Who Gets It? Hillary

Mrs. Clinton has helped turn the debate around by emerging as both pro-choice and anti-abortion ...(with an approval rating in the state of 69 percent...negative ratings have tumbled to 21 percent)....it's just the right time for Democrats to be fretting about how to reconnect to the heartland, and they can't find a better model for how to do that than Mrs. Clinton..

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/opinion/16kris.html?

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Who Gets It? Hillary
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF


If the Democratic Party wants to figure out how to win national elections again, it has an unexpected guide: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Senator Clinton, much more than most in her party, understands how the national Democratic Party needs to rebrand itself. She gets it - perhaps that's what 17 years in socially conservative Arkansas does to you.
<snip>
Then there's abortion. Mrs. Clinton took a hugely important step in January when she sought common ground and described abortion as a "sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."

The Democratic Party commits seppuku in the heartland by coming across as indifferent to people's doubts about abortions or even as pro-abortion. A Times poll in January found that 61 percent of Americans favor tighter restrictions on abortion, or even a ban, while only 36 percent agree with the Democratic Party position backing current abortion law. <snip>

The majority of Americans used to believe in slavery too. That didn't make it right! And I also think he is pulling his numbers out of his butt!

I don't think any of her stands were wrong, like slavery was wrong. Saying, for example, that abortion is a tough choice for women isn't wrong. It's simply recognizing how women feel about being in the position of having to make a choice, not advocating an end to the choice. It is a form of recognizing reality.

medical decisions or they don't. Med don't have "middle ground " or government intervention if they decide to have a vasectomy!
I am disgusted by how many women are willing to "compromise "their rights over their own body! They forget how many women before them fought and died for this right.
The "reality" is that if we give up any part of our "right to choose" and compromise it, we are saying we are "second class citizens" whose rights are secondary to that of a fetus.
I refuse to have someone else's definition of "life" dictate my medical decision. This is a private matter.And the only restrictions should be placed by the mother herself and her physician!

This is half the problem. Clinton, and any other democratic leader, can't do anything except declare absolutes on the "real issues". Clinton wasn't and probably wouldn't disagree with anything you said. All she did was recognize that it's a difficult and tragic choice for many women--not deny that it was her choice.

It's a humane statement with the policy implication that Democrats embraced under Bill Clinton--that the government should expand women's choices by education and contraception and material support of children.

I think that the only way a democrat will really be accepted here is if she shows an intent to lose every election ever. That way, we don't have to worry that she will water down a single issue for the sake of losing votes. Nader, anyone? After all, he's the perfect candidate--no chance he will ever see the value of winning votes.

guilt about having excercised what was just a "'choice " to them? What about women who don't want to be mothers? And what about those who want this to be viewed a just a "medical procedure?" Do you think men view a vasectomy as a "difficult and tragic" choice? A hysterectomy could be considered a "difficult and tragic" choice too, yet the government is getting involved. Yet. This "difficult and tragic" emphasis, creates shame and a sense of wrong associated with "choice".

it is simply the truth. But your problem isn't the truth: your problem is that Clinton didn't sufficiently pander to the minority, demanding that she reaffirm her prochoice stand by declaring that viewing abortion as equivalent to a vasectomy is also legitimate, and moreoever, declare that nobody who has an abortion should have a sense of wrong.

I guess I don't know who you think you are punishing, by taking a person whose prochoice bona fides is pretty much unquestioned--even you don't pretend that she is going to be anything but prochoice--and demand that she pander to the minority to the exclusion of the majority for no better reason than to have your specific stands aired. "What about those for whom a hysterectomy could be considered a difficult and tragic choice?" Who do you think is helped by that sort of rhetorical question? What ABOUT them?

You think you are putting Clinton on the spot, but in reality her decision is very simple: choosing between articulating moderate, normal positions that she actually believes or trying to convince you that she will never go back on choice by constantly articulating the most extreme ideological positions. She'll not get your vote, and she'll either win anyway, or she'll lose, and a prolife republican will be elected instead. Either way, it's another democratic issue blown to bits.

"woman's" issue! And neither party should have a claim on it. Many republican woman are pro-choice and they need someone to vote for as well. You say her "bonfides are established" , or unquestioned? By whom? I think she would sell out her grandmother to get a vote and some people would agree that that was just dandy!
And my question wasn't merely rhetorical. All those issues from vasectomies to hysterectomies are reproductive rights issues.
And would you care to define"normal" on this position? I don't happen to believe she is articulating a normal position. She isn't really articulating a position at all. She is merely mumbling sympathy for those that have had abortions. That is fine but she is trying to reach across and establish middle ground where there is none to be had. I and many others don't want" partial reproductive rights" and that is where this argument is taking us.
I am a woman and an equal sentient being before I am a Democrat or anything else. And I won't cede one iota of my rights to a fetus, nor will I cede any of my rights to get ANYONE elected!

None. Nobody is asking you to change a thing. Clinton's position isn't different from yoursp--except that you demand that she go off on rhetorical tangents in order to prove her bona fides--because you think she is a sellout.

Of course, she will never satisfy you. She couldn't. Anyone who sees mumbling sympathy--to those who have the safe, legal abortions, not the fetus--as a preparation to sell out will see potential treachery in anyone except those who show no interest in gaining a majority of votes.

Now re-read Kristoff's article, and try to understand why I see his point. Clinton's real offense to you is that she isn't sticking her finger in the eye of people who don't take your precise attitude. Not position, because I believe that the majority of Americans believe that abortions should be safe and legal, but the whole attitude that rules out even acknowledging that women would like to have fewer abortions, personally and as a whole.

aren't ceding rights?

Isn't it funny how merely asking a question becomes an indictment? Because you imply that clinton has taken some sort of contrary stand on these matters.

The only way for her to win with you is to append to every speech a dollop of rhetorical extremes, because she needs to prove herself to you constantly, while avoiding any statement that a moderate would agree with, to prove that she won't do anything to win votes.

I'm not sure what that gets you, except the fun of watching Clinton rile up a bunch of people you don't like for six years before losing her senate seat.

I don't know where she stands, but as far as parental notification goes:

"On January 24, 2004, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), regarded by many as a likely 2008 presidential contender, surprised reporters by saying, "I supported parental notification with a judicial bypass."

New York Times

This is chipping away at abortion rights bit by bit!
Isn't it funny that many of her defenders DON"T know what she has stated regarding these issues?

on the prochoice side, just so you know where I stand. Most women I knew who had abortions did not consider it a tragedy, but I remember that one did after her abortion. So I can understand how women can feel that their abortion was a tragedy (altho many of them might say it was nonetheless what they had to do). This does not negate the feelings of other women that abortion is not a tragedy. What it says is that women are moral beings and that reinforces, to me, their right to choose.

We are losing this debate nationally. Our founding mothers are literally dying out as are the doctors who saw women dying of illegal abortions in this country's Emergency Rooms. What Hillary did was acknowledge that some women feel that abortion is a tragedy, but she then moved to talk about the need for more access to and more effective contraception. I do not believe that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would nominate antichoice federal judges or have an antichoice HHS Secretary, or an Attorney General that runs around seeking women's medical histories, or rewrite foreign policy that denies poor women all over the world access to life saving abortions.

The bottom line is: we have got to get ourselves elected again if we are to save choice.

Don't worry. There are many of the same types of women around who will refuse to compromise. There will be women who have a stong sense of self. The others are sheep, wimps, traitors and totally committed to the notion that women are to be subjugated, surrender their body to the state, because--well because their religion tells them that and they buy it out of fear--fear of a hell, fear of their own power, fear of men--whatever, they buy it. They are all in the cult of the right winged fascist fanatics.

That's fine if that is their choice if they would keep to themself, but I am saying that with the push to force other women to comply with that that, imo, they are totally immoral, cowardly women that would put their own sex into harms way in order to belong to the cult of the "pro-life" circus.

I may not see it in my lifetime, but have confidence that they will be there,-- those brave, those intelligent, those incredible women.

used to describe the other sides position.

She didn't say that she would take away that choice; she merely acknowledged the truth of the matter. God forbid a politician be honest about tough issues.

To win , all we have to do is become Republicans!!

:o

It is sure to help people in the center of the country understand that the Democratic Party is not the Godless group that the mainstream media is making us out to be. There is nothing incompatible with Progressive ideas and Christianity. The sooner that miscnception is cleared up, the better.

Words can not describe how much I regret ever supporting Hillary Clinton. She's a true "Republocrat" if ever I've seen one.

She's bound to pick up more votes than she'll lose.

will NOT vote for anyone with this stance. We need a choice between parties in order to win!

People who vote or people who don't vote?
There are way too many Godless proponents out there and it's not a winning strategy. Look at the record.

They don't vote because they don't see a difference so they don't bother. If they voted they would likely vote Dem. That is what research has indicated! I remember that the big issue in 2000 was that people didn't like either Bush or Gore because many claimed they couldn't see a difference. This was in large part to the compassionate conservative BS. And Bush lying about foreign policy.

However, I'd rather go with something that has a proven track record. And Hillary is playing it very smart.

elections and the control of both houses of congress! She is merely spouting DLC talking points. What worked for Bill Clinton in 1992 won't work in 2008 anymore than it worked in 2000 and 2002! Even Clinton agrees that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity!

Hillary is a woman, a senator, Bill's wife, a methodist, and a whole bunch of other things.

It's all politically important. Maybe you don't think all those factors should be important, but Clinton--as a politician--isn't going to declare parts of her personality or life off limits merely because they aren't government. Unless, of course, she wants to lose.

of our government. Period. End of story. You take your faith to your Church, and I'll take my religious belief to mine. KEEP IT ALL OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT. Damn, I am adamant about NOT mixing the two.

Hillary is like a female PT Barnum, i.e., a parasitic opportunist who will go with the current trends. She's a great disappointment IMHO to our gender.

If we are Christian, it affects all we do, it's part of our personality, our core beliefs. I derive my caring for others from my belief in God: That by serving others, I help society. Obviously, there are several elements of my belief that I keep private.

You know, it may sound glib, but if they had this distinction during biblical times, Jesus may not have been crucified. Whoa! Yes, SEPARATION of church and state should always be thoughtfully adhered to ... as our ancestors intended.

On edit: This conveys my sentiments best:

Jesus lived in troubled times
the religious right was on the rise
Oh what could have saved him from his terrible fate?
Separation of church and state.

So let's all sing out praises to....
That long-haired radical socialist Jew.

by Hugh Blumenfeld

exercise it in the course of your public office. Frankly, I am offended by any expressions of any individual faith. I don't need to be ministered by someone else's beliefs. they keep it to themselves, and if they can't , don't run for office.
The Europeans have long since grown up, moved forward and realized that religion has no place in politics. We seem to be going backward!

it's good politics for candidates to admit their belief in God. That does not mean that they should try to enact their religious views into law. And I'm sure Hillary will not use her faith to further a Christian agenda.

We have to trust her.

sides of her moth. We shouldn't trust her at all. Look at how Bill has sold out recently!

Knowing that Hillary is a methodist is no different than knowing that she is from Park Ridge, or knowing that you are a devout churchgoing catholic. You wouldn't have dropped that unless you felt it explained something about your thought processes. Politicians feel the same way. Doesn't make it government.

Of course, to a certain extent it appeals to tribalism--but a certain amount of trust comes from knowing the background of the candidate and making a connection. Each time a candidate arrives in an area on a campaign trip he announces his connection to the locality, even if it is merely his previous campaign. He wears the baseball cap, eats the local delicacy, gets his picture taken with the local politician, and goes to the local landmark. Otherwise, the candidate is a stranger. But I would suggest that just knowing that a person HAS a history is comforting. Nothing was weirder than GHWB having a permanent residence in a hotel room.

with this stance. She would be better to say nothing. But if she wants to represent the Republicans, she should run as one! What did Bush do to pander to us? Why should we pander to them?

She can't win. If can't say or do anything that can please the majority, just because.

I don't see any pandering. I don't see mixing church and state. I don't see her taking any wrong side of any real issues. But you declare that she is representing republicans.

This isn't even to the level of pitching purity vs. politics, becaue Clinton didn't say or do anything "impure". I really get the feeling that you need a candidate who is going to stick her finger in the majority's eye. That's your personal thing. It's got nothing to do with politics.

79 Million eligible voter didn't vote because they don't think there was a difference between parties. And there are more registered Dems than Republicans. She sounds like Bill. And he did pander to the Repukes. He tried to compromise and it didn't work. Even his economic plan had to pass without one Republican vote. This is a very slippery slope. It also smacks of being indecisive. You can't have things two ways. That was a lesson Kerry learned. This is not about "purity" This is about taking sides. One has to take definitive stands in order to win. Either way, some aren't going to vote for her, but a stand needs to be taken.

Clinton has chosen a side on abortion. There isn't any doubt about who is going to select anti abortion judges, is there?

When you say "choose sides", you are not talking about abortion but about really, really specfic attitudes; its about being against people. You don't want Clinton to say something that a moderate would like. Why? Because it's moderate, or because you don't like the people who are moderate?

When you say "smacks of being indecisive", it is only because you are requiring Clinton to take extreme positions--or at least avoid moderate ones--to reaffirm what we all know to be the fact she is proabortion. Nobody should have to engage in rhetorical excess, or avoid rhetorical moderation, to keep reassuring you. After all, your insecurity on abortion rights comes from the fact that the republcans win, not because Clinton might.

And finally, Clinton did win, and he won a lot, sometimes by compromising, sometimes not. Let me ask you this: since Hillary's rhetoric is EXACTLY THE SAME on abortion as Bill's and Al Gore's, did you vote for the latter two? Do you feel that abortion rights are safer or less safe with Bill out and Bush in? So what are you trying to accomplish by declaring, in effect, you would rather have Bush than Bill?

agree that Clinton accomplished a lot for them. He also compromised peoples rights. And it didn't work. The best things he accomplished he had to do without Republican support. I don't think we win by being "moderate" . "Moderate" means wishy washy. That beat Kerry over the head with that. And he really didn't "flip flop". How many elections do we need to lose before we acknowledge that? I voted for both those candidates, but abortion wasn't as endangered as it now is.
What I would fight to accomplish to have a more differentiated candidate than Hillary. We need to have a choice.
We need to forget about those "undecided and swing voter, because, guess what? They didn't exist! We need to concentrate on getting all the Democratic and Democratic voters to vote and we will win in a landslide. But we must give them something to go out and vote for!

The exercise shows just how bereft your strategy is. You take two issues, pretend like all gays and welfare receipients are single issue, extremist voters, and decide that they too would simply ignore all the good that comes from having a democratic president--yes, even a moderate democratic president--and punish him.

Gays, welfare mothers, trade unions, and on and on would all vote for Clinton again, already having done so twice. He won by being moderate and by delivering.

Going back to abortion, once again, there isn't any evidence to your accusation that Clinton is "wishy washy" on abortion rights, except her failure to articulate extremist rhetoric in order to reassure you. Yeah, she left out a discussion of vasectomies. Yes, she acknowledged that many women would like to avoid having to make the legally guaranteed choice. Aside from the fact that most people agree, what's wrong with that?

There is plenty of differentation between the parties on abortion--as different as on and off, night and day, in prison and out--- but thanks to this sort of endless gauntlet our candidates have to run, the public doesn't know it. Now, Clinton is practically pro life, to hear you tell it, and pandering to the majority--confirming she is bad and pro life is the majority, and that republican and democrats are about the same. That's a good days' work--for a republican operative. Where's it get you?

Clinton again after Nafta. Over 40% of union members are now voting repug as a result of that little decision. The Republicans gained a lot of gaty support as the result of "don't ask don't tell". and many welfare recipiants aren't voting anymore. I am not singling out Clinton. Any moderate who takes that position is wishy washy. Moderates don't win. They haven't won since 1992 and that was only due to the fact that we had a candidate who could sell ice to Eskimos!
If you read my posts , I do not think that the moderates are the majority so I could hardly accuse her of pandering to the majority.
And I don't think she is pro life, but I think she would be more than willing to compromise our rights away in order to get elected.

Because his wishy washy, Nafta ized, budget balancing, welfare reforming self creamed Bob Dole, didn't it?

It seems that in fact, Clinton won because he was a moderate, not despite of it. Smart, articulate people don't win elections unless their stands on the issues are right. Otherwise, Noam Chomsky would be president.

I see you don't answer whether you voted for Clinton or not.

candidate with more integrity. I liked Clinton. But I think it was more important to him to be President than to ensure that rights were upheld. Unfortunately, Bill was a charamatic devil whose main interest was in himself. And Clinton won despite being a moderate. And the political climate was far different then. You must really like the DLC. We will have to agree to differ.

Especially a charismatic man everyone wanted to like! This is the man people liked even better after his impeachment! Please. This is like saying Monica was attracted to his health care policies!

and your 70 million eligible voters weren't brought out by ACT activists in the 2004 election. Please see my earlier posts. Bill Clinton did a lot to further choice. WE got a long way with Bill Clinton and we would with Hillary too. Please folks, let's look at reality. WE ARE LOSING ELECTIONS!

Hello? Anybody out there? We must get elected to protect choice. Period.

We are losing because we don't offer a choice! Harry Truman, who did win, and had coattails said "when voteres are given a choice between a Republican and a Republican, they will choose the Republican every time." There is no point in voting for the carbon copy if you can have the original! The centrists have not won a major election since 1992. And Clinton didn't win because he was a centrist in 1996. He won because he was Clinton. Hillary is NOT her husband, and she doesn't have his appeal.

> and she doesn't have his appeal.

That would seem to be the whole point of this "image makeover" -- to become more superficially appealing to the middle.

Bill lost the congress because of an overly aggressive first two years and a few glaring blunders that gave republicans that opening. The 2nd term Bill didn't make those political mistakes but the damage had already been done. Monica neutralized any hopes of gaining lost ground back.

Bill lost congress because he actually thought he could work with the bastids. And he lost Congress before the Monica debacle. He was actually MORE popular inside and outside of DC after the Monica incident. Go figure!

represent the republicans? Nothing.

But saying it certainly tells methodists something. It tells that that you not only don't want them in the party, but that if they want their views represented, or just want to mention their religion, the republicans are for them. Be sure to let John Kerry, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, know that they belong in the party of Reagan, who never went to church on Sunday.

Of course, we are well aware that people of faith include all poltical stands, so there isn't any reason for your disrepecting and disinviting them except bigotry.

She reinforced her belief that contraceptive availability should be strengthened. She talked about abortion as a tragedy for many women but did not say that those women would not have chosen abortion anyway, given their circumstance.

Most importantly, she talked about abstinence in the context of all medically accurate information in a comprehensive sex education program, that which is promoted by Planned Parenthood. In case you don't know, Planned Parenthood for many years has had abstinence in their curriculum of sex ed. along with other contraceptive information, including such information as decision making, making wise choices in life for adolescents. So when Hillary starts talking about abstinence in this regard she is in perfect harmony with Planned Parenthood! How can you be against that?

When you look at what Bill Clinton did for contraceptive choices when he appointed David Kesler (sp?) the head of the FDA, we now have Emergency Contraception as a stand-alone drug on the market, altho Bush has prevented it from going over the counter. Kesler really moved this issue proactively, contacting drug companies and offering them smooth passage if they developed this product. This was a boon to women and Clinton did it!

Please folks, lets not be bogged down in our perfect ideology on this issue. We cannot save choice by losing elections, only by saving them. Think about it!

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.


Thank you.


DU Moderator

:-(

Mrs. Clinton is also hard to dismiss as a screechy obstructionist because she's gone out of her way to be collegial in the Senate and to work with Republicans from Trent Lott to Sam Brownback.... Perhaps it's that, according to New York magazine, she surprises other senators by popping up during meetings and asking: Anybody want a coffee?

DeLay uses any method, no matter how unethical to shut out the Democrats in the House, Karl Rove is on record as saying his main goal is the elimination of the Democratic party, and a good many of Clinton's colleagues in Congress devoted eight years of their careers to charging her and her husband of rape, murder, treason and homosexuality. And Kristof says, serve them coffee.

I can't help but think the only way we'll reach the heartland is if we figure out what on Earth is motivating smart, intelligent people like Kristof to persist with this rediculous double standard that says we and we alone should speak only when spoken to, and should overlook any vice by the other side.

Democrats are usually more comfortable talking about sex than God. But that doesn't work in a country where 70 percent say that "presidents should have strong religious beliefs."


???? WTF ????

I would love to have a president that operates 100% on common sense, as dictated by the constitution, and love for fellow men/women/children no matter what country they live in.

What a fucking revolutionary idea!!

<snip>Mrs. Clinton took a hugely important step in January when she sought common ground and described abortion as a "sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."<snip>

I hate to be so blunt, but let's be honest here. For some women it's a relief. Do we want to go down this path? Is this the "debate" she wants to start? So all she has accomplished by her statement is to polarize and politicize this issue even further. And she seems to have forgotten a very basic concept. The body does not control the woman; it is the woman who controls her body.

BTW, thank you Saracat, for putting my thoughts into words so much more eloquently than I could have.

if seeking common ground with Rep. is the way to do it, you go Girl! I said it before, nobody hates Rep. more than Clintons because they were the target of their vicious attacks for so long. We need give Clinton credit for staying gracious. I would have shot Ken Starr if I were Bill. Next time if I see pro-choice as a theme at the Democratic Convention, I'll know we lost already. I hope our next nominee won't make the same mistake Kerry made.

revenge! Frankly, listening to what both have been saying lately, I have lost all respect for both of them. Bill has been actively criticizing Democrats and cushioning up to the Bushes, and it wasn't only this Tsunami relief. That was understandable. He started before the election. He said shrub was doing a good job, and he respected him. He said he "liked " George Bush, he was a "good man". And recently, "George won "fair and Square" and was "entitled" to whatever kind of Inaugural he wanted!" regardless of the cost! Please. Bill told the Dems to "stop whining" about the stolen election.
Hillary hasn't even gotten any of the money promised to NY for 9-11 delivered. Now she wants to reach out to pro-lifers! The Clinton's are exceptionally self serving people. I am sorry that some feel they and their revenge are more important than woman's rights!

if elected. Nor would Bush. He could care less about abortions. He just used fundies.

if anyone really thinks Hillary buys any of that stuff, they're nuts. She's being a pragmatic politician and doing what it takes to scrape up a few more votes in the red states.

She isn't pitching democrats here, she's pitching the middle because that's where the volatility in the electorate is.

Any democrat who wants the presidency had better sound a lot like Hillary does now, or its going to be another disaster in 08'.

She's smart - she know a "public image makeover" doesn't happen overnight. Its something that takes several years. The pols who try one during election year campaigning will appear fake. She's faking it, but trying to make it not seem that way.

:-)

There is NO reason to believe that she wouldn't compromise any of our rights as well. Bill did the same thing. They will make whatever compromises necessary to ensure personal power and that doesn't bode well for us! If someone who doesn't represent us gets elected, what is the point of that? Actually, Bill was far more liberal than Hillary and he was a moderate!

alleged "compromise" and the "Welfare Reform Act" was a compromise that "sold out" a lot of the poor!He also "sold out Labor with NAFTA!

for the majority of Americans. Welfare reform was necessary. I am not an economist to have any judgement about NAFTA.

Clinton stayed in the Dem. tradition when he worked to have the Family Leave Act passed which has benefited many many American families including mine. Bill and Hillary did try very hard to get every American health insurance. I can not think of anything Clinton did that was not for the good of this country.

pointed out. The Gay issue isn't minor for Gay Americans, nor was it minor to Clinton when he sought their support. Clinton is loyal until he feels it is expedient not to be.That is why he told Kerry to throw gay rights overboard, and Kerry told him to stick it where the sun don't shine. NAFTA caused the outsourcing of jobs so that companies could expand both their cheap labor and international presence. My husband lost his job due to NAFTA. And Welfare didn't need to be reformed in the manner it was. Many mothers ended up making far less money working and the childhood poverty rate went up. Clinton did a good many things for this country .His economic policy was the centerpiece of his administration and he did try and almost did bring peace to the ME. But much of what he did was in his own self interest with a view toward his legacy.And then he f**cked it up with Monica. That little incident hurt this country more than all the good things he did. He let himself be trapped by his own weakness.And we, the country and the Democratic Party have been paying for it ever since.

What he did with Monica is his personal business. Only Hillary should be mad at him. I would rather that Bush f'ck with Condi and f'ck with our country. Nobody was hurt by his affairs except Hillary. Compared with Bush who started a war with lies, Bill Clinton is almost a Saint.

further, I agree with Bill that it wasn't sex! I stand my ground on the other issues.And Bill is no saint.And BTW , I am not only not a Republican, but I know I am further to the left than Bill and certainly more than Hillary. I'll bet I'm farther left than you! :)
If anyone is a candidate for sainthood in politics, I am going to nominate John Kerry. He was beleaguered and slandered and had the presidency stolen and still is an uncompromising liberal working to try to stop some of the Bush damage. He does so consistently and without much gratitude for all his efforts. No one has been able to find a thing in his background warranting all the abuse that was heaped on him. Yeah, I nominate St. John of Kerry.

but he was not mean and clever enough. That's why he lost. If I were him, I would have mentioned Bush's avoidance of Vietnam service and Cheney's five deferments in every campaign speech util Bush pulled his dirty swift liars ad. I would have called Bush a Texas hypocrite with facts to back up for everytime Bush called him a Mass. liberal and flip-flopper. I would have done that in the same cool manner he used in the debates. We have to treat our opponents like enemies and pander to as many as voters as possible.

Someone said, "the Republicans treat elections as a war, and the Democrats treat elections as an opportunity for polite political dicourse." Until we get over that, I don't think we are gonna win! And I don' thinl alinating our base in favor of those who aren't going to vote for us anyway is the answer.

And BTW, Kerry probably didn't lose.It wasn't the votes, but who counted them that counted!

to support your statement? Where did she indicate she would compromise the right to choose? Show me the quote, the paragraph, the article. I want to see it.

but it's not.

She is pandering to the corporate war interests too.

the base. I'm disgusted not much unlike many left of center democrats. The political right of the democratic party is going to throw *all of us* in disarray. We will be annihilated and have to start anew from the grass roots up.

My point: We should NOT play the RW republican's game of pitching views to wedge issues. Don't do that! IF Hillary was nominated, I would vote Green.

Yes, it would be better the see the Democratic Party go down in flames than be a part of the grand transformation to "Republican Lite."

quote: it would be better the see the Democratic Party go down in flames than be a part of the grand transformation to "Republican Lite."

Its better to be Republican lite than to throw away a vote.

The only good repukes are dead, or mostly!

to appeal to the majority of the American people. Fundies are used by Rep, and can and should be used by Dem. too. The problem is Dem. are not good at playing games. Politics is a game! Once you are in the office, then you can lead with integrity. Before that, nothing good can be accomplished.

happening.These games players in the Dem party aren't voting with us and will alter the country until it isn't recognizable.It barely is now. The games players like Hillary and Lieberman and Biden will destroy us all.Their voting record stinks. But they are trying to appeal to the fundies so I guess it is okay! Bleah!

What is the percentage of "us" in the population? You need to get 270 electoral votes to get into WH, just "us" is not enough. If you don't support Dem. nominee just because he/she is not on the leftest side, then be prepared to be in the opposition for perpetuity and see the Republicans destroy our country bit by bit.

drilling. You know. Stuff that helps people not corporations. Kerry's voting record is with us. Lieberman and Biden mostly aren't .As Democrats we stand for certain things when you regularly vote against those things , like Landrieu, you aren't voting with us!

...someone who ALL DUers can find NO fault with whatsoever, with an utterly clean history and always-Left voting record, yet who can still carry the country, then fine--I'll vote for that person.

Until that person drops out of Heaven, I'll vote for the electable Democrat--and you can vote for Nader, or just not vote, or whatever. It may mean four more years of GOP rule, but hey, we'll get 'em next time, right?

along with the environment, civil rights, privacy, due process, etc. There won't be any country left and it won't matter who is president.

Corporate Facists ALL!

No to Hillary and the Neo-Liberal (Read True Conservative)

Her message is DEAD WRONG. On Women's Rights, on the War. on a miriad of issues, it's all about CONSERVATISM.

Is that what DU is going to be about? Promulgating BS Clintonista Propaganda just like promoting Kerry with that phony "electability" crap?

Please Please Please!!

Get on BOARD WITH REAL CHANGE. NOT MORE OF THE SAME FASCISTS STATE!

Check out Progressive Democrats for America - Check out Revolutionary Worker - get on board with working with WORKERS RIGHTS, WORKERS ISSUES!

DON't SELL YOURSELVES TO THESE POLITICAL WHORES!