Who are these people? Why are you voting for her?

I just read this diary about the numbers on Hillary and I think it is time to ask who the hell these people are that are voting for Hillary Clinton. I mean, these are primary voters. They are supposed to be more informed than the general electorate.

They have to know...

• that a good percentage of the population can't stand her
• that she is in fact a triangulating poll player
• that she likely will get slammed in the general
• that Republicans are salivating over the prospect of her candidacy
• that she sells out to the highest bidder
• that she is/was for the war in Iraq and is lying about pulling our troops out and will in fact keep them in
• that she has sold out on the principles of health care for all
• that she has the charisma of a frog and couldn't inspire anyone
• and on and on and on and on.

Are you really voting for her because she is a woman?

Would you really throw your vote away?

Can someone, anyone please explain to me who these people are that do not see her for what she is.

Would someone, anyone please give me a compelling reason to vote for this woman? She is wrong on so many things, yet she remains high in the polls. I have to hope that when it comes down to getting in the booth and voting that those that answer polls on name recognition and because she is a woman, will think about their country, their children, and themselves, rather than trying to elect "any" woman to the presidency.

It's sad you know....

•  This is not just an argument.

  I really would like someone to explain to me why based on the issues they are voting for her over someone else and why the primary voters seem to be as well. Or, if you prefer not voting based on the important issues, why she is even electable and why we should take a chance.

  by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 02:44:17 AM PDT

  •  Well she is very electable

    by any data available.  If you don't want to vote for her (me neither), then you must provide other reasons.  It's as simple as that.  The "unelectable" stuff is bullshit frankly, but on the issues make your case.

    by bythesea on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:33:41 AM PDT

  •  Troll ratings LOL

    Truly inspiring to get my first troll rating after all this time on this site. Of course the folks that troll rated me didn't answer the question, but the attacks tell me all I need to know about their support.

    yes, the nature of my post was an attack on her and her supporters when interpreted that way, but the fact is that I believe the points I made and I still don't think she is right on the issues. This is a golden opportunity for real change but instead we seem destined to nominate and maybe elect someone that is definitely better than Bush but in no way is close to good enough!

    My opinion and you can take it as you wish.

    Also, I am all over the map about who I support would like someone I can believe in. so far no one is giving me that. I will do my part no matter who it I but I want better and I want to win when the country is so ready for progressive ideals. I don't want to squander this shot at remaking America to support freedom and progressive values. I don't think the front runner represents that.

    by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 04:41:02 AM PDT

    •  Badge of Honor

      Hillary's supporters are notorious TR abusers.

      by voltayre on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 04:48:58 AM PDT

      •  thanks. how very republican of them

        to supress free speech...

        by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 04:56:16 AM PDT

      •  bullshit. n/t

        by Caldonia on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:49:15 AM PDT

        •  You're one of them n/t

          by voltayre on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:38:05 AM PDT

          •  Lather...

            ...Rinse, Repeat.

            by Caldonia on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:05:57 AM PDT

      •  Why do the rethugs accuse us of their own

        sins? Now it's spreading

        by JamesBrown4ever on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:52:44 AM PDT

  •  I just love the cackle

    I will donate to her just to spite the cackle haters.

    I am SERIOUS.

    by diplomatic on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:05:40 AM PDT

    •  like she needs your piddling donation when she's

      got corporate America to tap into.

      by 123Mary123 on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:56:17 AM PDT

•  As well as she's doing, I haven't come

  across many people who are excited to vote for her.  But the few people I have, they've said that they trust the Clintons from the 90s and would rather have someone they know can get results rather than people they are unsure of, like Obama and Edwards.

  by duha on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 02:48:38 AM PDT

  •  At least there is something valid to that

    Not compelling or rational... but something.

    by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 02:51:40 AM PDT

    •  a couple people have also told me

      that they think Clinton will have the best democratic political fighters advising her, including Bill, and that will help the democrats in DC all around get back their spine.  In their opinion the 2004 election showed that Americans agree with democrats on just about every issue, but they lose because they aren't tough enough, like Kerry getting swiftboated.  

      by duha on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 02:59:39 AM PDT

      •  Yet another smart argument in some ways. Thanks.

        by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:03:47 AM PDT

        •  Like Terry MeCauliffe??!!

          "...that they think Clinton will have the best democratic political fighters advising her,..."

          Like Terry McCauliffe??!!

          Oh yeah, just look at all he did for John  Kerry!! If you liked the way he managed Kerry's campaign, you'll just love what he's going to do for Hillary and the Democrats

          With the Past captain of the Titanic on board, she's bound to win, oh yes, oh rootietootie yes.
          ONly luck will help that disaster in the making

          by exlrrp on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:14:46 AM PDT

    •  Marketing, same reason folks drink Bud, smoke

      Marlboros and wear Fruit of the Loom.  Brand name recognition.

      period.

      by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:00:29 AM PDT

•  It's too early for a hit piece.

  Yawn..

  by phoenixdreamz on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 02:48:39 AM PDT

  •  Its really not a hit piece...

    Yes, I am "hitting" her, but I am really hoping someone, anyone can make a compelling argument, because I don't see it. I don't understand and I am truly terrified that she will be the nominee and we will end up with Giuliani and his neocon advisers.  

    I believe what I wrote. I don't think there is anything to gain from attacking her beyond someone somehow telling me why they are excited to vote for her in real valuable terms.

    by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 02:51:02 AM PDT

    •  Read over your 9 Bullet Points again

      This is a hit piece, and you are the one who dosen't get it. Have a nice day.

      by phoenixdreamz on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 02:55:33 AM PDT

      •  You are right, I don't get it.

        So, if you support her, explain it.

        by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 02:56:37 AM PDT

    •  oh yeah.

      this isn't a hit piece at all.
      every single item in your list is borrowed from the republican talking points.  

      and I say this as someone who is pretty uncommitted, because I will vote for any democrat regardless who it is out of the current field.  I am under no delusions that Hillary is a great progressive, nor am I under any delusions that she will not do much much better than GWB.

      I am so fucking tired of the primary.  and I'm even more tired of the declared winner before there has even been a primary.  But most of all I'm tired of dem's attacking one client over another when we have an embarassment of riches compared to the repubs.  Yes, they are not perfect.  They are stepping stones.  We are not going to get a revolution overnight.

      by dc 20005 on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 02:57:26 AM PDT

      •  Give me a break.

        Every item in my bullets is from everything I know the truth. THe true talking point here that is Republican is that somehow we are not permitted to make an intelligent decision on our candidate of choice base on their issues. You say she may be as bad as GWB and then say I can't question why people are voting for her. Give me break. Silence is failure.

        by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:00:23 AM PDT

        •  No

          I said I am under no delusion that she WONT do much much better.
          I in no way said she would be as bad as GWB and nor do I believe that.
          Your talking points lack substance.

          Let's see - someone who is interested in communicating with the GLBT public, maybe not perfectly, but I certainly don't see anyone matching it on the repub side.

          Someone who is interested in health care reform.  Again, not as perfect as I may want, but I'll tell you right now I see the only hope in the US in socialist income redistribution.  None of our candidates are ready to suggest that.  even dennis kucinich.

          anyone who can't see that she'd be better than what we currently have is living in the same fucking fantasy that gave us nader in 2000.  You'd think we'd clue in but, really.  Democracy is fucked.

          by dc 20005 on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:05:29 AM PDT

          •  I am not arguing that she would not be a "D"

            for the most part, but do we really want that or do we want better....?

            by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:06:42 AM PDT

            •  I have several

              Nader voter friends from 2000 that you should speak to.

              All of them tried to convince me how Gore was the same as Bush.  I went through this conversation already - 8 years ago.

              Now Gore is lauded by those same people as the only thing to save the country.

              go ahead.  Push us toward 8 more years of GOP rule.  Hillary = GOP.  absolutely.   Let's see the complete crushing of any government safety net.  Let's see complete corporate control.  Let's see the adoption of english education and more hate crimes against anyone is isn't a middle class white male christian.  I hope you love jesus, because he's going to be shoved down your throat.

              by dc 20005 on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:13:51 AM PDT

              •  Explain to me

                how Hillary isn't GOP?

                Iraq?
                Healthcare?
                Privacy and anti-terrorism?
                Constitutional repair?
                Corporate accountability?
                Banruptcy protection?
                Sustainable energy?

                She's made some vague noises about constitutional repair, but in policy terms her real claim to fame seems to be that she's a not batshit gung-ho insane teenager who enjoys bombing countries for the sake of it. Although she does seem to consider bombing countries for the sake of it is 'on the table.'

                There is way too little clear water between her and (say) Lieberman.

                Or even between her and Giuliani.

                Are you going to vote for a name, or are you going to vote for policies?

                by ThatBritGuy on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:39:01 AM PDT

                •  same fucking argument

                  8 years later.

                  clearly some people would like to repeat this current insanity.

                  by dc 20005 on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:42:13 AM PDT

                •  She Was In Denver

                  The other day, and said she "might consider" giving back "some" of the unitary executive powers that Bush has amassed for himself.  Sorry that doesn't even come close to being good enough for me.  I would love to see a woman president, but not at the expense of the constitution, and my country.

                  by opinionated on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:07:06 AM PDT

                  •  Amen

                    by Virginia mom on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:28:11 AM PDT

              •  Maybe I'll start a business. . .

