Can People Please Shut Up About Hillary?

I don't like the fact that Hillary hasn't been more aggressive in opposing the war, but the attacks on her are down right obsessive and petty. She is only one Senator out of 100! And on domestic issues she is doing a good job as my Senator (I will proudly vote for her next November, even though I wish she would speak out more on Iraq, because she is still doing a good job for NYers.) Quit coddling Jeanine Pirro by spreading the rumor that she is running for President. As far as I'm concerned, this is still a NY Post/NewsMax wetdream that will likely not be realized. She has NEVER said that she is running. And how is she an opportunist, in the sense that she is any different than some of our other 2008 candidates? I will get flamed for saying this but, I could take out "Iraq war" and "DINO", replace them with "HillaryCare" and "liberal" and the sentence of a post from a Progressive would sound similar to a Freeper's.

But supports making a law for it that fits under the exist amendment. I personally disagree with this, but this alone will not stop me from supporting her (I wanted Wes Clark to win in 2004, and he supports the Flag-Burning Amendment.)

I don't know what it is...but they're getting very consistent AND insistent.

Somethings rotten in Denmark.

horrible center/right peice of shit DLC prez candidate. Something's rotten, all right, but it ain't with those who oppose Hillary.

If we are going to lose through fraud or media manipulation or just plain demographics, let us lose with a candidate who represents progressive values, let the people make a clear choice. If we are going to win, let us make sure that we win with a candidate who is not yet another corporate whore.

How about we run a candidate who represents the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party?

(And where have I heard that before?)

enables this administration to wage wars of naked agression based on deliberate lies should be eyed suspiciously, be they republican or democrat.
To do otherwise is to grant implied permission for him to invade Iran and Syria next.

Bushco is extremely dangerous and criminal and should be dealt with accordingly...not pandered to in hopes of being elected.

Their only agenda is for themselves.

Sean Hannity, is that you?

to convince you of my reasons for not wanting the Clintons back in power. My previous post said all that I needed to say.

.. if we go down in 2008, I want it to have been with our best shot. Not some middle-of-the-road pander-fest coat-tails half-ass candidate like Hillary would be.

I get tired of replying to the same questions and statements with the same answers, just so they can dream up some conspircy statement again.
I think I'll start stating I won't vote for Hillary because I'm against nominating politicians relatives for office....just stating I think legacies are a bad idea doesn't seem clear enough on top of everything you already stated.

Took the words right out of my mouth.


John

Rapid response to all criticism and lies from the right. No more playing in their sandbox, ie; the horseshit flag crapola.

The DLC sends as many voters off to the Green Party as they imagine they gain from gutless, empty flag-waving stunts.

They've been trying this "get the center" nonsense for far too long. There is NO center. And voters know when they're being "worked"

It's bald pandering. It's an embarrassment.

because I want to join up.

for the war, supporting different bills, not asking for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq - these are all things that many other Dem Senators and Representatives have done exactly the same way. But it's ok when they do it?

...but then none of them are being shoved down our throats by the Dumbass Leeching Cancer as the only one who can win in 2008 either.

... is going to face this. I don't care what some Senator from Wyoming does, but I don't want another mealy-mouthed, uninspired candidate. If Hillary is the best we can do we deserve to lose, she is mediocre beyond belief. What the eff has Hillary ever accomplished? Is she charismatic? Is she a LEADER? Can she really attract the swing voter?

I don't think so. But she'll GOTV for the Republicans and lose half our base.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1968233

Scroll down through this charming thread and you will find the link. Her proposal is not as nefarious as some people would like to play it. It is a bit of pandering, but at the end of the day, it means nothing. The way it is written, it just adds flag burning to a list of existing offenses. You can't incite a riot already, and you can't incite one while burning a flag under this legislation. You can't steal property, and you can't steal and burn someone's flag, either. You can't trespass on federal property, and you can't trespass AND burn a flag either.

but a President???? not how she comes across these days..

I wouldn't mind seeing her chair a committee in the future. As for President, I won;t vote for her in the primaries because she's not electable and will killed absolutely destroyed.

She has a much higher 'plays well with others' quotient than anticipated and she isn't afraid to put her nose to the grindstone on policy research.

I was pleased to see CNN run the tape from years ago explaining why she voted 'for' the war, as folks say. She explicitly said she was doing so not to authorize a war but to give Bush a bargaining chip at the UN which would force the UN to do something. She should run that on ads.

I agree with what you say...I've been defending Hillary until I'm blue in the face, and saying that she doesn't want to even run in 2008 and that she won't be the nominee. Heck, I EVEN had a poll about were people sick of the Hillary 2008 stuff...so yeah, I have to give you a vote.

Re-Elect Senator Clinton in 2006, let's keep that seat BLUE!!

flag burning or not

To be an awful lot of people that are posting to DU who are DETERMIND to make her lose that seat...even by backing this mouthbreather Green who's going to REALLY win isn't he?

It makes me so damn angry, this Hillary bashing. I like her, I don't want her running in 2008, but I like Hillary a great deal.

to shoot her down. I am in agreement that 08 might not be her time yet. The past 8 years are going to make that a job for a very special individual. Of course, I'd vote for her as the general candidate, but not in the primary. But I just flat out like her. Smart, classy, good-looking (i know that is dumb to care about, but it helps) and I like the fact that she loves Bill Clinton. I hope that is a good marriage. They deserve each other. That sounds snide but it isn't meant to be in the least.

If you support Hillary, that's fine, but "too vital to this country"? That is bit over the top, don't you think?

maybe. I'm in a kind of over the top mood. I think she is vital to us emotionally. She is a link to a kinder, gentler, happier past. She represents a lot of things for women, in particular. She brings a lot of experience and understanding of inside the beltway workings to the job.

So, yes, I think she is vital to the country and to the party.

Ya think I'm drinking too much coffee this morning?

For example Barbara Boxer.

And I'm intrigued by Pelosi, too.

hit the nail on the head better than anybody I've heard on this board about why she shouldn't run for President. I like her too and I know that she is a great senator, but the country is not ready for her now as President. She's a lightening rod to the rwing and they would crucify us over her nomination.

Hinchey is one of New York's most progressive Congressmen! The guy running against Hillary has about as much stature as the idiot who ran against Wellstone as a Green before he died.

IMHO.

The law approach gives everyone something to vote for that a Court can toss out.

She gets a lot of help from people who do not appreciate political reality, and from some who have a more nefarious agenda as well. It seems very odd to me that some who say they are liberal want to shut someone up, in Bill O'Reilly fashion, before they even announce their candidacy.

I refuse to carry water for the GOP. If she wants to run, let's hear from her, and everyone else with an idea or two. You don't get smarter on the issues by refusing to hear all sides.

While I agree with your assessment on her running - let's hear from her AND everyone else (but the media probably won't let that happen, which is a shame) - but I'm here to tell you that the GOP is NOT scared of her.

They will even more solidify their base if she's the nominee. That's why they push her and have told us she's a foregone conclusion as our nominee.

still too corperate friendly, keeping the seat blue is a positave
as far as president? not a chance in hell - and we don't want a candidate that is as corperate friendly as her. Corperate america has obtained too much power, fighting this will be better for everyone, even the corperations in the long run (go figure)

There are many dems who will not vote for a woman candidate. I won't vote for her, not because she's a woman, because she's repug lite. I'd stay home. BTW, she's never said she's not running, she's commented that she could raise $40 million for a campaign. She's gonna run, and it sucks because she'll divide the party and can't be elected.

And in a state like New York where she has been targeting by the VRWC several occasions, is it not hard to expect that she will need that money? NYC is also one of the most expensive media markets in the country.

