I see the anti-Hillary brigade is on another tear...

[brooklynite]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026226563

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6225013

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6211673

Doesn't bother me, but just thought I'd better point out that all polling shows Hillary substantially ahead of all prospective opponents; you still haven't convinced Warren to change her mind about running; and nobody has come up with a way that Bernie Sanders acquires the resources to win a national election. If you want to stop a popular US Senator and Secretary of State who racked up 17 million votes last time, you'd better get cracking with something more than blog posts.

[NaturalHigh]

1. I think they save it up for the weekend.

Every time a poll comes out that verifies Secretary Clinton's huge lead in the polls, her haters get fired up to go on a tear.

[Rex]

2. Yeah pointing out that HRCs big donors crashed the economy in 2008

hurt some fee fees. No doubt.

[NanceGreggs]

9. Yeah, she should have refused ...

... donations from all of those individuals who contributed to her, who are also employed by corporations we don't like - in the same way that Warren and/or Sanders would.

Given the pittance donated by multi-billion dollar corporations over the course of Hills political career, I doubt that any fee fees were hurt by the "news" that said corporations contribute funds to political campaigns.

[Rex]

10. No just corporate donations and thanks for proving me right.

Pittance...you are one funny poster.

Hillary Clinton's 'pittance' - https://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/liabilities.php?year=2012&cid=N00000019

Just so everyone knows, NGs idea of pittance is 1 to 5 million in liabilities to the group that wrote the last cromnibus bill in Congress.

[NanceGreggs]

21. Yes, a pittance ...

... according to http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026225013

The largest donation on that list is under $30,000 - and I think you'd agree that for any of the corporations on that list, $30,000 in donations over the course of Hill's political career is indeed a pittance.

As for the individuals who contributed, last time I looked, individual citizens are permitted to donate to the candidate of their choice regardless of who employs them.

But as I said, no doubt Warren or Sanders would refuse all donations from individuals who work for corporations. along with corporations themselves. Yep, they sure would.

[former9thward]

26. Corporations don't donate to federal candidates.

It has been illegal since 1912 and still is.

[NYC Liberal]

33. Hence, the claim that certain companies gave money to her is a bald-faced lie.

And it continues to be perpetuated by those who have some irrational loathing of anything Clinton.

[2banon]

99. "irrational loathing" , Really?

[Rex]

127. Well what did you expect? For one of the few to say they don't know

or that they might be wrong? If there is one thing you can always count on, is our special crew of democracy haters NEVER EVER being wrong or at fault over...anything! Don't you wish you could be perfect like NG and always be right about everything? Me too...just so jelly of her godlike abilities!

[2banon]

161. I used to really appreciate her writing back during Bushco years

it's so weird to see what appears to be some sort of cognitive dissonance, willful denial, complete void of any semblance of critical thinking.. on the same issues we all agreed were outrageous, unexceptionable, suddenly be ok because....!

gotta laugh at it, cuz I'm tired of pulling my hair over it.

[former9thward]

103. Well probably not a lie depending on if they know the law.

Most people don't and they confuse the Citizens United case which many people think allowed corporations to donate. It doesn't. But clearly a lot of employees of various companies donate to certain candidates. Are they encouraged, I don't know, but they may be.

[displacedtexan]

47. Last night, People paid $30,000 to see Obama here in SF...

And to eat some canapés.

That's not a lot of money.

[2banon]

100. $30,000 not a lot of dough if you're a politician

maybe that's the problem.

[MADem]

153. Bernie Sanders took money from HILLPAC--and that "Hill" doesn't stand for "The Hills are Alive with

the Sound of Music" notwithstanding that the Von Trapp family lives in VT...!!!!!

[Thinkingabout]

20. Two other names close to corporations is Warren and Sanders, dont hear complaints about them.

[Rex]

23. Show me the money.

[Thinkingabout]

32. Warren has admitted taking money for her campaign from Wall Street, this

Has been known for some time, reported in the Boston Globe. Bernie spends time with energy and banking lobbyist, weekend on the lobbyists expense account. This information has been around for a while.

[Rex]

36. Total from top 8 for HRC

Citigroup Inc $782,327 $774,327 $8,000
Goldman Sachs $711,490 $701,490 $10,000
DLA Piper $628,030 $601,030 $27,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co $620,919 $617,919 $3,000
EMILY's List $605,174 $601,254 $3,920
Morgan Stanley $543,065 $538,065 $5,000
Time Warner $411,296 $386,296 $25,000
Skadden, Arps et al $406,640 $402,140 $4,500
Lehman Brothers $362,853 $359,853 $3,000

For Sanders
Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union $95,000 $0 $95,000
Teamsters Union $83,700 $700 $83,000
United Auto Workers $75,400 $500 $74,900
National Education Assn $69,850 $1,850 $68,000
Communications Workers of America $65,607 $1,250 $64,357
United Food & Commercial Workers Union $65,500 $0 $65,500
Laborers Union $63,250 $0 $63,250
Carpenters & Joiners Union $61,500 $0 $61,500

Warren
EMILY's List $507,095 $507,095 $0
Moveon.org $453,517 $129,540 $323,977
Harvard University $312,550 $312,550 $0
Massachusetts Institute of Technology $76,200 $76,200 $0
Boston University $73,700 $73,700 $0
Massachusetts General Hospital $72,060 $72,060 $0
University of California $71,950 $71,950 $0
Brown Rudnick LLP $68,077 $67,077 $1,000

Those are career numbers...so no you are totally wrong and go look for yourself on the www.opensecrets.org website. Also, thank you for pointing something out to me...notice a difference between the three and their top donors?

Gee, which ones are responsible for the 2008 economic collapse? Which donors...I can't seem to tell.

[Thinkingabout]

44. I take Warren's statement to be truthful, perhaps open secrets did not go back

To her campaign funds when she was running for senator, I have read their numbers, does not add up to the $42 m she claimed to have spent on her campaign. Check the year they reported and add the numbers.

In the numbers I did not see the report on Sanders attending a weekend meeting with the lobbyists, not saying the numbers you reported are not correct for a portion but attention needs to be given to his other activity. Congressional members needs the funding from corporations, it doesn't make them bad but it must be acknowledged. Don't point out one and overlook the others.

[zeemike]

73. Facts are stubborn things.

And they will dance with the ones that brought them.

[Jackpine Radical]

129. What, you don't know?

Emily's List and MIT were the principal architects of the collapse.

Liz is in it up to her Indian headband.

[JonLP24]

174. She is like the only one out there airing the banks' dirty laundry

Elizabeth Warren Asks The Most Obvious Question Ever And Stumps A Bunch Of Bank Regulators

http://www.upworthy.com/elizabeth-warren-asks-the-most-obvious-question-ever-and-stumps-a-bunch-of-bank

Anything from the drug money laundering, the foreclosure lawsuits filed by regulators which the lawsuits paid the regulators, any crime is usually accompanied by Warren saying the obvious thing that needs to be said.

We need someone to do this for the oil companies.

[brooklynite]

38. "Elizabeth Warren's Money Machine"

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/296227/elizabeth-warrens-wall-street-money-machine-kevin-d-williamson

Elizabeth Warren has called Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown the “poster boy for Goldman Sachs.” Her aide Alethea Harney had this to say: “Unlike with Scott Brown, middle-class families won’t have to wonder whether Elizabeth Warren will choose them over Wall Street.” And why might Scott Brown, who does not have particularly deep ties to Wall Street, choose distant financiers over the voters in his backyard? The answer, Professor Warren says, is filthy lucre, i.e. campaign donations. “The Wall Street guys have been meeting aggressively to say, ‘How many different ways can we fund Scott Brown to make sure Elizabeth Warren does not go to the United States Senate?’” she has charged. A Massachusetts Democratic spokesman, Kevin Franck, made a similar charge: “It’s no surprise that Wall Street and the big banks continue to finance Scott Brown’s campaign, because he continues to put their interests first, ahead of middle-class Massachusetts families.”

Senator Brown shares with President Barack Obama the distinction of being a recipient of very generous campaign donations from Goldman Sachs, his third-largest contributor behind two Massachusetts mainstays: Boston-based Fidelity and Boston-based Liberty Mutual. If these donations make Senator Brown the “poster child for Goldman Sachs,” then we must think of a comparable epithet for Professor Warren, whose campaign also takes in a great deal of money from Wall Street — or, in the interest of more precise metonymy, from the sewers beneath Wall Street. I am in general not much of an admirer of Wall Street bankers, but the bankers are scholars and gentlemen compared to Wall Street lawyers, who combine the rapacity and cleverness of the financier with the paid-by-the-hour-plus-a percentage complacency associated with the legal profession. With apologies to Matt Taibbi, Wall Street lawyers are the sort of people who give vampire squids a bad name.

...snip...

But Cleary Gottlieb’s beneficence is not limited to Ivy League law schools. At least one lawyer in the firm has donated to the Warren campaign, and Cleary Gottlieb has an apparent interest in Massachusetts Democrats: It was a very generous benefactor of John Kerry’s presidential campaign. Beyond that donation to the Warren campaign proper, the firm’s relationship with Democrats is much deeper: Two of its attorneys by themselves have given more than $60,000 to the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, which will of course help Professor Warren. One gave another $9,200 to the DSCC, another gave $10,000 to the DNC Services Corp. The firm donates to the abortion fanatics at Emily’s List, which Catholic Massachusetts might note is Professor Warren’s largest single contributor, and the firm has made very generous contributions to the campaigns of such notable Democrats as Barack Obama, Kirsten Gillibrand, Al Franken, Mark Warner, and others. (Republicans? I found two donations to Mitt Romney. Check out the data yourself, if you’re so inclined.)

I highlighted those lines because the lawyer in question ("Wall Street Lawyers" as the article points out) is my wife. Don't recall Senator Warren having any issues cashing her check.

[Rex]

40. #36

[RiverLover]

62. You post an article from a site that advocates abolishing the EPA

And they mock Progressives for believing in science.

I was shocked this site exists, but since you seem to be familiar with it, why are nutty right-wingers posting BS anti-Warren articles if they don't really believe she's going to enter the 2016 race at some point?

[brooklynite]

74. Um, this was from two years ago during Warren's Senate campaign

[RiverLover]

80. Makes sense. Like Scott Brown back then, they sure love Scott Walker there today!

What a terrific source for you, right up your alley. Wish you didn't feel the need to spread that filth here though.

[brooklynite]

84. The upthread comment was disbelief that Warren would take Wall Street money

[unrepentant progress]

128. You were shocked that National Review exists?

I guess that tells us your age. It's been around since 1955. Ever heard of William F. Buckley? It was his baby. Yes, it's the primary mouthpiece of the pseudo-intellectual far right, and was initially established to undermine Eisenhower's New or Modern Republicanism, but it's hardly the same as Stormfront or Infowars.

[MADem]

155. I think some of the false outrage is amusing as hell, frankly.

If National Review was bashing HRC, it would be the detractors' "go to" publication, renowned for its "lack of detectable ideological bias" -- to riff on comments by Frank Luntz talking about Brian Williams before his fall from grace.

[MADem]

154. I think someone whose spouse contributes thousands to Warren isn't "anti" Warren.

Good grief. I mean, come on.

[Jim Lane]

65. Oh, horrors! Here come "the abortion fanatics at Emily’s List"!

I note with particular interest that, at a time when yourself might give the impression of being on a tear against Elizabeth Warren, you quote National Review to the effect that lawyers at a particular firm donated "to the abortion fanatics at Emily’s List, which Catholic Massachusetts might note is Professor Warren’s largest single contributor...."

I realize you didn't write that. You did, however, find the article so insightful that you quoted a fair amount of text from it, including that passage. Thus, you're well placed to help educate me about how Hillary Clinton stacks up in this respect.

Specifically: Is Hillary Clinton an abortion fanatic?

Thanks in advance for any information you can provide.

[2banon]

102. Well Done!

[MADem]

156. Good grief--read what the guy writes, fachrissake.

He quoted that article because it talked about his spouse's rather GENEROUS donation to ELIZABETH WARREN.

He explained that.

[Enthusiast]

113. It's amazing that someone would sell out so cheaply.

[NanceGreggs]

114. What's even more amazing ...

... is that anyone would find such a notion credible.

Any corporate-loving, Wall Street-hugging, manipulative "Republican Lite" presidential wannabe would have held out for the big bucks.

[Logical]

148. Took her years to pay off her campaign debt. LOL, some great support there. nt

[Historic NY]

46. Well how else do you get to the billion...

its estimated to cost in this election.....Lucky Charms??? Koch Bros. are already way ahead in collecting from 450 people...250 million. . I'm sure they're not funding a Democrat.

Welcome to the reality world of Citizen's Unitied.

[Rex]

49. Yeah fuck writting common sense legislation. The guy with the most expensive pony wins!

Good point.

[McCamy Taylor]

112. Everybody's donors crashed the economy. They give to everyone now. No one leaves a base

uncovered in the post Citizens United world. The only thing that separates the Dems from the GOP is that some really moronic ego-maniacal billionaires will fuck up the GOP's primary once again by funding loony candidates who do not have a snowballs chance in Hell of winning the general but who will force the eventual nominee to move far far far to the right and right off a cliff to spiral down the toilet where Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign went. And more power to them. I call it "Divide and Conquer the 1%". Because the kind of creeps who spend all their time making more money than they will ever spend do it out of fear and the only thing that scares them more than their own workers is other rich creeps.

[Aerows]

3. Nobody has announced their candidacy yet

I think everyone is perfectly within their rights to offer an opinion, since nobody has said they are running yet.

[hifiguy]

4. Her associations speak for themselves.

With war criminal Henry Kissinger



With Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman, who should be in prison for financial crimes against humanity



She is no friend of the people unless by that you mean the very, VERY rich people.

[Rex]

13. But it's just Henry!

And you KNOW the uber rich don't do jail time!

[BlueStater]

18. Rupert Murdoch, as well.

[Cali_Democrat]

27. Don't think that will last....

Murdoch's Fox News is about to tear her apart.

In fact, they already started.

[Caretha]

58. You don't think that will last?

How do you erase history? Please explain, and it is your obligation to explain to me that you "Don't think that will last...".

Seriously you owe ALL of us an explanation as how that will not last.

[Spider Jerusalem]

5. And?

"All polling shows Hillary substantially ahead of all prospective opponents".

This is meaningful because?

Polling from March, 2007:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton continues to lead the pack of Democratic presidential hopefuls, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Wednesday.

Clinton has a lead of about 15 percent, followed by Sen. Barack Obama in second place and former Vice President Al Gore and John Edwards tied for third.

If Gore sticks to his decision not to run, Clinton's lead would grow even larger, poll results show.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/14/democrats.poll/

[AtomicKitten]

175. a reminder of reality

that will be ignored

[onyourleft]

6. Eye of...

...the beholder.

[winter is coming]

7. You sure spend a lot of time talking about things that don't bother you. n/t

[m-lekktor]

8. it bothers you enough to start a thread about it with three links! nt

[Electric Monk]

12. I appreciate the links. I had yet to Rec one of them, though I'd already seen the other two.

This thread isn't exactly turning out like the OP had hoped it would, I'll bet

[Rex]

16. This is a mild freakout compared to last Nov 4th.

When they all freaked out about finding out everyone already knew about the Third Way think tank!


Someones talking about the Third Way! Role out the car and get the motivational sticks out!

[djean111]

11. My guess is that you are really gonna HATE the primaries.

Unless and until either DU is renamed HRC Underground, or Hillary wins the primaries, she is fair game.
Why worry about "blog posts" if Hillary is so darn inevitable, anyway?

[brooklynite]

42. ...and yet, I haven't lonbed a single insult at either Warren or Sanders

boy, must I be desperate.

[djean111]

48. People are "insulting" Hillary's policies. There will be a lot of that. That's part of politics.

Insults at Warren or Sanders? First, someone on DU brought the RW "Indian" meme over here, second - pretty much any thread about Warren or Sanders is promptly gifted with blue linkies about Hillary, reminders of Hillary polls, reminders that Hillary has got sooooo much money already, etc. Very condescending. A bit humorous because of the regularity and the (pointless, IMO) doggedness. Pretty much as "insulting" as disagreeing strongly with Hillary's policies.

[gwheezie]

14. I'm pretty sure hillary is running

If there's any other dem out there planning to run in the primaries they should start getting some organization together by spring.
I plan on voting for hillary in my primary. If someone comes along that can make a better case for keeping a dem in the wh and getting the senate back, I could change my mind. I like hillary. I think she'd be a terrific president but there are other dems I would vote for happily. I'm just not going to play a repeat of 08 with dems bashing dem candidates. If there's someone better than hillary planning to run then that persons supporters should make a case for why that person should be the nominee instead of hillary.

[hopemountain]

15. what are you worried about?

she has not even declared herself a candidate and yet is leading in the polls whilst none of the other possible democratic potential contenders are making much noise. if this trend continues and she decides to run, she will have the democratic nomination in a hand basket.

i really hope she has a contest to the nomination because she needs to hear this: many of us democrats are not happy nor content to vote for her just so we can have a first woman president wearing a designer wall street pant suit with a war hawk lapel pin.

[Thinkingabout]

17. I read how Warren was liberal because she supports increases in minimum wage,

Then I pointed out Hillary co-sponsored the bill for the last federal minimum wage increase. It was pointed out Warren was for health care so American families would not go broke providing healthcare. Hello, Hillary presented healthcare to congress in the 80's.

I just wished the haters would get the stories correct and we would not have to debunk their stories. Son sounds like FOX stories, never tell the whole truth, just throw something out.

[freshwest]

60. But you forgot Benghazi!

[Thinkingabout]

64. Oh, yes forgot about testifying to Congress, namely Darrel Isis, not many has

That experience, huh.

[BlueCaliDem]

180. Not only that, but she supports Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Oh yes, and exasperated by the

tone-deaf supporters who can't take NO for an answer, Senator Warren has instructed her ATTORNEY to write the FEC that she has NOTHING to do with the PAC that's collecting millions of dollars saying they support her candidacy. In fact, she DISAVOWS the "Ready for Warren" PAC and does it in WRITING. But Ready for Warren continues their fundraising effort. I guess it's a very lucrative business.

[font color="red" size="14" face="face"] Elizabeth Warren Officially Disavows 'Ready For Warren' PAC[/font]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-MA) lawyer has sent a "formal disavowal" to the Federal Elections Commission on Ready for Warren —the group that aims to nudge Warren to run for president in 2016.

"This letter serves as a formal disavowal of the organization and its activity," Mark Elias, Warren's attorney wrote in the letter. "The senator has not, and does not, explicitly or implicitly, authorize, endorse, or otherwise approve of the organization's activities."

Later in the letter Elias stresses that "Senator Warren has publicly announced that she is not running for president in 2016."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/elizabeth-warren-disavowal-ready-for-warren

[MannyGoldstein]

19. I prefer to think of them as the pro-working-Americans brigade

Look, we've done it her way for 20+ years. It has gone pretty badly for most of us.

Time for (real) change.

[newthinking]

29. Or maybe someone just found an article that made good reading?

My OP is the first link. It has been quite some time since I posted regarding Clinton (don't think I remember ever having done so even).
I just ran across it and thought it was a well written summary of some of the reasons that many progressives are not excited by her "pre-selection".

[Stellar]

22. I'm with MoveOn.org!

Run Liz, Run!

[Rex]

24. Yeah I think you just brought up the main point for all this faux drama.

MoveOn.org seems to have the neoliberals crapping all over themselves!

[Stellar]

82. Tee-hee!

Too funny. Call it what you want. I'm still for Senator Warren, until it's to late for any other thing but Hillary.

[NYC Liberal]

43. I agree with Elizabeth Warren: Run Hillary run!

Last edited Sat Feb 14, 2015, 10:51 PM - Edit history (1)

[freshwest]

54. You win the thread!

[Stellar]

85. Elizabeth Warren is a nice person right

now until she changes her mind and RUN LIZ, RUN!!!!.

[Cha]

88. Touche', Monsieur NYC Liberal~

[NBachers]

101. You pretzeled it right around back at 'em!

[BlueCaliDem]

106. Mic drop! eom

[uponit7771]

116. +1

[LittleBlue]

25. "Anti-Hillary brigade"-- like the right-wingers claiming Bush Derangement Syndrome

Disagreeing with such a wonderful man had to be personal, as we couldn't possibly disagree with his policies.

We all oppose Hillary for no rational reason. Move along, folks, nothing to see here.

[hifiguy]

28. Bingo!

[Rex]

31. Yeah it is so old and played out here that everyone sees it for what it is.

Yet it doesn't stop them from trying to pretend it is for any other reason but those pesky little facts.

[BainsBane]

39. What policies?

There isn't a campaign yet. Vacuous references to corporatism are not policy or critiques of policy. Obviously it is personal when such people attribute to Clinton everything they dislike about capitalism and the American political system.

The Iraq war: They praise Kerry and Biden, who also voted for Iraq, and hold the war entirely against Clinton.

Corporatism (I'll set aside my irritation at the ahistorical nature of their ridiculous use of that word): They falsely claim she is the darling of Wall Street when in fact Wall Street supports the GOP, probably the same candidates some of those Clinton haters will end up voting for, like Jeb or Scott Walker.

Some have declared that the number one priority is defeating Clinton, not advancing a certain policy or position, not stopping the GOP from doing something, but defeating Clinton. Of course it's personal. It's a visceral, irrational hatred, and anyone who isn't blinded by that same hatred has seen it.

They don't discuss policy. Everything is about individual personalities. The NSA spying issue became all about whether one worshiped or despised Greenwald. There is very little discussion of policy or issues. In fact, I see a great deal of energy put into avoiding such discussions. On top of that, those of us who do discuss issues, who care about social justice, are accused of advancing her candidacy, even when we don't mention her. I was accused of campaigning for her in a post I did about Marxist theory. Who can make that shit up? They insist on reducing any discussion about policy to the lowest common denominator, their views on one or another member of the political elite.

Your policy claim doesn't hold water.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. The republic is two hundred twenty six years old.

It has been nominally capitalist as long as that and posters here are blaming her for it warts. If she truly is she's the most powerful woman, not only in our history, but the history of the world.

WoW.

[BainsBane]

92. Yes, but those who only discovered income inequality in the past couple of years

don't acknowledge that we were born and created as a capitalist state. I'm guessing they see it as a recent development because only in the past few years have they are started to feel a bit what the rest of us have experienced our entire lives.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

94. Michael Harrington wrote "The Other America" In 1962.*

You would have thought some people here read it.






*And he would tell you there has been (an)other America since the founding of the republic.

[BainsBane]

30. If you don't hate Clinton more than anyone on earth

You are siding with the 1 percent, so one of the great minds insists. The number one priority is defeating her, not Jeb, not the GOP, but Hillary Clinton. She and she alone is responsible for capitalism--("corporatism&quot and the well-being of the world depends on her defeat. You know how it goes.

I make a point of waiting until there is an actual election to decide on the candidate I will support. I watch debates, look at their positions on the issues, how they are running their campaigns, etc.... I will say, however, that the vacuous arguments of many of those who oppose her so vehemently have gone a lot way toward persuading me to support her.

[freshwest]

59. Yes, I never cared for her as a candidate. But dammit I agree with you here:

I will say, however, that the vacuous arguments of many of those who oppose her so vehemently have gone a lot way toward persuading me to support her.

Those who keep on trumpheting like GOP elephants make this braying Democrat rebel against their vitriol. Unexpected consequences of the non-stop dissing of Rand Paul's chief nemesis is to drive the undecided to her.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0208/Why-does-Rand-Paul-keep-bringing-up-Monica-Lewinsky

Sure, Mr. Rand -Personhood - Paul:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/03/17/tea-party-senator-rand-paul-seeks-to-ban-abortion-completely-with-new-fetal-personhood-bill/

We didn't buy you national RTW bills, either:

http://nhlabornews.com/2013/02/senator-rand-paul-submits-a-national-right-to-work-bill/

Nor your stance on same sex marriage:

http://americablog.com/2013/06/gop-sen-rand-paul-supreme-court-decision-may-lead-to-bestiality.html

Anymore than we bought your support of voter suppression:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/13/rand-paul-voting_n_5317028.html

And your property rights above civil rights stance:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/10/1847751/rand-paul-falsely-says-he-never-opposed-the-civil-rights-act/

And that thing about lunch counters:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rand_paul_the_civil_rights_act_and_private_discrimination/

And ending SS:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-miller/rand-paul-has-a-blunt-ins_b_585308.html

Those homophobic, anti-labor, sexist, etc. stands do not apply to Hillary.

Why do I bring Rand into this post?

His supporters are by far the most rabid, OTT Hillary and Bill haters on Earth. They absolutely froth at the mouth over her. And Democrats as a whole. Any attack on the Democratic nominee, in the end, is a vote for Rand or some other RWNJ.

[BainsBane]

89. They claim he is to the left of Clinton and even the entire Democratic Party

They have so distorted the term left, it's gotten to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if someone claims the Klan is leftist. If they can claim someone like Paul. who takes ultra-reactionary positions including deregulation of big business and the environment, is to the left of the Democratic Party, they have no idea what it means to be on the left.

Also, have you noticed there is a correspondence between the Hillary haters and the Putin apologists?

[NanceGreggs]

34. You obviously don't understand.

It is not important who can win the WH in 2016.

What IS important is the people who would rather see a Republican elected POTUS than go against their "principles" by voting for Hillary - which would give them four-to-eight years of bitchin' time right here on DU.

And it's not like said people are doing nothing. They've already come up with "Ready for Someone Else" bumperstickers - which are sure to sway the populace away from voting for Hill. I understand they also found some old costumes out in the barn, so they'll be puttin' on a no-Hillary show that will dazzle dozens of voters!

[KoKo]

37. Would be helpful for you to list reasons WHY you support Hillary...so soon...

What do you think Hillary will do for America's Working Class that Obama hasn't already Done and how does she feel about America's Wars everywhere. That's what I'd like to know from Hillary's supporters.

I don't hear those issues addressed by her early supporters.

So....what issues will Hillary Run On?

[NanceGreggs]

41. My biggest reason for supporting Hillary ...

... "so soon" is the fact that in poll after poll, she beats every Republican who may or may not enter the race.

Better an imperfect (D) than an (R) every time.

I want a Democrat as POTUS in '16 - and if Hill is our best shot at that goal (which she appears to be), she's got my support.

[KoKo]

50. But that Ignores what Message she will run on to get all of us out here...

to Vote for Her.

Just because she's a "Democrat and Republicans are Evil and Worse" just isn't going to cut it in 2016. Newer Generations and some very Angry Older Generations.

What does she bring to the table? She was a President's Wife who got herself elected by his supporters as Senator from NYState and then she ran for President with Obama and Obama WON....and she got SOS as Consolation Prize. She laughed over Ghadaffi "deposed" in a brutal way from Libya and it was On To More Wars.

What's "Foward Thinking" about her except that she's Better than the Republicans? What is better about her? Look at her Wall Street Criminal Bankers Support...Look at her Support for Endless Wars and her laughing at Ghadaffi's gruesome death and lately making fun of Putin (another World Leader) that she disagrees with but, instead of diplomacy, she goes for the MOCK a second time.

What's important about her? Why do our Democrats not have Anyone Else who will step up? What about the Scandals about Bill since he left the Presidency brewing that will take over the Media Airwaves in the next couple of years (a liability) and that there's NO Message from her yet she has locked up all this money from Wall Street Donors that should be in jail?

I just don't get it... She needs a Message rather than: "I'm better than the Repubs...and I was First Lady, Senator and SOS so I'm "Entitled."

[NanceGreggs]

55. She's a Democrat.

That makes her better than any Republican.

What's important about her? She's a Democrat, which makes her better than any Republican.

"Why do our Democrats not have Anyone Else who will step up?"

Maybe it's because (as polls/surveys have shown), millions of Democrats are happy with Hillary as the nominee.

"I'm better than the Repubs...and I was First Lady, Senator and SOS so I'm "Entitled."

Sorry, but I can't find a single statement from Hill saying she is "entitled" on the basis of having been First Lady, a Senator, and/or the SOS. Could you provide a link to those quotes?

TIA

[840high]

75. Not all Democratas are good.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

81. The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.

This has been true since Abraham Lincoln attended Ford's Theater.

[840high]

86. I don't agree but you're

welcome to your opinion.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

91. I swear I'm not being snarky then why are on a Democratic site. /NT

[840high]

132. Why shouldn't I be

here? Life long Dem till my party let me down. Now an Independent.

[Autumn]

138. Zell Miller.

[NanceGreggs]

110. I don't vote on the basis of ...

... who's "good" - whatever that means.

I vote for the candidate who can do some good when they're in office.

And as history has taught us, nothing good ever comes out of a Republican in office - ever.

[NBachers]

104. Thanks for breaking it down into easy-to-understand, bite-sized pieces, Nance.

[msanthrope]

168. I've supported HRC, to the hilt, ever since I watched her tell certain Christian conservative

lawmakers that no---she was NOT firing her openly gay press secretary.

No--not only was she not firing Neel, but they were just going to have to grow the fuck up and treat her press secretary with dignity and respect. Now, of course, that was not the wording she or her staff used. But those bastard Republicans....and their wives....got the message loud and clear.

[Caretha]

57. Oh Oh !!!!

Nance Greggs pulls out the scare card!!!! (visualize me quaking in my boots) We COULD HAVE A REPUBLICAN FOR PRESIDENT!

Nance, Nance, Nance...

You are a writer dear, try being more creative, I'm sure you can come up with another meme that is more persuasive.

[NanceGreggs]

66. I'm not trying to persuade anyone.

Just pointing out the facts.

If you want to see the "scare card" in action, just check out the dozens of "we're ALL DOOMED" posts that are more than plentiful on DU every day.

I personally don't buy into that shit - but if you do, there's no end to the shopping possibilities.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. They did a survey on DU

DU members were wealthier, more educated, older, more female , and much more whiter than the general population. Of course there were exceptions. These aren't the people that will be crushed if the Republicans control all the levels of government.

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act I got my broken elbow fixed and medicine and continuing care for my hypertension. My old man died at 58 years old. He was a fifty eight year old man with a eighty year old heart. I don't think he had seen a doctor in twenty years. I was fourteen years old.

If John McCain were in the White House I would still have my broken elbow and I would still have my hypertension.

Who occupies the White House matters.

[freshwest]

61. And those who would perish under a Tea Party White House be damned...

Must be nice for those who are so insulated from harm that they can destroy the USA in order to satisfy their own little quirks.

[LWolf]

124. Bill Clinton

campaigned and won against a republican with "It's the economy, stupid." Then he ushered in the era of Democratic neo-liberals, who gleefully set about taking apart policies that protected the working class in favor of the 1%.

Hillary is a neo-liberal. The Democrats can do better. Electing another neo-liberal to the White House is not winning. It's a lesser evil. Lesser, because yes, Hillary is better on most social issues than republicans. The bottom line, though, is that neo-liberals are weak on social issues as well, because the economy they drive does not support those in need.

We can do better. We should do better. We SHOULD elect someone who is strong on social and economic issues. That's not HRC.

And that leaves her supporters with one major campaign strategy: the fear tactic. The tired, over-used "Would you rather see !*!*!*! in the WH??????? The lesser evil strategy.

That may not be very inspiring to those who lost their jobs, their savings, and their homes while the economic recovery went to the top, and are now working 2 or 3 part-time jobs for less money than their old full-time job paid.

Your sarcasm in the face of the needs that will not be met by a Clinton presidency is, to say the least, not very effective.

[NanceGreggs]

135. Stating that it will either be ...

... a (D) or an (R) elected as the next POTUS is not a "scare tactic" - it is a statement of fact.

Come election day, those are the choices. You either vote for one or the other - or you refuse to vote, or throw your vote away by writing someone in. The latter choice, IMHO, should preclude all non-voters from opening their mouths for the next four-to-eight years. If you can't be bothered to participate in the process, no one should have to be bothered with hearing your after-the-fact opinion.

The problem with the "we can do better than Hill" crowd is the fact that they're always too busy running around with their Label-Maker, attaching labels to anyone and everyone, desperately posting every anti-Hillary soundbyte they can find, but never offer a viable alternative - and by "viable", I mean someone who can win the general election.

There is also the fact that HRC is extremely popular with the party as a whole - which the anti-Hillary contingent put down to everyone else being stupid, ill-informed, wrong-headed, and politically ignorant, while they are part of an elite few who really know what's best for everyone else.

The "Ready for Someone Else" graphic now popping up on DU says it all: "We don't want Hillary - but we haven't a clue as to who we do want."

And the fact that the most popular Hillary "replacement" is Liz Warren, who isn't even running, speaks for itself.

"That may not be very inspiring to those who lost their jobs, their savings, and their homes while the economic recovery went to the top, and are now working 2 or 3 part-time jobs for less money than their old full-time job paid."

Whether inspiring or not, those in dire straits will certainly not be better served by any Republican president over a Democratic one. And if HRC is our best bet to win the WH in 2016, that's fine by me.

[LWolf]

143. Of course,

your post that I responded to said nothing about whether or not it will be a (D) or an (R) elected as the next POTUS, so that's not what I responded to. Trying to shove a lesser evil down voters' throats IS a "scare tactic," it's true. Trying to do so before any candidates have even announced their candidacy, instead of working hard to get a better Democrat nominated, is a pathetic tactic. That IS what I'm focused on; potential PRIMARY candidates. I haven't anointed HRC and jumped forward into GE campaigning before the primaries even begin.

I think Warren keeps popping up because so many are desperate for ANYBODY but HRC, and Warren and Sanders are the most outspoken opponent to neo-liberalism at this point. Still, they aren't the only possibilities, and until the primary campaign season is actually under way, I haven't picked a candidate to support. That I won't be supporting neo-liberals, including HRC, is simply a given, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Warren's plans.

The bottom line is that those in dire straits, and there are way, way too many at this point, will not be served by a Republican in the WH; neither will they be served by a neo-liberal. Since I don't want the (D) in your declaration of fact to be a neo-liberal, I will be pushing any non-neo-liberal willing to run against her.

[NanceGreggs]

144. I have a news flash for you.

Every political race, whether for POTUS or otherwise, is between the "lesser of two evils", in that all politicians are flawed human beings, as prone to making poor decisions as everyone else. The search for the perfect candidate who will cure all ills is a fantasy, perpetuated by those who believe such a candidate exists.

But you are free to push your "non-neo-liberal" candidate - just as soon as you determine who that "non-neo-liberal" is.

It's too bad you didn't think to do so before now. It's also too bad that polls/surveys show that the Party as a whole is satisfied with HRC as their potential nominee - whether you personally like it or not.

HRC's running for POTUS in 2016 has been pretty much a given since 2008. Speaking up against her potential run might have made an impact at any point over the past six-plus years - but speaking up at what is, politically speaking, the "last minute" has little value.

But, hey - good luck with attempting to catapult that "nominee to be announced later" into a presidential campaign that, for all intents and purposes, is already underway. I'm sure that whoever you finally come up with will dazzle the populace and be swept into office.

[LWolf]

145. News flash, lol.

You crack me up.

There are a bunch of Democrats I'm willing to support, because they are not neo-liberals. I have in the past, I am currently, and I will in the future. Clearly, I thought of that "before now," and clearly, since nobody has even officially announced, there's plenty of time yet before the Democratic Convention to "do so."

And, for the record, I've spoken against her potential run since the last time she ran in a presidential primary; I never stopped.

Whether my candidate of choice "dazzles the populace" or "is swept into office" is to be determined; but nice job trying to crown HRC without having to engage in the hard work of actually earning a nomination. THAT'S democratic.

[NanceGreggs]

146. And did you think that ...

... your "speaking against her potential run since the last time she ran in a presidential primary" on DU was enough to garner the necessary support for someone else?

right back at ya!

Good luck with coming up with an alternative between now and the 2016 election cycle - I'm sure whoever you eventually decide on will be political perfection personified.

"Crowning" HRC? Apparently you don't know the difference between a coronation and the voice of the people - or, more to the point, you don't want to know the difference.

But by all means, keep on keepin' on.

[LWolf]

164. I don't think I said anything about DU.

While I have often spoken against her potential run here, that's certainly not what I was referring to. There are so many people to talk to face-to-face, don't you know.

While we both know that there is no such thing as "political perfection personified," I'm sure whomever I choose to support will be worth my time and effort. And yes, "crowning" was deliberate, since we are already hearing the message that she's inevitable, before the primary campaign season begins. That's not the democratic voice of "the people."

You really need to work on your efforts at sarcasm. They fall flat.

[NanceGreggs]

170. So how's that working out for you?

So you told "people" you're against Hillary running? So what?

The "Hillary is inevitable" meme originated with political pundits and the MSM. It was "the thing to say" back in 2008, until it became obvious that Obama would be the nominee. And now the pundits and the MSM have trotted it out again.

If that's the "message" you're hearing, you're hearing it from a source that no one has taken seriously for many, many years.

[LWolf]

177. It's working fine.

Thanks for caring.

[stevenleser]

181. Don't you know, as that poster opined, all bad things came from Bill Clinton being elected!!!

He ushered in wealth inequality, it is from him that the Democratic Party first had anything to do with corporations. In fact no Democrat ever bought anything from a corporation ever before Bill Clinton, everyone had great healthcare that was free and there was universal ethnic and gender equality! It was all the Clintons!!!!11!!1!1!1!1111111 elevens!

[Logical]

149. Find ONE post that says they want a GOP president, or self delete this! nt

[Bobbie Jo]

157. Oh my

that sounded like a demand!

Did you stomp your feet too?

[Logical]

159. No just calling out another made up OP. nt

[davidpdx]

35. Pointing out reasons why a candidate is not acceptable, especially in a primary

is not anti-candidate (meaning whomever we are talking about). What should be is the purity police who go around calling people names because they won't support a candidate.

Just saying.....

[d_b]

45. Sorry, bud

But we can't all be NYC power elite insider gimmicks.

Cut her a check for 2 million, schedule brunch with Big Dog, and deal with it.

[BrotherIvan]

117. +1

Our "resident 1%er" doesn't like it when the poors talk back.

[KingCharlemagne]

52. After Sanders knocks her off in Iowa and New Hampshire (two venues that

play to his strength in retail small-town politics), let's re-visit the subject, m'kay?

[brooklynite]

87. If Sanders knocks Clinton out of the race, I'll do my damndest to get him elected...

...can I count on you if the reverse happens?

[KingCharlemagne]

120. First of all, please allow me to applaud your party esprit. That is a laudable

attribute and one not to be taken lightly in these days of loose party affiliation. So Bravo! to you.

However, that is your system of ethics and, laudable though it may be, is not exactly mine. The degree of my support for Ms. Clinton is conditional. To wit, for Ms. Clinton to earn my unqualified and enthusiastic support, she must first apologize to the nation and to the party for her vote to authorize the invasion and occupation of Iraq in March 2003. Her vote helped enable the crime of the century, if not of the millennium to come -- knock on wood about Ukraine. As a corollary, I would hope to see Ms. Clinton announce the immediate commencement of war crimes investigations by the Department of Justice upon her inauguration.

In the absence of such an apology, I shall hold my nose and vote for Ms. Clinton as the 'lesser of two evils,' but with a full understanding that I am voting for her only to stave off a fascist consolidation of power in a one-party state, and not out of admiration or respect for her positions, achievements or potential.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. I see the "Not as bad" brigade is on another tear...

With the usual warnings about electing Cruz or Palin or Jeb or somebody if we don't jump on the train and...

[840high]

77. Gets old. I'm not willing

to settle for the lesser of two evils this time around.

[Katashi_itto]

96. I wont either

[Caretha]

56. Just stick it

you sch-tick is becoming old.

Please get creative....you are beginning to sound like a broken record. We all get it, you think we should nominate Hillary for President before there is even a primary. Personally I still like the democratic process where the American people get to vet the candidate and vote for the one we think will be best for America. I know the big money will get to choose...

but could you please just let us plebes believe that we might choose the best person for President instead of "your" chosen one?

[blue neen]

93. "Just stick it"?

Well, stating that line certainly makes one sound open-minded.

[Katashi_itto]

97. +1000

[Vattel]

63. I do what I can. The more resistance she gets, the more likely someone electable will oppose her.

[StevieM]

173. It's silly to say that Hillary is not electable.

I don't know whether she will win or not. And you are welcome to prefer someone else as the nominee. But it makes no sense to label her as unelectable.

Usually we call someone like Dan Quayle unelectable, someone who has years of terrible polling numbers and a huge percentage of the county saying not just that they don't plan on voting for him, but that they would NEVER vote for him.

Hillary is currently leading in the GE polls and has been for some time. Voters also said--overwhelmingly--in the 2008 Election exit polls that they would have voted for her had she been the nominee.

None of this means that she will win in 2016, if she's nominated, or even that someone else might not turn out to be a better candidate. But it does contradict the claim that she is not electable.

[Vattel]

178. Oops, I didn't express myself well. I didn't mean to imply that Clinton is not electable.

I am just hoping that a more progressive person who is also electable will step up to the plate.

[Omaha Steve]

67. IF Hillary can't handle static from the left

How will she ever cope with what undoubtedly will be coming from the right & tea baggers?

[cab67]

68. Molly Ivins once said of Bill Clinton...

…that he wasn't her kind of Democrat. I feel that way about Hillary Rodham-Clinton - she's far too centrist to me.

But if she's the nominee, I will fight tooth and nail to help her get elected. The thought of a Republican making multiple Supreme Court replacements scares the living shit out of me.

[Exhibit A]

71. +1, n/t

[still_one]

79. WHAT!!! you don't want more justices like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito?

[raindaddy]

83. Why?

They already have a majority and remembering how the Democrats failed to "fight tooth and nail" against Roberts, the balance of the court is probably not going to change for a long time.

How long do we continue to have to find excuses to support a party that has abandoned it's ideals?

[Tarheel_Dem]

108. You might be in the wrong place. The place that supports the other party is that-a-way------->>>>>>

Perhaps you should revisit the TOS before proceeding?

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[BrotherIvan]

115. The poster said nothing about not voting for Democrats

And yet you are already showing him the door and trotting out the TOS. Really a nasty reception.

[Tarheel_Dem]

150. Nasty or not.....

"How long do we continue to have to find excuses to support a party that has abandoned it's ideals?"

This board is for Democrats. Sounds a lot like the old Nader quip to me, and that crap don't fly here.



Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[BrotherIvan]

160. I'm so glad you're here to tell everyone what to think

There's a sarcasm thingy in there just in case you can't see it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

166. Posting the stated TOS is "telling you what to think"?

[raindaddy]

121. Where did I say I supported the other party?

I come from a long line of Irish labor supporting Democrats. But I understand the, you're either with us or against us mentality. We've been hearing that from the"other party" for years. If what I posted is really a problem, DU should remove the "Underground" from it's title and exchange it for Fellowship...

[Tarheel_Dem]

151. I'll let you take that up with the Admins.

[raindaddy]

162. You Might Want To Read Your Own Cut & Paste

When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them.

[Tarheel_Dem]

167. We've been in the "heat of election season", ostensibly, since the GOP began announcing candidates.

[raindaddy]

169. The heat of election season????

The election isn't until 2016 and Hillary hasn't even announced whether she running. But let's make everyday the "heat of election season" so we don't have to waste our beautiful minds on critical posts about Hillary Clinton.

[cab67]

118. When it comes to the Supreme Court, even centrist Democrats in the White House have come through.

Bill Clinton gave us Ginsburg and Breyer. Obama gave us Sotomayor and Kagan.

In 2016, three of the currently serving justices will be in their 80's - Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Scalia. I would rather have a member of the Democratic Party - even one whose overall philosophy clashes with mine - select Scalia's replacement. Breyer and Thomas will also be getting up in age during this time. And there's always the possibility of an unexpected departure for unforeseen reasons.

There is thus a good chance that the next president could move the court away from its right-wing trajectory. We could be looking at a reasonable Democratic-party-nominated majority by the end of 2024.

To those who say HRC is no different from a Republican - she's not my kind of Democrat, either. But on the balance, even Democrats who lean further to the right than they should tend to nominate good Supreme Court justices, and that tips the balance for me every time.

[raindaddy]

125. But the court remains in the hands of corporations....

We've had four Presidents in the last thirty years. Two Republicans, one 1 term and one 2 term. And two Democrats, two 2 term. Even with long periods of Dem Senate majorities, the SCOTUS remains corporate friendly.

If a Democrat actually had the opportunity opportunity to shift the court. The Republicans and the ever present DINO's will fight it until the bloody end. Unlike the Democrats who ended up folding on both Thomas and Roberts.

I understand your reasoning cab67. Respectfully, don't we deserve a candidate that actually reflects our values, instead of having to scrape the bottom of the barrel for reasons to vote for a candidate who pretends to value the importance of a party that actually protects the interests of the poor and middle class only to betray them once in office? Who's party is this?

Try convincing the 80 % of 18 to 30 year olds who no longer bother to vote about the importance of voting for Hillary Clinton because there's a slight possibility of changing the balance of the SCOTUS. A Democratic party that claims to represent the interests of the American working class, that only has 32% of the public that still identifies with them and can't get more than 20% of young voters to the polls is a dying party.

[cab67]

131. As I see it,

the two greatest evils harming our political landscape are corporate money and gerrymandering. Decisions made in recent years by the SCOTUS have made these worse. In most cases, it was a 5-4 vote led by a Republican-nominated majority. That's how the balance currently stands - 5 justices nominated by Republicans, 4 by Democrats.

I agree that the SCOTUS is too deferential to corporate America, but do you honestly think a SCOTUS dominated by Democratic nominees would have given us the Citizens United decision it handed down? Or the Hobby Lobby decision, or the decision that struck down part of the Voting Rights act? Given the narrowness of the current Republican majority and the advancing age of some, I think the chances for a recalibration of the SCOTUS itself in the next 8 or 9 years are strong, as long as we can get a Democrat elected in 2016.

Believe me, I really do see your point. I agree that the Democratic Party has moved far too close to the political center since the 1980's. But acting in a way that might help get a Republican elected just isn't an option for me when one balances the world I want with the world we have.

I'm doing what I can to change this. I pay attention to the news, I vote in local as well as state/national elections, I engage my neighbors on political issues, I write to my congressman from time to time, and I take part in the caucuses. I will also be supporting the most progressive candidate in 2016 in those caucuses - not HRC. But the kind of electoral landscape we have means that HRC might very well be the nominee. If that happens, I will do what I can to get her elected to the White House and continue to fight for progressive causes wherever I can.

[raindaddy]

140. I appreciate your position and thoughtful response cab67.

I think where we differ is, I no longer believe the current Democratic leadership really wants to change the balance of the court. I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

[Art_from_Ark]

171. Actually 5 presidents in the last 30 years

That time span would also include 4 years of Reagan.
OK, I take that back-- 4 presidents, and one imposter.

[raindaddy]

183. Reagan, how could I have forgotten?

And we probably should give Nancy a little recognition for those last four years...

[Art_from_Ark]

184. Nancy-- and her astrologer

[raindaddy]

69. Absolutely!

What percentage of the population actually identifies themselves as Democrats? 32% and sinking. The polls reflect a shallow name recognition popularity contest... 21% of people under 30 even bother to turn up at the polls. Think about it! Who are you supporting by continuing the myth that Hillary represents anyone except Wall Street, military contractors and global corporations?

[Beacool]

70. They can't seem to help themselves.

Notice that some are even posting articles from RW sites.

[clg311]

72. I don't vote for warmongers period.

Her record speaks for itself.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/11/the-warmongering-record-of-hillary-clinton/

[MrMickeysMom]

78. I see an OP that has difficulty in distinguishing "anti-Hillary brigade" from...

Providing the argument as to why any Democratic candidate like HRC cannot be an effective leader.

When I read these puerile responses as to how she'll poll when compared to the Republican know-nothings, I get a clear picture of the kind of American voter who continues to be blind as to what we must do to survive our ever-increasing neo-feutalism form of existence. "Because she's a Democrat" only works when you see what kind of Democrats have a chance anymore, given who's calls these Democrats will take. Read the list of major supporters of HRC again. We need someone we can believe in…. and I'm ready for THAT someone.

I've already voted for the Democratic Senator who votes just like the Republican one in our state. How do you explain that? The only difference is that he's more polite. You know, I hear many like it when the person asking them to bend over and grab their ankles is polite about it…

[BainsBane]

95. No more puerile than the arguments against Clinton

ie. Clinton as a "corporatist."

I suppose if you are privileged enough, there might not be any difference between the GOP and the Democratic Party. But for those of us who care about issues of basic rights--control over our bodies, marriage equality, civil rights--and social justice, there is a considerable difference. Of course we who are not straight, white, male, or affluent have been told our concerns are "Third Way" and therefore illegitimate in comparison to our betters.

[MrMickeysMom]

98. Oh, horse shit...

You don't have to be privileged to understand when those you put into office do nothing or only a few things to string you along, but do NOTHING to address the loss of basic rights OR a voice in how your congress votes, or what bills are signed into law.

That, "we who are not straight, white male or affluent have been told our concerns are 3rd way" doesn't hold water when it is also you who are affected by the inability of DLC Democrats to do anything about control over our bodies, civil rights and social justice. Marriage equality is but a subset crumb thrown down for the hustings to covet whilst their civil rights erode more each day. Wake up.

[Marr]

105. This is skirting as closely to a call-out as the rules could allow. /nt

[Bobbie Jo]

109. Please cite and link to the rule regarding "call-outs."

Thanks.

[Marr]

123. Well...

Here's an old thread where Skinner himself says they are:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x4366

And here's a comment from a noteworthy opponent of the practice-- no doubt speaking from pure, immutable principle:
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5058352

Thanks.

[harun]

137. Was thinking along the same lines.

[Bobbie Jo]

182. Well

Last edited Tue Feb 17, 2015, 11:53 AM - Edit history (1)

First link: DU2 - doesn't really apply here. Meh. There were a lot of "rules" that didn't make the transition to DU3, unfortunately. Taking another look at the link, this is actually a weak cite, but okay, I suppose a vague reference counts for something...

Second link: I'm flattered that you would take the time to search my posts, that's precious. Of course you know that being opposed to a certain practice and questioning the existence of an actual "rule" are two different things, right?

Nice try, I guess, but a big fail on the gotcha moment.

[Phentex]

122. This is a newer version of DU. Callouts are not specifically prohibited but as Skinner says...

you take your chances.

[dissentient]

107. So, great, then Hillary will cruise to victory. No need to be concerned or nervous

about other candidates or what is said about Hillary.

Right?

[McCamy Taylor]

111. I believe it was Nader who said that a GOP president is better for the far left

because it gives them something to complain about. More or less. Certainly, were I a paid political journalist on the left I would be PRAYING to the Flying Spaghetti Monster for another Tricky Dick or Bush/Cheney.

What would Michael Moore have done between 2001 and 2008 had Al Gore been president?

I expect to hear LOTS of left leaning journalists whining about how we must not nominate a centrist candidate before Summer 2016.

[ileus]

119. Hillary....this time we WON'T be denied what's right.

[SidDithers]

126. The fringe left hates Hillary, and they don't mind using right-wing sources to get their hate on...

Big thread using the Washington Free Beacon's super-awesome conservative opinion to attack a Democrat in GD right now.

Any port in a storm for the Hillary haters.

Sid

[DisgustipatedinCA]

133. Sid is the media decider. Iteration 1.

[SidDithers]

134. You're OK with using conservative sources to attack Democrats at DU?...

Really?

Sid

[zappaman]

172. You better believe it! n/t

[randr]

130. If you really want change in government

You have to change the people who make their living in government.

[harun]

136. She'll get less turn out than Dem's did the last election session. In other words stomped.

Why would any Progressive be motivated by the bluest of Blue Dog Democrats.

Yay Hillary!
More war, less taxes for the rich, more free trade, make the rich more rich!

When's the last time we heard her talk about:

Peace
High Speed Rail
Single Payer
Reduction in military spending
etc.

Our problems aren't going to be fixed by any nominee. We need a campaign finance reform constitutional amendment before any of us give a shit about voting again.

[cwydro]

139. I still like Hillary.

I see that it is not cool on DU to like Hillary anymore.

But I still do.

[great white snark]

141. Meh, it's all posturing. They'll vote for Hillary.

Meanwhile appearances need to be kept.

[Ykcutnek]

142. Hyperventilation is common among the activist portion of our party.

As my late grandmother would say, bless their hearts.

[Logical]

147. I see the Pro-Hillary brigade is whining again. nt

[MADem]

152. General election season (which is when the field is established) can't come soon enough.

Per the TOS:

...when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

It's one thing to disagree on actual policy statements, but all of the "guilt by association" smears and attempts to try her for the 'crimes' of her husband--that kind of silliness is simply the present-day equivalent of a Kenyan birth certificate and a friendship with a firebrand pastor. It's LOW. It's desperate. But don't get angry or upset, in fact, take heart when you see that kind of thing--it's an indication that her detractors have absolutely nothing but bluster and nastiness--and that stuff has a short shelf life.

[Jamaal510]

158. I've mostly

stayed out of it, but I just think it's pathetic to see this going on. She's not even my preferred candidate, but to see people on a political website (let alone one for Democrats) be unaware of/discount the number of differences in policy between Clinton and any member of the Republican circus (and threatening not to vote should she be the nominee) has me SMH. It almost reminds me of how the 'Baggers complain about so-called "RINOS" and moderates in their party, as various pejoratives get directed at her such as "3rd way" and "Republican-lite." What really baffles me is that a few of the same people who criticize Clinton have been adamant Obama supporters, even though his agenda has also been fairly moderate like Clinton's. I'm typically not a gambling man, but I'd be willing to bet that there are RW lurkers right now who are -ing, -ing, and -ing at the stuff said on some of the Clinton-related threads.

[Initech]

163. Pass the butter, things are only going to get worse.

I say sit back, grab a beer or your beverage of choice, and watch the flame wars.

[hootinholler]

165. Damn I didn't see anywhere in your links

Where I can sign up for the anti-Hillary Brigade.



I was hopeful for a minute.

[grahamhgreen]

176. Is she for or against the TPP costly trade partnership?

[RedstDem]

179. I think she'll end up winning every poll

Except the last one.