SuburbanGirl @ 129

Sorry, for my typing in error in putting this in the blockquote at post 129. should be by own comment outside the block.

Heh. S’alright. I thought I was losing my mind there for a minute, cuz I intentionally didn’t call C by her first name since I don’t call O&E by their first names. Heh.

Anyway, re the comments about FDL being a Clinton shop–personally, I’m a late comer to supporting Clinton. In part it is pretty perverse; every time I hear some NPR commentator pick HRC apart for something trivial and add on some old right-wing talking point aside, I get all pissed off and like her more.

I was actually hoping Edwards would give it a good run (and he has, but I would be surprised at this point to see him be the nominee).

I used to really like Obama, and hell yeah, he gives a great speech. But, he really does seem to think that if it’d been him and not WJC all that right-wing nastiness wouldn’t have happened. It just makes me think he is really niave, and in a presidential race he would get his ass handed to him.

To those folks who say they won’t vote for HRC, no matter what, I say “Really”? If Rudy Giuliani was the other choice, you would really let it go to him by default because HRC isn’t the second coming of FDR? Get real folks. You aren’t going to be completely happy with any Dem we elect, but believe me, you’d be a whole lot happier with one of our policy-minded Dems in the Whitehouse than some crazy neo-fascist Republican.

I don’t know if I could take another Nader-esque loss to one of those nutjobs. Really, are we going to throw the baby out with the bathwater because HRC isn’t progressive enough?

If you want Obama or Edwards, by all means, campaign your little heart out. I’ll vote for the Dem on the ticket no matter what. You get one of those guys there, I’ll vote for him. But I would be real careful about withholding a vote for Clinton. That’d be something of a pyrrhic victory I’m afraid.

“I get it. You hate Hillary, you hate everything about her, and if you don’t have anything to hate about her you’ll find something to hate about her.

It’s rank sexism, it always has been, it’s completely blind irrational misogyny but you’re entitled to it. If it starts to get too disruptive over time you’ll get the boot, I’m just warning you now. There’s only so much of it I’m going to tolerate.”

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…../#comments at 157

You want to be first in line or something?

It’s rank sexism, it always has been, it’s completely blind irrational misogyny but you’re entitled to it. If it starts to get too disruptive over time you’ll get the boot, I’m just warning you now. There’s only so much of it I’m going to tolerate.”

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…../#comments at 157

There is a “meme” being articulated here lately to the effect that being anti-Hillary equals being a misogynist. I find that particularly disturbing.

There have been posts here critiquing Clinton’s votes (e.g., Iraq, Kyl-Lieberman) or positions, and praising other positions, without being either “pro” or “anti-Hillary” per se. I don’t agree that being anti-Hillary equals being a misogynist.

No. Nor for anyone else’s campaign.

I had no idea Obama had supported Lieberman over Lamont. I’m shocked, and a little guilty, for giving Clinton a hard time about doing the same thing.

I will try to rectify that oversight. :o)

Here:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/04/02/164/90446

Of Matthews:

I love hearing the media whores on television complaining about the “media whores on line”. :o)

what is Clinton going to “get tough” on?

Is she going to come after Obama for his making
the point that if he’s nominated, Giuliani, or whomever, won’t be able to accuse him of voting for the war, if Obama tries (as he damn well BETTER try) to hang Iraq around the gooper nominee’s neck?

Is she going to get tough and say:

“The Iranian Republican Guard is TOO a terrrist organizaton!”?

Is she going to get tough and say:

“Things are now going so well in Iraq that I feel not the slightest need to apologize for the hundreds of thousands of people who’ve died
in the invasion and occupation I approved of.”

If she’s nominated, will she talk about the problems of funding Social Security, while the war which she helped authorize, and for which she has never recanted, has cost us $450 billion, and IS costing us $2.5 billion a week?

She has already boxed herself in for the primaries, and her effort to have it both ways will get her hammered in the general. Giuliani, playing to the mile-deep reservoir of distrust and suspicion of her that’s held by so many voters, will have a field day with it.

Her supporters complain about Edwards and Obama going after her, instead of bush.

Can they show us where SHE is going after bush with both barrels?

Can they show us her outrage about the $450
billion that Iraq has already cost us, and the $2.5 billion a week that it’s still costing us?

I don’t think they want to talk about Iraq anymore than Clinton wants to talk about Iraq. JUST LIKE BUSH, she needs it to go away,
long enough for her to mouth platitudes about safe democratic topics, in the hope that that will win her the nomination, so she can then mouth more platitudes on those safe topics
in the general election, instead of flaying the hide off bush and the republicans for what they’ve done to Iraq, us, and to the world.

If she had none of the name recognition she has: then, with her track record, we would all be snarking her to pieces. And she would deserve it.

we dont submit comments with the rants we want but with the rants we have!!! :-)