There was a time when I did like Hillary.

[Cascadian]

There had been a time when I had no problem with her especially when she tried to promote the national health care bill. A bill she should have stuck to her guns. I saw her in person back in 1993 at Westlake Center in Seattle when throngs of Righties (Where in the Hell did they come from and where were the the throngs of liberals? It's Seattle for God sakes!) booed her off the stage. I felt sorry for her. I was and still am in favor of Universal Health Care. It was a good idea. I think the turning point was when she became a Senator. I still cannot forgive her for using bad judgement with the decision to send troops to Iraq. I also cannot help what I see as a slight leaning to the right in regards to the flag burning issue and on Iraq. This is not the sign of good leadership. She should have the guts to do what John Kerry did and admit she made a mistake on Iraq.

I honestly think if she gets the nomination for the Democrats then you might as well forget about the election. The GOP spinsters will be go beyond swift boating. You would hand the White House over to the Republicans. She is the Neocon's favorite target.

There is no question she is intelligent but leadership material? No!


John

[mr715]

1. Uh

Didnt she vote against both Alito and Gonzales?


Her stance on Iraq is identical to every other candidate.

She is a strong leader, the best Senator NY has had in a long, long time. She is effing BRILLIANT.

[BayCityProgressive]

2. I agree

that I used to like her and no longer do. I disagree with her electability. I actually think that after Bush, the power player elites want a Democrat in office they can control so that it looks like the Left and Right are in agreement on major issues concerning corporations and foreign policy.

[Cascadian]

4. That's correct!

If Hillary were to be elected, the troops would still be in Iraq and I am convinced Hillary would bring back the draft. The leaders of our country have been bought and sold to the corporatists. They hold the puppet strings. It is sad but true and it must be stopped.


John

[Erika]

7. So are you saying Hillary is a warmonger?

Rangel recommended bringing the draft back. He's a Korean vet.

[Cascadian]

18. She backed the IWR right? n/t

[mr715]

26. Yup!

Do did John Edwards.

Why did Kucinich endorse him?


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?!?

[Erika]

3. I disagree with slamming dems

Very counter productive. Makes you wonder whose side they are really on.

[churchofreality]

42. A-fucking-men

I'm tired of it.

[patrice]

5. AIPAC

:-(

[IndianaGreen]

20. AIPAC

They are the tail that wags the dog!

[Cascadian]

21. Speaking of AIPAC....

Has anybody seen this article?


http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=67455


John

[patrice]

47. I hear ". . . no option can be off the table . . . " soooooooo often, from both sides,

and I want to ask "Says who? Did you ask the People what they're willing to give for Israel or ___________?" And you know what? The people saying "no option can be off the table" VERY likely have the latest in fully equipped PRIVATE bunkers to go to if something happens to conUS.

[SaveElmer]

6. I see you removed your claim about Alito after being called on it...

Not only did she vote against Alito...she supported the filibuster...

Another example of incorrect CW regarding Hillary around here...

[mr715]

10. Hm

Do you get a sense that all the anti-Hillary pro-Kucinich posts come from the same 3 people wearing different hats?

Its incredible that the yard stick to judge "goodness" in politics is just WWKD (What would Kucinich Do). Rationality doesnt play into it, just listen to the leader of the cult of starlight.


M

[Cascadian]

14. So what?

Anybody can make a mistake but Hillary and her supporters are sooo perfect that they can almost walk on water!


I could give a crap what you and the Hillary crowd think. I really could!


Just get this through your head. I will not shut up about Hillary....DEAL WITH IT!


John

[SaveElmer]

22. Oh please do not shut up about Hillary...

Because every time you do post, you provide more stellar examples of the "truthiness" that passes for evidence around here...

Your "mistake" just shows how clearly conventional wisdom has become so ingrained around here Hillary bashers don't even bother to do their own research...

[mr715]

23. WOW

WAIT WAIT WAIT.

Can Kucinich walk on water?

Hillary makes fucking AWFUL mistakes because shes a politician. But shes also a good one. And she has a record of success.

I can give you a laundry list of what both Kucinich AND Hillary did wrong. Can you do the same?



M

[blm]

33. She supported filibuster ONLY if someone else stuck their neck out to lead it.

Kennedy and Kerry asked the other Dems to lead that filibuster since Kerry was scheduled for that economic conference in Europe as lead Dem on finance committee.

None would do it - so Kerry had to step up to the plate while in Europe and take the brunt of the political hits - yet again.

[SaveElmer]

35. The FACT is...

Contrary to the OP's original claim was that Hillary voted for the nomination of Alito...that is FALSE...and not only did she not vote for Alito, she supported the filibuster...it is yet another example of CW on Hillary gaining such status as those spouting it are no better than the lazy media that just accepts it as fact...

Your typical game of changing the paramters of proof when proven abjectly wrong is well known...and rather sad...

[blm]

36. I am noting her weak support for Alito filibuster. If she really believed Alito

needed to be filibustered she had every opportunity to step up and LEAD that filibuster as Kennedy asked her and other and senators to do.

[SaveElmer]

37. Pathetic...

Why not just admit he was wrong and move along rather than engage in this lame and transparent defense of his indefensible position...

[blm]

38. I don't defend his mistake - I was replying to your post and putting her support of filibuster

in perspective.

[karynnj]

45. The NYT in their editorial begged her and Shumer to lead it

(but mocked Kerry when he did)

[karynnj]

44. She voted for the filibuster, but was not for there being one.

She joined only when activists made a huge issue of it and she did not give a speech in favor of it or lobby others to vote for it.

[liberal N proud]

8. I wouldn't rule her chances out if she gets the nomination

Never underestimate her's and Bill's charisma.

We were excited about her in 1993 and beyond. I met her in 2005, my daughters have books personalized by her.
Our oldest daughter who was 6 when the Clinton's moved into the White House was so impressed with a strong powerful woman that she convinced her mother and I that Hillary was good name for another girl.

She is not my first choice at this time, I would like to see Edwards in the #1 spot and Hillary or Obama in the #2. But should Hillary get the nomination, I will support her all the way and you would be surprised how many would vote for her. Even some of those republicon women might secretly vote for her while their husbands are smearing her.

I think she has a good chance of bing the first woman to lead this nation and I think it is time someone with a softer touch takes the reigns.

[Erika]

12. Agreed 100% Hillary would make a great president.

I love John and Elizabeth Edwards. Obama is great.

I had a Kerry/Edwards yard sign out for two years, until it weather destructed.

[churchofreality]

43. If she gets the nomination, she will win

The republican candidates suck ass. Not to say she could't beat a good one.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Cascadian]

11. Here we go again!

You're attitude is "You're either with Hillary or you're with the Republicans!" Give it a rest!


John

[Erika]

13. No, there you go again n/t

[mr715]

15. Um No.

Just because Hillary is ahead and will likely win does not make her bad. You dont know issue one about Hillary.

"Not this shit again" refers to your constant posting with the intent to spread lies about the former First Lady's record. She is a liberal Senator from NY and she effing ROCKS.



M

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Erika]

17. Great post. Thanks. n/t

[mtnsnake]

19. Let me second that. nt

[ButterflyBlood]

32. Last time I checked Giuiliani is not running in the Democratic primary

What's your point?

[aquart]

24. Thank you for your concern.

You forget that we already know all there is to know about Hillary. She and her husband were investigated down to their underwear.

We know that she is more conservative than most of us here. But we also know she is an intelligent, able, hardworking senator.

We know she stays cool under fire. We know she can keep her temper in public. We know she learns from her mistakes.

I will not be voting for her in the primary, but if Hillary is the candidate, I won't be ranting and raving.

[liberal N proud]

30. We also know she can speak intelligently

Which is a far cry from the blubbering idiot we have in the office now.

[Czolgosz]

25. Hillary version 1993 was awesome. Hillary version 2007, not so much....

[Old and In the Way]

27. Instead of tearing down our candidates, why don't you focus on promoting yours?

We are all aware that Hillary has faults....she's not perfect. Just like every other person who has ever run for this office. But I'd take any one of our candidates in a second before I'd vote for a Republican. Like many have stated, she might not be my first choice, but I'd have absolutely no problem voting for her if she becomes our party's choice.

[jobycom]

28. You might still like her, then, if you could see past the slanders.

Matt Drudge started all that "Hillary wants to ban flag burning" bullshit when Hillary co-sponsored (along with Barbara Boxer) a bill attempting to head off the flag-burning amendment--an amendment that failed by one vote in the Senate. All those who sponsored or co-sponsored s1911 voted against the amendment, so you can see it's purpose. That wasn't a move to the right, that was leadership in helping to avert a Constitutional Amendment restricting our right to speech, and the bill she co-sponsored made nothing illegal that wasn't illegal already.

And she didn't vote to send troops to Iraq, she voted to authorize Bush to use force to pressure Hussein into compliance. Yeah, she was naive to trust Bush, but she wasn't the only one. Take, for instance, Wesley Clark's advice to the HASC in August of 2002, just months before the IWR vote. "- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway."

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-clark-092602.htm

Compare to Hillary's speech: "Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections."
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

It has been forgotten, or more likely never understood, that many Dems voted for the IWR for exactly that reason--to head off Bush's rush to war. Bush, you may recall, was claiming he had the authority to invade without Congressional approval and without consulting the UN. As Hillary's speech proves, many saw the IWR as a chance to head off Bush's war, to force him to go to the UN.

I have no problem with her leadership qualities. In fact, I'm more impressed with hers than with some candidates who voted for the IWR, were strong supporters of the actual invasion (Hillary never explicitly supported it, she only took the "support the troops" route), yet who changed their opinion when the polls showed that position was popular.

[Old and In the Way]

29. I love out this point is so clearly misunderstood by Democrats on this board.

In issues of national security, I expect our Congress to deal in a bi-partisan fashion. The fact that this administration lied about the casus belli and damaged the office of the Presidency when they used the IWR as a crude political tool to further their own agenda, speaks more to George Bush's non-fitness as a President than a Congress that is willing to support the Office of the President to protect our national interests. If a Democratic President comes before Congress and makes his case based on the facts that there is a clear and compelling threat to our security, I don't expect Republicans to scream "wag the dog" or "the President is lying". If it turns out he was lying, he should be impeached by Congress. Just like we should be impeaching the Boy-King.

Kerry and Clinton explained and qualified their vote in the clearest possible terms. Only Republicans and some Democrats seem to want to pretend that their "yes" vote meant they were for the war.

[jobycom]

34. Well said, as always. nt

[patrice]

31. What happened to this thread?

My DU says there are at least 20 replies in it. I don't see any and there is no message from the mods.

[Tellurian]

39. That one person with the 3 hats must be out to lunch...

in more ways than one- :hi:

[Cascadian]

40. I am here!

Like most people I work, I go to school, and I have a a life outside of DU. I cannot sit on my fat ass on here 24/7 but I am here.

And for your info I have only 1 hat but I put it away now that Spring is here!



John

[Mass]

41. Apparently, trying to express concerns about Clinton, Edwards, or Obama is forbidden.

It seems some people think that primaries are only for endorsing what the media tell us.

You have perfectly the right to have your opinion on Clinton and people should not call you on that. May be they can argue to support her if they think you are wrong, but I do not see why you should not express your questions concerning Clinton (or Obama, or Edwards).

However, when you ask to give positive reasons to support either of the three, nobody answers.

[AtomicKitten]

46. that's funny

If he was expressing his "criticism" (reads assault) on Kerry the way he does on Hillary, you'd be screaming like a stuck pig. Ask me how I know that. Go head, ask me.