Stop the Fearmongering

Bumped -- Jonathan

If Cillizza quoted Clinton accurately, then we've got a problem.

Clinton also sought to draw a contrast with some of her Democratic rivals on the issue of terrorism. "Some people may be running who may tell you that we don't face a real threat from terrorism," she said. "I am not one of those."

Who exactly?  I'd like to hear a reporter ask her just who she means.

UPDATE: I asked Peter Daou about this, and he tells me that her quote is accurate. He is not sure about the context, and says that Clinton could have been referring to Republican candidates. He promises to get back to us tonight or tomorrow.

In other related news, Clinton is looking for antiwar surrogates in Congress.

This is interesting: A high-level Democrat tells me that several of Hillary Clinton's senior advisers are reaching out to top Dem donors and other political leaders with connections in Congress to ask them to make Hillary's case on the Iraq war privately to highly-visible antiwar members of Congress.

The idea appears to be to get these go-betweens to suggest to prominent antiwar members of Congress such as Russ Feingold and John Murtha that they either back Hillary or vouch for her position on Iraq.

Clinton is definitely feeling pressure on Iraq. The narrative is morphing into a slightly different form, that Clinton is prisoner of a Beltway establishment. Here's Paul Krugman.

And there’s another reason the admission by Mr. Edwards that he was wrong is important. If we want to avoid future quagmires, we need a president who is willing to fight the inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom on foreign policy, which still — in spite of all that has happened — equates hawkishness with seriousness about national security, and treats those who got Iraq right as somehow unsound. By admitting his own error, Mr. Edwards makes it more credible that he would listen to a wider range of views.

In truth, it’s the second issue, not the first, that worries me about Mrs. Clinton. Although she’s smart and sensible, she’s very much the candidate of the Beltway establishment — an establishment that has yet to come to terms with its own failure of nerve and judgment over Iraq. Still, she’s at worst a triangulator, not a megalomaniac; she’s not another Dick Cheney.

Stay tuned.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Iraq (all tags)

Comments

82 Comments

"All we have to fear is ..."

politicians using fear to win votes.

Apparently HRC is amongst those.

I just really dislike that tactic.  

We need more realism about terrorism.

by dataguy 2007-02-19 11:10AM | 0 recs
did she even say this?

before we get worked up, let's make sure we are not being set up.

by Alice Marshall 2007-02-19 12:07PM | 0 recs
Point taken

I agree with you. I should be more thoughtful and careful.

Let's get the facts.

Thanks for your thoughtful note.

by dataguy 2007-02-19 01:11PM | 0 recs
However, point now supported by others

So, I'm sticking with my concern.

I am fucking tired of fearmongering.  Most people in the US are NOT in ANY danger from terrorist.  

0 DANGER.

And we need to start saying this.  The terrorism danger in Peoria is 0.  The terrorism danger in Wichita is 0.

Same with St. Petersburg, and Galveston, and Chicago, and Detroit, and New York and San Francisco.

by dataguy 2007-02-19 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: However, point now supported by others

I disagree. I think it's bad strategy to start trying to convince folks (whether they live in Olathe, KS or New York, NY) that they shouldn't be afraid of terrorism or weapons of mass destruction. While obviously the GOP has been effective at fearmongering, the strategy has been effective for a reason (WMD and terrorism IS scary!!). That being said, I agree with the general idea in the original post - that Clinton is making an idiotic suggestion that her Democratic rivals don't take terrorism seriously.

by BobbyNYC 2007-02-19 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: However, point now supported by others

In fact, though, there is no reasonable defence against stateless terrorism that is truly effective beyond a state-of-the-art, multi-national counter-terrorism capability which, in part, relies on our allies feeling comfortable with our mental health.  If I were a leader I would tell my constituents to get a grip on themselves, deal with the consequences of terrorism when they occur, and concentrate on getting terrorists where they live; not living in fear.

Terrorism is an international crime, albeit a heinous one, not an act of war.  Let's deal with it that way and we will all be better off.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-19 04:09PM | 0 recs
This is a common thing, however

The fearification of politics is very common these days.

by dataguy 2007-02-19 01:12PM | 0 recs
'Some May': 'Some Say' 2.0

May may. What does that even mean? 'Some people may be running who may tell you ...'

This is actually a neat refinement of the Fox News 'Some say ...' 'Some people who may be members of the Democrat party may worship Satan ...'

Some bloggers who may post on MyDD may hate our troops.

by BingoL 2007-02-19 11:10AM | 0 recs
maybe Edwards can say

"some say a cynical buying off of endorsements, and triangulating focus group tested positions is how to win elections"

at least some believe that.

by TarHeel 2007-02-19 11:24AM | 0 recs
I am exhausted

I was going to type something against Hillary in response to this. But why bother. I need to save my energy for a long campaign fight. I would like to see her supporters defend her on this kind of crap.

by Pravin 2007-02-19 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: I am exhausted

One thing you rest assured of, they will.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-19 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: I am exhausted

Heh heh. I was going to keep quiet until I saw Stoller's update where he quoted Daou's ridiculous speculation.

by Pravin 2007-02-19 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

If this is true, she's just  opened herself up to relentless attacks by every candidate in the race. Why in the world would she want to position herself as the George Bush of the Democratic party? Hopefully this campaign tactic will lead to her total implosion in the primaries.

by who threw da cat 2007-02-19 11:27AM | 0 recs
It worked in 04

The idea appears to be to get these go-betweens to suggest to prominent antiwar members of Congress such as Russ Feingold and John Murtha that they either back Hillary or vouch for her position on Iraq.

Seriously, what position?  "Everyone keep quiet until I'm elected in '08"?  Or perhaps she has a secret plan to win the war?  Or perhaps, because she need to be serious, she can't talk about what a disaster our Iraq policy has but we can trust her because . . . um . . . well, I just can't figure out how to end that sentence.

by Fledermaus 2007-02-19 03:50PM | 0 recs
Some say the governments out for itself

and not for the people.

I hate her framing.  She clearly wants to point fingers at "someone", it's the them argument again.  It's us vs. them.  We've jacked away half a trillion dollars in the deserts of Iraq and a lunatic like another Tim McVeigh or some religious fanatic can still attack/scare/kill many Americans and set the economy back.
Fighting a war in Iraq WILL NOT MAKE US SAFER FROM TERRORISM.  Investing in non-invasive, liberty preserving security will make America stronger and smarter but all the candidates are afraid of not looking tough if we're not bombing the shit out of a middle-eastern country.

by gasperc 2007-02-19 11:28AM | 0 recs
Which party is she running with again?

Is it the Connecticut for Lieberman Party?

by Pachacutec 2007-02-19 11:33AM | 0 recs
Yes

by saguaro 2007-02-19 01:48PM | 0 recs
** chuckles **

by paradox 2007-02-19 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering
D
L
C
by Bob Brigham 2007-02-19 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

Contact her campaign and ask who it is that she thinks "may be running that may tell you" such utter nonsense.  It's called demanding accountability.

by macamma 2007-02-19 11:36AM | 0 recs
This is not about fearmongering

This is about drawing a contrast.

Since both Edwards and Obama decide to run to the hard left, why shouldn't Hillary draw a contrast?

Both Edwards and Obama are weak on terror, weak on national security. The majority of American people, including democrats will never trust them with national security.

Edwards is a typical flip flopper.

by kitchensink 2007-02-19 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: This is not about fearmongering

Contrast my ass. This is her damaging the party for her own personal advancement. I won't even dignify your comments about flip-flopping and national security with a response.

by who threw da cat 2007-02-19 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: This is not about fearmongering

Yes, she needs to draw a contrast by getting anti-war surrogates to argue her case for her.

(???????)

by Dumbo 2007-02-19 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: This is not about fearmongering

So Hillary is strong on terror?  It's working... she terrifies me.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-19 04:12PM | 0 recs
Don't hold your breath

" I'd like to hear a reporter ask her just who she means"

The media thinks Hilary is "tough", "smart", and has learned how to get along with the across the aisle crowd.  Getting the media to ask a pointed question of Hilary is as likely as getting the media to ask a pointed question of "Straight Talk Express" McCain.  It's too risky--the questioner might get kicked out of the cool kids from D.C. club.  Why don't we voters just call her campaign and ask who she was referring to?  Better yet, why doesn't someone who is running against her ask her who she was referring to?

by CTvoter 2007-02-19 11:41AM | 0 recs
It is going to be up to the voters

to ask questions; forget the MSM.

And the voter that asks a tough question at one of her "conversations" better be prepared to be labeled "a plant".

I am just getting real tired of her unrelenting focus on how this election is more about electing a woman president and "breaking barriers" - did JFK get up at practically every stop and refer to his Catholicism? NO.

Watch her video(youtube) at the DNC Winter meeting again -she had a line similar to how she is quoted in the article mentioned in this diary:

"I believe this presidential campaign is about breaking barriers," Clinton said. "This is the campaign and I am the candidate."

Well guess what? I as a voter don't think that this election is about "breaking barriers" at all - it certainly doesn't make my top 10 reasons of what the 08 race is about but she refers to it constantly leading me to believe that in her mind this race it is all about her becoming the first woman President. Listen closely and hear how often she mentions it in addresses.

by merbex 2007-02-19 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: It is going to be up to the voters

I'm just worried about what she intends to do the day after she breaks the barrier... I hope somebody is giving that some thought.  Don't count on her supporters, though.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-19 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

Don't you mean "stop the strawman arguments"?

The premise of this post seems to be that no actual Democratic candidate fits HRC's description, i.e. there is no Dem who would say "terrorism isn't a real threat."

Given that, since everyone is in agreement that terrorism is a real threat, it's hard to see how HRC's statement could be "fearmongering."  A cheap and fact-free attack on her competitors, yep.  But if we can't even talk about terrorism - even by means of uncontroversial and generally accepted statements - without it being regarded as Bush-like "fearmongering," we're kind of tying one hand beyond our backs with respect to one of the important voting issues for 2008.

Does anyone here disagree that the Democratic Party would do a better job of protecting America from terrorism?  If not, then I'm not sure why it should be verboten to bring up the issue.

by Steve M 2007-02-19 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

Because of this: Clinton also sought to draw a contrast with some of her Democratic rivals on the issue of terrorism.

by clarkent 2007-02-19 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

if you notice, that is obviously an interpretation by the reporter about the quote, not Hillary or her campaign explaining the quote.

by okamichan13 2007-02-19 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

Are you trying to give her a pass on this?  Crikey.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-19 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

Gee...that sounds familiar! Let me think....

I know!

I know!

She sounds just like the current occupant of the WH!

That's so special.

I'd rather die at the hands of terrorists than live on my knees like she and her spiritual husband Bush would like me to.

No foolin', no messin, I'm with Ol' Ben Franklin on this.

And I think most Americans are SICK AND FUCKING TIRED OF IDIOTS IN $10,000 SUITS TELLING US TO BE AFRAID SO THEY CAN LOOT THE TREASURY, DESTROY OUR NATION ONE NEW ORLEANS AND A TIME AND WORST OF ALL....

LECTURE US ALA JOEY THE LIARMANN ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO BE AN AMERICAN!

IF THERE WAS A HELL I'D WISH THEM THERE WRITHING AS THE FAT IS RENDERED FROM THEIR TREASONOUS BONES!

Whew...

Well you get my point I'm sure.

May the hot, fiery breath of voter dissatisfaction shrivel Hillary's, and the rest of the assclowns who continue to try and use fear to seize power, hopes and dreams until there is nothing left of them but ashes in their mouths.

Just like there is nothing left of the hopes of 600,000 Iraqis and 3100 Americans whom Bush has murdered and whom The Hill doesn't seem to GIVE A FUCK ABOUT!
.

.

by Pericles 2007-02-19 01:47PM | 0 recs
Yep

I AM FUCKING TIRED OF FEARMONGERS LYING TO US TO LOOT US.

FUCKING TIRED.

THERE IS NO DANGER FROM TERRORISTS

by dataguy 2007-02-19 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

Look, there are only two choices here:

1) Either everyone agrees with Hillary regarding the terrorist threat, in which case she's unfairly smearing her Democratic opponents by claiming otherwise; or

2) The other Democrats don't agree with Hillary about how serious the terrorist threat is, in which case she's out there playing the fear card like Bush is.

Either of these is a valid reason to attack Hillary for her comment, but the problem with this diary is that it tries to make BOTH attacks.  Either she's smearing her fellow Democrats with strawman arguments, or she's using terrorism to fearmonger, but it's not possible for her to be doing both.

It is not possible for Hillary to simultaneously (1) fearmonger by (2) saying something all the other Democrats would agree with too.  Unless, of course, you think ALL the Democrats are fearmongering.

by Steve M 2007-02-19 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

Look, there are only two choices here:

there is a third choice, the reporter got it wrong. how many times has the WPost mangled Clinton quotes? How many times are we going to let them set us up??????????

by Alice Marshall 2007-02-19 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

The quote is accurate.  See the update.

by Matt Stoller 2007-02-19 03:20PM | 0 recs
Hm.

   How will the Clinton apologists explain this one?  Hello...Francis Holland...

by cilerder86 2007-02-19 12:30PM | 0 recs
Simple

By declaring any line of questioning on Queen Hillary is racist. Haven't you been reading his posts?

by ElitistJohn 2007-02-19 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Hm.

Wouldn't call myself a Hillary apologist (actually I am a Gore supporter), but I will repeat what I said up thread, let's make sure she actually said this before we get worked up.

Bob Somerby has been running an excellent series deconstructing the anti-Hillary script, it is worth following.

by Alice Marshall 2007-02-19 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

Maybe someone should ask her - that from her track record does SHE actually understand the real threat terrorism?  Coz, you know that 2002 war resolution, when her Democratic colleagues (e.g. Sen. Bob Graham) told her that the terrorists were in Afghanistan and that's where we need the resources, she seemed to think it made more sense and believed Bush they were in Iraq -- !

H-E-L-L-O...Hills! you have a slight problem with your credibility.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-02-19 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

It begins.  They will try to bring up the negatives on all Dem candidates who are threats to her.  Then the argument will be "see she's as good/bad as the rest, but she can win."

It may be the beginning of the crumbling of her campaign.  These are desparate tactics for a supposed front runner.  They never thought Iraq was a real problem for her, but it is.    

It's gonna be nasty, I think.  

by littafi 2007-02-19 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

Obviously Hillary is afraid of being perceived as too weak to be President.  Glad she feels the need to make other Democrats look weak in an effort to make herself look better.  Statements like this may seem small, but they're exactly why I would never support her in this primary.  She is the most calculating/self-interested candidate there is.

by blueryan 2007-02-19 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

I don't mind if our future president is calculating. You got to do whatever it takes to win. By the way, Hillary Clinton is getting ripped for being associated with the DLC, however she had more to do in founding the Center for American Progress than the DLC.

by bsavage 2007-02-19 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

But she is front and center of the DLC now.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-19 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

"You got to do whatever it takes to win" says it all.

Hillary may want to see who, says what, in supporting her.
If you don't, and Hillary doesn't, see why it's horrifying to wrap yourself in the fear marketing of the repugnants, can't see whats wrong with calling anti-Iraq-war activists befuddled enemy-lovers, then I don't know why you post here.

by inexile 2007-02-19 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

I mind if our future president is throwing the Democratic Party under the bus.

by Populism2008 2007-02-19 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

I'm just as anti war as anyone else here. However, no one can do anything about the war until a. Bush leaves office or
b. Congress actually cuts the funding for the war

Unfortunately we don't have enough Democratic Senators who will vote to cut funding.
The way I see it Clinton and Obama have both made it clear that they would bring the troops home- good enough for me. Edwards or anyone else has no chance because without any mention in the MSM, its almost as if the campaign doesn't exist.

by bsavage 2007-02-19 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

And this is a reason to use right-wing frames because?

I think we can all accept that Hillary Clinton is not the only Democrat capable of winning a general election. Given this, why would it be a good thing in any way if she were to use an argument which so implicitly slanders the anti-war and left wing of the party?

If she did say this, which of course we can't be certain of, there's no excuse for it. It's pandering and cheap rightist demagogy which hurts progressive ideas.

by Englishlefty 2007-02-19 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

I imagine there has to be a clip up or soon will be of the actual speech she gave, not just Post's condensement of it. It would be nice to hear the everything in context.

by okamichan13 2007-02-19 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

I don't think it can be overstated how Hillary is using Republican talking points to attack other Democrats.  She is turning into the Joe Lieberman of the candidates.  She sounds a lot more like Bush than Lieberman, though.

by jallen 2007-02-19 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

Christ, a "some people say" argument.  I had already decided not to vote for her in the primary, but she's really pushing her luck.  

Senator, I've lived in two cities that were hit by major terrorist attacks (DC in 2001, London in 2005).  I think any serious analysis of the latter attack has to note that the bombers involved were radicalized by the UK's participation in American adventurism in the Middle East (which, indeed, you enabled Senator Clinton).  

Oh, it's not that your critics think terrorism isn't a threat.  It's just that we think you and the President Make The Threat Worse.  

Clinton: the Democratic neo-con.  

by RickD 2007-02-19 02:00PM | 0 recs
she's the most "electable"

too according to her campaign

by TarHeel 2007-02-19 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: she's the most "electable"

Well, surely more "electable" than Edwards, it looks like.  

Interesting that you appear to be signing onto a neo-con description of HRC.  Nice.  I guess we'll have Nazi next.  

by georgep 2007-02-19 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: she's the most "electable"

You're pustching your luck here, George.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-19 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: she's the most "electable"

Those with the most inflated egos

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-19 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

Ah, a neo-con.  The rabid Clinton-haters tend to be rather irrational.

by georgep 2007-02-19 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

Not as irrational as an idiotic woman who conflates living in NY attacked by 9/11 with her vote for authorizing Bush to go to war in Iraq which has little to do with Islamic terrorism.

by Pravin 2007-02-19 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

Rabid?

Who is explaining his position?

Who is indulging in aimless ad hominem?

Who is the rabid one here?

by RickD 2007-02-20 01:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

as an edwards supporter i don't read this as an attack but rather another tactic by which she may portray herself as being tough.

she knows full well that to get elected she must be a margaret thatcher type and she must continue to cultivate that image.  this also explains why she will never plead mea culpa to her iraq vote.

by JoelK in AZ 2007-02-19 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

Here is the entire speech referenced in this diary.  Watch it and THEN make your slams.  I realize that the anti-crowd is becoming more engaged by the day, but....

http://www.wltx.com/video/sportsPlay.asp x?aid=31047&bw=

by georgep 2007-02-19 02:29PM | 0 recs
Thanks for your reference

I used the link, and listened to the speech.  I encourage all to do so, since you should form your own opinion.

by dataguy 2007-02-19 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

No need. Just explain that quote.

by Pravin 2007-02-19 03:51PM | 0 recs
Hillary Sinking To New Lows

I had a look at the context and comment.  The quote is accurate, and her comment was obviously prepared...Hillary was gratuitiously trying to puff up her credentials as a hawk, by suggesting that some of the other candidates do not think we face a threat from terrorism.  What?  Who? Obama, because he opposed the war from the beginning?  Huh?

She is banging the Bush war drum, the Lieberman war drum.  But rather than just speak to her position here, she has decided to snarkily suggest that her opponents are weak on terrrorism. Oh brother, this is a very low blow, straight out of the Rove playbook.  

I cannot see how any progressive Democrat can support a candidate who uses this kind of tactic.  America MUST get beyond this kind of red baiting.  

by Demo37 2007-02-19 04:35PM | 0 recs
I listened to the speech

The comment arises in a question raised about 40 minutes into the meeting.  She says what is alledged to be her comment.  It is not quite as much fear-mongering as I thought, but there is some, and it is somewhat annoying.

It is not a straight fear tactic, but somewhat of a "real-politik" view.

by dataguy 2007-02-19 03:21PM | 0 recs
Forewarned is forearmed.

We have to start a "Surrogate Watch."  Everybody keep their eyes peeled for any suddenly emerging "anti-war surrogates" explaining how Hillary's really "one of us," whatever that means.

by Dumbo 2007-02-19 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: I listened to the speech

Does anybody have any exact clock time?  I've searched +- 3 minutes from the 40 minute mark and it's not there.  I don't really feel like listening to all of a 51 minute discussion.

FWIW, Clinton does handle the "town meeting" forum very well.

by RickD 2007-02-20 01:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering


  She's looking for antiwar SURROGATES?

 What, she doesn't have the guts to come out and unequivocally oppose the war HERSELF?

 That's pathetic.

 Oh, and when is she launching the investigations into the Iraq war runup to find out exactly to what extent she was, as she puts it, "misled"?

 Is she waiting for OJ to find the true killers?
 

by Master Jack 2007-02-19 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

Oh, and when is she launching the investigations into the Iraq war runup to find out exactly to what extent she was, as she puts it, "misled"?

Well some of her colleagues have started, however, she's a Senate Slacker, gets voted in '06 then leaves all the investigations up to Sen. Levin.

Instead of doing her Senate job which WE are paying her to do, as soon as she gets into office she's off fundraising...!

missing the important investigation into Feith's Office...

Meeting of the Committee on
ARMED SERVICES
Friday, February 9, 2007
9:30 AM

To receive a briefing on the Department of Defense Inspector General's report on the activities of the Office of Special Plans prior
to the war in Iraq.

http://armed-services.senate.gov/e_witne sslist.cfm?id=2538

Pentagon office `misled' on Iraq war
By Demetri Sevastopulo in Munich
Published: February 10 2007
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3570e54a-b89e-11 db-be2e-0000779e2340.html

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-02-19 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

 She's curiously uninterested and uninvolved in the process of getting to the bottom of the prewar Bush lies, isn't she?

 If I were a congressperson and the White House lied to me about matters of war and foreign policy, causing me to cast a vote I would have rather not have cast, I'd be plenty pissed. And when my party got the power to dig around, I'd jump at the chance pretty quickly.

 Hillary utters platitudes about having been "misled", but she certainly doesn't seem to be all that upset about it, is she? Certainly not upset enough to launch a thorough investigation.

 Hillary Clinton is a phony.

 

by Master Jack 2007-02-19 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

Yep.. I wish the ra ra crowd would get it, unless they want Hillary to attack Iran, and support Feith's claims.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-02-19 04:57PM | 0 recs
Daou' explanaton insults my intelligence

" He is not sure about the context, and says that Clinton could have been referring to Republican candidates. "

WHAT THE HELL???? I do not know him personally. He had a pretty decent blog on salon at one time. Maybe Stoller can vouch for him. But has he sold out totally and is just trying to protect Hillary so desperately he comes up with such dumb speculative crap? Which republican would actually even say that? If one thing they have been doing is playing on Americans fear of terrorism.

And as far as Hillary is concerned, I am someone who thinks terrorism is a problem , but it is something that should not be on the minds of at least half of America to the extent it is. There is absolutely no need for a 50 state strategy with Homeland Security. And even people in the states that are potentially targeted by terrorism should go about business the usual way. The government should be protecting people from terrorism without having to scare them every day. Otherwise you will have idiots like certain passengers who scream at the sight of a muslim passenger and get him evicted. The government should be telling peope to live bravely. You see a terrorist on the plane, just be inspired to take him down because the lack of a payoff is a bigger deterrance to airplane hijacking than anything billion dollar security apparatus.

I think government should be fighting terrorism more behind the scenes.

by Pravin 2007-02-19 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Daou' explanaton insults my intelligence

I think Daou forgets one little helpful guideline: don't speculate when you are feeling bad. You're too likely to come off as stupid, or you'll say something counter-productive. He should've just said, "Thanks, Matt. As far as I know, it's accurate. I'll find out more about the context and the intent and get back to you as soon as I can."

I mean, really ... she might be referring to Republicans? Please.

by BriVT 2007-02-19 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

Hillary's position is simple and clear.  She wants to stay the course and WIN, not FAIL.  She wants to spread democracy around the globe because it's God's gift to the world, what Jesus died for on the cross, and besides, it's racist to think that brown people can't enjoy democracy like the rest of us.  So she won't cut and run like the other Democrats.  She is strong on national security and strong on American values, so nothing less than success will satisfy her.  She stands firmly against all the traitors and cowards and back-stabbers that are trying to help the terrorists win...

Goddam, it's hard to be sarcastic anymore, isn't it?

by Dumbo 2007-02-19 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

"In truth, it's the second issue, not the first, that worries me about Mrs. Clinton. Although she's smart and sensible, she's very much the candidate of the Beltway establishment -- an establishment that has yet to come to terms with its own failure of nerve and judgment over Iraq. Still, she's at worst a triangulator, not a megalomaniac; she's not another Dick Cheney."

This is close to my line of thinking. Elsewhere, even I have admitted the Clintons have progressive ideas on race even as I said minorities did not owe them anything. Hillary herself is probably open minded about a lot of things. But a vote for Hillary is the vote for the ambitious Hillary ala Reese WItherspoon in the movie ELECTION who has surrounded herself with the same old cronies. Do you want to empower the same cronies who have attacked other progressives in the party over the last 6 years? Some of these people have ridiculed the few people brave enough to wage the good fight against BUsh and this war.

Some of you have whined about Bush, and wondered why more people wouldn't fight Bush on the war, yet you seek to empower the Dems who have badmouthed the few brave spirits in the party. This is the wing she is part of.

Sure other candidates will have their own insiderss too who are not pure. But when you keep empowering the same set of insiders, they become way so powerful that it will be tough to keep a check on them in future. That is the rationale for term limits for a President. It is just not him. It is his powerbase including advisors and others. We need fresh ideas. Stop living in the 90s because Bill Clinton did not have to undo the mess perpetuated by a total idiot with the lack of opposition from a weak Dem party in the Congress and Senate.

by Pravin 2007-02-19 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

I am content to see long-standing suspicions of Hillary at least partially confirmed by this unpleasant approach she has adopted.  She must be feeling a bit threatened by some metric in the campaign to start with this kind of transparent stuff.  Frankly I wasn't expecting to see these themes emerge until the general election.

I look forward to the next nationwide polling on Democratic candidates, she was down half a point on Intrade overnight.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-19 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

I totally agree, it's like everything has been brought forward...  which makes me even more concerned the fix is in...  they don't care playing it safe to the anti-war crowd.

BTW, I read your nuke congressional report... I freaked!

I think it all comes down to Bush feeling secure in his unitary executive power.  Remember Specter was making noise when they were in the majority that they were going to address it, but NEVER did, now the Dems are in... it doesn't look like they are going to tackle it either.  It would mean a Constitutional Crisis (bring in Gore), but it appears that something is stopping the Dems,?? -- maybe because they don't want to ruin Hillary's chances of President, by having a Senate showdown - remember it's a bloody Club?

With the oversight and checks and balances that we wanted and voted for in the last election I haven't seen anything concrete yet.  I know, I know that congress works slowly, but we just don't have the time.  I can't believe there are republicans that actually support this dictatorship...even Democrats. I mean remember the Military Commissions Act, why the heck did Rockafeller vote of it...?  Things just don't make sense.

I think those nukes are going to be used, and Congress will do absolutely nothing.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-02-19 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

The scary thing for me, which I was not expecting, is that Hillary is starting to seem eager to leave all of that executive branch infrastructure in place... and get her hands on it.  

I just didn't get it at first but I read a piece on how her refusal to recant the AUMF vote was a subtle strategy to not challenge the unprecedented executive war powers which have been so zealously acquired by the Bush administration, and now this.

I am still having a credibility problem with this idea, after all she's a Democrat, but each passing day reinforces this idea and it is scary.  I was expecting the Democrats to roll-back the executive branch power grab, and perhaps they will, but I don't think we can count on Hillary's assistance.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-19 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

I've gone passed that... she's not a Democrat, she's a republican who saw the writing on the wall many years ago about how crazy the Republican Party was going to become.  Hence, we got the "Big Fing Tent" CON... that allowed the monied interests from the corporate sane, but cold republicans to push the 'savvy' republicans into the Democratic Party.

Our current Bush world, was/is a whole different level of politics/government -- aka CIA --

And today, I think both Clinton's have said = can't beat them, join them...  hence why we are getting postings on what 'think tanks, advisors she's had regarding national security yada yada, == they're all war=hawks, regime changers, or from certain self-interested monied interests...

I also noticed her activities during the last election, she was REALLY spreading her money around -- not necessarily on her campaign, but on other DLC'ers e.g. Cantwell etc! to get the precisely the support she's DRIVING for now.

She's probably PNAC, has been awhile back, as is probably Lieberman, cept he's OUT now...
 

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-02-19 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

I dont think she is that far gone to the right. I just think she is a selfish woman ala Reese Witherspoon in Election. Do you ever notice the only time the Clintons lose their cool in public interviews is when they get attacked? They seem very patient when their fellow Democrats who have been loyal to them get attacked. The Clintons do not seem to give a shit about right wing conspiracies when other Dems get maligned. They never go on talk shows like Wes Clark does and challenge spinmeisters who try to make fun of the Deans and Lamonts.

by Pravin 2007-02-20 12:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

Sen. Clinton may have taken her Iraq position because she believes it.  That would explain her difficulty in backing away from it and her efforts to find help on it.  We need to remember that a lot of the DC Democratic establishment really has bought into the Bush position.

Slightly off-topic, but necessary.  If the public were really afraid of terrorism, if our politicians were really afraid of terrorism, we would see genuine counter terror activities, like passport control and border security at the southern border.  If genuine fear were present, we'd see action, not grandiose schemes that will take years to even finish drawing up.  

by zak822 2007-02-20 04:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering
 Have you guys ever seen HRC's Wellsely graduation speech? I've only seen bits of it, but I thought it was very telling.
 In many ways, she's the archetypal, uber-baby-boomer ( i.e. she's unrelentingly self-centered in her world view, status-obsessed- but also very hard working and endlessly optomistic.) I think she feels very safe and familiar as a candidate because she embodies that geeration so well- we all know where she's coming from, love it or hate it.
by sb 2007-02-20 04:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the Fearmongering

Who are you fools that keep saying that Hillary is no Democrat?  Youre driving me nuts!  The one person (in my opinion) who has the best chance to beat the GOP is being attacked personally and viscously by a slew of posters - attacks that the republicans love btw - and they are claiming that she is not a Dem.  Screw that - having worked in Dem politics all my life - I think that those people are the ones that have done little for my party, whilst Hillary has been fighting the good fight for thirty years.

Heck.  I agree with Hillary - if you demand her apolgy (you should read www.dailyhowler.com to really understand how silly this is as an issue) then fine - voter for someone else, Ive met and like all the candidates...and if you wanna threaten to vote for nader or whoever - go ahead - you silly faux lefty hypocrites will have your chance cause Ralphie will run for the fifth straight consecutive time - no doubt - and you can just pretend just how pure and smart you are.

by timlhowe 2007-02-20 04:54AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads