Anti-war Democrat takes on Hillary

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-hill28.html

ALBANY, N.Y. -- A former Green Party member who advocates an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq says he will challenge incumbent Hillary Rodham Clinton for the 2006 Democratic nomination for Senate.

''She's in favor of the war and in favor of continuing the occupation,'' Steven Greenfield, a professional saxophone player, said from his New Paltz home.

A senior adviser to Clinton, Howard Wolfson, declined to comment on Greenfield's declaration. snip

Greenfield, 44, who has a degree in economics, switched to the Democratic party just last month so he could challenge Clinton.

[Swamp Rat]

1. Geaux Greenfield!!!

:yourock:

[Greeby]

2. Shh, be werry werry quiet

I'm huntin for DINOs :bounce:

[Swamp Rat]

6. Get the net QUICK!

:D

[leftchick]

10. oh my swap rat

That is fantastico!

:bounce:

[Swamp Rat]

12. abraço

:hug:

I love your John Lennon bumper sticker! :thumbsup:

[MisterP]

182. you could even extend that back to 1976, the year Poppy became CIA chief

as to the anti-war push, I say: full speed ahead!

[ms liberty]

38. Hey Swamp Rat...

I've never told you this, but I love you!!!

That's one of your best...isn't that Donald Sutherland and Ted Danson in there? And while I'm asking, is that John Lennon on your avatar?

[Swamp Rat]

43. beijo*

:*

Yes, that's Donald Sutherland, but the other creature is Bushler hisself.

My avatar is Lampião, the most famous Brazilian outlaw from the Northeast. I was Lampião in my last life until the macacos cut off my head. :D

[DistressedAmerican]

130. It Will Be My Personal Pleasure To Vote For Him!

ENOUGH OF THE POWER FAMILIES!

[MrBenchley]

3. Geeze, a nobody from the Green Party....

Talk about a DINO....would he have gotten an inch of newspaper space as the Green candidate? Instead he's got to pull this dishonest "conversion"....

[NNN0LHI]

4. They must not have been able to find a Republican who would switch parties

So they took the next best thing.

Don

[MrBenchley]

14. Very true...

Wonder how much dough he's getting from the state GOP? (And if it's more than Jeanette Pirro is getting?)

[Greeby]

5. On the other hand

How many Green Party members would still be Democrats if it weren't for DINOs and DLC'ers like Hillary?

[Swamp Rat]

8. Don't forget the PodPeople

:)

[MrBenchley]

16. All three of them?

The Green Party ain't even a pimple on the butt of the body politic...which is why this nobody's got to pull a stunt like this.

[Ken Burch]

7. If he's a Green, he's far more committed to basic Democratic principles

than Hillary ever was.

Why she's still allowed to call her self a Dem when she STILL supports the %$!#@ war is beyond me.

(Poor bastard doesn't stand a chance, though.)

[MrBenchley]

17. Hahahahaha!

Yes, nothing says "Democrat" more than somebody who ain't a Democrat. </sarcasm>

I'd hate to have to make a list of all the things that must be beyond you.

[Ken Burch]

149. Most of the Greens used to BE Democrats

until cynical right-wing hacks like you drove them out.

[MrBenchley]

152. Good riddance as far as I can see.....

What a shame for you that candidate Piginapoke is fleeing the Greens himself and pretending to be a Democrat these days...guess he wants to be a "cynical right-wing hack" too....

[Ken Burch]

154. No, it's not a shame. I'm a former Green who returned to the Democrats

I left in '92 because Clinton made it clear that Democrats who disagreed with Republicans weren't welcome in the party.

I came back to support Kucinich in the hopes of making the Dems a real alternative(that is, a party with a clearly different set of ideas)than the GOP, not just a second conservative party that takes turns administering the status quo.

Democrats can win as a progressive populist party. The last three cycles prove they CAN'T win anymore as a bland, cowardly centrist party.

In '72 you'd have been a Democrat for Nixon, Benchley.

[MrBenchley]

157. Geeze, Ken....

I voted in 72, and NOT as a Democrat for Nixon. So peddle it walking.

"I came back to support Kucinich"
Yeah, you're just the boyo to tell us how to win elections, all righty. (snciker)

[mtnsnake]

27. If Hillary can't "call her self a Dem", then nobody can.

I think quite a few people need to wake up and realize that your definitions of "a Democrat" is nothing close to the real thing.

Hillary Clinton is as much a Democrat as anyone. The way she gets spun so often around here as being "pro war" is nothing but a pile of poopoo.

[MrBenchley]

30. It is hilarious to hear

That Hillary can't call herself a Democrat but a schmendrick from the Green party CAN, isn't it?

[mtnsnake]

40. Yes it is, and if her detractors took the time to honestly LISTEN to what

Hillary has to say and what she stands for, they'd be in for a little surprise. This lady is not some war monger running around voting for any war that pops up on the horizon, yet that's the way she gets spun around here. She is as anti-war as the rest of us. She's a clever politician, yes, but she's got her priorities in all the right places. Anyone who's ever listened to her speak in depth knows she is a true blue Democrat.

Just because she isn't promoting immediate withdrawal doesn't mean she WANTS to occupy Iraq for another second. Bush got us into this mess, not Hillary, but now that we're there, her heart also goes out to the Iraqi people and she's weighing it from all angles as to what she thinks is the best way to get out of there..for everyone involved.

Yup, it's hilarious how people will give credibility to Joe Blow from the Green Party who they know nothing about, as long as being on the Hillary witch hunt is currently in vogue.

[MrBenchley]

44. God forbid we have a clever politician in office (snicker)....

"it's hilarious how people will give credibility to Joe Blow from the Green Party who they know nothing about, as long as being on the Hillary witch hunt is currently in vogue"
Worth noting that the Greens couldn't even get on the ballot in 2004 in NYC...that's how little support the party actually has in NYC itself.

[Walt Starr]

73. Why should I be surprised that a Green can't get on the ballot in NYC?

That city will elect a Republican as mayor and keep the mayor's office Republican for years and years!

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

78. Let's see, overall NYC despises Bush

yet they elect a guy as mayor who supports Bush, donates to Bush, invites Bush to hold his convention in the city, and basically supports a president who does everything in his power to trash NYC.

Politics rarely makes sense.

[MrBenchley]

81. So NYC despises Bush

and yet the Green party wasn't able to get enough signatures on a petition there to get a candidate on the ballot. Go figure--why it's almost as if liberals despise the Greens and their rancid tactics, or something.

Or perhaps they just heard "Green party" and said "Fuck 'em."

[Ken Burch]

148. It's because some NYC voters CALL themselves Democrats

but will only vote for a racist neanderthal like Ed Koch.

[MrBenchley]

151. Yeah, they're not real Democrats like those who aren't Democrats at all

eh, Ken?

[Ken Burch]

153. Well come on, you're NOT a real Democrat if you wouldn't vore for

a Democratic NYC mayoral candidate to Koch's left.
Certainly the Dems who voted for Giuliani and Bloomberg aren't real Democrats.

[MrBenchley]

155. Hahahahahahaha....

Guess nobody's REALLY a Democrat but this obscure bobo who escaped from the Green party....and his fellow Greens (snicker)

[Ken Burch]

156. Did you just implicitly admit YOU'd have voted for Giuliani or Bloomberg?

nt.

[MrBenchley]

158. Of course not....

But I guess all you've got is this desperate grasping at straws.

[Ken Burch]

195. People who want the Democrats to be more like the Republicans

than different can't really call themselves Democrats.

And people who verbally abuse people who've joined the Democrats
recently aren't exactly doing the party a favor.

Back off, Benchley. You're the type who caused the last three defeats.

[MrBenchley]

201. You mean like the folks parroting GOP slurs against Hillary, Ken?

"people who verbally abuse people who've joined the Democrats
recently aren't exactly doing the party a favor."
Why? You mean you think the party is helped by mindlessly putting someone in office before we know what he stands for?

"Back off, Benchley."
Not a chance, Ken. I'm not intimidated by loud silly know-nothings.

[Ken Burch]

203. I didn't say mindlessly put someone in office, Benchley

I say let the guy run in the primary, hear him out, hear how Hillary responds, then decide. What harm can that do?

And I've NEVER parroted GOP slurs against Hillary. Those of us who are progressive and antiwar have our own things to say about her.

But it does go without saying, now that you bring this up, that is Hillary IS nominated in '08, all the old GOP slurs will come back and once again they'll all work. In other words, certain defeat, like in the '94 congressional elections.
Why put the party through the same misery again?

[Ferret Annica]

109. Making the system and it's rules

that maintain barriers to us being able to build the support we should have in New York (I am a Pacific Green) is largely why the two major parties survive so well in their stagnant and inbred forms today.

If they had the competition they should they would either shit or get off the pot. Unless they have stimulus to be communicative and responsive to the rank and file people in this country, they are never going to do so in the fashion they should.

Many people are jaded and frustrated by our political system and deeply afraid of voting third party least the split in plurality put the evil of thew two lessers offered as candidates in power.

People should be able to vote third party, and cast a backup second choice vote. If the third party candidate doesn't make a set thrush hold of the votes cast, the votes for her or him should automatically be redirected to the voter's second choice in any particular race.

Naturally there are other changes that should be made, some unique to the state of New York state itself.

But unless they are made, it is disingenuous to infer the only reason we have trouble gaining support is because of problems with us Greens ourselves.

[MrBenchley]

111. Tee hee hee....

"Unless they have stimulus to be communicative and responsive to the rank and file people in this country"
So tell us, what's keeping you greenies from doing that?

"People should be able to vote third party"
And they are in NY, when the third party reaches a certain minimal level of support. This asswipe can't even manage that, and so he has to pretend to be a Democrat.

"it is disingenuous to infer the only reason we have trouble gaining support is because of problems with us Greens ourselves."
And so that's why the bozo switched parties.

[Ferret Annica]

118. Voting third party is different then...

also allowing those voting third party to have their votes recast if the third party candidate doesn't make a thrush hold of the vote so they lose the fear of a "wasted vote" by going third party.

If I lived in New York I would vote for him over Hil despite the change in his party affiliation because I know all to well the frustrations of trying to deal effectively with the stranglehold on the system the two dinosaurs of major parties we have in this country have on the system. I don't like his party affiliation change, but I understand why he did so, and I don't begrudge him that fact.

At this point, I won't feel our system is returning to health until either the Republican or Democratic party fall to third place behind a better, more responsive and representative party that earned their way up to the top.

[MrBenchley]

127. No shit?

So we have to change all the election rules just to suit the moribund Green party?

"I won't feel our system is returning to health until either the Republican or Democratic party fall to third place"
How nice of you to come onto a Democratic website to tell that to Democrats.

[Ferret Annica]

135. Damn right it's nice of me...

Because if you can't stand all of my opinions being expressed here with no reservation then you should change this part of the verbiage in the rules:

"Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

I fall in the 'other progressives' category, and I do generally support Democratic candidates when it is appropriate do do so. I am the person who is responsible for blowing the whistle on paid petitioner fraud in Oregon and starting the ball rolling on the effort that successfully kept Nader off the ballot in Oregon during this last election.

I was given the honor of speaking at the SEIU Union press conference about this issue, got my name in the papers for something other then forest and city tree protection for the first time, and I went the extra yard using all my skills developed as a forest activist to contribute to the effort that kept the Repugs from paying to get Nader on the ballot to split the vote to give the state of Oregon to Bush, or at the least tie up resources compensating for the new entry to the presidential ballot in my state.

I voted for Nader both times against Clinton whom I am definitely not fond of and do not trust.

But I am smart enough to know that when this country is in crisis as it is and is in danger from the sort of criminal and crime syndicate that is in power. Currently, the most important thing is to get the cancerous, abusive people out of power. Once that is accomplished, then you can worry about growing a third party.

I got allot of criticism for what I did from my fellow Greens in state. But most of them understand why I acted as I did and respect the fact I made this happen.

I will continue to speak my mind here with no reservation. And I believe strongly in effective communication and working toward the advancement of common goals.

If that ever becomes a problem, Skinner can either tell me to split and I'd go, or you could ban me. ;-)

Thanks for the interesting post. Also, my apologies for the windy post, but I wanted to give you an insight into how and why I see things on this issue as I do.

[MrBenchley]

139. Hot cha cha....

"And I believe strongly in effective communication and working toward the advancement of common goals."
It shows.</sarcasm>

By the way, how many places would the Green party have to move up to get near third place? Three? Four?

[Ferret Annica]

147. Likewise, I'm sure.

Your second sentence is particularly amusing in light of your admonishment of me on my communication skills. ;-)

When Democrats like you stop rhetorically disemboweling yourselves immediately after making an excellent point on any one issue, perhaps you will then see a return to majority power in Congress and a return to the White House with a great deal of ease.

Before I would get to comfortable criticizing the size and influence of the Green Party, I'd do something about the tendency of the Democratic Party to rely on accomplishment of the mission of gaining and maintaining political power based on how much worse the Repugs are then they could ever be.

You make it plain you have strong disdain for us Greens and are every bit as touchy about defending your belief system as I am.

Perhaps you have a point about my communications skill, but the same thing is true of you if so. You are combative and quick to the defense every bit as much as me with at least as thick a skin; but do you take yourself so seriously that you can't experience insight into your own human flaws?

Many of the problems the Democratic Party has experience over the past couple of decades came from hubris and arrogance of power that prevented them from experiencing the insight needed to know how and what to change about themselves and what they were doing.

Myself, I can take criticism given with good intention and take your feedback in good humor, but can you take my criticism of you in the same vein?

Think about it because this is an important element on a larger, macro level Democrats have to master before their return to full prominence of power is possible.

[MrBenchley]

150. Hee hee hee....

"Your second sentence is particularly amusing in light of your admonishment of me on my communication skills."
For the record, the answer is that the Greens would have to improve three places to get to third place....the Cobb/LaMarche ticket barely broke six digits in the vote totals nationally and had no coattails at all.

"When Democrats like you stop rhetorically disemboweling yourselves immediately after making an excellent point on any one issue, perhaps you will then see a return to majority power in Congress and a return to the White House with a great deal of ease."
Gee, excuse the fuck out of me if I don't take advice on how to build a winning party from a member of the Greens.....especially in a thread discussing your NY state candidate fleeing your own party.

[Ferret Annica]

196. Your hatred of Green shows why your party is so underwhelming

an entity. You know, I've spent many years talking to FReepers, and you think allot like them, full of anger and assumptions that anger gives you a level of high ground over those you hate.

You need to wise up and look beyond the chorus to find insight and ideas that will jump start your party that all to often proforms in a medeocre fashion.

I am aware of how large the Green party is in the United States, but the Green party internationally is doing quite alright, and I have faith in the future of a small pary like ours in light of the power and ethical vacuum left at the top by the Republicrat party.

Amusing to talk with you MrBenchley. Good luck breaking out of that small box you live in. ;-)

[MrBenchley]

200. Cry me a river, Mike.

I'm a Democrat. The Green party and its supporters can go fuck themselves.

"You need to wise up and look beyond the chorus to find insight and ideas that will jump start your party that all to often proforms in a medeocre fashion."
Bullshit. If you greens had any insight and ideas your own party wouldn't be a hypocritical toilet, which is mostly known these days for functioning as just another Republican dirty trick.

"Amusing to talk with you MrBenchley"
Not nearly as funny as hearing somebody from a sinking, nearly moribund political party lecturing other people on what they're doing wrong. It's like hearing Peewee Herman opine on proper theatre etiquette.

[Ferret Annica]

202. Wow, such a macho Democrat you are.

Exactly the sort of arrogant Democrat that convinced me that your party is not the answer unless important changes are made to it.

The problem with Demos like you is you spout off with such macho clap trap dressed in Republican drag. All too often there is not a notable difference between the two parties that resonate al to well in agreement with the implementation of policy and doctrine that is absolutely unacceptable.

Cry you a river? Hell no. Show me where yours is and I'll donate a urine sample to it.

Thanks for the demonstration on mindless testosterone based flaming. But been there, done that. Good talking with you sport, but you are only wanting to be a pain in the butt. And I get enough of that from conservatives and neocons on other forums out there. Later alligator. ;-)

[Dhalgren]

11. Look, Democrats are always saying that the Green Party is a

joke and that Greens should be in the Democratic Party, if they want to really affect change. Then these same Democrats will say that if you don't like the way the Party is going, run for office and make a difference. Well, if Democratic candidates are going to be pro war, and there is a large segment of the party that is anti war, then anti war candidates should run against them. That's the way it works. Hilary and the DLC don't own the Party and anti war candidates need to step up. I am glad that the ranks of the Democratic Party are growing and that candidates who oppose the status quo are stepping forward.

[MrBenchley]

13. Not my fault the Green Party is a joke....

I just find it funny that you want to pretend lifelong Democrat and respected Senator Hillary Clinton is a Democrat in name only, while pretending this johnny-come-lately loony ain't.

[sellitman]

18. Maybe you respect Hillary...I don't.

I don't like her politics and if this ex-Green is someone I could vote for in the Primary....I would.

In a NY Minute!!!

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

161. Then again, Benchley, you probably would like this war

to go on another twenty years, and for the Dems to move even FURTHER right.

[MrBenchley]

166. Guess again, Ken....

It's clear you ain't got a clue about me or Democrats....

[Dhalgren]

21. I never said she was a "Democrat in name only". I said that she

is pro war and if an anti war candidate wants to run against her, isn't that the way it should be? As far as the "johnny-come lately" business, why is it so scary and offensive for a new Democrat to run for office? Isn't this, too, the way it should be? If he gets no support from other Democrats, he will lose; if there are enough Democrats who want change in the Party, he may have a chance. The Clintons and all the other Democratic "leaders" are not royalty; they do not have a divine right to be "leaders" in the Party - the Party members get to decide that issue...don't we?

[MrBenchley]

23. Hahahahaha.....

"As far as the "johnny-come lately" business, why is it so scary and offensive for a new Democrat to run for office?"
Yeah, we're all shaking in our boots that this obscure pinhead is going to get that bandwagon going...and you don't get much more "new Democrat" than this yobbo...what's it been, 48 hours since he became a Democrat?

[Dhalgren]

24. Isn't every "new Democrat" a new Democrat? Shouldn't we be

welcoming with open arms, anyone who wants to join and support the party? It seems like I have read many posters, here, who have said that all Republicans who want to switch parties should be welcomed. Does this only apply to Republicans? If so, that says a lot...

[MrBenchley]

26. Hee hee hee....

Like I said, they don't get much newer than this boob--48 hours in the party and YOU want to make him Senator from New York already. At this rate, by Friday you'll be beating on the rest of us for blocking his presidential nomination.

You'd think some people might want to see what his actual postions are, or something before hopping on his radio flyer of a bandwagon...but some people seem to have no program beyond a freeperish hatred of actual elected Democrats.

The not-so-veiled slur about Hillary using dirty tricks down below is especially piquant by the way.

[High Plains]

117. Some posters are so rude and obnoxious that it make you...

...want to do the opposite of what they suggest.

Right, Mr. Benchley?

[MrBenchley]

128. Gee, high plains, the anti-Hillary crap here

sure makes me think she's on the right track.

But then I'm not the one telling other people what they think, or slandering a respected Democrat with freeper smears and childish caricatures, or pretending that the Democratic party has to be destroyed, either.

[MadHound]

28. Well, first off, Hillary hasn't been a "lifelong Democrat"

She started off her political life as a Goldwater Girl, and hasn't strayed far from her roots. Given her support of not only the war, but every piece of pro-corporate legislation that comes down the pike, DINO does seem to be a fair description of her.

And frankly I find it both rather funny, and quite ludicrous the position on Greens around here. Back during the elections you folks were screaming that Greens should run in state and local elections, yet when that happens you folks scream some more. You folks scream that we on the left, including Greens, should come back to the fold and try to change the party from within. Well, that is exactly what this challenger to Hillary is doing, and yet here you are condemning him. You might as well admit it now friend, you don't want the Greens to do anything except go away. Too bad, we're not going anywhere, so you might as well start dealing with us, one way or the other. Either we're going to be a third party that grinds the Dems into dust, or we'll join the Dems and mold it into our liking from within.

Some serious change are coming to the Democratic party friend. It is high time to throw the DINOs and the corporatists and the DLC out of the party and return the party to its original base, the left. Therefore the moderates are going to have to decide, do they want to stay with the party, jump to the 'Pugs, or form a party of their own.

I applaud this man for running against Hillary, and though I can't vote in NY, I will probably donate to this guy, for Hillary has got to go.

[MrBenchley]

32. Hahahahahha.....

"She started off her political life as a Goldwater Girl"
So she's been a Democrat since 1964? When she was SEVENTEEN?

"DINO does seem to be a fair description of her"
Sez you, but we see what THAT's worth.

"You might as well admit it now friend, you don't want the Greens to do anything except go away"
Fuck the Greens and the horse they rode in on.

"Either we're going to be a third party that grinds the Dems into dust, or we'll join the Dems and mold it into our liking from within. "
All three of you. Hahahahahaha.

By the way, how did that third party, that's going to grind us into dust, do in the 2004 elections in New York state? Oh that's right, they couldn't even manage to get onto the ballot in NYC, the most liberal spot in a very liberal state.

[MadHound]

42. Don't know about NY, but the Greens were running a healthy slate

Here in Missouri, a much more conservative place than NY.

And you response is quite telling, it is like any demagogues, long on ranting, short on facts. You responded to my Goldwater Girl/DINO/voting for war and corporate America not with denial friend, but ridicule. Why was that? Oh yeah, because that is all you have in this debate, for the facts about Hillary's voting record are on my side.

And while you scoff at our numbers, remember one thing. The vast majority of people in this country are non-voters, people who have dropped out of the voting process because they are fed up with the lack of differenciation between the two parties. And the vast majority of these people are of a liberal bent. Now what do you think if a candidate offers a real choice to these people? Something to stir them and make them hopeful again? Yeah, that's right, buh-bye Dems as you now know them.
You may disbelieve this statement, you may ridicule it, but let me tell you it is a possibility that is very much on the mind of those high up in the party leadership, for they want to keep the non-voting liberal masses at home, and they have been doing just that for the past thirty years. But here is somebody that is offering a real choice in the race for NY Senate, and quite frankly Hillary should be worried. This is a real threat to her, for this is a person who can bring in those non-voting liberals.

But hey, go ahead, laugh and ridicule. After all, you've got to do something while going past the graveyard.

[MrBenchley]

50. Which one?

You got two Green parties in Missouri feuding with each other over the lunatic fringe....and as far as I can see you didn't win a single election anywhere in the state...

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2004general/candidatelist.asp

That's a "healthy slate" the way Faux Noise is "fair and balanced."

"You responded to my Goldwater Girl/DINO/voting for war and corporate America not with denial friend, but ridicule. Why was that?"
Becuase it was such a ludicrous pantload....

"let me tell you it is a possibility that is very much on the mind of those high up in the party leadership, for they want to keep the non-voting liberal masses at home, and they have been doing just that for the past thirty years"
One wonders why someone who hates the Democratic Party so much and thinks they're so corrupt, would wander onto a board called DemocraticUnderground, unless they wanted to be a disruptor.
Underground

[MadHound]

60. How trite, tired and predictable your response is

If one doesn't toe the Dem line, if one doesn't agree completely with the direction the party is going, if one supports a party's Constitutionally given right to participate in this democratic of ours, then in your eyes that person is a "disruptor", perhaps even a traitor. Geez, and we jump all over Freepers for their lockstep thinking:eyes:

Look friend, I'll put my thirty plus years of participation in the Democratic Party up against yours any day, hour for hour worked, dollar for dollar earned. I have earned the right to dissent, for even in the darkest hours when I have despaired of where the party is headed, I have continued to fight for it. What have you done, either than wishing to deny people their Constitutionally guaranteed right to run for office?

And again, all you bring to the table to deny my claim is insults, attacks and ad hominems. Got facts friend? Again, you post disingeous information. I state that a healthy Green slate ran, which they did, yet all you put up is the results. Why not be honest and list all of the canidates who ran? Oh yeah, that's right, facts are nothing to you:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

67. Funny, I'd call pretending the Greens are healthy complete bullshit

"Again, you post disingeous information. I state that a healthy Green slate ran, which they did, yet all you put up is the results. Why not be honest and list all of the canidates who ran?"
Jeeze, seems to me that if you want to pretend I am "disingenuous", the easiest way to prove it would be putting up that "healthy slate" yourself. But we don't see you doing that.

Be sure and show us the vote totals, so we can judge the health for ourselves.

And as far as who's got "facts" it was me who pointed out that Greens are split in two and feuding in the "show me" state. And just for Missourians amongst us, I'll "show."

http://greens.org/missouri/

[MadHound]

92. Do you do any research? Do you know what you're talking about?

It is apparent from your posting that you don't, that you put your effort into attacks and personal insults rather than into facts.

Your statement that there are two Green parties that are "feuding" is simply wrong. Rather the split was to accomodate "movement" people who would rather not get into the politics of the matter. Here, read for yourself.<http://www.greenparty.org/intro.php> Funny, for a party that is "feuding" like YOU say they are, they sure support each others candidates and actions a lot:eyes:

And just for your own edification and education, there were six Green candidates in Missouri in '04 and seventeen that ran in '00. Not bad for a state that many consider to be the heart of red darkness friend. Oh, and just for your information, NY did run several Green candidates in '04 and '00, 16 and 38 respectively. I think that the downturn for both states is easily attributable to the ABB campaign that the Dems waged successfully.

So let me ask you a question. Are you in favor of all third parties? Are you willing to support the Constitutionally guaranteed right of third party candidates to run? Or does that only apply when those third party candidates help out the Dems, as in '92?

[MrBenchley]

95. That IS rich...

And it's noticeable you still ain't posted that "healthy slate" and their election results you claimed I lied about.

"there were six Green candidates in Missouri in '04 and seventeen that ran in '00."
So the party in Missouri dwindled from 17 to 6 candidates in just four years, and that by you is health?

"Oh, and just for your information, NY did run several Green candidates in '04 and '00, 16 and 38 respectively."
Yeah? Name one...and be sure and tell us how he turned out.

"So let me ask you a question. Are you in favor of all third parties? "
I'm a Democrat, chum. Fuck 'em all.

[MadHound]

99. WHOOPS, there it is!

"I'm a Democrat, chum. Fuck 'em all"

My, how fucking American of you. Nice to see you respect our Founding Fathers so much. Great to see you have so much respect for the Constitution. NOT!!

For being in the Democratic party friend, you sure don't have much of a democratic set of ideals. What, just pick and choose the parts of the Constitution and BOR that you like, and chuck the rest? Let me guess, Second, Fourth and parts of the First Amendments, but the rest of it can go to hell, hmmm.

Sorry friend, this country doesn't work that way. We are fighting to uphold and preserve the entire Constitution in this country, not just parts of it. In fact it is cherry picking mentalities like yours that helped get this country into the predicament that it is in now. Good show pal, way to be part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

Whether you like it or not, anybody who meets certain requirements for office can run for that office. Being of one party or another isn't part of those requirements, thus third parties are allowed. You don't like it, tough shit, deal with it. In fact one way that such third party threats can be dealt with is by stealing from them like FDR did. Back before his fire re-election bid, FDR knew that he had a serious third party threat from the Socialists. What did he do? He appropriated two of their key planks and incorporatated them as his own. Do you know what those two planks were that insured FDR's victory? Social Security and Unemployment Insurance. Gee, and if wasn't for the threat from the left, we wouldn't have those today. A lesson that can be learned by Democrats today.

But hey, it looks like from the tenure of your posts you would just rather deny people their Constitutionally guaranteed right to run for office. Ummm, what country are YOU living in?

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

103. Over react much

Nobody is saying that we should jettison Democratic candidates, we're just saying that this fellow should, and has the right to, run in the Democratic party opposite Hillary. And if this person that you so despise is as bad as you claim, then Hillary should win in a heartbeat. If not, if Hillary can't beat this fellow, then quite frankly she won't deserve it. After all, she has all the money, all of the right connections, all of the party machinery on her side. All she is lacking is the right position on the issues. Oh, is that what you're so worried about? Well hey friend, this is a democracy and the people have a right to speak. If they like Hillary's stance on the war, they will retain her. If not, then she'll go bye bye, and Greenfield will take the field against a 'Pug candidate. That is the beauty of primaries, they put forth the candidate who has the support of the people. Now, if Hillary loses will you vote for the Democratic candidate Greenfield? Or will you vote third party or Republican out of spite?



And what is this little statement about friend? "The "Second" part is especially funny, in this context." Is that a threat? Is that what you are reduced to now that your ad hominems, personal insults, and lack of historical knowledge has run its course you are now reduced to threatening me with violence? What a sad, pathetic person you are friend. If there is some other way that you're interpreting this statement of yours, I'm curious to know about it, because far as I can see, you're are issuing a veiled threat to me. Pathetic.

[MrBenchley]

105. Who screamed that I was denying people their constitutional rights?

Gee, that was YOU.

"And if this person that you so despise is as bad as you claim, then Hillary should win in a heartbeat."
Considering that the chairman of his home county doesn't think he can get the signatures to get on the ballot....

""Some people think the best thing we could do is throw out all our elected officials, abandon the ship, head to lifeboats and start over again. I am not at all sure the best plan is to take a new, untried candidate and ask him to represent us in the U.S. Senate," he said."

http://www.thedailystar.com/news/stories/2005/11/21/npd8.html

"And what is this little statement about friend? "The "Second" part is especially funny, in this context." Is that a threat?"
Gee, you mean you don't know that the gun loonies scream in rage and horror when I trash their trigger-happy gibberish? That IS funny.

[MadHound]

110. No, despite the hype, I don't know your position on every issue

However I do take veiled references concerning the Second Amendment which are directed at me quite seriously. So are you or aren't you making a threat? Answer plain and simple, not in parables or in the sort of obfuscation that would require me to have knowledge of your complete posts for the last few years.

And again, read for comprehension please. My statement wasn't that you ARE denying people their Constitutionally guaranteed rights, but that you would RATHER deny people their rights, judging from the tenor of your posts. So far you haven't said anything that would contradict that judgement either.

And if Greenfield can't get the signatures, then this is all moot. So, again, would you vote for Greenfield if he won the primary over Hillary?

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sellitman]

192. Bravo!

Very well said.

Hillary is a corporate whore....she may be our corporate whore but that still doesn't make it right. I hope the Greens join up in droves and turn our party back to it's roots. Liberal & Proud!

[Neecy]

33. just for the sake of accuracy....

She isn't a "lifelong" Democrat - she was a Republican growing up in Illinois and a Goldwater Girl.

[MrBenchley]

35. Goldwater girls were around in 1964

when she was SEVENTEEN.

[MadHound]

45. Ah yes, those formative years

When generally one's moral, ethics and politics are pretty well set in stone. Just because she now labels herself a Democrat doesn't mean that she has strayed far from these roots. After all, given todays political climate, Goldwater would be considered a moderate Republican/conservative Democrat today, gee, much like Hillary.

[MrBenchley]

52. LOL!

That explains why Republicans go so easy on her...she's one of their own.(snicker)

By the way, don't miss the post below wherein we learn that Democratic party bosses deliberately plot to keep liberal voters at home....

[Ken Burch]

204. Who respects Hillary?

1)The DLC, because she shares their goal of making the Democrats into a second party of the right.

2)Big corporate campaign donors, because she shares their belief that only people who can right big checks should have a real say in our political process.

3)Reactionary thugs like Mr. B, who don't believe that the Democratic Party should welcome activists, idealists, and people of principle, but should simply be a party of center-right wheelerdealers who hold conventions where the delegates don't decide anything but the fat cats in the luxury booths decide a lot.

That's about it for those who respect the junior senator from the Empire State.

Why are you so full of sputtering, incomprehensible hate for anyone who doesn't see politics as a principle-free blood sport?

[pberq]

19. Yes! The Democrats have done everything they could to

marginalize the Green Party. So now they attack this guy who represents Democratic values in a much greater way than Hilary (who is basically on the same page as Bush on foreign policy in spite of "differences" on how the global empire whould be managed.)

[MrBenchley]

22. The Green Party didn't need any help being marginal

Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.

[Greyhound]

68. No, no, no, no, no! You must not speak of her highness with such

disrespect, for you risk bringing the ire of the all powerful, omnipotent, Defenders of the Democratic Faith Inc. down upon your worthless head. You blasphemer!
If our Most Powerful Lady of Truth should decide you're better off working for 40% of what you were making so some unfortunate third worlder can live in indentured servitude for his/her Corporate Master, then, by God, you will do it! You are not rich or famous, so you must comply with Her wishes, after all, She knows what is best for you far better than you, with your limited capacity to understand these complex issues, could ever hope to.
Confess and repent you transgressions before we are forced to take drastic measures to correct your attitude!
You Have Been Warned!
:kick: :kick:

[jmatthan]

164. To challenge a dishonest Democrat?

[mopinko]

9. this is the way to do it. now if they can just manage a clean

primary. we need primary challengers for these dlc'ers. a nice clean, well fought primary. if these races get dirty, let's be ready as underground journalists to get the truth out.

[SoDesuKa]

15. Hillary's No Bargain

In the Democratic primary for Senate, Hillary easily defeated an unknown M.D. from New York City. The fact that he was running against Hillary was sufficient reason for me to vote for him. In the general election, I voted for Hillary out of party loyalty, but that's the only reason.

Hillary continues to support the war. Her position isn't "nuanced," it's opportunistic.

[SaveElmer]

25. The man will be a minor historical footnote...

The ONLY place where anyone will pay attention to him is in the DU world of delusion.

Hillary will win, and win easily as she should.

She is a good and loyal Democrat, with Democratic principles who has been the unremitting subject of abuse and sleaze from the Republican Party...and I am proud she is in my party.

[MrBenchley]

29. Exactly so....

And I wouldn't be surprised to find that this yobbo's "conversion" is yet another scummy GOP trick. After all, Pirro has pretty much melted down completely....

[Armstead]

31. Why criticize a Green for doing exactly what Dems say they should do?

Instead of starting out as in independent (Green) candidate in the general election and siphoning off votes to make a GOP win more likely, this guy is doing exactly what the "Green bashers" say they should be doing. That is joining the Democratic party and working for change from within.

So why criticize him for that? He is challenging a Democratic candidate during the nomination process. Even though he obviously doesn;t stand a chance, he will force Hillary to deal with an important issue she would rather ignore.

Maybe Greenfield will also challenge her in the general election too. If so, MAYBE the Green-bashers will have some right to complain. But at this point, he is following the strategy that many of you claim is the legitimate way for poepe of Green sympathies to engage in the political system.

[MrBenchley]

36. Jeepers, I guess I missed all the DU posts

urging marginal third party candidates to become faux Democrats and challenge popular elected Democrats.

[Armstead]

39. What's a faux Democrat?

The ideas of democracy and elections is to bring out debates and offer choices on issues and positions.

Most anyone has the right to join the fray, and if someone tries tyo work within the existing party structure to advance ideas that are being ignored otherwise, that would seem to be a fine example of democracy in action.

I have mixed feelings about Greens who bring GOP victories by challenging Democrats in general elections in tight races. However, if they want to take a shot at opening up the democratic party otehrwise, I can't see why there is any room to complain.

[MadHound]

47. Don't worry about it friend

There is a large contigent of people around here that believe Constitutional guarantees only applies if you've been a lifelong Democrat or Republican. What is funny is the hypocrisy that is exhibited by these same people. They were more than happy when Perot's eighteen percent showing in '92 threw the election to Clinton, but God forbid if the Greens take a two percent showing in '00. That is high treason no matter what the Constitution says:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

53. Gee, I'd say somebody who joins the Democratic party

because his own crapass party isn't worth jackshit would qualify.

"Most anyone has the right to join the fray,"
Hey, that could be our new Democratic Party slogan: "Join the Democrats--you could be a Senate candidate within 48 hours of signing up!" </sarcasm>

[Armstead]

69. I guess that would also exclude Wes Clark and Hillary too...

Hillary started out as a Goldwater girl. remember how coy Wes Clark was about his party affiliation before he actually entered the primary as Democrat?

I guess you'd also leave out more late-coming Republicans who get disgusted with that party and switch to Democrats.

The idea of a democracy is that anyone can run for office. You don't have to be among the "anointed" ones to get on the field. If enough Democrats in New York eitehr support or choose to overlook Hillary's stance on the war, then the otehr guy's primary challenge is a moot point. But at least it gives peopel a choice, and forces the front-runner to work for votes.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Armstead]

76. You need to fine tune your sarcasm filter

Obviously I don't think you would really want to exclude Hillary or Clark or Republicans who have seen the light more recently.

[MrBenchley]

79. Hard to tell what's sarcasm and what isn't, sometimes....

[Name removed]

34. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dhalgren]

37. The DLC, with its lock-step corporatist ideology will be the death

of the Democratic Party. Even now, when the Republicans are on the ropes and a real progressive agenda could be presented to the people, we have the old, Democratic, corporatist hacks out doing their duty for God (money) and country (corporations). If the Democrats come out with a DLC/corporate/war mongering platform and candidate slate in '06 and '08, the Party will go down and rightfully so...

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dhalgren]

46. Right. And the next time you lose (and you will), blame

the Greens... :eyes:

[Name removed]

55. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SaveElmer]

48. Well said...

DU really does exist in its own little bubble sometimes doesn't it?

[MrBenchley]

57. Notice we've got

--somebody making hints that Hillary will be resorting to dirty tricks to face off against this obscure bozo
--somebody claiming with facts pulled out his ass that "party bosses" plot to keep liberal voters at home on election day (no doubt to keep the Green party down
--somebody claiming that a party that's split in two in Missouri that didn't win jackshit has a "healthy slate"
--and somebody chiming in that he doesn't want to vote for a Democrat in Illinois....

[Walt Starr]

49. If I lived in New York, I'd vote for him

Instead I live in Illinois and am getting close to being resigned to voting for a Republican for governor because I cannot vote for Rod Blagojevich again in good cnscience.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

59. Um, the guy running against Hillary IS A DEMOCRAT. He registered as one.

And you don't live in Illinois, so you've got no clue about Blagojevich. I remain hopeful that a Green candidate will be on the ballot, but there is only one way I will vote for Blagojevich and that is if somebody along the lines of David Duke runs against him. Blagojevich is corrupt and will bring the IL Democratic Party down around him if he gets a second term.

Your defensiveness speaks volumes about how much this challenge could actually hurt Hillary. The challenger stands no chance in the primary, but any challenge to an incumbent can harm their chances in the general election. At any rate, it could be devestating to any hope she has for a presidential run because it will raise issues that will be embarrassing to her.

On edit: I've owned guns for years.

[MrBenchley]

62. He's a Green party goof who joined the Democrats

because New Yorkers think the Green party is a load of shit.

"Blagojevich is corrupt and will bring the IL Democratic Party down around him if he gets a second term."
Always nice to see people repeat freeper slurs, Walt. Yeah, he's gotten every child in the state health coverage, expanded gay rights, and increased the minimum wage, but the Governor doesn't live up to your lofty standards, so he's got to go.</sarcasm>

"any challenge to an incumbent can harm their chances in the general election."
Wow, Walt, no shit? Yeah, the Democrats and New York state would be so much better off with a Republican Senator from New York state.</sarcasm>

[Walt Starr]

63. Oh yes, how DARE a Green do what Democrats have been telling them

to do your YEARS!

:eyes:

As far as Blagojevich goes, Fitzgerald is hot on his heels and he WILL take down Blago, so no matter what he's done, he's corrupt and he will do to the Demcrats what Ryan did to the Republicans.

And quite frankly, I'm GLAD Hillary is being challenged. I hope it teaches her a lesson about being pro-war, because she IS PRO-WAR!

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

74. Fitzgerald WILL take down Blagojevich

Count on it.

And if all you have are snarky attacks, it's clear I've won this debate.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

80. Tell me what you know about the Blagojevich scandals currently

under investigation, then we can discuss it. Otherwise, you're clueless about the issue.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

84. Now I've proven you clueless about the Blagojevich situation

all you have is an ad hominem. You are unaware that Blagojevich's office is under investigation and why.

It's simple, really. Fitzgerald is in Illinois cleaning up the corruption at all levels in both parties.

Daley's office has been reeling from the recent indictments.

Blagojevich is in deep crap and it's only a matter of time.

But all you have are Freeper accusations and ad hominems on the situation. You are clueless as to political reality in Illinois.

[MrBenchley]

85. In other words, you got no facts, Walt....

"But all you have are Freeper accusations"
You mean like THESE, Walt?

http://www.therant.us/staff/nsalvato/blagojevich_reinvents_the_wheel.htm

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/janak/050308

[Walt Starr]

89. I've never seen those BS articles in my life

What is happening is Blagojevich's hiring practices are under investigation. These are the same hiring practices that have been the de facto standard in Illinois by both parties for decades and the same hiring practices Daley's Chicago Administration used that resulted in multiple indictments and further investigations.

There's a lot of doubt as to whether Daley himself will weather this storm.

What's happening is decades of collusion between the two parties to fleece the Illinois taxpayers is finally coming back to bite both parties in their collective arses.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SaveElmer]

83. Sorry Walt...you are wrong on this one...

I often agree with you... particularly with regards the strategy Democrats should take on Supreme Court nominations etc...but if you think this Green is gonna have any negative influence on Hillary's Senate or Presidential prospects you are...well you are just wrong.

Hillary is incredibly popular in New York, and she is far more popular in the country than folks here like to give her credit for. If anything a challenge from the left will help her because, DU aside, her only problem for a Presidential run is that she is perceived as too liberal by some.

This guy will be forgotten (if he isn't already), by everyone but the purists on DU and other boards.

[Walt Starr]

188. Heck the other possibility is that he'll HELP her campaign

If he's far enough to the left she could appear more centrist and become more appealing to the average voter, both in '06 and in '08. I certainly don't discount that potential.

[NNN0LHI]

175. Yea you thought the Minutemen were great patriots too Walt

Needless to say I take whatever you say with a grain of salt.

Don

[LibDemAlways]

51. I'm thankful that someone on the left is willing to

challenge Hillary in the 06 primary. If progressives vote their conscience and Greenfield gets a significant vote total, maybe she'll think long and hard before launching what would surely be a disasterous run for the Presidency in 08.

[MrBenchley]

58. Jeeze, when I vote MY conscience

it doesn't include voting for a fake Democrat whose own political party can't get on the ballot honestly.

[LibDemAlways]

66. I'm talking ideology, here. This is

an opportunity for progressives to send Hillary a message that they don't agree with how she's been voting. Hillary moved to New York and established residency for the purpose of running for the Senate. If she can morph into a New Yorker in order to run, I see no reason why Mr. Greenfield can't change his party affiliation in order to challenge her.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

87. How is stating the FACT that Ms. Clinton moved to New York

in order to run for the Senate a "Freeper slur"?

If Hillary can change residency to run for an office, why can't somebody else change party affiliation to run for the same office?

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

88. Golly, Walt, that IS a fucking mystery....

Why, it's almost as if someone had lived in a shoebox and had not heard the freepers screaming the word "carpetbagger" in 2000.....

"why can't somebody else change party affiliation to run for the same office?"
I didn't say he couldn't. All I said, was that it was a transparent stunt to try and weaken one of the dDemocratic party's most popular figures; that his own Green party isn't worth shit; that there's a good chance he's funded by the state Republican party, since their own candidate is a lox of epic proportions; and that some people on this board are utterly clueless about politics.

[Walt Starr]

90. Seems to me, the only person utterly clueless about politics

has been responding to my posts in this thread.

[MrBenchley]

94. Yeah, but you also couldn't figure out

that freepers were squawking "carpetbagger"...

[High Plains]

159. Funded by the Republican Party?

Do you have a scintilla of evidence for that or are you just slinging libels?

[LibDemAlways]

122. Thanks , Walt.

That flamethrower earned a place of honor on my "ignore" list. I'm all for honest give-and-take, but no way am I going to put up with being branded a "freeper" for pointing out an undisputed fact. And how completely undemocratic to suggest that a citizen has no business challenging an incumbant. I'd vote for Mr. Greenfield, as well, and I hope progressives in New York do send Hillary a message that she all too often has drifted over to the dark side.

[MadHound]

93. No, apparently when you vote your conscience you are willing to vote for

Somebody who is in favor of the war, in favor of killing tens of thousands of innocents, in favor of continuing to send our soldiers into the meat grinder, in favor of corporate America's continuing takeover of this country from we, the people.

Glad my conscience isn't that muddled, I couldn't live with myself.

[MrBenchley]

98. If you hate Democrats that much

nobody's stopping you from revving up that mighty Green Party machine and taking that case "to we, the people"...who don't seem to want to hear it.

But it's telling that "you, the people" have to pretend to be one of US, because your crapass party can't stand alone by itself....and that then you want to tell US what WE are doing wrong.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

101. I'm not a Green and I see nothing wrong in what he's doing.

I read up thread where you said he was probably being funded by the Republicans. Why would you think that? Why couldn't he be funded by antiwar activist? That seems more likely to me.

He's taking on the issue of the war by making this stand against Hillary. Most of the Dem party are against the war even if our elected politicians aren't.

He won't win but it brings the issue to the front and makes the candidates address it, I'm all for that.

[MrBenchley]

106. Gee, it don't seem at all likely

that the Republicans, who have spent millions on dirty tricks around the country would pull something like that? Guess I'm not as naive as some.

"He's taking on the issue of the war by making this stand against Hillary"
Because, of course, there are no pro-war Republicans anywhere....especially in upstate New York.

http://www.federalink.com/id15.htm

[Lone_Star_Dem]

113. Why is this a dirty trick?

This is what I'm asking you. If he's against the war and chooses to make a stance that will take up his time, energy and money to bring attention to it, what is wrong with that?

I know personally hundreds of antiwar activist who are very upset with our pro-war Democratic leaders. Hillary is pretty high up on their list of pro-war Democrats. To me this makes her a logical target for an antiwar action such as this one. I could see them coming up with this idea and using the primary election to make a statement, not just to her but to all pro-war democrats.

This is democracy in action. If we don't like what you're saying we will show you that we don't with our vote. In this case it's a primary but if you don't listen to us the next time will be the real deal.

[MrBenchley]

115. Geeze, another mystery!

There's no shortage of pro-war Republicans he could run against, but he picks the most popular Democrat to run against. What do you suppose is up with that. And a guy who's never been elected to anything jumping in right off the bat trying to be Senate candidate....where there already is a Democratic incumbent. No, nothing at all fragrant about that </sarcasm>...

"I know personally hundreds of antiwar activist who are very upset with our pro-war Democratic leaders. "
Hell, some people on this board seem to hate Democrats worse than the freepers do.

"This is democracy in action"
Actually, it's propaganda in action, trying to pretend a respected and popular Democrat is less respected and popular with voters than she actually is--democracy in action was the Green party sinking into well-deserved oblivion.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

120. The point is the people of the Democratic party are unhappy with our

...elected politicians due to their pro-war stance.

These elected politicians can either choose to listen or continue to pretend they don't hear us. If they choose to continue pretend then there will be more actions such as this in the future you can be sure. I, and many others, welcome it and any person willing to commit themselves to taking a stand against the war.

Some people on this board seem to think we should be quiet and take it just because they have a D behind their name. I'm not one of those people.

[MrBenchley]

125. Really? Last poll showed Senator Clinton

had the support of 64% of all New Yorkers and 89% of all Democrats in the state. That's sure a funny definition of "unhappy."

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11373.xml?ReleaseID=835

"Some people on this board seem to think we should be quiet and take it just because they have a D behind their name."
Oh, God forbid we havea speck of party loyalty or anything. Especially not when "we" can post photoshopped caricatures of respected elected Democrats and repeat freeper slurs endlessly.</sarcasm>

[Lone_Star_Dem]

162. What are you talking about? Photo shopped caricatures? Freeper slurs?

"Especially not when "we" can post photoshopped caricatures of respected elected Democrats and repeat freeper slurs endlessly.</sarcasm>"

Show me where I've ever not shown respect to the other peoples candidates on this board? Are you mistaking me for someone else or you're just using a broad brush attack. Either way you're wrong and making an ass of yourself. I don't have to agree with you but my good manners demand I disagree with you civilly. I also don't care to reduce myself to lumping everyone into categories and request that you refrain from doing the same when dealing with me.

Now, as for Senator Clinton's approval ratings, I don't doubt that. I know she runs around 60% approval ratings as a Senator. Could her national approval be due to the fact that her stance on the war has not been brought to the majority of Americans eyes? If so, are you worried that will change? Is that why you going off like a firecracker over a little opposition to her pro-war stance in the primaries? This is only in New York, not a national primary. I doubt very many people who aren't political junkies will pay any attention on a national level.

As you're aware an overwhelming majority of Democrats don't support this war.

Poll: American attitudes on Iraq similar to Vietnam era
11/16/05

In the latest USA TODAY poll, a record 60% of those surveyed, including one in four Republicans, said the war wasn't "worth it." One in five Republicans said the invasion of Iraq was "a mistake."

Among independents, 60% called the war a mistake; 85% of Democrats agreed. There was no gender gap on the issue — that is, no difference in the opinions of men and women — but there was a racial divide. Half of whites saw the war as a mistake. Among blacks, that view was almost universal, held by 95%.

Link to article
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-15-poll-vietnam_x.htm


The majority of the American population support bringing our troops home within the next year.

Polling Report

The Harris Poll. Nov. 8-13, 2005. N=1,011 adults nationwide.

"Do you favor keeping a large number of U.S. troops in Iraq until there is a stable government there OR bringing most of our troops home in the next year?

Wait for Stable Government 35%

Bring Home In Next Year 63%

Unsure 3%

Link to poll
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

If you don't think a pro-war stance will hinder Democratic candidates you're deluding yourself. If you believe in your heart that Hillary is the greatest thing since the ball point pen then you should convince her that pro-war democrats are not the future of the party. 85% of Democrats will thank you for it.

[MrBenchley]

174. Wow...guess you haven't looked at the thread you're in

"Could her national approval be due to the fact that her stance on the war has not been brought to the majority of Americans eyes?"
I haven't mentioned her national approval, chief; those were New York state numbers. And I doubt there's many people interested in politics who haven't seen the bogus freeper gibberish trying to blame Chimpy's war on the Democrats.

"As you're aware an overwhelming majority of Democrats don't support this war."
And as you're also no doubt aware, a lot of Americans don't think Iraq is the only issue around. Foreign policy, the economy and health care rank one, two and three.

"If you don't think a pro-war stance will hinder Democratic candidates you're deluding yourself."
And if you think this obscure bozo is hot shit, make the case. But I'd bet you couldn't pick him out of a crowd--or can tell us what his positions are on other issues.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

179. Your comment was out of context in a reply to my post.

If I wasn't the person you had those issues with why lump me in by saying that to me? No matter, just be more respectful of me in the future if you would.

Your points in order.

a) I'm not making "bogus freeper gibberish" trying to blame the war on Democrats. I'm stating that Hillary's stance will do her no good if she were to seek an election nationally. That's her doing and not bush's.

b) The publics concern for our failed foreign policy are escalated by the war in Iraq.

c) How will health care be funded when we're going in debt at epic levels in part due to the war?

As I've already said, I think this gentleman is making an antiwar stand and I applaud his efforts and respect him for it. I'm not saying he's a viable candidate, if you read my post you'll see that.

[MrBenchley]

180. And your post is in the context of this thread....

"I think this gentleman is making an antiwar stand and I applaud his efforts and respect him for it."
Nah, he's just another Green party buffoon. Funny he can't make that anti-war stand against a Republican, ain't it?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

185. Out of context in reply to the thread?

A former Green Party member who advocates an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq says he will challenge incumbent Hillary Rodham Clinton for the 2006 Democratic nomination for Senate.

''She's in favor of the war and in favor of continuing the occupation,'' Steven Greenfield, a professional saxophone player, said from his New Paltz home.

A senior adviser to Clinton, Howard Wolfson, declined to comment on Greenfield's declaration. snip

Greenfield, 44, who has a degree in economics, switched to the Democratic party just last month so he could challenge Clinton.
===============================================


So the thread topic is about a person (Mr. Greenfield) that is running against Hillary as a Democrat and opposes her pro Iraq war stance. I think I'm on topic. I'm just not agreeing with your Green party war and that's irritating you. Reread our conversation we've already covered why it's important to focus on the pro-war Democrats.

Are you actively involved in the antiwar movement? If you're not that's fine it's a personal choice, but it explains why you don't see the importance in calling out a Democrat that is pro-war.

[MrBenchley]

186. Yeah, we all read the first post...

Guess you're trying to pretend nobody can see the bullshit from the antri-Hillary crowd that follows....

[MadHound]

104. You just keep blowing right on by what I'm saying don't you

It is called reading for comprehension friend, I suggest that you employ it.

You apparently missed my statement upthread where I asked you if you could match the years, money and hours of work that I put into the Democratic party. Or maybe you didn't miss it, you just felt less than adequate to answer it. Either way, it should be a big neon sign to you that you are dealing with a fellow Dem here. Granted, I'm in the leftist block of Dems, and have thought seriously about the Greens. But that doesn't mean I am one, nor that I'm not committed to the betterment of the Democratic party.

But apparently you see disagreement and you reach for the Green button immediately. Again, read for comprehension friend, not speed.

And yes, I think my decades of service and the many thousands that I've contributed to the party over the years gives me the right to have a say in where the party goes. You don't like it, tough shit. I will continue to tell the party what they are doing wrong, for it is the only way to get them to start doing things right again.

[MrBenchley]

107. Don't see much reason to linger....

Especially when you're going to accuse me of trying to detroy the Constitution in such a silly overblown fashion.

"I asked you if you could match the years, money and hours of work that I put into the Democratic party. Or maybe you didn't miss it, you just felt less than adequate to answer it."
Or maybe I thought it of a par with other internet claims....

[sellitman]

193. The Pukes wouldn't need Diebold if Hillary runs.

It would be a massacre of epic proportions. (God Forbid) I don't know if I could pull the lever for her and most on the left would feel the same way.

[LibDemAlways]

194. I don't think she'd survive beyond a

couple of the primaries. The AnyBody but Hillary vote would be too overwhelming. After 8 long years with the chimp, the Dems are going to be hungry to take back the WH and looking for a candidate who isn't a lightening rod. No one would fire up the repuke base as much as Hillary.

[seejanerun]

56. Weren't the Greens the ones who took the Ohio election issues

far more seriously than the Dems did? Didn't we think they were heroes for doing it?

The trouble with the big-wig Dems is that they are addicted to corporate money and won't push a lot of the issues that require bucking the corporate state: safeguarding our privacy from the corporations; dismantling media conglomeration; pushing independence from fossil fuels, which is, by the way, crucial to our national security as well as the financial security of individuals; etc.

We need independent thinkers, and Greens tend to be that sort of person. I say, WELCOME!

[Walt Starr]

61. Yep, they sure were

but now the Greens are the bad guys because one did what Democrats told Greens to do.

How DARE a Green take Democrat's at their WORD!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

86. He's not a bad guy in my eyes

He's making Hillary defend her pro-war stance, to me that makes him one of the good guys that's on my side.

Why is anyone bitching about this? He is taking on an issue by running against Hillary as a Dem in the primaries. What's wrong with making Democrats defend their unpopular stances that aren't embraced by the majority of the party?

[derby378]

64. I admire his chutzpah, but...

...Greenfield's campaign looks like David taking on Goliath and his whole damn family, especially since he just turned Dem.

[mmonk]

65. face it,

the end of this imperial dream won't occur through the democratic party apparatus. If you think so, you're being fooled. We've walked too far down this dark path and the power brokers want this. Any pull out proposals from either party are propaganda. They'll keep these Iraqi bases and seek more. What will really occur are troop redeployments in a type of shell game meant to fool you.

[Freddie Stubbs]

91. I'm sure that he will have as much success as the guy who

announced earlier this year that he was challenging Lieberman in the primary.

[DemonFighterLives]

96. You're headed for the greatest page

As good democrats or greens or whoever (Americans), we should be able to question any and all leaders who do not speak for us.

I like Hillary a lot, but she is losing ground big time. She needs to quit sucking up to b*shco and speak her mind. I'm sure she has a beautiful mind.
:dem:

[longship]

102. Go man, go.

Take down that lunatic, pretend Democrat.

[MrBenchley]

108. His own crackpot party fell apart, so he's pretending to be a Democrat

LOL!

[longship]

112. And we'll take him.

There's plenty of room in the Dem party for more progressive thinkers.

[MrBenchley]

116. You can have him, and good riddance....

"for more progressive thinkers"
So tell me, what DOES he think?

[longship]

119. I'll bet he's anti Iraq war.

Just like the vast majority of the US public, and just like the overwhelmingly vast majority of New York staters.

[MrBenchley]

124. So in other words, you got no idea what he THINKS

on most issues....

[longship]

126. That's correct.

But I like the concept of an anti-war candidate in opposition to Hillary Clinton who has a position on Iraq 180 degrees out of whack.

There are few things I would like to see less than Hillary in the White House. She is at the absolute bottom of my barrel as Dem pres candidates. Not that she stands a snowball's chance in Hell of obtaining the nomination, especially with her stand on Iraq.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[longship]

131. That's correct.

I am ignorant about who I will support for president in 2008 because it is at least two years down the road. I will not be making any firm decision on who to support until 2008. In the meantime there is a minor matter of the 2006 Congressional Election. That will be taking up my efforts.

The one thing I *do* know is that I cannot support Hillary or *anybody* who in any way supports continuing the war in Iraq. It is the overwhelming issue for me for both the midterm election and the upcoming 2008 presidential election. Although other issues are in play, at this time no other issue is as important. That is not likely to change until the US is out of Iraq.

My choice of candidates to support will be solely from those who profess the position of withdrawal from Iraq.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[longship]

134. It's called parsimony.

I do not need to know anything about her position on any other issue. Her position on Iraq is so repulsive to me that I cannot and will not support her for any elected office. Likewise, any other candidate.

Peace to you, my friend.

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oregonindy]

121. Go go gadget real change politician!!!

get rid of the carpet bagging demopublican war-whore....

[onenote]

I'd like to see someone prove that Hillary is a DINO

A DINO is Zell Miller, not Hillary. Or maybe even Joe Lieberman. In 2004, Hillary got a 95 ranking from the ADA, while the average ranking among Democrats was only around 89. Zell Miller got a 15. And Lieberman got a 75. If you look at her entire record, she gets 100 percent rankings from pro-choice organizations, civil rights organizations, seniors organizations.

The idea that she is no different than a repub is simply an indefensible distortion of her record. Yeah, she voted for the Iraq War resolution, but so did a whole lot of other Democrats. If someone feels like the war is the one and only issue, fine. But they should be upfront about it and not try to depict HC as anything other than a liberal Democrat who differs on that issue.

onenote

On edit: by the way, the American Conservative Union gives HC a big fat zero.

[mmonk]

133. the American Conservative Union

is a propaganda organism. I guess you could call Hillary a Wilsonian Democrat or a Jacksonian Democrat. Either way you cut it though, if she's an opportunist for this war or security state, I oppose her.

[MrBenchley]

136. Too too funny....

Hey,. I wonder whether this Green Party schmendrick is "a Wilsonian Democrat or a Jacksonian Democrat"?

[fugwb]

137. The Dems don't even have a message, much less a set of balls

maybe the Greens will loan them some.

[MrBenchley]

140. Hey, nothing keeping you here, chief....

If you hate the Democrats, don't stick around.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

146. It wasn't me who said Democrats had no balls....

Nor is it me crying about imaginary "personal attacks"

[onenote]

141. so now all Dems are DINOs?

Exactly who gets to define what a Democrat is? The Greens?

onenote

[MrBenchley]

145. Helluva carnival, isn't it?

Everybody hates Hillary (except the 89% of New York state Democrats/64% of all New Yorkers who don't), so we ought to support this bozo from the defunct Green party....

...because the Green party is "far more committed to basic Democratic principles" than mere Democrats who have no message or balls (which is why candidate Piginapoke didn't stay in the Green party but became a Democrat a few minutes ago, no doubt)...

....however, the Green party is unfairly oppressed by "the two major parties...in their stagnant and inbred forms today" especially in Republican strongholds like NYC. We have to change the way elections are held in this country because "the end of this imperial dream won't occur through the democratic party apparatus" and it behooves us as Democrats to fight to put the Democrats in third place....

Oh, and by the way, the Green party is the picture of health in Missouri, where it split in two and the number of candidates shrank by more than half from election to election. None of those candidates won, either.

And let's not forget to mention that the Governor of Illinois ( a Democrat naturally) is utterly corrupt, even though we have no evidence of that.

So in closing, let's vote for Piginapoke for Senator, because we have no idea what he stands for and don't care! Hip hip hooray!

[LSK]

165. Four Reasons To Support CAFTA

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253383

[fugwb]

172. No doubt. It seems dissent here is as "unpatriotic" as it is with the

current administration. What a fucking joke. L8R,DU

[Greyhound]

170. One picture is worth a thousand words.

[MrBenchley]

178. Here's a few of the thousand--feel free to add more.

Who is that with Hillary?

Wonder where somebody got that picture?

Wonder why they omitted the caption: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton joins Subramaniam Ramadorai, left, CEO of TATA Consultancy Services, and Mayor Anthony Masiello at a press conference to announce the opening of TATA's regional office in downtown Buffalo. "

Wonder how they scrolled past a steaming pantload of freeper gibberish blaming Bill Clinton for the 9/11 attacks to get to that picture?

http://www.h1bvisasucks.com/H1BDiscussions_issue_clinton.htm

Wonder why somebody would give credence to a website that includes "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" so its members can "Understand the Strategy of Political Corruption That Any Powerful Group can Implement "?

http://www.h1bvisasucks.com/H1BDiscussions_solutions.htm

Wonder what sort of "progressive" goes diving for images on a website that pimps for racist Tom Tancredo?

http://www.h1bvisasucks.com/H1BDiscussions_solutions_tancredo.htm

[Greyhound]

181. I just grabbed that copy cause it came up. If the website offends

your hypersensitive sensibilities you can find it here instead. www.outsourcecongress.org
If that's not acceptable there are many, many, more to choose from. Her sellout to Tata is the point, although since it didn't effect you directly I'm sure you're OK with it.

[MrBenchley]

183. If that website doesn't offend YOU

you ought to be ashamed of yourself. But it's hilarious to read that in order to object to open racism, right wing lies, and anti-Semitism, one has to be "hypersensitive"

"Her sellout to Tata is the point"
You mean she got him to bring jobs to Buffalo, New York? What a ridiculous point that is, then.

[Greyhound]

190. I didn't even check the site, I was looking for the picture.

She didn't bring 1/100th of the jobs to Buffalo that her support of this sell-out cost. In addition, the jobs that did come with Tata all went to other H1-b and L1 visa holders. Tata does not hire non-Indian workers except for a few of the more 'visible' positions. Oh, and the bribe jobs that go to the relatives of the politiwhores that got them in.

[MrBenchley]

199. Yeah, why would you care what bigots say?

Good thing you've got racists like the bozos on that website to support you.....

[Qibing Zero]

198. Zell Miller was not a DINO

He was a sick sick man (read: republican) who ran as a dem (as if that mattered) in the deep south and dreamed of the US becoming a theocracy. He made the DINOs look good.

[Nimrod2005]

123. While I don't think this guy can win anything, Senator Clinton

is gambling BIG TIME, by keeping silent on the war issue.

She is gambling that they will all kill each other, and she will be the only one standing. But someone, someone with courage, like Burtha, and with political ambition is going to emerge soon.

[Czolgosz]

143. I hope Greenfield's candidacy forces Hillary to commit NOT TO RUN IN '08

I think she's an acceptable senator (not 1/10 the senator I hoped she'd be, but still an improvement over, say, Lieberman or Biden or some of the other fence-sitters with national aspirations), but she'd be an awful standard bearer in '08.

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oc2002]

163. that is awsome, I hope DLC-Hillary loses! BIG!

I will even send some funds to this guy if he is not a crackpot plant.

[Moderator]

167. PLEASE READ THIS WARNING

This thread will be locked if the personal attacks do not cease.

[DemGirl7]

168. As an New Yorker, and a Progressive Democrat, all I have to say is

YEAH!!!!!:applause: I've used to be a Hillary supporter, but since she was elected to the Senate, I've been disappointed with the actions that she has taken since than.

[mzmolly]

171. Wow, I posted this Sunday and didn't get nearly the response!

;)

I for one will watch this race with great interest.

[LynneSin]

173. Ok, here is my 2 cents

Why the heck is this person even bothering? Hell why is Pirro bothering. Hundreds of Thosands of people starving in this world and their wasting money against Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign for what?

Personally, I'd like to know why these people aren't running for Congressional seats? We still have dozens of Republican seats where there are no democratic candidates. Sure, I'd like to see more liberal candidates in office but hell in 2006, I'd just like to see the democrats take control of either the House or Senate (or possibly both). And folks, if we don't have a majority in the House we will probably have Bush until his term is finished in 2008.

But instead we have these Don Quioxite candidates throwing good money in the firepit in order to "Make a point". I'm not sure what point we're making. I want a democratic house damnit, I want to know that we have the ability to start the impeachment hearings and I want the war to end but it will never end as long as republicans are in charge. End of discussion!

When we have a majority then we can start cleaning house of DINOs until then we're awfully damn fussy for people who are in the minority and have been getting our asses whipped for the last 6 years!

[MrBenchley]

176. It's not like there aren't pro-war Republican congressmen

right in his own neck of the woods....

"until then we're awfully damn fussy for people who are in the minority and have been getting our asses whipped for the last 6 years"
Damn straight.

[MrBenchley]

177. It's not like there aren't pro-war Republican congressmen

right in his own neck of the woods....

"until then we're awfully damn fussy for people who are in the minority and have been getting our asses whipped for the last 6 years"
Damn straight.

[WildEyedLiberal]

184. I don't understand why it's more popular to support Greens than Dems

On DEMOCRATIC underground.

Hillary is not my first choice for 2008, but big deal - she's more of a Democrat than some ex-Green who sleazily changed his party JUST so he could run against her. If I could believe that he was actually committed to the success of the Democratic party, I might consider him, but when I went to his website, it was just more of the same shrill lunatic fringe shrieking a la Ralph Nader. Not impressive.

By the way I'd sure like to fucking know when it became necessary to be an extreme pacifist to be a Democrat. Was FDR a pacifist? Truman? Kennedy? Johnson? Fuck no. Just like today, the 60s hippies hated Democrats more than Republicans, and as a result, America got stuck with Nixon for 6 years. Hell, even McGovern, who people here laud as the ultimate anti-war presidential candidate, voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. It's really fucking hypocritical to laud him as anti-war while excoriating John Kerry or John Edwards or whoever, as by that definition, he was as "pro-war" as they - which is to say, not at all.

I don't agree with Bush's decision to invade Iraq, but guess who made that decision? BUSH. Not fucking Kerry or Edwards or Hillary or any Democrat ever. Bush did. No, Hillary has not been displaying leadership about Iraq, and I think that will reflect on her 2008 bid. But it has jackshit to do with her ability to be a Senator from NY.

[MrBenchley]

187. Great post....

Thanks.

[NNN0LHI]

189. You either have a great memory or you study history a lot n/t

[Qibing Zero]

197. Yes! While we may die, The Party lives on. nt

:eyes:

[AntiFascist]

191. Bush/Clinton: all the same BFEE....

read Scott Ritter's transcript here:

http://www.traprockpeace.org/podcasts_transcripts/

the die has already been cast for war with Iran.