Why Hillary Clinton Should Not Be the Nominee.

[AtomicKitten]

This is my opinion. Yours may vary.

This is the primary election and we are all entitled to speak our minds within some pretty open but reasonable guidelines, and it's important that we talk about this now.

If you have not seen Countdown tonight, the segment linked to below explains all you need to know about Hillary Clinton.

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/
Click on "Bush Defends Iran Stance" the fourth red NEW near the top. Sorry, couldn't link this better. D'oh.

It's like this. Hillary Clinton in the NPR interview lied about Kyl-Lieberman. The vote was taken 71 days ago. She basically said it has had an effect on a 2003 decision. Worse, she said it is working.

Holy sh*t, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the long-eared donkey, and the talking walnut, I don't care if she is married to Jesus H. Christ, this woman is * in a dress. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck ...

I could not believe she not only lied about something to do with war but she also politicized the war in doing so, a two-fer so to speak.

Maybe she said it to cover her political ass. I don't care.

Anybody but Hillary as far as I'm concerned. For a damn good reason and I'm pissed off. We have some really good alternatives. Let's find one.

My opinion, yours may vary.

Gobama.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cha]

6. That's a personal attack.

And against the DU rules.

[MethuenProgressive]

2. "Hillary Clinton in the NPR interview lied about Kyl-Lieberman."

That's an opinion, not a fact.

[RC]

9. Either she lied or she didn't. That would be a provable fact.

Not just an opinion.

[Inspired]

23. The fact is that she voted for it.

[karynnj]

25. It depends on what HRC really believes

Does she believe that Kyl-Lieberman changed Iran's behavior? I can't claim to know what she believes. Even if it is not factual, if she thinks it is - it's wrong, but not a lie.

[AtomicKitten]

30. I assumed she was competent, ergo the assumption she was lying.

If people are more comfortable with the prior, have at.

[karynnj]

45. I would agree with you - the alternative to lying is worse

[AtomicKitten]

68. Isn't that the same thing we've been asking about Bush?

Lying or incompetent, or both.

:scared:

[karynnj]

81. Yep

and it has NOT been fun. With HRC and BC, it is more obvious that they are not incompetent or stupid .... which leaves us with exactly the claim you made in the OP.

[calteacherguy]

35. I believe the point is Iran's behavior changed in 2003, years before Kyl-Lieberman. nt

[karynnj]

44. But whether it's a lie depends on what Hillary believes

even if it is wrong or illogical.

[Kahuna]

65. If she believes that something she did only a few weeks ago..

had an effect on something that took place four years ago, she's either a liar or she's too stupid to be president.

[AtomicKitten]

70. word

>>>... she's either a liar or she's too stupid to be president.<<<

We've got a president now that we often ask this same question of. I've had enough.

:thumbsup:

[karynnj]

79. I couldn't agree more

That was of course why I split it that way and I admit that I was playing games to get to exactly the point that everyone did. There is some discussion that she didn't mean the decision to stop the nuclear program, but their support of people against the US in Iraq and their support of Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon and the West Bank. That is a claim Biden disputes. It actually may be too soon to note a difference there even if there ultimately is one - and if there is a change, assigning the change to that amendment passing Congress is questionable.

[MethuenProgressive]

67. She was clearly speaking about the recent IRG activity, not the nuclear issue.

Spin away, HillHaters, but she said what she said, not what you wished she said.

www.2013IsTooLate.com

[redqueen]

89. What recent IRG activity?

Could you clarify what you (and presumably, Hillary) mean by that?

[peacebird]

3. agree with your assessment. Hope you've donned your asbestos suit......

[AtomicKitten]

32. thanks for the heads-up ;)

The way she deals with issues of war is almost identical to Bush.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Joe Biden basically called Hillary a liar

I watched KO tonight, and he played the audio of Hillary's ridiculous assertion about Kyl-Lieberman, and Biden's calling Hillary a liar (without naming her directly).

Keith's show replays tonight at midnight, ET.

[bunnies]

12. KO replays at midnight?

How did I NOT know that?! Thanks for the heads up! :)

[IndianaGreen]

24. Yes, Olbermann replays at midnight ET on MSNBC

You will hear the audio of Hillary making her delusional assertions about Kyl-Liebermann, as well as Biden's counterpoint.

Precious!

[AtomicKitten]

33. I posted the link that works.

It just requires two click of the mouse. :)

It's under "Bush Defends Iran Stance"

[truedelphi]

29. And it replays at nine PM here in PDT zone n/t

[maddiejoan]

5. While I respect everyone's choices --

--your post is so ill informed and off on facts (specifically on what HRC said in the NPR debate), that I'd suggest you might listen again.

Barack is a fine candidate, but you do him no justice with this post.

[Catherine Vincent]

8. She's atomic. :)

[Capn Sunshine]

10. and you're a girl

strictly going by screen names :)

[Catherine Vincent]

20. I'm a girl....

and a woman! :)

[redqueen]

90. Could you explain which facts are missing?

Obviously most of us have heard the responses from both Clinton and Biden. So your suggestion to listen again is sort of weird.

Please explain what it is that you think others are missing.

[maddiejoan]

93. You're missing the fact --

--that she didn't comment on the nukes. So this nonsense about her saying the K/L vote effected the findings in the NIE are silly.

[redqueen]

97. Thanks...

Gen Clark and Joe Wilson seem confident enough in her, so I'm not pulling my hair out over this.

[maddiejoan]

98. me neither

and I can't think of two people who I'd trust on this more than Clark and Wilson.

[journalist3072]

7. What a load of crap. Some people on DU have no intellectual capacity or ability to deal with facts.

pathetic.

[Cha]

18. And some people make

personal attacks cause they got nothing.

[AtomicKitten]

34. well, Keith lays it out for you if you dare look at it

[calteacherguy]

38. Explain please, "journalist"

How can a decision made in 2003 be determined by something that happened a few months ago?

[redqueen]

91. Which facts do you think people aren't dealing with?

:shrug:

[Ignis]

99. Wouldn't it just be easier to type "You are dumb; I am smart?" (nt)

[jenmito]

11. I saw the show and completely agree.

She's Bush in a dress, AND still triangulating. So she's a calculating version of Bush which is maybe even WORSE.

[AtomicKitten]

36. my thoughts precisely

and with those expanded powers ...

:scared:

Jeez, she's made TWO epic mistakes on voting for war. That should be a clue. And now we see how she plans to operate regarding issues of war.

I've had enough of war and the politicization of war.

[jenmito]

47. Yup.

Hillary with all of Bush's power PLUS brains is a scary thought!

[PresidentObama]

13. Thoughtful and respectable post, fair criticism.

A pleasant change from the usual attack threads from DUers about Obama's kiddy essay, Hillary's pantsuits and cackle, and Edwards big house and expensive haircuts.

Oppose a candidate for their stance on the issues, for their votes on the issues, and for things that matter.

Hillary voted for IWR. Didn't apologize, and turned around and voted wrong on Kyl-Lieberman.

When will she learm?

[AtomicKitten]

37. it's too much

there is no rationalization of this that could sway me to support this candidate

[creeksneakers2]

115. The post is as bad as the usual Hillary hater stuff

The post falsely states that Hillary claimed her Kyl-Lieberman vote stopped Iran from wanting nukes. The post even deduces from that total falsehood that Hillary is crazy. Hillary said Kyl-Lieberman led to Iran halting weapons supplies to Iran, nothing about the nukes.

Who is crazy? I'd say the people who jump to wrong conclusions based not on facts but their hatred of Hillary are crazy. I'd say the people who cheer for these stupid dishonest posts are crazy. I'd say the people who believe these ridiculous lies are crazy.

Hillary isn't crazy or lying. Hillary said her vote on Kyl-Lieberman caused Iran to stop supplying weapons to factions in Iraq.

Biden says there's no proof of weapons from Iran in the first place and that's true. Others, including General Patraeus today said Iran was supplying weapons but stopped recently.

I know! Rather than reading what I'm saying some here will just look at General Patraeus' name and say "AHA! You believe General Patraeus!" But there is no reason for Patraeus to say Iran pulled out if they didn't.

There's also debate about whether Kyl-Lieberman caused the pullout. That sounds far fetched but its impossible to prove either way. I don't think Hillary is lying by making the claim and letting people decide for themselves. If Patraeus is right, Iran did pull back right around the time of Kyl-Lieberman.

[AtomicKitten]

137. The "post" says you should watch the link provided -

and then you might have a clue what the "post" is saying instead erecting yet another strawman argument, ironically from your own partisan POV and interpretation of what you think I mean rather than looking at the material provided. More knee-jerk analysis from the geniuses here at DU. I wouldn't be too proud of your exhibition of willingness to defend the indefensible.

[ruggerson]

14. I really don't get it

I'm glad you posted this, and it's your opinion, and well reasoned at that.

But, you get so angry with people who post legitimate Obama posts, wherein they detail why they believe it's Obama, who should not be nominated.

You should understand, there are people who feel as negatively about Obama as you do about Clinton. And for what they believe to be just cause.

I'm fine with criticism of any of the candidates, as long as it's legitimate and not a personal attack. Your OP qualifies as perfectly legitimate. But so do many of the anti Obama OP's that you've railed against.

You might want to think about why you have such a double standard.

[AtomicKitten]

39. okay

[madrchsod]

15. instead of admitting that she made a mistake by voting yes

she decided to say her vote helped the iran`s stop in 2003. her decision on voting yes was a huge mistake and could have led to a justification for a war on iran.
i really am disappointed in her for two reasons first-she fell for the iranian vote trap set by the whitehouse. second- instead of admitting she was wrong she covered with a childish answer. i would say mature adults will accept someone who admits to a mistake. why can`t she admit to this mistake? it`s either her lack of judgment in her guru mark penn or her ego will not let her admit that she is a human being that are prone to make mistakes.

[AtomicKitten]

40. whatever it is, it is going over like a lead balloon

[Cha]

16. Biden said Iran hasn't changed

since the kyl-lieman bill. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2405663#2405857

[AtomicKitten]

41. Biden called BS on Ms. Clinton --- it's on Olbermann's segment I linked to.

Biden is an expert on the region.

Hillary is either lying or incompetent. I assumed the former in deference to her; perhaps it's the latter. Gee, who does that remind you of?

[suston96]

17. Not what she said.....

"It's like this. Hillary Clinton in the NPR interview lied about Kyl-Lieberman. The vote was taken 71 days ago. She basically said it has had an effect on a 2003 decision. Worse, she said it is working. "

I watched the KO show and also listened to the NPR debates. She said that the labeling of the Iran Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization has had an effect on the IRG's activities involved in the Iraq conflict.

That's not a lie. It is an opinion. And it is probably true in spite of what Joe Biden said on the radio.

Vote for the candidate of your choice but don't make things up or at the very least, get transcripts when making claims about what someone said on radio or on TV.

[Cameron27]

21. Yes, that's what she was talking about,

and Obama & Edwards have said the same thing about the IRG.

[Dhalgren]

22. You're right, Clinton said that Kyl-Lieberman had worked to make Iran

back off from doing things in Iraq that harmed US troops. You are right, but Clinton is wrong. Biden was right. There is absolutely no evidence at all that Kyl-Lieberman has had any effect upon the actions of Iran. It has allowed the Bush regime to rattle it's pathetic little saber some more - a little saber that Clinton, too, is rattling. She gets no points for this blunder...

[AtomicKitten]

31. I assumed she was competent, ergo the assumption she was lying.

Neither of which makes me particularly comfortable.

[Dhalgren]

74. You're right. The only thing I could ever see that Clinton had going for her

was her competence, and political skill. Well, now, you have to cross one of those two off the dwindling list...

[creeksneakers2]

116. No proof it didn't either

Both happened about the same time, according to General Patraeus.

[AtomicKitten]

118. In the piece, Biden vehemently disputes Hillary's claim about Iran.

[creeksneakers2]

123. Biden has a good case and he's probably right, but

Joe Biden isn't the final authority on this subject. He's not a neutral observer either.

[ClarkUSA]

19. Amen, AK. Follow this link to read the NPR report and audio of the debate...

DES MOINES, Iowa - Democratic rivals assailed front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton Tuesday for a vote against Iran that they portrayed as
misguided and dangerous in light of a new intelligence report that says the Iranians stopped pursuing a nuclear weapon years ago.

One month before Iowa's leadoff caucuses — in a debate broadcast only on radio — the presidential candidates stood together in welcoming the
report's assessment and criticizing President Bush's assertion that "nothing's changed" because of it. They divided on the three-month-old Senate
vote to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization — a resolution that only Clinton supported among the Democratic candidates.
She said her vote was meant to encourage diplomacy, but several of her foes were having none of that and John Edwards said it sounded like war...
Edwards did confront Clinton on her characterization of her September Iran vote.

"Declaring a military group sponsored by the state of Iran a terrorist organization, that's supposed to be diplomacy?" Edwards interjected. "This has
to be considered in the context that Senator Clinton has said she agrees with George Bush terminology that we're in a global war on terror, then she
voted to declare a military group in Iran a terrorist organization. What possible conclusion can you reach other than we are at war?"

Clinton objected. "You know I understand politics and I understand making outlandish political charges, but this really goes way too far," said the
New York senator. She is locked in a tight three-way race with Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, and Obama, a senator from Illinois,
in this first-voting state.

"None of us is advocating a rush to war," Clinton said.

Joe Biden, a senator from Delaware who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, didn't let that pass, telling Clinton that "terminology matters."

"It's not about not advocating a rush to war," he said. "I'm advocating no war."

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd said he and others voted against the resolution because they felt it "specifically eliminated any option except the military
one."

"Those critical moments come periodically, but it demonstrates leadership on a critical issue such as this one," Dodd said... "Among the Democratic candidates," Edwards reminded listeners, "there's only one that voted for this resolution. And this is exactly what Bush and Cheney wanted."

<snip>

Clinton said it's clear that pressure on Iran has had an effect — a point disputed by Biden.

"With all due respect with anybody who thinks that pressure brought this about, let's get this straight. In 2003, they stopped their program," Biden said.

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3794174&mesg_id=3794174

[AtomicKitten]

42. thanks for posting this link

[ClarkUSA]

51. My pleasure, AK.

Is that air I hear going out of their tires? ;)

[suston96]

26. Iran Revolutionary Guard - bad people.......

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/...

"EURASIA INSIGHT

IRAN’S REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS MAKING A BID FOR INCREASED POWER
Kamal Nazer Yasin 5/19/04

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, the military force that has served as the main pillar of support for the Islamic republic, is seeking to play an independent role in the country’s domestic political life. The entry of the Revolutionary Guards into the political fray can have many unintended consequences, including the rearrangement of Iran’s policy-making process.

snip

At the same time, the Revolutionary Guards domestic prestige has been significantly enhanced by the fact of its management of Iran’s nuclear program. The program, under intense international scrutiny because of its arms-making potential, is a source of tremendous national pride in Iran. "

The IRG is in charge of the nuclear weapons program and in the missile systems needed to deliver the weapons. Google the Iran Revolutionary Guard and see what it does and ask yourself: what if the NIE is wrong again?

[Cha]

27. Yeah, what if bushits

are lying about Iran like they lied about Iraq?

sadam was a bad man..do you feel safer?

[Cameron27]

28. Joe Wilson:

"Last week, Hillary voted to support a non-binding resolution that designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. As a former diplomat, I have had considerable experience in the use of such resolutions to bring pressure – diplomatic pressure – to bear on a regime to rein in rogue elements. And make no mistake about it, the Guards are not only in operational control of Iran's policy toward Iraq and Afghanistan, where Iranian supplied munitions are costing American lives; they are agents of reaction and repression inside Iran. While it is a fact that the Bush administration's duplicity should give all Americans pause, we cannot afford to lose sight of the fact that we have real enemies in the world, and that we must be prepared to exercise the appropriate levers of power in support of our interests."

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26340

[waiting for hope]

43. What I don't understand is why she

had to vote at all on this. Obama didn't (wise move I think on his part) and there were 70 other Senators that did vote yes, so why did she vote if her vote wouldn't have mattered? That was pretty risky on her part, imho.

[faithfulcitizen]

53. Perhaps she thinks she'll look tough in the general?

'Cause the primary is in the bag. :shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

114. "the primary is in the bag"

What was that saying about counting your chickens before they hatch?

[faithfulcitizen]

136. that's the only reason I can see for the vote.

I just hope Clark hasn't backed someone seriously willing to start a war with Iran. :nuke:

[creeksneakers2]

120. Voting for the resolution was not a political plus

Isn't it just as likely that the Senators who voted against it did so to please the base?

[faithfulcitizen]

135. So, you think there are dems who wanted to vote for it, but didn't?

just to appease people in the primary...hmmm, I suppose it's possible.

[creeksneakers2]

119. Because she's responsible n/t

[AtomicKitten]

125. Voting YES on K-L was reckless and dangerous

... and by any standard that is the epitome of irresponsible. One would think Hillary would have learned from her IWR vote, but clearly she has not. Her hawkish stance as played out in the NPR interview was reminiscent of BushCo (that creepy analogy clearly demonstrated in KO's piece). We have seen politicization of the war from the WH and I was horrified to see her using the same morally bankrupt technique to what?, gain advantage in some demented way? At what cost? No thanks. We can do better.

[creeksneakers2]

130. She's responsible to vote one way or another

The post I replied to questioned why she voted at all..

[ripple]

46. Agreed, AK

I can't believe she said that. And the kicker is that I doubt she would take it back- her analysts probably decided to try to turn lemons (her Kyl-Lieberman vote) into lemonade. I hope the media gives it more attention, because I believe we've finally caught a glimpse of how Hillary would lead the nation- and it isn't a flattering one.

There are a number of reasons not to elect Hillary as our nominee. For me, one of the most compelling is that I believe that if she is the nominee in the general, the Senate will likely sway republican and we'll undoubtedly lose a good portion of our majority in the House. Not only is she the one phenomenon that can actually rally the republican base to get out to vote, she is also the one dem that will cause many other dems to abstain from voting altogether. And I believe that once all of that damage has been done to the Congress, if Hillary is fortunate enough to pull off a win, she will swing right back to the place that seems to have fit her best- the moderate to right stance she fell into so comfortably in the Senate.

When she is unable to get progressive legislation through Congress and passed, she will blame republicans for being unwilling to compromise, while at the same time, she will bargain with them to get SOMETHING passed, lest she look like an ineffectual leader. The SOMETHING part worries me a great deal. This is our election to win. I refuse to allow someone, ANYONE to fuck it up, based on some sense of entitlement. At least in the primary- of course Hillary will get my vote in the general, if she gets the nod. I wish I could say the same for some of my friends.

[suston96]

48. Why did she vote....?

Because she is paid to vote! And she made a difficult one based on her principles and certainly not based on the unfavored polls sure to follow.

Funny, seven candidates - six men and one woman.... And the woman is the most statesman-like of the lot, making the tough, principled decisions.

Yeah, you go, girl..........

[jenmito]

50. She calculated that it would make her immune to criticism in the GE

which she thinks she already will be running in. Same reason she voted for the IWR after "consulting with her husband" who just claimed he was AGAINST it from the beginning. Triangulation squared.

[Imagevision]

107. I've heard the expression that women have the right to change their mind but

in Hillary's case I can only go yaaaaaawnnn... enuff already!!!

[ripple]

52. Tough, principled decisions?

A tough, principled decision would involve not giving Bush a free pass for preemptive war, regardless of the critics that might accuse her of being 'weak on terror'. She failed that test twice, in my book.

[suston96]

55. Neither vote gave Bush preemptive anything.........

...Read the contents of the votes. Nothing was to be done until diplomacy was exhausted. And the IRG terrorist designation was the most rigorous diplomacy of its kind. And it looks like it worked.

But what really bothers me is so many people accepting this NIE report without question though forewarned by the other one in 2002 which was packed with lies.

Why is that?

[kenfrequed]

73. Uhm I dunno

Maybe because the CIA and the Defence intelligence establishment is no longer allowing Cheney and the administration to rewrite it? Or maybe he bushies think that they can no longer really use it as effectively since they did sort of discredit it through corruption ala team B and the unseen collapse of the Soviet Union

The CIA analysts and the intelligence agencies fought hard against the phoney intel in the Iraq war lead up-NIA.

Or are you arguing that Iran does, or is actively pursuing Nucelar Weapons as the Bush administration asserts?

[creeksneakers2]

121. Intelligence estimates are usually paranoid ramblings

of people whose livelihoods depend on the US being subject to secret threats and grave dangers. On top of that, the intelligence community has every incentive to exaggerate dangers and explain away contradictory evidence. If Iran ends up nuking somebody whose ass will it be?

In short, they wouldn't say Iran ended its nuclear program if it wasn't true.

If that doesn't satisfy you then you could look at the committee meeting on the hill today about it. The Intelligence Community said this is one of the most substantiated findings they ever had. The evidence is out in the public now.

When the Soviet Union was falling apart and they pulled out of Europe the right wing claimed it was all a big plot to trick us into cutting military spending and letting our guard down. The right wing said once America was fooled the Soviets would attack us and take over.

There is always the possible threat out there of the unknown. We can't be guided by that. If we spend our time and treasure dealing with every conceivable threat we'd do nothing else. When the odds are like this, its best to just risk getting nuked.

[ripple]

134. Oh, that's right. Hillary says she TRUSTED Bush

to do the right thing when she authorized the IWR. I knew what that vote meant, hell, even casual observers knew what the vote meant. So, either she's a hawk in dove's clothing, or she's woefully naive. Take your pick. Personally, I believe the former, rather than the latter. Neither makes me want to vote for her.

Hillary didn't even read the NIE before authorizing a preemptive war. If you believe that's the mark of a "principled" leader, I have a bridge to sell you dirt cheap.

Not to mention, implying that a declaration made in 2007 somehow changed the course of events four years prior is positively daft.

[Laurab]

131. If that was a "tough, principled" decision

PLEASE don't let her make any more. It was the WRONG decision, proving that she learned nothing from the IWR vote. We've had 7+ years of "tough, principled" decisions, if that's what you want to call them, we can't afford any more like that.

"statesmanlike"?? I think not.

[AtomicKitten]

124. excellent analysis

:thumbsup:

[nealmhughes]

49. Let's see: Kyl-Lieberman aye, Feinstein-Leahy on cluster bombs nay.

Madame presents a bit of a problem there with a sizeable lump of we proles.

[zulchzulu]

54. Despite all the lies, Hillary should drop out of the race for one simple reason

She and her campaign are dead-set to stop the democratic process in Iowa by not wanting what basically has happened ever since the Iowa caucus has happened.

By saying that students who have residence out of state but live in Iowa for nine months of the year (including some students who support her) should not be able to caucus is not only utterly, completely shameful, it's on par with trying to rig an election by diminishing an electoral segment of the population purely for political gain.

It's an attempt at complete abuse of power and an attempt to disenfranchise voters from being allowed to participate in the democratic process.

What her campaign says is that some voters who are perfectly and legally legitimate and want to vote shouldn't.

I would expect this kind of revolting behavior from a neocon Republican, a Republican chairman of an electronic voting machine company or a dictator hellbent on keeping seizure of power. But a democratic candidate running for President? Are you f*cking kidding me?

Call me a "Hillary hater". I call Hillary a "democracy hater". Game. Set. Match.

[mtnsnake]

56. There's zulchzulu, doing what he/she always does best...inciting divisiveness

by implying that one of our Democratic candidates is just like a neocon Republican. That's against DU rules, btw.

What an ingnorant hateful post but its par for the course for you.

[zulchzulu]

57. If a Democrat acts like a neocon by not wanting legitimate voters to vote...

...then that Democrat should leave the party in shame.

Your ignorance of the truth is what is astounding to me. I guess you'd rather side with someone who has a problem with voters being allowed to vote because you "joined the team"...

Give me a friggin' break.

[CookCountyResident]

64. Is Hillary afraid of the college-age vote?

I don't know. Why would she be acting in this fashion?

[zulchzulu]

101. Apparently she is willing to shut up voters if they want to vote for someone else

That's what I see with this. It's pretty damn obvious.

[creeksneakers2]

122. Hillary didn't say they couldn't vote

She attacked Obama for suggesting the students vote.

[Usrename]

133. That's exactly right.

She attacked Obama because he is encouraging young Democrats to vote legally.

The young Democrats that get marginalized by her careless and un-democratic rhetoric are just collateral damage.

Makes me want to barf.

[truedelphi]

127. But she IS part of the DLC and when you review some of the situations

That occurred in the 2004 primaries - well, why shouldn't the neo con game be played out by the DLC in Iowa this year? The precedent for unfair tactics was certainly set in 2004.

Are you aware that wherever Howard Dean campaigned in a New England primary - if the county had paper ballots, Dean won - if the county had electronic ballots, Kerry won?

[Tresalisa]

58. I would love to see a woman from our party as president

but not Hillary. What turned me south on her was when the hard questions started coming and she pulled the "they're attacking me because I'm a woman" bit, IMO setting feminism back about 30 years. She wants to be our president, and we deserve answers to questions about what she'd do if she was elected. If she thinks the democrat candidates were attacking her, I can't wait to see what she'd do if she's nominated and has to debate the candidate from the GOP. Maybe blink her little eyelashes and coyly hide behind her hand-held fan? :blush:

[whirlygigspin]

59. do you really think she will change anything?

[Tresalisa]

62. No.

And that's another reason. She'd basically be just more of what we've had over the past 7 years. :puke: Time for change. Time for Dennis!

[horse_traderxx]

60. Why Hillary Should Not Be The Nominee

Poor Hillary,

She had better stay out of cow pastures. It seems like she steps into it a lot.She voted for the war. Oops.She wanted to give illegal aliens a drivers license. Oops. Then she changed her mind.Oops.She took the same stand against Iran about development of a nuclear weapon as Bush did. Oops

[AtomicKitten]

108. She stepped in it alright.

welcome to DU!

[Sultana]

61. She is so polarizing

and Bushlite. We do not need a bushlite nominee, we already have a bushlite Congress.

[Beacool]

63. Oh please, so many foreign policy exports on this board!!!

More than 70 senators voted on the Iran resolution. I guess most of you would like to pretend that Iran is not supplying arms to the insurgents in Iraq. Nuclear weapons or not, Iran is a power keg and has been so since the fall of the shah in the 70s.

As far as Hillary's vote, at least she showed up and voted, unlike certain senator who we all know. It is so easy to criticize how others voted when a) you weren't even in the US senate in 2002 and b) you couldn't be bothered to show for the Iran resolution vote.

[rhett o rick]

128. Her vote supported the president. Need i say more. No, but try to stop me. Once again she is

supporting Georgie and his war. When will you learn.

[AtomicKitten]

138. unfortunately some voters are hard-of-learning

This administration is spinning wildly about Iran now. Jim Webb was right when he called it Cheney's fondest dream. I heard Hillary calling it a bill for diplomacy which is the same sh*t she said about the IWR, and we all know how nicely that turned out. Feh.

[rhett o rick]

139. Dear HRC, rule of thumb: If the Neocons want it, it has to be bad. That should be easy enough. nm

[Perry Logan]

66. Since the vast majority of blacks are pro-Hillary, you are impliyng that blacks are stupid.

Hillary has an 83% approval rating amongst blacks. So the anti-Hillary folks are insulting blacks all the time without knowing it. This makes me wonder about their political astuteness.

[Armstead]

69. That's a silly response

[Heywood J]

94. Wow

You just managed to use a minority as a human shield to deflect criticism of Hillary Clinton... Wow. I can't even mock that, it's so disturbing.



By the way, that logical catastrophe has an easy undoing. I can easily point out two counterexamples or possible explanations that contradict your fallacy (among many possible):

1) For instance: The reason Hillary has such an approval rating is that she says what they want to hear. So have many others, e.g. in the aftermath of the Rodney King riots, but that doesn't mean they're sincere. Given her record of triangulation, this is possible.

2) What are the other candidate's approval ratings among blacks? Since the Democratic Party overwhelmingly captures the black vote, it would stand to reason that at least some of the other candidates would poll relatively high as well. Would you also like to claim that anyone who speaks ill of those other candidates likes to insult blacks, or is that reserved for those who disapprove of Hillary? Which other candidates have you attacked, and does that make you a racist as well?

[Little Star]

71. My does believe that KO is biased when..

it comes to Hillary. He just doesn't like her. He needs to start taking a look at the warts on some of the other Dem candidates not just hers.

Just an fyi, I love KO and JRE is my guy.

Keith is out to get Hillary because he wants another un-named person.
He needs to get more fair and balanced when it comes to this Dem primary and it's candidates IMHO.

[AtomicKitten]

72. Interestingly I exchanged emails with him over precisely the opposite.

In fact, I documented several instances where he showed skewed reporting in her favor.

This reporting was most certainly a departure from the way KO had been operating, and this was first time he connected the dots on an issue that isn't very flattering to her.

I want the news, investigative journalism, not commentary. This was straight-up reporting. Perhaps you aren't satisfied with the results and immediately chalk it up to bias. It was precisely the opposite.

[Little Star]

78. Please provide links to where KO has

Talked shit about Obama or Edwards?????? I'm talking transcripts of his show. I watch him all the time. Have watched him and loved him since he was doing and hating the OJ trial reporting on Court TV. A spade is a spade even if you think it's a rake and this time he is biased IMHO.

[Little Star]

80. PS:, I support JRE, just an fyi. n/t

[cuke]

102. You HIllary Haters should coordinate your stories

KO likes Hillary....KO hates Hillary

You're the one who claimed KO doesn't lke Clinton. Let's see YOUR links. I think that for all of your big talk (ie "a spade is a speade...") you will fold like a lawn chair

[Little Star]

104. U should have watched last nights show like the op did.

Sorry transcript not out yet.

[cuke]

106. Who said I didn't?

Assume much?

And I noticed you have no links showing that KO doesn't like Clinton

[snowbear]

111. Ah c'mon Cuke..

No one knows who will fold like a lawn chair at this stage of the game..

You're right though that -- eventually-- one of our candidates (none of know who ) will sink like a lead balloon. ~~~

[rhett o rick]

140. Isn't calling those that oppose Sen Clinton as "Hillary Haters" a little un-liberal. Aren't we free

here in DU to express our views w/o someone calling us names? If I should point out that Sen Clinton supported our dictator's desire to invade Iraq and has also shown more support for the dictator for actions against Iran via the Kyle-Lieberman bill, would you call me a Hillary Hater?? Aren't these statements true? I don't hate Hillary. And I don't understand why, when we are going to vote in a new president to repair the damage of BushCorp, would we choose the candidate farthest to the right?

[Apollo11]

75. Hillary Clinton is the most pro-Israel anti-Iran candidate.

One of the most senior people in Hillary Clinton's campaign is Mark Penn, who is also worldwide CEO of the public relations firm Burson-Marsteller. He is often described as Clinton's "chief strategist". In her autobiography Living History, Hillary describes Penn as "brilliant".

Here is what we know about Mark Penn, from The Washington Post, April 30, 2007:

Penn has deep roots in the national security wing of the Democratic Party, along with other centrist Democrats -- some of them Jewish and pro-Israel, like Penn -- who saw the merits of invading Iraq before the war began.

"Penn has always believed that strength is critical for running the country, and that people want to have a president who's going to be willing to defend the country -- that's the number one criteria," said Al From, the chief executive of the Democratic Leadership Council, who considers Penn a friend.

Penn gained his foreign policy expertise working on numerous campaigns overseas, especially in Israel. In 1981, he and business partner Doug Schoen helped reelect Menachem Begin, one of the most right-wing prime ministers in the country's history, and emerged with a new outlook on the Middle East. "We got a chance to experience firsthand the perils and possibilities that the state of Israel presents," Schoen said in an interview.

In a pivotal moment, the pollsters watched as Begin launched airstrikes against a developing Iraqi nuclear facility, Osirak, in the middle of the campaign. "In the end, bombing the Osirak reactor became a metaphor for the type of man that Begin was and the steps he was willing to take to safeguard Israel's security," Schoen wrote in his autobiography, "The Power of the Vote."

Ever since, Penn has been a prominent advocate of conveying strength in foreign policy. As recently as the 2004 presidential contest, Penn argued that Democrats would lose if they failed to close the "security gap." His client list includes prominent backers of the Iraq war, particularly Lieberman, whose presidential campaign Penn helped run in 2004, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose campaign he advised when Blair won a historic third term in 2005.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901661.html?hpid=topnews

See also wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Penn

[AtomicKitten]

76. thanks for the link

I've had enough of GOP war schemes.

[Apollo11]

77. The problem is that it's not just the GOP

I think it is kind of interesting that Hillary Clinton's "chief strategist" worked for Begin in the Israeli election of 1981 and then worked for Lieberman in last Presidential primaries 2003-2004.

I am not an expert on the Middle East but I am interested to know what kind of people and what kind of interests are getting behind each of the candidates running for President of the USA.

If Hillary wants to take advice from Mark Penn that's her choice, but I think we also have a right to know where he is coming from and what kind of advice he is likely to be offering her.

[JPZenger]

88. Lieberman is just trying to do what is good for his country .......

One person said "Lieberman is just trying to do what is best for his country. The problem is, his country is Israel."

[JPZenger]

87. Invasion of Iraq was partly to protect Israel

I know this is going to get some people upset, but many of the masterminds of the Iraq invasion were Jewish, such as Pearl and Wolfie. They were partly motivated by trying to protect Israel. Saddam was not a threat to the US, but he was a threat to Israel. Saddam was personally and publicly funding suicide attacks inside Israel at the time. Bin Laden had little interest in Israel and Palestine at the time.

[suston96]

82. Better have a look at this.......

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/world/middleeast/06intel.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

December 6, 2007
Details in Military Notes Led to Shift on Iran, U.S. Says

By DAVID E. SANGER and STEVEN LEE MYERS
WASHINGTON, Dec. 5 — American intelligence agencies reversed their view about the status of Iran’s nuclear weapons program after they obtained notes last summer from the deliberations of Iranian military officials involved in the weapons development program, senior intelligence and government officials said on Wednesday.

The notes included conversations and deliberations in which some of the military officials complained bitterly about what they termed a decision by their superiors in late 2003 to shut down a complex engineering effort to design nuclear weapons, including a warhead that could fit atop Iranian missiles.

The newly obtained notes contradicted public assertions by American intelligence officials that the nuclear weapons design effort was still active. But according to the intelligence and government officials, they give no hint of why Iran’s leadership decided to halt the covert effort.

Ultimately, the notes and deliberations were corroborated by other intelligence, the officials said, including intercepted conversations among Iranian officials, collected in recent months. It is not clear if those conversations involved the same officers and others whose deliberations were recounted in the notes, or if they included their superiors.

The American officials who described the highly classified operation, which led to one of the biggest reversals in the history of American nuclear intelligence, declined to describe how the notes were obtained.

But they said that the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies had organized a “red team” to determine if the new information might have been part of an elaborate disinformation campaign mounted by Iran to derail the effort to impose sanctions against it.

In the end, American intelligence officials rejected that theory, though they were challenged to defend that conclusion in a meeting two weeks ago in the White House situation room, in which the notes and deliberations were described to the most senior members of President Bush’s national security team, including Vice President Dick Cheney.

snip

In a statement late Wednesday, the White House revised its account of what Mr. Bush was told in August and acknowledged that Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, had informed him new information might show that “Iran does in fact have a covert weapons program, but it may be suspended.”

Read it all. Believe it, or not, if you will. But it proves one thing: There WAS/IS a nuclear weapons "that may be suspended" and we already know about their missile program.

Both of which we also know were/are in the control of the Iran Revolutionary Guard.

[AtomicKitten]

83. you and Hillary can keep banging the WMD drum all you like

America has had enough of scare tactics.

[Ignis]

100. Mushroom cloud! Booga booga!

That may have flown when the country was reeling after 9/11, but we've had to suffer through 6 years of the horrible results of Shrub's scare tactics.

Not. Buying. It.

They're going to need something more convincing than Colin Powell holding up creatively-tagged aerial photos this time.

[truedelphi]

126. My fear is precisely that: we will have another Gulf of Tonkin

Event superimposed over the new territory. And possibly an event of nuclear proportions??

Just what was going on with the Air FOrce Jets and the six nuke missiles that were not supposed to be on board??

[JPZenger]

84. 2006: Hillary Hoarded Cash, Obama Raised Money for Other Dems

The following is an excerpt of an article by author Paul Loeb. He doesn't even get to the point that Clinton's 2006 fundraisers diverted money that otherwise would have ben given directly to more needy candidates. She was too busy raising money in partnership with Rupert Murdoch.

www.paulloeb.org

"Maybe Hillary Clinton's right that going back to the candidates' past illuminates their character... let's look at the 2006 election. Barack Obama's Hope Fund PAC ...gave to a broad spectrum of candidates ... 2006 was a Democratic opportunity, and grassroots supporters dug deep and then deeper to finance an ever-expanding array of competitive races. Hillary, meanwhile, made a conscious decision to raise $52 million for a Senate campaign that she could have won in her pajamas, spent $40.8 million (to beat a token opponent who spent less than $6 million), and transferred the rest to her presidential campaign.

... Edwards and Barack Obama, in comparison, campaigned throughout the country to support worthy Democratic candidates, while doing negligible fundraising for their own pending campaigns. The Edwards campaign ended that season still in debt from 2004. Obama emerged with less than a million in the bank. Their top priorities really did seem to be helping other Democrats win a critical election, instead of subordinating all other goals to their own personal futures.

... the entire Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised only $107 million that season, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee $103 million. Hillary spent more than a third as much as either of these, more than any candidate in America that year. Only the self-funded Jon Corzine has ever spent more for a Senate race in our history. And she did this for a race that was never in doubt.

Imagine if she'd transferred $20 million into the dozen Congressional campaigns that Democrats lost by margins as close as a few hundred votes. Or into Harold Ford's Senatorial campaign, to help close a $5-million gap with Republican Bob Corker. By late summer it was clear that the Democrats had a huge opportunity and were scrambling for the funds to respond to it. A few extra ads or mailings might well have tipped the balance in more of these races. That's why so many of us were stretching to contribute, even when it hurt. Hillary made different decisions. ... While the money she spent may have gained her a few extra points of electoral margin, it did nothing to shift the power from an administration she said she opposed. If we're going to use 2006 as a measure of Presidential character, we might remember the choices Hillary could have made--and the priorities she chose instead."

[AtomicKitten]

85. Sad to say this doesn't suprise me at all.

Blind ambition causes one to make some bad choices.

[JPZenger]

86. In Oct 2006, this was a big issue

As the November 2006 election got close, many activists started to notice that money was being hoarded by several candidates in non-competitive cases. Hillary was the worst. There was strong pressure applied on Www.dailykos.com and other places to get Hillary to free up some cash. She finally did free up some at the last minute under public pressure, but it could have been much more and could have been done earlier when it would have had greater effect.

[suston96]

105. How much money....

.... have both Clintons raised for the Democrats in the recent past...? I seem to remember - a lot of money....

http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2006/10/16/former_president_bill_clinton_raises_money_for_baldacci_party/

Former President Bill Clinton raises money for Baldacci, party

By Clarke Canfield, Associated Press Writer | October 16, 2006

PORTLAND, Maine --Former President Bill Clinton raised an estimated $180,000 for Democrats on Monday while telling party supporters that Americans are growing more concerned about the leadership in Washington and where the country is headed.

Clinton told about 500 people at a fundraiser for Gov. John Baldacci's campaign that Baldacci represents what is right in politics today -- while the Republican administration in Washington represents what is wrong.

People across the country are feeling uneasy about what's going on in Washington, Clinton said.

"People know the wheels have run off," he said. "People know things are seriously awry."

Clinton's talk at the University of Southern Maine raised about $80,000 for Baldacci's campaign. He also appeared at a separate private fundraiser at USM that raised about $100,000 for the Maine Democratic Party.

snip

It was Clinton's second visit to Maine this year to raise money for Democrats. In May, he spoke at two fundraisers and raised more than $200,000 before paying a private visit to Kennebunkport with former Republican President George H.W. Bush.

Plenty more, I am sure.

[snowbear]

117. JP, those are some pretty staggering numbers..

Staggering and SAD!

[redqueen]

92. I was unnerved by that segment, BUT...

If she's the nominee, I'll still vote for her. What other choice do we have...

[bvar22]

95. *

[redqueen]

96. Yup. Exactly.

*sigh*

[Imagevision]

103. Obama isn't an alternative he isa solution... Today, Hillary's lead in NH. narrows...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071206/pl_nm/usa_politics_clinton_dc

[AtomicKitten]

110. wonderful news

thanks for posting

[Michael101]

109. Go Away Hillary Clinton...

Everyone should vote for the candidates that really speaks to them.

Hillary speaks for the corporations.

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.
--John Quincy Adams

Go Dennis Kucinich!!

[arizonateddybear]

112. Arizona loves her, should I warn the state that she shouldn't be nominated?

There is a lot of signs supporting her on many Arizona yards.

[rAVES]

113. Its no secret that hillary is the worst of all possible Dem nominee's

but.. the DLC controls the Democratic party whether you like it or not.. shes the chosen one, deal with it.

the US is destined for another 8 years of oppressive policy abroad, albeit a little "softer" with democratic clothing..

[rhett o rick]

129. She voted for a bill with Lieberman's name on it. Nothing more is needed to say. nm

[Generator]

132. Yep she honestly reminded me of Bush

when she said that. Like she's thinking, oh I'll just lie-smoothly and earnestly-and no one will notice that it DEFIES REALITY. She's taking us for chump change. Me no like.