I'm Noticing a Lot of Hillary Clinton Shilling here..

why does her nomination need to be constantly promoted here, two years in advance of the primaries and three years in advance of the phony elections?

why is there so much resources devoted to the effort in limiting consideration for a different candidate that c/would have very broad appeal to the left AND moderate wings of the DP?

Every other day there's a gd poll with Hillary Clinton on it, and her numbers are really LOW here. why is this being done constantly? and then there's some functionary posting thread whining about the lack of support for Hillary amongst DU'rs.

Isn't that enough of a message to suggest that SOMEONE ELSE needs to lead this party? Someone ELSE needs to be recruited? Someone ELSE needs to be promoted?

Why oh why are the usual suspects listed as alternatives when most of them are tired and worn out?

Why isn't there a fresh name, a fresh face with fresh ideas promoted instead?

why do you think she is being shilled here?

So just like
Kerry
Dean
Clark
Biden


People are shilling for them too.

Why bring your own gas and matches to a flame fest.

Apparently there is no desire to seek a candidate who has BROAD appeal on the left and moderate spectrum of the party - it's either all about supporting Hillary (or sometimes Kerry)or just stay at home, three years from now?

Now you may not like them or agree but I think we should expect to see shilling for Dems on a Dem site.

"there is no desire to seek a candidate who has BROAD appeal on the left and moderate spectrum of the party"
Hillary fits the bill for me, and she has lots of appeal to moderates...in fact, the main criticism I see from our teenage leftists is that she's not extreme left wing enough for them.

Meanwhile, I guess I missed the provision in the DU rules that was preventing you from "shilling" for the candidate of YOUR choice.

Hello Mr.B...I'm going to let you handle THIS thread on my behalf :)

I place my trust in your capable hands!

On Edit: You might also be interested in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2290033

And what a peculiar thread you linked to there, too.....

It's not a good thing to think about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face...is it?

Can I. The DNC is the MAIN organization of our party, the Democratic Party...so why would people want to withold support for the DNC?

ALL of our candidates that are running for office and who are running to get re-elected receive financial funding and many other forms of support from the DNC. So as I see it, it's very important for people to support the DNC. It mightn't be perfect, but then nothing is 100% perfect.

"it's very important for people to support the DNC"
Unless they're trolls or third party dimwits, I can't imagine who wouldn't.

Which is unfortunate, since he's the only one out there with a message that isn't one degree or another of Chimp Lite.

We need to be focusing our efforts on redrafting Gore or Edwards or better yet Gore/Edwards in 08.

Hillary is stained voting for Cafta she is nothing but a DINO like ole Lieberman, she votes for corporations as well. We also need to stop shilling Kerry as well.....I wish Kerry had as much fire in 04 as he seems to have found in the past few months about Iraq.

Edwards 08!

That would be okay.

until he was living at the 1600 house.....I dont think Gore should give up until he has won.

Gore is fine. My second choice. But not Edwards. Not if we want to win. We have to have a ticket with more balls than that - because we have to flip a few red states to win - with or without Diebold.

Whenever there is an anti-Edwards post -- and they are usually as vague as they are condemning -- invariably the sig line or the name identifies the poster as a Clarkie. Not all Clarkies are like that, but you all seem to be obsessed with Edwards. Get over it.

If you don't like my not liking Edwards - YOU get over it.

I did my research on him before Clark entered the race and decided then and there that he was too fluffy for my tastes - too appeasing of the GOP and didn't have a chance in hell of flipping any red state because of his background (not his location).

It has nothing to do with Wes Clark and everything to do with John Edwards. I like Elizabeth, though. She should be the one in politics.

May have something to do with the latest Rasmussen polling numbers for Hillary...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Hillary%20Meter.htm

Would love to see some new hope on the horizon.

It's all about disclosure. I want to hear from all the advocates of all the candidates. I want them to try to sell me on their guy or gal for 2008. I am completely uncommitted for 08, although there are several I can't get behind unless they're the candidate the party and all its members duly pick.

I don't want anyone acting like they're just a poster when they're Wes Clark's campaign rep in Toledo.

I don't have a candidate for 08, although I'm inclined to think Gore might do a good job if asked.

