Hillary Clinton's ratings from the Best of the Liberal Groups...

[SaveElmer]

Her excellent ratings from most groups are usually poo-pooed, so now that we have found some people like, thought I would get it out there....show what a radical "right winger" she is...

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Trust for Historic Preservation 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Children's Defense Fund 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 91 percent in 2006.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 100 percent in 2005

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 100 percent from 1988-2003 (Senate) or 1991-2003 (House).

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Public Health Association 80 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 93 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 84 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 88 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of Government Employees 83 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Committee for an Effective Congress 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2005.

According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 80 percent of the Senators.

According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on social policy issues than 83 percent of the Senators.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Alliance for Retired Americans 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 92 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Bread for the World 100 percent in 2003-2004.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Partnership for the Homeless 100 percent in 2003-2004.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

[Patchuli]

1. She also supported the war on Iraq 100%

She'd get no votes from me.

[AJH032]

20. no

She simply doesn't support immediate, unconditional withdrawal of troops. She's actually a vocal critic of the war and how the administration is handling it. That's far from 100% support.

[GAPeace]

23. So she basically has Lieberman's position on it or John McCain's

I saw her IN PERSON claim that the war was helping womens' rights. At that point I knew she was either pathological or just a liar.

A few months later I met iraqi unionists who told me the exact opposite.

Who should I trust?

[Patchuli]

28. I disagree but more importantly,

if she is our candidate, we will lose.

I personally don't see anything come out of her that doesn't smack of corportism, and 'getting along' and that's not what we need. I would be seriously aggrieved if she were to win the primary.

[NativeTexan]

31. I am not so sure about that, but...........

........she is a polarizing politician. Kinda like...well.....her husband, who got elected twice. But for sure, she has baggage. But most of the possibles do too.

Wes Clark probably has the least baggage. And actually, the only real baggage that Al Gore carries with him, IMHO, is having Lieberman as a running mate, but that is water under the bridge.

[Patchuli]

32. Hill is Not Bill though

2 very different folks!

I think Gore would be the best president ever.

[NativeTexan]

34. Hill is NOT Bill...quite right!

But she is better than ANYTHING that the right-wing can throw at her, IMHO.

[Patchuli]

50. True but Gore's a winner

as we saw before in 2000. There is no way the repubs are going to subvert the will of the people yet again. I predict the couch potatoes will arise!

[NativeTexan]

52. No doubt from this part of Texas!

[Patchuli]

53. My stepdaughter is in Austin

and likes it. Where are you? Hopefully in a blue island?

[NativeTexan]

95. I am NE of Dallas.....

...and Austin is as close to a "blue island" as there is. Actually the State is not as one sided as it might seem. If I was going to put percentages on it, I would bet it is no more than a 52-48 split, Republican-Democrats. And so many of those that have voted Republican lately are actually blue collar souls who honestly believe that someone "from" Texas would not do anything that would be against their best interests.

Honestly, if George W. Bush had been named Sam Jones, with HIS political "background" and his "knowledge" of the issues, he couldn't have been elected DOG CATCHER in Texas.

Those of us who had followed the Bush lie about being Texans and their plan to become the next "Kennedys" KNEW that he was a drunken, coke-head party boy, born with a silver spoon up his butt and was definitely the black sheep of the Bush Crime Family! Not to mention that if you watch him speak you can see what those of us raised in the 60's and 70's called being "burned".....meaning you can't put two coherent sentences together off the top of your head because your brain is so FUBAR'D that the only way you can get thru the day is with someone else showing you the way.

[Patchuli]

100. So it was mostly the Bush name from H.W.

that helped W. in Texas? Don't a lot of the folks that voted for him know he's from Connecticutt? Talk about a Yankee pretending to be a cowboy. What kind of cowboy is afraid of horses?! A phony cowboy!

[NativeTexan]

101. YEAH..My point has ALWAYS BEEN.........

.....that the ENTIRE FAMILY is a bunch of Yankee Carpetbaggers who want to pretend to be Texans for political gain ONLY!

[Patchuli]

111. I like real Texans

but it should have been obvious that the Bushes were yankees! I don't think W has done much for your fine state, either. Bless your blue heart!

[NativeTexan]

112. Of course not. He was a disaster as Governor, and......

....Governor in Texas is predominantly a figurehead role, but he found ways of causing more problems for education, budgeting, infrastructure, etc....however he WAS good for Enron, Exxon/Mobil, etc.

[Patchuli]

113. Sounds like my state's 'Governator'

nothing much but a 'figurehead' for the GOP.

[NativeTexan]

118. By Statute is that way in Texas.......

....but when you can screw a state up ANYWAY.....his hand-picked successor has been just as bad...maybe even worse. He has done it longer.

Remember, Bush went from failed businessman to Governor of a state that makes the governor almost unnecessary, to PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!!

We GOT what the REPUBLICANS DESERVED!!

[atfqn]

61. Being better does not mean winning.

If the repubs nominated McCain and some semblance of a liberal then she would have no chance.

[NativeTexan]

94. McCain has taken a hard right hand turn.

Catering to the "evangelical authoritarian" conservatives will win him no favors with most centrists.

[rpannier]

104. Have to disagree with you

the right wing has lots of outstanding candidates to run.

Like...'Old What's His Name?" You remember. That guy...he's always standing...except when he's sitting or lying down.

Then there's that woman...You know. Her...That woman you see on TV...next to that guy...um...

Oh wait. How could I forget the guy from...from that state. You know...the one...the guy...him


See...the right has lots of people to offer.

[KalicoKitty]

75. Hillary voted FOR the war!

Clinton (D-NY), Yea



http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

H. J. Res 114: Armed Forces Against Iraq

Authorizing use of military force in dealing with Iraq

[wakeme2008]

2. She supports the WAR 100% and Joey 100%

She is just waiting for the big kiss from Bush.... :grr:

[MarkDevin]

55. Exactly!

I consider that goddamn war the overriding issue of our time. And Mrs. Clinton has been horrendous on it!

For me, Hillary's unconditional support of Bush's war negates everything else she has ever done. If that makes me a far-left wacko in the eyes of some DUers, so be it.

[KalicoKitty]

76. I feel the same way...

Hillary is too far to the right for me. She has truly disappointed me!

[NativeTexan]

97. Hillary demanded that RUMSFELD..........

......show up personally to testify today at the Senate Armed Services Committee, which he was planning to slide by, and then KICKED HIS SHRIVELING OLD ASS all over the place about credibility and specific failures of his time at Defense!

Even if you don't like her politically, you would have been proud to watch her FINALLY come to grips with this problem PUBLICALLY!!

[Seabiscuit]

106. Yeah, FINALLY - 4 years late and a trillion dollars short.

Notice she only criticized Rumsfeld on tactical issues, not strategic ones.

She's a DINO.

[Hippo_Tron]

114. She'll get some points w/ me if she offers to campaign for Ned Lamont

After he wins the primary

[wyldwolf]

3. here's another important stat for Hillary:

[SaveElmer]

12. So for the graphically impaired (such as myself)...

This show's that Hillary is nearly as popular as Bill?

[wyldwolf]

13. yep - among Democrats

[ElboRuum]

110. I guess my question is...

What is this supposed to show? That Bill and Hill are liked by the same people and detested by the same people by what amounts to be a statistical equality?

[NoPasaran]

4. And so far as is reported

She was involved in altercations with capitol police 0 times.

[ronnykmarshall]

6. oooooooooo!

Oh no you di'nt????

:toast:

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[ronnykmarshall]

5. These groups have just pawns of KKKarl Rove ......

and the evil spawn of Satan the DLC!!!

:sarcasm:

[jonnyblitz]

8. ....

:spank:

[AtomicKitten]

7. In seemingly otherwise intelligent people,

the ignorance at DU is rampant. The left's campaign to vilify one of the front-runners and one of the strongest Dems is just plain retarded. Forgiveness abounds for others that voted yes on the IWR, but no dice for Hillary.

I will not vote for anyone in the primary that voted yes on the IWR, but that's me. However, my venom is dished out across the board, where it belongs.

Hillary has an excellent voting record, has kept her head down and nose to the grindstone, and has distinguished herself unlike other Democrats who have simply been an embarrassment.

The good news is that although those vilifying Hillary are LOUD, they are epically yet purposely uninformed and constitute a minority of Democrats. I am so tired of the negative harangue here at DU and all those that fall under the spell of this BS need to pull up their socks and do some thinking for themselves.

I would suggest there are some that don't want the Democrats to succeed and ooze their negativity and unreasonable, uninformed, caustic BS here to try to make sure that prediction comes to fruition. And I'm calling BULLSHIT on it. We are going to take this country back with or without you.

[SaveElmer]

9. People get a notion in their head...

And no matter what evidence contradicts it they will still defend that notion.

[BonnieJW]

10. That may be true, however

she can't win. That's the biggest drawback to Hilary and the repugs know it. That's why they keep putting name out there as a "frontrunner" for 2008. I have never met one Dem who would vote for her, but she's definitely the pub pick for '08. They would win without spending a dime.

[SaveElmer]

11. That's the meme...

I don't buy it...

[wyldwolf]

14. It's also the meme from the left "I have never met a Dem who would vote...

...for her."

I'm not saying people who say that aren't honest, but I am saying they must no know many Democrats. Polls don't lie. She IS the current frontrunner.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Andromeda]

59. Well, you responded didn't you!

Touchy, touchy.

[Andromeda]

58. Hey, hey!

[underpants]

65. I agree

I get sucked into the hate Hillary crowd sometimes myself. If she gets the nomination she gets my 100% support and effort.

She was wrong about the IWR vote but the way things are in DC anyone who wanted to ever run for President had to vote for it...at least that was the thinking at the time. They thought they had an OUT with the Rove lie about it only showing support before W went to the UN (they changed that story as soon as the vote was over and everyone should have seen that coming).

Great post.

[oasis]

99. Excellent post. (eom)

[SaveElmer]

15. Here are CLinton's ratings...with Feingold's...for comparison...

Because as we know...Feingold is sooo much more liberal that Hillary!


