Skip to main content

View Diary: Why Hillary gets it  and she does "support the troops" (253 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  tips, flames and comments (159+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cory, Superskepticalman, Trix, pb, mikepridmore, Cowalker, Pacific John, kathygo, MadRuth, Manny, hester, Iddybud, TaraIst, xy109e3, ljm, pelican, RNinNC, sara seattle, kpardue, linnen, x, Matilda, catchawave, LIsoundview, memberofthejury, rasbobbo, joyous, TheMomCat, concernedamerican, 1040SU, dianem, cardinal, cyberKosFan, magnetics, anotherCt Dem, AZnomad, Dburn, mrblifil, roses, Larry Bailey, standingup, neoeconomist, dmsilev, stacystace, TeresaInSammamishWA, diane101, oldjohnbrown, pat bunny, milton333, votermom, MmeVoltaire, AbsurdEyes, coigue, ybruti, eleanora, Nelsons, ArkySue, hfjai, jen, haypops, vacantlook, eve, JudyNJ, jim bow, murrayewv, greeseyparrot, Jersey Joe, rapala, G2geek, humphrey, ms in la, Treg, revbludge, SherwoodB, Lying eyes, tgray, Simplify, J Rae, Turkana, Gary Norton, LittlegNYC, Chaoslillith, Sharon in MD, generator, Marcus Junius Brutus, hopefulcanadian, jilikins, bnewton, empathy, ClintB, tigerdog, jeffinalabama, Asinus Asinum Fricat, begone, CCSDem, Strawberrybitch, myboo, WhyWhat, belly, fou, Marcus Tullius, kck, OhioCav, HairyTrueMan, bubbanomics, nonnie9999, everhopeful, gotalife, Frank Cocozzelli, bleeding heart, AndyS In Colorado, Andy30tx, doinaheckuvanutjob, llbear, land of the free, kidneystones, Class of 72, Aaa T Tudeattack, cpresley, Joelarama, dotsright, donnamarie, bigjacbigjacbigjac, Lysis, Dartagnan, Owllwoman, flumptytail, manwithnoname, 1plain1peanut, Bridge Master, jhop7, Rumarhazzit, qotu, Clarksphyl, ratador, dragoneyes, skohayes, Randgrithr, MyOwnClone, robroser, Nature Guy, CC Music Factory, SottoVoce, mofembot, wavpeac, luckylizard, FLCitizen, Bongobanger, rigso, Psychotronicman, EE Prof, Glacial Erratic, RenMin, dashound, DemAC, crazyshirley2100, Hypatica, nycstray, Valhalla

    today ought to be a circus on the capitol grounds here in Columbia SC  

    •  McCain v. Hillary (10+ / 0-)

      Just like the powers-that-be wanted it to be at least a year-and-a-half ago.

      Nice to see their preplanned script unfolding nicely.

      Our so-called "democracy" in this country is scripted by the elite and shoved down the throats of our masses (who swallow it, largely unquestioningly) by a corporate media that serves the interests of the elite players.

      Beautiful.

      •  if you go to the link I provided they have all of (43+ / 0-)

        the candidates I took McCain and Hillary to highlight  as I am a Hillary supporter  and everyone has been saying how McCain won South carolina because of the veterans voting for him and I have to wonder why when he treats all vets like shit

            •  You've seen worse. I admire HRC's ability to take (28+ / 0-)

              a hit. What are the Republicans going to throw at her that hasn't already been thrown?

              She doesn't quit and she doesn't run away.

              Nice work.

              •  Obama supporters fire BBs compared to the GOP... (11+ / 0-)

                And seem just as unhinged.

                That sound you hear out there is reality knocking on the door. It has been standing out in the cold for a long time and it is not happy with us. - Jim Kunstler

                by Superskepticalman on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 07:32:51 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  I agree. I take comfort in the knowledge that (4+ / 0-)

                if she wins the nom she'll fight as dirty as the repukes, if not more. That's an asset.

                The Democratic Congress is now divided into three parts: igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary.

                by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 07:36:56 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  repubs want Hillary now more than ever (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  nicolemm, khwalker, Unseen majority

                  besides the 50% disapproval rating she's now turning off life long democrats with her and Bubba's willingness to do anything and say anything to win the primary.  I've always given them the benefit of the doubt but its becoming clear that it always was about them and not the country.

                  •  Wrong. Repukes want Obama, easier (11+ / 0-)

                    target to bring down, read the wingnut sites once in a while, educational ;0)

                    The Democratic Congress is now divided into three parts: igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary.

                    by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:19:21 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Hillary can win this thing. (5+ / 0-)

                    In fact, she probably will.  Have some faith.  She's a Democrat after all.

                    Son, you're makin' the same mistake with Iraq that I did with your mother. I didn't pull out in time.

                    by fou on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:29:41 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  "She's a Democrat after all" (0+ / 0-)

                      Big fuckin' deal!!

                      That doesn't mean that she's a progressive.

                      That doesn't mean she'll work for the people.

                      That doesn't mean she'll undo Bush policies.

                      You're gullible  . . . taken in by the meaningless label of the "team" (i.e., political party) you identify with.

                      The elites count upon people like you to continue to get away with what they get away with.

                      Bravo!!!!

                      •  are you going to be voting for Bloomberg then? (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        belly, kidneystones

                        or the republican nominee?

                        •  I ain't gonna be voting for ANYONE. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          testvet6778

                          The game's rigged.  I'm getting to the point where I refuse to participate in it anymore.

                          If HRC is the nominee, it will be the first time that I will have sat out a Presidential election in the 28 years I've been eligible to vote (and I have ALWAYS voted for the Democrat . . . most of the time reluctantly, because they have never been progressives, just centrists that masquerade as "liberals."  In fact, we haven't had a true liberal have the Dem nomination since McGovern . . . and look what the Dem establishment did to him.)

                          I'm getting tired of the same old shit from the ruling class, "good cop/bad cop" game the Dems and Rethugs play.  Meanwhile, the military-industrial complex continues to grow and sap and drain the resources of our society while our civilian sector starves, the rich keep getting richer, good paying jobs keep getting sent to other countries, the middle-class continues to be eroded, our civil liberties keep getting destroyed, we are just as much interventionist in the affairs of other countries (of course, only those that have something we want) as we were during the days of Viet Nam . . . and we are still just as dependent upon fossil fuels as we were during the first energy crisis of 1973.  

                          Meanwhile, those at the very top of the economic pile continue to grow and prosper.

                          If a Rethug gets elected as a result of me and others like me sitting it out, I don't care anymore.  So be it.

                          Call me "Naderite" all you want, too.  I don't give a shit.  

                          •  at least you are honest about your feelings (0+ / 0-)

                            I SALUTE you for that

                          •  The Republican Party Thanks You ... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Iberian, testvet6778

                            ...for your support, and they hope that you continue to support them in the future.

                            To hell with independents... I'll stick with the party that brought us social security, civil rights, and environmental protection.

                            by dianem on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 10:11:28 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  A predictable response that I knew was coming (0+ / 0-)

                            I should have placed a bet that one . . . I would have made some money.

                            BTW, honey, the Democratic wing of the ruling gang of corrupt thugs thanks you for YOUR support.  

                            That's right . . . vote for Hillary, who now says that American troops will be in Iraq until at least 2013!!!  

                            Excellent.  By supporting the Democrats like Hillary, you are supporting the continued occupation of Iraq, the continued waste of American and Iraqi lives, and the continued destruction of this country's fiscal and economic health.  Imagine it:  TEN YEARS (from 2003 until 2013 of American occupation of Iraq)!!!  No doubt, by that time, HRC hopes that the country will be secure enough so that we will have complete control over those vast oil reserves.

                            And read what Gore Vidal--a man who 100 times more astute about the American political system than you will ever even hope to be--has to say in response to your bullshit comment to me:

                            (From Wikipedia)  Although frequently identified with Democratic causes and personalities, Vidal has written:

                            "[t]here is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt—until recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties."

                            Or to cite the writer Charles Bukowski, the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is the difference between warm shit and cold shit.

                          •  There's no sideline here (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            testvet6778

                            You have to make a choice. You can't choose between the perfect candidate and the Republican Party. Perfect is not an option. If you don't choose the Democrats you are choosing the Republicans. Anybody who thinks there is no difference between the parties is delusional and ignorant. I would think that anybody who is on dKos would have some idea of the damage the right-wing has done to our nation over the last 7 years, and would want to fight them. It's a shame that some people care more about attacking Democrats than they do about defeating Republicans.

                            To hell with independents... I'll stick with the party that brought us social security, civil rights, and environmental protection.

                            by dianem on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 11:01:27 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  rec'd (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            testvet6778

                            ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                            by Rebecca on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 11:06:23 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  In case you haven't been paying attention . . . . (0+ / 0-)

                            You said:

                            "I would think that anybody who is on dKos would have some idea of the damage the right-wing has done to our nation over the last 7 years, and would want to fight them. "

                            In case you haven't been paying attention, the right-wing couldn't have done such damage without the ACUIESENCE, COMPLICITY AND HELP of Democrats like Hillary.

                            So, you tell me then, why I would want to support such people . . .  that have been working with the very people that are my supposed to be my enemies?

                            Is this an example of "cognitive dissonance" in action on your part, or what?

                          •  You've been drinking the kool-aid (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            fou

                            Politics is a lot more complicated than you seem to believe. I don't have time to educate you tonight. Maybe we'll run into each other again when I've got more time.

                            To hell with independents... I'll stick with the party that brought us social security, civil rights, and environmental protection.

                            by dianem on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:08:31 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Translation: I really can't answer what you say, (0+ / 0-)

                            . . . so I'll run away instead . . . and justify it by saying "I don't have the time to educate you."  (Whatever the fuck that means.)

                            What a load of crap.

                          •  Wow, that's really sad, Living. I feel very sorry (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            testvet6778

                            for you. I'm being serious here, no snark.

                            We find that after years of struggle we do not take a journey, but rather a journey takes us. John Steinbeck, Travels with Charley

                            by tigerdog on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 10:53:35 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The differences between what a Repub (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            testvet6778

                            would continue to do to this country and what an elitist Democrat would do are stark.  

                            Katrina.  Your vote and those of others like you may make the difference between people getting a professional response from FEMA in a disaster or another cronyism/social darwinism response.  

                            Alberto Gonzales.  Your vote and those of others like you may make the difference between keeping the Dept. of Justice an arm of the Republican party and Pat Roberston's dumping ground for his "law school graduates" or turning it back into a professional department with professionals.  

                            Veterans.  See the diary for differences.

                            Military.  Your vote and those of others like you may make the difference between continuing the destruction of our military or returning to responsible management of our military.  

                            National deficit and debt.  Your vote and those of others like you may make the difference between continuing the complete disregard of our budget and a deficit that keeps growing along with a debt that gets further out of control.  More tax shifts where 90% of the country get their tax money shifted to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts.  

                            I can go on and on where every single one of our candidates will be better than any one of the Repubs candidate.    Just having a Democrat in the White House will make huge differences from having a corrupt, nutcase right-winger Repub and that means all of them.

                            Yes you are behaving like a "Naderite".  You're refusing to look at the long term and having a short term tantrum.  If you can't get everything you want now you're willing to throw away everything.  

                            This is a long term movement.  It's not about one election.  It's about making long term change.  This election is not about getting your specific candidate in.  It's about getting a Democrat in so we can start rebuilding the horrendous damage the R's have done.  Any Dem will make a huge difference.  Does that mean we stop there?  No we keep on electing better Dems and more.  We keep on building a progressive farm team and getting them into office so in the next election we will have many more better choices.  Your attitude will leave us fighting not only the regressive attitudes in our own party but a much stronger Republican party.  

                            ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                            by Rebecca on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 11:05:10 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                •  how is that an asset? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  arielle, Unseen majority

                  Im sorry.  I dont see anything but short-sighted cynicism in all this acclamation for Hillary- much like the embrace for John Kerry in early 2004.

                  If Hill's our nominee, it's going to be a close election.  It's going to be a painful election. -And I'm not sure we're going to be able to take advantage of our victory if we're still a divided country...

                  •  We are a divided country (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    testvet6778

                    No matter who gets in we will still have a divided country.  No matter who our candidate we will have the right-wing attack machine in synch with our "liberal" media building up scandal after scandal, one character assassination after another.  

                    So Clinton will be weaker than Obama?  I rather think it's Obama who will be weaker.  He hasn't had to face the reality of the right-wing/media assault.  They've been going easy on him so far.  What I see is Clinton knows what's coming and I rather think she and her husband relish a rematch.  But Obama seems to think he's immune like many of his supporters who talk about how he's faced the worst already and hasn't been touched lol.  

                    I'd much rather have a candidate who accepts what's going to happen and is prepared for it than one who like Kerry/Gore before him thought they were "electable" and that these divisive attacks are all about the Clintons and not about the D after their name.  

                    ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                    by Rebecca on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 11:16:21 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  I haven't yet made a decision, testvet6778. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              testvet6778

              As you may recall, I was a strong supporter of Wes Clark, as I think you may have been. I believed that Clark had the courage to tell the truth and he stood for principle and democratic values. Had he run, I believe he would have craft policy based on fair-minded, fact based analysis. For example he had come to the conclusion that single payer universal health care was necessary because the administrative costs of private insurance is 10 times that of medicare and there are currently over 45 million people uninsured who under the lower cost structure of single payer universal care could be covered.
              Clark talked of legitimacy over expedience.
              I was, quite frankly, disappointed when Wes endorsed Senator Clinton for the reasons that many people here have discussed...a fear that Hillary would have a propensity towards policies that favored special interests.
              I keep going back and forth, around and around with the candidates, not knowing who will really stand up for progressive values. For me, it's not only a candidates' ability to enunciate clearly what the issues are but also the character to fight for what's right and not buckle to special interest pressures or fear mongering.
               I was impressed reading today that Hillary Clinton spoke very graciously about Barack Obama today as someone for whom she has high regard. That takes maturity.
               I was discouraged that Senator Clinton picked a woman to be co-chair of Rural Americans for Hillary who had represented the factory farm hog industry.
               I do believe that each of the leading Democrats are a huge improvement over any of the Republican candidates who seem to be auditioning for shortsighted corporate interests and at the same time pandering to baseless fears of "terrorists" and "illegal aliens" to help shoehorn the fearful into another round of endorsing mindless pro-big business candidates, willing to wage wars for profits at the expense of the rest of us, especially soldiers and poor people in other countries.
                I would love it if Senator Clinton or Senators Obama or Edwards were able to convince me that they would take off their political hats and become statesmen willing to serve the public interest and able to control the runaway corporate greed and smack down the corporate misinformation machines.  

        •  good diary! (5+ / 0-)

          but i think the point of LivingReality was that it is now pretty clear that the general election will be between hillary and mccain - two candidates who were appointed by the media and party elites years ago...
          (mccain may not win - it could still be romney)

          i am far from a hillary supporter, but i agree with your conclusions in this well written diary. however i think hillary could and should have supported the troops in 2003 by not voting to send them to iraq...

          Clinton/Bush - changing the White House since 1981! Give the DLC another chance!

          by Zagatzz on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 07:30:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  My, My, My (14+ / 0-)

        I don't know about that one at all.

        When I listen to Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman; read Patrick Healy, Maureen Dowd, Bob Herbert, Frank Rich, Nicholas Kristof and view Pat Oliphant's political cartoons I get the distinct impression that the MSM actually wants Obama versus McCain.

        •  Not just them (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nicolemm, khwalker, testvet6778

          I want Obama vs McCain too.  Obama can win, Clinton cannot as she is to polarizing and ignoring that will keep the Republicans in power.

          •  Standard Obama supporter agitprop (n/t) (6+ / 0-)

            That sound you hear out there is reality knocking on the door. It has been standing out in the cold for a long time and it is not happy with us. - Jim Kunstler

            by Superskepticalman on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 07:35:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Standard of loosing the last Pres Election (0+ / 0-)

              Ignoring facts is how you loose elections.  Clinton is too polarizing.  She even got boo'ed in Harlen today trying to accept an endorsement.  

              •  Dan667, You Miss the Point, Entirely (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                testvet6778

                A) There is no basis to claim the MSM is supporting Hillary; clearly there is more Obama support -- especially among so many of the so-called "liberal" pundits;

                B) Hillary is "polarizing" because the MSM has been mindlessly regurgitating GOP spin about her for years; just about all of it untrue, but sadly, so effective that many on the Left have brought into -- including at times, the Obama campaign;

                C) And if Obama gets the nomination, and especially if he wins, the GOP spin machine will do the same number on Obama that they did to the Clintons.

                If you think that Obama is somehow immune from this slime, think again. They're already starting on him with this nonsense about his church. And sadly, this will only be the beginning. No matter who the nominee will be they'll set about to make him or her to be a polarizing figure.

                •  rec'd (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  testvet6778, Frank Cocozzelli

                  I worry about this delusion that Obama has already faced the worst and come out of it untouched.  

                  I also worry about the regurgitation of right-wing talking points and acceptance of the worst stories about the Clintons as truth from some here.  

                  Between the two of these we get people saying they will never vote for Hillary because she's as bad as the R's and will lose anyways.  This elections version of the Nader voter will be the anti-Hillary voter who may if they convince enough people turn what should be a blow out election into another one close enough for the R's to steal yet again.  

                  I can't believe what I'm reading this from people who are part of what we have proudly called the reality based movement.

                  ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                  by Rebecca on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 11:42:19 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Dan5667, Let Me Explain: (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  testvet6778

                  Actually, I’ll let Bob Somerby do so. This, from today’s Daily Howler:

                  In recent weeks, Matthews has been presenting Tsongas as one more of the endless “good guy” who got savaged by the vicious Clintons. We’re sure that Tsongas was a decent man—but he was absurdly wrong about Social Security in the 1992 campaign, and Candidate Clinton was plainly right to challenge him about it. Good grief! At the time, it had only been eight years since Reagan’s “Social Security fix”—but Tsongas wanted to cut the program further (“sacrifice some benefits”). Plainly, Clinton was right to oppose him.

                  But so what? On MSNBC, Matthew doesn’t explore the merits of matters like this; he simply announces his novelized view, in which the Clintons (and Gore) are morally wrong, in any position they’ve taken. But there’s a deeper irony to Matthews’ recent pitch, in which Tsongas is a wondrous truth-teller done wrong by the vile Bill Clinton.

                  What’s so odd about that presentation? We’re sure that Tsongas was a decent person. But it has long been clear that he and his medical team deceived the public about the state of his health during the 1992 campaign—and Tsongas died from his cancer in January 1997! In short, if Tsongas had won in 1992, he would quite likely have died or been disabled in office—and his deception would have stood among the greatest in campaign history. But so what? In the scripts which have driven so much of our politics, any opponent of Clinton (or Gore) is automatically cast as the wondrous truth-teller. As such, we’ve gone through a sixteen-year period of “King Lear politics.” As in Lear, the dissemblers have been believed, and the truth-tellers have been trashed as the liars. George Bush is just trying to tell you the truth! So Bob Herbert insisted, with cosmic stupidity, after Bush and Gore’s crucial first debate.

                  MSNBC—a GE affiliate—is now an open propaganda machine. If Obama is nominated, they’ll quite likely go after him too—though the scripting will likely be different. (Just a guess: He won’t be cast as a liar, like Clinton and Gore. He’ll be cast as an alien, like Michael Dukakis. What’s his problem with the pledge of allegiance?) We’ll discuss that future scripting later. On Saturday night, it was still the deranged King Lear who spoke on this sick cable channel.

                •  You assume that MSN is making her polarizing (0+ / 0-)

                  Nope, she is going it all on her own.  At the end of the Clinton Presidency, the country was so divided that the Republicans easily took power.  We don't need any more help from the Clintons.  It has nothing to do with one news agency.

                  I will take my chances with someone not polarizing and that does not need to lie.  The problem with liars is that they do not keep their campaign promises.

                  Polling of Barack vs the republicans begs to differ with your factless assessment.

          •  So while Obama is playing postpartisan (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            testvet6778, Frank Cocozzelli

            games McCain will be savaging him in the election.  I've had enough of elections where our side takes the so-called high road.  Kerry refused to allow criticism of Bushco during the Convention and got mad at Jimmy Carter for breaking that rule.  As a result he got no bump after his convention.  The Repubs all had bandages over their faces and were ridiculing Kerry's military record.  

            With Obama I see another campaign filled with just such we have to stop being partisan crap.  I also see another squeaker of an election.  I'm hopeful with the numbers turning out on our side but if anyone can lose it it will be someone who refuses to contrast our side from theirs and there's only one candate who's running on postpartisanship besides Bloomberg.

            Look we can argue electability all day.  What it comes down to is will you vote for the candidate with the D after their name on election day or will you have a tantrum and pull a Nader?

            ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

            by Rebecca on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 11:24:10 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well Put Rebecca (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              testvet6778

              And for all such platitudes from Obama, with Hillary he does not always take the high road himself.

              •  No he doesn't (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                testvet6778

                It seems to be part of a pattern too.  Our candidates are willing to play hardball politics with each other and to completely attack their own base but when it comes to the R's they try to take the high road.  

                They have drunk the koolade that regular voters (not their base which is extreme) don't want partisanship and want us to work with the Republicans.  Which is sad since right now the majority of voters are rejecting Republicanism and are ready for a different course.  

                But you have to contrast that course from the other one in order to sell it to them.  Too bad our side likes to blur the differences between the R's and us instead of contrasting them.  

                ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                by Rebecca on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 11:46:05 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  He Doesn't, Eh? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  testvet6778

                  Then what about this remark?

                  Seems pretty below-the-belt to me.

                  •  Sorry can't reply (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    testvet6778

                    I get page not found.  

                    ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                    by Rebecca on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:02:33 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sorry Rebecca.... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...here's the link to cut and paste: http://www.iht.com/...

                      •  I fail to see what point you're making (0+ / 0-)

                        The point of the comment I was making was to agree with you that our candidates don't always take the high road with their own.  

                        Your article seems to show that perfectly.  The Obama campaign released a below the belt memo and then when caught out says it was a mistake and doesn't represent the candidate.  So I'm not sure what you're saying.  Sorry if I'm being dense today.  

                        ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                        by Rebecca on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:13:26 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Then I Apologize (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          testvet6778

                          ...for misreading your comments.

                          •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            testvet6778

                            I'm sure I could have expressed my point more clearly.  Sorry.

                            ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                            by Rebecca on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:04:53 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Interesting that you are only critical of Barack (0+ / 0-)

                            When the dirty politicking has clearly been more from the Clinton's doing things like spreading lies about faith and dis-enfranchising voters.

                          •  Not True (0+ / 0-)

                            I defend Obama when justified, like right here.

                            And please, Obama is no saint either, especially with his "Senator from Punjab" remarks. I want all three of them to knock off the nonsense.

                          •  Then you should give equal time (0+ / 0-)

                            Any you are clearly not.  The clinton's have recently engaged in a number of really low acts and you have skirted them all to bring up something no one in the media is even covering.  You did not bring up their "President signed the Civil Rights Act" comment.  You did not bring up their irresponsible faith flier activity.  You did not bring up Clinton's encouragement of dis-enfranchisement in Nevada.  You are not giving equal time and if that is your goal your comments are very one sided.

                          •  I'll Explain Why (0+ / 0-)

                            As Media Matters explains the LBJ/MLK comments by the Clintons were taken out of context. Hillary said nothing wrong or untrue.

                            As for the alleged disenfranchisement, if it's proven true, then I'll condemn it. But since it's only an allegation, I'll withhold judgment.

                          •  You cannot just cherry pick what you respond to (0+ / 0-)

                            You are clearly favoring the Clintons so why this veil of neutrality?  I think they are corrupt and they have not and do not tell the truth and think they will not do what they have promised in this campaign (that is the problem with people who do not tell the truth) so I will not support them, but do not claim to be neutral.  

                            And you cannot ignore the Clintons are polarizing as seen by the resulting state of the county after the Clinton presidency.  Barack is no Kerry and has held his own under pressure and especially when he is uniting people that would not ordinarily meet, namely independents and moderate republicans, which have already polled they would join Barack's Candidacy.  Clinton would get mauled in the left wing maelstrom.

                          •  Of Course I Favor the Clintons (0+ / 0-)

                            And when did I claim to be neutral?

                            While we agree to disagree on candidates, I notice that you're long on accusations, but short on details.

                          •  Ok (0+ / 0-)

                            Hsu, why was he not screened for felonies if he was to be such an important fund raiser for the Clintons?
                            http://blogs.abcnews.com/...

                            Bill Clinton defending voter dis-enfranchisement in Nevada only after his wife did not receive the union endorsement.
                            http://www.wcsh6.com/...

                            The most serious.

                            mis-truth emails from Clinton
                            http://blog.washingtonpost.com/...

                            Clinton would like to say that these did not orignate from her, but I do not buy it.  And even if they did not, that would make her incompetent to run an organization to allow this kind of repeated action.

                            Bill Clinton's Barack distortions
                            http://ap.google.com/...

                            I am being very critical, because people that find it this easy to look the other way and lie will not do what they say they will when elected.  There are just to many examples to explain away.

                          •  A Belated Reply (0+ / 0-)

                            I apologize for not replying to this comment earlier, but I signed off before you in turn responded. The following day for me was hectic. You raised some points which do merit a response, so better late than never

                            Yes, there is some behavior from the Clintons that I  am not happy with, but there is also quite a bit of similar nonsense coming out of the Obama camp, swill such as this from supporter William Jelani Cobb.
                            All Cobb did was to deride civil rights heroes such as John Lewis and Andy Young, guys who literally got their heads beat in for the cause.

                            And then there is this trash from Jesse Jackson Jr.

                            As for the Nevada teachers’ union lawsuit, while I disagree with bringing it, I still acknowledge that they had a decent argument. The culinary workers essentially voted in the presence of their union shop stewards. If you don’t think there was no coercion going on under those circumstances, you’re probably very mistaken. So to claim that only one side is distorting while the other pure is far from true.

                            And as someone who suffers from muscular dystrophy, Hillary has the strongest position on embryonic stem cell research. While all the Democratic contenders support the research, only Hillary stated that upon taking office she would immediately sign an executive order rescinding the Bush adminstration restrictions of August 9, 2001. It seems that both Obama and Edwards will wait an additional month or two for Congressional legislation. And for those of us racing against time, every moment counts.

                            In reality, the only point where Obama was a better liberal than Hillary was back in 2003 in deciding whether or not to give President the authority to use force in Iraq. Beyond that, Hillary (and for that matter, John Edwards too) have been much more consistent liberals.

                            As Paul Krugman pointed out on January 14, 2008 on economic issues:

                            Last week Hillary Clinton offered a broadly similar but somewhat larger proposal. (It also includes aid to families having trouble paying heating bills, which seems like a clever way to put cash in the hands of people likely to spend it.) The Edwards and Clinton proposals both contain provisions for bigger stimulus if the economy worsens.

                            As well as this:

                            The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar?

                            Anyway, on Sunday [January 13, 2008] Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right (emphasis added).

                            For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.

                            And if Krugman expresses concern, then so do I.

                          •  I've been critical of both of them. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            testvet6778

                            Unfortunately, some people are accepting right-wing lies and character assassinations of the Clintons as truth.  

                            There is plenty to criticize in Clinton.  Using right wing memes based in lies to do that is pathetic.  

                            Some Obama supporters have shown they don't want to hear any criticism of Obama while they will accept any lie no matter how far fetched against Clinton to the extent that we have people saying she's just as bad as the Republicans and they won't vote for her.  I've been supporting her against these ridiculous attacks.  I have been supporting her against the notion that Obama is the only one who can possibly win this campaign.  

                            I have not been thrilled with the way Clinton has been running her campaign.  I have for a long time stated I don't want her to win the candidacy.  Unfortunately Edwards has disappointed and looks like he won't win and the only other option Obama has no real distinction in policy or voting record.  So since I am not in favor of the idea of postpartisanship I'm reluctantly coming to the conclusion that if I want someone who will understand that the Repubs are not going to work with us I'll have to go with Clinton.  

                            So yeah I'm so supportive of Clinton I've been against her for serious reasons like the people she surrounds herself with like Mark Penn, for her connections to the DLC, for her stand on the Iraq war, for her lack of showing any leadership (which Obama shares).  I could go on here.  But notice these are all substantial issues not right wing made up things like Bill Clinton is a rapist or attempts to slander Hillary with racism by saying she disrespected MLK by saying LBJ was necessary.  

                            As for your attacks on the way Bill Clinton was behaving in Nevada note that Obama's campaign doesn't have clean hands either.  So don't start yelling at me about how I've slandered Saint Obama when you won't even look at the things he and his campaign have done.  Hard ball politics is being played on both sides here and I'm not pleased with either of them.  

                            ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                            by Rebecca on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:57:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, even if you believe in conspiracy (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dianem, testvet6778, belly

        theories, the elite wanted it to be Giuliani versus Clinton, not McCain.

        But that's not true either, the MSM have done everything within their power to derail HRC.

        •  Sure they have . . . (0+ / 0-)

          . . . like when CNN vetted the debate questions that Hillary would receive and had some college student ask her some inane softball shit instead.

          Yeah, right.

          That's an example of their "trying to derail" HRC.

          Plus, in many ways, Obama is just as much an establishment candidate as HRC is.  So, either way--with HRC OR Obama--the powers-that-be win.

          (And besides, the talk, going back at least two years, was that Obama was really likely to be the VP running mate.  That's what I really suspect he's running for now.  If and when HRC gets the nomination, if she selects Obama as her running mate, the script will have played out perfectly.)

          And unless you are part of the elite ruling class, you will lose.

          •  After all the bad blood between them? (0+ / 0-)

            I would have much less respect for Obama if he accepted the VP position in a Clinton campaign.  Since I have no respect for Clinton, I would not put it past her to want Obama as her VP insofar as that would guarantee the presidency, even after all she's done to trash him.

            •  All she's done to trash him?? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dianem, diane101, testvet6778

              "You're nice enough, Hillary."

              And then to leave Nevada without acknowledging Clinton's win, and claiming victory?

              It is obvious that he and his team despise Clinton. Whether they have cause or not, I don't know, but I know from the outside, it's having a real effect and looks ugly. I used to say that the party had 3 great candidates, but I don't say that much anymore. I'd like to believe it, and have considered myself pro-Clinton, while being open to either Obama or Edwards, but I have to say, the more I see, the more I'm compelled to work to thwart his candidacy. I've never felt compelled to work against a Democrat in a presidential primary before.

              And for the record, I will vote for him if he's the nominee, even as I suspect the doom he may well spell out for us. It's a different kind of doom than one of the Reps might bring. It's still a right-trending doom, though.

              Living with offense is the price we have to pay for living in a free and diverse society. Being offended is not the same as being oppressed. ~ Irshad Manji

              by belly on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:41:14 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  It does seem like "the powers that be"... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        testvet6778

        ...watch the field develop and then pack it to reinforce 'the chosen one'

      •  in that scenario (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        testvet6778

        I definitely vote for Hillary, but I'm afraid many others won't. McCain comes across as a decent sincere guy and many won't research enough to find out how he's not best for them or America.

        http://www.xanga.com/nicolemm

        by nicolemm on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 10:14:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fuck, McCain is an asshole that sold (0+ / 0-)

          his soul to the Bush-lovers and hard -right to get the nomination.

          Anyone remember his little PR trip to Baghdad where he said the streets of Baghdad were safe . . . . while being accompanied by a massive armed retinue?

          And yet, by general election time, such stunt will conveniently be forgotten by the public.  Certainly, the media will not remind the public of them.  And niether will the Hillary campaign . . . because it will reflect badly upon her own plan to continue to the imperialist occupation of Iraq.

          And the public will have forgotten, as we have another close election between "warm shit" Hillary and "cold shit" McCain.

          Yeah, tell me the system ain't rigged.

    •  When Bush first took office one of his first (4+ / 0-)

      moves was to take the surplus that Bill Clinton had created for the treasury, and proceed to squander it in giveaways to corporations and through gimmicky "tax rebate" checks to taxpaying families.  Some of us here will remember that those "rebates"-- which were trumpeted all over the place when Bush was on the campaign trail-- amounted to not that much for most families, maybe $150 or $250.  So much for giving American families "their hard earned money back," as I recall some of the rhetoric the Bush people threw around.

      This is just one more gimmick like that.  I support your support of Clinton for recognizing that all families need help.  But I am sorry that she is engaging in this sort of ploy.  It's absurd.  What working families-- those who pay payroll taxes, which Bush did NOT take into account when he talked about "taxes"-- really need are things like universal health coverage (or at the very least coverage for every single child in every family), a raise in the minimum wage, restoration of pension benefits for workers who have been denied them by "cost cutting" corporations whose CEOs are making astronomical salaries, and health benefits for retirees.  If you get workers healthier and feeling more secure, they will be better consumers.  Why isn't Clinton on the stump saying that THOSE things are what she wants to give to families so as to help stimulate the economy?

      •  she is this is something Bush and friends are (5+ / 0-)

        pushing she is just asking for the poor to get pissed on this time to  instead or just the upper echelon working poor  Bush wants to send people shopping due to Wall streets meltdown and he wanst to dump 150 billion into the economy  she is just asking for all to share in it

      •  A stimulus has to be administered quickly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        testvet6778

        or it does nothing to shorten or avoid a recession.,

      •  It's not absurd. It's a short term (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dianem, jen, testvet6778

        boost for an economy on the brink of recession (if not already there).  As for the other items you list, she addresses them and more with long term solutions.  If you're unaware of this you aren't paying attention.

        •  We have massive debt. Where is the money to pay (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          testvet6778

          for this stimulus?  It's coming from nowhere, just like everything else we do nowadays in the Bush deficit economy.  Such a stimulus is a bandaid.  I'm not saying people won't welcome it, especially people who are hurting right now.  But I still do think it's absurd.

          •  This kind of stimulus increases tax revenue (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            testvet6778

            We all know that tax cuts for rich people don't increase tax revenue. But putting dollars in the hands of people who will spend them does. If I get a tax rebate, I'll probably take a vacation. That means that I will give money to hotels and restaurants and car rental agencies. Each time I spend money, I will pay tax. But it doesn't stop there... the people working for those hotels and restaurants and car rental companies will have more money to spend, so they will spend that money, paying a tax as they spend it. And whereever they spend the money, people will have more money to spend and will pay a tax when they spend it. Even if they buy groceries, which are not taxed, they will be supporting farmers and ag workers and processing centers and grocery store workers.

            Each dollar spent cycles through the economy numerous times. Spending the dollar on imported goods reduces the local impact, but does not eliminte it - if I buy a television with my money, only part of that purchase prices goes to China - the taxes and cost of import and merchant overhead stay here. These payouts won't make the recession go away, but they can go a long way toward mitigating it.

            To hell with independents... I'll stick with the party that brought us social security, civil rights, and environmental protection.

            by dianem on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 10:19:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  good to see... (6+ / 0-)

      ...a candidate diary that a) makes a good positive case for a candidate, b) doesn't snipe at other Ds, and c) makes effective comparisons to the Rs.

      You set an example and this diary ought to be on the Rec list for a while to let people see it in action.  

      (Personally I'm supporting Obama in the primaries, but HRC would also make a smart and highly capable president, so if she's the nominee I'll support her in November.  Any D vs. any R, the choice is clear.  And we can be proud of all of our candidates.  Frankly I feel sorry for the Rs this season, heh...)

    •  Tip'd and rec'd (no surprises there.) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      testvet6778

      Thanks for your work, which supplies a much needed corrective on this site.

      The hungry judges soon the sentence sign, And wretches hang, that jurymen may dine.

      by magnetics on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 10:40:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you testvet! I've been pounding on this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      testvet6778

      for months. If the veterans community as a whole had a better picture of our candidates' voting records (especially Hillary's, since the right wing has done such a thorough job of trashing her record) it would be a big help in defeating McCain, should he become the nominee. Someone with real name recognition-- like Wes Clark for example-- needs to be visiting veterans associations and pounding it home that the Republicans in general simply do not put their money where their mouths are. They're a bunch of flag waving phonies, every one of them!

      I would love to see some vet at McCain's campaign visits put him on the spot by asking "Why did you vote against such-and-such Bills, Senator?"

      Thanks for taking the time to post this info.

      We find that after years of struggle we do not take a journey, but rather a journey takes us. John Steinbeck, Travels with Charley

      by tigerdog on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 10:41:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site