Hi Jane!

And the Clinton/Obama catfight continues….

Morning, Jane!

That’s hilarious: “For reasons I don’t agree with and don’t completely understand, most voters in Wyoming seem to hate Hillary Clinton.”

For reasons I don’t completely understand, people just think Hillary’s a total bitch. I mean, I don’t. But ya know, people keep telling me that they really think she’s a bitch.

Shrugs.

Nice.

God, I hate concern trolls. I’d rather have the honest animosity. Frank Luntz comes to mind.

“je ne sais quoi”

Not that it would have happened, but pretty much anyone, including Little Boots, would have been detested if subjected to 24/7 hate radio for fifteen years of vilification.

Too bad. I wish Little Boots had been subjected to the same levels of hate and scrutiny as Senator Clinton. We might still have some semblance of a Constitution.

Holla.

“And I think I was like most people in the room that night, when ou listened to [Obana’s keynoe] speech, you thought, ‘Oh my God, this guy should be president.’ So that’s probably really where it began.”

I guess that makes Obama, uh, well-spoken.

Jane:

edit:

And I think I was like most people in the room that night, when ou you listened to [Obana’s Obama’s keynoe keynote]

Unless that’s how it is in the original…

No to Obama. No to Hillary. No to the Republicans.

I’m much more interested in which Democratic candidate can best destroy the Republican party. Go after THOSE bastards, Dems—not each other!!

And I really really like this bit:

Yet, when you listened to the contents of the speech, much of what he said he could have actually delivered at the Republican National Convention.

What’s this 15 years business. Hillary has been driving the wingnuts insane since 1978.

Local gooper rag pulled one of their staff editorial writers out of the loony bin long enough to pen a hate Hillary piece that recalls the good old days of Clinton hating- yeh the blow job’s in there in all it’s glory and the misplaced rose law firm papers- Hillary’s “don’t recall” answers to questions—”what the meaning of ‘is’ is”- and “smarmy” Clinton staff members—it’s all there in full color and with four part harmony….

Here we go again- a little somethin fer the gooper Clinton haters- an appearance of Clinton’s Dick-

For reasons I don’t agree with and don’t completely understand, most voters in Wyoming seem to hate Hillary Clinton.

For reasons I don’t agree with and don’t completely understand, most of my friends think that Republicans are liars, cheats, and losers.

hey jane!

I’m not sure what to say about this. On the one hand, the concern trolling is pretty lame. On the other, Clinton’s people did their own concern trolling just the other day with the drug use non-issue.
And then on the other hand (i have three hands), I REALLY despise Hillary Clinton. And Barack Obama for that matter: like Millen says, ”Yet, when you listened to the contents of the speech, much of what he said he could have actually delivered at the Republican National Convention.”

So let them destroy each other. I don’t like either of them.

Talk about your damning with faint praise, eh?

Thanks for this post. It really nails the whole “divisiveness” “controversy” that has been driving me nuts for some time. No one can say why, they just know that it’s that way. And the suggestion that it’s because of fifteen years of right-wing and MSM smear campaigns against the Clintons just draws blank stares. Out here in East Central Indiana, I’m considered quite a nut for even asking the question, and a complete moron for not gnostically understanding people’s dislike of Hillary Clinton.

I posted something at GG’s blog today that is relevant. I had a short epiphany…

For reasons I don’t agree with and don’t completely understand, most of my friends think that Republicans are liars, cheats, and losers.

For reasons I don’t agree with and don’t completely understand, I understand and agree.

“We will also be the target of the locker room jokes that rightfully belong to Bill Clinton and Larry Craig and Denny Hastert and David Vitter and Mark Foley and Jeff Gannon and Tom Delay and Duke Cunningham and Newt Gingrich and Rudi Giuliani . . .”

More editing for clarity

Another edit:

much of what he said he could have been actually delivered at…

again, unless that’s how it is in the original… In which case we shouldn’t be editing this for him…

If Hillary wins the White House- we’re gonna NEED universal health care to take care of all the goopers who have sudden heart attacks.

