Want war with Iran? Vote Hillary! (clip)

Run time: 00:18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mVibkYbXhU   Posted on YouTube: October 17, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: October 17, 2007 By DU Member: Mugsy Views on DU: 2764

 
This clip from tonights' news SO seriously concerned me, I had to go back and capture it.

Once again, supposed Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, hawkish on Iran, who voted to label part of the Iranian military a "terrorist organization", advances the over hyped Neocon threat of Iran. Assuming Democrats are already in her pocket, she has spent her entire campaign courting Republicans with comments like this.

Brief clip from the NBC Nightly News, Oct 17, 2007.

(More on those weapons Iran is supposedly sneaking into Iraq.)

Oh, no need to worry about those fringe anti-war democrats. They only make up a measly 95% of her base...Go ahead, alienate them Hillary!

or if there is massive fraud at the polls. If she wins, I think voting won't matter anymore.

I've been voting since 1988, always Republican. That's why I hang out here.:silly:

of Clinton getting elected.

"The only way she will win is if people don't vote
or if there is massive fraud at the polls. If she wins, I think voting won't matter anymore."

You don't think that's kind of an odd thing to say?

In fact, if it's her vs. a republicon, neither will get my vote.

You think I will change my mind and vote for somebody who authorized the war and has continued to fund it? I have no qualms about voting for somebody other than HRC in the general election. In the meantime, I'm doing what I can to help another Dem who actually supports important progressive values.

and the bandwidth you waste will be put to better use.

There is nothing "special" about the bandwidth here. This is nothing but a moderated web site with rules nothing more nothing less.....

"You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website."

I don't recall anyone getting tossed out when they opposed LIEberman as the Democractic Candidate. What gives?

if, once a nominee is chosen, a poster keeps talking about not voting for that person, writing another Dem in, or voting 3rd party, they run a real chance of getting tossed. The admin has been pretty clear that we're expected to support the Dem nominee in the general election. It happened more than once in '03-'04.

Maybe your "ass" will get kicked off too. Sorry for being too progressive for ya. In the meantime, I'm trying to save the roots of the party while you sit back wishing for people with different views to be banned.

And you don't get to define "progressive", either.

I'm just making a point. I notice my original post hasn't been deleted yet.

read the thread. It won't be against the rules until after the convention.

You're rude, insulting, and want people banned because they disagree with you on a message board. Chill.

appointed yourself DU net nanny?

Tell you what - if someone who says they aren't going to vote for the Dem nominee finds me rude and insulting, well, tough shit. I don't have a whole lot of respect for fools. And if you post that sort of garbage after the nominee is chosen, you will get kicked off. Read the rules.

Meanwhile - I'm through letting you waste my time. I'm going to put you on ignore, because you haven't made a post to me yet that was worth reading. Go for the last word if it makes you feel better.

You have a nice day and enjoy your stay here at DU.

It's all part of a shell game.

First: that clip was really unhelpful in trying to understand Hillary's stance on the issue of Iran. 18 seconds of a news report can be cut up to show just about anything. But your general concern about her vote to label the Revolutionary Guard of Iran a terrorist org. is disturbing.
She is said to be supportive of a Jim Webb bill that demands the President to get congressional approval before invading or attacking Iran though. This should be noted.

Now, what do we do if Hillary wins the nomination, which by most accounts she is on her way to doing? I voted for Gore in 2000 (and would vote for him again) but I now support Edwards #1, and Obama #2.
Given all of this, I think committed Dems are going to vote for whichever Dem candidate is elected. Is there a chance that the tear-down of not only Hillary but many of the other candidates will hurt the party when the official election finally rolls around? Too often I find DU a venting place for Kucinich candidates who seem to believe every other candidate wants to uphold the Bush status quo or something. I believe that's a problem.

The full news story was about how the rest of the candidates are focusing on attacking Hillary. This clip was provided as one example as to why.

Iran's "Revolutionary Guard" is their diplomatic "Quds Force". They were welcomed into Iraq by the Iraqi government, and the bottom link in the story shows serious reason to question the Bush Administrations' claim they are sneaking weapons into Iraq.

I Personally do not believe Hillary is truly doing as well as the media claims she is. I know of no one that is voting for her, she does terrible in every online poll, and she has done more to court Republicans... a constituency that will NEVER vote for her... than she has Democrats.

Of all the Democratic candidates, I have the least amount of faith that she won't extend the war in Iraq or expand it into Iran. If she came straight out and argued against those possibilities, I could support her. Instead, she is the most hawkish Democrat in the field.

so many mainstream news stories simply create more questions than answers. On another note about quesitons, I question just about everything the Bush administration claims, as i'm sure you do.
I wonder though, how much of Hillary's "hawkish" mentality is attributable to her looking ahead to the general election where she'll likely have to face Guiliani, that rabid dog.
Maybe it's to try and make herself look strong and presidential as one of the first serious women candidates for pres? Or maybe you're right, in which case I'm already worried.

against the Webb bill.

It demeans the constitution to have to reiterate it.

that requires anything of Bush gets dismissed with a signing statement, and the knowledge that the Supreme Court will be compliant. We are on the edge of anarchy.
When those tasked with enforcing the law disregard the law, disorder reigns. And it is in this disorder the Decider and his mob loot the treasury. That's what it's about. That's what it's always been about.
If they take away our freedom, the terrorists will leave us alone, because they hate us for our freedom.

I support Kucinich and will vote for him in primaries..because he represents what I believe in. What I resent is being told by the media and others that I am wasting my vote and Hilary has already been selected. That said you are right most Dems including myself will support the candidate that is nominated. lame's wife patty

If we should ever get a President that sees the importance of reforming the voting process in this country, besides an audit trail, one more thing DESPERATELY needed is something called "Instant Runoff Voting" (great Flash animation).

In IRV, you no longer have to worry about "throwing your vote away" and voting for someone just because you think they have a better chance of winning. You vote for your favorite candidate, and if they don't win at least 50%, the last-place candidate's votes are divided among each supporters' second choice, and so on, until at least one candidate receives a majority of the votes.

A lot of voters support candidates simply for their "electability", while their truly preferred candidate... like Kucinich or Richardson... never have a chance because everyone assumes not enough of their fellow voters will take the same gamble and vote for someone "so low in the polls".

I HIGHLY recommend watching the above linked animation.

Obama is next to last on my list of candidates. I'm a Richardson voter (Kucinich next).

But my comments have nothing to do with bolstering support for my preferred candidates. They are serious concerns.

thats not allowed, you know. Why? Because Clinton supporters said so.

And did you hear she's inevitable?

However, Obama endorsed warmonger Lieberman and Bill Clinton campaigned with him. After anti-war Lamont won the primary - Obama and Hillary refused to be seen publicly with him - but campaigned for OTHER Dem candidates.
So obviously Obama and Hillary wanted MORE Lieberman warmongering bills like Kyl/Lieberman.

Democrats would at least lie to the Democratic base before the nomination...

Ah, those were the days...

Wait until you see the REAL health care plan the insurance companies have written for her.

but rather they're auditioning for the power brokers that control the media and count the votes?

Kind of like "Hey boss, I can top the offers made by my opponent and give you and even better deal!"

With Democratic post like I read on this site there no need for the republican
to attack there doing there job for them . I do not support her I like Richardson
but I think most democrats on this site tend to eat there own .

Oh my - he's very DLC and Centrist - and was in a firm with Henry Kissinger. Yikes!

Hopefully, they have really given up on us. We neither need any of that crap, nor do we really care.

If it means losing an election or electing a Repug in Dem clothing. I say LOSE IT.

Sorry, I am quickly getting to the point that I CANNOT VOTE for Repug lite.

Tastes great. Less filling. Right?

Yeah, RIGHT.

Hillary is a Centrist Democrat, IE she's still pretty much to the right of a large section of the country, on healthcare, on foreign policy, most Americans are probably closer to Kucinich, ideologically. However, under the current campaign structure, and I am a major cheerleader for campaign finance reform, theres' no sense not going with the nominee. This is especially essential as theres' so much at stake, we can't AFFORD another far right administration, we need time to undo the damage. I've always said voting is essentially a choice between mediocre and godawful. I'll take mediocrity over this neocon nightmare anyday. I firmly believe in reaching for the stars, but theres' also a certain degree of pragmatism.

"Vote for me! Because I would make George look like Mahatma Ghandi."

I think ...or I hope she will work within the Constitution.....but I wouldn't bet money on it. There is MUCH better stuff out there. I'm backing Edwards or Kucinich....the later first. Hillary is TOO controlled by big corporations and even in "the good old days" of Billy, I felt like we were in a "fair and legal republican world". Do you really want more breaks for business and the rich?? I think it's time to turn this world back around to care about the less fortunate and the world at large. You are NOT going to get that with this woman....be for warned.

(preview of the next similar hysterical post...)

:puke:

Most of the time I've said I'd hold my nose and vote for the Dem candidate, but I'm beginnning to think it really doesn't matter. Not only is Hillary in the pocket of corporations, she's also part of the shell game. She (and the other dems) are there to make it look like we have a choice, when in reality, we don't. If she's elected, we'll have four, maybe eight, years of Republican Lite (perhaps by design), then the ol' voting machines will send in another Republican.

Maybe my head is full of tinfoil, but I don't believe Hillary is on the side of the people. I am seriously doubting any of the dem candidates are on the side of the people. I'm beginning to think they're there for window dressing.

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