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

[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.