Negatives about HRC, here in NH, are not just from white male bots but from women as well. It is interesting, when speaking about Hill, that the first thing many “feminist” friends and others say is a negative. Whether about NAFTA, Iraq, welfare (I know that is the other clinton) and of course her ties to big corporate interests. The goopers would love to see HRC as the candidate, it would be a fundraising bonanza for them and a rallying point for all wingnuts. HRC is not the best choice for the nomination unless, of course, one is a DLC or other goplite.

This all comes down to a matter of aesthetics rather than politics. Can you handle watching the tops of goopers heads explode? Well then Hillary’s yer gal. If, on the other hand, you have a weak stomach for public displays of violent death- chose another candidate.

But only for fifteen years nationally. You folks in Arkansas have just had to endure the pleasures of the hate for an extra 15 years before it was presented to us.

I’m much more interested in which Democratic candidate can best destroy the Republican party. Go after THOSE bastards, Dems—not each other!!

Chris Matthews had some poll numbers recently that showed that of the 3 top Democratic candidates: Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, it was Edwards who beat all of the Republican candidates by the widest margins in every match up.

Think it was Biden who called Obama articulate.

Some are sayin that when push comes to shove- in the darkness of the voting booth- with no one watching- a large number of voters will vote for the white male- Edwards.

I don’t know if it’s true– but some say there’s a history of this.

Yeah, I was just bein’ snarky.

I know you were. So was I.

Harry Reid seems to suffer this same affliction. He is scared of Rush and Sean Insanity.

Well the obama campaign certainly stepped on its current storyline of
political purity against the evil hacketta.

what a bunch of big babies.

Some are sayin that when push comes to shove- in the darkness of the voting booth- with no one watching- a large number of voters will vote for the white male- Edwards.

True but the corporate powers do not want that to happen they want us to vote the PC way, either for a woman or black, both of whom can lose in the general.

Millen sounds like the kind of Democrat whom wants to work with Republicans. Those are the kind of Democrats that seem clueless to Progressives. Though they are clueless in that respect (Lucy and the football), they are effective Corporatists. They need to be replaced. It is discouraging however that (IIRC) even some of our new progressives voted for the Christianist bill (a Lucy/Football setup if there ever was one).

Assuming for the moment this fellow is on the up and up. I think he represents what folks in the MSM refer to as the center. I tend to say Blue Dog when in a hurry here. He is a FOX viewing Dem who rarely reads or thinks beyond what the Wingers who surround him say. He cannot/will not overcome the constant barrage of nonsensical propaganda in his daily life. This Delegate needs to read better blogs, at least, in order to nullify the Kool-Aid waterboard effect which consumes him.

There is a lot to this type thing. I wonder how many people tell pollsters they’ll vote for Obama and then vote differently once in the booth. I guess only time will tell. I only wish America would get over it. If they think Obama is the better candidate, then vote for him. Don’t let race or gender hold you back.

FDL Facebook users:

Any one else having trouble getting into Facebook this morning?

Then why is he a Democrat? I do wonder why people like him, or Harry Reid, are Democrats.

So how about the data. How does Hillary poll in WY?

I agree. Harry Reid and Pelosi come to mind. I was at Harry’s blog the other day and he’s got a horribly bad wingnut letter featured in the number two position on his blog. Is he showing us what he’s got to contend with daily that scares him into constant acquiescence? Milquetoast.

Well the obama campaign certainly stepped on its current storyline of
political purity against the evil hacketta.

what a bunch of big babies.

With Obama, I am getting the feeling that under the slick exterior is a really nasty piece of work. Two examples, the seven present votes on abortion and most of all Donnie McClurkin. Adding up all of the “bad behavior” of the rest of the Dems; it doesn’t come close to the cynical dirty political thinking that is represented by using McClurkin in SC.

No trouble at all.

Edwards claims a virtual tie in Iowa and points to Kerry’s 18 point swing in New Hampshire following an Iowa victory. He’s banking on a win in Iowa. If he doesn’t get it- it may be all over for him.

For reasons I don’t agree with and don’t completely understand …

If you don’t understand them, can you really be certain that you don’t agree with them?

This is one of the things I like about the lake. Yesterday Hillary got called out for a staffers offensive attack, today Obama gets a taste.

Regardless of ones support for whatever candidate, when bad behavior is seen, it is addressed.

Rudy is planning to lose in both Iowa and New Hampshire and make a big come back in Floria paving the way to the nomination…He may smell a bit like a loser by then.

If you don’t understand them, can you really be certain that you don’t agree with them?

Paging Joe Klein.

Edwards is definitely the lesser of three evils. I’m for Edwards. He got a lucky (positively slanted) bit on NPR this morning.

Thanks. I’m actually in now…

I have worked in Wyoming for several years in the past. Anyone who has spent any time at all in that state knows that a native “LIBERAL” of wyoming is just a milder form of the radical right wing neo-con. Think Dick Cheney when thinking of wyoming and its polotics . The wyoming democratic chairman is akin to the Liebermans and the GOP voting dem blue dogs. True Democrats they are not.

There is a lot to this type thing. I wonder how many people tell pollsters they’ll vote for Obama and then vote differently once in the booth. I guess only time will tell. I only wish America would get over it. If they think Obama is the better candidate, then vote for him. Don’t let race or gender hold you back.

Just a WAG..10-15%. Another WAG..10-15% of women associated with lizard brain, mouth breathing men and who say they would never vote for Hillary, will pull the lever as a personal FU to the above mentioned males.

Yesterday in a campaign round-up section of the Boston Globe, they reported that pretty much anytime Obama is called on things (such as his responses in a pre-election survey from his first senate run) or scheduling problems or such, he tends to throw staffers under the bus as being responsible for whatever the problem was.

For reasons I don’t necessarily agree with and don’t quite understand, my arse is not the same thing as a hole in the ground.

Yep. Edwards can only benefit from the Obama-Mama imbroglio… If you believe the polls, he’s within striking distance of both in Iowa and NH. And rwcole @ 30 may be right. That does happen. Just ask Tom Bradley when he was running for Governor of California.

I read (no source) that Edwards is the only Democrat who has polled above McCain. If white male push comes to white male shove, Edwards is the only electable Democratic candidate.

I don’t want to lose. How many others feel the same way?

(I will vote for the Democratic nominee, period.)

As long as people are offering editing notes, I did do a doubletake at calling Limbaugh a gassbag…misspelled, thought I. And then I thought again, and realized it’s all a matter of pronounciation. gASSbag. Works for me.

You did forget the fava beans, tho, Jane.

Um, they are Republicans, I thought they believed in taking care of themselves… …all about choices people.

OT: FWIW, selise has posted a FISA update downstairs a couple of floors: http://firedoglake.com/2007/12…..nt-1147337

Ditto what you said! As far as I’m concerned, this is all the better for one of the candidates that I chose. Perhaps Edwards, or Dodd, or maybe even Richardson (but I doubt it, due to the fact that he couldn’t handle Melissa Ethridge’s question on whether gays are born or become gay later in life. To my way of thinking, a presidential candidate should have that question worked out before he’s ready for prime time.

When I lived in Jackson Hole, I knew three Dems..Me, my wife and the cat.

For reasons I don’t necessarily agree with and don’t quite understand, my arse is not the same thing as a hole in the ground.

George W. Bush’s, however, is. It’s the only explanation for how he can have his head up his ass and in the sand at the same time.

Tester? How about Gary Trauner, an ActBlue candidate, who nearly beat the incumbant at-large WY rep last year?

I think all three of the Democratic front runners are pretty good this time around. I’d be happy to vote for Edwards or Obama for president. I’ll vote for Hillary if she’s the nominee.

and clean

Well I can only speak from my experience but I am often moved by Obamas speaking but pulled back to reality after looking in depth at his records, deeds, affiliations etc. This fellow is probably manipulated by the television, radio, and barber shop conversations in what is surely a very conservative neck of the woods. I am not defending anything.. just trying to understand a twist on your question I think. How are so many progressives voting against their interest, not only as Blue Dog/DLC New Dem supporters, but many are actually voting Republican. America is in a political depression because of the right wing propaganda machine.. Folks want to believe it can be better but are surrounded by so much of the wrong thinking and speaking they cannot sort out what is possible and who else is working towards that possibility. Imagine not having the knowledge of or time available to find and read places like here.. what are the odds folks would know the difference about Edwards, Dodd or Kucinich.. They only have the common talking points provided in large newspapers, radios or television.

Edwards is definitely the lesser of three evils. I’m for Edwards. He got a lucky (positively slanted) bit on NPR this morning.

That’s my impression too. But, you know, we haven’t heard a lot about or from Edwards lately. Honestly, every time one of these idiots open his mouth I find myself liking him less and less. Maybe I’m feeling more favorable toward Edwards currently because he hasn’t done anything recently to openly alienate progressives.

Further to my 56:

I don’t want to lose either. I’m not a white man. But I am an Edwards supporter. I’ve always said here that he is the one the Repugs fear facing the most.

Montana and Wyoming seem have rather different politics from one another. Perhaps it’s the high concentration of LDS in Wyoming. Montana is sane by comparison.

Morning Joe gave him time this morning and declared him the undisputed winner of the debate yesterday. I have stated since last summer that I believe Edwards will win Iowa. I hope he can sustain the momentum after that. I believe Obama will come in a distant 3rd in Iowa due to his younger supporters who typically do not show up to caucaus.

Replying to Nomolos at 25

Negatives about HRC, here in NH, are not just from white male bots but from women as well. It is interesting, when speaking about Hill, that the first thing many “feminist” friends and others say is a negative. Whether about NAFTA, Iraq, welfare (I know that is the other clinton) and of course her ties to big corporate interests. The goopers would love to see HRC as the candidate, it would be a fundraising bonanza for them and a rallying point for all wingnuts. HRC is not the best choice for the nomination unless, of course, one is a DLC or other goplite.

I’ll say right out front that I’m an Edwards fan. But I’ve looked at the poll numbers that appear on TPM’s site daily. If you dig just a little [i.e., go beyond the first page], you’ll see that Edwards beats all Republicans by greater margins than does either HIllalry or Obama. You’ll even see that every Republican candidate has lower numbers garners lower numbers when running against Edwards. One thing that has said to me is that there IS something to the “I’d vote for any Democrat but Hillary” meme.

I’m a Democrat, a staunch, progressive Democrat, who’s voted for every Dem. since 1964. I’d vote for Hillary against a Republican, but I neither like nor trust her, and I think her “control” of the Democratic apparatus — done to insure her capture of the nomination — is hurting Democrats across the country.

So nope, I don’t tag this person as a “concern troll.” I wish more here would listen to what he has to say.

John looks like a stereotypical republican.

While Mormons are a small minority in the country as a whole- they make up a substantial portion of the voters in several western states—Utah (gooperiest state in the nation) Arizona Wyoming and Idaho are all well populated and very conservative.

Kiddo has it right:

No to Obama. No to Hillary. No to the Republicans.

Clinton had me at universal health coverage and lost me incrementally and completely in the years since. And I’m not alone. If you’re not aware of this trend, Jane, why are you blogging politics?

I’m a woman and I’m not for Hillary for all the reasons that you mentioned and, if I thought about it for a minute, there may be a few more reasons as well. Sorry, Hillary, I admire and respect you in many ways, but as a Senator, not for President. Even if you were a carbon copy of Bill Clinton’s successful (in my POV) presidency, at this time, I think a change needs to happen in public policy, and I don’t think you’re willing to provide the kind of change needed.

I was referring to the general population . Just like the Marines are looking for a few good men? Well they do get a few, but they also get a bunch of bad asses too. There are a few real democrats inWyoming too-just not very many. The first time I was in that state, Cheyene the capitol, had about 50,000 population- 49,999 repubicans and me -one democrat.

But truely that was the old republican party and not this radical neo-con bunch.

When I think of Wyoming, I think ‘Japanese Internment Camps’

I read (no source) that Edwards is the only Democrat who has polled above McCain. If white male push comes to white male shove, Edwards is the only electable Democratic candidate.

I don’t know exactly which poll it is, but it’s on the TMP web site. You may have to go beyond the front page of polls to find it. Edwards has been polling this way for quite some time.

When I think of Wyoming, I think ‘Japanese Internment Camps’

I think of transplanted conservative Texans.

Sorry, that’s TPM [Talking Points Memo] web site.

Where an edit function?

When I think of Wyoming, I think ‘Japanese Internment Camps’

When I think of Internment camps, it’s CA, AZ and AR.

Catfight indeed. Oh, man…I don’t like either one of them, and I still can’t help feeling – poor, naive darling that I am – that they should know better than to do the Rethugs’ dirty work by savaging fellow Democrats like this. But what else can we expect? Hillary and Obama are both DLC to the core, and we all know the DLC’s unofficial motto: “Every Man For Himself”. Expecting either of these tratiors to put the Party’s well-being ahead of their own selfish interests would be like expecting them to sprout wings and fly to the moon.

Meanwhile, I just read at Doug Ireland’s blog that Kucinich and Gravel have been excluded from the Des Moines Register’s sponsered presidential debate for the Democratic candidates, and for reasons, shall we say, that are extremely shaky at best. Maybe Firedoglake should devote some space to that story.

Ahem, Ms. Hardin Smith is upstairs.

Hi Jane, glad to have seen C-span calling on your expertise in the post debate discussion! About time our bloggers analysis are given their due.

That said, I’m not sure what your point is about Millen. If you’re speaking from an-anti Obama or pro-Hillary position I could find some nefarious merit in attacking Millen.
Not believing you would do that, it appears then that you distrust Millen. If you have good cause for that, then please explain. Obama, and most of the voters, surely would not want someone with a shady background involved in any election.

Moving on specifically to Millen’s words, would you want him to just spit what he may not want to say? As one who wouldn’t vote for Hillary under any circumstances I’ll give you some ideas of what may hide behind his attempts to keep the discussion above the belt.
-How about the truths about what Hillary will do to voter turnout? I’d stay home and hide in a bunker if I was faced with choosing either Huckabee or Clinton -either way we’re going to get screwed. So will the Dems in every other state. Putting a hurdle to Dean’s 50 state strategy.
-She will appeal to the same gang that voted for Lieberman, because she has morphed into another Joe Lieberman.
-How about her undying alliances with A*I*P*A*C*, and other special interests.
But here’s another point. Do you seriously think Tester is a Hillary kind of guy….hardly.
It was this Progressive community that brought him into the Senate. It would be the lowest of insults to make him kowtow publicly to the queen of the DLC community.

To correct you on two points;

1.Obama is absolutely NOT DLC!
“..“I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC,” said Obama, in a statement that substantially reflects a telephone conversation with Associate Editor Bruce Dixon, this weekend. “It does appear that, without my knowledge, the DLC…listed me in their ‘New Democrat’ directory,” Obama continued. “Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention.” http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html

Where Clinton IS the unofficial DLC Queen. Knowing the mood of the base towards the DLC, pandering Clinton didn’t attend the DLC’s convention. Obama did not attend either.

2. It’s primarily Fox and ‘others’ that are spreading an untruth about why Kucinich and Gravel were not allowed to participate. In C-span’s post debate analysis they asked Iowa directly about this issue. Rules are Rules. You had to have an official headquarters in Iowa OR have more than 1% of voter support to attend. Alan Keyes for example got in only because he had 3% of their voters support. Kucinich and Gravel did not register the required 1% of voters AND did not have headquarters in Iowa.

Iowa as we all saw had a strict format, and everyone agreed to the rules beforehand.
Notice they aren’t crying foul over the results?

I bet the Obama campaign isn’t exactly upset about this. They’ve been pushing this stuff forever. From Marc Ambinder’s Atlantic article -

His campaign staffers, too, have become frustrated by the focus of the media’s attention, specifically that the press has not covered Clinton in the way they expected it would. During an interview this summer, Obama’s friend Valerie Jarrett said to me, unbidden, “He is a man who is devoted to his wife. There aren’t going to be any skeletons in his closet in terms of his personal life at all. Period.” And at a campaign event in Iowa, one of Obama’s aides plopped down next to me and spoke even more bluntly. He wanted to know when reporters would begin to look into Bill Clinton’s postpresidential sex life.

The important thing to remember, however, is that Hillary Clinton is a terrible bitch – because the Republicans say so – engaged in a dirty campaign to win the presidency. While Obama is only interested in drawing “contrasts.” They would never stoop to personal attacks.

I cannot wait for primary season to be over.

I’ve said this before, but the unremitting sexism and misogyny directed at Hillary Clinton throughout this campaign is going to fuel feminist and media books for decades. The number of Democrats and liberals who have embraced these attacks because they don’t want her to get the nomination is truly depressing.

The only part of Millin’s article that I’d quibble with, is that about Obama being the candidate for a new beginning. He is, to some extent, but so is John Edwards.

Millin’s assessment of Clinton’s negatives, and of her ability to drag the democratic party down to a catastrophic defeat next November, are spot-on.

And JohnDee, are you serious with that “Doing the republicans dirty work for them” stuff?

Are you not aware that two days ago, Clinton savaged Obama for being “too liberal” because 10 YEARS AGO, he said that he was against capital punishment? She also accused him of supporting socialized medicine, because he was in favor of more government regulation to curtail the great american “let’s soak the sick and the elderly!” contest?

Please, all of her defenders, stop with the “you’re using GOP talking points”, when we point out factual matters like:

Her unapologetic support for the clusterfuck…

Her schmoozing with FoxNews and Rupert Murdoch…

The donations that AIPAC has directed to her…

Her support for Joe Lieberman…(How politically “savvy” is she, to have her photo taken with Lieberman a few days ago, when Lieberman’s running and defeating Ned Lamont came VERY close to returning the Senate to republican control. Lieberman is, and should be, the kiss of death for democrats.)

Her support for the surge…

In this election when, as Millen so accurately points out, we have a great chance to give the people who’ve dragged us into the disaster in Iraq, why on earth should we support a democrat who has helped them do it, and for that reason alone, won’t be able to use the giant, festering, issue of Iraq against them?

Accusing the people who point out Clinton’s on-the-record positions on these things as “sexists”, is abject nonsense. It’s the people who are STILL supporting her, in the face of all this, who are doing it simply because she’s a woman, and a woman named “Clinton”.

One more time: If she were a man named “Smith”, with her track record, the people defending her would be hustling donations for her opponent.

And they’d be right.

Oh it cannot be because the Clintons are the most worthless national politicians on the Democratic side ever. Even worse than Dukakis or Mondale. Truly the Clintons are interested in big planes, comfortable seats and big houses. Stop the Clintons now.

Here’s some more unremitting sexism and misogyny:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories…..0694.shtml

BTW, folks; we are in an election in which one of the two parties is going to come out of it mortally wounded; no mulligans, for a lonnnnng time to come, after this November.

I don’t WANT the candidates to make kissy-face. They’ve ALL got at least a few warts; let’s look at them and decide which one is the candidate best able to take advantage of the opportunity for a democratic landslide in this election.

Pssssst…that damn sure aint Hillary Clinton.

“Her support for Joe Lieberman…(How politically “savvy” is she, to have her photo taken with Lieberman a few days ago, when Lieberman’s running and defeating Ned Lamont came VERY close to returning the Senate to republican control. Lieberman is, and should be, the kiss of death for democrats.)”

Well, according to someone close to Ned Lamont’s campaign, Hillary was helpful (her husband less so). The person who was a huge disappointment? Obama. See here.

Good job, linking to that, BD. I mean it.

But are you equating Obama’s foot-dragging with Hillary’s staunch and OVERT support for Lieberman, in the primary?

Tell me you don’t think they balance out; please.

And when you can come up a link detailing Obama’s, or Edwards’, sucking up to FauxNews and Murdoch, please put that up, too.

Let’s get it ALL out there. NOBODY gets a free ride…and to that end, we need the process of competitive primaries to continue, not end in New Hampshire, with Hillary’s coronation.

(Did I mention that the longer it goes on, the less chance that the democrats will commit ritual political seppuku by nominating her? :o) )

Hey, Tanbark…

I agree with every word you’ve said about HRC. Just so know, I’m John D. from the Groupnewsblog gang, so you should have some idea of my feelings towards the Clintons, that is, that they don’t stand for a Goddamn thing apart from themselves. I know my crack about Hillary and Obama “doing the Rethugs’ dirty work for them” sounds pretty naive, but viewed in a certain way, there really is an unseemliness here that simply isn’t present with their GOP counterparts. The campaigning Rethugs have displayed some bitchiness towards one another, true, but nothing like the open warfare between Hill and B.O. And I find that incredible, given the grotesque Egos on parade with the GOP Presidential candidates. It’s just all very depressing to watch, even if I understand the reasons for it.

As for Hillary’s “helpfullness” towards Ned Lamont, BDBlue, I thought that was just an example of her hedging her bets, as per usual.

You are so dead wrong to believe that sexism is at play here, and to hide behind that. I’m a hard ass woman myself, and proud of it. I can be a bitch matching any guy who wants to be a dick. I’m proud to see Hillary stand up for herself -what I’m not proud of is that she’s sold herself out.

Her hiding from the DLC convention was one clue. And people who don’t like strong women would never have voted for her under any circumstances. It’s just the real Hillary, that we don’t like.
Let me give you an inside taste of who your ‘heroine’ really is: last summer after Israel dumped over 400,000 of those toylike cluster bomblets all over Lebanon Senator Feinstein, with most of the world behind her -including the Red Cross, offered up legislation to place a moratorium on all further use of cluster bombs, but only in civilian areas. She made no attempts to ban the child maiming flesh searing toys away from the US government.

Your dear sweet Hillary voted with all of the Republicans and a few other Democrats to defeat her own colleagues humanitarian effort. How completely against every principle of the Democrats base beliefs was that vote?
I would throw your argument back at you -how can ANY woman or Mother cast such a vote?

Yeah right, we definitely need her in the Whitehouse -what we’ll get is a Clinton Lieberman Whitehouse from hell -to equal that of the Bush Cheney massacre.

Obama voted with Senator Feinstein.

JohnD, thanks for the comeback. Good to hear your voice. :o)

What gets me, is that when she gets up and just flat-out I.D.’s herself as repub-lite, there are progressives who STILL won’t dump her.

In THIS year, when we have a president and a party who came to power seven years ago without even winning the popular vote, and whom are essentially a court-appointed administration, and when that president has lied, bullshitted, and koolaided us into the miserable state of affairs we have today, and with the GOP’s conservative fingerprints on this shit like they were pulsating day-glo neon…

then, for a democratic candidate to go after ANOTHER democrat for being “too liberal” is the foullest of political horseshit. It’s Clinton saying to republicans and conservatives:

“I will NOT make Iraq a big issue.” (She can’t!)

“I will not remind the voters of the five-and-dime “patriotism” koolaid that bush and the GOP peddled to us like it was mother’s milk, to crate and sustain the nightmare that is Iraq.”

“I will not remind the voters that EVERY FUCKING WORD they spoke about Iraq; from the “justification” for doing it, to the Orwellian doublethink for sustaining it, was TOTAL, COMPLETE, BULLSHIT!”

“When the warpimp-candidates have the brass balls and the love of ass-raping the truth, to WARN the voters, as they did two days ago, about “wasteful government spending” and, as Romney said: “We should get rid of the programs that don’t work.”, with $450 billion dollars of our money, and a half-million people dead, conservatively, in Iraq, then, I, Hillary Clinton, promise not to get up in some public place and hang a scornful shit on the podium in response to the laser-like truth-use of the english language which the repubicans continue to flaunt.”

In fairness, there should have been a Mormon-Tabernacle-Choir chorus of collective farts of derision from ALL of the democrats at those GOP calls for “fiscal responsibility”.
When they said it, I imagine that the walls of the Halliburton boardroom (they being recipients of something like $20 billion dollars in war largesse) were treated to a coat of jizz, at the patrio-execs NOT hearing THEIR name called in conjunction with “wasteful government spending”.

All snark aside.

To the people still clinging to the idea that Hillary Clinton is deserving of support from anyone who views the war in Iraq for anything other than the bloody, bullshit-driven debacle it is:

You have a choice to make; you can either keep on supporting her, and watch her turn an opportunity for a political tsunami for our side, into a contest close enough for the republicans to steal ANOTHER election…

Or, you can help us begin the process of putting an end to her candidacy and then get on with selecting the candidate than CAN deliver a big win, in this most critical of elections.

Hillary Clinton is not part of the solution to what we’re facing; she has been, and still is, part of the problem. Please deal with it.

Please.

Hazmaq;

Ouch! That’s gonna leave a bruise. :o)

The pure hell of it is, that I was a BIG supporter of Hillary. Voted for Bill twice. Loved it when she talked about the “right-wing conspiracy”. (It was…)

I practically Danced a jig, when she won that N.Y. Senate seat, at the idea of her walking up to Trent Lott and asking him if he had any tips for a rookie senator from the state with the second most electoral votes in the Union. :o)

Now?

I’m Bill the Cat: “Phhhhffftpppppp!!!” :o(

Why is a state Dem chair saying ANYTHING about a particular Dem candidate prior to the primaries?

What gets me, is that when she gets up and just flat-out I.D.’s herself as repub-lite, there are progressives who STILL won’t dump her.

Tanbark, I think there are several reasons for this. What gets me is that there still seem to be people out there on the opposite side of the aisle who continue to genuinely think of her as a liberal, as obviously insane as that is on the face of it. My own theory is that because standards of political discourse have fallen so far, since she and her scumbag hubbie are perfectly willing to use progressives for their own selfish ends – and I do mean “use”, we have received absolutely nothing from the Clintons in return for our votes and support when the right slime them – that, all by itself, is taken as “proof” of some kind of closet liberalism on their behalf. It’s completely substance-free, of course, based entirely on rhetoric. But there you are.

That, and the fact that they’re not, y’know, bat-shit insane. Just a couple of crooked, self-interested political hustlers. On the surface, they certainly look respectable compared to the murdering little sociopathic manchild currently staining the Oval Office with his presence. How could they not? during the Katrina crisis, I found myself thinking Clinton was a Prince compared to Little Boots, and I have nothing but contempt for Clinton.

I don’t mind it so much when people on our side defend them, because I recognize that, on some level, most of the attacks on the Clintons from the GOP, the right and the media are really veiled (and sometimes not-so-veiled) attacks on us.

Tom65;

Maybe because, just like he says, he’s worried, as a lot of us are, that Clinton is the last, best, hope, for the republicans.

I have NO problem with Clinton going after Obama and Edwards on the various issues. That’s what primaries, and elections, are for. I WANT them to go at each other.

In fact, the absence of the “electability” word from the interaction between them, is approaching the status of a conspiracy, my 2c.

But if she wants to accuse Obama for being too..librul…because, 10 years ago, he spoke out against the death penalty, and FOR more government regulation of our out-of-control health-care system, then SHE is the one using republican talking points, not those of us who just continue to put the facts about her positions and about her support for some of the worst policies of the bush administration; and she should have to pay a political price for it.

Which, happily enough, I think is happening, as her lead in New Hampshire, previously thought to be “safe” for her, seems to have evaporated. :o)

Hum Hilary calls Obama a drug dealer. Jane has no problem with that. Someone points out that Hillary will unify the republican base and OMG they committed a moral sin. Stop shilling for Hillary

Garza; I take a back seat to no one in my concern that our best chance for a decisive win next November does NOT lie with Hillary, and I agree that some of the complaints from Hillary’s supporters are getting…ridiculous, but Jane DID start this thread about one of Clinton’s top aides trying to make political hay out of Obama’s self-admitted drug use, and she also snorted about Clinton’s “apology” and her claim that she knew had no prior knowledge about Sheehan’s statement.

Fair is fair, now. :o)

And I really really like this bit:

Yet, when you listened to the contents of the speech, much of what he said he could have actually delivered at the Republican National Convention.

Maybe Obama has something more in common with W than he does with Dick Cheney.