When Democrats and Liberals attack her in the same manner as a republican or conservative, you have to start wondering what is really going on. I have noticed a barrage of threads on DU over the last few days attacking her over STUPID STUFF. Democrats as a collective group had better start dealing with the really IMPORTANT STUFF or we are going to continue to have republicans winning the political offices and our voices and agendas will never be heard. WAKE UP DEMOCRATS OF ALL PERSUASIONS, WE'RE SHOOTING OURSELVES IN THE FOOT WHEN WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DRASTICALLY CHANGE THINGS FOR THE BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!

I like and respect Hillary. I have always liked her. I think she is a good icon for smart, capable women everywhere. BUT.......I am constantly amazed at the number of people who have a visceral hatred of her, and when I ask them why, they can't come up with any particular reason. This tells me that the Rethug spin machine has done a fine job of blackening her reputation--because, as an earlier poster put it, they ARE terrified of her (a smart, capable woman).

I hope with all my heart that she stays in the Senate, where she is doing a fine job, and perhaps can have more impact on changing this nation's direction than could a Democratic president with a Rethug majority in one or both houses.

If Hillary runs for president, she begins the race well in the "minus" column, due to the timed-release Kool-aid already doled out by the Rethugs. It's yet another strategy to enable the Dems to continue losing.

I speak out against Hillary when she does or says things I disagree with, and actually only when she does or says things I strongly disagree with. I certainly hope that she is not our candidate in '08 as I distrust her and, given her actions and words, I have vast misgivings about where she stands on many important issues. That said, if unfortunately she is our candidate in '08 I will vote for her and I most likely will donate time and money to her campaign.

is about her? Any notion that she is running is tenuous at best. Hell, Lieberman and Biden are more legitimate targets than her in terms of criticism of their views on foreign policy. What about Ben Nelson? Hillary is not a DINO and not the most conservative Senator. To say so is pulling false statements out of nowhere.

because Saint Hillary is on a pandering binge. And yes of course she is running. How silly of you to say that such an assumption is 'tenuous at best'.

She starts some STUPID initiatives, right after reaffirming that she is a hardass stay and die Democrat, and you are SHOCKED that folks here on DU are not too fond of what she is currently up to. Oh well...

:shrug:

Just because she is to the right of where you stand doesn't mean she is pandering for 2008. Only Dick Morris or NewsMax would even go with this arguement. Too many of the anti-Hillary arguements around here sound just like those from the VRWC. Unfortunately many here have bought into the spin about Hillary, but then against it's been shoved down our throats for the past 13 years.

Dick Morris worked for the Clintons. Our arguments do not at all resemble the rightwing crap. The right holds Saint Hillary up as some sort of librul hobgoblin. At least one of them (that asshat severin) seems to have as his major objection the size of her buttocks. The one thing they for sure do not discuss or debate is where she stands on the issues. How could they? She is, for the most part, just another right of center corporatist hack.

Do you really think she woke up two weeks ago and said something like "dammit, I know what my life's mission is, I need to rid the world of violent make believe war games"? And then just as suddenly, this week she woke up, in a cold sweat, just beside herself with anxiety over the thought that somebody, somewhere, might be burning an american flag as an expression of their extreme displeasure with our actions in the world? How naive or dishonest are you? Of course she is pandering. At least some of her sycophants here are making the argument that her pandering on the flag issue is 'good politics'.

She only cares about her own glory.

You're making Jeanine Pirro proud!

I'm a democrat. I don't like Hillary's last few votes/stands. They appear to me to be enabling an abusive administration. In my opinion, any congresscritter who does not oppose this war, at least in some fashion, is tacitly saying its ok to start wars of naked agression based on falsehoods, as long as you do it efficiently or ultimately "win". (whatever winning would mean in this case)
Am I allowed to say that without being accused of being a freeper, or spouting right wing talking points?

Sometimes people hold strong to principles and base their opinions and actions on those principles.

Thou shalt fall down and worship at Hillary's feet.

