Dear Bobby, It's not the person who is hated but her policies & SUPPORT OF CORPORATISM!

[mod mom]

Dear Bobby,

As much as I respect your work for the environment and efforts in exposing the election fraud in Ohio that put Bush instead of John Kerry into the White House in 2004, I take offense in your labeling of those who oppose Hillary as "haters". I am a lifelong Democrat who volunteered full time for Kerry Edwards (despite supporting Howard Dean in the primary) inFranklin County Ohio. I started and manage a 300+ volunteer team in my area that worked visibility events, rallies, fundraisers and of course the all important GOTV efforts, not only in my area, but also on the near east side of Columbus Ohio (you will remember that these are the low income Af Am precincts that waited 2-5 hours in the cold, pouring rain to vote Democratic). I personally witnessed the disenfranchisement that you wrote about in your infamous Rollingstone article. After Nov 2nd, I didn't sit home and sulk, I was out on November 3rd organizing an investigation. I joined up with Citizens Alliance for Secure Elections (CASE Ohio) and Freepress. We organized the Fight for Democracy Rally and protests that included Greg Palast, Rev Jesse Jackson and others to bring attention to what occurred. We held hearing including one that brought Congressman John Conyers and members of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic delegation to Columbus to draw attention to our plight since it became obvious very soon that the corporate media was not going to pay attention. After it became apparent that our Democratic leadership, outside of the CBC and a few others were going to turn their backs on those votes, I got involved locally and nationally with election integrity groups and continued investigating. I have stood in cold BOE warehouses copying op-scan ballots. I have hand counted dozens of precincts of ballots in search of the truth. In essence, I got involved because I truly care about what is occurring in this country.

To dismiss my strong opposition of Hillary Clinton as that I hate her, is insulting. It has been suggested that folks like me take issue with powerful women or that we border on pathology in our dislike for Hillary. I am tired of being labeled in such a way when just the opposite is true. I have taken the time and effort to research the candidate and I find her policies as well as her choice in those she has selected as strategists to be against what I believe is best for our country. I believe that her strong alliance with the DLC guides many of her actions. I do not believe this group is working in the best interest of the people of this country. The policies that the DLC espouses are ruining the middle class and helping to prolong the war. It is her support of free-trade, IWR and her recent vote of Kyl-Lieberman that I am against. It is the likes of her strategists: Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson, James Carville and Will Marshall who concern me.

Sometimes, people who agree on many issues (environment, election fraud) simply disagree on others, but to label this disagreement in derogatory terms is an insult. I would like to offer the reasons of opposition to you with links in sections. I hope you take the time to research each, the way you took time to delve into the evidence presented to you on the '04 Ohio vote.

With all due respect,

mod mom

[mod mom]

1. DLC ROLE IN PAST ELECTIONS:

I am convinced that the failure of the DLC to acknowledge Gore's win in 2000 (in fact they blame his "loss" on breaking with the DLC and becoming a populist-i'll post a link below) and their active role in keeping Kerry from challenging Ohio in 2004(thanks to Clinton ally James Carville (also posted below) was calculated as to allow a HRC run in '08. If either would have taken the office they won, then HRC and her corporate cronies would not have had a chance in 2008. Also look how they try to undermine Howard Dean. Anyway, here are some links:

FIRST..GORE BROKE WITH THE DLC TO BECOME A POPULIST:

Published on Sunday, August 20. 2000 in the Boston Globe
Thank You, Al Gore
by Robert Kuttner
A funny thing happened to Al Gore on the way to his surprisingly effective acceptance speech. He became a liberal.

The speech was as liberal as anything FDR or LBJ or Jesse Jackson or one of the Kennedys might have delivered. It was built around a commitment to fight for ordinary people, against large and powerful interests. This, of course, is precisely what made it effective.

The emotional heart of the speech, Gore's honoring of four ordinary American lives, did not just salute the struggles of workaday families, the way Ronald Reagan often did. It identified who was dishonoring their struggles - corporations. He singled out heartless HMOs who pressure a family to sacrifice a child; drug companies that force a pensioner to choose between food and medicine; corporate polluters; corporations that pay workers inadequate wages.

And he identified the solution: strong, reliable public Social Security; better Medicare; welfare reform that rewards work rather than punishing the needy; higher minimum wages; and more investment in public - not voucher - schools, so that working families don't have to send kids to crumbling classrooms.

What is the evil? Corporate power. What is the remedy? Effective government.

-snip
http://www.commondreams.org/views/082000-105.htm

SECOND, AFTER GORE'S WIN THEY BLAME HIS 'LOSS' ON BREAKING WITH THE DLC:

Strange Theory on Why Gore Lost



The so-called Democratic Leadership Council has decided that Al Gore should have acted more like a Republican in order to win the 2000 presidential electoral college vote in addition to his nationwide popular vote victory. This strange finding has drawn some attention, including coverage by the Associated Press and the Environmental News Service -- we have a few excerpts from their reports for you here.
Al Gore, the self-styled environmental candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, lost his bid for the White House because he campaigned on an outdated "populist" platform that was too liberal for most Americans, according to a new report drafted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

The 40-page report, titled "Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back," concludes that the Democratic Party must move towards the political right -- towards the Republicans -- if it wants to regain control of Congress in 2002 and the White House in 2004.

Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century.

-snip

http://www.progress.org/goredlc2.htm

AND FINALLY, CLINTON ALLY JAMES CARVILLE'S ROLE IN THE QUICK KERRY CONCESSION:

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)


By M.J. Rosenberg | bio




On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

RESEARCH THIS FOR YOURSELVES, BEFORE YOU CAST A VOTE FOR ANY DLC CANDIDATE!

[truedelphi]

43. As far as the Carville story, some voter activists now believe

That Kerry would have had 400,000 ballots from favorable districts with which to win out over George W Bush's 138,000 lead.

And let us never forget, Hillary Clinton phoning Edwards and scolding him for grandstanding as Edwards tried to bring about an impassioned revolt against the notion of concession.

But for me this is all irrelevant. I worked my arse off in the time leading up to Election Day 2004.

I think at this point it is more likely that I will be living in Vancouver or some other health and sanity friendly place than staying around to vote for Hillary come the 2008 election.

[reggie the dog]

64. vote

from abroad, thats what I do.

[eridani]

68. Ex-pats are the most likely to have their ballots not counted n/t

[reggie the dog]

72. It is still

better than voting on a Diebold computer.

[ExPatLeftist]

75. Unfortunately....

....the possibility that my vote may not be counted in the US is far less of a put-off than the prospect of having to live there.

Sad, but true these days... :(

[MattSh]

79. Not surprised...

But they still want to collect taxes from us anyway.

[reggie the dog]

104. don't pay the taxes

I know a tax lawyer from Illinois who told me that so long as I am not in a country that sends earnings reports to Washington DC that I should just not pay the taxes. Here in France they send no info about my earnings across the Atlantic. If I ever get into trouble with it I will just renounce my US citizenship. (With my EU citizenship from the country of France I can already live in 27 countries.)

[mod mom]

2. DLC/PNAC TIES:

Al From is founder and chief executive officer of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a dynamic idea action center of the "Third Way" governing philosophy that is reshaping progressive politics in the United States and around the globe. He is also chairman of the Third Way Foundation and publisher of the DLC's flagship bi-monthly magazine, Blueprint: Ideas for a New Century.

As a founder of the DLC -- birthplace of the New Democrat movement and the Third Way in America -- and its companion think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), From leads a national movement that since the mid-1980s has provided both the action agenda and the ideas for New Democrats to successfully challenge the conventional political wisdom in America and, in the process, redefine the center of the Democratic Party.

-snip

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=191&contentid=1131



Will Marshall, the head of PPI signed PNAC letters.
(Called "Bill Clinton's idea mill," the Progressive Policy Institute was responsible for many of the Clinton administration's initiatives...)
Starting right after 9/11.
***************************
Along with such neocon stalwarts as Robert Kagan, Bruce Jackson, Joshua Muravchik, James Woolsey, and Eliot Cohen, a half-dozen Democrats were among the 23 individuals who signed PNAC's first letter on post-war Iraq. Among the Democrats were Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution and a member of Clinton's National Security Council staff; Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel; Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute and Democratic Leadership Council; Dennis Ross, Clinton's top adviser on the Israel-Palestinian negotiations; and James Steinberg, Clinton's deputy national security adviser and head of foreign policy studies at Brookings.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0522-10.htm

More about Will Marshall
Note the PNAC link to the left.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

[mod mom]

6. COMMITTMENT TO FREE TRADE (BOTH A ECONOMIC & NAT'L SECURITY ISSUE)

In international trade, free trade is an idealized market model, often stated as a political objective, in which trade of goods and services between countries flows unhindered by government-imposed tariff and non-tariff barriers. Economic analysis and nearly all economists support the proposition that free trade is a net gain to both trading partners and that the gains from free trade outweigh the losses.<1> It is opposed by anti-globalization and some labour campaigners due to a variety of perceived problems.

The term is given to economic policies, as well as political parties that support increases in such trade.

Free trade is a concept in economics and government, encompassing:

International trade of goods without tariffs (taxes on imports) or other trade barriers (e.g., quotas on imports)
International trade in services without tariffs or other trade barriers
The absence of trade-distorting policies (such as taxes, subsidies, regulations or laws) that give domestic firms, households or factors of production an advantage over foreign ones
-snip

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

Free trade benefits only the wealthy within countries
Some argue the following:

The wealthy own more corporate equity, which increases in value as companies are able to produce at the lowest cost in the world.
As the world's markets merge into a single global market the number of market-leading companies worldwide drops, with international take-overs of local champions by giant corporations. This process concentrates wealth in fewer corporations.
Free trade replaces low-skilled jobs often done by the poor easier than high-skilled jobs. This implication of the Stolper-Samuelson theorem is challenged on the basis that technology makes offshoring high value-added work feasible and more profitable than moving low-skilled jobs.


According to Ravi Batra's book, The Myth of Free Trade, open trade in the US has resulted in replacement of manufacturing jobs for service jobs, which pay less on average. The product trade deficit results in more investment money flowing into the US as a trade-off. This investment money mostly ends up with wealthy investors and owners; and "trickle down" is not sufficient to compensate for the loss of manufacturing jobs and wagers. After all, if a wealthy person receives money from such investments, they may spend some on foreign cars and foreign trips, which is not going to go back into the US economy. According to Batra's research, even though free trade may increase GNP, the increases do not flow to rank-and-file workers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_debate
The National Security Implications of "Free" Trade
All we hear about are the supposed benefits of this corporate written trade policy, even though those benefits are often highly questionable or just plain fabricated. But we never hear about how "free" trade policy is now being used not only to destroy America's job base, but to help arm what could be one of America's most dangerous military competitors (we barely hear it from the "strategic class" of foreign policy elites in D.C., we don't even hear it from the Bush neoncons, who purport to be serious hawks, but whose silence on this issue shows they are hawks only when it doesn't offend their corporate benefactors). That should concern not only the workers who have been displaced by corporate-written trade policies, but every single American who is interested in the long-term security of this country.

-snip
http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/12/national-security-implications-of-free.html

It is time to carefully evaluate the Democratic candidates on this important issue. Where does your candidate of choice stand?

DLC | Blueprint Magazine | February 7, 2001
The Free Trade Area of the Americas: Why the United States Must Take the Lead
By Jenny Bates

Exactly three months after moving into the White House, the new president will face one of the biggest foreign policy challenges -- and opportunities -- of his term. In April 2001, at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec, he can assert U.S. leadership in the creation of a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) -- a $10 trillion common market of 800 million people stretching from the Bering Strait to Tierra del Fuego. By taking the lead at a critical moment in the FTAA's formation, the president can ensure that it reflects U.S. interests and values while locking in Latin America's movement toward democracy and economic reforms. Failure to lead the way into this enormous and unprecedented free market, furthermore, would be costly: The United States could be shut out of Latin American markets, regional protectionism would rise, and the leadership vacuum would be filled by another powerful player such as Brazil.

Preparations for the FTAA -- which will reduce barriers to trade, spurring competition and economic growth throughout the hemisphere -- have been under way since 1994, and formal negotiations were launched in 1998. And while the U.S. government has publicly supported the process, the administration's attention has mostly been elsewhere as working groups did the initial yeomanship of trade talks. Now, however, the momentum to create this vast new trade area is entering its crucial final phase. Over the next two or three years, the most important decisions will be made. If the result is to be favorable to the United States, both economically and politically, White House leadership is urgently called for. As the largest player in the region, the United States cannot afford to sit on the sidelines.

There are other reasons why the FTAA should be a top priority for the new president. Locking in the economic reforms among Latin American economies of the past two decades, for example, will spur continued growth and reinforce pressure for political reform. Such a commitment will reduce risk for investors, spur inflows of much-needed foreign capital, and promote development. Such economic liberalization can also challenge powerful, entrenched interests and liberate opposition forces to push for democratic change. Indeed, in most countries in the region, economic reform has gone hand-in-hand with progress on the political front. According to a Freedom House study, the major economies of Latin America have moved from "unfree" to "free" since the 1970s (though there has been some danger of backsliding in the Andean region recently).

-snip

p://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=108&subid=206&contentid=2974

AND THEY REMAIN COMMITTED:



http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=108

[readmoreoften]

82. Ah, and folks don't believe me when I tell them the neocons would work with dems.

They have more than a few common interests despite the open spats between them. Heck, they definitely like Lieberman.

[babylonsister]

3. Mom, I hope you mail that to him! Excellent letter!

:thumbsup:

[mod mom]

19. Thank you-done.

[cali]

4. Dear MM,

Try not to take everything so personally. It's a wee bit egocentric. RFK Jr, was addressing a certain slice of the population that does irrationally hate Clinton. If you don't believe those people actually exist, you're flat wrong.

p.s. your letter is condescending to the max.

[MH1]

5. Can you link to the original comment by RFK Jr? Thanks. n/t

[babylonsister]

10. Here you go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3829771

[ChiciB1]

14. Thank You For The Info... RFK, Jr. Really Really Disappointed Me

as his support for Hillary was the LAST person I thought he would support. His father's death was THE MOST devastating loss back in '66 when I was young and I cried for days. Especially after so many of our leaders before him. But it was BOBBY who got to me the most because I had reached an age where I could "connect" as a young adult.

But then, far too many Democrats aren't what they used to be and Democratic leaders these days don't seem to "get it" somehow! I don't where I will go politically, but after this time out with the GE I've pretty much decided that I'm no longer needed as an activist because "my" views and what I've felt for America have been overlooked for so long.

Can't go Independent, surely not Repuke... so unless there's some SUPER turn around, for my own sanity I will probably slink away.

Got a survey letter from Howard Dean asking for a donation and to take a poll, this is the 2nd request in about 2 months, so this time I will write back and make my feelings known. I can't take the lies and the corruption going on and I don't really think much is going to change soon. Even if the Democrats don't have the votes to over ride a veto, I agree with john Edwards who has said, "regardless, just keep sending it back over and over again, MAKE A STATEMENT, at the very least!" They don't even have the spine to do that, they just bow their heads, grumble and TRY to explain their lack of action with some asinine excuse. It sickens me, but saddens me even more!

[Hieronymus]

59. He disappointed me as well.

[CRH]

99. Might want to check your dates, ...

that sad day was June 5, 1968.

[Chrisy5558]

16. Thank You

Thank you for posting the link.

I think he was trying to say that in the general election that if HRC is the candidate for our party that we need to vote for her so that a Democrat can win. I think he is trying to say we need to pull together and work together to make sure that she wins against the Republican candidate.

I am sad to say that there are Democrats who would not vote her in the general over the Republican Candidate because they hate her or her policies. Maybe those are the people he is calling haters? Those who are not willing to give her a chance to win their vote?

