Daily Kos

Hillary, I am NOT your friend. (with poll)

Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 05:27:24 PM PDT

Today my postal mailbox yielded yet another in the endless stream of solicitations from "Friends of Hillary."

Hillary's mailing starts off like so:

"Dear Friend,

Part of my job is being a good listener.  Whether it's listening to my colleagues in the Senate, voters back home in New York, or Americans across the country as I work hard for the causes so important to us - like improving access to health care, strengthening the economy, protecting social security and our constitutional rights, and fighting for wiser national and homeland security policies - it's an important part of what I do"

Hillary goes on after the flip....

Her mailing continues...

"Now, I'd like to listen to you.  Specifically, I'd like to know what's on your mind right now, and how I and other Democrats can do more to address your urgent concerns."

It goes on like this for a couple pages, laced with familiar campaign pleas for money, highlighting a few of the Bad Things that Republicans run amok have done to screw the country and the world (not in so many words, of course).

Enclosed is a 4 page "survey" which asks you to rank the issues which are your greatest concerns.  Oh, yeah, there's a place to enter your credit card info and make a donation.  No big surprise there.

What's also not a surprise - but should be - is the fact that of the 9 issues she asks you to rank, there's not a single word about the bloody and shameful war in Iraq.

That's right, the elephant in the room is carefully and completely ignored - just like it always is in her mailings.

I guess it's just not on Hilary's radar scope.  It's certainly not anywhere on her 4-page "survey" of important issues.

So I do what I do every time I get crap like this from a politician who pretends to be a "leader" on the national stage. I get out a big, fat red marker, and I write the following on their solicitation:

NO, YOU MORON.
IT'S THE FUCKING WAR IN IRAQ!
IDIOT.

Then I put the survey back in their postage-paid business reply envelope, and send it back.

I keep thinking that I ought to tape it to a brick first before mailing it, so it costs their campaign ten bucks in postage instead of just a few pennies.  I figure if enough people started doing this, they might actually pause briefly while counting the checks and maybe, just maybe think for a brief moment how morally bankrupt they are.

OK, that's naive.

Still, I cannot just sit here, shrug it off, and simply send this crap to the recycling bin over and over.  When these Republican-lite assholes - who are responsible for starting this war - refuse to even acknowledge that it's an issue, as far as I'm concerned, they're no different from Bush and the other fascists - they just have diferent PR firms crafting their talking points.

It offends me that they aspire to lead the Democratic party.

So what's the appropriate response to these crass politicians who pretend to be leaders, yet refuse to even see the single biggest issue facing our country today?

Poll

How do you respond to Hillary's appeals?

9%15 votes
19%31 votes
18%30 votes
4%7 votes
47%76 votes

| 159 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 162 comments

  •  I get those too (none / 1)

    and I don't like them either.
  •  No Answer for Other (4.00 / 8)

    I got that letter today. I took a magic marker and wrote "End the War in Iraq" on each page. I am putting it in the mail tomorrow.

    Keep your eyes on the prize.

    by Better Days on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 05:34:00 PM PDT

  •  I hate those stupid surveys (none / 0)

    I get them from everyone, including and especially Hillary. Give me a break: Tax breaks for the wealthy or supporting duckies-and-bunnies-and-orphans-with-good-political-beliefs?!? Why do you think I am a Democrat? Hillary gets not a single dime from me.
  •  Honestly (none / 0)

    Certain DLC Dems think they can run while continuing to duck the Iraq issue.  They really do.  

    Not so, Hillary.

    But, what do you expect her to say?  She was bamboozled by an idiot?  "Oops! My bad!"  Or, the truth, "I didn't want to look soft on defense.  I saw how the no voters for Oil War I were portrayed.  Hey, in reality, politics trumps principle.  Grow up!  Plus, there were all those yellow ribbons and red, white and blue bunting. I wanted those for my campaign commercials!"

    No, she can't say that.  So instead, she says nothing.  Thousands of Americans dead and injured.  Countless Iraqis dead.  $200 billion down the hole.  And she says nothing.

    The problem with voting with the Republicans is that you end up having to defend their policies, and their policies are indefensible.

    No more Republican rule.

    by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 05:36:35 PM PDT

    •  Duck the issue = you lose (none / 0)

      Yeah, we've all seen how well Democrats do while trying to pretend there's no war in Iraq and everything's peachy.

      Sure, I realize they know they're trapped.  It's a trap entirely of their own making.  But they re-make the trap every day.

      They can either admit they made a mistake (something that even Bush has had to do - sort of), give some excuse (lame or otherwise) and deal with the consequences.  Or they can live in denial.  If they don't deal with it, they will lose.

      And I will have no regrets when they do.  Feh.

  •  I received that poll a couple of months ago (none / 0)

    and when I saw that she didn't address the war in iraq - and something else I can't remember but whatever it was it was important to me - I threw it in the trash.

    I was insulted that she was trying to tell me what to think.  

    "Good Listener" Ha!

  •  agree but disagree (4.00 / 2)

    I agree that her vote was wrong and she should say a lot more about Iraq now, but...I basically like Hillary. She honestly cares about issues that matter as well, like health care.  More importantly she doesn't spend too much time bashing democrats to her left. Whether she should run for Prez or not is another issue.  I think there must be better candidates for prez.

    I think if Hillary would just accept the role of senator she could accomplish a lot more for democrats.  Her position in NY seems very secure now.  She needs to settle for the job of influential senator from a pretty blue state and kick some Republican ass.

  •  I don't think I'll ever (3.75 / 8)

    understand some of you people. Every day, hundreds of times a day, people complain that their polititions don't listen to them. Then when they get something that asks your opinion, you get pissed because they didn't ask about the one important issue to you. To top all that off, you then berate that politition for not addressing that point, instead of just putting in that point along with answering the other questions.

    Every time I have ever gotten a mailer like that I have responded and put other comments where I could fit them. I'm not rude, I'm not hysterical and I don't give any money.

    I'm sorry, but it is just plain stupid to complain about people not listening and then berate them for trying to listen.

    •  what? (none / 0)

      speak up.

      I want Lamont to win, but I won't cry when he doesn't.

      by BiminiCat on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 05:42:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But they're NOT (none / 0)

      Unfortunately, they only SAY they're listening.  In reality, they don't give a damn what you or I think.

      You make a list of the 9 most urgent issues facing the country today.  Go ahead.  Can you honestly say that there would be NOTHING on that list about Iraq?

      We're not talking about some tiny, obscure ite that's only of interest to a small group of whackos.  We're talking about one of the biggest and most callous policy blunders in the nation's history. It's not like it's exactly a secret, ya know.

    •  Not asking for your opinion (3.25 / 4)

      asking for your $$$$

      The questions are worse than a Lou Dobbs poll. It's such an obvious waste of time, seeks to gather no information and is highly insulting.

      Let me ask your opinion, I really want your thoughts on this critical question:

      If you knew that George W. Bush was legally insane, would you say the our country needs:

      • more crazy leaders
      • fewer crazy leaders
      • psychotropic drugs in the water
      • what does crazy mean?
    •  Among other things (4.00 / 2)

      it's not asking for your opinion.  It's giving you a range of choices, pre-selected.  I think this is part of what some call "push polling."  

      So it's part of some sort of "message polishing" by someone who has already decided on the main message (e.g., timid centrist domestically, PNAC throwback re foreign policy).

      But don't confuse it with truly open-ended attempts to hear our opinions.  That's why it's trashy even before it gets filed appropriately.

    •  When i want to get a messgage (none / 0)

      to my House Rep, Tammy Baldwin, or Senator Feingold, I just go to their next local event, and talk to them.

      This is a test of the Emergency Free Speech System.
      This is only a test.
      If this had been an actual emergency, I'd already be locked up.

      by ben masel on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:09:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  hillaryhillaryhillaryhillary (1.00 / 4)

    hillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhi llaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhill aryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryihatehillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryh illaryhillaryhillaryihatehillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhilla ryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryihatehillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhi llaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillary

    I want Lamont to win, but I won't cry when he doesn't.

    by BiminiCat on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 05:41:13 PM PDT

  •  Generic question (none / 0)

    Who am I to despise more -- my enemy for wanting to harm me, or my friend for wanting to be seen with him?
    •  you should despise yourself (1.50 / 4)

      for posing such an ignorant question.

