Senator Clinton Calls for Withdrawal From Iraq to Begin in 2006

In the past Hillary has responded to shots taken by the right , and the left, by not returning fire, but by focusing on what specific changes she recommended. Indeed, the New York Post reported Congressional Black Caucus meeting where Harry Belafonte said, "our foreign policy has made a wreck of this planet" and Hillary stood up and said "what Harry said is so important" has been one of the stronger moments for her - until today's "it is time for the president to stop serving up platitudes and present us with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor, not a rigid timetable that terrorists can exploit, but a public plan for winning and concluding the war...And it is past time for the president, vice president or anyone else associated with them to stop impugning the patriotism of their critics." While not an absolute timetable to withdraw troops, she was explicit about her emerging view that troops could be redeployed next year if coming elections in Iraq go well.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/30/nyregion/metrocampaigns/30hillary.html

Senator Clinton Calls for Withdrawal From Iraq to Begin in 2006

By PATRICK D. HEALY

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her strongest statement on the war in Iraq since visiting the country in 2003, yesterday defended her vote to authorize military action but harshly criticized President Bush's leadership and called for a plan to begin withdrawing troops next year.

In a 1,600-word letter that was e-mailed to thousands of New Yorkers, Mrs. Clinton used new verbiage to attack the White House's war planning from top to bottom, while also laying out her general vision for reducing troop levels. The letter came on the eve of an Iraq speech by President Bush, as well as one month after an antiwar crusader, Cindy Sheehan, denounced Mrs. Clinton's position on the war.

"I take responsibility for my vote, and I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the president and his administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war," Mrs. Clinton wrote, in response to letters from New York residents with questions about the war.

She added, "Given years of assurances that the war was nearly over and that the insurgents were in their 'last throes,' this administration was either not being honest with the American people or did not know what was going on in Iraq."
<snip>


============================================================================

I did like the reported White House response (spokesman, Ken Lisaius) "We're not going to cut and run, we're going to keep moving toward victory over terror. Victory in Iraq will deny the terrorists their stated goal."

:eyes:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/IraqCoverage/story?id=1338211

Hillary Advocates 'Third Way' on Iraq Troop Withdrawal

Clinton Opposes Immediate Withdrawal, But Says U.S. Must Tell Iraq 'We Aren't Going to Be There Forever'

By TEDDY DAVIS
Nov. 22, 2005 — - Joining the furious debate over withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., rejected calls for an immediate pullout while suggesting Iraq may not be stabilized until the new government is told that the U.S. troop commitment is not open-ended.

Speaking to reporters in Rye Brook, N.Y., on Monday, Clinton recommended that pressure be put on Iraq's new government after the Dec. 15 election.

"Then we have to tell this new government we are not going to be there forever, we are going to be withdrawing our young men and women and we expect you to start moving towards stability," Clinton said.

The former first lady said an immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a "big mistake."

"It will matter to us if Iraq totally collapses into civil war, if it becomes a failed state the way Afghanistan was, where terrorists are free to basically set up camp and launch attacks against us," she said.

She suggested, however, that Iraq may not be stabilized until the United States signals its intention to leave.

Clinton said the Bush administration's approach amounted to giving the Iraqis "an open-ended invitation not to take care of themselves."
<snip>

not going to be there forever." It is impossible for me to believe that Hillary is not fully informed about PNAC and those permanent American bases. If she really believes what she's saying, she is revealing a lot of ignorance.

Iraq is already in a civil war. The only question remaining is how many more Americans and Iraqis are going to die before those in DC finally give up and decide to get the hell out.

They mention deep in the story that she said "Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the president authority to use force against Iraq," But the Headline writer and editor pushes "Defend Pro-War Vote" and "Clinton, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said earlier this month it would be a "big mistake" for U.S. troops to pull out immediately. She stuck with that line Tuesday. "America has a big job to do now. We must set reasonable goals to finish what we started and successfully turn over Iraqi security to Iraqis," she wrote."



Hillary Clinton Defends Pro-War Vote

By DEVLIN BARRETT Associated Press Writer
© 2005 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday defended her vote to authorize war in Iraq amid growing unease among liberal Democrats who could determine the potential 2008 presidential candidate's future.

"I take responsibility for my vote, and I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the president and his administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war," the New York senator said in a lengthy letter to thousands of people who have written her about the war.

At the same time, she said the United States must "finish what it started" in Iraq.

Clinton and other hawkish Democrats have come under criticism from liberal anti-war activists, many of whom will hold sway over presidential primary contests. The former first lady, who is up for re-election in 2006, would likely be an early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination should she decide to seek it.

The 1,600-word letter was sent, mainly through e-mail, on Tuesday _ a day before President Bush was to deliver a speech on his Iraqi policies. The president's approval ratings plummeted in recent months as the U.S. death toll and anti-war sentiments grew.
<snip>

holding the reins !

She never seems to please SOME people. If she mooned Bush you'd probably have her arrested for indecent exposure.:argh:

You just had to know this was coming when Bill Clinton said this 2 weeks ago.

Cause if Iraq was a mistake, then the troops need to get out...

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-1116billclinton,0,5914758.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines




Bill Clinton Calls Iraq 'Big Mistake'

By LARA SUKHTIAN
The Associated Press
Wednesday, November 16, 2005; 11:32 AM

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- Former President Clinton told Arab students Wednesday the United States made a "big mistake" when it invaded Iraq, stoking the partisan debate back home over the war.

Clinton cited the lack of planning for what would happen after Saddam Hussein was overthrown.

"Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done," Clinton told students at a forum at the American University of Dubai.

"It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors ... one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country."

Either she's a DINO or she's jumping on the bandwagon.

:popcorn:

Fully agreed. Why don't some focus their anger where it truly belongs?

you systematically play the middle, wherever that is at one given time.

where MOST of the country is if you haven't noticed.

Sorry. I would expect more from so-called "liberal" so-called "leaders".

So "Centrist" is now code for fascist? Seems like you are making up new meanings for "moderate," "centrist," and "middle."

Most of our leaders are just not far enough to the left to suit you and that's not going to change. Ones who do---lose. All political candidates who run in a presidential race RUN FROM THE CENTER. They know they won't get elected if they are too far to the left or right.

Watching her handle this issue is reminiscent of her influence in the Clinton WH response to many of the faux scandals and attacks.

Her practice is to deny and stonewall as long as possible until she's forced to respond, when if she'd just been more flexible, examined the facts and responded at the start, she wouldn't have had as many problems.

There are some mistakes that are simply so big they should not have been made in the first place. Like giving a PNAC'er authorization to invade Iraq.

to take out saddam, set up a puppet government, some Long term bases, and get some sweet crude on the cheap.

You mean * and the terrorists want the same thing? :wow:

my bad

Who does she think she is - I have more respect for Patty Murray, Boxer, Mikulski and all the other progressive Democratic ladies.

I would never vote for her for president. I would rather stay home and watch her lose. She is mistaken if she thinks some Republicans would switch over to vote for her.

Nice to see when it comes down to brass tacks, some people don't mind having a Republican president...

to a phony democrat.

If I had to choose between Hillary and, say, McCain, it would be a tough decision.

I do not want to face another lesser of two evils election.

So Hillary Clinton is a phony Democrat?

Where do you guys get this crap?

There should be an amendment to the Constitution saying that no direct family members can run for President if a previous member served at least one term....

Then we would have no Chimpy, no worry about Fucker Jeb, no Hillary, No Jenna, Barbara....

No nepotism in government, it's bad enough in business....

I thought she became Senator from New York by accident..</sarcasm>

Heaven forbid we have a politician in the Democratic party.

:argh:

What are you talking about, MindPilot? Just because we disagree with her does not make her "phony." Your position is every bit as ridiculous as FReepers who decry Bush and Congressional Republicans because of them wanting to place money into rebuilding New Orleans.

To me there is a STARK and GLARING difference between HRC and some lowly postulating sycophantic fool like John McCain. I can endure a difference of opinion with Mrs. Clinton, but I cannot endure the lies that slip from McCain's mouth. That man has voted with his party more often than Clinton has voted against hers.

Democrats insistence on perfection is part of the reason we've been losing so much. It's the real world and Dems are better than Repugs 99% of the time. McClain would have us even deeper in Iraq with more American kids dying for nothing - NO THANK YOU!

lark

I can't believe I'm reading this stuff on DU.

I don't know what you're smoking but take my word for it, you've had your limit.

One wonders why somebody who hates Democrats so much puts up with this place....

it's DINOs we have a problem with.

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

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

64% of all New Yorkers and 88% of New York Democrats want her re-elected....

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11373.xml?ReleaseID=835

http://clinton.senate.gov/

I do not hate Democrats and was depressed the past few election cycles when they did not do well. I think the reason they are losing is the foolish centrist nonsense and the fact that they do not articulate progressive policies well.

The "Do or say anything to attain power" behavior is just not gonna cut it with me any longer.

Yes, I must admit my ideal Democrat/ politician is someone like Kucinich and even though he is no Democrat Bernie Sanders. Those are the people who float my boat not phoney hawk Hilary Clinton. She underestmates how Republicans loath her and if she thinks some of them would vote for her because she is pro-war, good luck.

So your ideal Democrat is Bernie Sanders who isn't a Democrat.....says it all.

"I think the reason they are losing is the foolish centrist nonsense and the fact that they do not articulate progressive policies well. "
Yeah, but you also think Dennis Kucinich is hot shit....and look at how his bandwagon took off--NOT. Dennis couldn't even get 9% of Democrats in his home state of Ohio to vote for him in the primary last year.

Its because people like you and the voters were programmed by the Democratic establishment and the media to vote for the candidate that had so-called "electability", rather than policy positions, platform and actions.

We would continue to cry in our soup every election day if we dont cut out the DLC politics, and begin to articulate clearly progressive policies that are well articulated to the electorate.

Hand me a fucking laugh, why doncha? Dennis couldn't even pull ten percent in his home state.

There are no chocolates in your boxes anymore, MB.

You choose one of the most corrupt, neo-fascist owned political systems in this land to try to make some sort of joke?

In spite of which, Dennis does very well in his congressional district, fyi.

Study exit polls much?

Your take on politics sounds an awful lot like faux news propaganda regurgitation. "Those progressives just cannot be taken seriously, can they?"

Clearly the neofascists will throw out all caution to ensure that no democratically inclined citizen has any hope of being considered seriously.

However, progressive supporters of the Democratic party deserve someone better than Hillary for taking on the real challenges ahead. And I do respect and admire Mr. & Mrs. Clinton for enduring so much abuse and maligning malfeasance. Her ability to serve New York well as a Senator in no significant way indicates an ability to serve the US well as a President.

The 2004 primary results aren't exactly arcane knowledge hidden from all but the initiated adepts.....

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/states/OH/

""Those progressives just cannot be taken seriously, can they?"
Jeeze, you mean I'm supposed to take somebody whose favorite Democrat ISN'T a Democrat and can't figure out how anyone could know the results of the Ohio primary SERIOUSLY?

"progressive supporters of the Democratic party deserve someone better than Hillary"
Like hapless Dennis? That IS rich.

"For example, in the United States, presidential candidates usually win the support of their home states fairly easily."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favorite_son

You chose to select one line out what I said a build a case out of that.

FYI, I know Bernie Sanders is Independent. Please tell me the last time he voted with the Republicans against a majority Daemocratic position.

"I know Bernie Sanders is Independent."
Thank heaven for small favors.

So tell us, why didn't voters in Ohio respond to Dennis if his message was so shit-hot?

and were programmed to vote for so-called "electable" candidates.

The establishment and media commentary were not very kind to Kucinich. He did not have the money to take his platform to more people, his message was drowned out. Bear in mind, he was second in MoveOn.org's "play" primary behind Howard Dean when it didnt matter.

In the real primaries, he won 31% in Hawaii, second behind Kerry. I believe he did very well in Minnesota and Maine too.

so much sticks around.....

"Bear in mind, he was second in MoveOn.org's "play" primary behind Howard Dean when it didnt matter. "
Says it all.....

"he won 31% in Hawaii"
That's 981 votes.

"he did very well in Minnesota and Maine too. "
Only if you think 16% is "very well."

Democrats and Americans so much sticks around....."

Are you referring to me? Why would you say something like that? Do you know me?

Who is that attacking Democrats as "programmed" by an evil "establishment" and calling Americans "lemmings"?

Sure wish there was a way to scroll through this thread and find out.

I did not call Democrats "programmed" and have not used the word evil in more than a year.

"because people like you and the voters were programmed by the Democratic establishment"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1956338&mesg_id=1956536

"most voters (including in Ohio) are lemmings and were programmed"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1956338&mesg_id=1956727

Have a nice day

because you thought they were hunky-dory and you admire lemmings....

Uh-HUH......

It makes a lot of sense to reference the CNN gospel about the 2004 primary when talking about Sen. Clinton's chances as a candidate in 2008.

In case you haven't noticed, this is 2005.

"For example, in the United States, presidential candidates usually win the support of their home states fairly easily."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favorite_son

Well, I am so glad that you and the wikipedia folks are so pleased with the punkass chimp on Penn. Ave. I mean, after all, coked up fratboy was a big hit down by the Rio Grande. That Mr. Gore surely was a joke, couldn't even scale those old Smoky heights. Must be the old dog ate his homework?

Man, you neofascist apologists sure have this world figured out doncha?

:crazy:

"In case you haven't noticed, this is 2005"
No shit?

By the way, I'll bet even a "coked up fratboy" could have figured out that it was pathetically weak for Ohio's favorite son, Dennis Kucinich, to pull elss than 10% in his hoem state's primary.

"you neofascist apologists sure have this world figured out doncha?"
Hahahahahahaha.....that IS rich.

We are all programmed, because we do not agree with your 9 percent position? Please. We have brains, we use them to make decisions based on what our priorities are. Clearly, the majority of Democrats do not fall in step with YOUR line of thinking, and that, somehow, is our problem?

The argument does not wash.

why "Democrats lose elections" need look no fruther than the sort of folks who delight in expressing their contempt for everyday Americans as loudly as they can.

...and we need to hear every idea, from conservative, bread and butter, working stiff Democrats to uber-liberals. You don't get very far if you only allow a small slice of the party to push their viewpoint. And sometimes, ya learn something!

It makes not a lick of sense to me!!!!

No matter how far out of touch with American principles (or even reality) right wing loonies are, they almost ALWAYS assume the reader/listener is one of "US", united against a "THEM."

Our left wing loonies, on the other hand. can barely contain the hatred and disgust they feel for anyone who doesn't share their extremist viewpoint, especially average lower to middle class Americans. As we see here, they don't even much like other Democrats. Sometimes, as we see here, they come right out and say it aloud; other times it's implicit in the way they frame their message.

Think it does anything good for America if an average American homemaker or working guy drops into this thread to discover he or she is a programmed sheeple or lemming, brainwashed into thinking that a candidate they back ought to at least be able to win an election?

or pay the light bill with dreamy ideology. And there's so little time in the day for so many working families, with some folks working two jobs to pay for the little extras or just get by. These folks are looking for a candidate who has the right ideas, who will work to make their everyday lives better, and who can WIN to make those changes happen.

I find the lockstep ideologues far more constrained in their thinking, angrily unrealistic, and at times, a bit exhausting! Ya gotta eat to live, and you need to be able to buy groceries to do that. The candidate who helps make your average, everyday life better is the candidate that resonates. And if the candidate agrees with your views on most issues, it's silly to toss the baby out with the bathwater because there's ONE thing, be it a domestic issue, a diplomacy matter, or some other arcane stance, that does not measure up.

The only baby I think should have been tossed with the bathwater is this tyke:


If we stay united, we'll toss his party down the drain soon enough!

that Democrats refuse to take corporate donations--NOT.

As much as I find Senator Clinton's position reprehensible, I cannot sit idly by and watch another Republican elected to lead this nation. It is pure folly to say that one would rather "stay at home and watch her lose." Hillary Clinton is not perfect, but she is a damn fine site better than any Republican dog taking the White House again. Hillary Clinton has morals and is doing what she believes is the right thing. Just because you don't agree with her -- and I do not totally myself -- does not mean that you have to be so petty.

Republicans are the real problem in this country. Actually, I go too far when I say that. Neo-Conservative Republicans and religious zealots within the Republican Party are the problem. They have no morals. They have no scruples. They have only their Culture of Corruption.

If Senator Clinton runs for the presidency in 2008 and if she is selected as the Democratic nominee I will fight like hell to put her in the White House. Not out of partisanship, but because it is the right thing to do for this country and the world. We've seen what just five years of a Republican (Neo-Conservative) can do to this country -- you would have us endure more after eight years of Bush because of petty differences? Not I.

he will keep it in his pants.

elected the "real" Hill would come out and we could nationalize health care, etc.

I'll hold my nose and vote for any Dem I don't fully agree with over any Repug neo-con.

NEW Republican president YOU helped elect in 2008. :crazy:

The plain fact is that a plan is desperately needed and needs to be arrived at in a bipartisan manner....because an Iraq that is nothing but chaos (or an extremist theocracy) is a bigger disaster for everybody than this ill-advised and incompetently run occupation.

She will atone by censoring video games?

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

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

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

Is there a Nannystateunderground you can go to?

:eyes:

I find it hilarious that so many of our teens who are screaming about some people who are screaming about this or that adult Democrat being a "corporate whore" are willing to bend over and spread 'em for the scumbags who make and market video games.

Hillary Clinton is spawn of Satan and the whole Clinton admin is a GIANT plot from the GOP.

In reality, Rush, Coulter and FOX really LOVE the Clintons and the whole bashing is all part of the great GOP plan. Celsea is really a member of the young republicans and hangs out with the Bush twins.

Moncia? A Democratic plot to overthrow Clinton and replace him with Gore....... no wait Gore was part of the plot too. All to elect W.

Didn't you get the damn memo?


:sarcasm:

P.S.: Love the pteranodon....

but I think MindPilot rolled it up and smoked it.

Hence the term "enron" and "Citigroup" dems - voting against OUR interests by supporting financial and accounting deregulation and draconian things like bankruptcy "reform". Obviously not nearly as worthy of attention as a videogame! I guess it's not being a "corporate whore" to "bend and spread 'em" for perpetrators of some of the biggest scams like Enron and Worldcom among many others - because they give money to dems like Hillary? Yeap, videogame companies have much worse scruples! At least videogames are tangible - unlike the monopoly money of Enron and Worldcom that Citigroup helped present as great things to investors. All good - apparently "money votes" against workers are fine so long as the corporate interests backing them kick in some campaign cash.

Sigh.

1 Citigroup Inc $110,470
2 Metropolitan Life $85,000
3 International Profit Assoc $80,200
4 Corning Inc $62,250
5 Goldman Sachs $58,110

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00000019&cycle=2006

1 Citigroup Inc $190,150
2 Goldman Sachs $137,170
3 Kushner Companies $119,000
4 Cablevision Systems $104,450
5 International Profit Assoc $86,000

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00000019&cycle=2004

I want m' kid to have them video games when they blow the fuck out of people.

More blood and guts!!!

That's what the little bastards need.

quite like a flabby white kid spending hours pretending to kill black people....



Clearly only a tyrannical dictator would object....

you have a basis towards white youth of size!!!

Now you've shown your real colors!!

FREEPER!!! FREEPER!!!

Get ye behind me o' spawn of the devil!!!!

that playing games is probably something you're really good at.

now the SAME as WARNER's, did not support ADDITIONAL troops like Clark did, and was not far off from Feingold's 'flexibility' either.

I frankly find it astounding that she, representing a state that is freaked out over the "war on terra" seeing as they took the hit, is taking so much flak from people who do not seem to appreciate that all politics is LOCAL. Right now, she represents NEW YORK, not AMERICA. Also, since she is the FIRST NY senator EVER to sit on the SASC, she is called on to speak about military issues far more frequently than these unelected potential candidates and governors who do not have to put their votes on record, and even more than sitting Senators who do not have such a significant military committee assignment.

I've posted this quickie comparison from HOTLINE ON CALL elsewhere, but it deserves another look--amazing how, when you get rid of all the bullshit phrases and endearing smiles, all of the candidates are bunched quite close together on the Iraq issue: http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2005/11/dem_08ers_on_th.html

Dem 08ers On Troops Coming Home
Prompted by a snarky comment to one of our numerous Mark Warner posts, here's a small clip-n-save.

Bayh: find realistic way to define success, then set benchmarks

Edwards: was "wrong". Wants "significant" reduction of troops after elections early next year. He'd tie the proportion of troops withdrawn to benchmarks set for Iraqi soldier performance.

Biden: no withdrawals until political situation improves, but sees 100K troops back home by '07. Does not rule out more troops if necessary. Wants admin to come clean about targets for Iraqi troop training. More civillian staff in Iraq.

Clark: add civillian component; consider adding troops; adjust the mix on the ground; establish clear benchmarks for training

Clinton: No immed. withdrawal, no troop increase, set specific benchmarks for training Iraqi forces and make it clear to Iraq that the US's military committment is limited.

Feingold: 12/31/06 is a "target date" for troops to come home. But he's flexible.

Kerry: begin drawn down of 20K troops after elections in Dec and continue if successful.

Richardson: "It is now time for the military commanders to design a phased, definitive withdrawal plan."

Warner: No immed. withdrawal, no troop increase, set specific benchmarks for Iraqi forces. Eschews "debating the past."

Thanks.

Too often, people go for PERSONALITY and EMOTIONAL response to a person, and do not hear the ACTUAL WORDS that they use.

And they also do not consider WHO the potential candidate SERVES. It's way easier to take the pulse of the nation, and pander on a broad scale, when you are not answering to constituents in your state or district.

Harry Reid, for example, is a MORMON pro-lifer who votes FOR gambling in Nevada, and agin' it elsewhere. Why? Gotta bring home the bacon--no jobs, no voters. He's pragmatic.

So's Senator Clinton. I think that makes her SMART. You don't get elected standing on principles that your constituency does not support. You do what you have to do to get elected, and then you use your good brain, your best judgment, and your heart when it comes down to your votes.

God forbid we have a smart politician or two in the Democratic party...(snicker)

She's connected to evil DLC!!!! BOO! DLC!! BOO!

Ain't ya worried now?

I want to hear from her, and any other Democrat that wants to run. We need MORE IDEAS, not fewer. Frankly, I hope Al Sharpton does it again--he's fun, he's feisty, and he pushes buttons and helps to shape the debate!

I want to hear from her, and any other Democrat that wants to run. We need MORE IDEAS, not fewer. Frankly, I hope Al Sharpton does it again--he's fun, he's feisty, and he pushes buttons and helps to shape the debate!

A whole lot of politics "is" local, but NOT this issue, especially for a senator who plans on running for president.

As for your contention that voters in the state of New York are "freaked out" over the war on terror: is that supposed to suggest that they overwhelmingly support the Iraq mission? Do polls indicate that? NO -- and remember that you're talking about the issue of the war itself, not polls that show pair-ups between Clinton and various pushover opponents in the upcoming Senate race. Moneyed and powerful special interests in New York do support continuing the mission, and in part, that's who Sen. Clinton is "representing" (that is, shilling for).

As for this leveling abstract you post on the positions of various politicians in regard to Iraq: yes, there sure is a whole lot of weaseling going on, and it will only lead to many more lives and much more treasure being wasted, before the American public gets fed up and demands that the troops be brought home from this dishonestly propagated, and failed, mission. 58,000 U.S. service members died in Vietnam because of similar deceitful, ass-covering maneuvers by politicians very much like Sen. Clinton.

To REALLY be fair: Sen. Feingold's suggestions at least set the groundwork for dealing with the failure of the Iraq mission, both in its propagated goals (freedom for the Iraqi people and the spread of democracy in the Muslim Middle East, on the presumption that that will produce pro-American governments) and its real goals (control of Iraq's oil resources, permanent U.S. military bases and political domination of the region).

constituency--not anyone else. Not now, or not yet, depending on what she decides to do. I'd laugh like hell if she DOESN'T run, simply because it would deprive all the "Hillary haters" of a target for their curious, rather meanspirited ire.

The facts of the matter are that MOST Americans, not all, but MOST, happily morphed Iraq and Afghanistan into a single 'terra' issue. They were aided in this misapprehension by Cheney, Powell, Condi and the Monkey himself. Additionally, the CONGRESS was LIED TO--flat out lied to, by THIS ADMINISTRATION.

And Feingold wants to set a date, but he states plainly that the date can be changed as circumstances on the ground dictate. He has NOT changed his mind on the issue of flexibility, and he said so TODAY:

The American people, an increasing number of elected officials, and more and more military and intelligence officials understand what the President doesn’t - that our seemingly indefinite presence in Iraq, and the lack of a plan to redeploy troops, feeds the insurgency and hurts our national security. We need leadership, and we need a policy on Iraq that includes a flexible timetable for completing our military mission there, so that we can focus on our national security priority – defeating the global terrorist networks that threaten the U.S. The President missed a vital opportunity today. Our brave service members, their families, the American people, and the Iraqi’s themselves deserve and demand more.” http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/05/11/20051130.html

Let's compare and contrast that with Hillary's statement yesterday on Iraq: 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. I believe we are at a critical point with the December 15th elections that should, if successful, allow us to start bringing home our troops in the coming year, while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities. This will advance our interests, help fight terrorism and protect the interests of the Iraqi people. http://www.clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/index.cfm?topic=iraqletter

I simply find this "Hillary is a Warmongering Evil Woman" theme BORING, false and very strange in its intensity--it's like the beast that will not die, and damn, ya gotta wonder why. If you read the words of all of the potential candidates, there are far more similiarities than there are differences. They are far more unified, and in agreement on key features of their proposals, than their varied and sundry supporters, frankly.

I also find the laser-like focus on her very curious, especially since she has not said ONE WORD about running, and refuses to discuss the possibility at this juncture--it's everyone else who is setting HER up as a strawman, and eagerly knocking her down, and that, I think, is either a waste of energy or...something else. Perhaps a GOP ploy to keep their base riled? I just don't know.

I intend to wait and see who tosses their hats into the ring, and I intend to listen to all of their views with an open mind--every single candidate. Senator Clinton is an experienced, pragmatic politician. If she wants to run, I want to hear from her, too, and make my decision from there.

I don't want an idealist nominated who cannot appeal across a large spectrum to run a hearts and flowers failed campaign. It is our turn, and we have a real opportunity to win with a strong, experienced candidate who can make the case, convince the people, and get out the vote. I think she should be given the same damn opportunity to state her case, if she decides to run, that any other candidate should be given.

That's what primaries are for.

And, FWIW, Tip O'Neill WAS right--take a look at the House and the Senate--those folks, from Tom DeLay to Barney Frank; from Barak Obama to Trent Lott and beyond, got there because their views appealed to the folks trudging to the polls in their districts.

I don't find any data that supports this contention of yours that it does. A Quinnipiac University poll taken in late Sept.-early Oct. found that 64% of New York voters believed that setting off upon the Iraq mission had been a mistake. The poll didn't pose the obvious question about what to do about the Iraq mission now -- but it's a fact that Sen. Clinton's position is that we should continue pursuing what 64% of New York voters call a mistake.

Sen. Clinton and her backers are engaging in fundraising for her '06 Senate run which is far in excess of what she'll need to gain re-election, especially given the weakness of her likely opponents. That money can be transferred to a future presidential run. Let's be honest here -- it's very clear that Clinton intends to run for president in 2008, despite her evasiveness in public statements.

I myself didn't suggest that Sen. Clinton is the Witch of Endor, so I don't see why you go on about that so in response to my post. I disagree strongly with Clinton's position on Iraq and other positions she takes. The bottom line: I'm a Democrat because I believe in principles and positions which have traditionally been represented by the Democratic Party. Sen. Clinton is a prominent representative of forces within the party which favor a shift away from those principles and positions, to become something quite a bit more like the Republican Party, in fundamentally representing moneyed business interests rather than working- and middle-class people.

It's all well and good to say "that's what primaries are for" and so forth, but we all REALLY know what's going on -- that the factor of powerful special interests using their ever-increasing influence to limit voters' real options is key to today's media-and-money-driven political milieu.

As referenced below, she's got 64% approval from all New Yorkers, and 88% approval from all New York Democrats.

So New Yorkers MUST approve of Sen. Clinton's positions on every issue if they say they approve of her performance in general?

In fact, polling data often shows that breakdowns of voter's views on specific issues are out of sync with their general 'approval' of office-holders. This was extremely so in the case of President Bush, back when his numbers were up.

The whole premise of this dreary nonsense was that because New Yorkers disapprove of Chimpy's war, they buy into this phony "Hillary is a warmongering corporate whore" rubbish and thus disapprove of her. Which, as we see, is eyewash.

There's no such "premise" behind the comments I've made. Maybe you should try responding to the content of posts, rather than sneering at supposed assumptions which you impose on people you disagree with.

I have really enjoyed reading your posts so far!!
:hi:

the Iraq misadventure. Don't hand me poll numbers TODAY to justify stances taken years ago. After the war started, that very same source you cite showed a majority of "liberal" New York CITY types supported the war, and you know full well the more conservative upstaters were banging the drum with even greater fervor.

And Clinton's stance, as I quoted above, does not support "more of the same." Please take another look at her words, above, and the stances of other candidates. They are, if not on the exact same page, in the same chapter. Feingold says let's get out by the end of '06, and be "flexible" if we need to be--how does that differ in a vastly material way from Hillary's wish to start moving out after the DEC '05 elections??

You cannot credibly use today's numbers to justify yesterday's actions, unless you are a time traveller--it is faulty logic to so do. After WTC fell, New Yorkers were shaken, and with good reason, which accounted for the willingness of so many to trust the Monkey. Then he gave his SOTU speech where he warned about, OOOOOH, uranium from NIGER, and Colin went to the UN with his little vial. It stunk back then to me, but plenty of people bought it, and who knows what TS, SCI NOFORN-style classified, cherrypicked data was handed to the SASC and other committees by the White House to shape the sense of Congress?


Some background:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0923-08.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-11-25-poll-usat_x.htm
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11370.xml?ReleaseID=356 (poll of more liberal NYC residents)

Zogby on Bush's personal numbers--he was riding high in 02: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=721

And sorry, I do tend to look askance at people who tell me what is REALLY going on, because we simply do not know unless we are a fly on the Senator's wall. For all we know, Hillary's coyness is a ploy to keep the GOP gunning for her so another candidate can slip in under the wire and bust out while they are all looking the other way, and her real goal is an ambassadorship or a seat on the Supreme Court. She can haul in money almost as good as the Big Dog, and that cash can go to the DNC coffers if she doesn't make a move. Or it could be, simply, that she hasn't made up her mind...or she might prefer to lobby for the second spot on the ticket, and run for the top job as a senior stateswoman eight years later. We just do not know, unless we are inside her head. And if she is bet-hedging, fine, let her.

As for the money grubbing, the Democrats are only playing the GOP game--you need money to win. Money buys TV time, planes, staff, signs, rubber chicken dinners, websites, all the stuff you need to get in people's faces and keep your message front and center. Idealistic "clean campaigns" are nice, but we will never have the opportunity to push for those unless we take power and change the rules. You want change? You will never see it UNLESS we win. The special interests/no ethics oversight will remain the order of the day unless and until there is a change in the majority, in both houses of Congress, and a change in the White House, to avoid the pesky veto.

You don't have to like her, you don't have to vote for her, but I think anyone who tries to shut her out of the process is subverting the democratic process. We need MANY voices, not fewer. The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT. She takes way more heat than others who are to the right of her on this issue, and frankly, I cannot understand why. I don't like to think it is the gender thing in this century, but sometimes I wonder...if Iraq is the tipping point vis a vis Senator Clinton, then it should be the tipping point for Clark, Warner, Feingold (whose lack of specificity is quite carefully crafted) and others as well. Otherwise, it's a fishy argument.

What "stances taken years ago" are you referring to? I was talking about Sen. Clinton's position on Iraq today. I didn't mention her vote in late '02 to give war powers to Bush.

It's also odd that you argue that I would have to be a "fly on the wall" to know whether Sen. Clinton really intends to run for president, but then assert that Sen. Finegold's "lack of specificity" in his Iraq prescription is "quite carefully crafted." Echoing you, I can respond: Well, how do you KNOW that?

In fact, in keeping with your argument about how we can't know WHAT in the world Sen. Clinton is thinking about '08, we'll all just have to agree that we don't really know ANYTHING for certain about ANYONE'S motives -- especially in the case of politicians. Thus, maybe Bush and Cheney are really anarchists who are trying to undermine America's position in the world by running up the trade deficit and getting us bogged down in the Iraq quagmire.

But, it's most likely that the motives of Bush, Cheney, and Sen. Clinton are what they appear to be on the surface. For instance, when politicians who are clearly in a position to run for president do massive fundraising and highly-publicized posturing on distraction issues a couple years before a presidential race, it's reasonable to assume that they plan on running for president.

I'm certainly not trying to shut Sen. Clinton out of the process of running for president by criticizing her stance on a vitally important issue like Iraq. I don't have the power to do that. I also don't live in New York, and so can't much participate in the upcoming Senate race campaign. But if I was a New Yorker, I'd look for an anti-war Democrat to support for that office, even if they had little or no chance of defeating her for the nomination. It's a way to shine a light on the issue of the war, and to put Democrat hawks on notice that "we care." I don't see why you should have a problem with that, given your advocacy that "many voices" be heard within the party. In politics, speaking with those "voices" means taking action for or against politicians running for office, on the basis of one's convictions.

By my judgement, the difference between calling for a "flexible" timetable and saying that we should get out ASAP is the difference between a door with a key and a doorway without a door. I'm also judging Sen. Clinton's position by the general drift of Sen. Clinton's comments on the mission over the last couple of years, and very recently, including her words at an AIPAC conference this year in which she described our troops in Iraq as "fighting on freedom's frontlines." I don't agree that that's what's happening over there.

I'm not damning Sen. Clinton "if she does or if she doesn't." She'll get virtual hugs from me if she really changes her position. The comments being discussed here, IMO, amount only to a tweaking of rhetoric.

You throw polls numbers out from today about how people feel about the war--as though Hillary IGNORED the feelings of her electorate. But Hillary has been Senator for almost a full term, and has been working the issue back when most New Yorkers supported the war. Read the links I provided. What does this suggest to me? She takes the feelings of her constituents into account when she makes decisions. We should all be so lucky.

How do I know that Feingold's lack of specificity was carefully crafted? BECAUSE I PROVIDED YOU A QUOTE FROM HIM with a link to the full text that detailed it. He used many words, and said DARN LITTLE. Hey, he wants to get out, but he is FLEXIBLE. The statement is one of those beauties that can be read like tea leaves if he wants to shift either left or right later down the line, should circumstances change. Flexible can mean 2006, or it could mean 2012, or a permanent basing scenario. Likely? Hell no, but the right "terra" scenario could swing the mood of the country back towards Monkeyboy's "stay the course" nonsense. Easy to shift when you are not clear to begin with. Now let me be clear, Feingold was among the first to pipe up about the issue at all, and he deserves credit for that. I will be interested in hearing him continue to hone his position, and I will listen carefully if he decides to run.

What I think too many people fail to appreciate is that politicians actually DO work in team formation every so often. You do know that Pelosi and Reid got together with a whole load of other Hill dems from both houses prior to the Murtha presser, don't you? That whole thing was COORDINATED, and that is why it worked so well. They are meeting again next week, and the GOP is crapping bricks.

With that in mind, for all we know, Hillary could actually be taking the heat to let someone else whip around her. She could well be fundraising for the greater good of the party. Bill does it all the time, and he ain't running. We do not really know until and unless she announces. Plenty of politicians amass huge war chests, "just in case." She's good at raising dough, and that's good for her!

As for shining a light on the war issue, that is what MURTHA did. All of the Democrats who showed up on TV and were so doggone articulate and ON message after his presser, that was no accident. They did it like the GOP, with talking points and key phrases. Murtha blazed the path for the rest of the party to follow--and he has enough seniority and gravitas that, had it not gone well, he could have ridden it out with no problem. And like I said above, it was COORDINATED. That was the opening salvo, and there will be more to come. The next benchmark and opportunity to really blast big will come after their elections.

You need to review Senator Clinton's statement from yesterday. She is more specific than Feingold, left of Biden and Clark, and is rapidly losing patience--she essentially issued a "shit or get off the pot" directive. I would not be surprised if she sharpens her rhetoric even more in the weeks and months ahead.

And as for her remarks at AIPAC, I repeat, all politics is local. Look at her constituency. And she is surely not the only politician to take cash from pro-Israel PACs, in fact, Feingold is no neophyte on that score.

Last, not least, I will repeat what I have said above. Hillary is on the high profile SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE--she gets questions on Iraq CONSTANTLY, so she is on the record about Iraq way more than these many governors and non-officeholders, to say nothing of Senators whose committee assignments are less high profile (Feingold sits on Budget, Foreign Relations, the Special on Aging, and Judiciary--you will probably see more from him about, say, Alito, than you will from Clinton) who are considering tossing their hat in the ring. And her support for the troops really IS second to none, in terms of pay, housing, family support, medical care, veteran's issues--she's backing those kids in the ways that count. She has done well by NY in getting that seat (and it was Robert Byrd who helped her to it).

What happened to this lady? She uses the same old RW lines of "winning and concluding the war" and "finishing this war with success and honor". I think she still believes this war is right and justified. I'm still pissed at her after she distorted Murtha's statements. I won't be voting for this weirdo.

Somehow I doubt. And remember, their salaries (at a cost to our tax dollar and U.S. Economy) are far higher.

It's why GEN Clark wants to increase the civilian component, as do others. You pay now, but you don't have to keep paying later. It is a short term punch in the wallet.

Personnel costs are the largest chunk of the DOD budget. They are crushing, and they expand exponentially in wartime when you are dealing with vast numbers of dead and seriously wounded. And the outyear costs bleed over into the social security payout, in addition to the annuity/pension/disability obligations at DOD....

be the last soldier to die for these lies?

She did go to Israel lately though. Now she perceives that she will be left behind so she jumps in. Uh huh--not my idea of a leader. I will not only NOT vote for Hillary should she be the candidate, but I will NOT vote for anyone who voted for the war and has not admitted, like Edwards, that their vote was a mistake.

If we want honesty and integrity and a return to ethics and morals, we need to demand that our Democrats do not start out with cover ups and spins re the war. If they continue, they will have no choice but to keep it up when and if they are elected--that is the way of obfuscation.

Not this triangulation BS. Ick.

in 2003 and 2005. http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/

Here's some additional reading--hardly "very little" from her: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/30/nyregion/metrocampaigns/30hillary.html

Good luck to you and the next REPUBLICAN administration. I guess I'll have people like you to thank for that, won't I?

Things have fallen apart so much under Bush I just can't WAIT to wake up the day after the election in 2008, turn on the news and listen to the media babble on and on about how weak and ineffectual the Democrats are---and that's why they lost AGAIN!

Have a nice day.

for Sen. Clinton's small steps away from the war. Perhaps as the 2006 primary election nears, she will actually opposed to the war. It is a good thing when politicians seek the opportunity to oppose, however mildly, this appallingly bad war.

Those of us in New York are faced with the difficult question about how to focus our energy in the coming election cycle: support anti-war candidates against our somewhat conservative (from, at least, my extreme left point of view) electeds like Clinton (and my own rep. Eliot
Engel) or target elections in which incumbent republicans might be defeated. In NYC and suburbs, such GOP congress-members might include Vito Fossella and Sue Kelly. While I think, on balance, I favor targeting one or two republicans, it is frustrating that our efforts have moved elected democrats so little.

:hi:

instead she played it safe for her political future. I'm terribly disappointed.

"instead she played it safe for her political future. I'm terribly disappointed."
Yeah, God forbid we ever have a Democrat re-elected anywhere </sarcasm>.

Why should they care if she or any other dem gets re-elected?

Why should they care if they get veterans' benefits?

Why should they care if their families get benefits while they're over there?

Why should they care if their families get decent housing, medical care, etc.?

Why should they care if they come home to find their jobs overseas?

Why should they care if they come home to find the air and water full of toxic waste?

Why should they care if their kids have substandard underfunded education?

Geeze, it's disgraceful that somebody calling themselves a Democrat would even ask a question like yours out loud.

if she, an unapologetically pro-war candidate, gets elected or re-elected?

It's a disgrace that there are dems on this board taking cues from Rove's playbook, attempting to silence dissenters rather than address the issues. Shame. Dems are supposed to be above that, I thought.

"It's a disgrace that there are dems on this board taking cues from Rove's playbook"
I don't doubt the first page in that playbook reads "Demomize Hillary Clinton at all costs" either.

I don't envy the position she's in -- having to walk a lot of fine lines in order to stay in the game.

... the more I dislike her.

And I used to be a HUGE Hillary fan (when she was First Lady).

the better she looks to me....

And it's hilarious to hear how substanceless the criticism actually is.

I just said that personally, to me, she is becoming less and less likeable.

Sheesh. :eyes:

I just noted that she looks better and beter to me...especially in a thread where people are attacking her because she's got electability, unlike Dennis "16% is swell" Kucinich...

knew her place when she was First Lady, huh? Now she's just an uppity politician who wants to save Social Security, preserve women's right to choose, raise the minimum wage and reward veteran's with decent medical coverage and adequate pensions.

:eyes:

Too much, too little, to late, to try again with you. She should have been saying this last year. I wouldn't vote repuke but I wont vote for her either. She agrees with the Reich Wing too much, I'm surprised she is saying this now being * is still so gun ho for this war.

If you want to be the leader of our country, then LEAD. Don't be one of the last to jump on the bandwagon.

statements.

She doesn't want an immediate withdrawal. She wants to see it start in 2006.

Is that not the same?

:shrug:

Some even shriek that anyone who doesn't is a "warmonger"...for what it's worth which is damn little.

didn't Hillary imply that was what Murtha was calling for in her speech about withdrawal after he bravely spoke up?

You really ought to stop reading Newsmax....

It's not me who's acting like a troll, after all.

"Sen. Hillary Clinton: Rep. John Murtha's Iraq Exit Plan a 'Mistake'"

newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/22/85938.shtml

www.gopbloggers.org/mt/archives/002599.html

www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005822.php

www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/ site_112205/content/cutting_edge.guest.html

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47546

Whenever I see a preposterous claim like yours, I often google to see who is peddling it....

Why am I even surprised?

:rofl:

Nuff said....

Indeed. As if even a child could miss the significance, considering the timing.

Once again: :rofl:

So her attack on Murtha is no attack at all.....except in your own mind and in a bunch of crap from places like Newsmax.....

But then what do I expect from a person who brings up the issue of video games and then says a few posts later "It's only the easily distracted & easily titillated who actually pay attention to that "issue""....

Not much.

Guess you didn't just miss the article, but the comments as well.

Even gave you a link....

I'm surprised that I'm finding it hard to believe you'd miss that...

Flip flopper.

It's great we have Hillary to be "out front" on these issues... <sarcasm>

way too weak for many Democrats. I guess the 20% in the middle will elect her on a national scale.

Oh wait, that got the press conference, not this.

Excuse me if I really don't care one way or the other what she says.

I hope to God she's not the nominee. I don't want our candidate to lose for real this time.

that so many of the same teens who are quick to scream about "evil corporations" and "DINO whore" want the party to bend over and spread 'em for the scummy corporations who peddle video games.

How is the party "bending over and spreading" for video game corporations?

That doesn't make any sense at all... but hey, why break tradition?

Let the video game makers run free and wild like rabid hyenas, peddling violence, hate, and racist stereotypes.....

What other forms of entertainment do you feel should be censored?

They have a rating system, or didn't you know?

Just as I know the current childish uproar among the joystick twiddlers is because Hillary dared to speak out against a corproation that dishonestly evaded the ratings....

I don't play video games. I do however despise politicians that glom onto idiotic faux "issues" in order to get support from mindless, easily distracted & titillated sheeple.

So corporate wrongdoing is a "faux issue"....good call, that.

"mindless, easily distracted & titillated sheeple"
Yeah, it's a fucking mystery why more Americans don't buy into that progressive viewpoint, with all the open contempt you're proud to show us.

but a press conference about it? During an occupation which she was until Murtha's actions willing to continue?

Don't be so glib. You can twist my words all you like but that won't make her actions seem any more reasonable.

It's only the easily distracted & easily titillated who actually pay attention to that "issue". I don't expect those types to begin caring about anything meaningful until they're personally hurting as a result of *actual* issues.

"You can twist my words all you like"
Don';t need any twisting to show how much you hate your fellow citizens. Your own post did it just fine.

Once again, so not surprising.

Seeing our Teen Progressives screaming about "lemmings" and "sheeple" and then bitching aloud that they have no popular support....

or seeing them announce that the people they call "lemmings" and "sheeple" would join them in a heartbeat if only they heard the Teen Progressive message .

:sarcasm:

Why don't you go talk to them about it?

her husband was all for NAFTA, you remember that glorious concession to the outsourcing of American jobs.

I don't get what you're saying here... are you trying to explain why she's directing so much energy towards the "issue" of violent video games?

an advocate for corporations.

:D

instead of setting down rules they must follow....

The wonder isn't that some posts are so silly...it's that they're so preposterously silly.

If this discussion is any indication, she's got PR problems. End of story.

how silly, uninformed, and out of touch with reality her detractors are.

and most people here are responding to something which is as they used to say, indefensible. So people here are are informed by HER. And what reality besides her failure to come clean about what a miserable mistake her IWR vote was and that her position is similar to the Kerry position, which didn't go over bigtime in 2004. Maybe you should reveal what we can't see.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Life does not begin and end here at DU, though it is a wonderful place to discuss the issues.

Are you claiming that she is, or what?

Because there's no reason of which I'm aware why her detractors and supporters are any different with regard to work. The body of members who are active posting now should be a representative cross-section of the membership-at-large, no?

So don't even start on these veiled ad hominems. Can't take it, stay out, as that guy said.

I am on the east coast, and many everyday, average folks work nine to five. It's not quite four PM here. Hey, ya gotta work, ya gotta work, is all I'm saying....

It's hard to know what would be an average cross section here at any given time. But I'm guessing those who work a job where they cannot sit in front of a screen checking DU aren't going to weigh in until they get home, kick the shoes off, take care of family stuff, and then toddle over to their computers.

I mean, are you saying that the successful, employed, busy people out there support Hillary, or are worthier when it comes to airing their views than the unemployed, unsuccessful, because your statements come off as elitist. If I have it wrong, please let me know, thanks.

--these types do not work nine to five???

Excuse me, but MOST people work those hours, not just "successful, busy" types (they'd have to be employed by definition). Lazy slobs who have to be harassed by the manager at the local fast food joint are known to work those shifts.

Turn your doggone sensitivity meter down. You have it dead wrong.

Cheers.

That's how it reads, though that's not how you meant it, right?

Hillary resonates with working families. She puts their interests first. Their issues are her priority. Remember how hard she tried to make health care happen?

This is instructive, as well: http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/children/

Today’s families are often stretched thin – working to make ends meet while also trying to carve out time to care for their young children and aging relatives. To help provide flexibility for families, I have championed legislation that would expand after school programs, make high-quality childcare more accessible and affordable for working parents, and provide respite care for elderly individuals who are unable to care for themselves. I have also co-sponsored a bill that would ensure that workers can take paid time off when they are sick. Today, close to half of all private employees have no paid sick leave, and many more are unable to take time off to care for a sick child. I am a proud co-sponsor of S.282, which expands the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to provide parents with time off from work to go the doctors’ office with their child. This bill also takes the next step towards helping parents balance work and family by providing paid family and medical leave to qualifying individuals and allowing parents time off to attend teacher conferences for their children. Since President Clinton signed the FMLA into law in 1993, more than 50 million Americans have taken advantage of it. But many more are not able to because they cannot give up their paycheck. S. 282 would make paid leave a reality for the millions of New Yorkers who need paid time off to care for their loved ones. MORE AT LINK

more than I'm concerned that a dem WON'T win in 2008. I'm fairly confident a dem WILL win in 2008. But not because the candidate will be Hillary. Pukes are doing very well at making a loss for themselves very likely.

There are just SOOOO many more qualified candidates than Hillary, and she's a good person, and I like her. But dems can't afford another DLC-approved loss like we see far too often.

She still has time to win me over, but she's going to have to do a lot better than this.

That's why I am a fan of letting nature take its course. Let her get out on the primary trail--IF she runs at all--and let us hear her ideas, appreciate her priorities, and show us what she wants to do.

What bothers me to no end is all of this brutal, snarky crapping on her, when she has not even ANNOUNCED. Hell, Biden has his exploratory committee up and running, and he isn't catching 1/100th of the flak she is taking, and he merits it. It's totally unfair, especially when the other candidates are so close to her on the one IRAQ issue that everyone seems to think is the tipping point, and plenty of them sit to her right (Biden, Clark, e.g.) on it. I really do wonder if there isn't a bit of gender bias at play, because nothing else seems to make sense.

Hillary has done a good job for NY. She is smart as a whip, she doesn't appear to have substance abuse issues, seems well grounded, and she is willing to work long hours. No cuttin' brush, ridin' the bike, and eatin' cake with McCain while people drown, for her. I think we could do a helluva lot worse.

As I said, way, way, WAY upthread, I want to hear from MANY VOICES. Let the damn games begin, and let everyone get up and speak their peace, run their campaign, and get their ideas out there. If we have TWELVE primary candidates, I would not be unhappy--the more the merrier!

But if we restrict the field to ethereal purists, we'll go home empty handed.

And the piling on I've seen here lately is just very, very curious, and troubling, to me. It does not represent the true nature of the party, that hears EVERY voice and gives everyone a chance to make their points.

:hi: I still want to see her go further on the anti-war stuff, though. (Actually, I want to see ALL dems do that, but I'll save that discussion for another time). Peace.

Maybe she will win you over, maybe not. But I think you should give her a chance.

:hi:

is a premature twist.

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

:popcorn:

and I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the president and his administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war," Mrs. Clinton wrote.

If so, why isn't Hillary calling for Bush's impeachment?

Is it an admission that she lacks the ability to analyze foriegn policy issues? That she lacks the ability to parse bullshit rationales and incoherent arguments?

in which Hillary used her admission of her mistake, to call upon Bush* to admit his duplicity and outright lies to win bipartisan support for the war; the sovereignly impeachable offence of taking the country to war on false pretences. (Nor was blanket permission given for any purposes Bush* favoured; the circumstances had to merit it).

Didn't someone ask why Hillary hadn't been clamouring noisily for Bush's* impeachment? You see, there's more than one way to swing a cat. There's the head-on approach, which a treasonous corporate media can subvert to great effect (heck they can distort a man's exclamation to a scream, and put it up there with "Peace in our time...!"); and then there's the politic, "softly, softly catchee monkey" approach. Politics means being as cunning as a sh*thouse rat; it's not a rumble between a couple of clumsy, lolloping bull walruses".

politically "smooth" approach. Give me a fucking break. These DLCers simply have no courage, no conviction. What you call the "gentlemanly" approach stinks of cowardice. But hey, that's your opinion. We'll see what the polls tell Hillary to do tomorrow.

No wonder people think Democrats are spineless. If Hillary had any courage she would be calling for Bush's impeachment. She writes a letter oh so admitting that she made a mistake and diplomatically calls Bush a liar and claims he has committed treason. Then she heads off to tackle other important issues like labeling child's toys.

I call Hillary a coward for not standing up to Bush and demanding his impeachment. If our own leaders do not stand up,
which some notably Murtha and Pelosi are doing, and others, notably NOT Hillary are not doing, then what are we left with.

of your politically 'smooth' approach."

Wrooong!!! The "softly, softly" approach I endorse is not MY approach. MY approach is the same half-assed one you juveniles want, but, unlike you, I have come to recognise the extraordinary constraints on American progressive politicians - which are evidently in inverse proportion to the tolerance of overt and monumental criminality of their opponents, the neocons, and to some extent the Republicans, generally, for some decades, anyway. Indeed, I thought the 200 election was so farcically criminal, I expected the neocons to be imprisoned for massive electoral fraud, and Gore to be appointed President within a matter of months, if not weeks.

