Clinton, in Arkansas, Says Democrats Are 'Wasting Time'

[ProSense]

Clinton, in Arkansas, Says Democrats Are 'Wasting Time'

By ANNE E. KORNBLUT
Published: July 16, 2006

ROGERS, Ark., July 15 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, returning to her red-state ties, chastised Democrats Saturday for taking on issues that arouse conservatives and turn out Republican voters rather than finding consensus on mainstream subjects.

Without mentioning specific subjects like gay marriage, Mrs. Clinton said: “We do things that are controversial. We do things that try to inflame their base.”

“We are wasting time,” the senator told a group of Democratic women here, on part of a two-day swing through a state that could provide an alternate hub to New York if she starts a national political campaign.

Snip...

In front of an almost entirely Democratic crowd Saturday, Mrs. Clinton made a glancing reference to the current turmoil in the Middle East.

“We just have to turn on the news, don’t we, to see what it’s like going on around the world — so many conflicts,” Mrs. Clinton said. “We need to get back to building partnerships and alliances, to making friends so we can influence decisions that other people make and have people working with us to stem the tide of terrorism and the threats that we confront.” She added: “If we have to use military power, yes, we have to use it. But use it as a last resort, not as a first resort. Use it after all else has failed.”

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/us/16hillary-web.html

OK, what exactly is meant by "wasting time" to "inflame their base"?

Flag burning amendment?
Net neutrality?
Iraq withdrawal?
DCCC ad?
Lieberman/Lamont race?

What else?

[Mojambo]

1. "You're screwing things up for me guys!"

"I get to be president next!"

[yurbud]

2. "we can do better" ...for corporate America...didn't she back the stupid

flag thing?

[papau]

3. Nope - the "flag bill" only added flag burning on Gov property.

Rather weird. In any case the bill would make it a crime to destroy a flag on federal property, intimidate anyone by burning a flag or burning someone else’s flag.

But burning someone else’s flag is already a crime if they don’t permit it - so part one sounds good but does nothing.

Intimidating someone by burning a flag is certainly unconstitutionally vague and not enforceable, plus there are laws about threatening people with dangerous objects - so nothing new here.

The last new law would be a content-based restriction on free speech - but might get by this USSC and we might find that we can not burn flags on Federal Property

It was an excellent cover that defeated the Amendment to the Constitution that nearly passed until Hillary gave folks some cover with the "flag bill"

[INdemo]

4. Well the drug companies got to her

..her campaign chest is a little heavier thanks to them..

[papau]

6. LOL - 150,000 does not buy much and it does not buy a Senator.

What pro-drug company position has she ever taken?

[LincolnMcGrath]

5. Sounds an awful lot like cutting and running if the kitchen gets too hot.

:shrug:

[IndianaGreen]

7. Hillary: Please, don't offend the misogynists and the homophobes

Please don't tell the Republicans they are wrong, it will piss them off!

"Cut and Run" Hillary!

[LincolnMcGrath]

8. Exactly!

I'm sure the heat around gay marriage in new york last week had nothing to do with these comments. :eyes:

[yurbud]

11. does she really think those people will vote for her after a decade of

Rush and company convincing them that she is a lesbian, witch, and murderer?

They would vote for Dukakis first.

[papau]

9. "finding consensus on mainstream subjects"is not the highest priority-why?

What do folks at DU find wrong about making finding consensus on mainstream subjects the Democratic Party's highest priority?

[LincolnMcGrath]

10. Fighting for Basic Human Rights is not

wasting time!

Did you read what the Pataki appointed court had to say the other day? That marriage is a basic human right, unless you are gay.

With a record breaking war chest and on demand spotlights, I think she could have used this as an opportunity to stand with our fellow Americans who happen to be gay.

[papau]

20. I agree the NY top Court saying no to gay marriage is a loss of a basic

human right - although I have no problem with the word "marriage" being used for the contract, I also have bo problem with "civil union" being used for the contract between two folks who love each other. If a commitment ceremony is what we are talking, rather than a contract, I believe one can give any name to that ceremony that you choose.

I agree with the chief judges opinion (which lost) - and like the fact the using the word "marriage" would have codified gay civil rights in this area. But while more work to get passed, why is codification of those rights by means of civil union contract laws not the right way to go at this point?

I am pretty certain Hillary feels as stated above also. By her official actions she appears to be pro-gay rights. What is gained, in any election race, by Democrats using any seconds of air time the media grants to discuss gay marriage rather than jobs, economy, health, and war.

Granted constant endorsements of gay marriage will speed the end of much of the prejudice against gays - and that is an obvious good - but if it is at the cost of getting pro-gay folks into office to codify that view, is that a better for gays move than a pro-gay politician explaining their positions on issues (jobs, economy, health, and war) that move massive numbers of votes to their side of the ledger and get them elected?

The power of the GOP comes from diverse groups agreeing to leave many of their heartfelt issues at the door so as to elect someone who favors some issue that they also favor.

Do Democrats run with one hand tied behind their back by being a party that can not focus on the issues that would most help them getting a person elected?

[AlGore-08.com]

12. Because this type of statement means something specific during primaries

Calls for unity, especially at this point in the election cycle, mean that there is a branch of the party (doesn't have to be the Democratic party, can be any party) which is threatening the front runner's vulnerabilities. Specifically, what she's trying to do is get the dialog changed from discussions of policies and records (i.e.: Should we support Dems who voted for the war? etc.) to marginalizing (and smearing) those who are engaging in those discussions.

She has just recently gotten a primary opponent (Tasini) who is very aggressively challenging her positions and record as too conservative and pro-Republican. Normally, someone in her position would ignore this kind of challenger, because it's almost impossible for an incumbent Senator to loose a primary unless they've been involved in a major, major scandal. But the Lamont/Lieberman race has proved that "safe seats" may not be safe this time around. Her primary challenger may not have as much luck against her, but the possibility is there - - Zogby has shown that over 30% of the folks supporting her now would not vote for her if there was another Dem in the primary who opposed the war.

If her primary challenger succeeds enough that she has to defend herself as a "real Democrat", it will mess up her 2008 strategy. Some of her circle have been quoted in the press recently explaining that her 2008 strategy will be to focus on her personal story, to point out that she used to be a Republican, and focus on the fact she's a Methodist. At the very least, it will be a harder sell if she has to spend time in 2006 protesting how liberal she is - - on camera.

Additionally, a lot of us don't agree that the best way to win votes at a time when the admin and the Congress have disastrous ratings is to insist there's no real difference between the Dems and the GOP.

[Donna Zen]

15. Ding...ding...ding!

So obvious what Hillary is up to, isn't it. Maybe her running for 08 now is an issue that needs to be off the table. bush's foreign policy has melted down into a pubble of failure, but Democrats who voted for the war, want us to look the other way.

[jonnyblitz]

17. great post!

I like your screenname,too, btw. Al Gore is a class act. :thumbsup:

[papau]

25. ?? "marginalizing (and smearing)" Tasini? - that has not happened

Tasini will - or will not - be the winner of the primary based on how his personality and message registers with the voters. He is not smeared by a call for Democrats to have a national "contract with america" listing their positions on the issues of most concern to the voting public.


As to "Zogby has shown that over 30% of the folks supporting her now would not vote for her if there was another Dem in the primary who opposed the war", we shall see as to Democrats since Tasini's petitions are not challenged by anyone and he will be in the primary. As to those of other stripes, the general election will produce more than 40% against her, and folks can claim that the 30% otherwise for her who voted against her that is mentioned in the Zogby poll can be found in those votes. Unless Zogby is referring the primary, his 30% will never be tested.

Despite my having said all the above, I join with Tasini in saying I do not like at least part of her current set of points she makes on the war - namely the fact that she refuses to say that had she known at the time what is now known, she would have voted against the war. If this reluctance is based on Bill's advice, Bill is giving lousy advice again (Bill's demand that she not promote single payer national health in 93 was also lousy).

[Clark2008]

103. The poster didn't say she was smearing Tasini.

The poster said she's smearing liberal Dems (you know, the base of the Democratic party, particularly in primaries) who support liberal Dems and not conservative Dems.

[MrBenchley]

28. Because "finding consensus on mainstream subjects"

would get Democrats in office....and there's a hard core on the left clogging our board that HATES Democrats.

Consider this: every time Noam Chomsky breaks wind with some hate-filled anti-American tripe, dozens of threads spring up with hosannas and angry attacks on anyone who points out the dreary old crackpot Is a dreary old crackpot. But anytime someone like Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or John Kerry says something, threads erupt attacking them for it--such as this one pissing and moaning over what is a perfectly sensible and constructive suggestion.

[Donna Zen]

31. She needs to take her own advice:

Talking about video games and flag burning is all about setting up for an 08 run. It is not about focusing on main-stream issues. Preacher heal thyself.

[MrBenchley]

38. Geeze, you mean you REALLY think

that ordinary Americans want to burn flags and let greedy thugs sell violent swill to kids?

That's one fucking weird fantasy in every way.

[Donna Zen]

64. A reminder:

This conversation was about "wasting time" talking about single issues versus main stream and thus, important issues. There is neither a flag-burning epidemic or major out-cry to curb the animation hidden in video games. These are ginned-up minor issues. The war in Iraq, and now the escalation of this regional war, are completely and absolutely all encompassing.

Hillary wants to talk about single issues as long as it bolsters her rightwing credentials. Mention voting for the war, and suddenly we're wasting time.

She needs to put her ambition aside, and quit bashing the base. If the rightwing continually bring up gay-marriage, then we need to hear from honest politicians in opposition, not someone telling us it is better to roll-over and play dead.


Your personal assumptions about where I stand are not worthy of comment since you have no right to put in my mouth, nor do you deserve my assistance in derailing a thread. My reminder to you: Intellectual dishonesty is a sorry tool to bring to a debate.

[MrBenchley]

82. A further reminder

It sure as shit isn't moderate Americans screaming in outrage because Hillary opposes flag-burning or wants video games to be regulated. It's the Democrat-hating left.

"She needs to put her ambition aside"
Why? She's got as much right as a pimple like Kucinich to run for president (even more, since Dennis' supporters are delusional).

"Mention voting for the war, and suddenly we're wasting time. "
You sure as shit are. The war was supported by three-quarters of America when it was launched. Who but a fucking idiot thinks "Nya-nya, told you so" is a winning stance for the party?

"Intellectual dishonesty is a sorry tool to bring to a debate."
Irony is such a wonderful thing--especially in a thread where the OP is wringing his hands pretending he has no idea what he was pissing and moaning about.

[yurbud]

70. yeah, we never talk about health care, outsourcing jobs, sane tax policy..

okay, actually we do.

Unfortunately, the DLC solution to these problem is often to agree with the right.

Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, which had the unique effect of harming people on both sides of the Mexico border, not only exporting jobs from here, but creating unemployment by destroying agriculture by ending farm subsidies in Mexico.

Few DLCers will acknowledge that the root of the health care crisis is profiteering by insurance companies and drug companies, the latter getting massive R & D bucks from our tax dollars and repaying us with higher prices than they charge anywhere else in the world.

While some talk about better tax policy, they seem to spend most of their time begging the biggest tax dodgers for campaign contributions.

[MrBenchley]

86. So tell us, yurbud

Other than attacking Democrats and pouting like children, what exactly is the far left's "cure" for this profiteering?

Here are specific proposals from the DLC that can be acted upon and that are likely to reach a concensus of moderate American voters.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=111

and they show in spades how utterly spurious your claim is that the DLC soilution is to agree with the right.

[yurbud]

93. I would be grateful if you proved me wrong on NAFTA, WTO, neoliberalism

and other international economic policy that seems to be designed to screw everyone who isn't already a member of the idle rich.


Really, on all points, I would like to be proven wrong about the DLCers, but in foreign policy in particular, they seem to largely agree with the GOP and only object to the obvious, ham-handed way the Bushies go about it.

[MrBenchley]

95. Feel free to answer my question first.

[yurbud]

100. the cure is single payer like Medicare for All which I think Kerry

mentioned.

You could also roll aspects of workman's comp and VA healthcare into that.

Second best would be requiring a set percentage of insurance company income be paid out in claims, and remove their ability to deny care or have that done by a third, disinterested party.

Third best would be requiring insurance companies to be non-profits.

Fourth best would be tightly regulating insurance and pharma, but given Congress' inclination to defang any regulators or fill them with people from the industry they regulate, that would be a short term fix at best.

The worst solution is any one the insurance companies themselves propose or agree to.

[yurbud]

92. actually Vilsack has been talking about single payer on his heartland pac

blog.

Thanks for reminding me.

[MrBenchley]

96. That's DLC chairman Tom Vilsack

So tell us, please, how he is "agreeing with the right"....

[otokogi]

13. psst... Clinton... how about instead of surrendering, firing up your base?

works for them :think:

[DemDogs]

14. Stand for something. Besides your political future.

That is the first test, and she is flunking.

[Mr_Spock]

16. She has a point

She's suggesting that Dems not get sucked into the Republican game. I think we even get sucked into the Republican game here on DU at times. Dems should probably have a better offense - I think we get sucked into defense mode by the Repubs too often.

[KKKarl is an idiot]

18. This is about '08

She has no interest in the current election. To her she feels she is a shoe-in for senator. She has he eyes on the presidency in '08. She is trying to woo the republican base to give her some red states in '08. We all know she should easily carry the blue states in a presidential race: After all are they going to vote for a republican candidate? This is the only strategy she can use to win. At this point in time she is not able to win a presidential race. To many people have said they will not vote for her. Those are the republicans.

[JNelson6563]

19. And what stirs up the GOP base the most?

Just say the word "Hillary". It's the equivalent to "rosebud" for them.

Julie

[zulchzulu]

39. Exactly. Every time she opens her piehole, you can bet GOP funds increase

She stands for...herself...and herself only. And she's the best answer to a GOP victory in 2008...they wouldn't even have to cheat.

[madfloridian]

21. She is wasting time not speaking out against the war in Iraq.

She is wasting time telling us we are wasting time. We are NOT the ones who started the wedge issues, but we are the ones who have to deal with them.

Where were you when we needed a spokesman, Hillary? Why is your hubby going around defending the war so much lately?

Tiresome, and you are wasting my time with your rhetoric.

[MrBenchley]

22. And she's 100% right....

[IndianaGreen]

23. For a New York Republican she would be 100% right

She might run in the same ticket with Rudi in 2008!

[MrBenchley]

24. For a New York Democrat she's 100% correct....

But then the far left isn't at all interested in getting Democrats in office....

[papau]

26. I agree .....

n/t

[IndianaGreen]

32. Is that why you support Lieberman running as an independent

because the radical DLC and their conservative allies "isn't at all interested in getting Democrats in office...."?

[MrBenchley]

35. You mean like Bernie Sanders runs as an independent?

Nice to see the hypocrisy of the far left on display....

[JNelson6563]

48. Was Sanders a Dem previously?

I don't recall that he was but I may be mistaken. On the other hand. Lieberman was on a Dem presidential ticket even!

Seems to me there's a difference between having always been an indy that's generally in line with Dems getting Dem support and a lifelong Dem who has greatly benefitted from his party association, turning indy when he's voted out and getting Dem support too. If the Dems in Conneticut vote Lieberman out then the Dem party has no business offering support to him in and independent run.

Julie

[MrBenchley]

52. So fucking what?

Is it only permissable to support independents over Democrats when the far left approves?

[JNelson6563]

65. Why are you being obtuse?

Do you see no difference between one who was never a Dem and one who became an indy when they could no longer win as a Dem? Your profanity doesn't address the point, you merely sidestep it while sounding shrill.

If Lieberman loses his primary then the Dems of his state have chosen another who they want to represent them. Why is this so hard to accept? Is it too bottom up or something? Not enough of the top deciding what's good for the bottom?

*sheesh*

Julie

[MrBenchley]

75. The only difference is the hypocrisy of the far left

"If Lieberman loses his primary then the Dems of his state have chosen another"
And if Joe runs as an independent and he doesn't have the support, he'll lose. By the way, how many independent voters are there in Connecticut? Here's a hint--there's more independents than there are Democrats.

[IndianaGreen]

50. Bernie is a Socialist

there is nothing phony about him, unlike the likes of heroes of yours such as former McCain political operative and current DLC guru, Marshall Whittman.

[MrBenchley]

55. Benie is an independent with his own one-man party

But it is hilarious to see you wave the socialist flag...

[Solon]

71. One Man Party? Really...

http://www.progressiveparty.org/

Try again Mr. PD.

[MrBenchley]

76. Really....

But don't let me stop you joining another party--it's not like you bring much to the Democrats....

[Solon]

91. I guess the same thing could be said for Lieberman as well. n/t

[ProSense]

27. What is Sen. Clinton right about?

“We do things that are controversial. We do things that try to inflame their base.”

In what ways are Democrats wasting time inflaming the GOP base?

[MrBenchley]

29. If you really don't know

why the hell would it be worth wasting time discussing it with you?

Do yourself a favor and think about why anybody in their right mind WHO REALLY IS A DEMOCRAT would be in the least upset by this sensible and constructive suggestion.

[CTLawGuy]

30. do you have an answer for the poster's reasonable question

that isn't nasty invective?

Seriously!

[MrBenchley]

36. If you think it's such a hotshit reasonable question

and not just a cheap-ass rhetorical trick, YOU answer it.

[ProSense]

41. Speaking of rhetoric, you seemed to have mastered it for evasiveness! n/t

[MrBenchley]

44. Hey, it's not my fault you got no clue

You proudly volunteered you had no idea what the hell is under discussion.

By the way, it's funny as hell you're not asking darboy what this all means. It was nice of you to confirm that you're just flapping your yap with a cheap rhetorical trick.

[ProSense]

46. Did Sen. Clinton give specifics? I, unlike you, am not a mind reader.

I did in the OP make some assumptions. You said she's 100% right, so I assumed you picked up on something I didn't.

[MrBenchley]

53. Gee, and yet I know what she meant

and you started a whole thread to complain about what a prominent and respected Democratic Senator said without having a clue. I find that VERY telling..

[ProSense]

56. Speaking of firing up the conservative base, remember this

In her speech Monday, Clinton, who has never served in the House, told the audience that "when you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/17/clinton.plantation

[MrBenchley]

58. You think the GOP has run the House fairly?

and that there's nothing racist about the GOP?

Weird.

[ProSense]

60. Huh? To answer your question,

no:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2374063&mesg_id=2375225

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2375078&mesg_id=2375078

[Clark2008]

105. Prominent, but not electable. Not nationally.

eom

[IChing]

43. She's 100% correct on giving no specifics

which makes her rhetoric so laughable and at the same time, hypocritical, unaccountable and sad.

[ProSense]

33. Upset? Sen. Clinton gave no specifics, but

you claim to know what she is referring to so clue me in. If you don't really know, just say so instead of trying to deflect the question. It's a question, and one not laden with RW talking points or even criticism, so why can't you be polite and answer?

[MrBenchley]

34. Upset

Now go piss and moan to somebody else.

[ProSense]

37. Not up for a discussion, heh? n/t

[MrBenchley]

40. What discussion?

Why would I want to waste time with someone who by his own admission has no idea what's being discussed?

[ProSense]

42. Does Sen Clinton give specifics?

And I'm not a he!

[MrBenchley]

45. Gee, I know what she means...and so did the OP

and a big chunk of the rest of the thread...which is why the "We HATE Democrats" started the thread in the first place.

[ProSense]

47. The OP?

Wait let me check...I thought I started this thread!

[MrBenchley]

51. Yes, and when you said

"Flag burning amendment?
Net neutrality?
Iraq withdrawal?
DCCC ad?
Lieberman/Lamont race?
What else?"

You had no idea what any of that meant? Weird.

[ProSense]

54. Didn't Clinton write the flag burning amendment?

And the other issues fire up the Democratic base not the conservative base! The other flag burning amendment was offered by the GOP to fire up their own base.

[MrBenchley]

57. And thanks for demonstrating in spades

what a waste of time it is to continue with you.

"2001 Reps. Cunningham and Murtha introduce H.J.R. 36 in the House. Sens. Max Cleland, D-Ga., and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, introduce S.J.R. 7 in the Senate. H.J.R. 36 passes 298-125. No action is taken on the Senate proposal before the close of the 107th Congress.

2003 Reps. Cunningham and Murtha introduce H.J.R. 4 in the House. Sens. Feinstein and Hatch introduce S.J.R. 4 in the Senate early in the 108th Congress. H.J.R. 4 passes on a 300-125 vote. Again, no action is taken on the Senate proposal."

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?id=13552

[ProSense]

59. What are you showing me? This is the amendment:

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS -- (Senate - June 27, 2006)

GPO's PDF

SA 4543. Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Carper, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lieberman) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution S.J. Res. 12, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States; as follows:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2006_record&page=S6586&position=all

[papau]

61. Nope - her bill was the reason the flag burning amendment was defeated

Upstream in this thread I pointed out that her "flag bill" only added flag burning on Gov property to list of Fedral crimes.

The bill would have make it a crime to destroy a flag on federal property, intimidate anyone by burning a flag or burning someone else’s flag.

But burning someone else’s flag is already a crime if they don’t permit it - so part one sounds good but does nothing.

Intimidating someone by burning a flag is certainly unconstitutionally vague and not enforceable, plus there are laws about threatening people with dangerous objects - so nothing new here.

The last part of the new law would have been a content-based restriction on free speech - but it might get by this USSC and we might find that we can not burn flags on Federal Property

In the end, Hill's Bill was an excellent cover that defeated the the Flag Amendment to the Constitution (that nearly passed) until Hillary gave folks some cover with the "flag bill"

[ProSense]

63. I know the specifics!

But this was not an issue presented by Democrats to rile up the conservative base. This was a conservative issue to rile up their base. So my question is still unanswered.

[papau]

66. Hill "wrote"/sponsored Flag burning Bill - killing GOP Flag burning Amend

I can't think of anything she has done to maje the further left portion of the Democratic Party more enthusiastic and motivated to go work for her elections (rile up the base).

Indeed the only "left" side of the base thing she has done that I know of was to try to get single payer national health in 93 (and I know this only because I "worked with" (I was briefed on their progress but had no input as I focused on my area which was national and international tax rules for insurance/investment transactions/companies) the health insurance lobbyists that got to Bill and got Bill to shoot her down and order an HMO insurance company approach. I "liked" the way her book LIVING HISTORY walks around the topic by mentioning that a portion of the public wanted single payer national life, and that Bill was presented with this approach - but not saying who presented him with the idea - and then saying that Bill shot it down before the task force was formed.

[ProSense]

68. Not "the base," "their base"

Not the Democratic base, the GOP base:

ROGERS, Ark., July 15 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, returning to her red-state ties, chastised Democrats Saturday for taking on issues that arouse conservatives and turn out Republican voters rather than finding consensus on mainstream subjects.

Without mentioning specific subjects like gay marriage, Mrs. Clinton said: “We do things that are controversial. We do things that try to inflame their base.”

[MrBenchley]

77. Is that why you're pretending her bill is a Constitutional amendment?

[ProSense]

78. Did I say Constitutional amendment? n/t

[MrBenchley]

79. So in other words

your post WAS crapass rhetorical gibberish....

[ProSense]

80. No in other words, you have comprehension problems

and a lousy attitude!

[MrBenchley]

84. Says the guy who has NO IDEA what Hillary meant

but started a thread to piss and moan about it anyway.

[ProSense]

87. You have no idea what she meant! n/t

[MrBenchley]

89. LOL!

[mtnsnake]

81. Amazing, how after all this time people claim she proposed an amendment

when the reality of the situation is that she proposed FEDERAL LEGISLATION to outlaw desecration of the American Flag under certain instances in her attempt to thwart off a flag burning amendment.

Are some people around here so fucking thick that they'll continue to misrepresent her by accident, or are they that vicious that they'll misrepresent her on purpose in order bring her down?

[MrBenchley]

83. It's the Democrat-hating far left....

and it's telling they have to resort to outright dishonesty, isn't it?

[mtnsnake]

67. Didn't you read the article?

Hillary says lots of the right things if you take the time to listen.

[nebula]

49. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind who would support Hillary.

She is nothing but a political opportunist of the first order.

[papau]

62. LOL -who is not a political opportunist, is currently elected and has real

potential to be elected President in 08? From either GOP or the Democratic Party?

[mtnsnake]

69. Hillary is one of the few Democrats who's most publicly critical of Bush

She's probably knocked Bush's administration in a highly vocal and direct way more than any other high profile Democrat. Once again, she doesn't disappoint.

[politmuse1]

72. You ARE kidding, right?

:rofl:

Your statement is so mindboggling ... hysterically funny, in fact ... that I can only hope you're in a very funky mood trying to challenge us.

[mtnsnake]

74. Posts like yours

which only use a laughing smilie and nothing else to mock someone elses opinion about a candidate are reflective of someone who doesn't have much of a competitive brain in their head.

Al Gore, whom you're infatuated with, is a fine potential candidate, and I can't say enough good about him. However, your method of running down the competition in order to build up your own favorite choice is all too obvious to anyone by you.

I could spend some time if I wanted to back up my opinion that Hillary is as outspoken, or more, about Bush than most other Dems, but you are simply not worth wasting the precious little time it would take because it wouldn't sink in.

[politmuse1]

97. You asked for it ... fine!

Who's calling the kettle black? I tried to bring a little levity and humor into this, but never mind.

I almost never reply to personal and senseless attacks like yours, but because some people have me associated with Al Gore, I'll respond to your dare for his sake, not mine. I don't want anyone to think I'm attacking Hillary out of some kind of personal vendetta. However, I do believe you're the only one who needs this explanation.

Had you said "I really like Hillary," I would have never found it funny. We can agree to disagree, but I respect your opinion as much as I would like to hope others respect mine. Considering the political landscape out there, she's hardly among the worst. In fact there used to be a time when I liked her.

But what you said is that she's among the most outspoken people against Bush. And THAT, my friend, is ridiculous. And you can bash me and throw stones at me all you want, but it doesn't change the facts. I won't even compare her with the likes of Al Gore, who spoke out against the Bush atrocities long before anyone else. But you have scores of Senators and Congressmen and others who stood up to Bush over the years since, from Ted Kennedy and Bob Byrd to far lesser known figures. Hillary voted for pretty much whatever Bush asked for, including the Iraq war and the Patriot Act -- two very big ones, I'm afraid, even if she may have opposed him on lesser things. May I remind you that at a time when people were muzzled and being against the war was heresy, more than 20 Senators (22, I believe?) voted against the Iraq Resolution. Hillary was not one of them. She buckled.

So for anyone to claim she's one of the gutsiest people to speak out against Bush is ... well, funny, I'm sorry. I burst out laughing when I read it. I can't think of one person in the world who would agree with your statement, even if they like Hillary and will vote for her.

[mtnsnake]

99. I asked for it? By saying Hillary was outspoken against Bush? ooooohhH

Good gawd, dude, if that's asking for it, then how the heck would you react if I really DID ask for it? Stomp up and down on the floor or something?

What a load of incoherant rambling JIBBERISH, and on top of that you try and make it sound like your the last authority on what people think. Gee, if you can't think of one single person that would agree with my opinion on Hillary, then you certainly must be right! I guess I was wrong about you. You're a real genius, but at least you got a laugh out of my initial post, eh!

BTW, I've got some news for you. YOU asked for it, not me. I posted about Hillary, and you responded with a mock attack on me out of no where. I then responded in kind. Obviously, you can dish it out but you can't take it.

Now run along....

[politmuse1]

73. In other words, be a wimp like me

Never rock the boat, never challenge Bush, support the war, vote for the Patriot Act, rah rah rah ...

:grr:


Help, Al Gore to the rescue!!!!!

[nebula]

85. That is Hillary's position exactly.

No doubt about it. She is the Repug-lite female version of Holy Schmoe.

Hillary is the the DLC's dream candidate (not to mention the GOP's as well).

Hillary is a lightning rod to all sides, and an even greater dividing force than GW Bush. It would be absolute suicide to run her as the Dem candidate in '08.

[ProSense]

88. According to this, Sen. Clinton was talking about Repubs, not Dems

NYT took Clinton's quote out of context and editorialized the first

I'd just hit publish on an angry post about Hillary Clinton when the full transcript arrived in my inbox. From the New York Times:

ROGERS, Ark., July 15 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, returning to her red-state ties, chastised Democrats Saturday for taking on issues that arouse conservatives and turn out Republican voters rather than finding consensus on mainstream subjects.

Snip...

Clinton obviously meant no such thing. The "we" was Congress, as led by Republicans, not Democrats. Here's the bit:

You have to ask yourself, we have all these problems, and we have solutions sitting out there, why can't we move in the right direction? And it really comes down to a difference in values and philosophy. You know the nine women Democratic Senators, anybody see us on Larry King's show? We put out what we call our Checklist for Change. I don't know about you, but I am a list maker. I guess it's like a part of the DNA for women. I make lists about lists. And so we were talking one day and saying, you know, we as individuals, we have all of this legislation, we can't get it on the floor of the Senate. We can't get a vote on it because the Republican majority wants to vote on other things. So we pulled all our best ideas together. Wouldn't this be a good agenda for America: safeguard America's pensions; good jobs for Americans; make college affordable for all; protect America and our military families; prepare for future disasters; make America energy independent; make small business and healthcare affordable, invest in life saving science; and protect our air, land, and water. You know, Blanche Lincoln has a bill to make healthcare affordable for small business, I have a bill I was talking to you about with respect to energy independence, we have legislation sitting in the Senate to address these problems. But with the Republican majority, that's not their priority. So we do other things, we do things that are controversial, we do things that try to inflame their base so that they can turn people out and vote for their candidates. I think we are wasting time, we are wasting lives, we need to get back to making America work again, in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way."

Grrrr. Kornblut makes it even worse by implying that Democrats are the ones bringing up gay marriage, when it's the goddamn Republicans who are doing so.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_07_16_atrios_archive.html#115306675335323628

[nebula]

90. Doesn't matter which party she addressed those remarks to

She may pay lip service to the contrary at times, but it doesn't change her largely pro-war, pro-Bush agenda one iota.

[LynneSin]

102. It does matter when the NYTimes misquotes her

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2726737&mesg_id=2726737

[SaveElmer]

94. Taken completely out of context...

She was talking about the Congress...not Democrats...

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_07_16_atrios_archive.html#115306675335323628

Kornblut is a HACK!!!

[Placebo]

98. THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN COMPLETELY DISPROVED

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_07_16_atrios_archive.html#115306675335323628

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/7/16/14732/3082

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/7/16/164328/089

[LynneSin]

104. You know we'll post this stuff

and people will still totally ignore us

[LynneSin]

101. PLEASE READ THIS THREAD!!! Hillary was misquoted by the NYTIMES

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2726737&mesg_id=2726737

I guess the NYTimes trying to get back into the good graces of the neo-cons. She was misquoted and taken out of context in order to look like she was badmouthing democrats

[ncrainbowgrrl]

106. Locking.

The original article has been debunked.