with no regret and also sided at the time with those looking to expand the war into Iran and Syria. Surely you haven't forgotten those distinctions, dsc.

I am not going to even bother asking you for a link to prove any of the crap you are slinging. But here is Hillary in her own words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Iraq_War

In a November 29, 2005 letter to her constituents, Senator Clinton said, "There are no quick and easy solutions to the long and drawn out conflict [the Bush] Administration triggered ... I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end. Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately."[83]

On June 8, 2006, Clinton said of the US airstrike that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: "I saw firsthand the terrible consequences of Zarqawi's terrorist network when Bill, Chelsea and I visited the hotel ballroom in Amman, Jordan last November where Zarqawi's followers had detonated a bomb at a wedding, killing and wounding innocent people. We owe our thanks to our men and women in uniform and others in Iraq who have been fighting Zarqawi and other insurgents and who are responsible for today's success."[84]

On June 15, 2006, Clinton charged that President Bush "rushed to war" and "refused to let the UN inspectors conduct and complete their mission ... We need to be building alliances instead of isolation around the world ... There must be a plan that will begin to bring our troops home." But she also said, "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 Iraqi government, nor do I think it is a smart policy to set a date certain."[85][86]

Clinton opposed the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 and supported a February 2007 non-binding Senate resolution against it, which failed to gain cloture.[87] On February 5, 2007, Clinton said: "Believe me, I understand the frustration and the outrage ... You have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding to do anything. If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."[88] On February 17, 2007, Hillary Clinton announced the Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007.[89] This act would compel President Bush to begin relegating troops from Iraq within 90 days of remote passage, or, according to Clinton, Congress would have to dismantle their authorization for the war. The Act would also end the blank check to the Iraqi government and submit them to harsh consequences if boundaries are violated. Lastly, the Act would require the Secretary of Defense to verify the condition, in terms of supplies and in terms of their training, of all Iraqi troops before they are sent.[90]

In March 2007 she voted in favor of a war spending bill that required President Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within a certain deadline; it passed almost completely along party lines[91] but was subsequently vetoed by President Bush.

In May 2007, Clinton was one of only 14 senators to vote against a compromise war funding bill that removed previously vetoed withdrawal deadlines but tied funding to progress benchmarks for the Iraqi government. She said, "I fully support our troops [but this measure] fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq." [92]

While calling for ending the war in Iraq, Clinton's indicated in July 2007 that she advocates keeping a reduced number of U.S. troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future, stating "we cannot lose sight of our very real strategic national interests in this region."[93] In the speech, she posited redeploying U.S. forces to protect the Kurdish region in the north, to engage in targeted operations against al-Qaeda in Iraq, and to train and equip Iraqi forces.[93] Clinton's position is similar to that of the Iraq Study Group in that she highlights the need for political reconciliation in Iraq, supports the withdrawal of U.S. combat brigades, and favors keeping a reduced number of troops to serve in training and support roles such as protection of the U.S. Embassy.[93]

end of quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden#Iraq

Here is Biden's

In 1990, Biden voted against the first Gulf War after Iraq under Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.[45] In 1998, Biden expressed support for the use of force against Iraq, and urged a sustained effort to "dethrone" Saddam Hussein over the long haul.[46] In 2002, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he stated that Saddam Hussein was "a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security" and that United States has "no choice but to eliminate the threat".[47] He also said, "I think Saddam either has to be separated from his weapons or taken out of power."[48] Biden also supported a failed resolution authorizing military action in Iraq only after the exhaustion of diplomatic efforts,[49] Biden argued that Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons;[50] he subsequently voted in favor of authorizing the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Biden has since said that he believes it was a mistake to support the Iraq War because it has been mismanaged by the Bush Administration. In 2005, Biden said, "We can call it quits and withdraw from Iraq (but) I think that would be a gigantic mistake, or we can set a deadline for pulling out, which I fear will only encourage our enemies to wait us out – equally a mistake."[51]

Regarding his belief that Iraq maintained stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, Biden said in 2007 that inspectors had seen and cataloged the existence of the materials required to make such weapons prior to their expulsion from Iraq and pondered why Saddam Hussein didn't tell the international community that he had disposed of them.[47] stated in July 2002 that most chemical and biological agents produced by Iraq would have been neutralized or degraded in storage, encouraging the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee to convene hearings to reassess the threat. When the committee scheduled hearings in the beginning of August 2002, Scott Ritter, the chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, stated that "Sen. Joe Biden is running a sham hearing. It is clear that Biden and most of the Congressional leadership have pre-ordained a conclusion that seeks to remove Saddam Hussein from power regardless of the facts, and are using these hearings to provide political cover for a massive military attack on Iraq."[52]

Biden supports a "five-step plan" towards removing troops from Iraq. In November 2006, Biden and Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, released a comprehensive strategy to end sectarian violence in Iraq. Rather than continuing the present approach or withdrawing, the plan calls for federalizing Iraq with separate regions for Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis.[53] The key points include:

Giving Iraq's major groups a measure of autonomy in their own regions. A central government would be left in charge of interests such as defending the borders and distributing oil revenues.
Guaranteeing Sunnis – who have no oil rights – a proportionate share of oil revenue and reintegrating those who have not fought against Coalition forces.
Increase, not end, reconstruction assistance but insist that Arab States of the Persian Gulf fund it and tie it to the creation of a jobs program and to the protection of minority rights.
Initiate a diplomatic offensive to enlist the support of the major powers and neighboring countries for a political settlement in Iraq and create an Oversight Contact Group to enforce regional commitments.
Begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces in 2007 and withdraw most of them by 2008, leaving a small follow-on force for security and policing actions.

The plan, named The Biden-Brownback Resolution, passed the Senate 75-23 in a nonbinding vote on September 25, 2007, including 26 Republican votes. Iraq’s political leadership united in denouncing the resolution, while the Embassy of the United States in Baghdad issued a statement distancing itself.[53]

end of quote

Go ahead show me the huge difference.

Why did she vote against Kerry-Feingold?

She also voted against the Durbin amendment: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2547978

she was riding Bush about a 'rush to war' from 2002-2006? If she felt so strongly about Bush 'rushing to war' then, why did she wait till right before she launched her primary campaign to say so?

Geez....anyone up for a ride on the turnip truck?

It was the reason I supported President Obama in the primaries against her.

That said, I will support her if she decides to run in 2016 in the primaries.

runs against her who I truly believe would be better. If not, then I'll be stuck supporting her in the primary, too.

These Clinton fans who refuse to see reality, though, are just silly at this point.

It is how she voted that matters.

I don't agree with singling her out amongst Dems, but her pro-war stand was crucial in losing my support in 2008.

Hillary did support the war, as did other Democrats. It's why I supported Howard Dean in the primaries of 2004 against John Kerry and why I supported Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries against Hillary.

We all know you supported Hillary against President Obama. You and I squabbled here famously during that time. But that was eons ago. Let it go.

For the record, I worked for John Kerry and gave a lot of money to his campaign after he defeated my candidate Howard Dean. It was a no-brainer: John Kerry is a great guy with an amazing progressive history that stretches back so far that I am proud that he is our Secretary of State.

And for the record, I will support Hillary Clinton, should she decide to run for President in 2016 with the pedal to metal. You can count on it. But it remains to be seen if she will run. If she does, she will be the next President of the United States.

So, I think you are reading way too much into Lawrence O'Donnell's segment.

Now have a wonderful day.

She was running for Senate in New York. I think that was a calculated decision she thought would help with Jewish voters. Whatever her reasons, it's there now to bite her in the butt.

She didn't want to come off looking "weak".

As a NYC Jew, there was NO community - other than the antiwar activists my teens, husband and I joined to protest with - that I was part of that was more anti-war, than the Jewish community that I belonged to. Our synagogue's newsletter included my oldest daughter's write up of protesting in DC in the social action write up.

I don't like John Kerry's or Joe Biden's votes, but both worked hard in the SFRC to provide a better alternative bill. (Howard Dean expressed his support of that bill.) When that failed, they and other SFRC people worked to remove the worst of the IWR - and did get several changes in the bill submitted. The ironic thing is that without those changes neither would have voted for the bill.

There was nothing similar in Clinton's actions in October 2002 and she was more hawkish than either. However, Bill Clinton was worse. In summer 2004, he did his book tour and blasted Democrats who criticized how the war was being fought. Left to Clinton, the Democratic nominee should have avoided speaking against anything to do with Iraq. No wonder they decided that Hillary should not run that year!

But the perception was that most of the Jewish community was in favor of it. This article from Salon back in 2002 represents the way I remember it:

.

Hillary has never apologized or admitted she was wrong.

I hope she doesn't get within 500 miles of the White House in 2016.

I have always assumed that O'Donnell's problem with the Clintons is that he either lost a job or didn't get a job that he wanted in DC and he blamed it on them. Or perhaps it is just the fact that he thinks of them as hayseeds, like many Dems from the northeast.

fall apart. He knows the Clinton's limited state strategy was a losing proposition for the Left.

Gore could have never fought the rightwing political propaganda machine because Clinton had allowed the Democratic infrastructure to collapse.

O'Donnell is definitely more of a "Kennedy" Democrat.

we're still screwed over at this moment thanks to the clintons.

replaced Clinton's tax and economic policies.

signing off on the repeal of glass steagal (sp?) brought about the crash in 07.
so we'd pretty much be in the same boat.

The national debt would have been paid off by 2009. The crash came because the Bush administration refused to enforce any banking laws and allowed investment houses to rip off their investors.

for everyone BUT the financial elite.

- working for Moynihan.

This may explain his disenchantment with both Clintons. One thing mentioned in Clinton's book is that NOT ONE member, Democrat or Republican, on the Finance committee was willing to support Hillary Clinton's health care proposal. This in spite of there being Democrats more liberal than they were and Democrats who were DLC. She was unwilling to work with that committee or with Kennedy's HELP committee in designing it. That was done behind closed doors by Ira Magaziner and Hillary. Congress had to force her to even identify who they met with.

It is ridiculous to argue that ANY of the NE Democrats thought of Hillary ( Wellsely, Yale) and Bill (Georgetown, Oxford, Yale) were "hayseeds". I assume you do not know that the NYT had an adoring cover article in its magazine section in the very early 1990s on Bill Clinton, where both were portrayed as brilliant. (The article was cloyingly positive.)

O'Donnell, by the way, was not from a posh Boston neighborhood.

Plus, Hillary is the only one of those you mentioned considered to be viable for 2016.

Personally, I hope she doesn't run.

and that is sure hard to find.

Hillary and Bill are hawks, and their talons are in many dead bodies around the world. harsh truth.

did in recent years, and he was the one advising Dem lawmakers before the IWR vote to stand with Bush, just as he urged Tony Blair to do earlier.

I guess many Dem senators should be blamed for trusting that Bill Clinton's assessment (of all that classified Iraq intel he had seen over the years) was the right path for this nation.

ExPresidents don't get briefings. There is no way that such Democrats as Gephardt, Feinstein, Graham, and Dashle didn't have better access than Clinton did to name a few.

I remember reading an article about it years ago.

and it was Bill Clinton who actively urged Tony Blair and Dem lawmakers to support Bush on Iraq.

You cannot possibly believe that no one listened to Bill Clinton or trusted his assessment of Iraq.

Baldly false? You really have GOT to be kidding, dsc.

I mrean really. Poor Tony Blair he couldn't help himself. It is all the Clenis falut.

Last edited Sat Mar 23, 2013, 05:06 PM - Edit history (1)

They should have not believed Clinton's assessment of Iraq based on the years of intel that only he could access.

So, yes, I agree it is THEIR fault they trusted the last Dem president's advisements on Iraq.

.

Nothing she said excuses Tony Blair, who had his own intelligence sources. However, it is reasonable to say that Bill Clinton was a person whose judgment and intelligence was trusted by many - and he was there pushing for others to act against Saddam.

Does that excuse them for listening - no, especially not in Blair's case. That does not mean that there was no one for whom Clinton being on that side did not tip the scales.

In addition, there was no Democrat with close to Clinton's power to be heard in JANUARY, FEBRUARY, AND MARCH 2003. By then, the inspectors were in - finding nothing and Saddam was cooperating. Gore had spoken out in October and that led to changes in the IWR - that made it less bad, but as history shows still a bad vote - and he was called crazy and the media mocked him to a degree that he could not have been the voice needed. Dean spoke out then - as did Kerry saying not to rush to war. Neither were heard by the majority of people.

It might be that the ONLY voice that could have been strong enough to keep the US from actually going to war was ... Bill Clinton. Imagine he had unambiguously called for the US continuing diplomacy and said not to rush into war. The antiwar movement was gradually gaining support - and nearing 40% - Bill could have made the difference - and he didn't.

what was being laid out because he was acting as Blair's advisor at the time.

after Jan 2001. The fact is that the inspectors were out since 1998. A good case can be made that BC MIGHT have had a clearer picture - even in October 2002 - than any Congressman or Senator as the President does get more information than they do.

You could see the presidential political considerations running through their minds as they joined forces with the neo-cons in the dumbest, most useless and damaging projection of American military power in my life. Their attempts to straddle the issue so that they could be with Bush if the Iraq misadventure worked or be positioned to say I told you so if it failed were nothing short of craven.
You can criticize Lawrence if you want, but the image of Hillary imitating Richard Pearle ought to be in all of our minds as 2016 heats up. The same holds true for Kerry or Biden if they run.

unlike Kerry, Feingold, Harkin and Kennedy, voted against the Durbin Amendment

No, let's make it sound more Shakespearean: I roll my eyes at thee!

I loved that.

A bunch of clips of the 22 Democrats in the Senate who voted for the war, inter spliced with Lincoln Chaffee opposing the war with no other people quoted. What would that be?

enough to be lied to. Why do you claim otherwise?

you came away with it being a hit piece against Hillary, propaganda against her?

wow. just wow.

In Game Change, Palin got into a tizzy because she heard rumors about her husband belonging to a secessionist party (AIP) in Alaska. She was furious and demanded Steve Schmit squash the rumor, that it was a lie. Schmidt reminded her it was, in fact, the truth.

It's not like she was a deciding vote. Give her a break.

and she chose career. and she chose to be on the wrong side of history and now shares the blood and suffering with all the others who went along with the farce as well.

and that's okay? wow. another wow, just wow.

Because the end result would have been the same.

Absolutism doesn't always have a place in politics.

I still don't want her to run in 2016.

saying her vote didn't matter is a bit of a cop out.

something has to matter in life altering decisions such as these. pointing to the next person is junior high, shouldn't we expect a little more responsibility?

This war happened because people LET it happen. Each had their own reasons: either it was stupidity or complicity or whatever else. The ones who voted against the war did the right thing, the others did the wrong thing. Nothing complicated about that and nothing wrong with ripping into the assholes that voted for death and destruction.

A brilliant lawyer with a steel trap mind who wants to become mayor then governor .Its about career building any way she can.
okay fire away .......

hasn't learned a God damned thing in 16 years. We saw the war on Clinton in the press, then the war on Gore, then the war on Dean, then the war on Kerry, then the war on Hillary, then the war on Obama, and now the we see more propaganda in a war on Hillary, and yet people here blame the victim. I really wish I worked in an occupation in which everyone else was at fault. I guarantee you they will do this to our nominee in 2016. People like you are why they get away with it.

When Gary Hart broke out of the pack in 1984, I remember seeing in the check-out line a National Inquirer story done on her, revealing Lee Hart's secret "Lady Macbeth" scheme to make her husband president for 8 years and then to install herself as president for 8 years after that. This is an old template they're using. It's a slur machine with a 30 year pedigree.

with Richard Celeste and his wife, Dagmar. She was hounded mercilessly.

you can't stand that he ran the truth.

BTW....where did you stand when Hillary joined McCain and Bush in their propaganda campaign attacks on Kerry in 2006?

PB

He wasn't even running for anything in 06.

Last edited Fri Mar 22, 2013, 12:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Surely your memory is better than that, dsc.

the attack was full of it while the joke was fine. It was over 6 years ago.

when it suits her politically. She used propaganda for real - O'Donnell did NOT use propaganda in his segment.

so frankly I have no idea what she did or didn't say. It was over 6 years ago, I don't have a photographic memory nor do I have an audiographic one. So frankly I can't comment on it. But yes, Lawrence did engage in propaganda here. He pretended that Hillary, AND ONLY HILLARY NOT ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT IN EITHER HOUSE, spoke in favor of that resolution. That is propaganda.

O'Donnell didn't pretend anything. Maybe he chose Hillary as an example of Dems voting for IWR because she had access to the most information on Iraq (via Bill) and was so supportive of Bush's military leadership on Iraq until she started readying her Dem primary campaign.

Really, dsc? O'Donnell pretended Hillary was the only one who voted for IWR? Is that really the basis of your rant?

one would have watched that video and gotten the impression, certainly not dispelled by Lawrence, that Hillary and only Hillary among Democrats spoke out in favor of that resolution. Now if Fox News ran a tape of only Democrats speaking in favor of the war and having clips of Chaffee and Paul opposing would you be OK with that?

No one thinks that. Your rant is a reach based on ultra-sensitivity to criticism of Hillary, even when you know damn well she is a centrist Democrat and most DU Dems are to her left on most military issues, many economic issues, and most environmental issues.

You're going to need thicker skin to get through to 2016, old buddy.

and if the answer is no, please tell me the difference.

to get HIS audience to believe that Hillary was the only Dem who supported war. O'Donnell doesn't treat his audiences like they are stupid the way FOX does.

What majority Dem audience targeted by O'Donnell's shows is as stupid and gullible as FOX's, anyway?

then why use Hillary twice and not a single other Democrat? It isn't that they didn't give speeches. It isn't that she is the only one who might run for President. It isn't that she is the only one in public life. It isn't that they are all dead. So what reason did he have to do that? and if he had done that to Kerry what would your response be? And I would like an answer to my Fox question. It is exactly what he did.

probable reasons why O'Donnell used her clips over any other Dem - she gave UNWAVERING SUPPORT for Bush and the invasion of Iraq. Others you mentioned qualified their support and spoke out against the war long before Hillary started readying for her Dem primary.

Try asking a question that has a basis in reality, dec. O'Donnell doesn't propagandize his audience because he doesn't see his audience as gullible rubes like FOX does. That you see things differently is troublesome....for YOU.

to take one example no clips of Lieberman were used, and you certainly aren't going to argue that Lieberman didn't support Bush. Oh, and Hillary opposed the surge which you damn well know. The fact is Lawrence showed contempt for his audience. YOu would be screaming like a raped rooster if he did this to Kerry, the difference between us is that I would be upset too. You are just fine with the press lying about candidate you don't like. You were just fine with right wing lies when they were propagated against Dean and now you are just fine with propaganda against Clinton. The fact you are an inconsistent, fair weather opponent of propaganda isn't my problem, it is yours.

as well as Hillary, but then, Joe isn't a Democrat anymore, is he?

I never once repeated a RW lie about Dean. I attacked Dean's candidacy from the LEFT based on his history of governing as a centrist governor.

If you believe O'Donnell is a propagandist just like FOX then that speaks loudly enough. So long, dsc. I hope you can recover.

it must have been a different blm who quoted the NY Post's Olin to criticise Dean to name just one example. You also repeatedly quoted the Weekly Standard as well. So why didn't he use Lieberman or Edwards or Rockefeller or Feinstein or Kerry or Biden or Lincoln, or Dashle, or Johnson or Baucus or Cantwell all of whom spoke in favor. Again, if he had done this to Kerry you would be full blown hissy fit mode, the difference is I think propaganda is wrong all the time, you only care when it is Kerry who is the victim.

as a governor to challenge him from the left. RW was painting Dean as far left.

And again, dec - how many times do I have to say to you that O'Donnell may have chosen Hillary quotes because she was an UNWAVERING SUPPORTER of Bush's decision to invade, where the others you would prefer mentioned had displayed regret or criticized Bush's military leadership publicly. Heck, Kerry attacked Bush for deciding to invade before the invasion. Kerry stood with the weapon inspectors and against the invasion. You're just whining for no reason, dec. Get over this silliness. If you're whining already in anticipation of 2016 primary and screaming that O'Donnell is a propagandist hoping his audience will believe that Hillary was the ONLY Dem who supported Iraq, then maybe it's time for a rest, eh...... because you'll need it.

RW propaganda against Dean when I clearly used Moore's historic support OF Dean as governor to illustrate Dean's centrist past. I always attacked Dean's centrism and you know it. You choose to pretend otherwise.

Why are you claiming that piece about Dean's centrism is RW propaganda designed to hurt Dean? It was bolstering him. Years earlier Moore was a big supporter of Dean's as a Democrat CATO could work with. I would NEVER post RW lies against Dean as you claimed. I did point to his centrism when it was true. YOU apparently can't recognize the difference between articles that supported Dean for his centrism and propaganda pieces that were crafted to attack him.

Maybe that is your problem, dsc, you aren't able to comprehend the difference. Perhaps you need more rest or coffee?

that is the point. And yes touting centrism in a primary is hurtful, which is why you thought it would hurt his support here. You used rw liars to attack Dean. For example here is a lie. He even launched one of the nation's most progressive voucher programs for high school students.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-067es.html

Lessons from Vermont
132-Year-Old Voucher Program Rebuts Critics

For more than a century, Vermont has operated a viable and popular voucher system in 90 towns across the state. During the 1998–99 school year, the state paid tuition for 6,505 students in kindergarten through 12th grade to attend public and private schools. Families chose from a large pool of public schools and more than 83 independent schools including such well-known academies as Phillips Exeter and Holderness.

As more attention is given to vouchers in mainstream discussions about education reform, critics contend that vouchers are a new, untested concept and therefore must be implemented, if at all, on an extremely limited, experimental basis. Critics also argue that vouchers will lead to the establishment of fringe schools, skim the best and brightest students from public schools, and drain public schools of revenue. Vermont's long-standing program has done none of those things.

Vermont's voucher program has been running since 1869, nearly as long as the monopolistic public education model. It is worth noting that the voucher program has been a welcome part of the educational landscape for so long that the state collects no more information on voucher students than it does on students generally. And no hue and cry has been raised for more information to be compiled to justify the system's continuation. To the contrary, Vermonters generally assume that it is a parent's prerogative to select a child's school, and the burden of proof is on those who seek to take that choice away. This paper describes Vermont's voucher system and draws numerous lessons for education reformers and policymakers.

end of quote

Oh and somehow your computer repeatedly edited out this text.

Not so fast. This is, after all, the former governor of the state that gave us Ben & Jerry's Rainforest Crunch and the nation's only self-proclaimed socialist congressman, Bernie Sanders. In Vermont, Euro-style tax-and-spend governmental activism is still in vogue and politicians like Senator Jim Jeffords pass as moderates. This is the second-highest taxing-and-spending state in the country, with collections about $600 per person above the national average. The state's regulatory climate, says John McClaughry of the Ethan Allen Institute, Vermont's sole dispenser of free-market views, "almost seems intentionally designed to chase employers away." Dean has boasted that he was "the most fiscally conservative governor in Vermont in decades," but that's like saying you were the most chaste woman in a Texas whorehouse.

Indeed, Dean has taken many positions that should make life easy for the Republicans' opposition research team. As governor, he supported and successfully enacted a whole menu of dimwitted liberal causes: a state-funded universal health care system (which as president he would take nationwide), government-subsidized child care (even for the rich), a higher minimum wage, a mega-generous prescription drug benefit for seniors with incomes up to four times the poverty level, one of the nation's most liberal mandatory family-leave laws, and taxpayer-funded campaigns. It's no wonder the "Almanac of American Politics" calls Dean "one of the four or five most liberal governors in America."

At one time or another, Dean raised just about every tax he could get his hands on. During his 12 years as governor, he upped the corporate income tax rate by 1.5 percentage points, the sales tax by 1 percentage point, the cigarette tax by 50 cents a pack, and the gas tax by 5 cents a gallon. Sure he balanced the budget every year--by digging deeper into Vermonters' wallets.

end of quote

You sliced and diced a piece by Stephen Moore, that had a big fat ole lie in it and did so proudly. You can insult me until the cows come home and give birth to aliens but your behavior is what your behavior is.

you do what you always do - reach further and move the goalposts. You lied when you said I posted RW propaganda against Dean all the time. I never did, and only posted the TRUTH about his centrist positions as governor. That you focus on this piece Moore wrote in support of Dean, and that I excerpted the TRUTH, then you don't know the difference between support and propaganda.

Get some rest, dsc. You're being ridiculous.

but since it was anti Dean it was fine with you. But god forbid anyone print even true negative stuff about Kerry, you go balistic. BTW this isn't the only rw hit piece you brought to us. It is merely the most memerable. You also routinely made up conspiracy theories when asked for links. My personal favorite in that regard was when you claimed that Gary Hart had said "Howard Dean shouldn't be President". I asked you for a link. First you claimed that I had seen the article and commented on it so you shouldn't have to provide a link. Then, you claimed that the link had been scrubbed by the Dean defense forces. Then I went and looked and found the article had be put behind a paywall. Finally someone found your original post of the article where lo and behold, the words you claimed he said weren't there. Then it became I was putting words in your mouth. Yet I am the crazy one who needs more sleep. right.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=108x28938#29074

THe link is you doing exactly what I said you did.

Moore's piece was a valentine to Dean at the time. You can't find any posts where I repeated the trash lies being passed around about Dean by the Limbaugh's, Becks, Hannitys, et al, because I wouldn't give them the time of day - I know the difference between truth and lies.

Many of Dean's supporters here are still my pals here because they know I fought that primary tough but fair. If you want to pretend otherwise because I intend to do the same with Hillary, then have at it, but, it's pure dishonesty on your part.

Fer chrissakes, you are claiming O'Donnell's TRUTH is anti-Hillary propaganda....you're ridiculous. You don't know the difference between propaganda and accurate information. Bottom line is dsc's world: Any accurate information that doesn't portray your heroes the way YOU want to see them is propaganda and equal to crafted lies.

and you thought that was aok. that speaks volumes about you and nothing about me. Do you think that it is accurate to state that Dean introduced a voucher program that was founded in 1869? That was in that piece.

So you find something that isn't right and you attach it to the truth because you know you are totally backed into a corner in this thread. You whined that O'Donnell used Hillary's REAL support for IWR as propaganda. You have no credibility.

Pick, pick, pick, till there's nothing left, dsc, if it makes you happy with this stupid thread.

i think if the person is a liar, the article has lies, then nothing in the article should be believed. That is why I don't believe things you post unless I see links because far too many times you have avered that an article said x only to find when I traced it down, the article said y. It happened with Gary Hart, it happened here, it happened over and over and over and over again. You repeatedly told us Dean endorsed Jeffords for Senate. You were asked for a link or failing that at least the race in which he had done this. To this very day, you have given us nada. It is your MO. Oh, and the insults you have repeatedly decided to use in this thread, yep part of your MO too. You called me a liar, you called me a net nanny, you repeatedly told stories you liked about what I posted and when caught blamed me for that too. Nothing is ever your fault, words mean only what you want them to mean, and any source, no matter how many lies they tell are AOK with you if they hate Dean and Clinton enough. You claimed earlier you wouldn't quote Hannity, well Moore is Hannity with an economics degree.

Moore was a fan of Dean's before the primary and wrote about it in the past LONG before the primary, and CATO gave Dean a B grade as a lawmaker they could deal with. You know that is true. Everything else you're saying is to cover your ass for the ridiculousness of your postings.
Moore's glowing reviews of Dean were fine with you before Dean became a candidate, but, you objected to them when they were presented as examples why Dean was too centrist for some of us. Hypocrite.

put up or shut up, find one post of my saying that anything Stephen Moore said was fine. Now to be crystal clear her so you don't try the move the goal post crap. You said Moore's glowing reviews of Dean were fine with you before Dean became a candidate, but, you objected to them when they were presented as examples why Dean was too centrist for some of us. Hypocrite.

Now I want you to put up here or apologize. I want a post where I said that Moore's articles about Dean were fine. I won't put up with you telling bald faced lies about me.

Oh and just incase you try the I can't search du2 crap. Go to google, put in democratic underground, my name, and stephen Moore you should find posts where I say his writing is fine with that search if you are telling the truth, but you just plain aren't.

You don't post anything from Moore or CATO from that time period when Dean was governor....why? Because it would prove me right to be warning Dems about Dean's centrist reign as governor.

You're just being ridiculous. And a hypocrite. And this entire thread is based on a stupid, whining lie that you created claiming O'Donnell's report on IWR was anti-Hillary propaganda and likening it to FOX's propaganda. How absurd.

you out and out lied about me and called me a hypocrite. You claimed I thought Stephen Moore was fine. You need to put up or shut up. You made a claim, you didn't say I didn't comment on Moore, you said I FOUND WHAT HE WROTE WAS FINE. I want a link or an abject apology right this second.

Stop being such a nitpicking whiner, dsc. YOU blew this thread from your very first post. It's based on a lie about O'Donnell that you convinced yourself is true.

you are out and out lying. Oh and yet another lie. Here is his cato grade, it was a D.

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa454.pdf

You claimed that I was fine with Stephen Moore on the basis of ARTICLES WHICH DON'T EXIST, WHICH YOU MADE UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH. I put Stephen Moore, Howard Dean in google. And only the article you PRAISED, and which I DENOUNCED, came up. Not another article, not before he ran, not after he ran. You are an out and out liar who got caught.

I decided to search for these supposed Moore love pieces. And what did I find, nothing. Only the one piece you brought to DU AND WHICH I REPEATEDLY DENOUNCED. Oh and what else did I find, something I had forgotten about.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jan/5/20040105-103754-1355r/?page=all

We are a group trying to promote good policy for the nation, not to help George Bush,” Club for Growth President Stephen Moore said in an interview.

Mr. Moore is not shy about stating his view of Mr. Dean: “For the last year, he has moved further and further to the left and admitted he would repeal the Bush tax cuts, which jump-started the economy. For that reason alone, Dean poses a grave threat to the economic well-being of all Americans.”

Mr. Moore defended the ad campaign by saying that the “left-wing takeover of the Democratic party by Dean and his supporters is not a good thing for sound policy-making, even though it is a good thing for Republicans, because it makes it easier for them to win elections,” he said.

Mr. Dean is “hopelessly out of step with the rest of America.” Mr. Moore said.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jan/5/20040105-103754-1355r/#ixzz2OOh4UNLj
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

end of quote (I don't like the source but figure they are likely to quote Moore accurately)

there is a word for you, it is unbelievable, in the truest sense of the word. Just to give you a recap of what you did here. You claimed I was fine with what Moore said about Dean because I didn't comment on articles he had written before Dean ran, articles which we now see didn't exist, and the one and only article he did write, you praised and I CONDEMNED IN REAL TIME. And you have the unmitigated gall to call me a hypocrite. Wow, just wow.

what Moore wrote LATER about Dean when it looked like Dean might succeed. Big deal - what does that have to do with CATO's approval of Dean, giving him a B rating, in the time BEFORE Dean was a candidate? You are being pathetic mining for whatever you can - obsess much, dsc? You aren't even responding to all the other posts who think your thread is ridiculous.

SEVERAL YEARS AGO an obscure Democratic governor from the politically inconsequential state of Vermont was the guest speaker at a Cato Institute lunch. His name was Howard Dean.
...
He had been awarded one of the highest grades among all Democrats (and a better grade than at least half of the Republicans) in the annual Cato Fiscal Report Card on the Governors. We were curious about his views because we had heard that he harbored political ambitions beyond the governorship.
...
He left--and I will never forget the nearly hypnotic reaction. The charismatic doctor had made believers of several hardened cynics. Nearly everyone agreed that we had finally found a Democrat we could work with. Since then, I've watched Dean's career with more than a little interest and we chat from time to time on the phone.

...
Dean is nothing if not a survivor--as well as an iconoclast. Even as he pursued wild-eyed social experiments, Dean carefully nurtured a reputation as a "business-friendly" governor. On numerous occasions he pragmatically swept aside onerous environmental regulations and last-use restrictions (this is the greenest state of all) to make room for business expansion and jobs, jobs, jobs. He supported electricity deregulation to take monopolistic pricing power away from big utilities. He even launched one of the nation's most progressive voucher programs for high school students.

...
Republicans are said to be salivating over the prospect of a Bush-Dean match-up. They shouldn't get carried away. Howard Dean, warns John McClaughry, has been "underestimated throughout his political career. He has an uncanny knack for finding where the political capital is stored and walking off with it." The trick for Dean is to ensure that the ultra-liberal positions he has taken in the primaries, which contradict his sometimes centrist record, don't cripple his ability to reach out to Middle American voters in a general election--should he make it that far. If he does, and then finds a way to zig-zag back toward the center, Howard Dean could be George W. Bush's worst nightmare.
....

You claim all these pro Dean pieces from Moore exist, yet you have produced zero of them. Again, you claim that you posted these at DU and I was quote fine with them, unquote.

Kerry was far less hawkish - and like Biden worked to try to get a better resolution. They actually succeeded to some degree - but for their own sakes, it might have been better had they failed to get any changes. They then would have voted against it.


The other reason is that it is harder to get a clip of Kerry"s - without truncating sentences - that are for invading. Note the Republicans have no problem with leaving out part of a sentence when that part qualifies what he was speaking of. (In fact, one quote they have used was part of a speech that was reported (by the few that reported it) as Kerry says "not to rush to war" - a speech that the former Bush speech writer in National Review whined about saying they were very slow to go to war and that Kerry and France would never agree that enough was done. )

A third reason is that as SOS, HRC was on the hawkish edge of the administration - pushing Obama to back a surge in Afghanistan and wanting to arm the Syrian rebels. (In the Senate she backed the Kyle/Lieberman Iran resolution) The point is these three later positions show that her IWR was not an exception but the rule.

The fourth reason is that she is being pushed by very powerful people as the inevitable 2016 nominee. Biden is mentioned, but his role in the administration was to end the Iraq role and he was the LEAST hawkish person in the room on Afghanistan by all accounts. This gives his reason for voting for the IWR - similar to Kerry's - a lot of credibility.Kerry has not been mentioned and he can't run without quitting as SOS, which would not be a good way to start a long shot run.

.

-written in spite of the personal attacks by a Clinton apologist.

was "inappropriate " - a word that better fit the actions of her spouse - who Hillary NEVER publicly accused of being inappropriate. (She COULD have just have said that his misspeaking was a problem and implied it was often (which it isn't.), but she said inappropriate implying the right was correct that he had dissed the troops. The only other thing is could have meant is that she thought it wrong to question how Bush did not do all he should have before talking the country to war.

He was considering running in 2008 for Preisdent - and Hillary wanted him out of the way. (Ironically had both Obama and Kerry run, she likely would have won as they would have split the votes against her. Kerry was far better positioned on the issues - including Iraq. Many afraid that Obama was too unseasoned (as HRC) was arguing could have gone to Kerry.

than getting a link from that poster.

Now I've heard everything.

You know, since she was Secretary of State for 4 years, her views and votes on Iraq are pretty important.

Most union members will not vote for her, including me

The sad fact is that far too many democrats betrayed the country by voting to support the Bush-Cheney war machine. Senator Clinton was one of them.

During the 2008 democratic primary contest between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, their respective positions from the period leading up to the immoral invasion of Iraq was one of the most significant differences between them. It was definitely one of themain reasons that Obama went from an underdog, to the eventual winner of the party's nomination. More, he went on to win the general election -- and then included Clinton in the important position as Secretary of State.

It is highly inaccurate to view everyone, including journalists, who view that vote on Clinton's part, as being part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy.

it was one WHICH WAS MY POINT.

Just to justify some kind of misguided hero worship of a mythological manifestation of a misconception of reality of so called leaders purity of righteousness be it left or right.

The OP should look back at some old 'Tom Tomorrow" tunes to see the hypocrisy

Yeah, the Clintons are better than any republicans
but that doesn't say much these days

I was and still am a Jerry Brown supporter
but ended up supporting Clinton because of the alternative.

As far as Hillary goes... Walmart told me a lot and don't forget she was once a republican leaning early in her family history and beliefs....


Bill was Southern Democrat but I won't ask and won't tell about that....hint hint wink wink.

Octafish and I have researched too much to be deluded by the fog of war, economics and half truths on who really does what

The truth is painful. She did side with opportunity and appeasement to the Bush crime family and not conscious

that was Brown's big idea in 92. It was what he ran on.

and that's one major reason why I'm having reservations about her if she were to run for the party's nomination in 2016. Lawrence did the right thing in calling her out for it.

ONLY her.

The truth shall set the Democratic Party free of the Third Way phoneys with presidential ambitions. My hat's off to Lawrence.

or at least place it in the most beneficial frame.

Hillary has spent all the time in the White House she merits, we do not need another imperialist neoliberal that is looking out for capital and sacrificing the pawns.

A woman President is a potentially great thing but a vagina doesn't change the policy direction an iota. We don't need a blond Thatcher to advance the ball, in fact such a soul will only push things along on the wrong direction.

Hillary sucks ass. I hope she does not run and if she does I will oppose her nomination...STRIDENTLY.

imagine if Fox had aired the following.

A clip of Democrat after Democrat speaking in favor of the resolution (they could have used Hillary, Biden, Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Lieberman, and a bunch of others) and clips of Lincoln Chaffee opposing the war. Now all of it would be true. Would that be propaganda?

- although they ignored Lieberman when making that point. They even included excerpts from Feingold and Kennedy!

There is a logical flaw in your counter example. This was a Republican led effort. In 2005, they were attempting to conflate some Democrats reluctantly agreeing to vote for a flawed resolution.

You would need a controversial DEMOCRATIC issue, where they can say use ONE Republican's support and the person happens to be the leading Republican 2016 choice. There is no really good example I can come up with, but here is an example that would work if Snowe were the leading Republican choice. ACA - and they could use Olympia Snowe's comments before the Finance committee when in committee she voted the bill out. Here, your argument would be that other Republicans, like Hatch, had actually SPONSORED similar bills in the past.

To me, your problem is that you are uncomfortable that Clinton was being shown as pretty hawkish - something that hurt her in 2008 and, maybe you fear if this is constantly brought up, it could hurt with 2016 primary voters when they are faced with a specific choice of HRC vs one or more alternatives.

I have watched in interest the campaign to make HRC the inevitable candidate. What I suspect is that part of the success is that it evokes 2008. 2008, for a Democrat, was a time when ANYTHING could happen. The Republicans were completely out of favor. We had narrowly taken back the House and Senate in 2006 and there was a real chance of a Democratic President with a solid Democratic Congress. It was also a given that we had two very talented possible nominees - with many thinking it was Hillary's turn. If it was her turn then, how can we ignore her now? Even after Obama won, there was a brief period of euphoria for the Democrats -- until everything had to get 60 votes and we only had 60 votes for a total of about 4 months. So, everything required getting the 1, 2 or 3 Republicans needed. Then there was 2010. Now, Obama represents the reality of what we did - and Hillary is still (for many) the potential of what we can be. Potential is always a more shiny thing than reality.

The promise of Hillary Clinton evokes that period of 2008. Just like Obama, Hillary was a very special choice to many of her supporters - and even many Obama voters had reasonably favorable opinions of Hillary. Parts of the media had built up Hillary from the moment that Bill Clinton assumed the Presidency. In 2008, her Senate experience - where it is tough to cite any issue that she would have been seen as the leader or even a top person on in the Senate. For the last 4 years, there were several articles that spoke of Hillary's promise as SOS - and she was well respected for her management of the state department - but also noting her shaky start as a diplomat. Suddenly - even though her term ended on a down note, the media suddenly was stating as given that she was an exceptional SOS.

The fact is that in retrospect, the SOS was essentially a place to be - still in the news and not political - for 4 years - leaving her where she was when she declared in 2007 - the obvious inevitable nominee - so obvious that no one needs to look at her real accomplishments, disappointments, her abilities or her flaws. She is just H*I*L*L*A*R*Y!! I am NOT saying that she is not a very intelligent, hard working, serious candidate, but that there is an effort to market her without feeling the need to make a case. I have to admit that at this point - this looks like a very successful effort.

Given the HUGE very successful HRC PR campaign, it seems silly to complain that you think she is being held to a higher standard than other Democrats.

when she and only she appears in the video when 22, count it 22, people did the very same thing.