"Hillary is inhuman". "She's a monster".

[cali]

Those are quotes from a post on a current thread here.

This is just out of hand, and completely beyond the realm of human decency.

On the same thread she's compared to Petain- the good old Nazi collaborator link.

There's no excuse for this vile shit.

None. And what it says about those who post such crap, is damning indeed.

[greenman3610]

1. agreed

This type of "all or nothing" thinking has
never worked out well, whether for dems in
2000, for whom Gore was not pure enough, or
for neocons, who see the world as
black and white.

Time to grow up, folks.

[L0oniX]

2. That's mild compared to what I have been called on DU

Get over it ...it's nothing. Americans always insult others. Its a carry over from high school.

[cuke]

4. The Democratic Party is truly a Big Tent

It even has a "pro High-school antics" wing

[L0oniX]

7. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[MADem]

5. No they don't. And you need to learn to use the ALERT button if you are getting insulted here.

This is a forum with RULES, after all.

[cali]

8. Then use the alert button.

This is about simple decency. It's not a good thing to dehumanize people ever. And if you don't know enough history to know why that's so, learn some.

[MADem]

3. Yeah, when she ends up on a ticket with another primary runner, what will they say then?

I do think the ticket is going to consist of two people running now. I might be wrong. Ya never know....

People shouldn't burn bridges with that kind of language. It's the sort of language the Other Team uses. It's not very savvy to use those sorts of expressions, and says more about the user than perhaps they intend.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. What's weird is that people believe everything she says.

I disregard all of it. She takes bad positions because it is politically correct, strategically. Then people accept them as if it's what she's all about in her secret heart.

Example: She voted for Kyl/Lieberman because of Florida. Period. She is running a general election campaign.

Nobody else voted for it because they are in a primary campaign.

If Obama was the nominee and Kyl/Lieberman had come up in August 2008 he would vote for it because of Florida. To do otherwise would be a clear error.

Yes, it is cynical. But why does anyone believe that what she says or does in a campaign (and she has been campaigning for 6 years) has anything to do with what she really thinks?

She is a cynical politician who will say anything, or she is war-mongering neo-con. But she can't be both!

I think she's a major phony and a cynical politician. And I think she's a winner. The two go hand in hand a lot more often than not.

[cali]

9. It's the over the top language of dehumanizing that

bothers me here. It's just wrong.

[MADem]

10. Your example is an opinion from an article in the NATION.

She's no more cynical or calculating than ANY candidate running.

They all have their game plans, and they're hoping that they'll resonate with the wider electorate.

Time will tell.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. Did the Nation say Kyl/Liberman was about Florida? Cool. That's my assumption, but I hadn't

heard any pundit types saying so, so I was starting to wonder.

If Guliani is the nominee Florida will be a tough state, and the liberal-but-militantly-pro-Israel vote will be a key factor.

[MADem]

21. Here's the cite

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/weekinreview/14cooper.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Part of the reason for Mrs. Clinton’s vote, some of her backers say privately, is that she has already shifted from primary mode, when she needs to guard against critics from the left, to general election mode, when she must guard against critics from the right. That means she is trying to shore up her national security credentials versus Republican candidates like Rudolph Giuliani and Mitt Romney, and is trying to reassure voters that she would be a tough-minded commander in chief.

By supporting the bill — sponsored by Senators Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Jon Kyl of Arizona — Mrs. Clinton is also solidifying crucial support from the pro-Israel lobby.

Mrs. Clinton voted along with 75 other senators in favor of the bill “in order to apply greater diplomatic pressure on Iran,” according to a statement she put out after the vote. “The Revolutionary Guards are deeply involved in Iran’s nuclear program and have substantial links with Hezbollah,” the statement said.

But Mrs. Clinton has come under withering criticism for her vote from many Democrats, who say she is implicitly supporting what they see as an attempt by the administration to build a case for war with Iran. And her vote has also set off a debate among foreign policy experts about how best to put pressure on Iran, with some of them saying that Mrs. Clinton, along with a big majority of the Senate, has gone too far.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

26. Thank you for that.

[MADem]

58. Anytime. NT

[Tellurian]

79. I'd like to point something out that no one has addressed thus far...

S. 970: Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007

SEC. 16. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

(d) List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the appropriate congressional committees on the efforts of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury to place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism).

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-970

This "Act" was voted on and passed in April of 2007. This section of THAT bill has conditions. I've emboldened the language that applies. It calls for designations of Foreign Terrorist Organizations within 6 months of passage of this "ACT".

So, 180 days from April of 2007 is October of 2007. Here comes the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. Full Text here.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/kyl-lieberman-amendment/?resultpage=1&

When you reach page 8... you see where sections # 3 and # 4 have been stricken from the proposal, which may have been interpreted to mean authority to go to war with Iran. You also see specifically The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has been mentioned as the Terrorist Organization.

If sections #3 and #4 had not been stricken from the proposal and for the record; we'd be in a peck of trouble. I have to say this. Had Sen Clinton NOT taken her job seriously and NOT been on the job (in the senate that day) instead campaigning somewhere in a primary state. There was a clear and present danger those two sections may have slipped in on the next to the last page of this Amendment without much objection or notice.

This is just another reason why I feel my candidate, Sen Hillary Clinton is the best choice for the next presidency. Her due diligence is just what we need for the betterment of our country in the most expeditious way.

[CTyankee]

41. But wasn't her vote on the watered down Kyl Lieberman amendment?

Please, be factual. You do your cause no good otherwise!

[MADem]

57. What are you hollering at me for? I mentioned that the point the poster made was

found in the cite and then I provided it. I got off the bus after that point.

[CTyankee]

95. Sorry, MAdem, if I misread. I am post op for only 9 days and my meds

make it hard for me to concentrate every now and then. I am too tired to go back and reconsruct the whole thing so I am happy to takeyour word for it and to apologize to you. Sorry to be so lame. It seems to be my sometimes state of existence these days and it's so hard...

[MADem]

99. I think you just hit the wrong target, and responded to me when you wanted to holler at someone else

That kinda nips your argument in the bud, whatever it was, because the person you were aiming at will probably never see your points, unless they reread the whole thread.

I'm not bent out of shape at all, truly...just wondering why I was taking someone else's grief!

Hope ya feel better, what sort of operation didja have? With any luck, the meds are fun...!

[CTyankee]

100. Thanks for your concern. It was the fourth, and hopefully final, abdominal

surgery that started out as a simple elective deal last April and because of complications (scar tissue forming) became a monstrous problem. The meds help, but not much is any fun right now. I'm sure it will get better and time goes on.

[MADem]

102. Ow, Ow, Ow, Ow OWWWWWWW......

My deepest sympathies, really. That can't be fun at all. I do hope you heal quickly and your meds are full strength!

[CTyankee]

103. I made a lot of those OWs and still do.

As you saw, it can drive you a little out of your mind. I was in the hospital for 6 weeks and 2 weeks in rehab. After my 3rd surgery, which came so close to the 2nd, I hallucinated and it was kinda funny. I do remember asking the nurse, "Is this the train from Boston?" and her soft reply "No, you are in Yale New Haven Hospital."

[MADem]

106. Gee, that exchange with the nurse sounds like a great opening line for a book!

Now, come up with a plot to follow, and you might be rich! Picture it:

Chapter I

I do remember asking the nurse, "Is this the train from Boston?" and her soft reply "No, you are in Yale New Haven Hospital." ....

Straight to the bestseller list!!!!!!!!

[CTyankee]

107. Yeah, it sure beats my other hallucination, that I was in Stop and Shop

and the nurses were cashiers checking out groceries.

I kinda liked the train scenario better...

[movonne]

23. I don't think every jewish person is a pro-Israel...just like every

American is pro-America..I'm not pro-America because I disagree with the war, corporations running our country, our torture,etc.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. No more than every southerner is a fundamentalist Christian, but the sub-set is

a key electoral bloc.

There are a lot of Dems in Florida (a sub-set of the larger Jewish vote) who will vote Dem if they have a comfort level that Israel will not be abandoned. It's not that they necessarily want war with Iran, but the are comforted by anti-Iran rhetoric.

[cali]

32. huh? What does that have to do with it?

If you're thinking she voted for K-L to woo Jewish voters in FL, think again. She already has them, and they're overwhelmingly ANTI war. She's after independents who lean repuke on national defense issues, but could be wooed.

[TwilightGardener]

14. I agree with your take on her. I don't demonize her, but that doesn't mean

I have to pretend I support her or have any warm fuzzies for her.

[Whisp]

45. no warm fuzzies here either.

but that doesn't mean I hate her personally. i don't want to know her personally to learn to hate her, or any of those others that do the same warmongering schtick over and over again in different packages. different package, same pile.

[incapsulated]

18. Yup, yup, yup

:)

[BootinUp]

55. Whats weird is people believe nothing she says

a little too cynical for me sorry.

>She is a cynical politician who will say anything, or she is war-mongering neo-con. But she can't be both!


Not at all a correct formulation.

[Think82]

73. BINGO!

MAJOR phony. The thing I object to is the people who support her because they feel like they have to rescue her from attacks, yet cannot point to a whole lot of substance for their support of her. Then they get brainwashed into thinking she's the "most experienced" candidate, which she is NOT (I think she's the 4th most experienced running in the party), and that she's "smart" and "ready." Like, the other candidates aren't? Meanwhile she completely dictates the media coverage of this race in a scary way, so that the policies and ideas that emerge from other candidates get completely overshadowed by her incredible star power. That's what frightens us who are wary of her.

[Jade Fox]

11. People who say stuff like that need to deal with their mother issues....

is what I think.

Statements like the ones you quoted imply that the person saying them knows Hilary Clinton personally. Since they don't, the feelings expressed are likely about some other woman, one that they DO know.

Anyone who has such strong personal feelings about a public figure is projecting, most likely.

[sufrommich]

80. I strongly agree,

I notice it with certain kinds of poster often. Once their reason for vilifying her has been debunked,they move the goalpost. Definitely personal.

[Colobo]

12. I agree.

[zulchzulu]

15. Those kind of comments are ridiculous

I'm not sure where that thread originates, but that is over the top.

I could list reasons why I would not support her in the primaries, but that kind of diatribe pretty much put whoever says that into the "File Under Adolescent Torpor" category.

[puffymuffins]

17. Agreed. They are ridiculous.

Especially considering she is likely and statistically our best candidiate in the presidential election. I can only hope that all our peeps will come together when she receives the nod.

[Colobo]

19. I agree the comments are ridiculous. She's a great woman and

she will have an important role in Obama's administration.

[puffymuffins]

24. Perhaps.

And if that happens, I will rally behind it. What if the reverse happens?

[Colobo]

33. I'll be there as well.

[zulchzulu]

44. Not agreed on that though...

You're willing to have your opinion on that, but I heartily disagree.

:hi:

[spag68]

16. Hillary

So, I've read all the posts and I want to know, doe's no one here think that a statement like that or others like it could possibly be rethug plants? Illigetimi non carborundum

[cali]

22. I don't think so.

Could be wrong, but my gut says these are people who who consider anyone to the right of Dennis, neocons.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

28. The irony is that there is a schism on what a pug troll would even say!

I get called out as a republican for saying kind things about the democratic front-runner because so many folks believe that republicans want to run against Hillary.

(A truly dumb theory... even if Obama were the strongest candidate in reality it is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE that the republicans would think he was. Laughable. They are rascists and base all their politics on the assumption that most Americans are also rascists. Look at how the pugs have run the last three elections and it's impossible to conclude they would be afraid to run against a black man with a foreign-sounding name who is largely undefined in the public mind.)

[Riktor]

38. Do They Really?

Admittedly, I haven't read any research on the matter, but do the Reps really want to run against Hillary? Given Bill's continually high approval ratings, you'd think they'd be shit scared to face her in a GE, and would expend a good deal of time and resources to discredit Hillary in the primary season.

Then again, if Hillary takes the GE, the cons would have another four to eight years of sitting on their asses, refusing to approve sensible budgets, and good ol' fashioned Clinton bashing.

[sendero]

50. Hillary..

... is not Bill. Get it through your head that 50% of the population hates her from years of right-wing indoctrination.

The GOP DAMN SURE wants to run against HRC, they have ALREADY GOT A BILLION DOLLARS worth of bad press and oppo research in the can.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

61. This is a Text Book example of a worthless argument

Offensive tone ("Get it through your head"), lots of CAPITAL LETTERS, outlandish hyperbole (A BILLION DOLLARS), flat assertions of opinion framed as fact (GOP DAMN SURE wants to run against HRC), and the occasional outright falsehood (50% of the population hates her).

***Bonus points in this case for the falsehood being a recycled Karl Rove statement

Actually, her favorables are pretty good for a universally known figure. Rasmussen has her favorables as higher than any Republican candidate, and the fact that her public image is well formed is an advantage. The GOP is quite good at shaping the public image of Democrats between the primaries and the conventions. (Dukakis and Kerry spring to mind.) Everyone already knows Hillary, so she limits that particular republican strong-point.

She is not a beloved figure, but she is not uncommonly unpopular either.

Behold, if you dare, the epic unpopularity of the most hated woman since Countess Bathory...

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Sept. 7-9, 2007. N=1,017 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"We'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of them. New York Senator Hillary Clinton." "New York Senator" omitted prior to June 2007.


Favorable / Unfavorable / Never Heard of / Unsure
9/7- 9/07 53 39 1 7
6/22-24/07 51 44 - 4
3/9-11/ 07 49 44 2 5
11/3- 5/06 51 40 3 7
9/22-24/06 50 45 2 4
4/21-23/06 50 42 2 6

In fairness, she has done better w/ CNN than with Gallup, but even Gallup currently has her at 51-favorable, 44-unfavorable (10/4-7/07)

http://pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hillary

[Riktor]

64. Additionally

Name recognition plays a large part in how people vote. Hillary's recognition is, in part, due to Bill's popularity. This should stick a fork into our condescending friend's neutral assertion, "Hillary is not Bill".

I would also like to add, 99% of statistics are made up on the spot... including this one. It is worth assuming that "50% of Americans already hate Clinton" statistic was birthed via a similar conception. Republicans, in general, hold a particular loathing of the Clintons, but 50% of Americans are not registered Republicans. As of 2006, there are 72 million registered Democrats as opposed to 55 million registered Republicans and 42 million registered independents. By those numbers alone, it is impossible to deduce what percentage of American voters "hates" Hillary Clinton.

Furthermore, just because the Republicans have dumped a significant level of funding into discrediting Clinton doesn't mean they actually want to face her in GE, but merely that they are planning to face her in the GE. From where the current polls stand, it wouldn't be an uninformed maneuver to plan on Hillary taking the Democratic nomination. Furthermore, the Republicans may very well be reaching out to their comrades in open primary states, perhaps hoping to knock her out of the running in favor of what they perceive to be a weaker candidate.

All we can do is speculate, but if I were chairman of the RNC, I would want to avoid running a campaign against Hillary like the plague. She has name recognition and a degree of popularity, which means certain strategies are rendered useless. Furthermore, it would produce an expensive, contentious race. The situation that would provide the RNC with the best chance for victory would be a campaign between a high-profile, popular, nominally moderate Republican (like Rudy) against a no-name, no-platform, northern Democrat (like Dodd).

[sendero]

78. The only reason..

.... HRC has a CHANCE of winning is that the Reps are in a shambles.

And if you REALLY THINK that the reason the MSM has been treating her like a fait accompli for a year now then I have a bridge to sell you.

[Sparkly]

20. Rec #3 here.

That is over the top.

[yodermon]

27. put them on ignore. stop stirring the pot.

hillary is not my first choice of candidate, so I thank you for keeping threads with "hillary" and "monster" on greatest.
:toast:

[IndyOp]

29. I strongly agree with yodermom! Put offenders on ignore and hide the threads -

Hillary is my very last choice, but I would never call her "inhuman" or a "monster" -- if we ignore such posters they will go away.

In the meantime, the more often you associate the words "Hillary" and "monster" -- well, like yodermom said...

;-)

[cali]

31. Yes of course YOU wouldn't call her a monster

you'd simply accuse her and Obama of scheming to murder millions of people. That's ever so much better. Congrats.

[IndyOp]

35. I wish the sig pic by Mr. Fish included all of the front runners -

only Kucinich and Richardson and Gravel have spoken out clearly and strongly against further use of the military in the Mideast.

I leave the Mr. Fish pic in my signature line because I want to be reminded of the dangers of electing someone else who will use our military the same way it has been used by so many Presidents since WWII -- Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II...

I strongly disagree with people who think that only Republican Presidents have used our military to commit war crimes. If we are lucky enough to get a Democrat into office we must demand better than we have gotten from the modern presidents...

[cali]

30. you're welcome.

I don't do ignore, and I don't let bigotry and ugliness stand unchallenged. What you do is what you think best. But thanks for the advice.

[BootinUp]

34. More and more DU'ers have been stepping up

like you to protest, I think it is helping. There are so many low grade forums one could go for those types of dicussions, I thought DU, a moderated forum was better than that.

[HughMoran]

36. Almost as nice as the "Hillary - AntiChrist" bumper sticker I see every day

Why would any Democrat be so hateful as to use right-wing tactics when describing their leading candidate?

Can't intelligent arguments be made as to why another candidate is better?

[CTyankee]

42. Evidently, the answer is "no" on DU.

I'm a little disgusted tonight!

[applegrove]

37. Yup!

[superkia]

39. I love all the finger pointing that is now taking place here at DU.

It gets so much more substance out there about the candidates. :sarcasm:

Here is what I think is the problem with the Clinton posts.

1 Very few ever give any good information for what she is standing up for and why she SHOULD be president.
2 Too many tell everyone to suck it up, she is the next president while Americans votes haven't been made yet. ( childish and firing people up to hate on her more.)
3 Too many are either poll results or endorsements again with nothing to add to educate anyone on why she is where she is in these polls. Just more fuel for the fire, like being in school and rubbing it in that your schools team is way ahead in the standings, firing more people up. Its ok to do if you are not one complaining about the bad posts.
4 Too many start with just a jab at her and don't provide why their candidate is better in regards to what the subject is.
5 And now, too many people posting about why the Clinton haters are getting on their nerves.



I challenge everyone to stop all of the above and start threads on why you like her or don't, with substance. Not I think she is a leader or I think she is a monster. Why is she a leader and why is she a monster. Lets see what we all have, I bet its the same old thing and we all continue our high school ways. We are all acting like children and reacting to each others childish ways of discussing politics and I don't think more posts like the OP is going to do anything to persuade anyone to stop.

I could be wrong here but I don't believe I will be seeing any posts of substance on Clinton form the Clinton supporters or the ones who don't. I think as long as people post about her already being the next president or polls with no substance, we will continue to see people doing their best to bring her down. I know that I don't want her controlling my children's future just on her speech and her vote in 2002, her continued support to fund the war throughout, her vote on the Kyle-Lieberman amendment and her vote on the patriot act. I have more but thats enough for me, so I will continue to point these truths out so more people can make an educated choice.

[dmallind]

40. Quick find me five posts from Hillary supporters

That bring up inevitability before I can find 25 from Hillary opponents who bring it up as a strawman....

[superkia]

49. Ive seen plenty of "accept it" and "president Clinton" posts...

from Clinton supporters. As for your reply, I am not defending how many of each is out there but I know both do exist and if you are implying that they both don't, obviously there is no point in trying to talk to you. Also your reply once again gives me no substance on why Clinton should control my children's future so if you want to just play the childish back and forth game on non issues...then I guess thats all we will accomplish like I have already pointed out.

[dmallind]

63. I've tried - and she's not even my first or second choice

But for every post that lists what Hillary has as far as advantages go, there are 20 that say there are no such posts, and another 20 that say she's only pretending.

[cali]

43. Good suggestion except

for the idea that its acceptable to dehumanize her and post about why she's a monster.

That kind of rhetoric is beyond the pale. And just as when I see posts containing bigotry or hate, needs to be challenged. Same goes if that kind of language is being applied to ANY of the candidates.

[superkia]

51. The monster could be a way someone describes her because of...

the part she took in the illegal war that has left a country destroyed and thousands of innocent people dead. I am not saying she is a monster so don't attack me on that, I am giving you a reason someone may use that term. None of us should comment on her in a sexist way or anything and I am not advocating anything like that. Once again my main point is that we all play this back and forth game without providing substance on why or who should be the best person to control our children's future. I have pointed out a few reasons for why I feel the way I do about her and her choices and have yet to see anything on what she is standing for, why she should be the person to represent the American people. I have many reasons why I feel Dennis Kucinich is the best candidate to represent the American people and I have posted in several posts with no response to who is standing up and speaking out for the people more than he is, like our elected officials are supposed to.

What did Clinton see that Kucinich didn't? Why did she spread Bush's propaganda about Iraq, Saddam and Al queda at a time when the war drums were being beaten so loudly from the administration? Why did she choose to vote for the patriot act and begin to attack our constitution? Why did she vote for the Kyle-Lieberman amendment at a time that the administration is once again beating the war drums? These are all valid points that I feel need to be discussed everyday so that everyone is educated on who they are choosing to control our children's future. I have not seen her answer these questions directly at all and I haven't heard any of her supporters explain to me why she did, why they support these items and why its good for my children.

I don't justify someone being electable by polls that are taken by few and ignore many Americans or by who the media chooses to pimp. I want the best for my children and I hope all parents feel the same way.

[cali]

60. No. I don't find it acceptable to dehumanize people EVER

I realize you're not calling her a monster, but you ARE trying to rationalize why someone would.

I don't find it acceptable to dehumanize Ahmadinejad. I don't even like to dehumanize Cheney, who I abhor.

And I have seen various explanations- in detail- for the things you bring up. Most I don't agree with, some I do. And I don't agree with all of your characterizations either.

As for this business about Dennis being the only elected official speaking out, that's just not true, though I agree he's the presidential candidate who's doing most of that.

[sellitman]

46. Ignore works wonders.

If someone pisses you off then just make them go away.

[cali]

47. Nope. This isn't about being pissed off.

It's about standing up to ugly bullshit. Running away from it doesn't help anything.

[beaconess]

77. You are SO right and I admire you for standing up to this crap

I wish more would speak up - it's really sad to see fellow Democrats behave this way - the only thing that keeps me from getting too frustrated is remembering that the people who are behaving this way are a small minority of Democrats and probably are anonymously projecting their bile into this board because they know their attitude is not shared by the vast majority of Democrats.

[illinoisprogressive]

48. I would not say inhuman. that suggests she has powers she doesn't have. she

is just a garden variety opportunistic, corporate republican

[cali]

52. That's not particularly trenchant criticism, but

it beats dehumanizing her. Do you understand why dehumanizing people is a lousy idea? Dehumanizing our "enemies" is a strong human impulse- and one that's better resisted.

[ShortnFiery]

54. Yeah, leave Hillary alone ...

she's done CORPORATE stuff. :P

IP, hey now. :hi:

[cali]

59. Right. I never criticize Hillary. That's why I wrote this

on another thread currently running:

I don't believe she's blood thirsty
I do believe that she's way, way too calculating and willing to do things that put us in danger to advance her candidacy.

See? No name calling and none of your fave, empty sloganeering. You should try actually finding your own words, and thinking for yourself!

[ShortnFiery]

72. Nice to see you too Cali.

:hi:

[William769]

75. You just don't learn do you?

:rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

85. Don't be jealous, it's nice to see you too William.

:hi:

[Clintonista2]

70. Perhaps your "Hillary and the wicked witch. Separated at birth?" Topic would be classified as

What the OP is talking about. If someone had 64 posts and posted the shit you do, they would be banned.

[William769]

76. Once again you show your vast knowledge of politics.

:sarcasm:

[Semper_FiFi]

53. Agreed! Some people think they can post the most vile stuff...

as long as it's an attack on Hillary. Opinions and facts are intertwined. Links are not necessary and if they are posted they are sometimes borrowed from RW sites. I am sickened by it.

Kick and recommend.

[Cameron27]

56. Good post cali,

it's amazing what hyperbolic slander is considered acceptable for Clinton, and only for Clinton. Dehumanizing, sexist and hateful insults should never be acceptable to anyone, no matter who they're supporting.

[K8-EEE]

62. It's really just a few stupid people with the freeper rhetoric

I'm an Edwards supporter but the big-bad-Hillary-the-scary-monster crap just makes me VERY :eyes:

I guess I could just put them all on the ignore list they have a way of ending up center-attention anyhow, so I just kind of :eyes: it all and go on.

Hey btw one of the freepers called another one to task for saying "vial" things about Ann Coulter! LOL! That cracked me up, at least here we say VILE things...

[opihimoimoi]

65. If anyone is inhuman and montrous...its Kathrine Harris/Rove/Billy bob Crystal, Rich Perle,

Oreally/Hannity/Rash Ass/Dicky Cheney/etc c

Collectively...they have Fucked America and are laughing all the way to the Bank...

[CitizenLeft]

92. amen

I really wish we'd save our harshest vitriol for the real enemy, and not one of our own. Hate her or not, she's still a Democrat, and if elected will work with a Democratic congress and not veto every bill they send her. The world will not end if she's elected. Conversely, the world may damn well end if Giuliani does.

[Auntie Bush]

66. Some people are trying to brainwash us. If they repeat/say it enough

we will believe it. WRONG! That MO doesn't work anymore.

[cali]

67. And that has to do with my OP in what way? n/t

[Auntie Bush]

68. Sorry you misunderstood my comment or I didn't express it very well.

I didn't mean you...I meant the folks/fools (that you quoted) who make those kind of comments are trying to brainwash us into thinking Hillary is evil.

[bvar22]

69. Giving attention to Attention Seekers is NOT the way to deal with them.

It only makes things worse.

Responding to them in threads only fuels the fire.
Starting Threads attacking them is equivalent to handing them a public award.

Nobody really believes that Hillary is a Monster, or Hitler, or Inhuman.
They DO know that if they call Hillary a "monster", they can control YOU into giving them exactly what they want.

They are adding NOTHING to DU, and threads attacking them only subtract from DU.

The only way to win is not to play.

The absolute worst thing to do is feed them, because
once again "Hillary" and "Monster" are now on The Greatest Page.
DU loses again.

[LoZoccolo]

71. Even if that were so (which it is not) I would rather elect a monster than an

elf.

[redqueen]

105. Maybe some better bait might be more effective for ya, next time.

:P

[Perry Logan]

74. Irritating as they are, the Hillary-bashers are helping the cause--creating more Hillary voters.

The anti-Hillary contingent seem blissfully unaware that they defeat their own purpose everytime they open their mouths. Kind of funny, actually.

[Tellurian]

81. The more they attempt to denigrate, the more her poll numbers rise.

[mwb970]

101. I think it's the other way around.

As her poll numbers rise the pushback, here and elsewhere, becomes louder and shriller. It's a law of physics.

[cali]

83. It's not about irritating so much

as it is about using dehumanizing language. And from self-professed liberal and progressives, I find that not only ironic but pretty shocking. As a liberal/progresive myself, it's not something I like seeing associate with liberalism.

[dave123williams]

82. I met her when she was first running for the Senate from New York

It was at the Piere Hotel on 5th Avenue, and *she* marched across the street (entourage in tow) to shake *my* hand.

"HI!", she said very assertively "I'M HILLARY CLINTON!"

To be frank, I was kind of gobsmacked. "Yes; yes you are." I managed.

It was wild...she was perfectly charming. Actually, it was more than a bit surreal, because she was *already* kind of iconic. My then girlfriend was a volunteer with the coalition for the homeless who were having an event in the hotel, and had invited me down there on the off chance I'd meet the Hil. Little did I realize I'd get the chance to chat with here for a few moments.

Monster? Please.

I'd probably vote Gore if found a good enough reason to get back in to the muck, but seriously people. A monster?

Get. A. Grip.

[niceypoo]

84. There have been a lot of DUers eating their own re: Hillary lately

Of course it happens to all the candidates but the level of vitriol towards Clinton has reached absurd levels.

[Colobo]

86. Hillary hatred is stupid and counterproductive.

She might be Our Next President.

[sufrommich]

90. I am always impressed with your class,Katzenkavalier

obviously,she's not your pick and yet,from what I've seen of your posts ,you stay on messege without taking the low road .You are a compliment to your candidate.

[mark414]

87. so a few people on an anonymous internet message board say dumb things

and your point is?

[BeyondGeography]

88. Bad language, but do we really need a steady stream of "stop being mean to Hillary" threads?

she can handle whatever is thrown at her (it's her prime asset, if you ask me) and her supporters here are among the most indiscriminate elbow-throwers on the board.

[BootinUp]

89. opinions vary on a lot of things. n/t

[cali]

91. This isn't about "bad language"

It's a larger thing for me: It's about using dehumanizing language- something I strongly abhor. Hell, I don't even like see it used with bushco, though I don't bother to go out of my way as I did here. And it's about liberals/progressives using such language.

And I am not a supporter of HRC.

[BeyondGeography]

93. Fair enough, but supposed "Hillary hatred" is also being used as a conversation killer here

and that's an even bigger problem for a liberal/progressive site that is supposed to be all about free-flowing debate.

Here's just one example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3608439

And anyone who posts a third party story that is favorable to another candidate and critical of HRC is routinely called "desperate."

Here's just one example of that:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3601985

[cali]

94. Yep. That really pissed me off.

I thought it worthy of a swift... comment. You make a good point.

[ruggerson]

96. I understand why you keep putting that disclaimer on your posts

but does it really matter in the long run? Shouldn't your OP be just as valid, even if you WERE supporting her in the primaries?

[cali]

97. Sure, and it probably doesn't make any difference anyway.

A certain crowd of people here are already convinced that I support her, and I'm doing some sort of stealth thing. In fact, they post hateful threads about me at another site. Nevertheless, the fact is, that I really don't want her as the nominee.

[abq e streeter]

98. I didn't see these

but assuming they were posted by DUers and not agent-provocateurs from the right, then they're at best ridiculous and offensive. And this is coming from an anyone but Hillary person. There's enough to civilly disagree with regarding HRC without stooping to rethuglican-style name calling and smearing.

[redqueen]

104. Did you by chance alert on the posts?

That's what we're supposed to do. Not start ANOTHER thread complaining about it.

*sigh*

[cali]

108. They weren't attacks on me

And in case it escaped your notice, I'm addressing the wider problem in my OP, and using those comments as examples.

sigh away.

[redqueen]

109. I was never under the impression they were.

Something tells me calling Hillary a monster is just as deletable as personal attacks.

And yeah, you and half the board are addressing this sort of thing, quite regularly. It's working great so far, huh? I agree with the poster upthread who tried to point out that these threads are only fueling the fire.

But hey... I won't be the only one sighin, at least! :hi:

[Norrin Radd]

110. No, no, no -- she's a human monster.

It's a joke people!