No apologies from me, I can't imagine a more vomit inducing nominee for the Democratic Party

[whereisjustice]

than Hillary Clinton.

What makes her so fucking horrible?

She is the very cold, gutless soul of the 1%. Carefully means testing the value of her words against the Wall Street pay scale.

All the while, notably absent without leave against the most pressing and polarizing problems the US has faced since the civil war:

Civil rights, constitutional checks and balances, racism, police state overreach, NSA, CIA, income disparity, oil lobby, the health care lobby, the banking lobby, the telco lobby, Israeli lobby, CEO lobby, off shoring to India, on and on and on.

She can't be bothered.

But... if you have $300,000 to throw her way and the proper number of teleprompters, she'll give you a carefully vetted speech on some motherhood and apple pie issue which is guaranteed not to make anyone on Wall Street uncomfortable.

And the scary fucking thing is - her silence, as the nation burns, is the very thing her giddy sycophants are telling us makes her so presidential.

We deserve better. Our children deserve better.

We are literally fucking ourselves.

[Phlem]

1. But, but, but..

Awe I can't even come up with some reasonably hairy shit for a politician to do anymore from imagination.

Everything's on the table these days.

[billhicks76]

154. Bushes And Clintons Working Together In My Opinion

Its a total scam and must be stopped NOW! I particularly like your description of Hillary giving some speech on a Mom and Pop Apple Pie issue that can't offend anyone. People here think its so great when she supports something like wage inequality but any sane person should and does. Safe issues like that aren't what is going to determine the direction of our country...things like 911 do. Expect catastrophe if a Bush wins and Clinton winning will still have Bush fingerprints on our foreign policy and wars waged on Americans at home.

[bjobotts]

224. I refuse to stay home and not vote no matter what due to SC.

I think Clinton is a corporatist. Not a progressive like I want. But better than a republican. I fear we'll lose if she is the candidate and that would result in the end of our democracy such as it is. But when one family says they will throw nearly a billion dollars into the race for GOP control (Koch bros)then I will vote for every dem available. If only I knew a way to make voting mandatory. I am suspicious of anyone who pushes not voting just because their nominee didn't win the primary. Principles before personalities. Dems need to win the Presidency the House and the Senate which we won't do if we become self imploding.

[merrily]

234. Someone won the primary already?

[billhicks76]

294. lol. Hopefully Not

[billhicks76]

293. It's Beyond Voting Now

We are derelict in our responsibilities as citizens if we don't take to the streets in large numbers to affect real change. This is all a dog and pony show.

[msongs]

2. except for the racism, obama 2.0, no big deal

Civil rights, constitutional checks and balances, racism, police state overreach, NSA, CIA, income disparity, oil lobby, the health care lobby, the banking lobby, the telco lobby, Israeli lobby, CEO lobby, off shoring to India, on and on and on.

[PBass]

142. Great post! Because I really expected President Obama to resolve all those issues!

Great insight.

[George II]

173. Obama did address all those issues but. ..

..you may recall that the republicans in Congress vowed to make sure he didn't succeed.

[merrily]

238. For his first two years, Democrats had large majorities in both houses, greater than any Democrat is

likely to see again for a good long time. You are making a great case that it doesn't much matter who is President, maybe not even who wins seats Congress, unless the Democratic majority is as large as it was before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Even then, Presidents like FDR and LBJ had to work hard to form various coalitions to get things passed.)

BTW, why are so many members of DU's right posting in this group? Y'all have plenty of other groups, including the Obama Group and the Hillary Group.

[George II]

286. "Y'all"? just because I don't jump on the bash - Obama (and Clinton) bandwagon....

..means I'm "right-wing"? Pretty offensive of you.

And what most around here forget is that Obama inherited probably the biggest mess any incoming President ever inherited. Even so, unlike you and many here I haven't written off his first two years. He began the economic turnaround, restored our image in the world, and got the ACA through Congress , among other things.

And considering the resistance in Congress he's still accomplished quite a bit in the last four years.

[merrily]

297. DU's right does not mean the same as right wing.

Right wing generally means the right wing of the Republican Party, maybe right Libertarians or Constitution Party or one of the splinter rightist parties. I assume most or all DUers are Democrats (or the Canadian equivalent of US Democrats). Still, within that, DU has a right and a left, as does the Democratic Party. More than just a right and a left--a continuum.

Also, I never wrote off Obama's first two years. I said that he had majorities in both houses during his first two years. That is not the same as saying nothing worthwhile at all happened during those first two years.

If you are eager to take offense, take it at this: You might try reading what people actually do post and responding to that.

[George II]

307. A few points............

First, the sarcastic and negative comment "Great post! Because I really expected President Obama to resolve all those issues! Great insight." is what prompted my comment. I never said YOU wrote off Obama's first two years, but obviously the person I responded to pretty much did so.

Second, "why are so many members of DU's right posting in this group?" Well, when a post appears on the Democratic Underground HOME page, and I choose to respond, I will. I don't search out specific posts in specific groups. Note that the actual group does NOT appear above the post on the Home Page (check it out). THAT is where I saw it. If people don't want "us" to respond, maybe they should request that they not appear on the home page?

Finally, I do NOT live in Canada, never did and probably never will, as if that has any importance. Why do people around here have make such rash assumptions? In the last couple of weeks I've been "accused" of Canadian, of being anti-woman because I prefer Hillary Clinton over Elizabeth Warren (really?????), and accused of an "attempt to smear someone who is gay" because I don't particularly appreciate Glenn Greenwald, gay or not.

What is going on around here these days? WHY do people have to be so snarly and accusatory?

[Fred Sanders]

3. Black hat/white hat mindsets are for conservatives.

[whereisjustice]

5. there is a threshold where the consequences are so significant, the moral equity of one side

far outweighs the moral deficit of the other.

Hillary is the wrong candidate at the wrong time.

Her presumed entitlements illustrate how brainwashed and compliant we've become in the face of our very real oligarchy falsely credited as democracy.

[asiliveandbreathe]

88. I hear complaints

Let's hear solutions....

[obxhead]

93. Hmmmm

Just about any Dem other than Hillary would he one hell of a start.

[asiliveandbreathe]

95. Hmmmmm

Nothin' like biting off your nose to spite your face....and still no solution.....

[obxhead]

97. So, you're contention is that ONLY Hillary can win.

There is not any other Democrats we can fight for.

[asiliveandbreathe]

98. Sure there is - go for it -

Just don't expect people who see the trees in the forest and know the path of trolls is well worn...to follow ..

If you are truly a Dem then you know we must keep a republican out of the WH at all cost! - Even if you have to hold your nose....otherwise...you are a troll and I'm surely NOT going to waste my time on stupid!

[RedstDem]

106. I just hope they wear nametags

So I can tell them apart

[L0oniX]

161. +1

[heaven05]

115. sad but true

I will be holding my nose. But yes, VOTE DEMOCRATIC, It's the only SLIM hope the 99% has. Money in politics, ALEC, gerrymandering caused this, in a HUGE way.

[PatrynXX]

132. a true dem will keep a conservative out of the white house at all costs

very well put. I will never vote Conservative as far as the white house goes.

[obxhead]

144. So you will vote against HRC?

[merrily]

264. Loyalty oaths are for J.Edgar Hoovr and Joe McCarthy. They are not for this Group.

[Cosmic Kitten]

179. +1

[obxhead]

143. Thank you

I truly appreciate the name calling, or labeling, if you will.

It shows your character well.

Yes, I'm going to fight really fucking hard to put a Democrat in the WH in 2016. That means I can not fight for Hillary. She is a Republican through and through and you present no argument to counter that opinion.

The only thing you offer is telling me she is the anointed one that shall be our next POTUS no matter what.

That sounds like hero worship more than anything else, but maybe you do have solid reasoning for that line of thinking. I'll be happy to read all about it.

[Veilex]

176. "She is a Republican through and through" +1

There's a reason I absolutely will not vote for HRC.

[pocoloco]

158. Wow, looks like you found that path!

Follow and suffocate, that sounds like a plan

[A Simple Game]

128. They so need a new argument, that is the one they used in 2008. n/t

[Hekate]

196. I look forward to a robust primary season. Who's up?

[840high]

231. ....x10

[CountAllVotes]

239. Senator Webb is going to run it sounds like

An interview with him was just aired on PBS a short time ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Webb#2016_presidential_exploratory_committee



The picture is from 1984.

So there is one possible solution for you.

[merrily]

243. Webb will challenge Hillary from the left? Seriously?

[CountAllVotes]

245. I have no idea

I was just listening to him being interviewed about his possible upcoming candidacy and his thoughts re: war, America in general, etc.

Quite interesting really.

[merrily]

247. Sure you do.

[CountAllVotes]

267. huh?

The person wanted to know if anyone was running besides HC that is a Democrat and I responded.

I don't know a whole lot about Sen. Webb other than what I read and see which is what you read and see too ...

[merrily]

269. From what I see, I find it far fetched, at best, that Webb will challenge Hillary from the left.

[CountAllVotes]

291. I don't know what his plan is

I felt after watching the interview that he was uncertain. That said, I personally found him to be not particularly a left winger on any level at all. He seemed like a military man to me more than anything which is indeed exactly what he is.

Anyway, he is the only person I've heard say he is considering running besides Sen. Sanders. I cannot think of anyone else but you never know. There could be a dark horse out there lying in wait.

[merrily]

242. Try posting in another group.

[Dustlawyer]

258. Demand Publicly Funded Elections, end campaign contributions, a Super PACs, and the

Revolving Door! Bernie Sanders is for all of this!
Since the corporations buy both parties now, they scare us with Republican Bogeymen so we will vote for their safe Democrat. You still put their preferred candidate in (a Dem can do more for 1% than a Repug b/c Repugs will support anything for Wall Street, and Dems less inclined to oppose since it is their President) who can get more done for them.

[Veilex]

178. "No one wants to hear your shit."

Last edited Thu Feb 26, 2015, 09:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Hmmm... as of this post:
146 recs and 5277 views.

Interesting world you live in, where 5277 people equates to no one.

[Hekate]

197. Views are not Recs. Lotta people looking in and not commenting.

[Veilex]

201. And they wouldn't bother to look if they weren't in some way interested...

So, you're comment changes mine none at all.

[Hekate]

203. Train wrecks are always interesting, in their way.

[Veilex]

210. Perhaps... but thats a false equivelency you dabling with

The reality is this: of all those people who chose to come here and read over this thread, a number of those chose to rec the thread. There are studies aplenty that show for every one person who performs an action (in this case, reccing) there are many who are sympathetic, but have chosen to take no action. The ratio varies depending on the study and parameters. But the point is this: of those roughly 5k people, chances are exceptionally high, a sizable portion of them do indeed enjoy this sort of discourse... else they'd not be here in the first place.

At the very least, there are 146 people who do indeed enjoy this sort of thing...thereby negating the nonsense that no one wants to listen to what's being said.

[merrily]

244. Always more views than replies and more replies than recs. But the thread has a lot of recs, too.

Why are you posting in this group?

[Hekate]

253. It was on the front page and I thought it was from GD.

[merrily]

254. Cool.

Obviously, not everything on the front page is from GD. I made a similar mistake twice. I self deleted once and deleted immediately upon the request of a group member the other time.

[840high]

232. 168 rec's. I just did.

[Veilex]

261. Exactly my point!

[TreasonousBastard]

4. OK, we get it...

If she gets the nomination you will...

Vote Republican

Vote for some third or fourth party schmuck, assisting a Republican win.

Stay home.

[whereisjustice]

6. Every DNC dime is being spent on her at the exclusion of building a responsive leadership

candidate base for the future.

So fuck me if I'm not happy living in a Democratic Party controlled oligarchy that lies on its back, servicing Wall Street.

[asiliveandbreathe]

91. I have heard complaints before

You sound like a troll....take your complaining and turn it into a solution - that is all....

[A Simple Game]

130. As you obviously support Hillary perhaps you could give those of us that would rather

puke our guts out than vote for her a few reason to support her.

[politicaljunkie41910]

185. He doesn't have to give you anything, and go ahead and puke your guts out

If you don't see what's at stake in 2016, go somewhere else and lick your wombs. You aren't making any headway here. You obviously don't like her and have no plans to vote for her. We get it. There is nothing anyone here can say that will make you vote for HRC. So if you have nothing else to contribute to the party, than just go away. What are you doing to find that MAGIC candidate just waiting on the sidelines of the Democratic Party, waiting to throw his or her hat in the ring of fire for the new two years, fundraising day and night to hopefully have a inkling of a chance against the Koch Bros, and all the other right wing finance machines, to try and hold on to the one remaining leg of this three legged broken stool.

[840high]

233. What's at stake is America's

future. Country more important than party.

[A Simple Game]

283. Lick my wombs? I don't even want to know where your mind is.

Why do you say I don't have anything to contribute to the party? I say and have said for at least 10 years, probably closer to 20, that the party has little to contribute to me.

Other than that what does not supporting Hillary have to do with the party? Has she been nominated as the candidate yet? I didn't even realize she admitted to being a candidate yet. I do of course believe we will be better off if she doesn't run. Just what we need for our choice for President, a Republican and a wannabe Republican.

There is no doubt in my mind, if Hillary is our nominee we will have a Republican President.

I think we are long over due for a female President, but let's try to find one that doesn't think she has balls.

Oh and one final note, I notice you couldn't come up with any reasons for me to support Hillary either.

[Fla Dem]

318. Here you go. One analysis of what her positions may be.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2014/11/20/hillary-clintons-potential-platform-for-a-presidential-run

What Would Hillary Do?
Democrats say addressing the country’s wage gap should top Clinton's platform if she runs for president.

You may also want to read this and educate yourself. Meant in the kindest of terms.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Abortion_and_birth_control

[TheNutcracker]

102. Here here!!!! ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

109. What money has the DNC spent on HRC? n/t

[DFW]

134. Rather difficult to find

I know the treasurer of the DNC, and so far they haven't spent a cent on Hillary because she is not the nominee. That's who the DNC money gets spent on in the presidential race, not candidates in the primaries, and certainly not presumptive candidates in future primaries.

A quote from Al Franken springs to mind, here......

[1StrongBlackMan]

140. I didn't think so ...

But then, the Treasurer might be lying to you!

But more likely, just another "I think it is so, so it must be" fact.

I'd love to hear the Franken quote.

[DFW]

141. I'm betting you've already heard the Franken quote

I was referring to the one where he says you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

It doesn't only apply to Republicans in the U.S. Senate

[1StrongBlackMan]

148. Ahhh, yeah! ...

But apparently, some believe if they say something with authority and frequency, it becomes a fact.

[Veilex]

184. Indeed... thats why media groups and HRC fans keep spouting their inevitability garbage.

I respect that HRC fans have their reasons to want to vote for her. I don't respect that many of them are doing so with the fervor of a zealot... pretending that she is tantamount to the second coming... or that its either vote for her or the republicans. Then scream how there's no alternative... never mind the fact that we've got quite a bit of time before election season even starts!

Fact is, no matter how people place her on the pedestal of inevitability, she's not. She hasn't even officially declared she's running yet. The same could be said for Bernie Sanders. I'd certainly vote for Bernie over HRC... but as of yet, he's not an option...and neither is she.

People need to step back a bit and calm down. The last thing we need to be doing is attacking each other here on DU.

We've still got quite a bit of time yet... and NOTHING said in this thread will change anyone's mind, nor make any difference regarding who's running or when.

[DFW]

276. Goes back to Lenin

He said that a lie, shouted loud enough and often enough becomes the truth. Göbbels picked up on it, too. Then McCarthy, and then Fox "News."

[George II]

288. That quote came from Daniel Patrick Monahan

[DFW]

289. That doesn't surprise me

I knew the guy, but never heard him say it, and Franken was the most recent one I heard had used it on the Senate floor, so I remember it as "his" phrase, although it certainly sounds like Pat Moynihan for sure.

My dad was the "dean" of the New York press in Washington for decades, so he knew Pat very well, had me sit next to him at Gridiron, etc.

Here's a true story (as in "it happened right in front of my nose&quot you'll never hear elsewhere: at the 1995 Gridiron Dinner, Pat got roaring drunk, ran up to the podium when Clinton's head was turned, and swiped his speech to read through it. Clinton was furious at Placido Flamingo (the code name assigned to a very UN-amused Secret Service agent who was supposed to be keeping an eye on his notes), and some stern words were exchanged. Clinton got his speech back in short order, and Pat settled back into his seat as if nothing had happened.

[merrily]

251. Maybe save that kind of question for GD?

[1StrongBlackMan]

281. Sorry, Didn't notice I posted to the PRD. n/t

[Hekate]

198. Do you have legitimate sources for that accusation? Or just slander?

[zentrum]

28. That's not the point

…at this moment. No one is going to vote Republican, but don't kid yourself——many will in fact stay home if she's the candidate. But in any event, the point is to work now to get a candidate who can energize the base. That's what we're talking about. Getting a democratic candidate and not a Republican in all but name and a few social issues to oppose a hard right Republican.

[leftofcool]

64. Many will stay home?

Nope, a few in a DU forum, maybe. You do realize she beats all GOP candidates by double digits and is supported by 68% of Democrats?

[sulphurdunn]

92. What does that have to do with the post?

[1StrongBlackMan]

110. The Democratic BASE will not stay home ...

note to DUers:

If you are considering sitting out 2016, or voting 3rd-Party ... YOU ARE NOT THE DEMOCRATIC BASE.

[TheKentuckian]

309. Who cares about being "the base"? Nobody negotiates with or caters to automatic votes, there is no

need to they were had at hello.

What I seek to be is an aligned and convinciable voter that must be courted. Being "the base" is for suckers.

[1StrongBlackMan]

310. Okay ...

You be that aligned and convinciable, non-suckered voter, while the suckers of the Base(s) select those that you seek to convince you, and the priority of the issues that will be under-taken.

[TheKentuckian]

312. Nope, I participate there as well. I'm gonna eat my cake and shit it out too.

[1StrongBlackMan]

313. Okay. n/t

[Dwight42]

37. No you don't get it

We have already had one Clinton who proved to be a charismatic, though morally bankrupt man of Wall Street, the Banks, Military/Industrial/Congressional complex (Bosnia) and made, according to most counts a couple hundred million dollars since leaving office, unlike Jimmy Carter done absolutely nothing for the average person.

Obama has proven to be just as beholding to the same group and one wonders what horrors Hillary, who has shown herself even more warmongering than her husband would bring to the presidency.

So what make anyone thing Hillary will be any different. She is a proven warmonger, doesn't seem to give much thought to the average, let alone the poor of this country

As far as voting for a third party and assisting a Republican win, the Oligarchy wins no matter who is elected from these parties.

We the people have not been able in the last 30 some years to get the Democrats leaders to pay any attention to us leaving the only alternative to vote a third party or stay at home. I know may people who voted for Clinton and Obama the first time but not the second and it looks like they will stay home if another representative of the .01% is nominated.

Personally I will not vote for Hillary or any Republican under any circumstances so I can only hope the party return to sanity and nominate anyone other than Hillary.

[leftofcool]

65. You can then say hello to President Jebbie.

[Dwight42]

85. Well Hello Jebbie Hello

If the democrats can run anyone that can enthral the base and the republicans continue being so obnoxious, and unamerican perhaps even the old fashioned ''centrist'' republicans will find reasons to vote for a democrat though I won't hold my breath because the American voter tends stay with the party they grew up in no matter how disgusting they have become.

I am of the opinion that there really won't be enough democrats left that will hold their noses and vote for Hillary and the only solution is for the Democrat party to nominate someone that will appeal to those disenfranchised voters that have left the party or will stay home.

But there is a real possibility that many of the conservative minded democrats will vote republican if the Party makes a u-turn.

Until the democrats become the anti-war party, pro middle class(meaning pro Union), anti-spying, get rid of Dept. of Homeland Security(saving the taxpayers some $50 Billions a year, and want to restore the infrastructure instead of Trillions for wars and spying, the wealthy paying only 15% in taxes while the rest of up are in the 30% bracket this silly charade will continue until this country is in ruin.

If Jeb Bush is elected it will be the fault of the DNC, not those who chose to stay home or vote third party. And if the policies of both parties continue on this path, the country is doomed.

We are all Americans first, not Democrats or Republicans and it's time to start thinking about real people, not corporate people.

[hifiguy]

129. I must agree

But it's "Democratic" party. Always.

[awoke_in_2003]

135. Democrat party?

Using that phrase will make people forget any of the good you are saying- it is a huge alarm word.

[Dwight42]

138. Oops,

Sorry, in a moment of mental abstraction I misplaced the ''ic'', after all no one is perfect, even Hillary sometimes gets a cold.

But I don't see any huge alarm, or hidden agenda in the word, since the democratic party is the party of democrats.

[Hekate]

199. It's a dogwhistle

But you knew that.

[merrily]

265. Tell that to the New Democrat Coalition and the New Democrat Caucus.

[awoke_in_2003]

272. they can call them what they want

but the party is the Democratic Party.

[merrily]

274. That's what I always call it, and I would never have named the New Democrat Coalition the way New

Democrats named it, either. But, I've been postingg a while. I didn't know about the distinction or the Rove ad until a fellow poster explained it to me, around 2006-07. Once she did, I never used "Democrat" as an adjective again. (I didn't start following politics very closely until I started posting.)

[awoke_in_2003]

275. At one time I believed myself to be a republican

and never called the Democratic Party the Democrat Party. I didn't really even follow politics much until the run up to the Iraq war. The term "Democrat Party" was started by Rush and followed by all the other right wing radio hosts, as well as Fox news and every republican who appears on the news. I have never heard a democratic politician refer to it as such. Thus, when ever someone says "democrat party" it sets off alarm bells for more people than just myself.

[merrily]

298. The way it was explained to me, it was an ad that Rove ran for Dimson.

I don't know if Dimson was running for President or Governor at the time. However, the word Democrat was on the screen at the end of the ad. I don't know if it was on its own or as part of a sentence or phrase. At the very last seconds, everything disappeared from the screen but "rat," as though the ad were attempting to send a subliminal message.

In any event, my point was that, until it was pointed out to me that saying the Democrat Party was offensive, I didn't know it was. Yet, I was never anything but a Democrat. I was clueless. Of course, that was quite a while ago. By now, I think people who post on political boards probably know the difference. But, because I was clueless, I'd probably give a poster the benefit of the doubt, unless there are other "tells."

[awoke_in_2003]

301. yeah, that is why I edited my post

I jumped, thought better of it, then softened it up.

[merrily]

303. Awww. That was kind of you.

You could have been correct the first time, but it's better to err on giving the benefit of the doubt. We can always escalate later, LOL!

[bvar22]

152. Agree.

We are watching the last vestiges of the New Deal and Great Society being wiped away before our eyes.....by DEMOCRATIC Presidents!!!
The Middle Class and Working Class are being left behind.

One of the few times I am truly thankful for living in a RED state.
Hillary will lose my state by over 20 points, so I am free to vote my conscience without helping Republicans. I will proudly cast my vote for a Liberal and the policies I believe in, or write in a real Democrat.
Hillary will NOT get my vote.

Actually, few states will be in play, but be smart.

[Art_from_Ark]

221. Are you sure that Hillary would lose your state by 20 points?

Sure, that's been the recent trend, but Hillary was First Lady of Arkansas for 12 years, so I think she would fare better in Arkansas, at least, than recent Democratic candidates.

[asiliveandbreathe]

94. I am seeing a pattern here

Trolls? - Not sure - perhaps the fact Hillary is polling very well against Republicans who MIGHT BE running....Dem heads don't explode..Republican heads do -

Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way -

[merrily]

255. Why don't you post that in GD or the Hillary Group or any one of the other groups where your posts

would be appropriate? DU's left has only one group where it should have to respond to the same kinds of replies it gets in GD and this is it. Yet, DU's right has zero respect for that.

[olegramps]

108. Oh, yes Clinton was a complete failure who left the country with an excess that Bush gave his buds.

[Dwight42]

121. I think you are missing the point

My yardstick of a democrat is FDR and he was far from perfect but he realized that allowing the wealthy to control the country would not work without the masses having a decent living standard and a chance to rise on the economic ladder.

The Democrat Party of today is filled people not worthy to claim the title of democrat. The Clinton's, Obama, Reid and the rest, with very few exceptions are far from FDR and actually not as good a democrat as Nixon would be were he alive today.

As far as trolling; since when is it considered trolling on DU when all we are asking for a a fair shake at who we chose for public service. I think to support whom ever is knighted by the power brokers is foolish and worse than trolling.

And that seems to be the problem today with both parties, ''Public Service'' has been replaced with ''Self Service''.

[olegramps]

285. Yes, he was just a terrible president in whose presidency Americans suffered not.

[merrily]

256. NAFTA and repeal of Glass Steagall dwarfed the importance of that modest surplus, which, btw,

just might have had something to do with the many tax increases of the prior two Presidents in combination with Clinton's doing away with "welfare as we know it.

But, these are arguments for GD. Challenges like your don't really belong in this group.

[olegramps]

287. Democrats opposed repeal of Glass Steagall until:

They got a compromise that prohibited banks from "red-lining" minority dominated areas and refusing to provide loans for purchase of homes. When it got to his desk it was veto proof. By the way Republicans now say that the housing loan crisis was the fault of forcing banks to give minorities loans. I am in total agreement that it was a bad move, but the blame is not solely rest with Clinton. Go read up on NAFTA and who pushed it.

[merrily]

296. Clinton and Greenspan BOTH actively lobbied for repeal so "veto proof" is a shibboleth .

Last edited Sun Mar 1, 2015, 08:51 AM - Edit history (2)

Democratic Senators have stated that Clinton lobbied Democrats hard for it. And their assertions are backed up by documents.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/19/wall-street-deregulation-clinton-advisers-obama

Besides, in general, no law says a President can veto something, even if he thinks is veto proof. The Constitutional power of a President to override is not limited. No one can know how an attempt to override a veto will actually go until a veto actually occurs and an override vote is actually taken. People have changed votes in the face of a Presidential veto.

In the specific case of repeal of Glass Steagall, however, the fact is, Clinton supported it. Not only that, but he defended his support of repeal, even after the 2008 collapse.




And regardless of who "pushed" NAFTA, Clinton signed that, too. And either he supported that as well, or he lied to the American public about his support.

After much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61-38.[6] Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.[7][8] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#cite_note-5

And, of course, you did not comment on the tax increases by Reagan and Poppy, combined with ending "welfare as we know it." And despire all that, there was only a modest surplus by the time Clinton left office.

ETA: On White House support of repeal of Glass Steagall:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/19/wall-street-deregulation-clinton-advisers-obama

Obama hired/appointed many of the same people who pushed for repeal of Glass Steagall. (Under Obama, Sperling came up with the idea of the seqester, in case the Grand Bargain Committee failed in its mission. And, of course, many of the same people who pushed for repeal of Glass Steagall are now advising Hillary's campaign, including on the specific issue of income inequality.

[olegramps]

299. I never said that he didn't support it; but it had the support of many Democrats in the Senate.

As to being only a modest surplus, it was grand breakthrough after the devastating deficits of Reagan and poppy Bush that were eclipsed by his son. I don't understand why people would minimize this fact unless it serves to further condemn Clinton. I am not suggesting that he was the greatest president, but he sure wasn't the worse and one hell of lot better for the nation than Reagan of either Bush. He resisted that attempt of the PNAC to take us to war in Iraq seeing it as a potential disaster.

[merrily]

300. What a Democratic President and his advisors push on Congress does impact Democratic Senators.

I know some on DU don't believe that a President can do a thing about votes in Congress, even those cast by members of his own party, but I don't buy that at all. It's been disproven by too many Presidents.

I never said he was the worst President. I made a specific reply to your comment about a budget excess and then to your specific comments about NAFTA and repeal of Glass Steagall.

[rhett o rick]

314. No one told the banks they had to make bad loans. They told them they couldn't use race or

neighborhood as a reason to deny a loan. Saying that the Pres signed the bill because it was "veto proof" is a rationalization. If he had principles he would have forced Congress to override. Now it's on him.

[olegramps]

316. I didn't say he signed it because it was veto proof. It was veto proof was only a fact.

He like many thought that it would strengthen trade, but it was a miserable failure that the corporations used to gut American jobs. What makes you think that if he opposed it that the congress would reverse its overwhelming support for the treaty?

[840high]

235. Thank you.

[rhett o rick]

47. You don't get it. The last time the DLC put up a candidate against a Bush was 2000

and it was a disaster. Why try it again? There are a lot of good people in the Party that have integrity.

If you want another Bush in the WH, nominate H.Clinton-Sachs and split the Party.

[Mnpaul]

200. Of course they want to try it again

they just can't let go of their failed ideas.

[rhett o rick]

204. What I think is that their owners don't care if HRC loses to Jeb. They would be happy with either.

[cheapdate]

216. And they won, but had it stolen.

[rhett o rick]

217. Why take the chance again? Nominate an honest progressive and break the chain of

Wall Street domination. Give freedom a chance.

[cheapdate]

229. It's a chance no matter what.

We could run a progressive and lose. Then what? Or maybe a progressive wins. Either way, I want the same thing you do, I'm pretty sure.

[rhett o rick]

270. We may want the same thing, but I refuse to play the Oligarchs game of

who is better than the worst.

[cheapdate]

271. It's my judgement that a messy win is better than principled losing.

We lose when a free-trade, Wall Street Democrat wins, We lose a whole lot more when a Republican wins. A Wall Street Democrat will simply hold the course. A Republican twists the screws, stokes the engine, and burns the lifeboats.

(on edit: this is NOT premised on the idea that HRC is the only viable candidate for the Party's nomination. It's way too early to make that judgement.)

I'd LOVE Bernie Sanders for president. I'm in a red state and my vote doesn't mean shit. Tennessee's votes will go to the GOP. I voted for Rocky Anderson and the Justice Party in 2012. Maybe living in a red state opens my tolerance for imperfect Democrats. I see what these people (Republicans, Tea Partiers) are capable of on a daily basis. Every morning paper brings a fresh horror from the state house in Nashville.

[merrily]

262. Barely won. Gore didn't even carry his home state.

It's so transparent. A liberal loses and the entire party supposedly just has to go Third Way. DLCers and New Democrats lose and it's two stolen Presidential elections in a row (yet Congress passes no election reform).

DU's right is still trying to sell that electability joke, even after 2010-14.

[cheapdate]

266. Please tell me you're not suggesting a progressive Democrat would win

Tennessee in 2016, or would've won Tennessee in 2000?

(P.S. in 2000, many Tennesseans believed that Bill Clinton had secretly made a deal with the UN and black heliccopters were coming for your guns. Seriously.)

[Vincardog]

111. She is better than a Republican shtick doesn't work when her POLICIES are the SAME as the GOP

If you can't come up with a reason to support her POLICIES why defend HER?

[merrily]

246. Perhaps you would be happier posting in a different group?

[LovingA2andMI]

7. And the Mic is dropped...

By the #TotallyOnPoint Nature of this thread. Thank you for posting it!

[JDPriestly]

8. Hillary Clinton. Where does she stand on the issues of our time?

The OP states the problem so clearly.

I have asked Hillary supporters to define her stance on the issues of our time, and they can't. If you can't tell me where she stands on issues such as the ones listed in the OP, then I wonder why you support her. Any reason other than just to be on the bandwagon?

I hear a lot that people support her because they think she can win. If you don't even know where she stands on the issues and what she will do if she wins, how can you support her. That's blind obedience.

[Mnpaul]

14. Hillary is all about promoting Hillary

Everything is geared towards that and nothing else.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

39. That sums it up nicely.

[uberblonde]

153. So we can add mindreading to your list of talents?

Gee, I see a woman who's been involved in activism from a young age. Little did I realize she was plotting to take over the world.

[Mnpaul]

191. You don't have to be a mind reader

all you have to do is pay attention to what was going on. The Iraq vote is a prime example.

[aquart]

227. YOU MEAN HILLARY HAS THE EGO OF A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE???

OMG!!!!!

[840high]

236. 'aye

[Ichingcarpenter]

54. HILLARY'S VISION

Last edited Thu Feb 26, 2015, 03:18 AM - Edit history (1)

As a presidential candidate, says one political veteran, Hillary Clinton does not offer the country a “fresh start.” “For all of her advantages, she is not a healing figure,” he continues. “The more she tries to moderate her image … the more she compounds her exposure as an opportunist. And after two decades of the Bush-Clinton saga, making herself the candidate of the future could be a challenge.”

Who said this? Marco Rubio? Scott Walker? A consultant for their fledgling 2016 campaigns? In fact, none of the above. They are the words of David Axelrod, the uber-strategist for Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, and are drawn from his new memoir, Believer. The hefty, engaging book has been dissected mostly for Axelrod’s analysis of his former client and his presidency, but it’s actually far more remarkable from another vantage: It is a reminder of how far liberals who were in the pro-Obama camp in 2008 have traveled in their view of Hillary Clinton—and how much they’ve allowed themselves to forget along the way.

This amnesia may seem harmless now, but it might come back to haunt Democrats in the general election.
The reconciliation of Obama’s following with the presumptive 2016 Democratic nominee has been the great underexamined story on the Democratic side of the ledger heading into an election year. One simply cannot overstate how much ill will there was between the two camps in 2007 and 2008—that historic, down-to-the-wire primary standoff was based not in policy contrasts (good luck recalling the differences in their health plans) but in a deeply personal clash about the meaning and methods of progressive politics. “Triangulating and poll-driven positions because we’re worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won’t do,” Obama said in his breakout speech in Des Moines in November 2007. “This party … has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the American people when we led, not by polls, but by principle; not by calculation, but by conviction; when we summoned the entire nation to a common purpose—a higher purpose.”


Clinton fired back sarcastically three months later: “Now, I could stand up here and say, ‘Let’s just get everybody together. Let’s get unified. The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.’ ” The legions of young Obama foot soldiers in Iowa, South Carolina, and elsewhere were fired not just by airy notions of hope and change and making history but by the more negative motivation that the prospect of a Clinton nomination stirred in them.

snip

And yet here we are, eight years later, and it is almost as if that great showdown never happened. Some of those young Obama loyalists have now assumed leading positions in the vast Clinton apparatus, as have some of his most senior campaign staff. With no serious opposition looming in next year’s primaries, Clinton’s standing among Democratic voters is vastly stronger than it was at this point eight years ago (right around the time Obama announced his challenge), notes Nate Cohn in the New York Times. As was the case then, the papers are full of eyebrow-raising stories about overlap between her political backers and donors to the Clinton Foundation. Yet whereas in 2007 those stories were seized on by many liberals as confirmation of their wariness of Clinton, this time around there is little sign of the stories—or those about her continuing to rake in $300,000 speaking fees—causing any real agita on the left.


more..........

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/obama_s_supporters_may_have_forgotten_how_much_they_despised_hillary_clinton.2.html


Clinton speech to FMI-United Fresh meeting lacks vision
June 16, 2014


Clinton started off by saying she was "thrilled to talk to two groups that every day help families get access to healthy foods" and that she wanted to talk about "hard choices" in food and leadership in the country.

Clinton praised United Fresh for its program to provide salad bars in schools and noted that "there is a debate in Congress" about whether to stick with the healthier meals rules imposed on schools under the 2010 Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act. She did not specifically endorse sticking with the new rules, but said "the idea it is too expensive to provide healthy foods" is a "false choice."

She also noted that the Clinton Foundation cofounded the Alliance for a Healthier Generation with the American Heart Association. The alliance, she said, has convinced food and beverage companies to reduce calories in their products. The foundation, she said, has a partnership with McDonald's, "and we need more of those."


http://www.hagstromreport.com/2014news_files/2014_0616_clinton-speech-fmi-united-fresh-lack-vision.html


Hillary Clinton, tell us your vision

By Eugene Robinson

Her memoir of the years she spent as secretary of state, “Hard Choices,” offers little guidance. My view is that Clinton did an excellent job as America’s chief diplomat, but if she has an overarching philosophy of foreign relations, she left it out of the book. We know that President Obama believes in multilateralism and the sparing use of U.S. military force. We know that some critics believe we should be more interventionist and others believe we should be more isolationist. “Hard Choices” doesn’t really tell us which way Clinton leans, though her record suggests a slight nod toward the hawkish side.

In the book, Clinton rejects the idea of choosing between the “hard power” of military might and the “soft power” of diplomacy, sanctions and foreign aid. Instead, she advocates “smart power,” which seems to mean “all of the above.” When I hear officials talking about “smart” this or “smart” that, I hear a buzzword that is often meant to obscure policy choices rather than illuminate them.

Clinton’s message on domestic affairs is also unclear. At the Iowa event, she sounded what is sure to be a major theme for both Democrats and Republicans in the coming campaign: the need to ease the plight of the beleaguered middle class.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-hillary-clinton-needs-to-tell-americans-her-vision/2014/09/15/b1f39ee4-3d09-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html



HILLARY'S VISION



A couple of months ago, Robert Kagan wrote a manifesto that attacked Obama’s foreign policy as weak and cowardly. He hailed the triumphal return of neo-conservatism and interventionism, arguing that superior force must be central to US policy.

A follow-up interview with Kagan appeared in the New York Times:

“But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his “mainstream” view of American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.

“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

Now, in an interview with the Atlantic, Hillary shows boldly that Kagan’s confidence in her is not misplaced. It is a full-throated call for reliance on US power to subdue or tame all adversaries, and her list includes not only the jihadists of ISIS, but Iran, Russia, and China. She joins the chorus blaming Obama for a too cautious approach to military intervention. On Israel, she gives not an inch to worldwide condemnation of the occupation and the massacre in Gaza: “Israel did what it had to do.”

What’s most striking is the lack of vision beyond American superiority and the need to try to convince or compel the rest of the world to fall in line. Nowhere in the long interview does she mention climate change, poverty and inequality, or any of the existential problems that require international cooperation if there is to be any hope.


http://leonsoped.blogspot.dk/2014/08/hillarys-vision.html



Hillary's Evasive Views on the NSA


On Tuesday, the technology journalist Kara Swisher raised the subject of surveillance while questioning the former Secretary of State. "Would you throttle back the NSA in the ways that President Obama has promised but that haven't come to pass?" she asked. Clinton's successfully evasive answer unfolded as follows:

Clinton: Well, I think the NSA needs to be more transparent about what it is doing, sharing with the American people, which it wasn't. And I think a lot of the reaction about the NSA, people felt betrayed. They felt, wait, you didn't tell us you were doing this. And all of a sudden now, we're reading about it on the front page...

So when you say, "Would you throttle it back?" Well, the NSA has to act lawfully. And we as a country have to decide what the rules are. And then we have to make it absolutely clear that we're going to hold them accountable. What we had because of post-9/11 legislation was a lot more flexibility than I think people really understood, and was not explained to them. I voted against the FISA Amendments in 2008 because I didn't think they went far enough to kind of hold us accountable in the Congress for what was going on.

Swisher: By flexibility you mean too much spying power, really.

Clinton: Well yeah but how much is too much? And how much is not enough? That's the hard part. I think if Americans felt like, number one, you're not going after my personal information, the content of my personal information. But I do want you to get the bad guys, because I don't want them to use social media, to use communications devices invented right here to plot against us. So let's draw the line. And I think it's hard if everybody's in their corner. So I resist saying it has to be this or that. I want us to come to a better balance.
This will not do. The answer elides the fact that Clinton has not been a passive actor in surveillance policy. "What the rules are" is something that she was responsible for helping to decide. She served in the United States Senate from 2001 to 2009. She cast votes that enabled the very NSA spying that many now regard as a betrayal. And she knew all about what the NSA wasn't telling the public. To say now that the NSA should've been more transparent raises this question: Why wasn't Clinton among the Democrats working for more transparency?

Clinton may resist "saying" that surveillance policy "has to be this or that," but it must be something specific. "Let's draw the line" and "I want us to come to a better balance" are shameless weasel phrases when you're vying to call the shots. What is being balanced in her view? What should the NSA have revealed earlier? How much transparency should it provide going forward? What does the law require of the NSA? Since 9/11, when has the NSA transgressed against the law as Clinton sees it? Those questions hint at the many ways that her position is evasive. So long as no one else contests her party's nomination, she can get away with it.


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/hillary-clintons-evasive-position-on-nsa-spying/386024/


Hillary Praises Fracking, Stays Silent on Keystone -



At a speech to an environmental advocacy group, Clinton came out in favor of fracking—and ignored the controversial pipeline project.
At a speech to the League of Conservation Voters in midtown Manhattan Monday night, before hundreds of deep-pocketed donors, Hillary Clinton praised the environmental legacy of Teddy Roosevelt, touted the prospect of new green technologies, and had warm words for Barack Obama’s aggressive efforts to combat climate change.

Absent from the former Secretary of State’s speech? Any sense of where she stood on the controversial Keystone pipeline project, or what she would do differently as president to steer the nation towards a more sustainable future.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/01/hillary-praises-fracking-stays-silent-on-keystone.html


Not in her office equal pay for men and women


During her time in the U.S. Senate, Clinton paid women in her office 72 cents for each dollar paid to men, according to a report by Washington Free Beacon.

Analyzing data obtained from official Senate expenditure reports, Free Beacon concluded that the median annual salary for female staffers was $15,708.38 less than the median salary for men, between 2002 to 2008.

That’s about a 28 percent gender wage gap:

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/02/257200-hillary-clinton-paid-female-staff-28-percent-less-men/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic&utm_content=ijreview&utm_campaign=Politics

[Enthusiast]

73. Look people, we just need more war!

[L0oniX]

159. Cackle cackle cackle.

[Enthusiast]

280. The cackle is especially disturbing.

But that sentiment is clearly anti woman.

[pscot]

79. Where there is no vision, the People perish

[Martin Eden]

104. Kudos for a very thorough, substantive post!

Bottom line:
Hillary Clinton does not represent progressive values and the interests of the working class.
If she is the best the Democratic Party can put forward, woe is us.

[MissDeeds]

127. Excellent post

[bhikkhu]

9. Well, at least you're open about it

Its relatively easy to discuss issues, events and politics here with like-minded minds. It very hard to have a reasonable discussion with someone's gut, however. In the OP there's not much but gut.

[whereisjustice]

13. lol - nice try. Go cry wolf somewhere else.

[pasto76]

20. 'go cry wolf' look at your own posts

have fun helping a republican win next year. Thanks for nothing

[merrily]

248. Perhaps you should post things like that in GD, or the Hillary Group or some other group?

This is supposed to be the one group where DU's left gets to post without getting replies like that.

[sunnystarr]

16. Thank you. I cringe when I read these kind of posts

and for a moment think that somehow I've landed in Freeperville.

This is a Democratic forum. I can't think of one potential Dem candidate that I would describe in the words posted by the Op. We may all have our favorite even if we don't believe they can compete for the nomination. I think any Dem who wants to enter the Primary should be welcome. Personally I would love it so that our ideas and policies have more exposure.

There isn't any reason for personal attacks and trash talking about any Dem candidate.

[JDPriestly]

27. Women in general, or a specific group of women?

When you speak of women, are you including women of all races?

Could you, perhaps, be more specific about this?

[LynneSin]

30. I've been through 3 presidential elections and crap posts like the OP...

serve absolutely no purpose and I applaud your reply.

I'm not even sure who I'm supporting in the primaries because I'm not overly keen on Clinton and I'm still waiting to see the full slate before I decide.

And unlike the OP I truly do know what is 'vomit-worthy' and that is the thought of any republican in the White House. As much as Hillary bugs me on some issues theRe aren't enough of them to make me or most sane Dems here at DU from supporting her if she gets the nomination and especially if the race is tight. But that election is more that 18 months away. And btw I saw this same thing in February 2007 where everyone assumed that Hillary was already the nominee. I wonder how that worked out..........

I just wish posters would learn to discuss issues instead of just name calling people in our own party, people whom many here at DU do support. If a person wants to gain respect from others here at DU then using ugly words towards someone like Hillary Clinton isn't going to do the trick.

[Hekate]

279. Discussion if issues takes a back seat to mocking her personality and voice. Her cankles are next.

Personally I want a robust primary but since no one's filed yet I guess we just have to keep wading through this obsession over one Democratic woman and her physical flaws.

[blkmusclmachine]

11. http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/9378/10425744_2.jpg?v=8CDBD2ABE243CF0

?v=8CDBD2ABE243CF0

[SoapBox]

12. She cannot win.

The "majority" of all Americans that will vote, will not elect her President.

If we think there is Bush burnout, just wait and see what happens if she is our nominee.

[whereisjustice]

15. Agree. She will not win, instead her faux folksy banter will fall as flat as Romney's did

[pasto76]

22. wow you sound exactly like everyone who predicted an Obama loss

"people" wont vote for her. Funny, thats what 'they' said about Obama. twice. If she runs, she wins. I'll contact you to collect my dollar when she does.

[Ino]

24. That's what "she" said about Obama...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/04/candidate-clint/

Sources with direct knowledge of the conversation between Sen. Clinton and Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., prior to the Governor’s endorsement of Obama say she told him flatly, "He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win."

[rhett o rick]

48. You have it backwards. She ran and lost against Obama. People didn't vote for her

and they won't in the future if she runs against Jeb. The people will write in Ralph Nader.

[uberblonde]

156. Gee, that's not really true.

Hillary Clinton's national popular vote total in the 2008 primaries was 17,857,501, or 48.04%.

Obama's popular vote total were 17,584,692, or 47.31%.

Remember when the Michigan delegates were sanctioned for an early primary and given only half a vote at the convention? Hillary Clinton originally won 34.5 of those delegates to Obama's 29.5.

In Florida, Clinton beat Obama with 50% of the vote to Obama's 33%. Also because of an early primary, the Florida delegation was completely stripped of their 210 delegates. Obama requested them all to be restored the day before the Democratic convention began, and the DNC seated the delegations.

So when you tell yourself this little fairy tale, it may soothe you. But Clinton came very close to winning.

[rhett o rick]

171. "Clinton came very close to winning." And Al Gore came "very close to winning" in 2000. But they

both lost. Take a lesson from 2000 and nominate a progressive. We need change esp in the areas of economy and war. HRC will not bring change to either. Besides, why nominate someone with her baggage when we have excellent other people to run.

[uberblonde]

183. What part of...

"She won the popular primary vote" don't you understand?

[RiverLover]

192. Gee, that's not really true.

Q: Did Clinton win the popular vote?

A: Obama won more votes unless you count Michigan, where he wasn’t on the ballot.

FULL QUESTION

Did Hillary Clinton actually end up with more popular votes than Barack Obama? Given that there is some discussion on whether to count the popular votes of Michigan and Florida, as well as how to count caucus votes, who did end up with the higher count?

FULL ANSWER

After the primary season wrapped up on Tuesday, Clinton commended her supporters and claimed once again that she had won the popular vote: "Nearly 18 million of you cast your votes for our campaign, carrying the popular vote with more votes than any primary candidate in history."

Did she? Now that all the primaries and caucuses are over we can take one, final look.

Obama won more total votes than Clinton in the contests where they both appeared on the ballot. Clinton won the popular vote only if you count votes from Michigan, where Obama’s name did not appear on the ballot.

Any way you cut it, the candidates’ vote totals are within less than 1 percent of each other. Both candidates got roughly 18 million votes, but since four states don’t list official counts, the precise totals can’t be known....

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/clinton-and-the-popular-vote/

So surprising she lied about it.

[rhett o rick]

194. It's not necessary to get rude. I understand that HRC lost the primary to

Obama. Again I ask, why should we nominate HRC with her baggage when we have better candidates available.

HRC may have the big banks behind her, but the people need someone to be on our side.

[RiverLover]

205. She didn't win the popular primary vote. nt

[rhett o rick]

207. I am not sure of the significance. She didn't win the primary. She lost. Again, why choose her with

her baggage? I will answer since no one here has an answer. The big money of Wall Street want her whether she can beat Jeb or not. It's a win-win for Wall Street to have HRC run against Jeb.

22% of America's children live in poverty, 45% live in low income families. If that matters, don't vote for the Wall Street candidate.

[RiverLover]

222. Totally agree

And plenty of us here had that answer. But you said it very well!

[merrily]

268. Sanctioned for violating her agreement with the DNC? Oh, no, how very unfair!

BTW:

This is a group, not a forum. Groups often serve as safe havens for members who share similar interests and viewpoints. Individuals who post messages contrary to a particular group's stated purpose can be excluded from posting in that group. For detailed information about this group and its purpose, click here.

Posts like yours seem more appropriate for GD or the Hillary Group than for this group.

[leftofcool]

66. Really? She beats all the GOP candidates by double digits.

[rhett o rick]

195. As did the other DLC candidate Al Gore. Ooops, my mistake. nm

[CountAllVotes]

241. That was no mistake

How exactly could we forget?

[PedXing]

17. She's not all that different from all DLC candidates.

Which means she's not all that different from Presidents Clinton and Obama.

She does lack the oratory skills of her fellow DLCers. But, then, so do most politicians.

[JDPriestly]

32. What she lacks is charism. They used to call it "it" in the old Hollywood.

She doesn' have it, and 2000 advisers can't give it to her.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

41. Hafta disagee w/ u there JD. Wit the right coachin from advisors, Hillary can remake herself, appear mor folksy & feel ur pain.

[PedXing]

49. That's exactly the right word. Thanks!

[JDPriestly]

51. How many elections has Hillary won in the past?

I think she ran and won a Senate seat twice.

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

But I think that is it. Elizabeth Warren has only won one election. Sorry. I edited this to correct the number of elections she has won.

Bernie Sanders is the one with lots of political experience and has run the highest number of successful election campaigns of those three potential contenders.

And Hillary won to a great extent on Bill Clinton's popularity.

Elizabeth Warren electfifies crowds. Bernie Sanders electrifies his crowds. I think that Hillary Clinton gets by a lot on her reputation and reknown but not so much on her own personality.

[PBass]

147. I hope that all of your 47,000 posts are not as utterly foolish as the ones in this thread.

I think she ran and won a Senate seat twice.

OMG, great point! Just eight years in the Senate, and four years as Secretary of State. What has she actually DONE?

Bernie Sanders is the one with lots of political experience and has run the highest number of successful election campaigns of those three potential contenders.

Bernie Sanders is a Socialist who caucuses with Democrats, and even though he holds solid positions on key issues, a Socialist candidate is not going to win a presidential election in 2015. His candidacy will do even worse than Dennis Kucinich did. He's also not that compelling - he comes off like a college professor. Bernie will mainly function to make Hillary look more "reasonable" to independent voters. "I'm not a Socialist" is a winning campaign slogan in 2015.

And Hillary won to a great extent on Bill Clinton's popularity.

YES, THAT'S RIGHT. Hillary relied on her HUSBAND to win (because women do that ALL THE TIME, amirite?!!!???) Hillary didn't campaign, she didn't debate the competition, she didn't do interviews... she FOOLED everyone by hiding behind Bill Clinton's record (OMG a terrible president... terrible! And then Hillary fooled the voters by using his terrible record to win.) Great analysis!

Elizabeth Warren electfifies crowds. Bernie Sanders electrifies his crowds. I think that Hillary Clinton gets by a lot on her reputation and reknown but not so much on her own personality.

YES, SO TRUE. (You forgot to say "Hillary is shrill!&quot Everybody is sooo bored by Hillary, and nobody will be excited. You see everybody falling asleep when Hillary makes an appearance. Look at how horrible she was at the last Democratic convention. Nobody likes Hillary! Just compare Hillary's poll numbers with Bernie Sanders (wait, who?) and Elizabeth Warrens (that name sounds familiar).

[JDPriestly]

149. I can see you are emotionally involved with Hillary's candidacy.

If Hillary is the candidate, you will see that I am right. She is not a good candidate.

She should have beat Obama by a wide margin in 2008. She didn't because she does not have charisma. It's just a fact.

Watch carefully as things unfold.

There is one circumstance under which she can win: if the Republicans nominate a really bad candidate. That could happen.

Hillary is sold out to big money. She does not relate to people well. She has a slim chance of winning and election.

Hillary's name has been out there for a couple of decades, and her husband's presidency is remembered as a time of relative prosperity. That is why she is ahead in the polls. It isn't really that people take to her that well.

When the Republicans and opponents within the Democratic Party start pointing to the many problems that arose from Bill's presidency and Hillary's own weaknesses, the polls will weaken.

Hillary has a penchant for making bad mistakes when campaigning. If you are her supporter, you should know that better than I.

We shall see. I could be wrong, but I feel that I should continue to raise questions. If everyone wants Hillary in spite of my warnings, so be it. I'm in California. It won't make any difference whether I vote for her or not because Democrats could nominate Howdy Doody and he would win here. Schwarzenegger pretty much destroyed the Republican brand in California.

I usually work very hard in campaigns, but now, at 71, I can't do that for health reasons. So that is the way it is.

[uberblonde]

167. She beat him in the primary popular vote.

And if the DNC had allowed the delegates from Florida and Michigan into the count, she would have been the nominee.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

263. You nailed it JD.

[lobodons]

18. Gore "lost" Florida by 500 votes

and we ended up with Roberts and Alito and a 5-4 Conservative SCOTUS

If something similar happens in 2016, it will be a 6-3 (or god forbid a 7-2) Conservative SCOTUS for the next 30 years.

I am voting for WHOEVER the Democratic Candidate is in 2016!!! For whatever the downfalls that candidate has, it does not even compare with what a 6-3 or 7-2 Conservative SCOTUS would/could do to this country for the next 30 years!!!!!

[whereisjustice]

23. you should give a shit about who gets the nomination, blindly saying you don't care

just moves the Democratic Party closer to the Republican Party.

On the other hand if you are comfortable letting an authoritarian party of Wall Street front men pick the nominee years ahead of time and spend every fucking dollar and dime grooming them for an entitled place on the throne, chances are I'm not going to be able to convince you that it is a very bad idea.

[ReRe]

21. I don't know if anyone else seen this...

... in her speech (yesterday?) I've only seen video shots with no sound... I learned something without sound than I probably wouldn't have noticed with sound: I seen her bobbing up and down like Rush Limbaugh and walking free-style around the stage like Ted Cruz and the tea-baggers. What's wrong with standing behind a podium like a Presidential Candidate, rather than walking around like she's doing stand-up comedy?

[whereisjustice]

26. lol - $300,000 a pop buys a lot of gratuitous swagger.

[ReRe]

29. I wouldn't pay $3 to see it...

... I'm NOT impressed. She just seems phony to me now.

[JDPriestly]

33. Probably coached to do that so that she appears to be more relaxed

and more "with" the people in the audience. It is probably a technique to make her look more approachable and more like a populist. It probably won't help. She is what she is and who she is. Caring comes from the heart. You can't just act like you care when you are running for president. People will see through it.

[ReRe]

38. Yeah...

... I assume someone is coaching her to act like that. It's anything but populist. It looks pompous and very phony to me. Disingenuous.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

42. The hand wavin is what gets me. Hillary definitely needs to work on her speakimg skills -terrible delivery - not to mention her position on impt issues.

[ReRe]

57. I wish she would go ahead...

... and get the show on the road. Maybe then the "librul" media would ask her some proper questions on the important issues. I'm getting rather tired of the charade. And maybe it would induce Bernie Sanders to make up his mind, once and for all, and any others who are thinking about throwing their hat in the ring.

[leftofcool]

67. She does get passionate when talking about womens and girls rights

But please don't let me keep you from your right wing talking points. Is you name Karl Rove by any chance?

[ReRe]

71. Funny...

... I haven't heard her speak on ANY issues YET. Why hasn't she entered the race yet? Answer me that, please. Why? Please give me a link to her latest speech. Is that when she mentioned women and girls rights? Has she spoken on any of the multitude of important issues that loom large in this country? And I'm not a corporatist, so no, I'm not KKKarl Rove.

[Maedhros]

172. I notice she wasn't too worried about the women and girls of Iraq when she voted for the IWR.

Women and girls are subjected to disproportionate suffering in war zones - this is well established.

[hedda_foil]

25. OMG, you have so completely nailed it.

It's so obvious, it's hard to believe that we haven't quite grasped that simple point before. She's sitting out the causes of the century, causes that could literally mean life or death for this country and the planet. She's sitting it all out until the summer instead of standing up for the people. What does that say about Mrs Clinton?

[whereisjustice]

31. I guess she's too busy trying to keep her hands clean.

[aquart]

226. She was investigated down to her underwear drawer. They found bupkis.

Of course, since then she's been a senator and a secretary of state...you'd think the vetting would have found something. No? Oh, well. Maybe allowing a charitable foundation to take foreign money to help foreign children...

Well? Is Wicked Hillary committing treason helping children? Run with it. Carly Fiorina did.

[ReRe]

35. It says...

... she thinks she's in like Flint. That she has nothing to worry about, that she thinks she's the inevitable, invincible Democratic Party Candidate. She's acting like the 1%, because she can't help it. The Democratic 1% and the Republican 1% are just alike.

[Sarcastica]

34. "more vomit inducing?"

drama much?

I'll be pleased to vote for Sec Clinton.

I cut my teeth on Nixon. I'll be excited about a candidate who remembers the history that matters.

[Dwight42]

43. Get a Barf Bag, it's going to get worse.

To tell the truth, Nixon is closer to what the Democrats should stand for than Bill or Hillary. In fact Nixon could not get elected by either party he would be considered too leftist. The centre has moved so far to the right and moving it back to the days of FDR or JFK is impossible.

I am afraid history will show the last 100 years of US politics a total disaster, an intellectual Black Plague.

[sheshe2]

40. I am in a group and will delete my posts, sorry.

Manny requested this by PM, sadly he does not show the same courtesy to others. He gave me no courtesy when he railroaded a thread about children and a SOTU address. When he railroaded a thread of mine more than 22 posts on this thread.

Everybody Matters

I want our actions to tell every child in every neighborhood, your life matters, and we are committed to improving your life chances - as committed as we are to working on behalf of our own kids. I want future generations to know that we are a people who see our differences as a great gift, that we’re a people who value the dignity and worth of every citizen -- man and woman, young and old, black and white, Latino, Asian, immigrant, Native American, gay, straight, Americans with mental illness or physical disability. Everybody matters. I want them to grow up in a country that shows the world what we still know to be true: that we are still more than a collection of red states and blue states; that we are the United States of America.



President Barack Obama, State of the Union, January 20, 2015

Talk...meet walk.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026119475

So, whereisjustice? Good question. Will Manny just except my apology for being in his group? Will he ban me? Or will he give me another hide?

I am giving this group the courtesy of an apology and bowing out. I hope I will be treated with the same respect. May I repeat, I hope that as a woman I will be treated with respect.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

45. Of course you deserve respect. What does that hafta do with bein a woman?

[ColesCountyDem]

46. At least he PM-ed you. Some group hosts don't have that much class.

I won't mention any names, but some group hosts will not only ban you, but when you ask why (or anything else), they won't even be courteous enough to answer your PM.

[BeanMusical]

52. Well said.

[sheshe2]

56. Really?

I am a host in the hated dreaded BOG. Lol~ bet that is who you speak of. I give a warning. I explain on a thread they are posting in a group not GD. I give them a chance to delete, some do some don't. I have also reinstated people that have posted me. I answer their posts. Me, I am fair. I listen and talk to them. I do it openly and honestly on the board, not by private mail.

[ColesCountyDem]

59. Not BOG, and yes, really.

I had the sheer gall-- audacity, even-- to disagree with a factual statement a poster made. When I was asked what 'right' I had to do so, I replied that I had the same right as any DU-er does to point out/comment on a post that had made the 'greatest' page.

That's all I did, and "Bingo!", I was banned.

[rhett o rick]

77. Really! I think private mail is more discrete. When I accidentally posted in the BOG

a host couldn't wait to ban me.

[pscot]

83. I was banned from the Hilary group

for one moderately skeptical post. I will say they were polite about it, but still.

[BeanMusical]

257. I thought that you were bowing out?

[merrily]

240. True, but I still respect their requests to delete posts when I post in a group by mistake.

I tend to post right off the Latest Threads page and a time or two failed to notice that I was clicking on the title of a thread that had been posted in a group. Once, I noticed myself and deleted. Another time, a host posted, asking me to delete and I did.

The disrespect this group gets, however, may make me modify my behavior.

[ColesCountyDem]

273. I respect requests to to delete posts too, if and when I get one.

I never got such a request. The group's host simply blocked me, refuses to answer polite PM's asking why, etc. . Such action is not worthy of respect.

[MannyGoldstein]

190. What does being a woman have to do with being treated with respect?

Last edited Thu Feb 26, 2015, 10:16 PM - Edit history (1)

That's silly; all people should be treated with respect.

IIRC, all but one of my posts in the thread that you linked to were responses to direct questions put to me, largely by you. I answered your questions with links to evidence, then you got super angry. Then you got a post hidden on that thread for saying something totally outrageous about me and another poster.

Roughly twice as many school children are homeless today as compared to when President Obama took office. I think those children count, too.

[KauaiK]

44. At the risk of getting a nasty response...

I am not fond of Hillary or her stance on GMO's which is a ground-zerp issue here on Kauai. But I am old enough to have lived through split votes of Andersen which gave us Nixon and Nader which gave us the debacle of Geo W. Bush.

I will support the Democrat Party Nominee b/c I don't walk cluster fuck of Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Christie etc.

[whereisjustice]

295. I remember Anderson well, I think you are confusing Nixon and Reagan and neither

turned the election.

As far as Nader, 300,000 Democrats in Florida voted for Bush. Let's start there.

Not to mention Gore ran a shitty campaign in Florida.

Nader is a scapegoat used to deflect attention away from shitty campaign management.

If Democrats lose an election, Democrats are to blame.

[DeSwiss]

50. K&R

Hillary is just a symptom, our system is the problem. And the capitalism. That's what makes all this stupid shit possible.

If it weren't Hillary, it'd be some other lifeless puppet pretending to be human. It makes no difference which puppet ''we choose.'' The mold may make them look different on the outside, but everything is exactly the same on the inside.

All systems work for a while -- until they wear out. It happens to your clothes. It happens to your car. It happens to your house. It happens to you.

- And when they wear out you have to REPLACE THEM.

[aspirant]

290. IMO almost everything

happens for a reason The years of Bush Jr. woke up this country and the Loyal Left Independents and Democrats saw another Vietnam rise from the ashes.

If Gore became the President we would have been wandering around on the Democratic Party/DLC coattails with more safety net and financial regulations quietly dissolving, just a bit slower.

Then Obama came with "Hope and Change" and the AWOKEN amongst us came out in droves. Without Bush, Obama may still be sitting in a Senate seat. HRC would have continued the disguised Democratic rightward trend and one day we would have woken up to a world of complete corporate sovereignty.

Many, many American people are now able to see clearly that HRC represents a backward track. We need an upward movement for "The People" that goes beyond Obama to EQUALITY FOR ALL."

Wake Up everybody because you HAVE the power

[demosincebirth]

53. Then stay home and don't vote. I don't think your one vote will matter anyway.

[cui bono]

55. The ONLY good thing about her being president would be how she would tear the GOP a new one.

Considering we got the same corporate policies out of Obama, I wish she had won so we could have seen her go after those asshats in the Republican Party. Being a woman I'm sure they would have shown her the same disrespect they've shown Obama, but she would not have remained as quiet as he has.

[CanadaexPat]

305. History suggests otherwise

She's not been a successful fighter in the past. I don't know why people feel she would be in the future.

[MFM008]

58. because Scott Walker is so much better

??????????????????.

[darkangel218]

60. Is Scott Walker a Democrat??

He is not.
And we can elect someone else as candidate besides her.

[rhett o rick]

80. Scott Walker isn't our only other choice. In fact, choosing H.Clinton

with her Iraq War baggage would make the Party more vulnerable to defeat to a Jeb Bush.

Trying to use Scott Walker as a bludgeon is absurd.

[Scuba]

62. Kicked and recommended for hard truths that are very difficult for some of our members to accept.

For those who post "so you're going to vote Republican?" I would suggest that Hillary is a Republican, just one with a "D" after her name.

[leftofcool]

68. So, choose a different candidate to support

No one cares. But, if you are thinking Warren, you better hope she can collect a bunch of money, hope she didn't lie on her Harvard app and hope her Oklahoma real estate deals don't make her a hypocrite.

[Scuba]

70. That's an excellent defense of Hillary!

Not.

[leftofcool]

76. So, you don't have a candidate that can win?

[Scuba]

81. Yeah, I think we can win. But if Hillary is our candidate, we lose whether she wins or not.

[L0oniX]

162. Nailed it. "we lose whether she wins or not"

[rhett o rick]

78. The fact that H. Clinton can raise a lot of money shouldn't be the defining issue.

Some of us want to break the dependance on money that has gotten us where we are. You may say it's folly but we have to start somewhere. Besides, how can we Democrats trust someone that so easily betray us with her support of the Bush lies?

[Maedhros]

175. The logic behind Hillary support is defeatism.

We can't elect liberal or progressive candidates, therefore the best we can do is glumly pull the lever for Hillary.

McGovern showed that we tried our best and failed. The lesson is, never try.

[corkhead]

63. I agree with your sentiment, but I can think of even stronger political ipecac: Rahm Emanuel

[leftofcool]

69. And I care what you think because?

[Maedhros]

177. Well, your disdain is irrelevant.

However, the Party should care what Liberals and Progressives think because we are ostensibly the base of the Democratic Party. If a portion of the base is very unhappy with the presumed nominee, that can negatively impact the campaign.

[tularetom]

72. + a whole shitload

I could not agree more.

And I can't imagine the disillusionment that some here are going to feel if she actually gets elected and reveals who she really is and what she stands for.

So far she's been able to obfuscate, weasel, and babble on in glittering generalities, and nobody has even attempted to pin her down on policy. Hopefully that will happen before she becomes the nominee and we're faced with a choice betwee republican 1 and republican 2.

[RiverLover]

228. We know she likes the color purple.

Code for "I'm running as a 'centrist', wink, wink, my republican friends."

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2015/02/24/hillary-clintons-warm-purple-place

And she's smart too, gotta give her that. I mean who else ever in the history of presidential campaigns has ever put off announcing while getting paid $300000 for what are really campaign speeches, and the people who pay her that love it too. They get to write off what are really campaign donations as a business expense.

Brilliant really. Corrupt, yes, but brilliant!

[Skinner]

74. She also has cooties! (nt)

[whereisjustice]

82. Yes, infection spread by the 1% of the population who believe they are immune by birth right

[Major Hogwash]

321. Not anymore. She deleted her private cooties.

Or, so we are told.

[rock]

75. Well then

Have you considered voting for somebody else?

[rhett o rick]

107. Smugness? Really? The Democrats that ran a DLC candidate were also smug in 2000.

Why don't we nominate someone we can all get behind?

[rock]

113. Gotcha

Smugness is bad.

[rhett o rick]

116. Hey I get it. It is what it is. H. Clinton has the big money behind her and it will be

very hard for the 99% to beat the system. But we are sure as hell going to try.

[Agschmid]

84. .

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Thu Feb 26, 2015, 09:52 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

No apologies from me, I can't imagine a more vomit inducing nominee for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12774035

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is out and out Democrat bashing on a Democratic messageboard. This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Feb 26, 2015, 10:01 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: TRUST ME, I really want to vote "hide" but I can't. This poster is entitled to their opinion and their vote even if it's something I don't agree with. I sure hope we have a contested primary, but I'm coming to terms with Hillary being the best person to win in 2016. That being said the OP should know that this post was over the top IMO.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While harsh, and the fact that I disagree with the poster, I think we need such discussions to properly vet our potential candidates.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It is Democratic bashing get rid of it. I am generally critical of Hillary I also find this offensive.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is Democratic Underground and Clinton is a Democrat. If you think she is a poor choice posting something that is blatantly inflammatory and insulting like this is a terrible way to communicate that feeling. I agree with some things you wrote, but this is way over the top and you gave zero information on how she is so horrible. Link to articles, provide quotes, etc. People aren't fucking psychics and you're attacking a relatively popular Democrat on a Democrat message board. Use your brain.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Hekate]

206. Stunning

[Hepburn]

86. Hello?

She is far better than any Repuke out there. Frankly, except the Blue Dogs, any Dem is better than any Repuke.

If she is our nominee...we most likely will hold our noses and vote for her. The alternative? Most likely Jeb Bush. So exactly how is that POS a better choice? He is not...obviously.

[asiliveandbreathe]

87. Okay - get mad - mad as hell

In the mean time - who would you suggest THAT CAN BEAT JEBBIE?? - nothin' like opening the door by splitting the party - I remember Ralph Nader 2000 -

A true Democratic voter understands strategy - not some blathering mad as hell voter -

Warren is great - so is Sanders - Warren has continually declined to run - and Sanders can't do it alone...

Again, who would you suggest and how do you suppose to make it happen? - solutions please...mad as hell ain't gonna work without back-up - you got someone in your back pocket????? - with lot of dough????

[stonecutter357]

89. .

[obxhead]

90. this will probably get a lot of blue links

That just reinforce your point, although that won't be the intention for the posting of them.

[stonecutter357]

96. and she is a girl....

[BrainDrain]

99. K&R

Dude, I could not agree with you more. Bravo!!!!

[Warpy]

100. Oh, I can imagine many more vomit inducing candidates

Think about having them run that woman hating antichoice drone from PA, Casey, who was pushed here on DU because he was good on a few issues dear to men.

How about the guy who held up the ACA because he didn't realize the Hyde law already banned public money from being used on abortion, that pious idiot Baucus?

Evan Bayh is another one they could run, a shadow of his father and another conservative.

There are many truly wretched candidates the party could give us. At least Clinton is good on social issues, even though her foreign policy and economic policy are not what we need now.

I will be supporting Sanders if he runs, all the way through the primaries. If Clinton is the nominee, I will vote for her.

I think we need to do better, but while conservatives are entrenched at the top of the party, we won't.

Until then, the primaries are when we remind the inside the beltway movers and shakers that the party is still composed of people who are farther left than they are and that we won't be tame forever. There is nothing like hungry people to upset the political applecart and we're getting there.

[BeyondGeography]

101. So go out and defeat her

Ffs.

[Faux pas]

103. Just watching her 'affect' during

her speeches and interviews make me want to mass pieces of my soul. She's all giggly and 'coy' and smarmy.

[upaloopa]

105. Please propose someone to vote for who will run

Not Warren not an independent. Give us a Dem you can vote for that will run.
Hell anyone can bitch about Hillary.

[rtracey]

112. I agree

If not Hillary, then who is going to run?
a. Warren....not enough cred right now, I can see in 2020, 2024
b. Sanders ....not enough following, very liberal....socialist, I love the guy.... independent will not be elected president as long as there is a two party system...bring back the federalists and the whigs
c. Biden......no
4. O'Malley..... too tax and spend crazy


tell me who, but dont sit and bitch, offer something...

[Dwight42]

125. If money choses the candidate, then Hillary wins

Actually there is no one other than Hillary that is going to run, unless another Obama rises from Congress like a Warren and the DNC decides to go with them.

And it would not be the fist time for Hillary was rejected by ''the man behind the curtain''.

[eridani]

278. Great--more "tax and spend" bullshit. You don't seem to realize that--

--taxing and spending is the government's fucking JOB!!

[rtracey]

282. idiotic

that is an idiotic statement, and I hope it was sarcastic. No it is NOT the job of the govt too constantly elevate taxes and spend too much.

[eridani]

292. It is the job of government to fund public goods by levying taxes, period

To sociopathic conservatives, any spending whatsoever on public goods is too much, unless it is in their district. Governors in CA and MN have raised taxes, leading to budget surpluses and economic prosperity in those states. Contrast KS and WI. Taxation creates jobs in the public sector, and people with those jobs spend money on local businesses, thus boosting the private sector (in addition to the direct benefits of infrastructure).

Please stop spreading conservative bullshit.

[rtracey]

306. no one

I don't believe anyone who is a democrat believes any spending is bad. Raising taxes on ones who can afford to pay those taxes as in the 50's will be the way to go. Raising taxes on lower income individuals and families IS NOT THE WAY TO GO. Taxing all in an unfair way is not the way to run a government. You did not address the unfair aspect of the tax code in this country. Taxing individuals for corporate greed is not the way to go. Taxing individuals who live in the mountains to pay for new conveniences for those who live on the shore is not the way to go. Cutting taxes of the individuals who make far too little in money as it is, should be the way to go. Taxing farmers who pollute the bay should happen, The tax % corporations making billions should not be smaller then the % of an individual making 20,000 per year. Yes taxes do help create jobs, but you did not also state, when consumers have MORE spendable income, not less will spur the creation of those jobs. You tax someone to death, and they are not going to spend. Corporations and governments are NOT job creators, the middle class, lower middle class and upper middle class workers are the job creators. You continue to tax them in out of bound ways and you will see the jobs disappear.

[eridani]

308. That our tax system is highly regressive is something we need to fix.

Reagan cut taxes on the rich and raised taxes on the poor, which makes providing public goods far mor difficult now.

[upaloopa]

123. Yep and let's not vote because the party

didn't give us something to vote for. How is that working for us in Congress? If it weren't for President Obama's veto pen we'd be screwed all to hell.
You can vote against the repub also.

[jmondine]

114. I'm "literally" fucking myself?

Damn, and I'm at work, too. I'd better stop and pull my pants up.

[JackHughes]

117. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Unlike most Democrats, the Clintons know how to fight. Hillary Clinton can win the presidency -- preventing a Republican from taking the White House. She may even have coattails, allowing Dems to win back the Congress and other down-ballot races.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[Maedhros]

181. Yeah, she might win - but then what?

A guarantee of more war, more austerity, more horrible trade agreements, more weakening of civil rights, and more widening of the wealth gap. Meanwhile the Democratic base will CHEER!

At least if a Republican wins the Democratic base will go back to opposing those things.

[olegramps]

119. Some say the Democratic Party has deserted the workers, they have it backwards.

Sorry but it was the American workers that deserted the unions. I saw it happen in my own company. Young workers bought the Republican propaganda hook, line and sinker. They refused to join the union saying they wouldn't support corrupt union leaders with the hard earned money. The fact was that the shop stewards were fellow workers and the union have never been accused of any wrong doing let alone convicted of any charge. The instances of corrupt union leaders was primarily limited to the Teamsters who were kicked out of AFL-CIO. Union membership plummeted along with wages, pensions and health care. I hand it to the Republicans that ran a brilliant campaign of selling lies to the working class. The end result has been that labor has little influence on elections and can not get their candidates nominated. When the unions were strong that could demand that representatives actually represented their interests. That void has been filled by corporations who finance the candidates of their choice who are naturally beholding to those who made their election possible. The situation was bad enough but the Republican Supreme Court dealt the working class the final blow with the Citizens United decision. Wait if they control the House, Senate and Whitehouse. They are determined to overturn every piece of progressive legislation. Say goodbye to Social Security, Medicare, ACA, Labor Board, public education, 40 hour work week, minimum wage, child labor, EPA, OSHA, universities will become 19th century bastion for the wealthy only, labors don't need to be educated, etc.,etc., ad nausam.

[RiverLover]

230. Great post.

[DownriverDem]

126. After what you've seen with the repubs for the last 30+ years?

Are you serious? I have followed Hillary Clinton since she worked on the Watergate Hearings in the 1970s. She will make a great president. I will proudly cast my vote for the her. Millions of women are leading the way. She will bring lots of Dems into office too. Do you understand politics? I find you totally uninformed.

[Maedhros]

182. How long have you worked for her campaign? [n/t]

[Spitfire of ATJ]

131. DLC types are DYING to claim "The adults are back in charge" and kick out Obama's whole team.

[greenman3610]

133. "Because there's not a dime's worth of difference between Al Gore and George Bush"

eom

[DFW]

136. It took all of about ten seconds after SCOTUS threw the election to Bush

....to find out that there was going to be more than a dime's worth of difference.

More like $5 trillion worth. Plus, thrown in for good measure: 200,000 violent deaths, a corrupt Supreme Court and a corrupt US election system, and an environment so fucked, we may or may not have enough water to drink and grow our crops ten years from now.

Hillary may not be my choice for the nomination, but I sure as hell will vote for her if she's the nominee. I will reserve my vomiting and nausea if a Republican wins the election, and no, she isn't one.

[calimary]

137. Um... "we are literally fucking ourselves" if we sulk and stay home because she's the nominee.

Then we fuck ourselves all the way to the next Supreme Court nomination. GUARANTEED: if a CON gets to do the picking because the CON got into the White House because OUR SIDE sulked and stayed home on Election Day, here's what we'll get in a Supreme Court nominee:
1) Relatively young - will be able blight the court for several decades. (It'll be a LONG time before john roberts and samuel alito age out. and JUST LOOK at how clarence thomas and antonin scalia are managing to hang on, too.)
2) INCREASINGLY hard-ass CONservative in their outlook. Do you think for one nanosecond that jeb bush or scott walker or ben carson or chris christie or governor oops or mike huckabooboo or any of those other fuckheads would choose someone who's even moderate in his or her judicial leanings OR past rulings????
3) Completely disingenuous in Senate hearings. They're NOT going to tip their hand about how they intend to rule on issues surrounding a woman's right to choose, or the people's right to vote, or the right to collective bargaining, or corporate personhood, or the Affordable Care Act, or immigration reform, or extremist Christianist infiltration of our government, or any of that. They WON'T tip their hands. They'll be well-schooled in how to respond to pointed questions from Dems on the Judiciary committee - how to dodge, how to bob 'n' weave and sound noncommittal and open-minded. THEY WON'T BE ANYTHING OF THE KIND, in their heart-of-hearts. But they'll try to soothe worried Dems on the committee that Roe v Wade is settled law and all that. They will do EVERYTHING they can, and say ANYTHING they think will work, to get the job, and then rule for the teabaggers and Troglodytes now and forever more amen.

You can take THAT to the bank.

Better you take it to the VOTING BOOTH. Just Fuckin' DO IT.

[PBass]

139. Great thread! I've really learned a lot from DU.

for example, Bill Clinton was a terrible president! ZOMFG! Terrible!

Also, Hillary Clinton doesn't have ANY positions on ANY issues! Nobody can say what she believes in! I defy anybody in the world to say what Hillary believes in! All she cares about is money! And herself! Vomit inducing!!!!1!!!!

Other Democratic candidates would be SOOO much better than Hillary, and they would be SOOO different!

This thread reminds me why I rarely do more than scan the front page of DU... there's way too much utter nonsense. If I'm going to read political analysis, I want to read what smart people have to say.

It amazes me that there are people here with 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 posts, and they seem to have absolutely no aptitude for politics.

[Iggo]

145. Literally?

[swilton]

146. Kudos for your courage

and your eloquent expression of the obvious!

[hopemountain]

150. so you decided to puke all over du

over your disgust with a potential candidate? i would like bernie to run but there really is no reason to puke all over yourself and us this early in the game.

[randys1]

151. More Hillary hate...Karl Rove is literally rolling on the floor with laughter

[L0oniX]

155. Ops like this tend to piss off assholes.

...and I like that.

[90-percent]

157. Glenn Greenwald nutshelled why I personally don't like Hillary

“The ultimate guardian of bipartisan status quo corruption”

We need a revolution to rid almost all of our Institutions of the rampant corruption that's been corroding our Democracy. Hillary will certainly never bite the corrupt hands that have fed her for most of her political career.

I'll fight against her hard in the primaries and I would of course vote for her if she was the nominee.

And another thing is the bush-clinton-bush-obama-clinton dynasty thing. Seems like more dynasty than democracy to me? But I do wonder if I'd feel the same if Hillary handled herself and believed in the things Eleanor Roosevelt did, when Hil was Bill's first lady. In other words, I could stomach a dynasty a lot more if Hillary was a career liberal and walked the walk as a liberal for her public life. You could transplant Jamie Dimon's soul into Hillary and nobody would notice the difference.

-90% Jimmy

[Veilex]

187. “The ultimate guardian of bipartisan status quo corruption”

And he's absolutely right.

[rpannier]

160. Zell Miller and/or George Wallace

[rury]

163. K&R She makes me want to puke!!

I cannot believe that the Democratic Party has no one else to offer for 2016.

[RBInMaine]

164. I can't think of a more vomit-inducing load of crud than this post.

[BeatleBoot]

165. Here, here!

[AtomicKitten]

174. hear, hear?

there, there:

Hear, hear vs. here, here

Hear, hear (usually with a comma and set apart as a self-contained sentence) is the conventional spelling of the colloquial exclamation used to express approval for a speaker or sentiment. It’s essentially short for hear him, hear him or hear this, hear this, where these phrases are a sort of cheer.

Here, here is widely regarded as a misspelling, although it is a common one, and there are ways to logically justify its use. But for what it’s worth, hear, hear is the original form (the Oxford English Dictionary cites examples going back to the 17th century) and is the one listed in dictionaries. English reference books mention here, here only to note that it’s wrong.

[AtomicKitten]

168. Wrong turn on the internet?

I hate it when that happens.

[tomsaiditagain]

166. The Devil in a dress, or jumpsuit.

Hillary to me is just like the wolf in sheep's clothing. Pompous and arrogant 1% Hillary.

She's all about finishing the job the Bilderberg's have planned for the world. Rothschild's kinda woman.

[YOHABLO]

169. I think we're in serious trouble. So it comes down to Hillary vs Bush (III) ? Time to pack the bags.

[cheapdate]

170. You must vomit everytime you see or hear president Obama, too.

Drink plenty of liquids. Stay hydrated, I guess.

[Agschmid]

208. Don't trust medical advice from the Internet...

Just sayin'

[Agnosticsherbet]

180. For a moment, I thought CPAC was live blogging at DU.

I am relieved to know they are not.

[Hekate]

202. You were right the first time.

[Agnosticsherbet]

211. LOL

[uwep]

186. I guess liberals are at it again!!!

A lot of the comments are negative. I am a Hillary fan and have been for 20 years.
She may not appease everyone, but I have watched her career and have been
very impressed. I am wondering if many who comment here are right wing intruders.

You can have your one issue complaints, but remember what happens if we peak
each other to death. The lemmings on the right toe the line, but us lefties tend to
be a more independent bunch and shoot ourselves in the foot. Wake up and support
the candidate that will win.

Hillary is a strong woman and intelligent and can beat any republican out there. Get
your act together Dems.

[Agnosticsherbet]

212. I see no evidence of the OP being liberal.

[RiverLover]

213. Riiiight, not Liberal at all...

"All the while, notably absent without leave against the most pressing and polarizing problems the US has faced since the civil war:

Civil rights, constitutional checks and balances, racism, police state overreach, NSA, CIA, income disparity, oil lobby, the health care lobby, the banking lobby, the telco lobby, Israeli lobby, CEO lobby, off shoring to India, on and on and on."

You're not fooling anyone here, you must know that?

[Agnosticsherbet]

214. I do not try to fool anyone.

I work, advocate, and vote to expand civil right equally to all rather than post bullshit comments that echo CPAC as a form of Character assassination.

And, by the way, Warren isn't running, and according to this link to the PPP pole, she would not do all that well in a Presidential campaign, anyway. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_22515.pdf She is a great Senator, but would do badly in a Presidential Campaign.

[Buenaventura]

188. Damn Right! k+1000! n/t

[babylonsister]

189. You're entitled to your opinion. We all are. I just wish

you were fair. You wrote this:

"Civil rights, constitutional checks and balances, racism, police state overreach, NSA, CIA, income disparity, oil lobby, the health care lobby, the banking lobby, the telco lobby, Israeli lobby, CEO lobby, off shoring to India, on and on and on.
She can't be bothered."

Seriously? No links to prove your points? You are insinuating negative things, so prove them.

There is no perfect candidate for every liberal, never will be. If she's the Dem candidate, I will vote for her. Maybe she won't be. But stop with the lousy, lazy disparaging of Hillary Clinton.

[merrily]

249. Posts like yours are more appropriate for GD, the Hillary Group or some group other than this one.

This group is supposed to be the one place on the entire board where DU's left can post without being hectored by DU's right, as though it were GD. This isn't GD.

[Hekate]

193. I look forward to seeing this OP quoted verbatim far and wide as how "Democrats" think...

...or just how ridiculous we can make ourselves.

The only people I see on DU who natter on about the inevitability of Hillary Clinton are those who loathe her with the white-hot loathing of Newt Gingrich and Ken Starr.

Who also post articles with misleading titles and then insist despite all attempts at reason and facts that their misleading opinions are correct. I refer to the business about an endowment-funded speech at a university, of course. Do you need a linky to your own OP?

Interesting.

[PBass]

209. Trolling with "rage bait" like this is the fastest way to get voted onto the "Greatest" page

"And the scary fucking thing is - her silence, as the nation burns, is the very thing her giddy sycophants are telling us makes her so presidential."

Absolute garbage, congratulations! Manny Goldstein will be proud.

[BlueCaliDem]

215. Neither can the Koch Bros, the GOP, and Neo-Confederates.

[nikto]

218. People who DARE criticize Hillary...

Are 23X worse-than-Hitler.


Didn't you know that?



Join the club.

[whereisjustice]

223. Needed to be said to offset the Pravda like worship of a corp McCandidate, appointed heir apparent

and once again the establishment conservatives are poisoning the Democratic Party declaring the only way we "win" is by giving up more and more representation in Washington by running candidates who kiss Henry Kissinger's ass.

[nikto]

219. Hillary is basically into Reaganomics

[Doctor_J]

220. well, there's Rahm

[aquart]

225. Cold enough to know the names of all her employees

And any problems they were going through. That cold. Stephen Colbert cold. (Yeah, he's another iceberg who knows who works for him.)

I really dislike this craptastic propaganda based on pragmatic grasp of fundraising reality: only the rich have money.

We wouldn't be hearing a word about it if Hillary wasn't a girl.

As for coming out on the issues WHILE A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT IS IN OFFICE, I would consider it fucking rude to do that this early.

She didn't cause Citizens United. Stop blaming her for dealing with it.

Remember how Obama lied to your face about gay marriage? A woman who wants the support of sexist pig Wall Street needs to be very careful indeed.

BTW, I'm really sorry you think it's so awful to pay a woman more than most men get for a speech. Really, really, really sorry.

[MissDeeds]

237. Whoa

"We wouldn't be hearing a word about it if Hillary wasn't a 'girl'". I'm not a fan of hers by any means but I would never demean a former state senator and US Secretary of State by referring to her as a "girl".

[merrily]

304. Also, accusing everyone who criticizes Hillary of sexism is bs.

After all I've been through, I refuse to let it slide.

[merrily]

250. As usual, DU's right has little to no respect for the fact that is a group, not GD.

[ReRe]

252. After some hours away...

... I learned something. The Hillary supporter onslaught yesterday was due to the fact that they knew some negative news was going to be coming out about their candidate today (i.e., questions about foreign funding via donations to her and Bill's Foundation.)

Another thing I realized, after being accused of being KKKarl Rove himself ... it reminds me of the phenomena back immediately after 9/11 that was used to demonize anyone who criticized the President on invading Iraq. Phil Donahue was thrown off MSNBC, the massive protests were described by GWB as silly focus groups. And in this instance with anyone's opposition to HRC and the corporate DLC right wing of the Democratic Party, we are accused of being Republicans! It's behavior straight out of the Republican Party.

[MissDeeds]

260. Well said

[KoKo]

302. +1

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

259. Tell us how you really feel, haha. While I wudn't use such strong language, like u, I'm definitely concerned bout Hillary as a candidate, but not just on the issues...

but also her ability to withstand the daily pounding she is certain to receive from multiple Rethug candidates that will be running, as those pukes fight it out among themselves. Hell, it's already started before they've even announced.

Her unfavorable rating is already starting to rise, as she keeps trying to "play it cool" and lay low in an obvious strategy to delay the inevitable announcement of her Presidential campaign, while questions about her conduct continue to surface, but go unanswered, to her detriment.

Then again, whenever Hillary does respond, either on the issues, where she has a bit of a "tin ear" that gets her in trouble, or to Repug attacks, which sometimes digs her an even deeper hole, the result is not pretty, as we saw during her "not ready for prime time" book tour that flopped.

I sure wish Elizabeth would announce her inevitable candidacy already and just get it over with, instead of waiting for a time certain when Hillary has her downfall and can't get up. Elizabeth would be making mincemeat right now of those Refucklian pricks on a daily basis, without needing to be coached by one of her hundreds of handlers, or reading some canned speech from a teleprompter that one of them prepared.

The Warren Era is upon us, I can feel it - and it can't come soon enough!

[nikto]

277. Apparently...

The GOP is so horrible, that taking any chance of losing to them is not an option,
so the Democratic Party will have to become just like them
in order to defeat the evil GOP, and save America.

Have I got that right?



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

[TheKentuckian]

311. Plus, it still doesn't guarantee a damn thing except we get hosed either way.

Oh they can holler about polls but polling isn't a competitive race and Ms. Invincible has never won one of those and is fueled by superior name recognition.

[RiverLover]

284. Hey Progressive Peeps! YES Reality is finally showing in some polls~

Thanks again, Cosmic Kitten!~

Poll shows Repubs seen as less unfavorable than Hillary
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026286653

Poll shows...Senator Elizabeth Warren is competitive with Jeb Bush
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026286689

(I know many of you try to stay away from the GD, but these threads could use some Progressive DU love! )

[sabrina 1]

315. She is the choice of the 1%. They owe her. She didn't make it in 2008 and imo, she won't make it

this time either.

But those who run these things probably don't care which of the two carefully chosen contestants actually win, THEY win no matter what.

Because they will never allow someone who is likely to topple their decades long, carefully constructed power grab, to even be considered for that job.

They need caretakers. The people are waking up so it's all the more urgent that they have people placed in the government who are likely to protect THEIR interests.

Which is why I think the people should focus on Congress, the Senate, and local elections.

If we had a strong Congress working for the people, THAT is the best way to upset the 'system' they have set up.

[jeepers]

317. It appears that the 2016 election is going

to be a vote to decide which conservative is going to lead America into a new state of feudal fascism or a vote to try and save our democracy. I don't think it should be labeled as a lessor of two evils or as democrat versus republican contest as both seem to be dismissive of the true potential danger to the democratic party, the nation and to the 99% of us.

If we elect Hillary and she turns out to be another faux democrat like her husband and Obama have, and they continue to gut the middle class, there will be no meaning full or purpose driven democratic party to support come 2020.

[BainsBane]

319. This thread is the very example of what you claimed didn't exist

and there you are posting in response to what you swore has never been posted on this site.

Next time you want someone to produce links, look through your own my posts section for the threads you have responded to. The recs section could also be promising. Easy peasy. No need to send people on errands for you.

[BainsBane]

320. Civil rights?

Really, like all the work she did at State and before for women's rights, or does that not count? You know, only women, the half of the world that doesn't count.

Health care? Remember her trying to implement single payer? Remember her proposals in the 2008 election? The only difference between she and Obama then was the mandate, but then he adopted it. So if Clinton is the devil on health care, so is Obama, which if you're a Democrat means you voted for the devil.

Off shoring to India? Where does that come from in regard to Clinton? And why of all countries have you chosen a BRIC to single out?

Where do you come up with this stuff? Make a list of all that the problems in the world and decide Clinton is the cause or the only politician complicit in them? I get that emoting is all kinds of fun, but if this is supposed to persuade anyone, it falls short.

Okay, so you see this as all about Clinton, who you deiced is the worst possible leader the country could even have. Fair enough. Who is your alternative? Now that we know all evil emanates from her and that she works furiously to make the world a worse place, who will make it all better?