A piece from the Huffington Post on the Clintons... or is it from Ann Coulter?

We need a President, not an ego tripper.

it takes a huge ego to run, period.

If you are in the middle of the road you will be run over.

... the players are in the middle of the field. Spectators sit on the left and right.

If what you say is absolute, aren't you practicing what you apparently condemn?

...not math.

Math is absolute.

Political issues are not.

She'll change her mind next week.

bullshit that lies ahead. They could easily forsake their country's needs and retire into a comfortable life.

... be a dream come true for me. Enough already.

...unless we eliminate those from the running that people would rather vote for?

I didn't think the socialist "worker's paradise" included Democracy.

"baby steps".

He was a Democrat, not a leftist. Rep. John Lewis spoke about this very thing a breakfast two years ago.

couple in America where cheating ever happened, there would sure be a lot of gasping and disgust going on.

I said it before, and I'll say it again...infidelity is the business of the people directly involved, and NO ONE ELSES! Apparently Bill & Hillary have worked it out, so the rest of us should just shut up!

is they want the American dream that 'everything and anything is possible' to return.
And the romantic part of them (except Repubs seem to be devoid of this characteristic)
loves a true Love Story and Happy endings..

Huffington's contrib seems to have adopted a Colterish attitude. Maybe, they're afraid of being too
honest with themselves and prefer denial as a safe haven.

I don't support either of them, but their personal life is their own, and who the hell am I to judge?

northern-type Pubbies (who are really sick of bush), supports the Huffington Post story. They're just sick of the Clintons.

For the record, I am currently non-aligned in the primary fight. I see good and bad points in most of our candidates, but my issues are Iraq (and now Iran), energy and the environment, and WINNING!

Whether they are representative, in the statistical sense, is open to question.

I should think that the Clinton campaign would be interested in why people have "Clinton fatigue" so that the campaign would know how to change their minds.

... what some people on DU SAY their buddies and family think.

Mostly colleagues, and actually, some fellow air travelers stuck forever in the departure lounge.

All candidates have their detractors, and those detractors certainly post on DU.

Why are you so resistant to the fact that Sen. Clinton also has her detractors?

Why is it that you seem uninterested in finding out why so that you can find ways to convince them otherwise?

Denying that "Clinton fatiguers" are out there doesn't do much for the Clinton campaign.

swear to God, don't know a soul who likes Hillary - left, right, middle, doesn't matter. I don't know any one who likes her - and I know a lot of people.

:shrug:

...and being involved with the party at the state level in my state, I know LOTS of people.

But I guess it's like the Indy music fan who can't fathom why people like the #1 song in the country. You're limited by the echo chamber you reside in.

I work at a compter school - I see lots of people of all stripes - business folk who are there to learn some end-user software, computer nerds, decision-makers, people all along the political spectrum AND I know plenty of people in the Democratic Party I worked with when I worked on Wes Clark's campaign. Hardly an echo chamber.

None of them like her - well, none of the ones who I get into conversations with about it (some are there so often, they're like co-workers and we get into these discussions).

Some people I know - the solid Dem voters from the campaign - will vote for her if she's the nominee, but most aren't just ga-ga over her and none claim her as who they'll work for in the primaries.

It MIGHT be that I live in the South and Southerners know she hasn't a chance in hell.

I live in the south, too. All the southerners I know think she has a great chance to win.

Think of the fact that the man is a compulsive womanizer. I didn't want to vote for him in 1996 but my husband talked me into it. No, sexual indiscretions should not have not been grounds for impeachment.

BUT CONSIDER THIS: How far could have Clinton gone with regard to help with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict IF he could only *keep his pants up?*

Bill's highly intelligent but not the kind of man I'd want my daughter to marry ... well, unless power and money are every DAMN thing to her, like it seemingly is to HRC. :(

And no, I don't want his butt in the White House as The First Man any more than I want the Corporatist HRC running the country.

All that good Bill Clinton did is overshadowed by his lack of control over his hormones. :shrug:

Yes, I'm sick of the Clintons ... One word: NAFTA. Any questions?

and yes, you're a leftist.

Yeah, I'm a middle aged women who belongs to Pax Christi, i.e., a non-violent peace movement. I am NOT a socialist, but a person who believes in Regulated Capitalism and basic taxation for "the common good." The forgoing does not a leftist make. :(

I bet Agent Mike and Mary get great scoop from us old folk meeting together in one of the Parish's office to discuss helping those who are less blessed than ourselves. :eyes:

JUST like the Right Wingers behave, you shamelessly throw around derogatory statements at anyone who counters you. Too bad that you don't realize that won't even work with independents much less LIBERALS such as myself.

..because the Dem party is the easiest one for your kind to hijack.

We've reached the point of juvenile bantering now. :(

No, see, I trace my Democratic ideology back to Wilson. Yours goes back to McGovern, who actually tried to get Wallace elected in '48.

Funny thing about the New Left movement. They're "Johnny Come Latelys" to the party yet you act like you've been here all along.

No, I'm a Liberal Democrat and proud to be associated with the WWII combat veteran, George McGovern. He would also call himself a LIBERAL and not a leftist.

Your behavior is very mean spirited but that is cool BECAUSE:

GEORGE McGOVERN WAS RIGHT - In fact we should be following his good advice TODAY. :thumbsup:

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/01/int04007.html

snip

The nation would been have well-served if McGovern had become president. Many more young men would have returned home to their families, instead of having their names end up among the thousands on the Vietnam memorial in Washington, D.C.

/snip

I rest my case as a Populist and a Liberal Democrat. :-)

McGovern, and the "progressive" movement several years prior, is what set the party on their losing streak.

excellent leader who didn't "swagger" or refuse to admit when he had made a mistake.

Hum, who NOW doesn't want to admit mistakes running for the Democratic Nomination? :eyes:

No, we, as a people: The American Populace should choose to love our children more than endless war mongering while we whistle past the graveyards. :cry:

We will again LOSE the prospect for any lasting PEACE if we choose to elect leaders who wish to police the world and show uncritical support for every action that the Country of Israel chooses to do.

We WILL LOSE if we don't reach down within ourselves and elect a populist leader who wishes to go full bore on *the diplomatic front* before pressing the button.

IMO, that leader is NOT the DLC and Media's anointed HRC. :(

Yes, I also like to cite another, what you might term *progressive rag* called "The Nation":

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030421&s=mcgovern

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20011119/ai_n10734734

snip

McGovern called President Johnson's carpet bombing of North Vietnam "a policy of madness." It was a political statement, but the Johnson tapes reveal it might also have diagnosed Johnson's mental state.

The tapes reveal that the escalation of America's role in Vietnam began with a lie -- the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution -- which Johnson rammed through Congress in August 1964 after fabricating a military confrontation between American and North Vietnamese forces. Johnson was quoted in 1965 as saying, "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."

Beschloss says Johnson assured a Washington audience in August 1965 that "America wins the wars that she undertakes. Make no mistake about it!" Beschloss says Johnson didn't really believe this, predicting instead to intimates, "America could never win the war in Vietnam."

/snip

snip

McGovern, Hatfield, Gruening and Morse took a lot of heat for their principled opposition to the war. Hatfield, a practicing Christian, was told by critics that he was opposing God. The others were called communists or communist sympathizers. "America: Love It or Leave It" was a popular slogan among war supporters.

/snip

Yes wyldwolf, McGovern lost BIG, and so did our beloved Country for not having the insight to elect him.

NOW, are we going to repeat the SAME mistakes of the past?

I, for one, hope and pray that The American People elect a leader who truly believes that WAR is the very LAST RESORT.

must be questioned.

I don't read the HP - now I know it's not worth starting. Thanks for the warning!

I'm allergic to woo-woo bullshit mythology, so you saved my life! :D

"... A wave of nausea is going to ripple across that sector of the population at the thought of them living in the White House again, at the thought of them being in those same rooms, including the room where he, well, you know. That will always be there."
:argh:
People are pretty damn fortunate if they've got the time and energy to waste making THEMSELVES squicky and urpy over something in which they were not personally involved (just how many people DID participate in that blowjob anyway?) and that really doesn't have a concrete, measurable effect on their lives today.

I wonder how much trouble we could avoid if this country wasn't so damn hung up and schizy on the subject of S-E-X?


:rant:

and he is also the reason that she has a better than average chance of winning the Presidency. Far from being "yucked" at the idea of having the Bill back in the WH, most Americans, after the debacle of the Bush years, will welcome it.

These fringe left/right types mostly just like to hear the sound of their own voice... that's why they repeat this kind of nonsense - over and over and over and over...

Well, maybe Ann's grocery list.

But pretty standard fare for Huffpo these days.

"picture the traditional climax (oops!)" - did they REALLY just make a blue-dress joke?

Come on, Huff. I don't care for either Clinton, but I think that's a low blow.

I agree with the Huffington Post. :applause: :thumbsup:

to understand that dichotomy of behavior

Is there an implication of intellectual superiority? ... perhaps financial, but not always intellectual. ;) All the while they seemingly blind themselves to all the valid detractors about their DLC heroes. :eyes:

is that you have to be frequently reminded of how over-the-top your rhetoric is in expressing your disdain for the Clintons; I only ask for truth and fairness in assessing them. I think that pretty much sums up the accurate attribution of 'blindness.'

with Monica IF he would not have let his hormones get the best of him.

Yes, I was seriously disappointed about that regression, but not to the effect of impeachment NOR to the point where I want to see Bill Clinton as The First Gentleman. :puke:

No, it's not over the top to say that Clinton trashed our country by pushing NAFTA. :thumbsdown:

To you, I'm over the top, but once the primaries start, I honestly believe that people won't voice it as bluntly as myself, but they also will not flock to HRC, no matter how much money and media you choose to put into her nomination.

I'm pleased to interact with you AK. I admit when I speak out of line. But I validly expressed my opinion this time. :hi:

here's the vote:

YEAs ---61
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boren (D-OK)
Bradley (D-NJ)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brown (R-CO)
Bumpers (D-AR)
Chafee (R-RI)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Danforth (R-MO)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeConcini (D-AZ)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-KS)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durenberger (R-MN)
Gorton (R-WA)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hatfield (R-OR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Johnston (D-LA)
Kassebaum (R-KS)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
Mathews (D-TN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mitchell (D-ME)
Moseley-Braun (D-IL)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nickles (R-OK)
Nunn (D-GA)
Packwood (R-OR)
Pell (D-RI)
Pressler (R-SD)
Pryor (D-AR)
Robb (D-VA)
Roth (R-DE)
Simon (D-IL)
Simpson (R-WY)
Specter (R-PA)
Wallop (R-WY)
Warner (R-VA)


NAYs ---38
Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Bryan (D-NV)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (D-CO)
Cohen (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
D'Amato (R-NY)
Exon (D-NE)
Faircloth (R-NC)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Ford (D-KY)
Glenn (D-OH)
Heflin (D-AL)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kempthorne (R-ID)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Metzenbaum (D-OH)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Reid (D-NV)
Riegle (D-MI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Sasser (D-TN)
Shelby (D-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wofford (D-PA)

Not Voting - 1
Dorgan (D-ND)

** Yet somehow this all is laid at Bill Clinton's feet. I can only equate my discomfort with the inequity of this to the way I feel when the GOP takes credit for the upclick in the economy in the 1990s when I remember clear as day VP Gore casting the deciding vote for the budget that brought this country to solvency, the very vote that the GOP voted lockstep against.

It's just convenient blaming, and that happens here at DU all the time. It makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up because I know in my gut it isn't reasonable or fair.

The response to HRC here is visceral, it's emotional. And the rhetoric gets ratcheted up to a point where ultimately bullshit is spewed and spread around as if it were fact. That's the part that rings so false to me.

In a perfect world none of the knuckleheads that voted 'yes' on the IWR will get the nod, as it should be IMO.

On edit: Perhaps it is in my nature to try to equalize a situation when I see unequal treatment. That probably explains why I adopt the unadoptable animals from the SPCA.

Who's feet do we lay the Iraq War at?

:hi:

BushCo, his administration, the MSM for sounding the drum beat, the PNAC boys for thinking it up, and Congress for their ever-accommodating IWR that gave Junior a blank check.

If it's from "wyldwolf" it's probably flame bait...



DAMN



Too late.



Sorry, folks...

Notoriously, most Democrats do not know where they stand in the Democratic Spectrum.
Hillary is slightly left of center.
Here we have Far Left democrats having a problem with left of center candidates!

The only Liberal candidate is Kucinich. The rest are centerest candidates.

I honestly don't know WHAT HRC truly is save for she's 100% pro-corporations and uncritically in support of Israel. That frightens me. :scared:

Since when has she been 100% pro-corporations?

Rated 35% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record.

These are the two YES votes accoring to the COC:

http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Hillary_Clinton_Corporations.htm

Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore.
Amendment to repeal the tax subsidy for certain domestic companies which move manufacturing operations and American jobs offshore.
Reference: Tax Subsidy for Domestic Companies Amendment; Bill S AMDT 210 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-63 on Mar 17, 2005

*no worries though - it didn't have a ghost of a chance of passing

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00063

Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy.
Vote to pass a bill that would require debtors able to repay $10,000 or 25 percent of their debts over five years to file under Chapter 13 bankruptcy (reorganization and repayment) rather than Chapter 7 (full discharge of debt).
Reference: Bill HR 333 ; vote number 2001-236 on Jul 17, 2001

*Yes, this one passed.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00236

Nope, maybe HRC is only 95% pro-corporations on the IMPORTANT (to the non-investor class) ISSUES. :shrug:

... part of a revision by the 60s new left that was rejected by the party.

On corporations, why would you have a problem with repealing tax subsidies on companies that move US jobs off shore? :shrug:

that the bill will NOT be passed. Heaven forbid that our elected officials play those games, but that is a distinct possibility and you know it too. Don't ya?

...you had no idea that voting YES on repealing the tax subsidy was a good thing, you presume to know WHY she voted yes.

was very Anti-Working Class people.

My point was that what truly mattered as far as the bills that passed, was that The Bankruptcy Bill passed and the other one was "a pipe dream" to begin with ...

Therefore, HRC's record is less than that of a populist.

Gosh, you're good at distorting one small element of another's argument.

I'm not sucking up when I claim that you are highly intelligent. But it's a damn shame that you are not a LIBERAL.

I'm tiring of this ... I'm going to let you rule.

Have a good evening wyldwolf. :hi:

1. You pointed out the yes vote on the repeal of the tax subsidies as though it were a bad thing. When I pointed out it was a good thing, you presumed to know that she voted yes on it only because it wouldn't pass. There is no evidence of that.

2. Of the three bills listed, only one was a bad vote. Giving her a mixed record on corporations or, as the US COC rated her, 35%. Which means she is not, as you claimed, 100% for corporations.

I'm not sucking up when I claim that you are highly intelligent. But it's a damn shame that you are not a LIBERAL.

On the contrary. I'm a liberal in the tradition of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy. I am not a leftist whose ideology was passed down from the 60s counter culture/anti war movement like the "progressives" of today.

I just want to get one thing clear because I might be somewhat confused.

Anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% about the Clintons is really Ann Coulter in disguise or a fake Democrat or a.... There is no such thing as a valid discussion about the "nay" side of Clinton, in your opinion? Anyone who offers ANY different opinion is really just stupid, deranged, ultra-conservative, ultra-leftist, sexually uptight, doesn't know very many people, doesn't have any valid points to discuss?

Am I correct?

Just wondering.
Lee

Anyone who uses the the rhetoric of the rightwing is taking their cues from the rightwing.

Further, as has been pointed out by several here, the "progressives" can use all manner of vitriol (including charges of not being a "real" Democrat against folks) but as soon as it is turned around on them, they're outraged.

...who allows no discourse and who declares himself 100% Correct and who maligns anyone who disagrees with him, needs psychiatric help.
Lee

..who tries to stiffle discussion with charges of "psychiatric help" is probably already getting it.

I've actually been on both sides of the couch; it's my field and I do see a shrink. Yes, that is one of the ways I know who could use a little help.

I will vote for Hillary, if she is nominated and I voted for her husband twice. That doesn't mean I have to like them.

What you call a conversation, debate, whatever...isn't. It's emotional extortion. "If you think differently than I do about this, something is wrong with YOU." That's unhealthy and not conducive to anything good. It doesn't work; it doesn't teach; it changes no minds and it is a form of bullying. "If you disagree with me I will call you *Whatever* on a site that loathes *Whatever*. It's adolescent and it ends all discourse.

In Internet speak, it's Trollish.
Lee

What you call a conversation, debate, whatever...isn't. It's emotional extortion. "If you think differently than I do about this, something is wrong with YOU."

You have an example of that?

You know that wyldwolf. You're intelligent.

Haven't we've played this thread out for one night? :shrug:

On Edit: There's no need to get others caught up in the crossfire? Other people who don't know and like you as much as myself. :-)

...of what he claimed? Anything wrong with that?

that you "pick and pick" at a person's arguments. You have a knack of drawing out the ire in people and I just didn't want to see another person going down that path.

Perhaps it's empathy because you would be a valued opponent if only you would cease with the name calling.

That's all, I'm out of it. Good-Night.

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

Leave it to a "progressive" to roll out the personal insults.

**Wyldwolf...All I asked was for him to show an example...**



...not a "him".
Lee

mean spirited. It's just his normal demeanor here to skirt that line. Just like I can be too blunt at times, he likes trashing his opponents. It's a game for some. :shrug:

He's not cracking your knuckles with a ruler is he?

You know which boundary you fall under better than anyone else.
Perhaps, what you thought you knew wasn't exactly the correct application of your beliefs.

All Wyldwolf is doing is clearing up misconceptions and misguided thinking..

I don't think he's being mean at all..

actually, he's better than facing AK's whip...:)

You forgot "and all the while doing this in a caustic and mean-spirited manner." ;) :hi:

..and has decided to give them what they've been shoveling for the last 6 years.

we resort to "name calling."

We both lower ourselves as well as our arguments. :hug: :hi:

moderate Democrats on DU were/are being called Republicans, corporatists, blah blah?

Only when the name calling starts being returned do "progressives" become outraged.

Have a good evening Tellurian. :hi:

Thanks, S&F..

flame bait...

Good Grief!

This HuffPo piece sure sounds like something Ann Coulter might write.

IMHO