Give a rest: Hillary is not the enemy

I begin to tire of dailykos.  

The Democrats have at least four fine choices for president. Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Richardson at least would do the job well.  Our second string is streets ahead of their first tier candidates.

One might be better than the others but all of them will be better than the Republicans.

The invective on the site would be better directed towards the Republicans who have caused our problems rather than which Democrat is best suited to fixing those problems.

We really do have good candidates this year. The differences between them are far less than their common points of good.  On the other side of the ballot, the story is quite different.

Can we focus on why we support our given candidate rather than trash the other(s)?

•  Put up a tip jar, Dave...

  I've got a TR with your candidate's name on it.

  by Trix on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:36:30 PM PDT

  •  Whoomp!

    There it is

    :-)

    by Trix on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:38:19 PM PDT

•  Tip jar?

  by Dave from Oregon on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:36:50 PM PDT

  •  Fratricidal bitching??!!

    That's sexist!!!

    It's going to take me a while to figure out against whom, though. ;)

    by daria g on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:05:42 PM PDT

    •  if you have another word for "fratricidal"

      that fits, I am open to using it the next time around.  Plus, since most of the bitching seems to be aimed at the one person for whom "frat" doesn't fit, it makes sense.

      by Dave from Oregon on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:13:13 AM PDT

•  depends what you mean by enemy!

  by tunney on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:39:25 PM PDT

  •  enemy? hmmm

    the second coming of GWB, RR, GHWB, Rudy Fred McRomney?

    one of them, she ain't.

    by Dave from Oregon on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:40:52 PM PDT

    •  No..she isn't..but is she a compromise

      during a time of progress, a return to the old ways instead of a new direction, a politician instead of a public servant, a parser instead of a plain speaker?

      Yes, she is. And she isn't good enough. Not now..not when we can truly hope for something better.

      Hillary would kill the "hope" waiting in the hearts of so many who want the Democratic Party to take the reins.

      Is that simple.

      by Morgan Sandlin on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:50:48 PM PDT

      •  yeah, right

        www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-burns8nov08,1,7279489.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

        How to win elections, FDR style

        Clinton's campaign is too broad and vague, say critics, but that's how Roosevelt ran.

        By James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn
        November 8, 2007

        'Do you wish to win for yourself the undesirable title of the 4-P's Candidate: Pusillanimously-Pussyfooting-Pious-Platitudinous Roosevelt?" wrote a Harvard friend to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932, imploring him to forthrightly address the crucial issues of the day. But Roosevelt had chosen a different -- and safer -- game plan. From the very beginning of his quest for the presidency in 1931, he purposefully sought to be elusive, vague and to appear to be all things to all people.

        Seventy-five years later, a chorus of political commentators -- and fellow Democratic presidential candidates -- are lashing out at Hillary Rodham Clinton, accusing her of the very same tactic of evasion. She straddles, practices "systematic caution" and plays "dodge ball," they charge. Her critics demand that she be more candid and genuine.

        by killjoy on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:15:37 PM PDT

        •  sorry, link is

          http://www.latimes.com/...

          by killjoy on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:28:42 PM PDT

        •  You missed my point...

          I wasn't talking about "winning a campaign", which I understand is the Clinton camp's priority, I was speaking of changing a country.

          And this isn't the time of FDR...this is the time of google, myspace..and instant information.

          Hillary is the one candidate that kills hope. Many may vote for her if she actually manages to pull off this charade..but it will be with a heavy heart.

          by Morgan Sandlin on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:29:29 PM PDT

          •  And the present is different how?

            There wasn't a true lack of information then, either.  What particular good is 'instant messaging' or whatever, when it only reflects the group opinion of people who are individually as semi-informed as before?  It's not smarter people or more complicated information now.  Back then people worked it out in conversations at work and on the porch, with the same middle level of confidence in what they were told.  It's all a gamble anyway.

            Yes, Hillary doesn't feed the easy comfortable utopianism, that's true.  But she's not going to take the convenient or comfy way out of problems, either.  That's why Republicans fear her and not Obama or Edwards.

            by killjoy on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 12:10:14 AM PDT

            •  Don't be naive....

              Republicans lust for her. She's their dream date.

              by Morgan Sandlin on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 12:31:10 AM PDT

              •  well, Chris Matthews anyway :-)

                by killjoy on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 12:33:21 AM PDT

          •  Actually, Biden would kill hope too

            But he doesn't seem to have much of a chance, so nobody's worried about that.

            by neroden on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 03:19:25 AM PDT

          •  I do not get this

            How does she kill hope?

            I have supported another candidate (Edwards), but have enjoyed this campaign because my 20 year old son constantly lobbies me to switch to Obama and my mother (who lives in Arkansas) is supporting Hillary.  He who in another state would be my husband laments Dodd's lack of broad support.

            And I genarally agree with all of us.

            And just Thank Liberty every morning that any one of our crew is miles above anyone the other side has to offer.

            by Othniel on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 06:00:29 AM PDT

          •  And once again it is proven

            that despite liberal meaning "open minded" some here refuse to be.  

            Hillary is indeed a democratic candidate.  This is a site created to get democrats elected.  Some would prefer instead to trash and insult and claim as truth their own opinions.

            It is no wonder democrats have a hard time.

            by Jjc2006 on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 06:24:59 AM PDT

            •  I fear for the future of DailyKos

              if Hillary gets the nomination, then wins the Presidency.  So many here have demonized her for so long, how will Kossacks ever recover and be a DEMOCRATIC blog when 90% of posters think their President is the spawn of hell?

              by jarhead5536 on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 08:50:38 AM PDT

              •  I agree

                What bugs me most is how easily some kossacks buy the narratives created by the likes of Chris Matthews and Tim Russert, KNOWING full well what they did to Al Gore and Howard Dean and John Kerry.

                by Jjc2006 on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 09:28:00 AM PDT

        •  She could get away with evasion if

          she was acting in her current job.

          FDR was certainly performing well in his job (NY Governor).  The same cannot be said for any current Senator.

          Frankly, if Hillary led one good fight in the Senate and won, I think most activists' reservations about her would go away.

          Perhaps to prevent the warrantless wiretapping from becoming permanently "legal", or to prevent retroactive telecom immunity?  No, Dodd took the lead on that.  How about restoring habeas corpus?  Others got there first, and she hasn't pushed it anywhere.  Same with every other issue of importance.

          So far.  She still has time to wow us.

          by neroden on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 03:23:37 AM PDT

          •  well said. (eom)

            by DeepLooker on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 04:05:43 AM PDT

      •  for me, all of them are compromises

        and virtually any candidate would be. This is probably true for all of them.

        I don't have a reference to the URL but there was an interesting quiz that tried to take your hot button issues with your preferred positions and best match them with the candidate.  For my own sake, Kucinich was the best fit and Hillary was the worst fit on the Democratic side.  They ranged from an 86% match to a 78% match.  Then we got to the Republicans whose best match was 45% or so.  Hence, my position remains that anything we have is a lot better than everything they have.

        and for those who didn't care for President Clinton's Nafta treaty, fair enough. But please remember President Clinton's Supreme Court appointments and remember the republican appointments. There absolutely is a difference.

        by Dave from Oregon on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:18:41 AM PDT

•  I disagree

  I think that there are very good reasons to oppose Hillary Clinton's candidacy.  I believe that the only difference between her and the Republicans is that she gives some lip service to some progressive causes.  She won't fight for any cause or say anything that doesn't get votes for her.  I don't want her as my President.

  by El Yoss on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:39:54 PM PDT

  •  you cool with Rudy, Fred, Mitt?

    Just askin....

    by Dave from Oregon on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:41:41 PM PDT

    •  Hillary is not the nominee.

      by Rex Manning on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:47:37 PM PDT

    •  Wow...an anemic defense...

      "Hillary or the Anti-Christ"...

      Yeah..turn up that heat.

      by Morgan Sandlin on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:08:00 PM PDT

    •  it is not a matter of is we are cool

      with the Repubs, are you?

      She will inspire the vote in the south, absolutely inspire them to come out in droves and defeat her.

      So the question I have is , are you ok with Rudy or Mitt? supporting HRC is giving the WH to the Repubs again

      by one pissed off democrat on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:08:51 PM PDT

      •  what's so magical about the South?

        I'd prefer "them" to come out in all their numbers.  And lose anyway.  That would put a problem to rest.

        by killjoy on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:17:10 PM PDT

        •  The Republicans will come out

          In Ohio, Iowa, Florida, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc...

          All to defeat HRC.

          What they do in the South doesn't matter.

          by El Yoss on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:44:13 PM PDT

          •  how many?

            You may want to check on the math...they're not hiding, and they found just about everyone they could mobilize in '04.

            Oh, and then there's the ~8% of the electorate that dies between Presidential elections, which leans conservative.  And is replaced by younger voters, with liberal lean, for a net 1% per year partisan shift.

            by killjoy on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:57:50 PM PDT

    •  you cool with low standards?

      by cjallen on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:16:57 PM PDT

    •  I'm not cool with HRC

      So obviously I'm not cool with any Republican.  But HRC is pretty much a Republican.

      Consider the scary fact that if she is NOT pandering....

      THEN SHE REALLY MEANS ALL THE HORRIBLE REPUBLICAN THINGS SHE SAYS!!!

      So she is a complete panderer or a Republican.  Bad choice....

      by El Yoss on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:48:07 PM PDT

      •  This defies logic

        Will Hillary veto ENDA or S-CHIP? Or appoint anti-choice justices to the supreme court? Or scrub scientific data that offends the Christian right? Or gut our environmental laws?

        I'm amazed people don't know what "being a republican" really means these days.

        by Arlingtonian on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 12:19:38 AM PDT

        •  Will she

          Or shall I say did she....

          Vote to authorize a a war in Iraq, and never apologize for it?

          Vote Yes on Kyl/Lieberman?

          etc...its late

          by El Yoss on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:20:26 AM PDT

        •  Nah, she just won't do what it takes to stop it.

          The Republicans will "filibuster" ENDA or S-CHIP -- even if this requires breaking the rules of the Senate, and they have only one vote.  They'll stop all appointments of judges who don't support torture, waiting for the next Presidency (much like they left gazillions of vacancies under Bill Clinton so Bush could fill them).  Hillary will not stop either of these tactics.

          Republican moles will continue to scrub scientific data which offends the Christian right, and Hillary won't stop it; if she fires them, the Republicans will start a firestorm about it and she'll back down.  They will find some way to gut the environmental laws -- perhaps by bogus complaints if she attempts to fix any of the rules twisted by the Bush administration -- and I doubt she'll stop all of that.

          More of a Republican appeaser than a modern Republican.

          I think some of us are hoping for more.  Like, say, some action in the Senate to restore the Constitution?

          by neroden on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 03:17:36 AM PDT

        •  Hillary is on the wrong side of trade,

          health care, Iraq, and Iran. She takes money from Rupert Murdock and lobbyists. Edwards wouldn't veto ENDA or S-CHIP or appoint anti-choice justices to the Supreme court or scrub scientific data that offends the Christian right or gut our environmental laws, AND he would be on the ride side of trade and getting us out of Iraq.  How many more billions would you like Hillary to add to the trillions Bush has spent on Iraq.  Hillary may be better than a sharp stick in the eye, but she isn't the best choice out there for our country.  And yes, Bill and Hillary are the best Republicans we have had since Ike.

          by dkmich on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 03:49:55 AM PDT

  •  The only difference between her and the GOP

    is a vagina.

    am i rite or am i rite?

    by Trix on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:51:13 PM PDT

    •  you are forgetting

      that Fred Thompson has man boobs.  

      by MadAsHellMaddie on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:54:52 PM PDT

      •  Yes... I was trying very hard to forget that

        Thank you very much, MadAsHellMaddie.

        :-p

        by Trix on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:55:51 PM PDT

    •  That's inappropriate you know n/t

      by ajc1485 on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:55:38 PM PDT

      •  It's an anatomical term

        The P word would've been inappropriate.

        As would the C word.

        And the B word.

        by Trix on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:56:58 PM PDT

        •  agreed n/t

          by ajc1485 on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:57:46 PM PDT

      •  "that's what she said"

        Thompson's wife, I mean...

        by MadAsHellMaddie on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:58:16 PM PDT

      •  But true.. n/t

        by dkmich on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 03:51:39 AM PDT

    •  that is a troll comment n/t

      by one pissed off democrat on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:09:45 PM PDT

      •  ...

        by Trix on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:13:29 PM PDT

    •  Apparently, that's all it takes for way too many

      female Democratic voters.  From what I've seen, it is where here major support is coming from.  

      by dkmich on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 03:50:57 AM PDT

  •  I take your poll choice was definitely

    pie.

    by lizpolaris on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 06:14:36 AM PDT

•  Give it a rest

  Its called politics.

  by areucrazy on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:42:06 PM PDT

  •  and it's called primary

    if she ends up as the dem candidate, i think most folks around here would choose her over willard or rudy. until then, her weaknesses shouldn't be sacred cows, especially when they involve kissing repub a** or making it easier for cheney to start another war.

    by businessdem on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:56:11 PM PDT

    •  Business dem: You support free trade?

      Just curious.  I do, and if you do, I'm curious to hear who you're supporting.  My man is Obama.

      by ajc1485 on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:57:14 PM PDT

      •  regarding free trade

        Interesting question: in general, I support "fair trade." To take an example, I'm against the ridiculous measures taken to coddle the cronyish sugar industry. Or abuse of the anti-dumping tools. I'm also against using protectionist rhetoric to cover up homegrown problems that need fixing, not hiding. On the other hand, I'm in favor of tightened safety restrictions on food imports (as well as locally produced & distributed food), and I'm in favor of ensuring that products imported are not produced by child labor, but these positions are to my mind in line with an overall fair trade platform. Since you support Obama, I'm guessing that our opinions on the free trade / fair trade subject are not that far apart.

        Regarding who I'm supporting, to be honest (sounds hard to believe, I know) I actually haven't made up my mind yet. I'd certainly prefer Obama over Hillary! Thanks for the question, see you around the site.

        by businessdem on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 06:33:22 AM PDT

  •  it's called

    "vile raving ego".  On the part of people who think they alone know what is best for America in all their righteousness and faith-based bad guesses.  It's like the Christian Right, in being all about people they don't like and fairyland policy agendas.

    by killjoy on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:21:49 PM PDT

    •  yeah, I agree

      Those HRC supporters with their vile raving egos get really really old.

      by El Yoss on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:46:02 PM PDT

      •  Denial is not just a river in Egypt, evidently.

        by killjoy on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:59:11 PM PDT

        •  Please..trying to frame opposition to Clinton

          to the Far Right Christianity movement is denial.

          Its the same old Naderite, Mysogynist meme...just a different title.

          Accept it...some people who desperately want to support the Democratic nominee with all of our hearts, money and efforts just find Hillary a little lacking.

          by Morgan Sandlin on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 12:40:00 AM PDT

          •  yeah

            To the point of truthlessly calling her a Republican, yes.

            by killjoy on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 12:51:21 AM PDT

            •  Truthlessly? Ha.

              Not by a long shot.

              by El Yoss on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:21:12 AM PDT

•  Your right

  She is just funded by them

  by GunLovinDem on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:44:06 PM PDT

•  Oh?

  Are we talking about the same Hillary who wants to continue the military occupation of Iraq?

  Kucinich and Edwards have said they will withdraw all combat troops from Iraq.

  by Rex Manning on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:46:18 PM PDT

  •  No... different Hillary

    The Kandinsky is painted on both sides.

    by Trix on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:49:52 PM PDT

    •  Can anyone name the play/movie that line is from?

      No Googling.

      by Trix on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:52:09 PM PDT

      •  "Red Scorpion"?

        by Rex Manning on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:56:33 PM PDT

        •  Nope... masslib got it :) n/t

          by Trix on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:58:19 PM PDT

      •  Six Degrees of Seperation?

        by masslib on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:57:47 PM PDT

        •  Winner :) n/t

          by Trix on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:58:05 PM PDT

          •  Love Kandinsky.

            by masslib on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:59:21 PM PDT

            •  My roommate freshman year of college...

              was obsessed with that line for some reason.

              I have a Kandinsky print hanging in my apartment.

              :-)

              by Trix on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:00:27 PM PDT

              •  It's a good line. Pretty good movie.

                by masslib on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:01:06 PM PDT

                •  Yup... I developed an affinity for the line too

                  :-)

                  by Trix on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:01:46 PM PDT

              •  My print is only painted on one side :) n/t

                by Trix on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:02:26 PM PDT

                •  So, which one do you have?

                  by masslib on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:06:28 PM PDT

                  •  I'm not sure what it's called...

                    it's about 6 feet tall and 2 feet wide.

                    by Trix on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:07:46 PM PDT

•  Rodney King

  said it first

  by LaEscapee on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:49:13 PM PDT

•  Edwards I'm not liking, but

  I'll vote for him or anyone who wins he dem nomination.  Edwards takes the anti-free trade stance, so I'm not voting for him in the primaries, but if he wins, i'll vote and campaign hard for him.

  by ajc1485 on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:54:26 PM PDT

  •  Good call, bro

    Edwards is probably my last choice among the top 6 out there right now based on his reflexively anti-trade stance and his ahem curious position on gay marriage, but I'll support him in a New York minute (heh...no pun intended) if he's the nominee.

    by niremetal on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:58:34 PM PDT

•  She is not the enemy.

  But at the same time, the reason that we lose elections is when Democrats act like Republicans rather than Democrats. The problem that a lot of people have with her is that she scripts her events by planting questions. That is the same sort of thing that Bush did; we made a big issue out of it during the last election.

  If we are to be credible as a party and a movement, then we have to hold Hillary to the same kinds of standards that we hold Bush to.

  by Eternal Hope on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:56:40 PM PDT

  •  no

    That's just the excuse people find for bitching and moaning about how terrible she is.

    Her real crime is that she doesn't cater to them and their righteousness and their pettiness.

    by killjoy on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:25:19 PM PDT

    •  So it's cool that she caters to the Repubs?

      Nice.  It's wrong of us to want her to say Progressive things.

      by El Yoss on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:49:26 PM PDT

      •  moderate ones, sure

        Well, you can't have everything you want  :-)

        by killjoy on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 12:00:50 AM PDT

        •  Interesting..as a moderate...

          and an Independant I say "Anyone but Hillary"...and I'm not alone, nor am I politically isolated.

          I'm one of those fundraisers, networkers...and I wouldn't lift a napkin for her...and I know I'm not alone.

          by Morgan Sandlin on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 12:37:15 AM PDT

          •  I, for one,

            Am not going to vote if she is the nominee (unless my Texas Senate race actually heats up, which I doubt).

            My vote wouldn't beat a Republican, and I would hate to have to tell my grandkids in 50 years that I voted for Hillary.

            "Hillary?  That was Cheney's name after he had a sex change, right Grandpa?  Teacher says I need to read my history more, but I can't tell them apart no matter how hard I try"

            by El Yoss on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:28:55 AM PDT

            •  Seriously, you can't think she's THAT bad

              Equating Hillary to Cheney is like equating Taylor to Polk.  If you know what I mean! ;-)

              by neroden on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 03:05:47 AM PDT

            •  Live outside of reality much?

              That's what living in Texas does to one; that's why I got out.

              by aggieric on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:30:52 AM PDT

    •  Doesn't cater to them?

      You can't paint people with a broad brush like that. People have all sorts of reasons for not voting for her in the primary.

      by Eternal Hope on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:07:08 AM PDT

      •  Please explain

        how it's some realizable higher vision, or selflessness, or confidence that motivates people who are voting against her.

        by killjoy on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:05:20 PM PDT

  •  Wrong

    The problem many of us have with her is continued pandering to neocons with Iraq/Iran and the Peru Free Trade act (triangulation notwithstanding).

    by pkbarbiedoll on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 12:03:15 AM PDT

•  "Hillary is not the enemy"

  And how was your trip to the South Pole?

  by valion on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:59:32 PM PDT

•  Hillary is not the enemy if

  we become the enemy.

  by Mike Taylor on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:00:51 PM PDT

•  Just curious ppl., free trade, who supports

  it the most? My guess is Obama out of the big 3.  THen Clinton, then Edwards.  Am I right or not?

  by ajc1485 on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:01:22 PM PDT

  •  I think so, yes. Though Obama could be right

    where Hillary is, has he said how he will vote on the 3 pending agreements, aside from Peru?  They have identical records so far in the Senate, I think.

    by masslib on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:05:05 PM PDT

  •  I think that's right, but I think that Biden and

    maybe Richardson are more pro-FT than either of them.

    I'm currently making my choice between Obama, Biden, and Richardson.  I know, I know...the last two aren't especially popular around here, but I have my reasons.

    by niremetal on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 12:09:03 AM PDT

•  Yet another dKos speech cop

  Sorry, no. I have problems with all of the Democratic presidential candidates, and I have no intentions of shutting up.

  As for Senator Clinton, she's poses the biggest threat to what dKos stands for. She's a machine candidate and a walking, talking repudiation of reform.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:41:09 PM PDT

  •  thanks for telling us...

    ...what dKos stands for.

    You don't speak for me, by the way.

    by Arlingtonian on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 12:22:18 AM PDT

•  Maybe not an enemy of yours,

  but I think I'm entitled to have my own enemies without your permission.

  by cjallen on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:50:33 PM PDT

•  neither apparently

  is Richard Mellon Scaife.

  by BWildered on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 12:04:18 AM PDT

•  actually, she is

  Because there is nothing there from which to build a more democratic society. her and her husband are so well connected with big business that whatever business wants the clintons get, to the detriment of us all.  Clinton is not Hubert Humphrey nor FDR, she is not a liberal and has never sacrificed political capital for principle.

  There's not a dime's difference that will come to the working person regardless of Clinton versus a republican president. Show me where her actual working policies exhibit a strong difference versus Gulliani or Romney in working class matters. and I am not talking about  campaign "position papers" but her actual senatorial votes, because I have not seen much daylight between them in such matters. Anybody can write beautiful position papers that make you look like the Second Coming, but its how one votes that count, and I don't like the way Clinton has voted on things that are important to me.

  The two, Bill and Hill have had 16 years to lead the charge for sustained progress for workers and they didn't do it and in fact they fucked workers awful bad, so why am I supposed to think she'd do anything of value for a worker like me so over the next 8 years?

  She won't. and I won't lift a finger for her, because she won't lift a finger for me, and hasn't, except her middle one. So fuck her, too.

  by kuvasz on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:16:09 AM PDT

  •  if politics is the art of the possible,..

    I would remind you of who had majorities in the house from 1995 until 2007.  It wasn't the forces of good and light.  Just how much was really possible during that time?

    I am no happier than anyone else here that the Democrats have caved on so damn many key issues.  I would have liked to see all the democrats grow cajones and use them to fillibuster the Republican abuses.

    by Dave from Oregon on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:10:11 AM PDT

    •  democrats lost congress because of clinton

      not despite him. you are stating that effect was cause. he undercut congressional democrats and it was no wonder the republicans took it over with clinton's "triangulation."

      and so will his wife.

      by kuvasz on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:28:27 PM PDT

      •  I do not believe that is true

        I would love to see what facts you use to support that thesis.

        The Republicans won in 1994 because they were very effective at demonising Clinton and progressive causes.  The dems had been in power for a long, long time and had gotten corrupt. They were no where as corrupt as the Delay/Abramoff axis.  They were also ineffective at countering the attacks.

        by Dave from Oregon on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 09:36:37 PM PDT

•  "Bush Lite" is my enemy. If the shoe fits... n/t

  by judasdisney on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:08:29 AM PDT

•  I support....

  Dennis Kucinich because he's standing up for the Constitution and civil liberties, impeaching Cheney, backing single-payer, supporting environmental protection, and bascially backing nearly everything else good in the world. ;-) Plus he's finally managing to get media attention on vital issues like impeachment.

  Chris Dodd because he's standing up for the Constitution and civil liberties, even though his colleagues are being really pathetic collaborators with the Bush Administration, and he seems like he might actually have some effect.

  Mike Gravel because he's standing up for the Constitution and civil liberties (sense a theme here)?, even though some of his other views are fairly nutty.

  John Edwards because his positions are the closest approximation to Kucinich's out of the "top three", and he's also not tied to the current mess in Congress.

  Bill Richardson because he's done more for passenger rail than any other candidate, and pretty much single-handedly.  And he's half-decent on most other issues.  And as a Governor he's not responsible for the current mess in Congress.

  (Not Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama for reasons which should be pretty obvious from the above: tied to the current mess in Congress, not protecting civil liberties or the Constitution.  But either one could win me over so easily with just one bold move.  ;-) )

  by neroden on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 03:02:27 AM PDT

•  Agree.

  I thought that months ago KOS asked the community to promote promote promote their Dem candidate that they liked best and to refrain from falling into the Rovian trap of eating our own.

  Sounds like that theory got tossed down the drain.

  I want hearty debate here, but I don't want the debates to center on:

  planted questions
  waitress tipping
  flag lapel pins
  haircuts

  If we devolve into making a big deal out of following the TM and making a big deal out of these non-issues, then we're no better than the VRWC.

  by annrose on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:22:58 AM PDT

  •  3 out of 4 ain't bad

    Waitress tipping, flag pins, and haircuts aren’t that important but the planting of questions goes to the heart of her campaign ethics and is certainly a legitimate issue to be raised. You can have questions about how people have debated that but I think it’s pretty difficult to dismiss the importance of the issue itself.

    by Tyrannocaster on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 07:21:11 AM PDT

•  Right on..

  These Hillary-bashing diaries take up way too much valuable space in the Recommended Diaries.  I'd like to read more about Krugman and Herbert taking down Brooks, Bhutto telling Musharraff to step down or bondad's excellent diaries on the economic situation.  

  by akr nyc on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 06:49:04 AM PDT

  •  Question: If they are always recommended

    shouldn't that tell you something?  I think it speaks volumes myself.

    by magi on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 07:11:22 AM PDT

  •  Indeed, becoming sniping for sniping's sake

    and its getting old, which is shame given the election is but a year away.

    by dcrolg on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 07:12:35 AM PDT