who cares whether you like Hillary, or why?

ok I overstated the question a little for the sake of brevity in the subject line.

What I mean to say is, don't we all know the basic outlines of the case against Hillary? So that it's not really necessary to make that case again and again every time her name comes up.

Every DU thread about her is pretty much the same. Maybe the original post is about an article about her, but nearly zero of the responses relates at all to that article. It's the same old stuff everyone already knows. She's bad. Some people simply state it, some people say why. Some people's information is correct, some is misinformation. Same old stuff.

Of course, this is allowed at DU (within some constraints which are sometimes violated). But why? Even if you don't like her, what's the harm in discussing her productively?

By whose standards and definitions? Seriously. For many, pointing out her shortcomings and weaknesses as a national candidate IS productive, for the well being of the party. For some, only lavishing praise on the lady is deemed productive.

So, by whose standards and definitions of 'productive' shall we conduct such a discussion?

Just curious what the parameters are and who sets them.

I'll give you a hypothetical example.

Suppose there's a news article where Hillary makes a statement about some event that just happened.

My standard is that a productive response would be a comment about her statement.

And a less productive response would be some opinion about her that could have been formed years ago, for example "I will never vote for anyone that voted for the Iraq War."

strongly enough to vote against their party, I see nothing wrong with that.

Standing up for what you believe, no matter what anyone else says, productive or not, is the right thing to do.

If you are only looking for positive responses about Hillary, it's not going to happen on the DU. And that's as it should be.

if you don't care whether what you're doing or saying is productive, I think you risk crossing from righteous to self-righteous.

And I'm definitely not looking only for positive responses about Hillary. That's not what I'm saying at all.

and those who disagree with your definition "risk crossing from righteous to self-righteous'?
:rofl:

Irony or satire? I'm hoping for the latter.

I started this discussion and it's about my definition of productive. If I didn't define the word this discussion would be pointless. Do you have another definition? I'd be glad to read it.

When you're done laughing, consider getting up off the floor and re-reading post #9 and my response #13. I think you might have misunderstood.

and I stand by my comments.

the poster wrote "Standing up for what you believe, no matter what anyone else says, productive or not, is the right thing to do."

They didn't "disagree with my definition of productive." They said "productive or not."

You wrote "and those who disagree with your definition "risk crossing from righteous to self-righteous'?"

That's not correct, whether you stand by it or not.

now, who was that?

Me. I like her. I hate how she's positioned herself in respect to her voting on Iraq. She's still a strong woman who has values I mostly agree with.

I never expect to agree with every single position of any politician. It's unreasonable, IMO.

Besides, it's about damn time we have a woman president...most especially a democrat one. She sure as hell couldn't do any worse than the men have done when it comes to running this country.

Personally, I think part of the problem is that men - yes - even our Democratic DU men (and even a few women) - are still prejudiced against having a woman President.

She's not perfect, no. But she beats hell out of that travesty in the WH now. And lord knows she's a a whole lot better than Condi or any Republican woman candidate.

was just to divert attention from other positions of hers which would hurt the DEMS in a national campaign? Could such a discussion also include opinions that a current statement on a different topic does not negate her pro-invasion stance?

Like it or not, the woman went along with bushco on a VERY major issue. Saying that someone's opinion formed years ago, IF that opinion is based on real actions of hers (I know there are plenty of Clinton bashers who can't tell you why they hate Bill or Hill) is not productive is the same as saying a discussion of history is not relevant.

History IS relevant. Hillary's history included. Denying facts is NOT productive when the root issue is who can carry a national election for the party. Stamping inconvenient truths (you should pardon the current usage) as not productive is sticking one's head in the sand.

History is relevant if we are to pick leaders to move us forward in a different direction.

or really dislike.

I don't dislike her, nor do I like her. I just feel that she is not at all electable. Far too much baggage. And we already had a Clinton as president.



on edit ---
I don't quite understand what you mean by "productively".

as a President, too.

And Adams.
Harrison.
Roosevelt.

