Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Let us revisit Hillary Clinton's "conservative" record...

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
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-06-06 10:33 PM
Original message
Let us revisit Hillary Clinton's "conservative" record...
Surely among our friends and foes advocating for their causes, we should be able to see the true conservative that Hillary is emerge...

Lets start with

NARAL... which is "committed to advancing our shared values. We are committed to protecting the right to choose and electing candidates who will promote policies to prevent unintended pregnancy. We are going on the offensive, reshaping the terms of the debate, and bridging the false divides that are meant to keep us from progress on reproductive health. "

In 2005 NARAL gave Hillary Clinton a 100 rating. So when you hear the Hillaryphobes complain the she has shifted her position on abortion, you know it isn't true

Next

The NAACP...whose mission is to "ensure ure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination. "

The NAACP gave Hillary CLinton a 95 rating in 2005. But if you want to see how folks in the NAACP view Hillary Clinton, here is a video of her appearance at their convention this last July.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1Yst-JL8gY

Along with the NAACP the Leadership Council on Civil Rights, which was organized "by three giants of the civil rights movement: A. Philip Randolph, founder of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters; Roy Wilkins, Executive Secretary of the NAACP; and Arnold Aronson, a leader of the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council...is the nation's premier civil rights coalition, and has coordinated the national legislative campaign on behalf of every major civil rights law since 1957. "

The Leadership Council on Civil Rights gave Hillary Clinton a 100 rating

How about the National Education Association (NEA), one of the premier eucational advocacy groups, and longtime member of the Democratic coalition...how do you suppose they feel about Hillary CLinton

Yep you guessed it, another 100 rating

Maybe Hillary's conservative bona fides will show up in her environmental record...

How about the League of Conservation Voters..."the independent political voice for the environment. To secure the environmental future of our planet, LCVs mission is to advocate for sound environmental policies and to elect pro-environmental candidates who will adopt and implement such policies. "

Guess we will have to look elsewhere, they like Hillary 95% of the time.


Hmmm...well surely we will be able to see her true conservatism emerge with consumer groups, because we all know she is a corporate lackey...or "corporatist" as some here like to call her...surely U.S. PIRG, which is the "federation of state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), that takes on powerful interests on behalf of the American public, working to win concrete results for our health and our well-being"...would be concerned about her record.

Damn...they liked her 100% of the time in 2005 too...

Well clearly Hillary's rock star status, money, and name recognition account for her being able to bamboozle all of these organizations...

But...surely our enemies on the right can see her value as a conservative...


Let's take a look

How about the National Right to Life Committee, I mean if any organization would cheer the shift in position so many here claim she has made, they would...let's see if they saw it...

Hmm weird...they give her a big fat 0

Ok that was only one...maybe they weren't paying attention

How about the U.S Chamber of Commerce...I mean if she is the huge friend of corporate American so many here claim, surely the Chamber would see it...

Are you kidding me...they only gave her a 35 pro business rating...hmmm...well that is higher than some of the other conservative groups...maybe they are beginning to see the light...but just to be sure...lets see how they rate other Democrats...particularly those we know to be solidly liberal..

Ok this is weird...Henry Waxman gets a 38...and Barack Obama gets a 39...what is going on (oh wait, I forgot, Obama is a corporate sellout too...phew)...still that Waxman number...lets check a couple more...Jim McGovern a 35...Barney Frank a 33...John COnyers a 35...oh man even Bernie Sanders...you know SOCIALIST Bernie Sanders pulled in a 33...stop I can't take it anymore...

Hillary that conservative evil genius has them ALL fooled....

Ok..one more...surely the John Birch Society can be counted on to recognize one of their own...ok they give Hillary a 21...not bad it would seem...still after getting burned by the U.S. Chamber we had better check...

It can't be...it just can't be...Dennis Kucinich a conservative? Well probably not...but still a 37 rating from the John Birch society...

Well I guess conservative Hillary is no where to be found here at least...I guess we will have to keep relying on Liberal conventional wisdom that she is indeed one of them...damn, I thought we had her!!!






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-06-06 10:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. Where does she stand on Iraq?
Has she ever acknowledged it was a bad idea? I'm not flaming, I'm not saying she's a bad person -- I just want to know how she feels about Iraq these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-06-06 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. There's no acceptable solution in Iraq
Why should she go there? Much is made of the Clinton's always trying to focus group what people want, but what's really wrong with that? I trust the people in focus groups more than political hacks. Isn't that another avenue for democracy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. perhaps she should go there because she voted for Iraq and
refuses to acknowledge the stupidity of that vote. Edwards did. so did others. she must.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bjorn Against Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
81. Well she is a Senator, so I think talking about Iraq might be important.
Why should she go there? Are you serious? Iraq is one of the most crucial issues of the day, and she was a war supporter. Many of us warned her, but she did not listen. She needs to take responsibility, she is a United States Senator and it is HER JOB to talk about issues of importance, and if she failed us in voting for this war she owes it to us to take responsibility for her bad vote. I don't know how she can expect us to vote for her for President if she can't even address the key defining issue of our day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnykmarshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-06-06 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. That Nazi slag!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GOPBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-06-06 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
3. My only problem with Hillary is that sh'e would lose the general election.
I'm not sure she would, but she's far from the candidate that would give us our best chance. I think she's only win is she went up against, maybe, Gingrich or Brownback. McCain would destroy her. Even many Democratic voters I know would vote for McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-06-06 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Recent head to head polls with McCain...
Show them even or have her only slightly behind...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #4
74. She gets whipped by McCain in all the polls I have seen. Do you have links? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #3
51. McCain's age could work against him. The older you are the
longer it takes to recover from exertion. Hillary could run him into the ground. Look at Dole, he couldn't keep up the pace.

this image could damage his chances:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fuzzyball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
84. Hillary would lose in GE is a myth just as Kerry the war hero would win
turned out to be a myth also.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-06-06 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. The Fact Is, Sir, Calling Sen. Clinton 'Conservative' Is Nonesense
It is simply noise: the invocation of a "bad word" regardless of whether its meaning is apt or no, by people convinced they are in the presence of a "bad thing", and determined to whip up what agreement with their view they can.

"The chief use of reason is the support of prejudice."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-06-06 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. It sure is...
Hence the tone of good natured mocking that hopefully came through in my post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #5
16. You're right. She's not a conservative. She is a neo-liberal. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-06-06 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
6. Yeah, I've tried that route, too. The professional Hillary bashers respond with stuff like
"She just votes that way to make people think she's liberal but she really only helps the conservatives," or some such stuff.

I swear I believe half the bashers on here are paid by the RNC to spout their crap. No I won't name names, but it's what I believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
56. Yor check from James Carville is in the mail
Nice Astroturf!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-06-06 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
8. Thank you for this!
I get so tired of all the Hillary bashing here on DU. Do I agree with her all the time?

No.

But I certainly don't think of her as Republican-lite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Just because she's not a neo-Con,
She IS still Republican-Lite. Her husband is the fella who destroyed the welfare safety net. He did more damage to FDR's good work than any Republican before him.

Welfare DEFORM did the following:

* Encouraged poor people to have more babies, to get more benefits

* Made it so that married poor people without children can't get benefits

* Made it so that single people without children can't get benefits

* Made it so that disabled people, while waiting to be accepted (a process that usually takes years), can only get VERY low benefits (less than $200/month) for 18 months.


Kicking the poorest people in this society down, when they're wise enough not to have children they can't afford -- while forcing people into the choice of "breed, or go hungry" -- is not a Democratic value.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. got news for you, silverojo
Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are two different people.

It's true!

Really!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-06-06 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
10. I don't think of PIRG as a liberal group, but other than that, these are
impressive credentials.

The Iraq war is a big thing with me, though. I don't feel she's been ideal on that score, and frankly she's not my favorite candidate for 2008. But I have never hated her.

I think she would be, like her husband was, a decent and effective President, not a great President necessarily, but in the upper tier. She doesn't have her husband's warmth, but then again I don't think she'd risk her country for a fling with a teenaged boy or girl either.

Of course, were she elected in 2008 she would have the luxury of following the worst President who has ever disgraced the White House, so by comparison she might seem great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leilani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-06-06 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
11. Where does she stand on Free Trade?
On outsourced jobs?

On corporate control of the country?

On the widening income gap, where those at the top, just keep getting richer? I know she & Bill have done quite well. How about the rest of us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
area51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #11
28. H. Clinton
Hillary Clinton sucked up to offshoring recipient Tata Consulting; she has no problem with impoverishing Americans & giving American jobs to foreigners.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
14. You're beating a dead horse, for better or worse the IWR is the only litmus test that matters
To most of Hillary's critics on this board. Hillary failed that litmus test miserably and had she not, Hillary would not nearly have so many critics.

This is not how I feel personally but I'll admit that Iraq is my number one issue. It's not my litmus test to the extent that I'd rather see Jack Murtha in the White House than Hillary Clinton but Iraq is the first thing I consider when looking at a candidate and Hillary just doesn't impress me on Iraq.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #14
24. Really? and the evidence for that is....
Connecticut?

One of those states where you would think an IWR vote would resonate most...and with the mnost vocal supporter of the war losing in a primary...and still could not knocked off...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #24
33. My key point was "on this board"
Where Joe Lieberman is hated by a ratio of about 9 to 1.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. On this board...
You are certainly correct...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #24
57. I'm sorry to see the war means NOTHING to you
All you talk about are polls. Dead soldiers just roll off your back, it seems.

For shame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #57
61. It was a political discussion...
Maybe next time read the thread before inserting foot in mouth!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. I'm responding to your pussyfooting around the biggest issue today
Edited on Thu Dec-07-06 06:23 PM by martymar64
She may vote liberal in other unimportant issues, but when it comes to the war, she's in the Bush camp all the way. If you think I'm wrong, show me the evidence.


I'll be waiting.

BTW, pouting and saying "you're dumb" is pure schoolyard. Come up with something better than that. Or better yet, put me on ignore. It'd be a badge of honor to be put on ignore by the hilly astroturf crew.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. There is evidence galore...
Starting with her floor statement announcing her IWR vote...

Google is your friend...do your own research!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. She said she took Boosh at his word
Even back then, a rube like me with a simple BA in Political Science knew his reasons were bullshit. Was she THAT gullible? She still opposes our military pulling out, even as our brave soldiers are dying every day. In fact today, 11 American soldiers died. For nothing. I have friends and family in both Iraq and Afganistan.I don't want them to be sacrificed on her altar of political expediency.

I know the war must seem like an abstract concept to many of you, but I live in fear that my family will at some time get the announcement that my uncle has been killed in action. Hilly is risking nothing. Chelsea is safe in her new consultant job rolling in the dough, while the sons and daughters of those without political connections are sent to die for lies that Hilly continues to back with her political capital.

If I was overly harsh with you, I apologize.
But as long as this goddamned war continues, all other issues pale in comparison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. It's not abstract at all...
I had an Uncle in VietNam when I was younger...

Hillary takes her job seriously. it is easy for us to say we knew Bush was lying...however at the time they had received intelligence from sources they had no reason not to trust that Iraq was gathering WMD's. The IWR vote, if you look at the statemnents made by Hillary, Kerry, Cleland and Harkin for example, was supported by them to stall any military action by providing additional leverage to get unfettered inspections back on track...

The blame for this war lays squarely at the feet of George Bush.

btw I appreciate your apology...I did not support an invasion at the time...but I do not believe we need an apology from those Democrats that voted for the IWR at the time...there were logical reasons to do so...none of this is cut and dried.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. I appreciate your comment
Edited on Thu Dec-07-06 07:25 PM by martymar64
Even though I do not agree.

As for her, until the day she publicly retracts her IWR vote, adding that she supports a full pullout from Iraq, she cannot count on my support.

You say it's not that cut & dried, but it really is. This is life and death. Either one cares about life or is indifferent to it. To me, Hilly is indifferent to it. She needs to go to Arlington National Cemetary and take a good hard look at all those graves. Each one represents a son, a father, a husband, a brother. Each one a life snuffed out that can never be brought back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #24
71. they're called republicans
and they backed Lieberman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #71
77. As did...
36% of Democrats and 60% of Republicans!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NobleCynic Donating Member (991 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 01:03 AM
Response to Original message
17. The problem with Hillary is not her voting record
(Except of course, on the Iraq War)

The problem is that while her voting credentials are impressive, she abandons it completely when she crafts her media image. Any time she is questioned before a camera she is as moderate and wishy washy as can be. I know she's playing for the center, and trying to win the moderates, but to ALL politically aware people it is down right insulting.

The righties hate Hillary because they see her as a far left extremist hiding behind a moderate shell.

The left is insulted because, while she votes with us most of the time,
(Except of course, on the Iraq War)
she insults us and distances herself from us in the media every chance she gets.

Either way it is disingenuous. It is dishonest. And it is cowardly.

The right succeeded so well in taking the political stage from us because they learned a very basic political lesson well. The public assumes, mistakenly so, that the truth of any issue is in the middle. Both sides lie, so both sides are wrong and the truth is in the middle. The right took a large step farther right, and thus pulled the entire country with it, because like the sheep we are, we assumed the truth was in the middle. The fact that the middle is defined not be any grand constant, but by what the midpoint ideologically is between the two major parties escapes the general public.

Moreover, there is the perception in the public eye that if a politician campaigns on a strong ideological campaign, but runs moderate policy in practice, he is simply compromising to get things done. If a candidate campaigns on a moderate ideological stance, but runs strongly ideological policy in practice, he is deceptive, and he is a liar.

While running as a moderate and implementing strong policy may have gotten Hillary this far, it is the type of thinking that spells defeat in the long run for the party. You may get what you want in the short run, but the public assumes the middle is in between what the politicians of the left and right are saying. Not what they are actually doing. What they are saying.

In conclusion, I believe it to be far more wise to have a politician that runs a campaign far left, but governs moderate than the other way around. You may get better results short run with Hillary's method, but in the long run the support of the general public shifts ever rightward as you move your public position ever towards the middle. When we appear to move to middle, all we do is move the middle farther right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #17
45. who's the last politician who ran on a "far left" platform
that won a Presidential election?


Answer - there isn't one.



Your strategy is a recipe for defeat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NobleCynic Donating Member (991 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #45
80. I can't think of one who has ran on a far left platform
Perhaps I should restate.

I want a candidate that runs a campaign that is farther left, not far left.

At least something a little farther left than dead center.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #17
46. Excellent post
Thanks for writing it. I actually think it's deserving of a thread all its own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mich Otter Donating Member (887 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 03:42 AM
Response to Original message
18. Some thoughts about Hillary...
If there are more than one other Democrats in the primaries, the vote of "Liberal/Progressive/Socialist" Democrats will be split with the result being Hillary, (whom I view as a Right-Wing Democrat), will wind up getting the Democratic nomination. Unless we can get the field narrowed to one other candidate going against Hillary, I believe she will become the nominee.

-Assuming that to be the case, I will certainly vote for her. She will come to the White House with the ability to phone any leader in the World and have an intelligent conversation with that leader. (Yes, for those of you who don't remember what it was like before Bush, some American presidents can call other leaders and work with them).
We absolutely have to have help from many other countries to get the best result we can hope for from Iraq and Afghanistan.

-She also brings knowledge of how to work to build an economy, which America is in desperate need of. Our job loss is continuing and our standard of living, (for working people, not the wealthy), is dropping continually.
The minimum wage increase is not going to make a real difference at raising anyones standard of living, it will only bring some people from abject poverty to surviving poverty. That helps them but does not truly raise the American standard of living.

-Hillary also would come to the job with more knowledge about building a national health care system in America than anyone else has who might get the job. I want to see America move to a single payer system so all Americans are covered. We have to get a huge majority of "Liberal/Progressive/Socialist" Democrats elected to get a national health care program passed.

-She would attract many highly qualified people to run the various departments of the government, which would seem so novel after all the political flunkies the Republicans put in place.

-She would attract the imaginations of a new generation of young women voters who will stand by the Democratic Party for decades to come. It is going to take a huge portion of the women's vote, (maybe 65%), to get enough Democrats elected to pass the health care program.

-------------------------------------------

Hillary is not my first choice by any means. I do not believe she will
ever put Human Rights ahead of Wall Street interests. But, unless we can get the primaries narrowed quickly to one candidate to run against her, I do believe she will be the next Democratic candidate for president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #18
58. With her in the White House, one BIG problem remains
We'll still be in Iraq and our brave men and women will continue to die until 2012 and beyond. Will that be an accceptable price to pay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LaPera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 03:57 AM
Response to Original message
19. Hilarious!
:rofl:

Moderates will find any bullshit stat to protect fucking moderates!!

"The John Birch Society"

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Hilarious!
"progressives" will stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la la la la la!"

:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 06:40 AM
Response to Original message
21. I...R...A...Q
Sorry, but in a time when the public is overwhelmingly in favor of getting the hell out of the, nominating a candidate who not only voted for the IWR, but continues to support this war in word and deed up unto today, is a stupid, foolish notion. Learn your lesson from history. We did this before in '68, when two war hawks were nominated. The anti war crowd stayed home in droves, or voted for Eugene McCarthy, and the Democrats lost. Do you really want a repeat?

In addition to her position on Iraq, her voting record on other matters is less than stellar. The Patriot Act, the bankruptcy bill, etc. She has shown entirely too much devotion to corporate America for my taste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. It would be nice if you actually used facts...
When posting rather than just following the cw that passes for fact here at DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. What, are you saying that she didn't vote for the IWR?
Doesn't continue to support the war with every funding bill that she has voted for? That she didn't vote for the Patriot Act? Didn't vote for the bankruptcy bill? These are all facts, they are down on the record in black and white if you would care to go check.

Or is it your contention that my analysis of the '68 election is wrong? Well, I hate to tell you this, but this analysis is the same one that many other very learned political pundits and politicians have made in the years and decades since then.

So just exactly where do you think that I'm "wrong"?

Or is it just because unlike some folks around here I put the ongoing destruction of a country, with the subsequent loss of innocent lives ahead of bullshit partisan politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. A vote for the IWR...
Does not constitute a person who "continues to support this war in word and deed up unto today." A cursory look at her statements from her floor statement announcing her IWR vote up to the present day is ample evidence of this.

You also need to learn your history...war opponents began their division with resentment on the part of McCarthy supporters that Bobby Kennedy jumped into the race after promising he would not...

And to describe Hubert Humphrey as a war hawk is laughable. He was tainted by his association with LBJ, the result of his following through on a promise he made at the time he was chosen to be his running mate, not to oppose Johnson in public...a tradition that remains to this day. But in the '68 race Humphrey clearly distanced himself from LBJ's policies, advocating an end to the war. So to call him a war hawk is ridiculous. Just as it is ridiculous to call Hillary a war hawk...it is just not true!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #29
36. Let's check her words then
"Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

Hillary Clinton, who recently returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, said she agreed with Gingrich. She blamed the administration for "miscalculation" and "inept planning" in Iraq. "I do think we need more troops" in Iraq, Clinton said.

Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007

Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan

"Now, I may disagree with those who call for a date certain for a withdrawal, but I do not doubt their patriotism."

When Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) called for removing all U.S. troops from Iraq over the next six months, the New York senator told reporters she was opposed. When her advisers were later asked whether she supports a two-year phased withdrawal advocated by a liberal think tank and embraced by Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, they demurred.

In the e-mail, Clinton took responsibility for her vote for the 2002 resolution authorizing Bush to go to war, while leaving open whether she would have opposed it, given what is now known about faulty intelligence and mismanagement by the administration. She pummeled Bush for his conduct of the war itself but left murky how long she believes U.S. forces should stay in Iraq. As she told Kentucky Democrats earlier this month, "I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit,

And somehow I doubt that tens of thousands of anti war protesters would have shown up in Chicago if Humphrey was as much as a dove as you claim. In fact Humphrey did support the war, if for no other reason than to insure his continued political life. Much like Hillary, he was willing to sacrifice innocents in order to further his political career.

Spin it how you want, but words and facts don't lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. Context is important of course...
As to the first point she is absolutely correct...she has nothing to apologize for. Her position at the time of the IWR was a reasonable one to take, one that many Democrats took.

I also agree that a date certain is a mistake...however she did sign on with the Levin amendment calling for a phased withdrawl...

She voted for 86 billion for operations in Iraq...which is the responsible course of action. This war will not be solved by leaving the soldiers high and dry...a more comprehensive solution is needed.

"In the e-mail, Clinton took responsibility for her vote for the 2002 resolution authorizing Bush to go to war, while leaving open whether she would have opposed it, given what is now known about faulty intelligence and mismanagement by the administration. She pummeled Bush for his conduct of the war itself but left murky how long she believes U.S. forces should stay in Iraq. As she told Kentucky Democrats earlier this month, "I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit,"

She is correct here as well

As to your last point about sacrificing lives to further their political career...I have to admit you are the first to actually admit you believe this...words cannot describe how incredibly wrong you are about Humphrey. All I can suggest is you read a bit about the man...there are several good biographies that will demonstrate to you that such an assertion regarding Humphrey is slander.

DO you also believ Max Cleland and John Kerry voted for the IWR to cover their asses...to further their political careers? And if so did you vote for John Kerry in 2004?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. How's this for context
She voted for an illegal, immoral war that has killed tens of thousands of innocents. In doing so, she not only went against the will of her constituents, but against the will of the American people. The overwhelming majority of Americans(68%) were not wanting to take any action, including a vote on the IWR, until the inspectors had gone in and done their job. Millions of people across the country and worldwide were out in the streets, loudly saying no. Messages by phone, fax snail and email were running 268-1 against the IWR. And yet in direct opposition to this sentiment, Hillary voted for the IWR.

Furthermore, she has and does continue to support this illegal, immoral war through her consistent votes in favor of continuing to fund it. De-funding the war wouldn't leave our soldiers "high and dry", it would simply force the Pentagon to bring them home. There can be no more comprehensive solution until American forces are gone from Iraq, it is that simple. Our continued presence only exacerbates an already disasterous situation, and more of the same ol' same ol' isn't going to help one damn iota. It is time for the troops to come ASAP. Do we need to work with multi lateral organizations in order to help the Iraqis? Yes. Do we need to pay back reparations for all of the destruction and loss of life that we have caused, by all means. But first and foremost we have got to stop the bleeding, and the only way to do this is to bring the troops home now. This same sort of arguement was bounced around for years prior to our leaving Vietnam, and sadly Democrats, Humphrey among them, played the same game. And look where it got us, four more years of war, and millions more killed. Do you really want to play out such stupidity and immorality again? Can you learn any lesson from history?

And no, I'm not the first to express the sentiment concerning Hillary, and other Democrats, putting their career ahead of innocent lives. Yes, I voted for Kerry(actually it was more like against Bush), albeit reluctantly. But at least Kerry had the good goddamn grace to admit what he did was a mistake, and was working on a solution to get us the hell out of there. Hillary has made no such admission, and has come up with no concrete plan to get us out of Iraq.

Now if you wish to press for Hillary's nomination in the primary, and vote for her in the Presidential election, that is entirely between you and your conscience. Mine will not let me vote for an unrepentant war monger who puts her career ahead of innocent lives. I refuse to have such blood on my hands, but hey, if you can do so, you are a stronger man than I Gunga Dhin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. ...
She voted for an illegal, immoral war that has killed tens of thousands of innocents. In doing so, she not only went against the will of her constituents

Wrong...read her floor statement...says very clearly why she voted the way she did...

The overwhelming majority of Americans(68%) were not wanting to take any action, including a vote on the IWR, until the inspectors had gone in and done their job. Millions of people across the country and worldwide were out in the streets, loudly saying no.

We live in a Republic not a democracy...If you asked the American public 160 years ago whether the slaves should be freed it would have been an overwhelming no. We pay our representatives to use their own judgement. SOmetimes they are right sometimes they are wrong...and certainly the American people need to be listened too, but their judgement is often just as wrong.


Furthermore, she has and does continue to support this illegal, immoral war through her consistent votes in favor of continuing to fund it.

Wrong...and defunding would only hurt the troops at this point


No responsible Democrats...including Russ Feingold supports an immediate withdrawl...in fact the only difference between Hillary and Russ Feingold is in setting a strict timetable.

"But at least Kerry had the good goddamn grace to admit what he did was a mistake"

As did Hillary...she just didn't apologize..which is the politically cowardly thing to do...she has nothing to apologize for...George Bush does...

Do you believe Max Cleland voted for the IWR for his own political viability? I want to know if you think this about all Democrats who voted for the IWR for the same reason Hillary did...or just the ones you did not like!








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Her floor statement makes her actions look even more foolish
She is parroting Bushboy's excuses, down to the threat of WMD's(of which there were none), and trying to tie Iraq to Al Quaeda. Here's an exerpt:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

Frankly, if this was her honest opinion, then quite frankly it lessens my view of her and her ability to lead. If she was honestly bamboozled by Bush the Dumber, then she frankly doesn't have the intellectual capability to hold the highest office. I think that you're better off with the perception that she voted for the war out of political expediency :shrug:

You are correct, we live in a republic. That means that our leaders are elected to represent the collective will of their constituents. This, along with protecting the Constitution, is job one for any House or Senate member. However given that she voted for the IWR against the will of her constituents, and voted for the Patriot Act, means that she has failed miserably, and sadly all of us are paying for it, many with their lives.

And again, defunding this war would NOT hurt the troops, it would simply mean that they have to come home ASAP.

Sorry, but you are factually incorrect, no matter how you try to spin this. If you wish to continue to delude yourself, fine. Just don't expect a lot of people to go along with you for the ride.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. ...
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.


Based on lies from the administration...lies delivered by folks they had no reason at he time to distrust...George Tenet and Colin Powell...COngress does not have its own intelligence agency...they are forced to rely on the CIA etc...at the time in 2002 there was no authoritative reason to believe George Tenet and Colin Powell were fabricating intelligence reports...

So I guess you view all of the other Democrats who voted on the same basis as intellectually incapable of seeing the truth eh?

"You are correct, we live in a republic. That means that our leaders are elected to represent the collective will of their constituents."

Wrong...the collective will of their consituency is only one factor to be taken into account. They are expected to use their own judgement.

If you seriously believe George Bush will pack up and go home if the money were cut off you are deluding yourself...he would shift funds from other areas, and the soldiers would have less of the necessary supplies than they do now...

You didn't answer my question, does your opinion about Senators who voted for the IWR for political expediency extend to folks like Max Cleland and Tom Harkin...whose rationale for their vote was very close to Hillary's. Or again, do you only hold that Senators you do not like did so?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. LOL, nice try, but don't switch subjects here, we're speaking about Hillary
Funny, isn't it, how gullible and trusting of this misadministration Hillary is/was, yet at the time of the vote, millions upon millions of people weren't falling for his shit. Again, this doesn't put Hillary in a good light at all. As I said earlier, if she is this goddamn gullible, then she is too stupid to hold the office that she already has, much less the Presidency. The public at large was looking at less information than Hillary received, yet they weren't fooled, why was Hillary?

And frankly, it is basic Civics 101 that states that in a republic, the primary duty of a represenative is to represent the will of his/her constituents. Little of their own judgement is to come into the decision.

And frankly, you are deluding yourself in thinking that Bush could or would move money that has been previously earmarked for other spending purposes over to the military. The man is dumb, but not that dumb. He would be out of office quicker than you could say impeach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #54
60. Not surprising you would not answer the question...
Your answer would likely expose your inconsistency...and in fact goes directly to your previous contention that Hillary Clinton was willing to tolerate the deaths of thousands to protect her political career...it is a reasonable question to ask, and goes to the motivation of your response, whether you believe that about the other Democratic Senators who made the same decision, or is your scorn only directed at the Senator for which you hold the most disdain. Inconsistency on this piint would call into question your judegemnt on other matters of contention as well....so I ask again...is your opinion of Hillary Clinton and her IWR vote only reserved for her, or do you hold the same position of the other 27 Democrats that made the same decision she did?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #40
59. Since you support this war so much . . .
Here's a site for you to visit . ..


http://www.goarmy.com/contact/how_to_join.jsp?hmref=cs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #59
64. Point to any statement I made...
In support of the war...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. You support Hilly, Hilly supports the war
It's called 2+2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #66
69. Sorry that is just not the case...
Saying it in ever cuter ways does not change that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. What, are you saying that she voted for the bankruptcy bill?
You suggested I look it up. So I did. And Clinton did not vote for the bankruptcy bill. She didn't vote at all on the question of final passage of that bill. She did, however, vote against cloture.

But you're right that she did vote for the Patriot Act -- of course, so did every other Democrat in the Senate, except Feingold (who voted no) and Landrieu (who didn't vote).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #31
38. Limp opposition at best,
And really no opposition at all.

And frankly, saying that "everybody else voted for the Patriot Act" isn't an excuse. As my mother used to say, if everybody else jumped off a bridge, would you follow?

I guess that makes me one of those liberal freaks, you know, those people who expect their leaders to fulfill their duty to protect the Constitution, and represent the collective will of their constituents, something which Hillary(along with many others) have failed to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. really? limper than Feingold and Kennedy and Schumer?
By my count, there were recorded votes on 25 amendments to the Bankruptcy bill, most offered by Democrats and most defeated. Clinton and Feingold both missed around a half dozen of these votes, but when they voted, they were aligned on the same side 100 percent of the time (as well as being aligned with Kennedy and Schumer 100 percent of the time). Clinton co-sponsored several of these amendments as well.

So,tell me again, how much do you know about the debate and vote on the bankruptcy bill and how much are you just making up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
22. There's no doubt, she's no conservative
But I don't give a lot of points to the neo-liberals either.

All that aside, we can still be aware that Hillary is incredibly polarizing. The reich-wingers have mounted a hate campaign against her for many years and it's been effective! Nothing morives the R base like the word "Hillary". It's their "rosebud", just utter the word and they morph into rabid dogs.

And, in spite of a brilliant effort at CYA and a bit of courting the right, they still hate her. Many who are not even political hate her.

Not long ago, talking with the gal that was cutting my hair, she knew little of politics and didn't know hardly any names I mentioned. At the mention of Hillary though you shoulda seen the jawline tense and the "I really hate her" remark was chilling.

Then there are those of us who used to go to the mat for her all the time. Defended her and Bill through the whole Clinton admin. I lent It Takes a Village to anyone who I could get to read it. Along came the IWR and that about tore it. If anyone shoulda knows about the evil of that plan, it was she who had been a moving target of that gang of thugs for oh so long.

That was when I realized she was either a special kind of stupid (very unlikely) or more interested in her own political career than anything else.

So yeah, Hillary is no conservative and anyone who argues such doesn't have a clue. Sadly though, she won't risk an epic battle that would offend those who already hate her guts.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
25. Wait, but so many of the experts here claim she's Republican-lite & a neocon
Does that mean they're talking outta their asses like the whiney losers that they are?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
27. One of the biggest lies on DU
is that of HRC's voting record. No other candidate has to face such castigation from both sides of the aisle based on polar opposite claims of her political proclivities. I would think knowing she couldn't possibly be an ultraliberal AND a rightwing war-monger at the same time would give people pause to at least look at her record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. Call me a one issue voter at this point, I fully admit it.
We have absolutely got to stop this war. Hillary won't get that done. She has not only voted for the IWR, but she has continued to support it with every funding vote, and many speaking engagements along the way, even when it became painfully obvious that this war was an illegal, immoral action. She continues to support it long after her fellow like voting Dems have back off the war, in some cases over two years ago.

Sorry, but unless she comes out, sees the error of her ways, and opposes the war with everything she's got, she will not get my vote. I put the ongoing loss of innocent lives ahead of politics. I suppose I'm funny that way, you know, caring and all that jazz.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. spread the love
Edited on Thu Dec-07-06 11:01 AM by AtomicKitten
Dem Senators that voted yes on the IWR:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeremyWestenn Donating Member (372 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
35. Stop preaching to your choir.

You'll make no impact in the primaries. It drives others up walls. Just quit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. You know what is funny...
Probably 95% of the Hillary threads on DU anti-Hillary...yet that doesn't seem to be preaching to the choir.

If the vast number of threads supporting Hilllary is really bothering you...I suggest you avail yourself of a fine DU feature known as "ignore"

Will solve all your problems!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeremyWestenn Donating Member (372 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #37
52. LOL

I read so little of your post I didn't realise it wasn't an anti-Hillary thread. >_< I hope the bitch wins in 08.

<_< I feel silly now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
39. She has an authoritarian streak, but she's definitely NOT conservative
There have been leftist authoritarians throughout history. Really bad ones, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
42. I don't think she IS conservative - just adopts language of conservatives for her purposes
Edited on Thu Dec-07-06 12:39 PM by blm
and at times, sided with Bush against other Democrats on serious issues like Tora Bora, firing Rumsfeld in 2003-4, Downing Street Memos inquiry, and her failure to risk any political capital to lead any needed filibuster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
43. I don't particularily like Hillary, but...
Edited on Thu Dec-07-06 01:58 PM by Odin2005
...a lot of the Hillary-bashing is pathetic, single-issue BS. My main beef with her is that she is just too authoritarian for my taste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
48. I do not believe Hillary is a neocon or conservative.
Edited on Thu Dec-07-06 03:49 PM by Zodiak Ironfist
I have my own scale to measure these things, based on their voting records.

Here is a graph I made of how all of our senators in this Congress voted (up until Sept.) according to the big issues. Hillary doesn't do that badly on this chart...she represents pretty much what I would call a post-modern mainstream Democrat (not on the right side of the party). Unfortunately, mainstream Democrats are not as true to a progressive ideology as they used to be.



See? Clinton is the right-side tail of the progressive wing of the Democratic party if one looks at voting history alone.

I know her sins in the 102nd Congress, too. Here they are (as I define them):
------------------------------------
She confirmed Condi
She confirmed Negroponte
She did not vote against the bankruptcy bill (nor for it..so she got a neutral score)
She voted to extend the Patriot Act
She voted for the Tax Relief Act (a Bush tax cut)
She voted for the US-Oman Free Trade Agreement

This record reflects a strong free trade policy, a flattened tax policy, and a tendency to allow the executive branch to do what it wants. Not great, but far better than the swine below her on the graph.

In all other respects, she is fairly progressive. However, she is far from my first choice. I can live with her, but I have some less quantifiable reasons for not liking her versus some of the rest of the field. For one, she is stingy with her political capital, and therefore is not much of a leader for the party. Second, she belongs to the DLC, whose membership is FAR more right-wing than she is and whose presense is a direct impediment to the grassroots of the party having a say in things. I do not think we need to reinforce the DLC's idea that they are the "leadership" of the party by legitimizing them with another nomination.

Of course, I will vote for her if she gets nominated, but I will work hard to make sure that doesn't happen (and that it does happen for Gore, who is my choice).

PS. In case anyone was wondering, I do not get mad at anyone who is trying to build up a candidate or tear one down here on DU (I like the debate). What irritates me is when people entrench themselves so deeply that they will hurl insults and ridicule at fellow DUers, who are NOT public figures, but ostensible political allies and regular people with feelings. This practice is divisive, strategically illogical, and frankly, beneath the intelligence and morals of so many of us. Not that I think my opinion will change anything, but there it is. I do use Ignore on members of both sides of the political divide on this board...and my trigger is insulting, bullying behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #48
53. something for your graph that I found the other day
While HRC did not vote on the Bankruptcy bill because her husband was having surgury, she gave a speech on the eve of the vote that clearly indicates that she would have voted against it.

speech here:

http://vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=83595...

Perhaps, in the interest of fairness, you could incorporate a "no" vote for her on this issue into your graph?


-------------------


Also, I would be interested in knowing what legislation you are refering to by the "tax relief act" . I haven't been able to figure out what specific bill you are using.


thanks in advance
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #53
72. Nice catch...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
More Than A Feeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #53
75. That's a quality speech. It hits all the important notes.
Props to her for that one. That pushes her above the Democrats who actually did vote for the wretched thing:

Max Baucus, Montana.

Evan Bayh, Indiana.

Joe Biden, Delaware.

Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico.

Robert Byrd, West Virginia.

Thomas Carper, Delaware.

Kent Conrad, North Dakota.

Daniel Inouye, Hawaii.

Tim Johnson, South Dakota.

Herb Kohl, Wisconsin.

Mary Landrieu, Louisiana.

Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas

Bill Nelson, Florida.

Ben Nelson, Nebraska.

Mark Pryor, Arkansas.

Harry Reid, Nevada, Senate Minority Leader!

Ken Salazar, Colorado.

Debbie Stabenow, Michigan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #53
79. I would love to
Edited on Thu Dec-07-06 07:47 PM by Zodiak Ironfist
However, she abstained from voting, which earns 5 points on my scale. You get 0 for voting against the progressive position and 10 for voting with it. I thought 5 was a fair number for neutrality. Scoring someone's intent is not normal for my scoring system, and frankly, I do not have time to track everything down.

I agree that Senators sometimes have emergencies, but that is all supposed to come out in the wash.

As for the bill #, I cannot tell you off the top of my head. I only listed the bill by paraphrased name. I'll look it up.

It's HR 4297.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act of 2005
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WildEyedLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #48
85. Nelson is more conservative than McCain???
Seriously???

Wow. That's BAD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #85
86. They scored the same, if I recall n/t
But yes, that was an eye-opener for me because I was the one to pick the bills and positions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
55. Hillary's Iraqi policy is indentical to Bush's. And, Iraq is...just a little important.
Don't you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #55
62. Wrong...
And a cursory glance at the record would tell you so...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #62
82. Nope. Provide me the distinctions if you have a caliper so finely tuned.
I'll be waiting here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
73. She's not conservative
Edited on Thu Dec-07-06 07:04 PM by fujiyama
or liberal.

She has no no real principals whatsoever. She's just a typical pandering hack of a politician.

She's wasting time about video games when there is a war killing thousands, home foreclosures are rising, the economy of my state is being compared to the depression era....

And she's talking about video games? She's a political coward.

And BTW, one simple vote indicates her being more conservative than her husband - in '01, she voted for the bankruptcy bill (an even worse version of which was recently passed). Clinton had vetoed it just a few months earlier. I'll give her an excuse for not voting on this one (Bill was getting out of surgery), but did she ever once indicate how she would have voted this time? Like all REAL issues which actually affect people's lives, she probably kept her mouth shut...and good thing, because her speaking style and voice are grating...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lillilbigone Donating Member (317 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
76. I don't care if she's 'conservative' or 'liberal' -- she's WRONG about Iraq

"I have to just say it: I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment, which I think does not put enough pressure on the new Iraqi government, nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. I do not agree that that is in the best interest of our troops or our country."
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=91667
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. Her own words condemn her
Every day we are in Iraq puts more blood onto her hands and all of the other hands that got us into this war and like Lady MacBeth, that blood will never wash off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
83. Oh, there you go...using facts, truth and logic!
That will get you nowhere with the Anti-Hillary kool-aid drinkers here. :crazy:

But kudos to you for trying! And thank you.
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 Tue Feb 20th 2018, 07:05 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