Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Let's get this latest Hillary interview out, I guess this will cause another 'uproar', 'controversy', 'anger' across netroots...

Whenever a democrat talks about combating terrorism, there will always be some knee-jerk reaction from the usual corners. I don't understand why democrats are not even allowed to talk tough on combating terrorism. If democrats are afraid to talk about it, Rudy will sure be happy to continue his 24/7 terror campaign

Anyway, I expect more whinings from other camps and netroots...

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs. dll/article?AID=/20070825/FRONTPAGE/7082 50359
Clinton stresses diplomacy, toughness, Terror a 'serious and real' threat, she says


"I think they're out to get us every single day, and they are very clever and they bide their time," Clinton, a New York senator, said in an interview with Monitor editors and reporters. "I have no doubt that they are looking . . . for another spectacular attack, because they believe that makes the biggest impact."

...
"I guess I'm somewhere in between here," Clinton said. "I think we've got to do a lot more in reaching out and being smarter about how we connect with people than some Republicans do, but I think it's a very serious and real threat."

...
"There will be a moment of opportunity" between next year's election and several months into the new president's term to signal a change in course, to inform the world that "the cowboy diplomacy is done with," Clinton said. The effort will require a combination of aid and outreach - building schools for Iraqi refugees in Jordan, sending eminent Americans to represent the nation - and frank discussion of what Clinton described as the Bush administration's bungles and "dismissive" attitude toward the rest of the world.
...
"I had an Arab diplomat say something to me that was chilling. He said, 'You know, for a superpower you have to be either liked, respected or feared, and right now you are none of those,' " Clinton said. "We've got to be able to reinstate where fear is appropriate: with our true adversaries, fine. We have to restore respect and we have to hope to be liked."
...

On Iraq...


Nowhere was Clinton's foreign policy critique so bleak as her assessment of Iraq.

"I'm not sure there are any good outcomes," she said. "There are perhaps less bad options."

A continued U.S. presence in Iraq simply "keeps the cap on" violence, but won't heal that country's divisions, the "depth of feeling and the sense of, just, rejectionism they have for whoever their adversary is," she said.

Until Iraqis assume responsibility for security and political reconciliation, United States military involvement is futile, Clinton said. "If we withdraw at the end of this year, or next year, or five years from now - in the absence of the Iraqis themselves deciding that they'd rather be an intact country, they'd rather not be a pawn of Iran, they'd rather figure out how to have some political system that includes the Sunnis - there is nothing we can do militarily."

...
U.S. troops ought to begin withdrawing immediately, Clinton said, although she acknowledged the "very difficult problems" ahead. Improvised explosive devices could harm troops traveling through southern Iraq into Kuwait. "Pitched battles" against Shiites in the south could also stymie the withdrawal, she said. And then there are the thousands of civilian Americans working in Iraq, and those Iraqis who have sided with the United States.

Withdrawal will also shift the political landscape in the region, as Iran is forced to side with factions in Iraq and changes "create space for a resurgence of Iraqi nationalism," she said.

As neighboring countries continue to absorb refugees from Iraq, Clinton warned that "Jordan can particularly be destabilized by this, which is very dangerous for the entire region."

Despite mounting opposition to the war - earlier this week, Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia said some troops should return home by year's end, to signal to the Iraqi government that the U.S. presence is not open-ended - Clinton predicted little change in the Bush administration's strategy.

"There's not much appetite in the White House to actually plan to withdraw because they don't want to admit it's necessary, and they frankly don't want to do it on their watch, which I think is the height of irresponsibility," Clinton said. Although Bush might draw down some troops, Clinton anticipated that "it will be up to me to figure out how to withdraw our troops in a careful manner."


On reaching out to the world...

The conflict in Iraq - and the Bush administration's larger foreign policy approach, which Clinton described as heavy-handed - has damaged U.S. standing in the world, she said.

To restore the nation's reputation, "we'll have to not only talk about Iraq. We'll have to talk about Abu Ghraib. We'll have to talk about Guantanamo," Clinton said. "We'll have to start by acknowledging that the United States has made life very difficult for people inside Iraq and in the region."

On long term struggle with Islamic extremists...


But Clinton used stark language to describe what she deemed the "long-term struggle with Islamic extremists." Such extremists, she said, "have a combination of motives, among which are a rejection of modernity, of women's roles, of democracy, a dangerous nostalgia for the past that drives them to believe that they hold all the answers because of their specific religious perspectives."

Much of the Muslim world, however, is home to individuals who might respond to diplomacy: They reject extremism, yet also oppose "what they see as the culture and mores" of the western world, Clinton said. But "right now, we're not winning that battle of ideas."

That battle of ideas, as Clinton described it, also includes the seemingly superficial.

Clinton recalled a conversation with an officer at Fort Drum, a U.S. Army base in New York that had recently hosted a group of Afghan officers. Before visiting the base, the Afghans' sole knowledge of the United States came from watching Baywatch and professional wrestling. "We laugh about it, but think about what that would mean to a devout Muslim living in the mountains of Afghanistan," Clinton said. "We haven't don't a very good job of conveying our real values."


Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Comments

132 Comments

Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Great Work , areyouready.

You know I loved what She said . The reality is she is best positioned on the issue of National Secrity/Foreign Affairs / Terrorism , she doesn't need to emphasize that , the real issue those on this blog do not really want to face is that ,

Out of the top 3 candidates , it is Hillary Clinton
is the one that Inspires the most confidence . If the election turns on National Security/Terrorism/Foreign Affairs , the other two candidates will not stand a chance in the primary and the General , that is an issue no one wants to talk about.

If we get to the general and terrorism is a top issue in 08 , with Obama or Edwards at the top of the ticket , I won't wager my money.

 

by lori 2007-08-24 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

I expect netroots will go crazy on this interview.

More 'anger'? 'controversy'? 'bush-lite'?

The truth is combating terrorism is for real, if you don't want to talk about it, then don't whine about Rudy's 24/7 terror talk.

The more you whine, the weaker you appear.

Will we expect other camps to lash out at Hillary's tough talk and ask for clarification?

by areyouready 2007-08-24 09:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

You know I didn't even bother to go into that diary because it was just a waste.

I don't know why we should not talk about terrorism/National Security thoroughly in this primary.

National Security is what I will base my vote on in the primary and General Election.  

by lori 2007-08-24 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

I am one of those who has been highly critical of Hillary Clinton's comments on terrorism in the past, and I don't find anything particularly objectionable about her comments in this interview. What bugs a lot of liberal anti-war democrats is the fact that she uses a lot of Republican Rhetoric and talking-points  in the way she frames her arguements, and framing things is very important. As Hillary Clinton would say, "words matter." Liberals have a problem of her framing things in black and white, US vs. Them, millitaristic attitude -- a mindset that all of our terrorism problems are solved with more troops, and "war." All this kind of tough talk does is inflame relations with the middle-east and angers more young people in that part of the world to hate us. We definitely need to fight terrorism, and it is a very serious problem. But it should be fought more silently, more stealth-like with more diplomatic relationships and partnerships. What angers the liberal wing is when Clinton panders on this issue and has to prove to people she's going to be tough, by using inflamatory language... we'll start "new wars" and increase the military, and get new weapons systems -- yes we know Hillary, you can be just as bad-ass as one of the "boys" ... but you don't have to sound like a Republican.

by smitha007 2007-08-24 11:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

I understand what you are saying , but I am very comfortable with that type of talk , I don't regard it as democrat or republican.

Its important to note that we are all dems but we can be on different ideological sides of the spectrum .

I am not a liberal , frankly I watched the Yearlykos forum and half of the things said on their I didn't agree with .

by lori 2007-08-24 11:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

I've been pressing, beggin is a better word for Democrats to get tough on National Security.

This is what I said in another post:

"I just hope that my fellow Democrats can open their eyes and take lead on the issue. That does not mean supporting the war, or torture, or or any of all those things, it just means get touhger on it, take lead. Don't just say we are betting because Republicans F'ed it up. That's not the way to do it."

by RJEvans 2007-08-24 09:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

exactly. If democrats do not want to talk tough on it, don't blame Rudy's 24/7 terror talk.

by areyouready 2007-08-24 09:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Back it up. How has Obama been soft on terror? Dodd? Biden? Or even Edwards? Dont bring up that phony war on terror shit by Edwards. He was talking about the Bush effort. You got nothing.

by Pravin 2007-08-25 11:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Yeah I don't think I have heard anyone talk in depth about terrorism.

For example in the first debate they asked a question about terrorism/National Security ;

Obama didn't even look comfortable answering the question , almost like he never thought they will ask a question like that in a dem. debate .

Edwards already said there is no " War on Terror " , now I know what he means , but in the General if National Security/Terrorism becomes the top issue I can already see the ads.

I will like our candidates to talk more about terrorism and how they are going to wage the war economical , militarily , values wise.

by lori 2007-08-24 09:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

The problem is our Party has moved so far left and strongly against the war in Iraq that talking tough on National Security or Terrorism gives off the perception that we are hawks. Well, it's okay to be a hawk, as long we are responsibles hawks. Our military needs to be ready for the "new war," whatever the hell that may be, and we need to be prepared to answer and lead on the issue of terrorism, should there be a terrorist attack and Republicans threaten to take the upperhand on the issue. It's okay to be strong on defense.

by RJEvans 2007-08-24 10:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Defense as in conventional means in an unconventional war? Hillary talks tough to appease the wingnuts who will not vote for her anyway.  In what way, has the war on terror  and Patriot Act scared away the terrorists? You cannot scare people who are ready to die. it is that simple. Hillary can talk all she wants. But her actions for FOUR YEARS has been counter to the idea that she can act smart on defense. It is more than just a vote she made. It is her rhetoric for four long years.

by Pravin 2007-08-25 11:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Edwards has NEVER said there is no war on terror. He has said that the war on terror has been utilized by the Bush Administration as a slogan or "bumper-sticker" to frighten Americans -- and to allow them to persue policies and actions that don't make America safer from terrorism. Edwards has repeatedly said that he will hunt down and kill terrorists that threaten our nation no matter where they are. Both he and Obama have endorsed sending troops into Pakistan to hunt down and kill Bin Laden if there is actionable intelligence he is there.

by smitha007 2007-08-24 11:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

See, that's the type of response I want to hear. Enough of this trash talk. Cool man.

Hopefully today will be nothing like yesterday.

by RJEvans 2007-08-24 11:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

After reading this, I don't think there is anyone running who can compete with her- she's specific and she is confident and you feel she knows what she is saying- this is a President talking, not someone just throwing things out.  I more and more believe she is going to easily take the general election if she keeps handling herself like this.

by reasonwarrior 2007-08-25 03:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

All she has shown is that she has become better at communicating. She had four years since 2002 to change our minds with her actions. Anything she does now is all election timed pandering. SHE HAD TO HAVE KNOWN THEN WHAT "WE" KNOW NOW ON IRAQ.

by Pravin 2007-08-25 11:52PM | 0 recs
Tough talk is irrelevant

We cannot out-Jack Bauer Rudy nor should we.

We need to better articulate WHO this shadowy Islamic enemy is and how WEAK they really are.

So we can stop being afraid.

by Bill White 2007-08-25 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Tough talk is irrelevant

Hillary can out-Jack Bauer Rudy any day of the week.  We know who the enemy is and I'm not so sure they're so weak.  Doesn't mean we have to be afraid.

by silver spring 2007-08-25 10:42AM | 0 recs
Can you explain

Who the enemy is? Precisely.

And why would it help to be Jack Bauer, rather than hurt our national interests?

by Bill White 2007-08-25 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Tough talk is irrelevant

You're right, we have to educate people on the enemy. But when you show people and tell people terrorist are weak, what happens when they strike again inside the most powerful country in the world? What happens when they snip at our ankles and force us to our knees? Fear is replaced and perception that terrorist are weak is gone. That's where Jack Bauer comes in. A strong leader who not only says, but shows they can lead, protect and defend the country and use offensive force when needed.

by RJEvans 2007-08-25 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Tough talk is irrelevant

The terrorists ARE weak. They lucked out one time and killed 3,000 people. The flu kills 36,000 Americans a year, so yes, objectively speaking, even if there was a 911 scale terrorist attack every single year they would still be less than 1/10th the threat to American lives as is the flu.

So what's the difference? When people die of the flu there are no scary scary pictures on the TV. The whole point of terrorism is they ARE weak, but they can kill a relatively few people in a really dramatic way thus getting scary scary pictures on the TV. Americans are more scared of pictures on the TV than they are of any "real" terrorist threat.

When Hillary Clinton plays the fear card she is no better than the Republicans who are doing the same. What we need is a real leader who understands that the way to fight terrorists isn't to grossly exagerate the threat they represent and kill thousands of innocent Muslim civilians in a country that has been accused of 'harboring' the terrorists. We need a President who use his/her rhetoric to make people less afraid instead of more afriad.

by Mystylplx 2007-08-25 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Tough talk is irrelevant

How the hell are you comparing the flu to terrorism? Everyone gets the flu, some worse than others, it is something we all live with. The problem with terrorist is that they are unseen and they can strike without warning in a very dramatic way and induces all types of emotion.

I have to be frank here, what you are saying is very disturbing.

by RJEvans 2007-08-25 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Tough talk is irrelevant

More than ten times as many people die from the flu every single year as were killed one time on September 11, 2001. Flu germs are also unseen and can strike without warning.

But you hit the nail on the head when you pointed out that terrorists are more "dramatic." That's the whole point--they are objectively not that great a threat, but they are very dramatic and people react to the drama and the scary scary pictures on the TV by irrationally over-reacting.

And the Republicans have taken advantage of that irrational fear by arguing that "we are the best party to protect you from the big bad terrorist boggymonsters." Now Hillary Clinton wants to use the same strategy.

by Mystylplx 2007-08-25 12:54PM | 0 recs
When did we go to our knees?

9/11? A horrific act of terror. Many dead people. Very bad.

I NEVER saw America as being on its knees. Not for  an instant.

by Bill White 2007-08-25 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: When did we go to our knees?

America could simply IGNORE the terrorists and they couldn't defeat us. I'm not saying that's the best way to deal with them, but it would certainly be better than exagerating the threat they represent past all rationality, for political gain, as the Bush administration has done, and as Hillary Clinton seems to be preparing to do in the GE.

by Mystylplx 2007-08-25 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: When did we go to our knees?

That comment was not a reference to 9/11.

by RJEvans 2007-08-25 12:32PM | 0 recs
Okay, in refernce to what, then?

by Bill White 2007-08-25 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Tough talk is irrelevant

This is the most powerful nation in the history of the world and it's absolutely pathetic that we over-reacted to the events of 911 like a panicked little girl over-reacting to a bee sting. We need a President who will use the power of the bully pulpit to point out to Americans how little of a threat terrorists are rather than exagerating the threat and then telling people, "I'M the best person to protect you from the big bad terrorist boogymonsters."

by Mystylplx 2007-08-25 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Tough talk is irrelevant

Are you seriously saying we need to "ignore" them? You say that is not the best way, but your comments says otherwise. Are we suppose to tell the people everything is fine, terrorist are weak, go back to your business? What happens when they do hit us, what happens then? That leader who said everything was fine now looks like a jackass, he is now percieved as doing little to counter the terrorist (i.e. Bush). It's all there for you to see and understand, we have been through this already, I just can't understand how you could say these things. Please, do explain.

by RJEvans 2007-08-25 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Tough talk is irrelevant

I said that ignoring them would be better than fear-mongering as the Bushies have been doing for 5 years.

But what we really need is a smart law-enforcement approach to what is, in fact, a law enforcement problem. We also need a President who can stand in front of the American people and talk sense about the real level of threat the terrorists represent. We need a President who understands that we CAN'T be defeated by terrorists unless we allow them to frighten us into doing really stupid things, like invading Iraq. THEY can't defeat us, but they might scare us into defeating ourselves, and it doesn't help if potential Presidential candidates are saying things like, ""I think they're out to get us every single day, and they are very clever and they bide their time. I have no doubt that they are looking . . . for another spectacular attack, because they believe that makes the biggest impact." or talking about the "long-term struggle with Islamic extremists."

Hillary is playing the fear-mongering game just like the Republicans. She might be able to beat them at their own game, but that doesn't mean that's the best thing for America.

by Mystylplx 2007-08-25 12:49PM | 0 recs
It is not either / or

We need the calm confidence of the powerful because  al Qaeda is nothing more than a rag-tag bunch of hoodlums who landed a sucker punch.

On 9/11 AQ punched very far above their weight class.

Going forward, if we act with calm confidence rather than fear and panic we could defeat al Qaeda without hardly breaking a sweat. The idea that a nation that defeated Hitler and Stalin should live in fear of a few hundred or thousand rag-tag lunatics is absurd, except for politicians who wish to benefit domestically from that fear.

As for the 1.3 billion Muslims, very very very few desire a global caliphate but very very very few approve of our interventions or Israeli treatment of Gaza and the West Bank.

by Bill White 2007-08-25 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Tough talk is irrelevant

You do not go reckessly and disturb a wasp's nest unless you know what you are doing. That is what Bush and the weak dems have done. They do not have a clue what they are doing.

Ron paul is correct on this issue. Osama doesnt give a shit about our "freedom". People like him are fanatical about their religion. What they did , whether you agree or not, was in response to us helping Israel and the Saudis. We get more headaches in the middle east than benefits.

And what is to be achieved by the government telling citizens to worry? Is a citizen capable of warding off a terrorist attack? Let the government do the intelligence gathering behind the scenes and be low key about defending the country. let actions speak louder than words. It is not like the country's citizens are lining up to volunteer for the army or some war effort. So fuck them who feel like that we need to be communicated to as to how scared we should be. Let the American citizens get back to improving the country instead of wasting our time on iraq qhere nothing productive is happening for them .

by Pravin 2007-08-25 11:59PM | 0 recs
by areyouready 2007-08-24 09:57PM | 0 recs
Hillary on GOP's tactics

AID=/20070825/FRONTPAGE/708250369/1043/N EWS01

epublican strategists employ the political equivalent of a sneak attack, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said yesterday.

"They don't usually attack you where you're weak. They attack you where you're strong, and where you have understandable pride or sense of priority," Clinton said. "Attacking Senator (John) Kerry for his patriotism - I mean, who would have predicted it? And because of that, it causes cognitive dissonance in a campaign and particularly in a candidate."

As Clinton makes her case for the White House, she increasingly references the stream of political attacks she and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, have withstood. Because she's intimately aware of the Republican strategy, Clinton argues, she's best equipped to respond to the inevitable attacks that will accompany a general election campaign against any GOP presidential candidate.

"It's incredibly difficult in the heat of a campaign unless you have thought about every single attack that can come and how you will respond on the fly, to be able to counter it," Clinton told Monitor editors and reporters yesterday. "I think that I know how to do it and have proven that I have done it in the past."

By describing the way Republicans have gone after Democratic candidates - rather than simply referencing the ferocity of those attacks - Clinton revealed more about her assessment of past Democratic candidates, and about her strategy for withstanding a general election. Part of that blueprint, Clinton said, is refusing to let political attacks go unanswered.

by areyouready 2007-08-24 10:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on GOP's tactics

This is only one of many reasons why Hillary is the best candidate to win.  This is so SMART of her- she outlines every possible false attack and has already devised a counter-attack on it- she is not going to have to stumble around for a couple of days trying to figure out what to say while more people start to believe it- she will already HAVE IT- and it'll be ready to go out the minute it comes in.  She's a step ahead of everyone else.  When she said she was "in to win," that was no empty boast- she was giving her supporters a real message with that- that's she's not fooling around, that this will be no half-campaign and we supporters have to be in with her just as much and try to work just as hard.

by reasonwarrior 2007-08-25 04:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on GOP's tactics

Why didnt Hillary use such rhetoric in 2004 to help Kerry? People like Dean campaigned for Kerry. Does Hillary reserve such outspokenness only when it benefits her politically?

by Pravin 2007-08-26 12:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

thanks for this informative post areyouready

by art3 2007-08-24 10:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

you're welcome.

by areyouready 2007-08-24 10:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

read the other interview above. It's exactly what you just explained...

by areyouready 2007-08-24 10:34PM | 0 recs
more

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar ticle?AID=/20070824/NEWS01/708240371

olitical reality will dampen the ambitions and pledges of her Democratic presidential primary opponents, Hillary Clinton said yesterday in Concord.

Other Democratic candidates "say things like, 'We're going to go and make it happen,' " Clinton said. "You've got to get the votes. . . . And that very often means you've got to compromise, which is not a word that people in a Democratic primary like to hear, because we all want to think that we can just go in and do exactly what we believe in and make it happen. Well, the fact is, you can't."

By stressing the importance of political success - even when it involves compromise and bipartisan alliances - Clinton seemed to respond to one of her Democratic rivals. Yesterday in New Hampshire, former North Carolina senator John Edwards decried what he described as a "corrupt" Washington system and implied that Clinton was part of that establishment. Describing himself as the "change" candidate, a moniker adopted by many Democratic candidates, Edwards criticized governance rooted in political caution.

Clinton never mentioned her Democratic opponents by name. But in response to several questions at a Concord house party, she constructed an argument for her victory that touched on comments made by Edwards

by areyouready 2007-08-24 10:38PM | 0 recs
Re: more

That's interesting...taking on Edwards, not Obama.  Hmmm.  Why do you think that is?

by bookgrl 2007-08-24 10:51PM | 0 recs
Re: more

That article was from comments Clinton made on Thursday, immediately after Edwards attack speech. I think that her comments were in response to Edwards attack.

by hwc 2007-08-24 10:53PM | 0 recs
Re: more

nothing particular. Obama campaign seems to have lowered their firepower against Hillary a little bit these days, not sure what's going on there. So obviously Hillary has no need to respond even implicitly.

Edwards is another story, he launched that 'Lincoln bedroom' tirade on Thursday...

by areyouready 2007-08-24 10:54PM | 0 recs
Thanks for the link

The audio snippets are fantastic. Her comments on the Gore and Kerry campaigns were really interesting.

You are right. The Democratic netroots is going to rip Clinton to shred for saying:

a) that terrorists are still trying to attack us

b) that we have to be careful and responsible in withdrawing our troops from Iraq.

I fully expect diaries tomorrow saying that Clinton thinks Baywatch reruns are the only thing she would change about American foreign policy.

by hwc 2007-08-24 10:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for the link

BTW, these local papers are SO MUCH BETTER than the national media in drawing the candidates into meaningful discourse. I've seen the Clinton interviews with the Des Moines Register, the McCain interview with the Union Leader, and now the snippets of this interview.

It's so refreshing to hear adult conversation on the campaign trail. The only place it really takes place in the national media is when the candidates appear on the Charlie Rose show.

by hwc 2007-08-24 10:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for the link

Yes, and we'll see the desperate twisting of what she said - "Hillary: America Stupid! We're just 'Baywatch and professional wrestling'"

by reasonwarrior 2007-08-25 02:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Misconception about Americans

I should say despite all those awful 'flip flop', 'angry', 'drag queen', 'wives' etc video clips tossed out daily on the websites and TV screen, Rudy still seems okay. That should tell you something...

by areyouready 2007-08-24 10:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Misconception about Americans

The Republicans have all benefitted from not being able to identify a stable front runner and from candidates that are spending very little time on the campaign trail, if they are even in the race.

Things will get a little hotter in the Rebublican kitchen. There's a major hit piece on Guiliani in this week's Time Magazine.

by hwc 2007-08-24 11:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Misconception about Americans

Underestimating the psychic impact of 9/11 on the American public is a major, major mistake for any candidate. It's real. It's palpable. It still makes people cry. It makes people angry. It's raw emotion.

by hwc 2007-08-24 10:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Misconception about Americans

And unfortunately he is using it for his political gain. Makes me sick. He may have been a good Mayor here in my city, but he will be an authoritarian President and I don't want that.

by RJEvans 2007-08-24 11:02PM | 0 recs
Yes, and lying about who did it

suggesting it was Saddam and not Saudi Arabia is how the Rove-ians manipulated 9/11 for partisan gain.

By the way, those 19 hijackers are all dead.

So, what do YOU propose to do about al Qaeda?

by Bill White 2007-08-25 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Misconception about Americans

Many in the left are "misreading" the american electorate as a whole.

Yep. To this day, they have no idea why their darling Howard Dean got pole-axed in the Iowa caucus. The reason is simple. After a lovely summer and fall of dating around, the Iowa voters got in their cars, drove to the caucus, and were not able to picture Howard Dean, as Commander-in-Chief, addressing the public in a solemn speech about some international crisis. Simple as that. End of story.

by hwc 2007-08-24 11:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Misconception about Americans

Liberman is another example. 1/3 of primary democratic voters still stuck with him in a very blue state. Enough to deliver a victory to him.

I used to hate Lieberman a lot, and wanted his ouster badly. I did believe Lamont was a decent candidate.

After staying on this site for a while, I'm starting to understand why Lieberman has such deep animoisty towards netroots.

by areyouready 2007-08-24 11:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Misconception about Americans

Lamont was a good moderate Democrat that wanted to help end the war.  Please don't say such things about Lieberman. He's actually good on some issues, but he is horrible on the issue; Iraq.  And, for too long he's been too cozy with the Republicans.  You really discredit yourself by promoting him.  He won by getting more Republican votes than Democratic votes.  I am sure Connecticut Dem's who thought they were voting for their old friend Joe, who also wanted to end the war, as he said he did, now must have a mighty case of buyer's remorse.  

by bookgrl 2007-08-24 11:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Misconception about Americans

Nothing will make a bigger smile on my face than see Clinton victorious.

by RJEvans 2007-08-24 11:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Misconception about Americans

This is exactly what is happening today with Hillary Clinton. The netroots community as a whole are literally scratching their heads in disgust.

They don't understand that Clinton:

a) Has successfully positioned herself as tough on national security

b) Devotes an incredible effort speaking to the constituent interest groups that make up the Democratic Party.

c) Speaks to the basic real-world concerns of the mainstream Democratic voter.

The netroots crowd is all about the pursuit of some grand ideology. The average American voters couldn't care less about ideology. They are busy trying to find childcare. Or a job. Or college for their kids.

by hwc 2007-08-24 11:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Misconception about Americans

Actually, the netroots community is greatly concerned about corporate greed and corruption that has destroyed our media, our health care, and our government. They are concerned about creating big change, advanced by real solutions to extremely large problems. The netroots community is concerned that Hillary Clinton may not deliver the big changes that are needed when it comes to Health Care, the Environment, solving our Trade and Job problems. There are several reasons why they distrust Hillary on these issues. For one, she is seen as too close to the corporate interests that have benefited from screwing up the country. Her husband also was one who promoted several policies that have in some part hurt our nation (NAFTA, WTO). I'm not going to get into whether these criticisms are legitimate, but there are good reasons to not be thrilled with Hillary Clinton.

by smitha007 2007-08-24 11:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Misconception about Americans
    Absolutely correct. Hillary sits closer to the Republican mainstream than the Democratic on most issues. The only issues important to the Republican's she's opposed them on are gun control and abortion. Since those are the "hot-button" issues for many, she's become the embodiment of evil for a lot of the wingers.
    I'm old enough to remember the "Rockefeller Republicans," who were mostly driven from the party by the religious right. Hillary would have made a fine Rockefeller Republican.
by ER Doc 2007-08-25 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Misconception about Americans

You are wrong on so many levels that I just can't believe you said that.

by lori 2007-08-25 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Misconception about Americans

Actually, Hillary started out in life as a Republican ("Goldwater Girl") and moved left when a)the youth of America moved left, and b)the republican party moved right. While some see Hillary as the embodiment of some mythical creature known as a "moderate democrat," others see her as too willing to pursue policies not much different from republican policies.

You know, members of the netroots also identify themselves as socially liberal, fiscally moderate, and many are even strong on defense. The difference is we want to those policies carried out in a society and a government that is not dominated by wealthy and influential corporations at the expense of the average working family.

by shmolnick 2007-08-25 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Misconception about Americans
    I'll remind you of the recent Fortune Magazine story as evidence that Hillary is the preferred Democratic candidate of Big Business, as well as this.
    Hillary as President would be better than any of the Republicans, but not so much that I can have any enthusiasm for her.
by ER Doc 2007-08-25 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Misconception about Americans

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Let me also add that the responsible and incremental course of action most likely to be followed by a President Hillary Clinton is also the one most easily overturned by the next GOP congressional majority and/or president. Example - expanding healthcare for children who do not currently have it, which is going to be one of Hillary's signature policy objectives in her first term. While that is a worthwhile and noble goal, it does nothing to fix the myriad of problems in the current for-profit healthcare system; problems such as rising costs, excessive administrative costs, lack of consumer choice, the inability to take your medical coverage with you when you move or change jobs, 47 million people with no insurance (including children) and so on. These are the big changes that are needed on that issue, and while Hillary vaguely alludes to the need for change in many of her stump speeches and on her campaign site, her proposals either do not include specifics on resolving the big issues or are timid in their specifics (example here: she wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 50% - by the year 2025!! I call that timid; we could do it in half that time with real leadership). When the republicans eventually do get back into power, rest assured that incremental changes like expanded healthcare for children will be underfunded and rolled back, bit by bit.

Quite frankly, big issues like healthcare, trade and jobs, and energy policy have a greater effect on my daily life than global terrorism.

by shmolnick 2007-08-25 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Misconception about Americans

Yes, but I don't see Obama or Edwards with a universal, single-payer system in their plans.  Kucinich, does for one, but what are the chances he's going to be elected.  The Democratic party needs someone who, foremost, will WIN the election.  Once that is accomplished, we can proceed to implement a progressive agenda. Remember, Hillary is the one who actually tried to implement universal health care, as First Lady nonetheless.  A lot of people seem to forget this.

by silver spring 2007-08-25 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Misconception about Americans

Their defense will be that she failed.

Well, it's better that she tried and failed, with good intentions, than not try at all. The fact that she tried at all means she has been there and done it already and the most prepared to try again.

by RJEvans 2007-08-25 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Misconception about Americans

Actually, Obama has a comprehensive health care plan that is pretty well spelled out on his web site. It has all the features of universal health care. Look it up. I was surprised myself to discover it myself. Edwards has a detailed plan but I think that plan falls short of "universal."

Hillary has a "secret" plan - she promises that she'll let us know what the details are "later." And her monumental screw-up on health care back in her husband's administration hardly gives her the kind of experience I trust. How do we know she won't try to develop another overly complicated plan in arrogant secrecy, then fail to stand up to the special interests that destroyed the plan? That's her experience. Uh, no thanks.

by shmolnick 2007-08-26 01:52AM | 0 recs
John Kerry sold him out

by Bill White 2007-08-25 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

I chatted with a sort of 'Reagan democrat' in a very red district of Ohio(the one Paul hackett almost won).

He's anti free trade, but very tough in talking about military, fighting terrorists(definitely not politically correct by netroots' standard).
I used to ask him to read dailykos, but he did not like it at all.

There's no guarantee these guys are going to vote for a democrat if the candidate is not the 'right' one....

Netroots are indulged in its own echo chamber. Those 'Bush dog democrats' campaign is a disgrace.
The entire dailykos is now overwhelmed by the far left wing of the party. You can't find any different voice there. I read a lot during 2004/2007 campaign seasons, but have stopped reading any frontpage stories.

myDD is much better, people can still express different opinions here. The sad thing is that a couple of posters on the far left want this place to become another dailykos clone.

by areyouready 2007-08-24 11:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

You know I read about that 'Bush dog democrats' and I just don't get it , are they targeting dems in purple states and red states or solid blue states.

Because if they are targeting Shuler in NC , I will say that is foolish.

People are on different ideological spectrums but still consider themselves dems , that should be understandable.

by lori 2007-08-24 11:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

It's insane, isn't it? The Blue Dogs are the reason the Democrats took the Congress. I don't agree with everything they say. So what? I've never agreed with any politician about anything.

These organized attacks on the Blue Dogs are just crazy. It reminds me of the anti-war nutcases beating up on poor David Obey -- you'll never find a more anti-war Congressman who has worked harder to end Iraq. But, the netsroots are just astonishing in their inability to count votes.

by hwc 2007-08-24 11:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Oops typo. I've never agreed with any politican about EVERYTHING!

Of course, there are some I don't agree about anything, too. Mostly Republicans who reject evolution and want to shoot Latinos and gay people.

by hwc 2007-08-24 11:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

It's a complete disgrace. Those guys who launched this campaign were frustrated those newly elected blue dog democrats in 2006 did not take their march order in casting their votes.

I can tell you this, they can elect lots of liberals in NH, MA, but there's no way they'll be able to elect a Kucinich in NC. It's a completely misguided campaign. I expect they will be totally ignored in the end.

by areyouready 2007-08-24 11:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

That's why the netroots crowd hates Clinton, Schumer, and Rahm Emmanuel. They know that Emmanuel and Schumer basically calculated that the DNC was full of Deaniacs who would never be able to actually win elections nationally. So, they just bypassed the DNC.

by hwc 2007-08-24 11:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

This was the problem with the 2006 election. Many conservative Democrats were elected. I'm happy that we have a big tent Party, but I'm a social liberal, a fiscal moderate and strong on defesen, and these "Bush Dog Democrats" don't exactly sympatize with social liberalism. I suppose they are trying to move the party to the center while others are trying to move the party to the left. It could get ugly down the future and if we're not care it could be the Democratic-Republican Party all over again.

by RJEvans 2007-08-24 11:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Nice description

- Social moderate , Fiscal moderate and strong on defense.

Frankly if I was in the house I'll probably sign on to some of the policy positions of the blue dogs and some of the more liberal groups.

by lori 2007-08-24 11:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Social Liberal, Fiscal Moderate, Strong on Defense.

It's what I am, and you know what, I've been criticized by my fellow Democrats for it. It sickens me.

by RJEvans 2007-08-25 12:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Which is the reason why I registered with MyDD. It is the only place I can express my opinions and have an intelligent debate without having an 80lb rock get thrown to your head. Of course, sometimes those rocks come flying either way.

by RJEvans 2007-08-24 11:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

I'm desperate to find a place where normal, mainstream Democrats discuss the election like adults. This netroots think isn't working for me at all. It makes me so angry that I want to vote Republican! Not good.

The sad thing is that the largest block of voters in the country are made to feel totally unwelcome in either party. Imagine being a pro-choice Republican or a pro-growth Democrat who doesn't want to torch every corporate building in the country.

by hwc 2007-08-24 11:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Find that place will be hard. Not even Congress can you have a civilized debate or conversation.

by RJEvans 2007-08-24 11:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

It's mostly only Hillary.  I mean, Obama is smack in the middle with Hillary, but when he's collecting money from wall street, or shown to have connections with the Hamilton project or the Carlyse Group, they don't even discuss it.  If he's chastising Dem's over religion, or talking personal responsibility to african american fathers, or getting tough on Pakistan, or not laying out a complete health care program(in fact Hillary first ran on universal health care for kids, so did Obama, until people went bolistic about his plan not being full universal.  His plan is still more mandated for kids, some expansion for adults), or talking uniter/divider(Bush ran on this exact theme), then the netroots thinks this is absoltutely the right approach.  My point is this is more about being anti-Hillary than "far left".

by bookgrl 2007-08-24 11:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Yep. And when they get really pissed off and start swearing at Hillary, the sexist underpinnings start to leak through.

by hwc 2007-08-24 11:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Yes, it's crazy.  I once heard Kos say something to the effect of I know people don't like Obama chastising Dem's but he wraps grand progressive ideas in moderate speech, something to that effect, and I thought, well, yeah, he learned that from Bill Clinton.

by bookgrl 2007-08-24 11:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Not for nuthin', but Kos is embarrassing. He was on Charlie Rose last week and I was embarrassed to think that those political views are associated with Democratic Party.

by hwc 2007-08-24 11:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

I was just at dkos where this idiot is trying to make the argument that Clinton's containment stretegy laid the ground work for the Iraq war.  This defies history and commonsense.  There's a lot of group think online.  It's bad for the Party.  Since Hillary is running, they've all become Bill Clinton haters.  Ironically, they love Gore.

by bookgrl 2007-08-24 11:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

I'm just waiting for one of them to come here and start a ruckus. You know it's going to happen. You know someone is going to come in here and start a fight and ruin a perfectly civilized conversation. I'm actually quite surprised it hasn't happened yet.

by RJEvans 2007-08-24 11:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

I really think the policy I'm going to try to follow is to just not take the bait anymore.

by hwc 2007-08-25 12:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

I think that is our main option now. But you know, sometimes you have to defend your candidate, because sometimes they say things that are just disgusting.

by RJEvans 2007-08-25 12:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Well, this site is different...usually, though it can get heated sometimes.  People here are more willing to debate all of the candidates pro's and con's not just Hillary's.  I personally like all the candidates.  I think they are all similar on the issues, though Edwards has taken a more populits tone of late.  I just think Hil is the right person at the right time.  

Hopefully there will not be any flames wars here.

by bookgrl 2007-08-25 12:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Yeah. With the exception of Edwards attempt to throw Huey "Kingfish" Long populism against the wall to see if he can make it stick, I haven't seen a dime's worth of difference in the positions of the three top candidates (or Dodd or Biden, for that matter).

I feel sorry for John Edwards. He was banking on being the anybody-but-Hillary candidate. His effort was basically doomed the minute Obama threw his hat in the ring. I thought that he would use his wife's terminal cancer as a very legitimate opportunity to bow out. For whatever reason, he couldn't let it go.

Where he positions himself on the issues is really irrelevant. There is no issues persona he could adopt that would allow him to breath because Clinton and Obama are sucking all the oxygen out of the room.

by hwc 2007-08-25 12:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

We've been here for some time. Not all of us fit your stereotype.

by shmolnick 2007-08-25 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

They like the Gore post-2000 who was strongly against the Iraq war and moved to the left on a lot of issues. Gore actually ran pretty much as a centrist in 2000.

by smitha007 2007-08-25 12:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

He's still pretty centrist on a number of issues.

by bookgrl 2007-08-25 12:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

I think Gore told us everything we could ever need to know about his political instincts when he endorsed Dean three weeks before he was knocked out of the race.

My wife and I just looked at each other and said, "what a fool". It was so obvious that the Democrats were never going to nominate Howard Dean. The crazy thing is that Gore had absolutely nothing to gain by endorsing in December.

by hwc 2007-08-25 12:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Well, he would have earned alot of fans if he had decided on an '08 run.  Think about it.

by bookgrl 2007-08-25 12:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

I suppose. But, getting the netroots endorsement is so easy, it's childsplay. I could lay out a strategy for winning the netsroots in fifteen minutes. A couple of pounds of red meat, tossed out in a concerted blog presence. Any decent candidate could do it in a month.

I think Gore just simply miscalculated. He must have thought that it was the last chance to hop on the Dean bandwagon before it left the station.

by hwc 2007-08-25 12:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

And it left with a sounding roar. Pun intended.

by RJEvans 2007-08-25 12:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Ah, Gore had his chance. Looking back on it it brings back memories. I was very young then, but I was very much into politics. Waiting for the results. Waking up in the morning to find out we still had no new President. The debate. The arguing. The scenarios. The declaration of the winner. Bush's inauguration. I remember it clearly.

Nine months later when those towers fell I truly stood with Bush, shoulder to shoulder. He was my President, I was proud. I was ready to fight for him even though I was too young to join the military...

Bastard ruined it. Ruined his chances for a sustained Republican majority. Not that I would want one.

by RJEvans 2007-08-25 12:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

I actually think Bush did a miserable job in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. He was mediocre at best in his public leadership. Rudy was much more effective from an inspirational standpoint.

Up to the decision to bail out of Afghanistan and invade Iraq, I'd give Bush decent grades for his overall approach to terrorism immediately following 9/11. The FBI, NSA, and CIA did some good work.

The whole data mining thing is a really thorny issue. I am very uncomfortable with the Constitional issues, but am aware that it produced some very important leads in tracking and shutting down the financial networks. It's a perfect example of where Bush's lack of credibility with the American public gets in the way of a rational solution to the data mining issues. We would be better served with an administration that didn't generate such extreme distrust.

by hwc 2007-08-25 12:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

    You know, one idiot trying to re-write history is not the same as "group-think." I see people on this thread suggesting that Emanuel and Clinton were responsible for the election of people like Testor and Shuler. If Clinton had gotten off her duff in the 2006 election, we might have a real Democrat as the junior senator from Connecticut. Rahm Emanuel didn't even want to contest a lot of the races we ended up winning. He opposed the "50-state" strategy. The strategy of Emanuel and the DLC would likely have left us with a much smaller margin in the House, and left the control of the Senate with the Republicans.

by ER Doc 2007-08-25 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

As a Connecticut voter myself, I wondered about Hillary's lack of support for a fellow DEMOCRAT, Ned Lamont. Please explain how her judgement in not helping to defeat Lying Joe Lieberman in that election has helped the country. I'm serious, I'd like to hear her explanation.

by shmolnick 2007-08-25 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Clinton hosted a fundraiser for Lamont and offered the assistance of some of her campaign strategists.

by hwc 2007-08-25 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Wow- I LOVED everything she said.  She is SO right and so on target.  She is someone who faces REALITY, she is not on some planet that doesn't exist and she's saying the truth about how she feels, she is not handing out false promises that she knows are unrealistic just to pander for votes.  I agree with everything she said- she is going to make a GREAT President.  I like her even more now.

THANKS for posting this.

by reasonwarrior 2007-08-25 01:55AM | 0 recs
Is there anything here more than

FEELINGS?

Can you explain how Hillary proposes to resolve the threat from radical Islam. And how large is that treat anyway?

by Bill White 2007-08-25 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Is there anything here more than

Already explained.

by RJEvans 2007-08-25 08:47AM | 0 recs
So, the conversation is over?

by Bill White 2007-08-25 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: So, the conversation is over?

Hardly.

by RJEvans 2007-08-25 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Awesome comments.  Clinton is right on the money here:

"To restore the nation's reputation, "we'll have to not only talk about Iraq. We'll have to talk about Abu Ghraib. We'll have to talk about Guantanamo," Clinton said. "We'll have to start by acknowledging that the United States has made life very difficult for people inside Iraq and in the region."

U.S. troops ought to begin withdrawing immediately, Clinton said, although she acknowledged the "very difficult problems" ahead. Improvised explosive devices could harm troops traveling through southern Iraq into Kuwait. "Pitched battles" against Shiites in the south could also stymie the withdrawal, she said. And then there are the thousands of civilian Americans working in Iraq, and those Iraqis who have sided with the United States.

---------------------------------------- --------

Clinton makes very good points in this speech.  I have not seen the other candidates talk about the situation with such specifity.  They either avoid it altogether (pretty much) like John Edwards, or deal in platitudes (like Obama.)  

by georgep 2007-08-25 05:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

If terrorism is part of the debate in the general election (and I have a hunch it certainly will be), then Hillary is by far the strongest Democrat to handle this.  She will outmaneuver any of the Republicans (including Giuliani) on this issue easily and we can then play out the entire rest of the election on a host of other issues on which the Democratic Party has a distinct advantage.  We don't want to be stuck in a situation where, with Obama or Edwards as the nominee, there's even a chance that we have to struggle on this issue and thus devote less time to all the other issues in this campaign.

Who would have ever thought that draft dodging wimps like Bush and Cheney could outmaneuver a decorated war veteran like Kerry on this issue.  Yet that is exactly what their swiftboating did and won them the election.  With Hillary as the nominee, there's essentially a guarantee that the Republicans will be neutralized or better yet neutered on this issue.  WIth Obama's and Edwards recent comments, they have opened themselves to withering future attacks from the Repugs.  On the other hand, with comments like these from Hillary (no matter how much the blogosphere is angry here) Clinton is neutering the Republicans.  She is the only one who has the LONG TERM vision to do this, while the other Democrats are still stuck in phase 1 of the campaign.  She is perfect at this chess game, being able to see many moves ahead.

by silver spring 2007-08-25 07:52AM | 0 recs
The meme that the GOP is better on terror

arises from smoke, mirrors and lies. And yes it is the current conventional wisdom.

But for Hillary to repeat the meme "A terror attack helps the GOP" but then NOT forcefully declare that this conventional wisdom relies upon smoke, mirrors and MSM lies undermines all Democrats.

I have far less problems with what she said that with what she failed to say immediately after what she said.

by Bill White 2007-08-25 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: The meme that the GOP is better on terror

Ridiculous comments by Hillary Clinton.

And she wants to be commander in chief?
Another disaster waiting to happen.

Remember she is afraid of "propaganda by dictators"?
Ridiculous ! Ridiculous !

by win 2007-08-25 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: The meme that the GOP is better on terror

Do you just copy and paste comments ?. Because this same comment is in 1 or 2 other diaries.

by lori 2007-08-25 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: The meme that the GOP is better on terror

What is ridiculous is you calling this speech "ridiculous."    This was a very good speech, spot on.  You are just too far gone (in a partisan way) to acknowledge it.    

by georgep 2007-08-25 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: The meme that the GOP is better on terror

"I have far less problems with what she said that with what she failed to say IMMEDIATELY after what she said."

After saying the Republicans will play this to their advantage, she IMMEDIATELY added "no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much MORE DANGEROUS they have made the world."  

She is NOT giving them any sort of credit, just recognizing that the evil bastards will try to play it to their advantage (like they did with Kerry) and she will not let them and will not shy away from the issue.  I wish the other Democrats were saying the same thing.  When the Democratic nominee is chosen he or she will need to be ready to attack and destroy the Republicans on this specific issue and I believe that Hillary is the only one who will wipe the floor with the Repugs on this.

by silver spring 2007-08-25 08:16AM | 0 recs
Hillary failed to articulate that

the public perception that the Republicans are better at terror/defense rests on a foundation of lies.

by Bill White 2007-08-25 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: The meme that the GOP is better on terror

What in the world are you talking about.  That is not at ALL the meme that arises.   Did you even read here?  She is very tough on the GOP for their failures and states CLEARLY that we have to go a completely different direction.  

Maybe a few pointers will help you:

1. "we've got to do a lot more in reaching out and being smarter about how we connect with people than some Republicans do.."

2. There will be a moment of opportunity..to signal a change in course, to inform the world that "the cowboy diplomacy is done with.."

3. "The effort will require a combination of aid and outreach - building schools for Iraqi refugees in Jordan, sending eminent Americans to represent the nation - and frank discussion of what Clinton described as the Bush administration's bungles and "dismissive" attitude toward the rest of the world.

4.  for a superpower you have to be either liked, respected or feared, and right now you (we) are none of those,' " Clinton said. "We've got to be able to reinstate where fear is appropriate: with our true adversaries, fine. We have to restore respect and we have to hope to be liked."

5. "There's not much appetite in the White House to actually plan to withdraw because they don't want to admit it's necessary, and they frankly don't want to do it on their watch, which I think is the height of irresponsibility," Clinton said. Although Bush might draw down some troops, Clinton anticipated that "it will be up to me to figure out how to withdraw our troops in a careful manner."

6. The conflict in Iraq - and the Bush administration's larger foreign policy approach, which Clinton described as heavy-handed - has damaged U.S. standing in the world, she said.

7. To restore the nation's reputation, "we'll have to not only talk about Iraq. We'll have to talk about Abu Ghraib. We'll have to talk about Guantanamo," Clinton said. "We'll have to start by acknowledging that the United States has made life very difficult for people inside Iraq and in the region."

Now, here is YOUR statement again:

"The meme that the GOP is better on terror arises from smoke, mirrors and lies."

I trust that NOW you have read the seven pointers I relisted from the speech and would like for you to explain how YOU got the "meme" that the GOP is BETTER on terror out of that.   The statements convey the exact opposite.  Sharp criticism levelled at the GOP for the way they are on terror.   A meme that they are BETTER is not among any of them.   In light of the obvious disdain Clinton shows for the way the GOP has handled the issue of terrorism, your comment that she claims that the GOP is somehow BETTER on terror is bizarre.  

by georgep 2007-08-25 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's moment

This is her MCACAWA MOMENT AND IS BEING SPREAD BY youtube already.

I have seen this story at the NY Times. Washington Post. MSNBC(fIRST READ) and ABC nEWS.

by BDM 2007-08-25 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's moment

You wish , How many times have you said that.

by lori 2007-08-25 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's moment

I think the Hillary supporter's are way too thin skinned. The blogsphere and the MSM has really gotten them riled up. It must have struck a nerve.

by BDM 2007-08-25 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's moment

You strike a nerve when people like you take quotes out of context, lie, curse her for no apparent reason and completely miss the underlying message and fail to even acknowledge it. Republicans have done enough of that already and accusing her defenders of using Rovian tactics and using the same tactics for your argument is what I call hypocritical. I'm not saying you personally did this, but many did. That's where it strikes a nerve. People who support their candidate often defend their candidate. I'll be honest with you, I have not always agreed with Clinton, but this was not one of those moments.

by RJEvans 2007-08-25 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's moment

I have seen you wish for things, and in the end the opposite actually happened.  I don't think you want me to recount the many, many predictions you made that turned out wrong.    Remember INTRADE?   I know you believe in the predictive qualities of that site explicitly.   Why has this "Mcaca moment" not led to the Intrade people moving money away from Clinton?   Instead, within the last 2 days it has gotten even closer to 50% than before:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/democratic_presidentia l_nomination-191.html

For the nomination:

Clinton 66.6%, Obama 17.5%, Edwards 7.3%.

Any explanations?  If there is a major moment, it should definitely resonate on Intrade immediately, but it seems to have led to the opposite movement instead.  Looks like your wishful thinking is all wrong again.  

by georgep 2007-08-25 12:12PM | 0 recs
Hillary fails to call out the MSM lies

that created the meme:

"The GOP is better on defense / terror"

She says she offers a better plan but ignores that the GOP Emperor isn't wearing any clothes because the GOP plan for the War on Terror is batshit crazy.

And that the Right Wing noise machine is giving the American people bad information on which to make a decision.

For Hillary to merely offer a plan and FAIL to repudiate the lies spread by the Right affirms those lies.

None of your seven points address the MSM's failure to tell America the truth. Until that happens plans are irrelevant.

by Bill White 2007-08-26 07:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

I think the election schedule is too stressful for Hillary. IMO.

by win 2007-08-25 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Is that why she has missed the LEAST votes in the Senate among Democratic and Republican Senators and Representatives? Obama has missed more this year and Clinton missed in her entire run in the Senate.

You say these things and I wonder if you know what you are saying. How about some objectivity.

by RJEvans 2007-08-25 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Ok....I have been reading about Liberals being out of touch...how blue dogs like my Gdamned Salazar Brothers here in Colorado are important...
and I gotta say..

Sitting down with Republicans at this point is useless....

I don't know where you folks are from..maybe there wasn't a firestorm after the Dems faded on funding or FISA....

See...The Democratic Party is Liberal in the Traditional Sense...
Promises were made by candidates  your despised "netroots" had a serious had in getting elected...
now...some of them are renegging..and will pay...

Of course good Dems will support Mrs. Bill as I will..with our vote if she is the nominee..
However, as was the case with Kerry...
There is a difference between our just voting....
and working our ass off on the ground and on the phones...and yes...the Net
So go ahead and dismiss us..go ahead and say Liberals/Left are out of touch...much of the "netroots" is liberal...without liberal netroots there would not be a MYDD and no place for your views...

Jist sayin'

Find some shade this weekend
Peace..Troops out Yesterday.

by DenverD 2007-08-25 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Good job areyouready,

Please note that A LOT of progressives ARE indeed supporting Hillary.  

I consider myself left wing but have a somewhat different definition than some on the blogosphere ...

I'm socially very liberal, in favor of universal single-payer health care system, etc.... (so far not too different from many here)..

but on this issue of defense/Islamic terrorism I am quite hawkish -- I don't see that in any way as being "right wing" ... in fact, one of my biggest beefs with Bush is that he has been totally incapable of getting rid of the terrorist threat since 9-11 six years ago.  We  had the whole world on our side right after 9-11 (I mean candlelight vigils of 200,000 people in Tehran !) and look what this chimpanzee has done -- the whole world hates us now.  You couln't have messed it up more.

Yes, there IS a huge terrorist threat out there and Hillary is right to point it out.  Edwards just cannot say that the war on terror is just a bumpersticker.  Obama's first response to the question of a theoretical terrorist attack cannot just be an analysis of the logistical "what to do" list (kind of like the silly DHS duct tape thing), and he shouldn't be so keen to say he would talk (without conditions) to let's say Iran -- who's leader denies the Holocaust and where to this very day you're hanged if you're gay.

The radical members of the religion are unfortunately trying to highjack Islam (much like the Bush-supporting American-Taliban fundies in this country have been trying to highjack Christianity) and it is not somehow "right-wing" to try to fight and DESTROY them.  We are all opposed to the Iraq War, and see it as a distraction from the war on the real terrorists who attacked  us on 9-11, but that should not keep us from being uber-tough on the crazy m -- f  --ers who want to turn the world into a theocracy.

Thus, to me, being strong on fighting these people IS the LEFT WING position.

by silver spring 2007-08-25 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

When John Edwards says that the War on Terror is a Bumpersticker, he is not denying that there are terrorists and he does not deny that terrorism is a serious problem that may have to be addressed with military tactics. What he is saying, is that the "Global War on Terror" mantra has been made an ideological doctrine that the Bush Administration has used to justify all sorts of unethical if not illegal behavior. For example, Bush has used it to justify everything from abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison to the invasion of Iraq. He has made the rather persuasive argument, that fighting terrorism can actually be much much more effective if we frame the threat we face in a much different way than some sort of clash of the civilizations.  "We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes," Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery. "By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set--that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam." In my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, Edwards position will actually do a much better job of fighting terrorism, as it will not inflame negative sentiment in the middle-east, it will give us moral leadership, and lead to more cooperation with Arab nations. Right now our "US against them" militaristic attitude toward the problem of terrorism is not helping. In fact, most scholars would say that it is creating hatred toward the United States and helping the terrorist recruitment efforts. We cannot keep cutting the heads off a multi-headed serpent. We need to go after the real problems that create terror. We need to get away from this simplistic notion that terrorism can be defeated like a standing army during the civil war. The only way you defeat an ideology is by using a multifacited approach that includes both diplomatic and military efforts -- but as long as you frame the threat as a war, you are really undermining the diplomatic efforts.  

by smitha007 2007-08-25 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

We all understand Edwards' position.

We also understand that the 30 second Republican attack ad will show video of Edwards with the voice over saying:

The Democrats say there is no War on Terror.

In denying a bumper sticker slogan, Edwards handed the Republicans a bumper sticker slogan.

by hwc 2007-08-25 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

Hillary is not immune to these kinds of attacks either. Like the other day when she said during the VFW speech "we have begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in Al-Anbar province its working..." Rush Limbaugh put a big photo on his website with a picture of Hillary waving a white-flag that said "We're Winning, So Let's Quit." I think you might hear that about a million times before the election.

I can't believe some Democrats think she is actually the least vulnerable candidate in a general election. The political attacks that will be waged against her in 2008 are going to make the swift boat attacks looks small in comparison. Murdoch and company are taking it easy on Hillary now because they want her to be the general election candidate.

by smitha007 2007-08-25 02:47PM | 0 recs
Terrorism And Democrats. A History.

Clearly Clinton wasn't making the argument that she is better equipped than other Democrats to deal with the actual terrorist attack.

Rather, she was saying that she is better equipped to fight back against any Republican spin that might perversely use terrorism as a political tool.

That's different.

Further, it's different from Kerry's ineffectual response to the Bin Laden tape that the White House the week before the 2004 election.

This is from Kerry's interview with the BBC:

US Democratic Senator John Kerry says a video message from Osama Bin Laden sealed his defeat in a presidential race dominated by the 9/11 attacks.

He said the impact of Bin Laden's message was evident by the dent in his ratings that followed its appearance.

"We were rising in the polls up until the last day when the tape appeared. We flat-lined the day the tape appeared and went down on Monday."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4222 647.stm

Kerry believes that he lost because of a VHS tape. Imagine what kind of burden would be put upon the Democrats should an actual attack occur prior to November 2008?

Despite the massive failures of the Bush administration, the Democrats are still only at parity with the GOP with regards to security.

The latest NBC/ Wall Street Journal poll that found that 29 percent of Americans think the Democratic Party would do a better job dealing with terrorism; 29 percent chose the Republicans, and 20 percent rated both parties the same.

Security is EVERYTHING in today's Presidential politics.

This is especially true if Giuliani is the GOP nominee. Rightly or wrongly, his strong poll position is inextricably linked to the security issue.

Clinton knows this. Clearly, this is part of her strategy to mitigate the risks that exist for her as both a Democrat and a woman.

One thing is irrefutable: the Democrats must heed the lessons learned in 2004. If they don't, they indulge their short-term memory at their own risk!

by BigBoyBlue 2007-08-25 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Terrorism And Democrats. A History.

So are we actually going to decide who is going to be the Democratic nominee based upon who has done the best job of being a calculating triangulator? I thought we might select the person who has the best ideas and stances on the issues. I agree that Hillary has a tremendous amount of political skill, but that doesn't mean she's the best candidate with the best ideas who will actually bring us real change. This kind of mentality is a victim mentality. Its defensive and I don't agree with it.

by smitha007 2007-08-25 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Fasntasy world

You just outlined a number of the reasons why I'm supporting John Edwards for President.

by smitha007 2007-08-25 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Fasntasy world

Be honest the only reason on there you are supporting Edwards is because of his " looks ".

Ha.

by lori 2007-08-25 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Fasntasy world

I just think he connects better to rural independent swing voters than Hillary Clinton ever will. Hillary is running an ad in Iowa -- the "invisible" ad. There is a part of the ad where Hillary is walking in a field with a farmer talking about the issues:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3xepwid_ sY

She just can't pull that off -- a lot of people have criticized Edwards for being "fake" but, come on, Hillary Clinton walking in a farm field? Its about as likely as John Kerry hunting geese. We are going to end up with another red state, blue state split just like 2000, just like 2004, but mark my words, Hillary isn't going to carry Mo., Ohio, West Va, Indiana, Virgina, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and she'll be lucky if she carries Wisconsin and Michigan after the Republicans get done painting her as a big city liberal from New York.

by smitha007 2007-08-25 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq

This was a really good article in that it shows calm, deliberative reasoning.  There is sometimes this tendency to deliver fever pitch rhetoric that may excite some, but seem overwrought for others.  IMO, Edwards last speech had that type of overwrought pitch.  I don't expect to be agree with everything Hillary espouses as a candidate or even a Senator, but I think she explains her positions well.  She is by far the best Democratic candidate.

by Kingstongirl 2007-08-25 04:22PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------