"Thou shalt not give a disproportionate amount of attention to one person you may disagree with over others....and not to cost us 2006 because of the dilusional pursuit of ideological purity."

of the hardest working senators, if not the hardest working. She has done much for our area of Western New York. She would also work hard at being president of the US and a good world leader. I don't agree with everything Hillary Clinton does, or any politician for that matter, I DON'T EVEN AGREE WITH EVERYONE ON DU!!! Stop the Hillary Clinton bashing and if she becomes the presidential candidate, please support her. We will never win if this continues.

We have to get swing voters and, I'm so sorry to say this as a woman to a woman, but this country has gone backward in regards to women over the past five years. No way these swing voters will cast their vote for a female if we're still at war - or "preserving the peace" or some such shit. They just won't.

Blame it on the Reich-wing media, if you must. Or the simple fact that there is still bias against women in military matters. Whatever. But there will be no red states flipping with Hillary at the helm and we quite possibly could lose Pennsylvania and/or Michigan, too.

How 'bout we pick a liberal perceived as a moderate?

We don't need to listen to idiots like Pirro or Newsmax to recognize what is obvious to everyone here.

Hillary is using New Yorkers as a springboard to the White House.

If Hillary cared at all for the people of New York, she would be introducing legislation calling for the NY National Guard to be returned home from the war on terror.

I see a war in Iraq that has completely flushed our future into the toilet of history. But I don't see no war on terror.

I hope I'm misreading you IG.

It is the pretext by which the Bill of Rights was mortally wounded, and the Executive branch has usurped powers never given to it by the Constitution.

The war on terror is the reason we went into Iraq: to prevent WMDs from falling into the hands of Al-Qaeda.

The war on terror is as phony as the war on drugs, the latter being used as a pretext to suppress by force the legitimate grievances of people in Latin America.

We need to bring the National Guard home, where it belongs!

If Hillary cared about NY, she would be calling for the Guard to be brought home.

What about Carl Levin in MI? Or Harry Reid for NV? Apparently they don't care about their states either.:sarcasm:

n/t

I want the powers that be to know that we will not support her for pres.

Quit abetting the Right-wing and stop doing Pirro's dirty work!

... at the nomination, she's running. The positions she gets on her soap box about are hardly the concerns of New Yorkers.

New Yorkers"

Excuse me, but every Senator is involved in national issues (video game violence is interstate.)

She's a public servant open to scrutiny and debate.

She is Senator Clinton. Clinton refers to better times, good economy, etc. etc.

Hillary refers to a lightening rod attracting freepers and other right wing extremists.

I always refer to her as Senator Clinton.

If you want a war mongering, flag burning obsessed Senator, more power to you. But she will NEVER be President of the United States. Nor will any other goddamned DLC phonies.

well said:thumbsup:

Shit.

Im voting for the prog primary challenger and the more posts like this that I see only fires me up more.

I want someone in there who will do all the domestic front items she does and also represent my number one issue on Iraq much better.

As an American a Democrat and social progressive that is my right, guess what Im not leaving the party Im trying to change it. Moderate Dems today are indeed repub lite compared to 5 years ago. She took the opinions of repub Gold Star Mother puppets (who were making the rounds in DC, many were aware of who they were and what they represented) over Cindy and the rest of the GSMs for Peace.

Your comparison to people who are opposed to Hil on this board as two words away from being freepy types is a trite strawman wrapped in a lame insult. Good for you.

Hillary has brought as much funding to NYS, including Upstate, as possible. A Republican Congress won't exactly help Blue Staters, remember that. And Erie County is going through a horrible fiscal crisis related to inerta between the Democratic Mayor and Republican County Executive, Hillary can't do much about that. It's a city/county issue. Hillary is supposed to get federal funding for areas. Can Jeanine Pirro or Jonathan Tasini do any better? I sure as hell doubt it! BTW, did you know that Tasini ran against Murice Hinchey? He's in the same league as Ed McGaa, the Green candidate who challenged Paul Wellstone.

Snark begets snark.

