I have decided to rule out Hillary as one of my 3 choices

[HockeyMom]

Yes, she is my Senator. Yes, I voted for her twice. However, I simply find that I cannot support her for President because of her Iraq War stance: will not admit that she was wrong, no timetable for withdrawal, etc. I am also troubled that she will not commit to a non military solution for Iran. The fact that she is a woman has no bearing on any of these issues for me. Yes, I like her husband, but she is running for the Presidency, not Bill. Actually, I even like her husband, more than her.

So, I am now down to Obama and Edwards. If Gore decides to throw HIS hat in the race, I will be back to three candidates.

Incidentally, I am moving to Florida in a month, for what that is worth.

[AndyA]

1. It is for the very same reasons that Barack is now my #2 choice, with Hillary

a distant third. Barack and Hillary were tied, but Hillary's constant reluctance to take a stand make her less fit for President, in my opinion, which put Barack ahead of her in my mind.

[RufusTFirefly]

2. Despite your well-reasoned rationale...

.. you are obviously a "Hillary Hater."

For all we know, you may even be taking your orders directly from Karl Rove. Or maybe you are a self-hating misogynist. Or perhaps you are a Freeper plant who (unlike me) has accumulated an impressive number of posts simply to fool us into thinking you're genuine.

I mean, why else would you not support her?
(And don't give me that silly Iraq war stuff.)

:sarcasm:

[dave_p]

3. Are they so different?

I don't think Obama or Edwards is committed to a non-military solution for Iran either. If those are your reasons, I recommend backing Kucinich: even if you don't think he'll make it, he seems the best bet for pressing one or more of the others to modify their position. Right now I'd pick Gore over the three front-runners.

[YOY]

4. Awaiting the Hillary squad and their flawless attempts to sway the nonbeleivers....

:hide:

[William769]

16. I'm not going to try to sway anyone.

Thats your mantra.

[Grandrose]

30. You got that right!

Woe unto any nonbeliever and do not dare show support for Obama or Edwards, even when it has nothing to do with Hillary!:yoiks: Oh boy...am I going to get it now!:scared:

[laugle]

46. I'd rather make converts than

to insult people.......much more productive!!

[mtnsnake]

5. The 1 who said she'd end the war if elected you rule out but a co-sponsor for the war is okay w/you

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. She reversed herself and said she would essentially continue the war

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/clinton.troops/index.html

1) HRC should act to end the war now instead of saying we should have "faith" that she will end the war after we give her the White House for four years. 2) HRC reversed herself on that. What she favors is essentially continuing the war on a smaller scale with no end in sight.

The other candidate you cite wants to end the war and take all troops out of Iraq aside from the small number that will be at the embassy in Iraq, which is standard for all embassies.

[ElizabethDC]

20. That's not quite the case

Hillary has said that she wants to end the war, but keep a very limited number of troops there for a limited amount of time, and that they would be there in a different capacity than they are now. So that's not quite "continuing the war on a smaller scale with no end in sight."

Link: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=3529

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. "End the war" with "limited" troops remaining for a "limited" time

It sounds like another faith-based initiative from her. She won't tell us what a "limited" number of troops in a "residual" force is. It could be as much as 75,000 "non-combat" troops. She won't tell us what a "limited" time means. That may mean one year or eight years. She should have enough respect for voters to honestly tell people what she intends to do and how she intends to do it. Coasting on a last name with vague rhetoric is sad.

[ElizabethDC]

28. I think more specifics will emerge over time

both with regard to the campaign and the situation in Iraq. We don't know what the situation is going to look like in 2009, and I'm sure that whatever plans she has for the residual troops are dependent upon that.

Also complained again and again that Hillary's website had no "issues" section, and said that it was because the campaign was about her and not the issues. Well, now there's an issues section. And I think that has to do with the campaign growing over time (and it's still very early) and less with Hillary not wanting to be up front with people.

[mtnsnake]

32. That's BS. She said nothing about continuing the war

Your interpretation of things is faulty as usual!! Nice try at re-writing history, coumo, but nobody's listening so run along...

[Alexander]

47. The 1 who is sabre-rattling with Iran the most is called the "Goddess of Peace" by you

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. :eyes:

[ElizabethDC]

6. I may be wrong on this, but I thought Edwards and Obama also said "all options are on the table"

with regard to Iran. So doesn't that mean that they haven't committed to a non-military solution either?

[primative1]

7. Actually Edwards gave a stirring speech ..

It would have fit right in at the GOP debate.
My guess is that given time Obama will morph into the mold and then all we will have to do is think up a clever monomer for them like the Rudy Mc-Romney thing and then spend the next 4 years discussing the appalling low turnout.

[mtnsnake]

11. I believe that you would be right and I think there were several threads about it. nt

[peace frog]

8. Welcome to Flori-duh

It's a strange place to the uninitiated, and it's still a deeply red state despite all the horror visited upon us by the ruling state GOP, but... I wouldn't live anywhere else. Welcome aboard! :hi:

[HockeyMom]

13. Lived there before,

and I know exactly what you mean. Plus, I am moving to a very "red" place, Naples. No choice. Oh, well. Hope to make a "difference".:)

[ChiciB1]

45. But... But.... But... I WANT SOME RAIN!!! I KNOW It's The Sunshine State

but since Christmas Day, we've only had two rains. The last rain we had of any substance was April 10, 2007. We got 2 more days of a few sprinkles and that's it!

I recall a time when it would rain at least 3 or 4 times a week. A splash down in the afternoon that would usually clear up in time for you to got to the beach and watch the sun set!

These days, it's Red Tide and Sun Burns!

[jillan]

9. The thing about Hillary

is that she has experience, which is something that Obama and Edwards do not.

No, she is not my first choice. I tend to agree more with the 'lower tier' candidates. But if none of them break thru, Hillary will get my vote.

Unless of course Gore runs. In that case, forget everything I just said :D

[1776Forever]

10. Relate to questions on Hillary - Wish she would clarify where she is on outsourcing more!

Welcome to Florida soon - I am going to be a delegate in Oct. - I still don't know whom I am supporting :shrug: - Perhaps Gore if he comes back in :applause:

Supporting Hillary???? – I don’t know if I can after reading about her ties to India's millionaires and IBM saying they are moving more tech jobs to India - perhaps 100,000 more lay offs to come - refer to this link -

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Business/Intl_Busine...

And going back to 2005 at this link from India -

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html

Hillary has been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing. During the height of the anti-outsourcing backlash in the US last year, she faced considerable flak for defending Indian software giant Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for opening a center in Buffalo, New York. "We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences," Hillary said firmly, despite inevitably invoking the ire of the anti-free trade brigade

Read this:

http://www.h1bvisasucks.com/H1BDiscussions_issue_clinto...

Con Greenwood (?) fully supports the exportation of American Jobs to an Overseas Power (India). Con. Greenwood went on a Junket to India along with Bill Clinton and Pennsylvania Lt. Gov Schweiker. Schweiker opened an Indian High Technology Center in Harrisburg. Recent studies have shown the Gen X students coming out of Pennsylvania Colleges can not find local jobs. Here we are seeing a loss of our economic future in this process. Yet for some strange reason Harrisburg and Congress see fit to import foreign labor rather then invest in our own people. Both Greenwood and the Corporations that follow these practices need to be held accountable. If you go to Harrisburg you will see the extent of the problem. Do you really believe that we are not seeing Cronyism at its worst here! (Ref Articles in Doylestown Intelligencer and Phila. Daily News). Greenwood went to India with Clinton over the Enron Deal to setup their power plant that cost US Taxpayers Billions! Then heads up the Enron Investigation!! Wonder why Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling are off the hook?

Note: Rajat Gupta's McKinsey was involved with Clinton's Junkets along with Enron and the SEC to Advise Harvey Pitt How to Reorganize the SEC to Address White Collar Crime...This is the fox in the hen house...They may just a well hire Jeff Skilling Pres of Enron!!...He was a Senior Partner at Rajat Gupta's McKinsey prior to becoming Pres of Enron!!

****************

AND this goes along with NAFTA:

As referenced in the article below http://dbacon.igc.org/Unions/24ClintonLabor.htm from a David Bacon website:

At the heart of his criticism of the Clinton administration are the president's economic policies, which Wages says are modeled on the old adage from the 1950s, that what's good for General Motors is good for the country. Pointing to the recent budget negotiations with the Republicans, Wages accuses Clinton of often proposing a less extreme version of conservative ideas, including increasing Medicaid costs on the elderly, eliminating legal immigrants from Social Security, and supporting a capital gains tax cut.

"I don't hear him (her either) talking about cutting corporate welfare. I don't hear him talking about issues that would resonate with working people," he says. He calls the president's position in the long-running tug-of-war over the budget and the government shutdowns "more posturing than substance."

The big crime in Wages' book is the continued support by a Democratic administration of the free trade proposals that were the hallmark of the Reagan-Bush years. The Clinton agenda on trade was largely a product of the Democratic Leadership Council, and centered on support for NAFTA and GATT. The party's program itself was written by "new Democrats," including Fritz Hollings, Roy Roehmer and Richard Selby.

*************

Time will tell:kick:

[Greyhound]

31. If she clarified it any more she would expose herself as the corporatist she has always been,

and that won't help her election prospects at all.

[LBJDemocrat]

49. she faced considerable flak for defending Indian software giant Tata Consultancy Services (TCS)

Essentially, she goes and tells India's business leaders: "Don't worry about how the American people are becoming more "protectionist." You'll be safe when I'm in charge."

I can't imagine a more despicable and patronizing attitude.

[Greyhound]

52. That was the final straw for me. IBM laid of 35,000 New York IT workers to replace them with

Indians, most supplied by Tata, and after they make a considerable donation to her, she gives then a pass.

I do get some small consolation from the fact that the code they produce sucks and a few Americans get to charge them a ton of money to try and clean up the mess they make.

[HockeyMom]

12. If Gore throws his hat in,

he will be my Top Choice.

[peace frog]

18. Gore is my top choice now

and there is no second best. Please run, Al!

[AtomicKitten]

14. a few points

* All three leading contenders (HRC, Obama, Edwards) are leaving "all options on the table" re: Iran.
* Edwards cosponsored the IWR and rallied for war on Iraq so convincingly the State Department posted one of his OpEds on their website.
* I find HRC's explanation much less annoying that the profuse apologies which tend to ring hollow and opportunistic.

I remain hopeful Gore or Clark will run.
Otherwise Obama for me.

[laugle]

48. I agree about the apology's, I don't need to see anyone grovel!

FYI---I heard last night on talk radio, that the rumors are getting strong that Gore may run and he's going to the gym everyday to get in shape. Wouldn't that be interesting......the more the qualified candidates, the better!

[Forkboy]

50. I'm totally with you,especially your third point.

She's taking a calculated gamble (what else?) but it may work.I find the apologies totally lame.

[Breeze54]

15. I haven't been her fan for a long time but

she seems to be moving back towards the left, to me, in some respects.

I've been trying to figure out her reasoning for not making a public apology and then I realized that it isn't really an apology that I desired but acknowledgement that voting for the IWR was bad judgement. I couldn't understand how she, after all the shit BC and she and the rest of us went through during his presidency, that they would even consider trusting the GOP with that kind of authority! I mean, what the hell were they thinking?? Kerry's vote to approve the IWR blew me away! So, I've been thinking about and weighing my anger at her and her vote and her stance at not apologizing, and I've sort of come to the conclusion that she feels that she was also misled with the aluminum tubes info, etc. and therefore she doesn't feel that her vote was wrong because it didn't give * authority to actually go to war and her stance is that he violated the terms of that vote and it is not she that needs to be apologizing but * and his ilk! I think as a woman, she does have to show strength, sadly, even more than a man, and her way of holding that strength was to not be bullied into apologizing for something that she feels was right at the time, given the information she had at the time. Her membership in the DLC does bother me and not wanting dynasty's in the USA. But at this point? I'm not choosing a candidate yet. I do lean heavily towards Kucinich, based on his integrity and his vigilant stance against the war. But because I'm still learning and watching them all, I can't totally get behind anyone yet but there is still time! Even Kucinich has some issue's I'm not sure I agree with and that includes every Democratic presidential candidate. I'm watching. ;)

