Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

what's being said about Hillary

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 11:17 AM
Original message
what's being said about Hillary

let's not run from this article or any other article about Hillary. let's discuss the truth or false, pro or con of the writers words.

http://www.counterpunch.com/frank01032006.html


Entrenched Hypocrisy
Hillary Clinton, AIPAC and Iran

-snip-

AIPAC's hypocrisy is stomach-turning, to say the least. The goliath lobbying organization wants Iran to be slapped across the knuckles while the crimes of Israel continue to be ignored. And who is propping up AIPAC's hypocritical position? Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.

As the top Democratic recipient of pro-Israel funds for the 2006 election cycle thus far, pocketing over $58,000 as of October 31 last year, Senator Clinton now has Iran in her cross-hairs.

During a Hanukkah dinner speech delivered on December 11, hosted by Yeshiva University, Clinton prattled, "I held a series of meetings with Israeli officials , including the prime minister and the foreign minister and the head of the to discuss such challenges we confront. In each of these meetings, we talked at length about the dire threat posed by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to Israel, but also to Europe and Russia. Just this week, the new president of Iran made further outrageous comments that attacked Israel's right to exist that are simply beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptability. During my meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, I was reminded vividly of the threats that Israel faces every hour of every day ... It became even more clear how important it is for the United States to stand with Israel ..."

-snip-

Hillary Clinton's silence toward Israel's brutality implies the senator will continue to support AIPAC's mission to occupy the whole of the occupied territories, as well as a war on Iran in the future. AIPAC's right -- even President Bush appears to be a little sheepish when up against Hillary "warmonger" Clinton.
-----------------------------------

what to think?

people keep saying that the reason Bill holds hands with Poppy and Hillary hard noses just like the neocons is they have a plan to get rid of the bushmilhousegang and any day now we will see it put in action. (people also say Hillary's goal is to stay in the middle; not right or left?)

will wishing make it so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
benburch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. I simply don't think she is a good choice for President.
She differs with me on major policy issues, which is sufficient for me to support somebody else in the primaries.

And has far, far too much baggage to be seriously considered "electable" unless she is running against a completely discredited GOP candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Now Hillary's more of a warmonger than the Chimp?
Edited on Tue Jan-03-06 11:26 AM by billbuckhead
Shameful propaganda. What's next, that she eats babies for breakfast?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benburch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. I didn't say that at all.
I just said that I differ with her and won't be supporting her in the primaries.

I never called her a warmonger. Just a poor candidate for POTUS!

Seems like I cannot say anything negative about Hillary without being accused on being on some sort of vendetta against her. Sheesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
33. Not babies...puppies.
At least that's what I heard last week.
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Agreed
She is a political creature, and right now she has a significant constituency with a vested interest in blind support of Israel that could make or break her politically.

She has taken the same stances on other important issues but what occurs to me is that if she is willing to downplay unpopular issues to get elected then she is almost certainly willing to downplay unpopular issues to remain elected.

Although she is appropriately the right senator for her constituency in New York, I don't think she can honestly speak for the larger democratic population.

Therefore I cannot support her in a run for the presidency from what I know of her right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
3. Lady MacBeth comes to mind ...
... smart, driven, eloquent, driven, tough, driven ...

I guess I just see the decisions she (and Bill) have made as 'a means to an end', ie power.

And I'm not at all sure anymore that what she would do, once she had the power of the Office of
POTUS, would be in the best interest of the littlest & least powerful among us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
4. She's A Senator From New York
a state with a very large Jewish population.

Hillary strikes me as very pragmatic, and plays to the crowd she is in.
If she were in Iowa, she would be salivating to promote ethanol.
If she were in Florida, she would be hawkish on Castro.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
21. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
6. She's done a decent job for us as the junior New York Senator...
but I have no desire to see her in the White House. Israel has always played the U.S. like a fiddle, then they'll turn around and spy on us when our backs are turned. I have nothing against Israel, but I don't want too cozy a relationship with them either. Of course the evangelicals love the U.S./Israel connection. It keeps their hair-brained idea of the "end times" prophecy alive and THAT is what really scares me! Religious fundamentalists of any ilk are dangerous and I wouldn't put it past them to start a nuclear holocaust in order to hasten their nonsensical "rapture". :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crazy Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
8. A politician is a politician....whatever the polls favor....
...and whatever it takes to gain or keep power. Especially in a city with a high jewish population.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
9. I don't quote Joshua Frank about any Democrat.
He hates them all equally, except maybe Kucinich.

Give me a name, and I can find Josh Frank tearing them down.

I don't see him attack Republicans much, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. Agreed!
:hi:

I don't consider Counterpunch a reputable source on anything, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. you are missing out on some excellent articles


don't throw the baby out with the bath water
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. They are very much against all of our Democrats.
I am sorry, but I see very little there to inspire me. One of the sources Josh Frank used to critique Dean is a very discredited one who haunted the campaign. People tried to tell him, he did not care.

I do not trust Counterpunch when they attack Democrats more than Republicans.

I have seen them misquote, half-quote, and just plain twist stuff on all our Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
10. Considering what we've been learning from Wes Clark
regarding BushCo.'s plans to perform airstrikes on Iran, I'd say Hillary Clinton's stance here is just about to become very important.

If, in her opinion, "standing" with Israel to pop Iran, is the most important thing, then she also needs to start explaining why - if she really and truly believes this - that we should allow BushCo. to start World War Three.

Because, if we bomb Iran, that's exactly what's going to happen - and with China and Russia siding with Iran this time out, I don't think it's going to be the United States who wins this war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selteri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
11. IMHO Hillary is a third Party Dem like some others
We need a third party, maybe a th and 5th... Either way we have issues that won't be resolved now by a second Clinton but with a new new deal politician like Roosevelt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dongfang Hong Donating Member (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Yes, let's split our votes in two,
Thus allowing the Republicans to win 45-30-25.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. unfortunately that is what I will do
give us the right democrat and we'll all get behind him or her, but don't take our vote for granted JUST BECAUSE we're democrats and expect us to vote for whomever the DLC shoves down our throats. If it takes a resounding loss to wake up the republican lites in our party and get them to leave, then so be it. I believe in Darwin, even politically speaking.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dongfang Hong Donating Member (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #16
27. Then you might as well vote for a Republican,
because your strategy of not voting for the 30%-evil candidate will allow the 100%-evil candidate to take office. First we need to take back the Senate, House, and White House. Then we can worry about party purity.

And everyone with half a brain believes in Darwin. Which is why I recognize that a general political ideology unable to settle minor internal differences and unite behind a consensus candidate cannot efficiently compete for the limited number of possible votes and is therefore doomed to become irrelevant and die.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. oh dear.
everyone with half a brain believes in Darwin

Thank you for your support. Three, two, one.

Listen buddy, I am a one issue voter. If my party candidate doesn't support gay issues in this day and age, including civil marriage, then I'm not voting. Let me add, if the only candidate that supports my life issues turns out to be republican, you can bet your judgemental little patootie that I'll be voting republican.

If Hillary or a candidate of your choice decide that gay issues are holding us back from winning, then she is just as liable to decide that gay issues will hold us back from staying in office.

For me and mine, it is a vote for survival. If no candidate votes for me, I'm not voting for them. Do I look like a log cabin republican? Why would I feel good about being a log cabin democrat?

You can't have my fucking vote unless you earn it. Basta.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benburch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #16
28. I will vote for her if nominated.
But I would do literally *anything* to prevent her from seeking or getting the nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. Senator Clinton as POTUS candidate is premature
But people are just presuming that she's going to run, something she has *not* definitively indicated one way or another. It's two years before anybody has to seriously jump into a POTUS race. I think it's premature to start lining up our ducks. We have much more important things to consider in the meantime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formernaderite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #12
23. What difference does it make whether we split our votes
at this point using the strategy of supporting anyone who runs, no one ever wins anyway. Clinton never gained over 49% of the vote. We lucked out because another repub, Perot split the vote, running as an independant. Even Clintons second running was a poor showing. What does that say???

Unless we run a candidate who stands for the everyman, a populist...a Howard Dean without the emotional outbursts perhaps, we won't win.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dongfang Hong Donating Member (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. The strategy of a party "supporting anyone who runs"
is also known as "presenting a united front," and it is the only way in which their candidate may enter office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. Is this a poli sci assertion?
The policy of worrying about surface over substance is known as republicanism.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #26
36. When I came here..
.... 3 years ago, I held the same opinion you have expressed.

In the intervening time, I've come to the realization that some Dems are really no better than Republicans. Certainly if Hillary thinks bombing Iran is a good idea, she's a fucking moron and I'm just not voting for any more morons.

Fact is, these half assed Dems accomplish nothing really positive. They've sat in the senate and let Bush** do damn near everything he wanted. So just what is the difference?

I'd rather let Republican drive the country so obviously and completely into the ground, which they've almost accomplished already, and let them be the party out of power for 50 years than install another half-ass, milktoast corporate sucking pseudo-Dem into office, and have the country be driven into the ground 20% slower and have Dems take all the blame for it.

So, if Hillary is nominated - I won't be casting a presidential vote. And not just Hillary, I could rattle off a couple other names but in the interest of keeping it focused I won't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txaslftist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
13. A hoseshit assumption...
that "her silence toward Israel's brutality implies the senator will continue AIPAC's mission to occupy the whole of the occupied territories..."

Her silence implies no such thing. It is simply silence. She is not playing to her "pro-Israel" Jewish base, she is simply stating a pretty reasonable position, which is that Iran's statements denying the holocaust occurred and denying that the state of Israel has a right to exist are outrageous and should be condemned. I agree with her. The alternative is that we agree with Iran's position that the state of Israel does not have a right to exist, and that the Jews should, what, be deported? Shot? Jailed for their 'crimes' against Palestinians?

Are we supposed to pick sides in the Israel/Palestine conflict? Talk about a stupid idea.

There are legitimate grounds to be anti-Hillary, if that's your cup of tea. This ain't one of them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
17. Isn't the assumption of her support of the Jewish population
contradictory of the reich-wingers' attempts to portray her as anti-Semitic?

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
20. AIPAC is definitely one of my reasons for opposing Hillary.
But they have their slimy tentacles on a lot more than just her. They had some AIPAC dinner/awards thing or whatever it was on C-SPAN last year, and the only thing more sickening than the guest list was the words coming out of some of their mouths. Look up Steny Hoyer's speech from the event. It is nothing short of treason.

AIPAC/PNAC/Likud must have their tentacles completely removed from the United States government, and that definitely won't happen with Hillary or any other DLC stooge as President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
22. Joshua Frank = Republican waterboy
funny how with all the problems Bushco has been having

and now the Amramoff scandal exploding

J. Frank and his brothers in arms at Counterpunch

choose to spend their time attacking Democrats...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
24. AIPAC is so powerful
Edited on Tue Jan-03-06 01:31 PM by iconoclastNYC
Hillary makes my skin crawl but a politican would have to be sucididal to take AIPAC on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. aah, so that's how it is

nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #24
31. And as long as you keep telling yourself that....
...it will remain so. I'd rather not have foreign interests running our government, myself. I don't care WHO the foreign interests are. Israel, Saudi Arabia, Japan, or whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frankly_fedup2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
32. Depends on who you're talking too. Some say she is becoming too
conservative. Others will say she is too liberal. She can't win either way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
34. So....she's the only Dem accepting pro-Israel funds?
Edited on Tue Jan-03-06 03:41 PM by AZBlue
I mean, otherwise she wouldn't be singled out, right?
:sarcasm:

And before you repeat that she's got the most pro-Israel funding so far, let me remind you that (1) 25% of the Jews in America live in NYC alone and she represents the whole state of NY and (2) she has one of the most expensive markets in the world, let alone the US, in which to run a campaign - I bet her donations run higher from most donor groups. So, explain it to me now.



And....so we're now supposed to be pro-Iran and anti-Israel????! Oh no, wait, explain that one to me first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
35. Hillary is & will be vilified by the Republicans and from the fringe left.
She has all the momentum and these two groups are determined to stop her.

Expect to read all kinds of ink on her. I simply digest it.

I don't plan to vote for her anyway in the primary, but still realize if she gets the nod I don't want to help the Republicans beat her in the general. In spite of what some, um, learned scholars here at DU think, ANY Democrat is a hell of a lot better than a Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
37. Locking
Flame-Bait.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul 13th 2014, 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC