Since it is being done fairly often in regards to Hillary, I want to know so I can also tap the treasure trove of vitriol the right wing provides and attack the candidates I don't prefer.

It's a sign of desperation. When they can't talk about all the "good" they've done, because they haven't done any, they naturally have to make Dems look bad.

brooks in support of hillary, that make your poll a wee bit hypocritical...


edit: post directed at the OP

I consider much of the msm to be a RW source, but I'll use CNN as a source from time to time if it's correct.

There are plenty of LW and "Democratic" sources available to, unfortunately, attack a lot of Democrats for the things they do, or fail to do these days, anyway.

TC

Are you stating Hillary is a Right Winger?

:rofl:

site in at least 10 threads

This place mimics freeptown on a daily basis with its lies and misinformation

but refuse to criticize Republicans are.

I shouldn't blame Hillary for the behavior of some who purport to support her.

heres what you said:

"No, and that includes Hillaryis44.org. eom"

You declared Hillaryis44.org, a Right Wing site as related to the poll.

Is there an element of truth in anything you post regarding the His44.org site?

for Republican oppo research on Democrats, especially Edwards and Obama. They float Swiftboating memes to see which gain traction.

Since they never, ever, ever say anything bad about Romney, Ghouliani, or McCain when they criticize Hillary, it's pretty clear who runs that site. A true 'pro-Hillary' website would spend more time defending her against rightwing attacks than in spreading Free Republic-style smears. The people who post there are the same kinds who spread the Vince Foster theories.

One, do you have a link for this, or are you just talking out of your ass?

Two, why would Republicans bother swiftboating Edwards and Obama, while not bothering to attack the actual frontrunner? I would think that they would spend their time looking for lines of attack against the presumptive nominee, not the also-rans.

Starting a site along the lines of KucinichIs44, with the aim of splintering the Democratic party, would be a far more useful source of agent-provocateurism.

I ask you a simple 'yes or no' question in post #15 and you come back with:

"No, just people that defame Democrats

but refuse to criticize Republicans are.

I shouldn't blame Hillary for the behavior of some who purport to support her."

I post the ridicule and smears you yourself have written in post...#17

And you continue to claim without a shred of proof, just YOUR word which you've shone unequivocally is unreliable, Hillaryis44.org is a Republican Clearing house for oppo research against democrats.

Based on your past performance of not having any trouble whatsoever attacking a Democratic candidate, namely Hillary, the Democratic front runner at that. I say you are... what you claim others to be based on the evidence I've posted above.

Further, if you refuse to refrain from labeling your own dark malicious opines on His44.org site I will ask for a determination from DU disallowing you to promote a fallacy in a malevolent attempt to discredit Hillary and her supporters.

Here is exhibit A of you ridiculing and defaming Hillary:

geek tragedy Sun Oct-07-07 07:10

9. At least she didn't cackle. eom


geek tragedy Sun Oct-07-07 08:15 PM

27. Thanks.

She's becoming more and more like Dean--just substitute the cackle for the scream.


geek tragedy Sun Oct-07-07 07:14 PM

19. Why don't people like her? eom


geek tragedy Sun Oct-07-07 05:11 PM

3. Remind you of anyone?

She can't handle unscripted situations.


geek tragedy Sun Oct-07-07 05:12 PM

4. Damn peasants questioning the Queen's judgment.

Do they think they live in a democracy or something?

Though I can understand why Hillary fears the truth.

Truth is truth, even when it hurts.

And to go directly to the sub rosa point that you're
trying to make, we would be wise to consider how
much right-wing spew there is against your candidate
of choice, both true and untrue.

The true stuff suggests why loyal Democrats may not
like your candidate.

The untrue stuff suggests the magnitude of the attack
that the Right is going to mount against your candidate
and they will stop at *NOTHING* to defeat her.

Tesha

If you are trying to prove that Republicans hate Hillary more than they hate the other Democratic candidates, then I would say it's probably legitimate to link to one or more examples.

But that don't mean you are necessarily endorsing everything that is at the other end of the link.

It just means "Hey, you guys! This blog says Hillary stinks. Well, whadyaknow?" B-)

B-)

Don't need to.

I'm having some difficulty reading your mind.

and commit the authors and issues to memory, you wouldn't be so behind the curve on this one.

:argh:

Earth to DU...come in please.

is taking a deserved pummeling this morning on her poor judgment votes for the IWR and tying herself to Kyl-Lieberman while according to MSNBC "being snippy" with a Iowa voter. Gore's word to W in 2000.

Rolph was reading from the first draft of the Kyl/Lieberman Amendment. Hillary corrected him and asked him if someones sent it to him. Rolph said it was his own research and took offense at her asking the question. So, how does that make Kos justified in pummeling Hillary... and who says, she was snippy?

It seems Rolph embarrassed himself because he made a mistake making a fool of himself in front of an audience. As many do here when called on their misstatements.

and here's the simple reason why. It is necessary to examine what RW sources are saying and what is gaining traction that the MSM echo chamber will use SO THAT IT CAN BE REFUTED, early and often.

Takes the wind out of their sails.

they don't mind giving credit to right-wing smears.

Got it.

Either we believe it is "fair and balanced" or it is on the "right-wing agenda. period."

Boy, does that "period" speak volumes.

This is exactly the kind of "With us or With the Terrorists" crap that I hate about conservatives. Such a cheap ass way of making a point.

You provide only two possible alternatives, when there are clearly a number of other choices being intentionally obscured.

As many have already said, it is quite reasonable to dismiss the sources of any information. It is what logicians call "poisoning the well."

As in, "Hitler believed the world was round. Are you really going to believe Hitler's version of the world?"

Here is a useful guide to cheap ass arguments:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Normally, they are used by conservatives. But, apparently, not exclusively so.

All of which I've seen used by Hillary supporters to either prop up Hillary or tear down the others.Interesting how the right-wing sources are ok when it's a positive for Hillary or a negative against the others.Personally, I don't like right-wing sources used at all, for good or bad.I wish you shared the same consistency.

Here's Hillary using Krauthammer.She doesn't mind using right-wing sources to attack a Dem.Did you write her with your "concern" for that?

The Clinton camp placed comments from her and Obama on her web site, HillaryHub.com, and provided a link to an opinion article written by conservative Charles Krauthammer that described "how the grizzled veteran showed up the clueless rookie."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3409277

Here's one of her supporters using Krauthammer to go after Obama.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3409794

Here's you defending a David Brooks piece.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3547017#3547032

Here's a thread you started using Brooks, Brit Hume, Wolf Blitzer and others to support Hillary.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3544311

Here's another one by you, also using Brooks quotes to pump up Hillary.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3529684

Yet another Hillary supporter using Brooks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3126154

Why don't you talk to your fellow Hillary supporters and get your own shit together before whining about it to the rest of us.

?

PB

I forgot. In the twisted world of "progressives" all media is right wing. Just like in the twisted world of fundies all media is left wing.

And the question was about ATTACKING. Two of your examples were from people COMPLIMENTING.

The right wing attacks on Clinton seems to be substantially different than the left wing attacks. It's easy to differentiate the two.

I think that if progressives disagree with Hillary, they need to ALWAYS use progressive reasons for doing so. Among other things, this probably keeps the debate closer to the actual facts.