      I want Lamont to win, but I won't cry when he doesn't.

      by BiminiCat on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 05:49:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's a very generic and sensible question (none / 0)

        Do I despise my outspoken enemy, or my friend who wants to hang out with him?

        Perhaps you are correct, and there is no moral distinction between the two.

        Your self-actualized thoughts?

        In my self-despising state, I cannot possibly compete with your clarity and cogency. :)

        •  it's ignorant (none / 0)

          because hillary does not stand with repugs.

          nope.

          she does not.

          I want Lamont to win, but I won't cry when he doesn't.

          by BiminiCat on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 05:55:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Iraq is a four letter word (none / 0)

            Silly me.

            I shouldn't have said that. :)

          •  Yes, She Does (none / 1)

            At least on the IWR.  She still does, to this day.  

            Some would argue that the Iraq War is the most salient issue of our time.  Others publish surveys ignoring the issue, and hoping the voters won't notice.  

            The DLC bet that Iraq would be settled business by the time the 2004 elections rolled around, and they wanted to be on the "strong on defense" side.   They lost the bet.  

            No more Republican rule.

            by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 05:59:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  nope (none / 0)

              she does not support how this war has been conducted.

              while she might agree on regime change and believe it's imperative we complete a mission in iraq, to say that she would have waged the same war is.... yes... call it an unproductive comment...  it is ignorance.

              she does not stand with repugs.

              I want Lamont to win, but I won't cry when he doesn't.

              by BiminiCat on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 06:02:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ignorance (none / 0)

                Was believing this administration.  In order to defend Hillary's vote, you would have to say the majority of the Democrats in the Congress who voted against the IWR unreasonably tied the hands of the Commander In Chief in the face of an imminent threat from Iraq.  

                The no-voting Democrats (the majority) did not do that.  History bears them out.  

                No more Republican rule.

                by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 06:21:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I'm sorry (none / 0)

              but the IWR is not the only vote in the history of the world. If we're going to be forever blacklisting senators for the IWR, then we are going to have one incredibly tiny tent.

              I want to win. You want to beat him, and that's a problem for me, because I want to win. -The West Wing

              by AnnArborBlue on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 06:03:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  True (4.00 / 3)

                Hillary has been very courageous and has risked enormous political capital on the issue of regulating video games.  

                She'll be remembered for that.

                No more Republican rule.

                by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 06:22:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Damn that Hillary (none / 0)

                  She stands with the GOP.

                  Abortion Issues
                  (Back to top)

                  2004  Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

                  2003-2004  Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 0 percent in 2003-2004.

                  Civil Liberties
                  (Back to top)

                  2003-2004  Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004.

                  2003-2004  Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

                  2003-2004  Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 100 percent in 2003-2004.

                  2003-2004  Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

                  2003-2004  Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda 100 percent in 2003-2004.

                  Conservative
                  (Back to top)

                  Fall 2004  Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Conservative Index - The John Birch Society 33 percent in Fall 2004.

                  2004  Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Eagle Forum 20 percent in 2004.

                  2004  Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

                  2004  Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

                  2004  Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004.

                  2004  Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Republican Liberty Caucus 13 percent in 2004.

                  2003-2004  Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 7 percent in 2003-2004.

                  2003-2004  On the votes that the Campaign for Working Families considered to be the most important in 2003-2004, Senator Clinton voted their preferred position 5 percent of the time.

                  2003  Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Family Research Council 14 percent in 2003.

                  •  What about Iraq? (none / 0)

                    Do you have a quote from Hillary on Iraq?  I do. I have several.

                    No more Republican rule.

                    by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 06:28:29 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  do share (none / 0)

                      i want to see those quotes.

                      cause i have my own hillary quotes.

                      maybe we can play dueling quotes.

                      I want Lamont to win, but I won't cry when he doesn't.

                      by BiminiCat on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 06:33:59 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  So you would be willing (none / 0)

                      to vote for a Republican over Hillary because of Iraq, regardless of any other position?

                      Remarkable.

                      •  No (none / 0)

                        Under no circumstances would I vote Republican.  And no more will I vote for Democrats who vote like Republicans, especially on such important issues as the IWR.  

                        I'm spoiled, in certain respects.  My Congressional Rep is John Conyers.  My Senators are Levin and Stabenow.  I love Conyers and Levin, and I can put up with Stabenow (even though she, unfortunately, voted for the Bankruptcy bill).   I'll happily vote for all three when they run for re-election.  

                        But, when it comes to the presidency, if the Dems present us with another spineless candidate who has voted with the GOP so often that he/she is powerless to speak up against them, well, there are other parties.   In Michigan, scores of different parties were represented on the ballot for president when I voted last year.  

                        John Kerry voted for the IWR.  I voted for him for president.  The imperative was to get Bush out.  That trumped every other consideration I had.  I fell in line.  But we failed.  That failure has profound, inescapable consequences.

                        From now on, I cast my vote based on principles and not upon scare tactics from my supposed betters.  From now on, I don't give a damn about the electoral college.

                        Give me a candidate worthy of calling themselves a Democrat, and I'll vote for them.  Give me a candidate who votes with the GOP when they think it may be expedient, and I'll cast my vote elsewhere, or simply undervote.

                        Other reasonable people may stake out different ground.  That's fine.  But I know what I'm going to do.

                        No more Republican rule.

                        by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 06:47:06 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  Disparaging bad votes on the Fugitive Slave Act (none / 1)

                If only.
          •  Yes she did. (none / 0)

            A few months she stood right next to that slime Newt Gingric.  I forget why now, but they gave a press conference together - a friendly though tight-lipped press conference, showing that they agreed about something.  So she did stand next to a Republican, and a particularly repulsive one.  Just saying.

            John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

            by redrelic17 on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 07:54:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  For the record (none / 0)

        This is too volatile an exchange for Mutually Assured Trolling.

        Here. Have a compensatory "4".

    •  Despise not (none / 0)

      Lest ye be forced to bring a civil rights case before the Roberts Court, proving that the fates despise you in turn....
  •  The very last thing (none / 1)

    any junk-mail solicitation of my money is interested in, is my opinion.  This is especially true about the ones with the bogus "surveys" enclosed.  The only purpose of the survey questions is to try to make you empathize with the cause that's reaching for your wallet.

    Even worse are the ones with "petitions" enclosed, but I ain't even going there.

  •  asdf (none / 0)

    If the Two Party System is to ever work there should be some way to hold our Democratic Elected Representatives & Senators Accountable for there Performance & Votes. It's great that you brought it to the Attention of the Community...but at the end of the year Senators like Clinton should be brought before A Tribunal of Democractic Citizens and explain there Actions/Inaction of the Past Year on a Yearly Basis. Citizens should be asked to attend.

    I would hope that is why the Repube Party is so out of line there constitutents don't hold them accountble.

    I know there is a reason that "Some" Politicians Campaign from afar and are never to be seen again until Press Time or Election Time.

    •  umm (none / 0)

      If the Two Party System is to ever work there should be some way to hold our Democratic Elected Representatives & Senators Accountable for there Performance & Votes.

      There is. It's called voting.

      I want to win. You want to beat him, and that's a problem for me, because I want to win. -The West Wing

      by AnnArborBlue on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 05:56:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Voting works Great! (none / 0)

        Pres. Mubarek just got 88% of the vote in Egypt. (Despite the fact the majority of Egyptians know he is nothing but a puppet.) It's nice to own the media and can control who the candidates are!

        Saddam used to get 99% of the vote.

        When the media fails to accurately portray the candidates, and the candidates make up a media package to sell themselves instead of being forced to answer to the people, we voters don't have a clue who we are voting for. Ours is only slightly better here than other fake democracies. But 'voting' in and of itself solves nothing.

        The media has already deemed Hillary to be the front runner list, they are running articles on her as if she has already been picked to lead, all without the dems even making the decision. Why? It sells more papers than if someone that was less polarizing but with a more indepth knowledge of affairs (both foreign and domestic) was picked to lead.

  •  Got the mailer (4.00 / 3)

    Got it a month ago and felt the same way.
    I just added my own issue to the list.
    #1 Iraq War and mailed it back.
    Hope lot's of folks did the same.

    Better the occasional fault of a gov't that lives in a spirit of charity than one that remains frozen in the ice of its own indifference. FDR

    by scoutt on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 05:53:31 PM PDT

  •  I wish I got the letter (none / 0)

    - she'd get another red-markered-up survery here as well.  Since I didn't, here are my concerns, Hillary (and I DO live in New York officially now, so next election I'll be a voter in your constituency)

    1) Iraq - when are we getting out?  

    (And while we're at it, who got away with all the money we poured into the "reconstruction" while the Iraqi people we love so much still go without water and power and are afraid to walk down their own streets? Will they be tracked down, prosecuted, and punished?  Will they be forced to pay back OUR TAX DOLLARS for services they didn't provide?)

    2) Election reform - we have to stop them (or anyone for that matter!) from cheating next time or we don't have a democracy.  Period.

    3)"Homeland Insecurity" - Katrina has proven that the billions of dollars poured into our response to natural or manmade disasters have bought us...DIDDLY SQUAT.  The administration has had FIVE YEARS to prepare for emergencies - what did they do with the money?  How did they screw this up and who - from the bottom to the very top (you know who I mean) is not only "responsible" - but to BLAME?  How will the guilty be called accountable for the thousands of deaths, the unimaginable pain and suffering?

    1. Treason:  how can highly placed administration officials get away with betraying the identity of a covert CIA agent - effectively cutting off the career of someone working on the most important of ALL national security issues - nuclear proliferation?  How will you ensure that THESE criminals are brought to justice?

    2. The destruction of the Middle Class - under the burdens of gas prices, ruthless bankruptcy laws, tax breaks for the top 1%, the erosion of the social service safety net, and out of the galaxy health care costs.  Poverty has increased greatly in this nation under George Bush - you saw what third world America looks like when Katrina laid it bare.  Where are the new poor coming from?  The lower middle class.  The middle class are moving into the lower middle class.  The upper middle class is moving to the middle...while the upper classes get richer and more secure.  What is this, the gilded age? I want to see some sort of movement toward levelling the playing field so that the American Dream can be a reality for the rest of our citizens again.

    That's enough for now, Hillary.  Are you really going to run for President?  They say you have the nomination locked up if you run.  Then I suggest you start looking at these very real issues of leadership NOW.  

    This nation can't afford another President who won't stand by its people.

    "There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS." - Gandhi

    by hopesprings on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 05:55:43 PM PDT

  •  Some people (none / 0)

    Just don't want Hillary re-elected as Senator from New York.

    Isn't that what this is all about?

    •  WTF? (none / 0)

      That's silly.  I really couldn't care one way or the other if she's re-elected as Senator from NY.

      I would like her to be a litle bit less dishonest on this issue.

      •  A Fundraising Mailing - WTF (none / 0)

        A fundraising mailing is not a policy statement.  It is a tool for targeting a campaign message.  The fool thing is not written by the candidate and while approved by the campaign staff, it is doubtful the candidate ever sees it.

        How is not saying anything about the Iraq war being dishonest?  The Iraq war might be an issue that is a known quantity in the upcoming campaign.  I think a lot of the folks who voted for the Iraq War Resolution might now have big second thoughts.  But that is not the content of a campaign mailer.

        And it is important because the money raised through the campaign mailer will go for her Senate campaign in New York.  It is not a silly statement.

        Let's not get ahead of ourselves.  Save your doubts for 2007.  Contrary to popular opinion, no one will have a lock on the nomination before January 2007.

        And one of my criteria of leadership is how many House and Senate Democrats the presidential candidate helped elect.  That will not be evident until November 2006.

        •   but but but (none / 0)

          of all the Democratic candidates who desperately need to be soliciting out-of-state funds for a Senate race, somebody like Hillary Clinton--who is already well funded, may not be facing strong opposition, and already has name recognition to burn--isn't terribly high on my list.
          •  Not high on my list either for 2006 (none / 0)

            I am trusting the New York Democrats to make the 2006 re-election happen.

            There are more important races to support.  Which ones depend on candidate recruitment.  Hackett in Ohio, for example.  Whoever is going to take down Santorum.  Long shot opposition to Kyl.  Capturing Kay Bailey Hutchinson's seat.  The Frist open seat.  Any long-shot opposition to Trent Lott.  Taken Allen's Senate seat in Virginia.  Taking down Orrin Hatch. But these are just my judgments.

            The 2008 hopefuls who help these races and help our challenger take back the House will be my preferred choices in 2008.

            We need a 435 Congressional District full-court press that sweeps out a lot of the current Republican leadership in the House and the Senate.  If we do that, we will have a clearer idea of the candidate for 2008.

  •  debraz (none / 0)

    is giving me 1s again cause she disagrees and won't reply..

    I want Lamont to win, but I won't cry when he doesn't.

    by BiminiCat on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 05:57:08 PM PDT

  •  I'll chuckle fondly and think (none / 0)

    "remember all the dKos Hilary bashing a few years back? That was cute" when Im pulling the lever for her in 11/08 if she's the candidate.

    It's a neighborly day in this beautywood. Relentless!

    by ablington on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 05:57:24 PM PDT

    •  Not me (none / 0)

      I'll find some kook on the left with no chance and vote for them.  At least I won't have to take a shower after I get back from voting.
      •  ahh (none / 1)

        but how will you feel in the shower the next 4 years knowing that a Republican is in power? An actual one. Not just one you like to think is a Republican.

        I want to win. You want to beat him, and that's a problem for me, because I want to win. -The West Wing

        by AnnArborBlue on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 06:04:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Im a '00 Nader voter. (4.00 / 2)

        Im going to vote for the Democrat in 08. That way my agenda may stand a chance of increasing in tiny increments instead of taking giant steps backwards.

        The lesson I learned in 00 is that the Dem and the Repub ARE different, make no mistake. Even if its Hilary Clinton.

        It's a neighborly day in this beautywood. Relentless!

        by ablington on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 06:07:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  So what? (none / 0)

      You'd still get someone that agrees with Republicans and won't stand up against them. In reality, there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans that are currently in office with a few exceptions. When both are all for running America off a cliff, it's time to bail.

      A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

      by Tux on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 07:03:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  woman candidate (none / 0)

    Is there another viable Dem woman that any of you would consider?

    Better the occasional fault of a gov't that lives in a spirit of charity than one that remains frozen in the ice of its own indifference. FDR

    by scoutt on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 05:59:46 PM PDT

  •  Hillary would be a bad idea. (none / 0)

    Anyone who supported Iraq should not be considered for the '08 nomination. It would also help not to get someone from the Senate. Only two have made the jump to president from there.

    IMO:
    Clinton, Bayh, Edwards and Kerry

    Are DOA

    It will be too easy to portray them as, lord I hate this word, flip floppers.

    Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Mark Warner of Virginia, Rod Blagojevich of Illinois and Tom Vilsack of Iowa would be much better choices, but what the hell do I know?

  •  You Hillary Haters are getting boring (4.00 / 3)

    Pick a candidate and support them.   Tell me about Wesley Clark's attributes and positives rather than a screed about Hillary's negatives.   Stop using all of your free time to bash Billary.  For you are starting to sound as shrill as a Republican.

     

  •  It's the Bill Frist mailings that piss me off... (none / 1)

    The last one:

             Help me collect more money to perform cat vivisections!

    Bastard.

  •  Personally (none / 1)

    Hillary is fine to me. Not progressive enough, but neither is Schumer. Why does everyone focus on Hillary when Schumer is just as bad if not worse? And BOTH of them are, overall, not bad. They just aren't strong leaders and don't take what they see as controversial positions.

    But honestly, I don't give a rat's ass who doesn't like Hillary...or Biden. The bottom line is if we don't get rid of the Republican majority in both houses, millions more will die worldwide, with or without weak Dems going along with it. I wish that everyone who complains about Hillary or Biden or Lieberman would actually contribute time or money to defeat the ten weakest Republicans or the Katrina 11. Some do, of course! But those who spend more time complaining about Hillary than they do defeating Republicans need to get their priorities straight. I know people don't like hearing that, but more 9/11 attacks and Katrina fiascos are the result of Republican domination. If we aren't spending MOST of our time defeating THEM, then we are fucked.

    •  We're Already Fucked (none / 1)

      Everyone bucked up and supported the ticket in 2004.  We didn't make it.  

      The worst case scenario is here.  Look around.  Our country is well and truly screwed. Scare tactics won't work anymore.

      The only silver lining is, now, we vote on merit.

      No more Republican rule.

      by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 06:56:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The worst case (none / 0)

        The worst case is only beginning. We have to be far more together than we were in 2004. FAR more together. I am fighting for progressives in NYC today and finding even leftists can't agree on favored candidates, let alone Democrats in general.

        I DO vote on merit. But I also vote based on the consequences. The worst case scenario is because the Republicans dominate ALL levels of government AND the media. We HAVE to end that or the real worst case scenario will make what we are experiencing today seem like paradise. They have only just begun to fuck us. Things will get much worse unless we ALL get BUSY and get UNITED. Here in NYC I have seen neither, so Republicans and corrupt Democrats will continue to dominate one of the most progressive cities in the nation. We aren't doing what it takes to win. We had better learn fast because things are declining fast.

        •  Leadership (none / 0)

          It's a time for genuine leadership, wouldn't you say?  Especially in the Democratic Party.

          No more Republican rule.

          by HarveyMilk on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 07:08:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (none / 0)

            And believe me I am trying to support real leaders. But we can't wait for someone else to provide it. We either have to lead ourselves or someone here has to become the leader. I have found leftists here in NYC unwilling to get involved. Even when there are a couple of really kick ass candidates out there! Instead they sit it out. In that atmosphere, big money takes over, and grassroots are meaningless. If we want things to be different, we need to work REALLY hard to support the good folks. Paul Hackett was great, but already we have missed about a half dozen other opportunities that the SAME effort could have won for us but we ignored (by and large) and if we want 2006 to go our way we need to put the same effort in each district starting NOW. Instead, we wait for a leader and wait...and wait...and...

            the Republicans win yet again, taking our nation deeper into dictatorship.

  •  Hillary for Prez? NOT! (none / 1)

    Hillary gets the nomination and I'm voting Green along with my sister.
  •  margins (none / 0)

    i should apologize about the margins.

    but i don't apologize for the content of the posts themselves.

    we'll be fighting over IWR in 2085.

    luckily for you, .. and for me..  i'll be dead by then.

    but at least my kids kids can fight over IWR with your kids kids.

    woo hoo!!!

    peace.

    I want Lamont to win, but I won't cry when he doesn't.

    by BiminiCat on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 06:17:41 PM PDT

    •  Unfortunately (none / 0)

      With "Democrats" who place their own careers over the nation (which in my book, is even worse than Republicans placing party over county), our grandchildren will be fighting in Iraq and Syria, and Iran, and everyplace else), too.
      •  dem careers (none / 0)

        need to be ended.

        right?

        I want Lamont to win, but I won't cry when he doesn't.

        by BiminiCat on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 06:23:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Depends . . . (none / 0)

          if Zell Miller still had a career in politics, I think I'd support ending it.
          •  zell.... ha. now that's a different story (none / 0)

            do you want to end Hillary's career in politics???

            yes or no??

            I want Lamont to win, but I won't cry when he doesn't.

            by BiminiCat on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 06:36:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nope, I just don't want her (none / 0)

              running for president.  Especially because I think her chances of winning are just awful.
              •  which is fine (none / 1)

                but saying she stands with repugs on the iraq war i still think that's ignorant cause it ignores the fact that everyone in the whole fucking world knows that hillary would have done the whole thing a lot differently if she did it at all.

                the rest is just mindless incessant divisive rhetoric.

                again.  if you vote for someone else in a primary, i have so much respect for that.  sincerely.

                I want Lamont to win, but I won't cry when he doesn't.

                by BiminiCat on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 06:41:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  asdf (none / 1)

                  "but saying she stands with repugs on the iraq war"

                  Well, fine, but of course I never said that. :-)

                  "i still think that's ignorant cause it ignores the fact that everyone in the whole fucking world knows that hillary would have done the whole thing a lot differently if she did it at all."

                  Huh? If she did what at all?  

                  •  others did (none / 0)

                    and blah blah blah and all that.

                    if hillary was prez we would not be in iraq right now.

                    i guess i'm just