Hillary changes her tune

"The time has come for the administration to stop serving up platitudes and present a plan for finishing this war with success and honor," she said. "I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit, and I reject an open timetable that has no ending attached to it.

"Instead, I think we need a plan for winning and concluding this war, and the president can begin by taking responsibilities for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of this war."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051203/ap_on_go_co/clinton_fundraiser

...from your positions of a month ago...

and her support of W. The tide turned for the public support of the war and so, then, did her support of W.

She was a young republican and a Goldwater supporter. I guess she couldn't break the ties.

Everybody sing the "Hillary is an Asshole" Song! -comeon singalong!
(sing to "broken hearts are for assholes, by Frank Zappa)

Hillary! Do you know what you are? You're an ASSHOLE!


AN ASSHOLE!

Some of you might not agree
'Cause you probably likes a lot of misery
But think a while and you will see...
Hillary bitch is an asshole!
An sellout DLC Asshole?
Are you an asshole?
DLC bitch is an asshole
Are you an asshole too?
Whatcha gonna do, 'cause you're an asshole.. .

Maybe you think you're a liberal guy
Maybe you think you're too tough to cry
So listened to Hillary
Just to give her a try

And HILLARY
Without a doubt, the most undemocratic Democrat
Was her name...
One Two Three Four!
She was lying about Iraq to pander pycho neocons thru her
Pancake make-up
And yet he was a beautiful lady
Nearly drove you insane
Let's talk about Violent Video games: Booooo!
And so you kissed a little Chalabi
ExBaathist shiites, starring in the latest Shepperton Production:
Who had just blew up Spain
"Sir Achmed Pump-A-Loaf"
You sniffed the reeking buns of Lieberman
The story of a demented Defense co-boffer
And acted like it was cocaine
Rumsfeld pud annexed to a fine whole-wheat loaf
You were dazzled by the exciting neocon money
Then on Tuesday night,
Clintonism back in town
In a way you can't explain
Facing off in a no-holds-barred tag team grudge match With Casto. .
And so you worked the torture cell in Romania
Three-hundred-seventy-nine pounds of Venezuelan crude oil
Which gave your back an awful strain
US Torture is HELL
But you came back on Sunday for the Talking Head shows
Next Thursday, raping little boys for fun
But you forgot what I was sayin'
'Cause you're an asshole,
You're an asshole
That's right
You're an ass

It needs to be said that many liberals are not Clinton fans. They were far too right.

Those critics are too far left!

I wasn't even tempted to read it



Keith’s Barbeque Central

Haven't seen one of these in a couple of minutes!!!

Of focusing your criticism solely on here when there many other Democrats taking the same position!

You gripe about her position for months, and when she starts moving your way on it...she gets even more criticism.

The Hillary bashing that goes on here is simply blind immature ranting with little grounding in reality!

Hillary is no worse than a Joe Biden or a Dianne Feinstein. But because she has presidential aspirations we expect more out of her.

As you recognize yourself Hillary is months behind the curve. Another follower. She gets hammered because we don't want her to be president.

People on the far left can as intolerant and self-righteous as those on the right...and their behavior when they disagree with them is often as reprehensible as the moron fundies,as post # 3 on this thread so ably demonstrates!!

I don't care if you oppose Hillary, what I despise is this obnoxious self-righteousness that comes along with it.

Intolerant? I think its you. Of critcism of your idol.

Celebrity culture has no place in politics.

This isn't American Idol we're talking about the highest office in the land.

And in general the anti-Hillary posts on this board are usually highly obnoxious and personal.

What I would expect in Freeperville

Again....you could sing her praises instead of crying like a baby that people are being mean to your candidate.

The former helps your cause while the latter makes you look weak.

It is a constant drumbeat of obnoxious personal criticism.

Like I said, I do not care if people are opposed to Hillary...I just wish people could be more respectful and tolerant of other peoples views..

And I do not believe defending Hillary, and noting the nature of the hostility is being a crybaby...

You know there is that old chesnut, Accentuate the Positive and eliminate the negative....I think it applies in this case.

Anytime I see someone defending Hillary I'm going to thoughtfull present my point of view and I'm going to ignore the people who can't string a thoughtful sentance together.

Not sure I understand the title of your post though

of the Hillary Critism just encourages more nastiness I think. You should respond with every nasty attack with why you think she'd be a great president. That's what I do if they were attacking my candidate.

I guess I'd quibble with the term bitching, but I see your point...I'll try and put in a little pro-Hillary stuff here and there...but really my main point is not that everyone should support Hillary, but that it is possible to take those positions without being obnoxious...and in the process would probably be more persuasive

Lots of people on here like to be nasty and don't like to take the time to it least hide it in witty banter. Those people suck.

Before it gets deleted

We are NOT as intolerant and self-righteous as the right-wing wackos and the fundies. I deal with both kinds every day on another board, and while DUers may disagree and occasionally take potshots at each other (and at high-profile Dems) there is absolutely NO comparison and I'm sick of hearing that.

As another poster said, some of us are NOT "civil" on the subject of Hillary Clinton because we think she's a DLC sellout and we don't want her to be president. That Yahoo article is a good example of why I don't want her to be the Democratic candidate. Notice that she never admitted that her vote for the IWR was a mistake the way Kerry and Edwards did. Sorry, but that's my litmus test.

She voted for the IWR because it was the politically correct thing to do at the time (or so she thought) and now that the tide has turned she's backing away from it--but not enough. Sorry, Hillary. I used to admire you but you're a day late and a dollar short on this one.

But from my observation it is true...

The difference I guess is in the motivation...certainly I am more sympathetic with a liberal point of view.

But the obnoxious self-righteousness displayed on this board is real. You can make your point about Hillary without it. Using harsh and personal language about someone is only going to get the hackles of that persons supporters up and they will dig in. No persuasion is possible under those circumstances. Might make you feel better, and it is always fun to sing to the choir...but it isn't really all that productive...and in my opinion it is just the opposite

I'm pretty sick of DLC shills too.

Just an observation.

Thank you!

Why does someone who hopes, prays, implores, burns incense and self-bloodlets and just happens to really, really NOT want Hillary to get into the fray after only a single term in the Senateq have to be "far left?" That's REALLY annoying.

It's entirely possible that there are all kinds of centrists who would rather have Barbara Bush stomp their feet than vote for the one woman on earth who can inspire a majority of the Repiglican Party to go out and shoot a watermelon to prove Hillary killed Vince Foster. If that poor bastard understood the trouble he caused, being a decent guy, I'm sure he'd still be around. And he'd be saying that Hillary is a perfect way to lose the presidency again.

I like her. I hate losing. So does she, but despite the Heueueuege party at the nomination, Hillary still will think she has the DLC base and the Progressives by dint of necessity.

Think again, maybe?

:)

and apparently he gets approached about getting involved in American politics quite a bit.

He won't have any part of it, and I can't say I blame him.

Hillary is no worse than a Joe Biden or a Dianne Feinstein.

...is what I call diplomacy! ;)

because I don't really intend on supporting someone who can't admit a Terrible Mistake that has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths.

Pelosi and Murtha can do it...so could Clinton.

Why don't you sing her praises. Win us over. If she is worthy of the highest office in the land it shouldn't be hard.

living in the USA, where criticism is supposed to be allowed. I wasn't aware that there was a certain type that wasn't allowed. Its like the tv. Don't like the program, turn it off.

Hillary is late to the party and her tacking to the truth smells of political posturing. Others have taken bullets --Murtha, Boxer and the rest-- so that she can swoop in and make her newest most deeply held position without giving up something for it. How brave. I can't tell you how much I look forward to another poll driven twit in the white house.

I haven't gone screaming to the mods to tell everyone to be nice to Hillary. Then again, when criticism becomes obnoxious and personal, and in my opinion uncalled for, I have a right to make my complaints known, and to try and convince others to try a more civil tack.

You can make the point about the reason for Hillary's change in position without making personally disparaging remorks about her, or about the people here that support her.

warranted. As for it being personal, I have yet to see criticism that is personal. Calling her a fat old hag is personal. Calling her a hypocrite and a political opportunist is the truth. She tacks in the wind, blowing along the path of least resistance. That makes her unacceptable to me, husband or no husband. I wish Bill could run again, that is how much I want a clinton there but not her. NEVER her.