We are still in the Primary season to pick the best Democrat. I don't think he is calling us haters who in the Primary season support another candidate, but who once the candidate is chosen will support the Democratic Candidate in the general.

I know people who lived in Upstate New York and have met her in person and they say that she is a good person and has done wonderful things for that state and they support her. I trust their judgement because they have lived in New York State and have seen the good things she has done for that state while Senator. Who am I going to listen to, people who live in New York and have seen first hand the difference she has made for that state in the Senate or tv talking heads? I am going to listen to my friend Cheryl and all the other people who live or lived in New York while Hilary was their US Senator.

To be honest I never thought I would be voting for Hilary. For years I have heard nothing but about how evil she is. Long story, but since I have been in a place where I am now hearing the truth I am able to see things more clearly. I think I was lied to and she doesn't have horns that they said she has or is the devil who is going to destroy America.

I hope that when the general election comes that we Democrats will support and vote for whoever our Candidate is so that we can give our party the chance to hold the power in Congress, the Senate and the White House.

I don't think he is calling us who sincerely are looking at Hilary with an open mind but who today may not support her for a varity of reasons, haters because we are willing to vote for her in the General. I came to the conclusion that Yes, I would vote for Hilary.

I haven't had a chance to meet her in person and look her in the eyes which I want to do. Just seeing someone on tv doesn't do it for me. I like to be able to look in the eyes and see how they inter-relate with people.

I think he is asking all of us Democrats to keep an open mind and not just hate her without knowing her or what she has accomplished or what she plans to do. To do less is being an hater. To be a hater is being someone who has their mind made up and is not really willing to listen with the intent of wanting to give that person a chance to win your vote.

Do we want to take the chance that a Republican is going to win again? I don't think our country could take that. We need to be united as Democrats this year and vote for whoever our Candidate is. Is that Black and White? Maybe but I guess I am a person who looks at things as Black and White without shades of gray.

[babylonsister]

24. Welcome to DU, Chrisy5558.

Your best bet is going to be to read as much as possible about the candidates, and you're in an excellent place to do just that. You'll get all kinds of opinions here, some sensible, some not-so-much, but you can also weed out the truth depending on sources, etc. I think I can say universally that we all have one thing in common, and that would be that we do NOT want a republican to win this election. It's way too crucial and there's been too much damage done; we need to find someone who can fix that damage.
I'm going with my gut on who my candidate will be, as they're all qualified. Good luck with your decision, and again, welcome!

[Stephanie]

39. I live in New York and I am no fan of Hillary Clinton.

She has made a big effort woo upstate voters. She plays pork barrel politics with them. But her promises do not always bear fruit. Look at her pledge to bring jobs to Buffalo. She brought a few jobs. They were with Tata Industries, an Indian outsourcing firm.

http://www.rit.edu/news/utilities/pdf/2007/2007_09_22_Buffalo_News_critics_tie_clinton_Hira.pdf

Critics tie Clinton to offshoring
Touted company’s promised local jobs never materialized
By Jerry Zremski NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF
Updated: 09/22/07 7:07 AM

WASHINGTON — Critics of offshoring say that one of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s efforts to bring jobs to Buffalo really helped a company that inevitably sends more jobs to Bangalore.

Four years ago, Clinton brought Tata Consultancy Services to Buffalo amid great fanfare and promises that its local operation might eventually employ up to 100 people.

But the India-based company, one of the world’s largest outsourcing consultants, currently employs only about 10 people locally.

And ever since campaign aides to Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois — Clinton’s closest challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination — highlighted her ties to Tata in a memo in June, worries about Clinton’s views on offshoring have only grown among people fighting to keep high-tech jobs in the United States.

“She touted how she brought Tata to Buffalo – and in the meantime Tata is one of the biggest body shops in America,” bringing cheap foreign labor to this country while exporting other jobs to India, said John Bauman, founder of the Connecticut- based Organization for the Rights of American Workers.

Aides to Clinton and others involved in the Tata effort at the time insist that she lured Tata to Buffalo merely as part of her Senate campaign pledge to boost the upstate economy.

“Since her first day in the United States Senate, Sen. Clinton’s priority has been to support local businesses and entrepreneurs in order to spur job creation and economic growth throughout New York State, and this is just one of the literally hundreds of cases where she did so,” said Philippe Reines, Clinton’s spokesman.

In any case, as an economic development effort, Tata has not lived up to its advance billing.

Tata promised to employ 50 people in Buffalo by the end of 2004 and 100 a year later. But Andrew Royce, an employee who returned a call placed to the local office, confirmed that it currently employs about 10 people, with another five about to be hired.

<more at link>

[aquart]

85. Any questions in the debates about jobs?

I don't watch them so I wondered what the other candidates brought to their areas, and what they propose to do federally as president. I only read the DU commentary and nobody has mentioned responses to a jobs question, so was it asked and passed over, ignored, never asked?

I think we understand that no Democrat was bringing home federal bacon under this administration. It was reserved solely for Republicans. As for other jobs...how did every other Democrat do in bringing home jobs to their areas? Real great, I bet, since Hillary is the only one being creamed for it.

Jobs are a great problem, maybe the biggest we have...Has Obama solved the difficulty? How many new companies (would that make him "corporatist"?) and new jobs has he brought to his state? Tons, I'm sure. I can't believe he doesn't mention it every time he opens his mouth. It's something I would be proud of if I could do that.

And the others? My man, Edwards? Dodd and Biden should have many to show for their efforts, they've been on the job so long. Kucinich? Harder in the House, but maybe easier if it's only one district? Richardson? A governor, like a senator, also has a whole state to provide for. How's he done?

Since Hillary's record on jobs is so dismal, what are we comparing it to?

[Stephanie]

103. We're comparing it to her promises.

[rucognizant]

81. Chrissy5558

Perceiving shades of gray is a LEARNED SKILL! It is PAST time to learn that skill as it is Black & white that has come close to destroying our Country! Blk. & WHt. is "feeling/ emotions, based..........gray is researching facts to form an opinion!
Those who would gain power from this destruction, have carefully ,calculatedly, constructed a BLACK WHITE FRAMEWORK to achieve their ends!
"For years I have HEARD nothing but about how evil she is. Long story, but since I have been in a place where I am NOW HEARING THE TRUTH I am able to see things more clearly. I think I was lied to and she doesn't have horns that they said she has or is the devil who is going to destroy America."
DO you BELIEVE everything you hear? How much "hard work" have you invested YOURSELF in researching the truth ie: SENATE VOTING RECORDS!
It really bothered me that yesterday She, Clinton used the phrase "hard work" to express one of her intended policies as President. To me that indicated a subtle ( gray tone) TONE DEAFNESS, because Bush uses that phrase so often, so meaninglessly. If I were running for Presidsent I would carefully avoid ANY link/similarity to the present administration.
My daughter in upstate NY is one of her constituants...........A Senator serving a state who is helpful to the constituants of that state is one thing...... but if they vote Nationally AGAINST the interests of that constituant, they are NOT really being helpful after all!

My Senators Collins & Snowe are VERY helpful, on local matters, but they voted for Roberts, Alito, the bankruptcy bill etc. which serves to box me in, even if they perform personal favors within the state context ( which both have done rather well). BUT I have still LOST Habeous Corpus, am still being spied on, still at a disavantage if I need to declare bankruptcy, etc. still have a bad name in the world as a result of torture, invasion and aggression against an innocent Nation.... bullying policies.
Bush vetoed MY LIHEAP funds. That has put me in personal jeopardy of freezing to death, losing hundreds of dollars worth of paint inventory, inability to pay other bills, cut back on food! He has had too much support in the past 7 years, and if you check the records; "follow the money", you can easily see WHO has enabled him and who hasn't!
I don't hate Hillary, if I had a chance to lunch with any of the candidates, I would chose her.................but I have researched her accomplishments ( in the Senate, not as an individual person ie. I takes Village etc. )
SHE SUPPORTS MANDITORY MEDICAL INSURANCE! ( and is supported by too many medically related corporations!) Check with Common Cause to see campaign contributions.
DO YOU REALLY WANT TO BE FORCED TO CARRY MEDICAL INSURANCE? HAVE THERE BEEN TIMES IN YOUR LIFE THAT MANDATORY, BY LAW CAR INSURANCE HAS CREATED PROBLMS? YOU JUST LOST YOUR JOB SO CAN'T PAY THE INSURANCE BUT HAVE TO DRIVE TO A NEW JOB INTERVIEW............YOU ARE STOPPED AND FINED SEVERAL HUNDRED FOR NOT HAVING INSURANCE...........SO ON TOP OF THE $50., 75.00 YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO BEGIN WITH NOW YOU OWE $150.00 FINE TOO?
It happened to me 2 years ago. Geico was playing games with me about raising rates etc. canceling my policy, I wouldn't play their silly game
( the rate increase went to pay for those silly greatly increased ads on CNN, as it turned out, )

SO I went on line and purchased AIG insurance within the hour at 1/2 the price... and then went to NY to babysit my Grandchildren.I came back July 4th weekend, to find calls and letters from the state of MAine. I was uninsured, owed them a fine, needed to send copies of proof of insurence, Geico had reported me to the state! I had one day before reporting to teach a workshop at a summer camp, ( a daily 45 mile commute through a complete road rebuild on RT1,) there are NO copy machines available in a rural town of 1,200 on a holiday weekend.,.... state offices closed. I am happy to say 2 years later the state of Maine has gotten ride of that law, the MVA for the state didn't like it any better than I did.
AS an entreprenureal free lancer, ( time = money) that kind of time waste, steals from MY pocket!

[defendandprotect]

51. I'd rather see RFK, Jr. express some concerns about the Repug wing of the Dem Party --DLC -- !!

[babylonsister]

80. Yes, 'concern' would have been more appropriate, not praise. nt

[mod mom]

13. I don't believe in attempting to speak for others, thus the "I". Take it anyway

you like. I'm not here because I want to be elected Miss Congeniality, but because I am truly concerned with the direction of this country. I post this information so that others can get exposed to it and research it themselves. I came to DU ignorant of just who the DLC or even PNAC were and I thank my many DU friends who have helped exposed me to this knowledge. If you support this corporatism, that's your problem, but your comments help to kick this information, so thanks.

peace.

[defendandprotect]

52. If RFK objects to your interpretation, he'll tell you --- and we can take it from there . . .

and change our opinions, if necessary ---

However, I doubt it --- and I'm shocked that RFK, Jr. may consider himself allied with the DLC!! Could that be---???

And I'd be most interested to see any comment he may make on this . . .

QUOTE: --
I believe that her strong alliance with the DLC guides many of her actions. I do not believe this group is working in the best interest of the people of this country. The policies that the DLC espouses are ruining the middle class and helping to prolong the war. It is her support of free-trade, IWR and her recent vote of Kyl-Lieberman that I am against. It is the likes of her strategists: Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson, James Carville and Will Marshall who concern me.
UNQUOTE

[Lost4words]

7. I concur!

8643

[mod mom]

8. CHIEF CLINTON STRATEGIST-MARK PENN:

Isn't it Time for Mark Penn to Leave Burson-Marsteller?
Posted November 12, 2007 | 11:18 AM (EST)


My colleague at The Nation, Ari Berman, has done more than any journalist to shine some light on how pollster-strategist Mark Penn, head honcho at PR giant Burson-Marsteller, and perhaps the most important figure in Hillary Clinton's campaign, poses a real dilemma for the candidate. Penn heads a firm that has represented everyone from union busters to big tobacco, and more recently Blackwater. (According to a Marsteller spokesperson, it was a subsidiary, BKSH & Associates, run by GOP operative Charlie Black, which helped Erik Prince prepare for congressional hearings after his employees killed civilians in Iraq).It would seem difficult to find a more controversial client than Blackwater but Penn's firm has just been retained by Spin Master.

Who is Spin Master? It turns out that Spin Master distributes Aqua Dots, a toy that was recalled last week because it contains a glue ingredient that when ingested is broken down by the body to make GHB, the "date rape" drug, which can cause unconsciousness and even death. (The Consumer Product Safety Commission says the number of children sickened by Aqua Dots has risen from two to nine in the past week.)

Penn has repeatedly stated that he has no direct contact with controversial clients like Blackwater or unionbusters. But what about the good old-fashioned American principles of responsibility and accountability -- principles which his candidate likes to invoke on the campaign trail? As Ari Berman has pointed out, the dilemma for Clinton is that Penn's firm represents many of the interests whose influence she has vowed to curtail. But as kids get sick from poisonous toys, how can Clinton keep in her corner, as her chief strategist, a man who has even limited involvement with a firm like Burson-Marsteller? Isn't it time that Clinton ask Penn to choose: my campaign to make this a safer country or a PR firm which has too many clients undermining that agenda?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katrina-vanden-heuvel/isnt-it-time-for-mark-pe_b_72206.html

"In '06, with Penn at the helm, the company gave 57% of Campaign Contrib to GOP"



Polling Czar



After the 1994 election, Democrats had just lost both houses of Congress, and President Clinton was floundering in the polls. At the urging of his wife, he turned to Dick Morris, a friend from their time in Arkansas. Morris brought in two pollsters from New York, Doug Schoen and his partner, Mark Penn, a portly, combative workaholic. Morris decided what to poll and Penn polled it. They immediately pushed Clinton to the right, enacting the now-infamous strategy of "triangulation," which co-opted Republican policies like welfare reform and tax cuts and emphasized small-bore issues that supposedly cut across the ideological divide. "They were the ones who said, 'Make the '96 election about nothing except V-chips and school uniforms,'" says a former adviser to Bill. When Morris got caught with a call girl, Penn became the most important adviser in Clinton's second term. "In a White House where polling is virtually a religion," the Washington Post reported in 1996, "Penn is the high priest."

Penn, who had previously worked in the business world for companies like Texaco and Eli Lilly, brought his corporate ideology to the White House. After moving to Washington he aggressively expanded his polling firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland (PSB). It was said that Penn was the only person who could get Bill Clinton and Bill Gates on the same line. Penn's largest client was Microsoft, and he saw no contradiction between working for both the plaintiff and the defense in what was at the time the country's largest antitrust case. A variety of controversial clients enlisted PSB. The firm defended Procter & Gamble's Olestra from charges that the food additive caused anal leakage, blamed Texaco's bankruptcy on greedy jurors and market-tested genetically modified foods for Monsanto. PSB introduced to consulting the concept of "inoculation": shielding corporations from scandal through clever advertising and marketing.

In 2000 Penn became the chief architect of Hillary's Senate victory in New York, persuading her, in a rerun of '96, to eschew big themes and relentlessly focus on poll-tested pothole politics, such as suburban transit lines and dairy farming upstate. Following that election, Penn became a very rich man--and an even more valued commodity in the business world (Hillary paid him $1 million for her re-election campaign in '06 and $277,000 in the first quarter of this year). The massive PR empire WPP Group acquired Penn's polling firm for an undisclosed sum in 2001 and four years later named him worldwide CEO of one of its most prized properties, the PR firm Burson-Marsteller (B-M). A key player in the decision to hire Penn was Howard Paster, President Clinton's chief lobbyist to Capitol Hill and an influential presence inside WPP. "Clients of stature come to Mark constantly for counsel," says Paster, who informally advises Hillary, explaining the hire. The press release announcing Penn's promotion noted his work "developing and implementing deregulation informational programs for the electric utilities industry and in the financial services sector." The release blithely ignored how utility deregulation contributed to the California electricity crisis manipulated by Enron and the blackout of 2003, which darkened much of the Northeast and upper Midwest.

Burson-Marsteller is hardly a natural fit for a prominent Democrat. The firm has represented everyone from the Argentine military junta to Union Carbide after the 1984 Bhopal disaster in India, in which thousands were killed when toxic fumes were released by one of its plants, to Royal Dutch Shell, which has been accused of colluding with the Nigerian government in committing major human rights violations. B-M pioneered the use of pseudo-grassroots front groups, known as "astroturfing," to wage stealth corporate attacks against environmental and consumer groups. It set up the National Smokers Alliance on behalf of Philip Morris to fight tobacco regulation in the early 1990s. Its current clients include major players in the finance, pharmaceutical and energy industries. In 2006, with Penn at the helm, the company gave 57 percent of its campaign contributions to Republican candidates.

-snip
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman

[aquart]

84. So your objection to Penn is that he got one Clinton elected

And you're scared shitless he'll manage to do it again?

His crime, it seems, is effectiveness? Wow. That is bad.

And the guilt-by-association stuff is super. Just great. Bad people hire the most effective PR people (because they're the ones who need it) so Hillary must be a bad person too, if she hires the most proven effective people. Of course, if they represent her, they can't be hired by her opponents so she's being effective going and coming. PUT HER IN JAIL NOW!

Soon she'll be condemned for standing next to so and so at a cocktail party.

[mod mom]

9. DLC ALLY WILL MARSHALL:

In the introduction to the 2006 book With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty, editor Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), promotes what he calls “progressive internationalism” as opposed to the “conservative unilateralism” of the George W. Bush administration. He argues that the Iraq War is part of a larger strategy for “building a world safe for individual liberty and democracy,” and that the “Bush Republicans have been tough but they have not been smart” in directing the course of the war in Iraq. Part of being smart is “using our strengths,” says Marshall. “Democrats must be committed to preserving America's military predominance, because a strong military undergirds U.S. global leadership.”

-snip

A core member of a neoconservative-like vanguard within the Democratic Party establishment, Marshall has been instrumental in creating organizations that have worked to move the party to the right on everything from foreign to economic policies. With Al From, in 1985 Marshall cofounded the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), an important bastion of center-right Democrats that was once chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT). In 1989, Marshall founded the PPI, a think tank that is affiliated with the DLC. Marshall and From were both staffers for Rep. Gillis Long (D-LA), who was the chairman of the House Democratic Party Caucus in the early 1980s. Marshall served as Long's speechwriter and policy analyst and was also senior editor of the 1984 House Democratic Caucus policy blueprint, “Renewing America's Promise.”

-snip

Marshall was one of 15 analysts who co-wrote the PPI's October 2003 foreign policy blueprint, “Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy.” Using language that closely mirrors that of the neoconservative-led Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the PPI hailed the “tough-minded internationalism” of past Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman. Like PNAC, which in its founding statement warned of grave present dangers confronting America, the PPI strategy declared that, “Today America is threatened once again” and is in need of assertive individuals committed to strong leadership. The authors' observation that, “like the Cold War, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years but decades,” echoes both neoconservative and Bush administration national security assessments. As the “Progressive Internationalism” authors explain, the PPI endorsed the invasion of Iraq “because the previous policy of containment was failing, because Saddam posed a grave danger to America as well as to his own brutalized people, and because his blatant defiance of more than a decade's worth of UN Security Council resolutions was undermining both collective security and international law.”



http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

[AntiFascist]

74. I totally agree, particularly with respect to Will Marshall...

I think it is important to reiterate that the DLC began with the Clintons - they are not peripherally involved, the PPI thinktank was setup to support Bill Clinton.

Will Marshall not only cosigned a PNAC document, but he seems to endorse the aggressive use of the military and preemptive operations. Coupled with Clinton's latest stance against Iran, and we have a dangerous situation where the neocon agenda may continue to be followed even under a Democratic administration.

[mod mom]

11. DLC ALLY-AL FROM:

WTF? GORE'S PROBLEM WAS HE WOULD "fight for the people and not the powerful" ?



Al Gore, the self-styled environmental candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, lost his bid for the White House because he campaigned on an outdated "populist" platform that was too liberal for most Americans, according to a new report drafted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

The 40-page report, titled "Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back," concludes that the Democratic Party must move towards the political right -- towards the Republicans -- if it wants to regain control of Congress in 2002 and the White House in 2004.

Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century.

-snip

http://www.progress.org/goredlc2.htm

[mod mom]

12. ARTICLES TO READ ON THE DLC:

The Trouble with the DLC
Posted August 13, 2007 | 01:14 PM (EST)


Why are Harold Ford and others from the more paternalistic and condescending quarters of the Democratic Party so keen on discrediting the rising progressive movement? What have been the consequences of their obsession with "the middle"? Most importantly, how have the Tory Democrats managed to bury the expression of deep progressive values, and what should the progressive movement do about it?

For three decades, advocates of "centrism" have used their money to monopolize the Democratic message and leave the progressive base out in the cold, not spoken to. Since its founding in 1985, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) has been leading this effort. How did they pull this off? Before we get into that, let's call them what they are. "Centrist" implies conciliation, moderation, compromise. It reinforces the mistaken idea that our political life falls along a neat, linear scale from left to right. That metaphor makes the center a pretty good and safe place to be. And that it certainly is not.

The plutocratic Democrats should be referred to not as centrists, but as industrial authoritarians. Their movement was born after the Nixon re-election in 1972. They blamed that landslide on Democratic Party rules changes that audaciously sought to include Americans formerly excluded from the back rooms of power. They fronted for older corporate interests -- oil and gas, finance, insurance. The are really 19th-Century paternalists who would save us from ourselves by keeping us far from the plantation's Big House.

-snip

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-w-smith/the-trouble-with-the-dlc_b_60210.html



David Sirota on the DLC:

-snip

It was the DLC’s president, Al From, who in 2001 said that his goal was to give Democrats “a game plan to try to contain the populism.” Populism, you may recall, is defined as “supporting the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite.” Al From has made that vision a reality. The DLC—which has been funded by the likes of Chevron, Enron, Merck and Philip Morris—has, until recently, been extremely effective at pressuring Democrats to ignore the will of the public and capitulate to big business’s demands. The DLC has also made a public spectacle of itself by berating Democratic candidates who actually stand up for ordinary people.

PUTTING THE “MOCK” IN DEMOCRACY—To be sure, the DLC never openly admits its objectives, or even its funding sources. Instead, it bills itself as quasi grassroots, holding so-called “national conversations” in an effort to create the impression that its corporate-written agenda has some semblance of public support.

Yet the media coverage of its most recent such “conversation,” in Denver this past July, tells the real story. The New York Sun noted that the meeting focused on pondering “how to counter the netroots”—i.e., how to counter the millions of grassroots Democratic Party voters who use the Internet to advocate for a more democratic political system. Perhaps most telling of all was the Rocky Mountain News’s note that the DLC’s supposed “national conversation” at the Hyatt Regency Hotel was, in fact, “not open to the public.”

In an August Rolling Stone column, reporter Matt Taibbi recounted his interview with one DLC leader, who called anti-war activists “narrow dogmatists.” Taibbi pointed out that recent Gallup polls have shown that fully 91 percent of Democrats support a withdrawal from Iraq, and he asked the DLC leader to explain this contradiction. “So these hundreds of thousands of Democrats who are against the war are narrow dogmatists?” Taibbi asked. “We have thirty corporate-funded spokesmen telling hundreds of thousands of actual voters that they’re narrow dogmatists?”

-snip

http://www.davidsirota.com/index.php/big-money-vs-grassroots/



The Democrats 2008 Choice: Sell Out & Lose, Or Stand Up & Win
Posted July 26, 2005 | 03:42 PM (EST)




The 2008 Democratic presidential candidates this week are busy genuflecting at Corporate America's altar -- otherwise known as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Now, it's true -- the DLC is really just a group of Beltway-insulated corporate-funded hacks who have spent the better part of the last decade trying to undermine the Democratic Party's traditional working class base -- a base that had kept Democrats in power for 40 years and now, thanks to the DLC, has been forfeited to the Republicans. Even so, the fact that these presidential candidates feel the need to bow down to the DLC is a troubling sign about whether the Democratic Party is really serious about regaining power in America.

Let's just look at the cold, hard facts about the DLC and its record. The DLC has pushed, among other things, the war in Iraq and "free" trade policies, using bags of corporate money to buy enough Democratic votes to help Republicans make those policies a reality. They have chastised anyone who has opposed those policies as either unpatriotic or anti-business -- even as a majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, oppose the DLC's business-written trade deals, and are sick of watching America's economy sold out to the highest corporate bidder. Additionally, in brazenly Orwellian fashion, the DLC has also called its extremist agenda "centrist," even though polls show the American public opposes most of their agenda, and supports much of the progressive agenda.

Now, you could make a credible argument that the DLC's corporatization/Republicanization of the Democratic Party was justified, had it led to electoral success for Democrats. Few would argue that today's split-the-difference Democratic Party hasn't followed the DLC's policy direction over the last 10 years. That means the last 10 years of elections really have been a referendum on whether the DLC's model -- regardless of any moral judgements about it -- actually wins at the polls.

And that's when we get to the real problem with the DLC -- its policies are BOTH morally bankrupt, and politically disastrous. The rise of the DLC within the Democratic Party has coincided almost perfectly with the decline of the Democratic Party's power in American politics -- a decline that took Democrats from seemingly permanent majority status to permanent minority status. In this last election, just think of Democrats' troubles in Ohio as a perfect example of this. Here was a state ravaged by massive job loss due to corporate-written "free" trade deals -- yet Democrats were unable to capitalize on that issue and thus couldn't win the state because the DLC had long ago made sure the party helped pass the very trade policies (NAFTA, China PNTR) that sold out those jobs.

-SNIP

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/the-democrats-2008-choice_b_4729.html

[CRH]

101. Great OP and other posts, ...

For any old dem who remembers the old democratic party, and wonders where it went, no need to look further than the DLC.

From the default toward labor to the abuses of free trade, from political acceptance of corporate person hood to privatization of the public utilities, from deregulation of the New Deal protections, to the path of consolidation of the media; one needs look no further than the DLC.

For old democrats, hoping for a political solution to the state of the nation today, is like being between a rock and a corporation.

In 2000 John Nichols' article in 'The Progressive', Behind the DLC Takeover, Democratic Leadership Council, is a must read and an excellent primer.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_10_64/ai_65952690

[bonito]

15. Well said

And I oppose her candidacy for the same reasons while the right wing has been attacking her for some time before 2000 she is a liability if she wins the primary, think about Podhoretz backing Guliani.

[mod mom]

17. Here's a link to the DLC Leadership Team:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

Just to show how Clinton's policies and those of the DLC are intertwined

[MelissaB]

18. Got my K&R

:kick:

[asdjrocky]

20. Wonderful letter-

You have summed up everything I thin about the DLC, Mark Penn, and their ilk, quite nicely.

One of the reasons I can not support Hillary in the primaries: I'm a Progressive Democrat.

[mod mom]

21. LOBBYISTS TOP CHOICE-HILLARY CLINTON:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008

[mod mom]

22. % DONORS $2,300+ HILLARY = 63%

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?cycle=2008

[antigop]

23. Thank you. n/t

[dmosh42]

25. You are right on! This corporation alliance by so many.....

of the Democratic electees make them seem more like Republicans, who have always been in the service to 'big business. And, naturally, our media covers all these actions up by not reporting those blocking legislation, but still calling themselves progressive. I have been following a bill which would protect workers benefits into their retirement,(HR 1322) and while Republican legislation gets almost immediate floor votes, this bill is bottled up in committees controlled by Democrats. Who doesn't want a vote on that? The big corporations which have been shafting so many American workers!

[truedelphi]

44. I see this constantly - I have watched 2 friends I have known since grammar school

Take the family companies into bankrupcy court and use the worker's pensions for their and their husbands' Golden Parachutes. Yet they are hot on the notion that they represent the interests of the Democratic Party.

The rich and greedy who consider themselves to be Dems are no different than the rich and greedy who call themselves Republicans.

[autorank]

26. You were too kind. K*R

When you lose the argument you make it personal, particularly if you have no argument.

That sounds like it's the case here. The validity of your arguments on issues and your
attitude toward the candidate are separate issues.

But, of course you don't hate Hillary. Your friend is simply upset that it's all slipping away,
the 30 year monarchy has come to an end. We may actually get someone who is not used to most
everything in their life being "wired."

[Cha]

60. And there's no classy reason

to ever make it personal..why didn't he come up with lots of reasons to support hillary on the environment or because she's going to stop wars so the environment will heal? Get Depleted Uranium outta the atmoshere?

[rinsd]

27. Looks like RFK Jr. hit a nerve with a Clinton hater.

Apparently so wrapped up in their hatred they felt this was personally addressed to them.

[glitch]

28. You are not helping your candidate.

Surely that isn't your intention, is it?

[rinsd]

31. If people vote based on how supporters act on DU, few of the candidates deserve a vote.

[mod mom]

30. I appreciate your kick. All I want is for folks to be exposed to this information

and decide for themselves. Don't trust me, but do your own research before you choose your candidate.

Funny how those who are quick to label are slim on reasons to support this canidate. Read the comments here and other progressive sites and see how divisive this candidate is, and the reasons why folks feel this way. CORPORATISM.

[antigop]

38. DLC, aka the Democratic Leadership CORPORATION n/t

[aquart]

87. ALL businesses are CORPORATIONS.

It's a tax requirement. ALL of them. When you make a statement of such blanket bias, you hurt every American who is striving for independence by shouldering the burden of providing work for himself and others.

The corner candy store is a corporation. The potter who personally sold you your garlic keeper is a corporation.

Your prejudice reeks of ignorance.

[antigop]

90. HAHA! As if you don't know the CORPORATIONS have taken over this country. n/t

[aquart]

93. Could you define your terms?

And show me the difference between now and what you imagine we were before?

[antigop]

96. HA! Which "terms" don't you understand? I used some pretty easy words. n/t

[antigop]

92. And you are wrong. Not ALL businesses are corporations. n/t

[JMDEM]

41. Typical Clinton lover - refuses to address the issues. NT

[Cha]

61. red herring hillary and her red herring

supporters.

[reggie the dog]

65. can you

give us some reasons to support Clinton over Edwards, Kucinich, or Obama?

You know, policy issues, voting history etc.

Not opinion polls that can change before the election.

Here in France the Socialists chose Royal based on polls that she would win, well she lost, and seeing as she did not stand for the traditional Socialist values (she was a centrist) the party is now in a tailspin trying to recover to become an opposition party.

[Downtown Hound]

86. Weak. n/t

[bvar22]

29. K,&R& Bookmarked for future reference.

Thanks for the compilation!
:patriot:










"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[SavageDem]

32. Thanks for the info

You've factually laid out the reasons that I also am against HRC as the Dem candidate. And I don't "hate" her; in fact, if she's the Dem candidate, I'll vote for her. But she's at the bottom of my list.

I called her "Republican Light" in another thread - that was not even about her, per se - and the rest of the thread turned into a caustic debate over the definition of a "true Democrat." I don't pretend to have that exact definition, but it's like the old classic about pornography (which, strangely enough, I don't really recognize as existing, as I think adult materials fall under the guise of free speech. Not that I think children should be viewing these materials, but I don't have any problem with adults having access to them): I know one when I see one. And I think Biden, Richardson, Edwards, Obama, Kucinich, and Dodd embody the "true" Democratic ideals far better than HRC.

[mod mom]

34. Welcome to DU SavageDem. I believe this country needs a POPULIST working

for the people instead of another corporatist. Here's a little data as to why I feel this way:

New data from the Internal Revenue Service show that income inequality continues to widen. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earn more than 21 percent of all income. That's a postwar record. The bottom 50 percent of all Americans, when all their wages are combined, earn just 12.8 percent of the nation's income.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/25/taxes/


I agree, the rest of the field better embodies the true Democratic ideals.

[defendandprotect]

49. Are any of the candidates discussing the "class" issue --- ???

[reggie the dog]

66. early on

Obama was talking about class as opposed to race in his idea of a "post racial" America.

[Robeson]

33. Please let us know what - if any - response you get....

...from him.

[mod mom]

35. I had an old email (fron OH election investigation days) that bounced back,

unfortunately.

If by chance I get a response some other way, I'd be glad to share it.

:hi:

[RFKJrNews]

105. Chiming in a bit late here, but...

Just wanted to thank the OP for all of her hard work in Ohio, and I hope she will be equally on guard and ready to spring into action next November. Being that this is the most important election of our lifetimes, eternal vigilance over the vote is going to be critical.

Your letter to Bobby was respectful and well-written. You express the reservations many Dems feel about Hillary Clinton dispassionately and logically. I'd like to see more responses like this (instead of resorting to insults and name-calling) from his longtime supporters who are stumped by this endorsement and want an explanation.

I hope that you will re-post your original letter to Bobby on our blog as well. You could add much to this discussion on the so-called "Hillary Haters": http://rfkin2008.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/kennedy-attacks-the-hillary-haters/

And if you would like to send him a copy of your letter personally, please contact me via PM or email and I'll give you an updated address.

[Truth2Tell]

36. Great Post, and great follow-ups!

K & R & thank you for the information! I hope some of the knee-jerk Party apologists around here will read carefully what you have posted and make decisions for themselves. I suspect there are very very few DUers who "hate" Hillary Clinton. Clearly there are many who are sick at what she and those like her have done to kill our Party. Criticism doesn't equal hate.

[understandinglife]

37. Highly recommended. Thanks for writing the truth.

:hi:

[mod mom]

47. You're welcome.

Miss your sage words. Hope all is well :hi:

[mamameow]

40. non corporate

please mod mom who can we vote for that does not support corps in some way? we voters have pushed candidates to corps. please mom how do we change that? is'nt the last 7 years enough to convince us how horrible on the job training can be? will obama turn his back against corps? will edwards? i don't think so. obama is already using clinton advisers(corps)

[mod mom]

46. Welcome to DU mamameow, It's nice to see new folks coming on board.

I don't pretend to know who will keep their campaign promises, but I will say I look for authenticity over the over-polled. Here is some info another DUer, Madrchsod, shared with me:

-snip

The evidence that the thinking of the Clintons has evolved in this way came from the very helpful article, “Presidency by Poll,” by John F. Harris, a Washington Post staff reporter, published on pp. 9-10 of the Jan. 8-14, 2001, issue of the Washington Post National Weekly Edition, that came out just after Bush had become president-elect.  Harris explained that since the 1996 election, Clinton had become a devoted aficionado of polling, analyzing the meaning of polls like an expert.   In other words, in Steeper's language, Clinton was connecting the dots. 

Clinton himself was following the polls of Mark J. Penn, who was originally brought in by Dick Morris to take responsibility for the polling required in Morris program that put Clinton over the top in 1996.  In the article, lightly edited, Harris stated:

 “Clinton had fired his early pollster, Stanley Greenberg.  Four current and former Clinton aides say the president told them he preferred his new pollsters, Morris and Penn, because they do not merely diagnose problems – they tell me what to do.”  This confirmed what I wrote on p. 402 of Locating consensus for Democracy that Greenberg told me six years earlier, ‘I take it as a badge of honor that I never told the president what to do.’  Greenberg's attitude on this point had not changed in all that time.

Despite the enormous value of his research, Harris did not recognize that the difference between the success of Penn-advised candidates who learn “what-to-do” and the failure of Greenberg-advised candidates who only learn “what-to-say” was due to these two different approaches to polling. This deficiency is best remedied I think by repeating Harris’ closing conclusions, verbatim, without omissions, in italics, within quotation marks, and interrupted in a few places by my comments in bold:

“While Penn was still Gore’s advisor, the two exchanged sharp words on whether ‘Clinton fatigue’ would be a major factor in the 2000 elections.  Penn insisted the answer was no; Gore devoutly believed it was yes and fired Penn a few days later.  Greenberg became a key advisor to Gore. Greenberg’s devotees believe Gore found his natural voice as a candidate only when he abandoned the tepid brand of politics Penn espoused.”

-snip
http://www.cdi.org/polling/spot-spin-ch13-good-polling.cfm

Al Gore, who saw a total tranformation from a DLCer to populist in 2000, saw the light and made a change. I thought he was the person of the hour but alas, he is not running. I could easily support Edwards or Obama, and of course love the wise words of Kucinich. What I don't want is some corporate guru, as in Mark Penn, holding up his finger and directing the POTUS. He should stick with Blackwater, Aquadots, Union Carbide and whatever other corporate giants trying to sway the public, that wish to to hire him. WE NEED A POPULIST, NOT A CORPORATIST! imho

peace.

[robinlynne]

42. Mom, will you add my name please? (well, you know what I mean.)

[Egnever]

45. This thread needs to stay on top

K&R

[mod mom]

48. DLC's ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE HOWARD DEAN (AL FROM &:BRUCE REED):

Seven months before Dean took the DLC to task for pushing the party to the right, the DLC had mounted an initiative to discredit Dean.In May 2003, From and Bruce Reed sent a memo to party leaders arguing that Dean's efforts to energize traditional party constituencies around a populist, anti-war, and liberal message would doom the party to the fates suffered by George McGovern in 1972 and Walter Mondale in 1984. Then, at the July 2003 DLC annual conference, the DLC leadership blasted Dean and other presidential hopefuls for flirting with a “far-left” critique of the Bush administration and pointed out the political folly of attacking Bush's tax cuts and his national security leadership. Commenting on the “Democratic Weaselship Council” in Salon.com, Joan Walsh observed that the DLC was “in danger of adopting a political terror strategy involves doing the enemy's work for them: damaging your own party's candidates by declaring them ideologically flawed and unelectable”

(Salon.com, July 29, 200 3).

[defendandprotect]

54. Terrific thread which has brought out great info . . . Re Howard Dean and DLC . . .

Wow -- I guess I knew about DLC but still vague on it ---
but as I reflect now, much of the DLC tactics are like Repug tactics ---

Disgusting --- !!!

[peacetheonlyway]

50. We know you rock Mod Mom

some of us in the election world know of your amazing efforts in Ohio on exposing Election fraud.

We NOW KNOW as the result of your work, and Bob Fritraki's work and Paddy's Work, and J30's work, and Richard Hayes' work ,etc. we NOW KNOW that Ohio was not only stolen in 2004, but that the mechanics were in place in CA, NY, etc. to steal elections there too.

You see, I'm from Georgia where the first election was stolen in 2002 by Corrupt Diebold Voting machines. and I have great news as far as lawsuit in Georgia, that I can share with you via private IM.

This was a well written letter and kudos to you for saying with all due respect, we can dislike hillary for her blatantly sold out views of the world and not be a Hillary Hater...

Don't worry, Hillary is losing in Iowa and she'll be out by NH.

The race is really between biden, obama edwards and kucinich.

america is going to get a big surprise when the citizens of iowa cuts thru the bullshit and goes to vote in the caucuses....

[JDPriestly]

53. Hillary is not the best candidate in terms of changing environmental policy.

Bill Clinton did not achieve nearly what he should have with regard to selling Americans on the need for better environmental policy. He did very little with regard to attaining energy independence for the U.S. Creating national parks is nice, but it does next to nothing to solve the global warming crisis.

While it is true that he had a recalcitrant Congress, it is also true that Clinton did not effectively use the presidential bully pulpit to build strong support for Americans for real change. The reason for his failure is simple: He was more concerned with getting along with multi-national corporations and promoting policies they wanted including NAFTA, telecommunications "reform" and welfare "reform" than he was with environmental issues and energy independence. Hillary will not be any kinder than Bill was to the environment. In fact, she is likely to be less effective in this area. She has a more conservative bent than even Bill did. And she is even more intent on pleasing her corporate supporters than he was. Hillary is a step back to the past. Robert Kennedy, Jr. has made a huge mistake in supporting her.

I must agree that it is wrong to harbor an irrational hatred for any candidate. I suspect that Robert Kennedy, Jr. is very concerned about irrational hatred of candidates because of the assassinations of his father and uncle. Certainly, even though many of us on DU dislike Hillary, we do not hate her in any irrational or fanatical way. We prefer other candidates and are frustrated that Hillary appears to be getting so much support from the mainstream media. If the political process were more balanced, more fair to the candidates who do not feed at the corporate trough, if all candidates had equal time in debates and in the media, if each were given the kinds of attention that Hillary gets, the supporters of other candidates would spend less time bashing her. Robert Kennedy, Jr. has just made matters worse with his endorsement of Hillary. I must say, I have less respect for him than I did before he endorsed her.

Robert Kennedy, Jr. needs to ask himself how much of the money Hillary has amassed was given to her by corporate polluters. I would like to see him withdraw his endorsement of Hillary.

[Kurovski]

55. K&R.

All-around excellent thread.

[AX10]

56. I'm 100% with Bobby Jr. on this one.

[rhett o rick]

62. Why? Just curous. When we have a choice of good great individuals

running for president that support freedom, the Constitution, and the middle class, why would you support Sen Clinton and the status quo? She is part of the problem not the solution.

[AX10]

63. That is your opinion.

I am voting for Biden in the primary.

[rhett o rick]

100. I guess I misunderstood you to be supporting Sen Clinton. My mistake. nm

[RufusTFirefly]

57. Calling those who oppose HRC "haters" marginalizes and trivializes them

As though there aren't deliberate, thoughtful reasons for opposing her candidacy.

This isn't free-floating hostility; it's a genuine concern about corporate capitulation and the permanent erosion of the Constitution.

Ask yourself this: Would the Bush Administration, which fought so hard to flout the Constitution and to accumulate power and money simply roll over and relinquish all that to someone in direct opposition to its imperialist, corporatist, market fundamentalist ideals?

Of course not.

Cheney and his sock puppet will stop at nothing to make sure that whoever takes the oath of office on January 2009 "stays the course." In that sense, it's not all that different from Pooty-Poot's situation in Russia. Darth Cheney needs another puppet. And if that doesn't work, there's always the possibility of suspending elections.

[mod mom]

95. I agree and RFK Jr.'s posting it on Huff Po seemed to me to target left leaning

opposers rather than the rabid right. One just has to peruse the comments at HuffPo, TPM or here at DU to see how many Democrats are opposed to her as our nominee. If you read the content, these folks aren't in opposition because Hillary is a woman or ust out of spite, but give many of the reasons presented here.

I would like to be able to ask Ms Clinton one question in a public forum (hopefully not harmed by the "goons" spoken of by that combative :eyes: Medea Benjamin):

QUESTION: DID THE CLINTON'S RELATIONSHIP WITH JACKSON STEPHENS PLAY A ROLE IN LIMITING THE INVESTIGATION OF MENA AIRPORT, OR LEAD TO THE PARDON OF MARC RICH?

This is the type of tough question that needs to be asked.

[Cha]

58. Thanks, modmom!

Beautifully, written and speaks for me..right down to the Dean part!

It's like.. "Et tu, Bobby?". I swear he cared more about the environment than that.

[loudsue]

67. Lots of good info on this thread. Very important stuff. K & R n/t

[hfojvt]

69. this is an awesome thread and OP

but for myself, I must admit I do hate her. I think it is a reasonable hatred though, in much the same way that I hate my boss for being a dishonest lying bully. Not that Hillary is also a dishonest lying bully, but that a hatred can have reasons. The reasons came first, not the hatred (which then looked for reasons). To be fair though, once you have a few reasons, there probably will be a tendency to look for even more, and/or to magnify other reasons. I forget who said it, but I remember a quote that said "I you dislike somebody, the way they hold their fork infuriates you, but if you like somebody, they can dump a plate of spaghetti in your lap and you will laugh." There is a certain amount of that which may be unfair, but if there is a train of abuses and usurpations before the fork holding incident, then it is still reasonable even if the incident in question is not.

[donheld]

70. It's wonderful Mod mom

Thanks for the post.

[Dammit Ann]

71. Sistah!

Preach! As a woman against Clinton I feel attacked so often. She gives me the creeps, period, vag or no vag.

[anitar1]

73. Great post, .ModMom

I am happy to say that in my circle of friends and acquaintances , not one supports Hilary. And Bobby is certainly not a clone of his father. I don't know his reasons for the statements he made,but I do not agree with him. Your post says it all for me.edited for spelling.

[AzDar]

76. Kick ...

:kick:

[Voltaire99]

77. I hate her politics, too. The "strong woman" stuff is LOL.

Margaret Thatcher, of course, was also a "strong woman."

Karen Hughes is a "strong woman."

Etcetera. Spot the trend: strong women, sure, and right wingers, too.

[LWolf]

78. K & R n/t

[aquart]

83. Calling Hillary a fascist again?

Yeah, I do find your reaction to a liberal-to-middle-of-the-road candidate pathologically disproportionate. What is utterly fascinating is that you don't. And can't.

Has anyone ever said a NICE thing about a woman seeking high office?

[Kajsa]

97. Where did she call Hillary a fascist?

Please copy the portion of her letter where she stated that.

She didn't.

Mod mom's letter is excellent and clearly states why she doesn't
support Hilary in a well written manner.

Your post on the other hand, throws stink bombs into
the fray.

Stop making false accusations.

It doesn't speak well for you or your candidate.

[CRH]

102. I fail to find the "fascist" in the presentation of the OP, ...

if the original poster is to whom you are responding, you might be a quart low.

[RFKJrNews]

106. The OP's title refers to CORPORATISM...

...which by definition, is fascism.

Bobby Jr. often uses Benito Mussolini's famous quote about how “fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”

RFK Jr. aims his argument primarily at the Bush administration, of course. But these words (among others) are now being called into question by many who wonder how he can give good faith support to Clinton, the candidate they consider to be the most corporate of all the Democrats. Ah, the irony.

[Hepburn]

88. A-fucking-men, Mod Mom!

:applause:

I dislike Hillary and I make no bones about it. Come next November, if she unfortunately is our nominee, I will vote for her....but NOT with any enthusiasm, but merely as the lesser of two evils.

JMHO

[niceypoo]

89. Reminds me of my fundie Aunt

She rants and rages, but peppers her rants with, "were not a cult, were not a cult," which, obviously, exposes her hidden fear that her religion (born again) is a cult.

[BlueJac]

91. I will never vote for Hillary.............

She is Bush like.........her voting record says it all!!!

[mother earth]

94. Great post/thread, mod mom! This is about finding the right

candidate to represent our values, it's about the candidate's ability to be the voice of the people. We are entitled to that candidate, we don't have to apologize for rejecting those who place corporate interests above our own. The corporatists have far more money and are able to play out the marketing game far better than those who have rightly decided WE THE PEOPLE and our voices are priority.

This isn't about hate of any candidate, this is about hate of campaign finance that places corporate values above and beyond people values. All candidates had the option of turning down corporate money/influence, don't fault us for realizing those who chose to accept that money also aligned themselves with who they will truly represent. This is a no-brainer, IMHO.

Edwards chose to represent the people, and I choose to support his decision & his candidacy wholeheartedly...all others pale in comparison & nothing in my decision, is or has been, based on hate. Anyone who seeks to minimize or belittle, that choice and claim it is based on anything other than fact and reason, needs to re-examine their own motives.

[SaveAmerica]

98. Wish I could hide in a spider hole until election day, this is so tiresome

Instead I'll K and R this, thanks for voicing my thoughts exactly.

ps, I'm not a hater, so very much the opposite, I'm someone who has carefully thought out and made a decision on a candidate. Because it's not Hillary does not make me a hater.