MyDD :: The Buck Stops Elsewhere

The Buck Stops Elsewhere

by Matt Stoller, Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:10:08 PM EST

Hillary Clinton just can't take responsibility for the war in Iraq.

"I have said clearly and consistently for quite some time that I regret the way the president misused the authority," said Clinton. "He misled Congress and the country on what he was seeking and what he intended to do."

I've read a lot of Hillary Clinton's speeches and statements, and I reread this several times, but I can't seem to find anything to suggest that she thinks she did anything wrong. The inability to admit error is a serious, serious problem, and as we've learned in the last six years, a sign of weakness. There are other signs she isn't learning or growing with the country. For instance, John Aravosis pointed out this offensive quib in justifying her war vote.

"As a senator from New York, I lived through 9/11 and I am still dealing with the aftereffects," Clinton said. "I may have a slightly different take on this from some of the other people who will be coming through here."

Conflating 9/11 and Iraq, and implying that other Americans don't 'get' 9/11 so as to use it for political purposes is a really bad sign. It's exactly what Bush does, repeatedly.

And this is a rather small point, but I'm pretty sure (though not entirely sure) that the Senate was in session on 9/11, and that Senator Clinton was in DC. So it's not quite clear that she 'lived through 9/11' the way that she wants us to think that she lived through 9/11.

UPDATE: Atrios posted this point literally two minutes before this post.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Iraq (all tags)

Permalink :: 98 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (3.00 / 1)

Hillary's campaign is hitting all the wrong buttons with me. She's running John Kerry's campaign almost to the T. Finessing the Iraq vote by blaming it all on Bush, spending a lot of time on "electability" (although for some different reasons) ... it's all very disheartening.

She's turning me into an activist against her.

by BriVT on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:26:10 PM EST

if we knew than what we know now (none / 0)

has a similar ring to I voted for it before I voted against it.

"Lobbyists Represent 'Real' Americans" - Hillary Clinton

by TarHeel on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:47:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thats cheap (none / 0)

the "I voted it against ...." line was a reference to a vote on an amendment to fund the war, that Kerry voted against. It had nothing to do with his vote to authorize the President to use force.

by dpANDREWS on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:30:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (none / 0)

Join the club. You don't suppose Bush is just another of those 'bad and evil' men she was alluding to the other day?

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 04:51:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (none / 0)

I don't understand why people are so hung up on her not apologizing for the vote. While I personally don't agree with the war, Hillary, like most of the senators, "believed" that Iraq posed imminent threat and therefore voted to allow Bush to wage war if necessary. We could debate the merit of preemptive strike all day long, but the issue is that the war was poorly planned and executed. Had we had a different commander in chief, we could have a much different picture in Iraq. The really mistake that she and everybody else in Congress made was to allow Bush be in charge of the war, and not necessarily the vote itself. If she doesn't believe that the vote was wrong, why do we feel the need to force her to apologize for it?

by PhillyGuy on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:29:52 PM EST

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (none / 0)

If she doesn't believe that the vote was wrong, why do we feel the need to force her to apologize for it?

Because her vote helped kill 750,000 Iraqis for no particular reason, and she ought to realize that's a bad thing.

by Matt Stoller on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:33:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (none / 0)

Hindsight is always clearer. She has said many times that if we had known what we know today (i.e. no wmd), there would not be a vote then. I guess her explanation is not enough for most of the people here, but it's sufficient for me. Like she said, there are no do-overs in life.

by PhillyGuy on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:41:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

there's a difference between (3.00 / 1)

1. the vote was wrong or right (at the time) - she could either defend her vote (at the time it was the right vote) or say she's wrong

vs. 2. well there wouldn't have been a vote if we knew than what we know now.

an interpretation of her defense is she thinks she made the right decision but the war was managed badly or we were misled.

that is not really accounting for it, and the media (and GOP) should she get through the primary will NOT let her avoid it forever.

"Lobbyists Represent 'Real' Americans" - Hillary Clinton

by TarHeel on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:45:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there's a difference between (none / 0)

What difference does it make if she comes out now and says explicitly that she believes that the war was right given what we knew at the time? How is that statement any different than what she has already said? I would rather see someone sticking to a view that I don't necessarily agree with, than someone who claims that he's made a mistake and take full responsibility. What does that even mean? He thought that it was a mistake to vote for the war even though he was convinced that the time that Iraq posed an imminent threat? What does it mean that he is taking full responsibility?

by PhillyGuy on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:02:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there's a difference between (none / 0)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623. html

Edwards' reason is simple, the intell was wrong, if Iraq was no imminent threat - to the US - it would be a mistake to go in.

Hillary leaves open the possibility that even if Iraq was not a threat she buys into some of the neocon ideals and getting rid of saddam to protect Israel is worth it.

who knows, she should write a letter like this one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623. html

do you have such a link?

"Lobbyists Represent 'Real' Americans" - Hillary Clinton

by TarHeel on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:06:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there's a difference between (3.00 / 1)

Yes, the intel was wrong. They both voted for the war based on faulty intel. She should not have to apologize for mistakes or lies that the Bush administration fed to the Congress. I've always had doubts on the intel before the war, but it's not unreasonable for people to belive that the president of this country was telling the truth.

by PhillyGuy on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:15:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

President Telling the Truth? (3.00 / 1)

My Mother has a saying: (I think she got it from The Power Of One, but she won't admit it.)

"First with the facts. Then comes the trust."

There was no reason to trust the president at that time. And no need. They could have voted no and said to come back when you are finished with all the diplomatic actions you can do.

"She best be gone on Wednesday!"

by OsoDelMar on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 03:23:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there's a difference between (none / 0)

You seem to be missing the POINT(S)!

Her APOLOGY is NOT the issue here, please get over that red herring.

What's at issue, what we are reviewing here is a) her reflective arguments on 'important' judgements she's made, b) her ability or inability to learn from past mistakes or judgements, and c) her qualifications for the job. Also, her recent AIPAC speech reveals a certain level of 'uncertainty' and lack of knowledge on foreign policy which is worrisome.

You see for Hillary NOT to admit she was wrong about her vote, her vote for war speaks volumes to me.

In 2002, Hillary Clinton, a junior senator at the time, decided to vote for the war resolution, however, it's important to note that there were a fair number of Democrats that did not vote for the war, their assessments and ultimate conclusions (on the same information that Hillary had) being relevant, in my mind, why Hillary is not qualified to be our Presidential candidate.

Please recall, for example, what Senator Bob Graham, distinguished and 'experienced' member of the Senate Intelligence Committee who voted NO presented to Congress AND HIS FELLOW DEMOCRATS.

Senator Bob Graham (D):

"...I voted against the resolution - not because our nation has nothing to fear from Hussein but because I am convinced that the resolution misstates our national priorities in a dangerous way. Right now the most urgent threats to our security are posed by the shadowy networks of international terrorist organizations that have the capabilities to repeat the tragedy of Sept. 11 - not Saddam Hussein."

Graham argued that Saddam posed no immediate threat to U.S. security and that an invasion of Iraq would divert attention and resources from the larger war on terrorism in Afghanistan and other places where al-Qaida had training bases...

Those words, those principles that are so fundamental to our national security hold true today as they did back then.

BECAUSE, Hillary did not listen to his words or his judgement, and STILL will not acknowledge her misplaced judgement on the war, tells me she has some serious deficiencies in the decision making department.

So, when Hillary at her recent AIPAC dinner event was ratcheting up the WAR TALK saying that NOW 'IRAN' is the most dangerous bogeyman on the planet, and also informs us that she doesn't even "know enough about how Iranian society and their government really functions." - this brings up red flags for me that she has STILL has not LEARNED from her past mistakes, and is heading down the same path as her Iraq mistake.

I just don't think she's got what it takes. For her to even question, even hesitate that talking to Iran might NOT be the "smartest move" -- in public even -- should send off huge warning bells. That she never mentioned our European or ME allies in DIPLOMACY. That she appeared so concerned about 'acting' all tough by clinging to rhetoric more akin to Bush than an international stateswoman does not bode well for the leader of our troops or the free world.

I mean does she really think we can take Iran on by ourselves? IRAN being 3x's the size of Iraq and has a million strong army?

I can see Iraq all over again with her, except disaster coming back to the US ten-fold. I truly believe she is not qualified to be President or head of OUR National Security.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 03:24:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there's a difference between (3.00 / 0)

Edwards: I'm sorry I was misled.

Clinton: I was misled, so I'm not at fault.

They both have a point, but kudos to Edwards for owning up to the fact that it was a bad vote.

by slb36cornell on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 02:05:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hindsight. (3.00 / 1)

It is only very recently (the past couple of weeks) that she has said that if she had known what we now known etc., she wouldn't have voted the way she did. Previously she had been saying that if she had known etc., there never would have been a vote and that has also been fairly recent. Her hindsight doesn't seem to be much better than her foresight on this issue. Maybe if she had been a leading critic of the war at the beginning (why wasn't she since she claims she didn't vote for a preemptive war?) or if she had been an early critic of the mishandling of the occupation then she might be more believable. Instead she just looks like a politician trying to find the right thing to say that will keep her poll numbers up. Also, while there may be no do-overs in life there are ample opportunities to make things right.

by msstaley on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:56:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Matt she doesn't need to apologize (3.00 / 0)

only say whether it was the right vote at the time or not.

"Lobbyists Represent 'Real' Americans" - Hillary Clinton

by TarHeel on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:46:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Matt she doesn't need to apologize (none / 0)

Yeah -- the question: Are you AIPAC sponsored regime changer or not?

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 03:36:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (3.00 / 2)

If she won't accuse Bush of being a hard-core con artist on this topic, she is welding her lips to Bush's rear. Her vote was wrong; she should not have been conned into doing it, if she was conned.

Of course, the real answer may be that she was a right-wing triangulator from the jump, truth be damned. Which is fine, except most of us don't really want the Republican wing of the Democratic Party to grow. We want to see the hawks wither, not see them sworn in. She and Bush have in common that neither one of them ever made a mistake, not once. Good riddance to both.

by Crablaw on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:37:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (3.00 / 0)

>We could debate the merit of preemptive strike all day long, but the issue is that the war was poorly planned and executed.

I don't think that's the issue at all. The war was wrong to begin with, and for her role in starting it she should apologize. The fact that Bush mangled the execution is a separate matter.

I don't want a Democratic President who essentially believes the Bush-McCain doctrine but thinks it needs to be implemented more competently.

by hotshotxi on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:04:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I essentially said this upthread (none / 0)

whether or not hillary repudiates her vote goes to does she believe in some of the neocon premises or not? or is her regret that Bush is incompetent?

"Lobbyists Represent 'Real' Americans" - Hillary Clinton

by TarHeel on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:09:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (3.00 / 2)

That is exactly the issue. As Richardson said last weekend, "The Iraq War isn't the disease. Iraq is a symptom."

Folks like Hillary don't seem to be wrapping their heads around the fact that the idea of invading Iraq was a bad one even with the information we had at the time.

And the "there are no do-overs" bit actually makes me angry. It's far too close to the "let's not play the blame game" stuff that we hear from certain quarters. And almost flip when you consider the consequences for the Iraqi people and America.

This is extremely important to discuss and work through because we need to understand that the folks running our country won't do anything like that ever again. Clinton's answers are far too dismissive for me to take seriously the idea that she has truly learned the folly of excess militarism and saber-rattling.

I tell ya, if someone sat down with me and had me design a campaign that would turn me off from a candidate, it'd look pretty close to Clinton's.

by BriVT on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:42:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (none / 0)

I'm not hung up on her not apologizing for the vote. I'm hung up on her vote.

It was wrong then and it is wrong now. The only way she will gets some of our votes back is to apologize (but not mine). The issue isn't that the war was poorly planned and executed. The issue is that we went to war in the first place. She enabled that. She voted to send American forces into harms way based on trust of Bush. It was a mistake then and she is getting rightly called to task for it still.

"She best be gone on Wednesday!"

by OsoDelMar on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 03:59:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (none / 0)

No amount of planning would have made things much better. If you are going to introduce a democracy in a region used to dictatorship, you have to mentor a local movement and identify credible local leaders somehow. The Chalabi move was one of the key failures. I knew how crooked Chalabi was. Are you telling me Hillary who spent the entire 90s in the white house , represented NY, and was familiar with the AIPAC type people up close, had no clue that the BUsh people did not go into this with the right mind?

So maybe she does not deserve to be elected for being that dense for so long. Forget an apology. Even as late as the 2004 reelction, she did not budge one bit when Russert interviewed her on IRaq.

by Pravin on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 06:34:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary's Mistake (3.00 / 0)

Hillary has now repeatedly made the claim that she didn't vote for a preemptive war and that Bush misused her vote and the votes of the others in Congress who supported the infamous resolution. It's strange but I don't recall any statements by Hillary anytime soon after the invasion of Iraq about how Bush misused his power and her vote. Maybe it is just my poor memory because if she didn't feel at the time that she was voting for a preemptive war and Bush started one then she must have said something, particularly since she seems so adamant now.

by msstaley on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:35:28 PM EST

Exactly.. (none / 0)

if her vote for force wasn't a vote for force why didn't she complain in the last 3 years about her misused vote.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2007/01/clintons_war_vo.html

January 22, 2007 8:07 AM
ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: Former DNC Chairman and Clinton adviser Terry McAuliffe portrayed Sen. Hillary Clinton's, D-N.Y., 2002 pro-Iraq war vote as a vote to negotiate with the former dictator of Iraq rather than as a vote to authorize the use of force while appearing this morning on NBC's "Today."

"She voted to give the President the authority to negotiate and to have a stick to go over there and negotiate with Saddam Hussein," said McAuliffe.....

McAuliffe's depiction of Clinton's vote called to mind the way Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., portrayed his pro-war vote as a vote to "threaten the use of force," rather than as a vote to authorize force, when he launched his presidential campaign in South Carolina on Sep. 2, 2003.

"Lobbyists Represent 'Real' Americans" - Hillary Clinton

by TarHeel on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:51:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's Mistake (none / 0)

I'm not sure what she may have said around the time of the invasion itself, but when she voted to authorize the use of force in October 2002, she made it clear that it should not be taken as a vote for preemption, and that Bush should only use force as a last resort: http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_ 101002.html

by slb36cornell on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:56:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

she also brought in "al Qaeda" in her (none / 0)

speech. did Edwards or Dodd or Biden bring in Al Qaeda in their senate speeches? maybe they did I just don't know.

Hardball on Friday was making a big deal about Hillary's floor speach mentioning Al Qaeda

"Lobbyists Represent 'Real' Americans" - Hillary Clinton

by TarHeel on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:03:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary's Speech (none / 0)

I know what Hillary said in her speech and unless there is some supporting evidence that shows she felt at the time that Bush did something contrary to her speech then it appears that her speech was just political cover her supporters could trot out in case things turned out bad. She certainly knew she was going to be running for President in the near future.

by msstaley on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:13:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's Mistake (none / 0)

Other democrats knew where Bush was going... And Hillary of all people knew... remember she was around as Bill's sidekick when the PNAC crowd were continually hounding him... You don't think regime change was discussed over Hills and Bills dinner table? come on...

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 03:34:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's Mistake (none / 0)

People, this woman supported the WAR in a CodePink clip I linked to. SHe supported going to the war as late as 2003(and probably evcne later) and mildly blamed some implementation problems. SO this clearly exposes as a lie that she voted only to give the President leverage.

by Pravin on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 06:37:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly (none / 0)

I can read the "Authorization to Use Force in Iraq" and it says exactly that. It Authorizes the President to Use Force in Iraq. It does not Authorize the President to Use Diplomacy in Iraq. If she is trying to say it says something different then she doesn't deserve to be a Senator. I can read. Can Hillary Clinton?

"She best be gone on Wednesday!"

by OsoDelMar on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 04:02:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

think you're wrong (none / 0)

I think she was in New York on that day. Remember, it was the day of the Democratic primary, so it's pretty likely she would have been here.

by hotshotxi on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:37:53 PM EST

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (3.00 / 1)

Politically, it would be a good move to admit she was wrong.

But I think it's reasonable for her to think that she wasn't wrong in taking the actions she did, based on the information she had.

Now it does suggest to me that she may be naturally inclined to hawkishness, since I know that people like Wesley Clark testified that there was no reason to rush into Iraq. So the testimony of those who said that there WAS reason apparently struck her as stronger.

That means she'll never be MY candidate, but there may be some strength in character in not simply saying whatever looks politically best.

by catherineD on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:41:41 PM EST

she's assuming the primary is (none / 0)

in the bag... She is thinking about the general and wants to be the war hawk, margaret thatcher, war goddess type for the general.

"Lobbyists Represent 'Real' Americans" - Hillary Clinton

by TarHeel on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:12:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (none / 0)

She would love to say whatever looks politically best if she only had the prescience and insight to know what that was.

I think her ambition for the presidency affected her judgement at the time and continues to do so today in ways that, ironically, disqualify her for a position of such leadership.

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 05:04:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Reese Witherspoon in "Election" (none / 0)

She and Hillary. Similar people.

by Pravin on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 06:39:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stop passing the buck Hillary (3.00 / 1)

You rightfully deserve blame for your vote. Where is your moral courage to admit the mistake? Time to be a leader and not a politician.

by optimusprime on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:43:35 PM EST

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (3.00 / 1)

On the first candidate debate, I want the moderator to ask this question: "George W. Bush once showed himself unable to admit to having ever made a mistake. What has been the biggest mistake of your political career and why did you make it?"

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

by Anthony de Jesus on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:53:10 PM EST

No apology is required.... (none / 0)

This effort to get IWR yes votes to prostrate themselves at the feet of liberals for doing their job is getting ridiculous.

Hillary has nothing to apologize for...and she is completely accurate in her statements about President Bush.

I have less respect for those that tuck tail and apologize to quiet criticism from the left. It just makes them look like they didn't take their original vote seriously.

John Kerry in particular made a very good statement in defense of his vote in October 2002, and he was entirely justified in making that vote.

If you ask me it is those now apologizing and taking "responsibility" for their votes (which they actually are not), that are playing politics.

by SaveElmer on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:57:54 PM EST

Bull (3.00 / 0)

"Hillary has nothing to apologize for."

Hillary Clinton has screwed up on the war for YEARS! ANd she does not give any indication of a stance with any clarity.

You cite Kerry as a comparison showing that an apology is not necessary? Kerry? Do you remember '04?

Hillary Clinton has dithered and triangulated and avoided responsibility for Iraqq since '03.

And she is STILL DOING IT!

Maybe if she looked at her FAILURE in the past, she would have a clue about how she need to change course to succeed moving forward!

Argh. There's nothing left to say.

DEM toadies who stand up for their weak, misguided, irresponsible "leaders" are just as pathetic as GOP toadies who stand up for theirs.

Scores of US soldiers and hundreds of Iraqis die each week. And DEM leaders can't find the courage to stand up and take a decisive stand!

Pathetic.

by Thresholder on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:05:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nothing left to say...? (none / 0)

You didn't say anything...except repeat the standard boilerplate criticism of Hillary Clinton...

Meaningless

by SaveElmer on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:12:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing left to say...? (none / 0)

Sounds like you might not have been listening. The poster made a strong appeal to morality and common sense, which used to be part of the platform of the Democratic party.

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 05:15:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing left to say...? (none / 0)

So why is Hillary insisting on a deadline for ending the war that just happens to coincide with the end of Bush's term after years of saying a deadline was foolish? Putting politics above the country's security? Why did Hillary remain in denial about the foolishness of this war until recently and then she implies otherwise.

You keep being selective. True she voted just to give president the authority and made a speech that it was for leverage. It is also true that she made other speeches where she was supporting going to war. ANd it is also true that once it was ovbvious this was a bad war, all she did was mildly criticize it. But WE ALREADY SAID THIS OVER AND OVER. YEt you dont have the courage to respond to the many times we brought up these points. You just act like none of this happened and trot out a tired old selective defense.

by Pravin on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 06:44:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bull (none / 0)

This is just speculation, but perhaps she doesn't feel the need to apologize because she still believes that her vote was justified. In other words, although she knows Bush mangled the war, perhaps she believes that any president should have the authority to use force if necessary. It's not her fault that the current president happens to be Miserable Failure Bush. She says that had she been president, she wouldn't have started the war. I don't agree with her vote, but I think I understand her stance.

by slb36cornell on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:26:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Never mind (none / 0)

Never mind...she said that knowing now what she did then, she wouldn't have voted that way. So ignore my speculation above.

by slb36cornell on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 02:35:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bull (none / 0)

So, she doesn't support Bush but she supports the Bush Doctrine, is that what you mean?

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 05:11:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No apology is required.... (none / 0)

I would agree with you completely... if Hillary was running for nomination in the Republican party. And it is increasingly sounding like that's what she thinks she is doing.

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 05:10:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree with you. (none / 0)

That is why we need to look at the candidates that were smart enough to vote no and/or be against the war from the beginning.

Clinton doesn't get my vote, either in the primary or the general election. Neither does Biden or Edwards.

"She best be gone on Wednesday!"

by OsoDelMar on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 02:21:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary's Candidacy: DOA (3.00 / 3)

I am disgusted by Hillary's campaign.

Look. It's not a knee-jerk response. I would LOVE to support a woman for president. (52 year old white male here.) And I have sympathy for the human side of the woman. (There is one, isn't there?) She went through hell and it would be a wonderful example of poetic justice if she returned to the White House and shoved that in the GOP's face. (I suspect that many Hillary supporters are driven by that instinct.)

But this woman doesn't have an ounce of leadership or vision in her body. She is WHOLLY an inflated product of the DC-insider machine propping her up. On a lesser level, her candidacy is fabricated out of nothing in a way that has parallels with the selling of Bush in 2000.

And I do not believe that her front runner status and early poll results will last long when people start paying attention. I think they're phony and unsustainable. I think she will crash and burn, because DEM activists will not swallow dreck the way GOP ditto heads did in 2000.

Hillary's utter failure on Iraq is a neon light flashing over her head. She cannot hide her faiure, and I think that her popularity will shrink on this issue just as McCain's has done.

I alswo think she is a lousy candidate who will wear very poorly during the long campaign.

I have long predicted that she will not survive the DEM primaries. The general? Foggedaboudit!

But suppose I am wrong? Suppose her machine pounds down the challengers and she accepts the nomination?

Well, until very recently, I always assumed that I would vote for her with distaste.

But I am starting to formulate a different sense of my own inclinations. I am starting to feel that I would neither work for her nor vote for her. And here's the fundamental reson:

Voting for Hillary is not voting for Hillary. It's voting for the triangulating insider creeps who are running her as a puppet.

And THEY ARE DANGEROUS! Given a WH victory, those creeps would immediately move to throttle the Progressive Revolution in the Democratic Party. And THAT would be very, very bad for America. The Progressive Movement would be set back some number of years, and we cannot aford that.

The ONLY reason to vote for Hillary for President in the general election would be to think about Supreme Court nominations. That's the only argument I can think of in the other direction.

And assuming that we extend our control of the Senate and House and continued the Progressive Revolution in the Party, we could probably manage SCOTUS nominations by a weakened GOP president.

And if the Carville Creeps fail with Hillary, I really think they will be left without a helluva lot of options. I think they will then be decisively discredited in the eyes of the broad party.

Well, I dunno. 2008 is a long way off, and I do have an open mind.

But I find myself becoming increasingly resolute in my opposition to Hillary. And I don't think I am alone.

Gawd, she is a disaster as a candidate!

by Thresholder on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:59:58 PM EST

Re: Hillary's Candidacy: DOA (3.00 / 1)

I can't say that I would not support Hillary in the general, but the rest of your argument is dead-on.

Hillary is not only not ahead of the people, she is dragging way behind public opinion in here beltway insider stance on the war.

I am just not interested in candidates who are not agreeing with the American people, who fired George Bush last fall, and want a complete repudiation of his corrupt, incompetent government and his failed war.

by Aeolus on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:19:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agree. (3.00 / 1)

I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this. I think that any candidate that voted for war is not a valid candidate and won't receive my vote in 2008.

"She best be gone on Wednesday!"

by OsoDelMar on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 04:04:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Remember the FLIP FLOPS? (none / 0)

Hillary knows any sage Democratic position knows. The GOP loves to play the "flip flop" card. They will do with gusto. She has to go as far as she can to distance herself from the war without changing her original position.

She also has to be careful with the idea of admitting a mistake at this point. In the general they are going to make an issue of whether a woman can be Commander-in-Chief. Imagine if she says the word "mistake" now. It may make a lot of bloggers happy now, but the commercials would be awful in '08.

I can see the commercials now, something to the effect of "in the biggest vote of her short Senate career Hillary says she made a mistake. Now she wants to be commander-in-chief. We can't take a chance she'll make another mistake."

by dpANDREWS on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:28:27 PM EST

Re: Remember the FLIP FLOPS? (3.00 / 1)

Very funny. Looking at the leading candidates for the Republican nomination they will be hard pressed to play the flip flop issue.

Hillary's big problem is her caution. Her caution is why she is not a leader. I believe her caution is why she voted the way she did and why she didn't come out and condemn the preemptive war she says she didn't vote for after it was started. Her caution is why she took so long to admit that in hindsight knowing what she knows now that vote might have been a bad idea. Her caution is what gives other Democratic candidates a chance to knock her out of the running. If Hillary wants to win she needs to be bold and get rid of some of that caution. Democrats ought to win in 2008 but we've lost too many Presidential elections recently because some Democrats have voted to nominate these overly cautious candidates.

by msstaley on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:54:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember the FLIP FLOPS? (none / 0)

Being cautious is not a bad quality in a leader.

by PhillyGuy on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 02:03:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember the FLIP FLOPS? (none / 0)

Perhaps caution is the wrong word to use about Hillary. Certainly she is overcautious which is a bad thing. She lack boldness. Maybe a lack of courage would be a better way to define Hillary's actions? Maybe calling her timid would be better? She certainly is not leading and an inability to lead is not good in a leader.

by msstaley on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 03:25:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lack Of Leadership (none / 0)

She was the Senator from New York on 9-11. A friend of mine worked for her and asked me if she should go to Wall Street to ring the opening bell. I said "Hell Yeah. If she isn't there she isn't really a leader. She is a Senator from New York. And Wall Street is the heart and soul of that city and our country. She should at least show her face that she is there to help rebuild and bring people together."

I'm still guessing as to why she didn't go there that day to open the stock exchange again after 9-11. Maybe she calculated that it wouldn't get her votes? I don't know. It was certainly a timid move, which is why I bring it up here.

"She best be gone on Wednesday!"

by OsoDelMar on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 03:41:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember the FLIP FLOPS? (none / 0)

Caution is the nicest way I have ever heard it described. There are other words for it.

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:17:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember the FLIP FLOPS? (none / 0)

Well, if she doesn't flip she is likely to flop.

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 05:17:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember the FLIP FLOPS? (none / 0)

You havent learned anything from the Kerry debacle have you? And if she admits a mistake, all she will lose are votes she has already lost. Murtha's stock hasn't gone down among democrats despite admitting how wrong he was.

It's like one of my bad bosses. When he screws up, he thinks we won't notice if he won't admit anything. And he will keep talking around the issue when addressing it directly will allow us to save time by moving on and axctually figuring out the solution.

by Pravin on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 06:48:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (3.00 / 1)

Once more, 58% of the Democrats in congress had the guts to vote against this war from the start. Meanwhile, 97%+ of Republicans voted for the war. This is a Republican war. They started it, they voted it through, and they mismanaged it. Hillary makes it a bipartisan war, which is not the case.

Of the seven Republicans who voted no (and even the two who did not vote), only two remain (John Duncan of TN and Ron Paul of Texas). Now with huge majorities of Democrats being against the war and a solid majority of Republicans continuing to favor it, we need to make this clear. It is still a Republican war.

by David Kowalski on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:29:50 PM EST

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (none / 0)

The problem is a significant number of Democrats still went along with this war. And the Dem establishment has still shown an unwillingness to keep in check people like Hillary or Lieberman while they have shown a tenacity in attacking the Deans of the party. So even if one assumes 42% s a low number(I do not), what matters is the 42% get pampered by the power structure of the party.

by Pravin on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 06:49:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (none / 0)

(DLC + hawk) - civil libertarian = Republican. Shudder.

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:21:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rudy needs to be put on the spot pronto ... (none / 0)

What is his exact position on troop levels, timetables, milestones, surges, bargaining with Syria and Iran, etc.

The free pass for Rudy is over since he has thrown his hat in.

by dpANDREWS on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:32:14 PM EST

Re: Rudy needs to be put on the spot pronto ... (none / 0)

May be better to softpedal Rudy, keep him viable for as long as possible. GOP money spent on infighting is not spent on out-fighting.

I think both Giuliani and Brownback need to be treated very gently. Let them linger. More blood on the ground in the end.

by Crablaw on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 04:34:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (none / 0)

Once again we have a say anything, do anything politician waiting for the handlers and the focus groups to come up with a sound byte that's "just right."

I've had enough of those. So far she's said or done nothing that will draw me into that camp.

by srsjones on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 02:03:08 PM EST

Don't fool yourself (none / 0)

Not one single politician in the race is going to be out there winging it or speaking off the cuff. They are all going to create and cultivate their public image and carefully fine tune their message. Its all rehearsed, its all scripted.

You think Edwards and his camp didn't sit around for hours debating the brand of blue jeans and the color of his shirt for his New Orleans photo opp? Heck they probably spent days going through hardware stores looking for just the right shovel.

by dpANDREWS on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 02:17:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't fool yourself (none / 0)

Not one single politician in the race is going to be out there winging it or speaking off the cuff.

Before the year is out, I'm guessing, Senator Obama is going to blow you socks off. Don't you watch West Wing?

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:29:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Socks. (none / 0)

I hope you are right because so far while I believe that we have a very strong group of candidates who are far and away better than the choices the Republicans have so far I haven't been very inspired by any of them. I know that Hillary isn't going to inspire me because even if she had voted the right way on the war her 'let the conversation begin' slogan is about as inspiring as a piece of toast.

by msstaley on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 09:34:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Socks. (none / 0)

Yeah, toasted white-bread. LOL

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:13:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Socks. (none / 0)

And "I'm in to win" is so selfish I can't even believe it. She could have started with something else I think.

"She best be gone on Wednesday!"

by OsoDelMar on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 02:23:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (3.00 / 1)

The hatred and vitriol that Sen. Clinton receives on this and other blogs in my humble opinion is despicable. I say this as a liberal and Democrat not some right-wing Republican. This woman could possibly be the next President of the United States so stop tearing her down in the most vicious ways. On most of the important issues of the day she is with us. I don't agree with her all the time in fact I'm not sure I will vote for her in the primaries but God knows she and almost every other Democratic candidate would be a 1000% improvement over the present occupant of the White House.

by ColumbusAggie on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 02:17:35 PM EST

You know what's despicable? (3.00 / 1)

This is:

"The hatred and vitriol that Sen. Clinton receives on this and other blogs in my humble opinion is despicable."

Where do you get off characterizing my disgust at Hillary's imnneffective campaign as "hatred and virtiol"? It's like Wingers dismissing criticism of Bush as Bush hating.

I WANT TO LIKE HILLARY'S CANDIDACY!

But her candidacy sux. She has no principles and she represents the people whop have destroyed the DEM Party and are bent on destroying the nation.

Hillary could still win my vote. I don't hate HER! She's a perfectly fine human being.

But she wants to lead MY NATION and MY PARTY and she does so with lousy principles and as a tool for the very people who are behind the Liebermanization of the DEM Party.

THAT I DESPISE!

But it isn't personal. It's POLITICAL!

And your attempt to mis-characterize the honest response of committed progressives who see the weakness and wrong headedness of her candidacy as personal vilification is appallingly narrow minded.

Grow up.

by Thresholder on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 02:48:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (none / 0)

It's hard to imagine on which issues of the day she is with "us" and not with her corporate sponsors, unless perhaps it's V chips and school uniforms and the like.

Good old V-chips and school uniforms, that was the stuff dreams were made of!

by srsjones on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 03:57:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (3.00 / 1)

If she wins the primary, I will support HRC. Until that time, I will continue to say that she is a bad candidate who, for a Democrat, takes bad positions on the issues of the day.

Hatred and vitriol? Not here. I just don't want her anywhere near the presidency.

by owenz on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 04:10:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

All Hail The Great Leader (none / 0)

How dare you express disgust for Bush, the President of our sacred country, THE LEADER OF THe FREE WORLD!. How dare you criticize him lest he look weak in front of other countries and make the country weaker and have some of our UNited Nations resolutions defeated because other countries will notice that we do not support our President enough. We will hold you responsible the next time jealous European countries gang up against the US when it comes to passing a resolution. You are despicable with your attitude towards our great leader.

GIve Bush his respect!!! It's not an easy job. Why nitpick over a bad policy or ten.

by Pravin on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 06:53:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Look at Obama .... (none / 0)

You don't think that move where he turns his head to the side showing you his profile as he delivers the "I'm above the fray" moment in his speeches is totally rehearshed?

by dpANDREWS on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 02:18:45 PM EST

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (none / 0)

For me, this is the last straw. I wanted to keep an open mind, but from here on out, I'm not going to support Senator Clinton. If she is the nominee, then I'll vote for her, but that's it.

And do you know why? Because she hasn't truly learned the lessons of 9-11. No, 9-11 has nothing to do with invading Arab countries or being tough on terrorism. The true lesson of 9-11 is that in the moment of fear, you have to be strong.

For the past 5 and 1/2 years, Democrats shrank from all debate and suddenly listened to the "wise old men" who everyone knew were fools. As a result, we are isolated, overextended militarily, and our constitution is in tatters.

That's why the Iraq vote is important. When Edwards said that he was wrong for voting for the war, he broke from the fear that gripped him (though the Iran comments were an unfortunate relapse). For others, like Webb, Obama and Clark, they never were so afraid as to forget themselves. But Senator Clinton did, and has never fully recovered. How can we trust someone who still is fearful of every turban she sees?

by Jim Treglio on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 02:19:01 PM EST

Amen. (none / 0)

"She hasn't truly learned the lessons of 9-11."

You are exactly right.

And THIS is why breaking HONESTLY AND RESPONSIBLY with the past is essential.

That's why people want people who were WRONG about the war to DEAL WITH THAT before trying top move on.

If they won;t, they then cannot learn the lesson you refer to.

by Thresholder on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 02:50:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (none / 0)

"Because she hasn't truly learned the lessons of 9-11. No, 9-11 has nothing to do with invading Arab countries or being tough on terrorism. The true lesson of 9-11 is that in the moment of fear, you have to be strong."

Yes, you have to be strong. But what do you do when the president of the United States tells you that Iraq is harboring terrorists and that it poses an imminent threat? This was the circumstance behind the vote.

by PhillyGuy on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 03:13:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (none / 0)

You use your brain. Here's the part that I never got with the Iraq deal: how was Iraq an imminent threat? At the time, everyone assumed Hussein had chemical and biological weapons. So if that was the assumption, then how do we get from bad guy with weapons to imminent threat?

Nobody, with a few notable exceptions (Obama, Clark, Dean, and some anti-war activists), tried to put it all together. There is a big difference between having chemical/biological agents and being able to use them on a country half a world away.

We knew that Hussein and Al-Qaeda did not get along (secularist v. fundamentalist). We also knew that Hussein was so paranoid that only his cousin was allowed to use the weapons. How could anyone believe that he would give his weapons to a sworn enemy? And why would he attack the U.S. when there was nothing in it for him? Hussein only attacked countries with oil, and we don't have any.

But not one of our "leaders" ever challenged this notion of Hussein being an imminent threat. Feingold was the only exception in the Senate. In reality, Democrats were told to vote for Iraq because that was the politically expedient thing to do. They were afraid of the President, afraid of Muslims and afraid of the American people. So they did not think. They were not strong.

by Jim Treglio on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 04:20:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (none / 0)

Oh, and one other point about Hussein. It was clear that he didn't have a delivery capability. Iraq never had a space/ballistic missile program of any value. It didn't have long range stealth bombers. And Hussein wasn't the kind of guy to spend a lot of money to train someone only to have them commit suicide (a la 9-11 hijackers).

by Jim Treglio on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 04:24:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Delivery system (none / 0)

But, but, but.... what about the transatlantic nuclear bomb carrying model airplanes?!

by msstaley on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 05:31:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (none / 0)

I agree with you. Perhaps we should apply the same test to the spin we are now getting about Iran.

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 05:29:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Some People Did Stand Up (none / 0)

There were quite a few dems in the house and 22 dems in the senate and 1 republican in the senate. How many Republicans in the house?

The point is that she made the vote and she must live with the consequences. There were only 3 reasons to vote for it at the time. 1. She agreed with going to war. If she did she loses my vote right there. 2. She trusted Bush (either with the intelligence or to not invade, but use the authorization as a stick for diplomacy). Either way on this one she loses my vote. A lot of people figured it out back then. She should have too. 3. She went with the public and voted for the war to gain votes. If this is the reason she loses my vote once again. If this is the case then she is willing to allow American soldiers and Iraqi civilians to be killed in order to gain votes.

Any other ideas? If my fellow Democrats want my vote in 2008 we will nominate someone that got it right. That is why I supported Dean. This is the issue that killed Kerry. Let us have a candidate that can win on this.

Does anyone remember that Nixon ran as the "end the war" candidate?

"She best be gone on Wednesday!"

by OsoDelMar on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 02:34:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (3.00 / 1)

Should the Clintons be permitted to muck up again? Hillary will have to distance herself from some of her husband's policies--NAFTA; Welfare "Reform" etc. -- before this Democrat supports her candidacy. On the other hand if she becomes the Party's nominee then I will have to decide whether to suck it up & vote for her or stop being a Democrat. I was brought up to be a New Deal Democrat but after 1968 I had no use for the Democratic Party until Bill Clinton. More fool I. Prior to that I supported parties further Left or conscientiously--rather than through laziness-- didn't engage in the electoral process at all. Bill Clinton should've been kept on a short leash. He damaged the Party & his collaboration with anti-workingclass reactionary Republican policies during the 90s have only served to injure millions of American citizens. What's the point of having a Democratic President if you don't also have the Congress & the courts?

The only prospective optimism another Clinton presidency affords would be Hillary's receptivity to being pressured to do the right thing. As FDR advised: If you want me to follow a certain course you're going to have to make me do it.

Namby-pamby DLC superannuated Yuppie Dems just don`t make it...

BTW--That traitorous dog Joe Lieberman should be purged from the Party. Is there any way I can take back my 2000 vote & switch it to Ralph Nader?

----

http://greenpagan.blogspot.com/

==

by greenpagan on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 02:53:00 PM EST

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (none / 0)

I don't understand why we perpetuate the assumption that Hillary believes in the same policy that her husband does. She is her own person.

by PhillyGuy on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 03:15:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Really? (none / 0)

Then why is her candidacy ruled by the same tringulating crap that her husband's cabal followed?

I see not one shred of evidence that Hillary is her own person.

I see abundant, overflowing evidence that she is the tool of the DLC cabal that is manufacturing her candidacy.

I will believe she is her own person when she shows evidence of it. It will be a long wait.

by Thresholder on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 03:24:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rationalize Her Vote (none / 0)

Many people are rationalizing Hillary Clinton's vote to go to war. I find this horrible. Thank you Matt for posting this. People need to realize that Hillary really isn't the candidate for President that many of us want.

There are only 3 reasons that anyone voted yes for the authorization to use force in Iraq:

1. They actually supported the war.

They wanted to "be in the middle" and gain votes by being "strong on defense".
They actually trusted the Bush administration on the information and/or thought that they were only voting on the measure to increase the diplomatic pressure on Saddam.

(I am welcome to any other reasons that anyone can give me. I have been posting these 3 for about 2 years and noone has added any in that time.)

All three of these reasons cause me to vote for another candidate, even if that means voting for a third party candidate.

If they voted for the war because they actually supported it and thought that we should have invaded Iraq at the time (Lieberman is an example) then they don't get my vote. (I think Clinton is very close to this view, but she has backpeddled a little.)

If they voted for political gain then they lose my support. If they put political gain ahead of the lives of our soldiers and our common treasury then they lose my support.

If they trusted Bush then they lose my support too. Everybody knew that vote was really about invading and I won't allow them to hide under that carpet. Look at Kerry. He did it too and he still hasn't recovered. Ted Kennedy supposedly told him not to vote for it. I don't want a President that is that gullible.

Which leads me to picking the next Presidential candidate for the Dems. I will only vote for a candidate that voted against the war or has been against the war in Iraq from the start. That is why I voted for Dean. And there are plenty of candidates that have just as good of a record on all the issues as Clinton, but voted against the war. If the Dems nominate a war voting candidate (Clinton, Edwards, Biden) then I will be forced to vote third party. (If Chafee were to run and receive the Rep nomination he would actually stand a good chance of getting my vote against Hillary..... That is crazy to me, but that is the way it is.)

"She best be gone on Wednesday!"

by OsoDelMar on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 03:56:32 PM EST

Re: Rationalize Her Vote (none / 0)

The reason why the Republicans have been more successful in the elections in general is that they tend to be more united behind their candidates even the ones that they are not too enthusiastic about. However, there are so many people in the democratic party who are single issue voters with uncompromising positions. With the country evenly divide between the parties, I hope we don't see a repeat of 2000 and 2004.

by PhillyGuy on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 05:34:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rationalize Her Vote (none / 0)

Democratic voters don't walk off cliffs if the party tells them either, so what's your point.

Hillary is republican-lite, I don't want her getting anywhere near our Democratic presidential nomination. There are other candidates you know. Also the war issue is a pretty big issue, as if we have a pseudo-Demo war-monger you can kiss good-bye any social programs and middle class interest legislation.

Just because she's got a well-known pretty face just doesn't cut it for me as A Democrat.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 05:55:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Single issue voters? (none / 0)

You act like Hillary is wrong on just the war, while the other candidates may be right on the war, but wrong on some of the other issues Hillary is right on.

With some of the other Dems, not only do you avoid voting for someone who perpetuated the propaganda in favor of amistake for too long, you will get to vote for someone who shares all of Hllary's strong points. All the benefits without the baggage. That is not a single issue vote. ANd we went over this too many times without a rebuttal from you ever in the past. Iraq war is not a single issue. It is about neocon idealogy gone amuck, catering to the Halliburton types, takes up resources that could be used on worthier causes.

Face reality. There will always be republican presidents serving at some point during a given century. You cannot avoid a repeat of a republican getting into office. If you want to avoid repeat of 2000 and 2004, you want to see a bettter Dem party which serves TWO PURPOSES - Win more elections making the election of Bush types less likey, but here is a more important purpose - Serve as an effective opposition by gaining more power in the senate and congress and have a clarity when arguining issues in public. THat can only be achieved by making the party better. That is why a third party vote is useful indirectly at the expense of a short term gain. Who is not to say Bush wouldnt have gotten elected in 2008 and not found some excuse to attack Iraq or Iran then?

Asking someone not to vote third party will only ensure bettering your chances for one election because it is a near certaintly that the party won't improve and you will see the same deal in the next election where once again appeals will be made not to vote third party.

by Pravin on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 07:04:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Single issue voters? (none / 0)

Firstly, I never mentioned the war being a single issue, I believe it's more of a 'priority' issue, which affects many other important social and progressive platforms. Secondly, nowhere have I spoken about voting for a third 'party' candidate. The 'other' candidates under the Democratic Party label provide more than enough choice, which is why 'I' am not interested in the annointment of Hillary.

At the moment her only strong point is that she is PRO-CHOICE. Her triangulating, and worrisome religious rhetoric that makes me think that she is interested in 'expanding' faith-base government programs, has made me even more politically active to show the baggage she carries.

If the left, who have researched her weaknesses are not convinced, how do you think she will do with the right that have a whole load of other issues to confront her with. You assume, that the left will unite under a republican-lite candidate, that's a bit gamble. She is not a Gore, nor a Kerry. It's a big gamble you putting your eggs in one basket.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 07:27:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

didnt reply to your comment (none / 0)

I was replying to PhillyGuy.

by Pravin on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 09:34:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: didnt reply to your comment (none / 0)

Ok Ok I'm just getting used to the format...

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 09:52:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Splitting the Party? (none / 0)

Pat Buchanan, Harry Browne and Howard Phillips all got about 1 million votes together. Wouldn't you say that they split the Republican vote? Do you think that Gore would have had a chance if they had not split the vote?

"She best be gone on Wednesday!"

by OsoDelMar on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 01:54:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Buck Stops Elsewhere (none / 0)

Well, frankly, I don't expect to see any thing better from her on this issue. What you see is what you get.

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 05:31:07 PM EST

What you see is what you get (none / 0)

I don't know about that. Hillary has been squirming around the past few weeks and eventually got to the point that she said knowing what she knows now she wouldn't have voted for the resolution. Although she then went and said she didn't vote for a premature war. Who knows what she will decide to say in the future. I think she really underestimated this issue and failed to come up with a way to deal with it. It won't go away before Iowa and New Hampshire so she is trying and trying to come up with something. This latest thing of saying that she will end the war if she is elected ain't working either.

by msstaley on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 09:44:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What you see is what you get (none / 0)

Well, that may be true, but if she doesn't stop qualifying her statements she is going to end up sounding like Kerry.

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:16:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.