Hil promised to help Erie and she hasn't. I worked my feet pretty good around here for her.
Erie has problems that both Fed and State can and should help out with. I would literally fucking die to have Eries problems be as simple as City/County its not and you know it but you'll throw up anything to defend Hillary. Go on ahead with that... She despises the left wing so your allusion to her being a Wellstone kind of Dem just because Tasini challenged Hinchey is full of regurgitated chicken shit.

I pounded pavement for her and you can kindly fuck the hell off with your "vote for her or else BS". That is about as unamerican as a fucking 'puke telling citizens to vote for bushco because only they can defend us against terror. You will never ever win over a vote with your snide ass attitude that you shove in this thread.

Sorry but as I said I am a Dem and it is undeniable the middle has moved right (significantly so) in the last 5 years, any Dem who stick so insidiously to the middle these days would not have been a Dem five years ago. I am going to nurture as well as I can a Liberal backlash in the party to get it back to where it was on the left. You can keep trying to back candidates that aim it rightward.

Oh and the war is not a single issue, thats a repuke talking point btw.
You only help them when you do that and prolong the war... Iraq thanks you Im sure.

See - we actually can find positive things to say about Hillary!

that he makes Hillary look rational.

I love Bill, but I just can't seem to warm up to Hillary...:shrug:

She's one of the smartest, funniest and wittiest people I've met.

in which people will inevitably bash her, advances your proposal how?

but there are virtually no Congresspeople who are all that attractive. (The ones who vote their conscience consistently are the least electable in national elections.) Rule by committee ain't pretty. Too much 'give a vote, get a vote' for purists to stomach. Laws and sausage, as they say. If you really want to know what Hillary Clinton is all about, look back to her career as First Lady and as a lawyer. It's pure liberal, which is why she Enemy #1 for the RWers.

It's really annoying and absurd.

it is considered to be a fact - she's all around the country (not New York) raising millions of dollars for the '08 election.

DP insiders such as Susan Esterage have verified this in the public arena - her talk (focused specifcally on Hillary's presidential run) was broadcast on C-Span a few weeks ago.

And she made the point that if Hillary was merely campaigning for her Senate seat, that she wouldn't be going to places like Iowa, Kentucky and California.

Other Senators rake in big bucks for their elections out of state. Hillary also has a long list of donars from being the wife of a former President. She is also shrewd in trying to build a large donar base against New York Republicans. Susan Estrich is also a Fox News Democrat who is only a notch above Dick Morris in terms of credibility.

Telling DUers to "shut up" about anything is likely to get you flamed. Telling DUers to "shut up" about HRC is SURE to get you flamed.

As for the flag burning "law," I can think of no possible law to outlaw flag-burning that would pass constitutional muster. To support such a law would simply be pure and simple pandering. Of course, HRC does a bang-up job of that!

I hope to high heaven that we win or lose with the BEST WE'VE GOT. And that, as far as I'm concerned, is NOT HRC.

Bake

And she gets attacked here more than any other Democrat. The speculation over whether or not she will run is just plain obsessive and undermines our goal for 2006. Hillary's seat is also one we need defending, or do you want another ScAlito introduced in an even redder U.S. Senate with little wiggle room to stop him?

...and enabling the war-mongers currently in power, she can bugger off as far as I'm concerned....

media ignored Clark.

I just wanted to say something nice on a thread today. :)

It brings a smile to my face everytime I look at it....

This is a "Guess what Party's candidate just announced he's running against Hillary" attack. We really need to possibly rename this board if it's not about the Democratic Party and Democrats. Or at least boot the Freepers and Trolls and Opportunists out of here!

No it not going to happen yet, I think you already knew that.
:hi:

If the pundits quit parading her name out there as the "inevitable" Democratic presidential nominee, I will gladly move on to concentrate on other topics.

Of course, these are media whores we're talking about. No way they're going to pass that "excitement" up anytime soon...

One way to see less discussion of Hillary is for people not to start threads about her......

:hide:

Well said! :)

Shut up about Hillary.

:thumbsup: