Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hillary Clinton will ignore some of her critics

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
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:28 PM
Original message
Hillary Clinton will ignore some of her critics
she wasn't under any illusions that her assault on Rumsfeld would satisfy a certain subset of her critics.

That subset is the disonest ones, who obviously are mostly intent on hating her. She has lots of experience with that from the other side. Their feelings have nothing to do with what she does, it's what she represents to them. The issues they claim to care about are simply excuses to hate her.

She's a very smart woman and she's rational. She has written this group off in her political calculations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wakeme2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. she is changing with the Joey wind....
her views are only minute by minute what the polls tell her... She is toast but may not know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
19.  May 2002: Hillary displays "Bush Knew "(9/11) headline on senate floor.
"Bush knew what?"she asked. No polls involved in that act of courage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
2. Who are you talking about? What group do you speak about?
Could you clarify? Which group do you say she has written off?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. the people that lie about her record
the people that she knows will later declare "Hillary has never once called for Rumsfeld's resignation."

Then when honest people point out that she did in fact call for his resignation, those dishonest critics will disappear.

That's the group I'm talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
4. No idea what you're talking about, but if she has really assaulted
that murdering dickhead (verbally of course, although a physical battery would guarantee my vote), she just scored a whole bunch of points with me, and I ain't no Hillary fan, quite the opposite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
5. If I were a cynic about Hillary
I'd say that she is getting ahead of a likely disaster in Iraq by putting all the blame on Bush and Rumsfeld's execution of the war,rather than the idea of having the war in the first place. That would mean her vote for the war wasn't at fault, rather, Bush and Rumsfeld are at fault.

I'm not that cynical though. I think Hillary is probably doing what she thinks is best for the country. You'll probably never hear that on TV though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. It sounded like she still supports the war, she just thinks she can run it
Just what we need for 2008, a candidate who promises a magical victory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #6
14. No. She doesn't support immediate withdrawal, and she's already
explained why: She doesn't feel it would be in the best interests of our troops or country. Disagree with her for that, but don't give me this same old propaganda that "she still supports the war and just thinks she can run it" to make her sound like she's some warmonger or something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theanarch Donating Member (523 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-06-06 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #5
43. you may not be that cynical, but i sure as hell am...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
union_maid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
7. It doesn't change a lot for me, but I'm glad she did it.
I'm happy enough with her as a senator and she's not in much danger there. Her voting record is good. She does work for good things that don't get so much publicity. When an important statewide program is in danger of being defunded, she will work and expend political capital to save it. She did things like that as First Lady and she does them in our state as a Senator. My main objections to her as a presidential candidate are tied to what I believe about her electibility above all else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1620rock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Smart lady, she knows when to hold em' and when to fold em'....
...do not write her off just yet. :popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. It wasn't TIME for her to back Kerry's call for Rummy to go in 2003 and 4
after Abu Ghraib and before the election?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Did Kerry tell Rumsfeld to his face like Hillary did? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #10
23. TIMING - if you're going to laud her for timing then explain why now is
Edited on Fri Aug-04-06 12:04 PM by blm
better than it was in 2003 and 4. The poster said Hillary knows when to hold em and fold em. You decided to change it to something else.

Did Hillary have an opportunity NOW that she didn't have then? What's your point?

Why didn't Ms "Clear as a bell" use her clear as a bell voice and back up Kerry the way McCain backed up Bush and Rumsfeld? What was the point to "holding em" then?


Dean, Kerry call on Rumsfeld to quit
Defense secretary accused of pattern of deception on Iraq

The Associated Press
Updated: 12:56 p.m. ET Sept. 26, 2003
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 - Democratic presidential candidates Howard Dean and John Kerry have called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign, citing a pattern of deception in his statements on Iraq and a failure to plan for the postwar period.


KERRY, A SENATOR from Massachusetts, first said Thursday that Rumsfeld should step down, saying he proceeded in Iraq in an arrogant, inappropriate way that has frankly put America at jeopardy.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3087318



Kerry: Rumsfeld Should Quit

May 6, 2004

(CBS/AP) Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has renewed his call for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to step down amid the growing scandal over the alleged abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers, reports CBS News' Steve Chaggaris.

"I called for Rumsfeld's resignation months ago over Iraq," Kerry told reporters Thursday. He said the abuse reports only compound the reason for Rumsfeld to quit.

"It's the way it was handled. The lack of information to the Congress, the lack of information to the country, not managing it, not dealing with it, recognizing it as an issue. But look this is, this is the frosting," Kerry said during a campaign appearance at a California high school.

"I think Iraq and the miscalculation and the overextension of the armed forces and the entire way in which they rushed the nation to war under these assumptions that he was making which were incorrect is a huge, historic miscalculation and I thought he should have resigned then."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/07/politics/main ...



Kerry Suggests Replacements for Rumsfeld
Thursday, May 13, 2004

WASHINGTON Presidential candidate John Kerry (search) said Wednesday the war in Iraq (search) is a failure and that a shake-up is needed to end the Bush administration's mistakes and incompetence, a sharp critique that sparked more Republican criticism that the Democrat is making the war a political issue.

"Why should we reward more of the same? Why should we reward miscalculations of what it would take to make the peace?" Kerry asked in an interview with Associated Press Radio. "I think that it's been one miscalculation after another, frankly. And arrogance that has lost America respect and influence in the world."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119741,00.html



Kerry: Rumsfeld 'accountable' for Abu Ghraib
Oakland Tribune, Aug 26, 2004 by Jodi Wilgoren, New York Times


GREEN BAY, Wis. -- Teeing off two reports detailing abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Sen. John Kerry on Wednesday renewed his call for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign, citing the need for "accountability that runs through the civilian command."

"It's not just the little person at the bottom who ought to pay the price of responsibility," Kerry told union members at a steamfitters hall in Philadelphia before heading to Green Bay. "Harry Truman had that sign on the desk and it said, 'The buck stops here.' The buck doesn't stop at the Pentagon. And in this case it doesn't just stop with any military personnel."

Speaking on the same day that the Army announced that 35 military intelligence soldiers had been implicated in prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, also called on President Bush to appoint another commission to probe the scandal, focused on the chain of command and the Geneva Conventions.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_200 ...



Wednesday, January 19, 2005

Kerry asks for supporters to sign Rumsfeld recall petition
Kerry, who recently returned from a Middle East trip that included a visit to Iraq, wrote in the letter to supporters "please join me in my call for President Bush to fire Donald Rumsfeld."

"He's the man responsible for the well-being of our troops. He's neglected his duty. He's made excuses. It's time for him to go," Kerry wrote.

http://ifk-johnkerry.blogspot.com/2005/01/kerry-asks-fo ...

Mr. President,
I was surprised and disappointed that you told the Washington Post last week that no Bush administration official should be held accountable for our failures in Iraq. As the situation worsens and more American lives are lost and troops deployed to the region, it's time to stop rewarding incompetence and to start demanding accountability. For the sake of our men and women in uniform and their families here at home, I urge you to start by replacing Donald Rumsfeld. His record of failure and his inability to play it straight with the American people and our troops overseas make him unfit to serve as Secretary of Defense for one more day, never mind four more years.

If you care about restoring our credibility around the world and our credibility with our troops on the ground in Iraq, you've got to start by removing Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. That's why I am joining Senator John Kerry and hundreds of thousands of Americans in adding my name to the johnkerry.com petition calling for Rumsfeld's immediate removal from office.

I urge you to act without delay. We can't afford any more auto-penned letters of condolences and shifting stories about what kind of armor we have to protect our troops.

American soliders and their families are counting on you as Commander in Chief to hold those in charge of the war in Iraq to the highest standards.


Paid for by Friends of John Kerry, Inc.

http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rumsfeld2.php



October 31, 2005
Kerry Blasts Rumsfeld Again
Colmes asks, and Senator John Kerry (MA) blasts:

COLMES: Do you think there should be resignations, with or without indictments?
KERRY: Well, I said about two years ago that I thought Donald Rumsfeld should resign because his management of the war has really been inexcusable. Every prediction made has been proven to be wrong.

He neglected the most important thing, which is do all you can to protect the troops. And still, there are problems with up-armored Humvees or armor. I think it's a disgrace, and I think he should have long ago resigned.

http://www.dems.us/2005/10/kerry_blasts_ru.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #10
39. Do you understand how COMMITTEE hearings work?
If Hillary was really ballsy like you say then she would have BURST IN on Alito's hearing and told him off to his face, even though it wasn't HER committee. Or she would have told off Bolton during his hearing at another committee.

You're right - if Kerry was even ballsier and disrespectful of senate committee protocol, he would have burst in on Hillary's hearing and told Rumsfeld he should resign, just like he called for three years ago. And before he left he would have smacked Hillary in the head for waiting so long to get on board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 07:37 AM
Response to Original message
11. I'm sorry...
... but doing one right thing after missing 1,0000 opportunities to do so is only going to change the mind of an idiot.

Hillary has a long way to go to make up for her failures. A very long way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Sorry, sendero, but you're off by a mile or so
... but doing one right thing after missing 1,0000 opportunities to do so is only going to change the mind of an idiot.

Hillary has a long way to go to make up for her failures. A very long way.


It's all the other Democratic politicians who have the catching up to do. While Hillary is telling people off to their faces, the other ones are hinting pebbles or sending emails.

Love her or hate her, she's got more guts than most any of them, and she's as clear as day about her issues. She's not my first choice to be president, but I'd be happy as a lark if she did end up in the WH, brilliant lady that she is and fine progressive Democrat, too.

No wonder she gets so much press. She speaks out. That's refreshing, even if you don't agree with her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. I'm sorry..
Edited on Fri Aug-04-06 07:55 AM by sendero
... but I don't turn on a dime. Hillary should have been doing this for at least 18 months.

She's only doing it now because she sees the CT tea leaves and she's starting to get it.

Well, if she were the political genius she's supposed to be, she'd have gotten it a long time ago.

Hillary should have been doing this sort of thing FOREVER. She will never get a Republican-leaning vote anyway, so why has she pandered to them all this time? No, it's really too little too late. And please don't use the rest of the pack of losers we have (few exceptions) as a reference point. Just because she's got more balls than Kerry doesn't make her good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #15
26. Really? Show me ONE instance when she made the greater impact on
Edited on Fri Aug-04-06 06:17 PM by blm
the positive record of this nation than John Kerry.

And tell us how she risked her life and her "more balls" in any way compared to Kerry.

In fact, you're welcome to try and name ONE LAWMAKER who has taken on more serious battles and effected this nation's historic record more positively than Kerry has over the last 35 yrs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. You again..
... more balls because rather than issue a statement or read something on the Senate floor she stood right in front of the man and told him he was an idiot in so many words.

Please give me an example of when Sen. Kerry did something like that....

Keep in mind, I'm anything BUT a supporter of HRC, but this time she did what every damn senator should have been doing for 2 years now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. It was HER committee - Rumsfeld doesn't get called into Kerry's committee
Edited on Fri Aug-04-06 06:54 PM by blm
hearings. That's why Kerry beats up on Bolton, while Hillary gets to question Rummy.

And further - don't you think it might have been HELPFUL if Hillary had her epiphany BEFORE the election, when Kerry called for the firing in 2003 and twice in 2004 as the Dem nominee? Abu Ghraib didn't stir her to action?

It would have taken BALLS for her to support Rummy's firing then and speak out and counter McCain, Giuliani and Dole who were popping up on a daily basis to back up Bush and Rummy.

Where were the bigger-balled Dems then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Hey...
...I'm no HRC fan, and the move was pure politics and 2 years late - but you have to admit it was gutsy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Yes, but to describe it comparatively as more balls than the person who
called for it first almost 3 years ago in a much less friendly climate is just baseless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #33
38. I'm really not sure why you think it was 'gutsy'
Was Rumsfeld going to jump out of his chair and slap her?

Grandstanding? Yes, a little.... gutsy? It would have been gutsy if she'd done it when it mattered.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #11
32. Hillary is looking forward to re-election as NY State Senator ...
However, methinks we need to give the DLC "a clue" by requesting that any DREAMS of running for President are lost due to her move to the right.

Why is it that many of our DEMOCRATIC representatives are seemingly the LAST to KNOW how their constituents think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
12. Senator Clinton is right to challenge Rumsfeld, as we are, as some
members of the press are.

Rumsfeld is the focus here. He has presided over Abu Ghraib and is still sitting at his desk in the Pentagon.

That is disgraceful.

Any U.S. Senator is justified in calling for his resignation. Ample reason for it has been established. Senator Clinton, a clerk at 7-11, the corner grocer, and your Great Aunt Tillie all ought to agree that Don Rumsfeld is a callous and arrogant man, and that constitutional republics function better with fewer such men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldboy101 Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
16. Hillary will have my vote
assuming that she runs for prez in '08. I have admired the lady for some time, and she is certainly miles ahead of the current incumbent in brain power!

I do believe that she made a mistake in supporting a constitutional amendment against flag burning, perhaps to gather some support from the right. Not that I favor flag burning, I just see no need for a constitutional amendment that lessens free speech.

However the way she took on Rumsfeld the other day at the Senate hearing, and then publicly called for him to be fired, well now, the lady has my support once more. I believe she will make an excellent prez.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. You're wrong about the flag thing
I do believe that she made a mistake in supporting a constitutional amendment against flag burning


She never did such a thing, but you're not alone in thinking that. What she did was co-sponsor legislation to make it illegal to desecrate the American flag in certain instances. She did this in June of '05 as a means to WARD OFF any congressional flag-burning amendment.

Welcome to DU, btw!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
18. Even back in the 60's I didn't do a lot of recreational drugs...
always too much to do, and needed my wits to do it. But, one night at a college mixer, I put down my can of Fresca and went to to dance. When I came back I foolishly chugged what was left in the can and the room started to go around. Someone had tabbed my drink. The rest of the night was a sort of psychadelic jumble of images and the next day all I could remember was how odd and unreal everything seemed to be. Everything was so unreal and ooky.

So, when I read this:

That subset is the disonest ones, who obviously are mostly intent on hating her. She has lots of experience with that from the other side. Their feelings have nothing to do with what she does, it's what she represents to them. The issues they claim to care about are simply excuses to hate her.

She's a very smart woman and she's rational. She has written this group off in her political calculations.


I felt like was having my first flashback. It was so unreal and ooky, it made me feel like I was there all over again.

This was a joke, right?

TC



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. you're exaggerating, right?
you might disagree with what I wrote, or you might not understand it, but it's not as weird a thought as you're making it out to be.

It's actually a pretty common thing. Write off the b.s. artists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Yes, I was exaggerating....
I disagree with most of what you wrote, and YES I UNDERSTAND IT.... but, this subject of Hillary as POTUS Candidate is something I find I need to get a sense of humor about or I'm gonna snap. It was my attempt at "humor" on the subject. And, again, yes... exaggerated. Sorry you didn't "get" it, or rather, that I didn't "nail" it well enough for you.

My POV on Hillary is now, all joking aside, that she is UNELECTABLE.

I know you probably disagree with me on that, but it is my opinion.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. she was unelectable for senate too
Hillary knew that was b.s. too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melovedemos Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
24. unique critic
here is a strategy to affect elections for Hillary..i wonder what critics would say and will Clinton ignore it this time...

http://www.votersdomain.com/article/103/id/6756/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Hi melovedemos!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
27. Well, Holy Joementum has been writing his critics off for a long time
and he's STILL a senator... So, ignoring your critics is a tried-and-true, winning political strategy.
:sarcasm:


oh, wait..... is it Tuesday yet? :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Good answer
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. Lieberman has some bogus critics too
and Joe is as rational as Hillary and of course he would and should ignore the liars and hypocrites.

But that isn't why Joe is in trouble. His ignoring those dishonest folks had no effect on anything, because those people never would have voted for him anyway. They don't care about the issues they pretend to care about. They're committed to trashing him no matter what he does.

Joe is in trouble because he disdains the people in CT who are like me. Who actually care about the issues he sells us out on. Who have nothing personal against Joe except his record. Who actually pay attention to the good he has done and don't hang on to our preconeptions of him.

In other words, he takes for granted the people who might vote for him, who might in fact have voted for him in the past, who trusted him to the extent one can trust a politician, and whom he often betrays.

That's why he's in trouble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #31
37. And Hillary will never be President
because (like ol' Joe) many, many Americans are convinced she's more interested her own personal political success than commitment to fundamental ideals. (co-president, indeed!)

Swaying from one side of the political spectrum to the other based only on the current political temperature is as much a definition of a sell-out as Joe's stubborn insistence in sticking with the Republicans and his cozy right-wing relationships. Neither is a principled stand.

Joe's (and Hillary's) problems don't stem from a few 'liars and hypocrites'. Their very similar problems are a result of many who have woken to the fact that actions speak louder than words.

Hillary's dissatisfaction with Rumsfeld comes four years too late. Either she wasn't smart enough to see it before, or she felt that such criticism would be a bar to her larger political future,

Neither reason is sufficient for this lifelong, female Democrat to consider her as a Presidential candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
35. I love her, ie Hillary............... so shoot me! Like I care!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarkDevin Donating Member (529 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
36. Personally, I agree with everything she said to Rumsferatu.
I'm not one of Hillary's biggest fans, but she damn sure nailed it today. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
40. And all this matters not.
She won't win a general election. This country is too gynophobic, particularly while we're at war. She won't flip a red state and she may lose us a couple of blue ones.

I'm not denying that she's smart and rational. I don't hate her. I hardly call her out. I just don't see her winning in the current political climate: that of national security being the most important. Sorry, but the masses simply don't see women as being strong in that arena (and I'm a woman).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. that's quite backwards thinking, imo
same as the people that say Feingold can't win because he's Jewish.

I do think the country as a whole is more progressive than you in the sense of being accepting the possibility of a woman president. Note that females have been elected head of state in other countries.

The elements in opposition to this progressiveness are both prejudice against women and also the kind of fear that your post displays. As long as primary voters rule out female candidates because they "can't" win then there will never be a female president.

Fortunately, this kind of thinking is in the minority, imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Yep. And the country is backwards... or haven't you noticed?
Edited on Sat Aug-05-06 11:29 PM by Clark2008
Lemme guess. You live... oh, I don't know, in a city. Maybe a Northern city. You have VERY LITTLE interaction with rural people.

Because, it's not fear, my son, it's fact, what I say.

And women STILL only make 72 cents on the dollar compared to men.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theanarch Donating Member (523 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-06-06 12:58 AM
Response to Original message
44. Unlike Bush, who is simply half-witted, Hillary's problem is
being too clever by half. It doesn't take "guts" to grandstand at a Congressional hearing; a better display of courage would be to admit her support of the war was wrong AND blame BushCo. for lying U.S. into it AND for mismanaging it to boot. With all due respect, i've seen this before, during Vietnam, and remember the excruciatingly glacial slowness with which Democratic (and quite a few Republican, mostly after it became Nixon's war) politicians dragged themselves from warhawk to pro-war critic to psuedo-dove over the course of years. It was only when public opinion turned so far against the war that supporting it became politically (that is, electorally) untenable that positions--and voting patterns--changed. Hell, even Leiberman called for Dumbsfeld's resignation...and not only because Joe wants (and will soon need) the job. They're getting the same message from their constituants, and trimming their sails (and rhetoric) accordingly...so unlike, oh, i don't know, Cynthia McKinney?

Unlike many here, who seem to demand an almost saint-like behavior from their elected officials, i have no illusions about the amoral personality any ambitious politician needs to succeed in politics; i even accept that as a given. Far more important to me than "moral character" or even personal deportment is where they stand on the issues, and how consistant and outspoken they are in advancing/defending them. As Mark Twain observed, "An honest politician is one who stays bought". By that definition, Hillary and Joe sold out a very long time ago.
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 Wed Apr 16th 2014, 03:24 AM
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