Senator Clinton supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.(Feingold 75)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 100 percent in 2005.(Feingold 60)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Trust for Historic Preservation 100 percent in 2005.(Feingold 75)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 95 percent in 2005.(Feingold 95)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2005.(Feingold 94)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 100 percent in 2005.(Feingold 100)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005.(Feingold 100)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2005.(Feingold 100)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 95 percent in 2005.(Feingold 90)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Children's Defense Fund 100 percent in 2005.(Feingold 100)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 100 percent in 2005.(Feingold 80)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 100 percent in 2005.(Feingold 75)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 91 percent in 2006.(Feingold 95)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 100 percent in 2005 (Feingold 95)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 100 percent from 1988-2003 (Senate) or 1991-2003 (House). (Feingold 75)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Public Health Association 80 percent in 2005.(Feingold 80)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 100 percent in 2005.(Feingold 100)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 100 percent in 2005.(Feingold 92)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2005.(Feingold 100)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 93 percent in 2005.(Feingold 93)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 84 percent in 2005.(Feingold 100)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker 100 percent in 2005.(Feingold 100)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 88 percent in 2005.(Feingold 100)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of Government Employees 83 percent in 2005.(Feingold 92)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Committee for an Effective Congress 95 percent in 2005.(Feingold 95)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2005.(Feingold 100)

According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 80 percent of the Senators.(Feingold 85)

According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on social policy issues than 83 percent of the Senators.(Feingold 83)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Alliance for Retired Americans 100 percent in 2005.(Feingold 100)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 92 percent in 2005.(Feingold 92)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Bread for the World 100 percent in 2003-2004.(Feingold 100)

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Partnership for the Homeless 100 percent in 2003-2004. (Feingold 0 )

[ronnykmarshall]

17. Those poll ratings are lies ...

and created by KKKarl Rove and the neo-fascist DLC.

:spank: m'self

[SaveElmer]

18. That's right...

The evil Republican/DLC infiltration team hypnotized all those groups into giveing Hillary a high rating!!!

[wyldwolf]

60. Plus Feingold stabbed Bill Clinton in the back

No way Russ will ever get the presidential nomination.

[beaconess]

96. And Feingold voted for 50% of Bush's Supreme Court nominees

Hillary voted for neither of them.

[T Town Jake]

16. Which is exactly why she'll have 100% of my support when she runs.

(n/t)

[AJH032]

19. thank you

It's time for all the anti-Clinton DUers to find something else to criticize Clinton for (if they really feel they must), and forget their "Republican" and "neocon" labels. It's like Republicans arguing against the existence of global warming, so clearly untrue!

[MarkDevin]

21. She also supports the death penalty and co-sponsored an anti-flag-burning

amendment.

[SaveElmer]

22. Absolutely unconditionally wrong on the flag amendment...

Time and time again people can't do the teeniest bit of research before posting this long debunked "fact" about Hillary...

She has CONSISTENTLY opposed the flag burning amendment...

Look it up!

[GAPeace]

25. She just supports criminalizing it

Not putting it into the Constitution. That's SO MUCH better.

[LincolnMcGrath]

26. Can you say free speech zone?

lol


Hillary can't seem to. :eyes:

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

29. Deleted sub-thread

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

[annabanana]

82. But she HAS supported legislation that would outlaw it...

In fact she responded to my letter today..(emphasis mine)

"Thank you for sharing with me your thoughts regarding a constitutional amendment to ban the desecration of the American flag. As I have said in the past, I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like the laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I do not believe a constitutional amendment is the answer."

[LincolnMcGrath]

24. We don't talk about that around here.

:hi:

[MrBenchley]

33. Half of your statement is flatly untrue

I wonder why it is the far left are all so gung ho to burn a flag?

[SaveElmer]

36. That particular piece of disinformation will never die...

Because the Hillary hater club doesn't want to be bothered with the truth...and research takes sooo much time it hurts their fingers!!!

Much easier to pretend its true!

[MrBenchley]

37. You will notice none of these far left wowsers EVER

criticizes John Murtha, who DID co-sponsor a flag burning amendment (with Duke Cunningham to boot)...but then in addition to being dishonest, the far left is hypocritical and cowardly.

[SaveElmer]

38. They probably haven't even bothered to look into it...

They hear "Hillary" and all else is shut out...

[MrBenchley]

39. Yup....it's a dreary little mob

howling for blood

[Hippo_Tron]

115. Jack Murtha isn't running for President

But I will admit that even if he were, there would still be some inconsistency here on DU about criticizing him for it.

[KaptBunnyPants]

51. People of the Left believe in liberty, sir.

At least, the ones I respect do. Willingness to criminalize what is undeniably a (non-violent) political statement is not something I am prepared to do, at least not lightly.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

119. LOL! Unless someone wants to call flag burning a hate crime

which it is.

[annabanana]

83. It is an expression of free speech - We don't necessarily want

to DO it.. We just don't want it outlawed!

[MrBenchley]

89. It's speech the way a punch in the nose is a song

And I don't see any reason it shouldn't be outlawed--it's a hate crime.

[Hippo_Tron]

116. The Supreme Court has said otherwise on two occasions

[LincolnMcGrath]

35. I wonder why the far right are all so gung ho to burn the Constitution,

in order to save a flag.

[MarkDevin]

57. Oops! I meant "law," not "amendment." Sorry about that!

[nasher]

30. She is better than people here give her credit for

but I sure don't want her to be our nominee on 08. She would lose to virually any Republican nominee.

[Imagevision]

41. the far right are all so gung ho promoting Hillary as our choice for

being the next prez... Bill has spent too much time becoming part of the Bush clan according to "Babs" -- Bush's favorite Democrat Mr. Lieberman doesn't get my support as much as Bill Clinton's...!

[Mr_Spock]

42. I see some folks disagree with her on several issues - as do I

But she is an excellent leader and folks should not write her off so quickly.

