If Hillary is the best, most inevitable candidate for liberals

[Lerkfish]

why do her supporters keep attacking liberals at every turn?

If she truly were our champion, there'd be no reason to browbeat us, no?

it would be obvious and not need to be said.

yet thread after thread from the same people continue to hammer against the "leftt" .


why?

Is it because occam's razor is in play? If liberals do not support her, its because she doesn't represent them?

So what does hammer accomplish?


1. what do you think it accomplishes for your candidate to slash and burn all liberals in the democratic party
2. Why do all these threads, obviously INTENDED to sow division, claim to be upset by division?
3. If you're so sure your candidate is the best one, why spend all this time in psyops against your own party?

[Taverner]

1. They don't want to get Nadered again

[asthmaticeog]

3. We don't want to get Supreme Courted or Ohio'd again, either. nt

[Taverner]

5. Thats true, but it seems like the Dems cave no matter who's running

Kerry runs, and he's the biggest Liberal in the Senate. And yet he doesn't fight.

I don't expect any of the Dems to fight if it's close. They aren't fighting now. So its not just Hillary.

[asthmaticeog]

7. Biggest liberal in the Senate? You heard that on network news?

He certainly is not. He's DLC.

[Taverner]

10. Look at his ENTIRE record. From freshman year to present

He's made a few mistakes, but has a solid liberal voting record like Kennedy.

[Adelante]

13. Kerry is not DLC as far as I know and is one of the biggest liberals in the

Senate. Can you provide backup for your denial of that?

[asthmaticeog]

24. Yes I can. A list of New Democrats is at this link.

http://www.nndb.com/group/269/000093987/

Specific reference to Kerry as a DLC member is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry#Issues_and_voting_record

Next time Google it your damn self.

[Adelante]

28. Hey

Fuck you, too.

[asthmaticeog]

34. Whatever.

I'm not the one in denial of the screamingly fucking obvious.

[wyldwolf]

2. Lerkfish, you remind me of that kid on the playground that always hits people...

...then acts shocked and hurt when someone hits back.

[Lerkfish]

4. non sequitor

[wyldwolf]

6. it's a perfect analogy

"Progressives" daily "slash and burn" Clinton. But when they get slashed and burned back, they whine about mean old Hillary supporters.

But don't take my word for it. Just using this forum on DU, let's compare the amount of Hillary hate threads vs. the opposite. Want to?

I'll start with this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3548471&mesg_id=3548471

One that's SO stupid you'd almost think it was sarcasm.

[ronnykmarshall]

9. That's got to be my all time favorite.

Next to the poo-pooing on celb endorsements of Hillary's <Example: Magic Johnson "another one of yesterday's stars> and then with a head spin that makes Linda Blair look like a chump <Jasmine Guy endorses Obama: She's proven that she's grown up to be an intelligent woman>.

And who couldn't forget the love-fest of "To hell with Hillary AND her supporters" and "Hillary's supporters should be ashamed of themselves".

[SaveElmer]

15. Sorry the best is claiming Hillary was going to outsource bricklaying...

:rofl:

[Lerkfish]

18. Care to answer the questions in the OP?

[Lerkfish]

12. but why do you focus on ME and not answer my questions. I find them valid

but you avoid them.

why?

try going back up the OP and try answering my valid questions.


I predict you wont', and will continue to disparage me.

a real, honest person would address the valid questions instead of attacking the questioner.

lets see what kind of person you really are, you've already characterized me in the negative, even though that wasn't one of the questions.

I predict you're too afraid to answer the direct questions.

Your behaviour after this post will prove me correct, I predict

[wyldwolf]

30. Your questions are disingenuous.

They suggest Hillary can be beat up all day long but it's blasphemy to dish it out on "progressives."

It really is a child-like trait to not understand why little Johnny pops you back after you've picked on him all day.

[Lerkfish]

32. So I predicted your behaviour accurately

1. you refused to answer the valid question
2. you attacked me personally (again)

try rereading the OP.

the questions aren't hard, if you have nothing to hide.

[wyldwolf]

33. Do you still beat your wife? That's the equivalent of your line of questioning

[Lerkfish]

35. no, my questions are to why you adopt this strategy

my questions again:

1. what do you think it accomplishes for your candidate to slash and burn all liberals in the democratic party
2. Why do all these threads, obviously INTENDED to sow division, claim to be upset by division?
3. If you're so sure your candidate is the best one, why spend all this time in psyops against your own party?


if you need it broken down simpler:

1. why do you malign liberals in the democratic party instead of trying to include them? why use terms "looney left fringe", etc.
Its a valid question, does this mean you don't care to persuade us to vote for your candidate, or do you think insulting us is worth the lost votes


I would point out, again, that you seem incapable of answering direct questions, instead you misdirect or attack the questioner. What is it about these questions that you don't wish to answer?

I'll put it even more simply:

What is your strategy vis a vis left-leaning progressives? Is it your intent to simply try to freeze them out of the progress and kick them out of the party?
Or are you really trying to win hearts and minds?

[wyldwolf]

36. So you're asking "Why do you hit me back when I hit you first?"

[Lerkfish]

37. LOL!

I think our exchange is clear to anyone else reading it.

You're being intentionally evasive and insulting.

[wyldwolf]

39. that's exactly what it boils down to.

You're whining about Hillary supporters yet it's the anti-Hillary people who do most of the attacking.

[Clintonista2]

8. Bingo.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Cameron27]

14. Liberals do support her.

[Lerkfish]

16. why?

in what way does she represent liberal progressives?

[SaveElmer]

17. Liberals absolutely do support her...

As distinguished from the "progressives" that inhabit the left blogosphere...

[Lerkfish]

19. why the quotes around "progressive"?

[SaveElmer]

21. Do distinguish those who claim to be progressive...

Mostly folks in the left blogosphere...from those that actually are...

[asthmaticeog]

25. True Scotsmen, in other words.

:eyes:

[Lerkfish]

20. notice how not one single Clinton supporter addresses the questions.

but they do spend time attacking the left, which goes directly the point of the OP

what do they wish to accomplish by demonizing the "looney left" members of the democratic party?

[SaveElmer]

22. Of course we did...

You just don't like the answer...

The fact is, Hillary does very well with Liberals...so the premise of you post is incorrect

[Cameron27]

23. I'm not a Clinton supporter,

but I've been defending her an awful lot lately. The reason that liberals may support her is because of her liberal voting record.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. I Support Her Because She Can Rip Any Pug Opponent A New Face

eom

[sampsonblk]

27. Answers from a big Clinton supporter here

I don't know why you feel that Clinton supporters are attacking liberals. I haven't experienced that.

Speaking only for myself, I don't feel the need to tear anyone down. From my point of view, Mrs Clinton is going to win, and most of the folks in both parties know it. And she knows it.

Obama and most of the other candidates are fine, and most would be fine presidents. But Mrs Clinton has a stellar organization and she hasn't even focused 100% on campaigning yet.

The GOP is in real trouble. And as I have said several times, when she wins, they are all going to need therapy.

Happy?

[Lerkfish]

31. then you're not paying attention.

Clinton supporters are all over the place, demonizing what they call "the looney left" and telling us to abandon our own issues, hold our noses and vote for Clinton.

If you've not seen it, start noticing...don't worry, there's at least three threads every six hours from Clinton supporters.

[ozone_man]

29. Because she's not a liberal?

I trust in Occam's razor. Listening to her talk about staying the course in Iraq and voting for the IWR was enough to dissuade me from voting for her. She seems to be about status quo corporate politics. The Iraq war is embedded with corporate politics, the Military Industrial Complex. I don't want to see a kinder, gentler occupation of Iraq, U.S. multinationals in control of Iraquis oil. I want to see us the hell out of there. Besides Occam's razor, I trust past experience and intuition. Bill Clinton fooled me twice and I won't be fooled again. :)

[LanternWaste]

38. Every turn?

"If Hillary is the best, most inevitable candidate for liberals why do her supporters keep attacking liberals at every turn?"

I'm afraid I have to reject the premise. Now, I could understand one's concern with a handful of posts denigrating the supporters of other candidates, but it would be disingenuous at best if for no other reason than there are supporters for every candidate who do the precise same thing.

It's the broad brush thing-- "why do her supporters keep attacking...?" The direct implication in the question is that all her supporters do this.




"yet thread after thread from the same people continue to hammer against the "leftt" ."

Getting better-- but why not simply ask the precise and relevant posters who do this, and reveal their names and tactics to us? Wouldn't these particular posters who engage in this be better able to answer?

It would appear from the OP you believe only Sen. Clinton's supporters do this.