Why I'm not supporting Hillary Clinton

[jgraz]

Since Hillary supporters continually have to answer questions about why they're supporting her, I thought it only fair to post a list of reasons why I am working against her nomination. One common way that the pro-Hillary folks justify their support is to paste in a long list of her accomplishments in the Senate.

I have a similar list of her Senate work and, as you can imagine, it paints quite a different picture. What I see is a politician afraid to stick her neck out and unwilling to challenge what she sees as the current conventional wisdom on an issue. The conclusion one is left with is that Hillary Clinton is unable or unwilling to lead, especially if it involves a significant departure from the status quo.

Here's my list. I may have a few facts incorrect -- it's much more difficult to research lack of action. I'll happily make any corrections (or additions) to the list if people point them out.

~~~~~~~~

Senator Clinton said and did nothing to prevent the Senate confirmation of John Ashcroft.

Senator Clinton said and did nothing to prevent the Senate confirmation of Alberto Gonzales.

Senator Clinton said and did nothing regarding the failed Senate confirmation of John Bolton.

Senator Clinton voted FOR cloture on the nomination of corrupt corporatist Priscilla Owen, clearing the way for her confirmation to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Senator Clinton voted FOR cloture on the nomination of unqualified fascist Janice Rogers Brown, clearing the way for her confirmation to the DC Court of Appeals.

Senator Clinton voted FOR cloture on the nomination of religious zealot and homophobe William H. Pryor, clearing the way for his confirmation to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Senator Clinton voted FOR cloture on the nomination of John Roberts, clearing the way for his confirmation as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Senator Clinton said little or nothing during the Senate confirmation of Samuel Alito.

Senator Clinton missed the Senate confirmation vote on Michael Mukasey.

Senator Clinton said little or nothing during this summer's vote on the Iraq War Supplemental.

Senator Clinton said little or nothing during the vote to extend FISA.

Senator Clinton said little or nothing on the Walter Reid scandal, even though she sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Senator Clinton has said little or nothing during the current debate on Telecom Immunity.

Senator Clinton has said little or nothing on the possible impeachment of Dick Cheney.

Senator Clinton has said little or nothing on the possible impeachment of George Bush.

Senator Clinton has said little or nothing on the myriad scandals surrounding the current administration. (Yeah, I'm too lazy to list these one-by-one)

Senator Clinton campaigned for Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont

Senator Clinton proposed legislation to ban flag burning.

Senator Clinton voted FOR the USAPATRIOT act.

Senator Clinton voted FOR the Iraq War Resolution.

Senator Clinton voted FOR the Kyl/Lieberman amendment.

~~~~~~~~

Yes, many other Senators have failed to lead on these issues, but they aren't asking for a promotion to the highest office in the nation. As Hillary loves to point out, she is not a newcomer to Washington politics. She says she's "ready to lead" and experienced at fighting the right-wing. Why then, does she always seems to fade into the woodwork whenever a contentious issue comes before the Senate?

[asdjrocky]

1. K&R

You worked very hard on this, and it shows.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Thank you for posting

I think it is important to view candidates from all perspectives. Your list balances with the other; people can read both and then make up their minds about her based upon their own judgment.

[Dems Will Win]

68. This is the reason I'm for Obama -- he was against the war and both Edwards and Hillary

gave Bush the power to attack Saddam instead of standing up to Bush -- AND THEY NEVER EVEN READ THE NIE THAT SAID THERE WERE NO WMDs!!

[tmoore411]

109. Because he had no vote...

I have begun to see far to often, and hear as well how Obama always was against the war, that is a trite and bogus argument. He had no vote. Everyone in this forum can look back and say that they would have done something different in their lives...that prospect would explode exponentially if we looked into each others pasts...I can say for certain without hearing the information and without understanding the pressure during that debate/vote that I would have voted against it (from my nice comfortable chair), but can't for one minute say what I would have done in that precise moment, so quit using a lame argument as to why Obama should garner support for not having supported the war and start giving some details/positions that show he is ready to lead and not strictly point fingers at other peoples records and claim positions he (might) have taken.

[PADemD]

135. Barack Obama spoke out against the war from the beginning.

Senator Clinton trusted and gave George W. Bush the authorization to go to war.

[davidwparker]

155. Be clear. Are you referring to trusting * on Iraq or Iran?

:)

[PADemD]

200. Iraq

[Andy823]

211. I agree

It's just like all the other votes Obama has missed, but "said" how he would have voted. It's alwasy easy to "wait" and then come up with a stand on something, but it takes guts to do what you think is right, then defend it! I guess if you don't vote, you can work both sides of the issue!

[aquart]

174. I'm SURE he would have voted "Present."

Seriously, when we're talking careful gutlessness caused by raw ambition, this man really cannot challenge anyone.

[Andromeda]

215. He had no vote.

If he had been able to vote he probably would have voted "PRESENT." Yes sir, he really knows how to stand up for what he believes.:rofl:

[JackORoses]

3. cool now we have a cut'n'paste reply for that schwag list of Hillary's 'accomplishments'

[BenDavid]

118. much to dispute about this list but first off lets see the false in

Hillary suporting Joe Lieberman.
''I've known Joe Lieberman for more than thirty years. I have been pleased to support him in his campaign for re-election, and hope that he is our party's nominee,'' the former first lady said in a statement issued by aides. ''But I want to be clear that I will support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary,'' the New York Democrat added. ''I believe in the Democratic Party, and I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters.''

....''The challenges before us in 2006 call for a strong, united party, in which we all support and work for the candidates who are selected in the Democratic process,'' Clinton said in her statement of Tuesday.

Did you catch that. Joe was the democratic candidate seeking reelection and she did not support Joe when he ran as an independent. In her letter she would support Lamont who is or was the democratic candidate.

When i can dispute more I will but that one is so false....

Ben David

[Usrename]

134. Let's hear her support for Lamont. Where? When?

I want to hear about how well she supported Ned.

[PADemD]

138. In Lamont Race, Bitter Democrats Do Pre-Mortems

http://www.observer.com/node/36203

[Kolesar]

139. That's fair

from me who will not vote for Clinton in the primary.

[papau]

140. The list is weak tea with occassional lies - Hillary held a fund-raiser for Mr. Lamont and

loaned him Howard Wolfson, one of her most trusted consultants, as an unpaid advisor.

[aquart]

177. That wouldn't be an "occasional lie" then. That would be a WHOPPER.

So we can look forward to another administration of lies and distortions from Obama?

[TheWraith]

188. Apparently you have an unusual definition of "lie."

True or false: Clinton endorsed Lieberman in the primary over Lamont, and campaigned for him. Answer: true. Nobody said she didn't support the nominee. But she endorsed and supported the pro-war Dem against the anti-war Dem in the primary.

Now, I don't particularly blame her for this: A lot of Dems knew that Lamont didn't have a prayer of winning the general, and the dems figured it better not to offend Lieberman, who they'd need later on. It's not pretty, but it's reality.

Also, you have a fairly disgusting attitude with regard to reality. Deciding that one fact posted online constitutes a "lie," and extending that to assert that a candidate is like Bush, is a load of crap, and you should be ashamed.

[JackORoses]

205. you support a candidate who uses lies and distortion in their campaign

do you expect her administration to be any different?

[Usrename]

210. Where, when?

The Times has it all wrong!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E2DC1E30F935A25753C1A9609C8B63

Maybe you have a picture of her appearing publicly with Ned Lamont?

Didn't think so!

Keep living the lie.

[aquart]

176. Thank you. The list reeks.

[Romis]

206. 12/18's Senate Vote

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/the-vote-for-endless-war_b_77805.html

[terrya]

4. Why would any Senator comment on an impeachment?

Since they would be acting as a sort of juror in any impeachment trial? I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand why a sitting Senator would make any kind of comment that would tarnish their impartiality in a Senate impeachment trial.

I guess I'm misreading the Constitution here.

[AntiFascist]

28. Um, what about Biden?

Also, are you aware that the Nixon impeachment proceedings were prompted by a well publicized Senate investigation?

[oasis]

5. Too bad New York staters didn't have access to your list before they elected her. Twice.

:cry:

[jgraz]

9. Sorry, but I'd vote for Hillary 100 times over her Rethug opponents in those races

She's not a great Senator, but she's a helluva lot better than Rick Lazio or what's-his-name that ran against her in 06.

[oasis]

12. Hillary's better than McCain, Giulliani and the huckster too. Plus, she has

the tools to beat them.

[The Wizard]

54. You're kidding right?

She will not deliver one more electoral vote than Kerry got in 04, and she's the one candidate who can stir the right wing base, thus becoming a drag on down ballot candidates. She is the worst possible person the Democrats can have as the standard bearer.

[aquart]

178. That's ridiculous. The Dem will win. WHOEVER the Dem is.

If we count the votes.

The Republicans have neither money nor candidates in this coming election. NOBODY WANTS THEM.

[ChiciB1]

58. I'm Sorry To Say That She Has An Inside Track Because Of Her

connections as a former First Lady and because of Big Dawg! However, I'm not sure how much he's helping her right now! Still you can't avoid the fact that she has managed to garner support from some of the MOST Liberal Democrats from the past! I freely admit that I DON'T completely understand McGovern, who was the very first Presidential candidate I worked my ass for in the state of Florida, even when Florida was more friendly to Democrats. Still I had people removing bumper stickers off my car. Then there's RFK, Jr. that really surprised me. His father's death hit me worse than JFK and I cried for days, so I'm thinking "quid-pro-quo" here, and that's the LAST thing I want to think!

And let's NOT forget Chuckie Schumer and Rahm Emanuel... these two alone have immense power and work extremely hard in the background. I suppose I could go on, but no need... she DOES have "big guns" behind her and LOTS AND LOTS of money!

But the fact that she supported Lieberman against Lamont really hurt me.

Great post, and thank you very much!

[Vincardog]

15. The race here is Hill vs Democratic candidates not rethugs.

[jgraz]

17. Yep. I was just commenting on her Senate races

[aquart]

179. And you are from?

I want to know what state breeds citizens who feel free to insult the intelligence of New Yorkers.

[aquart]

175. Excuse me?

What an insulting remark. Look to your own damn state.

[K Gardner]

6. Bookmarked AND printed out ! Thanks..

[AtomicKitten]

7. K&R.

:thumbsup:

[acmavm]

8. Excellent piece of work. And I agree.

But Hils isn't exactly asking for that promotion. She pretty much thinks she's got it coming. And so does Billy Jeff.

I think they've got one hell of a disappointment coming.

[Cha]

70. I fervently hope

that they have to go away for awhile and lick their self-inflicted wounds.

[cali]

10. bah. You can't attack her on her votes for appointees so

you're attacking her for "not saying or doing anything". That begs the fact that she said quite a bit about quite a few of them. Furthermore, attacking her without criticizing Obama for the same things is silly. You're blurring truth with falsehood. Clinton, like every other Senator in the dem caucus supported a sitting dem senator before the primary- and supported Lamont after it. Context counts. And you don't even try to back up your claims about saying/doing nothing. As for the rest of this list:

Senator Clinton campaigned for Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont

Senator Clinton proposed legislation to ban flag burning.

Senator Clinton voted FOR the USAPATRIOT act.

Senator Clinton voted FOR the Iraq War Resolution.

Senator Clinton voted FOR the Kyl/Lieberman amendment.

With the exception of K/L Senator Edwards, your candidate went further than Clinton on the IWR- he co-sponsored it, and no dem used more agressive language regarding war than Senator Edwards.

Clinton did go along with legislation re flag desecration, and it's a black mark against her, just as it is against Dennis.

JE voted for the Patriot Act.

These lists are always so dishonest.

[jgraz]

14. I reject the "other people did it" defense

Hillary is running for President as the most experienced person in fighting the right-wing. As such, I'd expect to see a lot more in her history to back up that claim.

As for Lieberman, there is one candidate who DID campaign for Lamont: John Edwards. And I must have blinked and missed Hillary's "support" for Lamont after he won the nomination.

I agree with you on Edwards' support for the IWR. He's got a lot to answer for and his co-sponsorship of that bill is what kept me from supporting him for a long time. But Edwards' current populist message distinguishes him from Hillary in a big way. He's showing his leadership and willingness to challenge the status quo. How is Hillary doing that?

[cali]

18. I don't support Clinton so I feel no obligation to extoll her

in areas she doesn't deserve praise.

Edwards, btw, wasn't in the Senate when he supported Lamont, so that's meaningless. Talk is easy. That's my problem with Edwards. I find his rhetoric seductive but his history less than compelling. And just for the record, Clinton "lent" Lamont a staffer/strategist, donated money and offered more. You see what you want to see, because this info has been posted here several times.

My reasons for not supporting Clinton jibe with some of yours, but I don't need to fudge to explain my opposition.

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

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

[lisainmilo]

163. I agree!

I am sure his orginal vote was at face value and out of patriotism, but I am not JE, so I can't be 100 % sure. I am sure he has apologized for his vote. I am sure that he is now fighting for us as more and more truths have been revealed. I am sure his message is clear, and does not waver. He has learned. I more than ever have learned too, until the money is out of Washington, until this overhaul happens, the divide will continue. He is truly fighting for the average American in this country. We are at a crossroad, forced into it by decisions past. Either NWO or a strong America, that is what I believe. I choose a strong America.
We have seen the direction we are headed if we continue the status quo.

[MADem]

123. For whatever it is worth, the flag legislation was put forward solely to thwart a GOP effort to

introduce a Constitutional amendment against flag burning. That's the only reason it was teased into existence.

The measure "sounded" great, but did nothing--all it said was "No burning flags on FEDERAL property" pretty much.

You can't light fires on Federal property anyway, so it was all very symbolic, with not much else behind it.

[pokercat999]

133. Actually you can light fires on federal property.

You can have a camp fire in national forests (federal property) and lots of national parks have fire pits in their camping and picnic areas and as of now you can feel free to fire up that cigarette. pipe or cigar in the appropriate areas on federal property, if I'm not mistaken that will require fire. Oh yeah and you can use your amerikan flag for kindling if you want.

In 1973 I was a young Military Policeman assigned to a security detail at Nixon's second inauguration I watched war protesters (thousands of them) burn the flags around the Washington Monument, we did nothing, thank goodness. By the way the rumor mill had it that the 101st or 82nd airborne was secreted in several federal building just off the mall waiting for major trouble, but I saw no evidence of that and the major trouble never came due to the restraint of all parties involved.

[MADem]

170. Well, of course you can, if you get permission. But you're never going to be allowed to light one

in the Pentagon parking lot, that was my point.

And of course I wasn't referring to designated smoking areas at federal facilities, either.

If you want to take it further, you can also point out that when commands assigned to the Pentagon or the Bureau or elsewhere have a little git-together, they just might barbecue a few ribs in the center courtyard (ground zero) or outside their government offices. But I wasn't referring to THAT sort of activity either....

[Quixote1818]

11. K & R

[Enrique]

13. those are good reasons imo

for what that's worth

[femmedem]

16. Good list! Thanks for the reminders. But one amendment:

As you can guess from my avatar, I followed the Lamont/Liberman race closely. She did support Lieberman prior to Lamont's primary win. But afterwards, she donated money to Lamont (albeit not much) and loaned him one of her advisors.

[Bitwit1234]

19. Who in the S.O.B. Hell cares.

[Kurovski]

23. Take note of the fact that not everyone is you.

[jgraz]

32. And thank god for that

[sniffa]

38. indeed

:thumbsup:

[uberllama42]

43. That list of accomplishments is mostly bogus

On one hand, Clinton is not the devil and has done a number of good things. However, a sizable portion of the list consists of "voted for the interests of Group X, Y% of the time." This is all predicated on the notion that what the Senate as a whole has been doing is good for the public. Just because there is a right way to vote on a specific bill from the perspective of a particular organization doesn't mean that anything great is being accomplished by these votes.

If you think that the current Senate session has been a disgrace, then Clinton's having taken part in it is not that impressive.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[Stuckinthebush]

59. Jesus Christ, are you serious?

I care. I think this is a wonderful post. The OP makes a great case and I, for one, appreciate the work he/she put into it.

I guess the question is, "Why don't you care?"

[sniffa]

60. because it doesn't praise Hillary

[Stuckinthebush]

62. You know, I'm not for her or against her at this point

but the way some supporters lash out at anyone who challenges her is downright frightening.

Wake up, people. We chastise non-thinking Bush supporters for doing the same thing.

[Laurab]

83. I do! n/t

[ima_sinnic]

129. wow--unquestioning loyalty much?

such blind devotion reeks of something that would get this message deleted for suggesting, so I won't say it.

buy how much more obvious can you get?

it's either that or brainwashing.

[Tektonik]

143. Yes who cares about the myriad of negative aspects of our presidential candidate

:eyes:

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[HughMoran]

25. That's one vote for the Republican

thanks.

[Kurovski]

27. Self-delete.

I mistakenly thought the comment above by HM stood alone.

[sniffa]

37. actually it's not

it's a vote for Nader.

[bvar22]

48. That is BOGUS nonsense.

There will be plenty of "safe" states where a Vote for Nader will have absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election.

If Hillary (or Obama) becomes the nominee, I would suggest that all AntiWAR/Pro-LABOR Democrats carefully examine whether their state is "in play", and then consider casting a protest vote against BIG CORPO/MoreWAR Democrats.


What the above post DOES illustrate is that a Hillary Nomination will be throwing away Millions of votes. NONE of the current polls that show Hillary winning against Republicans are VALID, because NONE of the polls factor in the effect of a challenge from a 3rd Party Anti-WAR/Pro-LABOR Populist.
A Hillary nomination will catalyze such a challenge, and this 3rd Party WILL peel off many AntiWAR Democratic voters and a large percent of the Independent voters.

Those here who are supporting Hillary in the Primaries would be well advised to Face that REALITY.

Nader will NOT run a 3rd Party challenge against Edwards.

A vote FOR Hillary in the Primaries could very well be a Vote for the Republicans.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[HughMoran]

53. But what if Hillary does win the primary?

I am not a supporter, but I can't imagine not voting for a Dem after the last 8 years of near-Fascism. If there are critical states lost to a third party candidate and we end up with another Republican, well - perhaps a civil war is what we need at this time huh?

[bvar22]

56. Go back and re-read post # 48.

Here.
I'll help.

"If Hillary (or Obama) becomes the nominee, I would suggest that all AntiWAR/Pro-LABOR Democrats carefully examine whether their state is "in play", and then consider casting a protest vote against BIG CORPO/MoreWAR Democrats.-----bvar22, post #48

[HughMoran]

63. You went on to say more than that...

I accounted for that in my response, but I also tried to account for the 3rd party offensive that you described. Anyway, I suppose all this supposition is pointless, in a month or so we will have to re-calibrate everything depending on what's happening then.

[ProudDad]

183. Hmmm, maybe because voting for the "Dem" in '92

after 8 years of near-Fascism didn't do shit???

[paulk]

186. yeah, Clinton's eight years sure sucked, didn't they?

:crazy:

[sniffa]

21. HILHATER OBAMANATION!!!1!!1!!!1!!

here's rec. no. 17. :patriot:

[MethuenProgressive]

22. So, Romney, Huckabee, or McCain?

If she's nominated that is. Which?

[jgraz]

34. I think I'll vote for the big fat strawman you keep trotting out

He seems to be able to stand up to anything.

[sniffa]

39. he's f'n HUGH!!

[davidwparker]

158. Huckabee would carry my state. McCain would carry my state. It's not about

how I'd vote (a write-in), it's about loosing my state for sure if Hillary is the nominee.

[Onlooker]

24. This thread is typical political BS; why can't people be fair and honest?

It means nothing to cite one candidate's record without comparing it to the other candidates.

For instance, I know that Obama supported Lieberman in the primary, and both he and Hillary supported (barely) Lamont in the general election. And Obama has said outright that he opposes impeaching either Cheney or Bush.

[Stuckinthebush]

61. Perhaps the OP doesn't support Obama either

I think the list is fascinating. It makes me wonder about Hillary.

[snowbear]

212. Good point.. they didn't indicate who they supported..

Maybe they're like several of us.. torn between two candidates?

[samsingh]

26. because of Bill's love for the bush family

[Tejanocrat]

29. I disliked her vote against creating a Senate Office of Public Integrity, for a wall on the Mexican

border, to extend capital gains and dividend tax cuts for the wealthy, for the automatic "three strikes" mandatory prison sentencing, for Kyl/Lieberman, for reauthorizing the Patriot Act, and for lots of crappy "free" trade agreements.

[jgraz]

33. Yep, forgot those. Keeping track of Hillary triangulation...

... is like keeping track of BFEE scandals.

[Armstead]

30. In all fairness, Clinton did support the Alito filabuster

God knows I'm no fan of Hillary, but she was one of a group of Democrats led by John Kerry who supported a filabuster on Alito's nomination, and she did criticize it strongly.

[jgraz]

42. And yet she declined to put a hold on his nomination

She'll join a sure-lose filibuster, but she won't lead one. And God forbid she do anything that could actually stop the nomination.

Another missed chance for her to stand out from the crowd.

[annie1]

31. who are you supporting? can i assume they took the opposite action on most of these?

[jgraz]

35. Nope, you can assume they have other things to recommend them

If Hillary had adopted Edwards' populist message, I wouldn't care as much about her Senate record. But she's running a classic "campaign about nothing", so we have only her previous actions to go on.

[annie1]

36. in the case of edwards, i agree, : ).

[tmoore411]

110. If Hillary adopted Edward's populist message....

amazing that he adopted this message after he lost the primary last time and then quit the Senate...it's easy to take the high road when there is nothing at stake and point fingers, etc. everyone else who in all fairness is trying to do the job she was elected for as well as run for the Democratic nomination for POTUS. Saying Edwards is now saying/doing all the right things because he has had a change of heart just doesn't sit well with me when his positions didn't change until AFTER he left the Senate. When he had the chance to lead, he didn't, now that he wants to lead, he's a new man...just fishy is all I'm saying.

[ellisonz]

119. Welcome to DU!

Somebody oughta bear mace these fools...

:toast:

[davidwparker]

160. Welcome to DU.

People change. I thought I was an (R) once, but find myself a liberal today. I call myself liberal because with the bad Dem leadership, I hate to say I'm a (D).

[liskddksil]

185. actually in the 2004 campaign

He talked at length about poverty. He said that work was being taxed over wealth. He introduced the two Americas theme. Sounds prety populist to me.

[TheWatcher]

40. Why Do You Hate The Democratic Party?

And, as expected, the loudest Hillary Goose-Steppers are nowhere to be seen on this thread.

And if they do show up, instead in intelligent counter debate, they will bring insults, personal attacks, and messages screaming of tin-foil, sexism, etc.

[L0oniX]

45. I am tired of the insult party. I tend to fire back too but I have changed.

What I am going to do is first quote the rule they have broken and then hit the alert button and then add them to my ignore list. Someone has even contacted my work to threaten me which is a very serious violation or the rules. I didn't think that would happen here but it does. I reported the incident. That's how mean it can get here. Watch out and and don't leave any personal info or home page links in your profile.

Priv msg me if you wish to know who did this.

[Perry Logan]

44. There you go. Short list of sins, long list of accomplishments.

[jgraz]

46. Yeah, a word count is about the most moronic way to compare those lists

Knock yourself out. :crazy:

[sniffa]

47. just be glad he didn't post it

it wears out the scroll button.

[Laurab]

89. You know, i think i really thought i disliked you at one time

or another, but i have to say, your responses lately have been cracking me up - SO many times, and especially when they follow that bit of a wit, who apparently chose the nic on opposite day!

Keep up the good work - laughter is good medicine!

[sniffa]

156. aww, thank you

i tend to be that way with DUers.

:hi:

[Laurab]

180. Oh, anytime....

between you and Kurovski I don't think I ever laughed so much in my life as I did yesterday, and I love people who have more than a bit of a wit!! :hi:

[bicentennial_baby]

157. Don't feel bad, I used to dislike him too, and

now I'm married to him! :rofl:

[Laurab]

181. And I can understand that completely

I think! Besides, I did see his picture holding a sign - he's a cutie!

[mtnsnake]

49. Good gawd if that's the best you can come up with, then it's easy to see why Hillary tops everyone!

90% of that list of yours is small potatoes and most of it could be applied to most politicians.

No wonder the Goddess of Peace is the most popular candidate ever. Her naysayers stay up night and day trying to come up with negative lists and all they come up with is a long list of nothings, almosts, not so quites, and not even so's.

I'll give you A for effort though. Nice try!

[sniffa]

55. Trianguleros, the Goddess of Peace

:rofl:

[Kurovski]

106. Trianguleros

:rofl: :rofl:

Also sounds like a failed snack food, despite an expensive marketing campaign.

"The crunch that tastes like nothing."

[Stuckinthebush]

64. Hang on, let me read that again....

"The Goddess of Peace"

Yep, that's what I read. My mouth is hanging open in astonishment.

Look, I don't support her and I don't not-support her. I'm still looking. I like a lot about her and dislike some things about her positions, but I must say, the Goddess of Peace is the most ridiculous tag I've ever heard.

[JTFrog]

71. G.O.P. Get it? The acronym is the ONLY relelvance. n/t

[Turn CO Blue]

84. "Goddess of Peace"? That's some serious cult of personality

admiration you have going on there.

I myself am still undecided, but I will not give any candidate or person that kind of admiration calling them the "Goddess" of anything. yikes.

[ClarkUSA]

50. Bookmarked for the next time I canvass... recommended highly!

I also love all your Hillaryous photos. ;-)

[HughBeaumont]

51. Some more to add - the "pro-labor" Senator's position on free trade, visas and job offshoring.

As if anyone needs yet ANOTHER reason to please reconsider nominating this risky candidate in more ways than one:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/538674.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/593175.cms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhLBSLLIhUs
Hillary pushes for more h1-b visas and outsourcing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLNOSGM2jK4
Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgdrh2Bc95M
Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 2)

K & R.

[Lurking Dem]

52. You forgot the cluster bombs vote.

[jgraz]

57. Sorry, it's hard to keep track of it all

Can you point us at a link for that? I must have been not paying attention when it happened.

[Lurking Dem]

169. Roll call vote is here:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00232

The Dems to vote against this were: Bayh, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Inouye, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Lincoln, Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, Schumer.

[Stuckinthebush]

65. No way she voted for cluster bombs....she's the Goddess of Peace

according to Mtnsnake above.

:rofl:

[sniffa]

67. Trianguleros, the Goddess of Peace

:rofl:

[Stephanie]

104. That was appalling.

It takes a village my ass.

[rosesaylavee]

166. More like "it takes OUT a Village" n/t

[creeksneakers2]

66. More here than I can check but the first one is false

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0102/01/se.13.html

Meanwhile, Joie, if you are keeping score at home: a couple of votes you may want to take note of. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the junior senator from New York, has just voted -- not surprisingly -- in the negative, voting against the Ashcroft nomination. She said before she would do so.


I'll check the next one.

[jgraz]

69. Ooh, you mean she said she would vote no and then she voted no???

Um, that's what I mean by "said and did nothing". Casting a vote against a sure confirmation is not exactly the kind of leadership I look for in a president.

Wake me up when you manage to find something better than a quote from Ari Fleischer. :boring:

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[jgraz]

91. Wrong again, but apparently that doesn't bother you

In true Clintonian fashion, you're parsing each word to make your case. I said she did nothing to stop these nominations. The point here, which I've made before, is that a vote is not enough. Any marginally credible Democrat would have voted against these nominations. Hillary showed zero leadership or initiative in these votes. That lack of leadership is characteristic of her political career, and it disqualifies her from consideration as a presidential candidate.

[creeksneakers2]

72. Falsehood about doing nothing about the nomination of Bolton

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c001041/key-votes/

6/20/05 Vote 142: On the Cloture Motion: Blocked, for the second time, the confirmation President Bush's choice for U.N. Ambassador, John Bolton. Those opposed to the confirmation voted "no" on a measure to limit debate. Those in favor of the confirmation fell short of the 60 votes needed to limit debate and move the nomination process forward.

[jgraz]

77. And here we go with the parsing

The idea here is that simply VOTING is not good enough. That's just going along with the herd. We need someone who has demonstrated actual leadership. If pro-Clinton people are going to spam us with her Senate record, they should also have to deal with her pathetic lack of leadership during that time.

[creeksneakers2]

85. What did you want her to do?

Seize the Senate by armed force and close it down? Hillary says what she has to say. Its not her fault if the media doesn't cover it. As for Hillary leading, she's not the leader or even in leadership. If Hillary did grandstand she'd be accused of self promotion and manipulation and probably poison public opinion toward Democratic opposition.

You should change your list from "said or did nothing" to "Didn't bring the whole world to a halt in a way that would satisfy me."

[jgraz]

86. Any Senator can put a hold on a nomination

Witness what Chris Dodd has done this past week. Has anyone here accused him of grandstanding?

[bjobotts]

126. Look how well it worked for Dodd

[indimuse]

73. so.

yawn.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[sniffa]

75. nice post.

wait, no it wasn't.

yawn.

[snowbear]

213. LOL Sniffa.

Well, I learned something new by reading it.. Senators Obama and Clinton voted differently on the Cluster Bombs vote.

It's a pretty interesting thread I think. Lot of info - without name calling.

[creeksneakers2]

76. Hillary's speech on Gonzalez nomination

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233744&&

I have reviewed Judge Gonzales's record and his responses, or lack of responses, to the many thoughtful questions posed by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. On the basis of his professional record and his unwillingness to answer critical questions, I am compelled to oppose his nomination.

Judge Gonzales' record as White House Counsel contains misjudgments and misreadings of U.S. and international law that were so grievous as to have shaken the conscience of our nation and the bedrock of the most fundamental aspects of our democracy.

Judge Gonzales advised President Bush in January 2002 that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the conflict in Afghanistan. He wrote that the "war on terrorism" offers a "new paradigm renders obsolete" the Geneva Convention's protections. Memos prepared under his direction that same year recommended official authorization of cruel interrogation methods including: waterboarding, feigned suffocation, and sleep deprivation.

(More)

[jgraz]

78. And yet she did nothing to stop it

No holds, no attempts at a filibuster. She just stood by and cast her safe NO vote without ever having to stick her neck out.

Keep 'em coming, you're just digging the hole deeper.

[creeksneakers2]

93. All opinions should be respected but not all equally

I judge the weight of an opinion by the amount of work shown going into it. I respect most an opinion from someone who worked and studied in an area for many years, especially if that person shows a good sense of logic and thoughtfulness.

Then there are opinions I respect based only on my duty to do so. These meritless opinions are given by those who haven't lifted a finger to learn or think for a second about what they are discussing. Just emotion and ranting.

Did you check to see if there was a filibuster on the Gonzales nomination and if there was how Hillary voted on cloture?

[annie1]

108. Cool. thanks.

[Catherine Vincent]

79. Thank you for posting that.

I will continue to support Hillary Clinton. LOL.

[sniffa]

80. of course you will

:patriot:

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[mia]

87. Simply put, I met her.

If first impressions count...She's not a nice person.

Over the years, as a native Washingtonian, I've met many a politician.
She's out of touch with this ordinary American,

[PATRICK]

94. I am equally interested

int he clear signals how she intends to run her campaign according to the GOP playbook. She will grant Bush legitimacy only labeling him as incompetent or a failure. She will grant the "new" face of the GOP candidate ignoring cronyism, the staffs full of Bush Cheney ops, the same cheat machine in place. Ignore and not face head on the "success of the surge" and show withdrawals that will defang the Iraq war. Will promote and enable Bush big items like Iran and budgets. The fulcrum of the campaign is between two weighty realities that will be ignored, the progressive agenda and the Bush agenda.

When fighting back, already using GOP style operatives and managers she will be both self-damaging and dirty, nowhere as efficient or media entitled as the innocent new GOP "fresh" face who won't be challenged on anything Hillary wishes to avoid.

Money and votes start pumping back into the GOP once she is well on her way. Depression and doubt begin dogging the stomach of the Dem party. Grim, homogenized DLC triumphalism will even turn off the faithful especially if the campaign goes inept or negative, dull or evasive. The impression of two stupidly equalized candidates will depress the nation.

I see this as happening now and happening in the future and the entire decision of the nation for change, for justice, for anything of their own, frustrated, sidelined and monstrously framed in untruths. The war for America's soul will be a routine creaky contest rigged and conceded and all based on evading. If it did not appear that way I would not be such sa pessimist, but I see words and actions, not just tea leaves and guesses. More inevitable than her triumph is her method and predictability. predictability nearly guarantees the GOP a fair shot they need to mask fraud. It will be all fraud, including the allowed political debate once everything else populist and true is stripped away.

And I want her to win as much as I did Kerry who took some time lessening his chances and who never was this threatening to campaign strategy. Only now do the Clintons bother to show their "human" face" in big photo ops whereas Kerry doggedly mingled with the people and the soldiers building up real trust.

The Nation is being polite. it will be extremely difficult for progressives or even reality to make much headway if this is what wins control over the party.

[speedoo]

97. That's very interesting. And I am not at all surprised.

Thanks for posting.

[tmoore411]

116. Simply put, I have met her as well.

Once when she was First Lady in Arkansas and I was working at the Governor's Mansion I met her and Governor Clinton, they were both very personable and extremely intelligent (even by California standards as a poster below has opined) and then again when Bill was running for POTUS I had the opportunity to meet her again, she was still very intelligent and had a lot of good ideas for changes in the country. I have not met her recently so can not state how that has changed or not changed, but as a side note, how would you change if you life had been in the public eye for almost 2 decades and a lot of people from all across the country were gunning for you?? This board is rife with people wanting her to display leadership skills, well, being nice to everyone is not leading, telling people the truth, even when they don't want to hear it...that sounds more like leadership to me. On a side note, I have also met a good many politicians over the years and with very few exceptions, ALL of them are out of touch with ordinary Americans. If we want someone who is nice, why don't we elect the POTUS everyone would like to have a beer with for a third term ?? Personally, I'll take my chances with the Democratic party and focus on the candidates messages and their actions to come to a conclusion about who to support, not just vote for the one who was nice to me.

[Canuckistanian]

88. All else aside, that's a pretty damning record.

It doesn't bode well for her standing up and fighting for what's right despite heavy opposition.

You're right, she's a "go-along to get-along" politician.

Hardly inspiring at a time when what is needed is someone who TAKES POLITICAL CHANCES.

[JMDEM]

90. Excellent post

More succinct and error-free than a similar post I made yesterday. I erroneously said that Clinton had never voted against a Bush appointee. This was wrong -- she has voted against several. But the point is, she never actually really campaigned hard against them, and often voted after she knew her vote would make no difference. This excellent post highlights this point. Thank you.

[Tresalisa]

92. Good post!

:thumbsup: I cannot support a candidate, whether it's Hillary or any other, who would essentially be more of the same ol' same ol' of the last 8 years with the only difference being that they carry a D behind their name.

KUCINICH 2008!!!!!!

[ooglymoogly]

95. excellent post

above all that she is a huge risk against the Pug candidates in the polls. That is a risk we cannot take. Too many lives, our freedom and our constitution are at stake. kr

[gorekerrydreamticket]

96. But she's a world class genius and was one of the 100 top lawyers in Arkansas...

among other things...

[Seabiscuit]

101. That would make her one of the bottom 100 lawyers in California.

And I don't even want to go there where what the word "genius" might to turn into is concerned were she from California...

[L0oniX]

105. Uhm no. She's really on the bottom...

[ClarkUSA]

128. Wow. That's a great photo of Hillary smiling!

;-)

[Seabiscuit]

201. Recognize the cackle?

[tmoore411]

117. actually "genius" applies to the whole country

not just California, and if you had ever met her or had a conversation with her, if nothing else, you would leave that meeting with the knowledge that she is very intelligent. No state in this great nation has the lock on "smarts" and you insult me in your insinuation that people in California are smarter and better at their chosen professions than those of us in other parts of the country. Don't insinuate you are of greater intelligent because you breath California air, I have been there, there are just as many idiots as there are everywhere else.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

195. If You're Going To Slime Somebody At Least Don't Make Shit Up About Them

She was twice named by the National Law Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in (America) in 1988 and in 1991.

http://search.eb.com/women/article-9095812

[Seabiscuit]

197. If YOU'RE going to slime somebody, at least don't respond by changing the subject.

I was responding to a post about her being one of the 100 best lawyers in Arkansas. "best" in Arkansas and "most influential in America" are two entirely different things. "best" does not equate with "most influential" (heck, if she were a dog catcher she'd be one of the 100 "most influential" dog catchers in America by virtue of being First Lady Dog to Big Dog for 8 years).

The gist of my post was that virtually anyone can pass the Arkansas bar exam. I would venture that most of those that pass that one couldn't pass the California or New York bar exams which are by far the toughest in the country.

Dispute THAT, if you can, without changing the subject again, and before you go around projecting your sliming onto others.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

202. In My Best Al Gore Voice, "Don't Get Snippy With Me."

I'm not in the fucking mood...

"She was twice named by the National Law Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America, in 1988 and in 1991" before she became First Lady... You and the other poster tried to belittle her by saying she's one of the best attorneys in Arkansas...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica


I didn't slime anybody ...

[Seabiscuit]

203. Your DLC colors are showing.

You slimed ME, hypocrite.

Your points are completely irrelevant to the subthread.

Looks like an attack of the Hillbots has begun in this thread.

It's the kind of phony logic employed by supporters like you that illustrate what's wrong with Hillary, and why she's turned so many of us off over the years.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

207. I Was Going To Attack You But I Pity You...Your Hateful Nature Will Eventually Be Your Ruination

You and the other poster tried to belittle Hillary Clinton by suggesting Hillary Clinton was named "one of the hundred best lawyers in Arkansas." That would be a ridiculously small accomplishment...It would be like saying Kobe Bryant is the best shooting guard in Greater Los Angeles or LaDananian Tomlinson is the best running back in Greater San Diego...You said it to belittle her...

She was named one of the most influential lawyers in America, a much larger accomplishment...

[Robeson]

102. According to one poster, she's also a "Goddess", a deity....

...which, according to Websters, she has:

1) the state of being a god; divine nature; godhood. 2) a god or goddess - the Deity God.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

196. I Think You Mean America!!!

She served on the boards of several high-profile corporations and was twice named one of the nation's 100 most influential lawyers (1988, 1991) by the National Law Journal.

http://search.eb.com/women/article-9095812

[speedoo]

98. Thanks, jgraz, for your OP and even more for the follow ups.

You have provided the specifics for me re. her lack of leadership in the Senate.

Very damning.

[zulchzulu]

99. Aside from all of those points...here's another...

When John Kerry allegedly made the "botched joke", HIllary snipped back like a junkyard dog.

In case you forgot, Kerry said to some students in California "you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

HIllary made sure to be at some event for military families when she pontificated:

"I think we have to look forward here we don't need to be refighting the 2004 election as much as President Bush would like that to happen. What Senator Kerry said was inappropriate and I believe we can't let it divert us from looking at the issues that are at stake in our country."

She made a point to humiliate Kerry since she was suspicious he was going to run for President again. It was her chance for a cheap shot and some phony political theater.

[jgraz]

103. Oh no, I haven't forgotten that

Even though I'm not much of a Kerry fan, I thought that was one of the most transparently classless, scummy moves I've ever seen from a Democrat.

[mod mom]

112. I forgot that one too. Quick to be critical of Kerry was a classless thing to do, as was

her silence about the fraudulent elections, Nafta, Kyl-Lieberman, ....

[live love laugh]

149. That's bull. What he said WAS inappropriate at the time. Your

response is exaggerated and totally misinterprets her response.

[last_texas_dem]

198. I disagree

What Kerry did was mess up the punchline of a joke he had made several times before, and right-wing media had a field day manufacturing it into a contoversy. Clinton, and plenty of other prominent Democrats, had the opportunity to not take the bait, and stand by one of their colleagues, but instead they chose to play right along with O'Reilly and company's bullshit.

[Seabiscuit]

100. And the list goes on... and on... and on... and on... and on... and on... and on... and on... and on

[BringBigDogBack]

107. I'm unable to support Clinton

... in the end, it is a trust issue for me.

[sandrakae]

111. OK, SO TELL US WHO YOU ARE SUPPORTING AND WHY.

[jgraz]

113. OH NOES! I AM POWERLESS IN THE FACE OF YOUR CAPS LOCK!!!

This thread is not about who I am supporting, but you can probably figure it out from my other posts above.

[GregD]

114. And if I might add one more...

Her absolutely pitiful record on the electronic voting machine issue.

Every piece of legislation she has introduced or influenced was worse for her involvement.

HRC is not a friend of democracy.

[Arugula Latte]

115. K & R #75

:kick:

:applause:

[bbgrunt]

120. great summary--and you nailed it: She doesn't lead on anything that challenges the status quo.

[mmonk]

121. You're doing your homework I see.

[GMFORD]

122. For the 2008 election

I have my boxing gloves out and am ready to stand with a democratic candidate who wants to kick some republican ass. So which candidate is that? I don't see Hillary in that role -- Bill hangs out with the Bushes. Barak would have Schwarzenegger in his cabinet so he's out. Kucinich wants Ron Paul as VP - ick!

Edwards? Could be.
Biden? He's a fighter.
Dodd? Definitely a fighter.
Richardson? Just can't warm up to the guy.
Gravel? A fighter but not a serious candidate IMO.

So I guess it's Edwards, Biden or Dodd for me.

[saracat]

124. And don"t forget the millions of dollars she raised and didn't give to struggling 2006 campaigns

Both Edwards and Obaona started on"empty" as they raised money for other candidates.Hillary gave comparatively little to others.She transferred Millions to her account.She didn't even need the money for her race yet wouldn't use it to make a difference in close Dem races.She had a huge head start.She never intended to keep her promise to the people of MY.She always intended to run for President.

[bjobotts]

125. When did she ever fight the right wing on anything. Obama is not the answer.

We are not electing kings and queens here...all these candidates are bound to the party they represent and only their 'influence' and ability to surround themselves with good cabinet members and advisers will they be able to set the direction of the country. All dem candidates are electable and would make better leaders than their republican counterparts by far.
Clinton and Obama are already setting themselves up for being fair and bipartisan like inviting the men who just raped your 16 yr old daughter over for dinner and discussion. We need a large can of roach spray not ice cream and a movie...at least for the first term. The corruption and erosion of our democracy has reached critical mass and so much needs to be 'undone' and uprooted before our nation goes into social and economic collapse. We need progressive leaders willing too challenge the status quo on everything from war, to energy consumption, global warming, health care, FCC, EPA, DoJ, State dept.,Defense spending, and immigration. The country and the economy has been run into the ground by the powers that be for the last 12yrs....and these candidates want to invite them to the table to help us correct the situation they fucking caused.
The only 'real' change will come through a Kucinich or Edwards administration and a progressive majority in the house and senate. Yes these dinosaurs of pork...the porky pigs...from both parties...these beltway insiders have got to go. We could not afford a years worth of senate obstructionism on every important issue yet our beltway leaders are too dim to know that it all begins and ends with impeachment. At least impeachment hearings with a special prosecutor. Every time you turn around theres a new scandal of corruption affecting our nation as a whole and yet it is allowed to continue. Neither Clinton or Obama have said or done anything to interrupt this process of corruption and decline. Yet they are both good at talking about what they 'will' do instead of doing anything they have the power to do now. Edwards is not in a position to do anything right now and Kucinich has tried to 'do' everything he has the power to do to stop this reign of horror. But it's our party that needs a face lift so we can better influence our selected leaders...no matter who they turn out to be.

[meowomon]

127. Hillary lost me when she didn't boot Bill

She lost my respect and I can't vote for someone I can't respect.

[johncoby2]

130. zzzzzz ZZZZZZZZZ zzzzzzzzz

[pjt7]

131. There's 3 things that stop me from supporting her

1) We've had enough of the Clinton family.. Bill did a decent job, but his ethics were certainly stretched.. IT's somebody else's turn.

2) She will not go after Bush. This guy needs to be taken down for good, but I see Hillary & Bill in business with them to a certain degree

3) She has the closest relationship of all D candidtes to the big business of Medicine. People are sadly mistaken if they think she is going to hold Insurance & Drug Companies accountable & really fight for the rights of Doctors & patients.

[ima_sinnic]

132. figures, the DLC will "sleep through" the concerns of The People

you display that DLC avatar as though it is something to be proud of, and then post a mocking message that indicates you could give a shit what someone thinks of your payola-grubbing, war mongering greedhead globalist predatory corporate ass-kissing candidate.
However, if AT&T, Monsanto, Wal-Mart, or any one of your other corporate scum pals had some concern or other, you can believe you'd "care."

[druidity33]

141. um, that's a DNC logo

they are very different the DLC and the DNC. Remember Howard Dean? Yeah, he does good work at the DNC... don't shirk it.

:)

[AngryAmish]

136. 96 recommendations, can we get 100?

[HughBeaumont]

137. "national security is more important than human rights. Senator Clinton, what do you say?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3728937

Astounding.

[bagrman]

208. I thought money trumped peace.

[4dsc]

144. Looks like a list of the DLC accomplishments..

eom..

[sellitman]

145. That list is long and very depressing.

If she is able to win despite that laundry list I am going to have a VERY hard time working for her win in the GE.

A Very hard time.

[Uben]

146. Who does the Op support?

Notice the absence of a candidate. Just another attack on another candidate without saying who he/she supports so one can compare accomplishments....how convenient. I get sick and tired of people bashing dem candidates without stating who or even what they believe in. It just trash otherwise. Anyone can bitch. If you think your candidate is better, tell us, but don't post these hate threads. I know you post this tripe because you want to see how many recs you can get from the hillary-haters here. Whoopti-do!
You're not making a stand, you are wallering in the mud....and it stinks!

[sniffa]

159. i'm glad you read through the thread

:patriot:

[SunDrop23]

147. Looks like infighting will do us in when all is said and done.

So I wonder if it will be President McCain, Huckabee, or Romney?

[medicswife]

150. Yeah, Hillary stirs us Democrats up

like there's no tomorrow, imagine what she'll do to right wing nuts like my Dad or my husband's Grandparents who have George Bush's picture up on their fridge! RETCH!

[Nimrod2005]

148. Thank you!

[0007]

151. Thanks for the comprehensive breakdown of Hillary's voting record, jgraz.

Most parrots can usually be a little off on their predictions. But it appears that Diego & Mickaboo are right now.

[flvegan]

152. This thread is hilarious.

Accurate and great OP, responses and subthreads that I'm glad I saved until this am. Nice to wake up to multiple laughs.

[Hepburn]

153. Thank you for pointing out what a Repub Lite she is.

People should realize that Hill is just more of the same.

IMO

[disndat]

172. Maybe, some of the items

on the list are also applicable to Obama and Edwards, but what scares me about H.C. is that she is SO married to big corporations and big pharma. How could she not continue our presence in the ME? She owes the MIE and Rupert Murdoch. She would have to re-institute the national draft, or even worse, continue the use of mercenaries. Is that where Mark Penn comes in? There are too many SLEAZE on her team like Penn and McAuCliffe to make me extremely leery of her candidacy. Don't forget, Big Bill wanted to team up with Bush I after H.C.'s election to the WH! What other proof do we need that H.C. would rule as Bush-Lite? I once thought I would vote for H.C. in the general elections no matter what. If Romney were the candidate on the Republican side I might stay home. They both have equal amounts of baggage. I pray that any of the others will get the Democratic nomination. In other words, ABC.

[davidwparker]

154. Can I get this list as wallpaper? I'd like to do a little redecorating. Yep, get

out the list of votes FOR cloture when the ultimate vote is going against the progressive agenda and let's see where the candidates stand.

EXCELLENT post.

[truedelphi]

184. The list of her voting for awful SC and other court appointments

was truly enlightening.

If the choice comes down to voting for her as President I'll be leaving for more northern climes.

Or total irony here, Germany.

[paulk]

191. what list is that?

did you even read the list?

do you even know what her votes were? I guess you don't when you post -

"The list of her voting for awful SC and other court appointments", etc.

She voted AGAINST those appts not FOR them. Our parrot headed friend complains because she didn't do enough to stop the confirmations, which is a matter of opinion, but for god's sake, at least get it RIGHT on her voting record!

[liberal N proud]

161. Good list

My reasons didn't include all of those reasons but mine are in there.

[ileus]

162. Enjoy your vote for Huckabee.

Either it's Hillary or some GOP contender. Remember Hillary is the only candidate that can give us all 50 states in 2008.

[sniffa]

164. pffft

:rofl:

[jaybeat]

173. In what alternate fantasy universe?

Hillary deliver all 50 states? You must have forgotten to say: :sarcasm:

Every poll shows Edwards beating Repuke candidates by bigger margins than Clinton, and Edwards by bigger margins than Obama.

I know some are drinking the "electability" Kool-Aid from the MSM, but I think you must be mainlining it!

[Webster Green]

193. Remember?.........Remember what?

WTF are you talking about? Where the hell would you get the notion that she would carry all 50 states, and that this prediction is definitely accurate? :rofl:

She may be the only candidate who would surely lose to the chosen puke.

[last_texas_dem]

199. Huh?

In what alternate universe is Utah going to vote for Hillary Clinton? For that matter, WY, ID, ND, SD, KS, NE, OK, AK, MS, AL, SC...? A number of others are very unlikely as well. I'd put money on none of our potential Democratic nominees being able to take any of those states. Some states are simply not going into the Democratic columnm, and I find the idea that Hillary Clinton puts us anywhere near potentially winning fifty states very unrealistic. It is going to be a very close election regardless of who our Democratic nominee is; just 300 electoral votes is a lofty goal to set.

[Forrest Greene]

165. There Are Two Ways In This Culture

...for a member of an oppressed group -- such as a woman, for
example -- to get ahead. One is through integrity, courage, &
leadership. The other is to go along in order to get along.

Which do we need?

Which does Senator Clinton typify?

[alteredstate]

167. k & r

[mother earth]

168. Well done, jgraz. She is just a corporatist dem. I'm weary of

the same old same old.

[postulater]

171. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[madeline_con]

182. I'd give you a rec, but it'd be a bit redundant. Here's a kick!

:kick:

Thanks so much for the straight talk list without a lot of bullshit. :hi:

[AnnieHall]

187. Good research - well written

All I can add is I am equally disturbed with those that can't see the trees because of the forest. Hillary is intelligent, well spoken, but is a career politician and cannot regain the trust of the American people with numerous "30 second sound bites". I give Bill credit when he stated that her competitors for the nomination were "swiftboating" her. Does she think as nominee, these sort of attacks would not be generated by the Repubs as well?

Being in the spotlight for over two decades, she is "damaged goods" and IMHO, is not electable.

[BenDavid]

189. to dispute your list:

HRC voted against ashcroft..''His record and his views placed him on the distant shores of American jurisprudence.''
..dodd voted for him
HRC voted against Gonzales...
HRC voted no to confirm Bolton
HRC voted yea and so did obama on cloture on owen.......voted nay for confirmation
HRC voted no as did Obama and HRC voted NO on confirmation as did obama on brown
HRC voted yea and so did Obama on cloture...voted NO to confirm as did obama on pryor
HRC voted NO for confirmation of roberts as did obama
HRC voted NO on ALITO as did Obama
HRC and obama indicated their support for what Senator Dodd's filibuster on FISA as it pertains to question on telecom immunity

HRC said in senate committee meeting:"As a nation, we have a duty to honor and support those who have served and sacrificed so much in the defense of freedom." Senator Clinton wrote. "In light of recent revelations over the treatment of wounded soldiers, it is important that the VA give the highest priority to helping wounded soldiers make a seamless transition to the VA system and ensuring that they receive the highest quality of care." Senator Clinton visited the Walter Reed Medical Center last week to see the conditions firsthand. During her visit, she visited wounded soldiers at the hospital and met with New York servicemembers to hear their concerns. She also toured Building 18, which news reports have identified as housing soldiers in unacceptable conditions.
Clinton Calls for VA Review of Care Being Received by Wounded Veterans and questioned generals
Senator Clinton Questions Reported Gag Order on Servicemembers Under Treatment at Walter Reed
Senator Clinton Calls for Investigation of Army Response to Walter Reed Conditions

Supported dodd and his fillibuster as did obama

The others have been discussed and no need to rehash iraq vote cause all you want is her to grovel and apoligize in which she will not and I agree....
I believe this is enough to refute your statements....so do not vote for HRC.

Shalom
Ben David

[jgraz]

194. You're actually confirming my list

Voting against a confirmation when you know the outcome is what I call "doing nothing". She registered her "proper" Democratic vote but did absolutely nothing to actually stand in the way of these confirmations. In the case of cloture votes, she effectively approved the nomination while not having to register an "official" vote in favor of it.

For a counterexample, look at Dodd's leadership on the FISA bill. He risked being attacked from his own party to stand up for what he thought was right. That's leadership -- and I see very little of it from Hillary.



Shalom right back atcha :hi:
--graz

[BenDavid]

216. if that's the case then u should post, why I cannot vote for Obama

[jpgray]

190. All valid reasons to not support Hillary in the primary, in my view

[Jacobin]

192. Thank you.

I don't want another Bushlite

[SirRevolutionary]

204. She seems like a typical old school

politician to me, talking out both sides of her mouth, and she's in bed with big pharma. I'm liking Edwards more and more.......toss in some Dodd for VP, the man said he wouldn't refuse it.

[Kurovski]

209. Kick. (nt)

[Andromeda]

214. Hillary is more capable than the rest of the pack.

Joe Biden would be an exception to that. I like most of our candidates but I'm voting for Hillary because she has 35 years of public service working on women's and children's issues.

She has a great resume that began long before she became First Lady or Senator of NY. Your post leaves out so much but I know that's what you intended.

Some here at DU who really don't like Hillary will probably agree with you but you are just a blip or a droplet in a larger pool of Democrats who DO support Hillary.

[Beacool]

217. So????? Then, don't vote for her.

What else is new? The left wing of the party doesn't like her. I'm sure that she is at peace with that just as she is at peace with the right wingers not liking her either. Since the country veers to the center, she shouldn't have much to worry about.