Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

I wrote this for today's Beyond Chron.

With 1,500 delegates at Yearly Kos, I only met two Hillary Clinton supporters.  She is the current front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, and is hoping to get it by inevitability.  But this doesn't mean the blogosphere is "out of touch," although blogger demographics clearly work against her.  Hillary Clinton's current lead in the polls comes from a higher name recognition, and a strategic muddling of her position on Iraq so that progressives don't hate her.

Hillary was the biggest loser in the Convention's August 4th Debate, as she defended taking money from Washington lobbyists and argued that we are now "safer" than on September 11th.  While Iraq never came up in her pre-debate break-out session, that's because only five people - including myself - got to ask her a question.  Hillary's response to my question about the Clinton years was the session's "only moment of tension," and confirmed she is a ruthless triangulator who will take progressives for granted.  If Democrats realize this, she will lose the nomination.

"It is really no mystery why Hillary Clinton's current lead is not reflected in the netroots," said Chris Bowers of Open Left, and formerly  "The blogosphere is 60% male, and she does better with women.  It's 45% secular, and her voters are religious.  Bloggers are younger, richer and better informed.  In every single circumstance, it's the worst demographic for Hillary Clinton."

Of course, one media narrative to explain why bloggers don't support the front-runner is that they are "out of touch" with Democratic voters, a common theme that is often used to marginalize progressive activists.  But making the Yearly Kos Convention sound like a gathering of Naderites is absurd.  When Dennis Kucinich said at the Debate that voters see "no difference" between the two major parties, he was loudly booed.

Another theory is name recognition - Hillary Clinton is a known quantity that reflects her lead in the polls, and less informed voters are most likely to pick her.  Although 64% of New Hampshire Democrats recently said they are "still trying to decide" among the candidates, only 9% mark "undecided" when asked to make a choice.  With voters less familiar with John Edwards and Barack Obama, Hillary's the main beneficiary.

But while that's a factor, Clinton has also modified her position on Iraq so that bloggers now thinks that she would make an acceptable nominee - though far from ideal.  "She's done a great job blurring on the war," said Markos Moulitsas.  Pandering on this issue is a strategy that's been used before.  In early 2004, when John Kerry was trailing Howard Dean because of the Iraq War, he started shifting his position - and it worked.

Clinton got a tame reception at the Convention - leading most of the media to wrongly conclude that it was favorable.  But if the bloggers had been more aggressive in expressing their true opinions about her, Hillary would have called them rude and mean-spirited.  Then she would have used that image to marginalize them as disgruntled lefties.  

All things considered, I'm glad that the bloggers were polite.  When Dianne Feinstein ran for Governor of California, she got booed at the state party convention for supporting the death penalty - and then used that in a commercial to prove she wasn't a liberal.  It is painfully obvious that Hillary wanted to get booed at this Convention; when she finally did, she said, "I've been waiting for this to happen."

Hillary got booed during the Yearly Kos Presidential Debate because she refused to join Edwards and Obama and stop taking money from Washington lobbyists.  Incredibly, she rationalized her refusal by saying that lobbyists "represent real Americans - nurses, social workers, and they represent corporations who employ a lot of people."

Hillary dug herself in a hole with that statement, and all it took to bury her was Obama's reminder of how the insurance lobby defeated health care reform in 1994. "You can't tell me that money did not have an influence," he said. "You can't tell me that money was for the public good." If anyone won that debate, it was probably Obama.

Hillary lost even further credibility when she said that we are now safer than before September 11th.  Everyone knows that the invasion of Iraq has ruined our standing in the world, and her statements that "we've made a lot of changes" such as taking off our shoes at airports was both naïve and insulting.  Edwards had a great response about how the use of torture and other attacks on our civil liberties has made us less safe.

Besides the Debate, delegates got to attend an individual break-out session with one of the candidates.  None of the delegates asked Hillary about Iraq, but that's because only five people got to ask questions.  And unlike Edwards and Obama - who in their sessions blindly called on the bloggers themselves - Hillary had her Internet Director, who has heavily courted the netroots and knew who in the room was friendly, pick on people.

The first person he called upon asked a softball question about education, which Hillary proceeded to answer for nine of the session's 30 minutes.  While I don't know if that question was a plant (and many people suggested that later), it's clear that she chose to give a long-winded answer in order to kill time.  But because I had strategically placed myself in a visible part of the room - and by dumb luck was wearing a bright red shirt that day - her Internet Director called on me during the last five minutes.

"Senator Clinton," I said.  "My name is Paul Hogarth, and I am from Beyond Chron in San Francisco.  First, I'd like to thank you for having gone on the record saying that you would repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell - which passed during your husband's administration.  I want to ask you about four other pieces of legislation that happened in the Clinton years, and whether you would be willing to advocate their repeal - the Defense of Marriage Act, the Telecommunications Act, NAFTA, and the Welfare Bill."

Her answer to my question was absolutely awful.  Like her statements in the Debate, it exposed her as an anti-progressive triangulator - and was the tensest moment of the break-out session.  If Democrats wake up and realize that the Bill Clinton years (although far better than the Bush years) had some serious issues and we cannot trust Hillary to be a progressive leader to get us out of the wilderness, she can be defeated.

Here's what each of the laws did and what Hillary's answer was to my question:

Defense of Marriage: DOMA, passed in 1996 when Bill Clinton wanted to deprive Bob Dole of a campaign issue, allows states not to recognize an out-of-state gay marriage.  "DOMA served a very important purpose," she said.  "I was one of the architects in the strategy of fighting the 2004 Marriage Amendment, and DOMA gave us a bright line to be able to pull back the votes."

Telecommunications Act of 1996: The Telecommunications Act is one of the main reasons why Clear Channel and Hillary's new friend, Rupert Murdoch, today own most of the airwaves.  "I don't know," she said, "ask Al Gore."

NAFTA: The 1993 trade agreement has been absolutely devastating to labor and environmental standards.  "NAFTA did not realize what was promised for a number of reasons," she said.  "We need to have an ongoing evaluation."

Welfare Repeal: Also passed in 1996 when Bill Clinton wanted to deny Bob Dole a campaign issue, the Welfare Bill denied legal immigrants the right to get Food Stamps and SSI.  It was an awful piece of legislation, and her response was that "the positive consequences outweighed the negative."

I could have been far more confrontational in asking my question, but that would have played right into her hands because I would have sounded shrill and mean-spirited.  Which is why I made a point to thank her for agreeing to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Hillary's campaign was ready to spin the Convention regardless of a warm or cool reception.  Either she made peace with an important constituency that makes her nomination "inevitable," or else she was harshly attacked by a group of extremists who "don't represent" the party.

The truth - that the bloggers knew better than fall in that trap and were just being polite - is too subtle for the mainstream media to pick up.  What's news here is not what the bloggers said or did, but what Hillary did.  She hung herself when asked tough questions, and exposed herself as an anti-progressive triangulator.

Readers of this website know that we are highly critical of the San Francisco Chronicle.  In fact, our name - Beyond Chron - derives from the paper's terrible coverage of state and local politics.  But as someone who played a small role in this news story, I have never been angrier at the Chronicle for painting such a rosy picture of Clinton's support at the Convention.

The Chronicle's coverage was by far the worst coverage of Hillary Clinton and the Convention that I have read.  Most newspapers like the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times led with the Clinton-Obama flap about lobbying money, and the Washington Post said she got "mixed reviews." None was so uncritically positive about the myth that Hillary made peace with bloggers.

The Chronicle also referred to me as "one blogger with a challenging question" - and failed to mention that I happen to be from their hometown.  There was no excuse for the Chronicle to claim ignorance.  I stated in my question that I was with Beyond Chron, and the Washington Post mentioned that I was from San Francisco.

Hillary Clinton did not get a warm reception at the Yearly Kos Convention, nor was she attacked by a shrill minority.  Through the break-out session and her own ridiculous statements during the debate, she was exposed as an anti-progressive triangulator.  And this is what could put her nomination in doubt.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Stay tuned for tomorrow's Beyond Chron, where Paul Hogarth will conclude his report about the Yearly Kos Convention.  Send feedback to

Tags: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards (all tags)



Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

I see there are still some pretty stupid, uninformed Hillary haters opening diaires on

Clinton hopes to get the nomination by inevitability??  Wrong.  She hopes to get the nomination because of her hard work as a campaigner and because of her record.  Hillary has never once said or implied that she is inevitable.  How about a link to back up your allegation?

Oh, and by the way, Hillary did just fine at the kos convention - certainly better than many expected.

by Regan 2007-08-06 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

Talking about triangulation , how about Obama saying he doesn't take lobbyists money while he takes it from the backdoor . Obviously the diaryist is not as informed as he cliams he his otherwise he won't fall for such a bogus line.

by lori 2007-08-06 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

You clearly have no clue as to the meaning of the word "triangulation." That aside, good for Obama and Edwards for not taking money from lobbyists or PACs. Sure, they could start banning entire law firms and families from contributing to their campaigns, but there is a point where practicality is taken into consideration. The fact remains: Hillary receives money directly from special interests, and they do not. Whether this has any effect on their positions is open to question, but Obama and Edwards are clearly much more zealous in their efforts to bring reform.

by Max Fletcher 2007-08-06 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

Try reading the links below they are just two short articles in the hill newspapers , maybe you can stand being fooled and you think that is righteous but I prefer to think that the one telling me the truth is right , apparently you have a twisted form of logic , i don't know if you believe your own hubris or is just in context of you blindly following your candidate sheepishly. as-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html -obama-finesses-his-lobbyist-ties-2007-0 4-19.html

by lori 2007-08-06 11:16AM | 0 recs
Her record?

> "She hopes to get the nomination because of her hard work as a campaigner and because of her record."

Her record?
Her "record" is a record of either lethally poor judgement or explicit corruption:

1. She defended the barbaric pre-emptive Iraq Invasion and Occupation for years.
2. She supported the U.S. Military Tribunals Act.
3. She supported and still supports the Orwellain U.S. Patriot Act.
4. She opposed a ban on illegal Cluster Bombs (that are designed to disperse and kill civilians).
5. She opposed a ban on Land Mines (also designed to kill randonly).
6. She abandoned her 1993 Health Care plan, has accepted the high amounts of money (bribes) from the Insurance and Big-Pharma Industries (documented by Michael Moore), and is now running with No documented universal Health Plan and defends the for-profit system.
7. She has made statements that troops will remain in Iraq for 10 years.
8. She has said that "torture is sometimes necessary".
9 She happily supports NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, National ID Card, etc..
10. She is proud of accepting payoffs from lobbists and declares that "lobbyists are real Americans", when they in fact are just paid hacks that represent only Corporate, for-profit, cronyism, at the expense and high cost of the public interest.  Real Americans get screwed.

There is no record here - other than a bad one.
There is no policy argument here for the Clinton candidacy.

Her 7-year bad judgement of siding with NeoCon Corporatism and Corporate aristocracy interests, at the expense of the public, is a clear warning here on just how bad a President she would be.

The toothpaste cannot ever be put back in the tube, once you have created such a consistently bad record as Hillary Clinton's Senate record.
Just look at her policies.
They're bad policies.

by DerekLarsson 2007-08-06 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Her record?

Thanks for laying it out so clearly. Your list is why I can't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary, or the general, or in any election.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-08-06 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Her record?

Then don't. She doesn't need your vote.

by lonnette33 2007-08-06 01:55PM | 0 recs

she'd only need your vote if she was going to win.  losers don't need anyone's vote...

by bored now 2007-08-07 04:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Her record?

Hillary voted against the Military Commissions Act, which you claim she supported.

Hillary voted against CAFTA, which you claim she "happily supports."

I didn't bother to fact-check the balance of your assertions.  I assume some of them are probably true.

by Steve M 2007-08-06 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Her record?

yeah, no one should be told they voted for the MCA when they didn't. Constitutional criminals.

by leewesley 2007-08-06 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination
When has Hillary "campaigned hard"??
Hmmm...$2300 private dinners for supporters and fundraisers by News Corp.
Oh yes - she went to Iowa for 3 days.
Paul Krugman has a damning article on her today for her LACK OF SUBSTANCE.
Hmmm...perhaps he's been reading my comments.
by annefrank 2007-08-06 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

She not only performed well , she made herself look better in the general , because she didn't have to pander to the left and obama/edwards are becoming to look more like general election problems trying to fall over themselves to run to the left . The earlier you realize that the bloggers position do not represent the positions of regular dems the better you will appreciate how bogus your claim is.

Talking about lobbyist money , how about Obama's hypocrisy accepting chicago lobbyist money but not washington.

Do you seriously believe that regular Americans will believe that we haven't made incremental progress in Airport security and few other forms of homeland defences , and yes she said the iraq war hasn't made us safer . I am happy she did not pander to you on that one.

You know your conspiracy theories doesn't give you too much credibility.

by lori 2007-08-06 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination


How do you square Hillary's war support without reading the NIE? Or her support for the Patriot Act? Or her support for NAFTA? or DOMA?

by AnthonyMason2k6 2007-08-06 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

You are wrong.  It was a warm reception, plain to see, which makes me wonder what convention you watched.   The comments I have seen from Moulitsas, Armstrong and other bloggers are also in conflict with your claim here.  

by georgep 2007-08-06 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

You know some of this bloggers are just so full of themselves , its just funny . Reminds of my kids. He talks like he and bloggers are some sort of king makers .

by lori 2007-08-06 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually what I said was ...

I did not mean to inflate the influence of one Yearly Kos Convention and suggest that this seminal moment could tank Hillary's campaign.  What I was trying to say is that seriously bad parts about her were exposed, and that bloggers should continue holding her accountable at these types of things.  By accumulation, that could kill her chances.

by Paul Hogarth 2007-08-06 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually what I said was ...

Sorry You have no credibility . Because even Markos , Armstrong etc all praised her performance , so just because you chewed on Obama's line of Lobbyists doesn't make you more informed than other people , ordinary folks on the street knows that is not a truthful statement , but obviously you don't and you claim to be more informed than them.

by lori 2007-08-06 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh come on

That lobbyist line was absurd, and most major newspapers -- except for the SF Chronicle, which had the worst coverage and now all the Hillary people are distributing it as the "truth" of what happened -- had the sense to lead the story with it.

by Paul Hogarth 2007-08-06 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh come on

Ok maybe if you read this two article , you will be better informed , unless you are not ready to accept new information , it's not enough to just swallow everything people tell you hook line and sinker you know. as-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html -obama-finesses-his-lobbyist-ties-2007-0 4-19.html

As for me I prefer to hear the truth from someone , not someone serving me crap , but you might be blinded by your dislike for the Clinton's that you might not notice when you are being served crap .

by lori 2007-08-06 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh come on

When you provide evidence all of a sudden they go quite.

by lori 2007-08-06 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh come on

I honestly don't know how you think this Big Corp lobbist line is going to play out. But if you were smart you would drop it because it isn't regardless of whether you beleive it or not, something that Democrats in general are going to support. Whether or not they support Clinton at the moment doesnt equate to them supporting her 6 months from now if she keeps with this line of leader as always right that many of you seem to be arguing here.

by bruh21 2007-08-06 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh come on

What is this 6 months from now nonsense?  If you look at the calendar, you will notice that that is no longer the case, plus chances are very good that Iowa and NH are a mere 4 months from now (Iowa could well move to around Dec. 10 through 15)

by georgep 2007-08-06 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh come on

so you think she's going to win Iowa now? six months from super tues. learn to just ask the question and you will get an answer thats not antagonistic.

by bruh21 2007-08-06 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re:Hillary does NOT need Kos to Win

One thing is for sure.

Hillary Clinton does not need the netroots community to win the nomination.

No matter how much threats she gets from netroots activists, she knows & her campaign knows that she can carry the nomination without their support.

I've seen this movie before. Virtually the entire netroots community backed Howard Dean. Anyone who was a non-regular in Kos & mydd would have had the impression that Dean would win by a landslide. It was Dean 24/7 lovefest in the blogsphere.

Come election time, Dean finishes NOT 1st, NOT 2nd, NOT EVEN 3rd. Kerry, Edwards, & Clark all did better than him. This was despite virtually the Entire Netroots & Left alliance united as one.

The same thing is happening now.

Despite of virtually NO SUPPORT for Hillary Clinton in the net community, she wins winning by 20+ points over my candidate Edwards & Obama.

Even if you combine the strength of Obama & Edwards, she would still be in the lead.

That's reality! Being LOUD Does Not Equate into NUMBERS.

Will Hillary need the Netroots in the General? Absolutely! But in the primary, I Don't think so!

by fightingLadyinblue 2007-08-06 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re:Hillary does NOT need Kos to Win

nope, not the nomination.  just to become president.

here's the problem: democrats don't coalesce.  they don't have the republican's discipline, the republican's unity, the republican's organization, the republican's message capabilities.  so why on earth would democrats nominate someone who excites the republican base, and gets a "polite" reception from the democratic base?

in the end, hillary just wants to be known as the democratic nominee.  we'll give her that.  we don't have to give her our votes, and she doesn't seem to expect it.  there was no sister souljah moment here.  hillary just doesn't care about what the netroots thinks (she said as much in her breakout session).  loser...

by bored now 2007-08-07 04:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Like I said ...

She did not get a "warm" reception; it was a polite reception.

by Paul Hogarth 2007-08-06 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Like I said ...

Sorry, Paul, I saw the reception she got.  It was plain to see that it was warm, even enthusiastic at times.  I guess if you are pre-disposed to dislike her you look for every hiss from the crowd and make it into more than it was.  

by georgep 2007-08-06 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Like I said ...

Er... Paul was there. I was there. She got a polite reception.

by clarkent 2007-08-06 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Like I said ...

Er..I watched it live.  I saw and heard the response.  

by georgep 2007-08-06 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Like I said ...

" With 1,500 delegates at Yearly Kos, I only met two Hillary Clinton supporters ".

Can you imagine , he met only 2 clinton supporters out of 1500 delegates.

Er..  Was he at yearly Kos or somewhere else

by lori 2007-08-06 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Like I said ...

yes one can imagine that in terms of personal contact- but then that would require one not to be blind to the possibility that he was merely referencing personal experience- not takig a survey of all supporters of clinton at the confereence.

by bruh21 2007-08-06 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Like I said ...

Sorry I can't imagine that even with personal contact , the writer has zero credibility and this is another instance of it.

He has made a lot of spurrious claims that it is unfortunately difficult to accept his claim . Sort of like Bush telling me Iraq is getting better .

Sorry , can't believe it.

by lori 2007-08-06 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Like I said ...

let me list the people who do not have credibilit to me at this point on this site, and some of them will be surprised--

world dictator

this is true of the clinton supporters. there are a few edwards and obama supporters who i lump in the same category. i have yet to see much in the way of even handed analysis. at least this person admit they are just speaking for themselves. whether you personally like what they say or not is completely irreelvant.

by bruh21 2007-08-06 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Like I said ...

Maybe you should read the diary and you ' ll find he speaks in generalities about bloggers, that is why he is getting a response from me . Apparently it seems you haven't even read , and maybe if you made a cogent argument everytime you write a post people wouldn't dismiss you with a wave of their hand .

Another thing your pouting and whining isn't helping your case , it is not attractive.

by lori 2007-08-06 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Like I said ...

actually what i am going to do is try to ignore many of you swarmers from now on as much as possible. i can t promise i will always suceed but in general you add nothing to anyones understanding of the discussion. I advocate anyone else having the same problems to do the same thing. ignoring them maybe the only option at this point because its clear they aren't trying to talk so much as bully.

by bruh21 2007-08-06 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Like I said ...


by lori 2007-08-06 11:02AM | 0 recs

Say it ain't so! I don't know whether to feel insulted, embarrassed or ashamed that you haven't included me in your list of people that have no "credibilit" with you. Surely this was an oversight.

by DoIT 2007-08-06 01:27PM | 0 recs
you miss a lot, old man ...

do you have broadband?  maybe it was your connection that misled you...

by bored now 2007-08-07 04:52AM | 0 recs
quick quiz...

name two other signs that had hillary's name on them.  just two.  let's test your observational skills.

here's another: name another candidate (besides hillary) who got hissed.  this should be easier...

by bored now 2007-08-07 04:51AM | 0 recs

we were there.

one of the guys clapping for hillary had a sign that said, "hillary stop lying."  he was in the front row.

hillary's applause was markedly lower that virtually all the other candidates.  you should really think about getting a better sound card or a new computer.  i won't ask you to be objective, we've already established your inability to do that...

by bored now 2007-08-07 04:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

I watched Hillary's break out session and thought she did very well. Your very slanted view of her education discussion only demonstrates that you are not "reporting" what happened you are slanting it like Fox News or some other bullshit news source.

I thought Hillary's answer to the Telecommunications part of your question was bizarre but I think that the rest of her session and the rest of her answers to your questions were fine.

It is clear to me that you will oppose Hillary regardless of what she says. So stop playing this game of acting as if you or your opinion is objective.

by DoIT 2007-08-06 07:07AM | 0 recs
she performed as expected...

let's face it, she came to a gathering of mostly democrats, and the breakout session was filled (sorry paul) with mostly her supporters or lobbyists (like i said, her supporters).

as for blaming al gore, as one participant called it, she definitely got off-message...

by bored now 2007-08-07 05:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

Hogarth -- you just posted a seriously detrimental and misleading diary about Hillary and those who know better have corrected you.  We aren't going to be accepting this bullshit about Hillary anymore.

by Regan 2007-08-06 07:08AM | 0 recs

Here's a devastating response to you on dailykos

I attended her breakout session.  I got to ask a question.  Her answers were well informed, multi-part and policy driven.   This may not work for you but it was what I was looking for.  
Before Saturday afternoon, I was an Edwards supporter.  I was looking forward to hear him and hoped that the forum would give him the opportunity that the MSM has denied him.  But I found that he pandered to the lowest common denominator among bloggers and went for the "Drug companies are bad!  Corporations are bad!" money shots.  And let us be clear about this, he is just as guilty as anyone else on that stage of taking campaign contributions from groups who some of us would regard as less than savory.  Not only that, but his wife wouldn't be alive today without the dedicated contributions of the researchers in the drug industry.  So I found him to be hypocritical at best and contemptuous of us at worst.  He studied us, found our trigger words and used them shamelessly but I didn't learn one thing about his policies.  
Obama was hardly better.  
At least Hillary was honest.
Everyone chooses their candidates in different ways.  I have a list of qualities that I check off and the one with the most check marks win.  Yes, there is an element of gut feeling as well but I can't let it govern me.  That's what wingers do and look what we ended up with.
By my grading system of intelligence, experience, vision, and courage (among other things), Hillary is only lacking in the last category.  And I have to hand it to her, she did not buckle even when we booed her.  That says a lot.    
She has a very good chance of winning SuperDuper Tuesday.  Don't count her out.

I don't have much time, but I'll diary a Washingtonpost diary details dailykos' demographics.

92% are WHITE LIBERALS. This is MORE like a gathering of GOP, and you believe these people represent the real democratic party? real America?
Incredibly arrogant, to say the least.

by areyouready 2007-08-06 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: as I replied to that commenter

Why are we giving Hillary so much credit for being "honest"?  Are you really satisfied with an honest anti-progressive triangulator?

Somehow, my standards are a bit higher than that.  If you're going to give her a pass because she was "honest," her manipulative manner of disarming the netroots' opinion of her has succeeded.

by Paul Hogarth 2007-08-06 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: as I replied to that commenter

 I simply don't get it , so you prefer someone giving you crap and b.s. right , giving you promises they can't keep and are not keeping. What to go for being informed.

by lori 2007-08-06 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: as I replied to that commenter

"Way" sorry.

by lori 2007-08-06 07:21AM | 0 recs
i think we prefer someone...

who won't abuse the power of the presidency (like by hiding billing records in their closet) or take us into an immoral and unnecessary war or try to fundamentally alter our government in secret.  i don't know about you, but i've had seven years of this shit, and don't particularly look forward to more of it...

by bored now 2007-08-07 05:28AM | 0 recs
Re: as I replied to that commenter

Because I have zero tolerance for those pompous PINO ('progressive in name only') white liberal elitists. They know nothing about real world. Everything is about empty sloganeering. I'll take a triangulator any day if he/she can get things done.

by areyouready 2007-08-06 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: as I replied to that commenter

Here's a list of what Hillary has gotten done.

1. War in Iraq

  1. Torture
  2. PATRIOT Act

Boy, she sure can get things done!

by Pope Jeremy 2007-08-06 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: as I replied to that commenter

You need to get off this site since you clearly claim to be a Naderite.

I expect dailykos and myDD to get you off their site when Hillary wins the nomination.

by areyouready 2007-08-06 10:01AM | 0 recs
yeah, let's turn the site over to republicans...

like areyouready...

by bored now 2007-08-07 05:28AM | 0 recs
Re: as I replied to that commenter

Now I see what a Hillary supporter fears the most, Hillary's own achievements.

All I did was mention what Hillary has done so far in Washington, and now you're calling for me to be banned from the site. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you can't sit and read a list of what Hillary has done without becoming angry, maybe you should reconsider who you're supporting.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-08-07 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: as I replied to that commenter

I have much more respect for an honest politician who tells me what I dont want to hear than a lying politician who tells me what I want to hear.

I don't want a Mitt Romney stage left.

by world dictator 2007-08-06 08:15AM | 0 recs
are you implying that hillary is honest???

by bored now 2007-08-07 05:29AM | 0 recs
Re: devastating

More people of color would find their way to 'dailykos' and 'mydd' if they included more stories and issues the represented the diversity of the Democratic Party.  I don't think it's any secret that the Party is a hodge-podge of interests group married by convenience.  Ending the war in Iraq is a rallying cry, but it's not the only issue of concern to ALL Democrats. That could change if blogs reached did more to address the issues and concerns of people of color.

Last week Diane Feinstein caved to Republicans on the Sente Judiciary Committee and voted to send the nomination of judge Leslie Southwick to the full Senate for a vote, a judge with unabashed views of racial intolerance.  His most infamous decision was in favor of white supervisor who called an employee a nigger.  The judge ruled it was akin to a pet name.  The congressional Black caucus and Tavis Smiley have been appealing for support from the Party at large to block his nomination.  Where is the outcry from 'dailykos' and 'mydd'?

by Dee 2007-08-06 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: devastating

Hey, why not diary this issue yourself rather than cry at what others aren't doing. I think you might be surprised at all the feedback.

by DoIT 2007-08-06 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: devastating

I wasn't crying, but simply expressing the need for more diversity of issues.  I think it's rather telling that you could learn that a Democratic senator supports the nomination of a man who "rationalized" that calling a black women a nigger is akin to calling her a teacher's pet and rather than express outrage and the need for action, take me to task for pointing out the inexplicable absence of the story on the headlines of either Kos or MYDD.

by Dee 2007-08-06 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: devastating

Geez... tough room. All I did was suggest that since you have an issue you think is important to discuss that you write a diary about it. Yeah, and to stop crying and get to acting on it. But I can see that you would rather find something else to complain about rather than accept constructive advice and do something about it.

by DoIT 2007-08-06 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: devastating

I actually have found that there are a good amount of people of color who post on here frequently. I'm not sure how many viewers there are of color but definetely a lot of minority presences here with loud voices.

by world dictator 2007-08-06 10:35AM | 0 recs
very good point...

and i agree that you should diary about this...

by bored now 2007-08-07 05:30AM | 0 recs
Re: devastating

I don't have much time, but I'll diary a Washingtonpost diary details dailykos' demographics.

92% are WHITE LIBERALS. This is MORE like a gathering of GOP, and you believe these people represent the real democratic party? real America?
Incredibly arrogant, to say the least.

That number is crap, as is that Washing ComPost story, and the comment.

Jane at FDL had a post addressing this meme, which is about as useful and true as the old one about bloggers being kids.

Also, which is it? Are the Kossites a bunch of white GOOPers in disguise? Or are they so far left they are "out of touch" with the majority of right thinking americans (represented here by you)?

They can't be both, y'know.


by justathought 2007-08-06 03:03PM | 0 recs
you are truly an idiot...

the washington post posted the demographics of the people who texted in.

at my table at the debate, there was a black woman, a cherokee, and dennis kucinich's wife.  half the table was male, the other half female.  not a clinton supporter among us.

having said that, YOU REPRESENT THE GOP here, and like the republicans, are desperate to see hillary as the nominee.  why is that?  oh, that's right, she's the easiest to beat.  nominating hillary makes the general election all about her; that's the ticket for republicans to retain the white house...

by bored now 2007-08-07 05:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

Well said,  I think you really get why it would be a mistake to nominate Hillary.

by enarjay 2007-08-06 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

Here is a must read blog post on the "pony man". I thought it is worth a read. Hillary is atleast honest. chicago_ykos_day_4.html

by rakk12 2007-08-06 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

While you are at it you might also want to check out this interview with Ron Fournier of AP posted at Talk Left. 55352/1155

by rakk12 2007-08-06 07:22AM | 0 recs
Thanks for your diary

As one who has attended political events in person -Obama Concord rally, Richardson Nashua event, 2 Edwards events(Nashua and Londonderry) and a Clinton rally in Hudson NH- and then posted here to be "tagged teamed" by the 'support Hillary at all costs' posters who don't seem to value in-person accounts of engaged citizens who have made an effort to travel considerable distances, asked questions of candidates, in some instances taken photos, video, and audio of the candidates... I want you to know that I appreciate your willingness to share your impressions of your participation in our democracy.

Your account adds to the dialogue and information gathering we all need in this phase of the primary contest.

by merbex 2007-08-06 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for your diary

If you write a diary bashing another candidate , do not think you won't get a response.

by lori 2007-08-06 07:25AM | 0 recs
Ultra sensitive on the subject of Hillary Clinton

is what all of you are - the ones who tag team in her defense like a swarm of bees protecting the Queen

I appreciate anyone's diary who attended a real event, got the opportunity to ask a question, and is willing to share his impressions. That is the dialogue of democracy and he doesn't need to be belittled for it.

I watch youtube clips,and to to read first person accounts of actual encounters of candidates with engaged citizens.

The 'Hillary tag team crew' present on this site, in IMHO does her no service.

by merbex 2007-08-06 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Ultra sensitive on the

I guess its the democracy way for her supporters to just keep quite and let you spew your hate all day right , if you want that type of discussion you are not going to get that here , sorry .

by lori 2007-08-06 07:37AM | 0 recs

What was "hateful" in his diary?

He shared his impressions of an event he attended and because it wasn't slavish in it's devotion to Hillary Clinton it "spewed hate?"

You tagged teamed him

I appreciated his first person account which shares information. He described the demographic of the "netroots with a link and discussed 4 pieces of major legislation and then offered his opinion.

No-one has to agree with his opinion to appreciate his diary for what else it offered.

by merbex 2007-08-06 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Hate?

Please save it , you have no credibility . If it is not evident to you then i can't help you.

by lori 2007-08-06 07:50AM | 0 recs
And what events have you attended?

Have you attended events by any candidate that gives you such"credibility" that you can criticise those that have gone out of their way to attend and share their impressions?

by merbex 2007-08-06 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: And what events have you attended?

Look if you are going to paste an inaccurate diary
don't think you get a response.

Several posts has been written in the daily kos and on here in the diaryist posts of those who aren't clinton supporters who has said he his wrong. So if you go around writing posts that claim to speak for all bloggers you are going to get a response . Speak for yourself not in generalizations . You can scroll down this posts and see the links to what markos said and jerome , I think they have more credibility. Don't you.

by lori 2007-08-06 08:21AM | 0 recs
You still didn't answer my question

What events have you attended that gives you such a lock on judging someone else's "credibility"?

The diarest attended Yearly  Kos in person and even got to ask a question.

I have enumerated the Democratic political events I have attended( and believe me that's just the Presidential '08 cycle- if you would like a litany of local and state political events I have attended in person I'd be happy to supply them) within the last 7 months (I'd be happy to go back to the 04 cycle as well and enumerate the times I attended Democratic Presidential Primary events if you'd like).

Now I'm asking you what events you have attended in person that you can question someone else's credibility in this regard?

by merbex 2007-08-06 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: You still didn't answer my question

Look a conversation with you is becoming a little tedious , If you are going to speak in generalizations like you speak for all bloggers and make sweeping claims about bloggers , and several bloggers who were present and who watched it claim the opposite then you credibility is not really where it is supposed to be .

However I don't have time for your childlike games anymore.

by lori 2007-08-06 08:44AM | 0 recs
A simple answer would suffice

regarding the number of events you have attended that gives you a lock on judging someone's credibility in this regard

I never  said I speak for all bloggers but beyond that you state:

and several bloggers who were present and who watched it claim the opposite then you credibility is not really where it is supposed to be .

I infer from that you are writing of Jerome Armstrong and Kos himself since I've read your posts on this thread.

I read them and value their input as I value the diarist's input for the information and perspective they provide.

They only seem of value to you because they appear to buttress your argument and then you seem to have the need to disparage the diarist because his diary wasn't as complimentary toward HC.

So what is your criteria for credibility and validity with regard to blog posts - showing up and participating in the dialgue of democracy doesn't seem to be good enough for you.

Back to my original question:

How many events have you actualy attended? For anyone?

by merbex 2007-08-06 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: A simple answer would suffice

Look if i tell I have attended 300 or if I have attended 1 of what importance is that , that's a little childish to me . I frankly don't care how many you have attended and I have never questioned your credibility but you somehow see it fit to take that upon yourself. The only person's credibility I have questioned is the diaryist based on a running conversation I had with him prior to you jumping in to it . As long as you are going to write a dairyist making sweeping generalizations about bloggers here and in daily kos and several bloggers come out and say you are wrong , then your credibility is in tatters because you should not be in a position to make sweeping generalizations unless the facts are on your side not writing through a biased prism . So feel free to continue asking me how many activities i have been too , I used to have such discussions in high school , you know the straw man argument . I will not be responding to you anymore if you are going to continue engaging in it.

by lori 2007-08-06 09:11AM | 0 recs
Sweeping generalizations about bloggers?

As long as you are going to write a dairyist making sweeping generalizations about bloggers here and in daily kos and several bloggers come out and say you are wrong

Frankly, I can only recall being told I was 'wrong' here on by the "Hillary tag team crew"

What determines credibility to you in writing a blog post?

The diariest provided links,was present at the event, got to ask a question, and wrote about his reaction to the answer he received.

How isn't that credible or why is my questioning on this topic not credible?

by merbex 2007-08-06 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Sweeping generalizations about bloggers?

Don't make generalizations about a whole bunch of people , if he states his personal position I will diagree with him but thats fair , I already said his questions to Hillary were fair , but when you start saying bloggers this bloggers that , you are going into a territory in which your credibility will be questioned.

Speak for yourself.

by lori 2007-08-06 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: And what events have you attended?

" Clinton got a tame reception at the Convention - leading most of the media to wrongly conclude that it was favorable.  But if the bloggers had been more aggressive in expressing their true opinions about her, Hillary would have called them rude and mean-spirited.  Then she would have used that image to marginalize them as disgruntled lefties "

What the hell was that , she would have called them rude and mean spirited , what the hell is that . Thats basically just nonsense.

by lori 2007-08-06 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: And what events have you attended?

She was just waiting to get booed - she even said so.

by clarkent 2007-08-06 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: And what events have you attended?

So how does that translate to She will have called them rude and mean spirited , thats just a stretch. Its almost a bizarre statement . They did boo her and She took it in all fun.

by lori 2007-08-06 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Hate?


you're the one with no credibility.  You're a hillary cheerleader!

by AnthonyMason2k6 2007-08-06 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for your diary

"tagged teamed"?   You prefer all to march in lockstep to the shrine of Hillary-hate?   Opinions vary.  Yes, indeed, many here aren't rabidly against Hillary Clinton.  Let others express their opinions as well.  I certainly have only respectfully disagreed with the diarist, which should be ok on a progressive blog.   We are not Freeper-sheepers here, after all, but represent a variety of opinions as Democrats.  

by georgep 2007-08-06 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for your diary

well - here's the thing george- what exactly are allof you doing if its not tag teaming disagreement? the same posters going after one person- not with different criques but the exact same point as if volumn of posters is a sign that you are right.

by bruh21 2007-08-06 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for your diary

I decided to write a response to the diarist.  It was a respectful response, but in disagreement.  I really don't care whether you or others disagree or agree or write something or not.    You may express your opinion pro or con, and I don't think it would makes sense to call your agreement or disagreement "tagged" because it is your opinion, and your opinion only.  

What you wrote in this post is downright silly, actually.  Yet another example of what I was speaking of to you yesterday.  

by georgep 2007-08-06 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for your diary

its not me using the term swarm georg. so trying to turn this into me against you is cute- but bs. the problem is that others see the same things i see when we try to talk against clinton on an issue.

by bruh21 2007-08-06 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for your diary

george, lori, areyouready, and worlddictator are always in lockstep with Hillary, and consistently tag team any dissenter, repeating their similar statements.  Coincidence?  As much as lobbying money determines legislation.

by dhooters 2007-08-06 03:17PM | 0 recs
what astounds me...

and i mean ASTOUNDS me, is that you talk about all the hillary haters -- and i don't deny that they exist -- yet you continue to pretend that hillary can win the general.  you just wisk democratic activists aside, as if they don't matter.

oh, wait, that's what the clintons have always done.  now if hillary draws bloomberg into the race, then she might have a shot.  third party candidates certainly helped bill.  but nader seemed to sink that boat in 2000.  so we are left with a candidate that unites the right and divides the left -- BUT YOU DON'T CARE!

hillary is an extremely polarizing figure in american politics, and there is no hope for changing that.  you seem to delight in that, since she takes shots at republicans -- although her shot at libby's commutation turned around and bite her back.  which she can expect more of when she gets the nomination.  hillary doesn't represent what's best about democrats, she represents the raw thirst for power by the clintons.  and there's no reason to support that...

by bored now 2007-08-07 05:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for your diary

frankly you are wasting your time arguing with the particular posters who are swarming you. They won't respond to your basic questions and points because thats not what they are hear to do.

by bruh21 2007-08-06 10:06AM | 0 recs
I'm getting that from their behavior

The tactics that I have seen by their 'tag teaming' defense of anything even remotely considered anti HC, and the language they employ when they are using their 'tag team defense' is Rove- like and reminds me of what the web was like on other boards during the 2000 Florida election recount

Just spurious name calling.

Except it was the Repugs on those boards doing all the shouting and name calling.

They do their candidate no good service with this tactic.

If they tried that while talking to a voter in NH or Iowa while canvassing she'd lose a lot of votes.

by merbex 2007-08-06 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

Like your question.

Find your headline extremely silly.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-06 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

Yeah his questions to her are actually appropriate but the amount of hate in that diary is just unnecessary . He posted this crap on daily kos and he is not even getting support there . Bloggers that were actually there that aren't clinton supporters are posting on Kos saying she did an impressive job there . Markos , Armstrong etc said the same thing , so he seems to be in another planet.

by lori 2007-08-06 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

I would like to find a link to Jerome's statment.

by rakk12 2007-08-06 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

Lori is completely unsupported by facts or links.  Just a statement she wishes were true-very Bush like

by dhooters 2007-08-06 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

Maybe you should just scroll down a bit before you start throwing tantrums and calling names . It's right under your nose.  

by lori 2007-08-06 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

sensationalistic more than silly. good info to read however in terms of pointing out whats not appealing in her message to democrats. whether people understand this or not- saying big phrma money is okay isn't going to play well for many voters and she did give the others a openning if they are smart enogh to make an ad out of the clip of what she said.

by bruh21 2007-08-06 10:01AM | 0 recs

Silly is the right word.

The headline is pure silliness.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-06 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination


can you post what Jerome said?

by rakk12 2007-08-06 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, the founder of Daily Kos, for which the conference is named, gave Clinton good marks. "I think she did very well," he said after the candidate forum. "I think she's done a great job of defusing the hostility." tent/article/2007/08/04/AR2007080401324_ 2.html

"I think it was great," Jerome Armstrong said after seeing Clinton's small group appearance. Armstrong is one of the liberal blogosphere's most respected voices for his posts at and elsewhere. "She showed that she understands the blogosphere and that it can be a powerful tool. She's not just using the buzzwords." i?f=/c/a/2007/08/05/MNS6RD3Q01.DTL&f

by lori 2007-08-06 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: riiiiight.

Anyone that claims to speak for all bloggers , has zero credibility , especially one that claims to be informed and can buy Obama's line of lobbyist hook line and sinker , when I provided evidence to the contrary he all of a sudden stopped replying . Please I don't have time for that.

by lori 2007-08-06 08:12AM | 0 recs

This diary is boring. If you're going to attack Hillary at least make a clear and consise argument.

I wish Hillary haters would stop repeating the same arguments that get refuted over and over again.

I'll tell you what Paul. If you want to bash Hillary/have a debate why don't you make another diary on a narrower subject that hasn't been beaten to death and we can all talk about it there.

Or better yet why don't you start an issue based diary and we can all debate the actual issues. Personally saying "Hillary suppports X issue" doesn't really do anything if I support X issue to.

by world dictator 2007-08-06 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Yawn

No they don't get refuted the people questioning her make valid points that are never answered excep to say we are hater's This is Karl Rove's type of language whichn Republicans used against those of us who criticized  going into Iraq and the war itself.

by BDM 2007-08-06 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Yawn

I've actually never said that and I do lots of refuting all by myself.

In fact I would say out of the core Hillary supporters

Areyouready,George,Bookgirl,Lori,myself, DoIT,etc we make LOTS of well explained articulate arguments. You might disagree with them but you its hardly the name calling you refer to.

But if you still disagree then start a diary on a substantive issue and I'll engage you without any name calling on mybehalf.

by world dictator 2007-08-06 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue hadn't been beaten to death

Hillary has taken a lot of heat from the netroots about Iraq.  But she has gotten a free pass on all the horrible things that her hubsand signed.  That's why my question was so important.

She clearly didn't expect my question at all, and her "I don't know, ask Al Gore" response is news.

by Paul Hogarth 2007-08-06 09:58AM | 0 recs
or, as one attendee said, she blamed gore...

it was a great question, paul.  and it definitely turned the room.  lot of people talking about her response to that question as we were running to the grand ballroom.  if she hadn't blamed al gore for the telecoms bill, she'd have done ok with her answer.  but it definitely felt unexpected.  lots of applause for the question, i might add...

by bored now 2007-08-07 05:46AM | 0 recs
Looks like from the comments

that you hit a sensitive nerve. With her lobbying answer alone, Hillary lost a lot of people in the primaries. Saying that lobbyist money doesn't have an impact on Congress, thats a joke.

By her rationale, there is simply no need for ethics or election reform related to lobbying whatsoever. By doing so, she made a bad position much worse. And while people were glad she showed (she almost didn't), she dug a deep hole in the netroots even deeper. Not sure how anyone can deny that.

And regarding her honesty, why should that be such a surprise? Shouldnt we expect and demand honesty from our candidates? Is the Clinton threshold so low that we are surprised when she is honest? So if her position is full of holes, if she conflates lobbying big Pharma with teachers, and says its all good and all the same, its all okay because she's honest?

No thanks. Honesty is the first step not the final step. If she wants a conversation, honesty should be a given and a starting place.

by okamichan13 2007-08-06 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like from the comments

The two biggest hypocrites in this race who constantly accept money from state lobbyists, lobbyists' spouses, hedge funds, trial lawyers, big banks, are certainly not honest.

This alone disquifies their credibility.

by areyouready 2007-08-06 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like from the comments

Areyouready, I believe said that she/he would put Hillary's candidacy above the Democratic party,

Would you put the democratic party ahead of your candidate?

I would put the party ahead of any of the candidates with respect to importance.

by BDM 2007-08-06 08:37AM | 0 recs
thank you for the republican perspective...

i guess republicans are more worried about barack and edwards, huh?  no worries, democrats always walk right into the gop's trap.  we'll nominate hillary; she'll lose...

by bored now 2007-08-07 05:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like from the comments

Somehow you hold politicians that don't tell the truth in higher esteem , thats shocking. Look at the links on obama in post above. I just don't get it. Hillary's answer was straightforward , no pandering and above all she is not pretending like others who will collect lobbyist money from chicago and through the backdoor.

by lori 2007-08-06 08:30AM | 0 recs
this hillary is honest meme is laughable...

she can't even tell us the truth about hillarycare or her vote to invade iraq.  let's not start thinking that she's honest.  defending the status quo is what she does.  that's not honesty, that's preservation...

by bored now 2007-08-07 05:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like from the comments

Her response was all over the media. Especially her defending taking lobbying money and those large corporations not wanting anything from their contributioons. I saw it on the Today show this morning with both Andrea Mitchell and Chris Mathews ntalking about it. They basically stated that it cast her as the establishment candidate and not an agent of change. This will hurt her in the primaries especiaaly IA.

SHE HAS TAKEN 885,000 dollars from the pharmaceutical and insurance industries more than all of the other candidates combined. She has not even produced a UNH plan for us to evaluate as to whether or not her plan would favor such industries.

My problem is that I donot want the Insurance and pharmaceutical industries writing the health plan for this country. I don't know if I can trust Hillary on this issue because of her being so beholden to such interests.

by BDM 2007-08-06 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like from the comments

I don't trust Obama because he is basically pretending and you will be shocked that sooner or later he will be caught in his own trap of hypocrisy .

by lori 2007-08-06 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like from the comments

Then we agree to dis-agree.

by BDM 2007-08-06 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like from the comments

Now there's a factual statement, backed up by cites.

Yep, sure showed you.

by justathought 2007-08-06 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like from the comments

Again, a statement from Lori with no support, links, or basis in fact.  Just something she wishes to be true.  At least she's consistent.

by dhooters 2007-08-06 03:23PM | 0 recs
This is false

SHE HAS TAKEN 885,000 dollars from the pharmaceutical and insurance industries more than all of the other candidates combined.

That is false.

From insurance industry employees: .asp?Ind=F09

Clinton: $341,240
Obama: $258,172

Dodd and Romney have received more from the insurance industry.

From pharmaceutical industry employees: .asp?Ind=F09

Clinton: $172,151
Obama: $160,572

Romney has received more from the pharmaceutical company employees.

by hwc 2007-08-06 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: This is false

So Mr. Purity has a few stains on his blue dress.

by DoIT 2007-08-06 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like from the comments

that you hit a sensitive nerve. With her lobbying answer alone, Hillary lost a lot of people in the primaries. Saying that lobbyist money doesn't have an impact on Congress, thats a joke.

and this is based on?

by world dictator 2007-08-06 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like from the comments

Which part? the "hit a nerve" part seems obvious from the comments - all the Hillary supporters scrambling to explain why she doesn't think lobbyists have a negative influence in Washington.

Progressives defending K street, gotta love that irony.

by okamichan13 2007-08-06 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

Never mind that greater than 10% of all lobbyists dollars in 2006 (2.55 BILLION) from Pharma and HMOs goes towards killing universal health care.

by BDM 2007-08-06 08:47AM | 0 recs
Just One Small Thing

To Prove how silly some Netroots' perceptions are about the Candidates.

 "The blogosphere is 60% male, and she does better with women.  It's 45% secular, and her voters are religious. e/0,8599,1642653,00.html

according to the new TIME poll, only 15% of registered voters believe that Hillary Clinton is "strongly religious," compared to 22% for John Edwards and 24% for Barack Obama.

by Edgar08 2007-08-06 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Just One Small Thing

So much for the netroots being in sync with the public .

by lori 2007-08-06 08:51AM | 0 recs
i'd agree...

she's not religious.  she uses her religion (umc) as a prop.  she's not serious about it.  she turned her back on her church when they asked for her help to talk to bush about why invading iraq was immoral (she knew better than they did, she'd been there before), so her devotion is clearly only for her convenience...

by bored now 2007-08-07 05:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

Hilarious- Hilary supporters quoting Kos as primary evidence of anything.  Next they'll be quoting the right-wing Politico to back up their opinions.  Oh wait, they did that yestreday. LOL

by dhooters 2007-08-06 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

This is just dumb. I watched Hillary's breakout and thought she did fine. It was funny watching Edwards and Obama pile up on her. I hope they remember that moment fondly when she doesn't pick either of them for VP. Rookies!

by Dickweed 2007-08-06 09:28AM | 0 recs
why would anyone want to be the vp nominee...

for a loser???  didn't help edwards.  it would definitely damage barack.  let her go down in flames.  she will without our help...

by bored now 2007-08-07 05:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

I'm so saddened by attempts to trash Hill. I'm not in love with everything she says and does. But she isn't the devil incarnate. I'd be delighted with ANY of our Dem candidates as president.

by mikepaulle 2007-08-06 09:39AM | 0 recs
that's the reality...

hillary is clearly the most polarizing figure in american politics (bush is now a lame duck, who cares?).  and it's not just like her husband -- she carries her own baggage, as well as sentiments left over from him, which is both a plus and a minus.

we need to come to terms with hillary's inevitable defeat.  we need to protect our candidates down ballot from the drag she'll bring to democrats.  and we need to withstand the inevitable assault on hillary by the right, and the massive forces that will array against her.  someone will make a killing with "don't blame me, i voted for [edwards/obama/richardson]" stickers...

by bored now 2007-08-07 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: riiiiight.

Tried having discussion yesterday about the influence of money in politics. Not really about Clinton, but something touched off by my disagreement with her position that say Big Insurance money won't influence her or Big Phrma, and the reaction pretty much is examplified by lori above. I've frankly started to give up because there is a crew of supporters from each team that just doesn't get it. They never will. I had this conversation regarding how I supported Obama on the Pakistan issue and had it with regard to how despite supporting Edwards I agreed with a critique by Big Tent of Edwards. There is none of this here as a general rule.

by bruh21 2007-08-06 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: riiiiight.

You "give up" because you lose arguments/ are unable to think of a response other than "you miss my point" or "your argument is based on assumptions that I say are wrong just because."

Give it a rest.

by world dictator 2007-08-06 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: riiiiight.

 I gave up because commentators like you think in those terms dictator. as i told you before each time you talk it's clear you are kid at college some place. georg may appreciate your type of support, but to me it's not debate so much as a waste of time.

by bruh21 2007-08-06 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: riiiiight.

Baby bruh

The problem you have is that you can't defend you arguments without pouting or getting irratated that people disagree instead of being pushed over.
Face it, you have an inferiority complex.

If you decide to grow up and have a real debate then I'm here anytime any place. No name calling, no bs, just the facts. No more excuses.

by world dictator 2007-08-06 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

Maybe it's the other way around.  Would s Hillary nomination, in fact, endanger the prestige of Yearly Kos?  I'm saying this, btw, as an Edwards supporter:  the booing, the "effing Hillary jilts us", etc. looked bad.  Respect is a two way street, you have to give respect to get respect.  Hillary respected Yeasrly Kos in much the way that John F. Kennedy respected those Texas Baptists.  She came into the lion's den.  Yearly Kos would have done much better by leaving it as polite disagreement rather than letting the bigfoot media boys and girls have room to attack them.

by David Kowalski 2007-08-06 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

So basically the diary says, "me and my friends hate Hillary Clinton therefore the polls must be wrong."

BTW, it is a little hard to fathom how the author could complain about long-winded in-depth answers from the candidate and then turn around and ask a five-part question about five totally unrelated pieces of legislation from a decade ago. I've voting for Hillary just because she actually remembered all five parts of the most rambling, unfocused question this side of a CSPAN caller rant.

by hwc 2007-08-06 11:09AM | 0 recs
Look at how many progressives

are defending lobbyists influence in Washington. Sure is a strange sight to see. Heck, maybe we should loosen up the campaign finance and ethics laws since lobbyists don't have a negative influence?

by okamichan13 2007-08-06 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Look at how many progressives

Rank and File Democratic support for Hillary has pushed 40 percent since 2003.  It will take someone special to beat her.

by Todd Bennett 2007-08-06 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Look at how many progressives

How about presidential candidates attacking lobbyist while accepting it through the back door. -obama-finesses-his-lobbyist-ties-2007-0 4-19.html as-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html

by lori 2007-08-06 11:27AM | 0 recs
I appreciated the irony

in your post

Though I doubt the 'HC tag team' will

by merbex 2007-08-06 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: I appreciated the irony

Why don't you read those articles and let me see you defend it.

by lori 2007-08-06 11:31AM | 0 recs
i've read them...

i knew this already.  i'm comfortable with the fact that he doesn't take money from federal lobbyists -- the people who actually call, make the appointment and ask for favors.  there is no perception of quid pro quo.  none.

i understand your need to defend this slimmy practice, so you try to dirty up those who don't follow establishment tactics.  but that tells us more about you than about obama.  the hint of corruption doesn't matter to you.  perhaps you even engage in corruption.  and you feel the need to attack those who aren't as dirty as you are.  gotcha...

by bored now 2007-08-07 05:58AM | 0 recs
I doubt it

they would rather pretend that money in politics doesnt matter while defending special interests.

by okamichan13 2007-08-06 04:05PM | 0 recs
Let's go to the video

TPM has posted a video with about 10 minutes of clips from Senator Clinton's breakout session, including Mr. Hogarth's question and most of the answer. The video includes Sen. Clinton's opening and closing remarks and enough crowd response to get an idea of whether or not Clinton's breakout session "endangered her nomination" as Mr. Hogarth argues.

Judge for yourself. 8/tpmtv_hillary_clinton_yearly_k.php

by hwc 2007-08-06 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

The anti-Hillary forces keep predicting her demise and it never happens.  It's only wishful thinking.  She continues to widen her lead- this is not something that will decide the nomination.  Most people realize what hypocrites Obama and John Edwards are- they will not be fooled by them.

by reasonwarrior 2007-08-06 01:50PM | 0 recs
i don't recall predicting she'd lose the..

the nomination.  or am i not considered anti-hillary?  she's a brilliant politician.  would make a great senate majority leader.  too bad she's determined to destroy the democratic party...

by bored now 2007-08-07 05:59AM | 0 recs
What didnt she know then that she knows now?

Did aanyone bother asking her about her frequently used defense of her Iraq war conduct "if she knew then what WE know now, things could have been different" (as i loosely paraphrase everything but the WE which she uses to dilute her accountability).

by Pravin 2007-08-06 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

Most people realize what hypocrites Obama and John Edwards are- they will not be fooled by them.

Wow, if all Hil's supporters have rock-solid logic like this backing them up, how can her campaign help but be inevitable?

by justathought 2007-08-06 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination

The concern is that she does not seem to be as progressive as an Edwards or an Obama. The author is indicating that many people are supporting her because of name recognition due to the amount of knowledge that people have of politics which is low.

by PROfess PROgress 2007-08-06 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination
The Hillary doesn't care about the online community.  She knows that we will still chew glass and vote for her if she gets the nomination. I'm including myself in this, even though I hate me for it.
It irritates me that she doesn't care what we think, but The Hillary still has my vote in the general if she survives. Her Democratic Party Front-Runner position isn't the best place to be 18 months before the election, but she's better than anything going on the other side.
That is what the The Hillary is counting on.  She can tell us all to take it all the way and we'll still vote for her in he general because there's nothing else.  Quite a few of us went the jackass route and voted for the ego-maniacal whack job Nader to make a point.  We made our point and it's cost us too much. Our country is f'd because we wanted our voice to be heard. Well, it was and we have to get our collective crap back together and try to bring our country back from the brink..  
by blandon70 2007-08-06 07:28PM | 0 recs
not all of us will...

there are lots of alternatives to voting for hillary.  my preference is usually not to vote in that race.  i stopped holding my nose in the ballot booth a long time ago...

by bored now 2007-08-07 06:01AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads