For the record, I am not one. I have chosen no candidate to support yet.

But I wanted to say this.

It is a hard thing to be a Hillary supporter on DU. Yes, her voting record isn't all that great, and yes, she would be a continuation of this American presidential primogeniture process that has had two families in the Oval for twenty years, and yes, there's more.

But respect the fact that we can disagree without combat.

Respect the courage involved in supporting someone far to the right of the DU mainstream (and that's true, folks: we're way to the left of the Dem party and most of America). It takes guts to stand your ground in a fusillade.

Now, I'm not saying Hillary supporters who go ad-hominem should be respected. They should be ignored.

But the best man I have ever known in my life, my grandfather, was a rock-ribbed conservative Catholic Republican. He spoke with respect, argued with passionate logic, and earned the respect of his opponents.

It's easy to be a Kucinich supporter on DU; he polls at 5% nationally but wins every DU poll by 80 points. It's hard to be a Hillary supporter here, and the Hillary supporters who stand their ground and debate with respect should get respectful disagreement in return.

Just a thought for consideration.

One can think her health insurance plan is a sell-out to the drug and insurance industries and shouldn't be met with claims of "basher" and "hater"!

PS bonus points for using "fusillade" :toast:

The average DUer, (the poll taking kind, anyway) iirc, is a suburban, middle class, middle aged white woman -- a group known for their extreme political views?

:shrug:

The average person in America right now is sick of the party.

Doesn't matter which side of the aisle you used to favor - There are Republicans abandoning the Republican Party and there are Democrats abandoning the Democratic Party.

THERE HAS NEVER EVER BEEN A DEMOCRACY THAT HAS NO MIDDLE CLASS _ AND THE MIDDLE CLASS IN AMERICA
IS BEING DRIVEN INTO OBLIVION BY THE POLICIES OF THE TWO CORPORATIST PARTIES

The Republican Party has become a new age Right Wing American Taliban.

While the Democrats who owe allegiance to the DLC are environmentalists in name only, are only giving lip service to the notions of equal employment, health insurance for all, affordable housing, and a fair way of taxation. The DLC Democrats want eternal war as well.
After Harry Reid brought forward the Senate motion to censure MOVEON, I guess the Democrats no longer care about free speech either.

More and more that has come to mean....
... searching for another alternative.

The Dems, by and large, have left our own best interests in the dust.

Then stomped the shit out of 'em...

:nuke:

and wants us out of Iraq, the sooner the better. Both political party leadership cabals couldn't care less what the people actually want. They will tell you what's what until you start believing them.

It's the Duopoly, Stupid.

I'd be curious how people would respond as to where they lie on the liberal/conservative Democrat spectrum?

The first response here would be to accuse Hillary's supporters of doing exactly what her detractors are doing.

It's "Clinton did it" all over again.

It's projection.

At least you did not claim that Hillary's supporters are smearing everyone else's candidates, and that they are doing more of that than anyone who opposes Hillary.

For the record, I am not a Clinton supporter. I am still deciding. But when it comes to Hillary, DU is not the useful educational tool that it can be when it is at its best.

Mmm yeah, you sure got me there!

:yoiks:

with respect to Hillary, which occurs when people call her names (I don't have to repeat them here) or make fun of her in sexist ways.

Really, really put so well. And it's reality through and through.

:evilgrin:

That's just frikkin hilarious. :)

Thank you. BTW, good post too Pitt.

that cat in the "Pets that look like Hitler" contest? I kid you not, it really exists. No link, though.

I did an image search for "cat looks like hitler."

:spray:

It was posted a few days ago how she has a 99% voting record according to this and that liberal
voting watchdog groups. Is this not true?

But there are legitimate beefs with her IWR vote, etc.

99% is great...but that 1% has some whoppers in it, at least in the eyes of many here. Not unreasonable to state.

Abortion:
Hillary Rodham Clinton is strongly pro-abortion. In 2005 she voted 100 percent of the time with pro-abortion NARAL and 0 percent of the time with the National Right to Life Committee. For example, she voted:

* AGAINST banning partial birth abortions
o Partial Birth Abortion - US Conservative Politics
* AGAINST the Child Custody Protection Act. In other words, she did not vote to stop adults from taking teens across state lines in order to obtain abortions without their parents' knowledge.
o U.S. Senate Fortifies State Parental Notification Laws - US Conservative Politics
* FOR embryonic stem cell research
o Top Four Reasons Congress Should Not Fund Embryonic Stem Cell Research - US Conservative Politics
* FOR permitting abortions in military hospitals - abortions paid for by taxpayers.

Gun Rights:
Senator Clinton is against full Second Amendment Rights. In 2006 the National Rifle Association gave her an "F" in protecting gun ownership rights. In 2005 she voted with Gun Owners of America 0 percent of the time. For instance, she has voted:

* AGAINST protecting gun owners from having their legally-possessed guns confiscated during a state of emergency.

Immigration:
Ms. Clinton has demonstrated some concern over illegal immigration, but she has only voted 8 percent of the time with the immigration reform group U.S. Border Control which is "dedicated to ending illegal immigration by securing our nation's borders and reforming our border and immigration policies." Americans for Better Immigration gave her a D. For instance, she did vote:

* FOR the Senate immigration reform bill, but voted
* AGAINST an amendment to require border enforcement before granting amnesty to illegals.
* AGAINST an amendment to protect Social Security from being used fraudulently by illegals.
* FOR an amendment to stop courts from deporting illegals.

Business:
Ms. Rodham Clinton had a poor rating with the National Federation of Independent Business, an organization dedicated to helping small businesses succeed. In 2005-2006, she voted only 12 percent of the time in line with the NFIB. For instance, she voted:

* AGAINST the Class Action Fairness Act, which sought to curb the rise of litigation against small businesses.
* AGAINST the creation of small-business health plans "through which small companies could band together to buy insurance for their employees."

War in Iraq:
Senator Clinton has voted to fund the War in Iraq, but has also been soft on Homeland Security. For instance, she voted:

* FOR emergency funds for Iraq and Afghanistan.
* AGAINST military commissions for trying unlawful combatants. This is a bill that John McCain(R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham(R-SC) - big advocates of fair treatment for Guantanamo Bay detainees - agreed to as good for national security while upholding basic human rights.

Flag Desecration:
Senator Clinton voted AGAINST a constitutional ban on flag burning.
Energy:
Senator Clinton voted:

* AGAINST drilling in ANWR
* AGAINST the SAFE Act, a common sense energy policy which passed in the Senate 88-11.
* AGAINST the Energy Policy Act of 2005 along with Ted Kennedy and John F Kerry.

Spending:
She does not shy away from government spending. In 2005, she earned a rating of 9 (out of 100) by the National Taxpayers Union, an organization that, "Seeks to reduce government spending, cut taxes, and protect the rights of taxpayers." She was only slightly less wasteful than big spenders Patty Murray(D-WA), John Kerry(D-MA) and Ted Kennedy(D-MA), who all received ratings of 7. Hillary was less frugal with taxpayer money than even Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD) who both earned a score of 13. In comparison, Trent Lott (R-MS) received a 70 and John Kyl (R-AZ) received an 87.

While Hillary Clinton may work to convince voters she is a moderate, her voting record demonstrates that she is quite liberal on many issues important to economic and social conservatives.

Gun Rights:
Senator Clinton is against full Second Amendment Rights. In 2006 the National Rifle Association gave her an "F" in protecting gun ownership rights. In 2005 she voted with Gun Owners of America 0 percent of the time. For instance, she has voted:

* AGAINST protecting gun owners from having their legally-possessed guns confiscated during a state of emergency.

I hate the NRA and their fascists agenda with a passion.

the alternative to the NRA and I say again this will lose us the election.

But I want one to fend off Bush's cabal. Blackwater.

I(a retired nurse female gunowner) with a husband who is a physician(hunter) and our friends who target shoot in competitions must not be in the 80 percent who are rabid.

I like the quaint old fashioned idea of waiting for the actual primaries to begin before declaring someone as the victor.....

I am undecided, too, but I agree with the sentiment.

Sadly, there's an awful lot of intolerance for the centrists and the conservative Democrats here. And that's a shame--because the Democratic Big Tent is very tolerant out in the real world.

to stop this war in Iraq, and now I think they are for bombing Iran..

(pro Defense Department, never saw a military appropriation he didn't like, pro-life, pro-corporations) is Jack Murtha. And he opposes the war. He was the point man to get the "Let's Talk About This Shit" ball rolling!

Gotta work on 'em, one by one.

FYI, we are NOT far to the left of the mainstream. We ARE the mainstream. We just don't represent the views of the corporate profiteers.

Some say clouds make the rain, others say God makes the rain...but we all get wet.

You're correct...but the polls are the polls.

this whole media coinage of legacy is such bullshit


first of all the clinton years are generally remembered in america and across the globe as peaceful and prosperous years. neither of the bush terms are remembered well. there were economic downturns in both.

secondly, hillary clinton is well qualified to be president. you may not like her policies but she is no spoilt brat. equating a well qualified candidate to one who cant make a single correct sentence is insulting.

that is all.

i realize this rant is a bit off topic.

"and yes, she would be a continuation of this American presidential primogeniture process that has had two families in the Oval for twenty years"

that intends to say Clinton = Bush. Rather, it has to do with a serious concern that the United States is moving towards official rule by "royal families." This was a central theme in Kevin Phillips' book "American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush."

Kevin Phillips is distinct from the corporate media. And I think that it is a topic that is worthy of discussion.

Okay, maybe because it wasn't one after another, it doesn't count. But, jeezus, you count 2 Bushes and 2 Clintons as a danger? Look to old Europe if you want to see "dynasty."

It may not seem significant to you, but it is to other people. The Roosevelt example might be something that those who are concerned about this would bring up.

I'm familiar with European history, and agree with those who do not want the US to move in that direction.

much more inbred and small in population. At least both men were far more enlightened than many in the last years of the 21st Century and certainly this idiot of the Bush Dynasty appears to be...and his Poppy was a pretty dim front porch bulb..

for American Empire...but Philips focuses on the BUSH DYNASTY. I have the book...have read it and remember when Kevin did his C-Span "BookNotes Thing" and he urged Reporters to Follow up on some of the threads in his book. He said: "Many of the folks mentioned in this book are dead but reporters who can do research could follow up on some of what I've said to get the whole story."

Phillips was begging for reporters to follow up his footnotes (which are long) in his book to REPORT...the REST OF THE STORY to VERIFY and DIG DEEPER FOR MORE....Yet...so far...no one has taken up his challenge.

That book is so important...but it sort of died in the MSM. What's important is that he connected DOTS that DU'ers and others have been connecting for YEARS...and he tied it together and went MAINSTREAM...yet it was IGNORED while lesser books got BUZZ.

It IS bullshit, and yet a huge portion of us seem to just lap it up and spew it back out like gospel truth. It may not be the point Will Pitt wants made, but it's a damn good one. Thank you, Lioness.

And since it seems to be required here to add this disclaimer in order not to be called a shill for Hillary, I am NOT a Hillary supporter, but I would not have to hold my nose to vote for her in the general if nominated.

i wont do in in distaste

No really....



All the more reason for them to make an effort to be civil, stop their crowing threads every time a new poll comes out, and get the hell outta people's faces.

I know you'll say I'm wrong, but I had to say it anyway.

Jeezuss.

TC

Sad fact: every candidate has DU supporters who are galactically obnoxious assheads. Every candidate.

No one candidate has cornered that market on DU.

and we have difficulty seeing in ourselves what we criticize in others.

there are none of us who are galactically obnoxious assheads!











galactically obnoxious dreamers, maybe...

Anything can happen in America...



He's in training already:

It'll never stop... unless we stop it now.

And, Will: I thought you were being serious in #4. I thought you were agreeing. Have I lost my sense of humor about this shit, or are you pulling my leg?

TC

Anyone can grow up and run for office, be it a Bush, Clinton or Limbaugh. The people will decide, I really don't think there are enough people that would elect another Bush for years to come. Clinton brings back good thoughts, and Hillary can be just as good. Anyone winning this election is going to have a rough row to hoe even a Clinton.

Dude- NO ONE is free. We're all slaves. Where have YOU been?

(on edt- sorry mmonk- i was directing that to the same post you were)

good post.

Quite serious. Why?

He looks an awful lot like his uncle. Ewwwwww.........

Jeb's son, George Prescott Bush

why I am leaning towards Ms. Clinton?

I think she is hiding her true nature in order to get elected. Honorable? maybe not, but I think we'll be amazed how progressive she truly is if she gets into office.

She's smart and pragmatic and knows if she laid out her true agenda she wouldn't stand a chance. I have seen nothing in her background to suggest she is "Bush Lite" and more to suggest she's waiting her opportunity to fight where she can do some serious change.

My husband is very independent and middle of the road and he says she is smart enough to know she has to work the power structure in place if she expects to be able to move them in the correct direction.

PS Love the new sigline!

I suspect this myself. Also, add to that as a woman in a
mans' field, she has to position herself carefully in order
to not be labled 'flighty, hormonal, pmsing, etc.'
She HAS to manipulate the current power structure to her favor
and all the years in and around the White House give her the
expertise and the savvy to do just that.
:toast: Here's to you for not being blinded by MSM!

and even if she disappoints me, she's gonna still be a force to be reckoned with and interesting to watch.

she knows what it's like to try and raise a family on a limited budget, she and Bill were middle class white collar workers until he got out of the WH. A comfortable middle class for sure, but neither was born with a silver spoon and I can't believe either has forgotten where they came from.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x57242

I guess she never had to worry about her job being replaced, huh?

about Kerry's secret plan after the last election. I can't pin my hopes on that again.

... and be a progressive.

Because there are so many things she's doing behind the scenes (hanging with Rupert Murdoch), poll watching to measure how she votes on Iraq, etc. that makes it hard for the progressive voter to really understand if she's progressive or not.

Personally I prefer someone who's at least up front about their taking progressive stances than hoping that someone will do it later so that they can get the corporate support, etc. to win now. If we have someone that's honestly communicating what they will do later, that person will have lasting power through another term, etc. and won't have a segment of the voting populace thinking they were "fooled" into voting for her.

I'd like to think that if a candidate is progressive and populist strongly on the right issues that most Americans care about, that they can get elected in an honest way. I do think most of America, if confronted with the truth on how the corporations are getting so much power these days at our expense will want to see that power diminished, whether they are Republican or Democrat. We need someone with wisdom on how to achieve that sort of unity and not claim to be "centrist" simply by taking the positions that support corporate America and labeling it as centrist.

I guess a more extreme example of something similar is when the discussion threads were discussing Paul Craig Roberts' theories that there might be a coming martial law situation and a coup by this administration to stay in power and how to counteract that. Some had suggested that perhaps the military should do a coup on its own and throw out the Bushtater and his crowd and later "restore Democracy". You might have a great general that everyone thinks will do the right thing and restore Democracy, but to trust someone to do that sort of action and do the right thing later is a similar overextension of trust in my book.

I hope we aren't getting to the point where the only way one can get a progressive elected to a position of power to change things is for that person to masquerade as a corporate-beholden DLCer or the like. I really don't buy it!

None of the above are my dream candidate but in Hill's defense I must say that when I toured the Clinton Library I was brought to tears to see and read all the things that she had done here and around the world. It made me so sad at how much we had lost in so little time. Although not my choice, I really feel that Hill and Bill (yes they are a twofer) could do a lot to repair damage to America's reputation rather quickly.

Support for universal healthcare? Wanting a living wage (or at least a sizeable increase in minimum wage?) Wanting an end to the Iraq War? Tired of out-sourcing costing American jobs?

These seem to be mainstream issues. The polls are skewed and misleading. WE know it because we're paying attention. The mainstream doesn't because, for the most part, they're not.

here, compared to in the general Democratic population.

HRC has been advocating for universal healthcare for her whole career. She has supported every proposal for raising the minimum wage that has come before her. She has also been moving away from her husband's positions on trade (voted against CAFTA). She is not the right-wing person that many on DU perceive her to be.

For/against/for/against...Some of us have a problem separating what she says one day from what she says the next. And her idea of "universal healthcare" is more like universal health insurance, which to many of us, is simply granting more power to the people who've done their damndest to screw it all up in the first place.

And, yeah, DK does have a rather high degree of support here. But, on the other hand, there's reason to believe this reflects the fact that people here are more conversant with the issues than the general public, and can more handily connect the candidate with the issues they support. The corporate media doesn't give DK the time of day, much less a real platform to describe his policy positions. It's no wonder the rest of America doesn't know what it's all about.

on their television so unless they are on the internet looking to educate themselves, they don't know who he is or how much he speaks for the people. I think he would easily be a front runner if he had the same non stop national advertising that the top three have had.

What she has advocated has been humongous public subsidies to insurance companies, with a begging proviso --pretty please won't you cover a few more people? Even that was too much for them in 1994.

of public and private insurance that she is promoting. But under her plan everyone will have insurance.

She wants to tax me to subsidize the very people who tell us "That isn't covered." Under her plan, insurance companies retain their license to kill by denying care.

woo-hoo

As a Hillary supporter, I very much appreciate it. :hi:

:-)

great post

with any of the other candidates. We all deserve a little respect now and then. Right? I don't see why Hillary supporters deserve special consideration on the DU.

It's hard being a Hillary supporter? PLEASE!!!!

Or did I misunderstand the intent with your request?

but I don't know what "go ad-hominem" means.

:dunce:

I think that the "problem" on DU isn't the anti-Clinton people, or even most of the pro-Clinton people. It's a smaller group that attempts to paint anyone who questions her as being heretics and enemies of the democratic party. A few of them strike me as being moderate- to conservative democrats, who are probably as much or more to the right of DU as Senator Clinton. And that's a good thing -- it shows that even though DU may be considered a site for the democratic left, that others recognize that there is a good amount of organizing potential here.

Heated discussions and strong debate are good for us. They will help us prepare for the upcoming struggles in the general elections.

(Note: I contribute to several of the democratic campaigns, because I believe the on-going debate and the various options are strengthening the party. I have posting both concerns about Clinton, and praise for her. If she is the candidate in the general election, I will back her campaign.)

I'll be happily supporting whoever the Party chooses for our nominee.

by next summer, most DUers are going to be supporting the democratic nominee.

Have the internment camps been readied? Will we be tombstoned? Will we just be run off? --- What?

This would be scary if it wasn't so sad.



TC

It will hardly be the first time.

I see no evidence that DU will have a purge if everyone doesn't back one particular democratic candidate. There hasn't been anything to indicate that is a realistic concern.

There was quite a purge here in 2004 and a LOT of long-term, REALLY REALLY good, smart DUers were tombstoned for, IMO, no other reason than they didn't goose-step to the party line. They weren't advocating voting for anyone else so they weren't violating DU rules. They did have, again, my opinion, legitimate concerns about Kerry's campaign as well as several aspects of his policy proposals. But the mods at the time were HUGE Kerry supporters (some of which were eventually tombstoned themselves) and got a little, shall we say, overzealous. Many, many people left on their own -- some temporarily, some permanently. I was one of them and will probably be again. But the point is we lost a lot of really great voices here during that time. Unfortunately, what we got in their place were candidate/party wonks who seem to be most comfortable in an echo chamber.

And I remember that period. I, too, was restricted for a period. And I was friends with some of those who are no longer here. But I do not think it was as simple as being booted for simply disagreeing with the Kerry campaign.

I posted an essay about Mario Cuomo the other day, in which I quoted from where he told about being attacked by neoconservative Ed Koch because Cuomo would not tell people that in order to be a "true" democrat, they must always vote for every democratic candidate. I think that we have many people on DU that take a position similar to Cuomo, and many others that have an Ed Koch state of mind. So, while I do not agree completely with you on why some folks were booted, I agree with the concern that there are people pushing a rigid doctrine.

Could just as well be read in a mirror.

One of the main lines pressed by the most energetic opponents of Sen. Clinton here is that persons who support her are not Democrats, or not 'real' Democrats, and are instead Republicans, neo-cons, and what have you. Such charges are ridiculous, of course, as the overwhelming preponderance of registered Democrats report themselves as having a favorable view of Sen. Clinton, even where she is not their first choice at present for the Presidential nomination, and if disdain for her is the test of whether one is or is not a 'real' Democrat, then some seventy to eighty percent of the Party's official adherents are not 'real' Democrats. It is a patent absurdity for a faction outnumbered three or four to one within the Party to claim it is the 'real' Party, and all the rest are interlopers. Further, it is a fact that a sizeable proportion of Sen. Clinton's most energetic opponents here state often that they will under no circumstances vote for her in the general election if she should become the Party's nominee. This is very shaky ground, to put it mildly, from which to proclaim oneself a 'real' Democrat, opposing people who are not 'real' Democrats: most people consider the test of being a real member of a party to be voting for that party's candidates, after all, and consider people who will not support a party's candidates to be something other than adherents to that party.

I read what you wrote twice, and agree. That happens. I would be wrong to say it is okay for one group to do something I think is wrong for another group to do.

The point of argument and debate is to shed light, not raise heat.

"No democratic government can endure where questions of policy are raised to questions of absolute morality."

They think we can blow most of our resources on military domination of the rest of the world with no consequences. They have never been expensively sick, and don't give a damn about those of us who have. They have the kind of comfortable job which is relatively free from the threat of outsourcing, and don't give a damn about people who are not in that position.

You have no idea whether or not any of that is accurate as a description of persons on this forum who do support Sen. Clinton for the Party's Presidential nomination, or for that matter, of most or even many of the Democrats in the country who support her for the Party's Presidential nomination.

true of many, indeed most, of the people who are supporting her. But it is true that the United States has socio-economic classes, and that in many ways, those who are in the moneyed class tend to have more in common with others in the moneyed class, than they do with those in the middle or lower economic classes. In that sense, it is fair to say that those who are involved in the top levels of the Clinton campaign are not democrats in the same way that people at the grass roots level are. Of course, this tends to be true in every candidate's campaign. The issue that many DUers seem to be expressing is that Senator Clinton's campaign is closer in some important ways to the republican party, than to the grass roots folks found on DU. The thread by jsamuel regarding Edwards' comments on Clinton's aide's connection to Blackwater is a good example.

That the ranks of leadership differ somewhat from the mass that makes up the supporting bloc, it seems a bit off to urge this as some seperate and defining characteristic to the detriment of Sen. Clinton's campaign. Most of the people involved in Sen. Clinton's camapign have worked for years as Party officials and consultants, and if being, for example, head of the Party's National Committee, does not qualify someone as a 'real' Democrat, it is hard to say what might count as such a credential.

The fact is that support for Sen. Clinton runs higher among Democrats with lower incomes, and with less formal education, than it does with Democrats who are more monied and boast college degrees. That alone is enough to make nonesense of the claims in the post above, that her support comes from a secure elite, and that it is 'the little people' who oppose her.

The last point you raise does not carry much weight with me. A man who has long been employed by Democrats, including President and Senator Clinton, is part of a firm that recently took on Blackwater as a paying client. So what? They pay, and doubtless pay only a small proportion of the firm's annual proceeds. We both know it would be child's play to raise similar connections to cut-throat capitalisms about all the leading contenders for the nomination. Sen. Edwards can be made to look like a direct profiteer from predatory lending, even a director of it; Sen. Obama can be represented as in close association with a notorious political crook from his home state. None of these things is of any real importance, and we all know it.

the Blackwater connection means little to many people, including Clinton supporters on DU. Others, myself included, will see it as very important.

Show me an appreciable bloc of stock, a seat on the board, a long-standing friendship with the proprietor or leading officials of the company, or some such, and you will have my attention. Taking someone's money for a particular and limited service rendered does not much impress me.

Here's a bit from the article that jsamuel links:

"In addition to his role as a top campaign consultant to the Clinton campaign, Mark Penn is the worldwide president and CEO of Burson-Marsteller. The firm's lobbying subsidiary BKSH helped Blackwater's top executive, Erik Prince, prepare for his congressional testimony this week.

"Penn could not be reached for comment, but Burson-Marsteller spokesman Paul Cordasco said in a statement that "through a personal relationship, BKSH, a subsidiary of Burson-Marsteller, helped Blackwater prepare for their recent hearing before Congress. With the hearing over, BKSH's temporary engagement has ended."

"The Clinton campaign had no comment."

It says nothing whatever about Mr. Penn.

Mr. Penn's polling company was purchased by a London based conglomerate, for a pretty penny, and afterwards, its directors offered Mr. Penn executive directorship of another company they owned, Burson-Marsteller. That company had long been associated with Republicans, and most of those people still work there. That is the locus of the 'personal relationship', not Mr. Penn.

As chief executive of the company, Mr. Penn's job is not to turn down clients, not on any ground, but rather to be hired by as many clients as possible to make as much money for the firm's backers as possible. It is in the nature of the public relations business that most clients will be rotters: it is people with image problems that hire such firms, and people with image problems generally deserve them. Most any large public relations firm's list of clients will read like a rogue's gallery of people who by rights ought to die in a six by eight cell, un-tended and un-mourned.

Mr. Penn is good at winning elections, and someone wanting to win an election will consider him a good man to hire. Winning elections is a specialized form of strategic marketing, and it is more art than science when all is said and done: some people have it, and some people do not, even if they have the same figures before them off which to strategize. It is true that Mr. Penn wins elections in a manner that is not to the taste of some people, but it is not as if those people can point to a great string of successes to back a claim that their way is better then his, by the only measure that counts in that specialized endeavor.

we see things very differently. You state that, "It says nothing whatever about Mt. Penn." However, you note that Mr. Penn is the executive director of Burson-Marsteller. I am aware that his job is to make as much money for his firm's backers as possible.

The concern I have, and that I suspect many other democrats have, is when business is willing to do anything for money. Where, if at all, might someone with a conscience draw the line? Blackwater?

A month ago, I had posted some parts of an interview that Bill Moyers did with Joanne Ciulla, a Senior Fellow at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, one of the county's top business schools. In it, she spoke about the difficulties in business, when everyone involved believes, "That's just the way we do business. That's how I get paid."

For people within that school of thought, this may seem like business as usual. From my perspective, it is exactly the problem -- it indeed is business as usual, and that is the very approach that has gotten us mired in Iraq, and which has resulted in Blackwater making a fortune off the violence and misery that the war of occupation has caused.

If you are in the game, you play by the rules of the game: you cannot do otherwise. No one in business has a conscience, though they may have instilled in them a fear of prosecution in a properly ordered polity. If saints were common, they would not attract so much notice.

I beg to differ...coming from the Business Community..in Fortune 500 with some experience with Ivy League mentality and Wharton. There ARE MANY business people with Consciences...but from the 80's through Reagan and downward...they were "culled" so that what we have is the chaff and not the wheat.

When the VOICE OF GREED CALLS...those who have an interest in following it to it's ultimate end...tend to flock together and stick together. It culminates in the morass of criminality that now is dominating our whole culture and business community plus our media and Government.

from Law Firms connected to Lobbyists on Capitol Hill...with Pollsters/Lobbyists/Lawyers/and the Rest all in BED in an incredible Symphony of Cronyism...the likes we've not seen before. Then there's the influence peddling and loyalties from such that's gone on for years in CONGRESS who remains Spineless winding out the clock to 2008 Election where Bush will Pardon ALL and Crimes of International Importance will be once agains swept away as what folks hope will be ANOTHER DEM/CLINTON Presidency Assumes the leadership of the American Empire and presides over the final demise of it...wallowing and fading in massive corruption of both Congress/Judicial/Executive Branches.

Those who see this are FIGHTING AGAINST IT...Those who SEE THIS are working to TAKE BACK what THOSE BRAVE FOLKS WHO Worked to free us from King George I and tyranny of Centuries were HOPING TO DO!

Whether our Founders and Patriots who Fought in the Revolution's theories will be successful, or not, are on the backs of those who stand up to what the Pollsters and Pundits and those Bearing and Receiving Gifts are offering us for 2008! WILL WE SURVIVE on the FOUNDERS PRINCIPLES or go down like the Roman Empire as Chalmers Johnson predicts in his book "Nemesis?"

That's the question. And folks feeling the burden of this on their souls will not stand with Pudits/Pollsters/Lobbyists/Corporate Media Whores and others who are trying to tell us WHAT TO THINK! Our Heritage will not allow us to do this...our Freedoms are TOO IMPORTANT.

We have seen it from the nation's founding. You might want to take some time to look into the funding of the Revolution itself, and the grotesque corruption associated with the assumption of its debts by the National government under Gen. Washington. If anything, what occurs today is rather less raw than the antient practices it has succeeded. It is not even larger in scale today, rather, it has grown in proportion to the extent of the nation's power in the world, and the sum of its economic activity. It is a pretty poor way to run a railroad, as they say, but is the way it is run, and to search for someone untainted is to search for mice in a houseful of cats.

when you say to multiply it from back during the Revolution to today and the proportion is less...that is a bit of a red herring.

What one needs to remember about Revolutions is that "ordinary people" suddenly become angry...and they can gain the sympathy of those who might find some profit and some ideological connection with the disenfranchised ones who are angry enough to topple whatever they feel is oppressing their freedoms, livihood, wages, skills, etc.

While it's true that one must sometimes deal with folks who've attained wealth in ways that are not pure...it also can be said that no revolution that the commen person would ever fight would be "pure" either. There are always spies, infiltrators, thieves and others who might seek profit or to thwart the revolution. That any mass movement by people rising up can be successful means that the WILL for CHANGE outweighs all those involved whose interest are more craven and self interested.

What you say is to put out a Cynical "They All DO IT--They are All on the Take" argument against the true Spirit of People Coming Together out of Oppression to overthrow the oppressors when things get "Out of Balance" in a society and when in the course of events some equalizing needs to take place out of human need for fairness and balance to keep order for a few generations as a breather from war, famine or oppression of human rights. Seeking balance when terrible imbalances occur seems to result in Revolutions from time to time.

But that the rawness of it may be somewhat less than in the day when stacks of currency changed hands on the floor of Congress, and men voted on measures that would directly turn thousand percent profits on their speculative investments.

My statement was that the proportion of the thing was about the same overall, that as the country has grown in power and wealth, the efforts to profit by this through lobbying, etc., has grown in proportion, so that the ration between corrupt activity and total activity is roughly constant.

Regarding revolution, Ma'am, it is wise to bear in mind that revolutions come in different varieties. National revolutions, against a colonial power, such as occured in the Thirteen Colonies here, are very different beasts from social revolutions within a nation, such as occured in Bourbon France and Czarist Russia, and many times down the ages of Imperial China. In the latter case, it is not a question of people becoming angry; it is question of people being at the last ditch of desperation, and even then, it will not occur unless there is a widespread sense of weakness in the foundation of the ruling order, that gives the glimmer of a hope the business might actually succeed. In most instances when it does, the result is simply a new tyranny, reared up on a much sounder footing than the old one....

on the basics of what is involved when social conditions become out of balance as they have become in America today. Your position on how much change can ever occur might be less hopeful than mine, though.

I'm still an idealist who fights the kind of cynicism of "they all do it...it's all corrupt...real change can never occur, etc., etc." On my darkest days I think that...and certainly seeing what I've seen throughout my years on earth I might sometimes think that. But, if we all thought our most cynical thoughts...who would ever work for change. It's better to keep that little light shining...even if it's under a bushel...or the bed, or we could all be like George Bush when asked about how he thought History would remember him...and he replied: "We'll all be dead."

How many have shown one iota of concern over the plight of the American worker?

The others presumably don't care about issues and are going by name recognition and responding to MSM shilling.

You have no idea whether people who support Sen. Clinton do so because of 'name recognition' and 'MSM shilling', though it is doubtless a comforting belief that is the case when confronted with their number, as otherwise it would be necessary to abandon feelings of superiority to the herd, and accept the possibility others might have as good or better a take on matters of the day.

and staying in Iraq forever have a better take on things? That's absolute horseshit. And if they don't know that Clinton stands for those things, they are ignoramuses, period.

be expected to be a "real member" of the party and vote for that nominee?

Serious question.

You said:
>>
This is very shaky ground, to put it mildly, from which to proclaim oneself a 'real' Democrat, opposing people who are not 'real' Democrats: most people consider the test of being a real member of a party to be voting for that party's candidates, after all, and consider people who will not support a party's candidates to be something other than adherents to that party.
>>

"If my grandma had wheels she'd be a wagon."

If someone has been adversely impacted by h1-b's and outsourcing, why should anyone expect that person to vote for someone who supports the very policies that caused said person to lose his/her job?

I support Obama -- quietly because I like to post, without an agenda, interesting and/or important articles, both pro and con, about all of the candidates. (And, by the way, support for Obama, like support for Clinton, is often viewed as not sufficiently pure on this board.) At the same time, I wish supporters of all these candidates could be accepted and respected here.

I especially appreciate the reminder you post downthread that a majority of the least advantaged in our party are supporters of Senator Clinton.

except on the war. I take exception to anyone who says it isn't because it displays a lack of basic research.

The two problems I have with her are her hawkishness and her terrible health plan, worse than the others who have at least suggested buying into Medicare as an alternative.

Her voting record on other issues will get her my vote if she is the nominee. I just won't pretend to be happy about it.

pundits who would love to call her 'soft on terrorists' ??

I'm thinking all bets are off when she's in the Oval. as for the health plan, I would love to see a single payer national plan, but if you just turned off the insurance companies overnight it would have wide ranging effects on the economy.

Too many people are employed by those enterprises, so discussion should just be off the table.

i'm not saying they can't be changed, i'm saying you can't pull the plug overnight

--can be flatly outlawed. We'd still come out way ahead financially subsidizing retraining for the remainder. Imagine--paying people to actually take care of sick people instead of sitting in front of computers and saying "That's not covered."

They sure creative imagination is alive and well on DU.

Funny thing about Presidential elections. The Democrats are going to tack right and the Republicans will tack left. Both will piss off the off-center cores, but that's how elections are won. Remember when Bush ran in 2000? "Compassionate Conservativism" and all of his reasonable sounding bullshit rhetoric? Well, we know how that turned out. So, I have no problems with any of our nominees appealing to the Right in order to get elected. Once in, I fully expect us to drive the agenda that we expect.

How a candidate campaigns and how the same individual governs after election are often very different things.

We need to keep that in mind when we nitpick every campaign speech and label variations as pandering. Of course it's pandering. What works in the northeast isn't going to work in the south, and vice versa. The "pandering" is targeting the message to the audience.

You mean, like this OP.

No matter who reads it, or which way, it says.... I'm on your side. So we hoist Will to our shoulders and carry him around for a while until we realize he's put it over on all of us. We've all been "had".

Once again, he's held the mirror up to the underbelly of DU and showed us all what a bunch of ninnies we are and how above it all he is.

No thanks. Have the Mardi Gras without me this time.

I'm in no mood.

TC

Take a relax pill. I've been around around this political block for 35 years+. Hillary is not going to Lord over the end of the world. Either you have a paranoid perspective of politics....or your intent is to demonize/demoralize Democrats. Which is it?

Do you have any idea how many workers have lost their jobs due to h1-b visas and outsourcing?

Do you have any idea how these lives have been DESTROYED?

Sorry, Will. There are too many people fighting for their livelihoods here.

It is combat. Sorry, but it is.

...I get a DUer asking me "Don't you know how bad things are?"

For the millionth time, I reply: probably more than most, and definitely enough to be free from such questions.

DU doesn't need your combat tactics. The country beyond does. If you think you're getting something done for the country by tearing up DU, you are 1. Wrong, and 2. Part of the problem.

How DARE YOU blame me. HOW DARE YOU!

Interesting.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/combat
>>
1. to fight or contend against; oppose vigorously

4. a fight, struggle, or controversy, as between two persons, teams, or ideas.
>>

1) oppose vigorously:

I oppose vigorously Shillary's stance on h1-b visas. I educate people in my opposition.

4)a fight, struggle, or controversy, as between two persons, teams, or ideas.

Obviously, some people are OK with people losing their jobs. I try to educate people in this FIGHT by letting them know what stances are taken.

Being combative does not equate to "educating." No amount of wishing on your part will make it so.

I'm quite aware of your point. Your opinion is better than the opinions of others, so you're "educating" people because you're right, while they're merely being argumentative because they're wrong.

That about it?

<edit to add>and I have posted articles on the DLC to educate people.

for, oh I dunno, people losing their jobs and stuff.

That's the problem with combat. You try to shoot me, like as not I'll shoot you worse.

And capital letters won't help you either.

Go back and read what I posted.

<edit to add> Geez.

and read that you are fighting for your jobs against...well, me at the moment.

Which means I bear responsibility for lost jobs.

I read just fine. Do it for a living.

That's what I said.

Move along. Nothing here for you to see..........

TC

then why are you specifically going after people who most want to do something about it quickly?

2. This:
and definitely enough to be free from such questions.
pretty well reeks of hubris.

3. DU doesn't need your combat tactics.
Thanks. Does this apply only to those who oppose Hillary?

Never mind.

Honestly surprised, uly. Expected more from you.

I'd be interested in hearing your answers. You're calling out DK supporters, I'm not sure why you're surprised to hear from me.

That interpretation is really deranged, man.

I'm saying DU's support of DK is disproportionately large compared to off-board national support for DK.

That's just fucking fact.

If you take that as a call-out, it goes a long way towards explaining why there's so much bullshit fighting around here.

How many, besides HRC, did you mention in the OP?

This thread has turned into a piece of shit.

I'm under no contractual obligation to put every candidate into a post.

I don't even understand what you're on about, and I'm really disappointed to have this conversation with you of all people.

Just sad.

but it's your thread. The phrase "contractual obligation" never entered my mind, but I did find it telling that you only mentioned Kucinich. You've said nothing since then to change my mind.

I think you do understand what I'm on about, but I don't understand the "you of all people" angle you're taking. I've spoken my mind here since just a few months after you joined. :)

because your thready poo didn't go as you wished?
I would have thought you had thicker skin and were a little wiser as to how people intrepret obvious things.

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

I didn't realize that they'd all been indicted!

and much poo has been flung at his supporters as well. It's only been recently that people
have been 'coming out' saying that DK is their candidate, at least that's been my observation.

I'm tired of being called a "Hillary Hater" because I disagree with her policy on Iraq!

Just yesterday there was yet, *groan*, another HRC poll *yawn* and it started out about the
"HATERS of Hillary" but in the body of the post it began using the word ANGER, in place of hate.
I did ask the OP, "Which is it?" but I never got an answer. Go figure.
Many of the posts about her have been that way, so imho, they need to get their act together but
maybe they're doing the other candidates a favor by being that way and driving possible supporters
to the other candidates instead. ;) There's always a silver lining.

And to my knowledge, she's never been compared to the Keebler elves.

I am pretty dispassionate on the Primaries, having no horse in the race and all.

Still, I can't help but notice that some Hillary supporters are way too fond of baiting. Read a positive post about Clinton and you will generally see one of two things kick off the flamefest: Either there will be a side of snide at the end of OP along the lines of "of course the rabid Clinton haters won't like this" OR a very early comment will state something bait-y like that.

I find myself having some sympathy for Senator Clinton and ZERO sympathy for her supporters here on DU.

Julie

"I find myself having some sympathy for Senator Clinton and ZERO sympathy for her supporters here on DU."

but leaning more and more towards Mrs. Clinton

while I won't say I have decided to wear out my shoe leather for her as I did for Kerry in '04, I'm liking what I'm seeing.

so perhaps you can find some sympathy for a few of her supporters if we promise not to be assholes?

:hi:

She's a human being!

You are lucky she is running for president, you bastards!


SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBBBBB!!!!!


It ain't easy being green either, but Kermit has survived.

Poor little rich girl... waaaaaaa...

If the heat is too much, stay the hell out of the kitchen.


I didn't care one way or the other about Hillary, until her blow-hard crew here started spouting their nonsense.

I'm still undecided, except that I will NOT be voting for Hill in the primaries. Thanks for swaying my opinion, folks!

Doesn't stop either one of us.

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

Oh please. I've been here far longer than you, and I'm no where near being fanatic about anything... except maybe rock 'n' roll.


Oh, and you forgot a couple of very, very important parts to your post!

"You should look in the mirror" is much better stated as "I know you are but what am I". Same meaning, but less cumbersome. Followed by a hearty, "Neener, neener."

There...that should satisfy your requirements for a witty comeback.

:hi:

I can remember seeing fifty in the last six months.

he wins those polls.

He's not a prevaricator. He has come down on the progressive side of the war, on impeachment, on torture, on the erosion of civil rights. Holy cow.

So now, speaking out for progressive positions is a liability? Don't make me go Witches of Eastwick all over you.

lol

But DU is not America.

If it was, we wouldn't need DU.

If DK wins straw polls in a community where the (arguably) most active members are suburban women, neither he nor DU is out in the Outer political Limits.

But, I agree 150% about needing DU.

:shrug:

and it seems to me that DU'ers should have better character than that. You don't see out and out bashing of Obama, Edwards, Kunich or any of the others. It is the fact that jealousy of her front status is getting to some of the other candidate supporters.

Obama is habitually called a liar and a hypocrite.

Dennis is tarred as the elf who never won state wide with his New Age craziness.

Edwards is accused of opportunism and of hiding behind his wife.

Please.

I have no respect for them, anyone associated with them, nor their supporters.

I think that jsamuel's thread on du:gd regarding what John Edwards is saying about Senator Clinton's advisor's connections to Blackwater is a wonderful example of the type of issue that needs to be discussed on this forum.

We have a right to know these things about our potential nominees.

I have little hope of this getting much play in the MSM.

in the forum.

And the AMerican workers are losing right now.

I gotta go. I'm not paid to post on DU all day.

Among other reasons, I had to kick it, if nothing else just because I've never read a post with the word, "primogeniture" in it. Excellente'!

First I guess I appreciate the concern...

However, I am secure enough in my support of Hillary that I don't really need to be protected from those who oppose her here...often times in crude and childish ways I have to say (whore is a very popular word here). And really, this is a chat board...how much courage does it really take to sit in front of a keyboard and argue anonymously with people?

Second, just not sure if this is a serious post. Your premise is I believe wholly false, and has a smack of satire to it. You talk negatively about her record as if it was something supporters of her were trying to cover for, and that she should be ashamed of. In fact I am very proud of her voting record.

Your characterization of it is, I will concede the prevailing liberal blogosphere view of her, as you noted. Additionally however I would submit that that view is wholly out of touch not only with mainstream America, and with the vast majority of Democrats, but also with that of liberal Democrats...

Third, you toss out the old dynasty canard as if it had any relevancy...or if anyone outside the netroots had any concern about it whatsoever. Polling clearly shows it to be a non-factor with voters. And I have never heard an argument that made the case why it was harmful. Certainly wasn't viewed that way by the founding fathers who were hyper-concerned with familial dynasties.

Anyway.

Just don't know how to take this...thanks...I guess...

Thank You.

As has been demonstrated on this thread, most of the vitriol is reserved for the more obnoxious subset of her supporters that shill for her with multiple threads about polls and crowing about her inevitability as if repeating it as nauseum will make us all submit, replying to any criticism with ad hominems and accusations of misogyny. It stinks of psyops propaganda and astroturf, both of which I find highly offensive. I have come to mostly ignore them, they are not worth the time or energy it takes to type out a reply.

As far as her positions, if it were 1992, I might find more common ground with her. But this is 2007, 7 years after the bush junta has pillaged this country's economy , completely destoyed it's reputation, not to mention murdered ontold numbers of people and shredded the Constitution. Hillary's "solutions" are bandaids for a gushing wound that is most likely fatal. She is taking the "safe" approaches to almost every issue, afraid to offend her deep-pocketed donors at the expense of working people that make up the base of the democratic party. This I find completely unacceptable and makes her not worthy of my vote, in the primary or probably in the general election. After what bush /cheney has wrought, it will take generations to undo the damage done and her approaches are too little, too late. The status quo ante 2000 is not enough, this country requires a sea change on the level we haven't seen since 1776.

Lastly, I now sincerely feel that it doesn't matter who will win the Oval Office. If the democrats win a larger majority in the house and senate, they will have much greater pull in governing than the executive branch. They will be able to push legislative initiatives through, veto or not. The president will become largely irrelevant except as a bully pulpit. And that's a good thing in my book. Additionally I feel that this country has become so culturally divided that we are bound to break up into regional entities within our lifetimes, either by peaceful secession or a new civil war. The next president would just be an american equivalent of gorbachev, overseeing the dissoluion of the USA.

That's my two cents, thanks for listening.

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

And I've been saying something similar for awhile now. It isn't going to be the members of DU who are going to elect the next president, even though we think we will. It's going to be the moderates and all the people who will go on a visceral level, who won't know the actual facts behind a candidate, and who will only go by what they see in the news, in commercials and in person at political events.

If we don't at least acknowlege that, we're going to be stuck with another fucking Republican again.

Respect the courage involved in supporting someone far to the right of the DU mainstream (and that's true, folks: we're way to the left of the Dem party and most of America). It takes guts to stand your ground in a fusillade.

I'm Dumb (to you) BUT...who is the person you talk about with this quote from you? :shrug:

Gee, why not go frequent the DLC or Third Way site if HRC supporters want empathetic company?

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

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

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

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

and you can "track back" and take the TEST... or just read the results and analysis of where DU'ers fall on the Political Spectrum.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/426

Very few of them have been able to articulate reasons for their support.

but in a much more difficult way...

DUers; we need to band together on this one...baby steps.

That is that most of our elected representatives have sold out to corporate interests. That's what being a real Democrat is now days. Gravel and Kucinich and possibly Edwards are the only people that are now speaking about what it used to be to be a real Democrat.

When I went through the selection process to select my candidate my first test was the Iraq War vote. That is a war fought for corporate interests no doubt about it. Anyone who supported that war to me was in bed with corporate interests. I've cut Edwards a little slack because he has since recanted his Iraq war vote saying that it was the wrong thing to do. He has also spoken out against the corporate influence in our government.

New Democrats just throw us a bone everyonce in a while because it is thought to be good for business. Honest Democrats want to give us the world but rank 5% in the polls. Why is that?

have the nomination by May 12.