I think my user name makes me pretty up-front. ;)

When are those paychecks coming? :eyes:

It's Christmastime and I have a 6-year-old.

I wish Wes would hurry up and send that damn paycheck. :7

:sarcasm: (for those who don't know I'm being sarcastic)

Could you introduce me?

if no one else.

You said

"I don't want anyone acting like they're just a poster when they're Wes Clark's campaign rep in Toledo. If no one else."

Try calling out somebody else's supporters on DU and see what happens. Better yet, try being less of an asshole.

Can't you at least acknowledge that?

Can't get much better humor than that. :7

.... anyone who has a heartfelt personal belief in a candidate, I'm listening to whatever they have to say.

If is seems to me that they are here only to promote a particular candidate, well I'll offer up my best rebuttal as often as possible :)

Isn't it enough to bash a fellow democrat, a successful democrat at that, without denigrating people who, crime upon crime, don't join you in the bashing?

I'll tell you why there isn't a fresh face. Because fresh faces get old quick, and nobody is going to run for president on the strategy of novelty, particularly when the circular firing squad is so evident.

I haven't pointed out a single flaw in her charachter, her personal or political life. I think that ground has been covered over the past several months fairly adequately by others whenever someone posts a Hillary Clinton promo.

The question that has not been covered or answered is the one that i raised in the original thread.

I ask the question, because despite the fact that there has been massive postings promoting Hillary Clinton on this site there is an observable negative response factor far outweighing the positive, and the constant polling (here)showing very low percentage results in favor of Hillary. Should those results be ignored as if it were meaningless?

What's the problem with asking people to please give very serious consideration and discussion to someone other than the usual suspects, including Hillary Clinton for '08?

Someone that has broader appeal WITHIN the Democratic Party, as opposed to the Right Wing of the Democratic Party, those who apparently looking to garner most of the GOP, which is what some are aiming their sites for (like Hillary) .

That to me is more than just a little insulting.

"there is an observable negative response factor far outweighing the positive"
Yeah, but it's always wise to consider the source.

"What's the problem with asking people to please give very serious consideration and discussion to someone other than the usual suspects, including Hillary Clinton for '08? "
You tell us...since you seem more interested in complaining about Hillary than doing so.

Which I've noticed on many posts. Somebody says that McCain is too old and already in ill health and thus won't be the Repuke 2008 nominee...they kinda get a bit irritated I've noticed.

So I'm not surprised that we now have this Hillary thread.

On Edit: If the moderators think my post here should be deleted, then go ahead and I'll understand. I'm just stating the facts about what I've noticed the OP doing on many occasions.

you like and why.

It would be nice to see a positive thread from you once in a while.

I supported Kucinich two years before the elections. When the primaries started up I listened to the debates and still liked Kucinich above others but knew he wouldn't be supported by the right wing of the party - so i started looking at John Edwards, really agreed with his "two americas" analysis - started rooting for him - but then Kerry took the primaries and so i put all of my resources and emotional investment to his candidacy.

Right now I'm interested in Russ Feingold - I think he's intelligent, skillful and obviously i agree with MOST of his positions - disagree with a couple votes, but I think he has the courage that others do not seem to have, and he certainly understands that our consitution has been completely defiled if not dismantled with the Patriot Act, Secret Courts, (in this country) Pre-Emptive Wars and so forth.

The issue with the Consititution is MAJOR issue above all else. (Yes above healthcare and education which are extremely important)

Feingold understands these issues on a level that ought to be talked about by everyone else, and he's not mealy mouthed about these matters. I could go on - I like one of my Senators, Barbara Boxer, and my Representative Lyn Woolsey, but I'm very disappointed with my other Senator, Dianne Feinstein.

There is a list of other Senators that I really like a lot and could enumerate here, but I'm not sure that a Senator is the way to go for the 2008 election. There are a number of house reps that I wish had a higher profile in Congress - lots of them in the Congressional Black Congress (i don't think highly of ALL of them) I really like Cynthia McKinney, Barbara Lee, John Conyers, and Sheila Jackson Leigh among others.

I like most of the so called Progressive Caucus - Kucinich and others, and I really like Independent Bernie Sanders.

