Hillary Clinton: More Than Just Talk

[Tellurian]

With the critical foreign policy challenges America faces in the world today, voters will have to decide which candidate has the strength and experience to be the next president of the United States.

In an attempt to deflect attention from the fact that Senator Obama served in the Illinois state senate just three years ago and would have less experience than any president since World War II, Senator Obama and his advisors have gone on the attack. They have criticized the role Senator Clinton has played in promoting American interests during her eight years as First Lady, seven years in the Senate, and four years as a member of the Senator Armed Services Committee.

Senator Clinton as First Lady was "America's finest ambassador abroad," Madeleine Albright's office said at the time. Hillary Clinton did much more than "get picked up at the airport by a state convoy and security detail . . . . and get lunch" with an ambassador, as Senator Obama implied recently. As Newsweek reported about Senator Clinton's diplomatic missions as First Lady, "She often travels to remote regions where no presidential motorcade would venture and where no secretary of state would have time to go." Her 1995 speech at the UN World Conference on Women in Beijing, where she famously proclaimed "women's rights are human rights," remains an inspiration to leaders of the fight for women's equality around the world. Long before others, she visited countries stricken by HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria throughout the world, urging better prevention and treatment strategies, and returned to Washington to push for greater action within the US government. Her 1995 trip to India helped open the door to the transformation in relations between the world's two largest democracies. She raised awareness on mine issues in the Balkans and led humanitarian efforts on behalf of Kosovar refugees.

As Senator, Hillary has fought to ensure our troops have the body armor they need while in combat, and she has passed laws so that returning soldiers are treated with dignity when they return home. She has placed education at the center of U.S. international assistance. She has been a leader in combating nuclear proliferation and the threat of nuclear terrorism. She has championed efforts to end the genocide in Darfur and been a leading voice in calling for action to end global warming. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she has visited our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan three times.

By contrast:

Senator Obama has been in the U.S. Senate under three years. His campaign has touted his experience as chairman of a subcommittee on European affairs, which, according to Congressional Quarterly, has not held a hearing since he assumed the chairmanship nearly a year ago. Senator Obama has traveled to Iraq once, 23 months ago.

We respect Senator Obama's opposition to the war as a state senator in Illinois. But when he was actually in a position to influence policy from the U.S. Senate, he did not give a speech devoted to Iraq for 11 months, and waited 16 months to give his first floor speech dedicated to Iraq, which happened to express his opposition to Senator John Kerry's troop withdrawal plan. He said of his views on Iraq in 2004, "There's not much of a difference between my positions and George Bush's position at this stage." When asked if he would have voted for the 2002 resolution on Iraq had he been in the Senate at the time, he said in 2004, "I don't know." Since he joined the Senate, Senator Obama's voting record on Iraq has been virtually identical to Senator Clinton's. Indeed the only time they voted differently was when Senator Clinton voted against confirming General Casey, the former Commander of Multinational Forces in Iraq, to be Army Chief of Staff.

Senator Clinton is committed to ending the war in Iraq. She will bring our troops home responsibly and swiftly, and in her first term. Last July, she announced her detailed plan to withdraw our troops from Iraq, beginning within her first 60 days in office. She has voted repeatedly to bring the troops home at a pace of one to two brigades per month. Two weeks ago she voted for legislation that would require President Bush to bring combat troops home by December 2008.

Similarly, Senator Obama's campaign contends he "stood up against the march to war with Iran." They ignore the fact that Hillary went to the Senate floor last February long before Senator Obama to warn the Bush administration that they could not take any military action without congressional approval. She co-sponsored legislation with Senator Webb that denies the administration any funds for military action against Iran. And she has joined with Senator Durbin on a resolution that denies the President any unilateral authority to use force against Iran.

Senator Obama has also criticized Senator Clinton's support for a resolution urging the Bush administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. But Senator Obama also supports designating the Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. In fact, Senator Obama cosponsored legislation in April that called on the Secretary of State to do exactly that. While Senator Obama says he opposed this resolution, in truth, he did not cast a vote. He missed the vote. He said nothing to indicate that he opposed this legislation before the vote. He was silent at a Presidential Debate that took place on the very day the vote was cast.

As Senator Obama has acknowledged, we do not know how we would have voted on Iraq if he had been in the Senate in 2002, but we do know what he did as a Senator in 2007 on a resolution he said was "dangerous." He missed it.

At this time of great international challenge, we need a President who will take a stand when it counts. We need a president who can inspire the world and win its trust and confidence. From her experiences as First Lady where she garnered the respect of people around the world, Hillary Clinton is uniquely positioned to repair the breach of the Bush Administration's foreign policy disasters, and restore American leadership in the world on Day 1 of her Presidency.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-feinstein/hillary-clinton-more-tha_b_74840.html#postComment

[liberalnurse]

1. Excellent!

Tell us more!

[Tellurian]

4. Hey, LN..is that you in the blue dress?

[liberalnurse]

15. No that's Vicki....

I'm in the black top.

[Tellurian]

33. Great pic.. are the gals all nurses standing with you?

[liberalnurse]

41. Yes!

We have 150 members in our Ohio Nurse democratic Caucus now.

http://www.ohdemnurses.org/mambo/

[Tellurian]

93. Excellent.. Go Robin!!

Call For Urgent Action

From Carol Roe,Chairperson

Dear NDC member,

We have a unique opportunity to help elect a Democrat, Robin Weirauch, to represent Ohio's 5th Congressional District in Congress on December 11. The 5th Congressional District covers (whole or part of) the counties of: Ashland, Crawford, Defiance, Fulton, Henry, Huron, Lucas, Mercer, Paulding, Putnam, Sandusky, Seneca, Van Wert, Williams, Wood, and Wyandot.

..If you ever want something done...call a "nurse"..(my mom) :hi:

[Tellurian]

2. Lee Feinstein cuts through the animas and smoke, and has written a fine article..

contrasting the differences of what a vote for Hillary means to the country as opposed to wasting a vote on Obama who delivers very little, even when poised with the authority to do so!

[Alamom]

3. Thanks for posting.

Ari must be on vacation. ;)

[Tellurian]

8. I hope permanently!

This author has made a great case for the non election of Obama. By contrasting the two candidates side by side. Obama's weaknesses become glaring deficits as his (non) qualifications are just not good enough for the complex issues we face during the next presidency.

[calteacherguy]

5. She voted for the war. She lacks judgment.

She is not ready.

[Tellurian]

10. Not good enough an argument, I'm afraid..

We need leadership who can take us forward, not be paralyzed a vacuum looking backwards, as you seem to want us to be..That leadership has been demonstrated time and time again by Senator Clinton. She demonstrated her poise as recently as last night...much to the satisfaction of the country. Her accolades this am are a mile high..

[BootinUp]

13. She voted for

enforcement of UN sanctions. As many have pointed out the IWR vote was a catch 22 for Democrats. Voting either way neither guaranteed war nor did guarantee there would not be one. Obama was fortunate to not have to actually vote.

[cali]

25. aaarrghh.

Senator Leahy summed it up when he repeatedly warned his colleagues, in his speech on the eve of the vote, that to vote for the IWR was to hand the admin a BLANK CHECK. And he went much further than that. He KNEW it was a vote for war, and he described everything that could happen- it did.

It was a vote for war and they were all warned not just by Leahy but by many other members such as Kennedy and Byrd.

[BootinUp]

26. rearrrgghhh - Its only a blank check

if Congress keeps funding it. The fact is that once the President commits troops it takes a tremendous amount of public opposition to stop him. Its well past time Democrats stop playing politics against each other over a a no win situation for us.

edited to add "rearrrgggh" lol.

[liberalnurse]

18. Hey, I'm talking to YOU!

[BootinUp]

20. I'm your Huckleberry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W28EBu8HU-8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfMkzqA7LrM&feature=related

That first linked video quality is not good try the second.

[liberalnurse]

23. Perfect!

I just placed that link in my Favorites!

:loveya:

[Evergreen Emerald]

40. they all voted to give Bush the authorization

except Obama--who did give his support as outlined above and of course Kucinich.

[mtnsnake]

43. So you're saying John Kerry wasn't ready to be President either. You are fucking brilliant

Your classroom must be a fucking hoot.

[Bitwit1234]

6. It diminishes the character of a candidate

when they go on an attack like Obama is doing. If he was really a true democrat, wanted peace, wanted to do all the things a real democrat does he wouldn't start to launch these attacks.

I think he has the wrong advisor's. He better get with it and get advisor's who tell him to show the class and character our Democratic Party is known for over the crooked, lying and corrupt bunch of republicans.

[calteacherguy]

7. It is Clinton who is smearing Obama.

Her latest attack on an opponents television commercials is childish, petty, and unprofessional.

I wish she had a health care plan, but all she has is no plan on how to enforce mandates that Americans do not want.

She's divisive, petty, and she is not ready to provide the kind of leadership our nation needs at this critical time in our history.

[Tellurian]

11. Unveiling a hoax is not a smear!

[ccpup]

28. yes it is!

if it's done to Obama, it's a smear. If it's done to Hillary, it's Good for the Nation and for our Loving and Wise Obama.

:sarcasm:

[Tellurian]

35. Yes, the routine double standard lament..

wah!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

9. I want to hear all the ways in which Sen. Clinton has and is actively.....

... taking measures to oppose everything Bush has done.

Whether or not I vote for her, however, depends on whether or not she will say openly what she will do to reverse all the damages that Bush has done to our people in this country.

So far she hasn't. I hope she does so I can vote for her. My vote for her depends on her doing that.

[Tellurian]

16. Hillary has said at the very beginning of her announcement torun.

She will work to undo the damage Bush has done to the country..

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/in/

[Sarah Ibarruri]

17. But I no longer want to hear bs

It's all very nice that she was raised in a middle class family. I don't wanna hear it. I want to hear the details of how she will REVERSE everything done to this country by Bush. I haven't heard it yet, the article you sent me doesn't state it, and I am waiting. I am really really waiting for that. Why she isn't doing it, I don't know.

[ccpup]

29. could you please link me

to the article where Obama states the details of how he'll turn this mess * is leaving behind around? No platitudes, no promises, no "we're just all gonna work together", just nice and clear details?

[Tellurian]

36. Also, it would be good while we're at it, asking When is Edwards going to Iraq?

An aside, these questions have the effect of garlic and crucifixes on the undead.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

85. Going to Iraq? nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

84. Well I'm not an Edwards person nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

86. Oops, I meant an Obama person. I *AM* an Edwards person. nt

[Rock_Garden]

12. Thanks, Tellurian.

The comments after that article look like a DU thread.

[Tellurian]

37. you're very welcome, Rocky!

[ccpup]

14. thank you for posting this

I trust Obama's feckless supporters with limited reading comprehension skills will gloss over the facts you've offered and come out with some tripe about how Clinton smears and Obama walks on water, or something.

But, c'mon, to be the Chairman of a subcommittee on European Affairs and not have a single meeting in a year? It sounds more and more to me like the voters in Illinois who voted for him were played. He got the Senate Seat, abandoned his duties to his Constituents and started running for President. He barely shows up to VOTE anymore! And, when he does vote eg. designating the Revolutionary Guards in Iran a terrorist organization, he appears to lack the courage of his convictions to stand up and take responsibility.

Oh well, I trust this will fall on deaf ears anyway. I just wanted to thank you for offering the facts. Hopefully there will be those who'll use them to better educate themselves about the reality of Obama.

[Alamom]

19. I hear you, but I already know......thank you. nm

[Tellurian]

21. This article contrasting Hillary and BO is well researched

one of the best contrasts laid side by side I've seen yet. He has brought to our attention issues we haven't been aware of like:

"Senator Obama has been in the U.S. Senate under three years. His campaign has touted his experience as chairman of a subcommittee on European affairs, which, according to Congressional Quarterly, has not held a hearing since he assumed the chairmanship nearly a year ago. Senator Obama has traveled to Iraq once, 23 months ago."

If Obama or Edwards intend to end the war, why hasn't Obama had a hearing, as chairman of the subcommittee on European affairs using this as a stepping stone for creating dialog with our allys? Another question, why hasn't "I haven't been to Iraq yet" John Edwards, called him on it?

[Alamom]

22. I agree. nm

[MadHound]

24. Yeah, she's more than just talk,

That's the trouble, her actions, especially on big issues like the war, civil liberties, etc. Her actions have brought pain, suffering and death to tens of thousands, both home and abroad.

[ccpup]

27. her actions?

she's voting -- as Obama does when he shows up and earns his paycheck -- with a Body of others. You're going to have to point the finger at the whole Body of the Senate if you're insistent on assigning blame. But be careful. That Body also cradles and takes very good care of Obama, too, and pointing the finger at the Body of the Senate is also pointing the finger at him.

[MadHound]

30. You're assuming that I give a shit about Obama

I don't, he's another one of those top tier, corporate whore candidates like Hillary. I responded to this thread because it was stating that Hillary was more than just talk, I was responding that yes, she was, but her actions, especially on the big issues, suck. In fact more than that, her actions are lethal, as witnessed by the war and other issues she's carried water for the administration on.

If you want to start a thread about Obama, then I might jump in, I might not, depending on what you're talking about, my own personal motivation, etc. But one really shouldn't assume things about posters, like who they actually support. It winds up making you look foolish.

[ccpup]

32. actually, you look kind foolish yourself

my Post was actually more about how both Candidates are part of the Senate. To point the finger at Hillary -- or any one Senator -- and lay blame completely at her feet for what the Senate does -- regardless of her vote -- is a bit of a stretch. If you can point out where she was the DECIDING vote in a decision that was on the razor's edge that tipped -- with her ONE vote -- the whole Senate to do something that killed thousands and thousands and brought ruin and destruction to the Whole World, go for it.

[MadHound]

44. Again, you're assuming that I solely blame Hillary, touchy like that aren't you

Get off your high horse and stop fucking assuming. I do hold all of those who voted for the IWR, and other odious pieces of legislation responsible for their actions. What, do you want me to fucking list each one individually by name:eyes:

But hey,again, we're talking about Hillary here, that is the main topic of this thread. Sure, her vote was not the deciding vote, but in light of her campaign promises, her claims of being a peace candidate, and the fact that her opinion carries great weight both in the halls of government and outside of it, I think that it is fair to call her on her bad decisions. All of those who voted for the IWR have blood on their hands, including Hillary.

But hey, I understand, if I were a Hillary supporter I too would want to try and divert attention away from her war vote onto others. But that simply isn't right. It is her responsibility to listen to her constituents(which she didn't) and make the right decision(which she also didn't do). These failures speak directly to her suitability as the leader of this country, and in the eyes of myself and many others these decisions damn her.

[ccpup]

46. that's a mighty big yardstick

to judge candidates by. But good luck with that.

[MadHound]

49. What's a mighty big yardstick?

That a Senator or Congressman be held accountable for their actions, or that they should listen to their constituents and be a representative for their constituency. Funny because at one point, in the not so distant past, that was the norm when it came to our leaders. A sad sign of how far we've fallen that accountability and fulfilling one's sworn duty is now considered "a big yardstick". No wonder our country's in decline, we're letting our so called leaders get by without doing their damn job.:banghead:

[ccpup]

70. uh oh

wait for it ... you might be shocked ... okay, here it comes ... I agree with you!

Senators and Congresspeople should be held accountable for their actions and decisions, especially when they don't accurately mirror the majority of the constituents they represent. But the current crop of Candidates on the Democratic side don't meet that standard. Not one of them.

So, our goal is to choose the best from what we have in front of us. The most experienced, the most intelligent, the one you believe will be able to most effectively stop the bleeding of the * mis-Administration and put us back on a better course.

We may disagree as to who that person might be, but, as it stands right now, none of the Candidates measure up to that "yardstick". It's a good goal for us Americans to strive for, though. But it isn't gonna happen overnight and certainly not in this Election Cycle.

[MadHound]

76. Actually Kucinich does

The man's been on the right side of the issues for years now, yet sadly he gets the short end of the stick from his own party. That's why I support him and will vote for him. Perhaps you should consider this also.

[blm]

34. Her ACTIONS from 2001-2006 put her on the same page with Lieberman -

she even made a senate floor speech against withdrawal timetables - then Lieberman lost his primary race - then Clinton shifted her rhetoric to the left.

[Tellurian]

39. This can only be blm..

who I have on ignore because of her propensity for off topic discussions and high jacking threads.

[mtnsnake]

45. !

:rofl:

[Tellurian]

80. snap!

:dem:

[Carrieyazel]

31. I don't see the critical hands-on foreign policy experience with Hillary.

Biden and Richardson are far more experienced and savvy with foreign policy. Hillary's major blunders as a Senator have been mostly in foreign policy.

[Tellurian]

38. The comparison is with Obama..

Just as I don't see your critical writing skills as polished as John Grishams..

Try again!

[ClarkUSA]

42. That's because there is none unless you count ceremonial First Lady photo-ops

And Richardson is by far the most experienced candidate in foreign policy, despite Clinton's ridiculous claims.

[ccpup]

47. oh, yes,

I'm sure the Chinese loved the "photo-op" speech she gave exhorting them to treat women as citizens. You know, the one the Repuglicans yelled at her about back here in the States? Some photo-op that was. :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

52. One scripted speech does not a foreign policy expert make.

If that were so, then Laura Bush's many speechifying photo-op jaunts about human rights for Middle Eastern women would count, too.

[Tellurian]

63. Is that Republi-speak because you are incensed the Obama comparison

is "dead on balls accurate"...quote, from "My Cousin Vinny".

[backwoodsbob]

48. I'm new here but

Are all the Hillary supporters here as nasty and condescending as the ones in this thread?

[MadHound]

50. Sadly, yes, most of them are

There are some sane and reasonable Hillary supporters that you can have a reasonable debate with, but most of her supporters quickly degenerate any discussion or criticism of her into flame fests. Sad but true.

[ilovesunshine]

51. This could be said about any of the candidates supporters here...

Perhaps you just see more with Hillary supporters because you don't care for her as a candidate.

[MadHound]

53. Wow, and you're speaking as the voice of experience around here, Since Nov 17?

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

OK, if you say so, I bow down to your great two weeks worth of experience in this matter:rofl:

[ilovesunshine]

54. And, you should be taken more seriously since you live here?

I'm new to this party, and if that's the warm welcome that one can expect, then it's no wonder the Dems lose so many elections.

[MadHound]

57. No, I just find your tone rather hysterical, that's all

You were/are coming across as some great voice of experience on this matter, yet you haven't been around here hardly even two weeks. Worse yet, you're new to not just DU, but the party, and you're acting like some voice of experience:eyes: Sorry, but I call bullshit when I see it. By the by, since you're new to the party, where are you coming from?

I really suggest that you get a few hundred more posts under your belt around here before you start casting aspersions. Oh, and welcome to DU:hi:

[sufrommich]

59. And yet a poster with 45 posts

is an expert on Clinton posters.How does that work?

[mtnsnake]

60. There was nothing hysterical about her tone. WTF are you talking about?

Get over yourself.

[MadHound]

65. Hysterical as in funny, not as in shrill

Try a dictionary or thesaurus next OK. Humor is in the eye of the beholder.

[mtnsnake]

58. Best comeback EVER!

And, you should be taken more seriously since you live here?

:yourock:

[MadHound]

64. Yeah, what's even more funny

Is that if this poster had a bit more experience, they would realize that I'm a fairly light poster. Having started in 2002, I've yet to break 20,000, a rather commonplace accomplishment among those I came in with.

Now that's funny.

[BootinUp]

61. Of all the reasons

we lose some elections, what happens at DU isn't one of them, it also has nothing to do with elections we win. ;)

[sufrommich]

55. I don't see you admonishing the poster

with 45 posts for commenting on his opinion of Clinton posters.None of us have any idea how long someone lurks before they jump into the fray.

[MadHound]

66. I haven't seen such a poster

I happened to see this one:shrug:

[sufrommich]

68. !!!...

You were the first to answer the "I'm new here post"! LOL

[MadHound]

71. ?

[sufrommich]

72. .............

MadHound (1000+ posts) Sat Dec-01-07 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #48
"50. Sadly, yes, most of them are
There are some sane and reasonable Hillary supporters that you can have a reasonable debate with, but most of her supporters quickly degenerate any discussion or criticism of her into flame fests. Sad but true. "

[MadHound]

78. Big difference

The poster with the forty five count was asking a question, which I was responding to. The other poster with the 159 count was stating their opinion as fact. Get it?

[sufrommich]

79. Oh please,it was an opinion crouched in

question form.And no,I don't get it. You were being hypocritical.

[mtnsnake]

56. Your 1000+ posts don't make your posts any more relevant then hers

[MadHound]

62. No, but I can at least I have a body of experience here with which to judge what's going on.

Having a two week old poster declaring with authority that "everybody does it" is rather disingenuous to say the least. But hey, I understand, she's sticking up for "your girl" so all is well, right?

[sufrommich]

67. How much "body of experience" does

the poster with 45 posts have? If you're going to be the decider on who's opinion is legitimate and who's isn't,you should let the rest of us in on the rules.

[MadHound]

74. LOL, I'm not a "decider" of anything

I just find it hypocritical for a new poster to making a bold statement about affairs at DU when they've only been posting a couple of weeks. And you keep referring to this poster with forty five posts. Can you let me in on this one, because I have absolutely no clue as to what you're talking about, and quite frankly I find the fact that you're keeping that close a track on myself and others rather, well, creepy. What, are you stalking me, or that poster with 45 posts, or what?

[sufrommich]

77. Stalking you??

I'm replying to your posts admonishing a member for "making a bold statement"about DU .Yet you reply favorably to a low count poster who is"making a bold statement" about Clinton supporters here.In other words,pointing out the hypocrisy.Stalking? Get a grip.

[Skip Intro]

75. I've never had a Hillary supporter tell me I wanted Osama to go free.

I've had two Obama supporters tell me so, tho.

Look around a little before you decide who's mean and nasty.

[paulk]

81. no, they're not - but a lot of that nastiness is in response

to the constant stream of vitriol, disinformation, and outright lies that have been heaped on HRC over the last year or so by the Anti-Hillary DU Krew...

[zulchzulu]

69. I didn't get the memo that a First Lady has legislative powers...

We're talking the United States of America, right?

Last I checked, to use the "experience" as a First Lady to somehow twist it into making it seem like "real World experience" is, shall we say, a stretch. Confounding the logic even more, Hillary Clinton wants to use her husband's resume as her own except when it gets into tricky waters like NAFTA, Don't Ask-Don't Tell, the Telecommunications Act, the Defense of Marriage Act (signed during the Monicagate crisis), the China Free Trade Agreement and other greatest hits that any Republican would be proud of. Hillary's only real claim to fame as First Lady is her abyssmal attempt at healthcare reform that empowered Republicans to overtake the House and Senate with Newt Gingrich's agenda, which Bill Clinton complied with to try to keep the eye off his problems keeping his zipper up.

Since the OP is picking on Obama, eight years as State Senator in Illinois got him to get passed legislation for Earned Income Tax credit, increasing in funding for AIDS prevention and care, expanding health care benefits for uninsured children and adults and making it a law requiring police to videotape interrogations for crimes that were punishable by the death penalty. He also could work with others without being divisive and a political theatrist.

Add that Obama has served on these committees:
- Senate Foreign Relations Committee
- Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs
- Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
- Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Obama has been to Iraq and other nations in the Gulf, Israel and Palestine, many parts of Africa and other parts of the World with fellow Senators on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Obama knew that the war in Iraq was not the right war to get into while Hillary Clinton decided it was better to follow Bush's lead. Obama is not for invading Iran by proxy and giving Bush a free ticket to do so, as Hillary Clinton has voted for.

Will Hillary Clinton ever learn about voting for wars we don't need to be involved in? Apparently not. Will she want to take credit for her husband's resume until the policy or issue doesn't poll well or get good market research data results? Apparently yes.

[mtnsnake]

73. Where did anyone say that the First Lady has legislative powers?

[Cameron27]

82. Very nice write up,

Obama made a mistake going after her on foreign policy experience IMO. What you chose to attack in your opponents, will result in an inevitable scrutiny of yourself.

[avrdream]

83. Great analysis and from The Huffington Post no less. Wow.

Now how do you turn this information into a 30 second ad?

[opihimoimoi]

87. Despite all the anti Hill crap she has to endure here...she is still the strongest and will prevail

Obama is a good guy but is lacking in so many fronts...not ready for prime time...

Go Hawaii Warriors.....

[backwoodsbob]

88. well my post was more a question of how things are here

if that makes sense.

No I don't have twenty million posts so I guess my opinion doesn't count but the reason I asked about HRC supporters was that in THIS thread I saw a lot of snappiness from some HRC supporters.

I also see it from Obama and Edwards supporters.

I was just wondering if this is what I have to look forward too at this site?I came here for discussion of candidates and issues with fellow dems but it seems like this place consists more of schoolyard bullying from the various factions than any substantive discussion of how to win elections and move the progressive agenda forward.

Maybe this isn't the site for me.We'll see I guess.

[opihimoimoi]

92. Politics on a National scale is always part Bullying, part Selling, Part Swaying, etc

Like Football Commentators/Coaches, everyone has an opinion/reason for saying things either for their peeps or to denigrate/weaken opponents.

At 50 or so posts, you have neen here long enough to see all is normal here at DU. As a Fellow Democrat, I welcome you.

At this point in time, most of us have a fave or two out of the many candidates. However, there are a few who come here from the Pub side of the Fence to divide us with BS Crap in order to weaken the strongest front runner. Be aware of them ... hard to detect but nevertheless they exist.

I wish you well....with a thought....Good things are long term, evil nasty stuff is short term....

[Perry Logan]

89. If Obama gets the nomination, I think Hillary supporters should refuse to vote.

If they can do it, we can do it. I wonder what the Democrats' chances in 2008 would be without the Hillary supporters.

[William769]

90. Since Hillary will be the nominee, we won't have to worry about that.

[Perry Logan]

91. True. Just giving them a taste of their own medicine.