I don't know how any Democrat can support Clinton (Serious Question Within)

Hillary:

Supports the war
Refuses to admit she made a mistake in judgment by supporting the war
Sends Surrogates out to practice the "Politics of Destruction"
Participates in those types of attacks herself
Plants questions to make herself look better
Refuses to answer questions anymore, shutting voters out of the process
Plays the fear card to scare people into voting for her
The list could go on for days...

My question is, how can her supporters, people who claim to be democrats, people who apparently found the same behavior by Bush and the GOP to be reprehensible, now stand here and support this candidate with out qualms.

I just don't get it. I need it explained to me.

would work better.

is one of the things that defines me as a Democrat.

However, it seems like the "conservative" wing of the Democratic Party is alive and kicking...

I support Hillary, but I certainly wouldn't describe myself as conservative.

her campaign planted a question at one event, has apologized, and moved on. And, despite what you say in the OP, she continues to take questions at many of her events.

First off, her campaign didn't plant a question at "one event, has apologized and moved on" as
you wrote.

That is not what happened. At all.

Her campaign planted a question in Grinnell, Iowa. The "plant" came forward to reveal the
dishonesty, and Hillary denied that this was a campaign tactic or that she knew about
this happening. Then, another woman--from an entirely different city--exposed that
the Hillary campaign asked her to do the same thing.

This was the campaign's modus operandi, until the people of Iowa stopped it. Hillary never
even addressed the second woman who came forward, and she certainly didn't apologize. Hillary
said she didn't know this was happening, yet she called on the two women who were prompted
by her campaign staff. There were 200 people in each audience, and she manages to call on
the 2 plants----by accident? Please.

As for taking question, I attended a speech of hers in Des Moines. She preached then exited.
Other media outlets have reported on her lack of openness and how she avoids questions. She
also appears at large speeches, which distances her from real dialog. I saw Biden at a local
restaurant and bar. He took questions and stood around talking with people one-on-one. Edwards
stood at a town-hall meeting and took questions from anyone who had their hand up. Obama
does the same. Hillary bolts.

What I'm seeing directly with my own eyes and what the media is reporting--is contrary to
your viewpoint.

"the people of Iowa" stopped it? En masse? Did you see that with your own eyes, too?

Hillary does not take questions at all of her events, but she does at many. I'm sorry that she didn't at the one you werenmat, but she often stays around and answers people's questions afterword, and I posted evidence downthread that, as of Friday, she was still taking questions at events. But I guess if you didn't see it, it didn't happen.

Hillary and her minions were in the process of planting questions at their events,
until IOWANS had the courage to come forward and expose her dishonesty.

So YES, I saw this play out. These two women came forward. They revealed what happened.

This was obvious a campaign tactic--until we put a stop to it.

Hillary stopped planting questions because we didn't remain silent about her orchestrated bullshit.

So, again, YES----this played out in several media stories--with the women giving interviews about
how they were asked to plant questions.

In effect, I did see this with my own eyes.

I mean, you used "we." And you still haven't said how the People of Iowa stopped it. Were there mass protests in the street?

BTW, the story of the planted question was well-known nationally, and was even reported on CNN such, so I saw it with my own eyes as much as you did, and am well aware of what happened. Just because you were in the same state doesn't really mean you saw it with your own eyes.

Also, Hillary herself didn't plant the questions. A few staffers probably thought it would be a good idea to keep things moving, and there's no evidence that Hillary even knew it was going to happen.

I say "we", because I mean the people of Iowa. I'm proud of my state and that we (the people of Iowa)
didn't endure these dishonest tactics. I'm proud that the people of Iowa said, "No thanks" to orchestrated,
dishonest politicians and their slimy tactics.

Yes, the story of the FIRST planted question was well-known nationally. That's true. However, the second
plant was not well known. In your earlier post in this thread, you said that Hillary "planted a question,
apologized, then moved on." Even you, didn't mention the second planted question. This was not known
nationally, but it was reported widely in Iowa and it touched off a flurry of stories and op-ed articles
in Iowa. Many Iowa blogs discussed the second plant, because it demonstrated that the first plant was not
a fluke, but a Hillary tactic.

And are you actually going to suggest that because I was not a first-hand witness to these events----that
this somehow diminishes the truth? Or are you suggesting that Hillary planting questions is fine, because
I didn't see the dishonesty with my own eyes? Gee, I wasn't in DC to see Dick Cheney crafting our energy
policy with big-oil execs, but it was widely reported. So...according to your logic, it never happened. Huh?

And please.....holy maird. Hillary didn't plant the questions herself??? Planting questions requires someone
to ask a "plant" to ask the question...and then Hillary to call on the "plant". Are you ACTUALLY suggesting
that Hillary's staffers asked these women to ask planted questions---and then when Hillary called on them--it
was just a crazy coincidence?

That's......ummmm....new.

a quick response, because I've got to go to bed. The other planted question, which I had vaguely recalled hearing about, although details were sketchy (there were disputed stories about it - so I wasn't counting it), was from a man, not a woman, as you asserted.

No, I'm not saying that you aren't telling the truth, I just think you're exaggerating a lot by saying you're seeing things first hand (I mean you are seeing some things first-hand, obviously, but you're not omnipresent throughout Iowa, unless you have some special powers I'm not aware of). and "the people of Iowa." It was the media more than anything that caught the planted question, reported on it, and the campaign apologized. But I never denied that the question was planted, did I?

I also don't think that Hillary necessarily knew about it. At many political events that I've been to over the years, only a handful of people ask questions, so it's perfectly within reason that the candidate might answer all of them. But I wasn't at the event - I don't know how many hands were raised, nor how many of those questions were answered. Also, Hillary's people could have handed the girl the microphone. But, like I said, I don't know the details of the event.

It's great to hear from an Iowan.

:toast:


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

to someone who's lowered the level of discourse by employing a ridiculous diversionary tactic.

Come on now. You're not really elevating the level of discourse yourself, and you know that.

the odds of her calling on these two women at separate events? She had to have some sort of knowledge of it and for all we know they were others who don't have the courage to step forward. I can give her the first one but the second shows complicity.

Description of Straw Man
From Nizkor.org:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

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

Your position that the "we", as used in her argument, somehow invalidates the underlying position is a prime example of the above. This is a common argument technique often seen used by Bush supporters and others who have a hard time making valid arguments that support their positions. I would suggest that if you want to be taken seriously, you try to have an argument based on the subject matter itself rather than picking one word and using that out of context to try to invalidate the entire argument. Her claim was that the people of Iowa put a stop to some of the tactics HRC was using to embellish her position by calling her out on it. Actually, it wasn't even the primary focus of her argument, which asserted that HRC appears to be less than trustworthy; the "loaded" question and answer sessions were but an example to validate that claim. Even if argument taken out of context were her main claim, you chose to parse the word "we" (which is entirely appropriate since she is an Iowan and can therefore include herself when talking about Iowans) and chose to use that word out of context to imply that she was herself somehow taking personal credit for stopping the tactics. Hence "Did you, personally put a stop to it" becomes a very poorly constructed straw man tactic and only serves to further discredit your own position among those familiar with such techniques.

Happy New Year to you and yours.

I just point out the things in people's arguments that bother me - hyperbole and such. You might notice that the "we" wasn't the only thing discussed in my posts, because I addressed the subject at hand as well, it was just something that irked me. I certainly wasn't purposefully engaging in any tactics.

But thanks for comparing me to Bush supporters. Your condescension wasn't necessary, but thank you for your time.

for addressing those posts with an intelligent reply. I wanted to address her taking "we" totally out of context to simply support her canidate. I hate that HRC supporters never see her wrongs. I am openly *NOT* an HRC supporter and her slimy politics shows through with the exposure of the 'plants'. It's only the tip of the iceburg with her too - this is what we know, imagine what we do not know with HRC. UGH.

Cheers
Sandy

but I'm voting for her because I think she's the best candidate in the field.

A planted question or two just isn't that big of a deal to me, but I realize a lot of people interpret it differently.

I hate it when posters resort to these tactics.

I guess some people don't like that, but I think most folks know I'm not here to engage in mind games of any kind. I'm sorry if I was mistinterpreted. :shrug:

you spelled out something that was just crawling like scabies under my skin. thank you again!

She doesn't know when she votes for the IWR that Bush is going to go full steam ahead and invade Iraq. Nowadays, she says she thought "diplomacy" was going to be involved.

Then she recently voted for the Kyle Lieberman bill. Again saying that she doesn'tthink it will add gas to Bush's fire - it will again entail dilomacy.

GO back to 1986 when she joined the WalMart Board of Directors. Stayed on that board until 1992. Never seems upset with the small mom and pop opperations put into bankrupcy by WalMart's "busines innovations" Nor is he upset by working for an organization that is anti-union.

I guess she didn't know what was going on. I mean, just because my friends and i knew and we boycotted WalMart at that time, doesn't mean Hillary with her Ivy League education and her being personal attorney to WalMart bigwigs, well, how in tarnation was that little lady to know?

Heh hey hey!

What were the questions, anyway --- was the subject unusual, or what?

I mean . . . why not just simply say, "You know, I just wish someone would ask
this question --- or please let me begin with this subject . . ." whatever???


And, this is so "Bush-like" -- he, of course, has gotten caught at this ---
jeez ---- he's got such staging goin' on it's a Broadway show !!

the girl who was given the question was originally going to ask how HRC's plan compared to the other candidates' plan, but the staffer talking to the girl told her that HRC might not be aware of the other candidates' global warming plans. So, the question they suggested was this:

"As a young person, I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/clinton.planted/index.html

Who knows how many times her campaign got away with it?

There was an audience question on one of the debates asked to Clinton, instead of asking the question the female in the audience wanted, she asked if Clinton preferred diamonds or pearls. Of course, Clinton sat the fence like with everything and said both just like her baseball team answer. Thats all, nothing special.

reporting on Iowa, TwoSparkles. Not that I would believe anything a hillary surrogate used to defend hillary. They like to live in that reagun, black hole memory universe.

I think she'll get eaten alive in the GE, for the record.

She'd be a hell of a lot better than anyone on the other side. Elections are not about souls. They are about power. Nominating someone who will be eaten alive by the Rs in order to do what our "soul" tells us is idiotic. Besides, what do I do if my head tells me to pull a lever for Biden, but my "soul" wants HRC?

I was hoping that Democrats could offer something new in comparison. Whats the point of voting for a D who is going to act like an R?

Do you want to win or not? Justice Stevens is getting pretty old.

None of our people will act like Bush in office. I think you know that.

many better candidates in the running right now.

There are better candidates in terms of qualifications, but they are at the back of the pack and have no money.

Among the 3 fighting it out for first place in Iowa, I really don't see a better alternative to HRC. Even if Edwards wins Iowa, he does not have the money or logistic support to compete in the February multistate primary. Obama can compete, but only until the Rs start taking a bead on him. After the last 7 years, the nation will not want another wet-behind-the-ears president. And regardless of the fact that President Fuckup is one of their own, they will not hesitate to throw him under the bus to point out O's inexperience.

But really, when push comes to shove in the GE, what REAL experience does Hillary have? Her real tangible experience isn't that better then Obama's.

This is her third national campaign. The previous two were successful. Being 1st lady is not the same as being president or even secretary of state, of course, but she did have a policy role in the Bill Clinton administration. What is more, by the time the election roles around, she will have had 8 years in the US Senate versus O's four. In my judgment he promised IL to be their senator when he ran for that office. Now it is saying he wants a different office before he has even finished a single term. HRC could have run in 2004, but chose not to.

But I don't think its wise for her to try to pass off her years as first lady as expirence.

She may have gotten some national news coverage because of the novelty of a former first lady running for senate, but make no mistake, it was a NY campaign all the way. Also, when Giulliani dropped out of the 2000 race with his prostate cancer, the republican party brought in an comparatively unknown candidate. In 2006 she ran against another weak republican.

So actually instead of this being her third national campaign, it is only her first. And of her two senate campaigns, she ran both against weak republicans in one of the most solidly blue states in the country.

Please don't tell me she had nothing to do with those.

No way Hillary would have won in 92 or 96.

Especially if they nominate McCain.

Hillary has only her short and undistinguished career in the Senate for electoral experience.

If we want to run a candidate who can run on experience we have to go with biden, because nobody else really has that much.

So it has to go beyond experience to see who can bring other positives. And here Hillary falls short. She can use the experience agaisnt obama and edwards because they don't have much either and hillary has lots of experience beeing a wife of Bill Clinton. But what else does she have that she can use against the Republicans? She can't use iraq, she friggin voted for it! So here we have the number one issue and she can't use it!

She does not have the personality to appeal to large numbers of independents. She can't even unite the Democrats, many think she is a corporate shill not much different from the Reps. She will, however, unite the Republicans against their worst nightmare.

And we havent even had to deal with the abortion issue in the Dem campaign because all of us are for choice. But it is a big issue out there outside of DU and the issue will be raised in all its disgusting emotional ways. believe it or not....

She's not the best choice. Nevertheless, I think she will run a better campaign than anyone. We will see. I don't vote until March. By then, it will be a choice between the nominee and Dennis Kucinich.

it is that the difference is not enough to make a difference.

Let me put it this way. If candidate A is guaranteed not to make things worse than the current president that candidate could be considered a "better" president even if the situation does not improve.
If candidate A DOES indeed get better results is it worth it if those "better" results are nothing more than a holding action against a deteriorating system?

I can't say to what degree Hillary Clinton will be a better president than George Bush, but on the issues that matter the most to me Hillary has not proven her metal. She simply is not "better" enough and has not demonstrated to my satisfaction that she will be (in the sense of results) any better at all.

If I presume that John Edwards and Barak Obama are both being deceptive about the degree to which they are populists, I feel they would be no worse candidates (on the issues) than Hillary would be if I take her at her word.

There are no Democrats who act like Republicans. Saying it doesn't make it so. Give it a rest.

Quite wholeheartedly. In fact, I made an entire thread about the notion.

mesmerized. "I understand the children being fooled by WWE wrestlers having a good team and a bad team but I don't have a clue how so many adults don't see the WWE politics in front of their faces? The letters are part of the game, if you don't see it, you are losing the game to them. Problem is those who ignore the facts, also are destroying OUR lives and OUR country.



Wake up sheeple, your destroying our country by being the enablers to this mess.....help!

whole WWF was entertaining when I was 5 years old.

I know he last ran as an independent, but when he wore the D he acted like an R many times.

He is no longer a Democrat. He won on an independent ticket, elected mainly by Republicans.

doesn't change the fact he acted like a R many times when he wore the D. That is the point you would like us to forget. That is why we have to keep reminding our canidates that we want a real change not just a watered down change. If we don't remember our history lessons we are doomed to repeat them until we get it right.

does not make that true. It makes it your humble, uniformed opinion.

Lefleur1 : Then you apparently are not familiar with Joe Lieberman's actions & voting record are you?

peace

why support a candidate as divisive as Hillary? :shrug:

A Hillary nomination = MOST risk for the LEAST gain

Much more like what you'd expect from a Republican than a Democrat.

.... "vote for me or we're all going to die" bs going on. (The sixties withstanding, it was disgusting then to).

Like I've said before, its funny to watch this forum go from reaming Bush for using these tactics to hailing Hillary for employing the same type of politics.

The nearest thing to a difference is that Soviets were a real power, and a credible threat, while the fundamentalist Islamic radicals in arms are not.

For the rest, elections are won by the manipulation of crowds, and that is an art that has not changed for millennia, and one in which practitioners employ the same kit of basic tools whatever the ends they may hope to achieve by their victory. You might as well complain that revolutionaries employ fire-arms, just like policemen do, and so their ends must be the same, and their victory could result in no change worth having.

It doesn't make it right that it has happened before. In this cycle we have ONE candidate on our side who is using fear to garner votes.

Isn't one of your tag lines "Lets Get Those Bush Bastards!" Whats the point of "getting them" if were going to treat the electorate the same way.

Controlling people with fear is, as you know, a step away from fascism. I want to get as far from that as possible.

Is to direct the engine of the state in directions more beneficial to the general run of the populace than they would ever turn it to. How this is achieved is of no importance, and it seems unlikely to me electoral victory will be had by failing to use time-tested means of moving the mass of the people during the contest for office.

"An election differs from a civil war only as the bloodless surrender of a force outnumbered in the field differs from Waterloo."

I refuse to believe that winning can only be achieved by turning into what we fight against.

"Let those who fight monsters take care lest they themselves become monsters."

Aces over fours helps you not at all in gin rummy....

"An idealist is one who, on noticing a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will make a better soup."

We have a number of candidates who see a better future and are willing to offer Hope (and dare I say change). If given the choice, why turn into what we hate, instead of supporting what we would like ourselves to be?

"Fear grows in darkness; if you think there's a bogeyman around, turn on the light."

This is mere sloganeering: there is no real meaning attached to either label you are employing, when marshalled in that manner.

As a question of mass agitation, anger is the most reliable emotion, and fear is a sturdy root for it.

I am not "sloganeering". It is a provable fact that one candidate has turned to fear in a last ditch effort to garner votes. There are 5 other, viable candidates, who have decided not to take that direction. Why are some of us willing to reward the one who has turned against what we hold to be the type of politics we would like to see practiced, and ignore or even vilify the others who are doing what we wish politicians had done the last 6 years?

America has been held hostage by fear mongering for too long now. Between the opportune terror alerts and the idea that Osama Bin Ladin wanted John Kerry to get elected, I would have hoped that we would turn the country in the proper direction. It would appear that one candidate on our side likes power just as much as Bush Inc.

That will not be operative for any of the major candidates in our Party before March or so....

Anyone running for President likes power, and likes it a great deal, and wants more of it than they presently have.

And yet no other candidate has resorted to fear mongering except for our perilously positioned front runner.

... the final piece.

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

You remember New Coke, right?

They took real Coke off the shelves, put this swill out instead, told everyone this was the future of Coca Cola and we had all better get used to it. And eventually, a pitchman named Bill C. was hired to sell us this crap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4YvmN1hvNA


Problem is it tasted just like Pepsi, only sweeter. The majority of Coke drinkers rejected the Pepsi-posing-as-Coke garbage and got "The Real Thing" back on the market within a matter of months. Ironically, this all took place about the same time the DLC started. Too bad Democrats didn't take the hint from the Coke drinkers.

right in the middle of daisy field. I was five. The Republicans did not win ;)

...this type of fear mongering has gone on for years and years

I think radical Islam does pose a threat, just like radical christianity and orthodox judaism. The threat of radical Islam has just been grossly mishandled and made bigger by the terrible decisions and actions taken by the current administration, and administrations before. We could have completely neutralized the problem of it after 9/11. Remember the whole "We are all Americans today" attitude that the whole world took? People in Europe, the Middle East, and all across the world coming together to support America. Many put their doubts of Bush on hold for at least a little bit to come together as a nation. The Bush Admin used this to do terrible things.

A more exact phrasing would be no signifigant threat, as they have at present no capability for more than occasional sanguinary outrages that cannot materially affect essential structures of our society and nation. They are simply a police problem, albeit one of sufficient scale and at sufficient distance that military power must serve for the cutting edge of the constabulary.

You are quite correct in the rest, and have phrased it all very well to boot, Sir.

Welcome to the forum!

Let all laugh at Wyldwolf.

Let all laugh at Wolsh.

funny at all..more tragic.

He was injecting a bit of irony which seems to be lost on you and Wolsh.

hillary's surrogate to set us straight, don't we? And he's still fucking tragic.

And wasn't everything just a wonderful free, fair, and progressive utopia before the Clintons?

In regards to the OP, if anyone doesn't know this is standard for an election, they are a newbie, plain and simple. And if anyone doesn't believe Obama and Edwards and the rest have engaged in the same things, they either haven't been paying attention or have some sort of selective reasoning.

They shouldn't be hard to find if you're as right as you are. I'd love to see one of the other DEMOCRATIC candidates using FEAR as a political weapon.

Power, power and more power...

We think like philosophers and get crushed because of it. Those people are very good at winning and at governing once in office. If you want to live under a Huckabee administration, keep thinking the way you are. You can do anything without victory.

losers but thanks for the gung ho.

Reagan 1980, 1984
Bush Sr. 1992
Bush Jr. 2000, 2004

I'm talking about practical consequences here, not theoretical or legal ones.

Some unkind souls might be tempted to add Bill Clinton to that list.

the Big Picture. :) It helps that they have the corporatemediawhores doin' the dirty work for their side..like having pravda at your beck and call. They couldn't win shit without them.

and we are supposed to fear Huck-- ???

Were we supposed to fear Reagan or Dubya?

Cause the RW wouldn't eat him alive.

Her candidacy energizes the other side. Do they like their nominee? Maybe not, if it's Romney or Giuliani, but they will definitely be energized to vote against Mrs. Satan. I am not at all sure she even can win, nor that her being on the top of the ticket will not hurt us all the way down the line.

She also hurts us in another way. Like her husband she continually 'defeats' Republican talking points by adopting them. They and the DLC continue to blur any distinction between Democrats and Republicans. I guess both parties believe in strong defense, are tough on crime, promote free trade, and will cut taxes and balance the budget. Running against a Giuliani who is pro choice, anti-gun, and pro gay civil rights there is even less of a difference.

:thumbsup:

GREAT QUESTION -- !!!

The DLC already sold the soul of the party ---

So why ask the question? I hate Hillary would suffice.

...and that is one of the main reasons I totally oppose her nomination. With Hill at the top of the bill, I am betting we get as our next POTUS...

Ghouliani
Mitzer
or
McInsane

:puke:

Her negatives are too high. Her name recognition is already high, people have already made up their minds about her. There is not much she can do. The Dem Party will not unite behind her, but the Republican Party will unite against her. She is a lightning rod to scare a lot of people to the polls who might otherwise sit it out.

How will she campaign on the Iraq War? She can't! If she criticises Iraq, the Republican will point out that she voted for it and is now only flip flopping for personal gain, and use the entire exercise to focus on Hillary's flip flops. PS, Hillary has ten times more flip flops than the Reps even dreamed Kerry had.

She has a patrician manner that is aloof from the middle class. People won't relate to her. she has a coldness about her that seems calculating more than sincere.

Of course, there already have been plenty of memes estabished about Hillary....all the Reps have to do is REMIND voters about them.

I could go on and on. But she can't win. And I can't for the life of me see what her positive message is that she should! All I see is bashing Obama. But what is she for?

She has negatives as high as her positives. She'll bring out the Republican base and the religous right who at this point probably wouldn't come out to vote in any strong way otherwise. They hate their front-runner candidates but they hate Hillary Clinton even more. She's their only hope of winning and the polls show it. Edwards and Obama both do better in the general.

"Supports the war"
Has any member of Congress running voted against cutting of funding? I don't know. I'm asking.

"Refuses to admit she made a mistake in judgment by supporting the war"
HRC, Kerry, Edwards and a bunch of others voted for authorization, not for the decision to attack. They made a mistake in trusting Bush's word only to use it as a negotiating tool. Bush is where the blame properly lies. We both know that admitting error in Washington ends up becoming an admission of incompetency after the media puts it through the spin cycle. The only reason Obama did not vote for it is because he was in Cub Scouts at the time. (Yes, yes, I exaggerate.)

"Sends Surrogates out to practice the "Politics of Destruction"
Participates in those types of attacks herself
Plants questions to make herself look better
Refuses to answer questions anymore, shutting voters out of the process
The list could go on for days..."

I don't give a shit how she is running her campaign. Neither does anyone else. The only test there is whether or not it works in getting the candidate elected.

With that said, you had no problems when G.W. Bush used every tactic available to scare people into voting for him in 2004? Or when he used the SBVFT to do his dirty work? Really?

Whether or not it bothered me is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with how I feel. It has to do with winning against people who are perfectly willing to do what you describe.

so I suppose election fraud would be ok too if that's what it takes to "win"? Just askin'.

It happens. Winning is not everything, but it is the only thing during an election. Picking someone who can actually govern is necessary too.

the ends do NOT justify the means

the ends do NOT justify the means. and some people DO care about how their candidates conduct their campaign.

So for me the question is, why oppose her?

The list isn't made up of my opinion. Its postions she's actually taken.

Hillary doesn't exactly support the war. She's planning to end it and votes against funding it.

Hillary said she'd vote differently on the war if she had to do it all over again. She's not groveling or apologizing. I admire her not trying to escape judgment on her mistakes by seeking sympathy. She admits what she did. Sorry if you want more.

Hillary doesn't send surrogates out to engage in the politics of destruction. She doesn't do that herself either. She sticks to real issues and passes up opportunities to smear her opponents. Much has been made of unfortunate comments by some people associated with her. Other candidates have the same problems, they just don't get the scrutiny she gets.

Two questions were planted by Hillary's staff. That isn't enough to characterize that as a usual practice of hers.

Hillary answered thousands of questions and will continue to do so. If she doesn't at every rally there could be good reasons for that. Perhaps she was late for the next appearance. She hasn't and will not shut voters out of the process.

Hillary isn't playing the fear card. Its a good bet that we'll have some kind of crisis during the next four years. She is within ethical campaigning to sell herself as somebody capable of dealing with emergencies that might come up.



I'm not sure your original question was sincere. Do you really believe that what you gave in the OP is just facts and not opinions? Perhaps you don't understand why others might do something because you aren't recognizing that we are all fallible, including yourself. I could be right. You could be right. We all see things differently and can learn from each other.

I like the last paragraph.

Frankly, I think you're giving Hillary a lot of credit in the first 2/3 of your post, but then again our perspective all depends on where we sit.

in la la land where fucked hillary can do no wrong.

that even hinted that the poster thinks Hillary "can do no wrong".

I understand that you support a candidate other than Senator Clinton. That is your right. That is everyone's right...for the time being....

By that I mean that, if an R, like say, Mitt Romney is elected, it may not be anyone's right for long.....

Do you really think HRC will try to end Roe v. Wade? Will GLBT rights be obliterated under a HRC administration? Will SCOTUS become the "Evangelical Christian Court"? Will tax policy continue to tear jobs away from the middle class in order to enrich the already uber-rich? Will health care policy continue to tell people who are uninsured that the ought to just die and decrease the surplus population?

Will she continue the Bush war policy or begin to bring the vast majority of the troops home ASAP? ...Oh, I agree she will likely leave some there, but so will they all...except maybe Ron :scared: Paul.

On every level, every one of the Democratic candidates will be WORLDS better than any one of the Republicans, and that(D) most certainly includes Hillary Rodham Clinton. She may not be a D who is a far left as you would prefer, but that is what the primaries are for, isn't it?

Even beginning to compare her to Lieberman is ludicrous! But....OK I'll say it....on most domestic issues...most...not all....even he is better than any of the Republican candidates.

Even Senator Obama said, in a rally in Iowa yesterday, aired on C-Span today, that he is NOT PERFECT, and that there will be issues in an Obama White House on which "we will disagree"........From some of the posts here, I guess that means we shouldn't support him either....He may not do everything exactly the way "we" want him to!! Oh! Horrors!

Those are my sentiments exactly.

I think you're making a lot of generalizations and incorrect conclusions. I wouldn't say Hillary supports the war - she has vowed to end it, and has voted to stop funding it. She doesn't plant questions - her campaign did once, and she didn't know about it (though I don't have a problem with that happening every now and then - it's not an uncommon practice for campaigns to suggest questions to keep the Q&A flowing, particularly if the event is meant to be centered around a particular issue).

Also, you said she refused to take questions anymroe. That simply isn't true. There was a news article a couple of days ago that said that she hadn't taken questions in a couple of days. I would imagine that, to stay on schedule, it's impossible for her to take questions at all events. But here's a picture of her taking a question at an event on Friday:



Democratic presidential candidate, U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton listens to a question from a local resident while taking part in a meeting in Story City, Iowa December 28, 2007.
REUTERS/Andy Clark (UNITED STATES)


I'm a proud Democrat and I proudly support Hillary. I'm sorry you don't get it, but you don't seem to want to.

I don't believe that HRC can win the general. I do believe that the republican will let loose on her if she wins. Pat Buchannon admitted numerous times on MSNBC that a hillary win will rally the republican party and independents like no other candidate. I don't agree with Buchannon 99% of the time, but on this, he is exactly right.

I want a general on the issues, not on who bill is (or was) sleeping with... or any other scandal past or present that the other side may want to focus on.

Further, and more substantively, Hillary's position with regard to failing to recant her IWR vote and her continued support of potential agressive military action by supporting Kyl/Lieberman is a non-starter. I cannot vote for her for those reasons. I also lost all respect for her and her advisors when the dirt started to be thrown with regard to Obama. No excuse for the sophmoric actions of her campaign team. They adopted the "republican play book" and used it for all it was worth until the heat got too hot in the kitchen.

No, I don't want Hillary to be our candidate. I am hoping for a victory for any one of our other candidates with the exception of Richardson. He just doesn't do anything for me.

We will know the outcome soon enough.

candidates, by any means. Where did you get that idea? Obviously, I wish that more people would support mine, espcially if she's the nominee, but who wouldn't wish that?

...that Hillary Clinton really doesn't have that much support.

I am just as disgusted as you, with her horrendous record.

Hillary and her husband are tight with the Bush clan, and we all know that the Bushies rig polls,
and plant stories in the media that hurt their enemies and leverage their own agenda. Hillary
enjoys the fruits of corruption as well--is my best guess.

I'm guessing this because I'm in Iowa and I meet so many people who HATE her just as much as we do.
Tonight, at an Edwards rally. I struck up a conversation with two women and I told them I was still
deciding. They both said, "You're not thinking Hillary are you?". We all had a laugh and a long
talk about what an abomination Hillary is.

I've been doing phone calls for the Obama campaign and NOT ONE person has identified themselves
as a Hillary supporter. I just contacted two people in my neighborhood, to see if they needed
childcare the night of the caucus. We talked about our candidate choices, and these two people
said, "All we know is that we'll caucus for anyone but Hillary."

I'm hearing this all of the time.

And in Iowa, she's ran such a joke of a campaign. Don't get me started. She planted
questions, then lied about it, then other "plants" came forward and revealed that the
Hillary campaign asked them to ask Hillary pre-arranged questions. Maybe this wasn't
big news nationally, but in Iowa, it was huge. You don't come into a state and insult
everyone by using the people to prop up your soundbytes!

She's ran the most impersonal, overly managed, disingenuous campaign that I've ever witnessed
in this state. All of the other candidates answer questions. Edwards answered several tonight!
Hillary gives her speeches and then runs. She's just awful.

I've come to the conclusion that she really has no support--and what she does have is
media manufactured or lies bought by her campaign.

I think the big surprise of this caucus is going to be her 3rd or 4th place showing.

"I've come to the conclusion that she really has no support--and what she does have is
media manufactured or lies bought by her campaign."

:rofl:

Guess I don't exist, then. I'll have to notify the other Hillary supporters I know that we're media manufactured.

:rofl:

Which is what the poster was talking about. And don't you find it mildly interesting that people in the early states don't see the groundswell of Hillary support that the polls would suggest that she has?


Should I add one of these :rofl: to further drive my point home?

But I know plenty of folks in early states who see a lot of support for her - I've got some friends on the ground in Iowa right now.

But wouldn't you laugh, too, if someone suggested you didn't really exist.

She suggested that you don't exist in the numbers that the polls would have one believe.

"I've come to the conclusion that she really has no support."

Then I guess you're right. However I don't think anyone would say that Hillary has NO support.

a lot of people don't want to believe that Hillary really does have a lot support all over the country. I know firsthand that she does, because I move around a lot and I interact with people from all over the country.

I'm directly saying that Hillary does not have the support that
her corporate accomplices in the media tout.

I had assumed that Hillary would be our nominee and that
many people supported her.

However, that is not the reality. I do not find her
supporters anywhere. I get canvassers for all of the
other candidates. Not one for Hillary. Being involved
in the campaigns, I hear many people talking about their
choices. Not one person for Hillary.

I'm not saying that Hillary support is nonexistent. I'm
saying that her support is not what the MSM is telling us
it is---because those polls don't reflect the reality
on the ground.

Furthermore, two higher-ups were on a local Des Moines
radio program talking about the campaigns. One Dem leader
said that sources inside the Hillary camp said their internal
polls are showing major declines. He said they are very
worried. In the past two days, Hillary has been telling
the MSM that she can win without Iowa. Her own words seem
to reflect what others are saying about her internal polls.

Heehee.

1) When will we get our first paychecks? They would reall com in handy!

2) Do you think the IRS knows, or can we get away with hiding the "income?

Mum's the word!

We don't want Agent Mike...(Is that his name?) to get wind of it!!!:hide:

loving your Iowa dispatches :hi:

that will be put out and then the election will follow the polls and that's what the people expect and there won't be a question about the accuracy of the elections. Then everyone else will fad away. It's regrettable.

True happiness is the smell of burning voting machines in the morning.


Vote By Mail. Count by Hand.

Latr

Your opinions aren't fact, lady, and Iowa isn't the most important state in the union. I know this probably comes as a shock to you since so much emphasis is put on what happens in Iowa but Hillary can still win even if she loses Iowa.

It's just my opinion but I guess I have a right to express my opinion as you do and I'll just have to live with the fact that I don't know how every single voter in the state of Iowa is going to vote. Maybe, just maybe, you don't know as much as you think you do.

And everybody in Iowa hates Hillary---so you say. Why should anybody who is voting for Hillary tell you they are? Maybe they don't want to be belittled and called names. If I was your neighbor, I would keep it to myself for fear of retaliation.

Since you know how everybody's going to vote why should we go ahead with the "causus" anyway? Just stay home and vote by osmosis.

Some Hillary detractors come across as being obsessive, irrational and woefully uninformed. You're not content to trash Hillary but you think nothing of attaching the most ludicrous descriptions to Hillary and those who support her.

I know you hate Hillary. I GET IT! But at least have the decency to respect the decisions of people who disagree with your characterization of Hillary and who feel that she would make a fine president.

Vote your conscience as I, and many others, intend to do.

I don't know where to begin. Rush Limbaugh uses these tactics. He inflates a person's position to the point where it's absurd--and then
argues against the conflated opinion.

First off, I don't HATE Hillary as you said, I HATE her policies. I don't know Hillary Clinton. I know that she is a warmonger and someone
who has cavorted with the Bushies the past several years, as those monsters have destroyed our democracy and ripped our Constitution to shreds.
The woman sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, for God's sakes and she's a NY Senator...and she's failed to express one tenth of the outrage
that most DUers have---about what BushCo has done. Her silence is compliance, and yes--I'm outraged about it.

So you're right...I do HATE all of that. I hate that she recently voted for Kyl/Lieberman (as in JOE Lieberman...). In effect, she gave
Bush more grist for his war mill. She refuses to denounce her Iraq war vote when she knew--as we were going to war--that the entire war
was a farce. The neocons asked her husband for war with Iraq, in 1998. He refused. These VERY SAME neocons take us to war with Iraq, riding on
a Sept 11 wave of fear. Hillary said zilch, knowing that these same bastards had been shopping around the same, sick war game for years.

That's compliance with the PNAC agenda. You'd have to be dead not to be angry that a Dem is doing this.

Also, I sure don't think that Iowa "is the most important state in the union." I think this primary process is hugely important. It just
so happens that Iowa is first. I wish, more than anything, that other states could experience being first, second or third. It is an
important responsibility--only because I care so much about what happens to our country and the future of my two two children. Right now,
things aren't looking so great. I think the first several states out of the gate are equally important. NH is probably more important
than Iowa, as is SC. I never said Iowa is the "most important" as you said I did.

I never said I knew what "every single voter in Iowa" was thinking or feeling. Obviously, she doesn't have ZERO in the polls. My point
was that what I hear on the ground, at rallies, in my neighborhood and at political events is in direct opposition to the general, MSM-sponsored
polls. There is a definite fracture there. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say, "Oh! Anyone but Hillary!". Does that
mean that every Iowan feels this way? Obviously no. However, I am finding very little support for her and that does not jive with what
the MSM is telling us. It irritates me, because the same thing happened with Bush. He used tainted polls and had the MSM plant slanted
polls that inflated his support. Is Hillary doing the same thing? It makes a person wonder when the truth on the ground does not seem
to reflect the MSM mantra.

Also, I don't belittle people and call people names. There aren't any Hillary supporters in my neighborhood, but if there were some, I wouldn't
belittle them and call them names.

I guess we can agree to disagree on our choice of candidates, but you don't need to re-word my positions and views into some twisted
version of my viewpoints--just so you can rant incessantly.

just so you know. good on ya

I don't know where you are calling, but I can guarantee you that Hillary has a solid base of support in Linn County. Where, may I ask, are you located that hates Hillary so?

to label an entire segment of Iran's populations as terrorists as little georgie asked her to do.

Her experience is limited to the time served in the senate. How anyone can suggest that being the first lady in the White House, who does not even have a security clearance, has any kind of foreign intelligence experience is beyond me. So, the rest of here experience is...what? Dealing with a cheating husband? Hell, 75% of women in America are then qualified to be president.

She has voted time and again to keep funding this war even though she says she does not support it. How can that be?

She has a lot of the same corporate connections as bushco and I believe cannot be trusted.
I know I am going to get shit on all over the place but I don't care.

By all means vote for the Republican if that makes you happy. Maybe you and the others will STFU about Hillary once and for all.

You seem to still buy into the inevitable meme.

So the answer is, everything I can.

Luckily, she has millions of supporters.

Don't like her? Then don't vote for her. Why should I, or anybody else for that matter, have to justify why we think that she's the best candidate for the job?

These constant Hillary posts bashing her are tiresome. I think that Obama is not qualified to be president in 2008 and that Edwards should have given it up when he couldn't even carry his own state in 2004. But, do I start a slew of posts questioning their supporters? No, they have a right to vote for their candidate of choice as much as I do for mine without being badgered by fellow Democrats.

No need to justify your choices to anyone but yourself, unless of course you want to convince others.

Her votes, her record -- is horrendous on certain issues. We have every right to point out these flaws. As you do to point out flaws in the other candidates. The problem is, the other candidates don't have nearly as many flaws as Hillary. And I've seen them all explored under the microscope at DU.

Edwards totally carried North Carolina, winning with 52% of the vote here.

Folks, this isn't rocket science, it's history, recent history, at that. Can we stop blindly repeating right wing talking points at each other? Read a book!

.... candidate for the job?"

Um...because it is an election campaign and most of us would rather see a positive campaign than just bashing Obama?

So....why IS she the one I should vote for in the primaries?

News to me.

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

Only, it will be the wrong people. Red state sweep.

people think different. For example, you have litmus tests, some other people don't.

People know things you don't. Shocked?

People have had different experiences than you. Inconceivable?

These things lead to what is known as "having a different opinion than you."

These are things that she has done. If you support those things, you support the cronism that already exsists in Washington. You support the closed Governement that has reigned in Washington. And if you support those things, I find it hard to think of you as a democrat.

a lot of good people support Hillary. It's not because they are all the things you say they are, it's because they have a different opinion than you do.

The things mentioned in the OP are indisputable in that fact that Hillary has done them. If you can read those things, and endorse them by supporting Hillary, then I don't understand how you can consider yourself a democrat, when we've spent the last 8 years fighting against those things.

Thank you so much from your sense of what is going on in Iowa! I took your "exaggeration" to be the mark of what you see as an unmistakable trend in Iowa, and I am not sure how people on this board that live 1000 miles away think they know better than you do what you are actually experiencing.

Just to come clean on my views, I think Hillary is a weak candidate and the Dems could very well lose this if she is nominated. The scenario I see is that the pubs seem dispirited because they have no hard core conservative ideaologue to run in the GE, so they will send up someone that appears centrist. By itself, this is a problem for them because they cannot really mobilize their base...but it Hillary is the opponent...

Anyway, best of luck to whoever wins it on the Dem side, but I don't see Hillary doing it.

:hi:

strategically and ideologically. we don't have to compromise here, she's not the strongest candidate.

Supports free trade and job offshoring
Voted NAY on the Cluster Bombs against civilians vote
Voted for the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill.
Agreed with the statement "national security is more important than civil rights"

Democrats aside, I don't see how unions and any of their workers support this. Who would get behind someone who believes there are positives to free trade and job offshoring? Maybe her caste. For the rest of us, it's a moldy bill of Reaganite/Welchian goods.

"If you don't agree with me, you're not a real (fill in the blank).

The evangelicals sincerely believe you can't be a liberal and be a real Christian.

Don't most of us think these are bodies without brains --- ?

There is no "other hand" to be on. :)

A fundy lefty is just as bad as a fundy Christian. Or a fundy any other religion or belief system. It's the fundamentalism they all have in common; it is both irrational and dangerous.

I don't know that they are robots or "bodies without brains" but they definitely have some sort of shared character flaw that leads them to see the world in a certain way, and the belief system they choose seems to be almost incidental to it.

Another trait that fundamentalists share is that they harbor more anger/hatred against (and would rather spend time destroying, either verbally, politically or in some cases with real bombs and bullets) their co-religionists who fail to measure up to their own definition of what constitutes "true belief" than work together with them against those who truly oppose them.

It might take me a while, though, to convince them, considering how the majority of Democrats in this country are going for her by such a huge margin.

And if so, what are you going to rub in, that Hillary lost one measly little state if she loses Iowa? :shrug:

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

So you're saying you support the type of politics listed in the OP? And you're calling me the ditto head? :rofl:

HRC wouldn't be my preferred candidate (nor would any of the top tier) but she'd still be better (probably) than anyone the Repubs run. While she's a long way from ideal, any Dem in office means more money for progressive causes and probably less rolling back of societal protections, especially if there's a Dem Congress too.

The late Molly Ivins once said that in the primary, she voted to change the world; in the general, she voted for the lesser evil. Another Repub presidency would kill off America for good. A Hillary presidency, assuming she gets the nod and flawed as she is, might be able to stave that off for a while.

When better candidates are running in the Primary?

The Hillary supporters try and make a case for her, you try and make a case for someone else, the voters decide whose case is better. That's how the thing works.

I've just patiently read through this whole long thread and I think a clear majority of the replies share some, or most, of your misgivings about HRC.

The Dem "activists"/party loyalists that disagree just want a "win" at all costs.

Only they're overlooking the obvious. The Chimp (and Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Halliburton, the Carlyle Group and whoever else you want to include) have made such a mess of things, the chances of any Republican winning aren't looking too good.

So who the Dem nominee is going to be is THE question.

The big corporate donors (Bush's "base") are giving to Dems this time.

You have to know they're doing it, because they're complaining so loudly about the alleged 'George Soros/MoveOn' support for the only Repub anti-war candidate, Ron Paul, who's now being excluded from TV debates.

The Dem candidate the real Big Money donors are backing just happens to be the one with the most negatives, who has a "centrist" platform. (Also, as you pointed out, the most likely to buy into the fear-mongering, and least likely to rock the economic boat.)

In 2000, The Twit wouldn't have had a snowball's chance of getting the nomination, if Daddy hadn't already been president. Somehow, it made him a 'safer' choice, for all those people who -- for whatever reason -- weren't real thrilled with Bill. The same thing's going on now with HRC.
People who liked Bill are being given a 'safe' choice.

Politics by Last Name just means More of the Same.

We should learn from the 2006 elections, when we thought we'd actually accomplished something. What's really changed?

Oh, nice job of hanging with that scary Magistrate/Moderator character... An actual cut and paste:

"...occasional sanguinary outrages that cannot materially affect essential structures of our society and nation...

The Other Party, representing a clear minority of the electorate, is out for Blood (mostly, ours) and Treasure (mostly, theirs), and they really haven't shown too many scruples about what they have to do to stay in charge. (As we saw in FL in 2000, and OH last time.)

Would you rather have Mitwit, or Giuliani, or Huckabee, or McCain making the next appointment?

If she's our nominee I will support her for that reason.

I don't see how any Democrat could do otherwise.

Mz Pip
:dem:

her record.

She's not my candidate, unless she wins the nomination, but I think her positions are often distorted around here.

On the other hand,the party before DLC was failing. Millions of Democrats had moved to the Rethugs under Reagan. I don't agree with many DLC positions, but I remember the history enough to know the alternative then was even worse.

The Democratic Party was failing because of manipulations I'm not sure that we recognize even now.
Look at the assassinations of RFK -- MLK -- the attack on Wallace which took him out --- all paving the way for Nixon.

Plus --- we know that the computers began to come in at the mid-1960's . . .
Please see "VOTESCAM - The Stealing of Amercia" ---which makes clear that we've had vote stealing going on since at least then. This is a website/book by Jim & Ken Collier, Journalists who investigated the computer steals for 26 years! The book was suppressed. You can scan the book
or read it at the website.

The selling of government --- and revenge politics --- all of these closely connected to Nixon.
LBJ and Nixon had similar cause --- similar interests in keeping cover-ups going.
Both are involved in high crimes and corruption of government.

Of course, since FDR's new deal regulating capitalism, elite's have been looking for a way to overturn it. It was inevitable that it was going to happening one way or another --- and
violence has never been a tool that they have foresaken.

Nothing the Republicans have ever gained was won fairly or honestly -- everything has been stolen.

You're looking at a long line --- decades long --- of political violence which has brought us to
this point.

And, the DLC is only aiding and abetting the corruption by moving corporate-fascism along.

Just as anyone can support some Democratic party planks and not others.

Iraq --- Is she calling for total withdrawal --- is HRC citing the administration's lies?

Social Security --- with partial privatizing --- DLC's Dream?

Health Care which includes insurance companies --- ?

DLC is corporate-sponsorered --- and we need to rid the party of the DLC ---

and anyone who supports a corporate- Democratic party ---

If you want a corporate party, move to the Republicans ---

including populists as well as people who were more pro-business, as well as people across the spectrum in terms of "family values." For example, Dennis Kucinich spent the large part of his career as a strong pro-life Democrat, but no one suggested that he move to the Republicans.

i've looked it up and bookmarked it for reading

much of Hillary's support is grounded in voters who want Bill back. They're not so crazy about her, but like him. He also said whenever Bill is out campaigning with her he's the star of the show. I think there's something to that. If she was Hillary Smith and not Hillary Clinton it's unlikely she'd be running for president. I'm still trying to figure out what all her experience is. Her most important assignment, healthcare, went down in flames. She comes across as overmanaged and overscripted and it doesn't surprise me she's afraid to take questions.

everyone else --- save maybe Kucinich ---

But --- let's face it --- this isn't an OVER-QUALIFIED FIELD of candidates --- !!!

Why are you all attacking Hillary and each other? IF you don't want to vote for her then don't but please stop attacking everyone else who doesn't agree with you as it isn't getting us anywhere.

That's just the way DU is during primary season. Buckle up! It's gonna be a bumpy ride!

Welcome to DU.

Welcome!

Two profoundly different questions.

Comes the general election, the corresponding list of crimes for the Republican nominee will be much worse.

As for the primary: I come from a state that doesn't really have much say (our primary is in April) so I have cultivated an attitude of 'whatever you guys decide' about the issue.

I hang around the edges of the Clinton-Obama cage match and try to spray extinguisher on the flames, in case one of them wins and we have to unite behind them.

I might add that the supporters of other candidates here, in my opinion, are considerably calmer and easier to talk with than the Clinton and Obama supporters.