Skip to main content

View Diary: McAuliffe channels Tancredo, while Hillary doesn't regret war vote (286 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So does this mean Clinton might have her (0+ / 0-)

    "For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot, I will not let this result stand." moment?


    Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, fanatical, criminal. - Supertramp, "The Logical Song"

    by mentaldebris on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 06:33:03 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  You mean an 'America for Hillary' party? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Carbide Bit

      I get the heebee jeebees just thinking about it.

      •  she's a partisan democrat (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jmcgrew, Miss Blue, jDub, Blue Generalist

        She stood behind the democratic nominee for CT senate in '06. She was a long time friend of Lieberman, but she supported Lamont in that race with money and staff. She will respect the wishes of the demoractic voters in '08 as well.

        •  Hillary did the minimum for Lamont... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          karenc, asskicking annie

          as did many other long time 'Friends of Joe' who wanted to hedge their bets.

          You know it and I know it.

          If she really respected the wishes of Democratic voters, she would have shown up for at least one Lamont campaign rally, and maybe even cut a commercial spot or two for him.  

          Or better yet, how about a hefty contribution out of her own 30 million dollar war chest, that she hoarded even though her own election was never in doubt.

          True partisan Democrats put aside personal loyalties for the good of Dem voters.  Instead, Hillary and other Dems left Lamont hanging because of their 'friendship' with a turncoat.

          So you'll excuse me if I don't automatically trust your assurances that Hillary is a 'Partisan Dem' who would never run as an independent.

          Indeed, the fact that you feel the need to respond to my comment this way makes me wonder whether there isn't just the slightest inkling she is thinking about just such a play.

          •  Obama did less (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Night Owl

            Just to cite an example. And I thought she contributed the max $$, although i don't really know how all that works, there must be more than one way to move money. Also, I thought that she was one of the biggest political donors to the '06 campaigns in general, though granted she didn't bleed herself dry, she did give buckets. Does anyone know numbers?

            Her partisanship extends beyond the '06 races, she very reliably votes with her party.

            Also, I was responding directly to the "America for Clinton" comment. No need to get paranoid.

            •  IIRC (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Lamont and she had a meeting in NYC where Hillary introduced him to some of her money guys, so she didn't as much give as she simply told her donors it was alright if they gave.

              As far as Obama goes, you're right, he was no go getter for the Dem nominee either. But like I said, most of the establishment Dems, including Hillary, hung their party's voters out to dry in that race.

              It was positively shameful, and something I won't forget any time soon.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site