Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton To Anti-War Voters: Bring It On

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
 
Purveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 07:57 PM
Original message
Clinton To Anti-War Voters: Bring It On
By Amy Goodman

Hillary Clinton is a once and future warrior. Campaign events in New Hampshire suggest the majority anti-war electorate has problems with her vote for the Iraq War and with her position on Iran.

On Feb. 10, New Hampshire resident Roger Tilton asked Sen. Clinton at a town-hall meeting: "I want to know if right here, right now, once and for all and without nuance, you can say that war authorization was a mistake."

Clinton responded: "Well, I have said, and I will repeat it, that knowing what I know now, I never would have voted for it. ... The mistakes were made by this president who misled this country and this Congress into a war that should not have been waged."

A week later, in Dover, N.H., she dug in:

"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from. But for me, the most important thing now is trying to end this war."

Her tough talk to anti-war voters is reminiscent of President Bush's taunt to the Iraqi insurgents: "Bring it on."

---END OF EXCERPT---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. Hillary declares herself irrelevant
you go, girl. :woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. tough talk? no, it's no nonsense talk
Edited on Wed Feb-21-07 08:06 PM by AtomicKitten
HRC is what she is and isn't trying to be anything else. I actually find her response that you have captioned above refreshing and find the cloying mea culpas of the others knuckleheads that voted 'yes' on the IWR nothing more than carefully scripted tap-dancing; but the vote was shit nonetheless and I'm not about to rate the after-the-fact comments/excuses as if they are Olympic events.

Bear in mind HRC didn't say "bring it on." That's part of this author's blog entry.

And, I agree with HRC's message: If you don't like her, what she says or stands for, don't vote for her. Done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
27. Well, at least she's not changing her mind because of
political expedience - like another candidate (*cough* Edwards *cough*) has on this issue.

I'm all for learning from and admitting mistakes, but some candidates simply seem to change their positions far too often (*cough* Edwards *cough*) for me to trust.

Hillary's not even on my radar, btw, but at least she's being honest. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. in a perfect world
... none of the numbnuts that voted 'yes' on the IWR should be eligible to run; unfortunately those aren't the cards we voters are being dealt. I have pretty much exhausted my diatribes on how I feel about this and that hasn't changed. The difference I think is that I don't excuse one and not the other; they rate varying degrees of suckitude in my book. My only hope is that someone other than those choices wins the nomination: Gore, Obama or Clark IMO. In my mind that would be truly putting behind us the Democratic complicity in this awful mess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. The more that woman opens her mouth, the more reason I have
to vote and work against her. No more Bushes and no more Clintons. I will not participate in a coronation in this party only to see more division later when the Republicans start whipping away too. We need new people and new ideas. ''

Yeah, Hil, bring it on, baby. Go for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elizm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. I've made it my life's mission :) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #3
17. I'll l second THAT! No more Bushes and no more Clintons.
No Hillary,no Jeb, no Chelsea, no George P.
The World has endured enough....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
4. I wish Amy Goodman would run for president.....
No link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldtimecanuk Donating Member (601 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. The real problem with Hillary is if it weren't for Bill, she wouldn't even...
be a Senator at this time. She is and has run on Name Recognition and nothing more. Hillary is a Hawk, lets face that fact... her views don't seem to be much different than the Squatter that occupies the WH now... We will see where her star ends up, but I would rather see almost any other Democrat win the Primaries other than Hillary. Once again, JMHO...

ww

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
7. Some DUers hate honesty, I guess...
Edited on Wed Feb-21-07 08:11 PM by MethuenProgressive
She's promised if elected she will end the war.
Too bad that isn't "anti-war" enough for some people...

Clark/Obama '08!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldtimecanuk Donating Member (601 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I really don't think it has anything to do with Honesty... She refuses...
to say that her vote for war with Iraq was wrong, and she cannot say, hey I was wrong... Too much like GWB IMO... She has also made Hawkish comments regarding Iran, not good IMO... As I stated in my above post, if it weren't for Bill, she wouldn't even be a Senator, she really has nothing going for her...

ww
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. She's said it wasn't the wrong vote - with what she knew then.
Edited on Wed Feb-21-07 08:33 PM by MethuenProgressive
People want her to say it was a mistake - like she wanted to push the NO button and slipped and voted YES or something. Bush was telling us all lies back then, you want her to apologize for being lied to? You also are falling into the trap of calling it "a vote for war" - you do know what the vote siad, don't you?
I swear, even IF she ever says the exact words some people are panting after, she then be attacked for flip flopping, or for "just saying anything to get elected"...

Clark/Obama '08!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I know what you're saying, but most of us here KNEW they were lying like rugs.
We knew, for example, that Colin Powell called his U.N. speech "bullshit" before dutifully spewing it out.

HRC probably knew they were lying, too, but went along with what was politically expedient at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bornskeptic Donating Member (951 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. How is Colin Powell's UN speech on 2/5/2003
supposed to impact Hillary Clinton's vote on the "IWR" in October 2002? Are we requiring our candidates to possess the gift of prophecy now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldtimecanuk Donating Member (601 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. You might be correct.... But in all honesty, I find her extremely stubborn...
and again she reminds me to much of GWB... and that scares the shit outta me.... I'll be damned if I want to see a cloned replacement in the WH if/and when this Asshole leaves....

ww
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. This topic has been explained and discussed to death!
It's actually tiresome and a waste of valuable time to continue indulging meaningless nuances in place of dire issues.
Because a candidate voted yes to the IRW Resolution as the all purpose excuse for not voting for a candidate. Thereby using a false premise of voting purity as the assigned benchmark for eligibility.. I guarantee, twenty years from now, historians and offspring will still be scratching their heads wondering..."what were they thinking?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftwingnut Donating Member (843 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Good points...well thought out...
Edited on Wed Feb-21-07 09:31 PM by leftwingnut
and I agree.

She is not going to apologize for being lied to.

Even if we all knew "they" were lying...we're not in her position.

And this bullshit about Hillary reminding people of Bush!!! All that really does is minimize the damage that has been done by Bush.

Bush...the worst president in US history...the man we have been bitching about for 6 years...now you wanna tell me Hillary reminds you of Bush?? Please. Don't minimize what that asshole has done!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. I'll tell you what reminds me of *...
the type of political maneuvering she has been doing in terms of shaping the questions here in Iowa so that she wouldn't be asked about the IWR vote, attempting to censure a private citizen for his opinion for starters, and dismissing any viewpoint on the war other than her own as being irrelevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. interesting point
She's promised if elected she will end the war.
Too bad that isn't "anti-war" enough for some people...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 05:54 AM
Response to Original message
15. Interestingly enough, Clinton leads in New Hampshire
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
twiceshy Donating Member (259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
16. Hillary off script
I think the real problem here is that it points out Hillary's feet of clay. She is not the nimble and talented politician that her husband is and as soon as she wanders off her preplanned script she is lost. Her success in politics to date is due to her very well planned out lack of exposure to hard questions. Obama's camp is forcing her to engage way earlier than planned and this will be a real problem for her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. her reply was right on script
she's telling the howler monkeys to go take a flying fuck

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


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. We can "Take a flying fuck?" I thought she wanted us to support & vote for her.
Or at the least- "hold our noses" or something. Good to know that you have a line on what she really thinks though.

Note to self- Hillary thinks the DEM activists who were NOT wrong on Iraq like she & Bush were are "howling monkeys" who can "go take a flying fuck."

Good to know.

;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. I'm talking about the Amy Goodman's of this world
those sanctimonious, holier than thou, purer than pure idiots that make the rest of the country look at the left like they're a bunch of loony tunes.

If you put yourself in that camp, then I guess the "we" is appropriate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-23-07 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #30
33. My bad- it sounded like you could have been talking about Hillary.
Edited on Fri Feb-23-07 01:18 AM by Dr Fate
I'm not putting myself in any camp- I just oppose the war like most regular folks do. I would not even describe myself as "left" for that matter. I guess the majority is just buncha looney nuts who need to go "take a flying fuck" or whatever it was.

Anyway, my bad- honest mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. Hi twiceshy!!!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
19.  Amy G.probably believes Hugo Chavez is the second coming of Abe Lincoln.
I have great admiration for Amy, but no serious candidate is about to change their campaign strategy in hopes of gaining her endorsement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. "Probably"- or actually does? n/t
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antiimperialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #19
31. Let's ask that question to Venezuelans
They might give less of a damn about Lincoln than you might think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
22. I recall an article from 2003 or so Goodman did on Wes Clark
...it had a grossly misleading and factually inaccurate headline describing Clark as a war criminal or some nonsense like that. Drudge picked it up almost immediately. Then, mere hours later, the headline was srubbed and the article toned down just a hair.

Point is, Goodman and those like her are of the "simon-pure" variety of Progressive.

I can only imagine what she would have written about Truman, Kennedy, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. Really? I think she would have liked Truman or JFK if she had been around.
Edited on Thu Feb-22-07 06:39 PM by Dr Fate
She probably admires things about both while she is around now- but who knows.

In the context of these modern times, we have a very unpopular war- I'm not sure what Presidents & wars of 50 plus years ago has to do with this article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. I certainly don't think so
The left of yesteryear deplored the cold-war era Democrats like the left of today deplores the DLC. The ran a third party candidate against Truman and nearly protested on the floor of the '60 convention over JFK's nomination. Then they threw a hissy again when he chose LBJ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-23-07 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. Has she said she does not like Truman or JFK? (not that either are comparable to Hillary, btw)
Edited on Fri Feb-23-07 01:12 AM by Dr Fate
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-23-07 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. I think the situations are completely comparable
Edited on Fri Feb-23-07 05:54 AM by wyldwolf
The problems "progressives" had with the cold-war era Democrats were there stances on communism, their practice of Wilson's liberal internationalism, their "status quo" policies (that was a big issue to the late 60s new left movement.)

Why, many even sat out the '68 election, I suppose to teach Democrats a lesson.

I find it interesting how the left now ries to brush off historical comparisons by pretending there are none.
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 Thu Apr 25th 2024, 08:34 PM
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