                Building debtors prisons for the new GOP Majority, where we can throw into prison and forced labor anyone who isn't white collar.

                by Pacifist on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:45:49 AM PDT

                •  This will never happen.

                  where we can throw into prison and forced labor anyone who isn't white collar.

                  As soon as the toilets backed up from all their crap, they would be forced to let the plumbers go.  Once you let one trade group out, you can't stop the tide.

                  by Grannus on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:53:21 AM PDT

                  •  Hmm. Good point. n/t

                    by Pacifist on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:59:11 AM PDT

                  •  nah, they'd just outsource the plumbing

                    to Brownwater Plumbing with a no-bid contract.

                    by OneCrankyDom on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:04:28 AM PDT

              •  Nader didn't beat Gore

                Scalia did.  But Gore put himself in a position where he could lose to fraud by running a safe center platform.  Had he run as who he has turned out to be, Nader would have stayed home, Gore would have shellacked Bush, and we would not be teetering on the brink of absolute tyranny.  

                I hear your point about not undermining the Dem nominee by going for the ideal instead of what we have.  I'll vote for Hillary in the general election because she will be better than whoever the GOP nominates, but I will do so - once again- with a sadness that I don't ever seem to get the choice of voting for a Dem who isn't squishy and trying to lure those GOP voters.  

                Her personal charisma is undeniable.  I saw her speak in '92, before Bill was even the nominee, and I was spellbound.  Absolutely nothing she said was memorable, but how she said it was breathtaking.  I doubt any of that will make it onto TV.  

                But her politics are what I remember from the late 60s as left-leaning Republican.  The Republicans have gone so far to the right that Jacob Javits wouldn't recognize them, but to my mind, that's about where she is.  

                And then there is the hereditary monarchy thing.  Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton for 28 years is not what this country should be facing.  Like my dad used to say about the Yankees, geez, can't somebody else get a chance to win?  

                by Fungible Chattel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:27:54 AM PDT

      •  Embarrassment of riches

        You are absolutely right.  That is why we shouldn't be having a coronation, especially this early.  I would love to vote for a woman, and I will vote for this woman if I must.  What I really want is the best person to take care of the mess we're in and I'm still not sure who that is.  The diarist may be inartful but he raises valid points.  I am much more likely to read a candidate post if it is positive, tells me something I don't know about a candidate, than one that simply rants about what's wrong with all the others.

        This primary season that has lasted since Nov. of 2006 is ridiculously long and driven by the media who want continuous election cycles to fuel their pathetic ratings.  Rather than further engaging voters, they have managed to piss off and anesthetize so many that I am worried about the whole process this time.

        by luckylizard on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:01:47 AM PDT

    •  Well, I am not sure

      if you are arguing about electability or the issues.

      But I will try to answer why people I know are excited.

      Most of my friends believe that ANY of the democrats are a zillion times better than any of the republicans. Yes my friends are mostly exclusively liberal democrats.

      Like me, most believe all of the top dems are close enough on the issues and thus, in a democracy, which requires congressional participation, the differences will be negligible.  Example, regardless of whether the newly elected president wants the troops out immediately or more slowly, I believe it is such a complicated mess, it will require a lot more negotiating and planning that has been done in six years. Most of my friends do not totally believe in the pottery barn mentality, but we do believe we have to be careful how we do things.
      We also believe the health care plans we want and the health care plans all the candidates are proposing are not the same.  But we also know how the spin has worked.  Getting ANY health care plan passed will not be easy, and in fact if we do not increase liberal democrats in both houses we will be fighting for this forever.

      None of us have any doubts that one of the most important things is getting better appointments on the courts.  And trust all our democratic candidates to do better.

      Electability?

      There is the argument that pushes every single button I have.  To say Hillary is not electable is, to me, a republican talking point.  I will never accept it.

      Yes there are people who hate the Clintons.  But there are right wingers who will find as many reasons to hate any democratic candidate. HATE is what the right wing does best.  
      If progressives refuse to vote for Hillary because she is not progressive enough or for whatever excuse they give, then it is THEY not the people supporting her who give the election to Guiliani.  Any democrats/liberals/progressives who throw temper tantrums over the candidate and do not vote are the ones responsible.  

      I do love the notion of a woman for president. I will not deny it.  But I wouldn't vote for a Liddy Dole, or ANY woman.  I may not be in lockstep with HRC but that is what makes me a liberal. I am NOT in lockstep with ANY ONE candidate.  But I will support John, Hillary, Obama, Dennis, Chris, Bill .....whomever gets the nod.  And I will work hard for them.

      The people who insist on trashing Hillary using republican talking points push every button for me.  It comes off as not only unfair but petty and immature.
      We have had idiots running the country for the better part of 25 years.  Only four of those years did Bill Clinton have a chance (when he had a dem congress).  And despite not agreeing with him on some issues, it was a helluva a lot better than when Reagan or the Bushies were in control with right wing congresses to back them up.
      But I do not blame the Clintons for that. I blame the people.  We have been lazy and uninformed and allowed a bunch of right wing religious nuts gain control. WE DID IT.  Not Hillary.  

      Even now, when people are b*tching and moaning about a weak congress I want to scream.  Are people here so dense they do not get it?  We have a miniscule majority and when we can barely elected "rightist dems over basically racists wingers" it speaks volumes.  Some of our dems are very conservative when it comes to issues.  WHY?  Because our country has become more conservative?  WHY?  Because a lot of us DID NOTHING. A lot of Americans ignored the rest of the world for decades......cause they were doing well.

      Blaming Hillary is nonsensical.
      Using right wing talking points against her is inane.

      We have a battle to win and it is going to take a long time to UNDO what we have allowed to happen.  If we do not "hang together" and work to elect whomever is our primary winner, then assuredly we will "hang separately."

      by Jjc2006 on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:30:33 AM PDT

      •  Great piece on why she is better than the "Rs"

        but I still don't see how she is right on Iraq, Healthcare, etc. etc. Thank you for the thoughtful reply

        The corporate money is also a huge issue and one of the primary things we must counter. She won't

        The Republican talking points thing is a bit much though. We are talking about our concerns here, not talking points.

        by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 08:05:05 AM PDT

        •  When people make blanket

          statements like
          "she won't" I have to question.  How do you know?  

          Aren't we all, no matter for whom we vote, doing so with the knowledge that all human beings are fallible?  And that we cannot say for sure what any one person may or may not do?
          Are we not willing to say that Hillary, like John, or Obama, or anyone has the ability to be swayed by progressive voices, to be willing, able and wanting to change the HOW?

          I never said she was "right" on anything. I may disagree with her OPINION.  I may disagree with YOUR opinion.  But as far as I am concerned there are no ABSOLUTES on the how's of anything.  I may have when I was younger agreed with the anti war movement, as did many of us, but I did not always agree with the HOW we got that message out.  I was more of the "sit-in" passive resistance type, than the spitting on cops type.  

          Some believe in the "keep you friends close, keep your enemies closer" philosophy.  Some believe in the "bipartisan compromise" philosophy. Some believe in not giving an inch at all.

          But I contend that no matter WHO we elect on the democratic side, they will have to compromise because that is in effect what a democracy is.  Sometimes the majority wins and it is a good thing. Sometimes we fear the "tyranny of the majority."
          Unless progressives are saying they want an authoritarian leftist government (which I assume we do not), isn't compromise, give and take (even with the enemy) what it is all about.  Are we not frustrated now because this administration refuses to use diplomacy?   Aren't progressives and liberals about "negotiating?" Let's face it.  Iran is a theocracy, something many of us fear and even loathe (for their treatment of those who believe differently).  Yet, don't most of us believe that we have to learn to live with these theocratic governments?

          For domestic politics, do we not have to learn to work with corporations?  Or are we talking about taking them down?  

          I get confused when people are absolutely adamant that they know exactly HOW one candidate will act as if they have a crystal ball.  I also find it disconcerting that progressives are assuming we will allow ANY candidate to take the kind of power and be a unitary executive like this administration and right wing congress has allowed.

          Once again, I believe we need to do more than just elect a progressive candidate (and I do believe all our candidates are progressives even being more or less progressive than maybe some of us prefer). I believe we need to elect a true progressive congress, one who will assume their duty and do their job of keeping ANY president in check.

          by Jjc2006 on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 09:00:29 AM PDT

          •  Fantastic reasonable discourse! Thanks!

            All valid points and I agree with the philosophy of compromise, etc. I am making my decision though based upon their professed viewpoints and their actions in the past. The reason I am not supporting her specifically on Iraq is that her position has changed so drastically so recently and I really don't believe her.

            I was leaning towards Edwards for awhile until someone pointed out to me with a diary, that I had not done my homework and that he seemed to be way too conveniently different on positions. It concerns me and made me change my opinion.

            That said, the progressive cliche' that I will support the candidate I get is definitely what I will do if she is the nominee, but in the interim no one has given me a reason to vote for her in the primaries. I guess I hoped that someone would step up to me and this diary and tell me why I am wrong on these core issues about her and how I could make my life easier and less difficult by supporting her. No one has and so far doing the research others have asked me to do in the comments has not resulted in me feeling anymore comfortable with her as my candidate of choice.

            by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 09:14:44 AM PDT

            •  Well, right now

              my first choice is still John Edwards (mostly because of his strong stance on labor), but I will have no problems supporting Hillary or Obama.  Next week I will be contacting people in my precinct (I am precinct captain) to get them informed about CO's caucuses in February.  I will be curious to hear how others, not as politically active, as I am.

              While I don't think being a woman is enough of a reason to vote for Hillary, it is a factor.  Women of a certain age, like me (a  year older than Hillary), had actually given up on the notion that a woman could be elected in our lifetime.  So I cannot ignore that fact. I am a retired teacher who for years reminded my female students (6th grade) that they too had the right to aspire to anything, even to lead the country in the office of the president.  I really had begun to wonder if I was fooling myself and then.
              I go to "Drinking Liberally" here and have noticed that while there are groups for all three frontrunners, most of the women (not all) even if for one of the others, say they are comfortable about Hillary.  And even the teasing about her gender can set us off. 8]

              Hillary is not the "perfect" candidate but frankly neither are any of the others.
              While Iraq is an important issue to me, it is not the deciding issue for me.  Honestly, to me ALL the issues are interconnected.  Iraq is about OIL.  We all know it.  The cost of a barrel of oil will affect all of us, and the poorer one is, the more the effect.  I know families (from the school where I used to teach) who have been affected deeply by it all.  More than a fair share of them have a spouse in the military and thus in and out of Iraq.  For them, the cost of living is paramount.  The cost of filling their cars with gas makes a difference in what they can feed their kids. What they feed their kids affects health and health care.  

              It's all connected.  

              I am lucky and I understand that.  I retired from education after 38 years with a decent pension. I live on a budget.  But I do not do without.  But for me, with four years until medicare, a huge part of my budget is health care premiums which go up every six months. Over four thousand a year just in premiums and co pays have doubled in the last few years.  For the first time in my life, I have to choose between certain preventative tests and dental care.  If someone like me whose income is above the norm in terms of retirement struggle, imagine what people who do not have a retirement or families of four living on my income do.  

              I am at the point where the WORST effects probably will affect me less than young people if there are no changes happening.   However, I know that if we do not START NOW, moving people's thinking to the progressive side, we will be in trouble.  My life experiences tell me that "change" scares people.  Going from the health care system as is to one that is totally what I want (universal single payer), is not going to happen.  The scare tactic of the right with the word "socialized" medicine has worked.  People will only dip their toes in that pool at first.

              There are too many people (good people, not just the right wing crazies) who believe we cannot suddenly get out and abandon the middle east...and be done.
              Whether progressives want to admit it or not, we do have an oil based economy.  People are afraid of not being able to heat their homes, drive their cars to get to work.  Monolithic movement of masses of people on thinking a certain way is a monumental task. I think it will take a generation before we move our economy away from oil dependence.  We should have done it back in the seventies when we first experienced the oil embargoes.  I remember waiting in line. I remember back then learning about Iran and what we did in the 1950s and why there was blowback.  Jimmy Carter was trying to tell people then that we needed to do something.  People did not want to hear it.  They wanted "Rah, rah Reagan and his 'America can do anything we want" mentality.'"

              So here we are.  The Reagan Revolution is what gave us the BUSH people. Bill Clinton ONLY got elected in between BECAUSE he was centrist.  I really believe that.  When Hillary proposed her health care plan back then, she was mocked and laughed at.  I think she was an idealist progressive back then. I think she learned a valuable lesson.  Money and corporations have all the power; they own the press.  
              I think she believes that we cannot do anything without getting them on board.  I think there is some truth to that.  We have to cajole, convince and persuade the CEO's that they HAVE to CHANGE.  Otherwise they will face a revolution.  Maybe she is wrong.  Maybe I am wrong.  But I have yet to hear those who insist Hillary is too close to the corporations say just how they think we can change the status quo.

              *How do we live without oil or with oil so expensive the middle class loses even more power? (While I know there are alternatives, are they ready now?)
              
              *How do we go from here to there with health care?

              Maybe because I am not an economist, I am just being stupid.  I just don't see change being simplistic or easy, short of storming the bastille and we all know what those sudden revolutions brought.   The Bolsheviks in their bid to undo the tzars, ending up just being another version of them.  Many of the revolutionaries of the French revolution ended up being as corrupt and cruel as those they stopped.
              While our founding fathers came up with a great document and idea about change, look how many years it took to include women and people of color?  
              And after their great revolution against despots, look what they did to Native Americans.

              Anyway, I am getting philosophical here but my point is that change has consequences.  Severe change does not always work.  Gradual changes tests our patience.

              But you are right on.  Great discourse. We all need to think, debate, persuade and keep forging ahead for change.  I wish I had all the answers but I do not.

              by Jjc2006 on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 10:07:30 AM PDT

    •  Concern? Genuine Concern?

      You can't attack the putative, "inevitable candidate" like this without telling us why another candidate would be better.

      Who are you FOR?

      by ezdidit on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:01:10 AM PDT

  •  apparently

    there's never a bad time for a hillary-bashing diary. you know the song...

    hillary billary bop
    pillory hillary around the clock
    same old same old same old slop
    pillory hillary billary bop

    by Turkana on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:40:09 AM PDT

    •  

      ®Turkana

      by Marcus Tullius on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:42:21 AM PDT

  •  You mean too late (FYP)

    The anti-Clinton hitpiece ship sailed long ago.

    by diplomatic on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:06:50 AM PDT

•  Wow, way to be completely and casually dismissive

  of anyone who supports a candidate you disagree with.

  Feh.

  by Marcus Tullius on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 02:55:52 AM PDT

  •  I am really trying to find someone that can

    explain supporting her beyond she is a woman and for histroy's sake....

    by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 02:57:20 AM PDT

    •  If you haven't been able to find that,

      even at dkos, you haven't been looking.

      And that is coming from someone who does not support her in the primary.

      by Marcus Tullius on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 02:59:17 AM PDT

      •  Oh it's there

        but its like a dirty little secret and not mentioned too much.

        by voltayre on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 04:50:55 AM PDT

    •  Do they really have to

      justify themselves to you?  I don't support her, but I would advise those that do, to tell you to pound sand.  There are plenty of Hillary diaries to chose from.  Just hit search and type in Hillary Clinton.

      by Grannus on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:00:16 AM PDT

      •  I read here everyday..

        and have yet to find anyone making an intelligent argument in support.

        So, yes, I am making a point and I am trying to make people think.

        by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:01:29 AM PDT

        •  yes well

          It's not always the speakers fault that the listener doesn't comprehend.

          by dc 20005 on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:07:39 AM PDT

        •  number one

          no one owes you an explanation.  Number two, maybe your reading comprehension needs some work and you'll just have to remain in the dark and stew over it.  Or you could write a diary about who you support and why.  But I have a feeling it will be some third party freak show and you;d get your ass kicked, so I'm guessing that won't happen.

          by MollyStark on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:46:39 AM PDT

          •  troll rated for personally insulting

            comment

            by 123Mary123 on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:58:46 AM PDT

            •  Very mild

              ..compared with much of the invective hurled around here. Rec'd to offset your TR, and I'd have passed it by otherwise.

              by Ahianne on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:30:55 AM PDT

            •  On reconsideration,

              ..lifting the rec. I think it was hairtrigger, but MS has one below where she calls the diarist a liar. That one is close to my donut line, and I'm not willing to give MS any mojo anytime soon.

              by Ahianne on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:35:11 AM PDT

            •  pretty funny Mary

              considering all the vile comments you have made about women who support Hillary.  I'll be sure to troll rate all of them from now on.

              by MollyStark on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 08:19:25 AM PDT

        •  It may be a problem at the receiving end

          by JamesBrown4ever on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:56:38 AM PDT

      •  They can do whatever they damn well please...

        I don't need them to justify themselves or their opinion. I am hoping someone can make me feel better about the prospect of her as a nominee, because right now it depresses the hell out of me.

        by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:05:10 AM PDT

        •  "Feelings...

          ...nothing more than feeeeelings.  Feeling, woo-o-o feeling...."

          by Caldonia on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:42:10 AM PDT

          •  LOL

            Next he'll be going to the garden to eat worms!

            by MollyStark on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:49:25 AM PDT

    •  it's a hermetically sealed mystery

      she's the front runner, and so worthy of support... which makes her the front runner, and so worthy of support.

      by Felix Culpa on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:37:17 AM PDT

    •  no you are not

      liar.
      Your diary is a hit piece and it is sexist.  You imply that a lot of stupid low information people (women) are just voting for her to get any woman in office.  Stop lying about your intentions with this diary. You are very transparent.
      There have been plenty of diaries explaining why people are supporting Clinton, go find one.

      by MollyStark on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:39:50 AM PDT

      •  So much anger....

        Why are so many Hillary supporters so angry?

        If you support your candidate then counter my arguments, but don't ever call me sexist or a liar. You don't know me, my background, or track record.

        So far, not a single response to this diary has countered the bullet points I made about her on the issues.

        What I can say is you need to take a deep breath.

        by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:32:57 AM PDT

•  Who am I?

  I'm a Democrat, with two college degrees, 25 years in the business world, and, oh yeah, I've been working to elect Democrats since 1976.

  The better question is: "Who the fuck are you?"
  (h/t to Pete Townshend)

  by dfb1968 on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:01:00 AM PDT

  •  So, why...

    Glad to hear it, now if would not mind explaining to me why you support her (if you do), that would be great. I worked for Bill Clinton, but I don't trust her. Did I miss something? Are my bullets off the mark and why?

    by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:02:53 AM PDT

    •  Your "bullets"

      are nothing but Republick talking points.

      Why does anyone support Obama, or Edwards?

      I trust Hillary to make our world a better place.

      I'm sorry, is there a different reason why I should support her or anyone else?

      You know what, now I'm sorry I even responded substantively to this crap.  Just go fuck yourself instead.

      by dfb1968 on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:06:09 AM PDT

      •  Wow! I guess I struck some nerve...

        for you to tell me to go fuck myself....

        by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:08:10 AM PDT

        •  That's bullshit.

          You are basically calling her supporters vapid and shallow, and then you expect a legitimate debate.

          Feh∞

          by Marcus Tullius on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:11:47 AM PDT

          •  Yes and I make very valid points about her and

            the issues and no one seems capable of countering the points leaving me to believe that my original argument that they are supporting her because she is a woman is in fact the truth.

            I have been called names, troll rated, etc. etc., but no one can tell me how she lines up with progressive values on the issues, because she does not!

            She caters to polling and she is stuck in the DLC way of doing things.

            by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:35:17 AM PDT

        •  Stop with the passive/agressive

          nonsense.  You wanted to pick a fight, and got one.  Don't cry foul now.  Why is your candidate such hot shit?  That's what you should focus on, not hit diaries.

          by Grannus on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:12:10 AM PDT

          •  No I did not want to pick a fight

            Who are you to presume what i wanted.? I am truly distressed by her position in the polls and the fact that on so many issues she is not "right". That was the genuine reason for the original post. Nothing else.

            by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:36:17 AM PDT

            •  Then instead of obsessing with her

              you should work that much harder for someone who is NOT her.

              Who are you to presume what i wanted.?

              Someone able to understand english?  You don't exactly make it difficult to understand.  You fall into the "stirring up shit" version of concern trolling.  No answer is good enough.  No reply is met with anything but derision or dismissal.  Quit while you're behind.

              by Grannus on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 12:48:37 PM PDT

              •  I am way ahead....

                Your assumptions are again ridiculous and you are missing the point. The coronation is in full swing and I don't get it and want to know why anyone is supporting her based on the issues of concern that I have.

                What I wrote is sure as hell not troll worthy and this entire site is about stirring up shit, so give me a break with that condescending crap.

                If you read through all the comments I have made to every legitimate comment made to this diary, then you will in fact see that you are full of it and in no way have all comments been met with derision or dismissal and they have in fact been met with encouragement. You should read before you comment on something and make judgments. Evidently you are above that.

                by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 01:51:58 PM PDT

        •  Well, you did ask...

          ...for someone to make you "feel better."  Roll with it, baby.  

          by Caldonia on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:45:46 AM PDT

      •  I am very sorry.

        Until your last sentence, I had planned on reccing your comment.

        by Marcus Tullius on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:08:39 AM PDT

•  Oh get lost

  If you were interested in honest discussion, you wouldn't have opened with a laundry list of untruths.

  You really expect to people to make their case for you after you said things like "she has the charisma of a frog"? Of course you don't, and it's not the point of your diary.

  by Frank on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:07:13 AM PDT

  •  She has charisma?

    I mean really... Have you seen the woman speak? I believe exactly what I said and I believe all my points are valid and I think she is wrong  on too much to be the nominee, but I think it is likely to happen and would really like to see some reason why...

    by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:09:47 AM PDT

    •  Actually I don't agree

      with HRC on the issues, but I won't pretend that if you don't already hate her, she lacks charisma.  She actually is pretty good at that, if you really watch her.  Hell it sold my partner on her right away.  Me not so much, but I did see she has gotten very much better at coming across to those who don't already have her in the "evil" column.  She is a very good politician, whatever you may think of her.

      by bythesea on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:38:41 AM PDT

      •  Fair enough. Valid opinion on the topic.

        Thank you.

        by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:37:16 AM PDT

    •  READ

      stop attacking her and READ about her. It is clear you have chosen the wrong sources, so READ better sources. Stay away from Hillary Haters who spew the crap you repeat in this diary. Growing up is hard.

      by JamesBrown4ever on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:01:01 AM PDT

      •  Nothing wrong with what I read....

        Her web site, press releases, standard news sources, this site, etc.

        I know where she stood on Iraq and I don't think that has changed in reality.

        I know where she is on health care and it is not good enough.

        I know where she is on lobbyists, corporate contributions, etc. etc. and it definitely is not good enough.

        by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 10:13:09 AM PDT

  •  So counter with the "truth" already. nt

    by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:10:11 AM PDT

    •  You're funny.

      It's like walking up to somebody, calling them names, and then expecting a polite reply as to why your namecalling is unwarranted.

      It doesn't work that way.

      by Frank on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:13:11 AM PDT

      •  It's easy...

        ... when you're hiding behind the internet.

        by Plutonium Page on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:50:48 AM PDT

        •  Excuse me?

          Did you look at my username here? I am not hiding behind anything. I risk everytime I post here that I will be impacted by being a progressive and having strong views on what is best for the country. What I wrote is exactly what I meant. I do not understand based on the points I made why anyone in the Democratic party is supporting her.

          by bradnickel on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:38:55 AM PDT

    •  and your truth is?

      I say you're a rapist.  and a pedophile, and into beastiality.
      so counter.

      by dc 20005 on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:16:25 AM PDT

      •  Is it true?

        I heard reports about kitten molesting, but it was just in the WaPo, so I discounted them.

        by Grannus on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:18:09 AM PDT

        •  not just that...

          so much worse.
          The poor kittens. ... they cry - mew mew mew...
          it makes me weep.

          by dc 20005 on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:19:27 AM PDT

  •  It's a veiled insult!

    she has the charisma of a frog

    Uh oh.  Frog = French = bad.

    Off-topic, but check this out,  from Sarko:

    "From now on," he said, "every major public project, every public decision will be judged on its effect on climate, and on its carbon cost. Each public decision will be judged on how it affects bio-diversity. The onus won't be on ecological decisions to prove their merit, but on non-ecological projects to prove they can't be done any other way. Non-ecological decisions must be taken as a last resort. It's a total revolution in the way we govern our country."

    by Plutonium Page on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:55:27 AM PDT

•  my sister is voting for her because she is

  a woman period. When I tried to tell her that she's going to get our sons drafted and all you care about is the damned glass ceiling, she said I hurt her feelings.
  When armagedon begins, women will be included in the draft... I guess that makes it all worthwhile. I'm ashamed of mothers who think the damned glass ceiling is a higher priority than their childrens' future.
  Oh and by the way, the reason the whole 'conversation' about Hillary began with my sister is because she sent me an email that bashes men and promotes 'siterhood'. She said she had no idea that Hillary was getting support with that tactic; but when I asked her if she got that email from a Hillary supporter, guess what? of course she did.
  I want the first female president to be a LEADER... not a rightwing follower. I don't want the first female president to use her husband's name to get ahead or use her sex or race to get votes.

  by 123Mary123 on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:10:40 AM PDT

  •  have a TR

    your comment is vile and sexist and I do not believe your story about your sister.  In fact I find it hard to believe that you are both a woman and a democrat.  I thought women who thought like you were all in the right wing corners of the republican party with Anita Bryant.

    by MollyStark on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:02:34 AM PDT

    •  women who think like me?

      Women who believe the future their children inherit is more important than witnessing the first female presidency? Women like me who expect more from other women? What exactly do you mean by "women like you"?

      by 123Mary123 on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:28:39 AM PDT

•  If you're really interested. . .

  Do a search for Alegre's numerous and excellent diaries about Hillary.

  by Pacifist on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:11:46 AM PDT

  •  i'm going out on a limb here...

    but i'm guessing he's not really interested.

    by Turkana on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:35:57 AM PDT

    •  So true

      "why does no one make any sense when I have my fingers in my ears?"

      by dc 20005 on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:39:46 AM PDT

    •  Probably right, Turkana.

      Nevertheless, she's managed to cover all of his concerns, proceeding from the extremely questionable assumption that his concerns are real and not just a rehash of Republican Talking Points designed to slam Hillary from a closed perspective.