Skip to main content

View Diary: '08 Watch: New Poll Says Edwards Beating Hillary in Iowa (202 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Respect? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paige, curtadams, kindertotenlieder

    I'm so tired of all the unprovoked Hillary bashing on this site. Her voting record is progressive and her view on the war is interchangeable with Warner's view and yet there's a concerted effort in the netroots to keep the only viable female candidate out of the upcoming primary process.  

    It's worse than vile.  It's despicable.

    •  it's sexism (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Steve M, curtadams, kindertotenlieder

      IMO and people don't even realize it.

      My first choice is and will always be Al Gore.  However remove him from the mix and Clinton gets my support.  She is progressive and there is a double standard.  Not only did Edwards vote for the IWR but he wrote some pretty conservative legislation in his one term.  So please someone explain to me why he is a better choice than Clinton?  He isn't nearly as powerful and he is more conservative.

      mcjoan is the new Armando

      by TeresaInPa on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 07:18:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Progressive? Debatable, at this point. (4+ / 0-)

        It's symbolic, sure, but Hillary's sponsorship of the flag burning amendment demonstrates an absurd willingness to compromise principle for political ground. Free speech is free speech, and burning a flag poses a risk to no one (unlike, say, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater). And when was the last time you saw footage of an American burning an American flag? It's political posturing of the highest order.

        She was also dead-wrong about Iraq. But, then, so was Edwards.

        •  Who cares about posturing? (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not going to lose much sleep over not being about to burn a flag as part of a hate crime.  I want to know how my privacy will be protected, how we're going to get health care, and how we're going to get out of Iraq.  On those issues all the Dems are very similar, including Hillary.  Hillary's posturing is aimed at getting her negatives down with conservatives, and it's succeeding.  I don't mind that.

          •  Posturing is a symbol of weakness (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            astronautagogo, Ranting Roland

            We need a leader, someone who can change the national political discourse to the left. We don't need an appeaser or a triangulator.

            Besides wishy washiness does not win elections.

            Today "balance in the media" means a balance between political fact and conservative ideology.

            by Joe B on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 08:12:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I've got to disagree with you (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joe B, Ranting Roland

            Hilliary's repositioning to the right is not getting her negatives down among conservatives. My BF is a former GOP activist and there really is nothing Hilliary can do to get republican voters to give her a look.

            She's the embodiment of every liberal strawperson going back to LBJ. She's a fundraising tool for the GOP, nothing more.

            I listen to wingnut radio so you don't have to!

            by Sharon on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 08:27:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  flag burning amendment, (0+ / 0-)

          something that's been voted on in every Congress since 1995 is something HRC has never supported. She co-sponsored the Flag Protection Act of 2005. The former is amending the Constitution, the latter a public law.

          Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, in 1989 and 1990, struck down flag-desecration laws as violations of the First Amendment, the report notes — setting off a strong national movement to amend the Constitution to allow such laws.

          Source: First Amendment Center

          The entire purpose of the 2005 Act was to avoid amending the Constitution.

          Pandering right? Yes, in the sense that most of us don't give a damn about this issue and she made it her business to find 'middle ground'. Yet, it has  been a subject of a great deal of Congressional activity since 1968!

        •  Give a real example, please. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          You want to start talking about what's progressive or not, why not question Feingold's "yea" vote for Roberts?  That will have real implications on real people's lives, and it will last for decades.  

          Sharon's statement below proves my point exactly.  She claims HRC has "repositioned" herself, but whenever I asked anyone to prove how she has repositioned herself, all people can point to are little symbolic gestures and talking points, like flag burning and gaming studies.  If you look at her actual voting record, she's one of the most progressive candidates running.  

          You know what, I didn't think it was sexism until now; I thought it was genuine anti-war/ anti-DLC sentiment that lead people to move against her on this site.  But now that DLC member, Mark Warner has enjoyed such a warm welcome around here, I know I was wrong.   And Ann Lewis' comment "the country is not ready" can only mean one thing.

          •  this is a good point (0+ / 0-)

            What is it with Warner and his support among anti-DLC net progressives? I haven't decide it's purely sexism yet, but I'm an optimist.

            As to Hillary, I don't know her record as well as you do but the DLC is associated, in my mind, very closely with Bill Clinton. I grew up with all that third way bullshit and I'm sick of it. It has led us to a dead end as a party. So when she does the flag burnung thing and goes to the NPC and says "Kids today, jeesh" it drives me up a wall.

      •  Apart from Feingold (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        astronautagogo, Ranting Roland

        You almost need a microscope to tell the Dem candidates apart.  They hold similar opinions on a wide range of issues.  There are occaisional outliers - like Warner opposing civil unions- but only occaisional.

        •  No Way (0+ / 0-)

          Ask them about NAFTA, CAFTA and unregulated trade.

          See where they put their emphasis: foreign policy, poverty, jobs, Bush, etc.

          And heck, Feingold voted for Roberts.

          Democrats are the party of those who are working, those who have finished working, and those who want to work. -- Elizabeth Edwards

          by philgoblue on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 06:39:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Sexism? I don't believe so. Hillary has several (6+ / 0-)

        problems.  First, while she seems to do very well with small groups she is not a very good public speaker.  Next, the vote on IWR is a stumbling block for her more so than Edwards because Edwards has come out and said his vote was a mistake while Hillary hasn't.  Edwards may be more conservative than Hillary but in terms of their public face, Edwards has talked about two Americas, the divide between the wealthy and the poor.  On the other hand, Hillary has taken the lead with the DLC.  I don't have a horse in the race between Hillary and Edwards although right now in a choice between the two I would have to pick Edwards mainly because he is the only one of the two who made poverty a main plank of his campaign.

      •  Not sexism at all (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ranting Roland

        Nor is it 'worse than vile', as bella says. There are many great reasons to oppose Hillary Clinton. One is that it's time for America to look beyond the Bushes and the Clintons. Another is her hawkish stand on the war. Yet a third is her charisma deficit.  She is one of the most boring speakers I've ever had the misfortune to listen to.
        While not in the same ballpark as the disgust I feel for George Bush, the thought of hearing her voice on a national stage for 4 long years gives me the willies.
        Where is the evidence that Hillary Clinton is progressive? Certainly not in the way she has acted as a Senator.
        While I wasn't inclined to support Hillary on the anti-dynasty theory alone, her sponsorship of a Constitutional Amendment outlawing the 'desecration' of the flag was the last straw for me.
        If she's our nominee, I don't think I could ever call myself a Democrat again.

        We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. Aesop (620 - 560 BC)

        by AWhitneyBrown on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 08:03:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  To A Degree (7+ / 0-)

        But just because Hillary Clinton suffers from sexist reaction doesn't mean she's a great candidate.

        So please someone explain to me why he [Edwards] is a better choice than Clinton?

        The biggest thing Senator Clinton has going against her, IMO, is her continued hawkishness on Iraq. Yes, Senator Edwards also voted for the IWR.  Here's what John Edwards had to say about his vote, in November 2005:

        I was wrong.

          * * *

        It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.

        The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.

          * * *

        America's leaders -- all of us -- need to accept the responsibility we each carry for how we got to this place. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in this war, and more than 150,000 are fighting there today. They and their families deserve honesty from our country's leaders. And they also deserve a clear plan for a way out.

        That is how a pro-IWR voting Dem should speak to the issue.  I would rather Edwards had joined both of my Senators and voted no on the IWR, but one cannot change the past.  At least John Edwards has the character to admit that he made a mistake and take responsibility for it.  

        In addition, John Edwards is one of the precious few Democrats I see these days that continually addresses the needs of poor and working class Americans.  Used to be (back when we won elections) that standing up for the working folks and the poor was the fixed star in the Democratic sky.  I say we renew our committment to working people.  

        Flag burning and video games just don't move me as much as economic justice and security.

      •  Edwards (0+ / 0-)

        "Not only did Edwards vote for the IWR but he wrote some pretty conservative legislation in his one term.  So please someone explain to me why he is a better choice than Clinton?"

        because edwards formally reversed his position on the iraq war in a wash. post piece.

        did you miss it?

        edwards admitted that his support for the iraq war was wrong, period.

        •  good one (0+ / 0-)

          He also had a brilliant frame. "The basis for moral leadership is telling the truth." He didn't fuss it all up with words and shit that no one understands anyway. BTW I didn't have to look up the quote, it sticks with ya.  

    •  she is the only one on the list (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      AFAIK, who is busy w/ a re-election campaign while Edwards has had plenty of spare time to campaign. I'm actually surprised she gets as much as 26%. Kerry won Iowa on the strength of last-minute campaigning.

      and yes, the bashing is getting old.

    •  What's also vile (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PLS, corvo, cschabes, bluebrain

      is Hillary's hobnobing with Rupert Murdoch and the FOX crowd.  And her flag-burning bullshit.

      Also vile is her naked opportunism.

      Vile indeed.
      •  Don't forget her schmoozing (0+ / 0-)

        with the Chimp-in-Chief himself.  And her support of the current war (for which Warner also merits condemnation) and apparent lack of opposition to the next one . . .

      •  Here we go! (0+ / 0-)

        Are you really that naive?  Do you think there is a Democratic or Republican candidate out there who wouldn't take campaign money from Murdoch or just about any other millionaire corporate backer?    If so, take a look at the lists of donors from the 2004 campaign.

        And please prove how she's more "opportunistic" than other pols.   This is another baseless, yet often repeated, attack on her character and hers alone.   It’s also a Tweety Matthews talking point—Vile!

        •  Yeah, I can think of one... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bawbie, mbair

          John Edwards has NEVER taken A PENNY of corporate money.

          •  right (0+ / 0-)

            And he's totally fucking broke now. He goes out and raises money for everyone else, 6 million for lower tier candidates this year.

            While we sit around and wonder why doesn't a Dem stand up for core Dem issues like working people that don't have a fucking prayer under this crew in DC? Why doesn't a Dem engage the grass roots?

            Edwards is doing 20-25 dollar a head fundraisers all over the friggin country, not just IA and NH. Every state with a min wage hike on the baloot HE'S THERE on his own dime without his damn hand out.

            What the fuck is going on on this blog? The DLC is the death of the Democratic party, sticking up for working people is the future.

    •  Criticism does not equal bashing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ranting Roland

      Hillary is unelectable. Saying so is not bashing her. She is unelectable. Simple as that. The red state voters don't like her.

      Today "balance in the media" means a balance between political fact and conservative ideology.

      by Joe B on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 08:10:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm a Hillary basher. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ranting Roland

      She supported the Iraq war and STILL does. She thinks it's the politically smart thing to do. Not only is her position on Iraq politically stupid, it's ethically demented on several levels.
      Edwards came out of the closet and apologized for voting for the Iraq war. He said it was a bad decision. He said.....he was wrong.
      Unless your either semi-retarded, a neo-con, and/or a warped war profiteer, everyone knows by now that this war was a terrible idea. The worst part, HRC knows it.
      She won't admit she was wrong out of political strategy(albiet a horrible strategy) but out of strategy nevertheless. In other words, her white house aspirations have proven to be far more important to her than the troops.
      Her political aspirations are more important to her than trying to prevent or end the WORST mistake in american history.
      HRC or any DLC'er for that matter, doesn't have the moral integrity to represent me.
      The only reason i'm even a democrat at all, is because of my senator Russ Feingold. In our state, that's what a Democrat is supposed to look like.

      Bill Clinton may have won 2 terms, but his strategy lost us everything else, while shitting on the working class with NAFTA, CAFTA etc...
      Get real.

      "I don't wanna listen to the fundamentalist preachers anymore!" -Howard Dean

      by astronautagogo on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 09:43:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site