Any other Hillary supporters here?

WELCOME TO DU!!!

Did you have your coffee?


Yes, I would support Hillary if she ran in 2008. I think it would be totally unethical of her to start a run during the primaries since there are so many established candidates already.

I think she is fantastic.

in my entire life. I think she's absolutely presidential material. I just hope she doesn't run next year - wouldn't want to give the knuckle-draggers any more ammo than they already think they have. (I can just hear it now - "AHA! See, she can't even keep a promise to her constituents!)

It continues to mystify me why so many people are so threatened by a strong, intelligent, articulate, powerful, activist woman. Are they THAT stuck on Stepford Wives?

Most of us here are trying to get Bush out in 2004. It's tough, but we haven't given up hope. We even hope that the Democratic incumbent will be trying for re-election in 2008.

Since I'm not a New Yorker, her re-election to the Senate is not my concern.

the republicans are obsessed with her, they come up with new conpiracies about her every week, most of them about her running for president

Alot of liberals seemed to here this and like her because of it. And believe that she is infact the rightful controller of democrats.

She's got 20 tons of negative baggage that the dem party does not need to get back to.

There are other women in the democratic party who would make better candidates, since that seems to be a big part of why many people would want to support her, her lack of a penis.

"Yes."
"No."
"She should run in 4."
"No she shouldn't."
"She should!"
"No!"

on this subject are NOT worthwhile?!? Man, you're crazy insane, if not
completely insane crazy.

... than the countless interesting threads that get pushed off the board to make way for this.

Insert Firesign reference here, maybe something from "NOT INSANE!"

"One organism, one vote!"


Hillary is as much of a distraction as Laci Peterson and Michael Jackson. We need to focus on ousting Bush.

i think her and bill are servants of the elite

i don't pay too much attention to her but
didn't she vote for the iwr and pat act?

at least try to be less transparent

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.

Then she'll run in 2012 as President and serve 8 years.

OK so she will be 56 in 04 next 60 in 08 when she runs with Clark again as VeeP.
2012 she'll be 64 and she'll be the Presidential Candidate and win.
2016 she'll be 68 and she'll run again and be re elected president.
2020 she'll be 72 when she retires from being President for 8 years.
Don't forget women age much better than men. She'll be up for the job.
Yes, I've got it all planned.

and if the dems lose in 2004, which I hope they don't, I might support her in 2008.

she didn't DO anything to deserve it, but even moderates like my parents hate her guts & think she's lenin reborn.

looFing foR postEng matErial elsewhePe?

your lenin statement is a little suspicious

then Hillary would be a likely candidate for vice president. I wouldn't rule out Mary Landrieu or Debbie Stabenow.

a very good choice.

She is the second-most divisive figure in American politics after Bush. Her far-left agenda is way out of line with the views of most Americans.

As they say on MST 3K, "That's alls I'm sayin'."

I'm in NY, involved in several progressive causes, and I can tell you that the "far left", or even the middle-of-the-road-left is no real fan of her's. She's bought and paid-for by the DLC, a prime example of what's wrong with NY machine politics.

you are seriously out of touch

what "far left agenda" means without sounding reasonable.

Please cooperate and use a rainbow of fruit flavors for font colors in future posts.

They are still poinsoned with all that bitter propaganda they swallowed in the 1990s. I think Hillary is damaged goods, just like Al Gore.

that will be the next Clinton running for president. Yeah Chelesa

My favorite Clinton.

I loved watching her turn from an awkward kid who had to endure merciless attacks on her looks into a beautiful and confident woman. She traveled with her parents around the world and took advantage of the best of her situation. I dig her.

but I can't get over her voting for IWR. Unforgivable. She is smart enough to know our so-called "president" is a thieving, warmongering bastard but she voted yes anyway.

If she was running as the nominee for 2004, she would get the same consternation and closer look that Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards have for their votes for the resolution.
Bob Graham has my respect, as well as Dennis Kucinich for their bold, brave votes on the IWR, as well as their stances on most issues that concern me as a democrat. Graham has dropped out and Dennis doesn't have a chance for the nomination, that leaves Howard Dean and Wes Clark, and I couldn't be happier with the two choices that are left to me. I'm just gonna say it, cause it needs to be said...Hillary is "bush lite" on the very issue that consumes me in this election cycle. Hillary has enjoyed name recognition, but she needs to be relegated to a footnote in the upcoming election, we're doing just fine without her.

:kick:

Welcome to DU.

This thread topic is a daily occurrence. If only more people did a search on a topic before posting another thread on it.

Ah well.

welcome to DU.

I personally can't stand her. I get the impression that political power and campaign victory are what really drive her. But it all depends who is her opponent if I vote for her. And she has been voting like a (R) in the senate lately =(

like being driven by "Political power" and "campaign victory." Please, name me ONE, just one, politician who ISN't motivated by winning an election.

I often wonder why the right hates Hillary so, and the reason they always give is that she's "power-hungry, motivated by politics," etc. What a laugh! As if Bush, Delay, et. al. AREn'T motivated by power. Let's get real here people, politicians run to IN. Why do you think that Bush relies on Rove so much? Why did Kissinger rise to such heights with Nixon? All politicians are motivated by power. It's in the using of that power for the good of the people or for the lining of corporate allets the really matters.

I find it disconcerting that you'd parrot such a lame RW talking point in your post.

nt

If Dean doesn't srand a chance, then who does?

Serious response please.

AND her hubby...Bill! Welcome to DU! :hi:

I would support her 2008 run....POSILUTELY! :7

Look how she has voted:
1. Attack Afghanistan before the Twin Towers dust had settled and a proper investigation of who did what. Also ... Patriot Act????
2. Voted to allow Bush the powers (he used) to unilaterally preemptivly attack Iraq without questioning any of the intelligence. Failed her responsibility to uphold the constitution, i.e. only congress can declare war.
3. Did not stick around for the final 'voice vote' on 87 million dollars of funding for Iraq with no oversight of the spending, playing into the hands of defense industry looters.
4. Has she voiced with any heart the need for a thorough investigation into pre-knowledge of 911, the failure of the FAA, Air Force, the intelligence services, or the administration on that day?
5. Last I heard she still supports the occupation of Iraq.
6. Beyond her social stance, are her foreign policy views different from American dominance of the third world through economics (WTO and NAFTA just to name two), and if necessary force or CIA manipulation of other nations internal affairs?
7. Her husbands administration was happy to use al Qaeda as a CIA conduit on several occasions, would she too?

IMHO she is a foreign policy neocon without the PNAC or Bush Doctrine, but close to the same results. We need an administration that will start caring about the rest of the world, and restore some rights of the people instead of pandering to corporations who have supplanted our rights, control our elections, control our press and media, and dictate the economics of our future, while trashing our environment.

cover stated "BUSH KNEW". She brought it up but got no backing from other Democrats in the senate.

Sorry this took so long here are some links and there are about 10,000 others by Googleing KLA CIA or KLA bin Laden

http://emperors-clothes.com/news/binl.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/used.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25214

Much of the same information can also be found at globalresearch.ca though I don't have individual links to articles.

The CIA and Pentagon used the KLA who was positively linked to bin Laden in the Balkans. The KLA were first viewed as terrorists/drug trafficers and later became nation builders. All is fair in love and war, but is it right? PS I hope this works, I've never posted links before, I'm a newbie to com-put-ers.

(owned by Rev. Sun Moon) is not that far behind. The only mention of Clinton I read in the Moonie Times article was from an unnamed drug enforcer who related his story to the Times. I don't see where there's any Al Quida connection.

Sorry these are not reliable sources for proving any case against the Clintons.

Thanks for your troubles.

There is a danger from being drawn from a method or order that can alone fasten conviction on an unwilling mind. Many of the sources linking the Clinton administration to the use of terriorist organizations including the KLA and bin Laden in the Balkans dating back to 1993 are anything but right wing sources. Are we to not believe any of them and perhaps find a bucket of sand to stick our head in? Or is not to believe in Clintonesq views to leave us so inadequate that our views may be dismissed in clinical fervor? Is Clinton not responsible for the CIA and the foreign policy under his watch, especially when he wages a war from their intelligence. Where does the buck stop?

Pasted from http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ch0210a.html

Since the Soviet-Afghan war and throughout the post-Cold war era, "the militant islamic base" has been used by successive US administrations to wage covert operations in the former Soviet Union and the Balkans. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden , 12 September 2001) (cut)
(rejoin)
In the course of the 1990s, agencies of the US government have collaborated with Al Qaida in a number of covert operations, as confirmed by a 1997 report of the Republican Party Committee (US Congress):

The Clinton administration’s hands-on involvement with the Islamic network's arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials... he Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a Sudan-based, phoney humanitarian organization ... has been a major link in the arms pipeline to Bosnia... TWRA is believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing) and Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi émigré believed to bankroll numerous militant groups. (Congressional Press Release, Republican Party Committee (RPC), U.S. Congress, Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base, Washington DC, 16 January 1997, available on the website of the Centre of Research on Globalisation (CRG) at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html.)

In other words, the Republican Party Committee report confirms unequivocally the complicity of the Clinton administration with several Islamic fundamentalist organizations including Osama bin Laden's Al Qaida.

In other words, the Clinton Administration was "harboring terrorists" (to use GWB's expression in his October 7 speech).

Another link: http:globalresearch.ca/articles/bis111a.html
(cut)
Michel Chossudousky and globalresearch.ca is anything but right wing. :-)

And, since I'll be 18, I would be able to vote fore her :)

I'm not influenced by right-wing lies and intimidation.

I don't like her very much.