Please Democratic primary voters: Anyone but Clinton

[mudesi]

Do you really want to see Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton in the history books? That's one of (and the most trivial of) the reasons.

She is conservative. Don't kid yourselves. She refuses to acknowledge her mistake in authorizing the Iraq war, and she has no qualms with attacking Iran, apparently.

She is backed by huge corporations, as well as Rupert Murdoch, of all people. As a result, she is being pushed onto the masses by the media, and will not serve the best interests of the people. She is scripted and phony, and I see even the Democratic primary voters falling for it, and it makes me ill.

Her health care proposal is pathetic.

The Republicans would love nothing more than to have a conservative Democrat in the White House if they can't have a Republican there.

Even Edwards, who is also backed by huge corporations, is a little bit better than she is, because he is more liberal, and he has admitted his mistake regarding Iraq.

I would love to see a woman president, I really would. But why does it have to be Hillary Clinton? I'd rather wait a little longer to see the first woman president when that president is a liberal, not a conservative.

[Stuckinthebush]

1. Get ready to be called a Hillary Hater

Three...two....one....

(You make good points, IMHO)

[GeminiProgressive]

2. I agree that Hillary is center-right

but She has a voting record that is just as liberal if not more liberal than most other senators. The Democratic Party would be considered a center-right party in most other industrialized countries. The Republicans are far right. Don't expect a left-wing revolution with any of them. Kucinich is the only center-left candidate in the primaries. The Progressive Caucus in congress is the largest caucus in congress. They have 72 members and were started by Senator Sanders (a socialist). The progressive caucus is considered far left in the US but in most of Europe, Latin America, Canada ect they would be considered center-left social democrats.

[UGADUer]

5. She takes more corporate money than Romney, Obama, Edwards combined though

I think that still places her further to the right than she is letting on.

[The River]

46. The "Center" Has Been Moved So Far Right

in the past 30+ years that being a "Centrist" these
days is to be further "right" than Eisenhower or even (god help me) Nixon.

[Ian_rd]

63. That is absolutely correct

Nixon created the EPA for God's sake. Can you imagine if it were never done to this day and Hillary proposed it? She'd be skewered by everyone with a microphone for being, in O'Reilly's words, a far-left-fringe-liberal-extremist. She'd receive the same treatment Kucinich does, despite how he is so closely aligned with all Americans in issue polls.

What's "center" now was "far-right" 30-40 years ago. We are living in a far right-wing nation tending towards corporatism. Democrats are no less culpable in this than Republicans, they've tacked right along to the right since the Blue Dog Democrats under Reagan, then the New Democrats under Clinton, and now what we call "moderates" today.

[UGADUer]

3. Honestly, she's the quintissential politician

In privileged circle, panders and give rhetoric to her supposed base, and ends up voting with her wealthy contributors and friends every time.

Why would anyone want that? I think a lot of people on DU who support her are just ideologically conservative.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

9. I agree. nt

[robinlynne]

12. or unaware.

[UGADUer]

Considering that the media considers the issues irrelevant,

I unfortunately agree.

[robinlynne]

19. and from what I see here on Du. because honestly, out there in the real world, I don't see Hillary

supporters. And here they are screaming up a storm all the time about why they NEED her. It's getting exhausting.
almost cultish. (but not, just regular old bullshit American politics).

[UGADUer]

20. I think it's an emotional attachment to her from the Clinton years

They almost do not care about policies, they care about the person. I wonder if the ghosts of all the people killed in the war she supported two and a half years have the same opinion about how we should vote.

[Whisp]

28. the anointed by the media will be blessed.

no matter what the rabble thinks.
the polls (we know how honest they can be) have already decided.

too bad, so sad.
welcome to more war.

[Selatius]

4. Her health care proposal is a half-answer, but so is everyone else's except Kucinich.

She sits down with these people and think there can be compromise. If you were forced to negotiate with a man who wants to put a bullet in your head and you want not to get shot, what's the compromise there? Letting him shoot you in the stomach instead? Either way, you still come out with the short end of the stick.

Edward's plan at least offers the hope of transitioning to single-payer, while Kucinich simply offers single-payer outright.

[nightrider767]

6. Here's a reminder to you,,,,

We, the common folk, don't actually pick presidents.

If you don't like Clinton, don't bang your head against the wall, because it won't help.

Here's a good feel-good little chant from Seinfeld. When things get unmanageable just keep repeating it. It works wonders.

"Serenity Now, Serenity Now".

[GeminiProgressive]

7. The Democratic Party

is a center/right party..they aren't going to allow a left winger to be the nominee.

[robinlynne]

14. until we take it back......

[mudesi]

17. But who is "They"?

There are two liberals running for president in the primary. Why can't the "they" - also known as The Voters - vote for one of them?

That's why I'm addressing voters in my OP. Until Democracy is officially dead in America, I still think "they" have the power.

[robinlynne]

22. ahh. "They" are the dlc, and therre are sevral articles running aorund about how they have

actively and systematically made sure that liberals can't make it through the primaries. They are absolutely prohibited from doing so. The primaries are supposed to be for the voters. But, in fact, they have bent over backwards to replace winning liberal dems with rightwing dems and REPUBLCIANS who re=register as dems. If you haven't yet read about it, let me know and I'll track some of it down.
i think there's an article on tpmmuckraker.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. The DLC is just a think-tank

it doesn'thave one tenth the power you think it has.

[robinlynne]

31. ignorance is bliss.

[MonkeyFunk]

37. and one-liners are dumb

The DLC is to this election what Skull & Bones was in 2004: a dumb bogeyman that scares paranoid nutjobs who have little knowledge.

[robinlynne]

40. how old are you? knowledgeable one.

[MonkeyFunk]

43. None of your damned business

but if it'll make you happy, I'm 46.

Now how does the DLC exercise all this imagined power? Do they have armed goons threatening "real" Democrats? Does Hillary steal their children and hold them for ransom?

It's a think-tank and advocacy group - there are thousands of them in the US.

You seem to think some things have magical powers. You said in another thread that an impeachment committee has special powers that a regular congressional committee doesn't have. That is just so damned wrong, you'll have to forgive me if I don't give a lot of deference to your view of "the way things are".

[robinlynne]

42. I will find an article backing my point. It will take a while. will you read it if I go to the troub

trouble?

[robinlynne]

47. You're right. oneliners are dumb. here is an article about what they are

doing. They are sneaky buggers, and they are active and out there moving our party to the right. It is not the voters who think that way, in the majority.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/090607J.shtml

[MonkeyFunk]

49. LOL!

Truthout?!

I'll read that in 24 business hours. (hint - that means never, in Truthout-speak)


Edit: But I see that's about the Duckworth/Cegelis dust-up. The article doesn't even mention the DLC, so I'm not sure what you expected me to take away from it.

[robinlynne]

57. It is entirely about the dlc.

[MonkeyFunk]

58. and yet

they're not mentioned in the article.

Try again.

[nightrider767]

If it brings you comfort,

then I say "yes we do have power".

I'll vote for favorite candidate though. Even if he comes in last place. That's what everybody ought to do.

[Freddie Stubbs]

68. Most voters are smart enough not to vote for someone who is unelectable in the general election

[sellitman]

8. My reason NOT to vote for her in the Primary is

She is a DLCer. Same goes for Dodd. I hope she is stopped before the GE too.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

13. Has the Democratic Party always had a right wing? Or is this a new thing?

I know that sounds like a dumb question, but if I knew the answer I wouldn't ask it.

[robinlynne]

24. There is a big new thing. If you google dlc, and read their website, they call themselves

"new democrats' and the "third way". (not republican, not traditional democrat, like us.)if you read that, then read the articles about all the things these people are doing to our party, it will start to make sense of what is happening in our country.

It is an eye-opener. (for me, at least, because I wasn't familiar with their strategies.)

[Sarah Ibarruri]

30. Why don't they form a new party of their own & call it Conservative Party,?

Is it to glean our votes by fooling us or what? I am increasingly less and less fond of anyone who is even remotely right wing in any way.

[robinlynne]

32. you got it!

[defendandprotect]

61. DLC are "neo-liberals" ....i.e., corporate-fascists . . . Republicans . . .

[happyslug]

10. You can NOT be an Anti and get anywhere, you have ot be PRO something

Just being Anti Hillary because she is GOP-Light, is NOT enough, you must be FOR SOMETHING and in this elections FOR SOMEONE. Even Bush made an effort to be pro-something i.e. pro-business. Thus my point be PRO someone, not anti-someone. The classic case was 1932 Germany, Many (if not most) Germans were Anti-Hitler, Hitler won anyway because he represented something "Positive" i.e. anti-Semitic but also pro Nationalism and pro "Germany" (Whatever that was), but it as something POSITIVE (Even his anti-semitism could be viewed as pro-German an opposed to Anti-Jew). His opponents the Communists made the mistake of being Anti-Nazi and Anti-Capital, and lost. Thus my point, be POSITIVE about something, not just anti.

[robinlynne]

11. agreed.

[Solar_Power]

15. She has the nomination locked up

It's over. The only question is who will she pick for VP.

[hiphopnation]

65. haha

good one

[MonkeyFunk]

16. Hillary Clinton is not a conservative

don't be silly.

[Bitwit1234]

18. Hillary Clinton....she got the last name by marriage her name would be

RODHAM...............RODHAM...........SURE AS HELL GLAD WE WON'T HAVE AN OBAMA....

[bellasgrams]

21. Hillary?

How about anyone but a repb. Honestly you people are pushing me more toward Hillary everyday. It's disgusting to try to find good solid info on here. You have to weed out all the clutter that is posted against dems.

I do like Hillary but I also like Richardson, Biden, Clark and Gore. I've weeded out Obama & Edwards after watching them attack others dems.

Let us vote for our choice while we still have a choice. I'ts a long time before election day, things could change.

[GeminiProgressive]

26. a lot of my friends and family

who I would cosnider moderates have decided to support Edwards after watching the deabtes. My parents and a lot of co-workers originally supported Hillary, but after hearing her comments on lobbyists and war with Iran they have bacled away from supporting her. I think it is pretty likely that she will be the nominee and if so, I will support her, but I don't think she would lead our country into a more progressive age. I think she would actually hurt our chances of keeping the house and senate.

[saracat]

60. You weeded out Obama and Edwards after watching them "attack' other Dems?

Have you even "watched" Clinton's Campaign? Do you think Obama and Edwards should just stand mute?Sheesh.This is a primary.They have to stand up for themselves and diferentiate themselves from each other.The others have "attacked" Hillary as well, or aren't you aware of that? I think either you haven't been paying much attention or you had already made up your mind who you support. I will for sure be voting for my choice and it won't be one stuffed down my throat by the media.

[Islander Expat]

23. The "Wife" of a former president, you can't get more third world than that!

Imelda would be so proud!

[PeaceNikki]

29. "Wife"? In quotes, even?

:wtf:

[earthlover]

48. So would Lewinski and Flowers be in quotes?

[papau]

25. I'd buy in if your reason were true - but they are not - she is not a conservative, nor

has she not said that she would not have voted no if she knew then what we all know now - you just want your wording and she will not give it to you :-)

No president should have "qualms" attacking anyone that is a mortal threat to this nation, and indeed I doubt you could even one of the candidates to say otherwise. And that is all she has said when she said no options are ever off the table.

All those running in both parties have some people running companies that favor them - it does not mean they are owned by those corporations

She gets no more media than the others - it just seems so because she puts out more ideas and detailed positions than the others (Edwards I grant you has not gotten as much media as his idea generation deserves). Obama is in the paper every day.

There is no one running with double digit support that has not hired media and PR people - anyone not smart enough to hire these folks is too stupid to be President.

Her health care package, along with Edwards package, is the best combination of something that can pass and something that has a single payer Medicare option that might get us to a simple single payer Medicare system with Health insurance companies limited to selling supplemental policies, the way they sell supplemental policies for Medicare now (everyone assumes that within Medicare the stupid "experiment" with an insurance company HMO will end once the subsidy to the companies ends).

The Republicans would love anyone other than Hillary in the Whitehouse - curiously that is the path you are suggesting.

Edwards has indeed been more liberal and while I have not made a choice, he does lead in my personal poll.

But there is no way I will suggest to anyone "anyone but Hillary" - but as always - that is just my opinion.

[kitty44]

36. "She gets no more media than the others"

That is just not true.

[papau]

45. She gets a media blast on each policy position release - as does Obama - and usually Edwards -the

speech by speech coverage is the about the same - at least that is how it feels to me-

The pundit hate and love columns do indeed concern Hillary more than the others - indeed I have not seen the pundits dump on Obama or Edwards or Dodd or Richardson or Bidden - or have I missed a few Maureen Dowd columns?

[earthlover]

51. You are right....

even before 2004 was over, the media was talking her up as the next nominee....

[defendandprotect]

62. She just did the same thing with Iran .... !!!!

[txaslftist]

66. No president should have qualms...

Are you kidding?

Pre-emptive war against another nation that is a "threat" is a war crime.

Not only should a president have "qualms", he shouldn't do it, period.

The USSR maintained the ability to annihilate us within six hours, and no defense we had available would have prevented it from happening. It's a good thing our leaders had "qualms" for so long.

[illinoisprogressive]

33. Just say 'NO' to Clinton

[XOKCowboy]

34. I agree with you but...

if she wins the primary (remember that Howard Dean was the frontrunner 4 years ago about this time) I'll vote for her.

Anybody but a Repug.

[illinoisprogressive]

35. IF she wins I will vote for Stephen Colbert

[leftchick]

39. I will write in Kucinich

or Gravel, or Myself rather than vote for her!

[leftchick]

38. the biggest joke is Hillary is referred to as a "LIBERAL"

She is as much as a Liberal as john McCain. Give me a fucking BREAK from this shit!

[mondo joe]

41. John McCain is pro choice?

John McCain supports civil unions?

Jebus, facts don't count for anything some days around here.

[leftchick]

52. John McCain Supports ATTACKING IRAN

And PERMANENT BASES in Iraq, And the secret FREE TRADE DEALS, Just like Hillary!

One or two marginal issues she says (today) to be moderate on, does not distract me from her long term neocon foreign policy agenda.

[mondo joe]

54. One or two MARGINAL issues?

You may have just out-nutted Free Republic.

Thanks.

[leftchick]

56. so attackng Iran

and a permanent presence in the Mid-East is Mainstream? :crazy:

check your own NUT supply. :eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

44. That's idiotic

truly.

[earthlover]

53. better get used to it....

...in the GENERAL election, hillary will be touted as the extreeeeeeemmmmmmeeeeeee liveral!

[emilyg]

50. Go Hillary. The time is now.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

55. I agree. BUT - what I am hoping for is that all the bullshit stands

she has taken and her obfuscations were done to get to where she wants to be - the WH. And, once there, she will return to the wide-eyed-liberal she used to be during the Watergate hearings. Naive? probably.

I think the whole thing behind this is that Bill wants in there again.

[LittleClarkie]

59. Better find yourself a candidate and campaign like hell if that's how you feel

ABC isn't going to work any better than ABB did. Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, and all that.

[txaslftist]

64. Apparently she's got the backing of the Military Industrial Complex.

Lemme see if I can find the link to that article...

No, can't seem to. Anyways, I read an article this am suggesting that Hillary is the new darling of the Military Industrial Complex folks.

On Edit: Found it http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/industry-embraces_n_68927.html

[hiphopnation]

67. yes yes yes

i'm writing in gore if we can't get him on the ticket in CA

or Edwards or Kucinich...

i'll hold my nose in the general for her, but not in inch before that fateful moment. sorry Hill, you lost me a while back.