I think Hillary critics should read this ...

It is quite interesting to me. Bob Somerby cited it today in the Howler and after rading it, I thought it would be appropirate for discussion.

-snip-

Actually, a makeover has been underway since the former First Lady went to Washington under her own steam as a senator. It's just not the one Bauer means. People are finally seeing past the stereotypes and fabrications. In New York state her approval rating is just shy of 70 percent. After years of free-floating propaganda, her colleagues in the Senate are astonished to discover she is collaborative and congenial. "Those people wanted to hate Hillary so bad," Harry Reid said when she visited Nevada. How disappointing: she's likable, not to mention smart and hardworking.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7773614/site/newsweek/

If she runs for president I will not vote for her or anyone who gave this idiot the authority to go into Iraq

Boxer didn't, Harry Reid didn't. There were others who didn't.

The people who gave him the authority to do this, violated their responsibility as members of Congress, and the War powers act. ONLY CONGRESS HAS THE RIGHT TO DECLARE WAR

Here is the list of those who voted NO

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

explanation.

I counted - it's ten words long. Two sentences. Five words each. And it'd throw the shit directly back where it belongs - on bush.

ALL. THEY'D. HAVE. TO. SAY. IS. THE. FOLLOWING:


"Because I trusted my president. And he LIED to me."

That is all they'd have to say.

That's all ANYONE would have to say, whether they're running for something or not.

Much as I hate it that people fell for it - and hell, my usually-fabulous congressman, Henry Waxman, voted for the IWR - those of good conscience and character did so because they believed the snake oil that bush was selling, back in late 2001 just after we were attacked and everyone including Congress was scared to death and there'd been anthrax letters sent to Leahy and Daschle (and we STILL don't know from whom or where) and bush hadn't been in office long enough to build up the staggering track record of lies and deceits and sneaky shit and back-stabbing and double-talking of which we now are too painfully well aware. EVERYONE, even opponents, wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. For better or DEFINITELY WORSE, he was "all we had," and people felt compelled to get behind him and show a united front against this vaporous boogeyman enemy we suddenly had.

People who trusted him and believed him and voted accordingly and passed everything he demanded without reading the fine print - because they wanted so badly for him to be straight with them, and correct about this, and they wanted to believe he had all our good in mind - all have this VERY easy out. It explains EVERYTHING and it's SIMPLE AS HELL. It's also unrefutable.

Because they trusted their president. And he LIED to them.

And for the life of me, I don't know why people aren't using this, or coming up with their own versions.

Love the Howler, great article...

Hillary is a great Senator and good Democrat and her constiuents in New York know it. She doesn't deserve most of bashing she gets from our side. She has been targeted unfairly by the wingnuts so long that people seems surprised when they find out it's all bogus.

New York State is one out of fifty however. She's a harder sell out here in Bubba-land. She should take that well earned trust and approval from New Yorkers and turn it into another 6 years in the Senate.

They thought they could control Dubya by playing nice and holding him to the terms of the authorization. They were conned and should have known better. I agree that it stains their record. Some of them were frankly complete chickenshits and still are. I personally won't support or vote for Iraq war resolution supporters in the primary. When we as a party decide on our slate and it comes time to vote, I'll vote for the Democrat every time despite dumb moves in their past.

Because somebody made a bad call, doesn't mean they can't still do good and important work for the Party. It is legitimate to question their behavior and voting record and find better candidates in some cases. We should avoid doing the Repugs work for them, however, by flaming every Dem we don't agree with or don't like.

The worst Democratic candidate will still be better than the best Republican.

I disagree with that statement so much it hurts.

You MIGHT get away with that in Congress, but not in the Whitehouse.

In fact, that whole line of thinking is dangerous.

Honestly, would you rather have a Zell Miller over a George Pataki?

OK, so, I'm guilty of a little, maybe a lot of hyperbole. For president, you are correct, it really matters. No matter how much we bicker though, no Zell Millers will make it that far.

I didn't like Kerry much as our pick, but he would have been an excellent president. So would Dean, Clark, etc.... hell even Sharpton, compared to dubya. In my precinct anyway, when Kerry won the primaries, we put down our Dean and Kucinich signs (no other candidates had delegates here)and picked up Kerry's. It was easy for us to pull together and support Kerry, but he was a hard sell for a lot of voters and he didn't sell himself very well. Next time though, the R's will have a new kid and the ABB vote has to be won over plus the Americans that are willing to think a little about who would be best.

My personal preference is somebody that is charismatic and has a strong record of voting for and supporting progressive ideas and doesn't bring a lot of conflicted history to the table. So, no Clinton, no Kerry, no Biden for me. But more than ideological purity I want somebody that can win. I think we can find a hardcore, uncompromised Democrat that can win.

We all have our personal checklists of what we want in a candidate. What are yours? I guarantee we won't find one that all Dems are going to be ecstatic over. I bet we could get close, find the right candidate. Not one picked for us by the Old Guard, or just a default big name. We should be talking about what we want to see and who gives us the best combination. Most of what I hear is bitching about what sucks about Dems X, Y or Z. That's my only real point.

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

scurrilous accusations replace facts in your world?

That is indeed all you have presented.

with the Republcans on Iraq when nearly everyone on DU knew what was going down. It doesn't mean in the end that I won't be able to vote for them - but I will not support their candidacy in any form and I will fight for any other candidate with a better voting record. This follows a 12-14 year record of passionately defending and promoting Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And if the candidate has some double and triple votes with the Republicans, such as Iraq plus bankruptcy and any other compbinations of the most horrendous votes - I may not even vote for them. I want a true patriot in office. Many of the Dem votes coming in under this cabal are NOT in a U.S. citizens best interest and welfare.

I think Dems who vote with these Republicans and bend to their tricks and manipulations SHOULD NOT EVEN RUN FOR HIGHER OFFICE. THEY SHOULD BECOME LOBBYISTS NOW rather than later, because they are obviously lobbyists-in -office when it comes down to the reality of their actions.

and I don't think she will run for President.

after the non-stop attack machine aimed at both her and her husband during those years, that she would really want to do that over again.

we desperately need to win over some of the moderate Repubs to get a Demo back in the White House. I don't believe Hillary can do that. We need a Jimmy Carter or a Bill Clinton. We have to avoid the polarization that Rove has created. We moderates, both Demo's and Repub's need to get back together and take back control of the Country.

Personally, I have nothing against her. In fact, I think New York is blessed to have her.
But, she will not win (rigged voting machines aside) because she won't flip one red state and may, in fact, flip a blue state or two to red.
It's the, by then, 16-year aggressive BS regarding her stances perpetrated by the right-wing and corporate media that will keep moderates from voting for her. That and the fact that few moderates will vote for a woman if we're at war (I'm female, so I'm not trying to be sexist. I'm trying to be realistic.)
I simply don't think she has the appeal and charisma her husband has.
And, I'm tired of political dynasties, too.

it should be based on her voting record and her effectiveness ...

i'll second those who don't like her history around Iraq ... i'll keep looking, thanks ...

look at her a record a scooch bit more closely. Every group with whom I identify rates her highly, every group I despise rates her low.

WTF do you guys want? Perfection?

:wtf:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

um, no ...

i don't recall saying anything about perfection ... what i don't want, and i'm sure you're aware there are or will be viable alternatives, is a candidate who's vision is apparently so limited that she believed going into Iraq was just a dandy idea ...

more than 100,000 people dead ... Iraq destroyed ... no food ... no water ... no utilities ... the tyranny of occupation ... the believing bush's lies about WMD ... a situation getting worse every single day with little or no hope in sight ... no ... i don't require perfection ... i just don't plan to endorse anyone who used such poor judgment ...

as i said, i'll keep looking ...

I think that the best alternative at this point would be to simply withdraw and 95% of the violence would end.

But ... that magic word ... I am not going to hold the IWR against the members who voted for it for precisely the reason I didn't hold Kerry's vote against him: at that point in time ... in that whirling fog of events as the world accelerated crazily ... I can see them believing that Bush would use his authority wisely. I know it was gullible but at the time, even I was hopeful, particularly since events seemed to be tumbling out of control.

Maybe it was just wanting things to work out that made me keep my fingers crossed that it would end without an invasion. It didn't. Bush did not deal in good faith and his words of assurance were merely more lies.

It was an error. Thank God that not all of the Democrats voted for it although I could easily imagine a scenario just a little different when that could have happened.

i posted this in a separate thread today but it seems relevant here ... here is the language that was adopted today by the Massachusetts Democratic Party ... this is not a "left-wing" fringe group ... many convention delegates are long-time party insiders who have historically supported very mainstream candidates ... the plank below passed by an overwhelming majority ... candidates I support in the future will do all they can to honor this plank in my state's platform ...

A RESOLUTION TO END THE U.S. OCCUPATION OF IRAQ

Whereas the actions of the United States of America in Iraq show that the United States wishes to establish permanent military bases in Iraq, in violation of Iraqi sovereignty;

Whereas more than 1600 US soldiers have been killed, thousands of US soldiers wounded, and untold thousands of Iraqi citizens killed, wounded or made homeless in the continuing conflict in Iraq;

Whereas more than 150 billion dollars have been spent for the Iraq occupation and, over the next year, the continuing occupation will take at lest an additional 81 billion dollars away from priorities at home;

Whereas our occupation or Iraq fuels the insurgency, which prolongs the destruction of Iraqi communities and infrastructure;

Therefore be it resolved that the Democratic Party of Massachusetts

* Supports our troops,

* Opposes the continued military occupation of Iraq,

* Urges the U.S. government to announce a timetable for the rapid withdrawal of its military forces from Iraq,

and

* Calls for the U.S. government to reject plans for a long-term presence in Iraq, except for those associated with normal diplomatic relations and a commitment to reparation for war damage.

With all due respect, I couldn't disagree with your rationale for cutting Kerry slack on his Iraq vote more strongly.


On August 9th of 2004, less then three months before the election and long after it was obvious there were no WMDs in Iraq; long after it was obvious there was no Iraq-9/11 connection; long after it was obvious that Bush never had any intentions of seeking any kind of sincere diplomatic solution to Iraq; long after it was obvious the majority of Bush's cabinet had planned the invasion years before through the PNAC and the events they used to justify it with were knowingly bullshit; long after it was obvious BushCo manipulated, lied, and bullied congress, the media, and the majority of Americans into supporting an immoral, illegal, and unjustifiable attack on a sovereign nation that had not attacked us; long after it became obvious the only plan the Bush criminals had beyond bombing the hell out of Iraq was the plan to steal/funnel billions of tax-payer dollars into the pockets of a select few cronies like Haliburton through no-bid contracts; long after it was obvious that giving George Bush what amounted to unlimited authority to use the military in any destructive fashion he so choose was a horrific mistake. . . John Kerry was asked by reporters if he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing Bush to use force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found and there was no 9/11 connection.

And standing in front of the Grand Canyon, Kerry said:

"I’ll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively.”


I agree with you that those who voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq made a grave error, but I find it impossible to excuse Kerry (or Edwards or H. Clinton) of being gullible or mistakingly trusting Bush when two years later and after all the lies and horror surrounding the situation was beyond any sane denial; John Kerry stepped up and said he'd vote the same exact way again.

I like John Kerry; I mostly respect what he has stood for and accomplished in his years of public service; and I certainly could accept and forgive Kerry or any other Dem for making a mistake on the Iraq vote considering the circumstances at the time. . . but not until they admit it was a mistake, and not until they give me some kind of assurance they wouldn't do the exact same thing in a similar situation. . . and to my knowledge none of them have done so in any way.

(Note: Scott Ritter has said Bush is planning a similar invasion of Iran in July and considering his track record I have no reason to doubt him. . . and it will be very interesting to see if Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, vote the same way as on Iraq or if they actually learned something and stand up against it. I hope for the latter; but based on their refusal to acknowledge Iraq was a mistake I don't have anything tangible to base that hope on.)


In closing, let me say that while I have been reading DU for a couple months and enjoy it very much, this is only my second post here and it's not my intention to insult or disrespect anyone.

Though my post is partly in response to your comments Pepperbelly, I don't mean it to be as personal as it probably reads- I have seen similar sentiments to yours posted by various people here and just felt compelled to comment on the subject in general, not just your thoughts in particular.

Also, while we might disagree on this topic, I can assure you that anyone with both Zippy and a HST quote in their signature is definitely okay with me. . . :)

I admit I was puzzled over Kerry's response to the question, particularly when the predicate was "knowing what we know today." Having some respect for Kerry's character, I stretched a bit to understand what he was saying and finally concluded that perhaps he meant what he said. He could've just been stubbornly refusing to an error ala * but that didn't feel right to me. Or he could've been trying to have it both ways. Or he meant it.

I am unsure and as far as Hillary goes, I have not heard her asked that question ... knowing what we know today.

:D

Welcome aboard.

and a newbie yet ... welcome to DU, JoeJost ...

i look forward to your becoming a more active poster ...

fwiw, the Democratic Party's platform has some pretty strong words about mandatory inspections in Iran and not allowing Iran to develop nuclear technology ... there is ZERO chance Kerry or most other Democrats will oppose a war with Iran if the current march to war is not altered by greater vision and better leadership ...

I'm very glad I found this place and hope to do more posting as I continue to get a feel for the place. :)


And yeah, Kerry's response to the question threw me for a loop as well and although I did vote for him, it was with far less enthusiasm then I'd wished for. The mess in Iraq was the main issue for me and although Kerry did aim some legitimate criticism at Bush over the situation, it was difficult to get too excited about it when he then turns around and says he'd vote to give Bush the same authority again.

To be honest, my feeling was (and is) that Kerry knew the Iraq invasion was wrong and he had to see the obvious similarities between it and the nightmare of Vietnam but was convinced that without being publicly gung-ho about it he couldn't be elected so he stuck to a position he didn't really believe in for political expediency. I knew Bush had no intentions of getting us out of Iraq and I hoped that deep-down Kerry understood there was no more chance of "winning" in Iraq then there was in 'Nam simply because there is nothing there to win, and that he would have found a way to begin extracting us from the situation immediately had he been elected.

As far as Duh-bya possibly (probably?) expanding his"Operation Haliburton Enrichment and Bombing For Jesus" campaign into Iran by using the same sort of lies and bogus rationales he used for Iraq- well, a firm "No" vote by Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, etc. would certainly make the erroneous Iraq votes much less of an issue for me. . .

On the other hand, if welshTerrier2 is assessing the situation accurately and the same folks roll over and go right down that same road again. . . well, bottom line is I will actively and enthusiastically support any Dem (or Republican for that matter although I don't forsee that being a concern anytime soon) who takes a stand against allowing Bush the authority to further expand his barbaric actions, but will not and can not support in anyway those who are willing to go along with it in any way.

I don't regret my vote for Kerry in the last election and could support him again, and would support Hiilary or Edwards or whoever the Dem candidate it, but not if they allow Bush to expand his criminal wars any further- because what's the point of spending the time and the energy getting Dems elected if they are just going to vote the same as a Re-thug anyway?


Anyway, thanks again for warm welcome- it's much appreciated and I look forward to many more discussions about the issues that concern us all. . . :)

and I tend to agree with you that an effective fight against any Bushco attempt to widen the theater of operations, so to speak, would go a long way toward rehabilitating those Democrats who supported the IWR. However, with that said, I still doubt that Bushco will do that. I know what Ritter has said. I have read the sword rattling remarks. But Bushco just doesn't have the military forces to do it with.

I also do not believe that the public would tolerate a draft and that the imposition of one would last only until the next congress took office.

just thought i'd post this to have it on the record:

We must close the loophole that lets countries develop nuclear weapons capabilities under the guise of a peaceful, civilian nuclear power program. We also need to strengthen enforcement and verification and make rigorous inspection protocols mandatory.

it's hard to see most elected Democrats standing up to bush and his PNAC friends when Iran publicly declares it is continuing with its nuclear program ...

what's really kind of sad is that regardless of their position, few Democrats are speaking out on the issue NOW ... this is the time leadership can educate Americans ... this is the time to be pro-active ... this is the time to show Americans the vision of the Democratic Party ... i haven't been hearing much from Democrats on this very important issue? have you???

and as far as not having enough military forces goes, they are already stationed in Iraq ... what a convenient exit that would make ... "we've done all we possibly could for the Iraqi people and now we'll only leave behind enough troops to safeguard American installations and respond to requests from the new Iraqi government" ...

btw, in my conversation with my Congressman last weekend, I asked him whether he thought there would be a draft ... his response was that he didn't see much enthusiasm for one at this time from either side ...

Shit, I always felt as though I was making a mistake when I tried for the final push to conquor in the game. I wonder if Bush feels any doubts when it is writ so large?

and I don't like her record on Iraq.

She would be better than any republican president, at least.

If she is our best hope as president then we have none.

Who cares what the right wing hate machine thinks about her? By 2008, their hatred for her will be old news and a real turn-off for voters.

They're scared of her for a reason.

But not the primaries.

Of course, I'm a solid Clark supuporter. I want someone who has heavy duty diplomatic and military experience and is an unappologetic liberal. I must say, getting 70% of New Yorkers to agree on anything is truly amazing (I'm an ex), I mean mind blowing.

We'll see. Hey, if he gets it, it's Hillary to the Supreme Court, mind blowing too. If she gets it, it's Clark to Defense.

Good post.

Now, if you can find something about her and the military, PM me. My 'Nam vet friend HATES her because, according to him, she despises the military. I can't find anything to confirm or deny his assertion, but it doesn't sound plausible to me.