Before I began posting to this board, I used to post to a Christian forum, and predicted from a very early juncture, that targetwise our soldiers would be like fish in a barrel to their enemy; it would be another Vietnam. They wouldn't be able to kill the enemy soldiers, so they end up destroying towns and cities, the buildings, just so the bigwigs could have something to show, apart from civilian dead, including women and children. Everyone would end up as the enemy.

"Give me a fucking break" Certainly not. I refer you to T P Barnum.

It's late now here, so I'll answer the rest of your post tomorrow.

immediately followed by a non sequitur aptly demonstrates your lack of erudition and reasoning capabilities. I reiterate one last time, your "softly,softly" approach is cowardly and is killing innocent Americans and Iraqis.

I, on the other hand, would NOT refer you to PT Barnum as that might be appropriate for your level.

Finally, your comments as far as Vietnam vs Iraq were echoed here early on by many participants, myself included. That one observation hardly makes you prescient.

You claimed my approach was softly, softly; I told you I only deferred to the knowledge and understanding of American politics of people such as John Kerry, because it is immeasurably greater. But what I would have done was what you would have done, in Clinton's or Gore's place: raged and demanded another election and the prosecution and incarceration of the fraudsters and enforcers.

Thanks to Kerry's faith in his own professional understanding of the nemesis the neocons were bringing down on themselves, the freedom of some 60 Republican politicos and their minions outside penal institutions looks decidedly imperiled. Few of the Accused or soon-to-be-accused are likely to be Democrats. One of the rewards of their extreme partisanship, eh?

Obviously, I can't know how early it was after the war began that you "echoed" my opinions.

Sorry for taking the ****, though. You're probably twice as bright as I was at your age. Your idiocy is a function of youth. Read Solzhenitsyn's comments on his own foolishness. And he was a top scholar among top scholars, as a young man.

actually I'm retired (and wealthy). So if you are 110, well good for you pops! Seriously, I think that after Republicans can call for an impeachment over a blow job, I think the Democrats could attempt to muster up a little courage for the slaughter of the innocents, even if they don't hold a majority. This to me is hardly extreme partisanship, and I believe the polls reflect that the average person believes that impeachable crimes may have been committed. So, why can't our leaders lead?

I actually want every country to enjoy the kind of civilised, Socialist/Social Democrat society that the Scandivian countries enjoy in their various ways; the kind of welfare state we in the UK enjoyed after WWII.

I am closer in my wishes and ideals to Kuchinich than the Beltway. My only gripe with your position is that it takes no account of the truly savage reality of your economic establishment; how it now owns the MSM and has substantially subverted and/or intimidated the legislature and legal system.

In that regard, as we know, Fitz and the Grand Jury investigation have been manna from heaven to us. Quite anomalous. Apparently, the CIA initiated the process, in view of the utter enormity of the treasonable outing of a covert agent, proximately by the media, but ultimately necessarily by high ranking Government officials. And yet, as might have been expected, it has led a "straight-arrow" Federal Prosecutor to pursue his investigation into other areas of major criminality. The thin end of the wedge has been inserted and is cleaving open a seemingly immense motherlode of serious criminality.

I believe that if, as I would have wanted at the time, Kerry had confronted the neocon fraudsters during that travesty of an election, (and Gore or Clinton in 2000), the media would have swung into action in support of their masters. And if they can make a Grand Jury trial and impeachment out of a sexual indiscretion of a President, before the eyes of the whole world, utterly incredulous, shocked and disgusted as it was at their deranged antics, there is precious little to say that they could not have turned the tables on Kerry and the Democrats (including hosts of disaffected/disgusted former Republicans) and come out of it stronger than ever.

Just as Christ's persecutors on Calvary considered that they were judging him, while all the time, it was they who were being judged by God, so, courtesy of CNN, I dare say, the persecutors of Clinton, his family and friends, were and have now been judged by mankind, with whom Clinton has always closely empathised, and by whom he is still revered. Nor will the stain ever leave them, or even their memory. Nor can they even adduce the claim that the end justified the means, since it was precisely that end, that purpose, which made their crimes so inordinate and unconscionable. The subversion of a legitimate government.... on the basis of a sovereign irrelevance and a man's wholly lawful, if rather sorry behaviour in his private life. And abusing the full panoply of state to achieve their nefarious ends.

exhaust their potential for surreal lunacy, this most egregious of abuses of the panoply of state was contrived while they were still out of office, out of government - the opposition party! That was the degree of power they have been able to bring to bear, in order to realise their deranged schemes. After, moreover, bringing the Government of the day to a standstill for several weeks on another occasion.

Fitz is investigating genuine high crimes (some would qualify such crimes as signally "low"...) and misdemeanours, while they suborned the whole panoply of state to investigate what was not even the most picayune misdemeanour!

I don't know if cyclists in your country could ever be stopped by a policeman and prosecuted for cycling without functioning lights after dark, but they used to in the UK, when the welfare state led to a relatively minuscule level of crime in the country. I remember as a youngster reading about such prosecutions in my local paper, which served a town called Enfield, at that time, comprising a population of 240,000 citizens. I'm not sure a murder would be reported now. Most murders are certainly not front page news any more in the national dailies.

But I digress. Can you imagine that gargantuan and immensely expensive legal but non-legal debacle Clinton was subjected to, being implemented to bring to book someone who had actually committed the misdemanour of neglecting to have a functioning headlight or rear light on his bicyle? Unlike the former, it would have made sense both in legal terms and in terms of enforcing a common-sense safety measure. If that wasn't an omen of what they were prepared to do to regain power, I don't know what would have been!

I realise Joseph Heller has passed on now, but I can't help thinking this lot would have put him well and truly out of business as a political satirist.

PS: Perjury? How can perjury be committed when no crime was committed to investigate, nor was there reason to believe one had been. It was his "legal" accusers who needed to be put under put oath, for an investigation into the origins of the whole farce.

I'm sure she gives a shit, too. Almost as much as I do.

your opinions matter nothing to me and your salivating, drooling responses to people's posts are further alienating people against Hillarious.

I doubt your opinions matter at all.

"further alienating people against Hillarious"
Maybe here among the tantrum throwers in teen progressive land...but that don't matter a bit.

I think she is gonna show us how it's done. This is a nice definitive statement and well-placed. I am gonna wait until I see Hill in action before I make a judgement.

I say we ain't seen nothin' yet.

position. Many of us have already decided based on prior events. Not that our minds are COMPLETELY against Hillary, but we are in a stench zone regarding her at this point. I am hoping that Dean can finally shake up the DLC and we find some real leaders to run this party.

Sorry

Say, wonder where all the people who are howling about "neoCons" and "warmongering" are...now that we've got another out of the closet GOP supporter.

It drives me nuts when people say they'll vote for a Republican before they'll vote for X Democratic candidate -- whether it's Hillary or Kerry or someone else. No matter how any one of us feels about any particular Dem, this country can't take another four years of a Republican president, no matter who it is.

oh brother...

at least in an election year.

but this still doesn't lead me to believe she has much in the way of convictions either way.

She's not as stubborn or stupid as Bush.

I suppose I'll give her that much.

we better unite at some point and rally behind a candidate... because if we don't... it's gonna be 4 more years of republicanism/fascism.

I can work with a Dem, but a Republican... no fuckin' way. In my neighborhood, people are hurting BIGTIME! The bleeding has got to stop.

Anyway... flame on DU'ers... just remember, we need a candidate.

attached to benchmarks???

Dildo-rattling must be exhausting.