And btw - what the heck does THAT have to do with it anyway?

stating exactly what they will do, how they will react, and to what degree. They should put it in writing and when they don't deliver, to the slammer with them. Bring up the "loser" if you believe in BBV.

People should point out how she has sold this party out. Just the way we are doing with Lieberman. Everyone here knows the basic outline of the case against him. I do not see any suggestions to stop discussing that.

What does is harm? Hillary's run? What else?

:9 :D

Great!

She is not a popular candidate among the real Democratic activists -- those of us who actually walk precincts and make phone calls to get out the vote. Many of her stances are very conservative. Yet she has a lot of press coverage and is collecting huge amounts of money so that she overwhelm other really worthy candidates with massive TV ad campaigns and paid-for campaign publicity. She represents everything that disenfranchises voters. She is a creature of money, not of persuasive policies that will do good for the American people. She is being bought by corporations and sold to us as one of ours. We resent that. Compare Russ Feingold for starts.

you list some perfectly good arguments against Hillary Clinton, most of which I share.

But that was true years ago.

She is now a U.S. Senator and almost certainly a candidate for president in 2008. She says things and does things in the present in both of these roles, and people might want to discuss these things. But for whatever reason it's nearly impossible to do this because so many people are hung up on their preconceived notions about her.

Not just some kneejerk reaction we have to her.

She is my Senator. I have written her repeatedly on issue after issue (everything from the Gonzalez confirmation to refusing to sign the Kerry DMS letter???). Every single time she has done just the opposite of what I suggested.

I did not have "pre" conceived notions at all. She has earned my scorn by rejecting everything that I value despite my voting for her the first go round. I will be working for Tasini in NY this race. He will lose to the rich and powerful Clinton. But, she'll do it over my dead body.

She has forfieted the right to consider herself my representative. She has not supported my position on ANYTHING since she got the carpet bagger job. It would be even worse with her in the White House. Of course, we do not need to worry about that. If she gets the nomination, she will lose to whatever repug they run and we will be as bad off as ever.

If she had ever represented ME, I might consider supporting her. She has done nothing bu t sell me and other NY liberals out to corporations and her own ambition.

Should we assume that once nominated or elected, she'd behave any differently? I see no cause for such assumptions.

one thing I've learned about Hillary Clinton, when someone states a "fact" about her, look it up...

(unless you meant you contacted her to ask her to vote FOR Gonzales :scared: )

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00003

Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Alberto R. Gonzales to be Attorney General )

NAYs ---36
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NO! HELL NO! :sarcasm:

:crazy:

shake out whatever it is that's bothering us about any one of them. Hillary isn't my first choice by a long shot, but I don't understand the vituperative mud slinging that the mention of her name brings.

It's clear to me that if democrats vote independent, green or martian because they don't like the democratic nominee, then there's a hell of a good chance that a republican will win in 2008. The thought of even the slightest possibility of that happening will drive me totally insane. I don't know how this country is going to survive with bush apparently becoming more and more unhinged with each passing day. Right now I'm scared as hell and any democrat will be a savior to this country.

So I'm all for ditzing, discussing, and arguing with FACTUAL STATEMENTS. I will change my point of view on any topic if a reasoned arguement successfully challenges my opinion. But I won't even bother reading through a spew of hateful mud-slinging.

:loveya: :grouphug: :loveya:

and will support her as candidate for President. I'd prefer Al Gore or Wes Clark, but I will not lose my vote to McCain-Bush by not voting for Hillary, it's just that simple, end of my story..... :thumbsup: :dem:

as possible to those who haven't been paying attention.

I don't want to see her running for prez and to that end will continue to point out her flaws of which there are many. Her flaws are major because she has disrespected the democratic party by pulling it to the right every chance she gets. She has NO clue what the majority of people-namely the middle class and poor-in this country want or care about and the worst part is that she doesn't really give a damn about them.

So...Who does that remind you of?! How about * & the rest of his thugs! Same = Same. :puke:

:kick:

:kick: