during the '08 primaries, I was the biggest anti-Hillary poster here

[scheming daemons]

.. That managed to not get banned.

I was pro-Obama all the way, and actively worked against Hillary relentlessly.

But I have to say this... If she is the nominee in 2016, I will vote for her enthusiastically.

She has grown on me. As Secretary of State she was outstanding, I dare say the best SoS we've had in my 46 years on this planet.

Her bringing the party together after the '08 primary battles was impressive.

Yes, she made a calculated decision to support the Iraq war in 2003. I think to prove her bona fides as someone who could be tough on terror at a time when doves were getting killed politically. A cowardly move, sure. But it has been more than a decade and I'm willing to forgive that since she has been so stellar ever since.

Will she be my first choice? I don't know until I see who all runs.

But this former PUMA-basher will vote for her over any Republican if it comes to that. She has been a good soldier for BHO and she has earned my vote in any general election.

[The Link]

1. I think its more that Obama turned out to be just about exactly the same.

You can't bash someone that voted for the Iraq war, when your guy kills civilians and US citizens with drones.

[Omnith]

122. Good point!

[Skittles]

151. CORRECT

[onehandle]

2. If Warren doesn't run (which she won't) Hillary gets my support.

I don't see anyone else defeating Rubio other than those two.

Clinton/Warren 2016?

Cash at the ready.

[AgingAmerican]

6. I think Warren will go the route Obama went in 04

I can see her making the keynote address at the Dem convention for 2016 - then running down the road.

She definitely won't be like Obama though. She is a liberal.

[onehandle]

7. Yeah. I doubt she'll be on the ticket at all.

But here's hoping.

[liberalmike27]

84. Plenty of Time

For her to be corrupted by then.

Hillary, Obama--I though there was a difference, but now I see him doing exactly what she'd have done. She's almost inevitable, is my opinion. It's going to be another 4, or 8 years of Hillary. I suppose, 'maybe,' she'll appoint slightly more liberal SC justices than Bush would.

[AgingAmerican]

85. The difference

She would stand up to the GOP rather than folding every time.

[DonCoquixote]

104. You mean like the way she fights

her good friend John McCain,or her good friend Joe Lieberman, please. If you liked bipartisanship under Obama, you will LOVE Hillary.

[DonCoquixote]

103. Cough Cough

The Clintons were never liberal and you know it. A liberal would not have cut welfare, supported Israeli settlements, or put the "individual mandate" before single payer, all things the Clintons did back when Obama was still in Chicago. Let's not even get into who MADE dadt, as opposed to who got rid of it.

If she does win, I look forward to all the people who are either lying to themselves, or simply lying,about Hillary's liberal streak to have their heads slammed into the hard brick wall of reality.

[MADem]

108. Down the road, in 2024, presumably, she will be 75.

She's not all that liberal--she opposes MJ legalization, for example.

She's a good Senator, though. MA is lucky to have her.

[AgingAmerican]

110. Compared to Obama

And by today's standard....she is a liberal.

[MADem]

112. Whatever she is, she's said she is not interested.

And the sands of time can't be turned back.

[pnwmom]

44. Or how about Clinton/Grayson? n/t

[RC]

73. Not gonna happen.

Their political views are too divergent. Hillary is neo-liberal and Grayson is true Liberal.

[Lisa D]

77. Or Clinton/Dean? n/t

[bluestate10]

148. Probably will be Clinton and someone like the former Governor of South Dakota. nt

[pnwmom]

154. Gary Locke, the former Gov. of WA, was very popular here. He's Ambassador to China now. n/t

[blm]

3. I'll vote for her, too, but, you're wrong about her as Sec of State - she's a big reason

that Syria became such a disaster. She always sided with Bush who wanted to expand military mission into Syria, but didn't have the trigger event to pull it off. Bush was uninterested in diplomacy there. Clinton followed that same route. She was remarkably unfocused on Syria as a diplomatic mission. Assad never saw her as an honest broker given her hawkish positions supporting Bush's view of Syria, and 4 years went by where the situation there led to the reality of today. She also hired a firm to 'assess' Keystone pipeline project that she knew ahead of time would support HER decision in favor of the pipeline.

Best SoS......she benefitted from great PR and carefully orchestrated interviews and appearances, but, aside from speaking in other countries about women's rights, she really wasn't as attentive to serious matters of diplomacy as she should have been. And THAT is what happened when you tap a hawk to be Sec of State. Obama never should have done that.

[AgingAmerican]

9. Don't forget the 'Grand Bargains'

Those are her fault too..

[AtomicKitten]

11. well, her hubby is down with it

[AgingAmerican]

15. Right, it's Bills fault!

Obama is a powerless marionette, controlled by the Clintons!! I knew it!!

[AtomicKitten]

19. Bill schmoozing with Paul Ryan about "reforming" Medicare.

Just like he "reformed" welfare. That's on him ... and if you think she doesn't subscribe to that, I have a bridge to sell you.

[AgingAmerican]

26. Of course

Women automatically agree with their husbands on everything! It's sort of like osmosis! Bill is a misogynistic puppet master and makes her think what he thinks, or else!! Much like Hillary does to Obama!!

Why didn't I think of that first!

[AtomicKitten]

34. They founded the DLC together. /nt

[AgingAmerican]

37. Blah

blah blah

[AgingAmerican]

127. You got me there...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council#Founding_and_early_history

The DLC was founded by Al From in 1985 in the wake of Democratic candidate and former Vice President Walter Mondale's landslide defeat to incumbent President Ronald Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. Other founders include Democratic Governors Chuck Robb (Virginia), Bruce Babbitt (Arizona) and Lawton Chiles (Florida), Senator Sam Nunn (Georgia) and Representative Dick Gephardt (Missouri).

[AtomicKitten]

130. well, there's this:

From, along with an up-and-coming politician named Bill Clinton, formed the group in 1985, a reaction to Ronald Reagan's sweeping presidential win in 1984.

The DLC reached the height of its influence during the early 1990s. Clinton, who once served as its chairman, made the council’s policies on free-trade agreements and welfare reform staples of his presidency.

The DLC hails President Bill Clinton as proof of the viability of Third Way politicians and as a DLC success story.

Hillary Clinton: The DLC candidate.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/democratic-party/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-de.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/08/12/370537/-Hillary-Clinton-The-DLC-presidential-candidate-Part-I

[AgingAmerican]

131. Why does none of that appear in the WIKI about the DLC?

I thought Hillary 'founded it' too? Funny that!

[AtomicKitten]

132. could it be wiki is open for editing?

???

[AgingAmerican]

134. So you are saying it's a conspiracy?

Why don't you go and add that snippet from that article, with no citation, to the Wiki article? Nice try.

[AtomicKitten]

140. I'll leave you to desperately trying to obscure the truth about the Clintons.

I used to be just like you when I first came to DU in 2005. I parroted their BS and turned a blind eye to the policies: DOMA, DADT, Telecommunications Act of 1996, repeal of Glass-Steagall, welfare "reform," an obnoxiously bad attempt at healthcare reform, etc., etc.

Here's a bird's eye view of what Hillary Clinton is all about: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/hillary-clintons-business-legacy-at-the-state-department

I'll leave you to your reading. You really do need to catch up.

[AgingAmerican]

142. I eagerly await your Wiki edit!

nt

[DonCoquixote]

105. Hey, if she wanted to prove she was NOT her husband's twin

She has more than a DECADE to say so, and if she did rebuke the shift in the right she helped start, she would be cheered! She did not, she will not.

As far as Bill being a puppet master, well, he did have some Mojo to make Hillary stay by him as Bill did everything but brag about his sex life on TV, cigar in mouth. I will not call Hillary a whore, but Bill's appeal is that he is, was, and will be a glorified PIMP. He is the sort that will talk anybody into selling their soul, and when that Ketsotne pipeline pours toxins into our waters, he will be there to be the minister "of splainin stuff" and Hillary will be hiding right behind him, as usual.

[AgingAmerican]

107. Yes

Women are their husbands twin......gotcha.

[DonCoquixote]

119. Nope, not women

But are you going to tell me that if Hillary was not for intervention in Syria, she could not have asked her husband to wait until the election to speak out? Could she have told him NOT to speak on Keystone, especially as it would have her fingerprints all over it being she was the SOS responsible for negotiation? Could she have at least asked him not to call Obama a wuss? Yes she could have, and not, she did not, so apparently, either Bill is doing her bidding, or at best, she has no control over him, which means that a lot of her presidency will be spent either trying to keep that dog on the porch, or letting him piss all over the rugs, which will make folks like Putin amused.

[AgingAmerican]

124. Blah

Blah, blah blah!

[DonCoquixote]

152. an eloquent response

which shows you are willing to discuss facts without being silly\

SARCASM flag raised.

[Beacool]

22. Don't you know it?

That Obama, he's just putty in the Clintons' hands.

[blm]

48. As Sec of State you have a LOT to do with how diplomacy is handled

or, if you choose, to NOT handle at all.

[AgingAmerican]

49. Yes

The SOS is a rogue position. It's a shadow presidency, much like Cheney during Bush!

[blm]

58. I didn't say that. Why play the game of taking something to its extreme instead of

showing the integrity of your views or positions? Aren't you too old to play those silly games?

[AgingAmerican]

59. Because sunlight

...is the best disinfectant.

[blm]

67. What do you 'think' you're disinfecting with silly game-playing?

Either take the opportunity to educate on the points you disagree with and explain what led to YOUR conclusion, or don't bother to reply. Surely you didn't come here to DU to play silly games.

[AgingAmerican]

125. Like I said

You can lead a horse to water.

[blm]

137. You didn't LEAD anything. That link still can't show significant accomplishments as Senator

or Sec of State. And THAT is why you are incapable of crafting an answer.

[AgingAmerican]

139. Sigh...

Reading is fundamental to learning...

A few snippets from the Wiki page...

In 2005, Clinton voted against ratification of the Central America Free Trade Agreement, believing that it did not provide adequate environmental or labor standards. In this she differed with her husband, who supported CAFTA; the ratification was successful.

...

Senator Clinton led a bipartisan effort to bring broadband access to rural communities. She cosponsored the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, which encourages research and development in the field of nanotechnology. She included language in an energy bill to provide tax exempt bonding authority for environmentally-conscious construction projects, and introduced an amendment that funds job creation to repair, renovate and modernize public schools

...

Looking to establish a "progressive infrastructure" to rival that of American conservatism, Clinton played a formative role in conversations that led to the 2003 founding of former Clinton administration chief of staff John Podesta's Center for American Progress; shared aides with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, founded in 2003; advised and nurtured the Clintons' former antagonist David Brock's Media Matters for America, created in 2004; and following the 2004 Senate elections, successfully pushed new Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid to create a Senate war room to handle daily political messaging.

...

and on, and on, and on...

[blm]

145. Did not lead opposition to Bush on so many crucial matters. NO significant

accomplishments.

Not as senator - not as Sec of State.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

61. Don't forget the changes to the bankruptcy laws

to benefit the bankers at the expense of ordinary Americans.

Her voting for such changes was also her fault.

Edited to add:

"President Clinton pocket-vetoed the bill at the end of his term, after Mrs. Clinton had been elected to the Senate. Congress had left town and did not have the chance to try to override the veto.

"The bill popped up again 2001, which was Mrs. Clinton’s first year in the Senate. She worked with Republicans on it and was one of 36 Democrats who helped it pass the Senate, saying it had been improved from when she opposed it. Still, this version was vigorously opposed by consumer groups and unions, and ultimately did not become law.

"When the bill came up again in 2005, Mrs. Clinton missed the vote. She did vote against a procedural motion involving the bill and said that had she been present, she would have voted against the bill itself.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/clinton-and-the-bankruptcy-law/?_r=0

She voted for it the first time. And then, if she would have been present, she would have voted against it? Sure she would.

[cascadiance]

69. And Biden also was taking the lead to get that bankruptcy bill mess passed too...

That was my biggest complaint about him too. And when Obama selected him as a running mate, it was a clue for me where Obama was headed as well. Though Obama and Clinton tried to present themselves as huge opposites in the campaign, I think they were far more together from the standpoint of being part of the DLC machinery to keep any other REAL Democrats from getting to be a part of the race. And for those of us who fell for Edwards' more liberal stances, we were roped in to supporting a candidate that they knew they could pull the plug on because of his "secret private life" at any time during the race. I still am thinking that was part of the DLC's plan, to keep anyone like a Dennis Kucinich from being anywhere close to getting any kind of delegate count going in to Super Tuesday.

As for Hillary, you can say that she shouldn't be blamed for what Bill did, but there are plenty of stances that she's taken that I can't support. Not just her stances on Iran and the Iraq war, but her stance favoring H-1B Visa expansion in my book is inexcusable for real Democrats to be taking.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

81. I kind of miss the I'm-just-an-average-guy-because-I-rode-the-train-to-work stories.

When he renews them, we'll know that he's running for the presidency.

[lark]

83. Share the link?

I've never heard Clinton mentioned in the same breath as the "grand bargains" before. I doubt this is true, she and her husband always gave full throated support to Medicare/Social Security. He closed the government down rather than cave to Repugs on those. Obama just gives them what they prevously wanted - not the same at all.

Or - were you being sarcastic and I didn't get it?

[AtomicKitten]

10. regarding stint as SOS:

I thought this was interesting:

from: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/03/16-reasons-why-hillary-clinton-will-win-2016.html

excerpt:

Triumph came later when “Hillary the team player” became the globe-trotting secretary of State and despite a lack of any real accomplishment, eventually earned international respect and higher approval ratings than the team leader himself.

[AgingAmerican]

17. Sounds like Palin said about Obama

nt

[AtomicKitten]

21. edited for wrongness on source

Last edited Thu Aug 8, 2013, 11:28 AM - Edit history (1)

Author not who I thought; the piece had been re-posted in various venues; I read it on dailykos. Regardless, I didn't find it to be a hit piece and neither did anybody else when posted earlier here at DU, so there's that.

[sufrommich]

36. Did you even read the article you're claiming

is pro Hillary? It's an article from Red State.com ,hence the "democrat party" designation. It's very anti Hillary,maybe read it again.

[AtomicKitten]

41. It's from The Daily Beast. /nt

[sufrommich]

45. It's a reprint from Red State.It says so

right at the end of the article you didn't read.

[AtomicKitten]

57. by Myra Adams at the Daily Beast

it was posted here at DU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023397128

HRC advocates didn't have a problem with it then.

[sufrommich]

63. I doubt that it's Hillary advocates who don't have a

problem with using right wing sources to bash her.Myra Adams is a right wing republican,a simple google would be a good idea when using sources.

[MADem]

111. No--you're busted, I'm afraid. What a cretin Myra is!!!

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/author/myraadams/

Myra Adams is a media producer, writer, and political observer who served on the McCain Ad Council during the 2008 McCain campaign, and on the 2004 Bush campaign creative team. Her columns have appeared on PJ Media, The Daily Caller, RedState and as a co-writer on The Daily Beast. Myra's web site TheJesusStore.com contributes all profits to Christian charity. Follow Myra on Twitter @MyraKAdams

[AtomicKitten]

123. Do you find it odd that nobody had a problem with it when posted earlier?

here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023397128

I stand corrected on the author's political proclivities. The piece had been posted and reposted in various sources; I read it on dailykos. Still, I didn't think it was a hit piece and apparently neither did anyone else when it was posted earlier (above).

[AgingAmerican]

126. I remember during the primaries before 08

Stephanie Miller started using Ken Starr talking points and wondering aloud, "Why can't we start asking her about the Christmas card list?"

Vincent Foster, anyone?

[AtomicKitten]

133. oh dear

[AgingAmerican]

135. lol

OK, that made me laugh.

[MADem]

150. Well, I'll be honest, I thought it was a load of horseshit right out of the gate.

I just was in a "pick your battles" frame of mind. I was a supporter of HRC in 08, but when it didn't pan out, I behaved like an adult and just got over it, and went with the nominee; I have no problem continuing to support him in his 2nd term. I don't believe the author's assertions are at all accurate, and I did regard it as an anti-Dem hit piece.

Because there are so many people who don't like Democrats who post here on DU now, and who think they are the "deciders" as to what a Dem is, or isn't, I won't always jump in. It's just not worth it, there's no "gain" in discussing topics with people who aren't in a discussing frame of mind. Someone who hates Obama or Clinton isn't going to change their mind, they don't want to -- they are invested in that mindset. They delight in it, some of them (I am not directing that at you, please don't take my remarks personally). I'm sure I'm not the only one who might have noticed that article, objected as to the content, and said, "Ehhhh...eff it--not worth the agita." Sometimes, ya just gotta roll your eyes and move on, is my attitude.

So...just because few people said anything doesn't necessarily mean that more didn't disagree.

However, when I realized that you were unaware that what you were posting was rightwing tripe from a bug-eyed loon, and that you thought this was a reasoned opinion from a centrist instead of hair-pulling invective from a Moral Majority/Teabagging con artist, that's when I thought it was important to bring up the woman's resume and make you cognizant of the source of the remarks. I'd want someone to do that for me if I put forward a thesis from someone who is, shall we say, a bit unsavory.

[Beacool]

25. Remember the constant harping about the PUMAs?

Well, this bunch is the reverse. Hillary and Bill could discover the cure for cancer and they would still carp about it.

[blm]

52. Then take the opportunity to name her accomplishments as SoS or as Senator.

You have the opportunity to educate those you think wrong.

[AgingAmerican]

54. Google it

Seriously, it isn't very hard to do.

[blm]

62. I know all her significant accomplishments in the senate - zero. And as SoS - very thin

and I stated above what I saw as her significant flaws as SoS.

Apparently you cannot counter my posts.

[AgingAmerican]

76. Here is a summary of her lifetime of achievement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

[blm]

80. I addressed the claim that she was the 'best Sec of State' and that she had accomplishments

as SoS and in her role as a senator. One would expect that with those two positions, a person would have SIGNIFICANT accomplishments that could be easily articulated by their supporters. You are apparently unable to do that.

[AgingAmerican]

86. You can lead a horse to water...

But they keep moving the goal post.

[blm]

98. You didn't LEAD anything. You can't answer honestly, so, you pretend

all the answers are in a link about her life.

Not one significant issue important to Democrats did Hillary lead during her time in the senate, and certainly not one where she led opposition to Bush. She followed that same commitment to nothingness at the State Department.

[AgingAmerican]

128. Of course!

If you say so! A bunch of nothin!!

It's quite obvious you couldn't be bothered with reading what she did in the senate. It disproves all of your claims.

Here is a tiny snippet from aforementioned wiki article:

...

Senator Clinton led a bipartisan effort to bring broadband access to rural communities.
She cosponsored the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, which encourages research and development in the field of nanotechnology.
She included language in an energy bill to provide tax exempt bonding authority for environmentally-conscious construction projects, and introduced an amendment that funds job creation to repair, renovate and modernize public schools.

...

Reading is your friend

[blm]

138. Nothing SIGNIFICANT. NOTHING showing she led opposition to Bush.

There is not one significant issue or controversial position that she chose to LEAD.

Reading IS a friend, and so is comprehension and so is truth and so is context and so is proportion Try it some time.

[AgingAmerican]

141. You are hopelessly biased

...and have zero interest in the truth, hence your repeated moving of the goal posts.

Have a nice day!!

[blm]

146. The goal posts were ALWAYS the same. No significant accomplishments

as senator or as Sec of State. And never lead any opposition to Bush.

Just as I said in my first post on this thread.

[Maedhros]

75. Reliable indicator of a bullshit argument:

Refusing to provide evidence to support claims.

In a reasonable debate, it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to provide the evidence. As you say, it's easy to do.

Without evidence, we're justified in simply ignoring your unsupported claim.

[LWolf]

4. During the '08 primaries,

I was one of the very few DUers who equally opposed both Obama and HRC, and said so at every opportunity. It didn't stop each camp from trying to fight with me about their opposition, lol. BO's people regularly bashed me as a Puma, regardless of accuracy.

Obama and HRC were tied on the bottom of my list of primary choices. Of course, they were the only two left standing by the time my primary rolled around in late May. Since the nomination, and my state, had already been called for Obama, I cast my vote for HRC. Not because I wanted her to be the nominee. It was a simple protest vote.

I continued to hope, after the horrifically ugly and very close primary war, to see a less divisive candidate nominated at the convention. Yes, a futile hope. I knew it at the time, but supported that small group of DUers calling for Gore.

What will I do if the Democratic Party shoves her down my throat in '16? I sure as hell won't be voting for her in my primary, for whatever that is worth.

[AgingAmerican]

12. Same here

Hillary was too negative, IMHO, during those primaries. Obama talked a good talk, but his supporters (Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, Randy Rhodes) did nothing but crudely lash out at Hillary in the manner of the GOP in the 90s, which made me wonder about Obama. The whole shebang was a clusterfuck. Lets hope the next one is more civil.

[TeeYiYi]

24. You seriously just referred to Hillary Clinton as a "bitch"? Wtf? Not cool. ..nt

TYY

[AgingAmerican]

31. Yep

IMHO, that was the road she took in the primary. She should have taken the high road rather than go down that path.

[TeeYiYi]

38. I just alerted your post. I guess we'll see how a jury decides...

But seriously, DU doesn't look kindly on using the misogynist term "bitch", regardless of how you feel about Hillary Clinton.

TYY

On edit: I see that you now edited out the offending pejorative. Don't know how that will affect the jury but I appreciate the effort.

[AgingAmerican]

39. I edited it 5 minutes ago

nt

[TeeYiYi]

42. For the record...

At Wed Aug 7, 2013, 12:58 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

Same here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3421768

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

Using the term "bitch" as a pejorative on on DU in not acceptable, especially toward a democrat; particularly toward Hillary Clinton. Please hide.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed Aug 7, 2013, 01:03 PM, and voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Inappropriate, divisive, sexist
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I do not see the word "Bitch" in this comment. It may have been in their but by the time I reviewed the comment, it appears to have been removed. If it was still in the comment, the better approach would be a verbal remand not a ban.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: term was removed before jury vote.

Thank you.

[Beacool]

29. Hey, it's not OK to call women "bitches" on DU.

I don't disagree with the intent of your post, but please don't use that word.

[AgingAmerican]

32. OK

I'll edit it

[Beacool]

35. Thank you.

[hfojvt]

43. one of the few?

Until he dropped out, Edwards supporters ruled DU. True, most of us were ABC enough to latch on to the Obama alternative, but Obama was NOT our first choice.

I had reservations about Obama, but he sorta won me over with this smackdown

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2618869

which could have been taken right from my journal

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/65

[LWolf]

53. Everyone, including Edwards, was gone

after just a few states weighed in. Wasn't that in late January or early February?

There were only two left standing at least 5 months before my primary rolled around, anyway.

I remember a strong contingent of Edwards supporters leading up to January.

[hfojvt]

70. it was earlier than I thought

Jan. 30th as google refreshes my memory. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/us/politics/30cnd-edwards.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I remember that Kansas was quite early that time - it was super-duper Tuesday, but I don't remember WHEN that was even. That caucus was crazy. I do remember that.

I think if Edwards had NOT dropped out that Hillary would have won the nomination on super duper Tuesday.

[LWolf]

74. I remember being, first, pissed

by the schedule, and second, feeling completely disenfranchised because the field was narrowed down to (2) unacceptable choices 5 months before I ever got to punch my ballot.

[one_voice]

5. I agree 100%...

she was great as SoS. I was proud to have her at that post!

And like you, if she is our nominee, I will hop, skip, and hum a tune all the way to the voting booth and vote for her over any of the Republicans. I will NOT sit home and pout risking a nutbag repuke getting into the Whitehouse doing all kinds of damage to me and the country.

We can't go back and change her vote or support of the Iraq war. We can hate and debate it to death, but that won't change it. I don't like it and I won't change on that, BUT that's in the past and a nutbag repuke getting elected will effect our future. END OF STORY--at least for me.

[leftstreet]

8. When does the DU Primary Bloodletting begin anyway?

Will there be a separate forum, or can we participate in the trainwreck right here in GD?

[sharp_stick]

16. I don't know but it's fucking pathetic

I've learned a lot more about some people here than I ever really wanted to.

[LWolf]

18. When primary season begins,

at least officially, lol.

There may be a special forum for it, which will get most of DU traffic for at least a year, since any substantive discussion of issues virtually shuts down during campaign season. At least, it has worked that way in the past. Not that it really worked; most of the posts outside the separate forum were also about the campaigns.

For those whose only real interest is in campaigns, it's already begun, even before anyone has declared a candidacy.

[JoePhilly]

60. All ready started ... and like all train wrecks ...

... it'll be on GD.

Currently the primary fight is between Hillary and "not Hillary".

I'm buying stock in THESE for the duration ...

[Lucinda]

109. It's an ongoing process

We fight about other things in between elections, and jump back to the next election infighting, no matter how far away it is, when the regular news isn't volatile enough.

[riqster]

13. I'll vote for our nominee in November

But will push for a more Left candidate in the primaries.

Same thing I did in '08.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Of course you offered much characterization of Hillary which apparently was affectation

stated with great vehemence, a situational sort of thing. Those of you who thought Hillary and Obama were extremely different choices and wailed about her being racist and every other thing don't really have much to offer others. You will say things, awful things, out of expediency and agenda about a person whom you'd later entrust with our nation's highest office and you think that is a positive trait?
Here is you, back then:
"If George Wallace would have made the same remarks to USA Today.....

...we Democrats would've been in an uproar.


That it came from Hillary Clinton is astounding.


It was vulgar. It was something NO Democratic politician should ever think, let alone say.


Even during his "southern strategy", Richard Nixon would not have been as blunt.


Hillary's raw ambition has turned her into something very ugly inside. She has literally, before our eyes, become a bad person.


Disgusting.


If Obama shows the poor judgement of adding her to the ticket, then he is not the man I thought he was ... and I will have serious problems voting for him in that case.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5897365


Strong words, but now? She's your favorite. Wow.

[scheming daemons]

23. my opinion at that time was the same as Eugene Robinson's

The pressure of the campaign, or her handlers, made Hillary say something she shouldn't have.

It has been 5+ years. Everyone's opinion evolves over time, at least those of us with inquisitive and open minds.

[Bluenorthwest]

94. Two things. Robinson did not say she was a bad person nor disgusting. You did.

People with open and inquisitive minds can think a few years in advance and spare themselves the burden of having to explain why they are praising someone they recently called a disgusting and racist by not indulging in such language for no good reason. Sure, everyone evolves but face it, to go from 'disgusting worse than Nixon racist' to 'would be a great President' in 5 years without some major changes by the alleged racist strains credulity.

[scheming daemons]

28. ps. I told you in the OP that I was the biggest Hillary basher here

Thanks for digging up a post that proves I was telling the truth in my OP.

[Bluenorthwest]

121. It just shows me or any good reader that you indulge in extreme rhetoric which

later can be reversed without bothering to state reason. One day your opponent is a bad, disgusting, racist person. The next they should be President.
It says zip about Hillary. That's all about you, the value of your verbiage and the extreme nature of that verbiage. Sorry you don't care for that, but it is an open criticism of your style and I don't expect you to care for that.
The pertinent point is not really about you either, it is about the dozens of important surrogates and media figures who will have to strain to endorse her in the face of their 08 spewing, famous and official people called her a Monster, war monger, vermin, corrupt, criminal, overly emotional, petulant, vindictive and yes, racist. Those same folks will endorse and those self indulgent bits of venom will be flung back in their faces. 'So you called her a Monster in the press in 08, you now say she is not a Monster, or that a Monster should be President'?
Randi Rhodes spent weeks puking forth nasty shit about Hillary and Bill. Will she endorse the Republican this time?
None of that ongoing vicious school yard crap was needed, it was not forward looking and if she is the nominee, many, many Democrats from voters to media to leadership will have baggage in the form of horrific, extreme shit they said about her for the expediency of a political moment.

[Capt. Obvious]

40. She and her husband were dispicable during that primary

Anything in their thirst for power.

[Marr]

143. Yep. How much weight does such fickle fandom carry?

*edited to stay on topic*

[Beacool]

20. Thank you, that's classy of you to write.

[bluedigger]

27. Looking at the list of SoS's, it's kind of a low bar you have set.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Secretaries_of_State_of_the_United_States

HRC has been notable as an advocate of women's rights on the global stage, which is certainly commendable, but she didn't have much more impact than any other SoS that I can see, and wasn't even the first woman to hold the post, but the third.

[malthaussen]

51. I tend to agree...

... admittedly not a fan of Hillary for her hawkish tendencies, but when I read about how she's the best SoS of all time, I keep wondering what it is she did that made her so great? Better than George Marshall? Really?

-- Mal

[bluedigger]

93. The OP did say in the last 46 years, I think.

But yeah, Marshall for the win.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. So was I. Still am. And, still won't vote for her.

It wasn't that "doves were getting killed politically"...it was real people in Iraq, the war she embraced. And, she now supports the drone wars.

[KittyWampus]

33. HER bringing together the party after the primaries? WTF?

No, SHE didn't bring the party together. Obama did.

And she did a commendable job as SoS.

[hrmjustin]

46. Hillary will be my candidate.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

47. The problem I've always had with Hillary Clinton supporters

is that in order to show their support, they feel the need to bash President Obama. So for those of us who really like and admire Hillary Clinton and support her, it doesn't make us like her any more or less when her supporters bash the president.

Nevertheless, if she is the nominee, I will enthusiastically support her. And as I did with Obama, I will work very hard for her campaign, travel to Virginia, knock on doors, make phone calls, whatever I have to do.

However, again, it is not necessary to take every opportunity to bash and offend this president.

Just sayin'.

We need a united Democratic Party. The Corporate Media and the Republican Party have spent nearly 7 years trying to tear this party apart, splitting us into Obama vs. Clinton camps.

The 2008 primaries are over. The Clintons are over it. The Obamas are over it. It's time we got over it, too.

Time to unite for a common cause.

[brooklynite]

55. I'd say the anti-Hillary and anti-Obama folks are the same people...

[RC]

87. You are correct.

Hillary and Obama are so close together, it is hard to tell them apart.

[eridani]

89. Otherwise known as the contingent against corporate rule n/t

[joshcryer]

114. They were for Obama before they were against him.

Google their nicks and Obama and 2008 (if that doesn't work set the time frame to 2007-2009).

[efhmc]

65. Well said.

[TheKentuckian]

50. Forgive her? Is she sorry? Is there reason from her to think she wouldn't do the same thing again?

[AndyA]

56. My only concern about Hillary Clinton is the concentration of power among a few families

When you consider Bush (VP - 8 years) - Bush (President - 4 years) - Clinton (8 years) - Bush II (8 years), that's just two families over a period of 28 years holding top positions in the country. Obama broke the train for 8 years, then we want to go back to Clinton for another 4-8 years?

That seems more like a monarchy to me. If Hillary is the Dem candidate, I will support and vote for her, but I'd truly like to see some new faces, new ideas, and a change in the status quo, which we really haven't had.

I think we really need publicly financed campaigns, with no secret money. That way, all candidates have an equal opportunity. As it is now, unless you're connected and can bring in tons of money, you don't stand a chance. And it's those connections that are troublesome.

[LittleGirl]

79. saved me from typing all that

I agree completely.

I want a true liberal without all of the washington ties that I thought we'd get with Obama...and he has been the biggest disappointment ever! I want new blood. Grayson, Sanders, Warren and those that think and speak and DO like they do. Please thanks.

[SheilaT]

64. Apparently there are only two, or at the most

three Democrats who can possibly run for President three years from now.

Three years. That's a really long time.

Not to mention, that on this very forum in 2001 a very large number of posters thought that Al Gore and only Al Gore could possibly be the nominee in 2004.

In 2005 a very large number of posters assumed that John Kerry and only John Kerry could possibly be our nominee in 2008.

To focus so tightly on Hillary Clinton shows an amazing lack of being able to understand that things will necessarily be very different in three years.

Besides, isn't there another election between now and then? Is there any chance that that election will have any impact on what happens in this country and maybe we should all be paying attention to the upcoming election rather than one three years out?

[murielm99]

66. That managed not to get banned?

I don't know if you were part of the Obama group who had a list of Hillary supporters YOU were trying to get banned. They would issue mass alerts to get rid of us. As a long-time member here, and a real-life activist, I found the behavior of many of those people despicable and I will not forget it.

I could go to events in Illinois and see Hillary and Obama supporters wearing all their gear, sitting next to each other, chatting and sharing a meal.

This website is childish and unrealistic when it comes to primary season. I know it will start up again soon. Have fun. I will be working my precinct, phone banking, fund raising and doing some real work. I hope a few more DU members have grown up since then.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

68. Thank you for all your work and for sharing your thoughts.

There are those who have swarmed in the past. The tactic worked. They'll be back.

[raindaddy]

71. I Won't vote for another DLC Democrat...

It's as simple as that!

[MisterP]

72. those voting yea on IWR did worse over the years than the nay-voting ones

[BillyRibs]

78. Sorry, You were right in "08", but now, You're wrong !

She's still a looser who voted for the war and is a Dino sell out! She is just looking better because she's the lesser of 2 evils. POTUS and VPOTUS are down the tubes. I'd push Warren, Grayson, or Sanders to run. Let sleeping Dinos lie.

[BeyondGeography]

82. Hey, whatever happened to ClarkUSA?

That guy was brutal on Hillary. He made me sound reasonable. You too, I'm sure.

Clarkie, if you're out there, it was fun.

But, come 2016, I'm with you. Hillary would have my full support. It took Obama to defeat her last time; this time, there's nothing in the way if she wants to run. The reason is simple: the only time an insurgency works in our party is when they can claim the black vote. Hillary starts with that as part of her base. Hispanics as well, where she totally rolled Obama in 2008. Warren (or any other challenger) can not defeat Hillary with white keyboard liberals only. Not happening.

I'm comfortable with it because there's something epically perfect about Hillary coming back to the White House a full quarter-century after arriving as First Lady to finish off the right-wing nut jobs who have wreaked havoc on this country for so long. Lord knows she has paid her dues. I just hope she gets better advice this time and Bill doesn't fuck it up for everyone once again.

[Tiredofthesame]

95. What exactly do you think she is going to do

to "finish-off the right wing nut jobs"? In my estimation they are shrinking, but far from being "finished-off".

Do you think she will rewrite NAFTA?
Do you think she will back out of Syria?
Do you think she will do anything to stop banks from owning commodities, and than controlling the prices while they place side bets on the price going up?
Do you think she will stop the NSA, DEA, and FBI from running with virtually no oversight?

I heard a guy, and bought every bit of it, who happens to act alot like her say he would do some of these things in 2008. Hillary is more of the same. If you think you are disappointed now.

As far women's rights. Which I know you didn't speak of, just on my mind. Wouldn't a true progressive Democrat have those values anyway? Man or Woman? We do not need a woman to champion woman's rights.

I would rather have someone who doesn't vote for senseless wars. I would rather have someone who isn't a corporatist. Man or Woman.

[BeyondGeography]

97. Her mere presence will be enough to expose their pointlessness

once and for all. As for exactly how she would govern, anyone who pretends to know is kidding themselves. She has moved with her husband to the center; she just might move on her own to the left again if politics dictates.

Do you see a credible threat to her for the nomination if she runs? If so, I'd like to hear it in mathematical terms.

[Tiredofthesame]

99. I don't see how just her mere presence

will expose their pointlessness. HALF the country still thinks the republicans want you to have it all, and the Muslim man is coming for your guns, and that Christian Fundamentalism belongs in your choice for public office. Hillary getting elected can't fix crazy. I don't get it.

I don't want Hillary to move back to the left when "politics dictates". If you ask me politics dictated 30 years ago that someone be left of center. Progressive. Common sense. Why would you want a chameleon as the commander in chief? Turning colors when the circumstances dictate. Right is right. Wrong is wrong.

As to your question, No. I don't see anyone taking the nomination from her. But the sole reason I think that is because the DNC has already made their choice.

[mercymechap]

102. What?

She just happens to be the most popular person out there on the Democratic side, why would we want to take a chance with anyone else?

[Arctic Dave]

92. I will not support even if she is the primary winner.

Not that me sitting it out in Alaska means anything. But my money and time are not going to go towards her in any form.

[Marr]

144. Same here.

I'm done with trojan donkeys.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

96. There are people who will vote for Biden just to avoid Hillary.

Keeping in mind that Biden is a nice guy who actually wants to build high speed rail.

[arely staircase]

100. here, here

she will make a great president.

[mercymechap]

101. I voted for Hillary

in the Primaries, because I didn't think there was a chance in hell that Obama would get elected.

But I was proven wrong, although, maybe if Hillary had been elected all this racism wouldn't be a factor?

I'm sure righties would find other things to bitch about.

[liberal_at_heart]

106. so you're okay with her involvement in the TPP?

She is a corporate democrat not to mention a hawk. Nope, she will not get my vote.

[millennialmax]

113. Calculated decisions is what I look for in a great leader.

And I can't wait to call HRC my President.

[davidpdx]

115. There's no doubt most of us will

I know I will IF she is the nominee. Now who I support in the primary maybe a different story. I will wait to see who runs.

[bluestate10]

149. Two in the thread have declared that they won't support Hillary, even if she is the

Democratic Party nominee. Given what is happening in the country, I can only say, FUCKING WOW!!!!!!!. Seem like the type of mindset that elected Bush in 2000, we are still paying for that and will be for decades. Yet that mindset sit around and bitch about Social Security cost of living adjustment changes, meta data, the 1% and anything else that strike them as not them.

[davidpdx]

153. I'm skeptical she's going to run

The same with Joe Biden. I just hope we have a large field of candidates to choose from like in 2008.

[Doctor_J]

116. I liked them both but the choice was easy for me

I believed that the time was right for a major sea change, and thought that Hillary was too tied to the dlc to get it done. So I bought into Obama's rhetoric. I now realize that they are pretty much the same. I still think that a revolution could have been undertaken, but that opportunity is now gone and won't be back during my lifetime.

I'll of course vote for the democratic nominee in16 but it won't make much difference wrt getting the country back on track. Big business has won that battle

[Xyzse]

117. If she turns out to be the nominee

I would most likely vote for her.

I don't have a choice. I don't see any Republican candidate worth voting for, and a third party is useless without backers from the house and senate.

[Zorra]

118. I did not vote for either Obama or Clinton in the primary, because I saw no difference between them.

I saw no real choice. Vote for the New Dem corporatist, or vote for the other New Dem corporatist. Admittedly, as a Monday morning quarterback, I would have voted for Hillary if I knew then what I know now.

But anyway, so, well, fuck me, after 8 years of the first corporatist, my only option is going to be the other corporatist.

The status quo stays remains the same. Same shit, different day, the rich consolidate more power, wealth, and authority. The economic program remains the same, we continue to get milked by the Matrix, and get a few crumbs of social and environmental advances.

My only consolation is that under a republican, it would be far worse; under republicans, everything moves rapidly backwards.

yay

[AppleBottom]

120. Didn't Hillary also support the war on Libya.

How do you reconcile that?

[David Krout]

129. You now like her because she will not be opposing Obama, who can no longer run for President

Would she have "grown" on you had she competed against Obama again in 2012? I doubt it.

[DonRedwood]

136. And I LOVED me some Hillary in 08 but was won over by President Obama

I am still proud this country elected an African American man to the office.

I hope I can be just as proud when we elect a woman to the office.

And thanks for the good words on Hillary. She is taking all the ire of the right and just by doing that she does the Democrats a great service. We can go after Rubio, the squirrely dude from Kentucky and that Canadian guy from Texas...the Republicans have no target except Hillary...and she keeps kicking their butts.

[bluestate10]

147. I think the Iraq war was a mistake.

But I supported Hillary in the primary over President Obama. My side lost, but that didn't bother me because I knew that I would support the nominee 100%, which is what I did. I want to see Hillary run again and would support her 100%. I want to see the country have a female President and feel that Hillary is the best option for making that happen, once our country gets a female President, barriers for women in high places in business and government will start to crumble, that is a good omen for our society

But, I do know that if another candidate runs against Hillary in the primary and beats her, I will support the Democratic nominee 100%. There IS NO other sane option.