• I like Hillary as well - and I am from NY- i wasnt old enough to vote in 2000, but i've voted in every election since.

    She, along with Chucky, and my Rep. Nydia Velazquez have all done a great job for NY.

    Dems run the gamut from really liberal to right of center, just like the GOP has some moderates and ultra right wingers.

    Most people are not on the far ends of either side, which is why Hillary is leading in all the polls. Edwards pushed him so far left he's out of touch with a majority of Americans, and most democrats.

    I'm really liberal - i've stated this before, but i'd state it again. I'm hispanic, gay, grew up at poverty level, was on the states health insurance growing up because my dad worked for the city, live 2 miles from Ground Zero, went to public school and then private school. I'm part of the under 25 crowd that is interested in politics, college educated, am now a poor grad student living off education loans for rent and bills, i still work, dont have health care from work, walk by about 4-5 public schools on the way to school/work and see their conditions. While none of that automatically doesnt mean i would be a progressive, it gives you a better idea of where i am coming from. BUT have that all said, i'm still a realist and I know most Americans arent as liberal as I am. I'm a majority in my extended family, and the only person to the left of me is my communist cousin who wants to overthrow the government and move to Cuba. Having that all said, i'm still voting for Hillary-

  • ChicagoDude you mean have the progressive blogosphere give credit where credit is due instead of attack Hillary for not being progressive enough? Are you out of your mind! just a wee bit of sarcasm

  • You mean the same media that for almost an entire week spoke about Obama catching up to Hillary in "the polls" but it was only the Rasmussen Poll? There are just as many negative media stories as positive stories. Hillary in no way has had an easy ride with the media.

    And "post [debate] she picked up undecideds" - yes she did.
    "And some of those who drifted" - away from Obama and Edwards.

    "I see her bouncing a bit and then tappering off" - more like thats what you are hoping for. I highly doubt shill will drop below 30% and after the next debate, Obama and Edwards would really have to step it up.

  • not true- its not a bad poll for Clinton- its actually a very good poll -

    The last I.A. poll had her down by 14, and now she's down by 4. Thats a 10 pt spread loss by Obama - Much like the Rasmussen swing of 10pts. If I were Obama's camp i would suggest getting worried that the only poll that had Obama aboce Clinton in S.C. had a 10 pt change

  • Nader wont get the same pull - theres too much Bush v. Gore 2000 animosity there

  • I'm 22, progressive, gay, hispanic, grew up in the east village of NYC, my parents arent college educated, and i grew up in housing projects- and i also support Hillary -

    Hillary took the plunge in the early 90's on uni. healthcare, it was a hell of a lot less popular than it is now. Not progressive?

    She was also the first of the top 3 dem. candidates to release a statement on gonzales v planned parenthood. Not progressive?

    She's been consistent on Iraq - called for phased redeployment over two years ago. Same as Obama, and while Edwards says he is for complete removal of the troops, on "This Week" w/ George Stephanopolous he wavered on that stance. Time's article also paints a murkey picture on his stance quoting him with saying "You'd probably have to leave combat troops in the areas where combat was the greatest." What the heck does that mean?

  • Well Obama has voted the same way as Clinton every time with the War and said he would support her de-auth. He really isnt much more progressive than she is on the war.

    As for Freedom of Speach - read Dennis v. US (1985)

  • Exactly what my comment was pointing out -

    None of the campaigns are perfect. They all hire people that have stances that are not in line with the grassroots campaigners. The OP tried to make it seem like it is only Hillary.

  • comment on a post Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months over 7 years ago

    I misspoke - Edwards employs David Ginsberg of PSB not DLC --

    And Populista, its not debunked, he's on Obama's campaign. Just because he does work for the poor doesnt change the fact that he supports SS privatization. And thats just as out of touch with the base as the positions supported by other campaign workers.

    None of the campaigns are perfect. They all have their questionable allegiances.

  • comment on a post Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months over 7 years ago

    Insider Advantage Poll -
    Latest Insider Average poll in S.C. has Obama up by 4%, which is a 10 point spread LOSS to Obama since he was up by 14% on the last I.A. Poll. That is not good news for Obama, its horrible news and reflects the 10 point spread that he lost in Rasmussen -

    Even still, Hillary has an average 4.5% lead

  • comment on a post Clinton's Advantage Unchanged In Two Months over 7 years ago

    Everyone's complaining about Hillary's connections to DLC but the VP of DLC is on Edward's campaign team. And a lot of Obama's aides are ex-Clinton aides. If you're going to say :
    "her connection to DLC-nexus consultants that backstab the party for pay and attack the grassroots for fun"

    then at least have the decency to say something about the other campaign managers on Obama's and Edwards' campaign.

    How about Obama's economic strategists, Jeffrey Liebman, supported a similar plan for social security that Bush promoted. Does that "resonate with the base"???


Advertise Blogads