Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

One of Hillary's flip-flops finally hits the MSM...

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
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 06:30 PM
Original message
One of Hillary's flip-flops finally hits the MSM...
Can you believe Chris Matthews brought it up tonight-that Hillary slammed Obama for saying he'd take nukes off the table re: Pakistan but about a year earlier she said something very similar?! Here's an article about it since the transcript's not up yet:

I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table, Mrs. Clinton told Bloomberg Television in an interview in April 2006, responding to a question about how the Bush administration would try to prevent Iran from building up its nuclear program.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/clinton-d...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
graywarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. They're actually discussing her use of the word "girl."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I know. Tweety seems to have a nightly segment only about Hillary...
whatever the subject, he's treating her as the Dem. nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. tweety is only slightly less hostile to the clintons

than was that sexual deviant little warthog, ken starr.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. No wonder he praises her, names her as the "clear winner" and acts like she's the nominee...
He wants her to win the primary and lose the general.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. good heavens

there are goblins behind every tree. do we know for a fact
that tweety wants a rethuglican in the white house? I don't
keep up with him. he comes on the same time as SportsCenter.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Well, you said...
"tweety is only slightly less hostile to the clintons than was that sexual deviant little warthog, ken starr."

Do YOU think he wants Hillary to win? I DO keep up with him. I watch him every night. He clearly wants Giuliani to win. "America wants a hero" he says. "When I think of Giuliani, I get the image of him walking through the rubble with the mask on his face, comforting the people after the greatest tragedy on our soil." He says he doesn't think Americans really care about his liberal positions in this post 9/22 world since he's seen as strong on defense. He calls the Repubs. "the Daddy party" and "strong on defense." It's clear as day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. I concede this one to you. I quite honestly don't know what tweety may or may not desire
he's fun to watch when he has lawrence o'donnell on, but as I said,
I am usually watching sportscenter instead of him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Thank you.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. no problem.
hillary people are quite magnanimous.


:evilgrin:

please don't take that the wrong way. I genuinely appreciate
the fact that we can discuss this without either one of us
going bonkers. it's fairly uncommon in GD: Politics these
days. ;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. As are Obama supporters...
:evilgrin:

I'll still vote for "your girl" if she's the nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. outstanding.

and I will happily vote for "your guy" if he wins the nomination.

I am sure he would make a fine president. it isn't that I dislike
him, by any means. I just think "my girl" is stronger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. Deal.
I hope everyone feels the same way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. I think

that they probably don't. but I admire and respect your
outlook. :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. Thanks...
as I do yours. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. personally, I thought that was an excellent touch.

there are still a lot of people that consider her cold and
distant. that comment was very humanizing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. i think the difference . . .
is that she wasn't a candidate for the highest office in the
land when she said it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. But she had to know she was going to be one...
it was just about a year ago. And she had to know there'd be video of her saying it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. "going to be" is different from "currently is".

that really is all there is to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. She was a Senator. And we all knew she'd be a candidate.
A Senator saying it is just as "irresponsible."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. I think you fail to understand the difference

between a senator, and an announced candidate for the
presidency. that difference is vast.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Yes, I DO fail to understand the difference. A Senator is part of the government
and has a say in what happens re: foreign policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. a senator is 1/100th of 1/2 of 1/3rd of the national government

the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces,
and sets foreign policy.

as I said, the difference is vast.

barack obama could very well be the next president. the democratic
nomination appears to be coming down to him or hillary. he needs to
realize that. what he says, as a very VERY possible democratic nominee,
matters a great deal.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Doesn't matter. Either her words matter before she became a candidate
or they don't. But if they don't, then none of what she DID before she became a candidate should matter, either. Ya gotta take the good with the bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #20
27. oh, for heaven's sake. it absolutely matters.

a top tier presidential candidate is a completely different form of life.
i think either obama or hillary will be the next president of the united
states. you can't seriously be ignoring what that means.

a senator, as I said, is 1/100th of 1/2 of 1/3 of the federal government.
these are huge differences that you are refusing to recognize.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #27
34. She said it knowing she'd be a presidential candidate...
are you saying her words don't matter before she became a candidate? She also said she'd absolutely meet with the rulers of Iran, Syria, Cuba, etc. and then called Obama naive and irresponsible for saying the same thing. Again-does that not count somehow?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. once agagain, what you may be is very different from what you currently are
i didn't say her words didn't matter before she was a candidate. i said that the
words of a top-tier, likely nominee, such as hillary or obama, matter infinitely
more.

so, it counts, just not as much.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. So when she said she'd meet with our enemies, that counted?
When she earlier said she'd absolutely meet with them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. which enemies?

I'm not sure I am following . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. Iran, Syria, Cuba's leaders, etc. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #39
83. I'd like an explantation of just when Hillary's words can be taken seriously!
She was considered a top tier candidate for president by everyone a year ago. In fact it has been longer than that since she has been considered the front runner.

Besides, that is really not the point. When Hillary says one thing about taking nukes off the table one year and says the exact opposite the next...it raises concerns. Especially when she is ATTACKING another candidate for voicing almost the exact same words as she used recently.

Seems Hillary is at odds with herself as much as Obama....either that or she is simply saying anything, regardless of principle, to attack Obama.

Which is it? Naivity on her part? Lack of consistency? Hypocricy? Any way you cut it, it is pronounced: FLIP FLOP!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #83
87. Bump for a response...
And I recommend this post. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #87
131. nearly missed this subthread

since this thread was pretty hyperactive friday night.

thanks. ;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #83
130. I think you will find

that hillary's body of opinion of an announced candidate for the
democratic nomination for president is entirely consistent. if you
want to split hairs and go back years and years, then at least have
the intellectual honesty to do it for the rest of the field of candidates
as well.

but no one willing to do that. it's the "hillary double standard",
where people are altogether too willing to slime her with whatever
piece of trash is found lying in the gutter, but refuse to apply the
same standard to the rest of the field.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #130
165. "years and years" Oh My God!
I thought the previous quote was last year!

Just how far are you Hillary Puppets willing to twist pretzel logic to win her adulation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. So all her 'experience' prior to her becoming a candidate doesn't matter either?
Guess her '15 years of fighting right wingers' doesn't count b/c Senator Clinton wasn't running for President for all those 15 years. I don't think she can have it both ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. why are there so many people here that insist

on either forgetting or ignoring the constant, nasty right
wing attacks against her?

she makes the right wing insane. they have been trying to
land the knock out punch on her for 15 years, and she has
kicked their asses virtually every time. in fact, she and her
husband are the only democrats in the past 25 years that seem
impervious to the right wing dirty tricks machine. but some
people want to pick nits and split hairs.

I just don't get it. that "girl" is a winner. yet so many
good progressives are doing their best to throw her to the
wolves. sorry, gang. she is stronger than that. she will
be there in the end, I assure you.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Yup, and she'll energize the Repub. base like NO other candidate.
Is that what we want and need-to polarize the country again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. the rethuglican base will be energized no matter what

of all the arguments against hillary, that one makes the
least sense. "don't nominate hillary, because the bug eyed
zealots don't like her". I will never understand that one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. It's true that SHE will energize the Repub. base more than any others...
I've heard several real Repub. voters, not RW hacks on TV who want to run against her, say they like Obama because they think he can bring this country together and they're sick of all the partisanship. I never heard any Repub. say that. EVER.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. first of all, I tend to dismiss anecdotal evidence

but SURELY you don't expect me to give a damn what some republican
voter allegedly thinks. why are so many obama people so obsessed
with making the damn republicans happy? it's just bizarre.

the right wing will scare their base to the polls with some gay marriage
bogey man, or immigration bogey man, or osama bin laden bogey man. and
that is irrespective of who the nominee is. you can take that one to the
bank.

and the partisanship is very unlikely to end anytime soon. so, why don't
we elect someone that will kick their ass at it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. That's ok...
Edited on Fri Aug-10-07 07:43 PM by jenmito
We're NOT obsessed with making Repubs. happy. We ARE obsessed with someone getting more than 51% of the vote and dividing the country for another 8 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #36
43. this is another difference of opinion we have
Edited on Fri Aug-10-07 07:51 PM by hijinx87
I don't think uniting the country is possible. the differences are stark,
and probably insoluble. I am prepared to be in the trenches for another
decade, literally. as such, I want a ninja assassin (politically speaking,
of course) in the white house.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. It sure is...
but I don't see how Obama isn't a ninja assassin, especially after the way he took on Hillary, Dodd, and Biden in the IL debate and kicked butt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #46
52. he was pretty good in the IL debate

I admit. as I said, I don't dislike obama, I just like
hillary more.

I was thinking more along the lines of assassinating the
rethugs and their attacks. I'm not going to tear your guy
down, but I think hillary will take those same attacks that
john kerry agonized over (do I respond, or don't I respond?),
and blow them to pieces . . . . the same afternoon.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. Thanks...
I think Obama will do the same thing. He's already getting used to being attacked and learning how to strike back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. he is impressive in his responses to the attacks on him lately

I admit that as well. but the rethugs are complete slimeballs.
they are another thing entirely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #58
63. I think he'll do very well against them...
He's very intelligent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #63
72. very much so.

he might be the smartest politician I have ever observed. but
he isn't exactly "seasoned".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. I gotta disagree...
He's been being seasoned his entire life IMO. I bet he's had to defend himself often through many different circumstances. But I agree about the "smartest politician" thing. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #73
76. I have to admit

it must be hard growing up as a black man in this country (to the
extent that he did).

he doesn't have "my girl's" seasoning as far as right wing attacks
go.

she flat kicks their ass every time.

that is one of the reasons I am a hillaryite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #76
86. Yup...
He got to where he is today DESPITE being black...not BECAUSE he's black. Today people (like Mrs. Edwards) may rightfully say he's getting more attention because he's black, but so what? He deserves it for being black his entire life and making such a success out of himself. He was the first A.A. President of the Harvard Law Review. And he's had to fight discrimination most of his life, too. It's not like he got where he was and then suddenly turned black.

Your girl has faught the RW attacks, yes, but they were mostly about her husband (unless you can name other attacks that were soley on her). My point is even though she was attacked by the RW the Dems. were always strongly behind her and Bill. So if she became our nominee, she'd have to go through even MORE of the same BS. For example, the other week, RW radio hack Melanie Morgan said on Hardball that "Hillary's wife Bill is dating again..." Nice of her to call Bill "Hillary's wife," but what if Bill IS caught cheating again? Won't it be a distraction to say the least?

She may be a good fighter, but how many people want to go through all that again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
31. so we should nominate someone the right-wing likes?
who would that be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. that was sort of my question, too n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #31
40. No. We should nominate someone who has good judgement and is, at the same time,
a fresh face and a new start. Obama was against the IWR when it was unpopular to be. He didn't change his position when the country started changing its position. Obama is the one above the fray-someone who more Repubs.-not RWers-could vote for to unify our country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #40
49. The right-wing will attack
ANY candidate we nominate. They're not gonna go easier on Obama than Clinton - that's silly.

Clinton has been attacked by them for 15 years - she's been one of the most-investigated people in American history - and they found NOTHING.

You don't think they'll portray Obama as a muslim coke-head? How will he respond to those attacks? We don't know.

We know that Cinton fights back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #49
53. Of course they will...
but their base won't be as energized against a person like Obama. They have tons of dirt on Hillary compared to Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #53
57. the "dirt" they have on Hillary
has been put out there, years ago. None of it stuck.

I simply don't understand why people here think we should let the right-wing choose our candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #57
64. Who says it's all been put out there?
And what about the things she has said just recently-like, "Sometimes you shouldn't say what you really think," or, darn it, there was something else, but I have a mind block...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #57
84. The"dirt" has been out there....so that when it is drudged out AGAIN it will be familiar,believable
Of course the right wing is not going to vote Democratic anyway.

What I am talking about is the MODERATES who WILL decide the election.

And I am talking about being able to FRAME the debate during the campaign.

If Hillary is nominated, more than anyone else, the Reps will be able to frame the debate around all the old memes about Hillary that have been carefully planted for years. For a large part, they are quiet about them now, but once she would get the nomination, they would explode.

So most of our energies and time and money will be spent explaining away these memes instead of being able to present our campaign on our own terms and take our issues to the fore.

This is one of the ways Kerry was hurt. It would be even easier with Hillary simply because these memes have already been planted.

Saying she has been able to survive them is wishful thinking. She has never run for office nationally. She has only run as a Sentator in a solidly Democratic state.

I am really pessimistic about her chances in the general, and am not that optimistic about Obama's either, although I think he has a much better chance than Hillary.

Sorry, but I don't think Hillary's familiarity is going to make her stronger than Obama in the general.

I have a feeling that in 08 the voters are going to want something different. More than any of our candidates, Hillary represents going back to more of the same, and i am not associating her with Bush, but we have seen the Bushes mangle things, people liked Clinton I, but there were some struggles here. It is going to be a hard sell presenting Hillary as a fresh start. And that is what many voters are gonna want to see. It is ironic that they might find a fresh new start with another republican, but with enough advertising a republican could be presented as a fresh start better than hillary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #53
59. what? vince foster?

the stuff they think they have on hillary will be laughed out of the
public discourse. in fact, they will make themselves look foolish against
her if they try that shit.

to a very large degree, the rethuglicans just lose their minds against
anyone named "clinton". she will laugh her way to the white house. I
genuinely believe that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #59
166. vince foster for a start.....but try Ms Flip Flop on for size....
You earlier seemed to be in denial about her giant flip flops. I guess when FlIP is awhile ago and FLOP is now, it is ok, right? Well, good luck with that. But most voters will see flip and flop as being a negative.

Hillary=Queen of Flip Flops!

If you think Vince Foster is all they have in their quivver, you are hopelessly optimistic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #53
60. I heard Rash Limbaugh
say today they have tons of stuff to use on Obama when the time comes. That means the vast right wing conspiracy will make up tons of stuff if they need to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #60
65. If it's false, he'll fight it.
Making stuff up won't work on him I don't think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #65
68. What planet are you from?
They turned John Kerry, a decorated war hero, into a cowardly scammer.

Lies won't work? That's very naive.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. I'm from earth...
Kerry regretted not fighting back. ALL Dems. learned from his mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #68
77. go easy, bro

she is pretty much the smartest and (definitely) the
calmest obama person I have ever met.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #77
88. Why THANKS, hijinx!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #68
95. I'm watching the Iowa Repub. straw poll speeches...
and at least three of the candidates said, "And I'm the one who could beat Hillary!" (Or something similar about Hillary). The crowd goes wild every time anyone mentions her name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #40
56. yeah, he was against the war, but

he didn't have national security responsibilities at the time.

don't you think she was under some obligation to vote the will
of her constituents? public opinion was overwhelmingly in favor
of the IWR at the time.

I just don't think you can compare her vote in the united states
senate to his speeches as a state senator.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #56
62. I disagree...
Her responsibility was to do what was best for our country. Obama, unlike Hillary, saw the dangers of what would happen if we invaded Iraq. Hillary didn't-or she did but didn't want to seem unpatriotic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #62
66. you have hit upon it exactly. you do that a lot, by the way.

;)

it was all about being "patriotic". the whole world thought
iraq had WMD. voting against a resolution to go in and remove
what everyone was sure that existed was insane at the time.

I give obama credit for being right. but he was right at a time
when he was nationally not significant, and had no national
responsibility.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #66
69. Thanks (again)...
but many Dems. voted AGAINST the IWR. She admits she didn't read the intel. (or whatever it was they had to read), but I also believe she voted for it knowing she'd be running for president and a "no" vote would be used against her. But it turned out to be unpopular so she turned against it.

I heard it said on some show that Obama has wanted to be president for a long time, so I think his speech could very well have been used against him later if the war turned out to be a "success."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #69
75. name three prominent democrats

that had national prominence, and are candidates for
the nomination, and voted against the IWR.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #75
89. I can't. But Russ Feingold was thinking about it...
And Kucinich voted against it. Don't laugh...it's the best I could do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #89
105. Wellstone voted no, and he was in a tight race for re-election
Some have courage, others...er....don't.

Wellstone was inspirational.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #105
108. Ah...thanks for the info.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #75
113. So all of these Democrats are just smarter than Hill?
The Democratic Party Honor Roll
These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand against the WAR Machine.

IWR

United States Senate

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)


United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu


?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #113
114. But he asked..."...and are candidates for the nomination..."
So HER vote for the IWR was a calculated move. But that means she knew she'd be running for president, which means she shouldn't have been so irresponsible to say that nukes on Iran would be off the table if she was Bush. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #114
116. Yes. He limited the choices.
I prefer to be more open when evaluating a candidates Intelligence, Judgement, Integrity, and Values.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #116
117. I do, too...
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #116
129. "limited" is a misleading verb. I simply choose to be consistent.

why in the world would you want to drag up something besides
candidates for the nomination? because your goal is to make her look
as bad as possible? my point is that, other than kucinich( :eyes:), everyone
voted for the IWR. the secondary point is that hillary is the only
one of them that DU seems even mildly interested in holding responsible.

if you want to carp about hillary's IWR vote, you have to hold
the rest of the field responsible, too.

this doesn't tell you nearly so much about hillary clinton as it
does about us, and how hypocritical we are willing to be.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #62
104. Right....also, Obama had constituents too....
Hillary was not the only one with constituents. In fact, some of the brave Senators voted no on IWR.

There were also compromises, such as the Levin Amendment, the same day as the IWR. Hillary voted NO on Levin too, which is even worse than voting yes on IWR, but it has not been publicized as much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #104
109. That's right...
and I'm glad you mentioned that Hillary voted against the Levin Amendment! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #104
128. obama had ZERO national security responsibility

whatever his constituency may or may not have thought.

the point is that no one cared what obama thought on the
IWR at the time. if we didn't care then, why does it matter
now?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #128
133. He still spoke out against it and NAILED it re: what the result of our invasion would be
Why do you think no one CARED what he thought about the IWR at the time? He had audiences/constituents he was speaking to who were listening. It matters now because it shows his good judgement, his intelligence, and his ability to see past the "ideal" of "blind patriotism."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #133
136. I dismiss it as irrelevant.

his position on the IWR was irrelevant then, it should remain
irrelevant now. his constituents didn't look to him for national
security, they looked to him for strictly local issues. I am perfectly
prepared to look accept his leadership on foreign policy matters now. but
now his position is virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the pack's,
save the irrepressible denni kucinich.

I am just being consistent. no one cared what he thought then. why
should anyone care what about his past position now?





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #136
139. I really don't understand how you can dismiss it...
Edited on Sun Aug-12-07 06:33 PM by jenmito
He held public office and he publicly spoke out against the IWR when it was very popular. He had the intelligence and knowledge of the world to know (and SAY) exactly what would happen if we invaded Iraq. To dismiss that as irrelevant when he had the guts o speak out against it and then run for the U.S. Senate doesn't make much sense to me. If he spoke out and didn't plan to run for anything I can understand why you might discount what he said. But he said what he believed, and ran for the U.S. Senate and won. Maybe you should read his speech from 2002. I'm sure it'll make you think again ;) :

http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #139
143. he spoke out against it when no one nationally cared what he thought.

how much news did obama make on his position on the IWR? zero.
(I am sure that's because hillary controls the MSM, of course :eyes:)

you put a lot of stock into what obama and hillary may have been
about to do before they were announced candidates. I prefer to stick
with what they were doing right then and there, and what their roles
and responsibilities were, and to stick with the body of evidence since
they declared.

the road to failure is fraught with what we "think" someone is about
to do. until they do it, I just don't think it's reality.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #143
147. But it was still what he believed and said...
Nope. It has nothing to do with Hillary, but thanks for the eye roll anyway.

I put a lot of stock into what they did AFTER what they said, because politicians know when they're planning on doing certain things, I'm sure. I love what Obama said-his judgement and intelligence. I didn't like what Hillary said-especially that she didn't even read all the intel. reports nor vote for the Levin amendment which would've allowed for more diplomacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #147
149. honestly, jenmito
Edited on Sun Aug-12-07 08:10 PM by hijinx87
would you care what state legislator brett bumstock said about the war
right now?

of course not.

should it therefore carry any weight? also, of course not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #149
153. If he ran for national office a year later, definitely...
It's good to know what someone has done or said in the past so I can judge how they'll be in the future. It's not as if everything the person did before jumping on the national stage is meaningless. Just the opposite is true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #153
155. no, it just doesn't matter

what he did before the national stage.

(and the eyeroll wasn't meant for you)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #155
160. It matters to me...
I can judge someone by THEIR juddgement in the past. So it shouldn't matter that Bush was an alcoholic in his "youth" ('til 40)? What if Obama murdered someone in his youth? Unimportant?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #160
162. specious (yet effective) argument

is the dogcatcher qualified to be the governor? I think not.

only someone as smart as you could attempt to turn that around on
me. but I'm not gonna bite, jennmito.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #162
164. I accept the effective part...
:D If the dog catcher is a quick study, tries hard enough, he (or she)may become governor, yes.

Thanks. You MUST bite. And chew 100 times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #164
171. I am a moderate. you got me!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ethelk2044 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #128
135. The Point is he got it right the first time. I do not want someone in office who can not make the
right decisions. That is the reason why we are in a war now. Because people did not have good Judgment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #135
137. just for the sake of argument, is a single wrong decision automatically disqualifying?
and do you apply that same rigorous standard to the entire
field of candidates?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
54. i agree, sometimes I wonder if I am on ahe DU board or a RW board when
it comes to her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #54
127. You said it.
I find I'm defending Clinton more than anyone else, and I'm pretty much neutral about all of them at this point. (well to be honest there's one I don't like, but this isn't the place)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #127
132. defending hillary is actually

what turned me into a hillaryite. well, made me a more absolutely
convinced hillaryite, anyway. as I looked into each and every
unfair/untrue attack, I learned more about her, and realized she
was "my girl". ;)

an odd way to become a supporter of a political candidate, and the
exact opposite of the intentions of the rabid wing of the "anyone
but hillary" faction, but that's the way it happened.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #132
141. That's very true,
Edited on Sun Aug-12-07 06:46 PM by seasonedblue
I asked someone why they were calling her a conservative of all things, got no real answer and took a look at her voting record myself, which is quite liberal. These mindless attacks have persuaded me to like her even more than I did before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #141
144. her ADA LQ is 100%, last I checked.
Edited on Sun Aug-12-07 07:11 PM by hijinx87
calling her "bush lite" is the very height of perversion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #9
78. No. HRC can't put "I was married to the boss" on her resum.
Please ... HRC can't have it both ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. She's been a candidate since 2000
Everybody knew she always planned to run, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. and john edwards has been "running" since kerry conceded

do we go back and dredge up every stray comment he has
made since that moment? no. why? because it's a little
silly, completely pointless, and proves nothing.

the same applies to hillary, unless we are going to insist
once more on applying the "hillary double standard", where
every candidate in the field gets slack, and she gets slimed.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terri S Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #2
101. So she has different values as a Senator than as a President?
She changes her position on something as vitally significant as nuclear attack depending on what position she's in? That is one of my gravest problems about Hillary, I simply don't think she has a genuine bone in her body. And when she changes again, will she say being a candidate is different than being a president so all bets are off? I've been watching her for a long time, and this is far from the only time she's shape-shifted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
21. There's no double standard
Hillary's comments and Obama's are different. It inadvisable for a candidate to say how they would use nuclear weapons. Its OK to say whether the threat of nukes is worthwhile for a short term negotiating technique. The latter doesn't telegraph to an opponent whether its safe to assume or not.

Off the table means not right now. It doesn't mean never.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. If, as you just said,
"Off the table means not right now. It doesn't mean never," what's wrong with what Obama said?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #25
61. Obama said he'd never use the weapons. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #61
96. Is using nukes a good thing? Just askin'
'Cause even Bush hasn't used nukes.

And most of us think Bush is trigger happy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #96
97. Could you imagine if OBAMA would've said nuking Pakistan is on the table?
"Another rookie mistake." But if Hillary says it, she sounds presidential. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #96
98. The threat of using nukes can help
That doesn't mean I think we should use them except in the most exteme situations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terri S Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #98
102. In the mountains of Pakistan?
He was talking about going after terrorist camps in the mountains of Pakistan. This is an extreme situation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bongo Prophet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 02:34 AM
Response to Reply #102
123. To be precise, Obama said "the mountains BETWEEN Afghanistan and Pakistan"
Now, I don't know about this place between Afghanistan and Pakistan, it does not show up on the map.
Some nether region in another dimension perhaps. More study needed as to their geography and form of government.

That's just a joke folks, but I wish he would stop saying that before it catches on.
We have too many enemies as it is.

Till we have a clarification, all hail Obamistan!

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #123
134. You should ask the Pakistani "spokesman" (from the govt.) who was on Late Edition this morning
He said he thinks bin Laden is in the mountainous region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. I guess he didn't get the memo that it's known as "Obamistan."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bongo Prophet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #134
146. There is no sense of humor anymore on DU, even on weekends? Maybe it was taken seriously? Sorry.
I am unfamiliar with adjoining borders having space between them. I miss these spaces every border I have ever crossed - perhas I should slow down more.
Is there space between Texas and Oklahoma? US and Canada?
More importantly, is it a duty free zone?

Regarding Obamistan -No memo was issued. It was just a freaking joke okay?
I only try to make mild humor while people are so busy trying to trash each other's candidates.Lighten it up a bit, for we are all supposed to be on the same side.

I would prefer our nominee to come out less tattered and take on the GOP from a position of strength and not battle weary from the primaries.
DU goes batshit crazy during the primary season, and a bit of light chiding should cause no harm in all the serious bashing that is the norm.

I have respect for Obama, and if that is the phrase he wishes to use, so be it.
Maybe I need remedial geography. :hi:

Seriously though - the word between can mean spanning, and I was just having some fun.
This is second time I have made someone mad when I was just joking, in the midst of a full barfight.
Tempers are high right now, and I guess I should just go back to digby and greenwald, where the air is fresher and with less chairs flying to and fro.

Sorry to have ruffled any feathers. May your candidate do well.
Whoever wins will have my support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #146
148. I have a great sense of humor, but...
your point was very serious and you just stated it again. Like I said, the leaders of these countries and their govt. officials have all spoken about "the region (or mountainous area) between Pakistan and Afghanistan." Of course "Obamistan" was a joke but your point was not. I wasn't mad at you-just pointing out that "real" govt. officials FROM Pakistan and Afghanistan have used the same phrase.

And like I said, I'll vote for whomever the nominee ends up being.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bongo Prophet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #148
167. Thanks for being cool about it, jenmito
Though not intended as a serious point, word choices and multi-definition do matter, I agree. I am glad that it is a common phrase to use, and a quote is available. That is it used by officials in the region is especially good. Anybody laughs at the phrase in the future I can let them know it is common usage.

Even though I did laugh when Barack said "between x and y" that was not because I really think he believes in a mythical place between countries, nor do I believe he is unable to use a map (reinforcing the "inexperience" meme). It just sounded funny, in the context of another dimensional space between borders. Like Narnia or something (but for terrorists)... :)... Just wordplay and a bit of whimsy. "If there was a region between Canada and Washington, I would like to move there! (assuming decent land prices and easy immigration)" is WAY different than a derisive "Haha, Obama can't read a map!" --- just so you know that the former is where my humor was coming from. ;)

Maybe the only serious thing regarding the term would be to discuss whether that is the best phrasing, as compared with "the region between" (not much better at avoiding the double entendre) or "spanning" as I said before. As you know, it is common to work and test phrases/terms during a campaign in politics, business, whatever. No disrespect to Obama for that. Whichever candidate will have to deal with the slime throwers in the general, I want them untainted with the silly stuff, like this phrase could turn out to be if used by the Rovians, similar to flip-flop or haircuts and all that. Because of that, I probably shouldn't have posted it at all. There have been a few other people, online and off, that have noticed the term, and always with gentle humor that in no way detracted from what he said. They did notice, but are friendly dems, so no problem.

Our candidates can stand on their issues, no problem. The tiny inconsequential "character defining" crap seems to be way more influential than it should be, and it works by short-circuiting the ability of people to take a candidate seriously. (Think "invented the internet") That is also a serious worry when I see Barack getting double-teamed in the Union forum. Or anyone else in the future -serious debate, but don't say things you'll regret later. Tweety eats that kind of stuff.

I cringed a bit when Hillary said "I'm your girl" for obvious reasons (feminist thang) but she pulled it off with a great smile and the crowd seemed to love it, and no big backlash that I have heard.
GOP has NOTHING on issues, so they will have to fight dirty, their favorite level of play. (I don't think they can play any other way, they have lost that ability for a long time)

All of this is minor compared to the reality that we face, of course. The corporate media will play the game they play, Rovians will do what they do, and we will have to stick together in solidarity to have a chance.
Respect to you also, Jenmito. You have been a good advocate without insulting those you are debating. That is a big plus in this environment, and I appreciate it... :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #167
168. No problem, Bongo!
Edited on Sun Aug-12-07 10:36 PM by jenmito
I heard someone from Pakistan say it today on CNN. For now I just found a headline saying something similar: "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. forces searching for al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden along the mountainous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan will soon implement high-tech surveillance tactics in the region, enabling them to monitor the area 24 hours a day, seven days a week, CNN has learned."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/03/04/binladen.se...


I know you wrote a LOT and I read it all and am fine with it and will respond more tomorrow but I'm goin' to bed now. So, I'll add more tomorrow. Thanks for being cool about it, too. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #98
103. Hillary didn't think the threat of nukes could help in Iran...
we already know how she really feels. Unless she just says what she thinks people want to hear at any given time...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #103
107. Fact of the matter is, Hillary said they would not be on the table...that was before she said....
...that they would be on the table.

I bet it pisses off the table setters who have to change that table of hers all the time whenever she changes her mind as to what would be on it.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #107
110. Exactly....
Edited on Sat Aug-11-07 10:57 PM by jenmito
:D I just hope the MSM start pointing these things out. Maybe they will once they get tired of Hillary being so far ahead because of their "hands off approach" towards her...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
22. as pointed out here-----CONTEXT is very important.



Forum Name General Discussion: Politics
Topic subject Context is nice.
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
3442633, Context is nice.
Posted by rinsd on Fri Aug-10-07 05:20 PM

I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table, Mrs. Clinton said. This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we havent seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think thats a terrible mistake.

Phil Singer, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said she had been responding to a specific news report that the Bush administration was considering nuclear strikes on Iran. The context, Mr. Singer said, was different from the one raised last week by Mr. Obama.

Senator Clinton was not talking about a broad hypothetical, nor was she speaking as a presidential candidate, Mr. Singer said. Given the saber-rattling that was coming from the Bush White House at the time, it was totally appropriate and necessary to respond to that report and call it the wrong policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. If SHE was president, she would take nukes off the table re: striking Iran...
Edited on Fri Aug-10-07 07:20 PM by jenmito
Obama said he'd take nukes off the tsble re: Pakistan and Afghanistan.

A spokesman can "clarify" all they want. Clinton was not making a broad hypothetical, and she was talking as a future presidential candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #26
38. In listening to the actual debate----she clearly was talking about a 'hypo=
thical'------check her transcript please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. So was Obama. Unless I missed something...
it's ALL hypothetical. And I thought she doesn't DO hypotheticals!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #41
50. I was referring to previous and past statement made by Clinton (not Obama)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #50
67. They're ALL hypotheticals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #41
124. She doesn't DO hypotheticals when she doesn't want to answer a question....
That doesn't mean, of course, that she doesn't answer hypotheticals when it is to her advantage. Surely the context from which she would talk about hypotheticals is different than the context where she would not talk about hypotheticals, and it also depends on whether she is a candidate for president at the time, future candidate for president, or just being Hillary. Gees, you gotta make some convoluted explantations with her....wouldn't it be easier if she just didn't talk out of both sides of her mouth?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #124
126. Exactly...
I don't know why she's given a pass on all of this!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
71. matthews shocked me by acutally saying something true rather than gush about Hillary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-10-07 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #71
74. Me, too! That's what inspired me to start this thread!
But then he had an entire seggment about her, as if she was already the nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #74
79. To Rupert Murdoch, the Political Ruling Elite and their Journalistic Errand Boys/Girls
Edited on Sat Aug-11-07 12:24 AM by ShortnFiery
it's all about the big *get even.* HRC and the DLC who blindly support her do not realize that "The night of the long knives" will begin the moment after she snags the nomination.

Right Wingers like Murdoch (and The Bush Family) NEVER FORGIVE! If HRC is anointed, our entire party will figuratively go down in flames, i.e., we will be swift-boated out of Congressional Control as well as the Executive Branch.

The Corporate Press is salivating over the prospect of HRC as nominee. Unfortunately, both HRC and her supporters HONESTLY believe that she can win a General Election. IF we had a true "Fourth Estate" maybe she'd stand a chance but not in this poisonous atmosphere. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #79
90. That's the problem...
Edited on Sat Aug-11-07 11:45 AM by jenmito
and why I say nobody will unite the Repub. party to come out and vote against Hillary Clinton. I can see the "ABC" signs now-Anyone But Clinton."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superkia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 12:15 AM
Response to Original message
80. I was amazed it hit the MSM also!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #80
91. Especially Tweety saying it! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
81. I have decided that Matthews has something wrong with him
Seriously - medically.

He has gone nuts. I have been thinking that for awhile now.

But after the AFL-Cio debate, I was certain. He pressured Pat Robertson to say
Hillary won.

Glad today he had a moment of sanity tho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #81
92. Well, he DOES have diabetes...
but I don't think that's what you were gettin' at. I agree with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ethelk2044 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #81
99. He is right. She is a flip flopper and she everyone knows it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. At least MORE people know it now that a couple weeks ago...
We need the MSM to treat her like a candidate and not like the nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 01:46 AM
Response to Original message
82. She's not ready for prime time.
This gaffe just shows that she's too inexperienced.




:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #82
85. it certainly was naive....and unaccetable to attack another candidate for the same thing she said
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #85
94. Yup.
I gotta agree with you! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #82
93. I love your
popcorn smilie after your comment. I can only imagine why you used it. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
106. without reading the OP or thread -- I don't like the word "flip-flop"
that is all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #106
111. To each his/her own...
Edited on Sat Aug-11-07 09:58 PM by jenmito
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #111
112. sorry
If you think about past campaigns, this allegation of flip-flopping is old, stale, and really just an outdated campaign tool.

Either that or I don't like to get too close to these kind of flash fires.

Can't decide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #112
115. I understand...
Edited on Sat Aug-11-07 10:28 PM by jenmito
in Kerry's case the RWers misused that term, accusing of "voting for the $87 billion before voting against it," which was NOT a "flip-flop," but was voting different ways on two different bills. I really think Hillary DID change HER position just to bring another candidate down, which I don't like. (But I WILL vote for her if she's the nominee). :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #115
118. that must be it -- too fresh from 2004
Edited on Sat Aug-11-07 10:31 PM by AtomicKitten
The term itself turns my stomach; sorry about that. It was used for evil not too long ago.

I'm convinced a formidable opposition to SS Clinton is doable, but it won't seem like it until the field collapses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #118
119. What do you mean by "SS Clinton"?
Also, it's interesting that your dream team is Gore/Obama. Mine is Clark/Obama. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #119
120. don't let anybody kid you, she's kicking butt
It was just a reference to her formidable place in this race.

General Clark would definitely throw a monkeywrench in the works. I admire him greatly.

Let's face it, we have some fine Democrats that walk among us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #120
121. Nationally it seems that way...
but I don't know if it will last once the media takes the kid gloves off.

I agree. And after watching the Iowa straw poll, I'm more sure than ever that a Dem. will win in '08.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #121
138. national polls are largely shaped by the early primary/caucus states

and since none of that has happened, the national poll numbers
should probably be considered very shapeless.

even I have to admit that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #138
140. They are?
I agree that the national poll numbers are "very shapeless" (I'd say "meaningless") but I'm glad you admit it anyway. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #140
142. The nomination was a done deal for Kerry after Iowa and New Hampshire.
Edited on Sun Aug-12-07 06:47 PM by Alexander
The same John Kerry who was tied with Al Sharpton in the national polls before Iowa came out ahead winning about 70%+ of the primary and delegate votes.

So to answer your question, yes, they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #142
150. I know...
Maybe I wasn't clear, but I don't think the national poll numbers mean anything. AtomicKitten called Hillary the "SS Clinton" because of the national polls, saying she's kicking butt. I merely agreed that according to the NATIONAL polls it appears that way but I guess I didn't make it clear about my opinion of national polls at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #140
145. the poll numers don't matter until the early states start to come in

it's just common sense.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #145
151. I know that.
I'm not the one who said Hillary's kicking butt due to the national poll numbers. I said it APPEARS that way because of those numbers but once the state by state votes start, they will change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #151
152. I'm not sure that I said that, either.

perhaps I did. it's out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #152
154. You didn't...
AtomicKitten did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #154
156. I am careful about what fact I bring into evidence

i didn't think that was me.

but beware the kitten. she has some bite. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #156
158. OK...
I like the kitten. She's very nice to me. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #158
159. she is good people.

but kitty likes to scratch sometimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #159
161. That's ok...
Don't let my plain nic fool you. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #106
170. Gives me a rash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 01:42 AM
Response to Original message
122. this suprises people?
the corporate media is responsible for her being 'news' in the first place and they will destroy her too, just as was planned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ethelk2044 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #122
125. I agree. It just shows how she can not take one side of an issue.
She just hopes our brains will fail us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
157. So now we're borrowing tactics from the GOP?
When Kerry was accused of flip-flopping by the GOP, we defended him as "having changed his mind." As I said at the time, I'd prefer a politician and, especially, President who is open to changing their mind, finding out new information, reconsidering the facts. Many others said something approximately the same. Someone who doesn't do that is, well, Bush.

And yet....now that term is being used against "other candidates" whenever they change their position on something? How disgusting!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #157
163. No...Kerry did NOT flip-flop...
Edited on Sun Aug-12-07 09:24 PM by jenmito
He voted FOR the first bill where the $87 billion was going to come out of the tax cuts for the rich (which Bush threatened to veto) and AGAINST the second bill where the money was NOT going to come out of the tax cuts for the rich. They wrongly called him a "flip-flopper." Hillary DID flip-flop on her position for political gain IMO so she could attack Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-12-07 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #163
169. I know...so why are you using their derogatory term??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-13-07 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #169
172. I believe Hillary changed her position as a calculated move to look strong compared to Obama.
Is that better?
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, 12:22 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