Make sense? :shrug:

http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/iraq/">Listed here are statements and remarks by Senator Clinton concerning the war in Iraq.

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

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=269481">"I came back from Iraq more determined then ever to stop the President's escalation of troops into Iraq, and to start the long overdue redeployment of troops out of Iraq," Senator Clinton said.

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

http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=55463">Urge Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to fill out the NPAT

Why hasn't she filled a new one out yet? Neither has Richardson. :shrug:

What is the NPAT?

The National Political Awareness Test is a key component of Project Vote Smart's Voter Self-Defense system.
Major leaders of the media, major parties and Project Vote Smart repetitiously ask candidates one central question:

"Are you willing to tell citizens your positions on the issues you will most likely face on their behalf?"

The NPAT is administered to all candidates for presidential, congressional, gubernatorial, and state legislative offices.

The National Political Awareness Test (NPAT) asks candidates which items they will support if elected.
It does not ask them to indicate which items they will oppose.

[William769]

17. Thats your choice, I won't hold it against you.

[rinsd]

21. To each his own.

[NoSheep]

22. Go Gore. n/t

[MGKrebs]

23. We each have to use some criteria. May I offer the following:

(This applies to other Senators and Congresspeople who had to cast a vote on this too.)

1. What is the problem with the IWR vote?

a. Was it that she was deceived?
There can be no doubt that Bush and his administration lied. They were deceitful. Even if specific evidence was shown to be a lie or exaggerated, that does not mean that there wasn't ANY evidence of a threat. Saddam was a bad guy who had been destabilizing the region for a long time. This is not something you 'hope' there is no other evidence you haven't seen. The UN weapons inspectors had not completed their task when Bush kicked them out and even they weren't sure. I don't know how we could believe anyone who says they were "sure" there was no threat.

b. Is it because it was a politically calculated vote?
Even if every Dem had voted against that resolution it still would have passed. I suppose there is a minuscule chance that some unforeseen and improbable event could have occurred that would have caused the resolution to fail, but let's face it, despite the protests and despite the opinion of other world leaders and organizations, US public opinion was supportive of this action because it stipulated a diplomatic solution. At that point, since the actual outcome was moot, and the majority of Americans supported it, it becomes a politically calculated move for every Dem. They could send a symbolic message and risk the repercussions of having attempted to restrain the governments hands if action did become necessary, or they could support the measure and work to bring a critical mass of reason to bear on the issue. The Republicans brought this thing up in part to MAKE IT a political vote. They wanted Dems to have to cast a vote on it knowing they were screwed either way. Bush certainly didn't need a resolution to do what he did. And even if he preferred one, if he didn't get this one he would have gotten another one, and probably ignored the stipulations in that one too.

c. Is it that she doesn't have the proper judgment to be President after making such a mistake?
Her and 76 other Senators and 295 Congress-critters and about 65% of Americans. And let's not forget that even though the UN inspectors had not found and WMD's, they also did not view Saddam's statements denying them credible either. That was their position at the time.

d. Is it that she hasn't apologized?
Why should anyone who cast a vote for that apologize? Bush is the one who chose to go to war. Bush is the one who ignored the UN, the international community, and the contents of the resolution itself. Bush is to blame, it is his war, he screwed up. The Republicans brought this resolution up, the Republicans were capable of passing this all by themselves, and Bush used it/ignored it. There's plenty of blame without having to stretch it to fit those whose role was minor at best and were intentionally put in a no-win situation and might have cast the more reasonable vote anyway despite our current perspective.


Isn't it a legitimate speculation that we might have had a better chance of avoiding war WITH the resolution than without? Saddam sees that Bush not only has a big stick (which he already did) but it's got a nail in it too. Bush had given conditions for Saddam to avoid conflict, and it looked like Saddam was actually complying. But Bush attacked anyway. Many will say that Bush was going to attack no matter what. But what if Saddam had basically surrendered after that resolution?

Just because it was obvious that Bush was lying about whatever evidence he did show us, that did not mean we could be sure there was no threat. Despite Ritter's opinion, he could not have known all that had happened in Iraq in the 5 years since he had been there, and even Ritter says that Saddam had lied about his weapons programs in 1991. Given the incompetence of the Bush administration, just because they didn't show us real evidence doesn't mean it wasn't there. We just didn't know.

There are many ways we have to judge candidates, but I resist using the IWR vote as a sort of litmus test based on purely idealistic principles. That just was not a possibility with this scenario. Cold, harsh reality was on the table and needed to be dealt with. Of course I feel no animosity toward those Dems who voted against the resolution. I feel that most if not all Dems did the best they could in a difficult situation no matter which way they voted.

[zulchzulu]

25. I don't think her Iran stance is much different than others...

I'm not a fan for other reasons, but I think her Iran stance is not to attack the country preemptively...from what I've heard, she is for diplomatic options first, a UN action second and not to take the military option "off the table".

Perhaps I missed a speech where she was drumming for an attack on Iran, but I think she is probably in that arena I mentioned.

What surprises me about progressives is how some seem to think that Iran "deserves" to have a nuclear weapon or two. The real progressive viewpoint in my view is to get rid of nuclear weapons Worldwide. That includes Israel and the rest of the "Nuclear Club".

[ElizabethDC]

29. You're correct about her stance on Iran. n/t

[Rainbowreflect]

26. I cannot support anyone who voted to give Bush the approval

for this war in the primary. How can they say they did not know the truth when so many average people, my self included, knew the truth.

[MGKrebs]

37. What truth did you know?

[MasonJar]

27. Whatever your view on Hillary she has just supported the bill to

get out now. She has often said that she would get out immediately, leaving only the troops necessary to train and protect. The position on Iran I am sorry to say appears to be the exact plan okayed by both Edwards and Obama. I am for the Democratic nominee whoever he/she is. Yet I must add ... please run, AL.

[rodeodance]

40. Nicely said. Dissing Clinton for holding essentially same view as ombama

and edwards (on Iran) is wrong.

[earthlover]

53. run Al, run...but Clark is the man

While we are pondering what to do with a slate of candidates who have pretty much drawn a blank about Iran, there is someone who has taken a stand trying to prevent a war with Iran...that is Wes Clark. Let's watch the other candidates pussy-foot around this issue, and remember that probably one of the main reasons Clark has not announce is because he is devoting his energies to stop the US from getting involved militarily with Iran.

PS...Clark also opposed Iraq.

But of course we must all oppose him because he is a general and therefore pro-war. SARC

How friggin dumb can we be?

[PDittie]

33. She will be toxic to our down-ballot races

due to her ability to vigorously mobilize the opposition. Hillary Clinton at the top of the ballot will set Texas Democrats back another generation. She'll spend no time campaigning here; she'll fly in to Austin or somebody's home in River Oaks and leave with millions of dollars to spend elsewhere.

I cannot support her candidacy -- even if she is the nominee -- on this basis alone.

[illinoisprogressive]

34. take your time deciding and you will eventually know who to support. good luck

[TwilightGardener]

35. Why rule her out? It's a long campaign season--you might find

reasons to support her yet. I don't rule anyone out, and they are all preferable to a GOPer. Would you vote for a GOPer or Indy over Hillary?

[DLnyc]

36. Maybe it's crass and cynical of me, but I would like to see a Dem win.

To my taste, Clinton, Obama and Edwards are a little too corporate, Kucinich is better but doesn't seem to have a realistic chance. However, being an aging, somewhat 'de-idealized' cynic, I've been looking at the polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

HRC looks to lose against Guiliani (or at least not win by enough to beat the various repub vote-supression/intimidation/theft/fraud schemes).

Obama and Edwards are looking more and more able to beat Mr. Ghoul, so that's where my support is, so far.

I've lived long enough to see Humphrey, McGovern, Carter (2nd time), Mondale, Dukakis (all quite popular among Democrats) lose, and to see Gore and Kerry, also popular among Dems, fail to win by enough to beat theft and fraud. Call me lame, but I'm looking for a winner at this point.

[file83]

38. Welcome aboard HockeyMom.

Feels good, don't it? Hillary is in it for herself, nothing more.

[OneBlueSky]

39. she's my senator, too . . . and I voted for her . . . but . . .

I voted for her to work her ass off in DC addressing the BushCo criminal conspiracy and the myriad of critical issues facing the nation and the planet . . . not to run all over the country raising money and landing presidential endorsements . . . if this is any example of how she does her job, she's definitely not for me . . .

[murbley40]

41. Decided to rule out Hillary

Joe Biden might just be the one you're looking for. Check him
out at JoeBiden for President.com
He has an awesome web site.  He also has the only plan for
ending the Iraq War in a responsible manner. Check him out.

[TwilightGardener]

42. Welcome to DU! If you want your text to look like everyone else's

uncheck the "plain text" box--I did that too on my first post! Not a big number of Biden supporters here that I know of, so your voice is welcome--convince us!

[murbley40]

43. Joe Biden

Thanks, Weinerdoggie

Joe Biden was elected to the Senate from my state when He was 29 years old, had to wait to be sworn in.
During that time he lost his wife and infant daughter in an automobile accident;raised his two sons alone with the help of his mother and sister. He came home to Delaware at the end of his day by train and still does.

He is the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,and has earned a reputation for working on a bipartisan basis with his colleagues in the Senate. Senator Lugar said "Senator Biden has a very strong commitment to bipartisan foreign policy and serves as a good example to the congress. He has a very broad comprehensive view of the world. He"s a good listener, but he's also a strong advocate of his position."

He serves on the Judiciary Committee,having served as chairman during 1987-1995. He was referred to as the Democrats' chief anti-crime specialist on Capitol Hill", by U.S. News and World Report.

He has a plan to get us out of Iraq in a responsible way,and to start withdrawing most of the troops by the end of 2007. The details of this plan can be found on his web site, JoeBidenforPresident.com.

He has strong positions on Afghanistan and Darfur,Energy, Jobs,Health Care.Access to Higher Education,Preparing for College, Homeland Security, Crime, Climate Change, and others. Details of all these positions may be found on his webb site.

I have lived in Delaware all of my life and benefited from his service to our state.
He is very passionate about what he believes, and will look you in the eye and answer your questions "fully" and in terms you will understand. He receives most of his contributions from the average person,like me and others. Obviously, this is why his campaign does not have the money of the "front runners"or the media attention. He cares about the average person,like me and you.

He has an awesome webb site, full of information,videos of his campaign speeches and a Head to Head site with videos of his positions and the other candidates positions. Go there and read and watch and I know that you will be impressed. If you are able to see him speak and answer questions in person, You just might be convinced.

[ChiciB1]

44. Well, Welcome To My World... And WELCOME To FLOR-EEE-DUH!

Depends on where you intend to live as to WHAT your experience will be! I would prefer to be in friendlier company myself, but have managed to find like-minded souls even in this county!

Christine Jennings is still trying to "prove" she won the election, which I'm SURE she did, but she's not the one in D.C. so it goes on and on!!!

Gotta give her credit for "sticking to her guns" even if she was once a Repuke. She changed her affiliation and I'll take "anything" with a D behind it, even if I didn't vote for her in the primaries.

[Forkboy]

51. She is absolutely dead last on my list.

And the only one I won't vote for.