Why all the Hillary Clinton paranoia?

[TheWraith]

There's always been an aspect to DU that hates the Clintons. To listen to some people here, you'd think that they hated Bill Clinton as much as the Republicans did. These days, though, it's gotten to be ridiculous with regard to Hillary Clinton. Practically any time that her name is mentioned, somebody starts up the spiel. Important words and phrases in the spiel: 2008, corpratist, warmonger, republican lite, mainstream media, anointed, and triangulating. It doesn't matter what order they're in, or even whether any of it makes sense.

To hear them tell it, the woman is the devil in disguise, cynically manipulating anyone and everyone to gain as much power as she possibly can, and has been crowned by the mainstream media as the guaranteed, no-other-option Democratic candidate for 2008.

Funny--I don't recall hearing quite so much complaining when it was Howard Dean that was the media-designated frontrunner in 2004. Am I to assume that it only suddenly became evil to have the media talking about you at some time after that? Or is it just the fact that Dean was the darling of the same people who are now screeching about HC? I seem to also recall a lot of speculation about Al Gore in 2004 and 2008 both. Could it perhaps be that the media just talks about whoever happens to be in the limelight, with little regard for who's actually running, or who has the best chances? It certainly can't be electability, because the same people who say that she could never win an election are often supporters of people like Feingold who have less national appeal than Clinton.

Which is not to mention the fact that even if you assume that Hillary wants the job, and even if you assume that she's running in 2008, there's no guarantee that she wins the primaries. Dean had all the media and money going for him in 2004, and he still managed to get pistol-whipped by Kerry starting in the very first state. People around here act like somehow the speculation surrounding Hillary magically translates into her being handed the primaries on a silver platter. I wasn't aware that the entire Democratic primary voting base now consisted of the political commentators at CNN.

Look, if you don't like Hillary Clinton, fine. Don't like her. Don't vote for her. Hell, send her letters telling her not to run. I don't much care for the idea either. But for crying out loud, some of us are sick of hearing the elaborate conspiracy theories about how she's the spawn of Satan. If I wanted to hear that crap, I'd tune into FreeRepublic. It's silly at best, and counterproductive at worst. If you want to render your judgement on Hillary Clinton, that's what we have elections for.

[Vincardog]

1. Dean had all the media and money going for him in 2004, PLEASE join

us in the real world. The DEAN SCREAM hit the lirul media like a TSUNAMI.

why don't we leave 08 until after November?

[rinsd]

5. The scream happened after Iowa.

[Vincardog]

6. It shows what a lie it is to say he had the media for him.

[TheWraith]

11. Not even close.

The scream was news. Sorry, but that's the fact. Yes it was overhyped, yes it was overplayed, but when a candidate for the leadership of the free world behaves strangely IT IS NEWS. And you're conveniently forgetting the hours and hours of media coverage talking about Dean being the frontrunner, discussions of his fundraising, etcetera. The media is a fickle beast, and it's not always kind to the people it's talking about--that applies to anyone who gets the frontrunner label. Try remembering the media coverage of some of H Clinton's comments, like the "plantation" remark.

[tridim]

41. Dean wasn't running the sound board, CSPAN was.

Nobody that was in the audience said it came across as "strange behavior".. They were cheering louder than Dean was screaming.

[Vincardog]

51. Ya got that right tridim. Dean was the test run of the crooked voting

system they used to re-install aWoL.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

81. the pile-on started before the scream

remember the russert interview, where he kept trying to put words in the gov's mouth. quite a departure from the way he interviews the GOP.

the media was after dean and his supposed 'gaffes' the second they realized an antiwar candidate was close to getting the nomination

[rinsd]

115. The Russert interview the summer beforehand?

He was tough. I wish Russert was that tough on everyone but we know that's not that case.

"the media was after dean and his supposed 'gaffes' the second they realized an antiwar candidate was close to getting the nomination"

Uhhh Dean is not anti-war. He is against the Iraq War.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

2. Right wing hate machine is all geared up against Hillary & they apparently

have some long reaches. Her being nominated would be the best thing for Hannity, O'Liely, & Oxyboy's ratings. She is the boogey man they can use to get donations and their base united.

[mike_c]

3. "...corpratist (sic), warmonger, republican lite, mainstream media...."

Yup-- I think you hit all the high points of HRC's potential candidacy!

The simple fact is that Hillary Clinton is the dream candidate of the republican right, and a potential dem candidate who could only be further out of step with liberal democrats if she were a certain senator from New York's northeastern neighbor.

Wait, I take that back-- she's already less palatable to most liberals than the Honorable Senator Lieberman.

Unfortunately, both the right and the press smell blood in the water at the prospect of her nomination. Much media gas will be vented. The RW base will be re-energized. Putting Hillary Clinton into the race will be like throwing gasoline onto a fire-- and lots of folks would profit from the energy release, just not liberal democrats, and ultimately, I believe, not even centrist dems. Hillary might be their poster child, but that won't help them if her candidacy paves the way for John McCain or some other centrist republican. Remember too that centrists have a way of being very fickle near the middle.

[pnwmom]

12. Tell me, why is she less "palatable" to "most liberals" than Lieberman?

Other than plain old garden variety misogyny, I can't think of a reason she should be.

[mike_c]

19. well that for one-- I mean, I hate women all day long...

...but more to the point, when I actually look at Lieberman's senate voting record he appears more liberal than Ms. Clinton. That's at least partly because he has a more extensive record-- if we constrain the comparison to the interval of Senator Clinton's senate tenure-- the last five years-- then the point is moot in that they're both pretty awful.

on edit: do I really need to use the :sarcasm: thingy?

[pnwmom]

31. Her total voting record is actually much more liberal than his.

www.progressivepunch.com

Though they both have more liberal records than any Republican.

Progressive Punch, which ranks Congress on progressive issues based on their voting record, puts her in 10th place among Senators, versus 39th for Lieberman.

[mike_c]

37. then I stand corrected-- she's not as bad as Lieberman...

...although I would note that I must consider progressivepunch's rankings somewhat suspect-- she's given a 70 percent ranking for her stance on the war against Iraq, for example, which I think is unconscionable.

Don't miss the point-- the comparsison with Lieberman was simply to indicate the league she's playing in, not because I seriously care which one is worse. I wouldn't want EITHER of them on the dem ticket in '08.

[pnwmom]

63. Would you sit out the general election rather than vote for the wrong

Democrat?

[mike_c]

103. only if there wasn't a liberal alternative, i.e. a green or independent...

As I've said many times, I support liberals and progressives, not parties. Dems that hew to the right, like HRC, might as well be republicans IMO.

[walldude]

21. I don't think she's less palatable than Lieberman but

as far as supporting her for President? Well I for one won't support anyone that has not stood up against the war. Simple as that. It's not misogyny it's sanity.

[pnwmom]

32. So if she were running against Jeb Bush, for example, you wouldn't

bother to vote?

[walldude]

49. I'd vote Green or Independant.

Sorry, I didn't like Kerry and I didn't trust him. After being flamed for weeks on DU I caved in and voted for him, against my better judgement. We all know how that turned out. Now you can commence to flaming me if you want, but it's not going to be "anyone but Bush" in the next election. I will never vote Repug but I will also never vote for "the lesser of 2 evils" again.

[pnwmom]

61. So you'd let Jeb Bush win rather than compromise yourself by voting for

Hillary. How very pure of you.

And I love that logic about blaming Kerry for Bush stealing the election and running the country into the ground.

[walldude]

74. I don't blame Kerry for losing, I blame him

for breaking his promise and caving in, after promising me to my face, that he will not concede until every vote is counted. In my book that makes him a liar. I'm sure in the next election it'll be all my fault if Jeb Bush wins. :eyes: I'm sorry if you think that my voting for the candidate that I think will do the best job is somehow impure or hurting your candidates chances but to be honest you are being pretty smug and arrogant with your attempts to demean me because I don't like Hillary as a candidate. Maybe if more people thought like me we'd have more than the lesser of 2 evils to choose from. Maybe not. Never hurts to try. With any luck Feingold will win the nomination and this entire conversation, if you could call it that, it's more like me being attacked and defending myself, will be a moot point. Have a nice day, if your arrogance allows it.

edited foe speeling

[txb]

77. DU let Jeb win?! KERRY *gave* Bushco term 2.....where's the logic?

And I love that logic about blaming Kerry for Bush stealing the election and running the country into the ground.


uh...sorry new around here. apologies if i'm not quoting correctly, BUT....

i think it is PERFECTLY LOGICAL to blame Kerry for his chicken shit position of ROLLING OVER and handing the pResidency over to GWB & the NeoCons.

you think that a Presidential Nominee John Edwards would've ROLLED OVER and GIVEN UP as fast as Kerry did?

Hell No! So just as we got SCREWED ROYALLY by a nominee (kerry) who LIED to his constituency (every vote will be counted, yada, yada....) we should be VERY CAUTIOUS to never make the same mistake again!

and that is why myself, and many others, are resisting supporting HRC or any of the DINOs in ANY WAY...

i mean, look what big bad John Kerry got us ----> ANOTHER STOLEN ELECTION.

geez. i didn't even have to go to YALE to realize that was a BAD DEAL!...

and I'm supposed to be excited for '08 when the media's anointed democratic pre-nom for president (hrc) is going out to lunch with RUPERT MURDOCH?

uh...no thanks.

and to just play the DNC game for one second: Hillary is Un-Electable.

[pnwmom]

79. Do you remember what had just happened on the day of the election?

John Edwards' wife had just been diagnosed with breast cancer. I've always thought that maybe that was the straw that broke the camel's back for both of them.

And I think you're wrong. If Edwards had been the candidate, he would have conceded too. His life was too complicated at that moment.

[txb]

98. are you serious?!?

throw out the entire election because of one unforeseen medical diagnosis? we're talking about electing the president of the united states! do you really think edwards & kerry just threw up their hands, "heck, we can't challenge this barbaric attempt upon our democracy...after all, your wife is sick?"
anyone making emotional, nonsensical decisions like that should NOT be elected to high office, imo. life gets pretty complicated at the higher levels of national security...

but it was NOT the vice-presidential nominee who phoned in the SURRENDER to GWB early in the morning as the sun beamed down upon the CRIME OF THE CENTURY.

no, that would be KERRY.

and he doesn't have any excuse. other than being a liar, a plant, or a wimp.
or some disgusting combination of all three.


to stay on topic, HRC reminds me of someone trying to be all things to all people. i actually fell for john kerry's tired act & we've all seen how well that worked out for us.

HRC will not get my vote.
She voted FOR an illegal & immoral war.

I refuse to vote for her.

simple as pie.

[pnwmom]

107. You really shouldn't be so hard on yourself.

You're not that simple.

[PetraPooh]

57. She is not worse than Lieberman, but if either are on the ticket

I will vote independent or green. I really hate JL though and would abandon the party entirely from local to national if he were on a democratic ticket that I was voting within. Even if I move to his state, which I won't, I would do whatever I could to get that man out of office in the next election.

[The Magistrate]

13. Do You Seriously Mean That, Sir?

Is it actually your opinion that if Sen. Clinton were to run in the Republican primary for the Presidential nomination, she would win the enthusiastic support of the rightmost elements of the Republican Party?

[mike_c]

16. I hope that's a rhetorical question and that my comments did not...

...seriously create that impression! If you're alluding to the last sentence, which is what I presume you mean, I was suggesting just the opposite, that the rightmost fringe of the nominally democratic center would be likely to vote for a candidate like McCain rather than HRC.

[The Magistrate]

26. It Was Your Discription Of Her, Sir

As "the dream candidate of the republican right" that elicited the question, particularly taken in company with your listing of various right-wing positions you attribute to her.

[mike_c]

30. ah, then it was my rhetoric....

The list of right wing positions (in the subject line) was quoted from the OP, included for irony. The statement about her being "the dream candidate of the republican right" would perhaps have been better phrased "the dream candidate of republican right strategists," since that was my intent. I did not mean to suggest that any republicans would vote for her, but rather that she would galvanize republicans and even the wobbly center to vote against her. My apologies for not making that clear!

on edit-- I see that #28 shares my love for good irony!

[The Magistrate]

36. Understood, Sir

It certainly seems true those wretches want to run against her. My apologies for having mis-tead your intended meaning, Sir.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[TheWraith]

17. You're contradicting yourself.

You say that she's the Republicans "dream candidate," that she's as far away as possible from liberal Democrats, but also that she would motivate the far right to come out and vote. Which is it? Is she a DINO or a far-lefty? Nobody can seem to agree on this. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think Hillary Clinton is a mirror that reflects whatever the view wants to project on her. The Repubs see an ultra-left feminist power grabber, the left sees a manipulative right-winger, and the media just wants to see controversy. I don't think anyone knows who or what Hillary Clinton really is. I'm not sure even she does.

[mike_c]

22. perhaps I should have said "republican strategist's dream candidate...."

Karl Rove would dance in his prison cell if Clinton were nominated.

[leftchick]

69. Agreed!

dance, dance, dance.

[Master Mahon]

4. I used to like Hillary

Until I started to listen to what she's had to say recently.
She has become a major Hawk that puts some repugs to shame.
She has few policy initiatives and appears to be afraid to take a
stand on anything other then being pro-war.
Like the rest of the Dem leadership, she's afraid to say anything for fear of the GOP attacking her. AND, that's because she's unable, or
unwilling, to defend any progressive position.
We don't need a George Bush with breasts!
We need good oldfashioned DEM leadership with the interests of the
average American as their primary agenda.
IMHO

[Scoody Boo]

7. My only beef...

with Hillary is that she is a garanteed Republican win if she runs. Her numbers inspire no faith in me that she can win. She is not going to win nobody over that is already set to vote against her. There are very few undecideds in regards to Hillary and the undecideds are really people that are indifferent and will be in the "against" column if she decides to run.

[bigtree]

8. funny

the more folks criticize her, the more I see of her

and, I like what I see and hear.

Of course, I could take off my yellow (dog) colored glasses . . .

[ronnykmarshall]

9. You must have not read

"the memo".

[MichiganVote]

10. Shhhh...she's a woman...and she's smart

[struggle4progress]

67. REALLY smart. And sexy. BUT panders to the Right. Just like Bill did.

Triangulating worked for Bill. Took the wind out of the Repub sails on Defense of Marriage, NAFTA, Welfare Reform, &c&c. BUT HE NEVER PUSHED BACK -- so never slowed their momentum. Cost us Congressional seats throughout his tenure. So we lost control of telecommunications, lost the Special Counsel law, &c&c. Ultimately cost Dems public credibility: "What DO the Ds stand for?"

I think Bill & Hillary never understood the real downsize of his constant Triangulation. And she's still doing that.

Run Hillary for Prez? No: oughta take a stand against political dynasties; current one is bad enough.

I'm fine with her in the Senate.

[MichiganVote]

76. Mostly agree. Fact is: Too Much Baggage

[Clark2008]

91. Problem is she simply doesn't have Bill's charisma.

I have no problem with smart, strong and sexy women (I AM one! :7 ), it's just that I don't think she'll flip any purplish-red states and we HAVE to do that to win (and re-unite the divisions the Republicans have wrought on our country).

[MichiganVote]

117. I don't see any candidate on the horizon, R or D, who is capable of that

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

83. gender has nothing to do with it

i don't care about the personality-obsession the media has with her. it's her policies i can't stand.

[MichiganVote]

116. Yeah...and everybody flips open Playboy for the articles

[Generic Other]

14. I don't think I've heard many criticize Bill Clinton on DU

Hillary is a different story. She is hated by the right who can't wait to rehash the Clinton "scandals" ad nauseum. The salivating rightwingers nearly wet their pants at the prospect of her as our candidate.

We need to cut 'em off at the kneecaps. No warmongers. No dynasties. No more getting played by the right. Either we use our heads and go with a real liberal whose not afraid to say so, or we lose again.

The more the right proclaims Hillary the Dem contender, the more suspicious we ought to be. She's the PNAC/ AIPAC choice. They got her elected in NY, and they are welcome to her. I want an honest candidate who knows what Democrats stand for and isn't afraid to say so.

Let her make speeches like the ones Gore has been making the past few years if she wants to convince me she's part of an opposition party.

[TheWraith]

25. Keep an eye out.

There's a dedicated Clinton-bashing cohort around here. One of their battle-cries is "The best Republican president we've ever had." Usual complaints are NAFTA, DOMA, and welfare reform, like those are the only three things that happened 1993-2000.

And the right certainly didn't get Hillary elected in New York. I'm one of her constituents, and I live in one of the bright crimson parts of the state. There was no love for Hillary up here in 2000. The place was papered with nearly as many Lazio signs as there were for Bush--a lot. I saw a total of two pro-Clinton signs in a town of 5,000 people. The right went down kicking, screaming, and biting. They did NOT want her in here.

[pola]

34. I agree !! eom

[leesa]

15. OK...so no comments about candidates..we just keep it to ourselves

and vote in private. How would people find out anything about candidates?

[walldude]

18. Look, if you like Hillary, Fine, Like her. Vote for her

send her letters telling her to run, But for crying out loud some of us are sick of seeing threads about her. If you don't want to hear people bitch about Hillary don't start threads about her.. Just sayin :D

[madokie]

23. Just sayin, you could maybe chill a bit.

so the official stand of DU is to hate HC? I don't think so

[walldude]

48. Oh I see... I need to chill

I don't care what the "official" DU stand is, I don't think Hillary is our best choice for a candidate. I don't think she's "satan" either but I also don't see the point in starting a Hillary thread asking people not to discuss Hillary. And to be honest I certainly wasn't being aggressive, I didn't insult anyone, I didn't flame anyone, in fact, all I did was use the original posters words to show there are 2 sides to every story and not every DU'er thinks Hillary is "satan". Some of us just think there could be a better candidate. But I guess I should "chill" and stop posting my opinions on an internet board designed for people to post their opinion. :eyes:

[TheWraith]

29. I'm rather certain that I said the opposite of that. NT.

[walldude]

50. Yes you did.. that was kind of my point...

[madokie]

20. one of the first things I learned here on DU and that is don't mention

Hillary, you'll be beat about the head and shoulders until you are bloody. Why??? Can't even mention her name in a reply, wtf.

[SPKrazy]

24. Coming From Arkansas

I can say that I Love Bill

and I am lukewarm on Hillary

I think she is the one who will say anything to anyone, even more than Bill. And at least Bill makes one feel okay when he does it.

Hillary doesn't have the charisma to pull it off.

I watched her for years and while she is a brilliant woman, with some wonderful ideas, I'm not sure I would trust her as President.

The other day the Daily Show showed her speaking and saying how kids today don't work hard (or something like that) then they showed her speaking at a graduation ceremony saying she spoke with her daughter and she told her that young people do work hard blah blah blah

I found it so typical of what I see Hillary as being.

Flame me if you want.

If she were nominated I'd vote for her.

But I'll surely vote for someone else if she runs in the primaries.

Maybe Al Gore?

[TheWraith]

38. You sound the way that I feel.

When I stand up for HRC, it's mainly because it annoys me to see people saying crazy things or attributing stuff that's simply wrong. It's not that she's my favorite person in the world. I don't mind having her as my senator, and if she were to win the nomination I'd stake out a pair of lawn signs for her. And I even think she would probably make a decent president, given the chance. But you hit something on the head: she doesn't have the charisma. Bill has it in spades--the man can make complex points with a great simplicity and elegance of language, and make you like him by doing it. Hillary doesn't have the same talent of communication. Sometimes I wonder how many of her seeming contradictions, like the one you mentioned, aren't neccessarily flip-flops so much as simple failures to articulate what she was trying to say. But no, she doesn't have the same level of charm and political skill that Bill does. I'd trust Bill to negotiate for me behind closed doors because I would feel confident that he would accomplish as much as possible. I wouldn't feel the same way about Hillary, even if I was certain that she had the same goal, simply because I don't think she has the same kind of political bullfighting skill that Bill does.

[SPKrazy]

45. No, I Agree

I'd see her as a bulldog in her political fighting skills, because she knows how to fight

but she isn't a bullfighter who will make the crowd cheer them on when they kill the bull.

Of course, some like bulldog fights, but I think they are pretty lame excuses for entertainment.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[ronnykmarshall]

42. Hoooowwwwwww niiiiicccceeeeee!

[Bucky]

54. The OP's entitled to his/her opinion. That's not "policing"--please

I won't give a dollar to Clinton unless she's nominated. I think her candidacy is being promoted by the rightwing press because it's wrong on so many different levels. And the buzz is being, as usual, swallowed whole by the mainstream media. But saying that we shoudn't unfairly attack her or engage in personal smears is fair game.

If you plan to dispute something, go after the OP's facts & contentions. But don't try to shut someone up by saying that they're policing you. They're expressing an opinion. I think that's what this board is for.

[NastyDiaper]

28. corporatist, warmonger, republican lite, mainstream media..

..anointed, and triangulating.

Yes. And these are not smears so much as they are conclusions. She's a top fund raiser, she continues to support the war, hooks up with murdoch.

It isn't just Hillary, any 'pro war' dem will get his or her ass kicked here. And I'll be proud to help with the kicking.

I enjoyed this speech. She just needs to get with Murtha on the war. And join Russ and Kerry on that lil censure thing.

[TheWraith]

43. Do you really think that Murdoch is the one who's benefiting?

I tend to think that she's been around politics long enough to know that when your blood enemy comes around and starts kissing your ass, it's for insurance.

In any event, I can apprecciate why you take your stances. What pisses me off is when people go off on these lunatic benders, saying things like how she's exactly like Bush, or that she's going to steal the election, or crap like that. I don't mind people forming opinions. It's the bullshit and hatemongering that gets me annoyed. Unless this has suddenly become FarLeftUnderground, we must remain tolerant of the fact that our party does have a centerist flank, even if we would rather it didn't.

[NastyDiaper]

112. The media/murdoch thing weighs far less..

..to me than the other issues. Frankly there are a lot of Dems I could support. Currently I support Gore, but at this very early pre-06 phase, it's an issue statement more than anything else.

The simplified version of my support:
Litmus test: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051128/editors sums up my position for anyone.
Democratic Primary: www.nrdc.org endorsement.
November: Democrat.

[Totally Committed]

33. She just simply cannot be trusted to do the right thing for this Party

or this country. Period. She is untrustworthy and unelectable. No conspiracy theories.. she's just a DLC war-monger ego-case.

TC

[pnwmom]

35. Yeah? And the Nader-inspired, Green-leaning progressives-who'd

rather-lose-than-compromise CAN be trusted to do the right thing for this Party? I don't think so.

[Totally Committed]

39. I wouldn't say that, either...

I opposed Nader on similar grounds in the past. We need some real stand-up-and-do-the-right-thing candidate to step forward and win this next election, or we can kiss our Party and our country good-bye.

TC

[mike_c]

40. ahhh-- is that a glimpse of an agenda showing...?

"...Nader-inspired, Green-leaning progressives who'd rather-lose-than-compromise..."

:rofl:

[Totally Committed]

44. If it is, it's not going to work....

We've all been "Nader-ized" enough to NEVER let it happen again, and Hillary should know that.

Sounds like the DLC talking to me!

TC

[pnwmom]

59. Give me the DLC over the Nader people any day.

The DLC, at least, can be counted on to support Democrats. Nader only promotes himself.

[Clark2008]

92. Um.. no they can't.

DLCer Al From has made some pretty disparaging remarks about Democrats, especially of the left variety:

"You've got to reject Michael Moore and the MoveOn crowd," DLC CEO Al From said in an interview about how the Democratic Party should rebuild after 2004. From argued that the anti-war Moore and MoveOn have hurt the party on national security, the issue which he says the party needs to make "central to our cause." Rank-and-file Democrats "are more like us than MoveOn," which From called a group of "elites, people who sit in their basements all the time and play on their computers."

Later in the interview, From added: "We don't show enough respect for people who might disagree with us."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3626796 /

[pnwmom]

97. I don't hear any DLC'ers threatening to sit out the election if their

favorite candidates don't win the primary.

[Clark2008]

118. They don't - the vote Republican in those cases.

[me b zola]

105. Good Gawd

I didn't know that there were that many dlc operatives posting here.

The dlc is KILLING the Democratic party, and democracy itself. Who is it that you are tying to reach with your "message"? Informed voters look for representation, not a snake-oil salesman.

[pnwmom]

58. It's not an agenda, it's an opinion

I notice a lot of people in that category in these threads, usually threatening to sit out the election if they don't like the Democratic candidate.

[NastyDiaper]

113. Nader..

..can sooo kiss my ass forever.

Nader taught me one thing in 00, how important it is to get involved before the primaries, and to pick real candidates, not issue stumpers. Oh. And to pick people who aren't turd faced liars like Ralf :puke: Nader.

[bvar22]

46. "elaborate conspiracy theories about how she's the spawn of Satan"

I must have been absent that day.

Clinton Haters at DU???
I've been here a long time, and I've never seen a Clinton Hating thread.
This is a favorite right wing tactic (and logical fallacy) to discount criticism of bush*....They're all just Bush* haters.
Right Wing framing of legitimate criticisms?

Take some responsibility. (Its easy.)
If you don't like posts critical of Hillary, don't read them. :shrug:


I don't read pro-DLC threads.
Bad for my digestion.


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.

[porphyrian]

47. Why is anyone talking about her at all?

What has she done for us lately other than have a "D" beside her name while she sits in the Senate? With republicans already trying to frame her as our Presidential candidate in the media for 2008, we don't need to waste our time with it.

[LittleClarkie]

52. Not gonna happen. Some of us are sick of alot of things

but this is a free board, and as long as the mods allow it, you'll see it.

This is a left leaning board, and Hillary lately is leaning right. Hence, hostility.

But to talk about people hating her as if it were as simple as that is about as bad as the Right saying we hate Bush, as if it were a personality thing with no substance.

There is a segment here that has an issue with the DLC and Centrists, feeling that they dillute the party. The DLC returns the sentiment. Some days this place resembles a grade school playground. But telling them to stop will do nothing. It is what it is.

I will not vote for Hillary if I can help it. I don't hate her though.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Ahhh..poor wittle Hillary. Being picked on by the nasty progressives.

Sad. Sad. Just because she heroically voted for the war that killed thousands of people and still supports it. Poor thing. How my heart bleeds for her.

Boo-hoo.

[oasis]

55. 75 to 80 percent of DU's Hillary haters are not registered Democrats.

They're not likely to vote for any Dem in 2008.:think:

[pnwmom]

60. You're probably right.

They're just here to promote their own agendas.

[oasis]

64. Expect the b.s. to stay at this level until the 2008 nomination. n/t

[LittleClarkie]

65. Riiiiight.

I don't suppose you took a survey or something to back that up.

[oasis]

68. You're welcome to do your own survey and share your numbers with us.

;-)

[LittleClarkie]

78. 80 percent Democrat so far

Except I was perhaps too delicate and said "dislike" instead of "hate".

[oasis]

82. Wow , you put up that figure rather fast. I've been working on this for

months.No fair. :cry:

[LittleClarkie]

88. (sniff) I'm sorry! Don't cry!

It really unscientific, I swear! Maybe the lefties just don't wanna vote.

It's just a stupid little DU poll. :cry:

Now I feel bad.

[oasis]

90. Don't feel bad. If Hillary drops out, the Kerry and Clark haters will pop

out of nowhere to trash them. Then you'll see where I'm coming from.

I'll support any Democrat but Lieberman.

[LittleClarkie]

96. I already do

They come out often enough as it is.

I'll support any Dem, but just not in the primaries. There I'll pick who I like, Kerry if I can get him. Clark if I can't.

[desi]

84. rofl oasis

He's doing just that. Will there be empirical evidence (like scanned voter registration cards) for verification? Are you willing to accept the results without proof...???

[oasis]

89. Of course I allowed for a 3 1/2% margin of error.

:-)

[mike_c]

75. where on earth did you find that statistic...?

I'm presuming you didn't simply make it up!

[oasis]

85. See post #68. How many Greens, socialists, independents and Repugs do

you think use the DU forum to trash Hillary?

[PetraPooh]

56. I loved Bill Clinton in the end and even highly respect Hillary, but

I am so tired of rehashing Bushes that the concept of electing another "known" name like Clinton just isn't what I want to do. It isn't because she is female, or because of her qualifications. It is simply because we aren't supposed to have "royalty" in this country. I hated the idea of a second Bush even though I actually voted for his father the first time and I don't want to see another Clinton in office either. Actually I also have to admit that Bill's close relationship with daddy Bush is a real turn off for me and since she is married to Bill, what does that make Hillary but the daughter in law of an adopted Bush family. I WANT FRESH, INDEPENDENT OF OTHER ADMINISTRATIONS blood in the White House. Since Gore and the Clinton's have "separated," he would be a possible exception to my concern.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

62. Very, Very Well Said.

Great post and right on the mark.

[checks-n-balances]

66. I used to like her too until I realized she's a DLC darling

I've learned enough about that group to know they are steering us (and influencing her too much) in the WRONG direction. I'm also tired of hearing that she's a done deal for '08. As a matter of fact, I'm tired of hearing about '08 right now - there's still an important '06 election to weather and win. To focus on one person - Hillary - this early is just counterproductive IMHO.

[pnwmom]

71. The DLC gave us 8 years of the Clinton administration, which was

an immeasurably better time than we've been having under GWB. I'd be happy to have more of the same , for all its flaws.

[Clark2008]

93. Actually, Bill Clinton gave us the Clinton Administration

He won it for himself.

Since his depature, the DLC hasn't really done all that much.

Sure, they've got some Dems elected in some states, but, nationally, they've caused us to lose ground. Look at 1994 and 2002 and 2004. Hell, look what they did to Gore in 2000. It should never have been so close as to allow the Supremes to hand the election to the Boy King, but, alas, Gore listened to much to his corporate maidens in the DLC and not enough to his populist side.

[checks-n-balances]

99. But the DLC appears to be the gateway for GOP infiltration of Dem party

To wit: several "Greatest" DU threads this week:

Neocons in the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1306317

David Sirota: Joe Lieberman & the Hostile Takeover of "Centrism"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2653395

DLC Peddles Right-Wing Talking Points; Christian Coalition Official in DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1323322

Yes, I agree that they helped Bill Clinton to be a centrist, but I think he might have won anyway - he's that good of a "people person" politician. One of the worst things Bill Clinton did was to be talked into NAFTA - by whom, I don't know. But he was more influenced by corporate bigwigs than was good for this country, especially in that instance. And one of the worst things Hillary Clinton has done is not to admit that the Iraq war has been a mistake - she and Lieberman may be some of the last holdouts. I don't understand this from her.

That said, perhaps the centist message of Pres. Clinton was the right overall message for those times. I worked for him, but I REALLY don't think we should assume it will work for her in the same way. Besides, he was running against Bush Sr. and a more old-school GOP. The political landscape is much different now, with an ultra neocon/rightwing takeover of the GOP, endless War on Terror, nearly complete corporate takeover of our government, worldwide hatred of US thanks to the Bush II administration, an economic train wreck waiting to happen, etc. Things are much worse now, and we're about at the point where the public is so weary of GWB (finally!) that they need to hear a completely different philosophical message from the Dems. If the DLC is mainly Republican-lite, then we need to take our advice from another source.

This country - at this very crucial time - deserves better than that.

[pnwmom]

70. Thank you, Wraith, for your thoughtful post.

I agree. The degree of animosity toward Hillary really puzzles -- and disturbs -- me. And I can't really see where it comes from.

And remember all the Democrats that used to despise Kennedy? Maybe it's just that people tend to lash at people they think have let them down. So they're less likely to forgive a Democrat for his or her mistakes than they would a Republican (from whom they never expected much, anyway).

[dysfunctional press]

72. Paranoia..? for me it's just a general disgust with her...

especially for things like her vote on the IWR.

[Bouncy Ball]

73. I don't hate her.

She's a smart woman. She's married to a guy who was a great president. And she's officially a Democrat.

That's about where it ends for me, though. She leaves me lukewarm. It's not a matter of either-or, it's a spectrum.

Kerry was (is) to the right of me, but not so far right of me that it was a big problem for me. I was still able to support him and vote for him, gladly.

Clinton is to the right of Kerry. And she's too far out there to the right for me to support her in any national campaign.

It's as simple as that.

On edit: I hope and pray that she's not the nominee in 2008. Hell, I hope and pray she doesn't even run in the primaries. We don't need that. It's time for a bunch of real progressives to run.

[sweetheart]

80. A fair shot for any dem candidate

I wish her the best, and i hope dems have the courage to support those
with the balls to speak out and take the heat. I did not like bill
clinton's drugs war corporatism, but it does not mean i don't support
an intelligent, capable politician for leadership.

More power to you Hillary Clinton. :toast:

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

86. and as far as bill being a good guy-2 words: mark rich

there's no excuse for that one. the man was completely undeserving of a pardon, while a potentially innocent man like leonard peltier remains in jail.

i lived in ravenswood, w.va. in the 80s. i remember what that crook rich did to the steelworkers here before he got into to trouble. he's worse than kenny boy. the only difference is he didn't get the chance to carry out his schemes to that level.

there's no way any honest person can offer any justification for bill cozying up to that scumbag

[mtnsnake]

87. Thank you, TheWraith, for your very sensible post

and accurate to the T!

:toast:

[Balbus]

94. Smart, assertive women bring that out in a lot of people..

[pnwmom]

95. You're not kidding.

[Stephanie]

100. If she wants to sell out her principles fine, but I won't sell out mine

She's WRONG on the war but won't admit it. She's wrong on the death penalty, wrong on marriage equality, wrong on the First Amendment (flag-burning), backsliding on choice, and has teamed up with Rupert Murdoch. I'm a progressive Democrat. Why should I support her?

[Quixote1818]

101. I think we are sick of ANY politician who has no core belief or is a DINO

It's not just Hillary but also, Feinstein, Lieberman and a number of others.

People are just SICK to death of those who blow in the wind and don't stand up for liberal values. Plus she supports the war?????? Yuck!

[Yollam]

102. There is no faction here that "Hates the Clintons"

I'm sure that the vast majority of DUers found Bill Clinton to be a very effective president and a charming man. Senator Clinton also has her share of good qualities, and I can confidently say that only the freeper trolls here wouldn't rather have a Clinton in office than POS Bush.

The fact that a lot of us believe it's important to point out that Bill Clinton's policies were a lot ideologically closer to the GOP than traditional liberal ideals does not mean we "hate him". Like Mike Malloy likes to say - "He was the best moderate Republican president we ever had".


And as for Hillary, people are just terrified of her for good reason. It's not that she'd be a bad president - the problem is that she probably would with the primaries on name recognition, then lose the general election because she is such a divisive figure. Sadly, it's no fault of her own. People like Limbaugh have taken some of her personality traits, like her slightly terse manner and slightly sharp speaking style and used them to bolster this alternate-universe "bizarro" Hillary that at least 40 percent of americans believe in. They think she is a socialist, "feminazi" with lesbian tendencies, so consumed with lust for power that she will do ANYTHING, even stay married to a philanderer, to achieve her goals. It doesn't matter that most of these misconseptions about Hillary aren't true. They're deeply ingrained in popular consciousness to the point that they can't be erased.

I think it's a damn shame. If Hillary Clinton actually was a liberal (I don't think she is by a long shot), I think she'd be a very good president. But the Bizarro Hillary, paired with the fact that her right-leaning posturing is MAJOR turnoff to the dem party activist base, would add up to an electoral disaster if she ran.

[rman]

104. So you start with the premise that there's no ground

for criticism regarding the Clintons, so that any criticism about them can be nothing but "hate", "paranoia", "conspiracies about her being a spawn of satan".

Kindof like criticize Bush = hating America, criticism of Israel = anti-semitism.

[me b zola]

106. "paranoia"

Oh, good. More of the dlc nasty comments about the very people whom they hope will vote for their candidate? :eyes:

Yeah, while you're at it, call us the "looney left" again--we just can't get enough of that love. :eyes:

But then again, you're not trying to get our votes, are you???? What you really want is for us (us meaning those of us who bother to watch the votes and pay attention to what the hell is going on) to leave the party. Well fuck that. You can't have the good name of the Democratic Pary. Get off.

[Asgaya Dihi]

108. Paranoia no, questions yes

We don't need to go to the extremes we see sometimes, but there isn't a better time to ask questions if we have them I wouldn't think. Once we're into the primaries she's spending money and affecting the chances of others, people would say why didn't you speak before. Once we're into the elections it's certainly past time to speak. No better time than now.

Personally I have concerns. Her husband was a genius at alliances and did well with the economy, but the record on the drug war left a lot to be desired and did more damage than most realize. I'm afraid she's of the same mindset from what I've seen and the corporate ties are a concern as well with our need for reform. I'd just rather see someone like Feingold, more of a reformer. If we don't say that now, then when?

No need cutting her down past saying we'd rather see someone else in the job though.

[Blasphemer]

109. No great mystery

Since Gore took himself out of the running for '04, she was the only potential candidate who was already a "media star". She gets the most press and is therefore the most scrutinized. I think many people just don't like the idea that a candidate has already been picked before they have a say in the matter especially when they disagree with some of the votes she's made as Senator.

I don't like or dislike HRC though I do disagree with some of things she has said and done over the years. I think there are Republicans she could beat if she were the nominee and I'm confident she would be a good President. I don't think she is the best person to be our nominee but I really don't think the best person for the job (Gore) is going to run. At this point, I expect her to be the nominee so I really try to avoid slagging her off too much. I just hope the GOP nominee is someone like Frist or Allen.

[realisticphish]

110. Why is all criticism "hate"

Basically, you're saying "i don't care if you don't like her, just don't TELL me you don't like her."

Sorry, but I'll say whatever the hell I think about any politician, left or right, and I won't be worried about offending people. If I don't like a politician, I'll say it, not "oh, wow, maybe I should just wait until the election"

[Vidar]

111. I liked her as First Lady, I like her as a Senator, but I don't want her

for President.

[SOS]

114. Answer to OP question

Many Democrats are concerned that HRC's money machine and a compliant corporate media will place her at the top of the 2008 ticket.
The concern is simply that she will cost us the White House for another four years.
It's not "hate", it's sincere worry.
She will lose. There is no question about that.
Quinnipiac's latest poll shows her losing New Jersey to McCain by 14 points.
We remember how sick we felt in November 2004 when it was announced that Bush had secured a second term.
Alot of us just can't stand the thought of going through that again.