Daily Kos

What is the Netroots Integrity?  Does it Exist?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:45:11 PM PDT

As we are winding down this cycle before the primaries start, I have been thinking about the Netroots.

Who are we?

Where do we come from?

What is our agenda?

Really, what is our agenda?

I read an article on Huffington Post that just blew me away, but more importantly it raises questions about the Netroots.

I started blogging because I was just fucking sick and tired of George W. Bush.  If you ever want someone to drag a party down, just say his name.  And when you see Republicans cringe at his name, you are onto something.

Everyone here has various opinions, but overall, we are supposed to be progressives.  Meaning, moving things forward.  Demanding change.  Making our politicians accountable for any of their decisions.  And if we get sick and tired of being, sick and tired, we have the courage to DEMAND CHANGE.

Now, I read this article and it featured our landlord, the notorious, kos.  I don't know kos.  He seems like someone I can argue with and it is still cool.  But this article is taking not only kos, but netroots to its core existence.  Who are we?  And will we just settle for anything?

"We may decide she's not our first choice, but she's not a bad choice." - Markos Moulitsas, August 4, 2007

It was a surprising thing for Markos, the founder of DailyKos the most widely read political blog, to say. He made that statement just before the candidate forum at YearlyKos in Chicago where Hillary Clinton gave her take on lobbyists. First, by insisting that the money she takes from them doesn't effect her vote- which is the equivalent of saying voters is stupid. And then by defending lobbyists- "A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like or not, represent real Americans," she said. "They represent nurses, social workers and, yes, they represent corporations and they employ a lot of people."

OK. Hillary Clinton is the Democrat for lobbyists. At least we know where she stands on that one.

I was at Yearly Kos and sitting there with a table of Hillary supporters when she dropped that bombshell out of her mouth.

My reaction, stunned.  Really.  This is a woman who does not say those things in public.  Even the supporters at the table were shocked.  One stated, "How could she say that?"  Well, she did and has no repercussions about it at all.  That alone states volumes about Hillary Clinton.

The blogosphere was chatting away at it, but was not a total blast by the front pagers.  Sorry, it was not.

And if she is our nominee, don't expect a whole lot of anything in her first term.  That has been bought and paid for by the ones donating the most to her campaign, the lobbyists.

Remember, you get what you vote for.

She's also the Democrat who blames the failure in Iraq on the Iraqis, stating that our troops did their job but the Iraqis didn't take advantage of what we had done for them. As if the situation in Iraq can be blamed on anyone other than the people that got us into this war.

I realize Hillary has changed her position significantly on Iraq, if not on the Iraqis. She finally regrets her vote for war (yes, it was a vote for war). But the Netroots is supposed to be about standing for something. This movement, this rejection of politics as usual, rejection of politics by the corporations for the corporations, is supposed to be about something.

That above says a lot about how many feel.  How can we nominate a person who voted for this tragedy called, The Iraq War?  But more importantly, how can we even not take to task what is happening with Iran and Hillary Clinton's vote for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment?  

Aren't we supposed to be pissed to no ends at these politicians who have voted for this?  But more importantly, more vigorously at the ones who do not have the gumption to admit the vote was wrong?

What is going on here?  Are we that afraid to actually say NO?  Because Hillary Clinton is not representative to most of us.  She is not.  And this is reflective in her stance in Iowa, one of the early states, versus the national polling.  Maybe, the good folk in Iowa can smell bullshit and we just can not.  Ummm, that is a thought.

Finally....

A prominent blogger once told me that the Netroots was immune to flattery. He was either lying to me or he was lying to himself. Nobody is immune to flattery. It's not a bad thing when Hillary Clinton shows up at a blogger candidate forum, but it doesn't mean that much. Especially if she's going to stand on stage and defend lobbyists.

Are we sell outs?  Really.  Are we?  Are we sell outs because we believe the inevitable and just want a glimpse of Clinton?  Or do we really believe in Hillary Clinton's positions and that she will be the best person to bring our country together.

Well, I don't believe in the hype.  I don't.  And we have great progressive candidates to choose from, who represent us, who we are.  And one of the candidates is definitely not Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But, to cover all assets, we will humbly vote for her if she is the nominee.  Won't we?  Won't you?  Won't me?

And that thought alone, just stinks.

Tags: Daily Kos, Markos Moulitsas, Hillary Clinton, Netroots (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 188 comments

    •  Honestly, it seems to me that the netroots (10+ / 0-)

      as a whole, and certainly the prominent bloggers, have decided that Hillary is acceptable. I don't know how or when that happened, but there has definitely been a change of attitude.

      I trust Barack Obama.

      by casperr on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:05:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, a Clinton dynasty is unacceptable.. (8+ / 0-)

        What we've decided is that we may be powerless to stop it, and that a Democratic President, even if it's Clinton II, is far superior to a Republican President, -- and that our movement doesn't want to be left out in far left field.

        I'd hope that in the next 10-12 weeks the discussion would move towards selecting one "anti-Clinton" candidate to support. But that doesn't seem to be happening, and there is a very good chance that the Clinton gang walks away with our Dem nomination, despite less than 50% support.

        Yet it could be that the chances the netroots galvanizes around one "anti-Clinton" progressive are slim to none. Certainly the establishment played divide-and-conquer in 2004, what with the introduction of General Clark.

        But please know that yours truly will never cede the people's party to Hillary, McAwful, Jim Carville, Rahm Emmanuel and their lobbyist friends. If anyone thinks a political movement happens in just five years, they are sorely mistaken....

        Obama supporters need to be good winners down the stretch. Repeat after me, Clinton Democrats care about the same things I do. Clinton Democrats care...

        by TrueBlueCT on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:29:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Totally (5+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        jxg, cosbo, casperr, Hairy Legs, icebergslim

        It happened just before it was announced she was attending YK.  I'm cynical, so I have all kinds of delicious, stupid, weird and plausible scenarios running through my head on why all of a sudden the people who spent an inordinate amount of time blasting Clinton for breathing, all of a sudden are okay with her.  Not fully behind or pushing for her, but saying things like, "Well, if she's the nominee, I'd support her" when just 6 months, last year, they were gnashing teeth at the mere thought of her name being on a ballot.

        Personally, I've never got the full on HillaryHatefest this site was, but I did notice once Markos stopped needlessly dogging on her, the people here stopped it to.  Which is not to say there aren't still (alarmingly odd) people who will drop a anti-Hillary comment in a diary about cats.

        Outta here, I don't deal well with sites that condone racism.

        by fabooj on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:49:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Kyl-Lieberman needs to change that back (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        icebergslim

        The main problem the Democratic party has today on policy is their caving in on war and peace issues, IMO.

        Letting war enablers get away with their actions should not be acceptable.

        Edwards, the mucho macho war-hawk on Iraq was allowed to somehow fake and do a pivot, and Hillary gamed likewise on the war over the summer.

        Once her poll numbers rose to a wide enough margin, she pirouetted back to being pro-war and voted for Kyl-Lieberman. We need to say enough is enough and hold her (as well as ALL Iraq invasion enablers) accountable.

        See what Lincoln Chafee, the only Republican to vote against the war says:

        Lincoln Chafee: "Anybody Who Voted for the War Is Disqualified"
        link
        video

        There's a reason why Chafee says what he does.

        The Iraq war, probably the worst blunder of several generations that we have made, WAS a war of choice. A completely unnecessary one.

        People that enabled that war were not dumb. No on misled them. Thanks to Graham's work, it was more than amply evident that there existed no basis to invade Iraq preemptively and hence that it was unacceptable to give Bush the authority to do so.

        We should not let any of the people that made such a huge blunder anywhere near the Democratic party nomination.

        Just say NO to BAYH (for VP)! Here's why!

        by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:56:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, not acceptable (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Rebecca, antifa

        If anything, I'd call it resignation more than acceptance. I wouldn't say Hillary has done or said anything to increase her popularity with the netroots. I would say that her well-oiled machine of a campaign is demoralizing her opponents.

        It's the same story when I run into Hillary supporters. I can never get an answer out of them about why they support her policy and positions. All they do it hype her lead in the poles and push the inevitability meme.  I finally figured it out. It's not about persuading us on her merits. It's about demoralizing us so we'll give up and accept her as the inevitable nominee.

        It doesn't mean we stop fighting. Iowa will be very interesting.

  •  First of all ths isn't a "progressive" board. (12+ / 0-)

    This is a partisan board geared toward electing Democrats. As for Hillary, if she does win the nomination, I would have no problem voting for her. She is almost certainly an improvement over the current situation even if she is not as "progressive" as others want her to be.

    •  If we care about the Democratic Party, (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      k9disc, annefrank, dotster

      I'm not sure Hillary is an improvement over the current crowd.

      BushCo. has been very good for the Democratic brand. A second coming of the Clintons? Maybe not so much.

      Obama supporters need to be good winners down the stretch. Repeat after me, Clinton Democrats care about the same things I do. Clinton Democrats care...

      by TrueBlueCT on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:30:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Bulldawg, Marcus Tullius, KnowVox

        If she wins the primary she is the nominee and I want our nominee to win.

        •  I want our Party to thrive... (4+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          k9disc, annefrank, sima, dotster

          I'm not sure, given the past, that a 2nd Clinton Presidency, (that'd be a 3rd term, btw), would be the way to further that goal.

          Honestly, how many marginal, working, would-be Dems will walk away from participating, once we demonstrate our Party is all about one power couple and their Washington, D.C. clique?

          Obama supporters need to be good winners down the stretch. Repeat after me, Clinton Democrats care about the same things I do. Clinton Democrats care...

          by TrueBlueCT on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:38:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  She's not my first choice to be honest (5+ / 0-)

            but I am not as alarmed by her being the nominee as I used to for these two reasons:

            1. She and her husband have been the only Democrats who have demonstrated any ability to stand up to the right-wing media. They know how to deal with the VRWC.
            1. Your signatures indicate that she's the "GOP's best home for rallying their base in in 2008!". I used to be worried about that. Then I realized that the 40-45% who will not vote for her probably isn't going to vote for any Democrat anyway.
            •  Oh, I've never thought HRC was unelectable... (4+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              annefrank, dotster, icebergslim, Dude1701

              But when it comes to GOTV in red states, fundraising, mobilizing the Religious Right, cancelling out Giuliani, Romney or McCain's personal shortcomings, etc....

              Well! There is a reason the Republicans are hoping she's our nominee.

              In the same vein that we worry about a populist Huckabee nominee, they worry about a Dem populist.

              Clinton will be status quo D.C. establishment, and that's good enough for the corporate powers who recognize a GOP President is unlikely, and given that HRC is the next best thing.... sigh.

              Obama supporters need to be good winners down the stretch. Repeat after me, Clinton Democrats care about the same things I do. Clinton Democrats care...

              by TrueBlueCT on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:52:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I don't understand your comment at all (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              k9disc

              How have the Clintons stood up to the rightwing media??
              They sold their souls and got in bed with them - to ensure a Hillary win.
              That's not what tough people do. That's what dynasties do.

              Dems will not hold impeachment hearings while Bill is campaigning with Hillary.

              by annefrank on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 08:18:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Nonsense. (0+ / 0-)

              They were attacked by the right-wing machine. They--the CLINTONS--are still standing, and prospering. BUT the Democrats DID NOT come out strong. The Democrats fell when the right wing attacked the Clintons. We lost the Congress. We lost the presidency. The Clintons did fine. Hillary knows how to survive, yes. But her record of "taking on" the Republicans and the right wing says that with the Clintons at the helm, the principles of the Democratic party lose.

              •  Again (0+ / 0-)

                I meant to say that the Clintons are the only Democrats who know how to fight back. As for the loss of Congress that was due to a variety of factors. Despite what most people here argue it was the realignment of the the south, the 1990 redistricting, and the death/retirement of the last of the old-time southern Democrats (Democrats that many people here would call DINOs anyway) that led to the GOP takeover of Congress. The Clintons' first two years were a disaster, but there were other factors at play.

                But again, if she is the nominee, I will support her. I will not go the Naderite route and condemn this country to four to eight more years of Republican rule.

          •  screw the party i vote candidate (0+ / 0-)

  •  I don't get it (17+ / 0-)

    About 90% of the people here don't think she's the best candidate and won't vote for her in the primary.

    The fact that she's the frontrunner says more about the relative lack of influence the netroots has on national elections than it does about any lack of integrity.

    •  or----those polled are not as plugged in---- (10+ / 0-)

      and don't have all the information----they are not as aware of all the distinctions between the candidates as those of us here who spend hours going over every detail.  I think it is fair to say that the great majority of the public is totally clueless as to the particulars of each candidate.  They don't really know what Obama is all about.  They have a loyalty to the Clinton name and are willing to go along blithely with the female counterpart, completely unaware of the troubling aspects of her candidacy, her corporate ties,  questionable fundraising associations, and her strong connection to the present power establishment.
       Now-----those of us who know better----like those here ----who are so willing to settle for the status quo----passing up the opportunity to push for real change-----now that's highly disturbing to me also.  And very depressing.

      •  why? (0+ / 0-)

        If people are only supporting Clinton because they are uninformed, then why has Clinton's support gone up and up over the last few months, whereas Obama's and Edwards has stalled or gone down.  Have people become less informed about the candidates as the primaries approach?

        •  Because the corporate media have said so... (0+ / 0-)

          I don't think she has any support.

          I remember the DLC's death spiral after the '04 fiasco.

          We got to see just how hated they were. It took 2 years for them to regain control from us.

          Hillary is hollow. She doesn't have any support.

          It's all about the horserace, and she's odds on favorite.

          Sharing and Caring are for Commies! They should be illegal. Drop by and support the Human Agenda

          by k9disc on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 11:07:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I actually think we spend too much time blogging (0+ / 0-)

          How many are actually involved in the cammpaign of their choice. Are we not just talking to each other here?

    •  Not just here (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      k9disc

      In my completely unscientific survey of democratic activists, meaning mainstream Democratic Clubs, Edwards, Obama and Clinton are in a three way tie for support. Not as heavily skewed as the netroots, but her grassroots support is definitely softer than among all primary voters. Clinton hardly has any volunteer organization around here. It's all paid staffers.

  •  Markos must have fallen asleep, (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Aexia

    Perhaps for just a second, a minute, but in that time, they got him.  He's One Of Them now.

    C'mon...  we've got to get out of here!  To the tunnel by the old train station!  Listen!  There’s a siren in the distance!

  •  Clinton, Obama, or Edwards; (8+ / 0-)

    when you get right down to it, there's not a whole lot of space between the three of them.  In fact, there's not a whole lot of space between any of the Democrats running other than on some rather insular--though admittedly important--issues.  A true across-the-board progressive probaly can't get elected president at this time.  

    •  Clinton and Edwards, yes. (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      oysterface, KnowVox

      Obama?  Forget it; it's amateur hour.

      •  Obama's an amateur... (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        jxg

        but the first lady and the guy who's been running for 5 years are not?

        Jesus, there is no shortage of clueless people around these parts.

        At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollup, you c*nt. - Sen. John McCain

        by Potus2020 on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:04:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Except for the the small matters of... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      dwcal

      honesty

      unity

      leadership

      Other than that, no difference.

    •  Except that Hillary is ensconced (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      annefrank

      with the inside-the-beltway crowd.

      The other two? I think they still remember where they came from.

      Obama supporters need to be good winners down the stretch. Repeat after me, Clinton Democrats care about the same things I do. Clinton Democrats care...

      by TrueBlueCT on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:32:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I believe there's a huge, enormous difference (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      dwcal, LisainNYC, vernonbc

      between these candidates.  I can think of two of them who are about as polar opposite as you could get.  Obama's vision for this country is a world apart from Hillary's.  She would just be a new face on the same old power structure.

      •  His rhetoric, yes, (5+ / 0-)

        Where he'll govern from, I don't think so.

        •  Most of Obama's advisors are ex-Bill Clintons' (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          GOTV

          Not that there's anything wrong with that. BC's cabinet was quite good.

          But his advisors hardly seem to indicate a break for Clintonian governing and policy. His tone and message is considerably different from Hillary's but then his health care proposal is less bold than hers and Edwards'.

          All three would make fine Presidents really, but I find Hillary's ties to the establishment a mixed bag, good that she can move the levers of power, bad that she may be more beholden. But she'd still be a million times better than our dictatorial Rethugs and let's not forget BC's admin gave us peace and prosperity. No Katrina type of disaster capitalism exploitations.

          Children in the U.S... detained [against] intl. & domestic standards." --Amnesty International

          by doinaheckuvanutjob on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 08:28:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Obama's health care proposal, you say, (0+ / 0-)

            is "less bold" that Edwards. Why? Because he wouldn't force you to pay private, profit-making insurance companies for the right to have health care? And what on earth is bold about that mandate? (Not as bold as Edwards' later comment that he'd force you to have check-ups and take other "preventive" mesures--a gaffe soon retracted.)

            •  That argument would carry more weight if Obama (0+ / 0-)

              would propose universal coverage of adults, if he does, then he'll have a viable alternative to argue against Hillary & Edwards mandated coverage plans. I believe we can't wait any longer for universal coverage, the system is too broken and therefore mandates are better than nothing.

              I hope Obama does come up with a new plan expanding the one he proposed, to create universal coverage of adults without mandates, it would set him apart.

              Children in the U.S... detained [against] intl. & domestic standards." --Amnesty International

              by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 03:03:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Marian Wright edleman should be president (0+ / 0-)

      She started the childrens defense fund

      •  Tuesday, July 24th, 2007 (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Dude1701

        Tuesday, July 24th, 2007
        Children's Defense Fund's Marian Wright Edelman Calls
        on Congress & Bush Administration to Help the Country's Nine Million
        Children Without Health Insurance

        http://www.democracynow.org/...

        AMY GOODMAN: Marian Wright Edelman, we just heard
        Hillary Rodham Clinton.
        She used to be the head of the board of the Children's
        Defense Fund, of the organization that you founded. But you were
        extremely critical of the Clintons. I mean, when President Clinton signed off on
        the, well, so-called welfare reform bill, you said, "His signature on this
        pernicious bill makes a mockery of his pledge not to hurt children." So what are
        your hopes right now for these Democrats? And what are your
        thoughts about Hillary Rodham Clinton?

        MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN: Well, you know, Hillary Clinton
        is an old friend, but they are not friends in politics. We have to build
        a constituency, and you don't -- and we profoundly disagreed with the
        forms of the welfare reform bill, and we said so. We were for welfare
        reform, I am for welfare reform, but we need good jobs, we need adequate work
        incentives, we need minimum wage to be decent wage and livable wage, we
        need healthcare, we need transportation, we need to invest preventively in
        all of our children to prevent them ever having to be on welfare.

        And yet, you know, many years after that, when many
        people are pronouncing welfare reform a great success, you know, we've got
        growing child poverty, we have more children in poverty and in extreme
        poverty over the last six years than we had earlier in the year. When an economy
        is down, and the real test of welfare reform is what happens to the
        poor when the economy is not booming. Well, the poor are suffering, the gap
        between rich and poor widening. We have what I consider one of -- a
        growing national catastrophe of what we call the cradle-to-prison
        pipeline. A black boy today has a one-in-three chance of going to prison in
        his lifetime, a black girl a one-in-seventeen chance. A Latino boy
        who's born in 2001 has a one-in-six chance of going to prison. We are seeing
        more and more children go into our child welfare systems, go
        dropping out of school, going into juvenile justice detention facilities. Many
        children are sitting up -- 15,000, according to a recent congressional GAO study --
        are sitting up in juvenile institutions solely because their parents could
        not get mental health and healthcare in their community.This is an
        abomination.  

        etc
        etc
        etc ............................. ..............

        Oh yea thats right Bill Clinton passed the 1994 crime
        bill that removed
        pell grants for prisoners

        Federal Crime Bill By Paul Wright

        On September 13, 1994, Bill Clinton signed the final
        version of the crime bill into law. The same week congress passed the crime
        bill it also passed the "Bank Reform Bill." Included in this law is a
        provision which will prevent the government from pursuing negligence cases
        against the individuals who caused the collapse of the savings and
        loan industry (mainly by looting the institutions they were
        entrusted to run or that they owned). Thus, it is apparent that "crime" isn't
        the issue, the issue is who steals what from whom. The mood of congress was
        accurately captured by Senator Joe Biden, an admitted plagiarist, who said
        "If someone came to the floor and said we should barb wire the ankles of
        anyone who jaywalks, I think it would pass."

        Officially titled the "Violent Crime Control and Law
        Enforcement Act of 1994," the final version of the bill is 120 pages
        long. It contains many administrative amendments to existing laws,
        clarifications, etc. in addition to its substantive portions.

        etc

        This law abolished Pell grants for prisoners. The
        federal Pell Grant was created in 1965 by Senator Claiborne Pell, D-RI, to
        aid low income students for college. The 1965 bill stated that no
        qualifying low income persons would be excluded, prisoners were specifically
        mentioned in the bill and were intended to be included in the grant
        program. Media hypsters insinuated that prisoners were taking advantage of the
        opportunity for Pell Grants because of an oversight in the original Pell
        Grant Bill that failed to specifically exclude them.

        The $6.3 billion program is considered a quasi-entitlement, says the
        U.S.Department of Education, and receives whatever funding is necessary for
        grants to all income eligible persons. Of that $6.3 billion in the most
        recent fiscal year, a total of $35 million was allotted for prisoners.
        Most of that amount was in the form of federal aid paid not directly to
        individual prisoners, but in the form of payments to state programs
        designed to provide educational services to their prison inmates. The
        $35 million allotted to prisoners represents less than six
        tenths of 1 percent of the $6.3 billion total. Political rhetoric has
        propelled the myth that the money wasted on prisoner Pell Grants will now be
        used to provide assistance to more worthy recipients in the community.
        The truth of the matter is that the $35 million saved won't stay in the
        education budget.It will be retained by the U.S. Treasury (presumably
        to help pay for the $9.8 billion earmarked for construction of more
        prisons).

        •  ***wow*** (4+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          cosbo, k9disc, sima, LaEscapee

          Edelman is really candid - and I agree with her completely.
          The Centrist Clintons moved the Dem Party closer to the Repub Party and cultivated Blue Dogs that often vote with Repubs. Frequently, front pagers promote a "better Democrat" challenging a Blue Dog elected during the 90s, but there's rarely any front page mention now of the Clintons' Centrism damaging the party for 20 years. However, we can read all about it in Kos' book Crashing the Gate.

          Dems will not hold impeachment hearings while Bill is campaigning with Hillary.

          by annefrank on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 08:35:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Geez. (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            annefrank

            This might be the one and only time I must agree with you one hundred percent, annefrank-- about "damaging the party." Say it again. And again.

            •  OK - LOL (0+ / 0-)

              The Clintons didn't build the party during the 90s even while the Repubs were building theirs because Centrism opposes grassroots activism. The DLC undermined Dean's campaign and the DLC/Clintonistas were publicly opposed to Dean chairing the DNC.
              Have a great day!

              Dems will not hold impeachment hearings while Bill is campaigning with Hillary.

              by annefrank on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 07:46:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  There's a big difference in Edwards and Hillary! (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      cosbo

      Dems will not hold impeachment hearings while Bill is campaigning with Hillary.

      by annefrank on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 08:21:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  As my sig line shows (7+ / 0-)

    Hillary isn't in my top choice collum. But I will vote for her with a smile because she will be better than any GOP candidate by a factor of 133,000,154,015,111,555,222,841,267 at least.

  •  A Hate Hillary Diary Disguised As Introspect (6+ / 4-)

    STFU

  •  I came here due to progressive values (14+ / 0-)

    I came here four years ago because of progressive values. Most of us here were for Dean because he represented Democratice values that meant bringing real change to Washington and throughout out nation. The minority arguement here was that Kerry was "electable" and we should get behind him. Most of us waited until it was clear Kerry would get the nomination and then got behind him 100%. I did that but I still said that it had to be more than Democrats winning.

    This time around I saw some potential candiates that I thought could bring real change, those being Gore, Edwards, and Obama. After a lot of thought I got behind Obama. I am really excited by him primarily due to the fact that he will bring change.

    Yet I see so many here buying into the thinking that it is all about Democrats winning, not ideas, issues, and real change. But if it just about winning then winning means nothing.

    If Clinton is our nominee then all I have been working for the past four years means nothing. My first action will be giving up on political blogs that are about nothing more than winning.

    Keep your eyes on the prize.

    by Better Days on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:01:42 PM PDT

  •  It's a Point That Never Got Debated (9+ / 0-)

    And I will continue to ask the same question until it gets a sufficient answer.

    Gore accepted money from the Pharmaceutical Lobby in 2000.  Now.  The question is, do you think that money would have impacted his ability to reform Health Care, if he chose to do so, in the Administration we all know he won?

    My answer is No.

    And no I don't think voters are stupid.

    No one has ever made a link between Clinton's record and any of the Campaign Money she receives from anyone.

    It's really just as simple as that.

    Now.  Back to the question.  I hope the author might condescend to give an opinion on it.  

    Would Gore's Administration, would have been compromised by Donations from Lobbyists?

    Now.  As far as credibility is concerned.  I think a lot of it comes from making hard decisions.  The common criticism of Clinton is that she can't make hard, or unpopular decisions.  Ok.  So There you go.  I understand Gore, because of his activities over the last 5 years, has reached a status of some untouchableness.  To ever breath an ounce of criticism is met with quick TRs.

    So if the answer to the question above about Gore is "Yes," part of being credible is being able to say so.

    For the record, anyone I have ever run into on this Blog who is so convinced that Lobbyist money taints Policy has never answered this Question.

    So, sure, there's a credibility issue here.  Just not the one you might be thinking about.

    "two psychics pass each other on the street, one says to the other 'you're doing alright, how am i?'"

    by Edgar08 on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:02:58 PM PDT

  •  KOS supported by Coal and Chevron...any diff? (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    markw, Hairy Legs, KnowVox, JamieG from Md

    Is there any difference between KOS being supported by ads by Coal Industry and Chevron?

    Are Kos' front page diaries influenced by the fact he is taking Chevron and Coal Inc. money?

    Is that any different than Clinton's point?

    Clinton has a liberal record equal to or better than any of the Democratic candidates running on every major issue.

    To paraphrase Markos, she may not be netroots favorite candidate but maybe she should be.

    •  I've noticed a change. n/t (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      k9disc
    •  Her record is not as good (0+ / 0-)

      or better than others. I don't have the links, but there were detailed diaries here comparing her votes and her record--or rather, nonrecord--of accomplishments to Obama's. And her record was not good. I wonder how she'd come out if you compared her to Biden or Dodd. Apart from her support for the authorization on Iraq and for the Patriot act and working on a compromise against flag burning, does anyone here know anything she's actually done in the Senate?? What has she ever done on her own that gives her any claim to being a progressive leader?

  •  Good diary IBS (10+ / 0-)

    The question posed to us in the primary is simple.  Do we believe that we can do better than a retread of a DLC presidency?  I certainly do.

    I find it amusing when you point out Hillary's terrible foreign policy positions, and it is immediately labeled "hate."

    It's not hate.  We're just standing up to say that we can do better.

  •  I'm unconvinced that she's any better or worse (7+ / 0-)

    than the other frontrunners. At least, not measurably.

    I hate primary season, and there are things I dislike about all of our candidates, and us. I'm frankly just waiting to see who the nominee will be, and on the side using the primary process to lead Congress into action.

    Daily Kos used to be worthwhile.

    by andgarden on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:13:58 PM PDT

  •  I think a lot of people are focused on procedural (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    casperr, TrueBlueCT, icebergslim

    ly winning, and HRC, though her strength certainly isn't ideological innovation, certainly has the image of being a good campaign manager. A lot of prominent bloggers seem (though I can't be sure) to want that, because procedural efficiency is highly effective in any scenario.

    I certainly don't support her, and voting for her in the main election is sort of annoying, since I'll be voting not for the Dem candidate, but against the Republican one.

    John McCain goes to bed every night after servicing by Joe Lieberman.

    by bhagamu on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:14:56 PM PDT

  •  Oh, for Christ's sake (11+ / 0-)

    Is there ever going to be a candidate diary that doesn't say:

    a) Edwards has an evil haircut
    b) Clinton killed the pygmies of the Upper Volta and ate all their fruit
    c) Obama stole my chocolate bar

    And so on, and so forth.

    I'm not dissing the diarist in particular; it just gets my goat that the average age of Kossacks is forty-something, and yet the average candidate diary appears to have been written by a twelve-year-old with a grudge.  In fact, it not only gets my goat, it takes it down the shop, buys it an ice cream, and takes it to a strip club for some reason, without even asking.

    We're supposed to be better than this.