Hillary and Joe-mentum are reading from the same...

...DLC-produced script obviously.

"Yeah! What she said!"

How many splinters must these people have up their butts from the fence they consistently ride?

Sounds more like RNC strategy to bash Hillary when she does something good by pretending it's out of character, so they can label her as "Slippery Hillary" and all the nonsense they launched against Bill--and Al, and Kerry.

...So now an opinion based upon perceptions of disingenuous behavior makes one a member of the RNC?

for our own and note that in no sense is the party agreed that any in the party are disingenuous - indeed the only agreement is that the media lies and that the media for 20 years has tried to sell "Democrats are disingenuous" re any Democrat ahead in the polls or even running in the race.

If a primary candidate can not win on their ideas and their ability sell those ideas and to sell themselves as the real thing, they should lose quietly - and that goes for Joe - and Hillary, and Edwards, and Feingold, and anyone running for anything.

But calling a Democratic primary opponent disingenuous without specifics - date and time and media report and any post comment comments in hand regarding the past actions on which they are disingenuous about - is being a GOP whore - in my opinion.

..but can you please edit this for syntax, grammar and clarity? I'm trying to understand your point.

Or are you merely trying to say "lockstep" should be a mantra?

GOP when you smear other Dems with adjectives like disingenuous.

If you are a member of the Democratic Party I would think you'd have an interest in avoiding GOP/media smear phrases and rather than smear I would expect you to state the current Hillary position statement, compare it to a past statement, and then indicate why you see the two statements as a "flip/flop".

Not that word picture smears are not a common "shorthand" in politics - I was just noting that Dems that sell the smear are in lockstep with what the media/GOP are trying to sell.

...I'm not a registered Democrat.

In my area of the country, Democrats are not much different than Republicans. Granted there are brave and resolute individuals who commit political suicide by standing up for progressive ideals, but when the rubber meets the road, a great deal of our Dems will side with what is politically advantageous.

That said, I still vote for Democrats with a few exceptions, i.e. races with no Democratic candidates in which I'm still trying to get the best candidate available into office. I've worked on Democratic campaigns as both a volunteer and a paid employee.

However, it is now '06, not '08 and there's still a universe of potential Democratic nominees for the White House race in two years. Voicing reservations about only one of those potential candidates at this point in the game is not the same as trying to jerk the rug from beneath the party's nominee in late '08.

:-)

Funny how I never see it used that way on DU - Calling out/pointing out flip/flop GOP is just not what some posters seem to want to post.

Especially those from the DLC(R).

What Hillary did the other day was awesome and spot on, and she deserves some genuine kudos for it. Simple minded posts with nothing but empty smears aren't productive at all. I mean seriously, what's your point? You provided no context of background as to why you feel the way you do, you just simply posted a meaningless smear against Hillary that feeds right into the RW tactics of criticizing everything we do no matter what we do and saying we flip flop when in reality we are simply flexible minded.

Threads like this serve no purpose whatsoever.

Kudos to Hillary, she did an amazing job the other day.

:applause:

:-)

...I'm the only person who has ever voted for a Democrat who
a) feels the Clintons are filled with blind ambition and are naked opportunists using the Democratic Party as a tool for such,
b) is tired of the DLC and the way they have cooperated with American right wing tactics to drag "the center" so far right that Eisenhower would be demonized as a mad leftist today,
c) sees Lieberman as "part of the problem" now that he feels he is entrenched in office,
d) greatly resents Hillary Clinton's acquiescence in the War on Iraq despite the ability that a great many had to see through the horse manure that "coerced" Congress into going along,
e) cannot forget some of Hillary Clinton's conservative stands of late (like taking a page out of the Tipper handbook in her crusade against video game violence),
f) cannot stand Joe Lieberman's approbation of Bush's policies and aims, including the unforgiveable offense of equating Constitutionally-protected dissent with allegiance to the nation's enemies,
g) recognize the extent to which the Clintons and Lieberman are DLC buddies, as evidenced by Bill Clinton's recent stumping trip to Connecticut,
h) see Hillary's condemnation of Rumsfeld for conclusions that were self-evident years ago as little more than opportunistic timing spurred by Lieberman's struggles in his race,
i) has little doubt that Hillary is hedging bets for her '08 campaign so that she makes herself seem appealing to pro-war personnel ("I voted to take action to protect the country") and anti-war forces ("I stood up to Donald Rumsfeld") all at the same time,
j) finds it awfully coincidental that Lieberman now takes the same tack in the face of his failing campaign.

Was Hillary's pronouncement politically expedient? On the face of things, yes, although it does open her up to some various criticisms.

Was it the right thing to do? Well, I think the right thing to do would have been for her to take such a stand three years ago and bluntly ask the administration to explain PNAC and how that fit with their desires and evidence for war. Instead, she "went along to get along" as so many in Washington do.