we have to campaign like republicans to have any hopes at all of winning. let's come out as immigrant haters, tax cutters across the board (even if it means borrowing even more from china) and chest pounding warmongers. let's bomb iran!
like bush, hillary engages in projection. she accuses in others what she herself is guilty of.
remember in the last primaries, somebody ran a fearmongering bin laden ad against howard dean? that was traced back to the clintons. nation magazine reporter caught paul begala bragging about it. the clintons are fond of emulating the republican playbook. that's why they hired dick morris.
you probably overlooked this part towards the end.
the author discussing obama:
He wanted to know what kind of experience Clinton supposedly had that he didn't, and what kind of crisis she was supposedly better suited to than he, and why "toughness" had become a stand-in for experience, and how Clinton could get credit for it when she failed to stand up to Bush on the Iraq vote. We batted all this around. Finally he [obama] said, "Ask Nye why Hillary's paint-by-the-numbers foreign policy makes her more qualified to handle a crisis when for most of our history our crises have come from using force when we shouldn't, not by failing to use force."
do people want to take a quote out of contextspun by a second hand source? or do they want to go to the original article and judge for themselves?
this scoop jackson vs tom hayden controversy...you know, this insistence or philosophy that people are either all of one thing or all of another - is a bush/manachian outlook. what's wrong with saying you don't believe in that?
this same thing happened in the primaries leading up to general election in 2004. all the old school anti-war activists jumped all over howard dean because he wasn't pure enough for them.
so what did we end up with as a result? an unrepentant john kerry, who was still supporting the war, only differing on bush in mishandling the effort. a candidate so weak, who couldn't fight his way out of paper bag, that he was scoring single digit approval numbers in the polls weeks before the iowa caucus.
do we want a repeat of anti-war purists paving the way for the most hawkish candidate to come out on top? it's going to be deja vu all over again.
it is really disingenious for hayden to sand-bag obama without disclosing who he's supporting in the primary (which i'm guessing is kucinich) so people can filter out for bias.
she gets all that wallstreet player money to reward her because of the corporate friendly policies her husband enabled in the '90. such as when bill clinton supported deregulation of banking interests, is one example. they're counting on her to follow in her husband's footsteps and to continue bending over backwards and giving them favors - at our expense.
i do want to know though when did edwards turn into a progressive? in 2004 in an abc interview edwards was asked if considered himself a liberal. edwards said no. and judging from his voting record, it's one of the few times i believed what he had to say.