Hillary Clinton cares nothing for democracy

The part in bold. This is what has bothered me about this thread. Several of the Obama supporters here have Obama painted as totally and completely perfect incapable of error in judgment. And while Hillary has essentially the same platform, these Obama supporters are willing to vote for Obama in November rather than vote for Hillary. McCain's platform is the opposite of Obama's platform.

I don't believe the media has been fair to Hillary. They have done nothing but spout negative comments about her. When Obama has had his problems, the press just accepts what he says and goes on.

Obama has charisma and lots of it. Chrisma elects people. It doesn't help govern though. It bothers me that some are so taken in by his wonderful poise and speaking abiities that they don't see the whole picture.

I know that Hillary doesn't speak the whole truth the whole time, Neither does any other candidate. I understand why some are for Obama. If I weren't for Hillary I would be too. But for the life of me, I don't understand why some just literally hate the woman. I don't mean they don't respect her or they don't like her or any of those kind of words. Some people literally hate this lady with a a complete and total vengeance.

I understand why some would hate Bush. Thousands of Americans are dead because of his ego. And America's posiiton as the undisputed superpower has been greatly compromised by this needless war. While Vietnam weakened the nation some, Iraq along with the Bush's economic policies has brought the USA close to total bankruptcy and loss of being the only superpower in the world. Many have had their personal financial word collapse because of Bush. Millions will have to work until 67 and if Bush could pull it off until 70. He wants to cut the heart out of social security, some people's only support in their elder years.

I understand hating Bush. He's done enough misery to be hated. But Hillary? Nothing she has done as a Senator warrants this kind of hate.

With nothing else on the table as the reason, I have to conclude that the hatred is based on the fact that she is a woman. Many people here in the USA both men and women despise a strong will intelligent female capable of beating out men in positions of leadership. It is predjudice pure and simple.

And I know some will bring out their old posts saying this and that. And I don't deny those posts or at least some of them are based on true facts. So far I haven't seen a post yet with enough evidence against Hillary to condemn her to be the most hated politician in American history. I just don't see it. The reason I don't see it is because that type of evidence isn't there. This hatred is based largely on opinion and personal dislike of Hillary's personality.

I know about Hillary's personality. She can rub people the wrong way easily. I was on the opposite side of HIllary on an issue in Arkansas in the 80's. I saw that then and I'm sure it is still there. But that isn't a reason to hate her.

Again, I have not said that any of Hazel and other posters are wrong with their facts in this post. That is another issue which I have posted. My point in this post is not whether she is less honest then Obama, make a better President or not than Obama and all those issues. My issue is why is there this EXTREME TOTAL HATRED THAT NOT EVEN ADOLF HITLER GETS THESE DAYS. Some people have lost all perspective on Hillary. They seem incapable of calmly discussing the woman. Just the mention of her name has their panties in such a wad that they are crying for relief from the pain. Hillary, Hillary Hillary. Tighten those panties. Hillary Hillary Hillary. I can see the excruciating pain now just from the mention of Hillary seven times in just two sentences. I would mention her name again, but I don't want to do any permanent damage.

And the funny thing about it all is I like Obama and will vote for him if Hillary doesn't get the nomination. That is a given.

Oh my. And to think this thread may never die.

I will vote for hillary in the unlikely event she becomes the nominee...I resent the implication of Sexism because I don't particularly care for Senator Clinton at the present time.....she has worked hard to earn my dislike...I was one of her greatest champions ina far away time...........In case you haven't noticed there is at least one poster(name begins with T) who has put Senator Clinton on a pedestal and can do no wrong.......so why are you only calling out the Obama supporters???

Freddie, I used to respect things you had to say, but you've totally gone off the deep end. I can't even read your remarks on the matter and keep a straight face. If you don't see how everything you said about GWB could be equally applied to HRC, then you're wearing blinders.

To set the record straight, the topic at hand...the reason for which I created this thread at all...has very little to do with Obama.

As I've said before, the purpose was to highlight a firsthand experience that exposes Hillary for the Machiavellian cunt she really is...a person who has no respect for either the population nor institutions that she's seeking to represent. She cares about nothing other than the title of the office and what its possession will do for her. She's shown little interest for the duties and responsibilities of that office, and even less for its integrity.

From the viewpoint of a person who believes in the basic ideals of this republic, HRC is a vile and poisonous entity who shouldn't be granted an audience with the Chief Executive, much less sit in his chair.

I couldn't agree more! I honestly wonder when she decided I have to be president or wow, I have a shot at being president. My guess it was the day Bill discussed running for his presidency. She could have left him with the Monica affair, but I honestly think that in a split second she thought if I leave him, I'm just a regular citizen and former first lady. I'll be forgotten in 6 months.

So she stuck it out. Ran for senate in a state that has produced some presidents even though she didn't live there.

She has done very little that has been positive for NY as senator. She certainly didn't keep her promises. I would use the word nothing, but I'm probably unaware of her positive influence.

What I get a kick out of HRC supporters is she broke federal law by withhold documents in her personal residence during an investigation and they don't care.

Publicly Hillary sends confusing signals. When it suits her to reference Bill or needs his spin, she pulls him into the light. When she claims all her experience though, she doesn't mention him.

Personally, I think the talk shows and late night will love it if she wins.

Something significant will have to happen this summer in order for her to get the nomination at this point because people like to vote for winner and obama is currently ahead. My guess is that something has to happen just before the DNC so it leaves a lasting impression.

If Obama ends up sick or not breathing I hope someone has the good sense to investigate her. She is on a mission and Obama is in the way. Woe to him.

You comment neatly encapsulates this underlying ethos of this thread.

I'm as aware as you that the above is only your own personal perspective - and while it's one no doubt shared by many, that's all it is.
Obviously it's one not shared by tens of millions of your countrymen. The unspoken implication of that being that in supporting Clinton all of them are mistaken, indifferent or that they don't believe in the basic ideals of the US.

Of course, those who feel the same about Obama (and McCain of course) as you do about Hillary could by the same logic, reach the same conclusions about their supporters, including yourself. In a nation so large as the US it's implausible that every supporter in each 'camp' is right (or wrong), so perhaps the 'truth' about each candidate is in fact something other than you (they) perceive it to be?

Of course, like anyone you're entitled to believe whatever you like, but perception is a tricky thing, and how to reconcile such entrenched divisions to make the right choice, it's quite a conundrum, isn't it?

stick a fork in me...I'm done.

Yet New York voted for her in the Primary.
She obviously did enough for the people of the city to actually vote for her for president. You'd think that would be a plus for a candidate, but who knows? Ironically, Guiliani was Mayor of New York for many years even through 9/11. And despite his high approval rating in New York around that time, he couldn't win the Republican Primary in his city. Pretty interesting results if you ask me.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pri...ults/state/#NY

Apparently, they don't. Or at least they're not going to make this such a big issue to not vote for her.

And everybody in New York still retains that NYC won for Hillary and not the state.

Hazel, that makes two of us. I sometimes break into hysterical laughter at some of the things you say as well. Just kidding. You take the thiings that others say that you disagree as a joke. I try to read what they have to say with a serious demeanor. No I haven't laughed my head off at some of what you have written. I have thought several times how naive you must really be about American politics. Hillary doesn't hold a candle to Bush and Company. Some of the past actions of presidents in and out of office have been a disgrace to say the least.



So you know something first hand. Great. Hillary is a politician. So is Obama and McCain. Have you not noticed how McCain has changed his position about the tax package he voted against but now to get the Republican votes in November and to get the Republican nomination he now has to be for keeping them. Flip flop. You bet.

I've never said that anything you wrote about Hillary as far as factual information is incorrect. It is your conclusions that you have come to that I have issue. Hillary the absolute worst person since Hitler, Mao and Stalin? That is a bit much don't you think. Yet you have painted her with such a brush as to set her apart as being evil beyond anyone within the memory of any of us here at the LPSG.

Again, it is your conclusions, not individual facts you present that bother me. I am just baffled that you would go on such a witch hunt against her. Obama hasn't done that.

The bottom line is that I happen to believe that overall Hillary can handle the duties of the United States better than Obama and certainly a hell of a lot better than McCain. She is shrewd. Sometimes we need a president that is shrewd. I believe that HIillary will get us out of Iraq without near as much negative consequences as if Obama gets us out of Iraq.

Lesson is the fifth grade reading I taught years ago. I am stating opinions here. I can list all the facts I can ever find and print them here. It is not going to change your opinion.

If you would just state some of what you write as what it is opinions based on some facts that you have experienced or know first hand I wouldn't have near the problem with your stances.

Take this statement. Obama is just as shrewed and has just as many instances as Hillary in his background that would indicate that he is dishonest. That is opinion pure and simple and can only be opinion becuse what I interpret as a negative instance, you may consider a positive instance.

It does bother me that you would choose to now have disrespect for me based solely on this one political issue in which much of the conversation as been opinions based on a set of facts.

But this sentence by you is telling: From the viewpoint of a person who believes in the basic ideals of this republic, HRC is a vile and poisonous entity who shouldn't be granted an audience with the Chief Executive, much less sit in his chair.

The inference here is that you believe in the basic ideals of the Republic and anyone who is for Hillary does not believe in the basic ideals of this republic. That is a huge assumption on your part.

And at least once you have commented how much you laughed when reading something I have posted. And you expect me to then respect your opinion after admitting that?

The conclusion I am drawing is that you aren't really interested in a true dialog with someone unless they are for Obama. Thank God, Obama himself doesn't take that view. He is going to need the Hillary votes if he is going to beat McCain. Have you even thought about that statement? If all the Hillary voters either stay at home or vote for McCain then Obama is history come November.

So if Obama does indeed get the nomination, are you going to show up at all the Hillary supporters doorsteps here with a peace pipe and try to welcome all of us into the Obama camp when we still remember that you have basically said that we are fools. Are you going to then try to show us how Obama really was for all the things that Hillary was for and it will be kinda like voting for Hillary herself if we vote for Obama.

If it weren't such a serious issue and Hillary and Obama were members here and this were voting for moderators some something like that, do you honestly think that you could then come to me and ask me to vote for Obama now that Hilllary has didn't make the run off.

This is real politics, Hazel. This is the way the political game is played. Obama and Hillary themselves are not going to make any public statements they can't get out of later whether they get the nomination or feel a need to through their support to the other Democrat.


At the Democratic Convention if we use past history as a guide. The loser will be giving a big speech exclaiming what a great president the other one will make if elected. There is even a chance that one will nominate the other if the vote is already settled. Obama is just in the middle of being a politician as the rest of them. If a person makes it this far in a national election for president, they have to be a pretty damn good politician. They may or may not be a statesman as well.

I don't mind debating you if it is real debate. But grandstanding and trying to make fun of everyone that disagrees with you doesn't make you a great debater.

No, HRC is politics as usual, plain and simple. That doesn't mean it's the only way politics can be managed.

Call me naive, or idealistic, or whatever you like...it simply that I refuse to accept the status quo in American politics as being immutable. Just because I have not become so jaded as to not only disbelieve that we can change these things, but to actively discourage others from holding such beliefs does not make my position any less valid. Given we live under a system of government (ostensibly) based on the voice of the majority, it would seem that the winds of change are set to blow indeed.

My conclusions? That's pretty lame, strawman...why don't you tell us if it's a bit much, since you're the one who made these comparisons?

Actually, it's a matter of character...and those two were cut from the same cloth. Behind each of GWB's specific atrocities against this nation, its citizens, and the people of the world at large lies one common foundation: greed. Self-interest. Bush has done whatever Bush wants to do, regardless of whether he's right or whether his actions serve the interests of this nation or its people...and god damn anyone (Joseph Wilson) or anything (US Constitution, Geneva Conventions, UN General Assembly) that stands in his way...and to hell with the consequences.

Any of this sound familiar? It should, because it's the exact same mentality embodied in Hillary Clinton. She lies, she slanders, she obfuscates, and she lies some more. She actively seeks methods to circumvent the will of the majority, which clearly is not on her side. She countermands every democratic principle upon which our government was founded and operates...and she does it because she wants to be the president. Even though it's an elected office to represent the people of this nation, and even though the majority of voters clearly don't want her to represent them, Hillary wants to be the president. So she'll do whatever she thinks it takes to get the office...and god damn anyone (Bill Richardson) or anything (majority rule) that stands in her way.

Do you get it yet? She might not pander to big Oil, but Hillary is every bit as greedy and self-interested as GWB. THAT is why I despise her and don't want her in the Oval Office. I've seen enough of what such self-interested motherfuckers can destroy from positions of power. I'm not interested in seeing any more.

Actually, it wasn't. This might shock you to learn, but you read it wrong. Your inference is totally invalid. I don't presume to project my opinions onto others. The opening phrase up there means me, not anyone else. I believe in those ideals, and the opinion voiced subsequently was mine.

You're operating under the mistaken impression that my choice of candidate, or argumentation in this debacle, is based on policy differences. Nothing could be further from the truth. I fully understand that their policy positions are similar. They are both Democrats, after all.

The difference to me lies in their personal integrity and their methods of approach. Obama actually has some personal integrity, whereas Clinton is a fucking liar at every turn. Obama speaks of building a working majority to effect meaningful changes, while Hillary tells us about what she will do.

The POTUS doesn't rule by fiat. From a policy perspective, his position isn't all that affirmatively powerful. His significance is largely embodied in his power to veto the Congress. He cannot force his specific agenda, but he can direct their efforts along a certain set of principles.

Hillary's approach is to schmooze the power elite and ignore the rest. Get them on her side (gee, I wonder what convinces rich donors and powerful career politicians to back you?), and let politics as usual force her will onto everyone else. No thanks, I've seen enough of that bullshit, too.

She's losing because for the first time in a long while, people are taking an active role in their governmental processes in massive numbers. They've trusted the "shrewd" few for decades and suffered the utter shit results of that trust being abused...and we have decided to take a more hands-on approach this time around.

This is exactly the reason I created this thread. It's a gross assumption, and completely invalid.

I have first hand evidence that Hillary is a duplicitous cunt, unworthy of trust. It's in her public promise to not attempt to poach Obama delegates, and in the voice recording from her campaign to my house doing exactly what she promised the nation she was not doing, and would not do in the future.

Unless you have some evidence of similar mendacity from Obama, then I flatly reject your assertion that "he's a politician, just like all the others" and is therefore painted with the same shit-smeared brush as Hillary.

Hillary fans will keep that in mind when they contemplate Obama's motives at Indiana University where he and his campaign team tried to bribe students to go to a Dave Matthews concert on the same exact campus that Bill Clinton was doing a campaign speech.

It's funny how when Obama does some rather questionable or shady maneuver, extreme Obama fans on this thread would consider it a smart, tactical move. Yet when Clinton does it then it's politics as usual. The double standard is not only ridiculous, it's also hypocritical. This is what ALL politicians do. They try to take advantage of an opponent's gesture by any means necessary to try and position themselves better, It's part of the game, and not a single politician is above it. And as much as some people may not want to hear it, that also includes Obama as well.

Now for my official political forum disclaimer: This does not change my view about Obama under ANY circumstances. This also doesn't mean that I've picked Hillary over Obama. In November, either Obama or Clinton will have the Democratic Nomination and whichever one has it will get my vote. And no, that doesn't mean I'm blindly voting Democrat. I'm doing this because Obama & Clinton have similar views on the issues that matter to me, whereas McCain has opposite stances. Simple, and to the point. Not meant to be overanalyzed, targeted for some crazy Anti-Obama conspiracy theory, or hyperly scrutinized by those who would rather obsess about the non-issues instead.

It's actually kinda sad I have to do this... but I digress.

Telemarketed phone call vs. bribery. Hmmmm... One is an actual offense you could get arrested for if you tried it on a cop or authority figure. The other is not illegal, just annoying and could be blocked by caller ID. You're right, it is apples to oranges if you really think about it.

But that's not the point I'm trying to make. Both maneuvers, regardless of the severity of each offense which fluctuates from one opinionated supporter to the next, constitutes as "politics as usual". A candidate that always plays the moral high ground, as Obama supporters adamantly says he does, would have no problem letting people hear their opponent and wouldn't stoop to bribing people to go elsewhere. That's because the candidate would be so convinced they were in the right that it wouldn't matter to him. The motives speak for themselves. Obama & Clinton know exactly what they're doing on matters like this, and neither one is squeaky clean or perfect.

I'll refrain from reposting my disclaimer to save space.



Well seriously, this one is TOO easy.
Why give an arsonist the matches to start a fire? In this case, I'll take the moral high ground and leave this one alone.

Hahaha...am I the only one who finds what he just said laughable? "Taking the moral high ground"? Pshhh...
Well, they say if more than one person can see the same thing without consulting that it's probably true.

At any rate, Obama didn't "bribe" the college students. Offering tickets to a concert the same time that Hillary is speaking is hardly a bribe. They just had a choice to make and they chose DMB over Hillary. That's hardly Obama's fault. Hillary did lie. Explicitly. Implicitly. Literally.