Hillary has lost my support.

Until a few weeks ago I felt that with Clinton and Obama as front-runners I had the best of both worlds. Even if my top choice didn’t get the nom, my close second choice certainly would. Now, the thought of Clinton getting the nod from our party fills me with dread.

Right now, I feel foolish thinking about the many times I passionately defended Hillary Clinton here and in real life with friends and family during heated political discussions. I’ve always felt she was unfairly given a bad rep by the GOP and that double standards were applied to her by her detractors on our side. I still feel that to be true to some degree. I’m an advocate for looking at the big picture and have always argued against hyper-focusing on singular issues as a basis for disliking her (flag amendment, video games, etc.) I don’t hold our elected reps to standards higher than I hold for myself. But I am above using sleazy tricks and intentional distortions to win a race. That’s where I draw the line. So here’s where the story ends, Hillary Clinton.

I won’t be a part of a “team” that employs Rovian tactics. Period. Not only am I turned off, I’m mortified that the Clinton’s have engaged in this type of filthy campaigning under the Democratic label. How can I convince people that the Democrats are the side with integrity while our front runner plays the same nasty games that boiled my blood when Rove was in the picture for Bush?

I can excuse a lot of things (and I have) but there’s NO excuse for the sleazy campaign tactics the Clinton’s have employed since losing Iowa. There’s quite a few examples now but the one I’m most enraged about is that they’ve manipulated one of the most important issues to many women (choice) and smeared Obama’s record on choice for their personal gain. It’s not possible to quantify how many votes were impacted by the last-minute distortion mailer that went out in New Hampshire. But it undoubtedly had an impact, and that’s unforgivable.

I refuse to be the type of “willfully ignorant” supporter just like the “willfully ignorant” Bush supporters that I’ve held in such low regard on the other side. I can’t count the times I wondered what on earth it would take for Bush’s die-hard fans to wake up and open their eyes. I respected the ones who swallowed their pride and admitted the truth about Bush. So I’m going to be the type of person I want people on the other side to be. I’m going to face the facts and denounce Clinton. I encourage anyone else who has supported Clinton but sees what I see to do the same. Be the change you want to see in the other side.

It was important to me, considering my history of strong support for Hillary, to voice my disapproval now that she’s abandoning the party’s best interests for her personal gain. But I was almost equally driven to post this thread here by a sense of remorse over all my previous criticism towards John Edwards. I feel a little red-faced that I was so critical about him changing his positions considering I’m doing the same thing right now about Clinton. Therefore, I would like to say for the record that I’m genuinely sorry to John Edwards and to his supporters for having such a negative opinion about him for changing his mind on so many things. I understand now that a change of heart (including a complete 180 degree turn in a short amount of time) CAN be sincere.

Thanks for the soapbox. I feel better now. Peace out.

Hint: such dismassals don't sway me in your favor.

Tesha

I believe it is called, "Groupthink."

Are supporters of the military industrial complex's war for profit agendas.

A short but true one-liner........just follow the money.

You don't have to be a Hillary supporter to see how Obamites act. They have been in everyones face for months.

I, for the life of me, cannot understand why they believe they can only "support" their candidate by tearing down other candidates. When, if ever, will Obama's supporters begin to defend him on policy? Instead we get regurgitated gossip, rumors, stuff intentionally taken out of context mixed with republican talking points from the 90s.

FYI, I am not a Obama supporter. My choice has always been: 1st) Dennis Kucinich 2nd) John Edwards. After that nothing has my attention to cast my vote for.

The OP was obviously an HRC supporter until recently.

And based on an ACCUMULATION of evidence, has decided to DISCONTINUE her support for Hillary. Even to the point of apologizing for her past criticisms of a former rival (Edwards).

So where do you get off criticizing her change of heart?

I understand why people could support her

the same way there was some good left in Darth Vader

Search your feelings Hillary, there is good in you.

:rofl:

"twisted and evil"

are more apt to support the middle class struggle against the lobbyist and corporatists.

...when she's on the defensive. She has proven to not be above using smear tactics, half-truths and innuendo to win. To me, a victory gained at all costs is a Pyrrhic victory.

Should she be the nominee, she'll go into the race at a disadvantage because she'll have lost a substantial part of her voter base. Should she win the Presidency, that lost voter base will be joined by rabid legions of Dittoheads who hate Hillary just because she's Hillary.

It's going to be a long four years if she wins.

So............... It's going to be a long four years if she wins.....!!!!!????
ARE YOU KIDDING ME.....!!!!!!!????????
WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN FOR THE LAST SEVEN YEARS....??????
HILLARY, AND PRESIDENT CLINTON, WILL BE 100 TIMES BETTER THAN THE LAME-BRAINED, COWARDLY, EGO-MANIACAL, CROOKED, SELF-SERVING, LYING, SCUMBAG MORON WHO CURRENTLY RESIDES IN THE WHITE HOUSE...!!!!
I CAN'T WAIT FOR PRESIDENT CLINTON TO RETURN TO 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.....!!!!
AND IF YOU THINK BUBBA HAS BEEN HARD ON OBAMA, CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT THE CROOKED, LYING, WIN-AT-ALL-COST REPUGNACONS WILL DO TO BARRACK...!!!!?????

GO BILL......... GO HILLARY............ GO BILLARY...........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

but she sold her soul for votes a long time ago. Bill was NEVER a progressive, just a DLC triangulator.

Sure, they'd be better than Bush (a family that the Clintons are FAR too friendly with for my tastes), but a sack of dog crap would be better than Bush. That's a pretty low standard (quite possibly the worst POTUS in our history).

The bottom line is we can do better. Sen. Obama is clearly less "conflicted" than Sen. Clinton WRT the war, attacking Iran, and restoring a semblance of fairness to the American economy. Ditto John Edwards, and sadly, Dennis Kucinich (the only TRUE progressive who ran this year ... sniff).

i'm not going vote for it just beacuse it appends a (D) to it's name.

Unfortunately, these tactics are nothing new for the Clintons. They campaigned much the same way in Arkansas. Also, nothing will unite the Republicans like a Hillary candidacy. I have read many posts here with people disparaging her for being too moderate or even conservative. That is not the way the Repubs see her, though. Virtually all the R's I know view her as a radical leftist, and hate her with a passion only matched by the hatred for GWB and Cheney on sites like DU.
I believe that if we nominate Hillary Clinton, the Republicans will put aside their disdain for McCain, Romney, or whoever else wins their nomination, and unite to keep her out of the White House.
How about some input from other DUers? Does anyone else see it this way, or am I being overly pessimistic?

I agree that the Rs hate Hillary. I am one of the DUers who view her as too conservative, or more accurately for me, too corporate. I don't think she is electable. Really, I think Edwards is the only electable one. There is far too much starting to come out about Obama, and it will only get worse when the Rs turn their wrath on him.

But here is my question. I don't know any Rs, so I'm asking you. Why do they view her as a radical leftist? What has she done that seems leftist to them? I'm sincerely asking because this just doesn't make sense to me.

Nearly all of my husband's friends are republicans and they hate Bill but hate Hillary far more. They are "smart" enough men and although they can't point to anything specific, they cannot stand her. You are right that they view her as a radical liberal, but speaking as an extremely liberal Dem, she's neither liberal nor progressive.

What disappoints me most is that she claims to have worked for change throughtout her entire career, and I ask "what change?" I don't see it. What I do see is a woman who is brilliant, whom I have also defended for years, who seems more and more calculated and underhanded. If you are so great, run on your merits and record without the sniping at the other candidates. Same for Obama.

The argument that we should excuse all because she would be a far better president than Bush is beyond weak. Who wouldn't be better?

If anyone could stomach more than a few minutes of the Republican debate last night, whose name do you think they used to inflame their base? yup, Hillary's.

She's a woman. Listen to what they say about her. The authoritarian republican base is religious, and they believe in a strong daddy. But, they are not very articulate, so they just call her a "leftie" (by which they mean "a p*ssy"-literally). Their hatred of the "weak" "gay" left has a lot to do with comparing us to women (IMHO), and authoritarians have no use for women beyond their duties to manly men.

They are all the time comparing her to a scolding bad mommie. Mommies should be quiet. Otherwise they are as bad as that lady in the garden of eden. Only daddies should raise their voices. Thus Bill is bad, but Hillary is an abomination.

Personally, I think she is a corporatist, and I favor Edwards.

But, it doesn't surprise me that people, left and right, can't get past the tone of her voice. That's all they hear- bad mommie telling them to take out the trash. Sad.

She is anathema to the backward Right. Not that they wouldn't vote for a woman, but only if she is "traditional" you might say. Republican women in power often vote against equality for women, and dress and behave in ways that are traditionally "feminine." In contrast, Hillary has a strong voice, original ideas, wears pant suits and open collars, and she drives her points home assertively and confidently.

All that wouldn't matter so much, except she also has a (D) beside her name and that, along with everything else "unfeminine" about her marks her with a deep red bullseye in the eyes of the cretinous Right.

I run a business where I chat with folks of all political persuasions. I think that it is mostly a visceral thing, having to do with personality. They view her as cold and sinister. They do not like Bill Clinton, either; but there seems to be less actual hatred concerning him, and more disgust on a personal level. The R's view her as being much stronger and more ruthless than him. She scares them more than he does.
Most of the Republicans I have discussed the campaign with actually seem to like Obama on a personal level, although they will not vote for him because he is liberal. That's the way it should be for both sides. Pure hatred for the opposition is counter-productive. I believe that there are honorable people on both sides, but I will not hate someone simply because they are foolish enough to disagree with me.

I went out to lunch with my wife and a bunch of her co-workers today...they come from all sorts of political backgrounds. I listened in on their conversation about the primaries, and when Hillary's name came up, they all groaned.

If she wins the nomination, she has a lot of negatives to overcome.

even when I'm out in the general public, I rarely come across any Republicans. I live in a very blue area, I frequent small local businesses, I just don't run into them. There are several where I work, but no one talks politics across party lines there. Makes sense, we do have to work together. My brother and sister are Republicans, but we don't discuss politics because we are so at odds with each other and I rarely see them anyway.

All my friends are Democrats, but none of them support her either. They don't hate her. They just don't agree with her policies and don't trust her because she is too far right. Hence the "radical leftist" label just seems weird to me.

I think pollo poco probably hit it on the head when she or he said they aren't very articulate so they just call her a leftie, when it's just a matter of them hating her because she is a woman. I had forgotten about that "strong daddy" dynamic that Lakoff wrote about.

I don't think it is the "woman" thing with the Republicans, at least not to such a great extent. The ones I have talked to would gladly vote for what they consider "the right woman". They yearn for a Margaret Thatcher or Jeane Kirkpatrick. Most of them seem to like Condoleeza Rice, but she has been disapointing them lately. But Hillary they absolutely hate.

something else. That leaves me still wondering. But I do think maybe it is correct to say that they use the "radical leftie" label because they can't or won't take the trouble to articulate what it is they really mean. The only thing I know of that she has done or said that is at all liberal is her healthcare plan, and that's not very far left.

Although they say they like Condoleeza Rice, I wonder if they would support her if she actually ran for something. It seems like a convenient thing to say. It allows them to claim not to be sexist or racist, but I wouldn't be surprised if they turned on her if she tried to move beyond just being W's right hand woman. Their recent disappointment seems to indicate this.

I guess I will never understand how today's Republicans choose who they support and whom they hate. I have never understood how they came to support W, when it has always been incredibly clear to me that the man is a vile, hateful liar.

Thanks for your insight.

If you spent 2 days in Oakhurst you would find there is no one hated as much as Hillary by the right wing. They will turn out to vote against her. I also fear for Obama's safety should he receive the nomination. Do you really think the KKK nutjobs are going to sit still and let a black man become President. In case the name Oakhurst doesn't ring any bells. 10 years before the Jenna six there was a Halloween party at the Oakhurst High School. Two students came dressed in KKK suits the third was in black face. The first two were leading the third around with a noose tied around his throat. It got token coverage from the US MSM but it made the front page of the London Times. My daughter was there she was mortified that they were allowed into the party dressed like that. I was so vocal in my outrage that I would eventually be forced to close my business and move away. The town as a whole was not going to support a liberal business owner. People can spout off all they want on how the country has changed. My personal experience has shown me how far we still have to go.

attack a woman than a black man. But I think they've got a huge arsenal ready to aim at Obama waiting to be unleashed. Wait till they start calling him by his middle name. Oh why that of all middle names?

and throwing the whole kitchen, along with the sink, at him.

I have lived in California my entire life, and I've always known that we have our own 'Bible Belt', which votes much like rural communities in other states. Thank God for LA and the Bay Area. Otherwise, I would move away, too.

It's deeply ingrained and doesn't change because the residents have families who've lived there for generations. They don't leave. Most of the people I went to HS with still live up there, and are just as out of touch with the world as ever. My family moved to the mountain community when I was in 7th grade, so I wasn't raised with it, and we were liberal. I spoke up about things in HS (it was the 70's), and had other kids, mostly the boys, say such racist and sexist things to me I can't repeat them.

I'm sorry you went through that with the community. I remember when that happened and was so disgusted, but not surprised.

Fortunately, the mountain folk don't represent the states politics overall. A lot of them don't care either and never bother voting. I don't think they amount to much within the scope of things.

Simi Valley is not only the final resting place of Reagan's carcass, it also hosted the trial of the Rodney King cops. Naturally, the cops were let off.

I would be willing to put up money that the majority right wing loons in Simi Valley - a town of well over 100,000 people - would show up in great numbers to vote for a Republican they despise to prevent Hillary Clinton from winning.

Hillary has now PO'd too many people from all sides to assure any type of a win in 08. Their are now too many forces that will work to defeat her. Either on the repub side by uniting to vote against her. Or on the dem side by either voting third party or just sitting home on election day to let the repugs ruin the country and hope their is enough to savage afterwards (and yes I've heard people actually say this). She's already causes major rifts in the democratic party that I don't think can be healed enough by election day.

Still inspite of it all we can't let a repug win in '08. I just don't think electing Hillary will let us do it.

Nothing will bring out a Republican backlash like running a Clinton for president. The think tank-funded propagandists from the radical right wing have spent 15 years hunting Bill and Hillary Clinton. They've infected the minds not only of the Republican sheeple, but also gullible independents and Democrats.

There is hatred festering in a large part of the American body politic. Those so infected will come out en masse to destroy the thing they hate and sadly, that is anybody named Clinton.

The time isn't right for Hillary Clinton. Even if she wins, we will face another 4-8 years of vitriol, backstabbing, and disunity. I don't care much for Obama as I find him too accommodating of Republican ideas. I love John Edwards' FDR-style vigor. Either one, though, would be a better nominee than Ms. Clinton, at least in this election cycle.

Old King George. It's just a mental justification for supporting the wrong thing.

Sending letters to women in New Hampshire to smear a candidate's view on choice? That hits home for me. I don't like Hillary, but I can't believe that her campaign did that. I don't want more of the same, and apparently whether Hillary wins or the republicans rally and they win - that's what is going to happen. America can't make the same mistake again and choose the wrong candidate. I'm so repulsed right now if what bling bling said is true, but at the same time, I;m unfortunately not surprised. Oh, democratic party, watch out for your demise if Clinton has anymore power than she does now. :nopity:

shame

Best of luck to you, and I hope that you find what you're looking for in another candidate.

It's pretending to change your mind that I find scary and gross.

Welcome to the growing number of Americans who dislike HRC. The idea of a Woman Pres is the only thing I find cool about her... that and she's not quite Lieberman.

than Clinton, you must not support him either.

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

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

name from months ago(who could forget:) and debating you a bit.

Did you come to this conclusion from reading the net info, the m$$$m, or a combo? Thanks again..we need all the help we can get to stop the dlcers who want to win at any cost.

I'm for Obama but I greatly respect John Edwards and want him to do WELL! :patriot: :patriot:

It was actually just a couple of days after New Hampshire that I heard about the mailing, I don't even know from where. The attempt to paint Obama as soft on choice smelled similar to the mailings sent out in '04 by the GOP distorting Kerry's record. It left a really bad taste in my mouth. It hurts the party, and I don't appreciate an issue that's very important to me being used as a tool by the Clinton's and then smearing Obama's record. We ought to be able to at least trust the guys on our own team when they discuss their voting records OR the voting records of other democrats. We should be able to take for granted that the people on our own team won't resort to sleazy distortion tricks to paint their team-mates in a shady light when the truth is that Obama has a wonderful record on choice.

I haven't fact-checked this yet (no time right now) but there's another video on You Tube that claims it "describes Senator Obama as the strongest advocate in the Senate in the fight for choice in South Dakota." (third video down...) http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lorna+brett

Anyway, I don't appreciate politicians playing manipulative games directly with the voters on issues that impact real women's lives.


Here's some links I collected while searching for sources someone else asked for. I've had to get up and tend to other things about a hundred times since starting this response and I was copying and pasting links here in my response to your post because I got distracted. Maybe you'll be interested in looking at them too anyway! :)


A KOS diarist posted the video of Lorna Brett Howard (former President of Chicago NOW) discussing why she has switched from Clinton to Obama and that was pretty powerful.

Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs

Article in Washington Post: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/18/trying_to_heal_a_rift_in_new_h_1.html

Link to Diary on KOS I referred to: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/23/213221/309/346/442059

I also saw a link to a piece by Jonathan Alter that accused the Clinton's of counting on voters being uninformed (I haven't had a chance to really read it yet, today has been crazy for me) http://www.newsweek.com/id/101173

I didn't realize you had replied to me but I came back to check your thread again because it's interesting and there it was.

Hillary sent out a mailer in NH accusing Obama of not being pro-choice.

Last week, several of the women who signed the letter, including House Speaker Terie Norelli, admitted that the letter was false and misleading and issued a public apology to Obama supporters in New Hampshire.

I don't have a link for the above but hopefully I can find one.

I do have this though and will watch the links you gave manana..

"Gone From the Granite State, But Tactics Not Forgotten
By Alec MacGillis
The presidential campaign has moved on from New Hampshire, but it has left behind it deep fissures and feelings of resentment among local Democrats that some fear may linger all the way until November.

Some supporters of Barack Obama, stung by his narrow loss to Hillary Clinton, are lashing out at a large group of Democratic women leaders in the state who signed a letter criticizing Obama's commitment to abortion rights, a letter that went out by e-mail to many New Hampshire voters two days before the primary.

Other Obama backers are upset about efforts by top Clinton supporters to remove poll observers that the Obama campaign had stationed around the state on primary day, an intervention that the Obama supporters say hindered their get out the vote efforts.

Obama supporter Bill Siroty, a former Democratic chair for the town of Amherst, said the ill will is running so high that it could keep Democrats in the state who supported Obama from rallying behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, should she win the nomination. In 2000, bad feelings that lingered among some Bill Bradley supporters about tactics used by Al Gore in the primary - including misleading charges about Bradley's health care plan - were seen as one reason why Gore lost the state to George W. Bush in November, thereby giving Bush just enough Electoral College votes to take the presidency.

"People are very upset about it," said Siroty. "I've heard one or two threaten they're not going to vote for Clinton at all. Tensions are very high, and it could cause a rift."

Bette Lasky, the assistant House majority leader and a top Clinton supporter who was involved in both the e-mail and poll interventions, said she was sorry to hear about the bad feelings but hoped Obama supporters would get over it. "It's politics, and it happens," she said.

The e-mail questioning Obama's commitment to abortion rights was signed by a who's who of the state's Democratic establishment, which is dominated by women who supported Clinton in the primary. In addition to Lasky, the two dozen on the list included Terie Norelli, the speaker of the state House, Beverly Hollingworth, a member of the state's Executive Council and a former state senator, House Majority Leader Mary Jane Wallner, former state party chairwoman Kathy Sullivan, and Katie Wheeler, a former state senator from Durham who helped lead the charge for Gore against Bradley's health care plan in 2000. Echoing an attack in a mailing put out by the Clinton campaign that arrived in New Hampshire mailboxes the Saturday before balloting, the e-mail criticized Obama for voting "present," instead of yes or no, on several abortion-related bills while in the Illinois Senate."

No wonder the women got out and voted for hilary.



http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/12/taken_for_granite.html

to lorna's speech...agreed very powerful

to post that. Good luck to you and to whom you chose to replace your previous choice!

If it boils down to unsubstantiated charges, maybe from an unnamed source, as charges against Hillary often do, then I don't understand your post.

Having said that, I in no way mean to suggest you shouldn't come to your own conclusions based on whatever criteria you choose.

The flier was a dishonest distortion of his record since his votes of "present" were what Planned Parenthood wanted him to do for tactical reasons. Something Media Matters reported on a month ago

http://mediamatters.org/items/200712140004

Always an Obama defender, aghast the day he was called Republican Lite. Time has borne out Obama's Right leanings, Lies and dirty tricks. Obama's credibility is in tatters anyway. He's cheating to win - just like the GOP whom he seems to admire. It's getting harder and harder to tell the difference between Obama and Bush.

There are some interesting exchanges and commentary that conflict with the OP's very first sentence. I would not have done a search had the OP not compared the Clinton campaign to "filthy Rovian tactics." That is all I will say about this and wish the OP and her "new" candidate the best in the coming primaries.

stereotypes and comments to stop Obama has really turned me off. Like many of us, I spent the 90's defending Bill and Hillary from rightwing screamers. I feel betrayed.

Because we're too wussy to win. There's no crying in politics, but we just keep nominating the biggest wussies we can find. Remember, we only won in Nov because people were so sick of corrupt rethugs, not because Dems convinced them of anything. "Being the change" means losing, as has been the case for most of the last 2 decades. Politics doesn't work that way. But you just keeping listening to all the teevee pundits that tell you how mean the Clintons are, even though they never have a problem with swift boat vets and the like. They want you to nominate the biggest wussy, and Obama is certainly the biggest wussy we have running.

:hi:

that Sen. Obama, by making an excellent effort to become the nation's first non-white President, is taking a stand that requires great courage.

In fact, running for President necessitates courage from anyone; it's just that Sen. Obama may be facing a rather higher likelihood of being the target of malicious, violent intent.

held a lot of passion - it doesn't matter what the reason is. So I am sorry it has come to this, but it was very big of you to make a public DU apology. I think what you think is what many have thought that have said they will not support her if she becomes the nominee. I think it's a matter of principle. We have decried many of the Bush* policies here for some time now, and have been very critical of those who did not stand up to him in the Senate, in fact, at times seemed to enable him. Many said at that time they would not support her if she gained the nomination; and I believe many will stand by that statement to the bitter end. The only difference you and the people who say that is that you are coming a little late to the party. But better late than never. Before this ends, hopefully you will find someone else about whom you can be equally passionate as you once were about Hillary.

Thank you for posting the actual mailer.

That explains the NH win, more than the tearing up BS.


I will never vote for Hillary. Nevah!

Thank you! :toast:

What a great post and I definitely identify very much with your words. Up until after the NH primaries I was undecided but kind of leaning toward Hillary. I was hoping for her victory and very happy to see her surprising win in NH, but all the sleazy tricks have really turned me off.

My first choice is Obama now and my second choice is Edwards, while Hillary transformed in my eyes (in a few weeks) from someone I hoped would win the nomination to someone I hope will lose.

Obama said every day for WEEKS that Hillary said "it is naive to negotiate with our enemies." It was a flat lie and a slander on a VERY substantial matter, but that didn't seem to trouble you unduly.

He said many times that Hillary would have killed Doctor King's dream... a rather shocking thing to say, but you seem to have survived it.

He has deceived at least half of his supporters into believing that he opposes designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Quds force a terrorist organization, a designation he has ALWAYS supported, and supports to this day. But cynically running a scam on his own supporters and making fools of the entire net-roots anti-war left seems to be just fine by you.

You are entitled to support whoever you want, but nobody needs the drama. It's like "The Princess and the Pea" in this place!

It would be lovely if people had the decency to just say, "I have chosen candidate X" without these bathetic, self-righteous expressions of wounded personal virtue. Your chosen candidate lies all the time, just like Hillary, and lies about important things, but you seem to have no problem with it, so stop pretending your decisions are based on the application of some objective sense of decency.

I heard her say that, it was on the news, also on the news when she back pedaled and took the same position as Obama a few weeks later.

Obama has been right the first time repeatedly, Hillary after a couple of tries.

She keeps saying she is ready on day one...ready to get it wrong from the beginning

You are lying, crazy, or have an atrocious memory

Obama, Edwards Criticize Clinton on Iran
By PATRICK CONDON
The Associated Press
Friday, October 12, 2007; 10:13 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101201247.html

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Democrats Barack Obama and John Edwards are criticizing presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton for her latest comments on negotiating with leaders of Iran and other countries that are on poor terms with the U.S.

Obama noted on Friday that when he said in July he would meet with such leaders without setting any conditions, Clinton called his stance "irresponsible and frankly naive."

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Chicago, March 2, 2007, about Iraq and the strengthening strategic position of Iran. Hillary Rodham Clinton's vote in Sept. 2007 to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization is reverberating on the campaign trail, especially with Obama, who's again questioning her antiwar credentials and judgement.

Questioned Thursday by a voter in New Hampshire, Clinton said twice that she would negotiate with Iran "with no conditions."

"I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don't really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think that is misleading," she said.

Obama said Friday, "So I'm not sure if any of us knows exactly where she is standing on this issue. But I can tell you this _ when I am president of the United States, the American people and the world will always know where I stand."

Edwards' campaign chimed in from North Carolina, also noting the earlier Clinton comment and her new statement.

so byte me!

Fuckin A...

Depending on who one supports, some things are unforgiveable lies, and other things are just simple misunderstandings... or only just 'distortions', which I have no idea why it's any better.

It makes me wonder how long some people around here have even paid much attention to politics, honestly.

Thank you for that!

:yourock:

I was a water-carrier for the Clintons for about two decades, and I'm done. I always knew I would withhold my vote from those that voted YES on the IWR, but then K-L came along, and finally as you stated so aptly, the Karl Rove politics. I am disgusted beyond any level I could ever have imagined. In my sig line are links to a pattern of voter suppression that mirrors the bullshit we endured from the other side of the aisle starting huge in 2000.

If she gets the nod, I know my friends will take me by the lapels to try to bitchslap me into supporting the Democratic candidate. But it will be for naught. I'm pissed off and militant about it. Thanks to the Clintons we have a new wedge issue in the Democratic Party, race as is being played out in South Carolina.

If the Clintons prevail in staking their claim as the leaders of this party, I will be ashamed and embarrassed to call myself a Democrat. They are undemocratic and unDemocratic, and I will not be a part of that mess.

Beatle song, "I'm looking through you?" That's what I thought of when I read your post........makes me sad........

"you don't look different....but you have changed.....I'm looking through you........your not the same....."

"Embarrassed to be a dem".........you will be missed............

you were friendly and fine with me. What could be different? Oh, yes, I remember. The Clintons and I broke up. I'm wondering where you fit into that equation and why you feel that that gives you license to get snarky. I didn't realize my point of view had anything to do with you at all.

snarky......sorry.....what I saw as different was that you would not vote democrat if Hillary were the nominee...that's all......

I remember it very well because before she announced her candidacy for Prez there were maybe 4 or 5 of us here that would regularly defend her against unfair attacks and/or distortions made by DU'ers to her record. I'm a sucker for keepin' it real. Which is why I don't chat here anymore because I was literally losing sleep checking facts and countering endless accusations here against Obama until I realized I needed to focus my time and energy on other things.

So yours is and has always been a credible voice to me and an opinion I value. It's further confirmation of my own opinion to see you saying that you're done with the Clinton's too. It's an easy decision to make, I guess, if you think about it in the context in which you and I are viewing it. You're absolutely right, they're being undemocratic and it's unacceptable and I won't be a part of the mess either. Cheers.

one soul here at DU has traveled the same path I have, although you are infinitely nicer about it than I am. ;) I am so angry and disappointed and disgusted and upset my head is exploding. It is so clear to me and your credible, articulate voice tonight validates that. No mistaking that. Thanks for that. Cheers.

Been a registered Dem for decades. If she gets the nom, I become Indi.

;)

you are coming from. I too, have been a die-hard Clinton supporter and I've taken the heat so much for it too, but after watching her in the debate the other night and seeing Bill act the way he has, I am so disappointed. All these years of loyalty for what--

Maybe they are desperate to win, but why and at what cost?

However, these tactics she and her campaign have employed since Iowa are so distasteful to me, that had I been one, I would have to seriously reconsider my position.

I don't think it's necessary for her to do those kinds of things, and she and Bill, of all people, should know how dirty and damaging they are.

It's the people that can't change that worry me.

I completely agree with you. I used to defend Hillary all the time when my boyfriend would debate me about her. I really did like her, saw her speak and was impressed by this smart, capable woman. Even though Obama was my first choice, I promised myself I'd gladly vote for her in November if she won. But it changed when as you said they started to employ Rovian style tactics in order to win. I can't allow myself to be a hypocrite and decry the republicans for doing it, when they are doing it as well. I will denounce anyone who uses this despicable brand of politics and that includes Billary. They no longer have my support either.

:kick:

I sent an email through Hillary's website early this morning expressing much the same sentiment, although it wasn't nearly as eloquent.

I'm certain that you've seen my many posts sticking up for Hillary here, even after I finally decided to support Senator Obama as I defended Hillary here on the eve of the New Hampshire primary. I now feel like a complete fool.

Your post really struck a chord with me on many dimensions.

When I read your words that you felt "foolish thinking about the many times I passionately defended Hillary Clinton here and in real life with friends and family during heated political discussions" I felt like you had written them for me. I look back at how passionately I defended Bill's absolutely disgraceful conduct in the White House, his sleazy lying about it and having his cabinet members even lying on his behalf only to later be made fools of when the truth came out, his betrayal of his wife in front of the entire world and I wonder 'why in the hell did I put my own reputation and standards on the line for such an egotistical and self-absorbed jerk. Like you, I even defended him to my own mom who never, for a second, accepted any of my excuse making for his behavior.

Watching the Clintons and their campaign getting caught pushing the "muslim" lie against Barack Obama, the "drug user" racially sensitive comments these past few weeks opened my eyes to something I'd blinded myself to for years. This couple really only cares about their ambition. Hillary's health care plan is a complete rip-off from John Edwards' plan. He did all the work and put it out there and then they co-opted it and claim it as original.

I think back now to how the Clintons let poor Joycelyn Elders be crucified and did nothing to support her. Or how they let poor Mike Espy be sacrificed over taking some tickets to the Super Bowl. Or how they oversaw welfare "reform" which was one of the cruelest social assaults on the poor, especially children and poor moms. Or how the Clintons pushed so hard for NAFTA and GAT and how off-shoring of our jobs and manufacturing base escalated without even a slap on the wrist during those 1993-2001 years when he held the most powerful position in the country. Or how he completely betrayed his campaign promise of allow gay and lesbians to simply serve openly in the armed forces and then oversaw some years when more homosexuals were discharged without benefits than even under Reagan and Bush.

What do I remember the Clintons really ever fighting for? This is what I remember them fighting for: fighting to get elected and fighting to prevent his impeachment. Bill Clinton should have had the common decency to resign and let Al and Tipper Gore move into the White House. If that had happened, Al Gore would be president today and we'd never entered Iraq and the nation would have moved a lot closer to being energy independent and greener.

Instead I hung on the Clinton cross defending them,

Well, I'm done with that. The last three weeks have been my wake up call. I am a Democrat. I am not a member of the Clinton cult. I am cured. I do not trust them.

John Edwards is also a very decent person. His love and relationship with Elizabeth is real. No marriage of convenience there. The same can be said of Michelle and Barack. Either of these two couples have my respect and yes, affection. They are both younger than me and I like that, too. It's time for new blood in this country.

May the heavens help the Democratic Party if we put this couple back as our standard bearers.

It may be too late, but at least there are a lot of folks waking up to the reality of having to deal with the Clintons all over again for four more years. I've left the cult for good.

I only found your powerful message here tonight. It hit me like a megaphone. Thank you for your honesty. It's rare.

Edit: for K&R.

You summed it all up. Good post.

Good post. I'm really heartened to see several of us are seeing the same things and consciously making the decision to reject the Clinton's based on our principles. I can forgive a lot of things because I know politics isn't simple or pure, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. It's nice to see I'm in good company.

like you & bling bling, I spent the 90's defending them. And if I'm honest, I still have some minor affection for the Clintons, but am sorely disappointed at their tactics since Iowa. I, frankly, don't see how the party heals after this, and that scares the crap out of me.

As a middle-aged African American, who supports John Edwards to the end, I thought I wouldn't have a problem voting for any of the top three come November, but I honestly can't see myself pulling the lever for HRC at this point. As if the distortions of Obama's record on women's rights weren't enough, Bill is still down in So. Carolina pulling at the scab of this racism brouhaha. I would never have expected it of them.

The president of my company (who had been a strong Hillary supporter) met me in the hallway today to let me know that she now supports Edwards, and that Obama is now her 2nd choice. She voiced pretty much the same sentiments as the OP. I don't care what the polls say today, there is a growing resentment in the Democratic community against the bully type tactics that are being employed by the Clintons.

Thanks to you & bling bling for your very rational & well thought out posts.

Get real. Geez.

...our approval has mattered to the establishment.

At risk of spoiling the mood on this thread, let me just put forth my position on this.

Hillary Clinton is using dirty tactics, true. There is no denial of this, and do not interpret this as any sort of apologist rant. Personally, I'm for Edwards, however, my feelings on the matter are based in some measure on relativism. Hillary is better than any Republican. And if she does get the nomination, I will vote for her. Period. No further discussion required. And I will not "hold my nose" while I do it. Not just because she would be the Democratic nominee, but because she brings three very important qualities to the table. She IS smart. She IS capable. And most importantly, she is not dogmatic. I think she will run the country sensibly, not based upon some ideology which only resonates with a select few, which is what we have now in George Bush.

A country run sensibly, to me, is better than one run on a unitary ideology. We've seen the effects of a unitary ideology, and we have suffered. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the ideology is; we have, in the Oval Office right now someone who has promulgated a narrow-focus, impractical unitary ideology and it has materially failed, as any ideology which turns a country with so much more to offer than just business opportunities into nothing more than the realization of an economic system is wont to do. This country is so much more complicated than some one-sided discussion of stock prices or the promulgation of some moral code yearning for a time which really never existed, yet, that's precisely what was bought with our current administration.

Now, the retort would be that Hillary is just like the Republicans, that she really is on their side of the issues and that voting for her is no better than voting for a Huckabee, a McCain, a Romney, or any of the others. There is something in me that can't believe that. I look at what she did while First Lady and before that in her life, and I see positives. And certainly one can point to certain aspects of her voting record and say that she doesn't represent progressive values. But to me, that is representative of "real" life in the Beltway. Compromise and the scratching of backs is the way in the halls of Congress and the Senate. Why do you think it is so devilishly hard for Senators to become President? Americans seem to want an unimpeachable character in their leadership, but refuse to accept the idea that when you're dealing with 300 million people, some people will be dissatisfied with your character no matter what it is.

This is where the smart, capable, and non-dogmatic come into play. You have to be smart enough to understand that you have to get the office to make the changes, whatever they may be. You also have to be smart enough to fend off the myriad of attacks to your character, your voting record, not to mention the awful lies which will be thrown at you that you will have to correct. You have to be capable enough to convince your enemies that, regardless of their attitude towards you, you stand to gain by playing ball. And you have to be non-dogmatic enough to fight battles you can win and retreat from the battles you can't or stand to make worse by fighting.

Politics is a dirty business, and while we'd all just love it if we'd just close our eyes, and when we'd opened them, we'd find ourselves governed by principle rather than politics, only through representation can that be changed. Do I like what Clinton has done? Absolutely not. It is hard to campaign on change if your campaign reflects the last 8 years of campaign strategy by the opposition party. But I also know that our candidate has to appeal to most of the country. Do I think she does? Not as such, but things tend to change after the primaries. If she does get the nomination, I believe you will see a capable, smart, relentless candidate who will win over her detractors. In fact, I have no real doubt that any of our candidates will show us a unifying capability once these primaries are over.

Edwards is the one who most represents my views, but I will vote for the one who shows up on the Dem ticket in November. And while I do not condone dirty tricks over the real discussion of issues, if that's what it takes to get elected in the middle of a burgeoning idiocracy just to get this trend stopped, then ultimately reversed, so be it. Time is running out, and we don't even have our foot on the brake yet. That won't happen until there is a 'D' on the door of the White House.

That said... Yes, Hill's stock did go down more than just a few points, not just for me, but from what I can tell, for many.

However, I disagree that what Clinton is doing is helping her win so much as it's making Obama lose. Her national lead is shrinking and she squeaked out a win in NV last week, after having been double digits ahead in the polls until a few days before. I honestly expected her to win by at least 10 points there. There's no reason for this ugly, divisive, scorched earth campaign she's running. Unless maybe she's NOT as formidable a candidate as the establishment thought, and they know it. IMO she should be running 70% in the polls, based on name ID and her husband alone. She's a mega-celebrity and calling her victory in NH a "comeback" is absurd. Restoring her "inevitability" based upon a narrow single digit win in NV (where she got fewer delegates anyway) is premature. Just as people say Obama is being tested by this ugly primary so is she. She's not coming out looking as good as she should.

that your opponent is a crack dealer, based on his race. Bonus points if you trip over your own two feet trying to backpedal away from it.

I wonder how many people that little endeavour pushed away from Camp Hillary.

Welcome to the club.

Your post, and others in this thread (I have read David in other threads too) give me hope. More Honesty than the Clintons will ever have.

Democrats CAN take this party back from the Clintons, the voters have more power than the candidates.

had the founders voted present rather than yes on the ratification of the Constitution?

It wouldn't be what it has been and could be again.

Strategic? Present ain't worth spit.

with its unique culture, then that would have been an option (that some may have used to express a willingness to support a different version of the bill, while not supporting the version as written.)

but you don't care, the smear sounds better to you.

some other Democrats were getting slammed in their elections in red districts by Republicans using these votes against them. Having bills named something that they could then hold up as the Democrats being against. Obama had made it clear he would vote no, but Planned Parenthood asked him and others to vote "Present" to give cover to the more vulnerable Democrats. To have a Democrat now use the same sleazy tactic is repulsive. the Clinton campaign absolutely knows what was what with the "present" votes. They are just trying to fool us dummies. I am an Edwards supporter first, but my vote goes to Obama 2nd. Read his books, read about him, do some research before you believe his opponent.

instead of letting some Obama supporters in Planned Parenthood lie to tell you what you want to hear? Because it's better for what you want to believe. Obviously, nobody is going to change your mind from what you want to believe.

But if at some point you should decide you want to maybe understand a little of the truth instead of being a moonie, you might ask yourself why Obama voted present. I understand this little Chicago game - it's not really that different from just not showing up to vote, like Obama does in the US Senate - apparently better than you do. Obama is real skilled at being a triangulating coward, like everybody's been telling you but you don't want to listen.

So ask yourself why Obama voted "Present" so many times, when he WASN'T one of the "more vulnerable Democrats"? Didn't bother to consider that, did you, seeing as it didn't fit in with your need to keep Obama as the wholesome champion of goodness? Ask yourself why.

I do a lot of reading and researching and from what I read his voting present was to help make it not so obvious that the vulnerable Dems were doing it. That is what I READ. If you have READ differently, or if you have a personal anecdote to share, you would not believe how open I am to information. The source matters to me, so I can't just take your word for it as no one should take mine. This post is about Hillary using this against Obama when certainly she has the same info that I do, since it came from a former supporter of hers. If the info is wrong, she should bring it up with proof, not play this game.

I am just an artist who has painted a lot of portraits. i watch people and when I watch Bush Ii see his lies as clear as day. I am always amazed that everyone doesn't. I look at Obama and I see him not as you say. I see a much more complex set of characteristics than you imply.

I'm done.

Barack is known to have come from a very safe district. The only other source I asked you to consult was your own reasoning. Since you don't seem to want to do that, despite being 'unbelievably open', I don't know what to tell you.

Hillary was right, as is anyone who notes that Obama's "Present" votes on important issues are not very laudable. Those who think that charge is unfair are wrong. Those who think that we're too dumb to understand the Chicago politics of "Present" are wrong. And those who believe Obama supporters in Planned Parenthood giving him a pass on it, are entitled to accept that, but the rest of us are equally entitled not to.

You have all the information you need. If you don't want to put it together then good for you - be done. It won't make Hillary or anyone who charges Obama with triangulating self-interest on his "Present" votes in the least bit wrong.

That was the impression that I got reading what I read.

My understanding was that the Democrats (of which Hillary is one) had come up with a plan—not a good one in my opinion— and that Hillary was aware of the plan but is acting now as if the whole thing is just shocking. If she didn't agree with how the Democrats in Chicago were handling a tricky problem —dealing with the Republicans bringing bills to the floor with sympathetic names that were against pro-choice — than she should have brought that up and I would gladly have listeed to her take on how better to handle that situation. If she though that Barack was an idiot for listening to his fellow democrats and Planned parenthood, again I would have been interested in hearing her take.

What I don't like is the disingenuous way she chose to attack him. Through his support of pro-choice. She did not put out a pamphlet saying that Barack was using his present vote as a way to protect himself, which is debatable, she put out a pamphlet asserting that his present vote made it doubtful that he was really pro-choice. That was strictly targeting the ill informed. Anyone that did the slightest bit of re-search would know without a doubt that Barack is firmly pro-choice. Hillary knew it too. If she didn't she is not qualified to be president. I don't like it when any of the candidates use our ignorance of the full story to sway our opinions in a divisive way. We can't possibly know everything about everything, that is why I am happier with a view of what each candidate envisions rather than the others tearing that candidate down.

Have you read Obama's books?
John Edward's books?
Hillary's book?

I have read Edwards and Obama, and have ordered Hillary's. It is good to hear their own words about who they think they are. Self serving? Of course. Aren't we all, when telling our story? Still, if people were out there telling stories about me, I would hope they would at the least put my own idea of myself in the mix of impressions.

edited to ad link to video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs&eurl=http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hqblog

We all think we know so much. But you know, all our so called knowledge is based on something. An experience, an encounter, a book, an article, a TV show. We are bombarded with information.
How do we sort it?

If a friend recommends movies and I consistently hate them, I don't drop that friend, but I know that movie information is not what I treasure them for. So it is in the world. We form our sources of trust. Could we be wrong? Absolutely! We do the best we can with the brain we are riding around with that day. The great thing about our brains is that we can change our mind, discard deeply held beliefs.

I do find your style of correspondence a little hostile. If you know more about what goes on in Chicago with the 'present' voting, I would be interested in what that info is and where it comes from.

Mine is mostly from the former head of the National Organization of Women talking about what Hillary did in NH. How she was a supporter but knowing that Obama's record on pro-choice was impeccable she could no longer support her. I also read that the NH Democratic party is quite split and upset by this same pamphlet. I also feel like the Obama I am meeting in his two books is pretty open about the good the bad and the ugly when it comes to voting as a politician.

There I showed you mine...

Where is your info and deep belief coming from?

Peace

edited to ad link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs&eurl=http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hqblog

nice warmongering candidate...why didn't she vote present instead of yes?

Hmmm, throwing stones from a glass house...enjoy the view?

if the founders had decided to give the president the power to declare war any time he or she wanted. oh wait, hillary did that, twice (okay, maybe 1.5 with K-L). how's that working out?

i don't support barrack but you are no better than hillary when you try to smear him out of context with the "present" bullshit. quit being a sheeple and educate yourself.

It's good to see you here again :hi:

I've had it with the Clintons, too. Done.

It's good to see you too! :hi:

Here's to saying enough is enough. And meaning it. Go Obama!! :toast:

politicians?? They all do the same things, yet she is the one who gets criticized for it. It is kind of irrelevant who we support unless you have a primary coming up to vote in. Otherwise, we should just worry about voting for and supporting whoever the nominee will be in the end.

I think she can do far more good for the country and the Democratic Party in the Senate.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Bling. I have been very disappointed by the way HRC has handled her campaign, and have even lost a lot of respect for Bill for his combative exchanges and distortions. The voters have a chance to glimpse the leadership style of prospective candidates by the way they conduct their campaigns. So far, the Clinton campaign is not assuring me that they would be honest, up front, and ethical. Rovian tactics should be beneath any Democrat.

posted on DU because I have tried to support my candidate without getting mired down in all the fighting.
Having said that, I felt compelled to comment on your post.

It was intelligent and well reasoned and as someone who supports John Edwards, I wanted to thank you for for what you said about him. I'm still not sure who I would support after him, but posts like yours help me with that decision.

I'm no dummy and I realize that politics, in general, can be a nasty affair, but it seems the level of nastiness here on DU has become overwhelming. I know a lot of it has to do with what we have endured over the last 7 years and peoples passions for their respective candidate are running wild. I want to win back the White House(not that we ever lost it--it was stolen, but that's another discussion), but I hope we can do it without resorting to Repug tactics.

Again, thanks for your post.

I loved Bill as a president, and was undecided between Clinton-Obama-Edwards. But watching Bill and Hillary, I've lost respect. I don't want the tactics they're employing. I want to hear about issues, and I want them to behave like adults. I'm caucusing Tuesday the 5th, and still looking at Obama and Edwards, but Hillary's lost my support. If Hillary is the dem candidate, I'll vote for her. But I'm disappointed in the Clintons.

they have lost that shine or Bill has.

I LOVED Bill as president - he could do no wrong (see what warps you from so many years of Republican presidents - you have the idiocy of low expectations). That being said, his finest moment was on 9/12/01 - walking around NY, hugging all those horribly sad and lost people - at that point, I thought he could walk on water.

However, the Clintons naked ambition in this election has made me see their true colors - they are in it to win at all costs. I was never an HRC supporter - even as a woman, she just made me uncomfortable. (And what's with the Rodham thing - pick a damned name and stick with it!) Bill and Hill have acted like children but they are only hurting themselves. After the fine training that Bush has given us about lying, we can spot 'em a million miles away. And the war voted really just ticked me off - I don't care what excuse you have (didn't read it - why the hell not?); sending someone else's kids to die really requires that you pay a LITTLE more attention. I didn't have access to all of the info she did and I could see that this was a crock of s***.

Ok, I'm better now. }( I've always liked John Edwards because he seems real and I LOVE Elizabeth. I trust them to tell me the truth and not lie. My career involves quickly evaluating people's personalities and whether they are lying or not - I have never gotten that feeling from them. HRC however seems to invoke that every time she opens her mouth.

I ruled out Hillary (maybe for good) after she sent out her henchman Shaheen in NH to bring up Obama's past drug use. That alone was utterly despicable and unforgivable. Since then, we've seen a stready stream of low-ball slimy politics from that side.

If Hillary wins, we all lose.

:eyes:
Whatever Obama is getting from the Clintons is fraternal ribbing compared to what the Rs will do. If he can't tolerate it, then it is best we know that now.

it's about having enough class and dignity to discuss the issues. Hillary showed her true colors Monday night. She was a disappointment.

Toughens 'em up for the Real World, don'tcha know.

I expected DU to be a place to discuss and debate politics and their candidates, but I just don't seem to be able to jump in and join this crowd.

As an outsider who wanted to become a member of this community, here is what I see:

"Obama farted...I've decided to support Edwards"
"Hillary looks bad in yellow...she should wear skirts and get a hair cut. I'm so over her that I'm supporting Obama"

And the mudslinging here?

Seriously, does the OP REALLY believe that the Clinton camp is playing any differently than the Obama camp?.....and let's just call a spade a spade here...the people here at DU are as bad as any "clinton smear" or "obama swiftboat" campaigns......I can't believe all of the name'calling, smearing, I will never vote for this personing going on here...and aggressive attacking. Really, I'm so disappointed. This place is way more negative than anything any of the candidates are saying about each other and THIS discourse right HERE is what is hurting the democratic party. Are we not adults? Can't we talk about our likes and dislikes without putting down the other candidates? Before you go blaming Hillary or Obama for this, rememberthat you are as responsible for your choice of words as they are.

Both Obama and Hillary are engaged in a battle.....their fighting is no different than any other election cycle and I actually think it has turned more people on to listening to the debates and getting involved. They are both viable candidates and I, personally will vote for whomever gets the democratic nod because I refuse to give the republicans any more time in the white house.

Please people....grow up!

Kris

and yeah... *sigh* I know what you mean.

Ah well... I'm glad you're committed to supporting Dems.

:hi:

I agree that there is a lot of juvenile bickering here (much like in Monday night's debate), but I would urge you to look around more. This place is so huge and there are so many voices, I'm sure you'll find what you are looking for. Check out the different forums. Some of the issues-related forums might be more to your taste.

Thanks for being a solid Democrat!

nor do I wish for explanations. My "judgement" arises from the harsh legacy of Clinton activities.

It is sad to see the Democratic Party implode over Clinton support. Different leadership is necessary to maintain any separation from the ideology of the Republicans.

All of the "touchy-feely", "warm & fuzzy", glow of heart inspired beliefs is worthless in supporting a candidate. The Clinton record does not warrant the change that is necessary for the ideals of the Democratic Party to survive. And if anyone would put democratic ideals in the aforementioned category of never never warm & fuzzy, then what can we say about relevance or even a need for democracy?

NoFederales

the democrats will fragment again...

go mccain..... bomb bomb bomb... bomb bomb iran...

2008 will once again be the site and time of another democratic implosion

THE REPUBLICANS UNITE FOR ELECTIONS AND DIVIDE THE SPOILS
THE DEMOCRATS DIVIDE FOR ELECTIONS AND GET NOTHING

and the Democratic caucus system is retarded i really wish there was another legitimate party so I didn't have to vote for any of the clowns you have provided but that would risk the country to four more years of loss liberty, war ,lies and stupidity. all though i feel there will be little difference when your vote is selected for you. and no more bonehead Tim russet debates can we get a democrat to ask some question I'm tired of republican moderated debates.

and exploiting racial prejudice to win at all costs is PUTRID- we as a party must be better than that.

This morning, Lauer asked Hillary on The Today Show why she is behind in South Carolina, and she replied "the voter make-up is different there". WTF? I'm female, but when I heard this I yelled at the tv "You B*tch!!!". Why didn't she just say it: "SC is full of those black people, and you know who THEY vote for". What a f*cking despicable trashy SELFISH tactic that is hurtful to our country.

throwing something at the TV, too, and I thought only * brought out that reaction in me.

The Clintons have shown me that the only thing they care about is their own ambtions.

I will invest not one iota of hope in them ever again. They betray and betray.

Thanks for posting the comment Hillary made. How sad.

And frankly, I don't know how Barack can overcome this race-baiting.

read here: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/bubba-obama-is.html

I'm praying that Hillary's super-delegates will jump ship...

Good hard kick in the arse for the Clintons.

is running a populist TV commercial in Tennessee about how she will fight against the drug and insurance
companies for the poor people here in Tennessee. She took a page right out of Edwards playbook.
How can she fight against those that have given her $750,000? Go, John go!!!

be President. I will work as hard as I can to make sure it doesn't happen.

as a "wilfully ignorant" person at all. Rrrrrrecommended!

IMHO, the ONLY family who deserves 12 or 16 years in the White House would be the Roosevelts - Franklin and Eleanor. Unfortunately, they left us a long time ago.

But the Dark Side made sure they left us a long time ago. :cry:

(Except for Teddy, and his time has pretty much come and gone, although he did give a good shot at it in 1980.)

I mean: yes, they are dirty and nobody should defend them, but I'm amazed that it's *this* issue that made you withdraw your support for HRC.

You say: "<...> to voice my disapproval now that she’s abandoning the party’s best interests for her personal gain." The word 'now' stuns me. She has left her party's best interests for her personal gain a long time ago, when she voted 'yes' on the Patriot Act. And again when she voted 'yes' on the Iraq War Resolution. And again when she stood by her vote and the war until at least early last year. And again when she voted 'yes' on naming the Iranian National Guard a terrorist organization. And again when she took Rupert Murdoch's money. etc.

As you can see, I'm not focusing on just one singular issue for disliking her. That's why I don't understand your concern with her campaign tactics. To me, that is the least troublesome about HRC.

Also, I think everybody should hold their elected officials to the highest possible standards, and in my opinion, that means: to standards higher than you hold for yourself.

that's how I feel as well.

Hillary made fools of us all. She is doing a huge disservice to all women.

And she may have cost us a black president for another 40 years.

lol

not me

I frankly have a hard time believing you were ever a Clinton supporter.

This looks like just more Obamabot spam. Can it. That's where spam belongs. In a can.

have employed. I haven't yet read all the replies but I heard Carl Bernstein say to Anderson Cooper that the Clintons' friends are surprised by all of this and essentially felt that Bill has stepped over the line...for what it's worth.

Devious mischaracterizations of an opponent's comments is a form for lying. Lying is an indicator of a person's integrity, ethics, and morality. In the next election, I am voting for an honest person even if I have to vote for a Republican, something I have not done for a very long time (age 64).

I am very tired of liars in and around the Whitehouse, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rice, Rumsfeldt, (the whole gang), and yes, Bill Clinton.

I also have a problem with arrogance. Formerly thought of as just an annoying and unbecoming trait, after observing the Bush-Cheney gang, I realize arrogance can be a serious problem. Hillary's claim of having lots of experience and knowing how to solve problems and get things done better than anyone else has an arrogant flavor to it that makes me uncomfortable.

Power freeks with access to the military are dangerous. Hillary's tough talk and effort to come across as strong makes me nervous.

I like Edwards a lot, and I am convinced his focus on corporate control of the government hits a serious nail on the head. We need him. As a VP in charge of attacking corporate influence, he would be fabulous.

I think Obama is an unusual talent who would be extremely helpful to our country which in turn would be very helpful, and a great relief, to most of the rest of the people on planet Earth. Obama indicates a leadership style in which he would use group processes with input from lots of people to make decisions. No arrogance, no predetermined ideology, not a power freek authoritarian, but an honest leader. And that is exactly what I want in the Whitehouse.

1. I thought Karl Rove quit. Looks like he just put on a blue pantsuit.

2. I can't stand to see Bill Clinton cheapen and demean the Presidency anymore than he already has.

3. I will not be a part of a process that keeps the leadership of the most powerful nation in the world in the hands of 2 families for up to 28 years. We fought 2 wars with England over this matter. Look it up.

I'm just about fully convinced he went to work for the Clintons after leaving the White House a few months ago.

Lust for power doesn't give a tinker's damn about ideology.

I do believe the Clintons are using the same attack tactics the repugs used. I didn't care much for Hillary, but always liked Bill up until recently. I think they are depending on the "willfully ignorant" or just plain ignorant, to vote for her. I too dread her getting the nomination. I feel it would hurt the Democratic party, and what they're doing now will make it even worse.

It reminds me of the george bush "McCain fathered a black baby" kind of stuff - it worked for him, I hope it backfires for the Clintons.

their race-baiting tactics in So. Carolina is just a more sophisticated, and insidious version of the Repubs "Southern Strategy": divide and conquer is the order of the day. Disgusting...

To be completely fair, Obama's campaign hasn't been free of "Rovian tactics" — Clinton's campaign has (arguably) been dirtier, though.

That said, if Clinton is the nominee, she gets my vote. In contrast, she's still going to be a tremendous improvement over what we have, or what our other choice will be.

Then again, I'm still holding a candle for Edwards... (crosses fingers).

I talked to her recently and she shared she was really angry and very bummed out at the Clinton's take no prisoners approach. She has always been a very strong Democratic supporter and wanted to support Hillary, but felt dismayed by their tactics of smear and distortion toward Obama.

Simply put, she felt that they wanted to win more than serve the people.

She's voting Dem regardless - but ask if I could give her some news to cheer her up.

I just said vote for Obama or Edwards and hope for the best.

It is all about a philosophy, not any one person.

clinton isn't/wasn't using rovian tactics

those allegations are just media spin

the media hate hillary clinton....they know if they keep bashing her enough, the masses will jump on board and parrot their nonsense

the media gave obama and edwards a free pass in new hampshire's debate, for starters

allowed them to both attack her spitefully, said nothing

they still give obama a free ride, don't scrutinize his record or rhetoric

but I won't

n/t

Not a smart move in politics.

For women in the feminist state of New Hampshire to remind other women voters that you are always safer voting for a woman when it comes to reproductive choice is hardly Rovian.

Read this WaPo article. New Hampshire was always going to go towards Hillary. The political analysts miscalled it, because they either forget or chose to ignore the political clout of women in that state and their affinity for female candidates. Obama can not help that he is not a woman.

Call New Hampshire voters sexist if you want, but do not call Hillary "Rovian". Women in Catholic states have learned that they have to guard their reproductive freedoms jealously or they get taken away. They are much more careful of them than they are in other places. Plus, states with lots of Irish and Scots-Irish are highly matriarchal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/18/AR2008011802705.html

"I won’t be a part of a “team” that employs Rovian tactics." So nice to see that type of reaction. Why? Because it sums Clinton up. She would be Bush2 - without a doubt. She will do anything, say anything, and cross any line to achieve her goal. To me, Obama is the greatest chance we have for actual Change, for actual Hope.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWJqf8QI-5o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fZDm1nSjAM

Culminating with his incredible race-baiting of the Clintons since New Hampshire. The worst kind of disgusting, divisive sleaze I've ever seen in a Democratic campaign in my entire life.

But you don't have a problem with that "in real life with friends and family during heated political discussions". That kind of "filth" didn't "make you feel foolish", did it? Those "sleazy tactics" didn't seem to cause any "dislike" from someone who 'holds high standards for myself'. You weren't "above using (those kinds of) sleazy tricks and intentional distortions to win a race" as long as it was Obama doing it, now were you?

You're plenty proud enough to "be part of a 'team' that employs Rovian tactics" even if it is the most venal of Rovian tactics, as long as it's Obama doing it. When Obama does it you are neither "turned off" nor "mortified" by such "filthy campaigning" being "under the Democratic label". When Obama is playing the worst "nasty games" that used to "boil your blood", you are just as happy as a pea in a pod about it.

You've got plenty of excuses "for the sleazy campaign tactics" that Obama has employed since losing New Hampshire, don't you now? Plenty of examples there, but you're not "enraged" in the least. Hell, you're not even slightly bothered. He has gone a good ways to destroying race relations in my party and even the country at large, but his "manipulation of one of the most important issues" in the country is fine by you. And you've even managed to turn his cowardly lack of votes supporting women's choice "for his own personal gain" into some kind of plus to the point that it is "unforgivable" to even question him about it, so determined are you to support this scumbag.

You've got no compunctions against being a "willfully ignorant" supporter of this low-life. You're certainly not about to "face the facts" and denounce him. No, the only "facts you face" are the lies concocted about Hillary that you want to believe. The truth about Obama, you don't want to know. You have truly succeeded in being what we see in the other side. So well, that we can scarcely tell the difference between your ilk's craven dishonesty and vitriol towards Hillary, and theirs.

There is one candidate that shits on the Democratic Party and the Dems that comprise it for their own personal gain, more than every other candidate combined. I won't mention who that is, because you're so "sincere" about everything.

The Clintons have had to face ugly, dishonest criticisms their entire life from people with low character and virtually no honesty in their being. Maybe I'll send your post to her, in case she's under any misapprehension that things are much different within the Democratic Party than they are without.

What a disgusting OP.

"Peace out."

Because this is not an election to get Bill back in the White House at all costs.

If Bubba wants to tear the Democratic party in half, we can't stop him from trying.
But, the truth is a slippery slope whereas the Clintons are concerned, and there comes a time when people who lie their asses off - like George Bush and Bubba - should be rejected!!

Edwards has been ignored by Bubba almost entirely, yet John doesn't agree with Hillary's positions any more than Obama does!

Democrats need to wake up and make history - and reject the lies that are told about our candidates!!

so your premise is moot.

Your nose stuck in Bill Clinton's ten year old semen as a list of all the lies he's told about Obama, or anyone else for that matter?

You sound like either an Obama supporter, or an especially lowbrow right-winger.

Devious mischaracterizations of an opponent's comments is a form for lying. Lying is an indicator of a person's integrity, ethics, and morality. In the next election, I am voting for an honest person even if I have to vote for a Republican, something I have not done for a very long time (age 64).

I am very tired of liars in and around the Whitehouse, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rice, Rumsfeldt, (the whole gang), and yes, Bill Clinton.

You wouldn't by any chance be a 'devious misrepresenter', would you? That wouldn't speak well of your integrity, ethics or morality, though I do think your sanctimoniousness is already well evidenced. I'll wait though.....

that's a fact that cannot be disputed.

Aside from, wholly appropriate in my opinion, lawyerly dissembling during an unethical and un-Constitutional sexual inquisition, what other 'trouble with the truth' are you implying?

I'm still waiting.

Usually I merely peruse posts on DU. But I have to say Mr. TacticalProgress that your bullying tactics and inflammatory rhetoric make the OPs point. Your bellicose tactics toward progress demean the DU board. When people speak of the issues with language and tenor, they are most likely talking about angry, self-righteous posts like yours.

This thread was started by a nasty, vitriolic, character-assassination post, upon which everyone piled on with their equally nasty shots.
Presumably you go along with all of that ugliness.

And you have a problem with me demanding proof of claims that our party's leaders are 'unforgivably sleazy and filthy' liars.
Somehow, that is inflammatory rhetoric and 'bullying tactics'.

Look in the mirror, Captain, if you want to see self-righteousness.

How do you separate the truthtellers from the liars until after the fact?

Bush sure had a lot of people fooled that he was a decent and honest man before he took office, but once he got there, well, let's just say it didn't take long before many of us knew we were taken for a ride.

Considering that the only people on the ballot are politicians, prone to superhuman feats of dishonesty, I assume then you'll be writing in your candidate, then?

Try and dispell that fact!

point that any serious ambitious candidate is unable to acknowledge first. That the cost of winning the nomination and its mere possibility is not the main concern of the candidate but of GREAT concern to just about everyone else except stalwart or unknowing supporters.

If she would win a string of strong victories now the damage would be erased in large part, but not entirely. In fact, that was ever the case, a huge cost in supporting this particular nomination. Forget her merits entirely, the prospects of a three race with a muted, somewhat divisive Democrat(let's even just call it media bias), a moderate bi-partisan something called Bloomberg, and any rabid GOP candidate of your choosing in sheep's clothing would immediately provide the possibility, the unpredictability, the motivation of the moribund GOP and a media circus impossible to bring back to the Dems. In other words the ultimate revenge against Clinton/Perot/Bush has been easily pushed to the front with the cooperation of all. Hell, Jeb might even run with a daring credible enough to get inside the cheat limits behind a third party eating away at not our most engaging speaker.

But we are at the point where the public itself can get a mere glimpse of what this is. Can the inertia switch to fear or zeal for someone else in time? Will the strong base Hillary enjoys feel the pinch BEFORE the campaign powers past the rivals? Can a brokered convention really gut the entire party and Hillary have to make the awful choice of exacting further cost to deal herself into convention intrigue as the manner of her victory?

Her cause WAS legitimate and in a REAL election demands respect and acceptance. Yet now we are at the point where all other pols around her sweat and growing ranks of dimly informed people. It is apparent now that no matter what she offers or thinks she offers to the nation, the cost and peril makes her continuance a disservice(to put it most mildly, to everything dear to humankind). Even bowing out in a self=revelation of the call to sacrifice personal ambition, were she able to see what possibly no other candidate in history could, cannot be precipitously done without causing more damage, wrath and discouragement. She would have to reduce her personal campaign and ironically maybe win votes by doing that. She would have to fire all those quasi-GOP advisers and stop the bleeding of money away from November. In fact she should do those thing anyway because ultimately if she doesn't, HER price is becoming much too great.

This point might never have happened and Hillary would have breezed to more strength. Now she is wounded as Bush intends, everything as Bush intends and toward a firm result that Bush intends. Not everything that the Bushes really want come to pass, but count on this one, all scandals looming large,
to be number one. So at this point she can't, won't see the inevitable cost as her responsibility and neither yet do most people focused still on other issues.

The future is mutable but taken an awesomely threatening form. On this unnecessary focal point the fate of the entire world, unfortunately, madly hinges. And it shouldn't in a year rationally made for Dems but irrationally steered toward disaster at least of mandate stealing proportions. It is NOT all about electability, but the hidden line has not been made clear enough to people. The cost to the party will be high and the future of the Dem first term a continuing doubt beyond an increasingly theoretical November win.

So she could still sweep aside doubts and rivals. She could continue to falter and divide. She could simply win enough delegates through deals to prevail. The future is come to its crisis point in the sole democratic process remaining to America, and candidates trapped like tragic implacable figures in someone else's play. The real villain, the dark author of all this, as is usual in all engaging fiction
vanishes behind this artificial fate and the suspension of reason and reality.

memories of the Clinton's.................

Then I became educated to issues that i didn't know existed.

I found out that rather than have a team of WH staff intrested in campaign reforms, he had his staff diverted to promoting NAFTA's passage.

I had no inkling tht the DLC existed, or what it stood for.

But in Hillary I see that the DLC has indeed conquered the progressive end of the party. Without having to make a single concession to us progressives.

I can't see much in Hillary that differs from, say Ahnold Schwartzennegger. Both are pro-choice, both want a mandated "Universal" health insurance. Neither of them sees "peace efforts" as anything but weakness.

GranTed Hillary will be VASTLY better than a Huckabee or McCain in the WH. But I'll be gnashing my teeth in the voting booth if I have to choOse her (and I can't say I'll feel much better if my choice in Obama. His Reagan rhetoric is a bit scary to me.)

I hope that if you slammed others for seeing this in sHill before, that you apologize to them, and let them know you have now seen through it.

it's driving Edwards haters up the proverbial wall!

:evilgrin:

the Clintons are playing nice - and everybody here knows it. And if Obama - and his supporters - can't handle a little "hard politics" during the Pre-Season that is the Primaries, good luck in the Super Bowl of the general election, should Obama win the primaries. The Repukes don't play nice. Y'all know that. Get over it! Politics ain't for the squeamish. Especially modern politics.

whenever hillary used to speak as the first lady i would get tears in my eyes and hope for the day SHE would be the first woman president. i've since changed my mind. i'm extremely uncomfortable with the clintons vacationing and buddying up to the bushes (poppy and babs). i'm uncomfortable with the way she's run her campaign and i've been upset by many of her votes as a senator. no more clintons.

EDWARDS '08 & '12

Well, I haven't decided on a candidate yet.

Be funny if it turns out to be Sen. Clinton-- then all that sincere, righteous haranguing of yours would simply be countered...

I'm disinclined to believe that.

I'd honestly prefer not to vote Democrat if she's on the ticket.

Seriously.

I'm that disgusted by how they've handled themselves and while i still respect what Bill did on many levels, i no longer care about him given his silly behavior and tricks.

Very well said bling bling. It has puzzled me to no end as well with respect to how so many DU'ers are taken by Hillary even though her record is in conflict with other important issues we here on the DU have been so disgusted by over the years with * in office.



The above quote totally expresses my feelings about Hillary with respect to the Iraq and Iran issues, as well as, the NAFTA issue. I cannot believe how so many people can so easily dismiss her talking out both sides of her mouth with respect to Iraq and Iran, and, how so many people can be so blind as to how much more money she's been given by the defense industries.

Being a labor union member I never really liked the Clintons much. I always saw them to be more corporate Dems than working man Dems. We (union labor) lobbied Clinton intensely not to sign NAFTA, but, as soon as it arrived on his desk he signed it without hesitation. When the American Airline pilots went out on strike, as with Reagan with the Air Traffic Controllers, Clinton after only a short time gave the American Airlines pilots an ultimatum "go back to work or you're fired". One year later when the American Airline stewardesses went out on strike he did the same thing to them as well. Of course there are many other examples such as Hillary's WalMart history, etc. So, I've always saw the Clintons as what they are - Corporate Dems.

Only this time with Hillary, she's the military industrial complex's sponsor. And as you pointed out bling bling "I refuse to be the type of "willfully ignorant" supporter just like the "willfully ignorant" Bush supporters were".



Peace..

I saw this on a bumper sticker today. What a powerful message. It does take courage to change. We all make mistakes and whats important is that we learn from them.

I believe John Edwards has tremendous courage to make the changes necessary. And whats so great to me personally is, he is doing it for all to see..... Apology accepted:hug:

www.rnc.org

I'm sure they will be glad to accept your donations. They can probably give you space for phone banking as well.

Instead of whining about all the negative reasons why you DON'T want to support Hillary Clinton, why not post a few POSITIVE comments about the candidate you DO want to support?

Unbelievable how negative things around here have gotten!!!!

It seems to me that there has always been this level of negativity around here. The only difference at the moment is that its not all being directed at the Chimpster, and, the people being turned off by it are in some way being offended because they don't like hearing the negative facts about the candidate they like. Hence why I recommended bling bling's post, because, he didn't allow personal feelings about a candidate cloud his judgment as to their irreconcilable actions. So instead of getting offended by fellow DU'ers who might have pointed out these actions about Hillary, he did the only thing he could do and still remain true to his convictions - he divorced himself from supporting such a candidate no matter how he felt about her beforehand.

In fact, Clinton is not the candidate that I'm supporting. What is lacking around here is that the nasty, negative people who post their rants (with ridiculous, inflammatory titles, too!!!) spend more time bashing other candidates than they do telling us WHY they're supporting another candidate.

It's the lazy way out - easier to say negative things about someone than find true, objective, positive things about someone else.

I have no objection to someone posting a thoughtful, insightful, and intelligent essay about a particular candidate that I might not support myself, and why he/she should get mine and other people's support. But no, that's not what we see. We see emotional rants, with little if any substance, bashing candidates. It's childish and totally counter productive.

that she even had your so-called 'support'


The Obamabots are on the prowl.... one even posted a bogus video SUPPOSEDLY from the Hillary campaign that was given to him/her/it by an *snickers* Obama staffer

Man they pile on the BS more and more and I'm an Independent.

:hi: