General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo uhm what was and is Hillary's stand on the covert US torture? Pins dropping!
Just wondering. Will you vote for her even if she has or does approve of torture?
PS: For those who I am not responding to ...you're most likely on my ignore list ...for a good reason.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I believe she said torture shoukd not be us policy.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)I want to know if she knew about it and if she did ...when did she find out.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)"I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve of torture! I love torture! Give me your vote!"
The naivety and lack of political IQ around here is quite amusing at times.
This is one of those times.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Maybe you didn't notice that others are participating in the discussion.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Torture cannot be American policy, period
Q: Let’s say we were to capture the #3 man in Al Qaida, and we know there’s a bomb about to go off, and we have 3 days, and we know this guy knows where it is. Should there be a presidential exception to allow torture in that kind of situation?
A: As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy, period. There is very little evidence that it works. Now, there are a lot of other things that we need to be doing that I wish we were: better intelligence; working to have more allies. But these hypotheticals are very dangerous because they open a great big hole in what should be an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment of everyone. And I think it’s dangerous to go down this path.
Q: The guest who laid out this scenario for me with that proposed solution was William Jefferson Clinton last year. So he disagrees with you.
A: Well, he’s not standing here right now.
Q: So there is a disagreement?
A: Well, I’ll talk to him later.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College , Sep 6, 2007
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)answer was as disturbing as her vote to give Bush the liar all that war power.
I believe she mumbled something about not completely taking it off the table, just in case, you know?
I long ago took her off my table of potential candidates for public office due to her foreign policy views which do not differ at all from the ones for which we kicked out the Republicans back in 2008.
I doubt we'll hear any outright condemnation of torture or any demands for accountability for war criminals. After all, the murder of Gadaffi was a war crime which she laughed about.
I would think America could do better than to elect leaders who, on the one hand, condemn leaders of other countries for torture while either remaining silent or tacitly approving our own policies of SENDING people to those very same Dictators to put in THEIR torture chambers so we don't have to do it all the time ourselves.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the abuse of other human beings, in fact I despise them. There is, imo, something very wrong with such individuals.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)no decent human being should have any problem answering the question 'do you condone torture'. It's a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer.
There really isn't an in between.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Weasel words 'well, it should not be policy'! Really, what should it be then?
Here's the answer she should have given: 'Absolutely not, it IS against US and International Law'.
Not: 'Well, it should not be US policy but ....'
It's the 'but' that is the problem.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Oh, and I am and always have been, 'angry' about torture.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)If you support someone who is 'soft' on torture, then yes, I have to assume you agree with her.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Autumn
(45,055 posts)She may ( 
) be office in two years. It's possible she then can turn around and prosecute Bush/Cheney . So, with her being the front-runner where does she stand on prosecution? She could really use her position to push for prosecution.
Will we vote for Hillary if she doesn't come out forcefully for prosecution?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)can you trust her to be aware now?
Autumn
(45,055 posts)
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Autumn
(45,055 posts)when Obama was against it and McCain was for it. Of course they all seem to evolve a bit, when it suits them.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Now it's out in the open and Dems are going to have to take a stand. I know the libs are against it and want prosecutions. What remains is the question of where the centrists, turd way, DLC, corporatists and woodchucks stand on this. My bet is that they will vote D no matter what. I do not intend to stay in any party where the majority or controlling interest of that political party condones torture for any reason.
Autumn
(45,055 posts)not patriots, they were not serving the American people and I have no desire to, nor will I vote for any member of any party that considers them as such. That is my stand. I would not in any circumstance vote for a republican that supports torture and I will not vote for any democrat that does.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)Extraordinary Rendition.
I have a link or two in threads and is being completely ignored - in fact people are getting mad at me because I dare post it. For anyone interested I will post once again, from the ACLU:
Fact Sheet: Extraordinary Rendition
December 6, 2005
Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to this day, the Central Intelligence Agency, together with other U.S. government agencies, has utilized an intelligence-gathering program involving the transfer of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism to detention and interrogation in countries where -- in the CIA's view -- federal and international legal safeguards do not apply. Suspects are detained and interrogated either by U.S. personnel at U.S.-run detention facilities outside U.S. sovereign territory or, alternatively, are handed over to the custody of foreign agents for interrogation. In both instances, interrogation methods are employed that do not comport with federal and internationally recognized standards. This program is commonly known as "extraordinary rendition."
The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, what had been a limited program expanded dramatically, with some experts estimating that 150 foreign nationals have been victims of rendition in the last few years alone. Foreign nationals suspected of terrorism have been transported to detention and interrogation facilities in Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Diego Garcia, Afghanistan, Guantánamo, and elsewhere. In the words of former CIA agent Robert Baer: "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt."
Administration officials, backed by Department of Justice legal memoranda, have consistently advanced the position that foreign nationals held at such facilities, outside U.S. sovereign territory, are unprotected by federal or international laws. Thus, the rendition program has allowed agents of the United States to detain foreign nationals without any legal process and, primarily through counterparts in foreign intelligence agencies, to employ brutal interrogation methods that would be impermissible under federal or international law, as a means of obtaining information from suspects.
Yes, I think she may well have known something about it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I can't speak for "We"; but, if she is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for her ... Just as I will vote FOR whomever is the Democratic nominee, without regard to whether he/she comes out forcefully for prosecution.
Will you vote for Bernie or Elizabeth if he/she doesn't come out forcefully for prosecution?
(I suspect if that is your determining criteria ... you will be not voting in 2016, as not even rand will come out forcefully.
Autumn
(45,055 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Will you vote for Bernie or Elizabeth if he/she doesn't come out forcefully for prosecution? (ETA: Assuming, of course ... they run.)
(I suspect if that is your determining criteria ... you will be not voting in 2016, as not even rand will come out forcefully.)
Autumn
(45,055 posts)I do not do loyalty pledges and I no longer assure anyone of my vote.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I really don't care for whom you vote. I was merely curious whether you (would) apply the same condition on candidates that you clearly favor.
My guess is no.
Autumn
(45,055 posts)speculate all you chose.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Your condition only applies to SOME candidates.
JI7
(89,247 posts)belzabubba333
(1,237 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Trying to make it as if I was trying to find out who she would vote for ... even after I told her I didn't/don't care who she would vote for?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Her position has evolved:
"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the president, and the president must be held accountable," she said. "That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law."
Then, on Sept. 26, 2007, Clinton said something different. During a debate, Tim Russert asked her about the ticking bomb scenario and here's what she said: "As a matter of policy, it cannot be American policy, period." She said she met with military generals who told her there is "very little evidence that it works."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/01/barack-obama/clinton-changed-on-torture/
So my guess is she opposes torture.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)HRC: "You have to understand, if we didn't get that hummus in the detainee's ass pronto, Americans were going to die."
Chuck Todd: "I completely agree, Madam President. But to move on to a more pressing issue, aren't you forced to concede that Trey Gowdy is much more intelligent than you--or any other Democrat--possibly could be?"
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The part where she said:
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)I tend to be a lot more long-winded when I'm actually trying to make a point 
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)PTDUPS
(Post Traumatic DU Posting Syndrome) 
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)
Gman
(24,780 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
chrisa
(4,524 posts)just like with everything else. 
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Close reach, beam reach, broad reach or down wind ...it's all good ...and they will vote for her anyway.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)national security credentials for a 2008 run (since she probably assumed Bush would win election in 2004).
You can't get much more disgusting than that, imo.
I will never forgive her for that, even though I may hold my nose to vote for her in the General Election if she's running against some fascist.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)I'd vote for the Green party before Hillary. I don't buy that she believes in gay marriage. Don't buy it at all.
I also don't buy that she was "lied to." Hillary Clinton, US Senator and wife of the previous US President, had no knowledge of what was going on? Bullshit...
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)who had the same exact position on gay marriage before he "evolved"?
chrisa
(4,524 posts)I would vote for Obama 100x over Hillary. It's not just Hillary's stance on same-sex marriage. It's other things in her past as well.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Which is what many Hillary supporters tried to tell you in 2008. Their positions were virtually the same which has been proven over and over. I would have voted just as enthusiastically for Hillary as I did for Pres Obama and will vote for her (or whoever the Democratic candidate is) in 2016.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I haven't read any recent statements from her, but if I recall correctly...she was opposed to the Bush torture program.
Remember this report just came out only yesterday.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)If she didn't know about it before becoming SOS I doubt she continued to not know about it as SOS.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I'm not sure if Hillary or Obama had full insight into what went on during the Bush administration.
They were known document shredders.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)But the torture has stopped thanks to an executive order.
When it comes to shutting it down, Congress essentially refuses to cooperate:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/article1959749.html
That's why elections are important.
More Dems need to get elected!
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)It's a shame that other things were prioritized over the shuttering of Gitmo, but it's also important to remember that there are future elections where we can regain the majority and end Gitmo once and for all!
GOTV!
belzabubba333
(1,237 posts)who you really couldnrt count on - oh and that corn husker kick-back dude , i forget his name maybe one of the nelsons ben or bill.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)Incidentally, this is the bill many are now giving John McCain credit for! Also, no one has ever called me a Clinton apologist. Although I think no one was as strong as this as Leahy, Kennedy and Kerry -- Hillary had some very strong words and voted against it - there were 34 Democratic votes against it.
Here is a link to CSPAN for that day - http://www.c-span.org/video/?194525-1/senate-session - here is the closed caption text - The very beginning is chopped off and there is a gap between the pieces, but the content as is pretty clear that she took a stand. (You can filter on speaker for the entire day's content. CSPAN used to have a much better interface, I don't get why they switched to this.) I could find the same speech - more accurately transbribed in the Senate record if this does not suffice.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
ON WHICH OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED. THE IMPLICATIONS ARE FAR- FAR-REACHING FOR OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS ABROAD, THE RIGHTS OF AMERICANS AT HOME, OUR REPUTATION IN THE WORLD, AND THE SAFETY OUR TROOPS. THE THREAT POSED BY THE EVIL MOVEMENT THAT HAS SPAWNED TERRORIST NETWORKS IS REAL AND GRAVELY SERIOUS. WE MUST DO ALL WE CAN TO DEFEAT THE ENEMY WITH ALL THE TOOLS IN OUR ARSENAL AND EVERY RESOURCE AT OUR DISPOSAL. ALL OF US -- EVERY ONE OF US -- IS DEDICATEED TO DETERRING AND DEFEATING THIS ENEMY. THE CHALLENGE BEFORE US ON THIS BILL IN THE FINAL DAYS OF THE SESSION BEFORE THE NOVEMBER ELECTION IS TO FIND A SOLUTION THAT SERVES OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS. I FEAR, HOWEVER, THAT THERE ARE THOSE WHO PLACE A STRATEGY FOR WINNING ELECTIONS AHEAD OF A SMART STRATEGY FOR WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR. DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ALIKE FEEL THAT TERRORISTS MUST BE CAUGHT, CAPTURED, CITIZENS SENTENCEED AND PUNISHED. I BELIEVE THERE CAN BE NO MERCY FOR THOSE WHO PERPETRATED THE CRIMES ON 9/11. BUT IN IN THE PROCESS OF ACCOMPLISH ACCOMPLISHING WHAT I BELIEVE IS ESSENTIAL FOR OUR SECURITY, WE MUST HOLD ON TO OUR VALUES AND SET AN EXAMPLE THAT WE CAN POINT TO WITH PRIDE, NOT SHAME. THOSE CAPTURED ARE GOING NOWHERE NOWHERE. THEY ARE IMPRISONED NOW. SO WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE DUTY GIVEN US BY THE SUPREME COURT AND CAREFULLY CRAFT THE RIGHT PIECE OF LEGISLATION TO TRY AND PUNISH THEM. THE PRESIDENT ACTED WITHOUT AUTHORITY AND IT IS OUR DUTY NOW TO BE CAREFUL IN HANDING THIS PRESIDENT JUST THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF AUTHORITY TO GET THE JOB DONE DONE. MR. PRESIDENT, DURING THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR BETWEEN THE SIGNING OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, WHICH SET OUR FOUNDING IDEALS TO PAPER, AND THETHE WRITING OF OUR CONSTITUTION WHICH FORTIFIED THOSE IDEALS UN UNDER THE RULE OF LAW, OUR VALUES, OUR BELIEFS AS AMERICANS AMERICANS, WERE ALREADY BEING TESTED. WHEN GENERAL WASHINGTON LED HIS SOLDIERS ACROSS THE DELAWARE RIVER AND ON TO VICTORY IN THE BATTLE OF TRENTON, HE CAPTURED NEARLY 1,000 FOREIGN MERCENARIES AND HE FACEED A CRUCIAL CHOICE. HOW WOULD GENERAL WASHINGTON TREAT THESE PRISONERS? THE BRITISH HAD ALREADY COMMITTED ATROCITIES AGAINST AMERICANS, INCLUDING TORTURE. AS DAVID HACK ET FISHER DESCRIBES IN HIS PRIZE-WINNING BOOK, "WASHINGTON'S CROSSING," THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN PRISONERS WERE TREATED WITH EXTREME CRUELTY BY BRITISH CAPTORS. THERE ARE ACCOUNTS OF INJURED SOLDIERS WHO SURRENDERED, BEING MURDERED INSTEAD OF QUARTERED. THOUSANDS OF PRISONERS DYING IN NEW YORK HARBOR, STARVATION AND OTHER ACTS OF INHUMANE INHUGH MANTY PERPETRATED AGAINST AMERICANS CONFINED TO CHURCHES IN NEW YORK CITY. YOU CAN IMAGINE THE LIGHT OF OUR IDEALS SHONE DIMLY IN THOSE EARLY, DARK DAYS, YEARS FROM AN END TO THE CONFLICT, YEARS BEFORE OUR IMPROBABLE TRIUMPH AND THE BIRTH OF OUR DEMOCRACY. GENERAL WASHINGTON ANNOUNCEED A DECISION UNIQUE IN HUMAN HISTORY HISTORY, SEND THE FOLLOWING ORDER FOR HANDLEING PRISONERS. TREAT THEM WITH HUMANITY AND LET THEM HAVE NO REASON TO COMPLAIN OF OUR COPING THE BRUTAL EXAMPLE OF THE -- OF OUR COPING THE BRUTAL EXAMPLE OF THE BRITISH ARMY. >> GEORGE WASHINGTON UNDERSTOODTHAT HOW YOU TREAT ENEMY COMBATANTS CAN REVERB RATE AROUND THE WORLD. WE MUST CONVICT AND PUNISH THE GUILTY IN A WAY THAT REINFORCES THEIR GUILT BEFORE
04:23:27
Hillary Rodham Clinton
AGAIN BACK IN THE SUPREME COURT. AND WE WILL BE ONCE AGAIN HELD UP TO THE WORLD AS FAILING OUR OWN HIGH STANDARDS. WHEN OUR SOLDIERS FACE AN ENEMY, WHEN OUR SOLDIERS ARE IN DANGER, WILL THAT ENEMY SURRENDER IF HE THINKS HE'LL BE CORRESPONDENT TOURED? WILL HE CONTINUE TO FIGHT? HOW WILL OUR MEN AND WHICH WILL BE TREATED? I END WITH A QUOTE FROM SLADE MERE BUKOVSKY WHO SPENT NEARLY 12 YEARS IN SOVIET PRISONS. HE UNDERSTOOD VERY WELL WHEN THIS AWHEN WE TORTURE WE HAVE ALREADY LOST. IF VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY IS RIGHT THAT SOME CRUEL AND HUMANE OR DEGRADEING TREATMENT OF CAPTIVES IS A NECESSARY TOOL FOR WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR TERRORISM, THEN THE WAR IS LOST ALREADY. MR. PRESIDENT, I HOPE THAT WE BOTH PASS THE RIGHT KIND OF LEGISLATION AND UNDERSTOOD UNDERSTAND THAT IT MAY VERY WELL DETERMINE WHETHER WE WIN THIS WAR AGAINST TERROR AND PROTECT OUR TROOPS WHO ARE VALIANTLY FIGHTING FOR US. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WHO YIELDS
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)karynnj
(59,501 posts)will demand prosecutions - and if they do, I would assume that they would be of relatively low level people who ordered others directly to do they despicable things. I doubt they would go for the top -- and work to prove whether it was Bush's or Cheney's will at some point of time. In fact, the report actually seems to say that this started without the knowledge of the President, which in fact should be - other than what was done - the most troubling thing -- if true.
Seriously, I would have preferred a report that was just a few pages long -stating that there was torture - possibly will a concise list of the worst things done. (A concise list - all in one sentence actually maximizes the awfulness.) In addition, a clear chart that shows exactly who in the CIA organization knew what traced back to the highest level that approved what was done - both tacitly and overtly. Then, we need to know anyone in the executive or legislative branches who knew.
At one time, it was said that the "gang of 8" - the top Democrat and top Republican in the House and Senate and of their Intelligence committee were the only ones given much information on this. One of those people, Rockefeller is the one who worked the hardest to get this information out. The gang of 8 were not allowed to even inform their committee, much less the entire Congress -- or heaven forbid, the American people. It does sound like this was hidden from the Congress - and the outrage in the 2006 speeches of some seemed genuine to me.
From Ted Kennedy's speech on that day, it is clear that he was outraged that waterboarding and other things were done - and he had an amendment that would have explicitly banned several (I thing 12) things by defining them as torture. His speech was incredible and he pointed out that we executed Japanese people who had waterboarded detainees. Kerry stated with no qualifications at all - "This bill permits torture". Levin and Leahy also had strong speeches.
I think it is worth looking back at the votes and the speeches in late September 2006 on this bill. Warner and McCain had tried to write a bill that would have moved the US away from torture, but they were pressured and gave in to the Bush administration to make the changes that led to liberal Democrats saying the bill still permitted torture. It was weird yesterday hearing Rachel Maddow praise McCain to the rafters for his speech yesterday AND this bill! The fact was the bill DID place some limits on what the US was doing - but it was not strong enough to outlaw all torture -- and they refused to even overtly add that waterboarding WAS torture.
yet here we are 8 years later and Rachel Maddow is positively referring to the bill that DU almost universally called the torture bill.
brooklynite
(94,501 posts)
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)She hasn't forgotten what the BFFE did.
Throd
(7,208 posts)This issue is rather far down the list of priorities for the American electorate.
For the record, I oppose the use of torture, but I don't think any serious Democratic candidate is going to run their race on prosecuting Bush & Cheney.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I find it hard to believe there are politically savvy people who aren't aware of her past comments. As for her future comments, she hasn't made them yet.
So uhm, like yeah.
"PS: For those who I am not responding to ...you're most likely on my ignore list ...for a good reason."
Nothing here but a display of passive-aggressive behavior. Do people on your ignore list see your ops. Thought that wasn't the case.
Might even be some other ops on the front page asking the same thing. Kind of like it is coordinated.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)If you put someone on ignore, you won't see any of that person's posts. However, that person can still see all of your posts.
Ignore is only for the person who has the list. It doesn't work the other way.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You have answered some of my du "technical" questions in the past. I actually did a search after posting and found a good thread that explained the ignore function and what it does. I couldn't find a write up by the admins. Either way I did get the info but do appreciate your efforts to educate.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)when posting a response to someone that has me on ignore (and I'm sure there are a bunch), there would be a pop-up to let me know.
I also would love it if you could not respond TO someone that you have on ignore.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)I doubt if they'll be interested, though.
I have nobody on ignore. I want to see everything.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I, too, want to have access to everything written. It helps me stay informed.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)Now that we can't see how many people have us on ignore, I have no idea who has me on ignore, and don't really care.
I can guess, though, from those who absolutely never reply to anything I write. 
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I've wondered why certain posters never respond to my posts? Now I know!
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)But they love to say "enhanced interrogation" should be our policy.
Asking Hillary's opinion on "torture" is pointless, because they can just call it something else.
The question should be: what are her views on waterboarding and rectal feeding, and other specific tactics.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)
&w=480
The Washington Post editor's third book on the Bush administration, "State of Denial," comes out next week.
In an interview airing Sunday night on CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," Woodward said that U.S. troops and their allies are being attacked, on average, every 15 minutes.
"The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon saying, 'Oh, no, things are going to get better.'"
He said Kissinger, who served in the Nixon and Ford administrations, has been telling Bush and Cheney that "in Iraq, he declared very simply, 'Victory is the only meaningful exit strategy.'"
"This is so fascinating. Kissinger's fighting the Vietnam War again because, in his view, the problem in Vietnam was we lost our will."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092900380.html
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)
on point
(2,506 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)She could practically waltz onto any talk show, even supposedly friendly ones like MSNBC or the daily Show, look right into the camera, and make a clear statement.
SHE WON'T, for the same reason she has not, because she wants to keep every option open, coast into the job based on it being "her turn" and then, once in office, not yield one inch of power.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)
madokie
(51,076 posts)but given a chance to vote for someone else I'll jump on it in a heart beat. I don't really trust the Hill to have my best interest at heart to be honest with you. What motivates her more than anything is history. In other words to be the first woman President. IMHO