During the summer and fall of 2006 I made a pest of myself trying

to tell fellow New Yorkers about Jonathan Tasini. He was the anti-war candidate running in the NYS Primary against Hillary Clinton. I didn't get a single response at the time that Hillary Clinton was also anti-war. How could Hillary CLinton who at the very least did not come out against the war then be perceived as an anti-war candidate now? I won't go so far as to say she supported the war then, but she sure didn't campaign against it.

1. The best known candidate won. Commentators at the time agreed that Jonothan Tasini in fact more closely matched New York Democrats' view on the war, universal health care, etc.

2. How can we believe someone who at least dodged the issue last year to be fervently anti-war now? Has anything really changed aside from nation wide poll results?

In July 2006, she was as negative about Kerry/Feingold as any Republican - saying that setting deadlines was wrong.

After November 2006, she is saying that, the Iraqis won't make the difficult decisions unless there is a deadline. Her comments come damn close to John Kerry's from April 2006 on - though she has never credited Kerry/Feingold that she sarcastically fought tooth and nail was right -or - that her current position is to very real degree based on it. That might give Kerry some credit.

What a phony.

1) The election showed that those wanting to change the policy in Iraq and get deadlines were the majority over all and a huge majority in the Democratioc party

2) She had just stabbed John Kerry in the back - validating the RW smear.

I don't think anyone is saying Hillary is an "Anti-war Candidate". What they object to is calling her a "Pro-war Candidate".

Yes, she voted for IWR. So did most of the democrats. No, she hasn't "apologized". I don't care. Because I consider the "apologies" as full of shit as the original vote, pure politics.

Yes, she voted for Kyl/Lieberman. So did Dodd and Levin. The amendment had the military, saber rattling passages removed. She also was the first to co-sponsor Webb. She has been on board with Webb since back in March, the idea that this is nothing but political cover is silly, how in the world was she to know that far in advance and in addition, if Kyl/Lieberman was a political move, why would she be "covering" it up?

You can't have it both ways. You can't say she "really meant" K/L but "doesn't mean" Webb.

When those arguments run out we start into her support for Israel yadda, yadda, which, if you are from NY, you know is rather silly. No one gets elected in this state dissing Israel. She desperately needed those votes or she was going to lose them to a republican. She was fighting an image that she was anti-Israel. Now she is "their girl". This doesn't mean she does their bidding anymore than Rudy calls the Pope before decisions.

I have NO reason to believe that Clinton or ANY other democrat wants anything other than to get out of Iraq and stop the bleeding, in lives and treasure. I have NO reason to believe any democrat wants to start a new war with Iran.

allowed New Yorkers to believe she supported the war so she could be re-elected. The 2006 elections were perceived to show that Americans had turned against the war. So in March, Hillary took steps to show she was against the war? Which is the real Hillary? How do we know that Hillary's anti-war stance will last one day past election day?

I was talking about kissing Israel's ass in general, not the IWR vote.

ALL the democrats who voted for IWR were terrified at that time of being accused of wimping out against the TERRORIST THREAT. They were all running like scared rabbits from Bush. They were cowards.

It blew up in their face. Stop putting this on Hillary like she was the only democrat to vote for IWR and found herself twisting herself into a pretzel trying to justify it.

the terrorist threat just last fall.

And as far as Hillary goes, she is going to keep on playing the tough ass as long as she is running this campaign.

People get so obsessed with Hillary the politician they forget she is the first woman with a shot at the White House in US History. She is running for that position in a time of war. She has to make herself out to be twice as tough as any man just to be considered.

Presidency, what have we gained?

I'd rather have the chance to elect someone who determined to ensure we live in a time of peace than someone determined to prove she is tough enough to continue a time of war.

Women have had to be "twice" the whatever is demanded of men to be taken seriously for a long time now.

What is the number one reservation of those who say they wouldn't vote for a female president? She won't be tough enough.

It's image and packaging. She doesn't have to start a war but she cannot be viewed as an anti-war liberal or she has no chance, especially with a war going. The idea that a woman could even be in the position she is in national polls while the Iraq war is still going on and will be if she took office is frankly surprising even to me. Hell, most people in this country already thought Hillary was a flaming liberal until this campaign. That proves her campaign strategy is working.

turn themselves into Alpha Males and fit into a male dominated society. We must alter society to value both females and males.


An anti-war liberal can't succeed? What about all the people looking for an anti war candidate who will give us universal health care, energy independence, a response to global warming, better paying jobs, secure retirements, etc. etc? If we Democrats can't run an anti-liberal candidate this time and win, why are we even in the game?

And had to appeal to the lowest common denominator voter who thinks women may not have what it takes to make the "tough calls"?

You are trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, this isn't about changing the country to an ideal, it's about moving it forward enough to even consider a woman in the white house.

She doesn't have to be Maggie Thatcher or "anti-liberal". She can be for health care and jobs and the environment. But "liberal" has come to mean "wimp" for too many in this country, it's a tough label for men, it's impossible for woman running for president now. She has to assure, over and beyond all doubt, that she can handle a war and deal with any enemies the country might face without flinching.

No man has to do this.

Women are already given the compassion and the empathy. We don't have to prove that, and in a national election, it can easily be viewed as "female weakness".

better than we are, would we? That's one reason JFK was so quickly forgotten!

"She has to assure, over and beyond all doubt, that she can handle a war and deal with any enemies the country might face without flinching."

in any election when we are at war (or conducing an occupation) or if one is likely.

Dodd voted "no" on Kyl-Lieberman; Levin voted "yes."

Biden voted "no." Both Obama and Edwards issued statements opposing the bill. Hillary has the distinction of being the only presidential candidate that voted "yes" on Kyl-Lieberman.

edited for roll call: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349#position

Have Dodd on the brain.

I suspect you meant to type Durbin.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349

She also joined as co-sponsor to Webb on October 1, 2007 after voting for Kyl/Leiberman on the September 26, 2007 and after she took flack for it.

S.759
Title: A bill to prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.
Sponsor: Sen Webb, Jim (introduced 3/5/2007) Cosponsors (1)
Related Bills: H.R.3119
Latest Major Action: 3/5/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. COSPONSORS(1), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)


Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham - 10/1/2007

I am a Jew from NJ and the Jewish population is most definitely not monolithic - I'm in Northern NJ, not NY and this is a organization that I learned of through my synagogue - to a Jewish political advocacy group that is not neo-con.
Here is a link to the last bill, they suggested supporting: http://ga3.org/btvshalom/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=13006364#cosponsors

(Note that many who you say vote for the Jewish population - were not co-sponsors of this bill, that AIPAC likely didn't push. AIPAC may have support of many influencial Jews, but most of the people are not with them.

The Jewish vote she was appealing to was most definitely a conservative vote when it came to the issue of Israel. I'm not saying all Jews are pro-Israel Zionist types, at all, especially in NYC, but there are a lot of those as well and they were going to vote for the republican on that issue alone.

Hillary pretty much has the majority of the Jewish vote sewn up nationally, so she must be doing something right.

We owe many of the advances we've made in Civil Rights in the last 50 years to Jewish activists. I doubt many would be attracted to the anti-minority sub-text that runs through the Republican platform.

nearly every Jew in their 70s or 80s seems to adore FDR for the policies he had.

First of all, I find that most people do not care if a person is male or female. My general sense is that people have long ago past that sort of thinking. I find that what most people want is just someone who can be normal, authentic and not try to play anything.
The whole female being suppressed thing is just so 1970s/80s. Most people have gone way past that sort of thinking.
People are looking at the person now as far as how they think, their judgment and their abilities. that sort of thing.