is unique in the way that it leads directly to prison for so many people. So I am going to tackle the disparity. I think it definitely needs to be prospective on principle. I have problems with retroactivity. I think that it’s something that a lot of communities will be concerned about as well, so let’s tackle this disparity, let’s take it on. The sentencing commission hasn’t come forward yet with its specific recommendation but I’m looking forward to seeing it.
Source: 2007 Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum , Dec 1, 2007
1969: held herself aloof from college drug counterculture

Hillary’s faith, or perhaps her personality or seriousness generally, must have been a contributing factor to her staying on the straight and narrow. She called herself “an ethical Christian,” physically aloof from the counterculture. Her college friends do not recall her smoking dope, dropping acid, drinking to excess, or tearing off her clothes during concerts. She did not imbibe the hedonism and drug culture of the period; she did not drop out. She at one time painted a flower on her arm and wore tie-dye clothes, and as surviving photos attest, looked like a girl of the sixties, but was no Janis Joplin.
Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p. 34 , Jul 18, 2007
Divert non-violent drug offenders away from prison

We need diversion, like drug courts. Non-violent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system. We need to make sure that we do deal with the distinction between crack and powder cocaine. And ultimately we need an attorney general and a system of justice that truly does treat people equally, and that has not happened under this administration.
Source: 2007 Democratic Primary Debate at Howard University , Jun 28, 2007
Gov. Clinton implicated in his brother Roger’s drug arrest

The story of Roger Clinton’s 1984 arrest and subsequent conviction on drug charges has been used by the Clintons for years supposedly to demonstrate Bill’s probity. After Roger’s conviction a tearful governor appeared on the courthouse steps. “I feel more deeply committed than ever before to do everything I can to fight drugs in our state,” Bill said.
Half a dozen or more Arkansans have testified to doing drugs with both Clinton brothers or to witnessing them doing drugs. In fact it now has widely been reported that during Roger’s investigation he was videotaped saying, “I’ve got to get some for my brother. He’s got a nose like a Hoover vacuum cleaner.” The officer who conducted the sting claims Governor Clinton shut it down prematurely to protect himself from being implicated in drugs.
Source: Madame Hillary, by R. Emmett Tyrell, p. 77 , Feb 25, 2004
Address drug problem with treatment and special drug courts

Q: What is your approach to the “Drug War”?
CLINTON: I have spoken out on my belief that we should have drug courts that would serve as alternatives to the traditional criminal justice system for low-level offenders. If the person comes before the court, agrees to stay clean, is subjected to drug tests once a week, they are diverted from the criminal justice system. We need more treatment. It is unfair to urge people to get rid of their addiction and not have the treatment facilities when people finally makes up their minds to get treatment.
LAZIO: The truth is that under the Clinton administration, there has been a dramatic and troubling increase in drug abuse by our children. And that has not been addressed. I crossed party lines in 1994 and built a coalition of Republicans that passed the crime bill. If it were not for that, we would not have drug courts right now. We would not have community policing. We need to have somebody in Washington who has the ability to get the job done.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan , Oct 8, 2000
Ambiguous reports of 1960s college alcohol & drug use

It was a time when most university students smoked pot, drank more heavily than people do today, and made the most of the pre-AIDS revolution. Though we know that Bill Clinton partied hard but never figured out how to inhale, the facts are less clear about Hillary. She was not known by any means as a heavy drinker or a pothead but as one classmate recalls “she’s not a super straight person. She was pretty socially relaxed.”
Source: The Inside Story, by Judith Warner, p. 58 , Aug 1, 1999
Involved parents most influential in reducing teen drug use

Some factors that increase the risk of substance abuse in adolescents deserve emphasis. Casual attitudes towards marijuana and minors’ access to cigarettes raise the likelihood that teenagers will make a sad progression to more serious drug use & earlier sexual activity. Dropping out of school puts the child at greater risk, as does having a parent who is an abuser of alcohol or drugs.
One reason my husband is adamant about curbing smoking is the fact that he learned firsthand in his own family, about the slippery slope that begins with the use of one addictive substance and leads to other destructive behaviors.
The characteristics that keep kids from using drugs are hard to quantify but not to understand. Children who truly grasp tha they have a choice to make in the matter are more likely to make a responsible one. So are children with high self-esteem. Most influential of all is the optimism & awareness that comes from knowing their parents are interested & involved in their lives.
Source: It Takes A Village, by Hillary Clinton, p.152-153 , Sep 25, 1996
End harsher sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine.

Clinton co-sponsored ending harsher sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine
A bill to target cocaine kingpins and address sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine.
Sponsor's introductory remarks: Sen. Biden: My bill will eliminate the current 100-to-1 disparity [between sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine] by increasing the 5-year mandatory minimum threshold quantity for crack cocaine to 500 grams, from 5 grams, and the 10-year threshold quantity to 5,000 grams, from 50 grams, while maintaining the current statutory mandatory minimum threshold quantities for powder cocaine. It will also eliminate the current 5-year mandatory minimum penalty for simple possession of crack cocaine, the only mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of a drug by a first time offender.
Drug use is a serious problem, and I have long supported strong antidrug legislation. But in addition to being tough, our drug laws should be rational and fair. My bill achieves the right balance. We have talked about the need to address this cocaine sentencing disparity for long enough. It is time to act.
Congressional Summary:
Increases the amount of a controlled substance or mixture containing a cocaine base (i.e., crack cocaine) required for the imposition of mandatory minimum prison terms for crack cocaine trafficking to eliminate the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine.
Eliminates the five-year mandatory minimum prison term for first-time possession of crack cocaine.
Increases monetary penalties for drug trafficking and for the importation and exportation of controlled substances.
Related bills: H.R.79, H.R.460, H.R.4545, S.1383, S.1685.
Source: Drug Sentencing Reform & Kingpin Trafficking Act (S.1711) 07-S1711 on Jun 27, 2007
Require chemical resellers to certify against meth use.

Clinton co-sponsored requiring chemical resellers to certify against meth use
Sen. FEINSTEIN: This act is designed to address problems that the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, has identified in the implementation of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005. The bill that I introduce today would:
clarify that all retailers, including mail order retailers, who sell products that contain chemicals often used to make methamphetamine--like ephedrine, pseudoepedrine and phenylpropanolamine--must self-certify that they have trained their personnel and will comply with the Combat Meth Act's requirements;
require distributors to sell these products only to retailers who have certified that they will comply with the law;
require the DEA to publish the list of all retailers who have filed self-certifications, on the DEA's website;
and clarify that any retailer who negligently fails to file self-certification as required, may be subject to civil fines and penalties.
The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act that we passed last year has been a resounding success. The number of methamphetamine labs in the United States has declined dramatically now that the ingredients used to make methamphetamine are harder to get. Fewer meth labs means more than just less illegal drug production. In 2003, 3,663 children were reported exposed to toxic meth labs nationwide--but so far this year, the number of exposed children is only 319.
This is a common-sense bill, designed to strengthen the implementation of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. This bill would create incentives to ensure that the self-certification process of the law is made both effective and enforceable. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Source: Combat Methamphetamine Enhancement Act (S.2071) 2007-S2071 on Sep 19, 2007

Medical marijuana maybe ok; states decide recreational use

[This week], New York lawmakers approved legislation that would make it the 23rd state in the country to permit medical marijuana use, according to the Marijuana Policy Project. Voters in Alaska and possibly Oregon will decide in November whether to join Colorado and Washington in allowing the sale of marijuana for recreational use.
As the momentum behind marijuana legalization grows, the issue is becoming inescapable for potential presidential contenders in 2016. The latest to weigh in was Hillary Clinton, who was asked about marijuana last week during her book tour. She seemed slightly more open to medical marijuana than she was during the 2008 campaign, saying it was appropriate in limited cases, but that more research was necessary.
"On recreational, you know, states are the laboratories of democracy," Mrs. Clinton told CNN interviewer Christiane Amanpour. "We have at least two states that are experimenting with that right now. I want to wait and see what the evidence is."
Source: Beth Reinhard in Wall Street Journal, "Third Way" , Jun 14, 2014
Reduce sentencing disparity for crack, but not retroactively



Q: The US Sentencing Commission recently limited the disparity in sentencing guidelines for those convicted of crimes involving crack cocaine versus crimes involving powder cocaine. Should that change be retroactive?
A: I believe we’ve got to decrease the disparity that exists. It is really unconscionable that someone who uses five grams of crack cocaine, compared to 500 grams of powder cocaine would face such disparate sentencing. And it’s further compounded because the possession of crack cocaine really is unique in the way that it leads directly to prison for so many people. So I am going to tackle the disparity. I think it definitely needs to be prospective on principle. I have problems with retroactivity. I think that it’s something that a lot of communities will be concerned about as well, so let’s tackle this disparity, let’s take it on. The sentencing commission hasn’t come forward yet with its specific recommendation but I’m looking forward to seeing it.
Source: 2007 Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum , Dec 1, 2007
1969: held herself aloof from college drug counterculture

Hillary’s faith, or perhaps her personality or seriousness generally, must have been a contributing factor to her staying on the straight and narrow. She called herself “an ethical Christian,” physically aloof from the counterculture. Her college friends do not recall her smoking dope, dropping acid, drinking to excess, or tearing off her clothes during concerts. She did not imbibe the hedonism and drug culture of the period; she did not drop out. She at one time painted a flower on her arm and wore tie-dye clothes, and as surviving photos attest, looked like a girl of the sixties, but was no Janis Joplin.
Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p. 34 , Jul 18, 2007
Divert non-violent drug offenders away from prison

We need diversion, like drug courts. Non-violent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system. We need to make sure that we do deal with the distinction between crack and powder cocaine. And ultimately we need an attorney general and a system of justice that truly does treat people equally, and that has not happened under this administration.
Source: 2007 Democratic Primary Debate at Howard University , Jun 28, 2007
Gov. Clinton implicated in his brother Roger’s drug arrest

The story of Roger Clinton’s 1984 arrest and subsequent conviction on drug charges has been used by the Clintons for years supposedly to demonstrate Bill’s probity. After Roger’s conviction a tearful governor appeared on the courthouse steps. “I feel more deeply committed than ever before to do everything I can to fight drugs in our state,” Bill said.
Half a dozen or more Arkansans have testified to doing drugs with both Clinton brothers or to witnessing them doing drugs. In fact it now has widely been reported that during Roger’s investigation he was videotaped saying, “I’ve got to get some for my brother. He’s got a nose like a Hoover vacuum cleaner.” The officer who conducted the sting claims Governor Clinton shut it down prematurely to protect himself from being implicated in drugs.
Source: Madame Hillary, by R. Emmett Tyrell, p. 77 , Feb 25, 2004
Address drug problem with treatment and special drug courts

Q: What is your approach to the “Drug War”?
CLINTON: I have spoken out on my belief that we should have drug courts that would serve as alternatives to the traditional criminal justice system for low-level offenders. If the person comes before the court, agrees to stay clean, is subjected to drug tests once a week, they are diverted from the criminal justice system. We need more treatment. It is unfair to urge people to get rid of their addiction and not have the treatment facilities when people finally makes up their minds to get treatment.
LAZIO: The truth is that under the Clinton administration, there has been a dramatic and troubling increase in drug abuse by our children. And that has not been addressed. I crossed party lines in 1994 and built a coalition of Republicans that passed the crime bill. If it were not for that, we would not have drug courts right now. We would not have community policing. We need to have somebody in Washington who has the ability to get the job done.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan , Oct 8, 2000
Ambiguous reports of 1960s college alcohol & drug use

It was a time when most university students smoked pot, drank more heavily than people do today, and made the most of the pre-AIDS revolution. Though we know that Bill Clinton partied hard but never figured out how to inhale, the facts are less clear about Hillary. She was not known by any means as a heavy drinker or a pothead but as one classmate recalls “she’s not a super straight person. She was pretty socially relaxed.”
Source: The Inside Story, by Judith Warner, p. 58 , Aug 1, 1999
Involved parents most influential in reducing teen drug use

Some factors that increase the risk of substance abuse in adolescents deserve emphasis. Casual attitudes towards marijuana and minors’ access to cigarettes raise the likelihood that teenagers will make a sad progression to more serious drug use & earlier sexual activity. Dropping out of school puts the child at greater risk, as does having a parent who is an abuser of alcohol or drugs.
One reason my husband is adamant about curbing smoking is the fact that he learned firsthand in his own family, about the slippery slope that begins with the use of one addictive substance and leads to other destructive behaviors.
The characteristics that keep kids from using drugs are hard to quantify but not to understand. Children who truly grasp tha they have a choice to make in the matter are more likely to make a responsible one. So are children with high self-esteem. Most influential of all is the optimism & awareness that comes from knowing their parents are interested & involved in their lives.
Source: It Takes A Village, by Hillary Clinton, p.152-153 , Sep 25, 1996
End harsher sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine.

Clinton co-sponsored ending harsher sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine
A bill to target cocaine kingpins and address sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine.
Sponsor's introductory remarks: Sen. Biden: My bill will eliminate the current 100-to-1 disparity [between sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine] by increasing the 5-year mandatory minimum threshold quantity for crack cocaine to 500 grams, from 5 grams, and the 10-year threshold quantity to 5,000 grams, from 50 grams, while maintaining the current statutory mandatory minimum threshold quantities for powder cocaine. It will also eliminate the current 5-year mandatory minimum penalty for simple possession of crack cocaine, the only mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of a drug by a first time offender.
Drug use is a serious problem, and I have long supported strong antidrug legislation. But in addition to being tough, our drug laws should be rational and fair. My bill achieves the right balance. We have talked about the need to address this cocaine sentencing disparity for long enough. It is time to act.
Congressional Summary:
Increases the amount of a controlled substance or mixture containing a cocaine base (i.e., crack cocaine) required for the imposition of mandatory minimum prison terms for crack cocaine trafficking to eliminate the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine.
Eliminates the five-year mandatory minimum prison term for first-time possession of crack cocaine.
Increases monetary penalties for drug trafficking and for the importation and exportation of controlled substances.
Related bills: H.R.79, H.R.460, H.R.4545, S.1383, S.1685.
Source: Drug Sentencing Reform & Kingpin Trafficking Act (S.1711) 07-S1711 on Jun 27, 2007
Require chemical resellers to certify against meth use.

Clinton co-sponsored requiring chemical resellers to certify against meth use
Sen. FEINSTEIN: This act is designed to address problems that the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, has identified in the implementation of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005. The bill that I introduce today would:
clarify that all retailers, including mail order retailers, who sell products that contain chemicals often used to make methamphetamine--like ephedrine, pseudoepedrine and phenylpropanolamine--must self-certify that they have trained their personnel and will comply with the Combat Meth Act's requirements;
require distributors to sell these products only to retailers who have certified that they will comply with the law;
require the DEA to publish the list of all retailers who have filed self-certifications, on the DEA's website;
and clarify that any retailer who negligently fails to file self-certification as required, may be subject to civil fines and penalties.
The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act that we passed last year has been a resounding success. The number of methamphetamine labs in the United States has declined dramatically now that the ingredients used to make methamphetamine are harder to get. Fewer meth labs means more than just less illegal drug production. In 2003, 3,663 children were reported exposed to toxic meth labs nationwide--but so far this year, the number of exposed children is only 319.
This is a common-sense bill, designed to strengthen the implementation of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. This bill would create incentives to ensure that the self-certification process of the law is made both effective and enforceable. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Source: Combat Methamphetamine Enhancement Act (S.2071) 2007-S2071 on Sep 19, 2007

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Drugs.htm

We can't run on the OBVIOUS WINNER OF AN ANTI-NEPOTISM position if a Clinton runs. Whats next Michelle Obama vs Marvin Bush? Neil can't run because of his S&L conviction. And Marvin flubbed anyway as his company was in charge of security at WTC on 911 which makes him look more incompetent than his idiot-king brother. We need fresh blood to win. You obviously will never part with Hillary but which is more important...your allegiance to her or winning? She will lose. Obama blew his chances as far as independents are concerned for playing around in the middle and accomplishing only safe things which is ironic I know because he thought he was playing to them. But people want a fighter not a footsie rubber.

She is the ONLY candidate that polls higher than Jeb Bush....


deny louder!

They are two wings of the same bird. The fact is if Jeb runs they will manipulate something to guarantee his winning... Maybe fraud but more probably an event. We are already screwed. That family has been in charge the whole time in my opinion. Bill and Barack have bent over backwards for them. I wish Obama would release the 28 pages redacted in the 911 Commission Report regarding the Saudis like he promised. That would be the end if the Bushes forever. Why don't you take up that cause instead of shilling for the Clinton. We need someone not in the club to inspire Americans. I believe Jeb and Hillary would govern the same...on foreign policy it would be EXACTLY the same.

NONE! Pure and simple false conjecture and speculation

I can show YOU PLENTY of proof that she won't....Do you want to see it?

You have no proof Hillary will win. You quote polls. I have no proof either but plenty of supporting evidence which you never responded to before. The fact is both families have been quoted in one way or another as saying they are one family and as close as a human can possibly get. If that's your idea of democracy or a future for us then I don't know what else to say to you but wow what planet do you live on?

and you have squat!

The Bushes and Clintons are not connected by ideology....

they ARE all in a small group of people who HAVE lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.....and THAT is what they are connected on!


If you think there are no friendships between members of the Right and Left in political seats in Washington....you are SADLY mistaken and incredibly naive...

Check out the links you never responded to months ago. And no it's not just a formality friendship. They are close like "family". Bill is referred to as Bush's 5th son publicly and they are beyond friends. That's a problem. You're verrrrrry naive not me.

NOOO You are the naive one....either naive or dishonest....you be the judge.

MY god...it not like they don't have ANYTHING in common....good grief...those that lived at THAT address are a VERY small circle.

Naive is thinking that politicians are at war with each other until the bitter end.

But the Bush family us a very special exception. I know people who have spent time with them and it just reinforced my belief that they are evil. And being soooo close to them like the Clintons are is beyond suspect. I do not trust them. I believe you are very foolish to do so. I don't see Jimmy Carter even talking to the Bushes. He knows better. Everything you say is completely backwards in my opinion. But go ahead...yell and scream and throw tantrums defending the indefensible. Real good use of your time.

this is THE most ridiculous attack method ever......

And by the way....HILLARY is not the one hanging out with the Bushes....that would be Bill. who IS a Centrist. Hillary is NOT! Trying to claim they are one and the same is misogynist pure and simple.

And here might be your explanation...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/05/george-h-w-bush-on-bonding-with-bill-clinton/

(pssst....they disagree on issues....but HW respects his mind)

You had to dig deep to cry wolf on that one. What a joke you are.

what a Joke YOU are....

HIllary and Bill Clinton lead very different lives......they are NOT the same person.

Hillary is NOT hanging out with Barbara...

Here is HW explaining his relationship with BILL...(not Hillary)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/05/george-h-w-bush-on-bonding-with-bill-clinton/


psssst...it has to do with Bill showing him respect....and he admires his mind...PLUS they have done charitable work together....HW even says they don't agree on issues.

YOU are using whom BILL Clinton chooses to be friends with to smear his wife Hillary Clinton....who has a career and life of her own. To smear her because YOU don't like who her husband chooses to be friends with IS misogynist!

way to weasel out of that one...if I tried to make such a claim I would want to hide too...

Ok. Let's just say this...Hillary Goldman-Sachs. And no I don't think Hillary is the same as Bill much like I know GW isn't the same person as Jeb. But they serve the same people.

Neither of them are one Hillary Clinton! And this is NOT about them...neither of them are running.

Bills friendships are not necessarily the same as Hillary's....you can put that in your pipe and smoke it. They are two different people....they have separate careers.

"There to present Clinton with the honor was George H. W. Bush's son, Jeb Bush, who also serves as Chairman Of The National Constitution Center's Board Of Trustees. With the Clinton-Bush air in full force, Hillary added that George and Bill take "annual play-dates," growing so close that former First Lady Barbara Bush sometimes refers to Bill as her "adopted son," the Hill reported.

"Jeb and I are not just renewing an American tradition of bipartisanship," Hillary Clinton said, according to the AP. "We're keeping up a family tradition as well."

do with Hillary Clinton....as IF that relationship means something about HER....THAT is misogyny! NO way around that....

Misogyny? You really do hit below the belt. You're beyond ridiculous. Those families are close. Hillary is part if that family last time I checked. Just because they constantly point out how close Bill is to Bush and used the word "family" tradition doesn't mean Hillary isn't there too being involved in the mechanics of that relationship. You assuming that she isn't really makes you more misogynistic than me. Seeing how you endlessly provoke people on DU should make me just ignore you...your attacks and ignorance really make me sick and ashamed to be in the same room as you.

He is her husband not her conjoined twin.....this is not the 1960's anymore!

there is no connection calling Hillary Clinton a "daughter of the Bushes" in any way shape or form. You have nothing showing Hillary having anything to do with the Bush family....STILL you thought it pertinent to attach her to them through her husband's friendship with the elder Bush (even though I showed you a quote that H.W. said they don't agree on issues)....so yeah

and you should feel sick and ashamed....of yourself!

I'm sure she has no idea what her husband is up to and you are claiming she's not involved politically in the same way? No one buys that. Maybe some fool who thought Bush Sr had nothing to do with his son since they are "separate people". Are you going to suggest next that Jeb Bush isn't exactly politically entwined as his father and brother...and not with the exact same people? I know people at that level on both sides and one thing they always say is you see the same players at the same places. You live in fairy-tale land. Jeb Bush vs Hillary Clinton will be the worst election in modern day America. They are two wings of the same bird.

How do you like your Bush lover now? Disillusioned yet?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/12/05/george-w-bush-hillary-clinton-is-like-my-sister-in-law/

He also believes God talks to him directly and he paints pictures of himself in the bathtub.....

This is the guy you want for your source?

I get that Hillary and her husband are different people. I'll pretend you didn't really call me a misogynist for suggesting she is close with the Bushes because Bill is considered family by them and maybe I just pissed you off too much. I am interested as to why you take your position but this looks extremely bad to me. The Bushes are very clever. Bush Sr portrayed himself as a moderate and a wimp so people wouldn't question his actions which were radical and strongarmed war like. GW portrayed himself as a Christian and an idiot so people wouldn't question his actions which were the opposite of compassionate while avoiding and deflecting responsibility because, hey, he's just a bumbling fool. I do not trust anyone who works with or is close to that family.

I don't see the problem....do you always listen to what George W Bush says? You know he thinks God speaks directly TO him right....I don't mean allegorically.....he means LITERALLY....

Is THIS who you are taking the word of these days? Do you think he has become MORE trustworthy and found the sandwich his picnic was short of?

Can you even read? Does your brain work? I didn't suggest anything that you claim. I'm beginning to think what I originally did. That you are just here to disrupt and cause headaches. I listen to George Bush? My point was that Hillary and her husband are too close to the Bushes. My point was that I don't believe what either Bush says ever. I think he's lying when he says he listens to God. I don't even believe he's an actual Christian and it's just for show. You on the other hand just stated that you listen to him by believing what he said. Go post another 100 responses in one thread cuz I will be totally ignoring you now like countless others have and tried to persuade me to do the same.

its as simple as that....

And YOU have no proof that Hillary is his BFF like her husband is EXCEPT some bullshit GWB said...

UNLESS of course you are misogynist and believe that Hillary can only have the same friends Bill does? I am sure that is not the case though, right? ......right????

You do understand that people in Washington...go to dinner even with people they do not agree with politically right?....you understand that right???? Please tell us that you do know that...

You seem to be after me on every thread that I post in. Maybe we should try to be friends?

if you are not committed to vote for whomever wins the Primary...EVEN Hillary Clinton....then you are no friend of mine!

Bernie will run as a Democrat. He has said as much and I will support him.

I think there is only one thing you are here to do.

Only those who are supportive of the Party elections...are truly Democrat.

Bernie is not so far a Democrat...and even if he were....he still doesn't poll ahead of all Republicans...nor will he.

Wow, maybe I should be terrified.

perhaps you are just a tad paranoid.

the candidate that SUPPORTS Hillary Clinton and has said multiple times she is not running?

Who may still be persuaded to run. We can hope, even wealthy donors are putting pressure on her.

answer...No she doesn't....and she is STILL polling in single digits...

enough to know that last thing we need at this time is another President for the banks and the 1%. She will lose, just like when she was so far ahead in the polls the last time she ran. Then Barack Obama won. Her poll numbers don't mean shit, your poll numbers don't fucking mean shit.

It will be interesting to see if the former Republicans stick together.

sorry that disappoints you....perhaps this will cheer you up...

Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's unrestricted right
(+5 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 2:
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(+5 points on Social scale)

No opinion on topic 4:
Keep God in the public sphere
(0 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 5:
Expand ObamaCare
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Vouchers for school choice
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 8:
No 'rights' to clean air and water
(+5 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 9:
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 11:
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 12:
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(+2 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 14:
Maintain US sovereignty from UN
(-3 points on Economic scale)

No opinion on topic 15:
Expand the military
(0 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 16:
More enforcement of the right to vote
(+5 points on Social scale)

Favors topic 17:
Stay out of Iran
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 18:
Prioritize green energy
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 19:
Never legalize marijuana
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 20:
Stimulus better than market-led recovery
(-5 points on Economic scale)

To paraphrase a one-term Republican president who we beat mainly by promising comprehensive healthcare:

"Message:Back Off!"

Message...I am a Democrat...

As someone who has been actually bullied.....this is not it!

"a fucking used car salesman" seems to come to my mind at this moment!

What do you think of Democrats Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller who both spoke at Republican conventions?



And while it is true you can post anything you want... within the TOS...

Ya might not wanna look like a stalker to other DUers.

Just sayin.

Somehow I don't think you ever said that all the anti-progressive Dems who endorsed Nixon and Reagan and then founded the DLC(Democrats for the Leisure Class).

You're the sort that say the "party elections" should obey the DLC/Third Way/Blue Dogs.

by definition...if you are not supporting the Democrat...you are a Democrat-leaning Independent...

You're not the Cosmic Arbiter of Loyalty.

And it's just as loyal to the Dems to support someone who caucuses with the Dems and would only run in the Dem primaries as a Dem as it is to back HRC, the most hawkish(and thus right-wing, since a hawkish foreign policy means you can't do much of anything progressive domestically, as the last six years have proven)candidate in the race.

BTW...HRC's support will collapse once they drag out all the Nineties scandals again...and they WILL drag them all. We'll be hearing about Vince Foster and the Buddhist Temple and the stained blue dress and if it worked the first time it will all work again.

Head-to-head polls now tell us nothing.

If you really want to help HRC, STOP BROWBEATING PEOPLE! It's annoying, it's childish and it does your candidate nothing but harm.

a Democratic Election called the Primary.....then they are NOT! That is how Democracy works! You don't always get YOUR personal favorite...

That would be like saying that a Republican President is not YOUR'S and OUR President.....

At some point.....this will be "rule" on DU during the election.....

Party first is all that matters to some.
We need to fix the party not keep capitulating to the right.

Do you think this forum is not about fixing the party? You seem to espouse (at every post) that it is party first. It is based on a principle that the Democratic party is (was) the party of the people. It is our job, as Democrats, to return our party to that platform. Not to act as lemmings and vote party first. We must make our party representative of the people it represents.

its actually IN the Mission statement...Some Democrats are even IN Red States....imagine that!

We all know how that ended up...people don't want centrist wishy washy sell-outs. And I personally do not care what the hell poll someone is claiming now and demanding allegiance. They are just alienating people here and are a real turn off.

what we need as a President. A centrist is going to continue with the status quo, last thing we need. As for the people demanding allegiance? Fuck em, I don't owe anyone my vote.

And I think you're missing the point of the OP...HRC was supposedly inevitable last time...people like you were basically saying we shouldn't even have them(and that states who had them early in violation of party rules should get away with sending full delegations to the convention even though those results were legitimate due to every candidate OTHER than yours following party rules and not campaigning in those primaries).

What the OP is saying is the there really isn't any such thing as inevitability, and that NO ONE has the right to demand that the party just accept THEIR preferred nominee right now, without any real contest.

HRC is just another candidate. She knows that. You need to accept it to, if for no other reason than your own mental health.

not one....by definition. IN fact during the election season....DU will enforce that rule here too...

They just lock those threads, however...they don't demonize people as "Independents&quot which you kind of use in the same sense that HUAC used the phrase "known Communists&quot .

Why is it so important to you to accuse people of disloyalty(in truth, in any fall campaign, it will pretty much just be people on the left of the party doing the actual shitwork of going door-to-door and getting Dems elected(even when the Dem candidates in question have spent the whole fall campaign shitting on everything progressives stand for, as all the Senate losers did this fall when they ran their "I hate n___rs too" campaigns-which, let's face it, are exactly the campaigns that Pryor, Grimes, Nunn and Hagan ran and lost badly running)? Every time you do that, you build up resentment here against your candidate...and you nurse the "she's thinks she's just entitled to it" meme, and and you create hostility that you have no reason or need to create.

There are bad things about your candidate, and there are good things. You would do much more good for her if you stuck emphasizing the good things-and make it clear that you'll hold her feet to the fire not to back away from those good things, as Bill and McAuliffe and all the Nineties types will be pushing her to back away from them, and by treating the progressive DEMOCRATS(as almost all of us are here at DU)with respect.

Screaming "you HAVE to! you HAVE to! you HAVE to!" strips you of your dignity and makes you sound like the world's oldest two year-old. Please stop. It doesn't work and it's wearing really really thin.

I think HRC herself, if she ever read your posts, would say the same thing. There's no possible way she could think you were helping her here.

If you are NOT committed to voting for whom WE ELECT in a primary.....you have just become Independent by definition ....we cannot "depend" on your vote for us....therefore...I can label you Independent....because its true. There are Democratic voters who are "Independents who lean left". Apparently some are in denial about their being one of them.

In other words....Vote for who I say....or I will take my ball and go home (aka not vote). That is at the very least a "Fair Weather Democrat" ....but I like to call them what they really are...Independent.

I will let Bill Maher say it for me....

...if, by some long shot chance, they actually end up being the democratic nominee, yes?

Why then all the vitriol for those who hope it might happen? Is it simply because you feel Hillary is the better candidate?