Why don't the Hillary supporters help those who do not support her and those who are considering not

voting in the general if she is the nominee find reasons to support her? The nastiness and contempt displayed by those who have endorsed a front running candidate does little to move those who do not support their candidate over to the other side, especially in the general election.No candidate is perfect.Hillary is not perfect.The assumption that everything she does is perfect and anyone who disputes that is stupid is driving people away.

Hillary is an obvious front runner.It might be nice if some would extend a hand to those who support other candidates instead of attempting to diminish them.We are ALL democrats, and we have the right to disagree.An attempt to understand those who do not support your candidate might go a long way. I do not support Hillary but I would be willing to listen to some respectful arguments as to why you prefer her if some were willing to listen to some respectful arguments as to why I do not support her and support Edwards.And the same applies to supporters of other candidates as well I am sure.

To quote Rodney King"can't we all try to get along" ?

I haven't decided which candidate I will support though.

i wish you well :)

I see nastiness from those who for some reason HATE Clinton so much, OR are paid to spam DU with negative posts of her. The nastiness begins with those posts.

I see frustration from those who support her, or who don't support her, but are tired of the constant barrage of negative--poorly investigated--conclusory arguments with little basis in fact. If there is nastiness, it is founded in the exasperation of the non-stop spam.

They don't want to be persuaded. They are either paid to spam or just wanting to flame.

certain poster alweays reply with something childish and nasty. I have repeatedly asked for some supportive argumenys in favor of Hillary and rrarely get them. I have gotten a few and I respect those posters.I agree I could never be persuaded to support her in the Primary but I am seriously looking for reasons to vote for her in the general if it comes down to that.Even this post is somewhat dismissive of those that do not support her.
Just recently a poster implied those that do not support her or question her votes are "morons". I do not think those who question Edwards or Obama are "morons" I may disagree with their conclusions but intelligent people can disagree.

There's no substance, just a blanket declaration (based on absolutely nothing) that anyone anti-Hillary is just looking for a fight or a paid shill.

Absolutely disgusting attitude for a human being, let alone someone posting on a progressive website.

You can go to other sites and see where they brag about doing it....

I alerted on two posts that called Clinton "Hitlary" and her supported "Hitlarys"... That's not acceptable discourse anywhwere other than Free Republic....

I have an idea of who a couple of the sites might be. It is a shame. But, as you can see, it works. Even this post represents an us-versus-them mentality. I am so tired of the constant barrage of ugliness.

yeah. not nasty at all. I tell you how I felt and you respond with...nastiness.

I consider your statement "They don't want to be persuaded. They are either paid to spam or just wanting to flame" as exactly what I described it: Crap. I am anti-Hillary and I am neither here for a fight or being paid for the privelege. I formulated my own opinion about Hillary (as many here have done) and to be painted as a deliberate disruptor perfectly reinforces the OPs point.

The anti-Hillary stuff ( some of mine included) has been pretty shrill sometimes too, but at least in my case its a reaction to the attitude of smug superiority from some of the most ubiquitous pro-Hillary posters, some of whom are no doubt as "some" have suggested, HRC operatives. I'm an Edwards supporter and have plenty of reservations about him; I just think he's the best among the current candidates, and the Hillary is perfection personified posts are almost (but just almost) enough to make me refuse to vote for her if she's the nominee, just out of spite against her supporters who are so contemptuously dismissive of perfectly legitimate criticisms of her. At the end of the day though, I'd have to view not voting at all as being the same as voting republican.

but I've seen several of them try to get past the nastiness, and it's never worked. You suggested that George McGovern was senile when he endorsed her, so how on earth can anyone try to persuade you about anything when you start with an attitude like that?

candidate it seems very odd that he would endorse Hillary if he were aware of her stance. I love McGovern,he was the first candidate I supported and so I stated.But I also wondered at his endorsement.He is 83 years old and it is not an unusual reaction on my part.I am sorry you find it offensive.my grandmother suffered from Dementia and I do not consider it any more offensive than wondering if someone has any other disease.A disease is not an "insult'

it was mean spirited, especially because it was directed at such a distinguished and respected man.

first thought and was not meant to be mean spirited about a man I do admire. But I do wonder at his endorsement.

with NO evidence to back it up, is completely nasty and ugly. And I thought better of you than that.

trying to justify his support.Whatever. I guess you would rather I gave up my respect for McGovern and view him as a "sellout". to his own stated values instead.I kept a poster of McGovern on my bedroom wall all through high school.I do not want to believe he has this hideous lack of judgment. But I accept that some think I am a terrible person for feeling this way.But it was an honest reaction.

I am reading Hillary threads this morning trying to understand the disconnect between Democratic voters and the Democratic Underground. In every national poll I hear about, Hillary's support among Democratic voters is growing. In a recent poll announced this weekend, she passed 50% for the first time.

On DU, however, her popularity is about 5%, with many posters implying or even stating outright that Hillary supporters are demented, unpatriotic losers who should be silenced by any means necessary. (I was told that my kind remarks about her debate performances were "appalling".)

I would ask the same question I would ask the Bushbot dead-enders: are you really, truly saying that the majority is crazy and somehow out of the mainstream? How can 53% of Democrats be vile lunatics, simply because you disagree? What if she had 60% support? 70%? Would we still all be "demented"?

I had to alert twice on a poster who called Clinton "Hitlary" and her followers "Hitlarys"...Both posts were deleted...

If you want I'll link the threads ...

There are some Clinton supporters who are "major league assholes" but the majority of them show Gandhi like tolerance for the invective and ridicule they and their candidate suffer...


DSB

They are the ones that are reasoned and sincere, but I do agree some anti-Hillary thrads have been obnoxious as well.

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

in addition to the Hitlary's.

And I am not a Hillary fan.

With The Title "Separated At Birth"...

If for every sexist invective aimed at Hillary there was a racist invective hurled at Obama there would be so many tombstones DU would like Arlington National Cemetary...

I guess sexism is the one acceptable ism...

was outrageously awful. Luckily, it eventually got locked.

an RW phrase.And it is perfectly okay for Hillary supporters to call edwards an abulance chaser' and a 'girly man' hiding behind his wife.And yet I still feel we should be able to introduce civility.

but I have seen "Breck girl" and alerted on it, and it was deleted. I agree that ambulance chaser and anything that refers to him as being less than a man should be removed too.

ever try to understand any of those who do not support her? and it gives them free reign to be as nasty as they want to others? Somehoe I don't get that.

of the nasty arrogant bullshit coming from that corner. Those isolated posters might be skewing your perceptions of the civility of the Clintonites as a whole.

Any day I can come to DU and look at pages of threads attacking, smearing and practically making Hillary Clinton out to be worse than the entire Bush family combined.

The complaints about "nasty Hillary supporters" are so mindblowing to me, in this atmosphere of hatred toward the woman, I don't know whether to laugh or what.

These are people to be reasoned with?

Every one of those monikers emanated from the right wing...

to extend a hand to the more reasonable posters? I ambeginning to think this thread is hopeless and I shouldn't have even asked.

I know that's coming soon.

I don't see how people can be so mean...

I don't even talk that way about Bush* when I'm not posting here...

that can? Are you going to throw therm out with the bathwater? What about the undecided that have questions?I have seen questions treated with arrogance.

If you came to a site where bashing your candidate happened more often than on the freerepublic, you would get defensive too?

eom

supporters.They call his supporters "desperate, delusional. morons, and liars"and yet I still think we should "try" to get along.

have never bashed either of them.

I haven't bashed a Dem since I started posting here with a few exceptions which I later regretted...

Devoted to informing us all that Edwards is little better than Bushco or voting for him is no better than Bush and that he is the evil of all evils, etc.

Frankly, I wouldn't set foot in this snakepit of hatred for Hillary if I were her supporter without getting good and drunk first, and god knows what I would be posting if I were.

liar and a "pretty boy".They also call him an abulance chaser and "desperate. C'Mom .It isn't as though either side is blameless.

You are blinding yourself to the obvious. The painfully obvious to someone who does not have a dog in this fight.

political stunt And those that said Elizabeth was a rotten mother?That was here on DU as well.That is worse than anything said about Hillary.Sorry.

I've seen some pretty nasty things written about Hillary and her family. :shrug: I think most candidates are treated pretty badly at one time or another here on DU.

politcal gain" and nothing that has been said equals saying that Elizabeth is a rotten mother also using her kids for the sake of the campaign with no regard for their feelings.

How about the poster who said Hillary stayed with Bill despite his philandering because she benefited politically?

So what? Can't they benefit politcally as well as staying for other reasons/ And even if they just stayed for politcal ends, it is their marriage, not anyone elses. JMHO.

would get her elected. I mean, it's not nice stuff any way you cut it.

I just didn't find Senator Clinton inspiring... But some of the attacks on her are so mean and rooted in sexism that I find myself reflexively defending her and I can't look at Edwards and Obama the way I used to...

It reminds me of impeachment... The more the Pugs hated him the more I loved him and when they tried to impeach and convict him he became a demigod to me...

Uh, Scotch seems to work. hic!

Which is what he is called at Freak Republic...That would earn them a tombstone but Hillary is called "the old girl" Shrillary, Hitlary, and Billary which is what she is called at Freak Republic...

Not as bad as Hitlary but I hope the post was deleted...

a politcal ploy and that is far worse than anything said about Hillary.That is as "low' as one can get.

He also plays "I Am Woman" and "I Feel Pretty" when discussing John Edwards...That pretty much puts a lie to the meme that Hillary is the only one the Republicans have their long knives out for...

How are these "hillary supporters" who which you have given all sorts of negative attributes? My guess is that some of the posts to which you refer are not by supporters of Clinton at all.

Nor are all Hillary supporters like this .Just some as are some of other candidates.

Clinton supporters are vastly outnumbered on DU, each day brings another wave of some of the nastiest invectives thrown at any politician - Dem or Repub. Whore, bitch, "Hitlery," corporatist, etc.

To defend her is "arrogance." To defend her with the same passion her detractors tear her down is being an "asshole." To post her accomplishments is "insulting" to other candidate supporters. Yet, you think we OWE you some sort of reason to support her?

I would venture to say it isn't Hillary supporters "driving people away," it is the hateful single-mindedness displayed by her "enemies" on DU. And I would also venture to say you're creating Hillary supporters along the way.

Finally, regardless of what you've somehow come to believe, Hillary has more supporters than Obama and Edwards combined in the real world. I believe it would benefit Obama/etc. supporters more if they tried to sell their candidate to the public rather than tear Hillary down.

to state that anyone who questions her is a"moron".It is not "insulting to other candidates to post her accomplishments' and I have never said so. I have also never denied that it might be so that Hillary has more support in the real world.Why do you put words in my mouth.Yet you seem to think all Hillary supporters are totally blameless in the candidate flamer war on DU.The things that have been said about Edwards in those threads dedicated to supporting him are heinous as are some things said about Obama.Whenever Hillary is attacked, certain of her supporters always drag in another candidate instead of defending their own.As for you last staement, that is exactly what I am requesting of the Hillary supporters and well as ALL candidate supporters.
My anger has gone over the top this week as I have been accused of being stupid and a moron by some for not supporting Hillary yet these same persons can say Edwards is using his wife's illness, is a hypocrite hiding behind his wife's skirts and Elizabeth is a dreadful mother. but they constantly respond that there is NOTHING behind any criticism of Hillary.She must be a saint.No candidate is perfect.There is no monopoly on this candidate bashing and Hillary supporters are not immune from their criticism for this.I still think we should all try to respect differing points of view.

Let's compare the number of insults from Clinton supportes to those who are against her. Let's compare the number of right wing tactics used against Hillary by so-called progressives vs. those used by Clinton supporters. Are you game?

I didn't see a call in your OP questioning why some Obama supporters use rigtwing talking points. Did I? Nope, sorry. Your OP was clearly about how you think Hillary supporters are evil incarnate.

And while I didn't mention Obama supporters by name. I did state all candidates supporters as well.

... really nasty spiteful ones using Sean Hannity and Limbaugh lines against Hillary? Fact is, you either don't believe what you just wrote or you scared shitless of the Obama mob here jumping you.

Seriously!

...in the finest "we're all on the same team" spirit.

Perhaps you're goal is to serve as Exhibit A, proving the point of this thread's OP.

No need to "link or slink."

Perhaps you have me confused with another. I'm true blue... Yes, "even" if Hillary gets the nod... :bounce:


...


PS - As of today, she's my second choice. Shhhh.... Just don't tell anybody. Mustn't lose my credentials.

:toast:

I keep looking for all the Clinton supporters who are supposedly posting nasty threads about the other candidates. I am not finding them.

I do find threads comparing Clinton to the Wicked Witch, threads that call her hitlary, and threads that call her other awful names.

Show me the Breck Girl threads. Show me the racist threads against Obama. Show me the threads trashing Richardson, Biden, Dodd or any of the others. The worst I have seen are threads critical of Kucinich, asserting that he can't get anything done in Washington.

Yes, there are people here trying to sell their candidates to the rest of us. I applaud those people. I learn from them in my quest for a candidate. That is one of the purposes of DU: to get good Democratic candidates elected.

Give me the links to all the threads Clinton supporters are posting that are tearing down others. Back up your words.

I am not a Clinton supporter. I may end up being one if her detractors on DU keep driving me to defend her.

I think many of her supporters see this as "Her Turn." They are offended at the mere suggestion that she actually have to earn it...and they actually have to defend her and her record.

She has been called Hitlary, Shrillary, Billary, a bitch, and a whore by her detractors; many of those terms are bathed in sexism...

If Obama was attacked like that in racist terms there would be so many tombstones this board would like Flanders Field...

That's the point of the OP, eh.

Why don't our Democratic friends who support the supposed front-runner work harder to promote their own rather than tearing down others?

There's plenty of heavy-handed vitriol on this board directed at all the candidates. Sorry.

Obama is immune from racist attacks in the public arena (but I'm quite sure, in private, he is attacked based on his race).

with people who come to a Democratic board and post every right-wing smear they can find about Clinton. They're not here to reason.

at another website.And I am considerd a pro "DLCer" because of my posts here in support of the party. Whatever. My local "progressives also don't like the fact that I state we need the GOP vote.They think we can win without it.

Oh, I forgot, people on DU hate it when Hillary supporters insist that discussions remain relevant and on topic.

when questioned about their own.That is hardly keeping on topic. I give up.I am not going to try anymore.

hardly"staying on topic" Whatever.

There was only one other anti-another candidate thread on this page...

When they say Hillary is a "whore," they believe they're "speaking truth to power." So it therefore isn't an attack thread.

Why do you resort to this to make your point?

... about them personally.

respect those who disagree.

But that's just a general statement and not about him.

If I was stalking you I'd respond to you all over the place.There's countless threads you're in on a daily basis that I'm not in, and I probably respond to about one of every fifty posts of yours, if that.So that charge carries as much weight as most of your posts, which would be none.

But if you really believe your own words alert and tell it to the judge.The Admins deal with stalkers here pretty quickly, so either tell them or quit being a baby.

Like calling me a stalker? You're running out of feet to put in your mouth.

Have a nice morning.

you did STRONGLY IMPLY:

"You know why people like saracat never notice that?

When they say Hillary is a "whore", they believe they're "speaking truth to power." So it therefore isn't an attack thread."





it's pretty obvious to me...

but I am sure it is there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3588300


Is there nothing she won't be accused of?

seem against hope but I am unclear as to what the poster means.

I do not read EVERYTHING on DU. Of course there are anti Hillary threads. Sheesh.

I've ever witnessed on the DU.

I was wrong. It is not possible.

:thumbsup:

It sounded like, why don't you take it upon yourself to defend her against the endless, constant attacks to people who will never, ever change their minds and want to poison anyone that they can against her, like it's their fault for not keeping up?

Like, when did you stop beating your wife shit.

If they take it upon themselves to respond to this endless crap with anything other than a "fuck you", honestly, they have my respect.

I know what it's like to have a candidate I supported attacked here and so do you.

Multiply that times 1000 and imagine 3/4 of the entire site united against you and your candidate.

And then have people demand that you tell them why you support her while calling you "nasty and contemptuous."

Then tell me about "respect".

and generally are exposed to a wide variety of information and resources to make their own judgements. If someone is seriously asking people on a discussion forum for reasons to support a candidate, I would have to assume it is not coming from a sincere place.

By the way Rodney King did not say "can't we all try to get along" ?, he said "People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/top25-quotes.htm

a political forum then? What are we supposed to be posting about if not candidate comparison? So I assume you think that anyone asking for information is not "sincere" because everyone is so experienced at the internet they have all the info they ever need? Wow! Just wow.I am stunned. I truly do apologize for starting this thread.

the Iraq war, the constitutional assault without consequence for the abusers, threatening Iran, leaving troops in Iraq, make this all very difficult for people that have had enough. People need to know they will get real change with a candidate and their perceptions will differ.

Except the title then was something like "What's the difference between Hillary and the Ghoul."

I responded in detail in that thread. Look it up.

I feel that the posting of these types of threads is nothing more than some of he supporters of other candidates trying to make an assertion that there is no good reason to vote for her. You have been provided with plenty of reasons. If you disagree, fine. My only request of you is to please stop pretending that supports of Clinton never give substantial reasons to vote for her. It's become quite tiresome and lame.

But you have not been above reproach in your response to threads regarding Edwards And I was quite serious about my comparison between those two but whatever.I give up.

"They don't want to be persuaded, They want to flame"

"Nobody Is Discussing Her Record"

"I guess sexism is the one acceptable ism"

"Unfortunately, misogyny is still acceptable"

"Because theres no point in reasoning with people who come to a Democratic board and post every right-wing smear they can find about Clinton"

"These are people to be reasoned with?"

"If you came to a site where bashing your candidate happened more often than on the freerepublic, you would get defensive too?"

"people like saracat"



All broad-brush, all baseless, most dripping with arrogance and all intent on shutting down any criticism of Hillary. No one could have proved the OP's point better. Thanks for helping out! :hi:

and I don't mean just out of context of the posts, I mean out of the larger context and ignoring the history of the OP re nasty comments.

I am sorry you cannot accept my explanation for my remarks about McGovern but this is a really low blow.

And the context is right here in the thread, for anyone who wants to look at it. It's kind of hard to take things out of context when you're posting in the context itself.


I was more interested in the continuing pattern of some Hillary supporters to resort to these kinds of attacks when challenged. The quotes I included have an all too familiar ring to them.

Where do I begin...

I'll begin by saying that's the most intellectually dishonest post on the "internets"... You have ripped quotes out of context without using ellipsis points to indicate what you left out...

In my best Joseph Welch voice, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? "

Thanks for the reminder.

"that's the most intellectually dishonest post on the 'internets'" :rofl:

Kucinich having, for example, a trophy wife. The howls of outrage would be deafening. And they'd be right; that's an inappropriate criticism, but any type of criticism no matter how dishonest, personal, or vile, about Clinton is deemed as just fine by many here.

They are waiting until after HRC's nomination. Then our little democratic originated BARBS will seem like "a picnic" compared to the vicious 24/7 smears. Unlike Kerry, The Clintons have plenty of material to spin to oblivion. :crazy:

Do we want eight more years of scandal and divisiveness? I don't. :(

I do NOT fear the RW but I also don't underestimate them. They will win because they have the M$M on their side. We need a nominee with LESS BAGGAGE. :shrug:

Her supporters, on the other hand, tend to give as good as they get. I think the victim routine has run its course, don't you?

:crazy:

You have zero, zip, nada, evidence that the people posting pro-Hillary are DLC anything. And yet you don't hesitate to smear them with that label.

:eyes: Yeah, right - you're vitriol should be bottled, Ouch! It's a seriously potent MO. ;)

p.s. go to The DLC's web site: guess who is ONE of the TOP LEADERS?!? If you support HRC, then you also support the Clintonian DLC. :scared:

What evidence do you have that the people HERE at DU, who are supporting Hillary Clinton, are members of, or devotees of, the DLC?

That is part of the topic at hand. If you support HRC, you get her husband, and the DLC will RUN the Executive Branch. There's no question about the foregoing because they are The Clinton Campaign front running promoters and *the DLC* will assist HRC in running The Executive Branch.

Hell, that's not supposition, that's a FACT! :shrug:

So forget it.

:hi:

no amount of facts about HRC is going to change their perception of the candidate. From what I see here, the nastiness and contempt started with them, continues and, human nature being what it is, is going to be reciprocated.

As far as those who are "considering not voting in the general election", anyone taking this course, after the last seven years, is a complete fucking idiot, and I, at least, try not to waste my time on fools.

HRC and her husband have TOO MUCH BAGGAGE to get elected. If we nominate her, I fear we will realize EIGHT more years of republican rule.

I don't hate HRC. However, I am deeply saddened because I honestly believe, with my heart and soul, HRC can NOT win a general election.

Plus, even if she does win, we will continue to gut the middle class as the DLC advisors continue their march toward globalization and the USA's transition to neo-liberalism (free markets gone wild).

The moment after IF HRC is nominated ... well, as good ole' BTO crooned in the 70's: You ain't seen nothing yet!

of Hillary Clinton for President if she is the nominee?

Dennis Kucinich, one each, Democrat. :shrug:

I will NOT vote for ANY DLCer who despises "the left" and all things LIBERAL, i.e., not corporations first. :(

is working against their election....

It's certainly not working for it, which is the stated mission of this website.


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


the idea that HRC works against "all things liberal" is so absurd as to be laughable. She may not be a leftist, but even a casual comparison of her positions and voting record, set against any Republicans, puts the lie to your assertions.

We can never underestimate the GOP. we have to remain vigilant. A friend of mine has been collecting issues to use against Democratic candidates. His bosses request. (He works in a conservative corporate law firm. He turned Dem a couple years ago.) anyway Biden has the smallest folder of all the Dem candidates and by his own admission the “facts” in it are iffy. My friend says that The gop has been donating to Hillary in hopes she does become the nominee. As they feel they can defeat her . where as Biden has them nervous.

They are well prepared for her to win the nomination.

It is truly very sad. Those of you doing it know exactly who you are. A few people on all sides spew the same crap and drown out any other reasonable discourse.

Those people should be ashamed.

why they like their candidate. I posted telling everyone why I liked Kucinich and asked for everyone to tell me why they liked their candidate so we could all better educate ourselves and it sunk quickly. Every time I post something like that, its hit with an attack or something other than substance?

Again, these are some of the things I like about Dennis Kucinich.

In 2002 he stood alone and said the war was about Oil, Regional Power, and Israel and voted no to the war and never voted to fund it. I don't think any other candidate can say that.

He has spoken out about the attack on the constitution by the government.
He wants the patriot act repealed.
He wants to take the profit out of health care so everyone has health care and no one gets denied or partial payments.
He is against war unless we are attacked.
He wants investigations into the Hunt Oil deal that took place in Iraq.
He is against corporate influence in government.
He is against NAFTA and sending American jobs out of the country.
He wants to make any corporation with an American name pay taxes here.
He wants to cut the runaway Pentagon budget to save the economy.
He answers questions directly so I know exactly where he stands on the issues.
He is for Impeachment and isn't afraid to speak out about it.
I know there is more but theres a start for you, maybe you could respond with why you support your candidate and then maybe someone else will follow the lead and we can all educate ourselves on all the candidates and pick the best person for our future. Lets see who is here for political discussion and who just wants to fight.

I will add more as I think of them.

There is literally nothing that a Clinton supporter could say that would cause me to, even for a nanosecond, consider voting for her.

Unfortunately, when they know that, the only weapon at hand is to display nastiness and contempt, to try to marginalize that position on HRC, and hope that enough nastiness and contempt will drive others who don't like her much but might vote for her into some sort of party loyalty oath.

Or it might just be frustration. Or practice, polishing their smears for the real world campaign.

You're here railing against HRC every day. Although I'm not very vocal here, I have an extremely visceral reaction against John & Elizabeth Edwards...they don't represent me, a non-practicing attorney on SSDI. However, I'm not here every day posting drive-by attacks on them. Would we ever listen to each other, could we, I mean "really listen", to each other?

on edit: I left out John...because I really, really don't like Elizabeth, but I'm neutral about John.