Senator Hillary Clinton is a DEMOCRATIC Senator, she's a DEMOCRAT

Senator Hillary Clinton votes FOR a raise in the Minimum Wage, she votes FOR keeping abortion LEGAL, she votes FOR saving Social Security, she votes FOR protecting Medicare, she votes FOR our Senate Leader to be the Majority Leader, she votes FOR policies that are friendly toward Labor Unions, she votes FOR job creation programs, she votes FOR fairer taxation for the Middle Class, she votes FOR the protection of Food Stamps for the poor, she votes FOR policies that are favorable to gays and minorities, she votes FOR policies that are good for the environment, she votes FOR more Stem Cell Research.

Senator Hillary Clinton votes AGAINST Junior's extreme Right-Wing reactionary judicial nominations, she votes AGAINST anymore TRILLION dollar tax cuts for the wealthy, she votes AGAINST cuts in Education, she votes AGAINST cuts in Healthcare, she votes AGAINST Faith Based Fundie Insanity, she votes AGAINST the Repukes Fascist agenda.

Along with COUNTLESS other Democrats she was lied to about Iraq...and because of that she voted for the IWR...which she now REGRETS doing.

I look at Senator Clinton's record as a whole, as a good Democratic Senator. I'm not willing to throw Senator Clinton away and kick her into touch and LOSE another Senate seat and let the Repuke nutjob take that New York seat...just because Senator Clinton voted for the IWR and is co-sponsoring some damn flag burning amendment. If Democrats DIDN'T co-sponsor this thing, then the Repukes in 2006 would be running around saying "The Democrats think it's okay for you to burn the flag" The Repukes brought this amendment up to try and use it as a wedge issue...so we're not taking the bait this time, we'll vote for it and take the wedge issue away.

Senator Hillary Clinton IS a Democrat, she's married to President Clinton who IS a Democrat...they are DEMOCRATS, members of the DEMOCRATIC Party.

Senator Clinton is a DEMOCRAT...she's NOT a DINO...she's NOT a Republican...she's a DEMOCRAT.

Just felt the need to point this out you know. Thanks.

On Edit: My thread here won't get ANY votes...the Hillary bashing threads seem to be ending up with a lot of votes and getting on the Greatest Page...and that helps our party in WHAT way exactly? My thread will be on Page Two in half an hour, and I'm DEFENDING a Democratic Senator, so WHAT will that say?

IMHO

Then run for office.

But I'm sadly unelectable...

Deleted

so very well written and right on the money. She is a Democrat and a damn GOOD ONE!!!!!

:-)

Consider Democrats...they might call themselves Democrats, but they're not in their heart. I don't think of them as members of my party of OUR party...OUR Democratic Party.

If they're Third Party, then they have NO right to be bashing Hillary or ANY other Democrat, considering they're NOT Democrats.

It's either we ALL get on the SAME page and fight to win in 2006 and 2008 and get these Fascist pigs out...or we have to have a DIVORCE.

...now means that I should leave the party? Gotcha. If you really want unity, then I would suggest that the DLC needs to join the Democratic Party and replace their allegiance to Citibank and Wallmart with a commitment to the people and our country.

Patriot Act...NCLB...IWR...NAFTA... Those are kinda big issues.

We're fighting out and out Fascists and we ALL want the same thing, to get rid of them. So we need a UNITED front, we can't be eating our own, we all, at the end of the day WANT the SAME thing.

Any individual has the Right to state their opinion openly and freely. You are advocating - don't state your opinions that are against whatever hapless Democrat because I FEEL it would not be a proper Democratic thing to do. That is the height of hubris and arrogance to assume you have to power to say who is in what category and which speech is free.

Amendment 1:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to address the Government for a redress of grievances."

A call for people to stop the dissent and decidedly strong opinions because an opinion is not in aligment with a perceived political correctness for a true Democratic garden party. Others are able to clearly and articulately (sometimes humorously and/or crudely) state a point of view about an elected official. An elected official willingly and knowingly sought the role. If Hillary or any other elected Democrat is unwilling to take constructive and unconstructive criticism of their roles, votes and opinions well they ought to stay home and bake cookies - together with the supporters that are too weak to hear other opinions that are definitely not exact mirrors of their own.

then supporting people who support the basic principals of the party rather than their own selfish political goals would be a start. To do that we need leadership who will not sell out the people, the Constitution, or the good of the country.

This war, and in the case of Hillary Clinton, she knew what was coming when she voted and she knew just as I did that bush was a liar, was bad for the country. Its cost in dollars is condeming our children with its burden of debt, its cost in lost world esteem in blackening our fortunes, and its cost in lives in a sin. Those who think that this can be brushed aside as just small little "thing" are missing the bigger picture.

So whatever happened to economic fairness, the bill of rights, have those been oursourced to?

To any political who spends everyday campaigning with sole intent of satisfying their pollsters, rather than make the tough choices when the going gets tough, then I must conclude that they do not want my support.

Do you want the SAME thing or do you just want Hillary: maybe that is the question.

& right now Hillary needs bashing. BTW, sometimes eating our own can be quite enjoyable.



Keith’s Barbeque Central

It is one thing to direct friendly fire at a Democrat that is already under attack by the right wing. It serves no purpose. To win back the Congress will take unity. Fragging people that are in the enemy crosshairs does not promote unity. It destroys it.

Lieberman, on the other hand is the darling of the right wing. Bush vomits, Lieberman licks it up. A progressive should run against him.

The mushy middle of America that has no strong political ideology will respect unity and they will join with us. They recognize that unity is strength. But we must show our leaders how to lead right now.

The fascist regime is our true enemy. ANY Democrat who helps them cover up their crimes is a traitor to the party. Criticizing these treasonous bastards is not only honorable, it is necessary to win. The ones who are not with us at this turning point must be destroyed.

Heads on pikes!!!

We'll NEVER have a "united front" Our party is about dialog and disagreement, within the context of the party.

Hence, while I disagree with Hillary about a LOT, I can still acknowledge her positions, and recognize she is the strongest candidate at the moment for the office of President.

I also know Hillary's opinions evolve over time as she gets feedback from all sides. THAT is how she differs from a DINO like Lieberman, who is so obviously on the take.

Those that oppose the war do so on moral, ethical, and/or legal grounds. They don't oppose the war because Bush has an "R" behind his name, and they won't support the war if the President had a "D" behind his/her name.

There is such a thing as core values!

demand that the DLC leave the party for unspecified "sins"....

we have free speech. So if someone is a democrat, they have to support all democrat elected officials? I feel to see the use of free will in that equation.

Joe Lierberman.

I am a green party voter and military veteran and I will critique anyone I damn well please.

I don't like Hillary. Period. She may be just fine as a Senator, not Prez. I think she is power hungry, not justice hungry.

Have a nice day.

Olaf

DINOs only.

And the Zell Miller comparison is just silly. I don't see Hillary going around giving speeches on behalf of the Repukes, endorsing Repukes...Zell Miller IS a Repuke, he was EVEN campaigning for the Bush bastard last November and he was bashing Senator Kerry.

To compare Hillary to him, I just can't understand that. Hillary is also nothing LIKE Holy Joe.

That was my point. There are "Democrats" who need bashing.

And the candidate for his seat currently being pimped about by many DUers is not a Democrat.

I can't see how a Democrat doesn't have a problem with that or can't see how that hurts the party.....

Republicans work. An edict is handed down from the top, and everyone goes with it, right or wrong.

Yes, Hillary has a good voting record on many issues, but for many of us, the illegal invasion and continued occupation of Iraq is the #1 issue. And Hillary's support of the Bush policy on this is wrong, as far as we are concerned.

So given that this is the Democratic Party, where discussion is encourgared, we are discussing this, rather than all toeing the liine handed down from above.

I can critize anyone I damn well please whether a democrat or not. For example Joe Liberman not a democrat and is a dino. I don't want Clinton for the nominee because she's too conservative for me. I like her and all that but I want to try someone else. If she does get the nomination and does run I will vote for her though.

like what we have now....

is possible. The gulf between the radical neo-con or RW and the people is just being recognized after years of press censorship and reluctance to acknowledge the coup on American political institutions. Dems are excluded from that club of corporate dynastic elites, with few exceptions.
They vote en masse, lock step like the Fascists they are, afraid of any non-conformisms from individuals. Dems are diverse in Race, religion and economic class. That's how I conclude that a Democratic political dynasty will be like the Roosevelts, decades apart and party diverse.
imo

Can I praise Ron Paul?

accounts and we should never ever criticize them?

Hey, that's the kind of logic I see from Freepers supporting the Republicans!

Hell, I'd vote for Hillary just on principal: I don't think that we could stand another 4 years of republicans. But don't tell me that I cannot "bash" (aka criticize) her.

I just don't like her previous stance on the war.

I don't like her usage of stupid Tertiary issues like "video game violence/sexual content" to play to the middle ground

I don't like her pseudo-taking on the "I'm from humble roots" crap.

I'll criticize them all I damn well want. If you want to play rah-rah like the Bush-can-do-no-wrong crowd but wearing blue then go for it. Just don't give me that "you're not one of us if you question our leadership crap"...save it for the other side. And I'll call myself a democrat all I want...just do not call me a tool.

been a Democrat for 40 years, walked precints, went to county central committee meetings, worked the phones and dragged first time voters to the polls.

Please don't tell me who in my party I may or may not critisize. If you believe it's going to be "you are either with us or against us," then you are out of touch with how politics works.

The DLCers in the party have had a good long run and it's time to examine where that's gotten the party as a whole, how much influence we as a party want to give this group, and what our options are.

This is little more than an internicine power struggle. From the early 90's up until 2005 the DLCers have pretty much called the shots as far as the national party goes.

I believe a little more balance in the power dynamics of the party is a good thing for the party. The ability and the right to critisize is much more important than walking lock step on Hillery or anyone else.

And don't worry. Hillery will win her re-election to the Senate.

You and Hillary get to decide who the "real" Democrats are. We should all feel privileged.

I don't agree with the 'you have to be pure and perfect'...why waste your time and our time disrespecting a woman who stood up and said "There is something horribly wrong with our health care system and we need to work on solutions." Even though she was vilified, rise in costs for health care remained single digit...until Bush stole the election.

I wish more would be a bit more civil when discussing differences, instead of dragging out the hateful invective. It just doesn't advance the discussion. And I think people should be FAIR in their criticism. I find it interesting that Mark Warner isn't in for half the crap that Hillary gets, and his war stance is the same as hers...and, he did not have to put his money where his mouth is with an IWR vote. Same with Wes Clark, a great guy with many good qualities, but his view of the war is well to the right of Hillary's, and he didn't have to cast a vote either, because he has never held office. Jack Murtha and Charlie Rangel, heroes both, want to resume the draft to ensure shared sacrifice...we've got plenty here who would go ballistic if that ever came to pass.

Hillary is a very effective Senator, she has truly EARNED the respect she has gotten in the Senate. And she has been a very valuable member of the Senate Armed Services Committee--she really speaks up for vets, especially the wounded, she pounds the VA hard and pushes for more funding, and she also concerns herself with the quality of life issues for military families, with a focus on those with deployed breadwinners. No one gives her much credit for this, because she doesn't spout off about it, but she is one of the few on our team who really keeps these issues front and center when it comes time for mark ups. And when she goes to Iraq and Afghanistan, she doesn't wear an Army warm up jacket and pose from a stage and with a plastic turkey, she actually MEETS with and TALKS to personnel, from the most junior to the Generals. She has a better sense of the situation on the ground than the Monkey ever could, frankly...

She has no integrity.

"Hillary bashing threads seem to be ending up with a lot of votes and getting on the Greatest Page...and that helps our party in WHAT way exactly?"

Maybe it'll help our party by ensuring that Hillary doesn't get the nomination.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I agree that she must stay in the Senate...but I find your comments totally TOTALLY offensive.

Maybe you could post a link to where Hillary has covered herself in the blood of dead soldiers and done a happy dance, eh? A link?

I stand by my statements. I find Democrats that love her the puzzlement.

Obviously other people found your comment to be incredibly offensive and inaccurate as well...if they didn't your comments wouldn't have been deleted.

And that's called politics.

involved.

Some of our Democrats have integrity. Over 100 STOOD UP against the Republican Machine on the IWR REGARDLESS of the political consequences!
They should be remembered and honored for their courage and integrity!

Integrity? Its all politics. Every politician does it. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise. The ones who stood up could afford to politically.

onenote

Wellstone, for one, was in a hotly contested Senate race in Minnesota against a "Machine Funded" hand-picked Republican candidate. He voted his conscience well aware that it could cost him his seat in that political environment. Ironically, "Standing on Principle" against the "wisdom of the Democratic Party" actually helped his campaign by appealing to voters who appreciate honesty and integrity. (Paul was MY Senator. I KNOW what I'm talking about.)

There were others. Those who "Stood Up" should be remembered for their integrity. Some may have a "safe" seat, but this was an unpopular stand during the Republican fed HyperNationalism and screams of TRAITOR that were popular with the CorpoMedia at the time.


I am NOT going to endorse or tolerate corruption, cowardice, and CYA politics based on the false rationalization that "everyone does it, so its OK"!

You have a link?

Hopefully this will work
S.931 (introduced in 1999)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN00931:@@@P

As I said, some form of "Flag Protection Act" is introduced almost every year. It gets virtually no repub support (because they want a Constitutional amendment), goes nowhere, but gives a few Democrats "cover" to say that they support protecting the flag. Its pure politics, but since that's the game played by the repubs, I have no problem with the Dems fighting back.

onenote

:puke:

I don't recall seeing Hillary at the Republican convention rallying the republicans to vote for George Bush while the crowd mocked Kerry by putting band aids on thier chins. . .hmmm maybe I didn't watch the same night as you?

She is the anti-Christ as well ya know.

I seriously don't picture her ever going to a GOP convention trashing her own party like zell did..

I don't think there is any DEM out there as bad as Zell.

there's a huge gap between zell miller, who's a staunch republican in every way shape and form with the sole exception of party registration, and hillary clinton, who's clearly a democrat but is taking a few, possibly cynical, typically republican positions, most likely to make herself viable as a presidential candidate at some point.

Every time she opens her mouth she is going more and more right. Zell at one time was not a bad Democrat, but over a period of time, he went off the deep end.

The latest is the cosponsoring the Flag Burning law.

Re-read my original post, I explain why she and other Democrats have to vote for this flag burning amendment.

Unless, of course, you know something we don't know.

the gospel as to her motives (inviting others to look at it as proof), I would prefer to see the evidence rather than the assurance of someone with a bone to pick.

Otherwise, I still say that your argumnent is speculative. A more honest way to represent such an assertion is to put the caveat "I think", "I believe", or "it is my opinion" in front of your statement.

This goes for many other DUers, as well. Opinions are not facts and should never be presented as such.

why on earth would she want to join the borg?

she's trying to position herself as a moderate, just as bill was hardly a pure lefty.

to see a republican position or two from a solid democrat and immediately think 100% republican nutcase is really stretching it.

she has gone from the middle to the right. Like the Iraq war was the right thing to do.

if you want someone saleable at the national level, you have to tolerate a few positions that placate the other side, or at least the swing voters.

shrub is a rarity in american presidential politics, a politician with nothing but contempt for the other side. made possible by simultaneous control of all branches of government and the media, also a rarity in american politics.

She's very Left and very Democratic.

Its an annual ritual. Kucinich supports a freakin' Constitutional amendment on flag burning. Its politics. The repubs play the game very well. When we try to fight back, we jump all over ourselves.

onenote

"When German forces invaded Norway on April 9, 1940, Quisling became the first person in history to announce a coup d'etat during a news broadcast, declaring an ad-hoc government during the confusion of the invasion, hoping that the Germans would support it. The background for this action was the flight northwards of the King and the government, and Quisling feared that all political power could end up in German hands, to the disadvantage of the Norwegian people."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidkun_Quisling

Based on nothing but your excellent aping of Hillary Hater Club talking points...have you bothered to look at her viting record...obviously not!

When you do...come back and tell me if you feel the same.

Regardless of what one's opinion of her as a Presidential candidate is she is still a Democrat and one of our Democratic Senators. She is a good Senator and I want her to continue in that role for a good many years to come.

There's always that circular firing squad around here that will continue to try to erode us from the inside. Thanks for posting this thread!

I'm sick of Democrats who try and play it both ways. It's been proven time and time again that coddling the right loses elections.

She not only needs to dump this flag burning nonsense, she needs to grow a spine and get out in front of the pack calling for an end to this senseless war. She needs to be promoting Democratic values of peace and prosperity, not the Republican values of fear and oppression.

tend to sound a bit like the rabid right-wingers that we (DU-ers)are presumably opposed to. If you like Hillary, fine. But some of us recognize her for what she is: a moderate "Democrat" who is getting more conservative as the seconds tick. This flag burning non-sense is truly insane.

The Hillary bashers here...hang out at "the other place"

We don't sound rabid...the Hillary bashers should read their own posts IF they can get past their HATRED of Hillary.

Two weeks ago Hillary was EVEN compared to Margaret Thatcher and Lucretia Borgia...so who's rabid?

but for the record, I do not hate Hillary Clinton. Nor do I believe she is Satan's spawn. I do not, however, appreciate her efforts at co-opting typically Republican issues -- such as flag-burning and NOT speaking out against the Iraq occupation. She is not an evil woman. She is, however, the quintessential politician with unfathomable name value.

It's either co-sponsor that amendment...or the Repukes get to do what their PLAN was by offering up this amendment...we don't co-sponsor it, then the Repukes run around during the 2006 mid-term elections screaming:

"The Democrats support flag burning"

It's designed as a wedge issue, and by co-sponsoring the amendment we take the wedge issue OFF the Repukes and throw it BACK at them.

It's a waste of time. Nobody here supports burning the flag. Everybody here supports free speech and not screwing up what Jefferson, Madison, and Mason gave us. Why doesn't she just say, "If the Republicans care so much about the flag, they wouldn't trample it in the sands of Iraq." But then again, we know why she wouldn't say this, she voted for the war authority and supported Bush, polishing up her defense credentials.

It makes no difference what you stand for if you stand for nothing but trouble and negativity, all in the name of voting for a bunch of bills that will (a) never get passed and (b) never get funded because we're going broke with Iraq.

Its a political ploy. And so far a pretty good one. But it only works if its got some Dems co-sponsoring it.

onenote

Horrors! What nasty (but insightful) comparisons.

Poor Hillary, she's such an underdog and so picked on. Hillary haters are nasty nasty bad people!

that causes me to retch.


Oh, and Joe Lieberman is a 'democrat' too.
:eyes:

I must have missed where Hillary supported PNAC, I must have missed where she'd been running around calling for us to take over the entire Middle East so we can steal their oil...must have missed where she's been repeatedly calling for the bombing and invasion of Iran and Syria.

Hillary Clinton and Holy Joe are as different as chalk and cheese, as different as apples and oranges.

And members of the DLC leadership are now co-authoring/signing PNAC documents and appearing at Heritage foundation events. It's about the company she chooses to keep. It's about her being a blatant opportunist, interested in her personal political sauces first, in Democratic ideals second. Contrast Paul Wellstone.

No, this does not mean she is evil or bad herself. This does not diminish the good work she has done. She is not one of the 10 (primarily DLC) Democrats I would like to see replaced by Dem's with stronger commitments to our parties core values (Lieberman). I hope she continues to be a great Senator for NY.

On the other hand, she is NOT someone I cheer for. And I pray, and will work, to make sure she is not our party's next presidential candidate.

When did she say she regrettted her IWR vote? She just the other day defended it yet again.

Believe what you will.

I am a NY voter. I supported her against all kinds of vile crap 5 years ago. I will not this time.

Fool me once...

as Dumbya said

We won't get fooled again.

Properly. I explained in a coherent way WHY Hillary and MANY other Democrats are going to vote for this flag burning amendment thing.

Re-read it.

The Repukes brought this amendment up to try and use it as a wedge issue...so we're not taking the bait this time, we'll vote for it and take the wedge issue away.

Why can't we vote our conscious. Why can't we vote how we really feel. Why must she play these games.... I believe thesee games will backfire. I want a poliitician to vote how they feel.. not vote yes to some Neocon asshole bill.. just to appear to be middle of the road!

But Hilary is not as bad as a few around here have made her.

that the Repugs will still use it as a wedge issue. She can kiss their butts all she wants and they will still paint her as a Kennedy liberal.

to me is Senator Clinton and her positions.

Wedge issues are BS.

If they think of one, then think of one back.

from http://www.bushwatch.net/demwatch.htm

Only 52% Senate Dems Have Passing Grades As Dems
Boxer Leads, Hillary Trails At 70%

There are 5 Dems with passing grades of 70% (14 traditionally Dem votes) Dorgan (D-ND), Clinton (D-NY), Schumer (D-NY), Murray (D-WA), and Wyden (D-OR)


What say ye to that?

She may be a good democrat, but she doesn't deserve the attention she gets, at least not on her own merits. She is her husband's wife, and that is why her name is mentioned with other presidential possibles. If her name was Harvey Glick than I am sure we would not be having this conversation.

I will never support her ...even the thought of her as president... which will never happen ..makes me ill..we need a uniter..she is only being discussed because the real next president is not obvious..yet..but we will lose if Hillary gets the nomination...Hillary is a politician...and a good one...I loathe politicians...yet I spend a helluva lot of time reading the posts at DU..and I think that anyone who keeps pushing Hillary is not listening...are we still so stupid that we cant pick a winner...shes not the one who will get this country to the polls...shes just not....its a waste of time to even discuss the possibility of Hillary as president...but hey, we've sabotaged ourselves before...why should now be any different?..wake up...I would love to support a woman for president...Barbara Boxer would get my vote...Hillary is just more of the same ...and I am so very tired of the same....

running for president...

Now, I don't disbelieve that HRC is a good democrat, but like her husband, she has one very apparent flaw - it's that they both are so quick to hop onto what I call "fair weather principles" and this is clear by her recent talk of creating anti-flag burning legislation.

This is clearly done to garnish military support and in an almost nationalistic sense and to bolster claims she is a moderate Dem.

To me, no matter how distasteful it seems, being able to protest in the manner of burning a US flag shows just how strong our country is when it comes to free speech issues.

No one likes her being a moderate.

The Hillary bashers are only hurting themselves and the Democratic Party. Perhaps hurting the Democrats is the true objective, but a third party candidate will never win an election for president. Do you want to have the current form of criminal leadership ALWAYS running your country??? I hope NOT!!!!!

:toast:

Senator. Also think more Dems should sponsor legislation that get's these wedge issues out of the way. Repugs are really good at

TAKING THE DEMS ISSUES AND TURNING THEM TO THEIR OWN BENEFIT.

We need to turn the tables on them. Take their issues and make a big deal out of them and get them out of the way!!

Hillary is a Dem and we need her!

And this is why Hillary is co-sponsoring the flag burning amendment. The Repukes brought this up, and it was specifically designed to be used as a wedge issue for the 2006 elections...but by co-sponsoring the bill we're taking away the Repukes wedge issue.

done with it. I'm not really in favor of flag burning anyway. Am in favor of personal freedom so it matters but, let's not throw away a perfectly good Dem over it. Geez people, get some perspective!!

We could all support the overturn of Roe v Wade, oppose gay marriage, remove all but the 2nd Amendment from the Bill of Rights, and slyly suggest that it was better in the days of segregation.

That would eliminate a lot of wedge issues.

I hope you get my point.

But ending the war is something I care about. This flag burning nonsense is something I care about. What would be a hot-button issue for you JTemperance? What if she voted against stem-cell research and was for everything else? What if she voted against the mininum wage and was for everything else? What if she voted against gay marriage and was for everything else?

Look, I agree with you that we don't need to vote her out of the party. Far from it. I'm in the same position in Tennessee in that I like Harold Ford generally, but don't agree with some positions he's taken. But we need another Democrat in the senate and I don't think his Demo opposition can win the general election. I think Ford can. I like Hillary, but honestly, she's really disappointed me lately. Let her stay in the senate, fine. But right now, with these positions she's taking -- for whatever reason she's doing it -- I can't support her for the presidential nomination. The general election, that's another matter.

That's all I'm saying.

against a GOP candidate in the general election. I would not vote to nominate her, however. And some of us think that if there was a greater distinction between Kerry and Bush things might've been a little different.

She can stay as Senator of the great state of New York until the Second Coming for all I care, but she should never be elected President!

I want her to stay as Senator...and I don't want her running in 2008. But there's people now who just don't even want her as Senator, they want to back this oaf...and by doing so that'll let the Repuke nutjob Pirro get the New York Senate seat.

Cutting off the nose to spite the face it's called.

It is up to New Yorkers to decide who they want as their Senator, but Hillary is coming close to becoming a New York version of Lieberman.

Hillary won't get my vote if she runs for President!

Hillary ISN'T going to run in 2008...she's running for re-election to the Senate.

and perhaps you might even find WMD in Iraq while you are at it!

Senator. I believe New York needs someone like her as a Senator.

we can't have it both ways. on the one hand we condemn the g.o.p. for being rubberstamps. but, when one of our own doesn't "toe the party line" they're immediately torn to shreds here. how often do we hear on d.u. how much we admire & appreciate the moderate repubs in congress who sometimes vote with the dems?

"If Democrats DIDN'T co-sponsor this thing, then the Repukes in 2006 would be running around saying "The Democrats think it's okay for you to burn the flag"......i couldn't agree more.

k&r

only what they do.

are not allowed to critique our own? I am a progrressive Dem. I do not agree with Democrats who support DLC, as I believe they are harming our party. I support the Dems who fought for their base voters who were disenfranchised during the last election. I standup for Democrats who fight for individuals over wealthy corporations. I DO NOT have to march lock step with the Democratic Party to post here.

:shrug:

Has she ever said? Were her strategists uncertain as to where she should stand on the War on the Poor?

The first one. Abstained in 2005.

Not sure what to think of that, since her husband veto'd the same kind of legislation- and Edwards has been doing the 2 America's thing.

Edwards is an attorney- and his wife Elizabeth practiced bankruptcy law!

He knew DAMN WELL what he was voting for at the time.

Mistake my ass. Hus only mistake was that he didn't foresee that he'd be playing "two America's" for political advantage.

To support this ban on Flag Burning.

Wrong wrong wrong.

BTW, is there any action being taken to let Sen Clinton know we don't support this amendment??

Reb

;) agreed

George Burns: "Say good night Hillary"
Hillary: "Good night Hilary"

And that's it for our show tonight folks.

attention to things like:

1913 - Federal Reserve changes

The Elite Bankers

The New World Order

The American Union

cozyness between Bill and the CIA KING MAKER GHWB

Wake up folks - Wake up

Bama

I'm awake, but when I read cuckoo crap like this I think I'm in a bad dream.

As much as I appreciate many of the things Bill Clinton did as president, I think both he and Hillary are too ambitious. It seems Bill wants to retain some kind of power through Hillary and she wants her own power. She is trying to run to the center as Bill did but the country is not the same it was in 1992. The rabid right has changed the political landscape and most Democrats will not support a light-Republican, like Hillary or Lieberman; Republicans detest the Clintons because of Bill's successes and won't support her. If we nominate Hillary, we'll end up out of power once again. I'm beginning to dislike Hillary myself. She went to Israel and tried to gin up support through a strong pro-Israeli position with American Jews. She refuses to denounce her vote for authority to go to war, afraid she'll be called soft on terrorism. And now she comes out with this flag-burning denouncement in an attempt to appear patriotic. If you try to please all the people, you end up pleasing none. Hillary Clinton would be a disaster as the Democratic candidate in 2008. She should stay in the Senate, if she can with a couple of strong anti-war Democrats coming out against her. New York is a progressive state, liberal if you will, and Hillary was elected mostly because she is a Democrat and coat-tailed on Bill. I find her more and more distasteful every day.

is very distasteful to me. Moderation is the key. Ever heard of the "Golden Mean"? Hillary Clinton raises more money for the party than any other democrat. Please notice how many dems refuse her help.

N/T

My beef isn't her creds - yea or nay - my beef is that she won't flip any red states and possibly would lose us a couple of blue ones.

She is going to triangulate, to do and say, within reason, whatever will get her elected President of the United States in the general election. Now, whether she will get out of the Democratic primaries is another question altogether.

I worry that the sheeple element of the Dem Party (and there are those who vote only for who is "most popular") will put her in as the nominee and then she'll get TROUNCED in a general election.

if he gets the nod, and I still love Dennis, John and John. Bashing Hillary will not help Clark or any other dem get the nomination. Many of us believe that a vote for Hillary is our best chance to regain the White House. Disagree if you must, but do not tear down good Democrats, in particular, one of the most effective democrats we have. Please, people, check out how much money she raises for OUR party, and her generosity with both time and money to DEMOCRATS.

No where.

I keep repeating - over and over and over - that she won't win a general election. That's not bashing her. That's my opinion as a blue voter in a red state. And, it's a valid opinion. I know what swing voters are like in the purple and red states.

I can say that I disagree that she's effective as a Democratic leader - as it relates to her appeal down here - and that's STILL not bashing her.

I haven't bashed her at all. Others may have, but not I.

P.S. I had the same thoughts about Kerry - even though I liked him just fine. I knew he couldn't flip a red state and, even with Diebold, one of the most important things we need to find in a candidate is broad - as in countrywide - appeal to better unite the country. Kerry didn't have that and neither does Hillary, fwiw.

I don't trust her integrity and I don't trust her judgement.

I feel for the DLC and the last decades history of the DNC. I love brilliant people in leadership positions who are not cunningly plotting against the citizens. I pushed for her, defended her, praised her, admired her. I can't help it that she has disappointed me. I can't even explain to myself exactly why she is bugging me big time.

In general, she is not fighting at all or strongly for the things I care about. She sides with her Republican buddies too often.

If I remember correctly, she missed the bankrupt;cy vote because of her husband's operation - but I never heard her speak out against it. However, I don't live in New York.

To me, all the issues you raise in the first two paragraphs of your post are 'givens'. There is nothing special about those issues at this time. But, but... all the prescient issues of today are a big disappointment. And she really pushed for continuance and build-up in Iraq. To me, that is anti-life and limb. I want someone who calls for peace.

I want a peacenik - someone who really cares for children and kids - which the end of killing would bring - and some words against the horrible bankruptcy bill.

I believe she is posturing and has decided that she needs to be right of center.

The DLC - I don't think I was ever inspired by anyone from the DLC that I have heard representing Democrats on TV.

Until Democrats understand that they allowed our vote to be privatized and they do something about it, I can only call myself an Independent who fights for and votes for Democrats as our best chance for fighting our enemy within.

And if people here think that Independents are not welcome to speak here, they should take a step back and contemplate that position.

Our vote is our most precious possession and it has been stolen. Our representation in our State Capitols and in Washington are also our most precious possessions and they have been bought. Every other issue that anyone can bring up is dependent on our vote and our representative. Does she realize that?

are you saying she should face no one in a primary? I thought she already won that coronation in 2000? Ms. Lowry declined to enter the race everyone assumed she would run in and win...because Hillary wanted the seat.
Look, I hate legacy candidates in ALL parties....she's just one more.

She voted to confirm Condi and Negroponte.

She voted for the bankruptcy bill.

She voted for the Cheney Energy Bill.

These are her sins in the last Congress.

On the bright side, she spoke up for Ohio voters (but didn't vote for them), she voted against CAFTA, twice. She voted against gun manufacturer civil immunity. She fought against the RW judges in the "nuclear option" battle.

Overall, she votes 65% with progressives. This makes her a moderate Democrat (instead of a RW one, like the below 50%ers).

However, like the above post mentions, she is a legacy candidate, and frankly, I do not want that at all. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is NOT healthy for this country. No dynasties...and we need some new ideas because the dynasty phase of our country is fast approaching 20 years of our history. These 20 years have not been the best, even though Hillary's husband arguably had the best of those years (which weren't all flowers and roses, despite our wishing it were so).

http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh12052005.html

<snip>

"There were 19 members of that committee, all of whom had to know that Bush was lying. Only the four in caps above voted against the war. But if 19, out of what is often called a small and intimate club of 100 Senators, knew that the war was based on a lie, can one believe that the rest did not know? And given the bloodletting that was about to be unleashed, why did none of these 19, including Graham, release the "confidential" NIE report? What sort of men and women are these?

Let us carry this one step further. There were 23 Senate votes against the war, only 4 of whom were on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. If we add to that 23, the five Democrats (Bayh, Daschle, Edwards, Feinstein and Rockefeller), we have 28. It would have taken only 5 more to sustain a veto against the war. Let's see who was available among the pro-war votes. There were Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Max Cleland (Yes, he voted for the war!), Christopher Dodd, Tom Harkin (Yes, he voted for the war!), Ernst Hollings, Harry Reid (now minority leader) and Charles Schumer. (That's 8, bringing the total to 36.) So those Dems cannot say their votes did not matter. They cannot claim we would have gone to war anyway. If they had been willing to filibuster against the war or filibuster to allow the inspectors to complete their work, there would have been no war. These are Dems on whom progressives rely. They betrayed us, and they have blood on their hands since it was in their power to stop the war. But their ambitions came first. (Chuck Hagel who now professes to be anti-war and John McCain who wears his "integrity" on his sleeve would have made two excellent additions among the Republicans.)

Finally it is worth recalling that the Democrats were in the majority in the Senate at the time the war vote was taken on October, 11, 2002. So this is every bit as much a Democratic war as a Republican one.

<snip>

Where does that leave us? The crisis that is the war in Iraq has become a crisis of Democracy. Right now it is crystal clear that there is no true opposition party, although there are minor elements (very minor ones) among the Left in the Democratic party and the Libertarians in the Republican party. These could constitute a genuine antiwar opposition. Until that happens, the war will go one, the neocons may drive us into further wars and our democracy will be further imperiled."


Looking back on October 2002...

Senate vote on war resolution delayed by voice of Byrd

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.byrd10oct10,1,1899718.story?page=2&cset=true&ctrack=1&coll=bal-iraq-storyutil

<snip>

"Waving his well-worn miniature copy of the Constitution - always tucked in his breast pocket and often brandished during impassioned speeches - Byrd has warned darkly against expanding presidential power at the expense of Congress'.

"This is a blank check," he said. "Congress is ceding, lock, stock and barrel, its power to declare war - handing it over to a chief executive. Congress might as well just shut the door and put a sign up there that says, 'Going fishing.'

<snip>

As Senate Democratic leaders struggled last night to surmount obstacles Byrd had laid down to prolong the debate, the West Virginia senator took to the floor again. "I'm not stalling," he said. "Here is a question of life and death - can't I get more than 10 minutes?"

Hopefully it will open a few eyes on the site. Thank you!

She is more of a democrat than Liberman.

Leiberman is a 30% progressive. There are 6 senators that we have that are WORSE than Leiberman when it comes to voting. We never talk about those senators, though.

A Dem has to be seen as more moderate when from there - and I think that's even understood on this board.

Lieberman, however, is from a blue state and shouldn't have to worry about rightish-leaning blueish voters in a red state. I think that might be the difference.

:shrug:

Maybe I'm wrong - I'm just throwing it out there.

But Salazar is one of our worst RW Democrats.

Carper (only one notch better than Leiberman) is a RW Democrat from Delaware.

Regardless, I define a moderate or "centrist" Democrat as a Democrat who votes for progressive issues 50% of the time (versus the Republican position). If they cross that line and vote for Republican issues more than 50% of the time (and by proxy, Bush), then I do not consider them "centrist" or "moderate". They are right-wingers.

reid (NV)
Rockefeller (WV)
baucus (MN)
Bingaman (NM)
Cantwell (WA)
Johnson (SD)
Kohl (WI)
Conrad (ND)
feinstein (CA)
carper (DE)
leiberman (con)
landrieu (LA)
lincoln(ark)
nelson (FL)
salazar (CO)
pryor (ark)
nelson (NE)

That is all of them that are 50% or less (Reid and Rockefeller are at 50% exactly). Washington, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and California deserve better than RW Democrats who vote for Bush most of the time. (not one issue, but MOST of the time).

I would argue that many of those "red states" are no longer "red states" judging by approval ratings. We have to adjust (as progressives) to the new reality and try to get some pressure on these RW Democrats and gain some voice in the party...at least to remind them that it is DEMOCRATS who elect them to office, not Republicans. Of course, if these are really Republicans who had to register Democrat to oust an incumbent Republican (Ben Nelson fits that, if a Nebraska poster here is correct), then I wonder why they are in the party at all.

I don't buy the idea that "red staters" will always be conservative. I also want more representation for the burgeoning progressive movements in those red states. The last thing I will accept is the notion that liberals have to be put on the back-burner for those states. The truth is we never put much energy into "red" states to even know what they will respond to. As a consequence, RW lies gain a lot of traction in red states without a counter-argument.

Liberals have been put on the back-burner for far too long...and the populists long been pushed out of the party. I say the "big tent" should start letting people through a door long since closed. The open door is letting in the odious ones who hurt Democratic core positions and hurt our electoral chances because of lack of support from the base and morale-stripping betrayals.

But I'm just throwing this out there, too. I only qualify it by the fact that I have been in a "red state" all of my life. But I'm just one loser on a message board.

Thanks for the convo.

Unfortunately, the issue is the WAR. Which she stays in line with...

And if she were to reverse her stance now, she would be a supreme "flip flopper" the likes Kerry never knew (because it is Hillary and they are going to RIP HER TO SHREDS on anything they can find.)

Trust me, I'm as sad about it as anyone. I was so looking forward to her being our first woman president.

(And I still come back to one thing... I never saw ANY intelligence, false or otherwise, and I NEVER DOUBTED THAT THE WAR WAS WRONG....

Anyone who voted to go to this war was doing so to protect their own political career. And NONE of those people will ever be elected president. MARK MY WORDS.)

You will need to document some of them, or I will call BS!
Her is a list of some of Sen. Clinton's ACTUAL votes.



YES on:
6/28/05: This was the vote to pass HR 6, a sellout of the environment to the nuclear, coal-burning and automotive industries. The emphasis on nuclear and coal facilities could leave the United States a radioactive, mercury-ridden deserted land. A couple hundred million or more children and adults could be killed by nuclear meltdowns and/or mercury poisoning. The bill sells out to those who want to make inefficient cars and thereby will continue to subject millions of Americans to the risk of death and serious health conditions, aside from the risks of mercury-poisoning and radiation-poisoning..


YES on:
7/01/05: This was the vote on H.R. 2419. The last vote before passage was a vote to reject an amendment to prohibit the use of funds for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and instead utilize the amount to reduce the National Debt This has billions in funding for nuclear weapons activities. It contains full funding for Yucca Mountain, a project designed to make California a radioactive wasteland, to irradiate the Colorado River and to make much of the nation's food supply dangerously radioactive. It also uses billions of taxpayers dollars to fund nuclear weapons activities. This is perhaps the coldest, most inhuman bill voted upon this year.


Yes on:
6/09/05A: This was the confirmation vote on Richard Griffin for a lifetime appointment to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Richard Griffin has a history of taking extreme positions harmful to the environment, civil rights and the rights of workers, strikers. and consumers.


Yes on:
6/09/05B: This was the confirmation vote on David McKeague for a lifetime appointment to the Sixth Circuit. McKeague has a judicial activist history of being a strong opponent of the environment and of privacy rights. The approval of both Griffin and McKeague places the future of the natural resources and the health of the residents of the area covered by the 6th Circuit in grave jeopardy.

YES on:
5/24/05: This was the cloture motion on Priscilla Owen for the 5th Circuit. Torture-proponent Alberto Gonzales even called Owen extreme. Her record shows that she is anti-environment, anti-employee, anti-civil rights, anti-human rights, pro-discrimination and pro-polluter. This was the critical vote - the confirmation vote was a sure thing once this passed.

YES on:
5/10/05: HR 1268/HR418 involved two bills re-combined in committee. Since these bills both are catastrophic to human rights and human life and were originally two separate bills, though they were voted on together following the conference report, each of the two bills is being counted here. HR 1268 is an appropriations bill which gives profits to contractors who benefit from wars and which acts as an excuse to continue the war and the killing in Iraq. HR 418 presumes to override Articles I,II and III of the U.S. Constitution and to give the power to commit acts of terrorism, murder, torture, etc. to Michael Chertoff, a man connected with individuals involved in financing 9/11. It also eliminates political asylum in the United States by requiring the victims of persecution to obtain written proof of the persecution from the governments that are persecuting them. It also sets up the basis for a Nazi-style national ID Card while making the highways more unsafe and terrorism more likely.


YES on:
4/21/05B: This was HR 1268, the appropriations bill which took funds away from veterans injured in Iraq and from education, heath care and services for children, the elderly and the needy in America and gave approximately $81 billion dollars to those who were profiting from death.


AWOL on:
3/10/05: This was the actual vote on the bankruptcy deform bill, guaranteeing that credit card issuers can now steal homes from veterans, laid-off workers and people with serious medical conditions.


YES on:
2/15/05: This was the vote to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of water-board torture, an individual connected to the financing of 9/11 and the man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11. By confirming him the Senate, in effect, endorsed terrorist attacks on America, water-board torture and racism.


Refused to stand for:
1/06/05: This was the opportunity for Senators to stand up for democracy and honest elections


The above information was mined from The Patrick Henry Democratic Club
http://patrickhenrythinktank.org/sen-score5.html

This is only a look at the last 8 months, and this list ONLY looks at the votes where she abandoned the Democratic Party principles. In other votes, she voted with the Democratic values.

If you look at her overall performance, she generally supports the social values of the Democratic party, but not the economic values. She never votes against increasing Defense Appropriations, War Money, and seldom votes to limit the Power of BIG Corporations, or seldom opposes judges KNOWN to support Corporate Management over LABOR.

Senator Clinton DID vote against CAFTA which passed with the help of other DLC defectors from the Democratic Party. Since the Corporatists had already ensured they had the votes for passage, her vote AGAINST CAFTA is not really significant.

This is the reason that "looking a the voting record" can be misleading. Politicians "swap votes" every day. A vote against CAFTA (or whatever) was meaningless once the PTB had the necessary votes for passage. The Powers that buy votes don't demand that each bought politician vote "their way" every time. They ONLY demand that their anti-LABOR legislation PASS every time. After that point, "their people" are free to "Cover Their Asses".
The votes "in committee" and the positions advocated from "the floor" are more significant than a quick look at the voting record. Even mre important are the positions that they choose to REMAIN SILENT on (thereby giving tacit approval), though these are harder to document.

For comparison,
Patrick Henry rating for:
Senator Clinton= +32

Senator Kerry= +75

Senator Kennedy= +110

Senator Boxer= +130

Senator Lieberman= -235

and yes, those Patrick Henry numbers coincide with my own (although the scale is different).

Thanks for making me aware of another senator scoring system other than th flawed ADA ratings.

Thanks!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'll never forget her standing there, after having gotten calls 10 to 1 against the IWR "I trust this White House......I'm voting to support......."

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Julie

I don't always agree with her more centrist views, but she is no DINO. I do not think she would be the best possible candidate for 2008, but if she ends up the nominee you bet your ass she'll get my vote over ANY Puke or a third party spoiler.

I am going to vote...that is a given. I am not going to let anyone make me stay at home, because I think that is part of the reason for the vote fraud...it blows the steam right out of us.

Hillary is a lackluster Senator, from my progressive point of view, but acceptable in the current political climate. That does NOT preclude anyone from bashng her for her positions on the issues. She deserves that because she is elected to represent the People, and the People will have a say in their own well-being (even non-New Yorkers).

She will get my vote in a general election, but only if she overcomes all of the opposition I and many of my fellow progressives plan to put on her in the primaries.

Here are the senators who should have nothing to fear from a progressive backlash, in my opinion.

Harkin (Iowa) 95
Boxer (CA) 90
Lautenberg (NJ) 90
Akaka (Hawaii) 80
Corzine (NJ) 80
Dayton (MN) 80
Durbin (IL) 80
Feingold (WI) 80
Kennedy (MA) 80
Kerry (MA) 80 - DLC

Yeah, I said it, Kerry. The numbers do not lie.

She's pro-Iraq war. She's for abridging the First Amendment.

I wonder what other issues she's going to be wrong about. Will she vote to confirm Alito?

In my opinion she is all too willing to support the Repugs at a time when Dems do not have to support the Repugs. She's a Senator from the most liberal, most anti-Iraq war state in the nation. She ignores that and goes off the page to support sending more troops to Iraq to die against the will of her constituency.

Hillary Clinton does not deserve office. I certain cannot support her for any national office. If I were a NY resident I would be working *against* her. I will be *actively* opposing her if she chooses to seek the 2008 nomination.

..but given the choice between Senator Clinton and ANY damn Republican, I WILL VOTE for Senator Clinton early and often....hopefully I can vote often enough to make up for those Democrats who will choose to stay home and risk the election of another extreme right wingnut....

we can hang together or hang seperately.

damn good thread.

...would kindly give a short list of the Democrats he/she supports.

That way, it could conveniently be pointed out that some or all on that list have a few blemishes on their record.

Clark - supports a constitutional amendment against flag burning

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/11/11/national1729EST0649.DTL

Kucinich - voted for a constitutional amendment prohibiting flag burning before he voted against it. Flip flop. He also was strong anti-choice before he decided to be pro-choice. Flip flop. There was also that nasty business of charges of racism when he was in local politics.

Reid - supported the bankruptcy bill

Byrd - invoked cloture on the bankruptcy bill. Seems like there was something else Byrd did recently that got feathers ruffled on the left, I just don't recall what it was at the moment.

Wellstone - supported the defense of marriage act.

position since people who do that are total idiots and hurt their cause and ours too. I'm sick of having to defend free speech based on idiotic behavior. It's Hillary's overall dance of supplication with the center and right.

She's not dynamic. She needs to oppose Iraq, forcefully, like Murtha. She is not liked or trusted by a whole bunch of Americans, perhaps wrongly, but that doesn't help either.

Why not people who show foresight? Isn't that what we need in a leader? These Senators did that, as did Clark, Kucinich, Byrd and Wellstone. I'll take them any day supporting whatever (except the bankruptcy bill, you have a very good point there) over Hillary.

Time has passed her by, she blew it, Iraq is her albatross.

..I will defend a Democrat against untrue or hypocritical charges.

I don't care for her phlegmatic style and her static approach to things. She's a slow walker, plodding. She's very bright but shows no signs of innovation or genius, like Bill Clinton, for example. He didn't start out focusing on budget issues, from what I understand, that was Gore's persuasion. Once on board, he performed brilliantly and you'd think he took his degree in finance from the London School of Economics. Hillary is trying to be presidential when in fact she's just bogged down rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic that is Iraq. Iraq IS the Albatross, the third rail, the devil masquerading as St. Jude. If 65-70% of Americans are firmly in favor of getting out now, then wait until the real details come out, which they will. There will be a fury no one has seen since the Red Scare, except this time it will be reality based. Who the Hell's idea was this? people will scream. Who betrayed us? (and they'll be right). Hang 'em high. That's not a wish, it's a prediction. We are in so far over our head, looking up barely allows us to see daylight. This will be ugly and she's definitely on the wrong side of history.

NB. Yes, my buddy Reid voted for the resolution but he's been backtracking and reformulating his position. He may be the one to break the Democrats truly free of the false assumption that patriotism is on the side of continuing this for one minute longer than it takes.

Unfortunately, your thread underscores the fact that many good and loyal Democrats don't see her as working for the party, but rather for herself.

Certainly, her undercutting Congressman Murtha, by any standard, was treacherous, self-serving, and most of all, smarmy.

While I believe your thread, ...of J.Temperance , was in the best of intention, it only showcases how low Hillary has fallen among those within her own Party. She should know better.

are fed up with Hillary behaving as though she was tied to Lieberman at the hip.

She is a DINO. She was a Goldwater Girl Republican and she is a Bush-Cheney-Rove-Special Interest Republican today.

She is currently my senator but she won't be for long if my vote has anything to do with it.

I just hope SOMEONE ELSE besides that irritating Jeanninne Pirro joins the race. I think the Repubs have thrown Pirro into the race because they KNOW she cannot beat Hillary and THE REPUBLICANS WANT HILLARY TO WIN MORE THAN THE DEMOCRATS DO.

than "holy" joe!

Voting for the bankruptcy bill friendly to American workers going through bad times? I think not.

she seems to be positioning herself for a run at the Presidency.

No big shock here, but...

it's the POSITIONING THING, that I think is gonna drag down politicos of BOTH parties in the upcoming elections. A so-far luke warm civil war is brewing here in America, and I think that the public is about to toss overboard ANYBODY that seems to be poll-driven.

Take a stand, even make a mistake if you must, but...

Be clear, unmistakably principled, and unapologetic about how you got from where you were, to where you are.

DO NOT TRY TO PLEASE US FOR ENTRY INTO OFFICE!!!

:argh:

The voters get to REALLY know you, because they hear you speak, they hear your views, and there is less filtering, even if you don't make the cut. She could end up with the VP nomination, she could end up on the Supreme Court, she could end up as SECDEF (she has Senate Armed Services Committee cred, why not?) or she could end up as UN ambassador.

You get out there, you state your case, and let the chips fall....

in what way exactly?

No, we don't want her running in 2008...but we DO want her to be re-elected in 2006 to the Senate.

"How did this get 30 recommends?"

So sorry my thread wasn't designed to be ANOTHER bash Hillary thread that many people can't seem to get ENOUGH of. I thought we'd have a Hillary is a GOOD Democrat thread for a CHANGE...and look, it got 30 recommends...are you crying? Are ya?

I'm adding my own now.

I don't understand all the whining about her. You are correct - her record is pretty solid.

I can't abide by "1 issue" democrats who dislike a politician because they voted once or twice in a way they didn't like.

Politics is about compromise. We all should accept that.

As to whether she has the "principles." Please. A politicians principle are, by definition, manifested in their votes and positions. How can someone say they don't agree with her principles, or that she "doesn't have them" when she has voted for dem issues so consistently?

She defends the insane and indefensible, the Iraq War. This sucks all the resources out of the economy so voting for other programs is really meaningless, we're going fucking broke because of the war (and that's just part of this unmitigated disaster).

This is totally unacceptable. I don't care how many other lemmings cum Quislings voted for and supported this insanity, she's the one who should know better...and she does.

Iraq is the black hole of American politics. Watch McCain's propped up numbers drop now that he's firmly on record, watch them all drop. The Iraq war is THE THIRD RAIL OF AMERICAN POLITICS, currently and retroactively.

Sorry Hillary, you're finished and not a moment too soon.

I don't get it =\

I for one of getting pretty damn tired of dreary morons on DU bashing the DLC and every Democrat you've ever heard of.

In another folder, there's currently a thread lambasting the DLC for holding an event the same weekend as the DNC Fall Meeting...and not a single one of those screaming and howling about "token DLCers" and "time they were a third party" seems to know that the DNC Fall Meeting was rescheduled to coincide with the DLC event due to Hurricane Katrina--which is plainly mentioned on the DNC website.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/09/dnc_fall_meetin.php

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/12/democrats_meet.php

Hilariously, one is demanding to know what the DLC is up to and demanding that the DNC throw them out of the party if they don't comply, evidently unaware that transcripts of DLC meetings are routinely available for download on the DLC website.

read post 151

hahahahahaha.....

Although the essay that tells us how higher consciousness is going to rescue us from the Rothschilds and the Dutch Royal Family did give me a chuckle.

http://www.new-enlightenment.com/cabal_index.htm

But it doesn't metnion Hillary either....

If not - well you have a awful lot of reading to do

so sorry you are so deluded - but you can cure that by catching up

Bama

So where is Hillary Clinton mentioned, anywhere on that page?

For that matter, is Hillary Clinton mentioned anywhere among the reams of silly blah on that website?

but here on earth, in the middle of a thread about Hilary Clinton, it reads....

"151. I couldn't agree more UL - Honestly these folks need to start paying
Edited on Wed Dec-07-05 08:58 AM by BamaBecky

attention to things like:
1913 - Federal Reserve changes..."

Even funnier, it's "agreeing" with the words "Barf" and "Peace"....

I guess I gave you too much credit.

unless they've had way too much of that magic pixie dust that burns out the higher faculties.

from pretending there is....

just trying to direct you to some information that would help you understand why some of us are COMPLETELY TURNED OFF by Hillary

and her "connections"

Go on keep ridiculing me - this is fun talking to paid hacks

Bama

"information that would help you understand why some of us are COMPLETELY TURNED OFF by Hillary"
They believe their evolved consciousness helps them evade the Rothschilds and the Ducth Royal family? Ho-kay.

http://www.new-enlightenment.com/cabal_index.htm

remember that Nixon was to the left of some DLC positions.

That insult is getting really, really old, and it's not even accurate.

when describing the sort of folks we see here daily, howling for "purges" (usually of well-known elected Democrats who are all but certain to win re-election in November 2006) and demonizing the DLC....

any alleged Democrat who votes against the economic interests of ordinary people or for illegal wars.

We cannot, CANNOT, afford the luxury of defeating our own candidates based on one or two issues. I haven't much hope that we'll learn those lessons here, though. Something energizing, I suppose, about destructive bashing but it's pretty sad commentary to me. Pick up the new biography of Lincoln by Kearns Goodwin. There is so much that is so apropos to these times there.

You can sit here all you want and scream at those whose core values prevent them from supporting a prowar candidate, but the fact remains that there are millions of antiwar Americans that are in no mood to repeat the 2004 ABB debacle. We want the war to end, and end it must!

She is out only for herself, and will vote whichever way advances her prospects.
That may be par for the political course, but it's a step below why I should support her.

Hillary Clinton is a democrat.

Just use facts and reasoned arguments with regards to Hillary Clinton.

That is strictly forbidden by the Hillary Haters Club code of conduct...

Did you not get the memo?

and damnit, if you don't agree with my opinion on mushroom farming then just get the hell out of my party because you're an obvious freeping republican who can't be trusted

:eyes:

It's not fair, by the way, that Hillary gets quoted in the papers as if she was a Senator or something when I don't agree with her and don't like her!!

It unfairly makes inr the front runner for the presidential nomination in 2008, instead of other candidates , even though I hate THEM too.</sarcasm>

So would one of you Hillary bashers kindly explain to me why you hate her so? Is it because, gasp, she's a ... a ... WOMAN who dares to step away from the stove?

Honestly I expected better here. Boy was I surprised.

instead of trying to build a reputation for speaking out and working on the country's real problems, she's getting her name in the papers for trivialities like video game content and flag burning.

I'd respect her if she started speaking out on the loss of living wage jobs, single-payer health care, ending the war, affordable housing, reducing dependence on petroleum, environmental degradation, or any other real issues, as opposed to jumping on the right-wing bandwagon for wedge issues.

If she is as fired up about these issues as she is about video game content and it just isn't getting into the press, then she needs to fire her publicist.

Our Democratic Senators need to be ever vigilant, not constantly trying to curry favor with Republican voters. And I fear that Hillary has been trying to play that card for far too long.

We need a Democrat who can win the White House in 2008, not just make pretty stump speeches.

but Hillary Clinton is a fine senator and could be a good president, perhaps great. Who knows. She can win, too. Most of the negative stuff about her on DU is exaggerated or just plain wrong.

The people of New York seem quite satisfied with her. It's a safe seat.

I will repeat the assertion that Hillary's ambition goes beyond her Senate seat. If she remains an unrepentant PNACer/PPIer, she will be relentlessly attacked by the Left and other peace groups if she chooses to run for higher office.

And it's about damn time voters understand the plain truth, the NDP is a DIFFERENT PARTY. It isn't the Democratic Party, even though they associate themselves as such, it is in name only. (DINO).

The leadership of the NDP are members of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) they have their own policy positions, their own funding support base, yet they still have access to the old Democratic Party funding resources because they have not registered as a separate party.

The differences between the two parties, are touted as insignificant, but trade policies on globalization of multi-national corporations (and the damage these policies have done to the working class and the poor) together with the Iraq War (and the policy of pre-emptive strike, invasion and occupation)puts the lie to the assertion the two parties NDP and DP, are one and the same.

Additionally, it should be of interest to the rank and file that while the DNC (and rank and file party delegates of over 400 people) held their scheduled conference in Phoenix Az over the weekend, the DLC held their own conference in Aspen Co. (can you see the clusters turning?)

They do not even go through the motions of connecting with the rank and file of the mainstream party delegation.

They are their own party, but they do not register with the FEC as such. So when elections roll around and the voter goes to mark their ballots, one can find candidates representing an array of parties often, but i never see a NDP member listed as such.

Instead their name is listed as a "Democrat".

I call that hijacking democracy, and i also call it a a fraud.