But I don't think any of these folks are people the party ought to be looking for as president in the 2008 elections - except for maybe Feingold - but it's still too early to really determine that.

Personally, I'd like see a Person of Color, that has the charisma and sharp intellect, like Barak Obama (for instance)someone with the courage of conviction but with the kind of talent and skills necessary to negotiate the political landscape domestically and abroad. I think our party needs to be the FIRST to bring a person of color - preferably an African American - that is NOT a Jim Crow type, (Clarence Thomas is)but someone who very much fits the mold of Barak Obama.

But I'm still personally torn between Obama and Feingold.

I'm also a feminist, but I don't believe we need to put in the WH a woman simply for the sake of gender equality. I don't think our country needs a Margaret Thatcher, a Jean Kirkpatrick, or a Condi Rice. I don't think Hillary is the one either. I don't want to see more "dynasty" style politics either. I think we should do everything in our power to prevent that from every happening again.

I mean, whose going to follow HC? Jeb Bush?

good gawd.

(sorry for whomever I forgot) Any objection to those? You could add those you dont like to this thread and avoid us another negative thread.

of adversaries doing battle...like a never-ending sporting event... where the goal is to win..and the fight doesn't matter so much unless you win. The issues are 'quasi-real', and are chosen as an advertising campaign, to best reflect the desirable image the ad-campaign is trying to project. Just like court trials often bear little resemblance to the truth...so does our national debate.

Hillary seems to me to be pretty unpopular here at DU. :shrug:

And you stay out of the threads you don't like. That will solve the problem for you.

Mostly what I notice is teenage leftists pissing and moaning because Hillary appeals to grown-ups.

"Why isn't there a fresh name, a fresh face with fresh ideas promoted instead? "
Because the Hillary-bashers have no ideas worth hearing?

I'm a grown-up.

Hillary doesn't understand me - and if she ever did, she's forgotten.

There, there.

Geeze, that's sure what I'm looking for in a presidential candidate....screw plans, support or electability, I want some hand-holding.

I was stating that I am a grown-up and she doesn't appeal to me.

those at Citigroup - who give her huge donations so she supports their "bankruptcy reform" legislation that even her husband vetoed. Grown ups like Kenneth Lay and Bernie Ebbers who swindled billions, taking advantage of "deregulated" financial laws supported by the DLC. Grown-ups like corporate executives who lay off tens of thousands of Americans because they earn a "living wage" and outsource their jobs to 3rd world countries where they can pay workers a pittance - thanks to DLC supported legislation like NAFTA and CAFTA. These same grown ups then demand more H1B visas because Americans just don't seem smart enough to fill high paying jobs so they need immigrants - who somehow demand less money than Americans. And so on. But I guess none of this is worth hearing.

"Grown ups like Kenneth Lay and Bernie Ebbers who swindled billions, taking advantage of "deregulated" financial laws supported by the DLC."
Where was that? Oh yeah, in left wing fantasy land.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253589&kaid=137&subid=900109

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253567&kaid=131&subid=192

"But I guess none of this is worth hearing"
Especially not from folks who don't have their own viable candidate or plan and want to piss and moan about those who do.

Since they want to bring home the troops alive, the DLC slanders them with RW spin of "offering up defeat". I'd say the Murtha plan is pretty damn good and the party would be a whole lot better off agreeing on that rather than repeating RW talking points about the House minority leader and a decorated veteran who has his pulse on what's actually going on in Iraq. But the DLC thinks that the Bush administration is honest and competent enough to salvage things in Iraq, no matter how many more fathers, mothers, sons & daughters get killed in the process - they think we should just "stay the course" no matter how many billions it costs. Amazing.

Our teenage leftists want to yank quotes out of context...but all they do is show how dishonest they are.

"But the DLC thinks that the Bush administration is honest and competent enough to salvage things in Iraq, no matter how many more fathers, mothers, sons & daughters get killed in the process"
Yeah? Show us where they said that...

"Demands for an immediate troop withdrawal or arbitrary deadlines risk turning premature declarations that the United States has failed in Iraq into a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is why Democrats must reject them.
If our forces leave before the Iraqis can defend themselves, the result will bea national security disaster for the United States. Iraq will be convulsed intofull-scale civil war that could provoke a regional conflagration. The Sunni triangle will likely become home base for the global jihad network, a safe haven for hatching new terrorist plots against our country and our friends. America will once again have broken faith with Iraq's long-suffering Kurds and Shi'a, and the cause of Arab democracy will be set back for a generation. "

http://www.dlc.org/

Iraq and the Vital Center

Yesterday, President Bush unveiled a "plan for victory" to shore up sagging public confidence in his Iraq policies. Though it broke little new ground, the president's speech at the U.S. Naval Academy did provoke an unfortunate reaction from House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, who endorsed Rep. John Murtha's earlier call for a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops.

We share the widespread frustration with the Bush administration's utterly inept handling of Iraq's post-conflict rebuilding. But too much is at stake in Iraq for America to simply give up and come home. What Democrats really should demand from President Bush is victory, not a hasty departure.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253638

So they admit Bushco cannot handle Iraq, but then say we should demand "victory" from an "inept" president and his incompetent cronies. I'd say Iraq is already out of control and a huge disaster. As per your quote:

"The Sunni triangle will likely become home base for the global jihad network, a safe haven for hatching new terrorist plots against our country and our friends. America will once again have broken faith with Iraq's long-suffering Kurds and Shi'a, and the cause of Arab democracy will be set back for a generation."

Here the DLC is repeating RW talking points about why we have to keep our forces in the country aka the Bush line "stay the course". I'd say we already broke whatever "faith" the Iraqis had in us by slaughtering so many innocent women, children, and civilians. Atrocities likethe white phosphorus "shake and bake" operations in Fallujah hardly endeared them to us, either. They want us out of their country but apparently the DLC thinks they can't "defend" themselves. We need to leave - the entire "Sunni triangle terrorist" argument doesn't carry water. Sorry, Murtha is right and the DLC is wrong.

"Demands for an immediate troop withdrawal or arbitrary deadlines risk turning premature declarations that the United States has failed in Iraq into a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is why Democrats must reject them.
If our forces leave before the Iraqis can defend themselves, the result will bea national security disaster for the United States. Iraq will be convulsed intofull-scale civil war that could provoke a regional conflagration. The Sunni triangle will likely become home base for the global jihad network, a safe haven for hatching new terrorist plots against our country and our friends. America will once again have broken faith with Iraq's long-suffering Kurds and Shi'a, and the cause of Arab democracy will be set back for a generation. "

Damned if I can see anything wrong with that.


"We need to leave - the entire "Sunni triangle terrorist" argument doesn't carry water. Sorry, Murtha is right and the DLC is wrong."
Sez you.

Can't argue with a thorough, sturdily-constructed argument like that. Thank God we have some mature and thoughtful 'New Democrat' intellectuals here to counter the childish and silly leftists, eh?

So tell us, who is your candidate and when will we see a thread "shilling" for him or her?

By the way, read on down the thread; you'lll find out that "shilling" actually meant in this context was that some people felt they ought to be able to piss all over a respected and well-known Democrat without even a hint of dissent from anyone else.

A "thorough, sturdily-constructed argument" isn't needed against such piffle.

I dislike her because she can't win a general election.

I live in the real world where an America that has been going backward for five years is NOT, I repeat, NOT, going to vote for a woman, especially if the woman is from New England, during a time of war - or the pull-out of one, or the start of another.

That's the real world - and grown-ups know this.

It may be sad - it may be awful - it may make women like me feel sorrowful that the women's movement has been so back-handed - but, it's the truth.

Ah, Benchley, always good for an unwarranted insult. You rarely disappoint.

And like me, he supports ALL Democrats...with the exception of Ben Nelson of course.

So you know, he is entitled to his opinion, this is free speech :)

I suggest you go pout about it to somebody who gives a shit....

Someone should get some new material.. :P

Plus it sounds like something Rush would say...Hello Rush, is that you? I can even imagine the pompus voice in my head.... (and FYI, I'm not a Hillary fan and not a teenager).. I think that said person is doing more harm to their candidate than good by throwing around insults and name-calling at fellow progressives. Just a thought... :) We should hope it's kept up.

"Plus it sounds like something Rush would say..."
Funny, I'd find mindless attacks on Hillary Clinton more up Rush's alley.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509210002

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506080002

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_04_11_dneiwert_archive.html

http://www.long-sunday.net/long_sunday/2005/08/we_created_this.html

"I think that said person is doing more harm to their candidate than good by throwing around insults and name-calling at fellow progressives."
Yeah, but imagine my surprise to discover that the "shilling" some people are pissing and moaning about turns out to be grown ups objecting because Democrats won't let them dog-pile a respected and prominent Democrat in a mindless, idiotic fashion.

50 years past teenage in fact. I don't trust Hillary, think she's our candidate only if we want to lose another one.

hardly a "teenage leftist". You accuse others of only offering epithets, yet that's all you seem capable of yourself. Hillary is no better than LIEberman, she is a Bushco, pro war apologist and therefore will never have my support.

Yet whenever there is a poll here she is trounced....I am wondering why she is pushed so much, unlike someone like Boxer whoi DID VOTE against the WAR.

What makes Clinton a better candidate than Boxer? And please don't tell me she'll carry the south. I'm sick of that crap. Hilary clinton will NOT carry the South and would struggle to carry the North and the West.

My candidates of preference in this order are:

1. Bill Moyers - "The man has name recognition. He is a man of great integrity and intelligence. And he IS from the Texas so who knows HE might carry the South.

2. Barbara Boxer - strong credentials in voting against the war resolution. Speaks well, and doesn't back down in Senate hearings. No wish washiness. Strong, and a real leader. Doesn't try to appeal to everyone.

3. Wes Clark - For those who can't handle a woman running. Clark has faced the enemy head on and beat the hell out of Hannity and the gang at FOX. Beleive me, they'll even try to swift boat him with pictures form Bosnia, but he'll hold up to them. Peter jennings tried to villify Clark to Michael Moore in a shameful episdoe before his death. Clark handled well, but somehow the right has managed to demonize Moore - beyond me how, but they do.

4. Jimmy Carter - a longshot, better qualafied now than then. playing the Iran hostage crisis all over again though would be painful to watch.

I'd take ANY of these over Hilary Clinton in a heart beat. I'd even take Kerry or Gore. I do not understand all these Hilary posts.

Ms. Clinton to run for president. I don't see any Democrats doing this. I rather she not run. Now vice president? That would be okay.

The woman gets bashed here with more ferocity and more frequency than on Free Republic

And the fact that Dems get just as riled up as Freepers against Hillary just means that this lady is white hot and moths are attracted to the flame.

She's a slow burner, though, and she's gonna keep burning no matter how many immolate themselves.

Many candidates will not announce their candidacy until 2008 arrives. The USA is the only country which is constant campaign mode. Granted, much to blame is the RW attack machine which has been in continuous political attacks since Clinton began his run for office in 1992. The Dems have had to respond--well, when they *do* respond.

But all this talk about the 2008 presidential election now is fruitless. It isn't even likely that Hillary will get the nomination, let alone win the WH if she does. People don't like her, especially many Democrats (other than the DLC PAC wing of the party).

I don't know if it is the DLC PAC putting her name forward as the defacto 2008 nominee two and a half years prior to the event. If it is, they are not serving their *prospective* candidate very well by doing it. It can only cause more division and more dislike for their putative candidate. This hurts Hillary Clinton's chances (as slim as they already are).

The DLC PAC needs to understand that when 2008 arrives Hillary will not be the front runner. If she somehow manages to win the nomination, the Dems will lose the White House yet again. Given the past history of the DLC PAC I don't suppose that they'll open their eyes to facts any time soon.

but her numbers are HIGHER among the general public. That includes Democrats, some Republicans (mostly the women) and Independents. I'm not talking about polls either, but I've seen polls where she was leading.

DU isn't representative of the average voter in this country. There are a lot of students and teens who post here and most are anti-war. That seems to be the only issue that's important to them. There must be a mold somewhere that is turning these individuals out in such great numbers. It's like an echo chamber here because all I hear is crickets.

Wait till the primaries start; it's really going to be chaos then.

I just know I'm going to vote for whoever wins the nomination even if it's Bugs Bunny. I would advise most of you to do the same if you don't want another CHIMP for president.

If Hillary, or another potential candidate with money and organization behind him/her, is pushed now, so that there is a constant bombardment of that person's name, identified as a contender, when the primaries actually get here, they'll have more name recognition, and be more likely to poll well, over any other possibilities.

It's a marketing strategy, just like all those commercials on tv.

Those fresh names and faces probably aren't as well organized and funded, and haven't decided to toss their hat into the ring at this point.

They probably aren't included in any polls at this point, either. And, when the primaries finally do roll around, they may have trouble getting any serious consideration from the media and/or pollsters, for these very reasons.

Who here is pushing Hillary?

and evem gave a motive/rationale for this supposed "shilling" at DU.

So, since I've not seen any of this, I'm wondering who it is who's shilling.

<snip>

Why isn't there a fresh name, a fresh face with fresh ideas promoted instead?

from the level of recognition and building of support when it's a "foregone conclusion" that the nominee is HC.

That's NOT democracy in action. That's locking IN one person, and locking OUT all other potential prospects who actually might have the level skills etc. desired for a prospective candidate to represent our party.

beyond Hillary to the rest of the pack currently being promoted. There's handful of them with backers already doing some informal campaigning. Right now, it's a "foregone conclusion" that the nominee will come from that pack. I'd rather not conclude anything at this point except that there are a number of good possibilities not under discussion right now, and that I don't really want to hear about "the pack" until the rest are included in the discussion.

"it's a "foregone conclusion" that the nominee is HC. "
Jeeze, we still haven't see any good reason not to nominate her...other than that you want to piss and moan about it.

As always.

They want to portray the nomination of their favored candidate as being "INEVITABLE" in order to tame down any opposition to and/or competition for Senator Clinton in a Democratic presidential primary.

In other words, they're doing the MSM's work for it.

It's really that simple.

From people who really haven't got anything to offer worth hearing beyond "Boo hoo hoo!"

How dare anyone even attempt to criticize the candidate who you believe should be anointed by the MSM and the party establishment!

Let alone we even THINK to criticize the "democratic" process of shutting out all discussion on alternatives to the "frontrunner" candidate who merely has the most name recognition...

"Let alone we even THINK to criticize the "democratic" process of shutting out all discussion on alternatives"
So what the fuck is stopping you? I don't see any Hillary supporters keeping you from starting a thread....

You're proving my point, MrBenchley. :)

You're certainly doing a (dis)service to making a case for your perspective.

for the reasons already adduced.

Are you even cognizant of the things that come out of your mouth???!!!

WAR PROTESTERS IN CHICAGO INTERRUPT HILLARY CLINTON



Keith’s Barbeque Central

And look how well it worked, too.....

"Clinton addressed them, saying she appreciates their passion and intensity, and that she would address their concerns at the end of her speech, but that she didn't believe the audience wanted to hear from them at the moment, receiving applause from the audience.
Clinton did address the war at the end of her speech...saying she wishes we could turn back time, but we can't, and we now have to create strategy based on fact. "

http://www.wbbm780.com/includes/news_items/news_items_more.php?section_id=4&id=22445

It was just people concerned about her pro war stance. She's not really any different than LIEberman when it comes to that.

But then I'm a Democrat and am used to seeing the GOP pull that sort of shit.

but it was reported. I know some of the people from Chicago, believe me, they're not Republicans.

Denver

Some eyebrow-raising signs - like "Free Saddam He Did Nothing to You" - were held by Republicans trying to undermine the protest, they admitted.

"It's all part of the game," said Conor McGahey, a University of Denver student and executive director of the Colorado Federation of College Republicans. "I just wish they could keep rhythm on the drum."

"I know some of the people from Chicago"
But wouldn't Conor McGahey claim the same thing if he were here?

I don't have the pics but they're all around the net.

It's about time the anti-war movement started holding Dems accountable for their vote on that evil enterprise of Pre-Emption.

Throughout the entire election campaign last year, we held our tongues, we focused like a laser on the evil Neo Cons - and squabbled amongst ourselves about the meaning of Kerry's Vote "for the War before he voted against it" - we took Arianna Huffington's analogy of 'burning down the house, when we only need to remodel it' to heart (or at least we tried) and we took Kerry's promise to make sure every vote is counted to heart.

But then after another theft, Kerry's betrayal and then to rub salt into the bleeding wounds of the voters, there were the Clinton's in our faces with their unwavering support for the Bush Crime Family - from day of the inaugeral speech (there's Hilary smiling up at Bush nodding her head in approval in subserviant approval to his bizarre speech) and then there was the Clinton Library ceremony - again with Hillary smiling again in approval to the Bushevics...

only to have the Clinton's in our faces again and again pronounced as the chosen ones to be our next leader, while some of us try to discuss the virtues of others, or what we want to see in the next leader - the Iraq War underpins much of it for an important reason.

Hundreds of thousands of Lives are in the balance.

That's why it matters. That's why it's about damn time all elected officials are held accountable in this evil enterprise of Pre-Emption.

Alot of mindless Hillary bashing with some people willing to stand up to her.

In searching GD-Politics, I don't find a single thread started to "shill" for Hillary.

You'll get your fill of shillings there.

Of course, people will try to pretend it doesn't exist.

And we saw how denial worked for Nixon...

So in other words, childish and illinformed derision is met with the contempt it deserves.

But I would expect no less from someone who uses the same bullying tactics taken straight out of the GOP handbook.

She's not running for president anyways.

over and over again about why Hillary should NOT be the Democratic nominee in 2008.

It seems like everyday someone posts a "Why I will not support Hillary for president" thread.

So I think that the anti-Hillary threads far outweigh the small amount of pro-Hillary threads on DU.

turns out to be other Democrats objecting to the mindless dogpile for any reason...

:freak:

now that another democrat is challenging her (a progressive, anti-war candidate)even if he doesn't have the big corporations financing him (like HC has financing her) a new level of discussion of what the DP is/should be all about (indeed what our democracy should be all about) might (just might) be allowed to be given a higher priority at this juncture, then floating the names of the usual suspects in advance of that discussion. Out of THAT process, we will begin to see and hear about people who may best represent those ideas/concerns.

Multi-National Corporations are not American citizens, they do not represent the needs and concerns of ordinary people.

Therefore, they should not be allowed to run roughshod over our democratic processes. They should not be allowed to define the issues, and frame the debate, write policy papers that impact on our governance. And they certainly should not be allowed to choose our Presidents, our Governors, our Senators or our Representatives.

already. Not exactly a synonym of "support" or even "promote," now is it? Has a very nasty connotation to it.

There is far more hatred for Hillary on DU than almost anything else. I was going to suggest that it be renamed wehatehillary.com. There's very little "shilling" here and any support gets shot down in flames immediately.

Turn on AAR and hear it on the Al Franken show, hear it on Jerry Springer, hear it on the Ed Schultz show - the DU site has a constant barage of pro-hillary polling, and promotion.

I call it shilling. that's what it is to my ears.

This is a Democratic site & Democrats will be discussed.

She's not my favorite. But we've also got lots of people posting about why they hate Gore & Kerry. "We need new faces," they all say!

So--let us know about your NEW FACES! Tell us all the good points about your favorite Democrats.

(Myself, I'm not ready to go nuts about 2008--we're much closer to 2006. And I'm not sure the votes will be counted, anyway.)

:eyes:

more importantly, i discussed the need to recruit People of Color candidates that actually represent progressive values as opposed to Jim Crow policies that the Conservatives are/will be promoting.

a lot of threads have been posted here regularly with regard to the other "contenders" Clinton, Clark, Edwards, Kerry, Biden, etc.
Every week there's been a plethora of DU polls for these candidates, including Hillary, and it's been steady following the 2004 elections.

But I'm more apt to give a fuck about a possible candidate if their supporters come out & say why they like him (or her).

Threads about thread are boring. Anti-candidate threads are boring. Threads about pro-candidate-threads are just silly.

I wasn't asking for links. (Of course, if I had, you would have instructed me to "do my homework.")

I've already wasted enough time on a thread explaining what is wrong with other threads at DU. You mean--people are posting things because they want to influence others? I'm shocked, shocked!

the front runner for grassroots Democrats. She is only the front runner in the corporate media. I wonder why?

any candidate that sells out our Democratic Values for corporate money.