Are Hillary Clinton Supporters unwelcome at Democratic Underground?

This thread which was voted up to the front page declares "To hell with Clinton and her supporters."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3464158

I admit that Hillary isn't my first choice, but I'm not inclined to attack her supporters here at "Democratic" Underground.

DU has spoken by letting this thread go to the front page so I ask again...

Are Hillary Clinton Supporters unwelcome at Democratic Underground?

Did I tell you lately that you're one of my favorite mother fuckers around this god damn place?

You can CUSS! And that's A-OK in my fucking book!

NT.

I think its important to keep the political discussion centered on issues and policies - not personal attacks.

Wish we wouldn't eat our own. The repugs don't rip our candidates as well as we do... why is that?

Though I will probably not support her in the primary, if she is the DEM nominee, I will certainly vote for her.

It's just sad to think we're doing our job to help them out.

Even on Hillary's worst day she's still better than any republican candidate out there!

Being from the Midwest and probably 'suffering' from the same afflicted accent as referred to in that post - she gained my sympathy right away.

I think we need more cowbell to drown out the idiocy.

Poor fuckers.

support for your candidate when you call well-informed thoughtful people "poor fuckers?"

Golly-gee, and you wonder why everyone doesn't just enjoy the love that comes from people like you.

And a vote for any other Democratic candidate only gives comfort and support to the enemy? This kind of argument sounds strangely familiar.

I'll vote for whomever I choose to, and I won't feel guilty about "helping out".

This isn't about who you can or cannot vote for or who you will or won't vote for. Personally I don't give a rats ass who anyone is supporting here at DU.

What I care about is the negativity on Hillary Clinton which is nothing more than extension of the 15 years of Clinton bashing we've dealt with throughout the years.

Trying to get people to stop the bashing and start the postive, thought provoking, rational discussions.

But this is the GD/GDP forums - who the hell am I kidding!

Just surprised at the amount of hate and venom about Hillary. I try to post when I see a thread that's positive or at least discussion oriented about the issues, but I find most threads take on an ugly, mean spiritless that sorry, just make me cringe because the Republicans have done it to her for so long. As a women, I feel so proud that we have a female running for President. It's so historic. Regardless if she wins or loses, we are witnessing history right now.

I really appreciate you mentioning the history factor ... somehow that has been lost.

in the general election?
100% of Republicans will vote against her
and a large number of Dems and Progressives will vote Green or not at all
if she is the nominee.

....per your response to my post in the other thread.
Republicans don't have any effect on my thinking.
I've disliked her since she failed with health care in 92

I know plenty of republicans who aren't frothing at the mouth right-wing idiots who actually like Hillary and plan to vote for her.

Don't assume that 100% will vote against her.

Dem's will simply not vote at all.

was her fault. Great reasoning

The plan was in 1994.

And it was Republicans and Democrats (like Rostenkowski) that torpedoed the plan, and it appears they would have torpedoed any plan. Hillary was asked to lead creation of a plan that would work and she did what she was told to do. Nobody said it was her job to get it through congress.

You've disliked her since she failed with health care in '92?

SHE failed? She was patted on the head and dismissed by a bunch of good old boys who thought all a woman couldshould do is bake cookies. Don't blame Hillary for 'failing on health care in '92.

And, which party is that pray tell...?

And then you go on to defend Hillary. Color me surprised... :eyes:

why people you call duped by the Republicans wouldn't like you?

It demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of why people can't support Hillary. It is also insulting, but that's the point, isn't it?

we people who are democrats dislike hillary because the republicans told us.....Laughing, that is just crazy......I dislike Hillary for the reason she is tooooooooooooo Republican for me.........

One of them posts a negative Anti-Hillary thread and then gets the rest of them in there to recommend their thread so they can get on the home page of DU. Personally I think it's Bullshit. How about instead of the negative spew they thrive on - why not post about why we should vote for their candidate. Try something positive instead of this negative crap that does nothing but make this website look bad.

But ultimately they can post what they want but the day after the nominations should the choice be Ms. Clinton then at least this shit will go away. DU policy always has been and always will be to support the democratic candidate.

