Getting sick of DUers crapping on the Clintons ...

[sjdnb]

Folks are just plain, hitting below the belt ... it's not what I'd expect here

Since JE dropped out, I've seen some truly nasty things from both sides. But, I have to say, IMO, BO's supporters have been the most active and vocal.

Just a relatively few short years ago, the same folks were outraged that the GOP would make so much of the Lewinsky thing and try to undermine BC's Presidency. They, rightly, cried foul when the GOP undermined Hillary's Health Care Initiative and went after her and Bill like a pack of wolves.

At that time, many were all 'Obama-like' about BC during the elections (Can't Stop - the hope, enthusiasm, and belief) and, subsequently, thought BC was doing a good job and the R/W attacks on both he, and Hillary, were nasty, petty, and unwarranted..

Now, the opposite is true according to many on GD-P ... BC is the devil incarnate, his Presidency sucked, and HC has 'claws'.

While I'm no fan of the current leadership, primarily due to their impotence since 2006, but, I do want a strong Dem Leadership, in whatever form(s) it takes. One that can stand up and knows how to beat the GOP handily and fight for the 94% who are repeatedly screwed over - as well as the innocents who suffer worldwide as a result of GOP corruption and malfeasance. And, I won't attack those who have served our party and country well just to score a few political points.

Now, I suspect many of us on these boards, worked hard to put BC in office, twice. Yeah, we were disappointed by the Monica thing, but given past Presidential indiscretions, it was pretty mild stuff. And, certainly did not warrant the attention paid it by the M$M and the GOP. But, their agenda was clear - especially, after the "Contract with America". But, for me, an 'old school' Dem turned 'radical' Progressive, it dismays me to hear so many so-called Dems so frequently parroting their talking points.

Now, I'm not saying Clinton supporters haven't taken shots. But, IMO, it's been primarily in response - many feeling like deer caught in the headlights. My guess is that if most old school Clinton supporters didn't fear what would happen were they to respond, that you'd hear from many more like me.

Yeah, they've not run a perfect campaign, far from it -- but, I, personally, don't think anything I've witnessed anything to date that has warranted the volume and viciousness of the attacks I've read on GD-P all too frequently.

I don't suspect much will change until the nominee is chosen, but I'm using one of my three posts to speak my peace.

In the end, I'd rather see Gore or Edwards lead the Dem ticket. I think money, back room politics, and the M$M have pretty much screwed us out of the best candidates.

But, to see those who profess to care about the principles, platform, and priorities of our party attack those who have served and want to serve further - whether you support them or not this relatively insignificant cycle, only provides the GOP with ammunition and turns off a large number of us who have been 'turned off' for more years than we care to remember.

[still_one]

1. both sides should sop doing it to each other my friend /nt

[Window]

91. Amen!

Both sides need to chill.



Peace:thumbsup:

[Morereason]

156. I don't support either of them, but I see just as much scrapping of Obama

I think it depends on what you choose to read.

Overall though, I was offended by it at first. It is overdone here, but on the other hand, I think this is just showing that people are angry and challenging the system.

As I mentioned, Obama does not excite me. But, in a way, I think it would be good if Clinton lost, because it will get the message across to the powers that be that they will not win elections unless they start paying attention to the populous. In that way I do "prefer" Obama.

But they both are too challenged ethically in my opinion.

[madamesilverspurs]

196. Especially since

watching Democrats shred one another gives Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly the jollies. Keep THAT picture in your heads, boys and girls, and if that doesn't cool your jets as you are about to type nasty. . .

[jhrobbins]

215. I really believe that we are about to 'snatch defeat from the jaws of victory'.

Democrats are notorious for the circular firing squad and it looks like we are about to hand it over to the right, once again. Please convince me I'm wrong.

[zabet]

2. K and R!!!!

:toast:

[FARAFIELD]

3. Frankly

I was for Edwards before he dropped out and it was the Clinton people who were dumping on OBAMA, and thats a fact, all this, mesmerizing and what not meme, and stuff is ludicrous. I can separate Hillary from the idiots that Bash Obama, so I would still vote for her, but honestly he is the bigger rock star and complaining about it doesnt help. From what Ive observed, eventually the OBAMA people on here got sick of you hitting their guy and are beginning to strike back, and now you say YOU are sick of it? So are all of us. Get with the program.

[Window]

93. Hear, Hear!

Peace:thumbsup:

[Hepburn]

128. Same, same.

I supported Edwards and my observations at the time are the same as yours ~~ that the Clinton supporters were the problem.

Guess the old expression applies: They can dish it, but they cannot take it.

JMHO

[youngharry]

134. dumping on Clinton

The charges oF Obama dumping on Hillary is bullshit. If anything it's the reverse, but it certain does make good propaganda by the Clinton people. I will not vote for Hillary for 3 MAIN REASONS. 1) Her vote on Iraq, 2) Her vote on Iran (Kyl-Lieberman Bill) and 3) that she has stated many times that she would not hold George W, Bush accountable for his crimes against the Constitution, the American people, the Geneva Convention, International Laws of Humanity or the lies that led us into an unprovoked and illegal War.

This is exactly what Bill Clinton did when he became President. He swept all the crimes of George H W Bush under the carpet (Iran-Contra, etc) which gave license to his criminal son the freedom to commit even more crimes. WHERE DOES IT STOP? NOW!!! Vote for Obama.

[polpilot]

185. I predict Bill & Hillary will eventually wind up in the Republican Party..

playing golf with the Bushes, support anti-U.S. worker bills like Nafta, beating the drums of war with Iran, and voting and supporting wars such as the Iraq War. Oops they already have. FORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jconner27]

234. This is why I will stay home Obama gets it

Obama funds the war,oops, Obama didn't have the guts to vote on the Iran bill oops, Obama supports NAFTA oops.. I'm starting to hate Obama supporters much as I hate Bush supporters.

[Name removed]

206. Deleted message

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

[Andromeda]

233. That's a bunch of crap.

It's just not credible, truthful and there is nothing to substantiate what you just said.

[corkhead]

153. EXACTLY! thanks for saving me the time to type the same exact response to this silly OP

:toast:

[PresidentObama]

4. Me too. I'm getting sick of DUers crapping on Democrats, as well.

And watching the staff here do patch work to try and solve the problem that does nothing in the big picture to slow down the non-sense that DU has become because of the anti-Democratic posts made daily by people who claim to be progressives and who support the progressive causes. Not saying they aren't progressives, just saying they push forward their own agendas.

It's their way, or the highway.

[route66left]

126. In my part of the country the Obama supporters ....

are not progressives at all! They're just cult followers and quite unintelligent at that. Quite laughable.

[PretzelWarrior]

217. you're so full of it to not see it's both sides

but that's typical. of a cult follower.

[buff2]

5. When I read the awful,vicious attacks on Bill & Hillary

it pretty much convinces me these are not really Democrats on our side. They sound more like Freepers and I think that's what they really are. Freepers in DU clothing.

[rodeodance]

9. did you see the several threads on Chelsea? I can not describe the vileness that took place.

[buff2]

10. Yes,I read them

I had to get off the computer before I went off on someone. I was furious. Freepers in DU clothing.

[angie_love]

16. Rodeo, please all the crap you spew about Obama, I've read your posts

And you do your candidate no favors by your disgusting posts I've seen on other threads bashing Obama to the point where you'd rather see McCain win than him if hes the nominee. Its deplorable.

[rodeodance]

41. Hi back to you sweetie

[LulaMay]

86. Who have you been reading?! Rodeo's posts are respectful and well informed

[Jamastiene]

89. Rodeo is a class act.

I don't know what the hell you are talking about.

[LulaMay]

87. I don't suppose anything should shock me now, but truly? How unconscionable

one of the worst things done to a young woman, and while campaigning for mom.

[youngharry]

142. Chelsea

Did it ever occur to anyone that these attacks are political moves designed to point a finger at Obama and have no basis in fact. IT'S AN OLD ROVE POLITICAL TRICK TO REPRESENT THAT YOU ARE FOR A PARTICULAR CANDIDATE AND THEN FLING PHONY CHARGES AGAINST THE CANDIDATE YOU'RE ACTUALLY SUPPORTING. WISE-UP PEOPLE AND DONT FALL FOR THIS KIND OF POLITICAL TRICKERY AND BULLSHIT.

[libbygurl]

111. I've stopped reading DU for a few days now because of all...

...the crap being posted here.

Attacks on Chelsea I knew were going to be inevitable. Even the mainstream press (AP) slants their stories in a negative way in their coverage of Chelsea.

[MessiahRp]

160. Sorry but Chelsea is a grown woman who chose to campaign. She is fair game just as any other

surrogates are.

That being said she made a completely asinine comment about "clairvoyance" that deserved a real smack down. She's not the little teenage girl of the 90s anymore. She's 27, grown up and if she makes a bullshit comment while campaigning it's fair game to call her on it.

Rp

[bjobotts]

211. "Fair Game"???Are you on a hunting expedition?

[MessiahRp]

216. Everybody is open for attack that campaigns. It's just the way it is and I'm sure the Clintons know

better than anybody to attack anyone who speaks against them.

Rp

[susankh4]

78. I agree.

It concerns me a great deal that the party is being infiltrated by the much touted 'independents" and "soft republicans" that have no idea what the values of the party are. But simply want to get in and vote for a populist candidate.

as a lifelong Dem I feel pretty shat upon.

[Sadie5]

167. Some are freeper

But there are others who I had the greatest respect for who are willing to do anything to kiss BOs ass,some of them are the best posters here at DU. I still don't,can't, or won't support a candidate who lacks experience, and I don't appreciate nasty language aimed my way when I do give my opinion.

[rodeodance]

6. you said it. thank you.

[jasmine621]

7. Nice to hear from you! nt

[ProSense]

8. Obama was a community organizer working to get Bill elected in the 90s. This doesn't help:

[Iceburg]

99. 1993-2002 Obama was working for Davis, Miner Barnhill & Galland,

a 12-lawyer firm that represents developers -- primarily not-for-profit groups -- building low-income housing with government funds.
Davis (the senior partner of DMB&G) later left the firm to become a for-profit developer. Rezko would eventually go into business together.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353786,CST-NWS-rezquestions23.article
Sun-Times question: Please explain what legal work the senator performed on each of those Rezmar projects. I have a copy of a legal bill showing Sen. Obama worked on the Central Woodlawn project. Please include the number of hours he spent on each Rezmar deal, the dates he worked on those deals, and to whom he reported at the firm, whether that was Allison Davis and/or William Micelli.

Obama campaign answer: Senator Obama worked on several projects in which the firm's principal client was a not-for-profit corporation. The projects entailed negotiations between the firm's primary not-for-profit client and the Rezmar-related entity that served as co-general partner or co-venturer of the not-for-profit. Once the negotiations between the not-for-profit and Rezmar-related entity were completed, the firm represented the combined entity, usually an Illinois limited partnership or Illinois limited-liability company.

The Senator, relatively inexperienced in this kind of work, was assigned to tasks appropriate for a junior lawyer. These tasks would have included reviewing documents, collecting corporate organizational documents, and drafting corporate resolutions. The Senator reported primarily to former partner Allison Davis and occasionally to William Miceli.

Q: Please provide us the date the senator went to work for the Davis Miner Barnhill firm, and the date he left.

A: Approximately Feb. 1993-Oct. 2002.

-------------
"Community organizer" is that code word for a junior document handler for realtors? Something is fishy about Obama's resume.

[indimuse]

123. Is it the 25th yet???

<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Follow the money. Obama's presidential campaign has received nearly $5 million dollars from securities and investment firms and $866,000 from commercial banks through October of 2007. Obama's top contributor so far is Goldman Sachs (provider of $369,078 to Obama), identified by Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) investigators as "a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry." Eight of Obama's top twenty election investors are securities and investment firms: Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros. (number 2 at $229,090), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (# 4 at $216,759), Citadel Investment Group (#7 at 4166,608), UBS AG ($146,150), UBS-America ($106,680), Morgan Stanley ($104,421), and Credit Suisse Group ($92,300). The last two firms are also known to be leading privatization advocates (Center for Responsive Politics 2007a).

Meanwhile, Obama's presidential run has been "assisted" by more than $2 million from the health care sector and nearly $400,000 from the insurance industry through October of 2007 (Center for Responsive Politics 2007b). Obama received $708,000 from medical and insurance interests between 2001 and 2006 (Center for Responsive Politics 2007c). His wife Michelle, a fellow Harvard Law graduate, was until a recently a Vice President for Community and External Affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals, a position that paid her $273, 618 in 2006 (Sweet 2007).

And Obama's sixth largest contributor is Exelon, the proud Chicago-based owner and operator of more nuclear power plants than any entity on earth (Center for Responsive Politics 2007a).

Go figure.

As for his "lobbyist ban," last August the Los Angeles Times reported that Obama "raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation's capital." Campaign finance expert Stephen Weissman observed that this raised troubling questions about the practical relevance of Obama's much-ballyhooed pledge to turn down donations from "federal lobbyists."

"Obama's rise to national prominence and presidential viability, Helman discovered, depended significantly on PAC and lobbyist money."

<<<snip>>>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4355200

Captain_Nemo (917 posts) Sat Feb-02-08 06:53 PM
Original message
Obama, cheney's energy bill, Rezmar (Rezko), Iraq nuclear power plant. Lend me your ear and brain.
Obama voted for Cheney's energy bill - a giveaway to oil companies. Hillary voted no.

Rezko has a company called Rezmar. They are partnered with a British firm to build an Nuclear power plant in Iraq. Just asking...how come the MSM hasn't asked him about this. further, how come the obama supporters haven't?

http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?storyid=10211...

MENAFN - 31/07/2005

(MENAFN) Rezmar Corp., a real estate development company entered into a joint venture with a British firm in a $150-million deal to build a power plant in Iraq.

The contract, signed with Iraq's ministry of electricity, calls for joint venture to supply power to Iraq for 10 years, according to a spokesman for Chicago-based Rezmar.

The 250-megawatt power plant is slated to be one of three power plants under construction at the same time. A Brazilian firm and an Iraqi company are building the other two.

The Rezmar joint venture will be based in Jordan. Construction is slated to begin this fall.

[Morereason]

157. LOL, Obama attacks right in the middle of this discussion of how the Clintons are attacked.

Hillarious

[desertflamingo]

164. hmmm...

can you explain to me why that information is an "attack?" really. do you SERIOUSLY think the repubs will NOT find this information? really? dreamer AND big baby.

[Colobo]

11. So Clinton supporters are just victims? BS.

[Dr. Strange]

129. Yes. The Clintons are the only victims of this stuff.

Let us now genuflect to our overlords.

[Lisa0825]

12. It goes both ways, and comes in waves.

At times it is mostly Clinton supporters are all over GD: P. At times it is mostly Obama supporters. I think it is human nature to let our own opinions cloud our views. I think Clinton supporters are less likely to notice when there are a lot of attacks on Obama (or get riled up at any perceived slight at Clinton), and the same thing is true of Obama supporters regarding posts about Obama.

It pisses me off when people say Obama supporters are the worst or whatever, because believe me, I have seen plenty of bullshit posts from Hillary's crew. Lets just all be honest and say both sides do it and not try to demonize the other side.

[Triana]

13. K & Damn R...

..Here, Here. Couldn'ta said it better myself.

[hfojvt]

14. we are even then because I was sick of Clintons crapping on progressives

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/71

It's not really about Monica. It's also not about the "94% that gets screwed over." That statement sounds so Clintonesque. As if the people in the 70-94% group get screwed just as much as the people in the below 30% group. So Clinton policies offer help to that 70-94% group and only offer trickle-down to the below 30% group.

The Clintons have betrayed and subverted the principles of this party as much as they have served them. That they want to betray them further is to me, a valid source of attacks.

[sjdnb]

19. In 1999, this is what BC/the DLC hosted ...

The Third Way Progressive Governance for the 21st Century Round Table:

"The Third Way philosophy seeks to adapt enduring progressive values to the new challenges of he information age. It rests on three cornerstones: the idea that government should promote equal opportunity for all while granting special privilege for none; an ethic of mutual responsibility that equally rejects the politics of entitlement and the politics of social abandonment; and, a new approach to governing that empowers citizens to act for themselves."

"On questions of values, it embraces "tolerant traditionalism," honoring traditional moral and family values while resisting attempts to impose them on others."

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=85&subsecID=109&contentID=895

BC was a progressive, were it not for the GOP majority in Congress, things would have been much different. But, because things were the way they were compromises were made -- they had to be -- or, nothing would have been done for us.

[hfojvt]

36. is that supposed to be a defense

because Clinton and the DLC use the word progressive and then define it to mean something much closer to laissez-faire? "empowers citizens to act for themselves". In other words, drowning people will get swimming lessons rather than life preservers.

As for compromises, it does not seem like Clinton was standing with Congressional Democrats forcing Republicans to move to the left as a compromise decision. Rather it seemed like he was starting from the 'center' and thus pulling the compromise to the right.

[ElboRuum]

186. Oh, please.

Histrionics about the Clintons no longer impress me. Look at the facts, any animosity toward the Clintons seem to be mired in things like NAFTA and the DCMA and the allowing of consolidations of media markets, her voting on the IWR and Kyl-Lieberman, oh, and by the way, they're establishment.

All of those bills came to pass and yes the Clintons are establishment.

I support Obama now, but not for the "sins" of Bill Clinton or by entertaining the idea that Hillary is "establishment" where Obama is not.

Look, the question IS academic, but consider Bill Clinton's presidency for what it might have been had he not had the Congress suddenly go to the Republicans 2 years into his term. We complain about it now because the opposition party is so obstructionist, and that they used a complete red herring to help undermine, not Bill Clinton, but Gore's presidential bid... to cast doubt on the remaining vestiges of Democratic influence in Washington. Now imagine that you are a President who got the job and 2 years in was in severe danger of becoming not only a lame duck, but a strangled albatross. Once the Republicans got control of Congress you may officially write off any truly progressive legislation, and rather than letting the economy continue to tank on his watch, did what he could to get what he needed pass but had to make a few concessions along the way. You think the Republicans gave one real shit about the economy upturning? They would have sold us out long ago just to make sure it didn't happen on Clinton's watch. They wouldn't have given Bill any latitude to do his job unless they got a few pillars of their PNAC project put into place. Bill says no to the barter, the economy continues to flounder, and he ends up in the "terrible modern-day Democratic leaders" bin along with Jimmy Carter, which allowed 12 years of Reagan-Bush, OR he says yes to the barter, and gives the Republicans the necessary tools to do the same thing 8 years later. But at least he can do something.

It was lose-lose for Bill Clinton in 1994 and a part of us that we all have that we don't like to talk about at parties regardless of the President he was knows this. Seeing what big application of tar and feathers Republicans gave him to make sure that every person in their base treated his name like the evil that doth not speak its name, it was clear that they were using what amounts to nothing really to affect the next election. Fortunately, good old "Slick Willie" was slick enough to minimize the damage to the party that the Republican Revolution could have inflicted on the Democratic Party. Gore, while not running the strongest campaign I've ever seen, posted numbers good enough to require actual election theft in order to allow Bush the "victory."

Now during all of this... what amounts to bullshit on an order I've never seen attempted in federal politics... Hillary Clinton uses her position of First Lady to engage a dialogue on what can be done about the idea of universal health care. Now, granted, with no actual power in that position, the Republican Smear Machine kicks into 5th gear and starts whining about her influence, as though this was the first time that a politically active woman had the ear of the president... I can at least remember Eleanor Roosevelt having such influence over FDR, and maybe that's why the Republicans saw such a threat in her.

Anyway, what people say about Hillary, to me, seem a bit presumptuous. I for one wouldn't mind another Clinton presidency, because, honestly, I don't really think we had a first one.

Nevertheless, it would be stupid of me to recognize the polarizing nature of such a Presidency. But this isn't a valid reason for attacks. In fact, I can see no valid reason for attacks, debate yes, attacks no. The Clintons have not betrayed the principles of the party. The party isn't here for our own progressive ideals alone. There are plenty of people who are derisively called moderates who are registered Democrats who just don't see the principles of this party in the same light. To lay claim to those principles as they are ours and ours alone would be presumptuous and wrong.

What I do believe is that the ship of state is on the verge of capsizing. No one of any moderate or liberal bent can be honestly satisfied with how the custodianship of the Constitution or the people under its protection are being treated under the current administration, or its cronies in the Congress. However, I emphatically reject the insinuations that the Clintons and Hillary specifically are a member of these cronies, either in action, word, or spirit. I believe both are sincere in their intent on being, first and foremostly, an agent for positive change in our nation's capital.

However, right now, I believe, equally sincerely that Barack Obama is our strongest candidate, can rally the natural optimism of the Democratic party, and has more credibility as a "man of the people". But if Hillary gets nominated, I'm voting for her.

[youngharry]

193. Oh Please

ElboRuum,
Great, thoughtful analysis. You exhibit depth of knowledge that most people on sites like this lack. Congratulations. Keep giving us your thoughts.

[saracat]

15. Bravo. I have to agree . And it is very true that nothing has matched the Obama supporters for

viciousness. I entered into this campaign season really not being a fan of Hillary. I didn't care for some of her "tactic's" and didn't care for her hiding behind Bill. She also had some of what I perceived as very obnoxious supporters who really turned me off. My candidate was Edwards.As the race has gone forward, Obama has really caused me to dislike him and his positions.His "tactics"' have been far worse than Hillary's and I have never ever seen such viciousness and sexism directed toward an opposition candidate of the same party. Clinton is hammered for everything real and imagined, while Obama is given a "pass" no matter what his behavior of that of his supporters. Thank you for a truthful and courageous thread!
As a result of all the boorishness, I have become what I never dreamed I would be, a Hillary Clinton supporter.Of the remaining candidates , she is the only one I would even consider voting for in November.

[Auntie Bush]

61. I'm beginning to love people who think like you!

:hug: I hope John supports Hillary. I know they don't(?)/didn't(?) like her...but she's a far cry better than what you get from Rock Star Obama and his cult like see no evil supporters. Also, Obama appeals to the richer folk and Hillary appeals more to the poorer people. There is a reason for that. She'll stick up for the poor and I hope Edwards will realize that and not succumb to Obama's being more likely to win this election. I have faith in John!

[rodeodance]

77. chuckle. --but glad you are on board.

[Dinger]

150. Wow, Same Here!

Thanks for the post!:hi:

[Andromeda]

241. Happy to have you on board, saracat...

:hi:

[amborin]

17. the vehemence of attacks on Hillary Clinton is unbelievable

..people are mouthing right wing talking points to bash a great progressive democrat with a solid record of progressive accomplishments

i've even seen obama supporters write that, if Hillary gets the nomination, they will not support her....this is so childish, so anti-progressive, so nasty.....

who are these obama supporters? why their vitriol?

i feel the need to defend Hillary from their vicious posts

[Cardboardurinal]

220. Please inform me as to what...

her so-called "accomplishments" are. I have seen nothing in her record that has pushed me to support her.

At the same time, I must note that I do not support Obama either. All the candidates I would have supported have dropped out of the race (Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd, Biden, Richardson in that order). I haven't seen one ounce of leadership from Obama or Hillary. I don't see them using the bully pulpit of being the front-runners for the presidency for anything other than self-serving reasons.

Earlier in the primary, I had vowed that had Hillary gotten the nomination, I would abstain, as I could not bring myself to vote for a Republican, from the Presidential spot. I am very close to vowing to abstain if Obama gets it too...but before people get too upset with me for not supporting the nominee, I live in a very safe blue state where it won't be close, especially if Obama gets the nomination (he won by over 30 points).

But I will go back to my earlier point...what has Clinton done with her "35 years of experience," that shows what kind of leader she would be?
So you don't believe that I am a right-wing "freeper," to me, Hillary has shown herself to be too calculating for my comfort. I believe that she will, like her husband did, use right wing talking points and issues ("The era of big government is over," Telecom Deregulation, trade, DOMA, Don't ask don't tell, not pursuing Bush 41's crimes, line-item veto, I could go on ad nausem) in order to win in 2012, foregoing a larger Democratic majority.

[LadyVT]

18. Oh, yeah, I post anyway, but I do feel intimidated...

so much for "unity" and "change"...

[nvme]

192. your fear

your fear is within yourself, for what can someone to with "just words or empty rhetoric"

[goldcanyonaz]

20. Thanks for posting this. Sometimes I have to double check the forum's name.

[DemGa]

21. Obama embraced the right-wing machine's attacks right off the bat

It truly comes from the top down.

[NastyRiffraff]

22. Thanks for this

It's amazing that people forget how much good the Clinton presidency did. Record new jobs, a huge surplus, record-low unemployment and poverty rates, rise in real wages (from declines under Reagan and Bush) among other things. Sure, there were things that could have been improved, and there was the stupid Monica thing. But overall, it was a good eight years in comparison to anything any Republican president has done.

Hillary Clinton isn't perfect, but she's far from being the devil. Obama has his flaws too.

[RaleighNCDUer]

65. You allow credit to Bill for the booming tech economy of the 90s

while ignoring NAFTA (and the resultant job flight, importing of foreign labor), the Telecom bill (resulting in the consolidation of all the major US media into only 5 companies, giving us McNews), the ignoring of Reagan/Bush crimes (with the effect of them all coming back at the end of that 8 years, while losing congress to the republicans for the next 12 years)...

I won't bother to continue - you've heard all the arguments against the Clinton legacy, and chosen to ignore them.

Let's just leave it with "those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it".

[paulk]

207. I was hearing this argument from the right wing

all through the nineties - that the Clinton economy was the result of the dot com boom, that Clinton had nothing to do with it, that it was the Republican Congress that was responsible for the good times.

Amazing to hear this same stuff being mouthed now to attack Clinton's presidency, and coming from supposed Democrats.


Your post is exactly what the OP is talking about.


Bottom line - you engage in this crap - you carry water for the RNC.

[RaleighNCDUer]

245. The republican congress was no more responsible for the good

times than Bill Clinton was.

Try Steve Jobs. Bill Gates. The tech boom entrepeneurs who would have done what they did regardless of who was in the White House or who controlled Congress.

And the Republican congress was as responsible for NAFTA and the telecom bill as Clinton was - but I didn't see him vetoing them. Why do you think he was called the best republican president since Eisenhower?

He did a lot of things right, but that doesn't give him cover for rolling over for the republicans as much as he did. No, that's wrong. He didn't roll over for them - he was in complete cooperation with them, as it fits his DLC neo-lib strategy.

I want a real democrat this time around.

[canadian_is_cold]

236. Who is running for president.

I do not think anyone has 'forgotten' how great the 90's were. Or all of the good BILL Clinton did while in office, or even the mistakes he made. The Point is he is not running for president. His wife is. She was never leader of the free world. I for one am getting sick of her trying to take credit for all of the good work BILL did while in office.

I only recall her really trying to get one thing done while BILL was president, and from what I remember she failed to get The Clinton health care plan passed when she functioned as chairwoman of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform. She could not get it done then... I wonder why anyone thinks she can get the same universal health care plan approved now?

[NJmaverick]

23. You expect ed the Clintons to deploy Rovian tactics

and everyone was supposed to smile and support them? Where do you live fantasy land?

[sjdnb]

28. Give me an example of a Rovian tactic, please.

Cuz, to date, I've just seen a bunch of exaggerations supported by statements taken out of context.

[Laurab]

38. Cocaine use= possible dealing - Obama is a Muslim ring any bells?

Emails about that from the Clinton camp; when apologizing for the cocaine comments, fitting "used cocaine" into the apology several times. Bob Kerrey's remarks about how he'd love to see Barack HUSSEIN Obama, who attended a MUSLIM madrassa et al......

Taken out of context? No. They were what they were - Rovian tactics. The rumors are still circulating around the internets - fortunately they backfired on the campaign.

[sjdnb]

66. Forward me one ... I've not seen it

not from the campaign ... just a lot of innuendo blaming the campaign for something never sent out or endorsed by them.

[Laurab]

70. I don't want to be rude, but why should I?

Do a google search yourself. You asked for examples, I gave them to you. If you don't know they happened, you don't spend much time on DU. Check out DU videos, do a Google search, search old threads. People got fired over the Muslim email, I believe, but it doesn't necessarily mean they weren't campaign-approved - they just got caught. The cocaine apology was, I believe Mark Penn, although I'm not positive, and you can also search for Bob Kerrey.

I'm sure there are more examples, too - those were just off the top of my head, and they are all here on DU somewhere.

[creeksneakers2]

83. Those are the kind of accusations that anger me

Muslim E-mail? A few volunteers sent a handful of E-mails to other campaign people. There was no intent whatsoever to spread the story around. Hillary had nothing to do with it. The volunteers who sent the E-mails were fired.

This isn't about E-mails. Its about taking some tiny little thing and twisting the facts to make Hillary look like a witch. Its about accusing Hillary with no evidence of something she would never be stupid enough to do.Its the kind of thing that can be called "shitting on the Clintons" and lots of people are sick of it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

73. You're kidding, right?

[Rockholm]

127. These are things that the RW is spewing out.

On a professional board that I am a member of, there is a political discussion board. One guy got kicked out the other day because he was spewing RW shit about cocaine, some 1999 limo ride, Hussein this and Hussein that. This was a FReeper and he was called on it.
I honestly do not believe that Clinton supporters are putting this out there. If they are, shame on them.

[NJmaverick]

45. Hillary's false attacks suggesting Obama was soft on pro-choice

Bill's attempts to stir of racial tension in SC

Hillary's attack adds in Wisconsin

Do I need to go on?

[sjdnb]

68. More misrepresentations of the facts that suit your candidate

I'm in WI -- you're obviously not. Cuz, if you were and wanted to point to attack ads ... it would not be Hillary you'd be citing.

[NJmaverick]

103. Ever hear of youtube- You can't lie to me, because I have seen

the ads. Nice try though, the Clintons and Rove would be proud of you.

[Herman74]

227. That mention of "Rove" was hitting below the belt...

...c'mon let's be fair (in addition to being nice to our fellow Democrats). For what it's worth, like you I'm an Obama supporter.

[sjdnb]

69. Cite please, cuz

Even Jesse Jackson got that the SC comment was not a race thing ... even though Obama supporters continue to attempt to use it for political advantage.

And, btw, I'm in WI -- you're obviously not. Cuz, if you were and wanted to point to attack ads ... it would not be Hillary you'd be citing.

So far you're batting 0 for 2 in the bash anyone who isn't on my side game. Good luck with that.

[NJmaverick]

102. Here is a video you need to watch

It goes into careful details of all of the Clinton's Rovian tactics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdDzvmY1XPo&eurl=http://accidentalideas.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/lawrence-lessig-explains-his-support-for-barack-obama/

[creeksneakers2]

84. Bill did not attempt to spread racial tension in SC

The Clintons want black votes and would need them in the fall to win. Why would they want to create racial tensions? Hillary went to Obama for a truce to stop all the fighting. Another example of the Clintons being shit upon.

[NJmaverick]

101. He wanted to spread it amoung the white voters

Not the black

[creeksneakers2]

144. Are white Democrats all racists?

How would angering blacks help the Clintons with white Democrats?

[hiaasenrocks]

155. That's sort of the point.

The Clintons, being longtime members of the party establishment, take black voters for granted. It wasn't much of a gamble for them to play a race card in January and figure that by November the black vote would fall into place, in their experience anyway.

I live in SC and I can tell you that a few black people I know saw Bill's comments as race-baiting.

So the gamble didn't really pay off. But that's politics; you take chances and win some and lose some. The Clintons lost that one.

[creeksneakers2]

170. That's nuts

Everybody knew Hillary had a problem getting black support by the time South Carolina came around. The Clintons never took black support for granted.

[Andromeda]

237. The Clinton's never took black voters

for granted AND they never made racist comments in an attempt to minimize Obama. Clinton didn't say "Well, Obama will win SC because he is black and to prove it Jesse Jackson won in SC in 1984 and 1988."

Anybody with a brain could figure out that Obama would probably do real well in SC. You didn't have to be a genius to figure that out and to pretend that voting blocs like black, white, young, old, educated, uneducated, blue collar and white collar don't matter is disingenuous to the max.

Obama used Bill Clinton to slap voters in the face and accuse them of race-baiting. Obama saw an opportunity and he used it to his advantage.

Bill Clinton also added that Jesse Jackson ran a good campaign. Jesse Jackson, himself, said that he didn't think there was anything wrong with what Bill Clinton said.

The media ran with it because they love to dump on the Clintons. MSM has traditionally trashed the Clintons because they hate the Clintons and THAT is common knowledge.

[sjdnb]

24. Maybe if this is K&R'd enough and others post their thoughts

about how they feel, people will get the message. So far, the tit for tat stuff has only fanned the flames.

[Drunken Irishman]

25. Getting sick of DUers crapping on the Obamas...

Oh, but I bet you're not, right?

[ErnestoG]

37. Well put.

[sjdnb]

44. Did you read what I wrote? or just assume you knew cuz that came more naturally?

Proving once again, that anything pro-Clinton will be seen as Anti-Obama by his supporters.

Even when it's not.

[Drunken Irishman]

67. I guess I tire of hearing how everyone picks on Clinton.

Clinton is the only one shit on here. Obama supporters are all assholes, ripping our party apart and using Republican talking points. Yet maybe if Clinton supporters would look into the mirror, they'd see many of them are no different than the people they attack.

Clinton gets attacked and it's wrong. Obama gets attacked and they're "vetting" him.

Yeah, that makes sense.

[truedelphi]

173. If only Clnton supporters would stop and think about

the significance of how Carville (Hillary's paid servant) whispered into Kerry's ear the day after the Nov 04 election, convincing him that there were not enough votes in Ohio to demand every vote there be counted, and thus ensuring Bush on board for the past four yeaars, if the Clinton voters cannot grasp the significance of that, I say "F--- 'em."

Voting activists now beleive that there were 400,000 ballots that went uncounted - more than enough to make up the gap of Bush's 138,000 "margin of victory".

[Trajan]

26. The attacks on Obama have been just as awful ....

I say that as a supporter of BOTH camps ....

[sjdnb]

29. Maybe so, but, one of the folks getting crapped on was a damn good

President IMO ... given the attacks and challenges he had to overcome.

And, as someone who worked their butt off to get him and Gore elected twice, the nasty assaults on his Presidency are disturbing, to say the least.

[Trajan]

32. The playing field of life should be even ....

No preference (as far as being respectful or decent) should be offered or given to either side ....

I expect BOTH sides would be decent and tolerant towards the other, bar none .....

Surely, their policy differences should be exposed .... but the out and out ugliness (above and beyond policy issues) should not be allowed ....

[rodeodance]

43. Yes, so many are so willing to forget the good things.

[Recursion]

190. That's the debate we never had as a party, I think

I don't think he was a damn good President; I think he might as well have been working for the GOP.

[Hill_YesWeWill]

27. agreed, nobody should crap on anybody

that's just impolite!

:hurts:

[jgraz]

30. How do you feel about pissing on them?

I'm willing to be flexible.

[Hill_YesWeWill]

33. LOL!! nt

[ErnestoG]

31. Get over it. People are icing up on the Clintons and their sense of entitlement.

[sjdnb]

34. They came from nowhere ... that is what I don't think many of today's DUers understand

They were not the establishment ... but, Bill had ideas, intellect, and a vision.

But, when they got to DC, reality (aka the beltway, followed by the 'Contract with America') took over and they had to adjust their goals.

And, still, BC was able to stave off a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, grow the economy in a way that benefited the middle class, and strengthen education and other domestic programs, while ending the genocide in Kosovo without one US troop being lost in battle.

Yet, now, because of some dumb ass primary, in which all truly progressive candidates have been tossed to the curb, it's open season on the Clintons.

[ErnestoG]

35. BILL is not HILL. Understand the difference.

[sjdnb]

40. Yet, he is being attacked as if they are interchangeable

And, she is attacked for statements he makes on the campaign trail.

You can't have it both ways.

[sjdnb]

42. Oh, and then there is that little Iraq thing ....

Where BC kept Saddam in check with minimal engagement, causing Rice and Powell to admit - before they changed their tune, that he had been 'contained' and was not a threat.

And, now, as we all know he wasn't. Thank you, Bill Clinton.

And, thank you for capturing, trying, and convicting those responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center attacks. Far more than GW's done - with far less support, loss of life, or $$s spent.

[ErnestoG]

50. You mean that little IWR thing of Hillary's?

Yeah. The thing that's going to be fashioned into a pitchfork to punch little holes all through her in a GE.

[sjdnb]

55. She was there, several other primary candidates were not

No one can know for sure how they would have voted ... and, the honest ones have admitted as much.

[ErnestoG]

71. thanks for admitting she enabled Bush's faux war.

[ErnestoG]

48. Stop acting as if Bill is running again. HE AINT.

And here's another news flash: Hillary is no Bill, and never will be.

[high density]

49. Of course Hillary is held accountable for statements Bill makes

The good comes with the bad. The Clinton campaign already floated that "Hillary + Bill" lead balloon in January and it didn't work out so well. That's her fault. Now a few weeks later it's coming out again, and the idea is still not appealing to the voters.

[NMMatt]

82. Wasn't there an "Obama's wife is mysoginist" thread

So Bill's off limits, but he is allowed to attack. Same with Chelsea. However Michelle Obama is fair game. Gotcha.

I see the Clinton supporters follow Clintonian rules - i.e. the rules only apply to other people or no longer apply when it doesn't serve their best interests.

[mtnsnake]

39. The same freepers on DU that have been shitting all over the Clintons

will disappear soon after the Primaries are over and come back to re-infest DU under new indentities to shit all over Obama if he wins the nomination.

If Hillary wins, they'll just stay and continue crapping all over her as normal.

[stevietheman]

56. No, I really am an Obama supporter just laying out the truth about Mrs. Inevitable.

But if Hillary gets the nom, and she's doesn't get it through FL/MI/SD cheating, she'll get my vote in November. I promise.

[Mizmoon]

138. Hillary Clinton is a Senator

Calling her "Mrs." is a right wing tactic and I'm not a bit surprised to find DUers using it. This primary has been a devisive disgrace.

[stevietheman]

151. Hillary is a "Mrs." -- this is absolute fact... how can this be "right wing"? n/t

n/t

[intheflow]

232. So you don't believe in calling a president "Mr. President"?

She is married, that maks her a Mrs. in the English language. She, you and I may prefer she be called "Ms." or "Senator" but she is still also "Mrs. Clinton." That's not sexist or RW.

[noiretextatique]

201. exactly...people should stop falling for it eom

[democrat_nanny]

222. Or they'll just disapper in general...

...after getting him nominated. And they'll leave a bunch of burned out Clinton supporters with the daunting task of getting their guy elected against the Republican slime machine. But hey, they VOTED!!!! so who cares if they never pay attention again? They had more important things to do in October like...Halloween?

[high density]

46. What another joke of a thread. Deer caught in headlights?

"Now, I'm not saying Clinton supporters haven't taken shots. But, IMO, it's been primarily in response - many feeling like deer caught in the headlights."

Now why are they feeling like a deer caught in headlights? Is it Obama's wins, or what? Should we stop voting for Obama so that Clinton advocates feel better? Both sides have been spewing GOP talking points, so I don't see why HRC or Obama supporters would be any more likely to be "in the headlights" than the other.

[sjdnb]

47. Obviously, we see things differently

I respect your right to disagree. And, further, I will not make light of your comments with a dismissive subject line, because that would just be rude and unproductive.

[high density]

53. Sorry about being tired of people

acting like they're above the fray, who then go on to say that the problem is really to be blamed on the other side. These threads are a dime a dozen here.

[sjdnb]

59. All I said, basically, was that BC wasn't the devil and HC didn't have claws

Based on my experience in both BC campaigns and closely following his Presidency and her candidacy.

I just don't thing they are as evil as some might like to portray them to be.

[ErnestoG]

52. Getting sick of the Clintonesque sense of entitlement. THE PARTY'S OVER

[creeksneakers2]

85. There is no sense of entitlement

There never was. All that is made up and just another BS reason to slander the Clintons.

[Donnachaidh]

131. and what about OBAMA's sense of Entitlement?

If the average reader here was to draw conclusions from the childishly inane postings of some of his supporters he's "already" won -- and now we all should just sit back and watch him as he waves his hand across the land and POOF, the miracles will happen.

The MINDSET of the cult member and the tools of a Rovian repuke is what sets MANY of the *other choice* candidates AGAINST your candidate. So how do you answer that? You continue to name-call, REFUSE to answer real questions on Obama's policy. And when this is pointed out, the inevitable posting of:

"But HILLARY started it!"

It's SHAMEFUL the levels of ignorance and HATE showing up on this board - all under the banner of the CANDIDATE OF CHANGE.

[nonconformist]

51. K & R! Very well said. nt

[Danger Mouse]

54. Oh bullshit. Both sides are doing their fair share of INSTIGATION.

And don't try to tell me 'it's in response' i've seen plenty of threads started by both sides that are purely designed to attack.

[sjdnb]

57. I respectfully disagree ... I wrote my opinion -- but, swear at me if you must

it seems to make some folk feel better to curse out others.

And, if I can make you feel better for cursing at me - go for it, I can take it.

[Danger Mouse]

60. I curse a lot. It's my nature.

I apologize if it offends you.
So your perception is different from mine.
That's all it is, a matter of perception.

[Political Heretic]

58. Twenty years of Clintush is enough.

[oasis]

62. Ugly, untrue remarks about the Clintons have said more about the posters. (eom)

[libbygurl]

110. Very true. It reflects more on the posters than on the object of their attacks, methinks. nt

[TheDonkey]

63. I'm getting sick of the Clinton's crapping on America and Democrats

[sjdnb]

64. And, just how do you propose they've done so ... cuz, for a lot of us who worked our butts off to

get BC elected, we don't get your hatred for him (and, Hillary, as you've chosen to merge them) ... or what he/they did in office.

So, enlighten us with facts ... not just catchy phrases or platitudes, please.

[ErnestoG]

72. The BC years were great. But Hill is no BC.

the times are different now. When will you Hillarbots get that?

[bluhoodie]

146. And Hill is no W. Be grateful for any improvement

Yeah, "the times are different now." HRC is no Bush/Cheney, so that's an enormous plus. Your bitching and moaning isn't going to make any difference in who eventually gets the nomination, so why waste energy comparing her to her husband? HRC is no BC, but maybe she's learned some good things from being around during his terms. Ya think maybe she could bring some good qualities of her own to the table?

Just sayin'.

[1awake]

74. I mainly agree with your post,

But the days of it being one sided in here are long gone. All you have to do is look up above and read and it becomes evident there really is NO difference between the O crowd and the H crowd. There are people who support Obama who seem to live to beat up on Hillary supporters.. there are just as many Hillary supporters who seem to live to beat up on Obama supporters. We see that which we wish to see.. all of us.

I support Obama, but I could just as easily support Hillary. And I am tired of both sides lumping everyone together.. having contests of which side can think up the most dumbass names for each other, who can twist the facts the fastest, and who can ruin our parties chances in the GE. I'm tired of seeing vicious posts, and I'm even more tired of seeing the same post done by a copycat in reverse. I'm tired of news articles being snipped by both sides where they accidentally leave out the parts that make what appears to be madness, make better sense. I'm tired of people being accused of being hacks, freepers, cultists, elitists, sell outs, RW, and all the other names slung at both sides nonstop.

And.. I'm sick of the people who say it's normal.. or a good thing so get use to it.. grow a pair.. they started it first.. and use excuses to normalize their self-centered venomous bullshit to one up those who a month ago were their friends and or ally.

It's got to stop soon or we will drag each other down to the point of irrelevance.

[Lisa0825]

166. Great post!

I have said similar things many times, but the "It's all the _____ fault" posts just keep on coming.

[barbtries]

179. this should be a post of its own n/t

[PetraPooh]

75. The Clintons are crapping on themselves.

[Political Heretic]

76. DUers getting sick from not crapping

[From The Left]

79. The Clintons Are Crapping on Themselves

They're ruthless, calculating, power-addicted monsters.

[Andromeda]

242. Typical baseless, unsupported, ignorant accusations

from the quasi-liberal end of the political spectrum not resembling the basic platform(s) of the Democratic party.

[Perry Logan]

80. Clintophobes are certainly compulsive. I don't think they could shut up if they tried.

[From The Left]

147. Pot, Meet Kettle

Bump

[NMMatt]

81. We're just making sure that Hillary is properly "vetted."

[Speciesamused]

88. Freedom of Speech!! If you cannot

stomach it stop reading it. Same goes for books, movies
and anything else you find offensive.
"Censorship is an almost irresistible impulse when you know you are right. But when we
look back at all that used to be seen as the truth, we know that we must keep a free
market of ideas open. The best test of truth is the ability to get accepted in the market.
" ---- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
Peace

[Jamastiene]

90. Uhm...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

"Discussion Forum Rules
These are the basic rules. For a detailed explanation of how we enforce these rules, please click here.

Last updated November 7, 2005.
1. This is a moderated discussion forum with rules. We have a team of volunteer moderators who delete posts and ban disruptors. Members are strongly urged to familiarize themselves with our rules, and make an effort to become a positive member of our community. Those who do not risk having their posts deleted or their posting privileges revoked.

2. 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..."

<snip>

The rules state that we are moderated and we should support Democratic candidates...

[TZ]

92. I'm not a HRC supporter but there is a LOT of unfair crap thrown at her

HOWEVER, it does not help when HRC supports call Obama a misogynist because he said she gets "periodically down". Un-fucking-believable.
Both sides here in GDP (and I am pro-Obama) have become ridiculous. To criticize HRC is NOT equivalent to being a sexist or misogynist. Just like criticizing Obama does not make one a racist.
Hateful hyperbole comes from BOTH camps and IMHO is a total embarrassment to the democratic party!!
:grr:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

94. and by her.

[joeybee12]

95. K&R..and too bad so many BO supporters are using your thread...

...to continue their shit.

[MethuenProgressive]

96. A great many DU members are victims of the GOP's propaganda machine.

The rest of us don't hate the Clintons.

[kentj44]

97. have you seen bill's antics

over the weekend?one does not have to dump on the clintons they are doing a pretty good job of it themselves.i mean is this the way bill will behave if hilary is president?is he running or is she running?is he trying to change or justify his legacy?you see the clintons think,thought they had the right to the presidency untouched,it my right the presidency ms. clinton assumes.wrong she voted for a war,that i can't forgive her for,and if she steals this elerction obama can rest easily that she will not win the presidency,obama can see to that,she needs obama.

[tekisui]

98. I'm getting sick of the Clintons.

And I used to like them.

[bluerum]

100. I think that we also have some freeper types joining in the fray to instigate

on behalf of both and all sides.

When I see long lists of FAUX and M$M talking points peppered with invectives like "I am divorcing so and so..." being hurled back and forth, I laugh to myself.

I feel like if we really believe this manufactured BS, we are not in much better shape than those who believe the lies produced by GOP spin machines.

[Vinca]

104. I'm sick of people crapping on Obama and his supporters.

For the first time in decades, the younger generation has been drawn out of their holes and are involved and interested and you're horrible to them. If they don't fall in line behind the "right" candidate they're all sorts of bad things.

[Medusa]

106. I'm beginning to think it may involve a bit of class warfare

I saw an old Demo yesterday on another board refer to the Obama crowd as "latte sipping, McMansion owning, SUV driving, "spoiled brats". The polls do show that those with high school degrees (or less) are big Hill supporters while Obama supporters do tend to be much better educated and usually, more affluent. So is this a classwarfare we're seeing in our party? Or just resentment of a whole new class of Democrats who aren't paying adequate kiss-assiness to the oldies in the party?

[Vinca]

114. I think the demographic is foolish. I know lots of Obama supporters

and I don't think there's a McMansion among us. I drive a Rav4, not exactly an SUV, and I can't afford to stop for lattes (I brew Folger's Gourmet Blend - 2.99 a can- at home). Oh, and I am, for the record, just a "high school grad-u-ate."

[L0oniX]

158. Could it even be age warfare? Old school vs New school?

[dorktv]

176. That is total bull and you know it.

Young voters (and workers) have been coming out in droves since 2004. We worked hard on Governor Dean's race, on Senator Kerry's race, we had nearly double digit increases in voting turn out in 2004, we have gone to the Ds in massive numbers, and YDA as well as the College Democrats have been working to increase turnout among the young people even more, along with doing more fundraising, and working to increase our chances with jobs in campaigns.

http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_Exit_Polls.pdf

Youth Vote on the Rise: 2004, 2005 and 2006
This surge in youth voter turnout continues the trend of the past three election cycles.

*In 2004, 20.1 million 18-29 year olds voted, up 4.3 million from 2000. More 18-29 year olds voted in 2004 than voters over the age of 65. This increase was due in large part to our efforts – in 2004, the Student PIRGs registered 524,000 18-30 year olds to vote and made more than half a million personalized, peer to peer get out the vote contacts to turn young people out to the polls.
*In 2005, turnout in student dense precincts in New Jersey and Virginia (both states held gubernatorial races) increased 15 to 19 percent, even though turnout for other age groups decreased.
*In 2006, 18-29 year old turnout increased by 2 million votes, almost twice that of the overall electorate. In thirty-six student dense precincts where the Student PIRGs and our allies worked, youth voter turnout increased on average by 157% over 2002 turnout

http://www.newvotersproject.org/young-voters-turning-out
http://elections.us.reuters.com/top/news/usnN08342322.html
http://www.yda.org/tools/19/youth-statistics

On top of that, we are running for office-in my local area we have FOUR people 30 and under who are in elected office. We have another two running for city council and one of those two is very likely going to win this time with another possibly winning.

So Senator Obama might be helping some with that but it was started long before he even considered running for President.

[adabfree]

105. This may shock you...but Fuck the Clintons

thats how I feel..and it has nothing to do with Obama

[Name removed]

Deleted message

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

[adabfree]

109. McCain..ugh that old geyser...

I wouldn't vote for him with King Tuts finger...

[Marrah_G]

107. I hardly respond to any threads anymore.

My reaction to 75% of the threads in this forum turned cesspool is " fuck off...no serious...fuck off you little fucking troll"... mind you I am typically very laid back.

I just use the threads as a litmus test for who goes on my ignore list.

Assholes saying nasty things about good Democrats get the boot from my screen. Jerks repeating RW talking points get the boot and an alert.

GD-P has begun to look more and more like the FR every day.

And frankly it makes me want to be involved less and less.

Then I realize that is what the jerk-offs want. They want to cause division.

So if you are throwing Dems under the bus in order to campaign for your candidate... I would like to state that for the record, I despise you and everyone like you and I hope you get yours in the end.

:rant off

[adabfree]

112. Rant off

Rant on...Rant off..

is that like Wax on..Wax off..

lmao..

..so someone doesn't like a democrat, be it Hillary, Dean, Obama..or Daffy Duck..it's their choice, and they can voice it..here and elsewhere..

Same goes for republicans...

Ignore button...do what you gotta do boo..it's your world

[TZ]

177. I would recommend your post if I could!

This place makes R/T look like a positive love fest, don't you think?:thumbsup:

[libbygurl]

108. Thank you for saying this. K&R.

You'll read, of course, that both sides are doing it - a favourite argument of one side. I agree with you, and not just because I support HRC, that the most vicious attacks have been from some of the anti-HRC, pro-BO supporters here, and it is very troubling that many have been using the same rightwing attack points from the 90s.

I doubt that anyone will own up to it, though, but thank you all the same for your opinion on this matter. I don't visit DU anymore because of the relentless acid posts by many here.

[libbygurl]

113. Notice replies no. 75 and 79:

Completely identical comments posted.

Coincidence? I wonder.

[BlueJac]

115. I love it.......

Get a grip!

[Cass]

116. Thank you for this post.

It is very disturbing to see the intensity of the attacks against the Clintons, many using language and talking points straight from the right-wing. It feels like it did back in the 90s when everyone was bashing the shit out of the Clintons nonstop.

I chalk it up to a few things - freeper infiltration, young people not fully realizing what the Clintons endured at the hands of republicans in the 90's, and people being swayed by years of media Clinton bashing and repeating right-wing attacks without even knowing where they came from.

There is also a level of institutionalized sexism here that shocks me. Until this primary I did not realize how ingrained sexism is in our country but this primary has highlighted it - from the posters here on a supposedly progressive board spewing sexist remarks without shame to the media talking heads who make offensive sexist remarks while discussing this race.

[WTyler]

187. She's earned it.

I guess you weren't being triangulated against during the 90s. The Clintons have earned every bit of venom that has been thrown at Hillary this election. If it wasn't Obama it would be someone else that was being rallied around to stop her. Her husband's entire political strategy was to vilify segments of his own base for his own ends. What they are facing now is the price they pay.

As to the sexism thing... just no. Those of us that are rallying around a black man are obviously closet bigots because we can't stand the woman in this race? Think about the logic of that for a minute. Most of the insults thrown at HRC have to do with her, not her womanhood.

[Cass]

243. There is a way to disagree and highlight the differences between your candidate and his opponent

without resorting to bashing, its called having a grown-up discussion and debate. But when you state the Clintons "deserve every bit of venom" directed at them it tells me you are one of those Obama supporters who are unable to make the case for your own candidate without bashing and spewing venom at his opponent.

And yes...there have been sexist remarks made here about Hillary Clinton. Perhaps you haven't seen it since you have been here for a short 10 days now.

[Harry Monroe]

117. If you think it is bad among us Democrats now...

...just wait until the general election if Hillary is the nominee. She'll wake up the brain dead Republicans like no other politician in recent memory. She has a special talent for uniting the diverse segments of the divided Republican Party just to keep her out of office. The Republicans are licking their chops at the prospect of Hillary being our nominee. They'll come out of the woodwork, instead of staying home, just to vote against Hillary, not necessarily voting for McCain. She is the most polarizing figure out there, able to even get Democrats riled up against each other. And the mud and shit slinging hasn't even started yet!! It will get very ugly quickly and unite the Republican base like no other candidate. I don't hate or dislike her, but just stating facts here. I don't think she can win in a nationwide election. No disrespect to her, mind you. I support Obama (my original choice was Edwards). And don't get me wrong, if she is the nominee, I will go to the poll and vote for her just the same. I just think that if we want to take back the WH, Obama has the better of beating McCain in a general election. I'm not a "cultist", I have a lot of issues and problems with Obama as well as Clinton being our nominee. And to tell the truth, I'm not too excited about either one of them. To me, it all comes down once again to that tired, yet so very true cliche of "the lesser of two evils". If we are fighting amongst ourselves now, how bad do you think it will be in November against the Republican machine with their visceral hatred of all things Clinton?? I just think that Obama has the better chance of capturing the WH for Democrats this November, given the situation we're in and the way the Electoral College will play out once again.

Just my two cents. I'm backing a Democrat, no matter who she or he may be.

[Mizmoon]

143. You have no idea what's in Obama's closet

and neither do I. Is the coke the worst? The pukes managed to make Kerry look stupid for winning purple hearts - and you think they won't crucify Obama over coke, over a Muslim father, and over who knows what else? I don't think these things matter but you know these pukes - they are masters of innuendo and abuse. Dont fantasize that nominating St. Obama means that there will be no problem with the pukes - their machine was built for uniting against us like a crew of bullies in the schoolyard.

[billyoc]

118. You'll find that many of us are only interested in keeping the DLC out of government

and don't give a damn about any individual members, the Clintons included.

[adabfree]

119. AMEN!

[Straight Shooter]

165. Then Obama should decline endorsements by members of the DLC

and those strongly associated with the DLC, such as Sebelius and Tom Daschle. Nothing in politics is free. Sebelius in particular, I believe, is a quid pro quo endorsement.

[Myrina]

120. Wah. Yes, I'm sure Bill and Hill's feelings are hurt

:eyes: Everyone knows how much time they spend here at DU. :eyes:

[shenmue]

121. Yeah, it's retarded.

Rumors and editorials quoted as fact, things that were quashed 15 years ago resurrected as if they happened yesterday-- you'd expect this stupid shit from the Republicans, but not the people here. I think there's a streak among the 'party' that really isn't for the party at all. They're just for themselves, and when they don't get their narrow little dream, they combust, like David Horowitz. Not a good omen.

[AGirl]

122. K and R , although this thread won't change anything.

[onehandle]

124. You would think that Hillary's opponent was some sort of Super Liberal.

That would make sense.

But, no. The two infinitely more liberal than McCain, but corporate candidates just the same, are at the top and I will support the winner.

[mtnsnake]

137. Obama is just as much characteristic of the DLC, if not more.

Wait until he gets into the General Election, if he does. I can't imagine what it'll be like if he moves any further to the right than he already has during the primaries. Ugh

[route66left]

125. Thinking about abandoning "hope"

You've said: "But, to see those who profess to care about the principles, platform, and priorities of our party attack those who have served and want to serve further - whether you support them or not this relatively insignificant cycle, only provides the GOP with ammunition and turns off a large number of us who have been 'turned off' for more years than we care to remember.
"

Couldn't agree more. I'm so turned off by the Obama supporters' attacks on Clinton, that, at this moment, I'm not prone to lift a finger for the Obamabots and Obama if he is the nominee. Why should I support a candidate whose campaign is so vicious and sexist? Not me.

[bpeale]

133. thanks route66left. i am also turned off ... way off ... to the point that i have stopped listening

to obama. i tune him out, i turn him off.

[Recursion]

194. I just don't get the "sexist" thing

I'm not looking to pick a fight, but I really haven't seen sexism from the Obama campaign (I'm also a man which means I'm often blind to it). What were you thinking of?

[blm]

130. Please describe the FIGHTS Clintons waged for Dem issues the last 7 years because all I saw

was support for Bush on the biggest issues of terrorism and Iraq war in 2004.

Bill spent his THREE WEEK book tour repeatedly defending Bush on those issues.

He did it because he wanted Bush supported enough by moderates who would BELIEVE Clinton's take on those decisions and buy time for Bush on Iraq before the 2004 election.

[MessiahRp]

188. It's no wonder I've agreed with you so often since we were both working for Kerry

People seem to be willing to give Hillary a pass for her right wing voting record and the general Clinton support of Bushco. I'm sorry but this is a Democratic Primary and voting with Bush repeatedly does not a Democrat make.

Rp

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

132. thank you so much

for writing this. I've been so angry about the load of crap dropped on the Clintons, especially President Bill Clinton.

[Mizmoon]

135. I couldn't agree more

If a person doesn't think Senator Clinton is the best candidate that's fine. But the viciousness of the assaults - it's disgusting. I'll leave it at that.

[IdClaire]

136. delurking... agree but more sickening is MSM

and its ass kissing, coronation of Obama in particular, MSNBC. Can they find absolutely no redeeming value in Hillary Clinton? I hate to bring out a word that seems to carry no weight anymore in society but I think when we look back when Obama is president (I'm a Hillary supporter but will support him as prez) it will be partly (partly, people) based on sexism in parts of the electorate and the MSM who are too afraid to let a woman be in charge.

[bluhoodie]

139. Saw your "headline" and just wanted to chime in with agreement

Thanks for saying it! Please use another of your available posts, sjdnb, to write something similar.

People need to get a grip on reality. I was just thinking while doing my laundry: "Sheesh, the bar has been set SO LOW for so long that ANYthing we can get in the Democratic direction would be a thankful improvement." Our candidates are all human - they're going to disappoint at times. If you were put under the bright glare of constant public opinion, how would YOU look?
Ease up on the battering, will ya? Too much hate being spewed is toxic to all of us. :argh:

[surfermaw]

140. Im with you, may be why Edwards hasn't given his support to anyone

[ExPatLeftist]

154. He cut a deal, I think

IMO Edwards is waiting because he has a deal with both candidates to be the VP candidate for the eventual nominee. In return he dropped out before Super Tuesday. As the convention draws near, he will announce for the front runner and give that person his delegates, and will then be their VP candidate.

Just speculation, but I am betting on it...

[dysfunctional press]

141. and i'm sick of the clintons and the bushes shitting on America.

nt

[workinclasszero]

145. I'm getting sick of Hillary using Rethug talking points

against a fellow dem! Its ALL about Hillary isn't it?:puke:

[Greyhound]

148. Boo fucking hoo, try being one of the millions whose lives he ruined.

Couldn't care less about him or her, they made sure to take care of themselves and haven't said one thing, let alone even a simple apology, about ruining the lives of millions of Americans in order to make sure she had a base after his administration.

The manufacturing workers, the IT workers, the welfare recipients, the gays, the truckers, and all the others not listed because I have to get to my "new career" where I get to make 1/10 the salary I worked for 15 years to get. All so his base wouldn't have to pay a living wage.

Fuck them.

[L0oniX]

161. I had to move out of Michigan to find a good job because of what they did.

I'll always remember what Ross said. "your going to hear this giant sucking sound.

[Greyhound]

235. I hear you. If She gets the nomination and loses, that will be the deciding factor.

I, and millions of others, WILL. NOT. VOTE. FOR. THEM, period.

[Catherine Vincent]

149. Great post!

And don't forget the right wing trolls that have infiltrated this place pretending to support someone else.

[ExPatLeftist]

152. It is on BOTH sides

Relatively equally, and it is shameful.

Posts like this one just prolong it by actually attempting to discern between the childish mudthrowers based on the "team" they play for.

A lot of people (INDIVIDUALS) on both sides are doing this BS, and it really is making this place into a toilet.

The way to resolve that is NOT to take part in exactly what you claim to dislike by pointing a finger at one side or the other.

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

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

[SHRED]

162. 4 basic questions for Hillary

1. As President, what do you intend to do in order to reverse the damaging affect that NAFTA, signed into law by your husband, has done to our economy, labor, and the environment?

2. As President, what do you intend to do in order to reverse the damaging affect that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, signed into law by your husband, has wrought upon our economy by consolidating power of the insurance, banking, and lending corporations?

3. As President, what do you intend to do in order to reverse the damaging affect that your husband has done to people's lives by overseeing and administration that imprisoned record amounts of marijuana users and went after Doctors who prescribe it? And along these same lines, how do you feel about re-legalizing industrial hemp?

4. As President, what do you intend to do in order to reverse the damaging affect that the Telecommunications Act of 1996, signed into law by your husband, has had on media ownership diversity and thus free speech?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4181464

[Arugula Latte]

175. Good questions, SHRED.

[aka-chmeee]

163. But, after all

Didn't they frame Bruno Hauptmann, sink the Titanic, burn the library at Alexandria................?
Today Pappy Bush says GOOD Democrats will vote for McCain...Must mean those DUers who proclaim they won't vote for HRC if she is the Nominee.

[California Griz]

168. Wake up do you want McCain to be President?

I'm sure some of these mud slingers are Freepers. Are you going to play their game or are you going to put a Democrat in the White House? It's not an accident the MM has been pushing Hillary vs Obama for the last 3 years. Divide and conquer and far too many have fallen into the trap and played right along. Quit being puppets. Either is going to be a better President than McCain. Both sides need to quit tearing each other down. We need every vote to get a sustainable majority in the Senate. Do you want another Roberts or Alito that's what's at stake. If you want to help McCain get into office if you want Roe vs Wade reversed if you want the rest of your rights striped away just keep it up.

Do you want to be sitting in front of the TV 2 years from now watching the death toll from the new war in Iran and be thinking why was I so hard nosed why didn't I swallow my pride and vote for our nominee. That's your choice be a hard nosed idiot like Bush or get behind the team. I don't really like either one very much they were my least favorite of all the Democrats. I give my promise I won't let that get in the way of doing what I know is right and that's to stop the Republican agenda. If your not willing to do that you don't belong here.

[ACanadianLiberal]

169. I am a Gore supporter up North

I like Edwards, but I understand why he has no chance in this race even the MSM gives him fair coverages. Between Hillary and Obama, I want to stay in neutral, but time over time, I frowned over those unreasonable Obama supporters. I also have seen some bad mouthpieces from Hillary's supporters. In a quantitative way, the following figures might well stand:

Obama supporters Clinton Supporters
Negativity: 85% 15%
Viciousniess 90% 10%
Reasonability 35% 65%
Play Victim Card 50% 50%

[ACanadianLiberal]

171. I am a Gore supporter up North

like Edwards, but I understand why he has no chance in this race even the MSM gives him fair coverages. Between Hillary and Obama, I want to stay in neutral, but time over time, I frowned over those unreasonable Obama supporters. I also have seen some bad mouthpieces from Hillary's supporters. In a quantitative way, the following figures might well stand:

..................Obama supporters...Clinton Supporters
Negativity...............85%..................15%
Viciousniess.............90%..................10%
Reasonability............35%..................65%
Play Victim Card.........50%..................50%

[susankh4]

208. I am actually a supporter of both....

and thank you for pointing out that there is a difference.

[rhett o rick]

247. Welcome back. Who are you attacking this time? nm

[Joey Liberal]

172. Hillary never should have run for President

I have supported and defended the Clinton's for years. I just think Hillary should stay in the Senate, where she can do more good for the party and the country. It's Obama's time.

[dorktv]

181. I could agree with you except for that last statement.

Exactly why is it "Obama's Time?" He has only been a national figure for slightly under 4 years. He could have stayed in the senate and done more work there before running for Prez, and we both know that. In fact, he should at least serve his first term through.
*edited for inaccuracy.

[Joey Liberal]

200. Exactly why is it "Obama's Time?"

Because Obama is the better candidate in this race. The republicans would rather face Hillary. It's nothing personal against Hillary.

[dorktv]

202. That is opinion-both of the Senators could have stayed in the Senate

and let someone with real experience and who would be just as historic as both of them shine-Governor Richardson who is hispanic and has experience out the wazoo including the important executive branch as Governor of New Mexico.

[barbtries]

174. well put

i steer clear of most of the shit flinging so i don't know which side is worse. on one day, just looking at the post titles, it seems every post is from an obama supporter; the next, just the opposite. but i rarely go further because i know there will be so much nastiness within. it's just not worth my time to read so much ugliness about the two democratic candidates. either one will do, just get the fucking republicans out of the white house!

i look forward to the end of primary season. hopefully then we will all be on the same page working to elect whomever ends up being the democratic nominee for president of the united states of america.

[JimGinPA]

178. If She Stayed Out Of The Toilet She Might Not Get Crapped On nt

[johnlal]

180. In reality

While many of us feel the urge to cut down a candidate who has let us down or who has not earned our trust, you won't get any satisfaction posting about it here. It seems to me, these message boards are patroled by rapid response teams from each of the campaigns. If you want to come here and debate the plusses and minuses of the two candidates, the professionals will sweep in and your thoughtful comments or questions will be taken apart, each piece attacked, and the remains trampled into the ground.

And if you want to be a troll, don't even bother.

In short, don't try to slam either candidate, because you are probably out of your league.

[burythehatchet]

182. Getting sick of the Clinton's crapping on liberals n/t

[defendandprotect]

183. More upsetting is the idea that anyone can think either of these two candidates

is what we deserve --- !!!

We deserve much better than this --

And now that so many have argued of the need to have this all tied up with a bow in a hurry,
you begin to see why that was a BAD idea . . .!!!

[ElboRuum]

203. Excuse me...

But what exactly is it that we deserve?

On one hand we have a strong woman with previous political experience and a lifelong history of political activism.
On the other hand we have a man who is an excellent speaker, has previous political experience, and has the capacity to engage previously uninterested parties into a grassroots support base.
And up to a little while ago, we had a bunch of others who have had previous political experience and spoke on message until they dropped out of the race.

My question is, what do you think we deserve? What more do you expect?

[defendandprotect]

213. We deserve candidates who will extend Medicare to everyone ---

and who aren't trying to protect insurance companies and keep them in the health care game ---

We deserve candidates who will take only public fiancing and say "NO" to lobbyists and corporate
money --

We deserve candidates who will actually speak about taboo subjects ---
like Global Warming and the seriousness of it ---

Nationalizing our oil ---
Electric Cars ---

The brankrupting of our Treasury ---
The Federal Reserve's role in setting economic policy which isn't economic democracy --

The Bush role in destroying our economic well being, as well as our reputation around the world --

The role of warprofiteers/weapons manufacturers in creating wars ---

....i.e., Israel looking to arm nations surrounding her so that there is an excuse to attack them!

America long doing the same ---

The use of right-wing religious fanatics all around the world by our government to create wars
and run false-flag operations --- see: Afghanistan/Brz

Economic democracy as a subject in itself ---

UNIONS and the right-wing campaign over thirty years to destroy them ---

The true state of the homeless and impoverished in America --- and the true state of unemployment
in America ---

Why should elite candiates be running America, for another question we could all answer?
A people's government is to be decidated to the greatest good for the greats number of people ---
is that what the elite are interested in?

Is that what their history shows?

What about the end of the Cold War and the delusion that "terraism" is a greater threat than that?
Or the delusion that GW isn't a bigger threat to us than terrorism as the Pentagon has pointed out
to Bush --- ?

What about the specifics of 2 million innocent Iraqis dead as "collateral damage" in this now more than 5 year OCCUPATION of Iraq --- !! Where is the candidate's outrage?

How about corporate-media and their control of our elections?

How about the continuing use of electronic computers for votes and counting our votes --- ???

How about the many decades of whitewashes of corporate corruption --- ???


Specifically as to the two candidates ---
you have Hillary as a DLC candidate --- which represents corporate-interests and therefore
corporate-ownership of her future, along with her alliance with the DLC agenda --

You have a Clinton administration which was completely cowed by the right-wing ---
immobilized by Bill's penis and the corrupt trap set for him by the corrupt GOP --

You have highly quesitonable alliances which Sen. Clinton continues to keep going in her
campaign --- workers and those contributing funds.

We also have the highly questionable votes Clinton has cast for the war --- TWICE, plus
keeping it going by approving funds for Bush's wars . . .

As for Obama --- he's probably somewhere between an "empty suit" and JFK --- !!!! ????
I doubt he's close to either . . .
but he is probably about as weak as Carter was and that's a very bad sign for me.

NO -- we deserve better than either of these two candidates ---


PS: And which of them is regularly shouting out against TORTURE and this regime ---
you'd hardly know that Bush had done anything wrong --- !!!

[ElboRuum]

244. OK, not really interested in polemic, here.

My assessment of your desires for a candidate are nothing short of a Messiah that would never get elected.

In your reality, which is entirely pie-in-the-sky, the realities of modern politics are conveniently ignored on their face, as is OUR OWN COMPLICITY IN CAUSING THE MESS WE'RE IN!

How do all of the things you say are f'ed up about this country come to pass? A large measure of complacency coupled with a even larger measure of entitlement. That's how. I can't get over how you keep saying "we deserve", when it is precisely clear that after 50 years of political gamesmanship we have EXACTLY what we deserve, two candidates who can get into office and start implementing policy to turn it around. You act as though electing a President is like electing an avenging angel that can right the wrongs of the past 30+ years of political apathy by a population of people who should know better.

Bush is a symptom of a larger problem in this country:

Complaint over action.
Polemic over debate.
Impassioned rhetoric over workable ideas.

Ultimately, to even effect the slightest change, you have to get elected FIRST. And while its nice to say that we deserve a candidate who is principled, righteous, and beyond both reproach and corruption, the current political reality is OTHERWISE and the candidates who run now must accept and acknowledge that fact, even if you cannot.

I'm sorry the world isn't the way you want, it isn't the way I want either, but I am pragmatic enough to see that it took us 30 years to get here, and it will probably take 30 to get back.

[LiberalLovinLug]

184. It's disturbing

I wish there was a clear front runner already, no matter who it is. The GOP machine is already pumping McCain - even Rush has come around, and Bush Sr. just endorsed him. They will have a head start while we are all still bickering and handing them free swift-boats on C and O.

I only hope that once it is finally settled that the loser can quickly stand up and endorse the winner in a strident manner. Even if its through gritted teeth, I hope they can at least make it believable enough to rally all Democrats and left-leaning Independents. And that means I hope to get from Mrs. (I don't know if I will vote for H. Clinton if she wins) Obama, if her husband loses, a quick endorsement of Hillary.

[Beregond2]

189. Getting Sick...

I agree that the tone of this board has gotten very childish lately, and I have occasionaly been guilty of it myself, and for that I apologize. But I don't feel any need to apologize for having been a Clinton supporter THEN, and against what they are doing NOW. The situation is very different. I have been angry with Hillary from the day she announced her candidacy. She knows perfectly well that she is the only candidate that would energize the Republican base enough to ensure another Repug President. She is putting her ego needs above those of the country. Further, she has run an arrogant, mismanaged, top-down campaign, and used Bill to do her dirty work. For these reasons and others, I am angry with them, and I think all Democrats should be.

[NJmaverick]

191. You reap what you sow

The Clintons and their supporters have crapped all over Obama, his supporters, the Democratic party and this board. It's only fitting that they get what they deserve.

[Name removed]

195. Deleted message

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

[AtomicKitten]

197. Getting sick of DU'ers crapping on Obama ....

To pretend that this is isolated to one side is just absurd.

[bridgit]

240. But DUer's aren't allowed to "crap" on Obama...

Conversely, I've seen HRC compared to g.w. bush & Hitler by Obama supporters, stuff we reserved for the most vile of our collective adversaries

[Puckster]

198. Just take a look at what the GOP is offering.....

.... that should slap you back to reality whether you support Hillary or Barack. We could do so much more if we could knock off the internal fighting!

[GreenTea]

199. But, television tells us we are supposed to hate her and love Obama...what can we do?

[Buzz Clik]

205. Do just like everyone else -- think for yourself.

[Buzz Clik]

204. I'm giving this the "Ultimate Ironic Kick and Recommend".

When one considers that the Clinton campaign "leaked" to the Sunday news programs that they are going hard negative against Obama, this thread ranks as perhaps the biggest joke of the day.

Thanks for the chuckle.

[cyclezealot]

209. Neither were my first choice. Still aren't even my final choices

but, I see no reason for the uncivlitiy. Jesse Jacksons , Sr. says cool it. We are all gonna loose if we don't. Why don't we listen.

[The River]

210. As An Edwards Supporter

I had to put close to 3 dozen Hillary supporters on ignore
because of their nasty posts and a grand total of 1 (One)
Obama supporter.

Now, tell me again who is dumping on who?

[Vattel]

212. I'm sick of attacks

from both sides. It's amazing how little one can find on this site that is useful for deciding whether to support Clinton or Obama. I have recently moved from supporting Clinton to supporting Obama for a variety of reasons. Obama finally came on board in support of Dodd's Restore the Constitution bill which would repeal the military comissions act. (Restoring the constitution is huge with me, though not with many of our senators and congresspersons.) Last I heard, Clinton hasn't. I prefer Obama's views on Health Care because I don't think it's realistic to mandate that people buy health insurance. Single payer is the only way to go and Obama at least says that he thinks that single payer would be the best way to go and that his plan is a step in that direction. On the other hand, I don't like Obama's strong support for Ethanol. I'd still be happy with either candidate.

[BayjanDem]

214. Dumping on the Clintons?????

Pull-eaze. It's the Edwards/Clinton people that are dumping on Obama.

[Yurovsky]

218. That's pretty damn funny ....

the poor, poor, poor, Clintons. Gee, everybody is soooooo mean to them. Right.

This is classic Clinton style ... do/say horrific things about others, and then accuse THEM of doing it. Sorry, not buying the 3-card Monte BS that Clinton, Inc. has been selling for 30 years now. They may have been progressives at one time in their lives, but they are signed, sealed, & delivered corporate subsidiaries of the same bastards that own Chimpy & Chimpy Sr.

Most progressives are smart enough to see through this crap, which is why Field Marshall Hillary is going down in flames.

[Raine]

219. It goes BOTH ways

there is sure some mean hateful postings about Obama too. Up till about a week and a half ago I responded to nasty Obama posts in a like manner. Anymore though I've made it a rule with myself to not resort to get down in the gutter anymore. I won't respond in a rude way or reply to a post that name calls my side right in the subject line. If EVERYONE would do this the hateful people on BOTH sides wouldn't have an audience anymore and would mostly likely clean up their act or disappear all together. :think:

[Vattel]

224. good idea,

I just wish it would work faster--see posts below

[bowens43]

221. Another warrior for Hillary?

If Hillary and her supporters would get out of the toilet, no one would be shitting on them. Their tactics are right out of the Rove play book.Hillary believes that she is owed the presidency and despite her lack of qualifications and her lack of experience, shes goes right on prancing around like the queen bee, lying and distorting and cheating. She has earned all of the venom she is receiving. She is to the Democratic party what george bush is to the republican party. Her kind need to step out of the way and let the new generation of politicians take over.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

225. How would Hillary unite Dems if she must be tougher still in the General?

Hillary seems to be in a box of her own making. She's determined not to apologize for her vote for the war - no matter how she equivocates, it was a vote for the war and we all knew it. She would have to continue to be tough on this in the general and probably become even tougher than McCain. So, how would she bring the new, and vastly larger, Democratic voters together? I don't think it's possible. And we'd suffer either under McCain or Clinton as a result.

[avrdream]

223. Very well put!

Looking quickly at the thread overview, I don't see many of my "ignored" showing up so maybe you actually shamed a few of them with your words.

[kotsu]

226. Amen

Why do make things so easy for the GOP?

[Skittles]

228. I agree

Ms. Clinton is demonized too much, Mr. Obama is idolized too much and I am a fan of neither.

[jaybeat]

229. As an undecided, I agree with everything you said.

Starting out, Clinton was *way* too centrist and hawkish to be my first, second or even third choice.

But the kind of crap the Obama folks are pulling, parroting RW talking points, trashing the Clinton Presidency when it *WAS* head and shoulders better than the 12 Republican years previous and the 8 Republican years after, makes me think they are almost ashamed to be Democrats.

And when you point out that they are using RW language, they act like you're nuts to think that *they* mean the same things that everyone else means when they use that language.

And I also don't like all this "unity" and "bi-partisan" crap. We need someone who will fight like hell, or else Hell is where we're all going to end up.

[cloud75]

230. IDIOT!!!!

That as a Hillary supporter is what i have been called here on DU.

[Johnny_Cargo]

231. totally agree with you..

you hit the nail on the head. Being a newcomer to this board, I unfortunately do see a preponderance of rather uncivil anti-Hillary posts. This internal partisonship is seemingly rather unnecessary and counterproductive as overall Obama and Hillary, I do think, have more in common than differences. Especially in contrast to the GOP, whom we should all first and foremost be united against. Even as a strong Hillary supporter, I will still back and vote for Obama should he be the nominee.

[bridgit]

238. Yup!

[ekwhite]

239. You need a hug

:hug:

[Phx_Dem]

246. Deleted