At least we know where she stands and she will fight for those positions against anyone who dares to take her on - and few have the guts to take her on publicly. I'm not writing her off as many here on DU are wont to do.

[IndianaGreen]

43. Hillary supported the destruction of Lebanon 100% in 2006

and she remained silent when millions of peace loving people across the world begged the US, UK, and Israel for a ceasefire in Lebanon.

[MrBenchley]

44. So did Ned Lamont, the Unknown Millionaire

Funny how Neddy's support of Israel doesn't bother his addlepated followers from the far left....

[SaveElmer]

45. Or Russ Feingold...nt

[MrBenchley]

46. Tain't the heat, it's the hypocrisy.....

[SaveElmer]

47. And the ability...

To conveniently overlook the sins of their heroes...or explain them away in some sophistic way.

[MrBenchley]

48. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt...

It's been especially funny in the Cynthia McKinney threads, where her whoopsters are denying she slapped a cop, even though the antiSemitic loony has admitted doing so and apologized for it.

[alvarezadams]

49. Senator Clinton supported the interests of

Big business 100%
War 100%
Neolib economic policies 100%.

Virtually the entire list you provided are meaningless in light of the above. It's just windowdressing to split the DNC and thus help those who fund both the GOP and DLC.

[AJH032]

54. uh...no

She supported big business 100%? Can you show proof that every time she voted on any bill having to do with big business, she always supported the corporate side? Your statement is 100% false. One example comes to mind: No on CAFTA

And how are "neolib economic policies" defined? There isn't even a clear-cut definition for that, and what bills would be encompassed by such an ideology, yet you claim she supports it 100%. Yeah, sure.

[mtnsnake]

63. Ever notice when you ask for proof, the Hillary bashing liars disappear?

It happens each and every time. Funny about that.

[Cocoa]

93. I noticed that

and I notice how they suddenly lose interest in the discussion when you point out their lies.

[alvarezadams]

67. Hmmm?

"Can you show proof that every time she voted on any bill having to do with big business, she always supported the corporate side?"

Pardon the hyperbole. Sometimes she felt restrained against voting too egregiously against the interests of her party. Still, the USINPAC is still there...

"And how are "neolib economic policies" defined?"

- Laissez faire policies, cutting regulation.
- Dismantling of government programs and the use of the private sector
- Cutting back on progressive taxation.

She regularly rates well with Taxpayers for Common Sense - better than many Republicans. She's in bed with the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association and often with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The American Forest and Paper Association likes her too... and she scores a -33%- approval ranking from the JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY (forchrissakes). But her biggest problem is her association with the DLC and PPI - which are wholly neolib in economics and neocon in foreign policy.

[SaveElmer]

68. The National Stone Sand, and Gravel Association..uh ok

Let's look at some other Democratic lawmakers...one's without the DLC "taint"...see how they scored

Barbara Boxer...59
Tom Harkin...63
Barack Obama...92
Ted Kennedy...63
Barbara Mikulski...67
Paul Sarbanes...67

and even that paragon of left wing virtue Dennis Kucinich scored a 32...

And John Birch...

Lets take a similar look

Barbara Boxer...20
Tom Harkin...20
Dick Durbin...20
Barbara Mikulski...20
Paul Sarbanes...20

And that paragon of Liberal Virtue Dennis Kucinich..44 That's right, Dennis Kucinich gets a 44 rating from the John Birch society...better than some Republicans!!!



Here are Hillary's most recent ratings from pro-business organizations...hardly stellar from their perspective


Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Association of Government Contractors 0 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 35 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Business-Industry Political Action Committee 11 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Sleep Products Association 0 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council 9 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Federation of Independent Business 20 percent in 2005.

And I would add her exceptional rankings from Labor, organizations known to be in conflict with corporate management from time to time, perhaps you heard about them, also belie this assertion.

As to the DLC/PPI bogeyman...that is all it is...the new millenium's version of the Tri-Lateral commission. Let me remind you Byron Dorgan, author of a very well received book critical of corporate power is DLC...as is Eliot Spitzer, well respected for his numeorus assaults on corporate corruption in New York...and soon to be Governor of that state.

[alvarezadams]

70. Wake up

"As to the DLC/PPI bogeyman...that is all it is...the new millenium's version of the Tri-Lateral commission."

It is no bogeyman. They exist, they are funded by Bradley and Olin and the usual extremist rw funders... for various reasons, not the least of which are the DLC's committment to the "third way".

The third way is, of course, not far from Nordquist with regards to downsizing government. It pushes for the privatization of services currently provided by government. It pushes for an assortment of measures that erode the middle class and widen the gulf between the rich and the poor. It
follows the Austrian School of economics. It is the enemy - and no amount of token progressive windowdressing can change it.

It can fool a lot of people though...

[SaveElmer]

71. And show me the exact mechanisms of power...

The DLC asserts on its 400+ members...

How does it assure uniformity and compliance with its "edicts?" They are proscribed by law from contributing to candidates...

How can they countenance a member of their leadership team voting against a free trade agreement (CAFTA)?

And if they are as powerful as you seem to say, how is it they cannot contain members like Dorgan and Spitzer?

Unless you assert they have been fooled, along with the leadership of most of the major Union organizations in the United States.

[alvarezadams]

73. Disingenuous

"How does it assure uniformity and compliance with its "edicts?""

Association with an organization implies an agreement with the core values of said organization.

"Unless you assert they have been fooled, along with the leadership of most of the major Union organizations in the United States."

Unions? There are still unions over there?

[SaveElmer]

74. So there is no mechanism...

Or in fact any enforced dogma...and in fact there is significant disagreement among DLC members as to what policies to pursue...

And as Dorgan and Spitzer demonstrate considerable independence of thought and action among its membership...

And I know it will shock many, but alot of politicians join the DLC for purely political reasons, a way of positioning themselves with the public...surprising I know!

Like I said the trilateral commission of the new millenium!

[alvarezadams]

90. Neither was there a mechanism

in Franco's Spain. For years there was indeed press censorship but the lion's share of censorship was SELF-censorship.

The idea of a "mechanism" is disingenuous. Not even McCarthy had a "mechanism" for anti-Commie dogma.

Some members show "independence"? Or they show that they realize that their particular constituencies haven't been indoctrinated enough to take the "pure stuff"? The key is that they identify themselves with a group that is not only inimical to our political party but to our very body politic.

"And I know it will shock many, but alot of politicians join the DLC for purely political reasons, a way of positioning themselves with the public...surprising I know!"

Which goes a long way towards explaining the success of the right, the weakness of the Democrats and the lack of confidence in our political system. What's the trend in electoral participation these days?

"Like I said the trilateral commission of the new millenium!"

While those who support the DLC remind me of the 5th column behind the Republican lines in 1936.

If you think that the best way to counter radical right wingers is by providing the electorate with a slightly less-radical version of the same, more power to you. History shows that this sort of acquiescence leads to defeat, but maybe THIS time, for the first time, Newton's Law will be proven wrong.

Conservative Dems would do the body politic a lot more good by shifting to the GOP and trying to keep THEM from going even more radical. Turning the DNC to the right only helps the right.

Period.

[SaveElmer]

92. Response...

"Not even McCarthy had a "mechanism" for anti-Commie dogma."

Except of course the subpeona power of the United States Senate and J. Edgar Hoover's FBI at his side...

"Some members show "independence"? Or they show that they realize that their particular constituencies haven't been indoctrinated enough to take the "pure stuff"? The key is that they identify themselves with a group that is not only inimical to our political party but to our very body politic."

Sophistry, a theory without evidence. You cannot refute that these members have behaved exactly as I said so you ascribe their behavior to some careful plan to slowly indoctrinate their constituents...fake them out with anti-corporate tomes and lawsuits against corporate scandal mongers I guess.

"If you think that the best way to counter radical right wingers is by providing the electorate with a slightly less-radical version of the same, more power to you."

I disagree with the premise. Radical solutions as I have argued before are never attempted in the U.S., and even rapid intra-systemic change is unusual except in cases of deep crisis. We are not in deep crisis, nor does the American public believe we are in deep crisis. Wrong track...yes. There are very few issues in American that need a radical reworking of the type you imply. And the one that does, the war in Iraq, would not have occurred with the Democratic candidate in the White House and a Democratically controlled Congress.

You have sketched an outline of a right wing conspiracy to move the country to the radical right, drawing connections between right wing financiers, their cronies in the Democratic Party. Yet you have shown no plausible internal mechanism for its operation, denied that those who do not follow what you view as right wing economic policy are actually showing independence, and assert that all Democratic Politicians in the DLC are willing participants in it implementation. All this despite contravening evidence from the very groups that would be harmed by its implementation, and among groups that would benefit. Somehow they missed this and you picked it up!

[alvarezadams]

98. Sophistry?

When you mix apples and oranges applying the rules of the HUAC to a comment about the "dogma" of McCarthy supporters?

"Sophistry, a theory without evidence."

Just because you refuse to see it?

"I disagree with the premise. Radical solutions as I have argued before are never attempted in the U.S., and even rapid intra-systemic change is unusual except in cases of deep crisis."

You don't see today's RW as radical?

"We are not in deep crisis, nor does the American public believe we are in deep crisis."

Yet through the spending of billions the rw has enforced radical change.

"There are very few issues in American that need a radical reworking of the type you imply."

Here you go again. What "radical change" do I imply? You seem to extrapolate from my resistence against the VRWC.

"You have sketched an outline of a right wing conspiracy to move the country to the radical right, drawing connections between right wing financiers, their cronies in the Democratic Party. "

Indeed. One that clearly exists with regard to the DLC... or do you disagree that the Olins and Bradley's are (along with Scaife) the maximum exponents of RW financing? Do you disagree that the DLC and PPI have admittedly received support from them?

"Yet you have shown no plausible internal mechanism for its operation, denied that those who do not follow what you view as right wing economic policy are actually showing independence, and assert that all Democratic Politicians in the DLC are willing participants in it implementation."

This sounds like a faith-based argument.

No internal mechanism is needed. Political parties don't work that way - even in parliamentary systems where non-compliancy with party platforms might lead to a vote of confidence. A British Tory might vote against an egregious law that is inimical to the interests of his constituency even if said law is part of the Tory platform. This does not make him a "bad Tory" - he is still a Tory because he has chosen to form part of the Conservative Party. If his values were indeed very different from said party he would abandon it. This is the nature of participation in an organization: one associates with an org such as the DLC either because he believes in its values or because he finds it politically expedient.

[SaveElmer]

102. Yes Sophistry...

Defined as a "Plausible but fallacious argumentation"

"When you mix apples and oranges applying the rules of the HUAC to a comment about the "dogma" of McCarthy supporters?"

Hardly, without the mechanisms to intimidate and harrass his opponents, the red-baiting tactics of McCarthy would not have worked, he would have been challenged on his views much earlier, and the nightmare of McCarthyism would not have happened.

"Just because you refuse to see it?"

I see your argument, I don't see compelling evidence that it is true.

"You don't see today's RW as radical?"

I see the RW attempting radical change (in American terms), I don't see a whole lot of success yet, (Social Security, Estate Tax etc). And I also see the American people turning away from these solutions which I believe will become evident in the November elections.

"Indeed. One that clearly exists with regard to the DLC... or do you disagree that the Olins and Bradley's are (along with Scaife) the maximum exponents of RW financing? Do you disagree that the DLC and PPI have admittedly received support from them?"

They have received money from them yes, along with many others...and I wish they wouldn't, but to imply this shows a level of control by the DLC among those affiliated with it is an assertion without evidence...and indeed I have shown instances to the contrary.


"No internal mechanism is needed. Political parties don't work that way - even in parliamentary systems where non-compliancy with party platforms might lead to a vote of confidence. A British Tory might vote against an egregious law that is inimical to the interests of his constituency even if said law is part of the Tory platform. This does not make him a "bad Tory" - he is still a Tory because he has chosen to form part of the Conservative Party. If his values were indeed very different from said party he would abandon it. This is the nature of participation in an organization: one associates with an org such as the DLC either because he believes in its values or because he finds it politically expedient."

Even here as you point out there are internal mechanisms within Political Parties. Certainly members are given wide leeway, but in the U.S. there are many ways the Political Party exerts its power over members...committee assignments, favorable rules on legislation, money for campaigning, support of party members during reelection etc...the DLC has none of these...

And the bottom line is, you have shown no actual evidence that folks such as Hillary Clinton are advancing the designs of these right wing financiers, through an organization with no power over its membership. In American Politics, perception is nearly as important as reality. The perception of many Democrats by voters, is that they are too liberal. In a country where half or more will vote for a man like George Bush, this is the kiss of death in a national election. Your last point, which I believe I also expressed, is that many (I would venture to guess a majority), join the DLC to counter this perception. It is a useful tool for many Democratic politicians to appear to be moving to the middle.

Hillary Clinton is a perfect example. Read the threads on this board calling her a "Vichy Democrat", a "Zell-o-CRat", "Neocon," "Corporate Whore" and on and on and on. These are all based on perception...not fact. They are based largely on three things. 1. Her vote for the IWR ( however without reading her floor statement), 2. Her support of a law to make flag burning on public property with the intention to intimidate, a crime. A law she backed largely to prevent a constitutional amendment, and 3. Her membership in the DLC.

In fact Hillary Clinton is at the progressive end of our Party, and always has been. She is not advancing some RW radical corporate agenda. Her ratings from corporate friendly organizations is almost universally poor, and her ratings from those that would be most injured by policies that you ascribe to the DLC, are very high.

You are not demonstrating any kind of credible link between the goals of these RW DLC backers, and the actions of the majority of DLC members.

[alvarezadams]

108. Sheesh

Precisely your modus operandi. Pot, kettle, black.



"Hardly, without the mechanisms to intimidate and harrass his opponents, the red-baiting tactics of McCarthy would not have worked, he would have been challenged on his views much earlier, and the nightmare of McCarthyism would not have happened."

THAT is sophistry, pure and simple. McCarthy HAD no mechanism outside the HUAC - he relied on demagoguery, smear and fear. Something not too distant from the DLC, I might add, painting "libs" as "out of touch extremists" and calling on a "move towards a non-existent center" in order to dismiss the traditional base of the DNC. The nightmare of McCarthy only existed because the RW saw fit, and not for the first time, to capitalize on a "red scare", bunching anything progressive with putative communism.

"I see your argument, I don't see compelling evidence that it is true. "

The inarguable funding links, the inarguable comments by DLC representatives themselves... you don't WANT to see.

"I see the RW attempting radical change (in American terms), I don't see a whole lot of success yet, (Social Security, Estate Tax etc). And I also see the American people turning away from these solutions which I believe will become evident in the November elections."

Christ! Don't you remember the Reagan years? Don't you remember the demise of the fairness doctrine, the Prop 13 baloney and an endless list of anti-New Deal legislation, not to mention rhetoric that has become platitudinous? Haven't you seen the DNC follow the lead of the DLC to the right? Haven't you seen Dubya re-elected? WAKE UP!!! And watch the GOP lose only a seat or two in the next elections.

"They have received money from them yes, along with many others...and I wish they wouldn't, but to imply this shows a level of control by the DLC among those affiliated with it is an assertion without evidence...and indeed I have shown instances to the contrary."

Control? I don't imply control, I STATE similar objectives.


"Even here as you point out there are internal mechanisms within Political Parties. Certainly members are given wide leeway, but in the U.S. there are many ways the Political Party exerts its power over members...committee assignments, favorable rules on legislation, money for campaigning, support of party members during reelection etc...the DLC has none of these..."

That is simply inane.

"Hillary Clinton is a perfect example. Read the threads on this board calling her a "Vichy Democrat", a "Zell-o-CRat", "Neocon," "Corporate Whore" and on and on and on. These are all based on perception...not fact."

That is simply naive. Perception is all in politics and politicians live and die on the basis of it. Hillary COULD clear this up in a heartbeat, calling the DLC for what it is, but she doesn't. Either she doesn't want to or she is so utterly out of touch that she doesn't even realize it.

"They are based largely on three things."

The fact that you ignore the war in Iraq shows your colours. You're transparent.

"In fact Hillary Clinton is at the progressive end of our Party, and always has been."

Then WHY IN THE HELL DOES SHE ASSOCIATE WITH, AND AVOW MEMBERSHIP WITH, THE GROUP THAT CONSCIOUSLY ATTACKS PROGRESSIVES???????? Jesus.

"Her ratings from corporate friendly organizations is almost universally poor, and her ratings from those that would be most injured by policies that you ascribe to the DLC, are very high."

Gawd. That isn't disingenuous, it's just NAIVE.

"You are not demonstrating any kind of credible link between the goals of these RW DLC backers, and the actions of the majority of DLC members."

While you're showing all the signs of cognitive dissonance.

[SaveElmer]

109. Are you kidding?

"THAT is sophistry, pure and simple. McCarthy HAD no mechanism outside the HUAC - he relied on demagoguery, smear and fear. Something not too distant from the DLC, I might add, painting "libs" as "out of touch extremists" and calling on a "move towards a non-existent center" in order to dismiss the traditional base of the DNC. The nightmare of McCarthy only existed because the RW saw fit, and not for the first time, to capitalize on a "red scare", bunching anything progressive with putative communism."

And the subpeona power of the Senate to haul people before the committee to intimidate...and the FBI investigating people without cause...had he had neither of those...all the smearing and fearing would have amounted to nothing!!! He had a mechanism, a structure of power to do what he did. The DLC has nothing.

"The inarguable funding links, the inarguable comments by DLC representatives themselves... you don't WANT to see."

You continue to refuse to show any kind of link between the funding and action by Democrats. You take it as assumed that the DLC is getting money so the members must be acting on it...yet there is precious little evidence this is occurring at all.

"Christ! Don't you remember the Reagan years? Don't you remember the demise of the fairness doctrine, the Prop 13 baloney and an endless list of anti-New Deal legislation, not to mention rhetoric that has become platitudinous? Haven't you seen the DNC follow the lead of the DLC to the right? Haven't you seen Dubya re-elected? WAKE UP!!! And watch the GOP lose only a seat or two in the next elections."

Oh brother...Ronald Reagan failed to make any significant dent in New Deal programs or in government spending. How did he do against Social Security, how did Bush do against Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid...it is still Toxic for even the most rabid of Republicans to touch those programs in any significant way as George Bush found out at his peril. Reagan did harm yes...and I opposed nearly everything he did...but to claim he accomplished any fundamental realignment of government intervention in the economy is just wrong...and the harm he caused was partially ameliorated in the Clinton years. Bush has caused more harm, which can be reversed with Democrats in the White House and Congress...as opposed to capitualting because they aren't sufficiently pure for you!

"That is simply inane."

Uh, ok...I made all that up!

"That is simply naive. Perception is all in politics and politicians live and die on the basis of it. Hillary COULD clear this up in a heartbeat, calling the DLC for what it is, but she doesn't. Either she doesn't want to or she is so utterly out of touch that she doesn't even realize it."

And when the perception is that you are a flaming Liberal, and half the country does not like flaming liberals, and you want to run for President, you try and change the perception. For many joining the DLC is that mechanism. It is the typical naivete of liberals to think that all we have to do is present the issues accurately, and the electorate will miraculously see we are correct. That in their heart everyone is a liberal progressive just waiting for the right message from the left to allow them to express their true desires, and come flocking to the Democratic Party

We have been correct on the issues since 1932...yet only half that time has the country seen it that way...and if you exclude the extraordinary case of FDR...less than half. Politics is not just about issues and answers, as you say it is about perception, yours (meaning the candidate), and that you can create in your opponents. It is dealing with a media too lazy to present issues honestly, who are more interested in catching politicians in a gotcha moment. It is about being as ruthless as your opponents are at playing the preception and expectation game. If her goal was to make DU happy, then yes, your suggestion would be wise...if her goal is to be elected President...then your suggestion would be unwise.

"The fact that you ignore the war in Iraq shows your colours. You're transparent."

Did you read my post? I believe that is the first thing I mentioned? The IWR is the Iraq War Resolution. You might want to take a look at her floor statement explaining her vote for the IWR...hardly a clarion call to war.

"Then WHY IN THE HELL DOES SHE ASSOCIATE WITH, AND AVOW MEMBERSHIP WITH, THE GROUP THAT CONSCIOUSLY ATTACKS PROGRESSIVES???????? Jesus."

You don't seem to be reading my posts...see explanation above and on previous post...perception, liberal, Pesidential election...etc etc etc. I do not like the public face of the DLC (Al From), I disapprove of public criticism of other Democrats, I disasscoiate myself from their criticism of Howard Dean, and I find myself in disagreement with them on many occasions, but that does not mean they are the dangerous scourge you are portraying them as.

"Gawd. That isn't disingenuous, it's just NAIVE."

Yes because as we know the AFL-CIO, UAW, etc are all tools of the DLC cabal looking to destroy our country...and the Chamber of Commerce gives her low ratings so she won't blow her cover with Democrats... :crazy:

"While you're showing all the signs of cognitive dissonance."

Like Thomas Jefferson who was unwilling to acknowledge George Washington actually believed in the measures he was taking at Alexander Hamilton's suggestion, ascribing those actions to senility and the designs of outsiders, you and most left wing types cannot wrap your brains around the fact that others might actually have a different opinion, and so ascribe it to cognitive dissonance or some other reason, becasue gawd knows your opinions are the only correct ones!

[rinsd]

77. Kucinich is a Bircher!?!?!

Shall I engender the rage of the PHDC by calling out their idol?

[SaveElmer]

79. Well I was gonna...

But I wanted to find out what they based their ratings on...I haven't been able to...maybe your surfing skills are better than mine

[rinsd]

81. Oh man.,......wading into the Birchers....I rather hang with freepers

At least then maybe one of the freepers will say "hey man hold muh beer and watch this" and hilarity will ensue.

In all fairness to Kucinich the likely reason he gets some marks from Birchers is that they hate free trade agreements.

[SaveElmer]

85. That's why I didn't do it...

I figured it was some anomolous issue that ocassionally unites right and left!

[alvarezadams]

91. It just goes to show...

...how yesterday's radical right is now the center in the US of A.

[AJH032]

69. I'm really curious

Where are her multitude of votes that define her so much as "neolib"? When did she vote for and advocating the dismantling of government programs and progressive taxation, etc. It seems you're simply trying to paint a picture of her without any proof to back it up.

[alvarezadams]

72. If you are, look it up.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295
http://www.lib.utah.edu/epubs/hinckley/v2/lyman.htm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Third_Way_Foundation
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Senate_New_Democrat_Coalition
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Third_Way_organization

Her ranking with Taxpayers for Common Sense also tells a story... as does the Senate New Democrat Coalition buzzwords: "...to provide a unified voice in the U.S. Senate for progressive ideas, mainstream values, and innovative, market-based policy solutions."

This is what gets my goose: ""America has moved sharply to the right. Though a plurality of Americans identify themselves as political 'moderates,' conservatives have made substantial inroads into that group, which has brought them control of every branch of government. A main reason for this shift is that conservatives have built an extensive and well-coordinated 'idea industry' that has convinced a majority of Americans that they are the true reformers who will tackle America’s challenges at the dawn of the 21st Century. By contrast, progressives – the undisputed reformers of the last 100 years – are now often seen as out-of-touch defenders of the status quo."

So instead of countering the conservative monster the DLC would JOIN it. The country's moved to the right? Instead of trying to turn the pendulum the other way the DLC would shadow it as it continues to move to the right on the basis of $1 billion of corporate funding per year.

It's tantamount to saying, in the Germany of the 1930's: "Germany's gone NAZI so we'll go falangist", instead of something like this: http://www.ourfuture.org/aboutus/

[SaveElmer]

78. Dennis Kucinich's ranking with the Taxpayer's for Common Sense is

15 points higher than Hillary's...

And in fact virtually every Democrat's rating is higher than their Republican counterparts...indicative of the budgetary irresponsibility displayed by that party

[alvarezadams]

87. Indicative?

In this world of spin its often hard to find anything indicative these days.

Take, for instance, the recently published DLC platform. On the surface and without knowing the DLC's agenda, it sounds hunky dory. But knowing the agenda it becomes quite clear that the DLC is virtually taking the GOP agenda and spinning it into something palatable for progressives.

I sincerely don't know about "Taxpayer's for Common Sense" and took a leap on it, knowing as I do that ultimately the DLC's answer to the nation's ills is the same as the GOP's - "free marketism", privatization, et al.

I note that you don't consider the rest of the links.

[NoPasaran]

62. Morning kick for the distinguished senator

:dem:

[Cocoa]

64. people lie about Clinton

and a lot of DUers believe it.

[mtnsnake]

66. "and a lot of DUers believe it."

and a lot of DUers are guilty of it.

[annabanana]

80. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights ? Whither ACLU? n/t

[SaveElmer]

84. ACLU ranking...

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004.

Other Democrats for comparison...

Barbara Boxer...75
Ted Kennedy...86
John Kerry...100
Russ Feingold...89
Jack Reed...78
Dennis Kucinich...93

[lebkuchen]

86. I applaud her vivisection of Rumsfeld.

Does she still support her decision to enter Iraq given her description of Rummy's performance as being "incompetent?"

[rpannier]

103. Yeah but...

she probably kicks puppies in her spare time or has spat on someone in her life, or uttered an obscenity. So, I would never vote for her. Besides she's secretly in league with the trilateral commission, sits on the board of directors for the reverse vampires and bites her fingernails. I even heard she said "Good morning" one time to the late Sen Strom Thurmond.

See...she's obviously a puke plant. She's been one for years. She's been lying in wait to spring her anti-Democrat (sic) trap for years.

(Sarcasm)

Is it paranoid enough yet?

[SaveElmer]

105. Well this is America...

Perception is more important than reality!

[moondust]

107. Support of Iraq invasion is paramount.

Anybody who willingly supported the unnecessary and disastrous invasion of Iraq lacks the sound judgment necessary to hold high public office. That goes for Clinton, McCain, Frist, Kerry, and the rest.

[Hippo_Tron]

117. I'm going to respond with one word: Iraq

I'm sure that you are already aware of this, but I'll repeat it for some of those who are not. There are many on and off of this message board who feel that none of these issues matter until the Iraq War has ended.

As for my take on Hillary. She wouldn't be my first choice for President, but she's certainly 1000% more progressive than any Republican and a lot more progressive than many Democrats.