I am neither pro-Hillary or Anti-Hillary. I'm just tired of this negativity on the home page. This anti-hillary threads are nothing more than to start a flame fest since debate of the issues rarely last past the 4-5 post

...and the "progressives" don't like being disagreed with?

I should go back and edit

It was quite a plan...

If it weren't for the anti Hillary conspirators everyone at DU would love her.

That made me laugh.

You hit the mother fucking nail on the mother fucking head! :silly:

You do that thing ronnyK! I'll be voting for fucking hillary every fucking time I go to the ballot box and that aint no shit. I'll stop fucking voting when they pry that ballot out of my icecold dead fucking paws.

Xultar, pass me the muthafuckin' pepper!

It's hardly a trick, really.

She supported a war of aggression, then blames the victims for the fact it ain't going well.

Damn racist fool she is.

but I didn't see where she ever blamed the the victims in Iraq. Can you give me more info?

Note - I am not anti or pro Hillary. I am one of those holding their breath for Gore.

Just keep askin for some clarification. Great response.

http://www.counterpunch.org/landau07072007.html

She did not blame her ally Bushboy, but the puppet government of Iraq. Not that i don't think the puppet govt is worthy of criticism, but it is crazy as hell not to see the root of the problem being the illegal invasion itself... but she could not attack that decision (she did favor it, after all), as that would be just self-criticism.

Let her work at Denny's. She'd make a fine table cleaner.

I agree with you that the blame should be spread around and not just laid at the Iraqi Govt's feet. They have little power at this point... and taking a vacation in the midst of this craziness is, well, crazy. Sort of like chimp down in Texas right now.

I don't think she's following this course of thinking due to racist feelings. I have never felt that about her at all. Very likely this is her trying desperately to gain approval with those that do support the war and this admin. Not sure why she is pursuing them when she hasn't clinched overall support among DEMs. (As evidenced here on DU - and more than half the polls to date)

She is not my candidate and very likely won't be unless she is nominated.

Iraqi Oil Law. This is one way she says the Iraqi govt has "failed" to pass a law that would open up Iraq to oil privatization.

In my mind, and in the mind of many Iraqi workers, this is one of the best things the Iraqi govt. has done... refuse to pass such a terrible law. It is a sign of success to me.

this war was started. And I hope the Iraqi Govt holds out and continues to refuse to turn it over.

Just don't expect we are likely to agree on much.
Those of us who opposed not only W.'s war but also Bush the First war on Iraq (unlike Gore & Hillary) and also opposed the deadly sanctions and bombing that came during the Clinton error.

I don't welcome people who call me a stupid, poor fucker.

The ones who support her without using personal insults are fine by me, both of them.

:shrug: :then blames the victims for the fact it ain't going well."
"Damn racist fool she is."

Living in your own dream world? Listening to too much Rush Limpballs?
Where'd you get such an idea?
And what the hell does racism have to do with whatever bugs you J.Toad?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Actually if I read the rules right, all "progressives" are welcome. That's a pretty big tent.

the Democratic nominee in an election, not a 3rd party candidate who is running against a Dem.

you cannot use DU to support a non-Democrat for office, it says nothing about who you vote for or beyond that.

there is no rule that says you must actively support the Democratic nominee. only you cannot use the forum to actively support an alternative candidate.

Choose your sides carefully, folks. She's taking names of those on DU who bash her, and once she has stolen the presidency, overthrown the government, and revealed herself as a the multidimensional Demon Goddess of the Twelfth Order, she will pulverize your tiny minds with a slight flick of her evil consciousness.

Clinton supporters will RULE THE WORLD!!!!!!

And you bashers will have no place to hide.

All HAIL, THE PLAN!

The few nasty, hateful ones I put on Ignore.

at this point.

But that thread on the front page makes ME feel unwelcome here.

It makes me feel like I have no right to make up my own mind about a candidate. The smug insiders who recommended that thread know best, and I better listen to them.

It wouldn't be nearly as much fun here without them.

And I was here for the last primary war. That one actually helped me make my choice. And my first choice was not Kerry. I went all out for him anyway.

If I saw a similar thread for any other candidate, I would feel the same way.

If Hillary wins the nomination, I won't leave DU. But I may just stick to LBN and lurk. Or I may take a long leave of absence. At the very least, my ignore list will grow.

I am an activist in my life away from this place. I won't lack things to do. I know a little bit about how the infighting and power playing works in the real world. Maybe too many people here watch Survivor and Big Brother, and think that is real. Maybe they have not considered the Supreme Court, and how things will be affected locally and at the state level. They have not considered the long term, if we have another repuke president.

It's irritating, but interesting (a lot more interesting than real-world bureaucratic infighting, IMHO). "Interesting" is fun for me.

I think her nomination would be a very bad mistake, but that's just my opinion at the end of the day. I am of the fairly extreme view that it's an act of unforgivable selfishness on the Clintons' part to even seek to return to the White House as they already had 8 years there and they should know how polarizing they are both within the party and the country as a whole. But, even with that, there are still reasonable arguments to be made for most any candidate, including Hillary.

If the world falls apart because of Hillary, I won't blame her supporters first and foremost for that, my deepest ire will be reserved for the Clintons. Their supporters' intentions (reshaping the Supreme Court and avoiding another Pubbie president) are most often the same as yours and mine. We just fundamentally disagree on how to get there.

Save your sneers. Of course, message board infighting is so much more useful.

You are about as thoughtful as the people I see who say, "I don't follow politics." "I don't vote, because both parties are the same."

an HRC presidency.

I'm more ambivalent, myself, and I think a lot of dems/progressives are. We're in the last throes of one of the most disastrous presidencies in US history (with 2 years more of mischief-making yet to endure), so anyone who's 1) professional, 2) not-crazy, 3) center-to-left, and 4) electable looks pretty good to me. In that category I'd put Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Gore.

Do any of these folks warm the cockles of my heart enough for me to declare allegiance today? No. Would I vote for any one of them as opposed to any Republican? Hell, yes.

And here's one other thought. We're talking politicians here. Cautious politicians. They're *all* tacking now. When it gets down to one Dem and one 'Lican in the general, I think you'll see a lot more clarity in the positions staked out by each party. And whoever the Dem nominee ends up being will inhabit pretty much the same space as those not selected would have, just as the 'Licans (wackos and/or psychos, the lot of 'em ) inhabit their space.

And the Dem will wipe the floor with the 'Lican, because the GOP has made a pact with Satan and the bill is due -- and the electorate knows it.

I don't support Senator Clinton in her bid for the presidency. But I don't think her supporters should feel unwelcome. They should realize, however, that we may discuss their candidate's stengths AND weaknesses.

talking points straight out of Rove's big fat ass valid discussion.

And the original poster shouldn't worry about Clinton supporters being welcome here. Senator Clinton's supporters are positioned for rapid response on these boards for any potentially negative comment. Rest easy.

and saving that we should be "ashamed" for supporting her?

I know you didn't say that, but that's general feeling around here these days.

What really pissed me off about that vile thread is that the Hillary bashers were more than happy to jump in and very FEW called out the "go to hell" comments. Some even twist it around. It's fucking bullshit.

In a forum where you can say just about anything you want to say, and anonymously at that, on very emotional topics, you are likely to get some ugliness. That's the nature of the internet.

You're right. I didn't tell anyone to go to hell, or to feel ashamed about supporting a Democratic candidate. But it's really tame compared to some of the comments posted about Bush, Rove, Gonzalez or others (who richly deserve it). I would suggest you keep supporting your candidate and grow a thicker skin.

If she wins the nomination, I'll use MY vote for someone else. It's still my vote, and the party will have to earn it.

Good luck with that. Me? I'll vote my conscience.

But Nader called them "Tweedledee and Tweedledum" and advised his followers to vote their conscience.

A lot of good that did the country.

Just can't own up to the blood of innocent Iraqis on their progressively pure consciences.

They have a problem with simple math concepts such as if they hadn't siphoned off Gore's votes nationally, Florida would not have mattered.

wouldn't bump it's ass so much. The election was stolen, Gore won both the popular vote and the electoral vote.

There are thousands of variables which would have changed things. To say that Nader voters should have foreseen the Bush theft is disingenuous, at best.

were no significant differences between the candidates, and anyone who says that about ANYONE in the Democratic field today vs. anyone in the Repub field is also lying.

Nader's voters may have been naive and unable to foresee the consequence of their votes. Nader, on the other hand, deliberately tried -- and succeeded -- to swing the election to the Republicans.

97,000 Florida Nader votes were what made it possible for Bush to steal the election -- winning by only about 500 votes.

Gore won the election. Gore won the election. Gore won the election. Gore won the election. Gore won the election. Gore won the election. Gore won the election. Gore won the election. Gore won the election. Gore won the election. Gore won the election. Gore won the election. Gore won the election. Gore won the election. Gore won the election. Gore won the election. Gore won the election. Gore won the election. Gore won the election. Gore won the election. Gore won the election. Gore won the election. Gore won the election. Gore won the election.

What about that FACT don't you understand?

With the help of Nader, who helped narrow the margin by 97,000 votes. Bush's election fraud put him ahead by only 500 votes.

What part of that do you not understand?

The rest of the left pleaded with them and they refused to listen. "I'm not compromising my principles" and answers like that were given. The Greens said they didn't care if Democrats lost.

If not for Nader and the Greens, Gore would have won. All this about stolen elections is just finger pointing and a refusal to deal with the truth about what happened.

Bush only stole the election by about 500 votes. Without Nader in there -- telling people to "vote their conscience" -- Gore would have easily taken the state, even with all the vote fraud.

that Bush stole the election. People casting honest votes hardly matters.

Bush's election fraud wouldn't have been able to overcome the margin.

If Bush hadn't stolen it Gore would be president.

Why do you insist upon blaming Nader when Gore won the election!!!!!!

He was asked by many of his supporters to endorse the vote swapping plans that would have allowed his supporters in swing states to swap votes with voters in safe states, and he strongly rejected the idea.

And after the election, he gloated about the swing to the Rethugs. He thought the Dems deserved it.

Bush cheated.

It's incredible that your anger isn't directed where it is deserved.

Nader is not a friend. He is a political opponent, determined to win votes at whatever cost to the Dems or to progressive values.

But Bush is in office because he cheated.

but Bush is President because he cheated.

If Democrats forget that, we'll never win again.

Back in the day, Sister owned a lovely Corvar automobile. Once Rev Mother got wind of his damnation of that fine auto, she took the keys away from me, post haste! I'll never forgive him for that. Rev. Mother ended up dying in an accident involving a Pinto. Karma, dear. Karma.

Why can't you defend that instead of blaming somebody else?

unbelievable.

One could argue that Gore went into the election from the background of the Clinton Administration (i.e. Centrist) and having been beaten, he is now attempting to appeal to the Nader crowd with his aggressive environmental advocacy. Maybe Nader converted a centrist.

Nader voters for the outcome in 2000? Now Gore should have found his voice sooner?

There is only one cause, it was Nader voters fault, remember?

But as a VP, he couldn't act on it the way he could as President. (He wasn't a Cheney-type VP. Cheney is the first.) Also, the issues have become that much more urgent.

And Gore still isn't running, by the way.

since back in the 80s. Nader had nothing to do with it and Gore is no different about the environment now than he was in 2000.

Gore won. Gore won.

If the election had been fair Gore would have been inaugurated.

the Rethugs couldn't have overcome.

debacle gave Pat Buchanan 20,000 unintended votes.

Even with all the rigging, if the election had been fair and the votes counted, Gore won.

It is a red herring to blame Nader.

difference. Logically, it doesn't matter whether there were additional factors as well.

Progressives could not control the election fraud that was occurring, but they did have control of the votes they decided to cast. And everyone who cast a vote for Nader helped to ensure a victory for Bush.

you chose is the only one to be considered? Huh. Well in your world it's all Nader's fault, no arguing with that "logic."

No, I didn't vote for the guy, but this gets really old. It used to that people were allowed to vote their conscience without getting grief from the "my party, right or wrong" robots. Now, some people think they own my vote and that I am obligated to vote for whomever they decide best reflects my interests.

Doesn't work that way.

You'll be sitting in Gitmo with your conscience firmly intact.

I have my doubts.

if the next president is worse than George Bush and you turned away a chance to do something about it? Does what anybody else thinks or what happens to anybody else matter?

Well, it is my vote. Frankly, it won't make a lot of difference anyway, since I live in a solid red state. In Oklahoma, my vote (in the presidential election at least) will be little more than a protest vote.

I frankly don't care who thanks me or who curses me.

Like I said the Repubs thank you.

:popcorn:

:spank:

I do really like that photo, bubba.

It should have been:

Are the antics and insults of the HRC supporters here at DU turning you off to Hillary?

Yes

No

in the world you live in. do you get aerobics tuesdays and jell-o fridays?

are insults the best you can do? :shrug:

They walked right into that one!

Do you wish the Hillary supporters would not take part in discussions about Hillary on DU?

or

Do you wish the Hillary supporters would not promote Hillary on DU?

I like to read what Hillary supporters are saying. It's amusing to see how many thousands of posts can fill the bandwidth without having to actually detail a single program or plan that she's proposing to implement.

I have asked dozens of times to hear her program.

I would LOVE to find out that she's willing to support Truly Universal Single-Payer Health Care instead of taking big money from the insurance industry. I would LOVE to hear an actual timetable and plan for removing the Empire's Legions from Iraq and Afghanistan and the other 100+ countries the Empire's Legions are "guarding". I would love to hear her plan for cutting war spending and using the money to help the Peoples of the World to a better life. I would love to hear her concrete plan for dealing with global warming and for cutting out the gas/coal/oil/nuclear mafia and promoting sustainable energy policies and conservation.

Hell, after spending some time on her Issues pages I'd love to hear a PLAN to do ANYTHING from her...

We aren't getting it. We're getting no concrete answers. We're just getting the touchy-feelie, I've been this, I've done that (sort of), I'm the most experienced (two term Senator???), etc. etc.

I don't hate her. I don't even dislike her. I think she's slick and polished and well rehearsed, you gotta be to run and win in this non-factual media saturated bullshit process we've got -- they all are, yes, folks, even Dennis K. (well, maybe not Gravel)...


I JUST WANT Hillary supporters to give me some detail on what she'll DO other than raise gobs of money from corporations and lobbyists, that is.

PLEASE!!!

smart politically by not giving any plans? I for one, think this election is too important to just hope these plans will come after she is elected. How is she suppose to light up the base without providing a solid vision for the future on the hot topics.

Bush ran on Wingnut conservatism, it got him elected twice. He ruled (and is still ruling) according to wingnut conservatism. What is Hillary going to adhere to?

I, like you, would also like to know the answer to this. Why doesn't she say if she would sign http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00676:">HR676 if it hit her desk as president? I would like to see someone ask her that and get a yes or no on it.

Would "she would sign HR676 if it hit her desk as president?"

I'd LOVE to hear her answer to this one... :hi:

seriously, when it turns into a replay of a severely childish form of humorless High School, something is seriously wrong.

Damn! I wish I could take back my recent donation! Skinner? C'est possible?

"I'm done with DU"

Taking your ball and going home is more like Elementary School than High School.

seriously, you started with a childish, evidently biased reworking of a Poll that, in my view, was intended as an honest question, I respond with something honest but not in agreement what what you said that I thought was kinda funny at the end and here we are.

It's Posters like you that make me rethink coming here every day. People can disagree many ways: with humor, with nastiness, with glee, with put-downs, with intelligence and facts or just with stupidity. When people can be quite literally attacked -- not that that's what happening here by any means -- for supporting someone, that's disturbing to me. And I suspect that's what the OP was referencing.

I'm an everyday visitor who donates regularly, but now find myself wondering A LOT if it's, in fact, worth it. Nothing childish there. It's a honest reassessment of how I spend my time and my money. Perhaps you think it's picking up my ball and going home because I disagree with you, but my Post about leaving DU was honest and I think your response help clarify my decision.

I hope I've been clear.

When other people are uncivil, it's childish.
When YOU are uncivil (and you were) it's honest and kinda funny. (It wasn't)

BTW, I wasn't the one who posted the "childish, evidently biased reworking of a Poll". I just agreed with him that you offer nothing but insults.

got you now

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

:sarcasm:

I got slammed for being a newbie for saying the same thing - glad someone who's posted a lot more than me feels the same way.

Just don't expect us to swallow . . . or to accept any of the spunk you spew out of your "love" for Hillary.

The Peter Hart poll shows she is 8 points behind Edwards in Iowa as of August 17th. And David Yepsen who asked the questions at the debate on Sunday, August 19th in Iowa wasn't impressed by her debate performance.

After Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada, she can go back to the US Senate or the Rose Law Firm. And you can all visit her and tell her how much better the world would have been at the end of a second Clinton Administration.

And Hillary is in the lead in double digits in NV.

Your guy pulled out.

;)

Who worked for a campaign btw? That post was deleted. I am curious who it is.

I think discussing the candidates and issues makes us better citizens and worthy of the right to vote. This IS politics and always has been, though I think attacking "supporters" is not constructive. People in this country have been arguing over politics for over two hundred years and will continue to do so if our democracy survives.

This is a crucial election and we have the right to be emotional about it, but we shouldn't let our emotions cloud our judgment. We shouldn't lash out at people who want change as much as we do. Our points of view are going to differ as we are all unique human beings. We should embrace that and in the meantime, learn to "listen" as well as "speak".

I love to watch her supporters try to defend:

*More War

*More Free Trade.

*More outsourcing of American Jobs

*More For Profit HealthCare

*More Privatization of essential services

*More concentration of POWER into fewer hands

*More money for Defense

*More influence for AIPAC

*More influence for Corporate Special Interests in DC.

*More Top Down authoritarianism in the Democratic Party (Beltway Insiders know best. Grassroots need to STFU)

The ones that don't like it can go start their own message boards.

Unless Gore jumps in, I'm going for Hillary.

:grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug:

Not that you're new :dunce: but nobody should be so mean to you.

in a Democratic candidate but do I consider her supporters unwelcome here? Certainly not, in fact I fully support them and their right to freely share their thoughts on her.

Just look at what's getting locked and what isn't.

most Dems will vote for her over any Republicon. There may be a lot of grumbling on DU because quite a few would much rather have another person than her but as with J. Kerry, most will vote for a Dem.

I don't feel particulalarly welcome here.

"Are Hillary Clinton Supporters unwelcome at Democratic Underground?"

To be honest, most days it feels like they own the place.

TC

The either your a Democrat for Hillary or a Republican Duped Troll is a little lame.

TC

She was quite the radical back then.

:eyes:

And, she was a "Goldwater Girl" back then, wasn't she? So, she was a "radical" Republican. (Goldwater was considered a "radical" in that Party back then.)

TC

You might learn something.

No one is allowed to oppose anything she does here without being called a "basher."

Or that they should "be ashamed".

Bull shit.

Try another one to try smoke your way out of that.

Oh wait, you already pulled the "Paid Hillary Supporters" line of shit.

and your language is charming. :eyes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1633118

I'm so glad you fucking noticed!

And your avoiding the question is also so charming.

Now NICE!

This is your post:

>> 124. Yeah telling someone to "go to hell" is SO effective.
>> Or that they should "be ashamed".
>>
>> Bull shit.
>>
>> Try another one to try smoke your way out of that.

>> Oh wait, you already pulled the "Paid Hillary Supporters" line of shit.

Where is there a question in that? and those words you put in quotes are not mine, so what is that all about? The hostility in this forum is ridiculous.

Here's that other post by LBJDemocrat without the (I agree) offensive statement:

------------

In the primaries, I plan to adopt the ABC strategy, as I've told you before. As we get closer to voting season, I feel compelled to remind you what the Clinton brand stands for:

1. Unfair trade. Not only did Bill open up US markets so that our jobs could be outsourced, but he didn't do JACK SHIT to pressure the EU to lower its barriers or to encourage China to compete fairly. Speaking of China, it's odd that it was a Democratic president who finally gave China most-favoured-nation status.

2. Welfare reform act. In theory, they only pay welfare if you become involved in a job finding program. In practice, they get you a dead-end job and cut your welfare payments so that in the end, you're making no more money, and possibly even less. Possibility for advancement? I don't think so.

3. IWR. And she continues to play up this ridiculous "Iron Lady" image. Sorry, Hillary; you're no Indira Gandhi and no Golda Meir.

4. If you're at all concerned about the welfare of the Iraqis, remember that Clinton killed more of them through sanctions and bombings than Bush did. It could be argued that Bush didn't know that his war would've been such a mess, but Clinton of course knew what sanctions meant for the people of Iraq. Think about that before assuming that Republicans are necessarily more evil than Democrats.

5. Rupert Murdoch. Enough said.

6. DOMA.

And then let's just admit that she has absolutely zero charisma, half the country hates her, and whenever she talks in her annoying fake Midwestern accent, I feel like throwing something at the TV.

If she wins the nomination, I might vote for her and I might not. But during the primaries, I'm going to do whatever it takes to make sure she doesn't get nominated. I'm an Edwards supporter, but I'll take Dodd, Obama, Richardson, Biden, Kucinich, and Gravel over Hillary. Whoever is the winning candidate besides Hillary in my state at the time of my state's primary gets my vote.

Edit: Please also notice that no other candidate is tied to a legacy as despicable as this one. Nothing in the Democratic Party today compares to it.

7. She supported the Bankruptcy Bill of 2001.

8. An examination of her destructive role in the fight for election integrity reveals that HRC is not a friend of democracy. She does not want free and fairly counted elections and the legislation she has introduced speaks volumes to that.

9. No more dynasties. I'm sick of this back and forth bullshit. Let someone from the common folks step forward.

---------

There, are you happy now? :) :hi:

when you are in the minority, you just have to have a thick skin and be kinda stubborn.

Just because some asswipe starts a thread damning Hillary supporters to hell, doesn't mean it speaks for the DU admins.

And there are many personages who have nothing to do with the Democratic party who get constantly huzzahed. Its okay to discuss them and even cheer them on from time to time I guess, if one is so inclined. But this seems to be Not Always Democratic Underground from time to time.

I've said flat out that there are some Dem candidates who, if they got the nom, would find me working just on local campaigns and then voting the party line top to bottom in the general. (Note to naysayers: I live in Maryland, where there are Democrats of all flavors on the one hand and only the most vile of Republicons on the other side. There is no choice. Fortunately, the Republics are a minority.)

On edit .... my title makes it sound as if HRC supporters are somehow fringe. That is not what I meant and if it is taken that way, I apologize in advance. It isn't what I meant.

and everyone else is stupid for not submitting to her will?

Actions being the slurs, nasty responses and overall harassment HRC and her supporters receive on DU.
Words being this poll where those who throw those nasty slurs aren't having the courage to be honest.

Because Hillary will make the second best Republican President we've ever had........next to her husband, Bill.

on DU.

That's terrible.

Ridiculous.

generating all the Presidential candidates and that Hillary seems to be the briar patch in Karl Rove's b'rer rabbit imitation. It bears remembering that probably all our candidates have had their phones tapped and Rove probably has read the transcripts.

that Rove must be working for Hillary because he didn't attack her. The Rove attacked Hillary, and the logic changed to "Rove attacked her to elevate her status with the left."

If Karl Rove is at work at all, he's trying to destroy every Democratic candidate he can, especially Hillary.

That doesn't mean that people will not express their disagreement with her, or their anger or dislike. It's a primary; open season, so to speak.

Hillary's negatives in her own party are pretty high, at least here at DU. You are welcome to participate, but no one is obligated to silence their opinions about HRC, or any other candidate, so that you will feel more welcome.

HRC supporters aren't the first to deal with that kind of thing, and won't be the last. It's a political forum. If the posts hurt that much, maybe her supporters should have a discussion with the centrist/conservative members of the party about their own ideas concerning inclusiveness.

:rofl:

write my thoughts about HRC and the constant negative statements by those that do not support her. For some reason, some Democrats in here can't say, "I prefer Edwards or Obama." No, that won't do - that would take a measure of adulthood. It is always something negative about HRC, but that is your right to express exactly what you desire. but I too get to write what I feel too....

I wonder if these same folks that respond to anything HRC puts out are the same ones that say she must apologize for her vote on Iraq and in some way claim she is enabling this war? Ask yourself how stupid it would sound to say,Max Cleland's enabling the Iraq war disaster, Joe Biden's enabling the Iraq war disaster, Tom Harken's enabling the Iraq war disaster, John Kerry's enabling the Iraq war disaster, Chuck Schumers enabling the Iraq war disaster.(On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 voted Yea)

You see? It's no fun to hold Harken or Kerry responsible for BUSH's disaster, but the freshman senator from New York, SHE's responsible for BUSH's disaster all on her own. It was HER vote thats killed 3200 soldiers and Cleland, Kerry and Edwards had NOTHING to do with it.

If this is not you, then why is it that folks keep up the rant that HRC must apologize.....This fever reminds me of the GOP's impeachment fever back in 1998. Bill's impeachment was like a criminal assault and battery. NOTHING was going to stop that impeachment because they had the fever.
The GOP was "caught up" with impeachment fever - that's all they could see or hear. Bill's approval rating was in the 70s - and voters clearly didn't want him to be impeached, but like the criminal who can't stop until he assaults enough, it was GOING to happen.

Hell, the GOP lost seats in November of 1998 - but that didn't matter to them. NOTHING was going to stop that impeachment because they had the fever. They lived and breathed impeachment the way some people are now living and breathing "Stop her!"

IF YOU,LIKE ANOTHER CANDIDATE BETTER THAN HRC,VOTE FOR HIM OR HER...... But when I read some of the vitriol directed towards HRC, you got the fever and that tells me something.

And to THOSE DEMOCRATS, "I'll vote Republican before I'll vote for Her," you Democrats need to worry because your "Stop her!" fever is turning you into what the GOP was in 1998.

Welcome to DU, Do not be offended if we non Hillary Clinton supporters ask at times, ARE YOU CRAZY! and or why. I think you are not crazy, so my question is WHY!

Hil is not my number one pick, but why should those who support her be unwelcome here? If someone doesn't like her, they don't have to read posts by her supporters.

Oh wait. That would be too easy, wouldn't it? :shrug:

which is completely unnecessary in a dialog on politics.

It is also the epitome of stupidity since there is a good chance she may be the nominee. It creates an environment of ugliness that cannot simply be swept under the carpet if she does get the nod.

And an understanding that our first choice may not get the nom and it may be Hillary. And we need to get behind her and unify our party.

There's also choice B. We focus on infighting and give the WH to some guy who continues doing all the stuff the guy in the WH does that we hate.

At least that's my opinion. Of course the last time I posted something to this effect I got railed by people.

who speak out about the counting of OUR votes.

Lets all support Kucinich until ALL the rest of the Candidates atleast acknowledge PUBLICLY that we need Hand Counted Paper Ballots in all Fed Elections.



After the candidates that are BRAVE enough speak IN PUBLIC about Hand Counting the Paper Ballots, as Kucinich has, Then we can all back to the food fight.

edpn

Shes the odds-on favorite. Lots of folks want to be with the winner.

Some folks are happier tilting at windmills.

There's room for us all in the party.

Kooky people vote too.

What is it that non-Hillary supporters detest the most about Hillary? Her political weaselly saavyiness. The fact that she can smile and be photographed with anybody, and you still can't be sure she'll vote in a Democratic way. The fact that she can take money from any lobby group and you still can't be sure she'll vote in a Democratic way. The fact that she'll do anything to survive, just as her husband did, and that way isn't always by supporting Democratic ideals. i.e. Triangulation.

So, when you come on DU and you notice how the Hillary group seems to be pushing Happy Hillary threads on a larger scale than the other candidates, and the same 5-10 Hillary DUers are involved, you kind of feel like someone is trying to game the system, just like they're doing on the MSM. We already know that Hillary is the corporate darling. They don't even try to hide that on the MSM. But to have that kind of gaming going on on this newsgroup is just something that is bound to get a negative response because these are hollow grounds when it comes to that kind of manipulation.

...as far as I am concerned ~~ and as long as they follow the rules.

My problem with the Clinton supporters is that they cannot accept that in the 2008 election, she will become another McGovern. She is a sure defeat for us...which leads to at least four years of some POS like Ghouliani.

I just wish they would deal with reality. She simply cannot get elected.

Do I think they're unwelcome, sometimes yeah. But then again, so were Zell Miller's supporters - and that's exactly who she reminds me of. Just because she's a member of the party doesn't mean she espouses the principles on this day of the week.

Poor, poor Hills.