The Freepers really fear a Hillary win in 2008

[Roon]

<So do I. I want this act reviewed into perpetuity. We will not always have someone we trust in the WH. Remember that Hillary is again knocking on its doors. And if not her, we could get someone of a Clintonian ilk. 900 FBI files could simply look like the warm-up.>

<I'm with you. I don't want these powers in Hillary's hands, or any 'Rat, for that matter. Extension, yes, but permanancy, no.>

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1541825/posts

[Ioo]

1. So do I

[pocket]

11. me too

.

[WI_DEM]

2. I don't want another Clinton in the WH either

4 Bush years, 8 Clinton years, 8 Bush years, and what 4-8 more Clinton years? we need to move on.

[Tom Joad]

7. And what, by the time she's done, it will be Chelsea's turn?

[WI_DEM]

10. No Jeb, then Chelsea

[aintitfunny]

9. You have a good point..we really should not

be promoting dynasties, ain't the American way!

[chicagiana]

60. Me Three ...

Hillary is turning into a mush-mouth, right of center Democrat. We don't need that. We need REAL progressives.

I'm all in for Russ Feingold. He is the only prominent REAL Democrat. Barack Obama has fell in with the mush-mouthers.

[oregonindy]

3. Hell I fear a win by this demopublican war lover.

[LynneSin]

14. I'd rather have Clinton has president than any republican out there

At least I know she isn't going to appoint assholes like Roberts or Alito to the Supreme Court.

And she has mentioned that we should have timelines, she's more in our court than in Lieberman's in regard to this issue

[MrBenchley]

21. Hilariously, there's a thread RIGHT NOW

pointing out how much the extreme left is just like the extreme right...

And here are a bunch joyfully agreeing with freepers.

Ought to make some people here think, but I'm too old and cynical to even pretend it will.

[LynneSin]

32. If folks think it's bad right now...

...wait til we have ANOTHER 4 years of republican majority. At that point they aren't going to give 2 shits about what they do to our basic rights

[MrBenchley]

35. It is noticeable that the Democrats singled out for abuse

by some here as DINOs or corpowhorocrats or "Vichy Democrats" or whatever nonsense they term (yesterday it was "cancer") are almost always:
--up for re-election in 2006, and
--walloping their Republican opponent like a drum.

Funny, how that works out, isn't it?

[LynneSin]

38. Hey, BTW - Ramsey says "hello"

and that we must get together in 2006

[MrBenchley]

42. Hello from me right back!

We will!

[mtnsnake]

59. "the extreme left is just like the extreme right"

...in the way they both foam at the mouths at the thought of a true Democrat becoming President.

...in the way they both make up baseless lies about Hillary, but can never back a single one of them up when presented with the facts.

...in the way that each group is selfish.

...in the way that neither group is willing to COMPROMISE one iota toward the center in order to save this country from continuing its pathetic slide downslope. Each extreme would rather whine, bitch, piss, moan, & wallow in a sea of tears than come up with any real solutions that might benefit EVERYONE.

[Tactical Progressive]

61. Out-of-touch Dem arguments against Hillary revolve around three things

and they're all specious:

1 - Republicans hate Hillary
2 - She's too 'right wing'
3 - She can't get elected


Aside from the fact that those arguments are contradictory within themselves, they are each wrong or meaningless in and of themselves:

1-Republicans hate everybody they confront. That's what they do: hate. They hated Bill who gave them the best economics they've ever had. They hated a true war hero over their deserter-in-chief and his deferrment vp. They would have hated whoever was put up against them, and they'll hate whoever will run against them, with a mindless passion. If we put up hard-right John McCain they'd hate him. Basing anything we do on their hatreds is meaningless.

2-Hillary is as progressive as just about anyone on this board.

3-She can get elected, as the polls show and will in all likelyhood increasingly show.

Furthermore:

1-I think Repub hatred of Hillary will smash their own heads against the rocks like Ricky D did here in NY. Their rabid assaults on her will backfire in most people's minds. Not the ones who'll hate any progressive anyway - who cares about them, but with independent voters along with what few Repub moderates remain. The more support and success she has, the more insane they'll get, and Democrats should by now understand what that means.

2-Her centrist positioning is helping her; I hope she does more of it.

3-She will get elected. Be the ball.

[mtnsnake]

65. It's amazing how these "out-of-touch Dems" say she isn't progressive

yet they never know what to say when you show them that her track record in the Senate is the 9th most progressive out of all 100 senators, even more progressive than Kucinich and Kerry.

I also love how her naysayers always complain about her centrist positions, only they go way beyond that in their viscious descriptions of her. I suppose they'd rather lose another election than come up with a candidate who's smart enough to compromise toward the center in order for a Democrat to win.

At least with Hillary, the people will know what they're getting. There is nothing vague and no retracting your statements from one day to the next, like someone else I know. And until someone else dethrones her, she remains our best hope for the time being of getting a Democrat in power.

[MrBenchley]

66. Exactly so....

Think of all the astonishingly dishonest thing's YOU've debunked in just this last week by "progressine purists."

[bluestateguy]

4. You got it

If we win, WE get the Patriot Act!

Look out anti-abortion wackos! You're first!

[Tiggeroshii]

5. lovitt...

:rofl:

[sui generis]

6. I answered her "questionnaire" on what she thought was

socially relevant, leading questions and all.

Most notable was what was absent: not a single thing about sexual orientation discrimination or same sex marriage.

She had me at hell no.

Sorry Hillary, if you want to ask a gay guy what's socially relevant - how about laws that let us live like every other American instead of second class citizens?

Next time, don't forget to ask.

[LynneSin]

15. So you would help a republican get president in 2008

I mean, I know you wouldn't vote for the republican but you'd go 3rd party and split our side and allow a republican in the White House that would appoint more Supreme Court justices that would without a doubt, not support anything that would be positive for gay rights. I mean, how much longer can Stevens or Ginsberg last on the court - both are near retiremnt.

That concept alone means I'll fight like hell for different candidates in the primary but in the end I'll vote for Hillary if she is the nomination

[sui generis]

17. Well we do disagree on that

My vote is taken for granted by the DLC. There is no pressure other than human decency to support us in the legislature, and human decency won't overcome political expediency if they need to abandon equality issues for a win. And if they're willing to abandon equality issues for a win rather than learn how to fight for them and win, they are willing to keep abandoning them to stay in power.

So I with deep regret would answer yes. If it gets down that far the end result would be the same for me. I have to vote my conscience and for principle.

I would not vote for someone who does not vote for me, it's a matter of survival. I have voted for the end guy every time, but next time I'm not, and there are a LOT of us who feel the same way right now.

One Issue voter and proud of it. This one IS my life.

[enough already]

52. People like Hillary have split our side

We don't need a "Democrat" in the WH who supports war and plays games with gay rights. Anyone but Hillary.

[Clark2008]

18. As I recall, that survey didn't have anything about Iraq on it, either.

I didn't get the survey, but someone posted it on DU.

I may be wrong, but I believe the whole thread was about it not containing anything about Iraq.

[sui generis]

19. well it was a shameless marketing ploy of course

designed to get people to say "yes!!!!" as often as possible and then ask them for money - old live call sales trick.

So of course nothing controversial that people might say "well maybe, but" to, because that interrupts the cadence of the lead-in.

Just the same, Hillary is going to have to address controversial issues, because if she doesn't you can bet her opponents will, and IF she's silent they will happily exploit her silence too.

[Douglas Carpenter]

56. Senator Clinton's record on gay rights vs. Sen. Allen and Sen. McCain

I am not a supporter of Hillary for the nomination -- I just like to check their records first

link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=WNY99268&type=category&category=Civil%2BLiberties&go.x=5&go.y=11

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004..

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 13 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 25 percent in 2003-2004.

__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Family Research Council 67 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Family Research Council 67 percent in 2004.
____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 83 percent in 2004.
__________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.

[Tactical Progressive]

67. See, that's where you and people like you

and I don't mean gays, I mean people who don't understand a single fucking thing about politics, go wrong.

Imagine for a few seconds that you exist in reality, where Hillary actually is a progressive like most of the rest of us on this board. Don't worry, you can go right back to where you are now. But just imagine the real world. Hold that. Hold it. Don't get all jittery and start bouncing around 'But she said this...' 'She didn't do that...' She's a progressive and she really does get it. Really does. Stay calm. Now, see how all of your agitation is bullshit? Because it is, as with so many of the others seeing some kind of right-winger there. OK, you can go back now. Baby steps.

This is the key thing that issue-based Dem-hater progressives have to get straight in their heads, if only for a few seconds at a time. It's the important thing: having faith. Understanding that somebody else understands what you do. Then you - she - doesn't have to go screaming her progressiveness down everybody's throats to cuddle her base. Bush did that in 2000. Govern from the middle. Uniter not divider. Humble foreign policy. Not the world's policeman. No politics of personal destruction. Pure fucking lies from top to bottom.

But his base knew who he was. That's the advantage of faith that the right-wing mentality uses. They *know* that their nutcases will promote their evil; they don't need them to come out and say it because if they did, they'd never get elected dog-catcher. This is something progressives have to begin to understand. I know it's hard; it's called politics.

This is what I'd like to hear Hillary say: "I don't believe in gay marriage. That's just my personal belief."

Simple and direct. Do you know how much good that would do her in getting elected and for getting coattails in Congress? It even leaves open what she would do.

Now, since you're back safely ensconced in the fairy-tale world where 'Hillary is a right-winger' you're probably screaming in anger at just the thought of it. This is where the reality-immersion exercise above comes into play again. Go there again. She really is a progressive. See how everything changes? When she doesn't have to play to your, and everyone else's, ideological purity tests? When she doesn't have to comfort her own base publically? Some people may call that lying. Well, a hundred-thousand people aren't going to get maimed and die over it, so the Republicans have set the bar on lying beyond anything we'll ever have to answer for.


This wasn't directed at you personally, sui. I just used your post to make the point. Please forgive the sharp entry I needed to punctuate the point; to pierce the Hillary resentment from progressives. I'm sure you understand plenty about politics. I believe what you do, and so does Hillary. The problem is that so many progressives don't understand what's going on. This was directed at everyone who demands *outspoken* fealty to personal issues that they hold dear that are unpopular, as so much of progressiveness is to a populace that hates change and needs to believe that all their myths are right and nobody will make them change. Whether it be the 'sanctity' of hetero-marriage, or that we're the champions of democracy who don't 'cut and run', or that the free-market is a meritocracy, or a hundred other mindless myths we comfort ourselves with.

It is directed at progressives that congenitally demand change, but don't understand that the way to effect change isn't to demand that politicians comfort everyone on your own side's individual demands. That's where the faith comes in. Politics is about power. Hillary, or whoever the Dem nominee is, needs to keep the focus on the issues that have broad support, like middle-class economics and our national need to try to leave Iraq as some kind of testament to good intentions. You don't get the power to change things by saying things that keep you from getting power. You get the power when the people on your own side have the strength to have faith in their candidate.

In short, Hillary doesn't have to change into an outspoken progressive. She is exactly where she's supposed to be. Progressives have to change to understand that she is where she's supposed to be.

It would be one thing if Hillary wasn't really a progressive, like some kind of zell, but she is one. And it goes beyond Hillary. It's 'exercise time' for all progressives, no matter who we nominate, as we head towards another election. Faith, not in a god but in each other. Without it we're going to get another Republican. With it we get one-hundred times the chance that we'll get the things we believe in.

[aintitfunny]

8. Free Republic Nut balls aside

I happen to think Republicans in general are slathering at the bit for Hillary to win the Democratic nomination in '08. They want it bad. What a great opportunity to rouse the obsessive Clinton haters into a frenzy. I'm pretty sure I don't want Hillary, and if she won the nomination I would vote for he in the GE, albeit without enthusiasm.

[hippiechick]

22. My thoughts exactly.

:hi:

[enough already]

53. And that's the problem.

NOBODY is going to be excited about voting for her, but you can bet your a$$ the pukes will be foaming at the mouth to take her out. It will be a disaster for us.

[allisonthegreat]

55. I have mixed feelings about all of this

I agree with the poster that said it seems to be a right winged push to get Hillary to run, however i can't see that being any good. i do respect the fine senator from new york but i think edwards on a ticket with either Clark or Warner or something would be better. It will not be long now and we will see it all unfold.

[chicagiana]

63. They certainly invested a lot of money into it ...

For them it will a two-for-one, eh...

[orwell]

12. Translation

Pug Totalitarianism = Good
Democratic Totalitariansim = Bad

1 + 1 = 3

[Neil Lisst]

13. They're not the only ones worried about Hillary.

I don't think she can win the election, which is why I worry about her winning the nomination of the party. I can think of many candidates I would rather see the party put forth in 2008.

[election_2004]

16. That's because....

They know that even if Hillary wins the presidency, she will also bring out so much Republican/conservative opposition in the red and purple states that the Republicans will still end up controlling both houses of Congress. In other words, mutually-assured destruction.

I'd rather have a Democrat other than Hillary presiding over narrow Democratic majorities in Congress, rather than dealing with a President Hillary presiding over narrow Republican majorities in Congress.

[MadisonProgressive]

20. What a bunch of ignoramuses!

Cloture Fails on the Patriot Act
CSpan 2 ^


Posted on 12/16/2005 9:31:07 AM PST by William Creel


They just rejected it 53-47. 47 against, 53 for.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-79 next last
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1 posted on 12/16/2005 9:31:08 AM PST by William Creel
< Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies >

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: William Creel
if it was rejected, you then mean 53 against, not for, yes?



2 posted on 12/16/2005 9:32:21 AM PST by InsureAmerica (Evil? I have many words for it. We are as dust, to them. - v v putin)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: InsureAmerica
60 votes are required for cloture.



3 posted on 12/16/2005 9:32:54 AM PST by Veritas et equitas ad Votum (If the Constitution "lives and breathes", it dies.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies >

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: InsureAmerica
Wrong, 2/3rds is required in this procedure.



4 posted on 12/16/2005 9:33:02 AM PST by William Creel (http://mrconservative.byethost11.com/)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies >

[No Exit]

23. It would almost be worthwhile to put her in the WH

just to watch the freepster vermin booking their passages out of the U.S.

No, wait. They'd still just sit in their trailers and bitch. It's what they love best.

Sorry, Hillary. Next time, maybe, okay?

[election_2004]

27. Hillary in the White House.....

A bad thing to do just for partisan gratification.

Send Hillary to the White House, and watch the Republicans sweep Congress in 2010...

[No Exit]

24. "Christian ilk"?

What the hell is THAT??

Oh, and I like this one: "We will not always have someone we trust in the WH." Um, YEAH. Welcome to the club, freeptard!

"Extension, yes, but permanency, no." Apparently the redneck is talking about the un-Patriot Act. WHAT a dumbass. The freeptard vermin has obviously never experienced a toll road. You know--when they put a toll on a highway ("just until the cost of the highway is paid") and 50 years later, they're still collecting the toll?

[derby378]

25. I've got problems with Hillary, too, but I've extended an olive branch...

On some issues, I think Hillary is starting to learn to what extend she and other Democratic Senators were taken for a ride by the Bush regime. Now she's starting to fight back.

And I'll still take her over any Republican in 2008. Even John McCain. It's time we end this neo-con shit once and for all.

[Neil Lisst]

26. If she gets the nomination, she gets my unqualified support.

If she gets the nomination, she gets my unqualified support.

I don't cut and run when the primaries are done. That's when the real work gets done. That's when you see who was just backing some person and who is ON THE TEAM.

[kenny blankenship]

28. As usual, they are working themselves into a lather of fear over a chimera

And obsessing about something that won't happen.
They like being afraid like that, because it makes their lives appear more important and interesting.

[CANDO]

29. Edwards or Feingold

CNN had another poll up this afternoon showing Hillary way ahead. I simply can't believe any sane Democrat wouldn't be worried after her recent rightward shift. I do know this, my cousin will not vote for her. He is a Bush 2000/Kerry 2004 voter and he says there is no way she will get enough of the swing votes like his. She scares people. Maybe that shows how effective the right has been in defining her.

[MODemocrat]

30. I'm a Democrat first, and I wholly support Hillary Clinton

No republican will ever get my vote, no matter what. I want someone who's intelligent.
:thumbsup: :dem:

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[NoPasaran]

39. I don't fear a complicated person in the White House

I fear simpletons who get their marching orders from God.

[mitchum]

44. Wecome to DU, snazzydragon...

and your concerns are not groundless

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[EndElectoral]

33. how is she going to win the primary?

[election_2004]

41. That's easy

The MSM whores will just keep spouting over and over how she's the "inevitable nominee"...and people will buy into it and vote for her simply because they want to support the *winning* horse.

[leesa]

34. No they don't.

[rman]

36. ...or so they would have us believe

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

37. Shh!! Did they hear about plan code elpha nullyfayayyay?

Hope they haven't gotten a hold of the complete plan.

Freepers are difficult enough to tolerate, but totally panicked, skeert freepers, well that is more than most of us could take.

And you all know what THAT means.

[IndianaGreen]

40. A President Hillary will use PATRIOT against the Left, not the RW

Hillary will use PATRIOT against those that are opposed to the war in Iraq, the phony wars on terror and drugs, WTO, FTAA, CAFTA, NAFTA, Plan Colombia, School for the Americas, DOMA, etc.

[mitchum]

43. True, but they LOVE the idea of a Hillary candidacy

[BlueCaliDem]

46. Yeah--Nothing Like Dropping "Clinton" on Disillusioned Repukes...

...to get them back in the fold, and open their wallets for even a sorry candidate like Santorum!

Why do you think polls held by the corporate, right-wing biased media these days are showing Hillary Clinton as the Democrats' first choice?

C'mon people! Repukes KNOW that their sheeple are (privately) furious with them, and the best thing to do, is divert all that disillusion, anger, dissatisfaction away from the corrupt repukes and the Bush regime on to something that never fails to make their liberty-hating-poverty-loving bleeding hearts beat faster than dropping the Clinton name--even moreso than the "Dean" name!

Then their stealing of yet another election wouldn't be so suspect, would it?

[election_2004]

48. It's automatic GOTV fodder for the Repukes

Would a Warner or a Bayh or a Clark mobilize NEARLY the extent of the Fundie base that Senator Clinton would?

[chicagiana]

64. And why do you think ...

And why do you think that during the 2004 election, the right wing pundits couldn't stop talking about Hillary in 2008???? So much so that they suggested that Hillary's people were sabotaging Kerry so so she wouldn't have to challenge a sitting president for a nomination.

They WANT Hillary to run.

[BlueCaliDem]

47. Only the Sheeple, but NOT their (Mis)Leaders!

Their (mis)leaders in the House, and Senate, and under Rove's black-tarred wing are near delirious that Hillary "looks" like the Democrats' choice for 2008 (and the corporate-owned, reich-wing biased media is cleverly though subtle aiding and abetting here--as always).

They're already salivating over all those millions of dollars and votes from their brain-dead sheeple that would make their stealing of the '06 and '08 elections oh so easy to "forgive".

People...watch that big, gray cloud coming our way...that smokescreen that hides our corrupt election system carefully being propped up to blind the electorally blind using the best recruiting tool reich-wingers and their (mis)leaders have ever had--the name Clinton.

Be aware of wolves in sheep's clothing....

[sduncang]

49. Hillary??

This is illuminating. No one gets the goat of the right wing better then either Clinton. Just listen to the AM radio right wing talk shows - like a moth to the flame they bash the Clintons at every opportunity.

[Douglas Carpenter]

50. Hillary vs McCain or Allen -- compare their records

This is a comparison of Interest group ratings from a wide variety of Interest groups. I've compared Hillary's record with that of Sen. George Allen and Sen. John McCain since those two are reportedly the front runners for the Republican nomination. See this link of survery of Washington insiders:

http://nationaljournal.com/insiders.pdf

Just for my own record...I am NOT a supporter of for Hillary for the nomination and I am definitely NOT a friend of the DLC. Our DLC comrades
on this board can vouch for that. But OF COURSE I would support her earnestly if she should become the nominee or the obvious nominee apparent and here is why:
This is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
_____________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 67 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.
_________________________________


2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Peace Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Peace Action 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Peace Action 13 percent in 2004.
______________________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Friends Committee on National Legislation 50 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Friends Committee on National Legislation 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Friends Committee on National Legislation 0 percent in 2004.
____________________________________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.
__________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 15 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 35 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 17 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 33 percent in 2004.
_________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 85 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National School Boards Association 33 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Education Association 35 percent in 2003-2004.
______________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004..

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 13 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 25 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 7 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 14 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 25 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Family Research Council 67 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Family Research Council 67 percent in 2004.
____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 83 percent in 2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 72 percent in 2004.
____________________________

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

51. Yeah right

The mesmerized masses may be, but the "insiders who hold the power" are slobbering all over themselves in anticipation of Hill getting the Democratic nomination. Else why would we be seeing this constant barrage of "Clinton leading..." from the Corporate (rightwingallthewaytothebank) Media?

[Joey Liberal]

54. Hillary needs to stay in the Senate

Hillary does more good for the Democrats as a Senator. The mere idea of her running for President is enough to send the right wingers into spasmodic convulsions, which is always a good thing.

[Davis_X_Machina]

57. Why?

When a party takes steps to change the fundamental organization of the government that would rebound to its disadvantage when it inevitably returned to opposition, it's pretty clear that thant party never intends to return to opposition again.

[gulliver]

58. I don't even want her in the '08 presidential primary.

If she doesn't get out of the '08 presidential race definitively, I will likely send money to her Republican opponent for the Senate in '06. Better to lose a Senate seat than have this farce continue and wreck our chances for the presidency in '08.

I was thrilled that she won her Senate seat. I thought she would be a powerful voice for the Democrats and a long-serving Senator. Now its starting to look like neither will happen. She actually appears to harbor ambitions for the presidency, a prospect so unlikely and a goal so foolish that it is hard to believe she could even let it get past her own internal laugh test. It isn't funny to me any more. She can get out of the '08 presidential race or (as far as I am concerned) get out of politics.

[chicagiana]

62. That's what they said about Kerry ...

We were suckered in by the notion that the right was scared of Kerry. They had boxed Kerry in a LONG time ago with his outspoken statements against Saddam Hussein. The right knew that the war would be the primary focus of the election. Kerry tried to walk the fence and fell straight down his sack.

Kerry was left in the uncomfortable position of both being in favor and against the war. Being against and in favor of the patriot act.

Kerry said Bush should have formed a coalition. Bush said he did form a coalition. Kerry's people didn't think very carefully about how to state it. Kerry was unwilling to point out to the American people that the coalition was a pretty poor one. He wasn't will to point out that there WERE weapon inspectors back in Iraq.

Kerry was a mush-mouth. He was trying to please EVERYBODY!!!! When you have media shills like Bush, that cover for you, that can work. He didn't and he should have known it.


---------------------

Look at Hillary now. She supports abortions, but says they should be rare. If a fetus isn't a human being, the frequency of abortion is of little consequence. By saying they should be rare, Hillary implies that it is a problem to society. She is both for and against it.

On the war, Hillary supports continuation. It's not the same "get serious or get out" stuff you get from Murtha. It's a mush-mouth middle ground of "completing the mission". How can you oppose the Republican plan if you can't clearly differentiate it from your own.

And this flag burning stuff is just plain goofey!!!!

---------------------

Hillary was unfairly criticized during her tenure as first lady. She was mercilessly smeared for virtually NO REASON at all. I don't want to smear Hillary. However, I there are far better candidates in the Democratic party.

Hillary has been labled forever as being a proto-typical liberal. If her dash to the center is an attempt to counter this impression, she is wasting her time. She is far better off running even farther to the left than she has been accused of. In this way she may actually capture the votes of the people she was routinely accused of pandering to.

Hillary Clinton would make a FAR better president than GW Bush. However, as a progressive, there is little about Hillary to get excited about. She seems to have put liberalism behind her in a vain attempt to somehow prove Rush Limbaugh wrong. What they don't understand is it doesn't matter because they'll call her a liberal socialist irregardless of WHAT she does.

[Tactical Progressive]

68. I agree with most of what you say

But that doesn't mean that moderating her views won't get her alot more votes than it loses. Especially if progressives don't abandon her for saying things or doing things that they personally don't agree with. If the left holds up, then all she can do is gain votes from those moderations.

Furthermore, as to the broader point you seem to be making, Kerry's poor 'triangluation' for lack of a better term, doesn't invalidate triangulating. Just because somebody throws a bad pass on third-and-long doesn't mean a pass play is a bad move, for a poor sports metaphor.

Whoever we nominate they are going to paint as a commie. That's what fascists do. Maybe we shouldn't nominate anybody, since that criticism is going to be leveled at anybody we do nominate. Give me a name: he's a commie. So give me another name. I don't see how the right's hatreds invalidate anybody, because they hate everybody.

[BenDavid]

69. What galls my ass

is those on the right throw out this chit and what happens, dems fall right in line and become as critical of Hillary as they..... but what really galls my ass is we have some under-informed democrats. Hell in December 1995, the pillsbury, madison, report clearly stated there was nothing done illegally by either Bill or Hillary Clinton in the Whitewater matter, nor any other matter they investigated... But the dems which had already stabbed clinton in the back did not do anything to stop D'Amato from continuing this farce in 1996....
We need to support whomever in the 08 presidential primaries and when we have a candidate, then we need to get behind him or her and win the damn thing. I am sick and tired of a dem candidate that will not fight for the office.... As of now, until someone is better,it is Hillary in 08.....