You haven't been looking very hard...peruse this thread if you want some prime examples.

and She lowers profile and stays senator only and we will ALL Shut up.. ok? She need to Unequivocably say she's not a contender or else we have no choice but to treat her like one.

We liberals have to smack down the middle DLC types and we only have a short time to do it ( until the 06 primaries are over) After that it will be obvious that pro-war dems are going nowhere nationally.

Otherwise its open season on the 'so called' 08 frontrunner.

You will be opposing all DLC office holders when they run for office?

And I think the 2006 primary is going to turn the tide.. Watch Antiwar Progressives beat DLC Democrats and watch what happens. See the war is just gonna get worse and worse and worse, there is no victory possible. Ergo. ANyone associated with this war with be poisoned politically but unbelievably worsening conditions. We may actually be forced to leave. Insurgents are already attacking our bases. The delusions are falling away and the politicians are war behind public opinion on this.

Of course DLC is better that Repukes, anyday. I always vote Democratic. Mainly I just want my party back.


(I may vote against our corrupt Democratic Governor Blagojevich, but that has nothing to do with DLC, perhaps support a liberal Republican if that happens. That would be the first Republican vote for me since 1980)

Which Senators running in 2006 that are DLC members are going to get beaten in the primaries...

I predict exactly 0...

I don't want the DLC to be my bookie.

I want them in the party, but not as my plantation owner.
I will not step and fetchit to someone who refuses to listen to me and who tells me my issues and values are worthless.

contribute, don't condescend.

got it?

Exactly where did I tell you your issues and values were worthless...I scrupuously did not. That is my point...it is the intolerance of views which differ from those on the left wing of the party that I object to. I have absolutely no problem with your positions...I don't agree on this particular one...but when has everyone agreed all the time?

So you are unwilling to give me any indication of who you think will lose in the primaries...I don't think any will...but I don't keep up with all of them...so if you have some notion I'd like to know

country!

Screw YOUR WAR!

SCREW YOUR BANKRUPCY LAW!


THEN B-LOW ME!

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

But not that well...and again...not gay!

I hope you and whatever you do or have are happy.

Hope you don't have to declare bankrupcy due to a hurricane or expensive illness. Hope noone you love is maimed in a war based on lies. And I hope we can end this stupid sniping and go to bed.

Today I have been locked in my garage for 8 hours! Stabbed myself in the arm witha kitchen knife accidently and waited for 6 hours in an emergency room to get 3 stiches. And my now my dog is sick... that was just today!


I only keep track of a few candidates and can only support a very few. Membership in the DLC is ubiquitous and some are more DLC than others. I WAS A MEMBER OF THE DLC. For much of the Clinton years..


But not anymore. it needs to be closed down or supplanted...The 501 c 3's like DFA and Moveon are close to doing that.. they have many more people and at least equal funding.

:hug:

Nothing worse than waiting around in an emergency room...

The fact is I am not trying to defend the DLC per se...if you look at the DLC site they have position papers on issues that disagree with each other...they really do not have a coherent set of policies that everyone in the group agrees with. I certainly don't agree with everything a DLC member proposes...

I am merely trying to say that membership in the DLC is not really indicative of much...and to paint people with a broad brush based on that is wrong.

I also think that a little civility over disagreements goes alot further toward persuading someone to your point of view than the opposite.

That's all...I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything other than I'd like to talk about issues more respectfully.

Hope you have a better day tomorrow...and I hope your dog feels better!


Good night!

sorry i'm a jerk... often!

the power is mainly in the house.... The House Dems are liberal.


The Senate, yes, there is were a rich corporate 'so called' dem can BUY A SENATE SEAT and so yes, the senate has about 10 of these "republicans lite". The Answer: GET 60 SEATS! maybe not by 2006, but WATCH OUT 2008! Iraq is going to be a LODESTONE, and drown anyone who actively supported it after 2005. You mark my words.. This war is going to destroy everything that was... EVERYTHING!


You haven't seen anything yet in Iraq. The civil war has already started and what the hell are we fighting for? For Who? FOr WHAT? Its going to bring this nation ever lower and the PEOPLE WILL RESPOND!

About half the Senate Democrats are DLC members...

Any names in the house then I should be looking for?

And even they are completely unscrupulous and without any moral compass, they can be bought off.

The rest will see the writing on the wall. Utter humiliating military defeat has a way of changing hearts and minds. Relentless criticism and a decreasing base of support has a way of moving the most stubborn of asses.

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

Thanks!

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

I just want to get this right. Waste all the time and energy on relatively safe races...divide the local party and then expect to win that seat in November?

Just checking...

its only a waste if you want to support the bush administration's plan to "stay the course".
If you fell as I do, however, and as a majority of people feel, that the war is a wasteful sham that is killing thousands and evaporating allies, then you don't consider backing an antiwar candidate a waste of time and energy...its a moral imperative.

this is what's wrong with the DLC. Electablity is their only concern. And that is why they will ultimately lose it for us.
Here, now, its time to DO THE RIGHT THING. And the right thing is to end this war criminal administration's atrocities, NOT enable them to continue.

Doing the right thing means to stand on principles, believe it or not its what made this country great at one time.

Reminds me of the story of David and Goliath.
Goliath had challenged any Isrealite to fight him, one on one. The King offered his eldest daughter's hand in marriage to anyone who would face him. David, the shepherd boy, heard the soldiers talking about marrying the king's daughter. Outraged, David said "Goliath should be taken on, because they have threatened Isreal and insulted God, and you are arguing over the king's daughter. I will face him because this is a wrong that must be righted. You can argue over the king's daughter, but I'm going out there."

DLCer's are like those soldiers...arguing over how winning elections can only be done by becoming republican lite, by ignoring the needs of the people to become a more attractive commodity to corporations...completely MISSING THE POINT. Public service is NOT about winning elections by selling out...its about REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE.

I'm definitely no DLC supporter...in fact, I'm proud of being very independent...dealing with issues as they come and relate to my world...you do the same. Please, don't try to speak for me or anyone else as far as "The Right Thing" since what you feel is what is right and what I do sure aren't going to synch up 100%. We probably agree on 90% of the issues, but it's that 10% that turns places like this into free-for-alls and costs Democrats elections.

There is no template to win elections. From one whose worked on them for over 30 years, Tip O'Neill's adage that "all politics are local" never held truer than today. What is important to someone in New York isn't going to be the same for someone in Kansas as in Oregon...and to try to judge all candidates and all Democrats by your criteria is a blueprint for divisiveness and losing.

So you think waging worthless and expensive primary fights next year a candidate you don't always agree with...backing what is sure to be an underfunded candidate and leading to a fracture of the local party...opening the door for Repugnicans to win House and Senate seats is more important than putting to an end 10 years of Repugnican abuse of the Legislative branch?

Liebermann's time is coming. There's no way he will ever be able to run for a national Democratic party office and his neo-con stands remove him further from the real leadership of the party. Let the people of Connecticut decide if Joementum best represents their views...if they don't feel so, a candidate with popular support will arise (and Weicker isn't the do-all end-all people think he is...I remember him voting with the GOOP on most issues) they'll take care of matters.

Peace...

but I resent and reject people like you telling me what I want to do is a waste of time. It only convinces me discussing it with people like you is a waste of time.

Maybe we'd be all better off if the democratic party found out what rank and file democrats want, instead of telling them what they should want. That'd be a good starting place.

You're the one harping about this...I could care less what you think, who you support or who you vote for. You're not discussing, you're assuming...and, yes, this is a waste of time as your arrogance speaks for itself.

Since you seem to hold such infinite wisdom as to what the "rank and file" Democrats want, there's not need for the rest of us, is there? It's this mindset that comes running here after Democrats lose elections and then blames everyone...bad voting machines, "not being a real Democrat" and so on...keep up the good work...Mr. Rove couldn't do a better job.

Peace...

interesting.

regardless. I've probably strayed over the line a bit myself in this thread, but I wouldn't call standing on principle "arrogance" when the principle is opposing republicans and supporting progressive issues, like withdrawal from Iraq.

Last time I checked, this was a progressive web site.

so...being progressive means you accuse me of working for Rove?

bizarro world.

You have yet to come close to anything as to either what I think or have posted. That's ok...i'm being very amused.

I can easily tell you've never worked on a political campaign...canvassed, polled, rang door bells and just met people to hear what they think or tell them what your candidate stands for.

I'm probably more opposed to the Iraq invasion than you are. Seems you're very content in dividing the Democratic party when a Senator or Congressman...especially one who doesn't represent you...and allowing a Repugnican to split the difference and win.

I'd suggest checking out mydd.com...some great posts on the topic there. Idealism is a great thing until you face reality. Kudos on your idealism, here's hoping one day you have a clearer view of reality.

Peace...

I want Lieberman's head on a pike for all those other would be DLC water carriers.

do you never listen?

for once, I'd like you to listen to what the majority of democrats want, and then set about figuring out how to set up a platform to address that.

Instead, you spend all your energy trying to tell us what we want is wrong, and how your numerical minority in the party are the ONLY WAY to win elections.
Paul Hackett proved you wrong. There are democrats hungering for truth, and progressive platforms. If you DLC folks succeed in placing your corporate-stenched candidates in place, you'll suppress dem support.

it is time to trash the republican lite rhetoric. DLC wants to be the elite aristocracy of the democratic party, and frankly, you're a plant by the RNC to subsume both parties into one.

just IMHO, of course.

money and low numbers with MASSIVE PEOPLE POWER and money!

We can do it! We have to!


TAKE BACK THE PARTY FROM THE BIDEN/LIEBERMAN/CLINTON AXIS OF EVIL!!!

First of all I do not belong to the DLC...I have no affiliation to the DLC...and frankly I don't really care about the DLC one way or the other...they are another think tank with almost no direct influence over anything...

What did I tell you was wrong...all I complained about was the mindless Hillary bashing that goes on here...and the obnoxious intolerance of the left wing of the party when others differ from their views (as you are demonstrating).

As I asked the other poster...name names...tell me which Senators that count themselves as DLC member will lose in the primaries in 2006. I'd like to bookmark the post to see if you are right.

You can mark me down for exactly 0

Because I KNOW how they use the press to bash liberal democrats and undermine the party. You should read David Sirota's blog.

The DLC is like a rowboat without oars if they can't gain consensus.

Is it bad form to just chime in to say I agree 150%?

We can stop the DLC from getting thier blessed Candidate. Kerry was forced on the party from above and Hillary ain't going to get thru this time. It's time for new blood. Who's going to be the Howard Dean of 2008? And by that I mean, our new blood, the candidate who edges the party in the right direction?

Not Mrs. Clinton. She belongs in the Senate.

How did they impose these candidates on the people of the states that elected them ?

And how was Kerry forced on the party ? He went through the primary process and was the one with the most votes of Democrats...

i'm just expressing my opinion. if you dont think there are any back room deals anymore then i'd like to live in that fairytale land. look at the way the media dealt with the candidates. some candidates good no press coverage, some got negative coverage smeared as an unelectable liberal in complete disregard of his record, and one candidate was potrayed as the nobel underdog, the solider.

Which candidate was closest to the establishment of the democratic party?

Who had the biggest amount of support, the largest rallies, the most excitement? And raised record amounts from individual donors?

Who won? Was it the people's choice, or was it the press's choice? E DLC used the press to get their blessed candidate.

Why is that almost everyone I've ever met left or right says the wrong person won the nomination?

Hillary is who they want in 2008.

That is hardly unique to the DLC...I'd just like to know what the source of this power everyone here seems to be so frightened of...thats all.

You don't now who's behind the DLC?

Have you ever heard of the term hedging? "Reducing exposure to risk of loss resulting from fluctuations in exchange rates, commodity prices, interest rates etc"

The DLC is Corporate America silly. They know Democrats are going to win now and then, its just a matter of what type of Democrat?

DLC = GOOD, PRO BUSINESS, ANTI POPULIST and hopefully the candidate goes down in a sex scandal in his second term.

ANYONE ELSE = RISKY.

Those Republicans are crafty like that.

Corporate America has been giving money to political candidates for years...how does their backing of the DLC differ from that. Seems like just another hedge on their part...but what makes this soo much different than what is already going on.

What is the mechanism unique to the DLC that scares everyone...and do you think that membership in the DLC is enough to know when evaluating someone running for political office?

The way you deal with cancer is cut it out. And not just the cancer you have to cut out some surrounding tissue as well just to be sure you got it all.

But ok...so you advocate the defeat of all 23 DLC senate members?

We want the best Democrats we can get, surely you agree.

Is that reasonable enough for you?

DLC is more then just giving money to a single candidate. There mission is to remake the Democratic party. And the counter productive to the point of being suspicious way they are remaking it is to alienate key components of the liberal coalition, most notably labor.

The DLC doesn't scare me. I scare the DLC. Because they know the gig is up. The media was never going to expose this. It had to come from the people. And thanks to the blogosphere we can. Do you think this explains why the DLC is becoming a pariah?

Obviously they are trying to remake the party...they would like it to be more centrist...so many of its members take centrist positions on issues. And corporations give them money hoping to hedge against getting someone more liberal...but

The hysteria on this board over the DLC is, it seems to me, way out of proportion to their actual influence. They don't seem any different than any other ideologically based think tank. They all take corporate money as far as I know, and are advocting a different direction for whatever place they occupy on the political spectrum.

And they certainly don't enforce policy positions in their members...I mean they are all over the place on various issues.

As I alluded to I think they got together with the corporate media and fucked over Howard Dean royally because if Howard Dean would have take the White House it probably would not have been good for the DLC.

There is also thier habit of feeding negative stories about Democrats into the press. And we're not talking about little blogs here. We're talking WashPo, NYTimes, Cable networks the works.

The fact that the most visible and arguably influential Democratic subgroup are the wolf in sheep's clothing corporatitists is truely scary and wrong.

Certain megastar bloggers (guess who!) seem to now think the DLC is irrelevant. I on the otherhand won't be happy until the wooden stake is firmly lodged in the DLCs heart.

And the media aided and abetted the DLC in undercutting Howard Dean...

This implies the DLC has some pull with the media, or some form of power arrangement whereby they were able to accomplish this. Presumably it involves the corporations that own the big media outlets.

Assuming that is true, why wasn't the DLC able to stop that same media from trashing Kerry later on? The fact is the Swift Boat story would have gone nowhere if it hadn't been egged on by them.

My opinion is the DLC has always been irrelevent in terms of actual power. It clearly has influence over some members (or maybe the other way around). And some of its ideas are persuasive - on gun control for example. But in terms of the ability to make people and organizations bend to its will...I don't see it.

Re-packaged her tune



She says she rejectss any kind of timetable. She wants us to stay there until we "win"
:puke:

anyone who tells us that we need to work towards victory is lying to us.
there is no "victory". We liberated them, and we should get the hell out.
The reason we can't, and won't is that the neocons have designs on the "greater middle east" and have to use those permanent bases strategically.

Anyone who doesn't want a timetable is working as a tool, wittingly or no, of the current administration.


the lie is that they plan to ever leave Iraq.
the betrayal is not wanting a timetable to do so.

ANYONE who says this is not someone we should support.

So, who says this? Republicans, and Hillary and Joementum.

do the math.

which was the plan all along. It would be nice to have a cooperative Iraqi govt to help us, but its not nessasary. All that is needed is a Kurdish puppet state, multinationals and 14 bases we can hide out in and kill whoever we need to to keep the oil flowing.


OIL OIL OIL....


the only factor

They just need the oil to finance it.

they believe in "global american leadership".

in other words, world domination.

Iraq is strategic, in location, in resources, and (so they believed) easy to obtain.
look at the map. from Iraq you can attack anywhere in the middle east.


oil, yes, but don't confuse it as the main goal.
Its the same as hitler's: world domination.
And the reason they're doing it through the corporations is because CEO don't have to face the electorate.

and haggared and the US military has been revealed as limited and without an ability to conquer even ONE COUNTRY, let alone the globe.


Sure its about Global domination... Europe, Russia and CHina will dominate from now on..

Its all too real our defeat is so complete, so utter and total. We are powerless. Just watch Europe tell Condi how torture is unacceptable and see them throw our asses out of there. We have no power, no credibility.. We are no longer a super power as of 2005.

So when CHINA with thiere vast superiority in graduating engineering students and nearly limitless buget on research gets its fusion generators going they'll have made worthless our so called strategic advantage, humilate us, and we'll be bankrupt on all the money we spent on account of the TRILLIONS we've squandered on the PETRO security chessboard.

Global security is just a racket for the power elite to get wealthy. Bush/Cheney profit on both ends. Oil and defense contracts.

If we had a press they'd be telling us. It's up to us to get the truth out.

USA USA USA!!!

Win? Victory? = BULLSHIT! I am so sick of it I feel ill most of the time! The bu$h regime has "Terrorized" the world and we are HARBORING him!

JAIL HIM!

History will see it....


No executions, Spandow prison cells are available?

she will spend 20 million, and she will have 40 million left over. Guess who is going to be front runner, like it or not. That cake is already shaked and baked.

the issues really do matter because things are just that bad.

Remember Kerry? How much did he spend? Move On? Money doesn't matter when everything you say and stand for is completely at odds with public opinion.



15 dead in the first two days of December? Face transplant anyone? this will not stand.

I am sick and tired of her sanctimonious, poll-driven rhetoric. Don't you have some real work to do, SENATOR Clinton?

Given the majority of Iraqi's are prepared to fight for democracy, peace and freedom there is no shortfall of numbers to make up a dedicated Iraqi army.

Bush's claim that the 'strategy is working' and the government 'is making steady progress' is clearly a lie. Insurgent attacks have increased from 150 to 700 per week.

Considering the projected costs and direction of just the US forces hanging in, funding for equipment and training of this army should easily offset against withdrawal savings and put a stop to the further fueling of insurgency.

Before she runs for President she has to win the NY Senate race. If she doesn't even win NY, she won't have any chance of winning in 2008.

She is a politician and has to reflect the views of her constituency first and then those of the nation as a whole. She is just doing her job representing NY.

I am one of those who would wish she was more liberal but then she would never be able to capture the whitehouse.

Bill did it by being moderate and winning traditionally red states such as Arkansas, Tennessee and Georgia.

Lastly, the bashing is unbecoming of DU in my opinion. You guys are acting like freepers.

As does her husband. Bill won the White House becuase of Ross Perot, not because he was a "moderate".

She is only showing the powers that be that she supports their agenda. She is trying to distance herself from the Pugs and Dems that
Zbigniew Brzezinski was bitching about yesterday.

She's positioning herself to be president. That's all.

country that was no threat to us. How do we "win"?

but she has definitely moved quite a bit from her position of more troops. I'll give her credit for being able to change, albeit grudingly.

Any Green candidate will do in place of her. And the morr I think about it, the more I think I'll go Green if she's nominated in '08.

After living through five years of the worst president ever, voting my fears like I have every election for the past quarter century just doesn't hold any value any more. My worst fears came true and I survived. I will vote my hopes from this point forward, thankyouverymuch.

leave Iraq.

...just wondering if she's re-defining "flip-flop" ? While I agree with her, this isn't good for '08 :(

"Peace with honor."

May Hillary and her VichyDem colleagues be banished to the obscurity they so richly deserve.

She needs to say point blank "The War was Wrong and I was wrong to support it." She needs to come up with a solid plan to get us out of Iraq instead of bitching about the chimp in the white house. I like Hillary on domestic issues but unless she gets her shit straight on Iraq, I'll be supporting someone else.

It gives me indigestion every time and I'll be glad when her political career is over, sooner rather than later, I hope

And the same with our others in Congress! The response angered me a lot. Even if they don't agree, support the guy and leave the question open. Repukes have mastered this. I'm afraid that Hillary has herself in a Kerry-like bind.