Just finished reading [i]The Case for Hillary Clinton[/i]

Written a few years ago, it makes a good case for why Hillary should be our candidate and why she will win.

And why she will be the best President we have had in years.

:patriot: :dem:


How do I put the title in italics, any hoo?

copy and paste the code for italics

Then where it says text, copy and paste the title of the book

Next time.

That says everything - She was likely angling for a role in the Clinton campaign.

I just don't agree with her because I believe the historic record demands open government and Democrats need stronger LEFT leadership that will achieve a truly open government that functions to serve the underserved needs of this nation. The center-right just doesn't meet those needs for the most part.

If we don't make this choice in the next few years, then we just put a happy face on the corporate agenda for a few years.

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons

and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."



http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

She is capable of representing me and my daughters and grandaughters as well as my right wing relatives.

and that is why we have primaries, isn't it?

I don't care that people support her and I am glad she is in the race so Democrats can ponder all sides - I am a Democratic citizen who wants the Bushes and their cronies to be held accountable for their crimes of office and knowing Hillary will not do that is an enormous obstacle for people like me.

I acknowledge that isn't a priority for others, but the debate about it is still important.

Who wants another 9-11? Another Iraq war?

The decisions to 'move on' over crimes of office are TOO COSTLY for those families, sons and daughters who actually paid the price for those decisions in the long run.

And how do you know she will not hold them accountable?

She comes closer to representing you and me than any other candidate. AND she is electable.

I am off to work and then to NYC so will be offline a while.

Peace.

mb

It was made in 1993 and throughout the last 14 years.

From the consortiumnews article linked above - explains very clearly what happens when crimes of office are ignored.

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

>>>>>>>>>>
Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)



My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.
>>>>>>

‘Politicized’ CIA

the perfect position for our next president.

According to Hillary's voting record she is considered

a Moderate Liberal standing just Left of Center.

http://www.issues2002.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm




...scroll to the bottom of the above link for viewing the graphic

who helped move the country past all BushInc's crimes of office so Poppy could have a 'peaceful retirement' and his honorable legacy restored?

I don't think so.

Will her loyal supporters ask her to do so or pressure her in any way to hold BushInc accountable? I doubt it.

You can take that to the bank. The pressure coming from me and mine, will make yours look like, a bully in the schoolyard.

will become about how and why he let BushInc off the hook when the whole lot of them should have been exposed as traitors during their weakest point - Jan 1993.

I would LOVE to be wrong about this - but, I would bet my house that I am not.

and fool hearty to make such a demand when an electable candidate has not yet achieved power. You may be accustomed to people spilling their guts in the news business but in the real world you put your life at risk when you divulge threatening future plans. I don't know anyone in their right mind who would make public a promise like that to cut off the head of the hydra just to satisfy someones childish demand when real lives, not virtual ones are at stake.

If anyone in this world has a reason enough to do the right thing, it's them.

Hillary, Obama and Edwards are WarFunders.

Our troops will NOT be coming home UNTIL Congress cuts funding to this war.

How? Why? Because since the inception of the War Powers Act, that's the ONLY WAY our troops have come home from those military actions. Hillary, Obama and Edwards will NOT be passing any of their bills to end this war. This war will be stopped ONLY BY THE DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE KILLING BUSH'S WAR BILL!!! Did you know that Democratic Senator Harry Reid could END THIS WAR virtually immediately by simply invoking Senate Rule No. 22 - AUTOMATIC FILIBUSTER! This is a FACT, a very ordinary fact and procedure. The reality of the 41-man filibuster was exemplified in minority party Republicans' BLOCK of the Democrat Party's "non-binding" resolution. ANY RESOLUTION can easily be blocked by either party because it takes only 41 Senators to kill any bill, period.

THIS WAR WILL END ONLY WHEN 41 DEMOCRATIC SENATORS SUPPORT AN AUTOMATIC FILIBUSTER OF BUSH'S WAR BILL!!! http://www.projectfilibuster.com

THAT'S WHY it's so disingenous for Hillary, Obama and Edwards to falsely present themselves as anti-war candidates when in FACT, they are WARFUNDERS!!!!! Each and every time refunding comes up, Hillary and Edwards have voted FOR WAR!!!!!! Over 13 times!!! Obama has had only one opportunity thus far to vote for war, and he decided to FUND Bush's war bill - Obama voted FOR WAR!!! Obama voted YES on Bush's war bill on March 29th, 2007, the last time it came through the Senate.
Date Bill Title Vote
03/29/2007 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill of 2007 Y
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BS ...


President Kucinich video reveals Obama and Edwards!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9REGbr0nfI

And Hillary Clinton is the one who can handle complex issues.

deja vu again, if we wind up with an Obama presidency.

The complex part, just a guess, is the legislatures incestual relationships with insurance companies.

She had no way of knowing that when she was First Lady.

She still has to be forcefully progressive enough to convince
those who are looking for a more progressive stance than she
has been willing to take so far. I understand her caution, but
she is rarely in the lead in high profile issues such as pulling
out of Fox Noise staged events, etc. At some point, she must be
the first one to take these stands, and not just play Follow The
Leader when someone else has tested the waters first. Sure, she
is capable of it, but so what? So are you and I, but we're not
seeking the presidency. She is, and a leader must lead. If she
is to be the nominee, she will have to inspire, not just be bright.
They're ALL bright, which in itself isn't a bad thing.

I know Hillary can think for herself, but she has to convince the
nation of that, convince them that she is not a subsidiary of Bill
Clinton, Inc. Wes Clark is a guy with a towering intellect, perhaps
towering over all the declared candidates, but he doesn't put this
across well to crowds. It's an unfortunate fact of life in America
that often, those people who would make the best presidents never get
there because they aren't good enough candidates.

Obama is a smug little twit.

I thought it was only okay. It definitely wasn't a major factor in my deciding to support Hillary. I felt like a lot of the book was just emphasizing how exciting it would be to have a woman in the White House - which is fine, but I don't think it's a good enough reason on its own to support a candidate.

That did not so much find reasons to support Hillary as to trash every possible opponent leaving only Hillary as a possibility.

Some comments were the opposite of things said in the past when she hoped to be involved in other campaigns.