Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Interesting box she's in

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
cleveramerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:33 AM
Original message
Interesting box she's in
Obama's numbers go up
She hits him
He counters with "thats the polics as usual I'm trying to get away from"

Everybody says this election is about change.
I think EVERY election is about change.

The more she camapigns on her record and experience the less she looks like the "change" candidate.The more she talks about her resume, the more his numbers go up.The more she has to hit him, the more she can't without looking "old-style"


Man! I love this stuff!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:37 AM
Response to Original message
1. If you provided actual evidence for your claims, that would be
very helpful. Without evidence, it's just speculation based on, well, nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleveramerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:41 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. First hand witness accounts
I have been watching and I can see.
Can you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:58 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. lol
sorry. that's not even close to good enough. You're making a claim- not even mitigating it with saying "imo", and asking people to take your personal opinion as fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleveramerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:10 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. I'm not trying to convince you of anything
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 05:11 AM by cleveramerican
I am simply reacting to what I have witnessed.
Perhaps your too close to it to be objective.
Too much of yourself is tied to one or the other, thats okay, but thats not me.

What evidence do you have that I am wrong?
How do you see it going this week?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #7
15. I don't really have a candidate. I may vote for Kucinich
in the primary- chiefly to send a message to the party that dems support his platform. So it would appear that I'm not the one who's too close to be objective.

I don't think you grasp how things work: When you propose a theory as fact, it's up to you to provide evidence in the form of facts. It's not up to me to disprove something that's utterly factless.

I don't know how it's going this week. Seems like the same old same old to me. Nothing appreciably different. Iowa could go for any of the top three. There's really no way to accurately predict a caucus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #1
17. Sometimes the ball just flies over your head
This is one of those times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
33. I thought the OP took pains not to make a coherent claim
How do you footnote a stream-of-consciousness journey through cable television? Everybody knows Hillary wears the pants in the family, but I think everybody wears the pants. She may have the old school kung fu grip, but the keyword for this election is "tasers".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:49 AM
Response to Original message
3. Hillary was endorsed by the Carlyle Group
which tells you a great deal about who's corner she's in.

For me, it's her transparent triangulation. She's a career politician, and that's what she's concerned with: her career. She'll say whatever works, and tow the status quo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:54 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. That's A Strange Endorsement
I have never seen a "corporation" endorse a candidate. Do you have a link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. here's a link...
It's there lobbyist (which is the corporation by proxy)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:06 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. Well, a Carlyle group minion just took a job on Obama's campaign staff.
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 06:11 AM by MADem
Perhaps you're a bit confused about where the support is going or coming from.

In any event, statements like that are just ...bullshit.

And as the poster above points out, "corporations" don't endorse candidates.

You are free to like/dislike candidates for whatever reasons you like, but if you're going to shop assertions here, it would help if they were at least somewhat factual.

http://www.rollcall.com/politics/kstendorsements.html

If your suggestion is that a particular lobbyist endorsed or provided a donation to her, well, that's not just her getting on that gravy train. As time goes on, those rolls get longer for all the candidates:

    Hillary Rodham Clinton (53)

    Cory Alexander (Fannie Mae)
    Michael Anderson (AndersonTuell)
    Don Auerbach (Investment Company Institute)
    Lyndon Boozer (AT&T)
    Bill Broydrick (Broydrick & Associates)
    Gerry Cassidy (Cassidy & Associates)
    Steve Elmendorf (Elmendorf Strategies)
    Janice Enright (Ickes & Enright Group)
    Vic Fazio (Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld)
    Holly Fechner (Covington & Burling)
    Jeff Forbes (Cauthen Forbes & Williams)
    Adam Gluck (Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal)
    Richard Goodstein (Goodstein and Associates)
    J. Eric Gould (Tew Cardenas)
    Fred Graefe (Law offices of Frederick H. Graefe)
    Charles Hansen (Hansen Government Relations)
    Tom Hebert (Ogilvy Government Relations)
    Harold Ickes (Ickes & Enright Group)
    Peter Jacoby (AT&T)
    Joel Johnson (Glover Park Group)
    John Jonas (Patton Boggs)
    David Jones (Capitol Counsel)
    Tim Keating (Honeywell International)
    Alison Kutler (Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal)
    Reta Jo Lewis (Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge)
    Joel Malina (Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates)
    David Marchick (Carlyle Group)
    Tama Mattocks (Strategic Health Care)
    Chris McCannell (Quinn Gillespie & Associates)
    Mike McNamara (Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal)
    Gwen Mellor (Hogan & Hartson)
    John Merrigan (DLA Piper)
    Mike Merola (Winning Strategies)
    Linda Morgan (Covington & Burling)
    Evan Morris (Roche Pharmaceuticals)
    Ben Noble (Troutman Sanders Public Affairs Group)
    Sean O'Shea (Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld)
    Steve Palmer (Van Scoyoc Associates)
    Peter Pappas (Pappas Telecasting Cos.)
    Scott Pastrick (BKSH)
    Heather Podesta (Heather Podesta & Partners)
    Joe Pouliot (The CJR Group)
    Steve Ricchetti (Ricchetti Inc.)
    Mark Siegel (Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell)
    Sandi Stuart (Clark & Weinstock)
    Richard Sullivan (Capitol Counsel)
    Dan Tate Jr. (Capitol Solutions)
    David Thomas (Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti)
    Paul Thornell (Citigroup)
    Loretta Tuell (AndersonTuell)
    Blair Watters (The Madison Group)
    Anne Wexler (Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates)
    Marcia Wiss (Hogan & Hartson)

    Barack Obama (15)

    Kevin Chavous (Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal)
    Tom Daschle (Alston & Bird)
    Stan Fendley (Corning)
    Elizabeth Fox (Jolly/Rissler)
    Francis Grab (Washington Council Ernst & Young)
    Tim Hannegan (Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates)
    Tom Jensen (Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal)
    Broderick Johnson (Bryan Cave Strategies)
    Mark Keam (Verizon)
    Bob Maloney (Maloney Government Relations)
    Marcus Mason (The Madison Group)
    Andy Rosenberg (Ogilvy Government Relations)
    Bobby Sepucha (Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal)
    Tom Walls (McGuireWoods)
    Michael Williams (Credit Suisse)

    Joseph Biden (7)

    Jeff Connaughton (Quinn Gillespie & Associates)
    Mark Gitenstein (Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw)
    Jonathan Jones (Johnson, Madigan, Peck, Boland & Stewart)
    Neil MacBride (Business Software Alliance)
    Jeff Peck (Johnson, Madigan, Peck, Boland & Stewart)
    Chris Putala (Earthlink)
    Marty Russo (Cassidy & Associates)

    Chris Dodd (5)

    Larry OBrien (OB-C Group)
    James Healey Jr. (BKSH & Associates)
    Kip ONeill (ONeill, Athy & Casey)
    Jake Seher (Venable)
    Jeff Trammell (Trammell & Co.)

    Bill Richardson (2)

    Gilberto Ocanas (Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal)
    Reid Stuntz (Hogan & Hartson)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. I'm not making excuses or exceptions for anyone... but even according to your own list
Hillary has more corporate support than any other.

Personally, I'm a Kucinich fan. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Well, I'd say it would be helpful, when looking at those lists, to compare the
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 06:55 AM by MADem
amount of time each candidate has been IN the Senate.

Obama is tracking 'just fine' for his Senate experience level as compared to Clinton's. After all, he's still on his first term, Clinton is into her second.

I fully expect to see his list grow as he gains still more visibility and experience.

Edit/typo

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #12
21. I agree with you...
that seems to be his nature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. and the winner is: John Edwards with absolutely zero K Street endorsements!
at least according to the link you provided....

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. And unfortunately, that could make him the loser in the end.
Money talks.

He's running some decent ads in NH, but he isn't running them enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AmBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #10
39. AMEN!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kucinich4America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #8
25. Notice who is NOT on that list?
Dennis Kucinich. NOT endorsed in any way by any members past or present of the Bush Crime Family!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. And he's definitely not going to win. It's an uphill slog for Edwards, but impossible for DK.
Lobbyists are groups of people with agendas, who hire people to push their views in DC. They aren't necessarily members of the 'Bush Crime Family' and to suggest so is simplistic.

Some are good, some are not so good. Sierra Club, good. Bunch of assclowns pushing for environmental deregulation, not so good.

Most lobbyists are male, but most of the lobbyists for charitable outfits are female, interestingly enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tkmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #8
44. I don't see John Edwards on that list
That's interesting, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quickesst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. This is kind of funny..
"She's a career politician"

OK, as opposed to Obama, Biden, Richardson, etc. who are in politics temporarily, as a stepping stone for their careers in _______? You tell us. Thanks.
quickesst
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #3
23. she was not endorsed by the Carlyle group
that is a flat out untruth.

She was endorsed by a private citizen who works for the Carlyle Group - who at one point held a job in the Clinton administration.

The difference should be obvious to anyone who's logic and sense of fair play are not distorted by blind partisanship.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. blind partisan ship? oh, please
spare me the melodrama. I'm an independent, hence there is nothing to be partisan with.

What's blind, IMO, is not being able to see that Hillary is in the pocket of Big Money. I think that is patently obvious.

And fair play? Well, I've probably given her a more fair shake than many. At one point, way back when (read: early 90's) I kind of liked her.

However, after watching her move more and more to the 'center' a.k.a. the right, I've simply lost respect for her, and I admit that openly.

And as far as the 'difference' goes, a lobbyist associated with the Carlyle Group, in ANY context, would know the consequences of such an endorsement and clear it with the proper channels first, in order to avoid losing their job.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. you posted something that was blatently false.
so you can spare ME the melodrama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. not blatantly false
although I the headline was later changed to be more accurate, and so for that I apologize.

It is not my intentions to mislead.

Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. Well, you aren't a partisan, then. You're just flat out wrong and perpetuating falsehoods.
You posted a false assertion. Is Obama in the pocket of the Carlyle Group because he hired a member who is a LOBBYIST for that outfit--to say nothing of the NRA and Pfizer, just for STARTERS--to work for him?

Here, in the event that you 'disbelieve' I will provide a citation to prove what I am saying.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/28/mer...

Obama Brings on Top Lobbyist



The waves are being generated by Mercado's other line of work -- as a lobbyist with Ogilvy Government Relations who is registered to represent several dozen big-name clients, including the National Rifle Association, the Carlyle Group, the Blackstone Group, Monsanto, Pfizer Inc., United Health Group, Sempra Energy and Constellation Energy.

His resume seems to contradict one of Obama's central themes on the campaign trail -- that as an outsider he can fend of the powerful business interests that he has argued have contributed to the income gap between rich and poor and has frustrated attempts to address issues such as high prescription drug costs and global warming.


Sorta makes this statement of yours a bit, er, problematic, too: And as far as the 'difference' goes, a lobbyist associated with the Carlyle Group, in ANY context, would know the consequences of such an endorsement and clear it with the proper channels first, in order to avoid losing their job.

It's rather silly when overassumptions are made in that fashion. Not terribly helpful, either. Lobbyists are not 'soldiers.' They're hired, and keep their jobs and make a nice bundle, because they are good salesmen. They don't have to 'believe' the shit they sell, so long as they sell it effectively.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. you're in bed with the company you keep, whether you like it or not
and I'm not going to apologize for standing up to pols who are in bed with corporations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. No one is suggesting that you apologize for that--just that you should because you
told an untruth.

You said Carlyle endorsed Clinton, and that's flat-out FALSE. And it's been shown to you that it is false. So you should retract that false statement, instead of playing a desperate 'high dudgeon' card in response.

'Stand up to pols' as a brave anonymous poster on these here internets all you want, no one is preventing you from doing that--just don't post untruths about those pols, and expect no one to beef about it, and for you to shift the goalposts and get away with it.

At a minimum, you should acknowledge your error. Because you DID make one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. No, I quoted an article here at DU that was later changed
I dont' go around dishing out untruths. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Post 3, your post, doesn't have any quotations or cites on it.
You say, in your subject line: Hillary was endorsed by the Carlyle Group

And she wasn't. That's an untruth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 05:59 AM
Response to Reply #38
45. it was the headline of the the article posted on DU
Edited on Thu Nov-29-07 06:03 AM by ixion
that was later changed. How many times do I have to say that? Or are you just looking to change the subject? I admitted that it was changed, and apologized for that.

Quit accusing me of being a liar, because I am not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 06:14 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. Well, there's this as well. Which doesn't explain how they 'got away with' allowing another
Carlyle lobbyist to go work for Obama: And as far as the 'difference' goes, a lobbyist associated with the Carlyle Group, in ANY context, would know the consequences of such an endorsement and clear it with the proper channels first, in order to avoid losing their job.

I think you assume these lobbying outfits are some kind of borg. They aren't. There are GOP firms, there are Dem firms, but there are also plenty of firms that split the diff, too. And they represent a WIDE variety of clients.

You make a suggestion about lobbyists, and what sort of 'control' their bosses have over them, that isn't supported by facts.

The lousy ones are hired because some schmuck is calling in a favor--a rep is retiring, and he farms his staff out to his favorite firms so they get a soft landing for a year or two. But the good ones, the ones that last in the biz, they're entirely different. They're hired because they can persuade; they are consummate salesmen--and what they do on their own time, so long as they're effective on the job, is their own business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. you obviously support corporately funded candidates... good for you
Edited on Thu Nov-29-07 01:50 PM by ixion
but you will never convince me that they have the public interest in mind. Never. They have their corporate masters interests in mind, and their personal career, and nothing else. This is my opinion, formed from years of watching pols serve the well-being of corporations over individuals.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it. Thanks, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. You obviously make a lot of assumptions without any valid information. Not so good for you. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. hmmm...let's see... you've just spent the last two days attacking me and defending corporately
Edited on Thu Nov-29-07 02:32 PM by ixion
funded candidates. In the context of this conversation, that's all the valid information that is necessary.

My only mistake was quoting an article posted on this board, something you've made me regret. And yet you'll willing defend corrupt pols as though they were royalty.

Yeah, whatever. Have fun with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. I am not "attacking YOU." I'd have to care one way or another about YOU to attack YOU.
I disagree with your ASSERTIONS and your conclusions. There's a difference.

It would be helpful to you to understand that difference, too.

People who don't agree with your views are not attacking YOU--they are attacking your VIEWS.

You'll need thicker skin if you're so easily bruised, there, little flower.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. I'm okay with you attacking my assertions...
Edited on Thu Nov-29-07 03:24 PM by ixion
I expect that. However, accusing me of lying is far different from disagreeing with my assertions. You're totally entitled to disagree. You're not entitled to call me a liar. All I did was quote an article posted by another DU'er that was later changed AFTER I had already quoted it. I want to make decisions -- and postulate assertions -- based on the best data. I'm fully open to debating and defending my assertions. I just don't like being accused of trying to be devious when, in fact, I was not. It was an honest mistake, and I apologized for it several posts back.

Really, I don't think you and I are ever going to agree on what's going on. It sounds like we have far different perspectives. I'll look forward to debating you in the future. :-)

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. If you say you are sincere, well, I believe you. If it was a simple quote, then that's what it was.
It just seemed a bit hit-and-runnish, and without quotes around your subject line, the words appeared to be your own. Your follow up remarks made it seem taht way as well.

No harm, no foul.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
34. Not true
You should learn to read the posts and not just the subject line. Even the OP was forced to changed the subject line because it was so dishonest
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #34
54. rofl... I love how you Hil defenders have been all over me...
even though there is a case to be made that donating money to a candidate is a form of endorsement. Sure, the article was incorrect, and because I didn't read it in it's entirety, I misquoted. I have apologized for that over and over now.

It's funny, though, Clinton takes money from the Carlyle Group, the taking of which is both an acceptance on her part and a passive endorsement on theirs, and yet it's all blatantly untrue.

I have to laugh. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 07:00 AM
Response to Original message
14. Here's Hillary's record. Looks pretty good to me.
Senator Clinton supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Trust for Historic Preservation 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Children's Defense Fund 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 91 percent in 2006.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 100 percent in 2005

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 100 percent from 1988-2003 (Senate) or 1991-2003 (House).

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Public Health Association 80 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 93 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 84 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 88 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of Government Employees 83 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Committee for an Effective Congress 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2005.

According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 80 percent of the Senators.

According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on social policy issues than 83 percent of the Senators.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Alliance for Retired Americans 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 92 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Bread for the World 100 percent in 2003-2004.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Partnership for the Homeless 100 percent in 2003-2004.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can...

She was promoting universal coverage before it was cool. Furthermore she helped to create the SCHIP program. And most importantly she was dead on in the debate the other week where she said political will was the most important thing needed to push health care reform through and we know without a doubt she has that.

She has fougt unrelentingly for a woman's right to choose as well as women's rights both domestically and abroad

Create a Strategic Energy Fund - Hillary has proposed a Strategic Energy Fund that would inject $50 billion into research, development and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal technology, ethanol and other homegrown biofuels. Hillary's proposal would give oil companies a choice: invest in renewable energy or pay into the fund. Hillary's proposal would also eliminate oil company tax breaks and make sure that oil companies pay their fair share for drilling on public lands. Instead of sending billions of dollars to the Middle East for their oil, Hillary's proposal will create a new clean energy industry in America and create tens of thousands of jobs here.

Champion a Market-Based "Cap and Trade" Approach - Hillary supports a market-based, cap and trade approach to reducing carbon emissions and fight global warming. This approach was used successfully to limit sulfur dioxide and reduce levels of acid rain in the 1990s. By capping the amount of emissions in the environment and allowing corporations to buy and sell permits, this approach offers corporations a flexible, cost-efficient method to do their share to reduce emissions and combat global warming. The program will reduce emissions, drive the development of clean technologies, and create a market for projects that store carbon dioxide.

20% Renewable Electricity Standard by 2020 - Hillary believes we need to shift our reliance on high carbon electricity sources to low-carbon electricity sources by investing in renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind. As President, she'll work to require power companies to obtain 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Make Federal Buildings Carbon Neutral - Hillary believes that the federal government should lead the way in reducing carbon emissions from buildings. Buildings account for 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and the federal government owns or leases more than 500,000. Hillary would require all federal buildings to steadily increase the use of green design principles, energy efficient technologies, and to generate energy on-site from solar and other renewable sources. By 2030, all new federal buildings and major renovations would be carbon neutral, helping to fight global warming and cutting the $5.6 billion that the federal government spends each year on heating, cooling and lighting.

Protecting Against Exposure to Toxic Chemicals - Hillary wants to make the products we use safer, especially for children. There are tens of thousands of chemicals used in the U.S. and hundreds of new chemicals introduced each year, but little health testing is conducted for many of them. Hillary would require chemical companies to prove that new chemicals are safe before they are put on the market, and would set more stringent exposure standards for kids. She would also create a "priority list" of existing chemicals and require testing to make sure they are safe. To improve our understanding of the links between chemicals and diseases like cancer, Hillary would create an "environmental health tracking network" that ties together information about pollution and chronic diseases.

Hillary's Record

In the White House, Hillary led efforts to make adoption easier, to expand early learning and child care, to increase funding for breast cancer research, and to help veterans suffering from Gulf War syndrome who had too often been ignored in the past. She helped launch a national campaign to prevent teen pregnancy and helped create the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, which moved children from foster care to adoption more quickly and the number of children who have moved out of foster care into adoption has increased dramatically.

She was instrumental in designing and championing the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which has provided millions of children with health insurance. She battled the big drug companies to force them to test their drugs for children and to make sure all kids get the immunizations they need through the Vaccines for Children Program. Immunization rates dramatically improved after the program launched.

Hillary has been a leading member of the Environment and Public Works Committee since she was elected to the Senate. Today, she chairs the Superfund and Environmental Health Subcommittee and in that capacity has promoted legislation to evaluate and protect against the impact of environmental pollutants on people's health and clean up toxic waste.

Global warming and Clean Air
Spoken out forcefully about the need to tackle global warming in hearings, speeches, rallies and on the Senate floor and co-sponsored "cap and trade" legislation.
Worked to reduce air pollution that causes asthma and other respiratory diseases by writing and helping to pass new laws to clean up exhaust from school buses, and other diesel-powered equipment.
Supported legislation to reduce pollution from power plants, including harmful emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide - emissions that contribute to poor air quality, smog, acid rain, global warming, and mercury contamination of fish.
Aggressively fought the Bush Administration's ill-advised attempts to weaken clean air laws.

Improving Water Quality and Protecting Drinking Water
Helped to overturn the Bush Administration's attempt to allow more arsenic in drinking water.
Cosponsored legislation to protect lakes, rivers and coastal waters by fighting the spread of destructive invasive species, such as the zebra mussel.
Helped ot pass new clean water laws, including measures to protect New York City's water supplies and clean up Long Island Sound.

Protecting Public Lands
Fought oil company efforts to pen the Artic Wildlife Refuge in Alask and Pacific and Atlantic coastal waters to drilling.
Cosponsored the Roadless Area Conservation Act, which prohibits road construction and logging in unspoiled, roadless areas of the National Forest System, and voted for additional funding and manpower to combat forest fires in the west.

Reducing Dangerous Chemicals and Cleaning Up Hazardous Waste
Supported legislation to restore the "polluter pays" principle by reinstating a chemical company fee to fund cleanups of highly contaminated "Superfund" waste sites.
Cosponsored the "kids-Safe Chemical Act," which requires chemical companies to provide health and safety before putting new chemicals in consumer products.
Proposed legislation to create an environmental health tracking network to enable us to better understand the impact of environmental hazards on human health and well-being.

Tackling the Toxic Legacy of 9/11
Pushed for health care benefits for first responders, residents and others whose health has been impacted from breathing the toxic dust and smoke in New York City after 9/11.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/20/134810/677

Hillary Clinton co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund, in 1977. In late 1977, President Jimmy Carter (for whom she had done 1976 campaign coordination work in Indiana) appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation, and she served in that capacity from 1978 through the end of 1981. For much of that time she served as the chair of that board, the first woman to do so. During her time as chair, funding for the Corporation was expanded from $90 million to $300 million, and she successfully battled against President Ronald Reagan's initial attempts to reduce the funding and change the nature of the organization.

Following the November 1978 election of her husband as Governor of Arkansas, Clinton became First Lady of Arkansas in January 1979, her title for a total of twelve years. Bill appointed her chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee the same year, where she successfully obtained federal funds to expand medical facilities in Arkansas' poorest areas without affecting doctors' fees.

Hillary Clinton chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee from 1982 to 1992, where she sought to bring about reform in the state's court-sanctioned public education system. One of the most important initiatives of the entire Clinton governorship, she fought a prolonged but ultimately successful battle against the Arkansas Education Association to put mandatory teacher testing as well as state standards for curriculum and classroom size in place. She introduced Arkansas' Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth in 1985, a program that helps parents work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy.

And a bit of stuff from the White House years:

Along with Senator Ted Kennedy, she was the major force behind the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage. She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare. She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.

The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome. Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice. In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady.

Along with Senator Ted Kennedy, she was the major force behind the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage.<124> She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare.<125> She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.<43> The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome.<43> Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice.<43> In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady.<43> As First Lady, Clinton hosted numerous White House Conferences, including ones on Child Care (1997),<126> Early Childhood Development and Learning (1997),<127> and Children and Adolescents (2000),<128> and the first-ever White House Conferences on Teenagers (2000)<129> and Philanthropy (1999).<130>

Hillary Clinton traveled to over eighty countries during this time,<131> breaking the mark for most-travelled First Lady held by Pat Nixon.<132> In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in China itself.<133> She was one of the most prominent international figures at the time to speak out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Islamist fundamentalist Taliban that had seized control of Afghanistan.<134><135> She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

"...Hillary Clinton traveled to over eighty countries during this time,<131> breaking the mark for most-travelled First Lady held by Pat Nixon.<132> In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in China itself.<133> She was one of the most prominent international figures at the time to speak out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Islamist fundamentalist Taliban that had seized control of Afghanistan.<134><135> She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries..."

More:
http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/israe...
http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/darfu...


The following are polls from progressive groups, rating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on how often they vote for progressive issues. For each group, http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php

Clinton Vs. Barack Obama (progressivepunch)
Overall Progressive Score: 92% 90%
Aid to Less Advantaged People at Home and Abroad: 98% 97%
Corporate Subsidies 100% N/A
Education, Humanities and the Arts 88% 100%
Environment 92% 100%
Fair Taxation 97% 100%
Family Planning 88% 80%
Government Checks on Corporate Power 95% 97%
Healthcare 98% 94%
Housing 100% 100%
Human Rights & Civil Liberties 82% 77%
Justice for All: Civil and Criminal 94% 91%
Labor Rights 91% 91%
Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful 94% 90%
War and Peace 80% 86%
easures to protect New York City's water supplies and clean up Long Island Sound.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlertLurker Donating Member (877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. How many times are you going to post this?
Probably about as many times as I will post this one. My cherry picked list is much shorter than your cherry-picked list, but AFAIAC, much more to the point:

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463
10/18/2007 Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions - DID NOT VOTE
09/06/2007 Prohibiting U.S. Assistance for Groups that Support Coercive Abortion - DID NOT VOTE
10/26/2005 Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Funding Amendment - N
11/01/2007 Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (CHIP) - DID NOT VOTE
09/10/2007 Bridge Repair Funding - DID NOT VOTE
08/03/2006 Death/EstateTax and Minimum Wage Bill of 2006 - N
05/26/2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, 2001 - N
11/08/2007 Water Resources Development Act of 2007 - DID NOT VOTE
10/30/2007 Amtrak Reauthorization - DID NOT VOTE
09/07/2007 Student Loan Lender Subsidy Cuts and Student Grants - DID NOT VOTE
03/07/2005 Minimum Wage Amendment - N
06/06/2007 Denying Legal Status for Immigrants Convicted of Certain Crimes - N
10/01/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 - DID NOT VOTE
11/07/2007 Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies - DID NOT VOTE
12/18/2001 No Child Left Behind Act - Y
06/14/2007 Offshore Drilling in Virginia - DID NOT VOTE
04/25/2002 Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) Act of 2001 - N
09/07/2006 Media in the Middle East Amendment - N
11/19/2002 Homeland Security Act of 2002 - Y
05/07/2007 FDA Drug Import Certification Amendment - N
09/06/2006 Cluster Munitions Amendment - N
10/11/2002 Use of Military Force Against Iraq - Y
03/02/2006 USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization - Y
10/06/2004 National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 - Y
10/25/2001 USA Patriot Act of 2001 - Y
09/14/2001 Military Force Authorization resolution - Y
06/07/2006 Same Sex Marriage Resolution - N
09/19/2006 U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation - Y
07/07/2003 U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act - Y
07/07/2003 U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act - Y

HRC only talks like a Democrat....She VOTES like a Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. You got one of those "DID NOT VOTE" lists for Obama?
I think DU has enough bandwidth to withstand the posting of that list. I hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlertLurker Donating Member (877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. I'll put one together just for you.
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 08:34 AM by AlertLurker
from Obama's voting record:
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

10/18/2007 Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions - DID NOT VOTE
09/06/2007 Prohibiting U.S. Assistance for Groups that Support Coercive Abortion - DID NOT VOTE
06/22/2006 Defense Department FY 2007 Authorization bill - Voted Y
10/26/2005 Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Funding Amendment - N
04/18/2005 Future Military Funding for Iraq Amendment - DID NOT VOTE
11/01/2007 Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (CHIP) - DID NOT VOTE
10/18/2007 Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions - DID NOT VOTE
10/03/2007 Border Fence and Customs Appropriations - DID NOT VOTE
10/01/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 - DID NOT VOTE
09/10/2007 Bridge Repair Funding - DID NOT VOTE
07/26/2007 Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act - DID NOT VOTE
07/26/2007 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations - DID NOT VOTE
07/26/2007 Border Fence and Customs Appropriations - DID NOT VOTE
07/26/2007 REAL ID Funding - DID NOT VOTE
09/07/2007 Student Loan Lender Subsidy Cuts and Student Grants - DID NOT VOTE
07/20/2007 Student Loan Lender Subsidy Cuts and Student Grants - DID NOT VOTE
10/30/2007 Amtrak Reauthorization - DID NOT VOTE
05/07/2007 FDA Drug Import Certification Amendment - DID NOT VOTE
07/19/2007 Sense of the Senate on Guantanamo Bay Detainees - DID NOT VOTE
06/06/2007 Denying Legal Status for Immigrants Convicted of Certain Crimes - N
06/14/2007 Offshore Drilling in Virginia - DID NOT VOTE
11/08/2007 Water Resources Development Act of 2007 - DID NOT VOTE
09/06/2007 Prohibiting U.S. Assistance for Groups that Support Coercive Abortion - DID NOT VOTE
10/31/2006 Secure Fence Act of 2006 - Voted Y
09/26/2007 Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding Federalism in Iraq - DID NOT VOTE
09/26/2007 Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps - DID NOT VOTE
03/02/2006 USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization - Voted Y
06/07/2006 Same Sex Marriage Resolution - N
06/29/2006 U.S. -Oman Free Trade Agreement - Voted Y
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SIMPLYB1980 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #20
48. Wow!
Obama sure doesn't like to vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #16
42. Till it stops bouncing off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. If that's her record, why do so many Democrats hate her?
Could it be that the years and years of constant Right Wing attacks mean more than facts to them?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. I think Congressional voting records can separate Republicans
from Democrats most of the time, but they don't tell us much about the range within the party.

For example, say both candidates voted for, I don't know, a bill to put parks near every school. A and B are the same, right? But what the voting record doesn't tell you is that Candidate A fought to make sure the parks were equipped with up-to-the date equipment and a nature corner while Candidate B worked with Republicans to trim those items from the bill A is good and B is bad, right? But maybe B trimmed the bill because that was the only way to get it passed and B figured build the parks first, then get the equipment installed next year. Maybe A was trying to kill the bill by loading it up like a Christmas tree. And what do we learn about C who expressed no opinion but supported the final bill? Sometimes what goes on in Congress is too complex and the differences are too subtle to explain in a simple voting record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #18
31. I think there's a bit of gender bias there, and residual anger at the
fact that her husband (toss in the Monica biz there, too) booted Papi Bush outta the White House. They really EXPECTED to win that one in a walk, and were shocked, I tell you, SHOCKED that Clinton bested them.

If you think back, it started before the first Clinton inauguration....all of the snide Arkansas insults, the 'hick' comments, the picking apart of the President-elect's weight, his wife's 'style' or lack thereof...and it never stopped, even after President Clinton left the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #18
32. I think there's a bit of gender bias there, and residual anger at the
fact that her husband (toss in the Monica biz there, too) booted Papi Bush outta the White House. They really EXPECTED to win that one in a walk, and were shocked, I tell you, SHOCKED that Clinton bested them.

If you think back, it started before the first Clinton inauguration....all of the snide Arkansas insults, the 'hick' comments, the picking apart of the President-elect's weight, his wife's 'style' or lack thereof...and it never stopped, even after President Clinton left the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 05:35 AM
Response to Reply #18
43. That's exactly it--the Hillary-haters are unwitting victims of the right-wing slime machine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleveramerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 04:56 AM
Response to Reply #18
56. a candidate is more than a resume
Their records are only part of the story.
What gets said during the campaign matters.
Campaign "style" matters.
Personal charm matters.
Old baggage matters.
Body language matters

all kinds of things matter that you can't put in a campaign flyer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
36. You're right. I hope Hillary keeps on attacking and Bill keeps pretending he's Jerry Rubin.
It's been very entertaining for me, too -- watching Hillary trying s hard to beat Obama down by hook and by crook as her polls numbers
decline and his go up. And this latest attempt to rewrite history by Bill only reinforces the impression that the Clintons are dishonest,
which doesn't help Hillary at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sjdnb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
40. I have to assume you have lived most of your political life
as a paid campaign staffer. Otherwise, you'd find this primary season disgusting.

No one to be passionate about -- just a lot of compromise.

I've worked with your kind -- it's why we've lost, in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleveramerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #40
41. I like to watch it all play out.
I love primary season. Every twist and turn that will lead to an eventual nominee is just the best political theater you can hope for.
What is disgusting about it?

Its plays out slightly differently , but also much the same, each and every time.


I am a student of politics, a fan.
I am fascinated by what gets said by whom, what the tone and the inflections are.
Its like watching master craftsmen at work.

Mark Twain said "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is like the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning"

Nowhere is that more apparent than during primary season.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 06:02 AM
Response to Original message
46. Interesting box you are in :) nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleveramerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 04:59 AM
Response to Reply #46
57. Same as it ever was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 30th 2014, 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC