If Hillary is Pro-War... Why would any of us vote for her ?

The war for me is the most important issue... Not the only one, but sure as ice is cold, I could never vote for anyone supporting this nigtmarish massacre.

Why would anyone here vote for her?

...too bad you're going to get flamed for it...

:popcorn:

She gives him praise, backs his war, and screws over the Democratic base. Oh, and Rupert Murdoch throws her a bash...

I'll pass thanks....

As always - I will oppose war party candidates in the primaries but if one of them gets the nomination I will support that candidate in the general election. There are limits. Hillary's current position at this point in time would be testing those limits.

he spoke out against it before it began. So, he was at least against it from Jan 2003 onward. So, the only way you could concievably have voted for Kerry thinking he was pro-war was if you ignored his floor statement and voted in Nov 2002 for him as MA Senator. Kerry was referred to in the media as anti-war for the first half of 2003.

Kerry's position until rather recently was that now that we were in Iraq we had to 'win the peace' - which put him squarely in the 'must succeed can't afford to fail' branch of the war party.

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/info/index.php?category_id=1452
His Sept. 2004 speech lays out the centrist Democratic 'must succeed must complete the mission we will do it better' policy he ran on.

He has changed his position, and I support his change of position, to a timetable based exit strategy:

"We must get out of Iraq. Time is of the essence. We must not forget that half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after America’s leaders knew our strategy would not work. Seasoned veterans and seasoned statesmen like Congressman Murtha and Senator John Kerry have laid out an exit strategy. Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. Second we need a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year’s end."

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2006_0417.htm

and more gradually than you imply. In 2004, what Kerry was saying was:
no permanent bases
involve other countries, especially the neighbors
train Iraqi soldiers quickly - after the election he found 4 countries told him they would help
fund Iraqis reconstructing the country
do the diplomacy
assist with elections

Kerry is clearly speaking stabalizing the country, leaving it in the best shape he could and getting out. Do you really think he would have followed Bush's course? The difference in 2004 is that with himself as President he would have done things he has been for all his life - Kerry heading summit diplomacy would have been interesting. His history would have given him credibility in negotiations. The likelihood is his election would have brought a huge change.

Just because he didn't run on out now - which Dean didn't either - didn't make him pro-war.

The war was bullshit then and was bullshit before it started and is bullshit now. The only circumstance that changed is that public perception of the bullshit nature of the war has made it difficult for Democratic politicians to maintain a 'must succeed' Democratic War Party stance. If I could figure out that we were being lied to about WMD before the war started, I'm sure Senator Kerry was also aware that the official rev. 1 reason for this stupid war was bullshit too.

have been overlooking Hillary's pro-war stance. She's got a terrible record on all sorts of things. Supports the "under god" bit in the Pledge, voted for that hideous bankruptcy bill. The list goes on and on. I honestly do not understand why anyone thinks she's a real liberal.

What she is, is a politician who learned her craft at the feet of the master, her husband Bill. She will take any stand she think will win her an election.

She is NOT the savior of the Democratic Party.

...She is NOT the savior of the Democratic Party.

I'm not a defender here, but she was in New York with Bill the day that was voted on. He was having his surgery that morning.

.

Bill vetoed it.

But if she wins the nomination, I'll be right there behind her.

As far as her liberal credentials are concerned, Progressive Punch puts her at 10th place among Democratic Senators (out of 44) and out of the Senate as a whole, with a score of about 92%. So she's not perfect by any means, but she's hardly a DINO.

The only way the Democrats could have won on that bill was to win the vote on cloture. Hillary voted against cloture (the correct vote). To win on Cloture, the Democrats needed 41 votes - and they didn't have enough. When that lost, the vote on the bill happened, Bill Clinton was in the hospital for surgery. His wife was with him. The Democrats would have needed 51 votes to win - and they had less than 41. So Hillary is listed as non-voting. This explanation has been posted often.

I don't know Hillary's current position on Iraq. Hearing nothing different, I assume that she has the standard Democratic position explained by Clark. She has said that if everything now known was known in 2002, there wouldn't have been a vote.

Hillary is not a candidate I favor, but let's argue based on truth.

I'm at a loss as how to answer that question. :shrug:

the election?

not voting is never an option with me -- I will instead write in my Democratic candidate of choice.

http://www.clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/index.cfm?topic=iraqletter

November 29, 2005

<snip>I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end. Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. I believe we are at a critical point with the December 15th elections that should, if successful, allow us to start bringing home our troops in the coming year, while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities. This will advance our interests, help fight terrorism and protect the interests of the Iraqi people.

In October 2002, I voted for the resolution to authorize the Administration to use force in Iraq. I voted for it on the basis of the evidence presented by the Administration, assurances they gave that they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations sponsored inspections, and the argument that the resolution was needed because Saddam Hussein never did anything to comply with his obligations that he was not forced to do.

Their assurances turned out to be empty ones, as the Administration refused repeated requests from the U.N. inspectors to finish their work. And the "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda turned out to be false.

Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the President authority to use force against Iraq. And if Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed, given the lack of a long-term plan, paltry international support, the proven absence of weapons of mass destruction, and the reallocation of troops and resources that might have been used in Afghanistan to eliminate Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and fully uproot the Taliban.

Before I voted in 2002, the Administration publicly and privately assured me that they intended to use their authority to build international support in order to get the U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq, as articulated by the President in his Cincinnati speech on October 7th, 2002. As I said in my October 2002 floor statement, I took "the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible."

Instead, the Bush Administration short-circuited the U.N. inspectors - the last line of defense against the possibility that our intelligence was false. The Administration also abandoned securing a larger international coalition, alienating many of those who had joined us in Afghanistan. <snip>

I take responsibility for my vote, and I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the President and his Administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war.<snip>

It is time for the President to stop serving up platitudes and present us with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor – not a rigid timetable that terrorists can exploit, but a public plan for winning and concluding the war. And it is past time for the President, Vice President, or anyone else associated with them to stop impugning the patriotism of their critics. <snip>

America has a big job to do now. We must set reasonable goals to finish what we started and successfully turn over Iraqi security to Iraqis. We must deny terrorists the prize they are now seeking in Iraq. We must repair the damage done to our reputation. We must reform our intelligence system so we never go to war on false premises again. We must repair the breach with the Muslim world. And we must continue to fight terrorism wherever it exists.<snip>

If these elections succeed, we should be able to start drawing down our troops, but we should also plan to continue to help secure the country and the region with a smaller footprint on an as-needed basis. I call on the President both for such a plan and for a full and honest accounting of the failures of intelligence – something we owe not only to those killed and wounded and their families, but to all Americans.

We have to continue the fight against terrorism and make sure we apply America's best values and effective strategies in making our world and country a better and safer place. We have to do what is right and smart in the war against terrorists and pursuit of democracy and security. That means repudiating torture which undermines America's values. That means reforming intelligence and its use by decision makers. That means rejecting the Administration's doctrine of preemptive war and their preference to going it alone rather than building real international support.
<snip>

Dem who does not advocate immediate withdrawal. Just a thought from the 'tone' of many threads.

:-)

choice?.... I have no link, but did read it here on DU very recently, if not today !

the correct thing to do"..

but please do not bet any money based on my memory!

:-)

...the IWR.

if she is the Dem nominee. I will not stay home. I hate the war, but Pro-Choice is the defining issue for me. I would vote for any Dem nominee as long as the Dem Party has pro-choice in its platform.

Any Dem is better than any puke, any day, any time, any place.

at that point !

vote for her?

water, it's going to be so damn hard to cast a vote for her.

You know how everyone talks about the repubs staying home and not voting because of such a crappy candidate? Well, Hillary makes me feel the same way.

I'll vote, I always always have. But it will take more than just holding my nose to cast that one.

"represents progressive ideas". Only a Democrat as in "I'm not a Republican. I'm in the OTHER yacht club."

Every time they mention her name, their base open up the wallets. She is the biggest republican fundraiser out there.

she will energize the "anyone but Hillary" crowd! Lord, they'll be climbing out of the damn woodwork to vote against her on election day.

Her nomination will also disappoint and demoralize many Democrats (making it likely that they will stay home and simply not vote).

I just don't understand why people cannot understand this because it certainly doesn't take that much brainpower to see it... I mean, the Right Wing has figured it out!

As rethugs they picked Hillary as their choice for US! I remember posting on this quite a while ago.
They know how she is a divisive choice for dems and dividing us seems to be working...here right now.
Please don't let them succeed!
The nature of politics is 'win by any means necessary' and although I'd rather have Gore, Kerry, Feingold or Clark...and I really liked Paul Hackett there for a while; WINNING is what we must do!
By any means if we are to survive!
So please put your personal feelings aside, don't fall for all the bullshit those bastards throw our way and promise to support the person who is nominated!
:grr:
ON edit: Meant to say Feingold...not Feinstein!

Ignore the fact that she's been a mediorce Senator despite the fact that she comes from a solidly progressive state and has the highest name ID of anyone in the Senate.

She is not a leader, she is a politician. We need a leader. We need someone to fight back the corporatists and usher in a new progressive age in America.

Hillary stands for nothing except getting elected.

The DLC's mission is to take over our party and neutralize it by making it just slightly less conservative then the Republican party.

Any democrat who assists this effort is a traitor to the middle class and should be aggressively opposed.

It is the DLC that is dividing our party by taking corporate donations and using it to smear Democrats who use populism to vigorously defend the needs of the middle class. They hand pick people to run for office and give the buckets of cash from the big name corporate donors. The corporate press takes note of the huge funding lead and they are the "front runner" and the people always want to vote for the winner. (ahem, Casey-PA, ahem)

I'm going to look very closely at the 2008 primary.

If the DLC candidates gang up and start all repeating the same anti-(insert populist candidate here) talking points and the DNC does nothing to stop it then that's it. It's over for this party.

If we can't get our candidate thru the corrupt primary system there is little hope for the party.

We aren't just fighting the Republicans. We are fighting corporatism. It's taken over not just the USA but to a large extent Britain, Australia and many european countries. Even France has a center-right wing government. Corporatist do not leave anything to chance.

Corporate power is choking off democracy. That's why they purchased the media. Corporate power has many more tools at it's disposal including the DLC. The DLC exists to make sure that our party is taken over by corporate-friendly status-quo positive democrats.

Our screwed up primary system makes their job all the easier.

If they game the system in 2008 I'm done defending the DNC and I'm done with the party.

So lets look to the future: Hillary Clinton has a huge funding lead. The media is pushing her as the shoe-in for the nomination. The DLC loves her and also has 3 other backup candidates ready to be the stop-(insert populist candidate here) candidate. Even tho Hillary can't beat 5% in any of the online straw polls the media is just positive that Hillary is going to get the nomination. I don't know one single Democrat who is not disappointed in Hillary.

What do the insiders in the media know that we don't?

They know that the game is rigged: in the general and in the primary. Corporatism gets what they want.

We have to make it harder to rig the game by exposing the DLC and insisting on a national primary, massive election reform, publicly financed elections, and by letting our party know that they cannot count on our undying loyalty.

pretty well fucked with our governments.
I was born in fascist Germany, grew up in Soviet Berlin and spent most of my life in Australia, so I have experienced several different governments and find the neocons more scary than all the others.
They have learned to kill many more than even Hitler, yet the toll will take many years to count, when you consider all the long-term effects of depleted uranium and other chemicals used in modern warfare.
Although I survived the bombing in Berlin during the last year of that war, I lost all my family members except for my mother -in both world wars- so I'm very anti-war and always have been.
What are you suggesting we should do, when the media is firmly in with the pigs?
If you don't support the democratic candidate, you will be supporting the repugs-that's just a fact!

Win/Win for the Big Money Corporate Owners.

IF Hillary turns out to be the Democratic candidate, I'll vote for her because I think OVERALL we'll be a lot better off under any Democratic administration than by giving another 4-8 years to this group.

And though Hillary voted to give Bush authority, and still hasn't admitted her mistake, I sincerely doubt that she or any Democrat would have invaded Iraq in the first place.

sure, I would love to see Sharpton or Kucinich become president. That being said, whoever the Dems run in 2008 will be better then the GOP candidate. We can only hope to be a little better then the GOP.

do a lot better in a future Democratic administration. There will be huge problems that the next President will be left to deal with, but we need badly need to return to a "reality based" administration.

and the dems will have a better choice then the gop. :shrug:

take back our country.

If we don't vote at all, then we don't take back our country, and all that entails.

Would you rather live under the presidency of Hillary Clinton

or George Allen

or John McCain?

The pukes that stay at home over the "single issue" of immigration may lose the House for the pukes, and may lose them the presidency.

We can't be single issue voters unless that single issue is SO integral to who you are, that you can't bring yourself to vote. There must be other issues, besides the war, that you feel strongly about.

I thought that we all understand (I HOPE) that given her as the nominee up against a
Rethug.... then its hands down that we'd all vote for Hillary...

If Hillary's the nominee, she'll lose my state by 20 percentage points - at least. My vote wouldn't matter at all.

If it were some of the other Dems mentioned (Gore, Clark - God, even Edwards), then the margin narrows in my state and becomes competitive and my vote might make a difference.

I'll wait and see closer to election time, but if she's polling 15 to 20 percentage points back, I'll go with my heart and vote for who I think should have been the nominee. If it's closer, I'll vote for her (but it won't be here, I know that).

We might as well kiss the election goodbye! How about some nice GREEN, intelligent, peace lover, like Ralph Nader?

the Republicans, then tell us it's all our fault.

But welcome to DU anyway!

It looks at this point we're going to have a repeat of the '68 election, with two pro-war candidates running, and a lot of anti-war folks either going third party or simply staying home. And as in '68, this will prove to be a disastorous strategy, and we'll wind up with four more years of Republcan rule.

You would think that the Democrats would either learn from history, or at least listen to their constituency.

... For the primary, support whoever you want, and fight your ass off for them.

For the general election, support the Democratic nominee, and fight your ass off for him or her.

Is Clinton my first choice? Hell no. But she's above EVERY republican on my list. How 'bout yours?

why would you vote for her in the primaries !

... if Clinton is the nominee, that clarification woulda definitely been helpful.

Duh! :P

I'd register as one.

as progressive as hers. In fact, even among Democrats she ranks among the top fourth. You can find the stats at www.progressivepunch.com

whou said they would vote for here because she's pro-choice.... But all Dems
are pro-choice! and many are stating that they are also anti-war !

you'll continue to get a lot of answers along the lines of "I'm going to vote for the nominee."

I am not even close to deciding who I'll support in the primary.

candidate for Pres.

Dems have choices. So far these are the people that are running: Clark, Edwards, and Biden. Gore and Feingold have not declared but in my view they are the best choices.

That's the one of the reasons why not all Democrats are equal.

I use to trust Hillary for being a strong first lady as opposed to the snot-nosed butt-kissing broads like Barbara and Laura Bush. I even defending her from Rush Limbaugh's fascist comments about her. Why did Hillary still support this war, I have no idea.

I am so pissed off at this "All of America is united against Saddam" crap. This war has nothing to do with 9/11 or "freedom" and more to do with greed and power. Hillary should be ashamed of herself in support Bushler's war of aggression. God have mercy on her.

But, trot out the same old tired "the bogeyman is gonna getcha unless you support the lesser of two evils".

Unless she is the only Dem choice. Bill Clinton wasn't really liberal either. Let's hope we can find a REAL liberal.

accomplished !

That would certainly be one reason. I don't. But judging from your "nigtmarish massacre" comment, I would guess you and I have completely different reasons for opposing this war.

And if my reasons did not exist, you and I would be on opposite sides of this issue.

Part 1: if you believed the war was a good idea, you would presumably have no problem with Hillary's pro-war vote. That seems pretty straightforward.

Part 2: I believe the original post contained overtones of being opposed to VIRTUALLY ALL wars instead of just opposed to THIS war. In which case you and I would disgree on many wars.

Though not on this war. I opposed this war from the very beginning. And I opposed it for highly immoral reasons. I opposed it because our ideological enemy in the "War on Terrorism" is also Saddam Hussein's enemy. Saddam was never ideologically opposed to the West, just situationally opposed. And situations change. On the other hand, he did a fair job of brutalizing those with whom we are ideologically opposed. And I'd much prefer letting Saddam fight them for us by proxy using methods we are not yet ready to use ourselves.

You see, I didn't oppose this war because I thought it was immoral. I opposed it because I thought it was fucking stupid.

It's a given as far as I'm concerned the Rovian twist is to get HC to be the nominee. They know it will generate tons of cash from their base and they know that, the last I remember was at 39%, would refuse to vote for her no matter what the circumstances or opposing candidate might be. They've polled and numerous polls confirm there is a decided hillary hate machine in play here and don't flame me for that I'm just stating an overwhelming perception. Thus the Rovian ploy here would love to, at the starting gate, begin with a handicap on their horse with 40lbs on the jockeys back.

All the answers about this hate aren't clear, but my belief is it's routed in her exposer and outing in her "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" statement which I attribute as the single greatest contributing factor in thwarting her husbands impeachment. This stuck in the rights craw because it caused the nation to not look at the BJ, but to look at despotic nature of the right. MSM played it over and over and over and still play it at any chance today. It was one of the most successful outing of the right in the last 20 yrs.

I'm looking for someone to break late out of the pack in Iowa, something like Kerry did. The lsat thing we want is to see say 12% kerry, 14% clark, 10% edwards and 25% HC were HC takes it. We need to hone who we would like to see as the primary HC opposition and a hodgepodge splits our vote. The progressives need to get progressive here. I've always hated the ideas about third parties for more then thirty years and have maintained, if you can't take, that is have the sufficient support for a candidate within the minority party, how could one actually assume any chance going up against the whole population. The key to success is to finally after more then thirty years of struggle to actually take control on one of the parties and at that point to be in a position write the platform that party will run on. At that point politics in America will change forever. The public will see what we have to offer and they will support it and a sea change will occur. Not until we accomplish this task will we be in a position to give America a real choice in what COULD be done.

For the record I like Edwards as I think he could bridge gaps and many in the south like him. I think Edwards could actually capture two or three states in the south which added together with what we have already would push us over the top. I also think he is comparatively acceptable to much of the progressive agenda. Edwards plays well, is young and energetic, and isn't as closely associated with auto negatives that some of the others are. I like Feingold the best though but is he electable at this time, I could only hope but I don't think so. All in all, 2008 will prove to be one of the most interesting elections in my life time. I'm hoping for a water shead event. And if HC takes the primary I'll support her all the way to the finish line even though she won't write that platform the nation so richly deserves. A chance for real change. As this all comes to play I'm hoping we all get behind a single somebody and I really hope it's not HC. It's going to take more then she's a women or at least some actual vertabra to get me on her band bagon. I'll have to see something a little more progressive for my eyes are on the prise for a sea change.

I don't want her as the nominee but if she is I will vote for her. What's the alternative? McCain? Frist? Allen?

...are the reasons I did NOT vote for Kerry. So I won't be voting for any other war crime enabler either!

NT!

How she sounds depends on which of the three angles she's coming from us at on a given day.

I don't know who my first choice is for 2008, but I know it's not her.

...and I'll work to defeat ANYONE who supported the war crime against Iraq.

nt

I certainly will not support Hillary in the primaries.

Most of the talk about Hillary in 08 is from the conservative talking heads.

Slate article, "Republicans for Hillary" --

http://www.slate.com/id/2141639/

And I consider myself a flaming liberal.

After the IRW, I wrote her and asked why she felt it necessary to abdicate her responsibility as a Senator
and handed Bush her duty to be part of the governmental body that declared war. I was furious with her
and with every other Dem who voted for it. She sent me a reply stating every Repug talking point and the
necessity of taking Saddam out and standing behind the president. I am one of her constituents and felt
it my duty to tell her that she was out of line and cowardly in her inability to perform like a Dem or to
understand the obligations of her office.

I will not vote for her for President. She is an appeaser of the highest order. Her inability to take a
principled stand on issues makes me sick.

IMHO in a fair primary system (meaning all states vote on the same day) a corporatist DC insider candidate like Hillary could never win the primary. But we have a gamed primary system that gives the opportunity for party insiders to game the system as they did against Dean in 2004 in the lead up to Iowa and New Hampshire.

The grassroots need more control over this party. We must push for a national primary. Why does Iowa and New Hampshire, two very small and non-diverse states get to anoint the front-runner that the undecideds rally around? It's undemocratic and it's bad for the Democratic party and our chances in November.

Return the party to the people and tell the DC insiders to back the f**k off.

I have a confession, my parents are republicans. There I said it. Over the last few months, my parents have realized they've been conned. My father, who has always been a republican of the "old school" variety, made his confession to me a couple of weeks ago during a discussion we were having about gas prices. It went like this "I'm ashamed to say that I voted for him twice." I was dumbfounded. My father does NOT discuss politics, especially with any of his 3 dem kids. For this man to actually discuss politics or admit to making a mistake in voting for a republican is huge. It just doesn't happen. They both live in Indiana, the epitome of old school republicanism. My father is highly intelligent, educated and was a VP in his company before retiring. He's no run of the mill "redneck" from Indiana. He just didn't pay all that much attention. They've woken him up.

Now to the point of this little story. He knows where I stand and how I volunteer for the party. He says to me, "I will vote for any Democrat other than Hillary and John Kerry." "Put someone up, other than them and they will get my vote as well as many more "old school" republicans." It wasn't that they liked Bush, but, they saw him as the lesser evil. From what I've heard from "the other side" is that Hillary is too polarizing and Kerry, well, they just can't stand him, I think they've lumped him in with Teddy Kennedy. They're perception of these 2 candidates may not be correct, but, it's not likely to change. I feel deep down that if we actually ran Hillary, it would energize the republican base against her. In these times, it's just too risky, in my opinion.

The anger felt by these old schoolers, what we would consider moderate republicans, at Bush is something we would be remiss in not taking advantage of. They are PISSED.

Now before I get flamed like crazy by Kerry and Clinton supporters, it's not that I don't think they'd be decent candidates, I just feel that we need to have someone totally new. We could have a landslide with the right candidate and at this point, those 2 can't be that. I volunteered for Kerry here in Colorado. I do like them but, I can't take a chance with them. Not this time.

my favorite, and once I hated him --- AL GORE !

... your dad says that because those two have been targeted by propaganda. I knew Republicans who were absolutely, positively NOT going to vote for W. They liked Kerry. Thought he was great.

By the time November rolled around they went to the polls and cast their votes for W. They still hated W. But by then they had "learned" that Kerry was a traitor.

So today your dad says "I'll vote for any Democrat except Hil and Kerry". November of 2008 do not be at all surprised to hear him say, "I would have voted for any Democrat except Hil, Kerry or {insert winner of Democratic primary here}. I wish the Democrats had just nominated someone else."

:sarcasm:

:eyes: