I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton, The Reasons Why

There are several reasons I am flipping, as of now, to supporting Hillary Clinton from John Edwards:  

1.  The first, and most prevalent reason is the shots that John Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards have been taking at Hillary Rodham Clinton.

2.  The second reason, and I've been thinking about this since the LOGO debate, is I  believe that Hillary simply likes gay people.  Period.  And, thus, I have a lot of confidence that she would do the most of any of the top-tier candidates to help us.

3.  The final reason - and, yes, this is kind of petty and relates, to a lesser extent to reason number one - is all the vitriol this woman receives here and on all the rest of the liberal blogs.  I'm fucking tired of it.  And, I am sorry, but a lot of it is tinged with misogyny.

the analysis below the fold

1.  This is self-explanatory.  The final straw was just now when I read the Time piece about the Edwardses and their attacks on Hillary.  I'm sorry, but I don't like it when one of our own (Elizabeth, whom I actually adore and respect immensely) states and, thus reinforces, the GOP meme that Hillary will drive up GOp turnout.  I find this funny, especially considering that John Edwards was on our ticket in 2004 in the single greatest turnout in the history of US wingnuts.  Everyone knows, including Rove, that running in a time of Bush and the GOP at an above 50% approval, a war that still was not, on the whole, unpopular as it is now, and against an "effete, French-looking, Vienam protester from the People's Republic of Massachusetts (their words, not mine).  There's not going to suddenly be some hillbilly racists wingnut who never bothered to vote in his entire life (including 2004), who is now suddenly going to learn how to read, get registered, and actually vote because Hillary is on the ballot.  Not.  gonna.  happen.  The numbers just aren't there.

But even aside from that, whether she wins or loses is immaterial for this point.  I don't appreciate the damaging of the Democratic brand that what the Edwardses are saying accomplishes.

2.  And this is perhaps my favorite because it is purely positive.  

Go to youtube.com and find where Hillary explains the DOMA situation to the LOGO audience at their forum.  In the talk she deftly explained that, WITHOUT DOMA, the anti-gay forces would have had enough votes to have had the Federal Marriage Amendment pass the Republican-controlled Congress by the necessary 2/3 back in 1996.  And, by now, it surely would have been ratified by the 3/4 of the state legislatures and would now be part of the goddam US Constitution.  Remember, we have come a long way since 1996.  Also remember that the president has no say at all in the constitutional amendment process.

Think about it.  Even Hawaii passed a definition of marriage law in 1998.  3/4 of state legislatures would have been a slamdunk.  And the 2/3 congressional majority was a slamdunk as well.  I remember counting the votes because I paid attention then and was actively involved then as I am now.  Back then, the FMA would have been on fire.  And Gingrich and Delay had even threatened it.

It is revisionist history set up by the purists and Clinton-haters to say that Bill sold us down the river with DOMA.  But politics is very complicated.  And, though no one on our side will never thank them for it, I say, thank god for the Clintons and DOMA because if it wasn't for that, we would right now, in 2007, be trying to get Pelosi and Reid to propose ANOTHER amendment that would try and REPEAL the prior anti-gay marriage one.  Do you know how hard that'd be?  Impossible.  We still don't have the votes for a 2/3 pro-gay majority.  We'd be fighting trying to get a constitutional amendment through.  But now, thankfully, my marriage in Massachusetts is fucking protected.  Stop thinking and deciding shit in soundbites, fellow gays!

Bill nearly squandered ALL his political capital in 1993 trying to lift the ban on gays in the military.  He was badly burned by that, and had hoped that DADT would be a better compromise, leading to better things.  It WAS a step forward, albeit a small one. It was the REPUBLICANS and military who turned it into the failure it now is.

Bill was the first president to even realize that gays existed.  Things take time and look how far we've gotten just since then.  We've gone from Bill Clinton being the first president to have anything about gays in his platform to having a presidential debate solely on gay issues on a gay network with his wife having the best showing.
Any Democrat who truly came out and said they supported gay marriage would give the election to the Repugs.

The insane Hillary venom being spewed never ever mentions how it is indeed the federal courts that usher in major civil rights changes...NOT the legislature, be it state or federal. And the Courts are the appropriate place for deciding civil rights, inherent in the 14th Am to the constitution, because civil rights should never be subject to the whim of an elected legislative body.

3.  This one is, like I said before, self-explanatory.  Let this be a lesson to the Hillary-haters:  You do WAY WAY WAY more harm than good attacking one of our own and you turn people like me who are on the fence, TOWARDS that person.

Here's a word of warning for primary season:

If someone like me, who is a high-intensity rabid progressive and political junkie gets turned-off and supports the OPPOSITE of the smears directed against a candidate, don't you think that the independent voters, who HATE negative politics would do the same?  Think about it.

Btw, this is to bruh21:  In accordance with how I feel about your great diary the other day, I decided to add the horserace element to the bigtime need to somehow get back to at least a small modicum of actual - GASP - issue discussion.  :)
Oh, and I still love John Edwards.  Afterall, he's a plaintiff's attorney just like me.

Update [2007-8-30 14:36:25 by jgarcia]: Here's what pisses me off. HRC goes out on a limb for ALL OF US with healthcare in 1993. All hell breaks lose and our own party (people like Nunn, many liberal sens too) hammer her plan. Then she is now "disliked" by many people for fifteen years. She's disliked because of what she tried to do that was good. Now we don't have her back. I am one of those rare people who are loyal. I remember those days. I also remember going without health insurance prior to law school, even though I have asthma. I apprecaite that she tried. I guess I have her back on that. To repeat that "ulikeability" bullshit when Elizabeth Edwards wasn't even in politics at the time strikes me as opportunism.

Tags: DADT, doma, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards (all tags)

Comments

276 Comments

This is EE's comments

I hope this tag team keeps on taking cheap shot at Hillary. We'll see who's going to get the high 'likeability' ratings in the end. If history is of any guidance, this sort of attack will only backfire.


"I do not think the hatred against Hillary Clinton is justified. I don't know where it comes from. I don't begin to understand. But you can't pretend it doesn't exist, and it will energize the Republican base. Their nominee won't energize them, Bush won't energize them, but Hillary as the nominee will."

by areyouready 2007-08-30 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: This is EE's comments

Thank you for that.  That statement is beyond the pale.  And, that, more than anything, has led to me rejecting the Edwards campaign.

It screams of desperation and, what happens if Hill's the nominee (which is a pretty safe bet at this point)?  Oh, yeah, that statement gets used against us.  I hate that shit.  Dems attacking their own on the POLITICS of things is wrong.  Discuss issue differences, but when you start discussing politics, you are no different than Rove, IMO.

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 07:23AM | 0 recs
why because

it's been said over and over again all over the blogosphere .

the truth is not necessarily a smear.

by TarHeel 2007-08-30 07:25AM | 0 recs
He is a phony!!!! Alwas supported Hillary.

Re: Why Hillary excites me (none / 0)

I have a Hillary sticker on my truck because I doubt Gore will run.

And I have been hammered here for "hearting" HRC.

Any more questions?  This site is becoming unbearable now.  And my username ain't exactly new.

Intolerance of intolerance is intelligence.
by jgarcia on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 11:37:15 PM EST

Pioneer did the research.  Outed as a phony!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by TomP 2007-08-30 03:41PM | 0 recs
No.

I did the research.

You're outed as a total phoney!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-08-30 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: This is EE's comments

I hope they continue to underestimate Hillary. I really do. When candidates get desperate, funny thing will happen.

by areyouready 2007-08-30 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: This is EE's comments

thank u jgarcia for a truly corageous diary today.

by art3 2007-08-30 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: This is EE's comments

Yeah, I guess Benedict Arnold was courageous too.

by DrFrankLives 2007-08-30 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: This is EE's comments

This whole Diary is a cheap-shot,   not anything that Elizabeth Edwards ever said.

1.   It is a fact, like it or not, that the Republican base has far stronger feelings of hatred and vitriol over Hillary Clinton than any other political figure. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that fact, in fact, it is helpful.  After all, we want to win the General Election here and that requires a candidate like either Edwards or Obama who can attract voters outside just the Democratic Base.

2.   Hillary is not the best candidate for a variety of reasons, not the least has to be here steadfast support for the senseless and illogical Iraq Occupation all throughout 2002,2003,2004,2005,2006 and her steadfast support for the unconstitutional U.S. Patriot Act. In the General Election, the Republicans will cry fowl if she tries to criticize the War now (after her track record of supporting it) and we will lose the advantage over that issue and foreign policy.  We need a candidate that represents a clean break from the Bush Administration and that means Kucinich, Obama, and Edwards are the best equipped to win the debate in the General Election and the draw sharp contrasts necessary to cause people to finally reject the Republican argument.

3.   Claiming that Hillary is the best on gay issues is pure nonsense!   Dennis Kucinich & Gravel offer full support on marriage, while Hillary does not, and Edwards is also closer to that position.

You have no valid argument here.

In fact, it is important to vote for the candidate that will provide the strongest message of separation from the Bush policies, and who has the least history of arousing the Republican Base to the polls.  That is just smart politics and we should all be thinking that way and be very, very aware of that reality.

by DerekLarsson 2007-08-30 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: This is EE's comments

You can't hide behind  "its the truth" when you're intentionally framing an image set to lower someone else and raise yourself.

That would be like me saying:

"Oh we shouldn't support Edwards because many people that would support him during the general election are racists and sexists who wouldn't vote for Clinton or Obama."

Its undeniably true. But when I frame it as "John Edwards represents the southern strategy part II" it implies are certain frame.

Or if i said :

"John Edwards is just another politician in the long line of white male protestants who have maintained a dynasty in this country since it's existance"

It's true. And yet clearly it paints a certain image

by world dictator 2007-08-30 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: This is EE's comments

Edwards failed to carry his homestate of NC and failed to win a single state in the South- AR,FL,or VA.

The reason why Edwards and Obama's negative ratings is lower than Clintons is that Clinton has been constantly attacked the GOP for more than 15 years- accusing her of murder,prostitution,fraud.

Edwards became a national figure for less than 5 years. Edwards can easily be an easy target for Republicans- High Taxes- Big Spender- Weak on Terrorism.

Obama is a freshface candidate but Republicans are less likely to support a candidate whose last name rhymes with Osama.

Despite being attacked by the GOP- Hillary and her husband were able to defeat the GOP.

by nkpolitics 2007-08-30 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: This is EE's comments

Defeat or get damn lucky with two UNmajority wins?

by Dee 2007-08-30 11:00AM | 0 recs
Huh?

by DerekLarsson 2007-08-30 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: This is EE's comments

Hillary is disliked by wingnut Republicans who think she is satan. She probally energizes the Gary Bauers,the Alan Keyes,the Sean Hannitys,the Pat Robertsons. the Pat Buchanans,the David Dukes. = Conservatives who are unhappy with the GOP because of Iraq,Immigration,Spending,and Scandals. However-they will show up to the polls to vote against her. They will oppose any Democratic nominee.

Hillary will have strong appeal to moderate to liberal Republican voters in suburbs- (the Christine Todd Whitmans, the Susan Collins, the Olympia Snowes. Voters who think the national GOP is hijacked by the wingnuts.

The key electorate is moderate to liberal Republican voters from the suburbs-
Tough on Crime/Terrorism
Balanced Budgets-Low Taxes
Strong on Environment.
Strong on Abortion and Gay Rights.

Edwards will have a tough time appealing to Moderate to Liberal Republican voters in the suburbs due to his call for higher taxes and believing that the War on Terror is a slogan.

Obama will also have a tough time appealing to Moderate to Liberal Republican voters-
He is inexperienced. Republicans can turn Obama into a Michael Dukakis.

by nkpolitics 2007-08-30 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: This is EE's comments

The "Tough on Terrorism" test has clearly been failed by Hillary Clinton.

The Iraq folly is a human catastrophy of biblical proportions. It is totally anthetical to weakening Al Qaeda and totally irrelevant to capturing Osama Bin Laden.  Similarly, these arrogant threats made against Iran are equally foolish as the IAEA already announced that they have no Nuclear capability.

Secondly, support of U.S. Patriot Act and gutting our civil liberties, is not "tough on" anything here but our Constitution and our American ideals.

The candidate who will succeed at being "tough on Terrorism" is the candidate that represents the biggest separation from the Bush/NeoCon foreign policy of shame.

Edwards is entirely correct here that the "War on Terror" is only a slogan. Terror is a tactic, not a government, not a standing army, not a Nation, not a population of inhabitants, not an airforce.

Anyone who embraces this phony "War on Terror" rhetoric is really weak on terror and just making it worse, becuase these dishonest policies have been formenting new hatred and new Al Qaeda recruitment against the United States.

The United States has been selling off the control of our Ports to the United Arab Emirates in Dubai for chrissakes (who were financers of Sept. 11), and selling new WMD weapons systems to Saudi Arabia where the hijackers came from.  We shut down the CIA unit that had been tasked with capturing Osama Bin Laden and let him esacpe into Pakistan at Tora Bora in 2001 (a Country that we call our "ally").

None of this is honest policy: There is no War on Terror!

What Independents and liberal Republicans really want are honest politicians that act on clear principles and who really stand up for them and can be believed.  By subordinating yourself to all this reckless jingoism and these false and counter-productive NeoCon foreign policy choices, you can never be believed or and you can never offer voters something new to get exited about.

In an Election between a NeoCon and a psuedo-NeoCon, the NeoCon will always win.
You will never win or gain anything by fomenting the same propaganda that the NeoCons do. That's why what we need now is a candidate who proudly represents a sharp contrast with the Bush foreign policy and is not afraid to speak to the public about its failure, its dishonesty, and offer voters a clear break from all these failed policies.

Independents respect principles.
NeoCon-lite is neither a prinicple nor a fix for our broken foreign policy

by DerekLarsson 2007-08-30 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: This is EE's comments

It is one thing to be smart and right on public policy- which is what we Democrats are. If voters were voting with their heads- Democrats like Obama or Edwards or Gore will do well but you have to look at perception.

Republicans were able to do well because voters believed they were for less government despite the fact the current GOP President increased the size of Government. They convinced the voters that they are fiscally conservative- despite bringing this country into a deficit.
Republicans have convinced the electorate they are tough on Terrorism- despite the fact they are unable to capture Osama Bin Laden.

The problem with the Democrats is the base of the Democratic Party is antiwar in principle and they oppose capital punishment on humanitarian grounds.

The politically ignorant- non educated voter- Volvo Driving Soccer MOM. enjoys entitlements- Health Care,Education,Housing,Wages- But bitches when their taxes go up pay for Health Care,Education,Military.
These voters also support Drug Testing for Welfare Recipiants and Illegal Immigrants. They believe the justice system should be Guilty until Proven innocent- and the system should go after jaywalkers. They also support the Death Penalty and use of Military Force.

With regards to Independents supporting principles is nothing but hogwash- Everybody has their own set of principles or values- Hitler had principles.

With regards to a candidate speaking on Bush's failure- anybody can speak on Bush's failures- However it is less likely they will support a McGovernite candidate.

A winning candidate is a candidate that is percieved as tough and competent. A Wesley Clark like candidate.

by nkpolitics 2007-08-30 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: This is EE's comments

I disagree with your analysis.

The perception problems are simply driven by the fact that the U.S. News Media is a distortion of the real news, and, by the fact that The Democratic Party and Democratic Candidates largely do a poor job of exposing the GOP Orwellian lies and making it stick with the public (because they don't even really try).

Neither Soccer-moms not Security-Moms want a War based upon lies, or a corrupt foreign policy.
But if Democratic candidates simply cave-in to all these corrupt and dishonest policies, then there is a vacuum here and no alternative message coming from them that can carry the day.

The answer here is that Democratic candidates must do a much, much better job at calling out the GOP and the NeoCons (of both Parties) on their lies, deceit, false fearmongering, false arguments, and corruption. For example, if we had 200 Dennis Kucinich's in the House, Dick Cheney would be Impeached by now, and he would be publically disgraced to such a degree that anyone promoting the same barbaric rhetoric and policies (now understood to be criminal) would go absolutely nowhere.

But caving into the false arguments is never the answer.
If the GOP/NeoCon policies are bad, then it is the Opposition Party's mission to make that case to the public loud and clear.
The perception problem comes from the fact that the Democrats are too timid to fight back about the merits of the policies and are easily imtimidated by GOP bravado into total silence and capituation.

Middle-America can only be reached by people with a strong sense of who they are and a unflappable conviction for a better agenda, like popular Utah Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, who never shrinks from educating the public about the lies and decit and moral & financial bankruptcy of the GOP/NeoCon policies.
If it works for Utah, it can work anywhere else too!

That is how you change these perceptions.

And this dumb hand-wringing worry about "McGovernite candidates" is yet another form of self-inflicted defeatism for the Democratic Party.
History shows that George McGovern was right about Vietnam and Nixon was wrong!
In fact, Nixon only won the '72 Election by taking away McGovern's advantage through lies by he & Henry Kissinger directly fooling the public as they ran on a totally deceitful "Peace is at hand", "We're ending the War with honor" message.  Nixon also broke Election Laws left and right (illegal fundraising) and engaged in other illegal dirty tricks.

We should stand up for the truth and be proud of McGovern and the fact that he was right on the issues, correct about the War, and an honorable & honest man. Many lives would have been saved had McGovern won. The shame is on them and on their policies.  History proves McGovern was right and our message should be to remind people of that (again this is how to correct and control "perceptions").  

As proof of the universal appeal, Ron Paul right now, is running on a non-interventionist U.S. foreign policy (no different than McGovern) and he is attracting Libertarians, Independents, and people from the right and the left.  If he had the same money to work with as Guiliani or Romney, he'd probably win it.  So, the point is that there nothing wrong here with an anti-violence, anti-bankruptcy, anti-War message.

That message is not the problem.
The truth is never the problem.
The problem is only that the Democrats look weak and timid and aimless when they cannot even stand up to the GOP and when they cave-in to the same agenda (with just a few rough edges taken out).

That monkee-see monkee-do stratgey can only fail.
Imagine a seesaw with one guy (GOP) sitting at the right end, and the other guy sitting in the middle.  That seesaw ain't gonna move.

The false perceptions can only be corrected by educating the public that there is, in fact, no weaker set of policies on national defense than the incompetent, dishonest, and terror-enlarging Bush/NeoCon policies. And by educating people about the truth that the War was wrong and irrelevant to Sept 11 (from the very beginning), and by standing up proudly for change and an alternative vision.

That's how you move the seesaw, and nobody thinks our founding fathers were "McGovernites" or weak on defense, but they had the exact same non-interventionist ideology.

War propaganda will only fool people if nobody stands up to point out the lies and how it hurts and weakens our Country.  
The answer is to shatter the GOP myths, not copycat their failure.

by DerekLarsson 2007-08-30 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: This is EE's comments

The problem you progressive bloggers have is you guys tend to talk about the obvious.

Most people in this country agree that the Republican Party headed by Bush-Cheney-Rove is EVIL.

Americans know thier policies and actions cause great harm to this country.

1)Starting a War based on lies so a company headed by Cheney-Haliburton can control the oil fields.

2)Supporting policies that divide this country- Ban on Gay Marriages. Overturning Roe v Wade. Supporting Segregration.

3)Weakening Labor and Enviromental Laws. Allowing Pollution and Allowing Businesses exploit the less powerful.

4)Taking away our Civil liberties.

The question I have is why are voters supporting Republican over Democrats. During the early 1980s and 1990s before Bill Clinton took office- Republicans always campaigned to Low Taxes-Balanced Budgets- Small Government- They campaigned for Harsh penalties on Criminals. They accused the Democratic Party being Tax and Spend Liberal,Soft on Crime and Terrorism

The swing voters is looking for a candidate that will do a better job protecting them.ie A father of a naive but popular spoiled teenage girl who likes to party. They are looking for a father that will stare at the boyfriend of the teenage girl and say if you make my little girl cry- I will blank you up.

Swing Voters are like Spoiled Teenage Girls.

They always want an increase in their allowance.(Tax Cuts/High Wages)). They want benifits-(Health Care,Education,Strong Homeland Security,Strong Enviromnental and Labor laws- to protect their well being. They want evil doers who take advantage of them (Illegal Aliens,Terrorist,Criminals to get lynched.).

For example- Red Forman of the 70's show is type of parent a spoiled teenage girl needs. He is a working class- moral values-church going individual. He is a type of guy that will protect his childs honor. He will not let anyone take advantage of his family. He will belittle or discipline a child who underachieves or misbehaves.

Edwards and Obama are seen as a cool parent. Parents that are lenient and understanding. (They are like Danny Tanner. Edwards and Obama are easy target for criminals to take advantage of.

Hillary is a dirty hard a$$ b!t@h that criminals will be in the emergency room or six feet underground if they take advantage of her.

An ideal Democrat is a Democrat that will tell the american public the truth about why military force is necessary- The truth about the consequence of the military force- This war will be difficult- but it is necessary because of this reason should occur before the start of the war. We also need a Democrat that will be honest to our allies oversees.

While the public opposes the Iraq War based on its manipulation and incompetance- They buy the GOP talking points- We should fight terrorist at their backyard instead of our backyard. Democratizing the Mideast is necessary to prevent another 9-11.

We need a Democratic politician that will go on public television and say as commander in chief he will send US Military and Intelligence Forces to capture or assasinate Osama Bin Laden,Destroy the Al Queada network. Destroy Radical Islam fundamentalist terrorist groups both in this country and oversees. Not a candidate who thinks war is inhumane.

by nkpolitics 2007-08-31 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: This is EE's comments

Swing voters are those people who do not have a rigid left-right ideology.  They vote based upon who seems to be the most believable & convincing or trustworthy (whether they agree or disagree with many of their policies). They will vote for Reagan not on policy but on his personal appeal, and, similarly vote for Bill Clinton in a matchup with Bob Dole for the exact same reason.

The public only buys the GOP talking points because the Democratic Party is not acting responsibly and providing alternative and truthful counter-talking-points with the same force and energy. This includes the debate about low taxes and government spending.  

The Executive Branch was at its lowest levels of staff, largess, and spending during the adminstrations of John Kennedy and Bill Clinton.  The War-Hawks who seek to spend trillions of dollars to Militarize Outer Space with foolish "Star Wars" programs are the true big government, big brother folks.  And Tax Cuts for monopolists Corporations and for the wealthy do not benefit the common people - it robs from them.  Once again, the issue is that the Democratic Party is too timid, too lackluster, and too unimaginative to directly confront the GOP over these many myths and change the perceptions.

I wrote to the Al Gore campaign in 2000, and said that what GWBush was running on was nothing but a return to Reaganomics tax policy that created mass deficits, led to a recession, and was a proven failure. I tried to get them to make the case to the public that Reagonmics was bad & harmful (debt) and Clintonomics was demonstrably wiser and successful. This is a contrast that would have helped the Democratic Party image and would have destroyed the main rationale for the Bush campaign 2000 appeal and its primamry message. But neither the Gore campaign nor the Party as a whole ever made that argument.

An Ideal Democrat is not one who will tell the public "why military force is necessary". An Ideal Democrat is one who tell the public the truth that this Iraq madness had absolutely nothing to do with Sept. 11, was based on lies, and that they will protect out troops and our Nation's image by putting a stop to it. Military force is only necessary in the case of direct self-defense - it is not a tool (bloodshed) of either conquest or policy choice.

If the Democrats acted like a true Opposition Party, year-after-year, they'd be winning all of these races in a landslide by now as a matter of routine.

by DerekLarsson 2007-08-31 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: This is EE's comments

I'm not a Hillary Clinton defender BY ANY MEANS but doesn't the FACT that John Edward's so-called southern strategy was tested and failed in the last election prove his 'White southern male electability' argument, is without merit?  The hypocrisy of "progressives" never ceases to amaze me!  In one breath you rail against the GOP as an All White Male party but then embrace the same attitude for electing a Democrat.  It's like saying I'm not a bigot, but I don't mind benefitting from bigotry.

by Dee 2007-08-30 10:29AM | 0 recs
Kerry did not run a SINGLE

advertisement in NC... for president

what southern strategy is that?

by TarHeel 2007-08-30 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

Welcome to the WINNING side!

by American1989 2007-08-30 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

thanks!

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

I agree with Derek Larrson.  

Garcia, it is not a right-wing meme that Hillary will turn out the Republican base.  It is a very realistic likelihood.  Hillary is HATED.  Period.  Whatever the rationale is irrelevant.  The fact is that many people, however irrationally, plain don't like her.  

I'm not one of those people.  I dont like her, but I dont like her for very valid reasons.  Support for the invasion of Iraq is numero uno.  
(*note that she objects to the handling of the war, but seems not to think that preemptively invading another country and toppling their government to install a government that is more favorable to you is of any moral question.  I think it is, but I digress).

Polls show that Hillary has very high unfavorables and one can come to a logical conclusion that she will be a drag on down-ticket races.   Elizabeth Edwards is right when she says people dont like her.  

The gay thing... Hillary is my Senator.  I'm politically involved.  I have friends, friends who are close with the "movers and shakers".  I hear things.   I've gotten reports back from our political groups meetings (or refusal for meetings) with her.  Let me tell you one thing, whether she "likes" gay people or not (she has many on her staff) is, again, irrelevant.  I have a founded belief that she will not hesitate to throw us under the bus if it was politically expedient for her.   She'll take our money and our votes.  Lets see what happens when it comes time to delivery.   Oh, and of course, Edwards' position is the same EXCEPT he's got a wife and kids who will put the moral impetus on him to do the right thing.  I dont think Chelsea will give a frak and Bill has shown us the courage of his convictions with gay issues.

Finally, the "vitriol on the liberal blogs".  Blogs are an open forum.  Some people like her.  Some people dont.  The fact that this plays into your decision of who you support for president shows a lack of methodical reason, e.g., "people hate her so I'll like her."     I dont like Hillary for policy reasons, because of who she surrounds herself with (union-buster Mark Penn, cozying up to Rupert Murdoch, accepting a lot of money from the pharma, healthcare, insurance lobby).  I dont like her because of her incremental approach and her lack of bold new ideas.  I dont like her because of her acquiescence to AIPAC and her support of the PREMISE of the Iraq war.  These are all valid reasons.  Is that vitriol?  I would say no.  I would say those are things that Hillary has to answer for.  

Perhaps you should do a bit more soul-searching and a lot more reading.  Then again, far be it from me to tell you what issues are important to you.   You like her because people dont.  Vote your conscience or vote your ignorance.  It's your right.  Gods only know the Republicans count the latter as their base.  

by dayspring 2007-08-30 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

I think jgarcia is EXACTLY right here.  

So, the right wing called Kerry "too soft," "effemiate," "a flip-flopper," "a liberal elitist."   Now, in a way some of these things are probably true to an extent.  Yes, he HAD a sheltered upbringing, yes, he had changed his mind on some things, etc.    Now, the brilliant idea is for a competing DEMOCRAT not to try to make hay (gain politically) with these things.

 It. Is. Not. OK.  

If that theme is there, then let the voters decide whether they have a problem with it.  Indications are, hell no.  Democrats really like Clinton and they are ready for the fight with the right-wing.  As a candidate you DON'T take stuff that comes in from the right-wing and basically state "See.  She is not liked by the right-wing.  We can't have that.  Vote for me instead."   Would anyone here have found that theme ok if Dean had used that against Kerry?  Of course not.  Now it is ok here?   It is not.  It is bound to backfire, and apparently it already has with one valuable member of our community here.    

by georgep 2007-08-30 09:49AM | 0 recs
I noticed you didn't say "right side"

again it must be nice to care about anything but issues.

by TarHeel 2007-08-30 08:08AM | 0 recs
the "right side"

That is self-evident, in case you missed the subtlety...

by SF Bay 2007-08-30 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

Anybody remember when Karl Malone abandoned Utah to join the world-champion Lakers so he could ride Shaquille O'Neal's coattails to a ring and then retire? For some reason, your comment reminds me of that.  (LA lost that year, btw.  Karl never got a ring.  Detroit won it with their sound fundamentals and absence of ego.)

by Junior Bug 2007-08-30 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From

Hillary is so unikeable...Even Richardson is viewed as more likeable then Hillary.

by JaeHood 2007-08-30 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From

more attacks...I say bring them on.

You're just guaranteeing a Hillary candidacy. Thanks.

by SF Bay 2007-08-30 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From

how is pointing out polling data an attack? i keep saying and i will repeat here- the truth isn't a smear, and its not an attack. its a reality check.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From

For somebody who's all high and mighty about being all honest you sure have a lousy definition of truth

Hillary is so unikeable... Even Richardson is viewed as more likeable then Hillary.

1. The poll was about who was most liked. not who was liked.

2. The poll was only representative of likely Iowa caucus goers. The commenter made a general statement as if it was a generally held view. Totally unsupported by the data.

3. The commenter switches between an absolute statement and uses a subjective measurement to support it. Statement would've been unproven even if the data was correct. (Problems with data mentioned in point 1 and 2)

Seeing that statement was using unsupported statements and passed off a localized perception as general applicable the correct way to describe it would be...

spin

...

and not truth. But I expected nothing else from you on this subject. Cue standard bruh21 response:

by Ernst 2007-08-30 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From

Hillary is so unikeable...Even Richardson is viewed as more likeable then Hillary.

tell that to 84% of the democratic party

by world dictator 2007-08-30 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From

I know, that is just an out and out LIE- she is the candidate most liked by democrats according to polls and these haters just blatantly LIE about it hoping no one has seen the polls on it.

by reasonwarrior 2007-08-30 10:44AM | 0 recs
Unfair to peddle the 'Hillary is unlikeable' meme

I do not support Hillary for the nomination, but I oppose using such pathetic tactics to beat her to the nomination.

Let's talk about her record and if you're honest, her qualities as you perceive and explain/argue things based on such things instead of hiding behind stupid memes and what someone else thinks of her (for real or fictitious reasons).

EE was wrong to accept/use the "hatred" meme against Hillary.

Hate and hatred are charged words and should not be propagated against our own (or for that matter our opponents, in any serious way.)

Want to critique based on objective and real basis till the cows come home? No problem. But we need to stop peddling unfair memes.

Both HRC and JRE should be held accountable for their support for the invasion of Iraq, but spreading the "hatred" meme is just plain wrong.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-08-30 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From

That's your prerogative, knee-jerker.

by OE 2007-08-30 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From

"knee-jerker"?

Oh, more name-calling here.  Did you read what I wrote about DOMA and LOGO debate?  That's deliberation, the polar opposite of "knee-jerker."

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 07:26AM | 0 recs
I hate to tell you the truth

but the "Meme" that Hillary will motivate the GOP base came straight from the leftRoots blogosphere,

not republicans.

the left wing blogosphere has been saying this since January.

so either you are massively uniformed or disingenious.

the memo's that hillary will turn out the GOP against pathetic candidates comes from lefties.  NOT inside the beltway neocons , rupert murdoch and Foxnews that supports her

by TarHeel 2007-08-30 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: I hate to tell you the truth

>>>the left wing blogosphere has been saying this since January.

That's even worse, because now Rove is running around all over the place spewing out of his fat mouth about that.

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 07:54AM | 0 recs
you must have missed

the memo that in 2004 the whitehouse did this to Kerry cause they wanted him as the candidate.

several papers have said rove did this to Hillary cause they wan't her just like they wanted the other northeastern liberal in 2004.

the LA times covered this.

Also, you must not understand why Hillary polls horribly on daily kos.  Informed left leaning folks want to keep congress not lose it.

by TarHeel 2007-08-30 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: you must have missed

Also, you must not understand why Hillary polls horribly on daily kos.

There's a distinct difference between a "straw poll" and an, um, actual poll.

by Michael Bersin 2007-08-30 09:08AM | 0 recs
like the one today

showing HIllary "last" among likeability in Iowa... that kind of poll?

by TarHeel 2007-08-30 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: like the one today

The poll which also showed her in second place, and within the margin of error of Edwards, in Iowa?

Guess thats more proof that "likeability" doesn't equal electability.

by world dictator 2007-08-30 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: like the one today

tell george bush that.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: like the one today

I'd rather tell that to John " I'm in third place nationally but everyone likes me and hates hillary" Edwards

by world dictator 2007-08-30 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: like the one today

your lack of an answer means you understand my point

by bruh21 2007-08-30 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: like the one today

I did answer by noting that John Edwards and Barack Obama are "so damn likeable" and yet still in 2nd and 3rd place

by world dictator 2007-08-30 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: like the one today

the relevant comparator peo are making is about the general

by bruh21 2007-08-30 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: like the one today

And Clinton is leading or in a statistical tie with many GOP candidates, despite her unfavorables.

Also, Al Gore had high unfavorables in the general and "won" the election.

by world dictator 2007-08-30 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: I hate to tell you the truth

The frontpagers of the left blogosphere have been very strongly rejecting the "unelectability" themes spread by biased partisans.  Name a known blogger and I show you the post in which they basically scoff at the notion that Clinton supposedly has an "electability" problem (the list of names range from Kos to TPM's Sargent, Taylor Marsh, Chris Bowers, Matt Stoller, our own Jerome Armstrong, Todd Beeton, Jonathan Singer.    The major disconnect between the rabid partisan supporters of those holding the hat has led to these constant complaints, threats to leave, diaries "what has happened to Mydd," etc.    The partisans lack the understanding that the theme is washed up and overwrought.  Edwards would have done well to "get with it" and educate himself what the current buzz on the blogosphere actually is (namely, from the known bloggers "yeah right, Clinton is totally electable, the electability theme is pretty much useless".)  

Outside of true Edwards partisans you won't see much support for this desperate "electability" attack from Edwards, as there have been many "electability" DEBUNK diaries published over the last 3 weeks by the blog frontpagers.    

by georgep 2007-08-30 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From

I could care less about DOMA or LOGO.

When you weigh it against other issues, it doesn't even make the top 10 for most Americans, including me.

That v. energy = energy
That v. Iraq = Iraq
That v. health care = health care
That v. college costs = college costs

And so on.

I understand what's most important.

For people who think that DOMA or LOGO are the most important things on which to judge a candidate, they must not have too many other cares in the world, it you weigh it against other issues and it comes out on top.

Yes, you are a "knee-jerker."

by OE 2007-08-30 08:38AM | 0 recs
I understand what's most important.

You are of course welcome to your opinion.

I happen to think (that would be my opinion) that Hillary is on the "right side" of all of these issues.

by SF Bay 2007-08-30 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: I understand what's most important.

No "opinion," Facts:

Re: History versus a debate (none / 0)

Here is Mixner's analysis:

http://www.davidmixner.com/2007/08/lgbt- presidenti.html

by bruh21 on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 01:12:53 PM EST
[ Reply to This ]  

[new] Re: DADT (none / 0)

here is the factually versus opinion based analysis of the impact of DADT by the Servicemen Defense Fund (the group spear heading the appeal)

http://www.sldn.org/templates/dadt/recor d.html?section=183&record=1452
http://www.sldn.org/templates/dadt/recor d.html?section=183&record=1454

You are entitled to your opinion too, not your own facts.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: I understand what's most important.

you do know that showing correlation does not prove causation

by world dictator 2007-08-30 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: I understand what's most important.

explain your point ?

by bruh21 2007-08-30 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: I understand what's most important.

David Mixner, who has already endorsed Edwards and has tried to spin EE's appearance at SF Gay Pride sans John as some historic event, is hardly someone I'd put much stock into. But even he begrudgingly admits that DOMA had something to do (he says "might" but let's be honest-- have opinions changed that much?) with the fact that the FMA failed. I might add that HRC and HRC were partners in its defeat.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-30 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: I understand what's most important.

I happen to think she has her toes under the door.  John Edwards is more right on these issues than she is.

He has a better energy plan, and he isn't in bed with the health insurance companies like she it.  I rate your post a 1.

by OE 2007-08-30 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From

You understand what is important.  How smug and self-congratulatory.  Is it possible for different issues to be more /less important to different people?

by Denny Crane 2007-08-30 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From

If you read all of my post, then you already have the answer to your question, since I already said that.

by OE 2007-08-30 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

Very good diary!

by DoIT 2007-08-30 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

Hey DoIt, not we just have to get you back into the fold, and we are all a happy family.   :-)

by georgep 2007-08-30 10:00AM | 0 recs
I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton

Welcome jgarcia. Glad to have you on our side.

I think Elizabeth is turning alot of people off. She needs to shut up!

by lonnette33 2007-08-30 07:27AM | 0 recs
I Remember A Lot of People Telling Hillary....

...that "she needs to shut up" because she "is turning alot of people off" when her husband ran for President.  As one who has never been anti-Hillary, I nonetheless find that some of HRC's supporters are doing her no favors.  Just yesterday, one of Hillary's biggest cheerleaders here made a comment about Jimmy Carter that sounded like it came straight out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth.  President Carter's 'offense' was that he made complimentary comments about Edwards.  Sometimes I wonder whether people posting only started getting informed about politics and government within the past 3 years or so because many seem to have ZERO knowledge of history.  I think the candidates would be embarrassed if they read some of the comments of their 'supporters.'

by Grand Poobah 2007-08-30 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: I Remember A Lot of People Telling Hillary....

I agree with this.  But notice that HRC is NOT attacking others herself.  But I agree, I hate GOP memes and motherfucking Carter (whom I really admire) pisses me off too.

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 07:57AM | 0 recs
the clintons use surrogates for their attacks

they also provided oppo research on many hit pieces for other candidates.

the funniest article was a Wash Post one where the clinton spokespeople didn't want to go on record but only wanted to provide not for attribution quotes.

to think that Howard wolfson who invoked "holocaust denier" on Obama's campaign are genteel is funny

by TarHeel 2007-08-30 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: the clintons use surrogates for their attacks

The Clinton's use bloggers as surrogates? Hahahahaha...alright

by world dictator 2007-08-30 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: I Remember A Lot of People Telling Hillary....

What attacks are you referring to? YOu are being unclear in your posts other than generalities. If you want peo to understand your position you need to provide more than what you saying. Even your information regarding the issue you discussed according to activist is just factually well, wrong. So I am trying to understand what you define as attack. Even your use of rightwing here seems to be that well-a gain one can't tell the truth unless the right has never ever mentioned it in the past. If you mean the corporate stuff, which I think you do, we are going to have to disagree. I am an economic progressive, and not just one on the issues that affect me. But I am trying to remain openminded enough to understand what your point is without assuming.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 08:57AM | 0 recs
Hillary not attacking?

Are you out of your mind? Didn't Hillary just a few weeks ago called a popular US Senator NAIVE & IRRESPONSIBLE? That was not a good day for her in the black community. Isn't Hillary & her minions the one demanding that big donors not to donate to other campaigns.

Oh Hillary is attacking alright. She's only delegating more of dirtier aspects to her minions or orchestrating it thru Mark Penn. He's good at that kind of shit from what I understand.

by cosbo 2007-08-30 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: I Remember A Lot of People Telling Hillary....

Jimmy Carter for all his failings as a President actually tried to do something about our reliance on foreign oil. I have great respect for him as a person and would prefer not to see his good name savaged by anyone.

by DoIT 2007-08-30 08:11AM | 0 recs
Looks like

you need to grow up.

"Needs to shut up!"? Try to raise the maturity level a bit please.

by okamichan13 2007-08-30 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton

Hence the rising poll numbers for Edwards in the Rasmussen poll. Nobody has taken more smears and unfair attacks in this primary than Edwards. That is just the facts.

This is an election. There is nothing wrong with hearing the differences between the candidates.

by RDemocrat 2007-08-30 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton

Every side will say the same over their candidate. Somebody should do a real count, instead of just relying on perception.

Another problem is that what is a smear and unfair attack in the eye of a supporter is seen as a perfectly example of hearing the differences by another side.

by Ernst 2007-08-30 10:05AM | 0 recs
Straight White Christian Millionaire Male = Victim

Only the Edwards think that being a straight white christian millionaire male qualifies you for victim status, these days.

Sigh.

by BigBoyBlue 2007-08-30 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Straight White Christian

Wow, that comment sounds racist to me!! Do you not like white males?

by RDemocrat 2007-08-30 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Straight White Christian

I love white males.  I am one, and I've been partnered to one for 17 years.

It's the victim card that I don't like!  ;)

by BigBoyBlue 2007-08-30 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Straight White Christian

Huh? When does he play the victim? He presents himself as a fierce and successful fighter of corporate interests who victimize the weak. Hardly the pose of a victim.

by psnyder 2007-08-30 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Straight White Christian

It's not about like or dislike.  It's about Elizabeth Edwards sounding very much like White Male Conservatives who rail against affirmative action.  Listening to Elizabeth Edwards complain that her rich White husband is being overshadowed by a woman and a Black man is obnoxious!

by Dee 2007-08-30 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Straight White Christian

Thank you!  It seemed like an obvious observation to both you and me, even as it escapes others.

by BigBoyBlue 2007-08-30 12:11PM | 0 recs
The dumbest thing I've read all day...

but it's early yet.

by cosbo 2007-08-30 09:05AM | 0 recs
Am I missing something?

Really, what did Elizabeth Edwards say that's not true? If you think Hillary is likable, check out the latest Time Magazine poll from Iowa--you know, the same place where the candidates have spent the most time and where the people have the best idea of what each candidate is truely like. What do the numbers in Iowa say?

While voters think Hillary is a strong leader, they do NOT view her as likable. For better or worse, that's a big deal. Likeability is the main reason why Bush was elected. Remember the old adage, "who would you most like to have a beer with?" Gore and Kerry got crushed on that. There is no way around it. Many people vote for president based upon how well they like the candidate--regardless of their stance on issues. I won't even get into that with regard to Hillary and Edwards.

I know it hurts Hillary supporters to admit this, but she doesn't come even close to John Edwards in being able to connect with voters on a personal level. That's the main reason why her numbers in Iowa are so different than her numbers everywhere else. The more people see of John Edwards, the more they like him. The more they see of Hillary Clinton...well, you fill in the blank.

by ohiocrat 2007-08-30 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Am I missing something?

This is anohter self-indulgent 'I'm likeable' stuff.

He's been living in Iowa for ages. If he's really that likeable, why his polling number in NH is such a dismal third place when candidates also do retail politicking?

LOL. Keep it up...

by areyouready 2007-08-30 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Am I missing something?

clinton's been known for 15 years. if peo don't like you after 15 years, they aren't going to like you.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Am I missing something?

Tell that to the folks in red upstate NY.  She's won hem over by the tens of thousands.

by Denny Crane 2007-08-30 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Am I missing something?

ny isn't ohio and never has been. i live in ny, and grew up in an actual red state. very different in temperment among other things. and she won them over after beingn elected for 6 years not during the short span of an election cycle.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Am I missing something?

She underperformed Gore in upstate NY.

by clarkent 2007-08-30 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Am I missing something?

She had a lesser result then Gore but her candidate was unaccomplished New Yorker, instead of a unaccomplished Texan.

As a statewide candidate her electoral history is average. If you look at the other races in the period of '98 to '06 She performed similar to other statewide candidates.

by Ernst 2007-08-30 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Am I missing something?

clinton's been known for 15 years. if peo don't like you after 15 years, they aren't going to like you.

Why has her unfavorable rating fluctuated then?

by world dictator 2007-08-30 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Am I missing something?

historically its about where its been for about 15 years- in the mid 40s on average. and at times a bit higher and others a bit lower, but never so much as to pull it out of the mid 40s. i can look at the numbers. i had them at one point but decided to stop asking the question when no one would answer the long term structural concerns i have over her numbers, but instead would point out that edwards and obama in this or that poll showed growing unfavs without aknowledging that clintons unfavs are almost always high. in other words, its not that the other two can nt lose or that she can't win, it's that it is harder for clinton to come to a path to victory. when i look at most of the  analysis it makes these simplistic- see they can lose too, or see, there is a chance she can win. the point of electability is comparables. and the point for me are the battleground states where the win lose is measured in small percentage shifts, and in the down ticket effect in the toss up districts and states. its not a reason a lone not to s upport her, but to say its not a factor or that she doesn't have a more difficult path due to the historic long term nature of her unfavs seems well just pie in the sky. especially when asked how she will deal with this. we are told- new women voters. new voters who are voting for the first time. ie, grow the poll of dem voters.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Am I missing something?

And if her unfavorability rating has changed within the last 15 years it obviously proves that it can change. Hence my original point

by world dictator 2007-08-30 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Am I missing something?

its only fluctuated at best to the low 40s, and during periods where there was no attempt to critique her.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Am I missing something?

So when her unfavorables went down during the primary no one was critisizing her? Uhh okay.

Also you're missing the point. The fact is, and you agree, that her favorability/unfavorability rate is not set in stone. It can and has changed. Nuff said.

by world dictator 2007-08-30 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

I think the netroots attacks on Clinton actually help her campaign.

by robliberal 2007-08-30 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching To Hillary Clinton

jgarcia, I think mom (Hillary) is happy.

by Kingstongirl 2007-08-30 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching To Hillary Clinton

yeah, she definitely will be.  did i ever mention she used to be a GOPer?  an Buchananite, in fact (don't tell anyone, haha).

she switched to Democrat and is on board with Hillary.  She even was for Hill when, as you know, I liked Edwards (I still like him, but he's now not my number one choice).  But I am rare because the Leo optimist in me makes me actually like ALL our candidates.

btw, HRC and my mom look alike, as i have said, and my mother is only three years her junior.  and they are both water signs, lol.

i guess i have TWO girls now:  HRC and YOU!  :)

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

vote for who you want, but I don't get your reasoning.

Is David Mixner engaged in revisionist history? Because he's been talking about the issues you are discussing regarding the Clinton for a very long time. And it  absolutely disagrees with wht you write here.

As for what you call attacks, it's actually differentiation. it's easy to run a positive campaign when you aren't trying to define why me over her. You say you are a lobbist in your background- I don't understand you don't get that.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

Well, if he was a lobbyist, that would definately explain the loathing of Edwards and love of Clinton. Lobbyists will lose a lot of power if Edwards wins!!

by RDemocrat 2007-08-30 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

He's a former lobbist. And I dont think it explains anything. I was in a lobbying organization too. My point was more one of I don't understand how his post makes sense in regards to someone who knows how the process works to say that Edwards is being unfair or smearing Clinton. What's happened in this election has frankly been tame. So given his background I was trying to understand how what he thinks here is so special with regard to primary politics. I mean look what KErry did to Dean last term and the knives that came out, and he thinks these minor skirmages are big enough to change candidates? I don't get it is my point.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

The process by the way is to both negatively define your opponents while positively defining yourself. Clinton is just as much engaged in this according to her strategy as Edwards or Obama. The difference is that she's playing frontrunner, I can pretend to be direclty above the fray while indirectly attacking my opponents through various surrogates. I would think someone with a background in politics would know this part of the game well enough to know whats going on versus some of the things he is saying here. Also he just gets the historical facts wrong. Including the Logo thing- because quite frankly I cant imagine anyone being convinced of anything based on a debate versus the substance of actions. Don't get it.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

Lobbyists may lose a lot of power, but trial lawyers and hedge funds will have a field day no?

by superetendar 2007-08-30 09:20AM | 0 recs
trial lawyers

are already one of the dems most reliable donors.

Edwards is 4th in hedge fund money among dems below Hillary, obama and Dodd

by TarHeel 2007-08-30 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

yes because its been tradionally those two groups which have been writing the legislation for Congress and the WH alike in DC over the last decade and half. If you want to for example understand why telecoms receive subsidies and tax breaks even while pleading poverty when it comes to net neutrality-t he way to understand tht isn't through the Telecom Act of 1996, signed by CLinton, but through discussion of hedge funds.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

I consider rightwing memes attacks.  

You know what?

Here's what pisses me off.  HRC goes out on a limb for ALL OF US with healthcare in 1993.  All hell breaks lose and our own party (people like Nunn, many liberal sens too) hammer her plan.  Then she is now "disliked" by many people for fifteen years.

She's disliked because of what she tried to do that was good.  Now we don't have her back.  I am one of those rare people who are loyal.  I remember those days.  I also remember going without health insurance prior to law school, even though I have asthma.  I apprecaite that she tried.

I guess I have her back on that.  To repeat that "ulikeability" bullshit when Elizabeth Edwards wasn't even in politics at the time strikes me as opportunism.

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

The road to hell ...

I like Clinton fine. I didn't have health care when she tried pushing Clintoncare, and I appreciated that. I still do, though less so now that I've learned more about it. (Is it Mike Lux on Openleft who talks about this?) But I don't owe her my vote for her failed attempt to get my health care fifteen years ago. I'm more interested in who can get people health care three years -from- now.

And I honestly don't understand the idea that you'd be attracted to a candidate because of the attacks that candidate is facing. First, because I'm -drawn- to candidates who attack. That's probably my first priority: if they can't attack, they sure as hell can't govern. Second, I guess I feel the choice of a candidate is a pretty personal one, and one that I make after consulting my own good judgment, not others' bad behavior.

Even if there was some kinda of blogosphere mob after Richardson, say, attacking him in the most base and baseless fashion, I wouldn't suddenly support him. That's just strange to me.

Finally, Clinton doesn't support gay marriage. She might be more gay-comfortable, but she doesn't get any points for that--just for policy. I wish she'd support gay marriage. I wish Obama or Edwards would. I'm straight, and I'd almost certainly switch my support to any of them who did so. Really easy questions of equal rights should be no-brainers.

This is a really divisive, unhelpful, diary.

by BingoL 2007-08-30 12:23PM | 0 recs
So you dont feel invisible to her anymore?

like you did before?

http://jgarcia.mydd.com/story/2007/8/13/ 214144/956

you complain about dissing Hillary but you seem to have done a fair amount of that yourself.

by okamichan13 2007-08-30 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: So you dont feel invisible to her anymore?

No candidate is perfect and I will be crticising HRC until election day in November of 2008 when she does something that is wrong, in my view.

I also really went after her on HER reinforcement of the GOP's better for terrorism meme.

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

As a related matter to your discussion-- there is this diary I wrote yesterday while dealing with others on the subject of what's permissable or should be in a campaign and primary versus say a tea party with crumpets:

it's called the truth isn't a smear.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/28/2126 57/218#commenttop

we seem to have picked up some of the worse habits of the right in the last few years. namely we can't speak the truth without it being miss labeled.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

Oh, c'mon.  so all these attacks on Hill are "the truth"?  Really?  you really really really believe that?

As you are very aware, I have criticised Hill when she's needed it and will continue to do so.

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards

"And, I am sorry, but a lot of it is tinged with misogyny."

jgarcia,

Can you cite some examples of this?

by justinh 2007-08-30 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards

I would be interested in seeing that as well.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards

Yes, some examples please!!

by RDemocrat 2007-08-30 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards

"bitch", to name one.  How many times have I read that here?

A.  LOT.

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards

That surprises me.  I've never, ever seen someone say that here.

by justinh 2007-08-30 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards

Re: Democrats Faces Ethical Questions (0.00 / 3)

This news about Hillary is bad. She just keeps making mistakes. Sooner or later people will wake up to the fact that she will do harm as President. I don't care what she says. I only trust that she will be untrustworthy. But she sure is good at raising money from slimy sources. Hanging out with people like Murdock and shit. How can any of you people support this bitch?

I fully support Vodka diplomacy.
by Russian Spy on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:05:50 PM PST
[ Reply to This | ]

by bowiegeek 2007-08-30 11:49AM | 0 recs
You are switching because a SUPPORTER

says something you find offensive?  

That is hardly a way to choose the leader to take us out of the mess we are in.

Name calling should be off-limits in any true political discussion, but is Hillary beyond reproach just because she is a woman?  Or Obama because he is African American?  It seems to me that we should have progressed beyond that by now.

Not too long ago, I would have voted for Hillary simply because she is a woman and I thought any woman would do a better job than the men who have nearly destroyed our earth so many times.  I've grown away from that sexism (at least somewhat) to be able to see that there are good men that I should trust.  John Edwards is one.

This race is way too important NOT to discuss issues.  The way I see it, Elizabeth is doing exactly that.  So is John.

I keep thinking there must be some other reason for your sudden change of heart.  John Edwards is fair to everyone and treats them equally, regardless of race or sexual orientation.

If anyone has been the victim of smears in this campaign, that candidate is far and away John Edwards.  Just as he is far and away the best and most progessive candidate on the issues.

by ashlarah 2007-08-30 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: You are switching because a SUPPORTER

um, i have mentioned DOMA, DADT, and Universal Healthcare.  Just how many issues am i suppoed to address in one diary?  geez.

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: You are switching because a SUPPORTER

I think it was a good diary. And I don't just mean that as someone who is a Hillster.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-30 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: You are switching because a SUPPORTER

thank you.  i DID indeed try and take bruh21's advice and meld the issues with the horserace.  the diary took a long time and yet some people say it didn't address enugh issues?  wow, huh?

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: You are switching because a SUPPORTER

This may be overly philosophical, but I suspect that it doesn't matter how much policy or context you put into how you see an issue as a Hillary supporter, especially toward a neutral-to-hostile audience-- if your context is not the same as someone else's context, then you have reached a wrong and fickle conclusion. In any case, I admire your dedication to contributing diaries and taking on a much bigger role here on MyDD than I ever would. Even when you were still an Edwards supporter, I could see that you weren't just someone out to slam somebody de facto for coming to a different conclusion.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-30 04:23PM | 0 recs
um . . . you gave the following as a reason:

The final reason - and, yes, this is kind of petty and relates, to a lesser extent to reason number one - is all the vitriol this woman receives here and on all the rest of the liberal blogs.  I'm fucking tired of it.  And, I am sorry, but a lot of it is tinged with misogyny.

Shouldn't be a reason.

by ashlarah 2007-08-30 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From

by RDemocrat 2007-08-30 08:50AM | 0 recs
Good Points!

What an excellent diary!  

Its also quite telling that many of Hillary (and Bill) Clinton's staffers were openly gay, and Hillary was very supportive of them.  During those same years John Edwards said (1998) that he felt "Uncomfortable around gays" and even today he is "Wrestling with the issue."

Hillary, on the other hand, marched in a gay pride parade as First Lady in 2000.  I call that VERY PROGRESSIVE (for that time period).  

I like Edwards, but I believe his current political POPULISM stances are just a calculated move to appease the netroots and to be the new Howard Dean.  He did not tout the same issues when he was running in 2004.  

Hillary will make an excellent President.  It will be so nice to get rid of Bush and the GOP.

by Sandy1938 2007-08-30 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Good Points!

many of those staffers now denounce her and have done so for many years before this race even started.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Good Points!

Really?  I haven't heard this.  Can you provide some links for this claim?

by Denny Crane 2007-08-30 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Good Points!

I mentioned one alerady. David mixner who was one of their prominent advisors. There are others - I believe Keith Boykin also has issues with their policy decisions.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Good Points!

"I like Edwards, but I believe his current political POPULISM stances are just a calculated move to appease the netroots and to be the new Howard Dean.  He did not tout the same issues when he was running in 2004."

Edwards was much less explicitly a progressive in 2004, and he did lift Dean's best lines in the closing weeks before Iowa.

I think you're right about Edwards--that his outspoken progressiveness "coincidentally" gives him a niche to run on this time--but because he has been SO outspoken, it will be very hard for him to pull back on these issues.  Which is why I'm leaning toward Edwards.

by justinh 2007-08-30 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Good Points!

Edwards had a very progressive message in 1998, when he was running for Senate in North Carolina.  He didn't just make it up recently.

by Steve M 2007-08-30 11:34AM | 0 recs
Great diary.

I'm not gay but Hillary's obvious comfort around gays, her personal friendships with many gay individuals, and her emphasis on equality and NOT on whatever religious opinions one might hold, make me comfortable that she will do right on these important issues.

by bookgrl 2007-08-30 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Great diary.

David Mixner, a prominent gay leader, disagrees with you.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Great diary.

So do many of the gay orgs by the way- on all the candidates they say they aren't doing enough.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Great diary.

wanna put money on how many of us end up supporting her?

And I am NOT counting the Human Rights Campaign or GLAAD, they are SELL-OUTS!

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Great diary.

very few if any orgs will supporter. most of her support comes from nostalgia in the community because of how they view the 90s versus what actually has happened in the 90s. what sealed the deal for me was what bill clinton did in 2004 at  least the deal on this issue.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 11:30AM | 0 recs
Oh lord. Most women are comfortable

around gays. They're like no threat to each other. It's straight men who have a problem with gays, Because the thought of another man touching them drive them absolutely NUTS. While women are more verbal men are visual and are very imaginative. Gay men are more comfortable around men than the reverse.

It's irrational. Not logical. Purely instinctual. It might change over time...but that's not how it is today.  The reason why Edwards & Obama are fidgety around gay males is because they're straight. Straight men will understand their discomfort. Trust me on that.

That doesn't mean they don't want what is best for them as a human being.

by cosbo 2007-08-30 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh lord. Most women are comfortable

It's straight men who have a problem with gays, Because the thought of another man touching them drive them absolutely NUTS. While women are more verbal men are visual and are very imaginative. Gay men are more comfortable around men than the reverse.

It's irrational. Not logical. Purely instinctual. It might change over time...but that's not how it is todayThe reason why Edwards & Obama are fidgety around gay males is because they're straight. Straight men will understand their discomfort. Trust me on that.

That's absolute nonsense, and I can't believe you even bothered to write those words, and I certainly will not trust you on that.  I know hundreds of straight men, and I promise you that none of them are uncomfortable around me because they're afraid that they're so irresistible that I'll just have to start fondling them.

My two best friends are both quite straight, and this issues has never even come up. Certainly, there are some people who are uncomfortable around gay men, for a variety of reason.  But those people don't get my vote to be President of the United States, especially if they think that gays are going to suddenly start touching them.

by Denny Crane 2007-08-30 09:38AM | 0 recs
LOL. Not in my community.

Or where I'm from. You're fooling yourself if you don't think alot of straight men are uncomfortable around gay men, because

1. They don't want a gay man thinking about them in s sexual manner
2. They just don't understand at all how can  a man not like p****y.

Considering that men thinks about sex, every 8 seconds or so, the discomfort straight men feel around gay men, at least the ones I know, is a reality.

by cosbo 2007-08-30 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh lord. Most women are comfortable

All the more reason to elect a woman.

by bookgrl 2007-08-30 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh lord. Most women are comfortable

exactly.

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh lord. Most women are comfortable

The world is not made up of just gay people nor are the problems we face.

by cosbo 2007-08-30 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh lord. Most women are comfortable

true.  and my numner one issue is UHC.  but i'm also gayer than a tree full of parrots and I am tired of being discriminated against.

so, to YOU, gay issues aren't the only ones.  civil rights weren't the only issues for African- Americans in the Jim Crowe era.  Health care was, and still is, up there.

I kinda feel insulted by your reply.  

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 11:07AM | 0 recs
Not trying to insult you dude...

you should know better. But this election to me is above moving this entire nation forward progressively and aggressively on many many fronts including the gay issue. My big issue is the Drug War & the injustice served to millions of people under this inhumane war destroying families right here at home. Alot of black & hispanic went to prison under Bill Clinton because he made little deals here & there and then felt bad about the whole thing went he left office. He pardoned some and then urged lawmakers to do the right thing.

Edwards out of all the candidates come along and put issues aggressively on the table with solid plans to back it, and here you're blowing him off all because he's trying to win an election against someone who is better financed and favored by mainstream media.

I'm kinda insulted by how lightly, and easily it was for you to switch. Nothing to do with progressive issues, all about Edwards trying to win the election to make big changes. I'm sorry, none of your reasoning makes sense to somelike like me, who've actually been hurt by some of the laws Clinton passed.

by cosbo 2007-08-30 12:51PM | 0 recs
I disagree, with you, by the way.

My husband is straight and he is perfectly comfortable around gays, just like Hillary.

by bookgrl 2007-08-30 10:06AM | 0 recs
Guess we run in different circles.

The straight men I know are completely uncomfortable with gay men.

by cosbo 2007-08-30 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Guess we run in different circles.

You keep saying that as though it's OK for someone who want to be president to feel that way.  It isn't.

by Denny Crane 2007-08-30 10:34AM | 0 recs
Where did I say it was OK to feel that way?

There's no need to distort my words. I'm  not saying it's okay to feel that way. I'm saying that's the way it is. I'm calling it like I see it.

by cosbo 2007-08-30 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh lord. Most women are comfortable

so, she's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't, then?

nice take on the issue, bud.

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 10:45AM | 0 recs
yeah well, tell her to joined

the damned club.

Edwards have been damned far more than anyone else in this race. I feel no sympathies for Hillary. She's had her time in the White House. And I'm not looking for a way back to the nostalgic 90's. The 90's SUCKED for my family.

by cosbo 2007-08-30 11:42AM | 0 recs
DODT

jgarcia:

I enjoyed reading your analysis of Don't Ask Don't Tell and DOMA.

I don't have a personal stake in gay rights, but one of the reasons that I was so excited when a sax playing Bill Clinton was inaugurated in 1993 was that it had been two decades since we had a President committed to civil rights as a general governing principle.

He went to implement gays in the military as a routine matter as promised during his campaign. I watched in horror as the entire US military and governing class did a Tonya Harding/Jeff Galooly with an iron pipe to his knee cap. I've never seen a mugging like that to a President starting his first week in office. Open disobedience to the Commander in Chief from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (and noted anti-gay bigot) Colin Powell. Open disagreement from members of his own party including Chairman of the Armed Services Committee (and noted anti-gay bigot) Sam Nunn.

It was a miracle that Clinton managed to even get DODT and it took a huge investment of political capital on his part. So when these johnny-come-lately progressives start ranting about how Clinton sold them out, I just want to scream.

Here's the thing about politics in a democracy. Everything starts with: Count the Votes!

by hwc 2007-08-30 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: DODT

Is Colin Powell, in fact, a bigot, aside from his position on gays in the military?  I'd be interested in hearing more.

by Steve M 2007-08-30 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: DODT

Powell and Nunn were both anti-gay bigots when Clinton tried to do the right thing and allow gay people to serve their county.

What reason have either of them given us to believe they have stopped being bigots?

I loved the poetic justice of Senator Clinton being a key player in costing current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Peter Pace, his job for also being an anti-gay bigot.

We Democrats need to stop killing our own candidates (all of whom have admirable positions for the most part) and start turning our venom on the bigots. Call a bigot a bigot rather than attacking Democratic candidats for this little or that little squabble.

by hwc 2007-08-30 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: DODT

holy shit, you get a "mojo", for being able to work in Tony Harding and Jeff Gilloooly into this!  haha.

thank you for your wonderful sentiments.  much appreciated.

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: History versus a debate

Here is Mixner's analysis:

http://www.davidmixner.com/2007/08/lgbt- presidenti.html

by bruh21 2007-08-30 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: DADT

here is the factually versus opinion based analysis of the impact of DADT by the Servicemen Defense Fund (the group spear heading the appeal)

http://www.sldn.org/templates/dadt/recor d.html?section=183&record=1452
http://www.sldn.org/templates/dadt/recor d.html?section=183&record=1454

by bruh21 2007-08-30 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: DADT

From the GAO:

During fiscal years 1980 through 1990, approximately 17,000 servicemen and women (an average of about 1,500 per year) were separated from the services under the category of "homosexuality." http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/gao_r eport.html

From Wikipedia:

Discharges for homosexuality 1994-2004:  10340
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_ don't_tell#Statistics

That is down about 60%. It's not great, but it's better.

So, yes DADT is not perfect, it's actually bad in today's world. But in 1993 it was an improvement over the current state of affairs.

Social change can only move at the pace that fits within the society, unless the Supreme Court moves things along, and this didn't happen for gays in the military.

by SF Bay 2007-08-30 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: DADT

address also mixner's points

by bruh21 2007-08-30 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: DADT

This is from Mixner's comments:

"Unfortunately, she was uniquely burdened by her husband's term in office, and having been personally involved in some of the failed policies she was asked to discuss, I found her view of history to be, well, convenient."

"But I hardly think that the 11,000 men and women who have had their military careers ended and their personal lives damaged since 1993 view Don't Ask, Don't Tell as sympathetically. As I recall, the policy was never discussed as a transitional step. It was hastily produced and passed, by a Democratic President and Congress, to extract the new administration from of a political mess of its own making."

This sounds like nothing more than his opinion. He thinks a 60% decrease in dsicharges is not much. Others think differently. Allowing gays to serve openly in the military simply was not going to happen in 1993.

AS for DOMA, back in 1996 the conservatives were planning on attempting to put forth FMA in response to states about to pass laws allowing same-sex marriage/civil unions. I remember this clearly. DOMA was not good law and it hasn't been looked at yet by the Supreme Court (no doubt because it will fail constitutional tests). It was an inadequate attempt to head off FMA.

As is turns out it may actually have done it's job. As time has passed, attitudes about gays and same-sex marriage have evolved. With more time, which we are getting, I think same-sex marriage will be a reality in many states.

by SF Bay 2007-08-30 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: DADT

its  based on someone who was actually in the thick of it during the time and who was one of their ally.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

Taking shots? How do you suggest we otherwise decide this Democratic primary competition? A foot race? Good grief.  I keep telling you guys, if the big leagues are too rough, you can always ask her to stay in the Senate.

by Junior Bug 2007-08-30 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

You seems to have forgotten that you win a primary competition by persuading voters to vote for you.

You seem to think that taking shots is the only way to campaign. It's not. If taking shots is counterproductive you use other techniques. It's as simple as that.

Blaming other people for the failure of the strategy of your campaign is silly. It's been long known that  going negative carries the risk that you turn off voters. If you can't face that and simply grumble about how people should just deal with it, you're not ready for the big time. Voters will always behave as they want to, not as you would like. Complaining about that won't win you elections.

by Ernst 2007-08-30 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

You totally lost me with the third paragraph.  I'm not complaining about voters.  I'm laughing about whiners.

by Junior Bug 2007-08-30 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

I've tried to keep quiet about this but Elizabeth Edwards kind of scares me with the vitriol of her attacks. Not just on other Democrats. On people in general. I'm no fan of Reagan but what she said about him in a comment on her diary in DailyKos was just horrible:

I am always amazed that (58+ / 0-)

our party lost "family values" to Reagan who could not even NAME his grandchildren.

by Elizabeth Edwards on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 03:20:42 PM PDT

Completely below the belt. If this is the way she fights in the general election, god help us all.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-30 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

That's silly, and I'll tell you why.  For one thing, regardless of what you think of her campaign manner, she's given no indication that she conducts herself personally as anything but a class act (and certainly not cruelly).  Secondly, besides her obvious good taste, as a woman struggling with her own chronic illness, she most likely wouldn't speak callously of someone else's.  But even if you do think she's so crass, if she meant it the way you think she meant it, she would have no point.  Whatever you think about her personality, we can all agree that she's smarter than to make pointless statements.

by Junior Bug 2007-08-30 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

That is what she said. And you even tipped her for it. In what way could her comment be construed as not a slam about Reagan's family and his Alzheimer's? Of course I agree with the underlying point that Republicans hold no exclusive right to family values, but can't you see how wrong it was of her to say what she did? It was nasty. It was cruel.

I have no doubt that she is a decent human being, a professional, an intelligent woman and it is certainly not my intent to demonize her. But she has had a history thus far of making very pointed, very personal attacks. And her struggle with cancer, her motherhood, her advocacy, her education and many other factors do not excuse the viciousness with which she argues against other people.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-30 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

I know that's what she said.  I'm saying you're misinterpreting it.  For her to mean Republicans hold no exclusive right to family values because Ronald Reagan had Alzheimer's would make no sense at all.

by Junior Bug 2007-08-30 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

No she was saying that Ronald Reagan, the greatest champion the Republicans ever had for conservatism and family values was unable to name his grandchildren and that that's why she is amazed Republicans were the family values party. Very dirty. And ironic for someone who's trying to make a point about family values.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-30 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

What? You're repeating yourself.  Not advancing the argument.  I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, but now I think you're trolling.

by Junior Bug 2007-08-31 02:10AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

I scarcely need the benefit of your doubt but I don't really see where you're coming from when you say I'm misinterpreting. Advance an argument yourself before you tell other people when they're not. How exactly do you interpret what she said literally other than as a slam on Reagan's family?

by bowiegeek 2007-08-31 03:27AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

Who whined here in this diary? Not the Clinton campaign who doesn't post here, not the Clinton supporters who were glad to welcome another supporter. Was it the writer of a diary? But he was an Edwards supporter when he started to dislike the things you are defending. Are Edward supporters who don't like the current strategy whiners as well? But why the slam on the Clinton supporters then?

Not to mention as a supporter he was a likely Edwards voter. Look, it's very simple, laughing about how a former supporter is a whiner after your candidates campaign backfires won't win you the election. Laughing about how big a bunch of whiners the rival campaign is because Edward supporters go to them after the Edwards campaign alienates them might not be the best possible response. It might in fact just be a bit silly.

by Ernst 2007-08-30 11:38PM | 0 recs
I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

running on is less important to you than some of us. Elizabeth is calling it like it is. I like that about her. They're not making up shit out of thin air. This is pretty widespread info. I'm  sorry, but I think Hillary's electability is a problem too. Not talking about it will not make it go away. It's a huge gorilla in the room.  

Do we want to win or what? I'm not going to fault  Edwards for trying win an election.

by cosbo 2007-08-30 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

Hillary's electability isn't a real issue, it's a strawman.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=1019

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=938

by Denny Crane 2007-08-30 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

the electability is about which base will turn out, and its impact, as well as what independents will do. the polling data is practically useless for that. what we can judge on is fav/unfav. those for her are long term (15 years), none of which is taken into consideration for some reason. she maybe able to overcome these things, but they aren't insignificant. its also at the margins in battleground states that they are also important for downticket candidates where the win or lose can be measured as with webb of VA in the thousands.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

The electability frame is entirely subjective, and can't be quantified.  There is no reliable way of predicting what impact, if any, that fav/unfav ratings will have on who turns out or doesn't.  As for independents, Obama has a 1 point lead over Hillary, according to Harris.  If the electability fav/unfav meme were really true, he should be considerably further ahead of her.

Hilary isn't going to have any problem turning out the base, as her numbers among Dems are better (slightly) than Obama's or Edwards.  Typically, the base turns in out in big numbers for only a couple of reasons:

  1. They really love the candidate
  2. There are important issues that draw them out - Iraq, corruption (2006), anti-gay crap(2004).

We have no real evidence at all that the Republican base will turn out in huge numbers just because they hate Hillary.  Everything to the contrary is just a guess.

by Denny Crane 2007-08-30 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

its not as subject as you state

here are unfavs

http://bp0.blogger.com/_MRs_Nt465oE/RbRL 3QTtwOI/AAAAAAAAAMM/l5o7EeD5FK4/s1600-h/ HillarFavUnAdj.png

there was an excellent diary - one of the few here these days- that broke down electability into what elements have mattered in the past for actual voter turn out. i need to try to see if i can find it.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

also there is a very small range of change in voting patterns- this was something discussed many times by bowers last year and before that. i need to find that data too.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

And how do you rate some of the recent diaries by Bowers that she has no significant electability problems?

by Ernst 2007-08-30 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

he's from the one that i saw talking in absolutes. like can she win at all, not relative comparators, and he doesn't seem (again since i have only been over there since i realized it exists(3 weeks or so)) to talk much if all about her impact in battleground states for the close call congressional races. when i think of her, i think of coattails in the closely contested congressional races as well.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

some of which we barely won last year in the height of a wave year by the way.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

the reason long versus short matters with regard to the fav/unfav is the degree to which in a short among of time we shape percetpion and with whom in the battle ground states of oh, fl, pa, etc. well less pa, i think that will go solid dem, but in the battleground states like FL and OH, I think is where the long term Fav/unfav, the strategy she is advocating (essentially I am going to bring in  new voters), and her stance on issues like trade all in combo will hurt her. she can still obtain a win, but the margins will hurt the party down ticket in close call areas where the difference is measured in a few thousand or hundred votes. unless his analysis is taking that into account i am not sure how helpful it is.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

" and her stance on issues like trade all in combo will hurt her "

- as opposed to the republican stance on trade helping them in Ohio , right , wrong !!! . That doesn't make any sense . I am confident that when unions get behind her in Ohio those worried about trade will not vote for Guiliani or thompson.

" battleground states like FL and OH, I think is where the long term Fav/unfav, the strategy she is advocating (essentially I am going to bring in  new voters), and her stance on issues like trade all in combo will hurt her "

- Hmm , She is doing the best among the dems in those states , she is actually beating the republicans in Florida and tied in Ohio , cannot say that about other candidates.

By a 50 - 42 percent margin, Florida voters have a favorable opinion of Clinton

Ohio voters give Clinton a 49 - 41 percent favorability rating

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?Rele aseID=1089

she can still obtain a win, but the margins will hurt the party down ticket in close call areas where the difference is measured in a few thousand or hundred votes. unless his analysis is taking that into account i am not sure how helpful it is.

- Where is the evidence for that ? You should know better than to say something without backing it up with facts . Considering she has a net positive in those states you mentioned that statement doesn't make too much sense.

Conclusion : You probably have no idea what you are talking about.

by lori 2007-08-30 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

Exactly right, lori.  Clinton is specifically strong in the very states that are the most crucial to our success:  Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida.   Some posters here don't want to see facts as they are presented.  They want to stick to their preconceived notions, however wrong they happen to be.  

by georgep 2007-08-30 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

a) trade hurts her because than providing a contrast its an issue of which she will be neutral or the same as the GOP. in state like OH , both the senator and the new gov there won by being strongly against the present trade agreements. many of my arguments in concert with other issues- ie, her unfavs are high, and therefore she will have to do more to convince voters. but with what will she convince them is normally my next question- hence why i look at her position on trade to see if its a position that will help her chances.

b)new voters- you can look it up. traditionally its extreme hard to bring in new voters. typically they come in due to a movement of being very passionate. no indicators from even her democratic polling data that this is occuring with her. she polls in the 30s and 40s when it comes to actual interest in having her as the candidate. as for my point about new voters- you can actually i believe look that up in terms of the research by googling it.

c) are these polls of democrats or all likely voters in the general? actually i can be even more specific. let's talk the I word- intertia.

d) What happens to those numbers if its Huckabee?

by bruh21 2007-08-30 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

"Sen. Clinton is inching ahead. Not only does she lead by a nose in two of the most important swing states in the Electoral College, but she is turning around independent and Republican voters who previously viewed her negatively," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"In the last two months the share of voters who view her favorably has increased to about 50 percent - an important milestone - while the numbers who view her unfavorably has dropped. It is not huge movement, but it is consistent across all three states," Brown added.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?Rele aseID=1089

Clinton gets a 51 - 40 among pennyslvania voters.

by lori 2007-08-30 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

bruh21 (BTW, what does that mean?)

You put stuff out there as fact as though you are the only with doing that.

You state other commenter's aren't using facts, just opinions.

When facts are presented, you nit pick the details, to obfuscate the reality that other comments do indeed have the facts on their side.

And, lastly you just love a good argument, and I'm sure could argue on either side just as effectively with your tactics.

Looking back at your diaries, you seem to be an Edwards supporter. Are you a lawyer like him? You argue like a lawyer.

by SF Bay 2007-08-30 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

what i mean is that there are facts backing up what i say. for example my comments about her long term unfav fluctuating yes, but only doing so around the mid 40s is factually something thats provable. versus saying well we are going to address that issue by bring in new voters who have not voted before. thats something thats factually just an assertion without basis in actually whats happened with these sorts of efforts in the past.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

You know, there are facts to back up pretty much some part of some argument you make. There are other facts that will override your limited examination of the facts.

Furthermore, those facts re: Hillary's unfavorabliility don't take into account her much higher numbers in states such as Florida and Ohio. That's where the election will be won, right?

And finially, I said nothing about bringing in new voters. Perhaps you could address my speicific questions. Such as what does bruh21 mean? And, you argue like a lawyer, are you one?

by SF Bay 2007-08-30 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

I notice you have failed to respond to my comment re: Mixner. You specifically asked me address his points. I did. They are after all those of one individual aren't they? Is he your authority on all things gay? I hope not.

by SF Bay 2007-08-30 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

i am doing this at work so i am answering as fast as i can and when i find the arguments. it just means i missed the argument if i didn't answer it.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

where do you respond to my mixner question? cant find it?

by bruh21 2007-08-30 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

Re: DADT (none / 0)

address also mixner's points

by bruh21 on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 01:51:33 PM EST
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]

   Re: DADT (none / 0)

   This is from Mixner's comments:

   "Unfortunately, she was uniquely burdened by her husband's term in office, and having been personally involved in some of the failed policies she was asked to discuss, I found her view of history to be, well, convenient."

   "But I hardly think that the 11,000 men and women who have had their military careers ended and their personal lives damaged since 1993 view Don't Ask, Don't Tell as sympathetically. As I recall, the policy was never discussed as a transitional step. It was hastily produced and passed, by a Democratic President and Congress, to extract the new administration from of a political mess of its own making."

   This sounds like nothing more than his opinion. He thinks a 60% decrease in dsicharges is not much. Others think differently. Allowing gays to serve openly in the military simply was not going to happen in 1993.

   AS for DOMA, back in 1996 the conservatives were planning on attempting to put forth FMA in response to states about to pass laws allowing same-sex marriage/civil unions. I remember this clearly. DOMA was not good law and it hasn't been looked at yet by the Supreme Court (no doubt because it will fail constitutional tests). It was an inadequate attempt to head off FMA.

   As is turns out it may actually have done it's job. As time has passed, attitudes about gays and same-sex marriage have evolved. With more time, which we are getting, I think same-sex marriage will be a reality in many states.

   by SF Bay on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:36:27 PM EST
    [ Parent | Reply to This ]

by SF Bay 2007-08-30 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

found it above- he is someone who was there. its not just an opinion like the layperson who wasnt there talkinga bout it. he was also their ally so that also give him unique view versus say any of us who weren't there/.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

I was there too. Gays are not some monolithic group. You can't look at one persons view and think you know the views of all of us.

by SF Bay 2007-08-30 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

never said they were. but in comparing what clinton said to what mixner experienced, i am going to trust mixner over clinton because she has the vested interest in glossing over her actions. and certainly, after the 2004 incident with kerry and his staff i am convinced at this point they are willing to toss us when its convenient. so its not just david or the 1990s or her unwillingness to say mistakes were made- its teh combination of all of it.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

You do that a lot say that there are facts backing up what you say. prove a single piece that nobody was disputing and then act as if you just proved everything you just argued even the obviously speculative parts.

You speculate that her stance on trade will hurt her and act as if that is a proved fact while it is a purely a theory you have. You use undisputed fact A and B to argue theory Y and think that you just proved something instead of posed a theory. But when somebody uses fact A and B to argue a equally likely but opposed theory Z you call them spinners and liars.

The statement "trade hurts her" is a good example. It is purely speculative yet if somebody would call you on it you sweep it under the rug ny the statement that there are fact backing up what you say. You simply don't seem to understand that your analysis of facts can have flaws or be one sided.

by Ernst 2007-08-30 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

you said it better. thanks

by SF Bay 2007-08-30 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

its not speculative- its based on what happened in OH in 2006 and what issues the dems used to win. things that are easy to look up

by bruh21 2007-08-30 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

What happened in 2006 does not automatically mean it will happen in 2008.  That's true for all facts associated with past elections, events, campaigns, etc.

Certainly you can look to the past for information and trends, but it's unreasonable to think that the past rules the present. It doesn't.

by SF Bay 2007-08-30 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

it provides a view into what motivates voters better than, again as has been argued here, saying we are going to find new voters (this was a front page article). I think she can win. Let's make that clear. I am not a supporter, but I do think that. THe real issue is as I have said is who is best for the party, whether he electability is less than the other candidates, etc. As someone else posted- how does her views for example affect messaging down ticket. all of this by the way should be asked about all these candidates. Not just clinton. The problem is no one seems to be really answering those kinds of questions. the reason i call it speculative are the deeper concerns i am raising that i have because lookign a head i am trying to figure out how they will answer to them. so far the answers havent been all t hat good

by bruh21 2007-08-30 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

by the way- its been nice talking to someone not calling me names for a change who is one of her supporters

by bruh21 2007-08-30 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

bruh is an inside joke about african american just is or just so stories. or if you prefer african american folktales of the spoken word traditon passed down during the slavery era. they were a source of rebellion in someways through hidden narrative meanings

by bruh21 2007-08-30 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

http://bp0.blogger.com/_MRs_Nt465oE/RbRL 3QTtwOI/AAAAAAAAAMM/l5o7EeD5FK4/s1600-h/ HillarFavUnAdj.png

here are long term numbers on unfav

by bruh21 2007-08-30 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

Based on your link, Hillary's favorables out weigh her unfavorables, and have over the long haul.

by SF Bay 2007-08-30 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

peo traditionally views those numbers in that range as danger area. she can win, but it will be harder for her to come to victory. which is edwards point.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

which people would that be?

My take is this: Hillary will win in 2008 and win big. Looking at the polls in swing states and some southern states, there are a lot of states in play in 08 that Kerry lost in 04.

Women - virtually all Dem's and I think most independents will vote for her. I think more than a few moderate Rep women will go into the booth and vote for her too.

It's a woman thing you see...

by SF Bay 2007-08-30 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

Much of what I am about to say is based on polling data and research over the years I've read.

If the party saw a GOP incumbent with those numbers, they would see it as a sign of potential weakness and a potential pickup.

Her averaging mid 40s and at times up to 50 percent unfav would be a sign, but apparently, not here for worry if looking at the various states. Indeed, on one of the talking heads show they mentioned that this was one of Clinton's chief concerns and likeability.

Can she over come this? Sure. Is the environment such that she may obtain a victory without changing? Maybe. Can she change strategies to increase her chances - well, we will see. So far, much of what I have seen has suggested this, but then she's running a front runner status campaign so I don't know how it would shift in a general.

The only debates we are having isn't whether she has a shot. They are a) will it be harder for her to win, and b) whether she will hurt us down stream. Negative coattails in tossup races- especially with trying to build a generational majority is a big deal. Now is the time to do it because come 2010 and 2012 and 2016 I believe we have far less seats for Senate pickups.

None of our candidates will win in a landslide. There is nothing to support such an assertion , and I include Edwards in that. Its more of a question for me of who will do comparatively better and who can help down ticket on messaging etc. The best two for that right now are Obama and Edwards for different reasons. Although race hurts Obama. Again political reality. Can he overcome it? Yes, I think maybe. Just as Clinton can overcome gender. But, I put all the cards on table. Messaging, likeability, gender, race, polarization, strategy, partisan appeal, etc. I also put the question of party building on the table. Not just Clinton or Edwards or Obama, but what else are they bringing other than themselves.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

By the way, because of her various problems, I feel it's down ticket that the strongest argument against Clinton (outside of her incrementalist appraoch on issues) can be made. She maybe able to win a victory for herself, but how will she help the party build majorities such that the power of the holding the Presidential office will have less influence?

by bruh21 2007-08-30 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

we should have a discussion on this, bruh.

look, you want facts, i'll give em to ya:  look at the numbers, bruh.  this ain't 1980 anymore.  voters have a zillion channels and the internet.  your thinking is at leat twenty years old (and so is Kos's).

1980 was the VERY last year when downticket races were significantly affected by the top of the ticket.  you want facts, look at the numbers of all the races since then.

bruh, i actaully read all your comments, I look forward to your diaries, and feel you have a lot to ad to any discussion.  however, you are being a bit hypocritical here, if i may be so bold.  you love to invoke the "i want facts" line on other people.  but you fail to show any facts at all when mf'ing Hillary on the "downticket" propaganda.  where's you facts to back it up?  oh, yeah, it was just a statement of OPINION that you just threw out here.  it means little to nothing, really.

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

my thinking reflects now and how voters vote in 2006, 2004, 2002 etc. the president reflects or who is running for it affects tossup races. thats pretty much been proven.

and the last study which i posted when someone else disputed the downticket coattails issue in tossup states was only like a year or so ago as I remember but i can look it up. someone else questioned my thinking on this too, and i had to end up dredging up the data. i provide facts by actually pointing out that data supports what i am saying.

what data supports you claim that times have changed?

by bruh21 2007-08-30 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

Post election to illustrate the point of outcome

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicsele ctions/2002-11-06-election-analysis_x.ht m

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199- 4711909/The-2004-presidential-election-t he.html

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p143075_ index.html

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystal ball/2004/house/

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Arch ives?p_product=CO&s_site=charlotte&a mp;p_multi=CO&p_theme=realcities& ;p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p _topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=100191CA78 DD1BE8&p_field_direct-0=document_id& amp;p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&a mp;s_trackval=GooglePM

the basic thrust is that coattails can matter. I can also look for the data that shows that they specify they can matter in toss up districts if you want to continue to dispute my claim. When I am talking here about facts, I mean actual things that people should have read rather than having to actually dredge out the information to prove assertions are fact based.

I didn't have a chance to pull the data relating to how perceptions of bush shaped perceptions of the GOP and result in their loss there. But one story alone- how he handled the aftermath of Katrina for example came to symbolize the GOP. And close the elections- I believe it was getting rid of one of his cabinet members was also factor.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

if you wish additional links for what backs up my statements, I am happy to provide them. Including the Clinton's on gay issues as of 2004, the statements regarding favorable ratings, the statement regarding what impacted the 2006 races, etc.

And as I am thinking bout it the post child for the impact of a president on a candidate is of course lincoln chaffee.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

It's all because of GLOWING MEDIA COVERAGE declaring her a winner every chance they get.

IT'S PROPAGANDA.

They are doing the same thing they did with Muskie.

Pump up McGovern (Clinton and Obama)
Tear down Muskie (Edwards)

God, YOU PEOPLE...you people...you people...you people are so gullible.

Wake up.

Every poll out there for Clinton is a result of the CLINTON name and the FAVORABLE media coverage declaring her the "WINNER" before a vote has been casted.

If they are successful, wait until the real polls come out that show the GOP nominee ahead by 10 as soon as she gets the nomination.

by OE 2007-08-30 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

When I ask Edwards supporters why he is in such big trouble in the polls everywhere but Iowa I am told that the right-wing did him in, the corporate media, blablabla.   So, we ALREADY have Edwards supporters claiming that he is in big trouble and can't get his points across due to rather mild attacks (compared to what would come in the GE) in the media and I should listen to YOU that he is going to be a strong GE candidate?   The proof is in the pudding.  The hyperventilating about "what has been done to Edwards" has been quite loud.  One can't expect all of that to be less in a GE contest, with Edwards not as well defined and known as Clinton it would get a lot worse.    

Wake up before it is too late, OE.  WAKE UP.    Boy, you people are so darn gullibe.   Incredible what flawed logic is being dished here.   :-)

by georgep 2007-08-30 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

Your post shows limited mental capability.

I have never once claimed that John Edwards is in "BIG TROUBLE," and most Edwards supporters don't speak for me because they don't think any deeper about things than you do.

I just stated the what any knowledgeable person knows.  

The national polls right now, the Democratic "PREFERENCE" polls, are largely a product of name recognition and favorable media coverage.

The bandwagon effect applies here in the same way that it did after Kerry won Iowa, and received glowing media coverage, and HIS NAME BECAME ASSOCIATED WITH "winner."

I told Dean supporters the same thing in 2003, when they were running Edwards through the mud calling him a loser, and saying he was dead.

Dean was getting all of the press, favorable press, and with it came more money and more support, labor endorsements, and rising poll numbers.

I understand you are shortsighted.  I won't hold it against you, though.  Or maybe I will.  I haven't decided yet.

by OE 2007-08-30 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

You know, if you did not write in such a ridiculous, offensive manner, I would actually be interested in discussing this topic.  This way it just bores the heck out of me.  

by georgep 2007-08-30 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

Again, poll driven conclusions about Hillary Clinton are idiotic.

These poll numbers, whether they be DEMOCRATIC POLLS OR MATCH UP POLLS, for her are all based on GLOWING MEDIA COVERAGE for her.

For her to have been the darling of the media for months and still be BARELY WINNING in polls against repugs proves how difficult a time she would have in the general election.

On the other hand, John Edwards does better than her in the VAST MAJORITY OF POLLS despite being Ed(wards) Muskied by the media all year over the trinity of fake scandals that are the House, the Haircuts, and the Hedge Funds.

There are variables besides polls, and anyone who looks at polls only are LAZY THINKERS, including Chris Bowers.

by OE 2007-08-30 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

I believe it is a miscalculation to let Elizabeth Edwards make these constant statements putting other candidates (both Clinton and Obama) down.  I think it does turn a lot of people away.   Michelle Obama is not doing something like this, neither is Bill Clinton.  The constancy of these weekly slams is a problem, IMO.

We'll see how it all shakes out, but I don't think this stuff is a net plus, I think it makes people think twice about choosing Edwards, even if they were on the verge.    

by georgep 2007-08-30 10:06AM | 0 recs
I agree George with you on this

 If Edwards want's to make "Clinton hatred" an issue in a direct way then atleast it should be the candidate not his wife making the argument. I agree with what Elizabeth is saying but not the fact she is saying it. If Bill Clinton started making direct anti Obama or Edwards comments the the backlash would be huge and justified.

by nevadadem 2007-08-30 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the progressive issues that Edwards is

"I'm  sorry, but I think Hillary's electability is a problem too."--Cosbo.

So that's it for Hillary then! I guess before the first Republican gunfire is unleashed Hillary should start sewing her white flag of surrender today. I suppose she should hoist it over the Clinton headquarters and repeat "I surrender, I surrender, I surrender" while bowing low to Karl Rove and his fellow right wing shock troops.

That should settle it for you shouldn't it? Everyone happy now? Excellent. Then pure-as-the-driven-snow John Edwards can lead the real fight. That is if he can see beyond the spritzing cans of custom blended Breck Girl hairspray that Republican's will be armed with, and which will give a whole new meaning of term weapons of mass destruction to the Democratic party.

Democratic fragging is such fun isn't it? Especially when we use those special Democratic Grenades, which we seem to stockpile for every election since the last two-term Democratic president.

by superetendar 2007-08-30 10:31AM | 0 recs
Whatever you say. I want to WIN in 2008.

I have absolutely no confidence in Hillary's ability to win. Why should I lie about it or pretend I don't feel that way?

Hillary Clinton have loads & loads of baggage, that she may have gotten unfairly, but you know what, so what. She's had an excellent purpose filled life. She's lived in the White House for eight years. She accomplished alot.  I feel no need whatsoever to carry Hillary's excess baggages when we don't have to. We have better choices this time round. Fresh faces. New ideas. A new name.

It's time to stop looking back and move on.

by cosbo 2007-08-30 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton

I rec'd this diary because I am ashamed of what Elizabeth Edwards is doing. Enough!

by hanna 2007-08-30 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton

what would you have peo run on in a primary? like many other posters I find your comments well- confusing. You say enough! but enough fo what exactly? how do you think candidates in past electiosn in primaries differentiated themselves?

by bruh21 2007-08-30 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton

by the way- do you think clinton isn't doing this th rough her surrogates?

by bruh21 2007-08-30 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re:

Welcome to the club, jgarcia.  We'll teach you the secret handshake soon enough.    :-)

Clinton is BY FAR the most liked Democrat.  It is not even close between her and Edwards (Obama is in the middle between the two.)   She gets somewhere in the neighborhood of 88% to 91% approval from her party.  A candidate spouse (who wants to inhabit the White House, after all) does NOT go after other candidates like this.  I have never seen this happen with such veracity and so often (weekly) in my lifetime.   They either don't do it at all, or, outside of the one or the other occasional zinger (rare) others may do the lifting (surrogates.)  But you don't win this thing by sending the potential First Lady out there to be on the attack all the time.   Not against the Democrat with the higest favorable ratings of them all within her party when your own candidate is down to rather disappointing fav./unfav. ratings himself, in need to elevate those numbers up immensely.  

I think it is some sort of political hara-kiri with a twist.    

by georgep 2007-08-30 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re:CHANGING HORSES

iF jgarcia is endorsing because of the so called vitriol that Clinton gets on this board, then I should not vote for Hillary in the GE if she gets the nomination because of areyouready.

He spews so much hatred towards my candidate(Obama) that I have been really tempted to not vote for her in the GE.

areyouready has already stated that he would not support Obama IN THE ge IF HE GOT THE NOMINATION.

The question for me is if Clinton supporter's are like areyouready, then why should I support her in the GE if they have no respect for my candidate?

by BDM 2007-08-30 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re:CHANGING HORSES

That's a good question.  They're not all like that, of course, but if I was a fair-minded Clinton booster like georgep, I'd be begging Jerome to ban the guy on a daily basis.  Does he really think that calling Obama a "desperate beast" will make people want to vote for Hillary?

by Steve M 2007-08-30 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re:CHANGING HORSES

I think it is clear that several reasons have combined for him to reach this important decision.  As many of us have said: The more one sees of Clinton, the more people like her.  

Now, I don't believe that jgarcia would NOT vote for Edwards in the GE.  He merely switches his PRIMARY allegiance.   That is entirely different from what you are talking about here.   But, honestly, the posters who have been the most animated in their anti-Hillary feelings I do expect to not vote for her in the GE anyway.  How can you be going after her daily and then claim you would vote for her in the GE?  I saw where you had stated that you and your family could never give your support to Clinton, and I took that to mean in the GE.   This "switch" just confirms it.  

by georgep 2007-08-30 03:38PM | 0 recs
Enough with the Unelectable Meme

All the Democrats in this primary are electable. I am getting tired of Elizabeth saying that Hillary and Barack can't win the South and don't have coat-tails. This is not the first time she said and I've had it. Enough! In my opinion, Elizabeth Edwards is a liability to her husband's campaign.

by hanna 2007-08-30 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Enough with the Unelectable Meme
she's really thrown away the subtle approach hasn't she? I agree with her point about Hillary but going with that direct of an approach about it is probably political suicide, it shows the Edwards team despite Iowa is on the ropes. On Feb 5th they are going to be massively outspent and out organized on the ground, unions are not providing him with the unified support he needed.
It's Hillary as the favorite wiht Obama having a decent shot if his plan to expand the primary voting pool works. it would also help if people that don't want to see Hillary as the nominee begin to see only one realistic alternative exists.
by nevadadem 2007-08-30 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Enough with the Unelectable Meme

About this "extend voting pool" meme:  When Obama missed the recent MSNBC cancer debate, where was Obama?  What exactly can you point to that would tell you that instead of showing up at that debate in front of many, how exactly was that particular time spent on different voting-pool-expansion things?  Did he hold a huge rally that same evening?

by georgep 2007-08-30 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Enough with the Unelectable Meme

I can not understand how any Democrat can not take issue with Elizabeth Edwards trying to exploit racism and sexism to her husband's advantage.  How can Edward's supporters trash Hillary Clinton for what they perceive as her persistent abandonment of the core values of the Democratic Party or Progressive Movement when they are effectively doing the same by contending that we shouldn't nominate a woman or minority.  I don't want to hear any BS about values for diversity and equality when you're not willing to stand my your own principles even in the face of defeat.  

by Dee 2007-08-30 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Enough with the Unelectable Meme

Anyone who EXISTS is electable, by your definition.

That's a cop-out for intelligent thought.

Apparently people like you can be TOO LAZY to think deeper about the electoral map, baggage, and how a candidate would fare when they have to face MORE THAN A FICTITIOUS POLL or a Democratic challenger instead of a Republican one.

by OE 2007-08-30 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Enough with the Unelectable Meme

No, you bigoted compromiser, I'm not intellectually lazy; I'm just not willing to compromise my values for an electoral win, and I'm NOT convinced that neither Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama could win an a general election.  The argument that you're putting forth is the same argument that Dixicrats used in imploring JFK not to embrace a civil rights agenda.  

by Dee 2007-08-30 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,
After the Bushcapades...we don't have to cozy to Republicans on any level...It is clear Bob and Martha Republican are NOT enthused about their candidates. The scary Homo issues are not playing (except for Senators)and will not bring in the voters as in the past.
The reason Republicans hated Clinton was he beat them at their own power game...money and just Hustlin
Well Mrs. Bill is cut from the same cloth...
...and you know what..
it is not my cut of cloth...
by the way................is there any difference
between a gay Senator saying "I am not gay"
and a President who got BJ's from a woman half his age saying "I did not have sex with that woman"
My wife despises Hillery simply because she put up with Bill's years of infidelity..even at the sacrifice and embarrassment of their daughter...
What sort of example does that set for young women?
by DenverD 2007-08-30 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

"My wife despises Hillary simply because she put up with Bill's years of infidelity..."   --DenverD

I'm so sorry your wife appears to have been permanently traumatized by peeping into the marital window of other people's lives. Maybe if she could move her gaze from the private marital window of the Clintons to the public window of Iraq and all those broken bodies, not to mention the public window of a country that can't even build secure levees, perhaps your wife might find greater meaning in those daily public outrages rather than private sex lives of others.

by superetendar 2007-08-30 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,


"My wife despises Hillary simply because she put up with Bill's years of infidelity..."   --DenverD

I'm so sorry your wife appears to have been permanently traumatized by peeping into the marital window of other people's private lives. Maybe if she could manage to move her gaze from the private marital window of the Clintons to the public window of Iraq and all those broken bodies, not to mention the public window of a nation that can't even build secure levees, perhaps your wife might find greater meaning in those daily public outrages rather than the private sex lives of others.

by superetendar 2007-08-30 10:55AM | 0 recs
How about Eleanor?

Your wife despises Hillary Clinton because she chose to stand and fight for her marriage?  Does your wife also hate Eleanor Roosevelt?

How about Lady Bird Johnson?

Jackie Kennedy?

Maybe all four of those ladies decided their marriages were worth fighting for. But that was their decision to make, not your wife's.  

by nascardem 2007-08-30 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

You can despise a man for the mistakes he made in his marriage, but for a wife to forgive him?

Perhaps I could have understand your wife if Hillary did it out of subservience and lack of self respect. But nothing I've ever seen from senator Clinton fits that.

As for the sacrifice and embarrassment of their daughter bit. I would be very careful about making such statements. Most children are more often  sacrificed and embarrassed by divorce then by parent working passed their hurt and reaching out to heal the family. Chelsea is an accomplished levelheaded person who seems to love her parents a lot. It is very presumptuous of you and your wife to decide what is best for her without allowing Chelsea her own preferences.

by Ernst 2007-08-30 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

I really relate to a lot of what's said in this diary, to tell you the truth.

First and foremost, I think the diarist is 110% correct in describing the history of DOMA and DADT and the whole Clinton era.  I understand some people look at it differently, but to me, what he says is the absolute truth, and it's a truth I rarely see spoken in the liberal blogosphere.

Like the diarist, I am a huge fan of Elizabeth Edwards, but I've also been rubbed the wrong way by some of the attacks she made.  I realize some people love those attacks and think they're 100% valid.  I happen to have my personal threshold for what's fair and what's out of bounds in a primary; it's fine if others have a different point of view.

The criticisms John Edwards makes regarding lobbyists and the ties between Democrats and the corporate lobbies are totally fair points, but I thought he went over the line when he made it personal with the Lincoln Bedroom attack, and it was really ridiculous when he then tried to deny he was talking about Hillary.  Mind you, Hillary is equally guilty of insulting my intelligence from time to time.

The constant attacks on Hillary in the blogosphere do make me sympathize with her more readily and do inspire a certain defensiveness in me, because I think the Clintons really tried to do the right thing for this country in so many ways, and the level of hatred they got for it is just unparalleled.  I have a deep love for Bill Clinton, faults and all.

But I'd also point out that, while Hillary-hatred is a cottage industry in the blogosphere, there's also no shortage of attacks flying in the other direction.  How many haircut diaries do we have every day on this site?  And in point of fact, the very first comment on this diary is from a person who has launched countless vicious attacks on both Obama and Edwards, time after time, yet here he is saying "oh yes, the negative attacks on Hillary are so counterproductive."  If only he could understand that his own shit stinks as well!

I don't know if I'm "changing allegiances" because I'm not sure it really matters; I live in a state that won't be an early primary state and won't be close, and frankly, I'm going to be 100% thrilled with whoever the Democratic nominee is.  But I just wanted to say that I really empathize with a lot of what this diarist is trying to say.  And whether you like the conclusion or not, I think he really stuck his neck out by explaining his own personal views in such depth, and he deserves respect for it.  Peace!

by Steve M 2007-08-30 10:52AM | 0 recs
No offense but , I haven't seen you as

a John Edwards supporter!  I don't really see any pro Edwards comments in your past comments.

So, is this really an I switched diary or just one that wanted a catchy opening?

by dk2 2007-08-30 11:04AM | 0 recs
Nice post

Plenty of room on the Hillary Clinton Express for all.   Jump on.

by dpANDREWS 2007-08-30 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards

I like Elizabeth but she has gone too far and it makes her look awful.  You don't see Bill Clinton or Michelle Obama attacking the other candidates.  What if Bill Clinton started giving interviews saying 'don't vote for Edwards' because he could not bring in one state to the Kerry ticket or started saying many people feel Edwards is a hypocrite and it will be hard to motivate the party behind him?  There would be outrage if he did that.  The Edwards' lack of integrity is pretty offensive.

by reasonwarrior 2007-08-30 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards

Oh shut up, Elizabeth Edwards hasn't ATTACKED anyone.

To attack Hillary Clinton would be to talk about her make up or her thighs.

To say things about "electability" is NOT, NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN AN ATTACK.

Grow up.

by OE 2007-08-30 12:02PM | 0 recs
Elizabeth is Honest!!

Elizabeth is honest. Like John, she says what she means out in the open. I think this is terrific! I am so tired of politicians who hand us practiced words in front of the cameras, and turn on the hit tactics behind closed doors. It is very naive to believe that Elizabeth is the only spouse with strong opinions. She is simply the one who is most honest and upfront.

I'm for Edwards, and I will not be switching!! Of course, I could cause more impact if I proclaimed that I used to be for Hillary, and now I am switching to Edwards..... but I think I will be like Elizabeth and just tell the truth!!

by bettync 2007-08-30 03:27PM | 0 recs
I'm NOT switching from Barack Obama to ANYONE !

The reasons why I am not switching from Barack Obama to anyone are for the following :

1.) I BELIEVE he will keep the promises he is making on the Campaign Trail.

2.) He has the BALLS to meet with Foreign Dictators and is not afraid of anyone.

3.) He is , hands down , the least corrupt candidate running for this office.

4.) He was Progressive when Progressive wasn't cool.

5.) He's the real Change Candidate and I'm so hungry for Change.

6.) I did my research BEFORE I decided to support his candidacy because I do the Switch Thing.

by BlueDiamond 2007-08-30 11:17AM | 0 recs
Ooops !

I mean I DON'T do the Switch thing.

I just ruined my own snark.

;p

by BlueDiamond 2007-08-30 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm NOT switching from Barack Obama to ANYONE

I still like Obama too.  However it is good to see push back at the comments against Hillary as well.

by sterra 2007-08-30 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary

he has always said he was choosing between edwards or clinton from what I recollect.

by bruh21 2007-08-30 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

1.  The first, and most prevalent reason is the shots that John Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards have been taking at Hillary Rodham Clinton.

This has nothing to do with how he'll govern. If you're making a decision based on a campaign pot shot, that's ridiculoud.

2.  The second reason, and I've been thinking about this since the LOGO debate, is I  believe that Hillary simply likes gay people.  Period.  And, thus, I have a lot of confidence that she would do the most of any of the top-tier candidates to help us.

How you divined that she likes gay people and other candidates don't is beyond me. I guess you have extra sensory perception.

3.  The final reason - and, yes, this is kind of petty and relates, to a lesser extent to reason number one - is all the vitriol this woman receives here and on all the rest of the liberal blogs.  I'm fucking tired of it.  And, I am sorry, but a lot of it is tinged with misogyny.

Choosing a candidate based on the fact that a lot of bloggers are shitheads? That's a total non sequitur.

I haven't heard such shoddy reasoning in a long time.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-08-30 02:10PM | 0 recs
Its pretty shallow

he probably won't vote anyways.

by okamichan13 2007-08-30 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

You say she went out on a limb for us in 1993. No, she went out on a limb for Physicians and Hospitals, not us.

Get it through your head that people HATE HMO's. The only people that like HMO's are people who only get routine shots and exams. Once you get a serious medical problem, you learn that HMO exists to make money, not to treat people.

by antiHyde 2007-08-30 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

sorry, charlie.  someone i dated's dad was a doc in big with the AMA.  OMFG, you would be astonished with how they organized and helped defeat that thing.  he hates her to this day...with a passion.

and when I say "organize", I mean with a lot of moola as well as voting and grabbing the arms of theor elected legislators.  it became a tidal wave.  I was there.  I witnessed it.

but, hey believe what ya want.  the ama was THE group - even more than the ins companies - who beat her plan.  

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary

I even had a support for Edwards in my sig line.  Are you reading impaired?

Did you FAIL to see my last diary whereby I criticised Clinton for her Iowa ad?  OMG, this is just incredulous.  

I got a LOT of flack for that diary, lemme tell ya.

Btw, HRC will still be in my sites, as will the rest of them.  I ain't a fucking sycophant.  I'll tel her that Iowa ad criticism to her fuckin face, btw.

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

You were always for Hillary.  I think you were waiting to write this diary to set up

Re: Why Hillary excites me (none / 0)

I have a Hillary sticker on my truck because I doubt Gore will run.

And I have been hammered here for "hearting" HRC.

Any more questions?  This site is becoming unbearable now.  And my username ain't exactly new.

Intolerance of intolerance is intelligence.
by jgarcia on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 11:37:15 PM EST

You are just playing a game here.  You haven't switched because you were always for Hillary pretending your support.

It is fine to support Hillary, but your diary is a lie.

by pioneer111 2007-08-30 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

i have a rainbow edawards sticker RIGHT now on my truck.  look, Edwards had a rainbow sticker and i liked the way it looked.  yes, i vacillated.  however, i've been for john for months now.  largely because i was very pissed about HRC fucking bullshit statement of "healthcare by my SECOND term."  I want UHC in someone's first term, dammit.

why don't you quote my last diary were i evicerated HRc for her racist Iowa ad (or at least that was/is my opinion).  well, maybe racists is not the word, but i'd say, "insensitive" at a minimum.

i usually like what you have to say and am disappointed that you would impugn my integrity.

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 02:50PM | 0 recs
Outed as a phony!

I have a Hillary sticker on my truck because I doubt Gore will run.

by jgarcia on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 11:37:15 PM EST

A Hiiliarista caught on MYDD.  

No movement to Hillary, just phony bullshit.

by TomP 2007-08-30 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Outed as a phony!

you're reading impaired or illiterate like my hillbilly example above.  look at my previous diary and critical clinton comments.  HRC was always my second choice.  you're just sore that this diary had over 200 replies.

you know what?  I ain't reading any more of your bullshit vitriol.

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Outed as a phony!

Right back atcha.

by clarkent 2007-08-30 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Outed as a phony!

Phony! Ain't viriol and ain't bullshit and ain't "reading impaired."

I call bullshit on dishonesty.

As for the comments in your diary, good for you.  Why would I be jealous?  

But you have been outed as a phony!!

Caught. Everyone on MyDD knows.

by TomP 2007-08-30 03:57PM | 0 recs
It's YOU who's been outed as a phoney!!, yet again

in light of the evidence below.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-08-30 04:56PM | 0 recs
you are apparently

wrong.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-08-30 04:53PM | 0 recs
It seems that you own jgarcia an apology, p111


No diversity in Hillary's world, apparently.

by jgarcia, Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 10:41:44 PM EDT
Seeing Hillary's ad today pissed me off.  On its face, the ad was very effective.  It struck the right chord and pushed all the right buttons and had the perfect tone for a just-out-of-the-gate ad.  Her voice was great and she looked wonderful in it.  Overall, an A+ ad...until.  Until you consider, which I later did, that it had NO diversity in it.  I liked the ad all day long and then watched it again and then it hit me.  The ad made the world in which Hillary campaigns look like no black, no Asian, nor Hispanic people live there.  


This pissed me off...bigtime. (3.00 / 4)

The chief problem with her statement is that it reinforces the (untrue) rightwing talking point that Republicans are best equipped to deal with another terrorist attack.  Until we cease to reinforce this meme, it will be true as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Our leaders need to stop this shit, or else we will have a guaranteed lose in 2008, regardless of who is nominated.  Sadly, because of people like Hillary, what we saw on the weekend before the 2004 election, with Osama's new tape ensuring a Kerry defeat, will happen again.  It's guaranteen to happen again with this government and this GOP.  Ironically, statements like hers help the GOP with this, in that it reinforces this false meme with the American people.

I've flirted with HRC for a while, but I'm back to opposing her.  She ain't do herself any favors with people like me with this type of bullshit coming out of her fucking mouth.  Edwards looks better and better every single day.

Intolerance of intolerance is intelligence.
by jgarcia on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 06:05:03 PM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:
antiHyde     3
ER Doc     3
pioneer111     3
sphealey     3

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-08-30 04:50PM | 0 recs
'you owe'

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-08-30 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: 'you owe'

If you look at the comment I used it goes back to July 09.  And there are numerous comments where he defends Hillary.  Then he suggests he support Edwards but still likes Hillary.  

This was a ploy to pretend to support Edwards and then to suggest he is now switching to Hillary.  I remembered some odd posts and so went looking.   You are usually better than this superficial look at data.  

Tom owes no one apologies and jgarcia owes one to the community.

Frankly I don't care if he apologizes.  I just think he looks foolish and insincere.

I find your anger strange and disquieting.  I don't understand your constant belittling of Edwards.  Many very smart people support Edwards.  Many smart people support Obama, Many smart people support Clinton.  And many smart people are waiting for Gore.  

There may be preferences based on policy.  I respect your loyalty to Gore.  And I at times respect your research.  I don't respect selective picking of information tidbits to advance a thesis you are determined to push about Edwards.

Your approach is not convincing and it is dysfunctional.  

Every once in a while I see a sense of humor from you and a reasonableness that I would like to see more of.  I don't expect you to change your mind.  I would like you to consider not being so vitriolic in your opposition to Edwards.  I would like to be able to find common ground on things to discuss or debate, but perhaps it won't be possible until the primary is over.  

NL, for some reason I do like you, but I don't like you questioning my integrity because you are angry with Tom.  I did my research.  And there are numerous posts both for and against Hillary by jgarcia, but the switch to Edwards in the first place was odd to me and I had a red flag.  Then this diary reminded me why I was uneasy with some of the posts.  People do these things when they think others don't notice.

Anyway can we have civility please????  Peace to you.

by pioneer111 2007-08-30 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: 'you owe'

"NL, for some reason I do like you, but I don't like you questioning my integrity because you are angry with Tom."

I never questioned your integrity here, pioneer. I didn't even think in those terms.

Actually, the diary by jgarcia about Hillary's camp and diversity was pretty scathing. When I looked, I remembered seeing the diary and it registered (but it was rebutted by someone pointing out that HRC's campaign manager was a Latina woman). Why would he  write such a scathing diary on Hillary? I didn't think you did your research enough and I still think that jgarcia was genuinely vacillating.

"Don't respect selective picking of information tidbits to advance a thesis you are determined to push about Edwards. Your approach is not convincing and it is dysfunctional."

I NEVER try to do that. I am very thorough with whatever I do. I have two choices. Either write a series of diaries in painful detail, or post long comments. As you've seen, this person TomP (whose commentary I find in large measure to be shallow and, well, phoney at times) comes around calling my long comments "spam." If I post long diaries, he and others like will be jumping around calling them "hit diaries." Now, you come here and say that i pick tidbits (this is completely false). More often than not, I am posting long comments, fending off phoney attacks from TomP and others like citizen53 declaring a hating Edwards. If I post long block quote, I am "cutting and pasting" some thing stupid according to these tricksters, and if I post brief quotes, then I am being selective.

What is the common thread in all this? It's political trickery aimed at obfuscation of facts that are inconvenient.

Over periods of time, I have seen incredible suppression of dissenting views by Edwards supporters by troll-rating (okamichan esp.)

I like you even though many times I disagree with you.

Edwards? My very first exposure to Edwards was a town hall meeting (in later 2003) where he waived off questions about the war saying it was the right thing to do to support and vote for the war. Having subsequently learned what he did with the war in the goriest of detail, it became inescapable to me that he just should not be trusted with the awesome power of the Presidency, just yet. IMO, he should earn back the trust by running one rung lower, namely governorship. I also came to know of several tricks he played in 2004 (vs Dean) and later.

I sincerely believe that his twists and turns on the war make for trivially easy attacks ads by the Republicans, and the worst part is, there would truth to those attacks. That, I firmly believe will sink the WH hopes for the Democrats and could even prove to be a major liability in other races in 2008. That's my problem with Edwards. It's pretty obvious to me that his extreme and eager ambition for the Presidency made him do what he did with the war. People need to show positive results to scale for high offices.

You seem to be in (or have known) academia. If so, here is an analogy. Should someone just a couple of years off grad school and was caught cheating (the war here), be made a tenured full professor just like that without any new accomplishments or rebuilt credentials, just because he says "I was wrong" (for cheating) and keeps saying "I want to do that" and "I want to do this"? That doesn't make sense to me. The Presidency is a very powerful position, and people need to show the goods before they should be given the keys and the honor of having a chance to lead the free world.

I also found him lacking in honesty in several ways. That I find esp. troubling and for the netroots movement to send him as our leader would ultimately come back to hurt the movement, IMO.

I certainly found the horrible hammering of Obama by several Edwards supporters to be unacceptably dishonest. For the sake of doing the right thing, I stepped-in to defend Obama (and now he is making a case for why I should support him with what I consider to be sound foreign policy thinking) and that back and forth certainly involved exposing some of Edwards' record.

Honestly, I don't even like these 2008 discussions as they revolve too much around personalities and too little on substance. I am more interested in things like election integrity, political reform, think and talking about how democracy should/could look like a dozen or two years from now, now global warming, and various other policy and action oriented things, and exploring ways to getting them legislated and implement. But, I found myself with little choice but to respond to things as above, as it turned out.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-08-30 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: 'you owe'

Not that I should stick my nose in, but NuevoLiberal, I VERY much appreciate your standing up for me when attacked.  I have NEVER EVER been disingenuous on this blog.  Never.  My political journey is just that, a journey.  And I have vacillated.  I liked HRC as my SECOND choice for a while.  And now Edwards is my second choice.  And, you know what?  I like Gore more than them all, and I have said that here, too.  And I like Obama.  I would be happy than shit if ANY were our nominee.  I have never attacked a candidate for something that was not legitimate, in my opinion, and I do not attack posters who have never attacked me.

if this weren't a blog and was in person, I'd be very offended by what some have said about me here today.

again, i appreciate your words and i knnow that taking time out of your day to post takes a lot of time.  i just want to let you know that i do appreciate and i want to thank you.

have a good night.

Joe Garcia

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 08:08PM | 0 recs
Here is what I'd like you to do:

this is not to "attack" Edwards.

This is between you and me, although its playing out in public.

I would you like to go over the following in full detail, to bottom:
A. UN inspections chief Dr. El Baradei's testimony in early March, 2003.
B. This video of Edwards addressing a DNC meeting in CA few days after (1), 4 days before the war.
C. Full Transcript of what he said in (B).
D. His Oct'03 MSNBC interview

Then, I'd like you to take your time and explain to me from the POVs of judgment, character and trustworthiness:

  1. how you can justify his words in the clip in (B)
  2. and why you think he should be trusted with the Presidency and the leadership of the free world

Now, I gave A-D above my "exhibits." You're free to use other "exhibits" (but in chronological order merged with my A-D) such as his supposed apology, but I mainly want an explanation of (B) in light of (A).

My mind is open if you can make a powerful enough argument.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-08-30 07:14PM | 0 recs
One more point:

You're utterly unfairly assertively chastised  my integrity (with no proof/evidence given) when you said: "I don't respect selective picking of information tidbits to advance a thesis you are determined to push about Edwards."

while complaining (incorrectly) that I questioned your integrity (when I wasn't thinking like that, and when I presented my evidence, which was NOT selective from my side, and asked you nicely to apologize).

Do you see the difference between what you did and what you've accused of doing?

In both cases you were wrong.

I think you owe me an apology for my quote of you above, or you should provide evidence with links to any of our prior discussions where I have tried to do what your assert I did (I know I do not, I am giving you a chance to prove your claim) with arguments  as necessary.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-08-30 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

He's been very clear from the start that he supported Edwards, But that he had Clinton as a very good second. He has been honest and open about his feelings about the race and it was clear that he wasn't a diehard supporter of anybody but liked the entire field. What you complain about is absolutely normal. How and why would anybody shift support if he didn't have a track record of liking more then just one candidate?

You complain that he isn't genuine because he had a clear second choice. But how could he have switched if he didn't have a clear second choice? It's simple a shift in his private ranking of the candidates. If he now starts burning Edwards on every opportunity you might have a case. But jgarcia hasn't ever given any indication that he is such a person who would do that.

If I would switch my support Obama or Biden you could find a lot of supporting quotes to make it seem like I always supported one of them. I have defended them and said nice thing about them just like I have been critical about them as well. Same with my support of Hillary. To believe that support is always set in stone is to deny the reality that people do shift between campaigns. Especially people that like more then one candidate.

by Ernst 2007-08-31 12:44AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

I don't know anyone for Hillary.  She presents a perfect package, very expensively wrapped.  She is prepped and primed and ever so perfect.  but isn't she also the one who said we have a 'perfectly good industry' to work with (ie health insurance industry).  How is that acceptable?  Just seems hollow and bought and paid for over many years.  She makes me feel hopeless.

by aunt emma 2007-08-30 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

Many people disagree with you.  To a lot of us she seems like the least scripted candidate, the most charming and easy-going while the others are trying to get their talking points in and seem overcoached.  

The "I don't know anyone for Clinton" theme is simply lame.  There is no doubt that amongst us Democrats she is by far the most liked, least disliked of the top-tier candidates.  

by georgep 2007-08-30 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

since when is preparationa crime, anyway?  I LIKE that she's prepared and knows the fucking issues.  Wouldn't a trial lawyer know the facts of a case prior to trial.

also, if you saw the LOGO debate (did you?), she was absolutely magnificent in it.  so at ease and comfortable.  there's a reason she's getting a shitload of campaign money from the gays.  so, i guess from the thinking in some quarters around here, she's "bought and paid for my the gays."  but yet she's not for marriage (yet, but wait, just you wait).  

so she's bought and paid for by lobbyists on ANY given issue, but takes a ton of money from gays, but is not beholden to em?  hmmm.  methinks some people here are just talking out of their ass on the lobbyist business.

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

WHYdo you lie when you were for Hillary back in early July (see pioneers entry of your post of July 9th) tHIS IS NEARLY 2 months ago.

This dis-honesty reflects badly on your caNDIDATE

by BDM 2007-08-30 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

read my comments, BDM.  read them.  unless you're trolling you'll see a critical diary i have written about her.  also, I was very pissed and reallt went after her on that bullshit "GOP is better on terror meme."

I am consistent.  Don't fucking impugn my integrity, bro.

by jgarcia 2007-08-30 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

Re: Why Hillary excites me (none / 0)

I have a Hillary sticker on my truck because I doubt Gore will run.

And I have been hammered here for "hearting" HRC.

Any more questions?  This site is becoming unbearable now.  And my username ain't exactly new.

Intolerance of intolerance is intelligence.
by jgarcia on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 11:37:15 PM EST

Your lies won't save you

by BDM 2007-08-30 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

He also had a diary up where he attacked Hillary pretty savagely on having no minorities in her ads.

Switching support is never a clear cut case. And he's never presented it as such.

by Ernst 2007-08-31 12:51AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

I think you are a little un-stable based upon your remarks.

by BDM 2007-08-30 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

That is way below the belt.  I myself had a couple of (mild) run-ins with jgarcia when he went after Clinton strongly.  I have seen a lot of pro-Edwards blogging from him.  There are a lot of Edwards and also Obama supporters who have as their strong second choice Clinton.  I know, that goes counter to the picture you are trying to draw ("Edwards and Obama supporters should unite to tear Clinton down") but there are a bunch of examples we can cite from right here and other blogs.   It is what is making those constant "Edwards and Obama supporters, unite to bring out the anti-Hillary vote" diaries such a comedy.  

by georgep 2007-08-30 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton,

by aunt emma 2007-08-30 02:44PM | 0 recs
If you're gay like me,

then consider voting for the most progressive candidate.  Voting for someone who likes gay people doesn't cut it (see Clinton, Bill).

Edwards is clearly less comfortable with my gayness, but the gay community needs to move beyond voting for candidates because of their stance on gay issues.  It's important - I worked for LGBT non-profit for years to further our issues - but we can no longer decide to vote for a candidate based on our issues alone.  

We have to vote for the most progressive candidate overall, which quite sadly is Kucinich.  I only say sadly as he doesn't have a chance to win.  

Hillary will be all talk.  What Melissa Etheridge said will happen again - get ready to be run over by the Clinton bus - again.

by passionateprogressive 2007-08-30 04:11PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads