I think I'm starting to understand why we're anti- Hillary,Carville and McCauliffe

[SoFlaJet]

These people didn't fight hard enough for the democratic party-they LET the RW step all over them.I think we,the base are sick and tired of swiftboat tactics by these scumbags.It's not like there is a group we all belong to where we get together and discuss all the anti-Hillary Clinton,James Carville and McCauliffe talking points for the week-it's more of a street thing-it's just where are hearts are these days.We demand change and refuse to buy into the crap being told (and trying to be) SOLD to us by these same old same olds.

[Diane R]

1. I agree. They cheerfully hung Gore and Kerry out to dry when * stole the elections.

[wyldwolf]

5. I don't recall any "progressive" Senators coming to Gore's defense

Did I miss somthing from, say, Ted Kennedy?

[karynnj]

7. I remember Kerry for sure and I think Kennedy

standing up for Gore on Sunday talk shows during the time period when he was contesting the results.

[wyldwolf]

14. but when a congressman needed a Senate sponsor, where was he?

THAT is when it counted.

[blm]

23. Gore asked them NOT to - if it was perceived the fight would continue then

Gore would've been the one continued to be blistered by the GOP and the media, and the senator who did it then would've been accused by everyone of pandering to the base.

I'm surprised BILL CLINTON didn't make a BOLD executive decision in November and insist every citizen's vote be counted. THAT is when the power NEEDED to be used. After was way too late for anybody to change things.

[wyldwolf]

28. I don't recall that. Got a link?

[blm]

36. Well known DC gossip - no news specific news story. But here's Gore's words to Dems

weeks BEFORE the inauguration:





Aired January 3, 2001 - 10:36 a.m. ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
>>>>>>>>

Mayor Williams, I really enjoyed that picture of you in the paper the other day.

(LAUGHTER)

And, Frank Raines, my former colleague in the Cabinet, Dr. Billington, thank you for hosting us. Johnnie Cochran and other distinguished guests, thank you all for letting me say just these few words.

You know, in all seriousness, we face more than a new president and a new administration and new leadership of honored institutions. Here in Washington, the House and Senate will be more closely divided than at any time in the history that any of us can personally remember. And across America, there are real and continuing disagreements about the issues and about what is now past and about what now lies ahead.

And now, you must choose, as public servants and as Americans, to heal our nation's divisions and move this country. I believe very deeply that we all must respect, and wherever possible, help President-elect Bush, because from the moment he takes his solemn oath, a great responsibility will rest in his hands.

>>>>>>>

[wyldwolf]

59. ah, yes, you DO rely on gossip

[blm]

81. thanks - I expected Gore's own words would mean nothing to you, anyway.

That's why I posted them, as well.

[wyldwolf]

86. Stll waiting to see where Gore asked US Senators not to sponsor house members...

... in their protest.

[Jim Sagle]

94. What blm posted was true and everybody goddamn well knows it.

[Hippo_Tron]

99. Here, it's in an interview with Russ Feingold

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/29/1443204

According to Russ, if anyone is responsible for the distortion regarding the contesting of the election, it's Michael Moore.

[Samantha]

88. they were all MIA

Only the Congressional Black Caucus stood up and spoke out at the critical moment.

It appears you have not moved on and gotten over it, my friend...

Nor have I.

[karynnj]

92. What would it have done?

It would have led to the type of debate followed by a vote that they had in 2005. In 2005, there was some reason to do that as the problems with the election were not widely known and Boxer's signing gave them the ability to put the problems in the Congressional record. Hillary didn't sign either - and Gore was her husband's VP, nor did Leiberman.

In 2001, it was known that the 2000 election was in dispute - and it had already gone to the Supreme Court. Not even all the Democrats would have voted against the FL delegation. It would have been intensely uncomfortable for Gore who was presiding over it.

My point was that when Gore was disputing it - there were very few Democrats defending him for doing it - Kerry was one of the strongest who was. After Gore conceded, Kerry didn't dispute it.

[blm]

9. How about an executive order that all votes be counted

.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

2. I agree they are bought and paid for corporate puppets...

[wyldwolf]

3. what do you mean "we?"

There's only been a small group of Dems who fought back against "swiftboating" and two their last names was "Clinton."

[karynnj]

8. Only when they were the targets

[wyldwolf]

15. was one of their last names Kerry? No.

[karynnj]

24. Kerry did fight back against the SBVT

The truth alone should have sufficed:

Here was what the media had PRIOR to the SBVT coming out:
-Kerry had over 140 pages of Navy reports - including fitness reports than completely spanned the interval that he was in the service - all glowingly positive.
-The medals themselves were official record, they were checked out when granted and in 2004 the Navy itself said they were given correctly (in response to a RW querry)
-The VN war era Secretary of the Navy, Republican Senator John Warner, said he personally checked the silver star as Secretary of the Navy.
- In 1996, Zumwolt spoke of the fact that he gave Kerry the silver star because he could do it quickly - but thought that he could have deserved a higher award.
- Nixon and his people on the tapes that were never designed to be public spoke ofhaving checked Kerry out and found he was clean and a war hero.
- All but one of the men who reported to Kerry, who were politically all over the map, spoke of Kerry with great respect and affection.
- Tour of Duty was written by a historian, who spoke to hundreds of people before this became a political smear, and Kerry had no editorial control. It backed Kerry 100% and agreed with the records. (It did make some of the SBVT look bad - and Kerry was less negative than many of the other non-political people he interviewed.)

The SBVT had no proof - records or photogahs etc. Had known contacts to the RW and the Bush/Cheney team. Yet the media showed this as he said she said. So, on Kerry's side there was an abundance of proof and on the other side their was reason to suspect the motivation.

The scary thing to me is that there is nothing in my life I have more proof of than Kerry had here on his service. I suspect this is true for any candidate as well. (ie - to prove the good grades I had in college, my transcript is all I have. The few people I am still in touch with took no classes with me.)

All this is in addition to Kerry and the surragates calling the SBVT out.

The Clintons get credit because they responded in the news cycle - in a day when there were 3 a day, not an infinite number. Then consider how they responded. Genefer Flowers was countered by saying she was lying and that she had a crush on Bill. She had a tape of their conversation, showing that she knew he would lie. Even if the tape was editted etc, it meant there was someting there. The letter to the ROTC official who helped Bill was real - it was countered by essentially speaking of the what 1969 was like (and calling in the help of a highly decorated war hero who was being shot at in early 1969).

In Clinton's case, a willing media questioned the people questioning Clinton. In 2004, when the questioners were far more questionable they played it as he said she said. You and others who attack Kerry for this are doing the work of the SBVT. Their goal was to make people question Kerry's character. Kerry has acted with integrity and honor for his entire adult life. In a sane world, the media would have bashed the Bush/Cheney people for their complicity here - just as they hit GHWB for looking into Clinton's passport.

[wyldwolf]

29. really? I missed the TV commercials where he called the claims bogus

...

[karynnj]

91. He has said that they should have put up ads

I think you will find that Clinton rarely had ads as his defense either - just response to the media. What hurt Kerry is that the media played with this long after they were exposed as liars. Ads are great if it were a difference of opinion - and would appear as "kerry's point of view".

The fact is that you likely would be the first now calluing Kerry vain for wasting money fighting obviously bogus charges - ending up with substantially less money in Sept/Oct than Bush. Thanks to McAuliffe's choice of convention date Kerry had to stretch his money over 13 weeks compared to the Republican 8.

As I said Kerry disproved the charges thoroughly.

[blm]

4. They kept their famous "attack machine' in storage from 2000-2006

when we all thought they were the Dem PARTY attack machine that should be in play to counter the Bush machine that relentlessly attacked Democrats.

Clinton's machine had access to corporate media after yrs serving the Clintons that no other Dem could hope to have.

Why did they never counter the Bush machine for the last 6 years?

[SoFlaJet]

6. Like Sollozzo talking to The Don

about the politicians he carries around like nickles in his pocket

[MissWaverly]

11. because Bill was too busy flying around with Bush, Sr.

Yes, their criticism has been muted until recently, but Jimmy Carter has been like a
man on fire, God Bless Him.

:-)

[blm]

17. Imagine if Carter had Bill Clinton backing HIM up instead of siding with the Bushes

all the time. His words would have been AMPLIFIED instead of continually mocked by BushInc.

[MissWaverly]

18. Well, you notice that Carter endorsed Al Gore not Sen. Clinton

surprise, surprise.

:-)

[mtnsnake]

19. Just because your idol, John Kerry, couldn't look after himself in 2004

you think the Clintons should've been his baby sitter back then. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. First you need the candidate to stick up for himself. He didn't even do that, so you should lay off the Clintons with your baseless 24/7 attacks.

Besides, how many presidents have you ever seen attack a sitting president so soon after they recently retired?

[blm]

22. Funny - Clinton NEEDED Kerry in 1992, didn't he? Kerry DIDN'T need Bill siding with Bush 2001-2004

did he?

Bill didn't come out and attack GOPs for the draft-dodging charges in 1992 - Kerry did it FOR him.

Bill also had Kerry PUMMELING Bush1 for his ENTIRE 4 years in office with nonstop investigations. Kerry had Bill SUPPORTING Bush2 for his entire first term on all his major military decisions.

What a difference.

And you always avoid the fact that Clinton used his cache to SUPPORT Bush instead of using it to COUNTERATTACK Bush and the GOP for the years BEFORE Kerry was even the nominee.

Try taking Kerry out of the equation - Clinton's actions and his team's NONACTIONS to counter the GOP from 2001-2004 were STILL the same, no matter who the 2004 nominee would be.

[mtnsnake]

27. Clinton needed Kerry in 1992 just like I need a toothache. nt

[blm]

32. So post the articles where Clinton defended HIMSELF on draftdodging, or where Clinton

kept Poppy Bush under investigation for four years to bring his poll numbers under 40% in 1992?

You certainly are no student of history if you believe that America would have replaced a president who was NOT under investigation.

[mtnsnake]

35. Like I already told you, Clinton didn't need Kerry for squat.

Nice try.

[blm]

37. Clinton would've won WITHOUT IranContra, BCCI investigations bringing Bush poll numbers

down with the constant bad headlines? You think Americans would have voted out a president they still TRUSTED?


Do tell.


You must have a very UNIQUE grasp of history - one that ignores four years worth of investigations and headlines against a sitting president.

[mtnsnake]

44. Clinton won....TWICE. Kerry couldn't beat a moron ONCE. Get over it.

It just bugs ya that Bill Clinton has already gone down as one of the best presidents in modern history.......leaving relative peace, a strong economy, and a budget in the black.

Then Bush gets picked by the Supreme Court and becomes the worst president in history in his first term. Then Kerry gets the Democratic nod, doesn't fight back, doesn't connect, and lets an imbecile get the best of him....and you're blaming it on the Clintons. Figure that.

[blm]

47. Clinton couldn't have won in 1992 without IranContra and BCCI investigations

bringing Poppy Bush and his administration's poll numbers down.

You are seriously ignoring history if you think Kerry's investigations had NOTHING to do with Clinton being able to take office in 1993.

But then - you have proven that history is not your strong suit.

I doubt Bill Clinton would claim he could have taken office even if Poppy Bush hadn't been under constant investigation for IranContra and BCCI throughout his term. Why do you?


And would you care to put that to a poll here at DU? Go ahead. Ask DU if Clinton would have taken office if the American people had never heard one word about IranContra and BCCI revelations.

[mtnsnake]

51. "Ask DU if Clinton would have taken office"

And would you care to put that to a poll here at DU? Go ahead. Ask DU if Clinton would have taken office if the American people had never heard one word about IranContra and BCCI revelations.

Ask DU yourself if you're so interested. It's not like you and your minions don't run around spending all your waking minutes figuring out new ways to run the Clintons down, so instead of telling me to do it, do your own silly anti-Clinton poll if you feel the need to do it. Knock yourself out!

[blm]

53. I don't have to - - I know already what most of DU would say. YOU are the one pretending

that Clinton would have won in 1992 even if there was never a John Kerry who, ON HIS OWN, forced Congress to undertake the IranContra and BCCI investigations of Reagan and Bush.

Yet you never explain WHY you believe so.

I will leave you to your fantasy where Clintons succeed all on their own and never had help from the actions of other Democrats prior to their emergence.

[mtnsnake]

57. I guess you forgot that just a couple minutes ago YOU told me to post that poll.

I replied for you to do it yourself, if you felt the need to do so. Forget?

[blm]

82. You implied Clinton beat Bush all by his own talent and would have won even without

the investigations of IranContra and BCCI.

If you really believed it you would post a thread saying so or a poll expecting the rest of DU agrees with you.

But you won't because you don't really believe it but you do enjoy the game of pretending you do because your real obsession is with me and others who remain focused against the Bush family and all who protect them.

[mtnsnake]

84. For someone who runs around preaching the truth like you do, you sure abuse the word

I never implied any such thing as what you said. I said that Clinton didn't need KERRY to win. I never said he didn't need ANYONE to win. What you did is put all YOUR words into my mouth. THAT IS LAME.

[karynnj]

93. Clinton ran against a President with less than 40% approval

that fell to 33% before the election. Kerry ran against a President who was at 60% in January 2004, falling to just under 50% by the elcetion.

[Hippo_Tron]

101. How come Iran Contra didn't help Dukakis in '88?

The matter was far more current then yet Bush still won in a landslide in '88.

Clinton won in '92 for the same reason that Reagan won in '80. Voters throw out an incumbent President when the economy sucks unless the incumbent can somehow convince the electorate that the challenger can't be trusted. It worked in 2004 to a certain extent even though Bush still had to pull shenanigans in Ohio. In 1980 Jimmy Carter came very close to convincing the electorate that Reagan couldn't be trusted as commander-in-chief because he was a warmonger. Unfortunately Reagan came off as a kind gentle person in the debate a week before the election and that completely ruined Carter's attempts to portray him as a warmonger.

[blm]

106. Extent of Poppy's involvement was becoming known AFTER he took office as Walsh's

investigation widened.

It was summer of 92 when the bombshell dropped that Poppy Bush had a diary that Walsh was trying to secure.

Surely you remember WHY he pardoned all those he did before he left office - they were heading to TRIAL in 1993.

[fooj]

49. Clinton didn't need ANY of us.

After all, he's the "anointed" son of the BFEE. Wonder how THAT happened? Didn't you get the memo?

Edit: Pardon me. I believe the exact words were "adopted" son. Hmmmmmm...

[blm]

25. Bill didn't HAVE to do the attacking - his MACHINE was set up to do that. Just like

Bush's and the GOP's. Difference is that Bush USED the entire GOP attack machine to attack Democrats, including Clinton, throughout the entire first term, but Bill wouldn't let HIS team do it for the Dem PARTRY or other Democrats thr0oughout Bush2's entire first term..

Democrats were NAIVE to believe that they had been building a machine to counter the GOP all those years - the machine was being built ONLY to serve the interests of the Clintons and would be used ONLY when a Clinton was running for presdient. The machine was kept in storage from 2000- 2006.

[mtnsnake]

30. Do you really think more than a few people are naive enough to believe your propaganda?

Tune in tomorrow....same time, same station, for another rendition of the never ending saga of why Kerry lost the election: It was all the Clinton's fault. lmao

[blm]

31. Then post a thread - How the Clintons fought the Bush machine 2000-2006

and see how DU perceives YOUR belief that the Clintons did their share of countering the attacks on Democrats when they controlled the only Dem machine that existed from 1993- 2004.

[mtnsnake]

38. Instead of avoiding my question

maybe you could tell us for the thousandth time how Kerry lost the election because of the Clintons.

I guess it's hard for you to believe that Kerry could've lost all on his own without the Clinton's help, considering how charismatic Kerry is and all. lol

[blm]

43. Kerry won all 3 debates and Bush had to use election fraud to win. McAuliffe made certain

that the election process was NEVER secured for the entire four years he was charged with doing so.

Bush didn't beat Kerry - Kerry won all their matchups.

The RNC pulled Bush across the finish line because no DNC was there doing ITS job to secure the election process.

And the RW media overpowered what little left media that existed.

But truth doesn't matter to you - you are so filled with spin that you claim Kerry didn't even win all 3 debates.

[mtnsnake]

46. Thanks to Kerry's shortcomings, we were awarded with another 4 years of Bush!

Kerry lost to an imbecile & could only beat the moron in 2 out of 3 debates. He's probably the ONLY candidate in history who couldn't beat Bush all three debates. On top of that, everything concerning his botched campaign, outside of the debates, was way worse.

No wonder the American people still hold it against him for running such a pathetic campaign.

[fooj]

54. Kerry was one of the only senators that campaiged for Ned Lamont.

Bill and Hillary were busy blowing LOVE HEARTS up LIEberman's ass. Newsflash: THAT'S what the American people remember. At least that's what the people I speak with are talking about. It's not bad enough that Bill gave Poppy a pass and as a result we're saddled with a bunch of war criminals. Both Clinton's showed disdain for the democratic process and complete disrespect for the will of the people in CT. Hence, Joe LIEberman. Don't forget that he was the same man (the ONLY DEM) who stood on the senate floor and chided Clinton for his "immoral" behavior. Didn't he do that while he was running as VP? Hmmmmmmm... The American people have been had. It's as simple as that.

I'd trust John Kerry over either Clinton ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.

[mtnsnake]

56. You're full of it

Hillary went as far as donating to Lamont's campaign.

Let me know, though, what a magnificent campaign Kerry ran for himself while you're at it...if you can.

[fooj]

62. Who gives a shit ?

She SUPPORTED and CAMPAIGNED for LIEBERMAN. That's a FACT. Dispute that.

This isn't about Kerry and his campaign. Wish you could get over Kerry. We've all moved on. Care to join us?

I'm pissed about the pass that was given to Poppy. Care to comment on that?

[mtnsnake]

63. temper temper, fooj

I've got just as much right to defend Clinton and/or criticize Kerry's campaign as you do in incessantly running down the Clintons and idolizing Kerry's prowess as a campaigner.

She SUPPORTED and CAMPAIGNED for LIEBERMAN. That's a FACT. Dispute that.

Like I already told you, you're full of it. Hillary supported the winner of the Democratic Primary in CT and donated money to his campaign. Last I knew, Lamont won the CT primary. Maybe in your bizzarro world someone else won it. lol

[fooj]

67. Some fun facts...

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16945479&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6

Clinton's wife, U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., has said she supports Lieberman but wouldn't back him if he loses the primary and runs as an independent.

Wow. Bill showed up instead. Big difference.

You are PROJECTING again.

incessantly running down the Clintons and idolizing Kerry's prowess as a campaigner.

Show me where I've posted that I idolized "Kerry's prowess as a campaigner". Show me. Well?

Personally, I don't give a crap WHO you support. Seriously. I don't run down anyone. The Clinton's record speaks for itself. Just because you want to take a magic marker and ERASE their past dealings, it doesn't make so. The proof exists. It's there. Question is: will you bother to look at it? Try supporting a candidate without mercilessly attacking anyone perceived to be in their path.

I'm done with this conversation. Good luck to you.

[mtnsnake]

70. Thanks for proving me right

Right in the article you provided, it says Hillary would NOT back Lieberman if he lost in the primary and ran as an independent....and she kept her word. I only posted that she donated money to Lamont and backed him during his campaign....which she did. Who she backed BEFORE Lieberman split with our party is another story. Feel free to post all you want about that.

I'm done with this conversation

Good choice.

[fooj]

71. Have a nice day!

:hi:

[mtnsnake]

73. See ya!

:hi:

[fooj]

74. Oops. Just want to share another fun fact with you...

http://www.irregulartimes.com/clintonliebermanletter.html

Perhaps you are tempted to excuse Hillary Clinton's support of Joseph Lieberman as some kind of loyalty. One Democrat in the Senate is obligated to campaign for other Democrats in the Senate, you might say.

Well, if that were your defense of Clinton's conduct, then you'd have to explain why she is continuing to support Joseph Lieberman even though Lieberman has said that he will abandon the Democratic Party and run against Ned Lamont as an independent if Lamont wins the Democratic primary. If Joseph Lieberman won't be loyal to the Democratic Party, and regularly rejects basic Democratic Party values, why should Democrats be loyal to Lieberman?

Dear Delegate:

When Bill and I were at Yale Law School, he volunteered to work on the campaign of a young man who was running for State Senate. The candidate's name was Joe Lieberman.

When I started running for the Senate in New York in 1999, many people thought I didn't have a chance. One sitting senator, however, provided me significant help early on in my campaign. That was Senator Joe Lieberman.

In the Senate, I have had the pleasure of getting to know Joe even better. We work together on both the Armed Services and Environment and Public Works Committees and I have seen his leadership first hand. He has repeatedly led the fight against the big oil companies that want to drill in the Arctic, he has championed innovative alternative energy solutions and his bill to combat global warming is the most thoughtful and comprehensive that's been proposed.

As Senators from neighboring states, Joe and I have worked on many issues together: strengthening support for first responders, improving children's health care, and cleaning up Long Island Sound so that families in New York and Connecticut can enjoy it for generations to come.

Last year, right after the 2004 election, President Bush announced that privatizing Social Security was his highest priority. Joe Lieberman fought tooth and nail to protect the guarantee of Social Security that this country has honored for seven decades to its senior citizens.

And Joe has also fought the Administration's outrageous attempts to gut Medicare and Medicaid and he has been a consistent critic of their ill conceived prescription drug plan. Now Joe is working hard to see if he can help improve that plan.

I believe that the 2006 election is a particularly important one for our country. We have the chance to put Democrats in control of the Senate and the House, to curb the excesses of one party Republican rule and hold Republicans accountable for their actions. Keeping Joe Lieberman in the Senate is an important part of that victory plan.

I know that you may not agree with Joe on all the issues. I don't either. But I know that he is a man of integrity and of devotion to the people of his state and the future of his country.

I hope when you cast your vote on May 20th and then again on August 8th that you will vote to send my friend Joe Lieberman back to the Senate.

Many thanks,
Senator Hillary Clinton

[mtnsnake]

79. Several posts ago you said this conversation was over

Funny how you say one thing and do another. Funnier is how you insist on posting some old article about how Hillary supported Lieberman at one time. Lots of other Democrats supported him at one time, too.

All I know is that she did the right thing when she yanked her support of Lieberman and transferred it to Lamont when Lamont won the CT primary. She even donated Lamont's campaign money. Anyway, post away if you must about how Hillary used to be a Lieberman cheerleader.

:hi:

[SaveElmer]

80. Oops...just wanna share this fun fact with YOU...

Senate Colleagues to Help Lieberman

By ANDREW MIGA
The Associated Press
Wednesday, July 5, 2006; 6:36 PM

WASHINGTON -- Embattled Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman is getting a little help from his Senate friends as he tries to fend off an anti-Iraq war challenger in an intraparty fight.

Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware, Barbara Boxer of California and Ken Salazar of Colorado plan to campaign in Connecticut for Lieberman between now and the Aug. 8 primary. Their goal is to reassure the party faithful of the three-term senator's loyalty to Democratic causes, including women's issues, labor and the environment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/05/AR2006070501143.html?referrer=delicious

[fooj]

87. Your point is?

I never once implied or stated that Clinton was the ONLY Dem to support Lieberman. I realize that there were others. That's why I clearly stated in a previous post that Kerry was basically alone (with the exception of Dodd) in his support for Lamont.

My distrust of Mrs. Clinton is not unfounded. There are many instances to choose from. I simply used this specific circumstance as an example. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Jim Sagle]

95. Excuse you? Your BS stinks clear across the web.

[mtnsnake]

107. Am I supposed to know you or something?

Is that the best you can do to insult me...telling me my BS stinks? What's that mean, anyway...that you're the self-pronounced DU bullshit inhaler? Let me give you some advice: Don't get too close when you run around taking your whiffs, Jim, or you might end up wearing brown lipstick. Jim Sagle...DU's self-pronounced BS inhaler. Too funny.

Now run along, ya little selfmade puke.

Hope that helps...

[election_2004]

64. BINGO!

Is it any coincidence that Senator Clinton just now wants to miraculously ride in on her white horse to be the "savior" of the Democratic Party and the country as a whole?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. You're catching on

:-)

[SaveElmer]

12. Will you be voting for Hillary Clinton...

When/if she gets the nomination?

[Bucky]

39. What a silly grand inquisitor type of question

If your candidate gets the nomination, you'd be right to ask such a question, if you do so respectfully.
Until that happens a post like this is just snotty and obnoxious. Why do you represent your candidate in a snotty and obnoxious way?

[SaveElmer]

42. It is a simple...

And very straightforward question...

[zulchzulu]

13. Carville and McAuliffe are not to be trusted

If anyone knows anything about what Carville Le Turncoat did on Election Night, they would only hold complete need for revenge. McAuliffe has said some dangerously stupid things like "you're either with us or against us" with his attempts at running the Clinton campaign.

Hopefully, the quicksand they are standing in sinks them soon. I feel Senator Clinton could do better...and perhaps she would be a more appealing candidate if she didn't listen to them.

[liberal hypnotist]

16. Just a couple of talking heads.

Carville and McAuliffe are just a couple of 'talking heads' looking for an opportunity to sell books, increase their speaking fees and in the meantime join a campaign to further their aims. Hillary represents corporate America. that's where she will get her 1/2 billion to run her campaign. I wonder how much of her money will be from Iraq and the mysterious missing 8 Billion. what a glorious time we will have.

[Zynx]

50. McAwful is incompetent. Clinton can have him.

[mtnsnake]

20. Speak for yourself

These people didn't fight hard enough for the democratic party-they LET the RW step all over them.

What a crock. I've never seen Hillary or Carville let the RW step all over them once.

It's funny, though, how the same people who spend so much of their time whining about strong Democrats like Hillary or pushing for their own 1 or 2 special interests are usually the same people who never lift a finger to actually do something constructive for the Democratic Party.

[SaveElmer]

21. And who threaten to bolt...

Everytime an issue doesn't go their way!!!

And they are the "base"

:rofl:

[mtnsnake]

26. "And they are the "base""

Yeah, and I'm the real father of Anna Nichole's baby. :evilgrin:

[marmar]

34. "Yeah, and I'm the real father of Anna Nichole's baby."

Who isn't?

[blm]

33. Then tell us how they squashed the Clintons trashed the WH story with Rapid Response

and how they fought the EIGHT BOOKS written that blamed Clinton was to blame for 9-11?

They chose to NOT FIGHT BACK then. Why? Because fighting the lie that Clinton and all Dems are weak on terror with PROOF would only advantage other lessknown Democrats running for offices in 2002 and 2004.

[mtnsnake]

41. So now you're pushing this fairy tale that the Clintons don't fight back?

Because of this "trashing the WH" thing that for some odd reason you and ONLY you loves talking about and posting about it like a broken record until maybe someone just happens to believe it really happened?

On top of all the other nonsense, we're supposed to believe that the Clintons don't fight back? Because you say it's so? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[blm]

45. Clintons DIDN'T fight back the Bush machine throughout Bush's first term till now.

So - why on EARTH are you even bothering to PRETEND they did when most everyone on DU would be hardpressed to come up with examples of the Clinton machine taking on the Bush machine on any significant matter from the day Bush took office and attacked them and Democratic party thu the fall of 2006 when Clinton FINALLY countered the 9-11 claim against him.

[mtnsnake]

48. Kerry should take some lessons from the Clintons on how to fight his own battles

BTW, I said the Clintons fight back, period. I'm not the one bringing up anything about "fighting the Bush machine" and blah blah blah. Your the one bringing up the Bush machine and you're using that to cover up for Kerry's weaknesses as a candidate. You're also using it to try to make like the Clintons aren't fighters in general. Maybe you missed it all these years when Hillary has ALWAYS hit them back with a brick when the RW has hurled a stone her way. Maybe you missed it when Bill slapped down that little RW twit on Fox News a little while back.

[blm]

52. Bush tapped into the GOP machine. There was no Dem machine in place because

the Clintons had the only Dem machine that existed throughout the 90s. Every Dem spokesperson was schooled in protecting the Clintons without any clue about any of the other Democrats in DC.

That they would not share that machine with entire Dem party after Bill left office and with the Bush?GOP machine constantly controlling the media talking points for his entire first term speaks volumes about their intent.

[mtnsnake]

55. "Every Dem spokesperson was schooled in protecting the Clintons"

Yeah, that's why when the RW was going after Bill with a vengeance, Hillary was the ONLY one who finally came to his aid and she pasted those assholes almost single handedly.

the Clintons had the only Dem machine that existed throughout the 90s. Every Dem spokesperson was schooled in protecting the Clintons without any clue about any of the other Democrats in DC.

That they would not share that machine with entire Dem party after Bill left office and with the Bush?GOP machine constantly controlling the media talking points for his entire first term speaks volumes about their intent.

The more you spew on about this, the more ridiculous it all sounds...and the more obvious it is that this is all about your refusal to admit that Kerry blew it...ALL ON HIS OWN...without the help of Bill or Hillary. They would've fought back.

[Hippo_Tron]

100. blm, you present no evidence supporting these claims

The only thing you present is what has happened over the past 6 years and draw the conclusion that it has all a set up to get Hillary Clinton in the White House.

You can't prove such a claim without reliable testimony from someone who knows exactly what has been going on behind the scenes at the DNC for the past 6 years.

[fooj]

60. BFD.

You think Bill slapped down that RW twit for the good of the Democratic Party? BWAHAHAHAHA! Everything Bill does benefits Bill. Same with Hillary.

Kerry is a man of integrity and character. I think it's really shitty of you to belittle him the way that you do. He does his job as a senator. He doesn't deserve you or anyone else attacking him this way. Belittling everyone and everything DOESN'T change how the Clinton's have aligned themselves with the likes of Rupert Murdoch. Doesn't that alliance concern you? It sure as shit should. Let me see...

Carville (wasn't he the one who called and gave the heads-up to wifey poo the night of the 2004 election) as to what Kerry intended to do? Isn't Carville married to the woman who assisted in outing a covert CIA NOC? McCauliffe was the man who insisted we play "nice", remember? Oh, that's right. How silly of me to forget. That's when the Dems lost the Senate and House in 2002. Hmmmmm...

Doesn't anything sound a bit "off" to you yet? Jeez........

[mtnsnake]

61. Hey fooj, we already know you hate the Clintons and worship Kerry, so BFD to you, too.

Am I supposed to be impressed or something?

[fooj]

65. I don't HATE anyone. I just hate when people are being unjustly maligned.

How dare you PROJECT my beliefs and feelings? I'm not asking for you fucking approval.

BTW, I don't worship Kerry, either. I simply call them as I see them. When he steps up to the plate, I give him due recognition. "Hate the Clinton's and worhip Kerry"...WTF? Are we in high school? Notice that you haven't commented on any of the TRUTHS or FACTS pointed out in any of my posts. I suppose that would require critical thinking and analysis. Now THAT would impress me.

[mtnsnake]

66. Calm down, fooj

Take a deep breath. Try some alternate nostril breathing. Inhale through one, slowly let it out...now, repeat with the other. There, hope that helps.

[fooj]

68. Good luck to you.

Your snide remarks don't affect me in the least. I wish you well. Have a nice day.

I hope you are able to overcome your aversion to factual commentary.

:hi:

[mtnsnake]

72. It doesn't even take any "snide remarks"

to affect you, just the truth.

Your snide remarks don't affect me in the least

Yeah, right.

[AtomicKitten]

89. she keeps saying goodbye to you, mtnsnake,

... but keeps tugging at your pantleg. If she doesn't go away, how can you start missing her?

[SoFlaJet]

103. Yea Kerry should take lessons from HER?

She was the first one right there with McBush slamming Kerry and demanding an apology after the botched joke-and then last week demanding Obama give Geffen back the money-I'm sick of her demands and her sense of entitlement and inevitability-she's like the spoiled girl in grammar school running for class president with all the slogans and best posters up in the hallways-but still,almost everybody hates her-I really am starting to dislike her and her "team's" with their 15 talking points-they're WAY too calculated for this dem

[fooj]

58. Pardon me while I go write the Clinton's a thank you note...

I'll be certain to include my heartfelt thanks for supporting the Democratic primary winner in CT. Oh, and I'll be certain to thank them for giving Poppy a pass on Iran/Contra.

Why is it that some are unable to grasp the seriousness of this situation? It's called accountability. BTW- why hasn't all of the Tsunami Relief Fund and Katrina Victim's Fund been dispersed accordingly? Last I heard, all of the money hasn't been made available. I wonder why that is.

[Tom Joad]

40. Cuz we hate the war they brought into being??!!??

[treestar]

69. IA to the extent they symbolize that craven give-in-to-them and

let-them-frame mentality. The Democrats have been too defensive. The RW makes some outrageous accusation, and there is too much taking it seriously and defending it. Then the RW can say the Democrats have "no ideas" because they never got to express them, too busily counteracting the RW agenda.

[Arugula Latte]

75. Carville sells us out all the time.

I've grown to despise him.

[election_2004]

76. And you can bet....

.....that he will play a *prominent* role in any presidential administration run by Hillary Clinton.

Take that one to the bank!

[Arugula Latte]

77. Yep.

Another reason I'm hoping Edwards or Obama wins.

[election_2004]

78. Ugh, I truly hate those people

By "those people" I'm referring to the likes of Carville, Begala, McAuliffe, Robert Ford, Darrell Jackson, and those who enable them.

I'm cool with both Edwards and Obama, even though they're not my first-choices for the primary.

[applegrove]

83. I think it is good we go through all this "discussion" early on. We can vent

and bitch and sort out what we want from a leader. And then choose one in 1 1/2 years. And at that point agree on some basic facts and a leadership team. I don't know who I would support if I was American. But I think open discussion is a good thing right now. Candidates may have to tweak their campaigns to be the cream that rises to the top. And we will all have participated vigourously.

[Morgana LaFey]

85. And sometimes the harm they do isn't just passively allowed --

sometimes it's ACTIVE harm, tho I'm sure they don't see it as such.

Anyone, IMO, who carries water for the DLC (Hillary, Carville, McAuliffe, et. al.) are very actively harming the party, the people, the nation as a whole.

[AtomicKitten]

90. Ah, okay.

TeamClinton are LEGENDARY for kicking ass, just ask all the whiners here bellyaching about it day after day. I can only assume you are 10 and weren't alive during the early 1990s when TeamClinton's War Room kicked the ever lovin' crap out of the wingnuts. Bill not only survived the jihad waged against him during the 1990s, he THRIVED, and he won. Twice. Just like Hillary will survive the petty jihad waged against her from the whiners on the far left AND the wingnuts, because in effect in this case they are one in the same. Like she said, when they punch you, you knock 'em down. And she will. Hard.

[bvar22]

96. "Team" Clinton?.....That's so.......

...Corporate sounding....Like it came from some Madison Avenue focus group or motivational consultant.

Just saying

[AtomicKitten]

97. the "dropped pronoun" crowd dubbed them that

if you have a problem with it, take it up with them

just sayin'

[eridani]

98. "Far left" = policies that benefit actual people

Universal health care, fair trade, opposing the PATRIOT Act, ending the War on Some Drugs, no pre-emptive wars, Silly, useless out of tough policies all. Not.

[noamnety]

102. For a clearer picture of Carville, watch Our Brand is Crisis

OUR BRAND IS CRISIS

For decades, U.S. strategists-for-hire have been quietly molding the opinions of voters and the messages of candidates in elections around the world. They have worked for presidential candidates on every continent (in Britain, Israel, India, Korea, South Africa, Venezuela, Brazil, to name a few…) Without the noise of tanks or troops, these Americans have been spreading our brand of democracy from the Middle East to the middle of the South American jungle. OUR BRAND IS CRISIS is an astounding look at one of their campaigns and its earth-shattering aftermath. With flabbergasting access to think sessions, media training and the making of smear campaigns, we watch how the consultants’ marketing strategies shape the relationship between a leader and his people. And we see a shocking example of how the all-American art of branding can affect the “spreading of democracy” overseas.

http://www.kochlorberfilms.com/Theatrical/infopage.aspx?Id=16

http://www.gonemild.com/2006/03/our-brand-is-crisis-carville-bolivia.html

http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0609,hoberman,72347,20.html

[AtomicKitten]

104. There is a tiny microcosm of that very tactic here at DU 24/7.

From those in opposition to all things Clinton yet themselves employing the same insidious techniques and tactics that they complain about. It helps to step back a bit and look at the bigger picture because many people here at DU conveniently see only that which fuels their already entrenched point of view on people and issues.

[noamnety]

105. Well, yes

the branding with short memes tactic has become near-universal.

But the issue isn't just his campaign tactics, it's also about who he was supporting - an American trained mining entrepreneur, Sánchez de Lozada, a neoliberal who did a lot of exploiting Bolivia's natural resources, privatizing them for the financial gain of foreign corporations.