primary defeat of a Democratic candidate for president currently the #1 most recommended at DU?

It would be one thing if this were simply a constructive critique of why Hillary Clinton shouldn't be the nominee.

(And I completely understand we're not all going to like the same candidate.)

But the headline reads: "Anyone but Clinton."

And in the body of the thread, the author actually says, "To hell with Clinton and her supporters." :wtf:
Oh, that's nice. To hell with DUers who support her?

Not only that, the author feels the need to get petty, making a comment about her "annoying fake Midwestern accent." What in the world does that have to do with whether she would make a good president?

Listen, Hillary is not my first choice. And I'm not at all happy with some of her positions.

But I just don't understand attack posts about any of the candidates. I don't.

Why is it so difficult to explain why you think a certain candidate wouldn't be our best choice for president in an articulate and respectful manner?

When you watch the debates, there's mostly respect on stage for everyone. You can see it. Here? Not so much.

But whatever.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3464158 (in case you're unfamiliar)

on edit: typo

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

KIDDING

Although, that's what some people ignorantly like to say.

She has my support, since Gore's not running.

:shrug:

seems clearly aga. the terms and conditions to me

:shrug:

discussing in the thread itself is unhelpful, as it kicks it back to the top again, where attacks on our candidates don't belong

didn't want to kick it.

then it seems to me we won't be able to discuss Hillary at all, because a lot of people here don't like her and have reasonable arguments for why that is.

Right now, before the primaries, people have to speak what they don't like about the candidates.

And those of us who want to read it should be able to. :shrug:

Just refute the arguments against her.

accent (fake or no) a reasonable reason to think she can't be prez. If ya want to debate the issues do it here like "reasonable" dems but if you want to go on a personal attack I think that belongs with the repuke sites (because that's what they do). Remember how lame we thought it was when a lot of people voted for b**h because they thought he would be fun to have a beer with? Not much difference in my book.:shrug:

By saying why someone does not like a particular candidate isn't going to make the choice between the others easy.

I would have voted down that Clinton thread. I agree with your assessment.

91 or 145 isn't a large percentage to be sharing the OP's view.

just a "focus group." Right? :eyes:

disagree with their assessments.

Maybe 5% of that or so.

107,189 user registrations.

You'll find that on the upper right hand side of the page

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/

Using the 108,000 number to make just about any point is monumentally silly and embarrassing.

We have no where near 108,000 active members here. No where near it.

DU is a huge place with many forums and discussion boards. Check all of them out and you'll also see members that you've never seen in GD or GD politics.

Nowhere near it.

Why are we arguing about this as if the initial premise had any legitimacy? This is just silly. Do you really think there's anywhere close to 108,000 active members here, whether lurking or otherwise?

is a dishonest number?

The Admins are perfectly accurate when they say that DU has had that many registrations. That's not what's being debated here.

What's being debated is how many active members who actively view (even if not posting) there are, and that they aren't close to being 108,000 in number.

I continue to be amazed that this has to actually be debated, when it would be such a common sense conclusion to make.

Way back when the number was much lower. It's the cumulative total of the number of IDs that have been registered. Go ahead, email Skinner, ask him, instead of just attacking someone for telling you.

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

You have them, you have DU'ers TS'd for their own disruptions, you have thousands and thousands who just simply don't come any more, and other reasons.

Any way you look at it though, Gertrude, there still isn't close to being 108,000 members here.

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

3, 4, 5 years was eliminated?

I would guess maybe 25,000 - 50,000 max.

a feel of that when you see the reader counts per subjects. I've had threads with only 50 or so posts and yet the reader count has gone to over 1,000. Then consider All Of The Boards. DU is a huge place.

the number of unique monthly or daily visitors if they chose to. And I promise it's closer to OMCs number than to 100k. Just ask a Webmaster at any other message board - only a relatively small percentage of people who register actually become regular participants or readers. Notice that when Skinner makes some "must read" post, you see about 15-20k views at tops.

Most of the registrations are people who never post or were TS'd.

Just look at the thread views. He's right.

(Now I feel sick. :puke:)

And rightly so..


Politics ain't beanbag.
--Tip O'Neill, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives (1977-87)

You did notice you're posting on a LIBERAL discussion forum, didn't you? :eyes:

Probably why I'm not a Hillary fan.

I've must have missed that :shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/faq.html#why-banned

Why was I banned?
People get banned from DU for many different reasons. The four most common reasons people are banned are: 1) They are conservative, 2) They are uncivil or disruptive, 3) They repeatedly break the rules, or 4) They have been previously banned under a different username.

Note that it does not say "they are not Democrats".

How about this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Who is Welcome on Democratic Underground, and Who is Not

Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned.

People who repeatedly and willfully break the rules, or who generally engage in rude, anti-social behavior, will be banned. It doesn't matter if you are a fellow progressive, a long-term member of this community, or a donor.

If you have been banned from Democratic Underground, you are not permitted to log on again using a different username. Previously banned members will be immediately banned, regardless of behavior.
-------------

Note that it does say "Democrats and other progressives"

This is a progressive board. Period. I don't know how you could read that any other way.

I am on this board because I am a Democrat first. In 2008 I'll strictly vote for Democrats. If Hillary gets the nomination, I'll vote for her.

I don't care if our nominee is a pile of shit. I will hold my nose, and vote for the pile, before I ever vote for a republican.

that Democrats are a subgroup of "progressives". This is a "progressive" board that includes Democrats.

Many of us are thoroughly aghast at the spinelessness of the Democratic leadership in Washington. Some of us still think of ourselves as "progressives" but cannot endorse the actions and inactions on our behalf by the Democratic party leadership.

I think Skinner and Earl G got it exactly right the way they phrased it: "Democrats and other progressives".

Think of it as a ven diagram: "progressives" is a big circle that includes "Democrats and other progressives" - "Democrats" are a smaller circle, partly within the big circle, and partly outside the big circle. Many of us "progressives" who happen to be registered Democrats are so disgusted with the behavior of the leadership group within the Democratic party that falls outside the big circle of "progressives" that we no longer identify with the Democratic Party per se.

That said, I of course would vote for Hillary over any Republican if that's the only choice available.

But until that day, I will fight Hillary tooth and nail in an effort to deny her the nomination.

Only Dennis Kucinich has the spine and the track record and the program in place right now to do what this country needs done. He sponsored the Impeach Cheney resolution. He co-sponsored the only single-payer healthcare bill in Congress right now. He knows what he's talking about and he's consistently right on every issue. That can't be said about Hillary.

Right now I'm becoming disappointed with Al Gore for the first time in my life. If he's waiting for a "sign" that the country needs him, then he's not very adept at reading signs, which have been flashing in big red lights all over the place for years now. And that inability to read "signs" worries me. Time's running out. I'm tired of his dodgeball games. If he's in, I'll back him. But if he waits too long he may squander some of the political capital he's built up over these years. I'm sick and tired of his waiting game. So my money's all on Kucinich for now.

Here are some more of the rules:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

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

I support the Democratic leadership. The alternative would be a Republican leadership.

The other provisions you cited are in no way inconsistent with that fact.

This forum is not just for Democrats. It's primarily for use by "progressives", Democrats included.

That doesn't mean that someone who is a progressive should be allowed to promote the defeat of a Democratic *nominee* by someone from another political party. Meanwhile, we have no Democratic "nominee" so all is fair in love and war, so long as we don't resort to cheap, false smears and flaming insults.

If Clinton, for instance, wins the Democratic nomination for President, the I can choose to either support her or criticize her and I can mention that I'm going to vote for someone like Ralph Nader, but I can't advocate her defeat by someone from another political party.

Meanwhile, however, I can advocate her defeat in the primaries by any other Democratic candidate. I can also say that we would be better served by someone like Al Gore even if he ran as an Independent.

Not all Democrats are liberals. And, not all Liberals are Democrats. If they advocate for are third party candidate, they should find a place that suits their political leanings better.

Nobody has anything against constructive criticism. However, those "Hillary is the devil" threads are getting tiresome.

(at least among those you've cited). Those rules speak of "Democrats" and "progressives".

I've already noted that advocating for third party candidates is verboten. That's not the issue here.

I haven't seen any "Hillary is the devil" threads. I've seen the "Anyone but Hillary" thread, which may be distasteful, but its context was permissible - it didn't advocate a third party candidate or a Republican candidate. The context of the OP in that thread was limited to the current pool of Democratic primary candidates for President.

I sort of agree I guess.

No need to be too pushy about it but this site has always been more progressive and liberal than centrist.

Of course I can understand a centrists angst about all that. After all there really isn't a proper DLC board that is as active or as popular.

And what would one call such a board?

Repuke Lite?

That's a real turn-on, eh?

I've run across some logic that I'd always believed belonged exclusively to Freepers.

Nominated for a DUzy.

Coulda done without the :eyes: though. I hate it when Irish eyes are rolling.

not just for the right wing.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Clinton_camp_on_surge_quote_AP_0821_af.html



At this point, we've moved beyond triangulation and entered full-scale carpet pandering. The woman is a disgrace to her party and someone should be saying it. Every day.

This is why the DLC is dangerous. For all their claims of supposedly wanting to help Democrats, they employ people like Marshall Wittman who specifically try to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means he has to publicly defecate out the most rank and easily-debunkable lies. They reguarly give credence to the right wing's agenda and its worst, most unsupportable lies. They are the real force that tries to make sure this country is a one party state and that Democrats never really challenge the Republicans in a serious way.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is-so-dangero_b_13640.html

Without a doubt, the DLC is the most fundamentalist organization within the caucus, the most ideologically rigid, and the most destructive to the progressive cause.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/24/1712/23448

The only thing worse than a neocon is a neocon enabler. :puke:

"AUSTIN, Texas --- I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges."

http://freepress.org/columns/display/1/2006/1304

*sigh*

:cry:

(I was looking for 'sad' but didn't see one...)

:( ;( :-(

Sen. Clinton will only get my vote in the general election if she is the Democratic nominee and there ain't no other third party progressive candidate. (Ralph Nader can kiss my ass) Pandering to the right wing is no way to prove you are electable. Co-sponsoring the flag burning amendment was the final nail in the coffin for me and Hill. I'm surprised she didn't vote for the marriage amendment.

It would have been politically devastating to just oppose the GOP flag burning amendment, so the Democrats cooked up a flag burning law as an alternative, knowing the courts would declare it unconstitutional.

Its amazing how powerful issues like flag burning are. I was in a civil liberties class at Penn State. The students there were by no means right wingers. On the first day the professor asked, "Who thinks flag burning should be illegal." Every hand but mine went up. "OK," said the professor, "after a semester of learning about civil liberties I'll ask again." On the last day, the professor asked, and the vote was exactly the same.

"On the last day, the professor asked, and the vote was exactly the same."

Man, oh man, makes ya' want to give up...

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

That woman is crackers!

She MUST NOT be our nominee. How can you supporters back this bullshit she spews?

And jgraz, unfortunately, this isn't such a liberal or progressive board. I wish it were. I'm constantly surprised at some of the comments in here.

Carl Levin just said the surge is making progress on the ground too. Other Democrats said the same. Its possible, and I don't want to blow your mind, that militarily the surge has made some progress. Isn't that possible? I don't want Democrats to lie about the facts.

Democrats also point out that the political situation is losing ground. Whatever Hillary said, it was her honest assessment, and not a triangulation DLC pandering plot.

This she should be called on it - the constant, undending pandering - hearing MANY LOUD voices.

just like it was hate Kerry central

and if it had been around, it would have been hate Gore central.

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

the only real use DU has is gauging who's going to win by who DU hates the most....

Big difference. Show me where he ever stabbed her in the back to further his career.

I think it's over-the-top, unwarranted and a lot of the stuff they quote her as saying is way out of context.

It's easy to find posts that are over-the-top on any subject. I'm curious what type of criticism you would "allow" if you had the choice.

family and investments are penned in extremely vicious terms but even asking questions about Hillary is termed bashing.Above all do not even DARE question her record or quote her statements.This is what is called "hate".It is "hate to indicate dislike of Hillary's flat nasal voice but perfectly fine to rip into Edwards southern accent. No one question Clinton's huge houses but they jump om Edwards.No one questions the Clinton's large speaking fees but they jump on Edwards.They always say, "But Edwards has made poverty an issue so he is a hypocrite!" Well, are you saying Hillary doesn't give a crap about poverty? If so, why would we want her as President? And if she does, doesn't this make her a hypocrite too?
Damn I am sick of this hypocrisy.All candidates and that includes Hillary are allowed to be vetted and criticized.And everyone is entitled to have their say regarding every candidate.That is what free speech is about and it doesn't just apply to a favored few!

Why can't folks see the paramount distinction between "Bush-bashing" and a values-based disagreement with his ACTS? The same needs to be applied to any issue-focused opposition ... it's about the values and principles, NOT personality bashing.

It's amazing how one or two phrases get yanked out of a long post and then beaten to death...

LBJD probably shouldn't have included that one short sentence, it diluted the main message that there are a lot of questions about an HRC administration.

I have YET to hear one of the protesters address any of the issues in that post. I've begged, but we get nothing but insults...

"the only real use DU has is gauging who's going to win by who DU hates the most...."
Hey - that means Kucinich will win!

DU is the only place on the web, that I know of, where his cndidacy is taken seriously...

Huh?

If Kucinich took the lead, people would turn on him.

What candidate in their right mind would form an alliance with DU? We are like America: dangerous to our enemies, fatal to our friends.

First of all Kerry was such a winner that he lost the general election. Secondly Hillary is only "winning" because she has managed to convince the weak minded that she is the inevitable nominee and they are too scared to risk supporting someone else. Apparently they don't realize that if they ALL support someone else that person will be a winner too.
Hillary hasn't won anything yet.
I used to have sympathy for her, and I still can't abide outright lies about her by the right wing, but if you think that is going to lead me to voting against my, and this countries interest in the name of "unity" with ideas that I abhore, you've got another thing coming.

Rationalize. Find excuses. Funny how the result is always the same.

I would vote for Hillary.

I'm not backing Hillary in the primaries but that thread is over the top and doesn't belong at DU.

After fifteen years of Hillary as a national phenomenon, she's used up her default quota of respect. She's earned little from me since.

If she's nominated, I can see a parting of the ways with DU in my future. Oh, I'll vote for her over any Republican, but Jesus, what a sad choice to make.

Overcome your ignorance of the candidate, and you will suddenly discover that she has earned your respect, even though you have prevented yourself from giving it.

If you demand that I change my opinion, please provide supporting evidence.

I hadn't even seen it until you just pointed it out. But that's the best post I've seen on why people do not want her for our candidate. It is not just partisan support for a different candidate, it is active opposition to her and what she stands for and what she's done as the key leader of the Democratic Party. On balance, the post is far more constructive than just the one snarky line you pulled out. And on balance, that snarky line is absolutely nothing compared to the garbage posted by Clinton supporters.

I'm not a Clinton fan myself, but why do the rules apply to Dennis Kucinich an not to Hillary Clinton?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

:shrug:

:shrug:

Cuz that's what that mindset will get you. I sometimes wonder if Mr. Rove is filling his time by making up Hillary-hater DU profiles! Hey she's not my primary candidate either but sorry can't work up a healthy hatred for her -- I actually have a lot of nostalgia for the Clinton years.

as we are in the democratic primary season, we are safe to assume that it is about the democratic primary contest. I do not say that as an endorsement of the post/thread in question, but rather to say that it doesn't appear to include those in the republican primary.

they don't exist. no one cares about DU in the real world. there are no paid operatives.

The paid operative crap is almost as annoying as being accused of being a Republican (which is the typically daft DU response to anything that anyone disagrees with).

Wow, give me a break on the paranoia, LOL! I've voting for Edwards in the primary anyhow, why would I be a "paid operative" of somebody else?

Truly you sound like those people accusing Cindy Sheehan of being on George Soros's payroll!

the Democratic primaries. Haven't seen them at any of the debates.

:shrug:

"Gore and Bush are the same, there's no difference!" "Hillary's as bad as Bush!"

No they aren't....no she's not....if you don't care for her and want to push another candidate over her or criticize her policies or whatever, fine, but the "anybody but..." type hyperbole, I don't care for and I don't think it's helpful to anybody. Just IMO.

but you have to cross a higher bar than that to be my primary candidate.

On edit: the reason people say that there will be no difference between a Bush and a Hillary presidency is that she seems intent on leaving the vast majority of the damage he has done intact, and of course she will work with his enablers to "unify" the country under the same center-right banner that got us here in the first place.

I just can't understand why the DLC and it's loose affiliation of earthworms squid and other invertabrae recieve so much support here on DU. Haven't we given Republican-lite enough chances? The best they ever did policy wise was under Clinton and he was a giant belgian breakfast cake that got eaten up by the Republicans. Sure the economy was good, but he set the stage for all the Democratic back-peddling that followed.

I'm guessing most of you don't remember the 90's? If you did you would remember that WJC won the backwards tour de france 8 years consecutively, all the Republicans had to say was boo! and he would compromise.

Her nomination would be a dream come true for the Repugs.

:shrug:

...as our nominee...and the level of venom displayed by the HRC-istas on this site is sometimes quite breathtaking in its' viciousness...

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

Pot hop right into the kettle you set over the fire!

:thumbsup:

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

Two posts up you asked us to sympathize with your poor bruised feelings. Now you're hurling epithets with the worst of them.

Hypocrisy much?

me to compare your behavior in this thread?

You're comments can easily be confused from those on the right.

That's not being mean. That's a fact.

And by the way. the last time I checked, I didn't suggest you can go to hell like the author of the other thread suggested Hillary supporting Duers do.

You're comments can easily be confused from those on the right.
Blanket McCarthyite statements? Check.

That's not being mean. That's a fact.
Bare assertion of fact? Check.

And by the way. the last time I checked, I didn't suggest you can go to hell like the author of the other thread suggested Hillary supporting Duers do.
Blaming me for someone else's post? Check.


Page me when you come back to reality, OK?

:thumbsup:

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

I have a feeling though, that the answer to your end of the question may be something far more in the vicinity of your arm. :shrug:

Well he is getting up there. I 'm surprised he lasted this long.

then degenerates into the same behavior originally complained about? :rofl:

So, if name calling and insinuations are fine here, that really isn't your problem with the Hillary thread.

I'm looking through you.

comes after me with a smart ass comment, I'm probably going to say something.

My problem is with name calling in general, and suggesting DUers who support a DEMOCRATIC candidate should go to hell, in general.

But you keep looking through me if that pleases you. Believe me, I couldn't care less.

Tell me, what's the meaning of "is"?

can go to hell.

Have a warm day

You either believe the no insults or you don't, but to say it's okay to say it directly to one person but just not to a whole bunch of people who have the same feelings as that one person is ridiculous. Would it work for everyone to be listed individually in the "go to hell" comment?

And you really shouldn't start a thread like this and then call someone, one of the most liberal people I've noticed on this board, a freeper. That is so hypocritical. Reminds me of a fre... oh nevermind.

Ann Coulter has the IQ of a walnut. Very warranted.

Suggesting that DUers go to hell because they support a Democratic candidate on a Democratic website? Definitely not warranted.

The true reason you have a problem with me is because I made a comment about someone who you are obviously good friends with. Someone, I might add, who provokes a reaction from those he disagrees with.

If it makes you feel better to call me a freeper, then that's wonderful.

But if you were to say that all DUers are freepers, then I'd have a problem.

See the difference?

I have noticed that he is very liberal though, so your calling him a freeper is quite laughable.

And attempting to dismiss my criticism of you by saying that's the only reason I would criticize you does not negate it. I stand by what I said, even more so after reading this post of yours.

Again, your argument is faulty. From what I understand that post was not directed at ALL DUers.

And just to clarify things, I never called you a freeper. The way you argue points and the way you posted that some may think I actually did that.

comment in the thread I have a problem with was directed at "ALL DUERS?"

Right, you can't.

Unlike just about everyone else, you're having a troubling time understanding the point of my OP.

And as I told your friend, there's a difference between saying someone sounds like a freeper and going all out an accusing them of actually being a freeper; which I never did.

Since you don't understand any of this, it's probably best to let it rest.

You said ALL DUers when you made that freeper analogy in the post that I was responding to.

You have no logic and you continue to change what we both have said and wish to simply hurl insults, let's drop it.

but she has a heart about the size and appearance of a walnut. All shriveled up dry and hard. Bless her poor soul.

but agreed

it wasn't all sunshine and roses last time around

and it'll be WORSE this time, what with congressional dems floundering around and issuing toothless, strongly-worded letters

Just saying....:hide:

and that is their right. Democratic primaries are about the "agressive defeat of Democratic candidates". That is what their intention is.At the end some have to be defeated in order to one to win.That post was not "nasty"' it was an opposition piece and that is what Democracy is about.I wouldn't have used the phrase anybody but Clinton without prefacing it with "Any Democratic Candidate but" instead other than that the poster has a right to their opinion.And as for the dissing of all the HRC supporters, that is rude but primary season brings out a lot of aggression in every camp.That is the rough and tumble nature of politics.This isn't a tea party with white gloves and party manners and some are going to be offended.I know I have been.

DU is made up of many different people with many different views as to what the Democratic Party should be. As such there's going to be different choices made as to who should represent said party, and different methods used to make that case.

Personally, I'd prefer seeing a post expounding on the virtues of your favorite candidate rather than one specifically tearing down one w/o reference to the other choices. But that's just me.

only you will get this one.

LOL

DU adms are very busy, and I suspect this one just slipped by them. And, my first choice is definitely not Hillary either, but I believe we should respect her position as a Democratic primary candidate.

You think the mods have somehow missed it?

to demonstrate their purity. They're just left-wing pharisees.

That her vote for the IWR was a mistake?

Link please..

Care to define it?

Pharisee

2.A hypocritically self-righteous person.

Pharisee: A member of an ancient Jewish sect that emphasized strict interpretation and observance of the Mosaic law in both its oral and written forms. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Pharisee = fundie. Left wing pharisee? You can understand my confusion. Definitions can change, depending on who is being spoken to. I had forgotten that christians define pharisee as hypocrite.

Maybe you could point out when they were last wrong?
When they opposed the war in Iraq from the start?
When they said that actually Bush didn't deserve his high poll numbers after 9/11?
When they said it was a mistake to appoint Alberto Gonzales?

Why is it that the Democratic party has so much irrational hatred for the left wing? You and I and everyone here knows that no one ever listens to us. Bush the GOP, HRC and the DLC and all there little lemmings keep marching over the same cliffs again and again, because the "left wing" is too radical for them. Meanwhile the left wing (no monolithic bloc itself) simply wants people to consider that what we have been doing for the last 20 years *might not be working.*

Hey, I don't know, maybe it's working great and I just haven't noticed. Seems to me though, that if it were working so well we might actually be accomplishing something - which we clearly are not.

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

However, I've always liked HRC (loved her husband). Now I'm beginning to lean towards her, and I don't if it's because I truly get a positive feeling from her, or if I'm going into my normal "support and fight for the underdog" mode. The negative attitude here about Hillary has certainly encouraged me to pay much closer attention to what she says. In doing so, I'm becoming more familiar with her stance on issues (which I don't always agree with, yet I find her to be making thoughtful decisions). However, I'm also seeing how others here are really twisting her words and spinning against her. This little thread being an example, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3463925#3464551.

I guess it also helps that so many here that I consider close DU friends, either support her, or are at least giving her candidacy reasonable consideration.

edit to K&R

Though I don't agree with the premises in it whatsoever, nor the animosity, it isn't advocating defeat of a Democrat in a general election. It is just passionately stating that they will work towards ANYONE else but Hillary getting the nomination.

That's perfectly acceptable to do during the primaries and I have no issue with it.

I'll "attack" (translation: fervently criticize and refuse to support) ANY CANDIDATE that does not represent what I believe to be the purest values of the legacy of the Democratic Party, and does not represent the kind of social and economic justice I believe is absolutely necessary to saving this country from the disastrous track it is on and has been on for some time.

If you don't like it, that's just totally tough. I oppose Hillary Clinton. She would be a terrible nominee who stands fundamentally opposed to my convictions about what social and economic justice means. I believe those convictions stand within the best and long standing tradition of the democratic party, before it was totally distorted by conservative business interests and the power elite. And I'll say that until I have no more breath to say it.

Long weekend coming up and all.

They are talking about....

Attack posts? That post points out very real concerns, & if the writer feels 'Anybody but Clinton', let them say it...We are all thinking adults here, & all candidates are open for serious vetting.

the rules don't mean shit.

"Don't promote 3rd party candidates" unless...

1. Unfair trade.
2. Welfare reform act.
3. IWR.
4. If you're at all concerned about the welfare of the Iraqis, remember that Clinton killed more of them through sanctions and bombings than Bush did.
5. Rupert Murdoch.
6. DOMA.
7. She supported the Bankruptcy Bill of 2001.
8. An examination of her destructive role in the fight for election integrity reveals that HRC is not a friend of democracy. She does not want free and fairly counted elections and the legislation she has introduced speaks volumes to that.
9. No more dynasties.

I agree the midwest accent or the quality of her voice shouldn't be an issue, I strongly dislike when people bring that stuff into debates. But the post itself was overall "a constructive critique of why Hillary Clinton shouldn't be the nominee."

candidates their partisans swarm all over us, attacking the posters without addressing the arguments we post



and we sometimes get fucking fed up with it.

These posts do not come out of nowhere.

I had some Hill supporter who had nothing substantial to say and every comment they made had nothing to do with what I had said. SOOOO annoying. If you support someone you should be able to say why, and it should be more than the fact that they liked their spouse.

Interesting.

Hell, even I'm tough. I'd walk barefoot through the South Bronx for Hillary. I'd get into a fist fight for her honor. She's going to be an awesome president and will set this country on its ear.

The problem is that Gore-ites, Kucinichians and Edroids are simply not reading the writing on the wall, the writing that says:

a) Hillary is the only one who can beat Guiliani or Thompson.
b) Hillary will be the eventual nominee

The irritating thing about all of this is that all of these Hillary-bashing idiots are NOT going to apologize when proven wrong.

I worry that it's going to get out of control like it did over on Freep and us Hillary supporters will get banned and the whole site will rally around some utterly unelectable asshat. I fear that situation. This place seems to me always just a few steps from dashing from progressivism into insanity.

"Freep".Are you referring to "first hand " experience?

Jesus, I hate being called a Freep. How many freeps do you know who would nationalize all private high schools and universities?

a) Hillary is the only one who will energize otherwise apathetic Republican voters to vote AGAINST her and the only one who will make the indies vote Republican.

b) Since you are psychic, care to make some other mind-boggling predictions?

yeah, we can take it, bring it on!

It goes something like this,

A)Hillary is the inevitable nominee

B)We should support the inevitable nominee (which is Hillary)

C) Hillary has the most support so she is the inevitable nominee

D) We should support Hillary because she is the inevitable nominee.

and so on, and so on.....

or felt it was "best page" worthy.
If you don't like it, or feel it's over the line or in violation of the rules, alert a mod and/or hide the thread. FWIW, I agree with you on the candidate (and supporter) bashing... it gets outrageous here sometimes...but its all part and parcel of DU.

call this place 'polite society' instead of 'democratic underground'

ymmv

:rofl:

:thumbsup:

:hi:

:pals:

The crowd that doesn't like Democrats runs threads on impeachment, Hillary, or hating Democrats. Then they all vote up each other's threads. Its a them versus everybody else thing.

Recommend should be for posts that contain exciting or important information or an opinion that is well thought out. Recommend is not to win a factional turf war for the front page.

Then the only thing you'll have to decide on is to whether or not to forgive all these haters when they come slinking back with their tails between their legs singing a different tune.

we will hold her accountable. Why would anyone "come slinking back with their tails between their legs singing a different tune." What does that even mean? You think if she wins people will all of a sudden love her?

after Hillary signs more "free trade" agreements without Worker or Environmental protections, doesn't repeal the bush tax cuts, doesn't sign HR676 or any other Universal Single-Payer Health care bill, continues to re arrange the educational deck chairs with bleats of "accountability" and "testing", further undermines worker organizing and workers in favor of her corporate capitalist masters, continues the bogus "war on terror", continues the bogus "war on drugs" -- ad nauseum...

We'll be waiting for your apology after Hil gets in and it's business as usual...but we ain't gonna be holding our breath's

PB

Oh well..not my board...not my rules..not my call.

than a direct question why that particular thread is allowed to stand as the most recommended.

It is what it is concerning the number of people who voted it there. Fine.

I was simply questioning the name-calling tactics.

my intention was not to campaign for it to be censored or locked.

I just thought it was in poor taste.

I think it was in poor taste as well...at least the title..inflammatory and most of the posts were just insulting, even if the OP of that thread presented valid arguments. I just think it's ironic that THAT thread was removed from the greatest page, and another thread calling THAT thread out remains. I know you did not petition to have it removed, nor do I mean to insinuate you did..so if it came across that way, I apologize. I know the mods make that call and I won't criticize them either... I 'just don't understand the animosity on DU these days when it comes to discussing candidates. Some people are just outright obnoxious..and it comes from all directions.
it makes me think of when I was a kid, and I would go to my grandma's. When we would sit down to eat and I didn't like something, all I had to say was "No thank you, I don't care for that." and grandma wouldn't make me eat it or even blink an eye about it. It was when I made a fuss and went "EWWWW! GROSS! DISGUSTING! I'm not eating THAT!" that she would get really angry with me and I would be sent away from the table-and I deserved it for my insufferably rude behavior.

for them to lock it.

In fact, I never alerted on it.

It's right here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1630819#1634740

and rove shoving her down our throats.

I wish the OP said:

PRIMARIES: ANYBODY BUT CLINTON

I believe then it wouldn't have been removed.

It's not just here. Read comments at Dem sites all over the internet, and you'll find the same strong opinions against her. Haven't we seen enough divisiveness with *? Do we really need more with HRC? More of the same corporate agenda that is destroying the middle class so that the rich can get richer? More aggressive talk, like today, saying the surge is working, because HRC has to prove she is "strong" on defense DESPITE IRAQ HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 911 AND WE SHOULD HAVE NEVER GOTTEN INVOLVED IN THAT QUAGMIRE THAT IS CAUSING A PROLIFERATION OF TERRORISTS?

We need a populist candidate who works for the people instead of for the corporations. We need a peace advocate instead of another war mongerer. WE need a candidate who will focus on tangible issues such as climate crisis instead of splitting our nation.

I am a Dem. I worked full time (volunteering) from May '04 through the election for the Democratic Party in Ohio. I worked all sorts of unglamorous jobs from phone banking, going door to door in low income neighborhoods, voter registrations, spending summer holidays handing out lit, etc. , but I will only work for Dems who I believe share my values and are working in the best interest of the country. This means any Dem candidate but Hillary or anyone associated with the DLC. This is how strongly I feel. I post these words not to upset others but so that Dem leadership understands just how divisive she and her DLC corporate cronies are.

Karl Rove is doing everything he can to destroy Hillary. What makes you think he's trying to shove her down our throats?

The very first person I heard speculating about a possible Hillary White House run was Rush Limbaugh. That was in 2000. Hillary is the Totem that the loony right know presents them the BEST chance to win the White House in '08. I am not saying she is a Republican (though, like her husband, she does hold many Republican ideas regarding the corporations). I am saying they KNOW the best rallying cry they could have to bring out the Republican faithful is "HILLARY IS GOING TO BE BACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE."

There is no more galvanizing personality on the right than Hillary (and by extension Bill). I just think it would be a mistake to nominate the Republican choice for the Democratic candidate. The more I hear form her DLC lovin' self the less I like the prospect of her Presidency to boot.

they know that her push-over "centrism" is the best that they can hope for from any Democratic candidate in the field.

yeah, that's what it is, wrapped in lots of rationalizations.

opposing Clinton because she's a corporate toady can be fine, but it can also be a sham.

That post wrote approvingly of Joe Biden.

It was a sham.

It's about hatred of Hillary the person. Then the game is to find sham reasons for it. The game is the same from the left or from the right.

I'd dislike any person who supported a flag burning amendment and the Defense of Marriage Act. If you want to characterize that as hatred, so be it.

Tell me, if you think we anti-Hillary folks have to "find sham reasons" to hate her, what do you think our real reasons are?

the thing that really sticks out at DU is the difference in attitude toward Hillary Clinton compared with toward Bill Clinton, even while using Bill's record against Hillary.

What I should say is that the hatred is in large part the result of the right wing's long anti-Hillary campaign (dating back before Bill became president), and that that campaign had a misogynist element.

p.s. If Obama becomes president, he of course will be the target of a similar campaign, and that campaign will of course have a racist element.

Say what you want about the right, but calling people on this board misogynist just because they don't support your candidate is pretty damn low.

Actually, what I've seen is Hillary supporters hiding behind her gender in order to deflect valid criticism.

In fact I am pretty sure none of them are misogynists. But perfectly good non-misogynists can be influenced by a campaign with a misogynist element, just as non-racists can be influenced by a campaign based in racism. Same for non-antisemites and antisemitism, non-homophobes and homophobia, etc.

The gender gap in attitudes toward Bill and Hillary is there and should be addressed.

Is she running her own campaign, or is she running as Bill Clinton's wife? If she's running her own campaign, she should be held to her own standard. That includes her work in Bill's administration but also includes a whole laundry list of shameful behavior since then.

Do you really think Bill would not have been excoriated by the left if he had supported DOMA? Do you remember what happened to him over Don't Ask/Don't Tell?

And even if I accept your premise, if a misogynist says that Hillary is a triangulating corporate toady, does that somehow make her less of a triangulating corporate toady?

unless I'm misunderstanding you, it seems that in the desperate attempt to account for the difference in vitrol toward Bill and Hillary Clinton, you are inventing a difference on gay marriage which does not exist, even going so far as to claim that Bill Clinton opposed a piece of legislation which in fact he signed.

But again, maybe I have misunderstood you.

Sorry, worked till 4 am last night. :boring:

Hillary has recently spoken in favor of DOMA, but apparently she opposed the other two.

that could possibly be better than your annointed female leader.

I would support a woman for president, how I wish I was able to vote when Pat Schroeder ran, but I will not vote for Hillary and I will NOT be accused of misogony because I think she is a conniving and cold person.

That's ridiculous. You're trying to negate all criticism of Hillary by attributing it to sexism. Please.

Women absolutely can be sexist asses. Just look at the misogynistic comments about women (and their bodies) coming from male AND female DUers on a regular basis. Being a woman doesn't mean you aren't supporting male supremacy, sadly. A lot of criticism of Hillary even on DU here absolutely is sexist. So in your post here, I don't think "females exist who can't stand Hillary" is proof that there isn't sexism involved.

However, also, as you point out, much of the criticism is completely valid and based on the points outlined in the original thread that was locked. I object to the crit of her voice there, but otherwise, yes, to hell with her and the DLC.

so far it hasn't been very enlightening. I can dislike her and be a female all at the same time. Amazing huh?

my thread that you felt it was necessary to clarify that you don't like Hillary?

LOL!!!

You don't own it just because you have the OP. If you want that kind of control, start a blog.

Second, you should learn the definition of ranting. Replying to continual attacks is not ranting, nor is simple disagreement with the OP. You'd probably have better luck maintaining the tone of "your threads" if you didn't mischaracterize your opponent's posts.

between literally and figuratively, when it comes to me talking about "my thread."

on refining your perception skills.

I didn't agree with in the thread. I really hope that's all this is about. The go to hell comment.

I hope you aren't saying we have to support every democratic candidate for president in the primary season. I thought it was ok to talk about their negatives. The OP didn't say that they would vote for a republican or endorse a republican or a third party candidate over the democratic candidate. Just gave reasons why they didn't want a candidate in the primaries. And I happened to agree with everyone of those reasons. Not sure how that makes me a bad democrat, but whatever.

I don't think everyone should have to support ever Democratic candidate.

I said I have absolutely no problem with criticism, if it's done in an articulate and respectful manner.

So yes, the go to hell comment is what this really is all about.

And no, I don't think you're a "bad democrat."

Or start a new thread every time they want to post their personal feeling about a comment? That is far more annoying to me. And don't forget there is an ignore feature. Filling up the board with these types of threads whose OP should have been a comment within the thread they're referring to is just silly and a waste of space.

on a discussion board, if ummm, too much discussion annoys you so much.

I donate to post here, so I'll, with all due respect, post what I feel like talking about.

By the way, you should also not forget that there is an ignore feature.

Seems every time someone has disagreed with you in this thread or called you on your hypocrisy you feel the need to level some degree of an attack on them. Don't start threads if you don't want the "discussion".

As to your claim that I do not belong here... how is having an opinion that your thread should have been relegated to a simple comment in the thread it was directed at not wanting discussion? If anything it's pro-discussion, pro-logical discussion though. If you disagree with a comment respond to it. That's how discussions work. How do you know the person whose comment your OP was addressing will even read this thread? If you were really looking for a discussion you would have responded to that post directly.

And if you are really looking for a discussion then why is that every time someone disagrees with you they are a "freeper" or told they "may not be the best candidate for participating on a discussion board"?

Not to mention the fact that you think that donating makes you special for some reason? Then surely you must have noticed that I'm special too.

How open minded of you. :eyes:

thread, or anywhere for that matter.

I merely suggested that discussion boards may not be your cup of tea if you get so stressed out about threads responding to threads.

After all. You're the one who engaged me with your comment about why I felt it was necessary to comment about a thread in which the OP suggested people who support Hillary Clinton go to hell.

And of course you're completely exaggerating with your breathless accusation that I call everyone who disagrees with me a freeper. I said to one person that he sounds like a freeper.

I'm not completely sure what's the matter with you.

See? You prove my point. Dismissive of anyone who dares to disagree with you.

And you are now changing what you said to me. You did not say "not my cup of tea" you said maybe I didn't belong here. Completely different tone and implication.

No point continuing this "discussion".

the nastiness and negativity is spread like manure evenly over all our budding candidates.

everyone else. (And I say this as someone who is still undecided).

But you're right, it is part of the primary season.

However, that's not going to stop me from speaking up when I feel the line has been crossed. :)

Everyone is free to post for/against the candidates.

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

Please?

For the record, my OP was a rhetorical question, rather

than a direct question as to why that particular thread is/was allowed to stand as the most recommended.

It is what it is concerning the number of people who voted it there. Fine.

I was simply questioning the name-calling tactics.

My intention was not to campaign for it to be censored or locked.

I just thought it was in poor taste.

And I've sent the mods a note articulating my position.

I am not a Hillary supporter. I'm completely undecided.

And why good people don't want to run for office... it IS toxic.

Look what this thread has already turned into. :shrug:

If the mods don't close the thread in question then they obviously don't agree.If they do,then YAY!

been advocating that thread be locked, and I never alerted on it.

It was a rhetorical question about how can a thread that disrespects Clinton supporters by suggesting they go to hell, climb to the top of most recommended.

My view is we can disagree and point out what we don't like about candidates without crossing the line of respect and decency.

Carry on. :)