Hillary: ''I believe we are safer than we were.''

From the Center for American Progress:



How can she say that?

Edited to add: Annual terrorism report will show 29% rise in attacks

We're not.

and dodged the question about whether she would consider a military option against Iran. Typical DLCer.

Can't say the same for the troops she sent over there.

One is that there ARE, in fact, some better security features in place now than 6 years ago. We haven't done it right, nor have we done nearly enough.

Second, and more important, is that she's following Bill Clinton's proven lead of not running for office on a platform of doom and gloom. The wise thing for a politician to say is "yes, but we can do much better" and then outline what needs to be done.

I know that's an unsatisfying answer for many here, but it's politics 101.

FEMA=fail
mad cow testing, food safety=fail
letting contagious people fly=fail
being able to sneak into the USA=fail
Keeping the law abiders abiding the law by finger-printing foreigners visiting USA=?

Airport security=fail
screening cargo on planes=a tiny bit is done but still fail
screening shipping containers=as above
hmmm, I'm stuck.

it's been done poorly.

But we ARE checking some cargo and luggage - not nearly enough, though.

We ARE doing very slightly better in port security, but not nearly enough, though.

We ARE doing more on policing terrorist threats - but we're doing it terribly, though.

That's all I meant.

1. Homeland security
2. Killing and capturing al Qaeda members
3. Preventing new recruits to al Qaeda

#2 -- still haven't captured OBL, and Pakistan has a cease fire with Jihadists in Pakistan, so now they are rebuilding their org. Plus Al Qaeda in Iraq is raising gobs of money which they are forwarding to the main org in Pakistan.

#3 -- an ABSOLUTE DISASTER. Bush blew it by invading Iraq, and now we have more terrorists than EVER.

This is why she is dead wrong for what she said. Obama had the best answer on the question, pointing out how we're not concentrating on taking out the main al Qaeda in Pakistan/Afghanistan and about the fundraising done by Al Qaeda in Iraq. He gets it. She doesn't.

Thankfully America won't bite it.

except Hillary's pronouncement. Bush say's Republicans can keep us safe because there has been no attack since 9/11. So we're safer?

...when Hillary made that statement. That is not a fabricated meme, this is taking an absurd and dangerous statement and bringing it out into open discussion.


on edit: this for that

I hope that she is not the candidate, but that is wise politics

And she wants to believe in government.

I believe in government.

One of the hardest things I deal with here on DU is the people who hate government as much as conservatives do.

Who wants us to hate government most? Corporate interests. They do a good job of making sure both sides hate government.

Who wants us to hate government most? Something to think about. I do know of some good candidates. Following the money sure implicates corporate interests.

can't you read?

agreeing that the lot of ordinary Americans was as copacetic as Poppy insisted. Lost jobs, busted mortgages, spiralling medical costs, he talked freely and often about the shitty state of their lives. "I feel your pain." Remember that? That wasn't doom and gloom, it was a truthful assessment of where we were.

to parse and spin.

Bill Clinton didn't get the one basic common sense item from Politics 101--don't hand your enemies ammunition with which to blow you up. So much for his savvy.

sure, we may be checking one or two more pieces of luggage, but that in NO way offsets the decrease in overall security from the thousands of new terrorists we create daily.

Hillary's comment was flat-out stupid and incorrect.

Aside from the knowledge that the world hates us and can attack us on our own soil, nothing has changed security wise.

Politics 101 = We are less safe and we need to change course.

Of course you need to want to change course. Hillary won't change our course, she will stay the course, only smarter.

She's not inhabiting the same planet as billions of others on that answer, for sure.

My fear is she's just that much of an opportunist, and a stupid (read: DLC) one to boot.

I hope she's wearing a tasty Ferragamo ... the aftertaste of a foot-in-mouth moment can be very unpleasant. That clip will certainly get replay in the corporate media.

for a wide, wide variety of candidates. "Hey, if it's working, why change anything? Don't fix what ain't broke," they'll all say, in one way or another.

It's unbelievable to me. I hope she chokes on that damn shoe.

:(

She is very impressive

and safe in the hands of political consultants, I expect you are right.

Impressive.

She just showed how out of touch with reality she really is.

I mean it!

What a farkin' idjit.

Go away, Hillary. Who needs another DLC-ish DINO?

Aaargh, makes me shudder.

As much as I'd LOVE to vote for a woman, I can't do this.

I'd support Maxine Waters over that whole crew that was on tonight. Somebody with the guts to stand up and call bush a liar and a criminal! Please Al Come out smokin' and give America a little hope!

I refuse to vote for GOP light!

about Sen. Clinton. Oh geeze. Maxine Waters -- so many progressive women who could do a great job. The Democrats have talent coming out of their ears. :(

And that's something to smile about!

The Dems have so many good ones. They don't have to do this.

I would love to vote for a woman. I would love to have a woman president. I never even truly believed that we'd see it so soon so i am happy that a woman is actually in contention. But this woman? No way. We need a leader, a leader who can accurately assess our challenges and based on that judgement determine the best course of action. If she thinks that we are safer than she doesn't even accurately assess our problems and therefore cannot solve them.

To be in crisis is hard enough. To have a leader deny it exists? Unacceptable. :patriot:

For what godforsaken political advantage is is she saying this?

:wtf:

Is she saying the GOP policies have been successful? If that's the case, then neither her NOR ANY OTHER MEMBER OF HER PARTY can hope to succeed.

Honest to Gawd, send this woman packing before she does any more damage, I beg you.

and so -- what? Firmly in the hands of the machine. :shrug:

yet say such stupid things? I'm at a loss.

And this isn't her first time mouthing platitudes to stupid RW talking points.

in this country. And so has the way we fund our elections.

It's all a big fire sale and the people lose. :(

/oops

in her campaign. To suggest that her positions come from political consultants is to ignore the consistency on many issues over many years. If she had said we were in more danger, she would slammed for exploiting fear.

The first rule is - don't validate your opponents talking points.

Hillary has done so too many times. Whether she's done it on her own or on the advice of consultants - it still hurts the message, tone and direction of her campaign.

And don't think for a second that her enemies in politics or the "librul media" will ever let her forget these few seemingly innocuous words.

that you, an anonymous poster on the internet, knows more about campaigning than a two time Senator

But I was talking about common sense.

and "common sense" sounds a lot like "I don't have an argument"

Are we 'safer' now? Has the Bush administration done a fantastic job at 'keeping us all safe'?

Or do you you just blindly agree with whatever your candidate says?

That's not critical thinking, nor is it something to be admired.

I said nothing about the accuracy of the statement, and it was intellectually dishonest of you to imply that I've said anything about that. It is just as dishonest to falsely claim that Hillary is "my" candidate. I support ALL of the democratic candidates.

Making up stuff about what I think is not admirable.

I merely suggested that if Clinton makes such asinine statements, she should be criticized for it.

Moreover, I'm suggesting that if she believes this is good strategy, she needs to take a hard look at reality and consider if she really belongs in modern day politics.

No slight on you, but your defense of her sure looks like advocacy for her policies.

If I'm wrong, I apologize.

I know so many do not want to hear that, but she is.

Like I said earlier, the choice has already been made for this country.

Hillary Tyranny or Rudy Tyranny.

America will not change in 2008.

And it will not change until we stop The Machine.

And the Machine cannot be stopped until the people wake up to the fact they are being played by both sides.

There ARE good candidates out there.

But they have no chance to win. And that is by design.

When are my countrymen going to wake up to the fact they have NO REAL CHOICE.

The Status Quo will remain BY DESIGN.

:(

delete.

can still hear that ringing in my ears.

:shrug:

:(

That's just nuts.

I'd love to have the two comments side by side.

Transcript anyone?

CLINTON: Well, Brian, I think that, as a senator from New York, it is something that I have worked on very hard ever since 9/11 -- to try to convince the administration to do those things that would make us safer. And I think there's a big disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality.

We haven't secured our borders, our ports, our mass transit systems. You can go across this country and see so much that has not been done.

CLINTON: The resources haven't gotten to the front lines where decisions are made in local government the way that they need to.

And I think that this administration has consistently tried to hype the fear without delivering on the promise of making America safer.

And its foreign policy around the world, as you've heard from all of my colleagues here, has also made the world less stable, which, of course, has a ripple effect with respect to what we're going to face in the future.

So I hope that we can put that myth to rest. It is certainly something I will try to do during the campaign.

http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-042607-krg-debate_part1.1023b3ba.html

She doesn't say we're less safe...but it's hardly a strong endorsement that we're safer either.

number one she is "The Face of the DLC"

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Accepts Position as Chair of the DLC's 'American Dream Initiative'

For Immediate Release

Contact: Tammy Sun
(202) 546-0007, tsun@dlc.org

COLUMBUS, OHIO -- DLC Chair Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack announced today, Monday July 25th, that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) will Chair the American Dream Initiative, a special project of the Democratic Leadership Council. The announcement took place during the General Session of the DLC's National Conversation, an annual event that brings together Democratic leaders from across the nation to talk about innovative ideas and strategies for governing in their states and communities. This year, over 300 elected officials from 40 states were in attendance.

The American Dream Initiative is a year-long project of the DLC that will engage political, business, labor, civic and intellectual leaders in a "national conversation" to help shape a positive agenda for our country and the Democratic party. The Initiative will focus on challenges facing America including: keeping our country safe, building an opportunity society, standing up for families and making sure our political and electoral systems work for all Americans.

Gov. Vilsack said: "I have asked Sen. Clinton to chair a special project at the DLC called the American Dream Initiative. I'm very happy to announce that she has accepted, and I look forward to working together to shape a positive agenda for the country. Sen. Clinton's expertise on policy issues and deep understanding of the challenges we face as a party and as a nation make her an ideal person to lead this important effort."

Sen. Clinton said: "I am proud to take on the task of leading the American Dream Initiative for the DLC because its mission goes to the heart of why I am a Senator, and what I believe about public service -- that we are here to leave our children a richer, safer and stronger land than we inherited from our parents. I look forward to working with Gov. Vilsack and all interested Americans on this project."

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=85&subid=108&contentid=253475


and she is a corporate warmongering/"wtf is the difference from the Neo-cons" kind of a "Democrat".

:puke:

it does sell.

Her husband didn't get elected by talking about how shitty America was after Reagan and Bush. She's smart enough to understand that.

As much as YOU would like a candidate who tells you how much everything sucks, you're in the very small minority.

Thanks, but most people seem to like a candidate who don't take two opposing positions, and not only live in the reality based community, but also can perceive the public will.

The only candidate who has consistently opposed the war and wasn't fooled by the Chimperor when it counted was Kucinich.

that Kucinich will not do better than Clinton in any primary?

I'm discussing political realities. Kucinich, who never had a chance in the first place, totally buried himself tonight with answer to the Osama question.

How much you wanna bet? $1? $10? $1,000? $100,000?

Kucinich will not beat Clinton in any primary (presuming they're both alive and in the race).

I don't know why that is considered a negative

I gave up on super-hero candidates many year ago. I like smart people who can win.

After all, she was fooled by Bush:shrug: Hell, apparently she didn't even read the NIE, on a bill that was essentially a green light for war.

.

against a candidate.

Politically, Americans supported the war resolution by a large margin. New Yorkers did so, too.

That's not to say they supported the war - they supported the resolution. As Clinton said tonight, "this is Bush's war". I have said that here for years, and taken a lot of flak for it. I still believe it, though.

Back when the IWR resolution was being voted on, 68% of the people in this country didn't want to do a damn thing, including voting on the IWR, until the inspectors had done their job and made their report. In addition, there were millions of people out in the street, both around the country and around the world saying NO! in a loud voice. And during the run up to the IWR vote, messages that were coming in to all offices in both the Senate and Congress were running 268-1 against the IWR. So how was Hillary doing the will of the people? Hell, how was she doing the will of the people by continuing to vote for every single supplemental funding bill(except the last one of course, since she now wants to appear less hawkish:eyes:)

And while you may still believe it, that believe doesn't make it so. In reality many of the Congressional Dems not only enabled Bush and his illegal, immoral war, but cheered it on themselves. And now that it has become politically unsuitable to support it, they are trying to avoid it like the plague. Sorry, but I'm not going to vote for somebody who refuses to do the will of the people, who was fooled by Bush, and who still wants to play politics with people's lives.

Do you have any more info on the majority of Americans supporting the IWR?

Not trying to be a jerk, I just never saw any polls or anything to that effect.

Do you think that the American public wants a candidate who on the one hands says that we're less safe from attacks than we were pre Bush, then on the other hand says the exact opposite? A candidate who was apparently fooled into voting for the war, by the dumbest president that we've had? Or worse yet, initially supported the war, but is "now against it?":eyes:

No, I fully conceed that Kucinich has little chance to win the nomination. That isn't the point that I'm trying to make, so stick your cash or whatever back in your pocket. What I'm simply saying is that when it counts, Kucinich has been right on the money, from the beginning, and unlike Clinton and Edwards, he wasn't "fooled" or "made a mistake" or whatever. Thanks, I prefer straight talking, intelligent candidates myself, which rules out Clinton.

who runs on a platform of how fucked we are can win.

That's why Clinton, and others, will say the things they say. It's basic political knowledge.

in can win, because we won't vote for the bearer of bad news.

To me this speaks just as ill of the people as it does the candidates themselves.

Maybe one of the main reasons this country is so fucked is the unwillingness of it's citizens to step outside of The Matrix they so desperately need to live in lest they cease to function, and face up to reality.

"Don't terrify us with reality. Tell us what we want to hear."

It seems that too many of my countrymen just want to feel good and feel comfortable, and will latch on to anything that helps them maintain that heroin like malaise that everything is just fine, and that everything can just go on like it always has.

I am beginning to think this country cannot be saved because it does not want to be. it simply cannot be bothered.

Clinton and the others will say the things they say, and like cattle we'll all latch onto it because it makes us feel good, comfortable and hopeful, and falsely secure and powerful.

And then they will do as politicians do. Play us like fiddles, and continue their ravaging of everything.

It's basic political strategy, after all.

And we keep falling for it time, and time, and time, and time, and time again.

We simply cannot learn from history. How can we help but repeat it?

Why should this be sugar coated for the public? Why should people be coddled like they're small children? Don't you think that the vast majority of Americans realize that we're screwed in many different ways?

The key to this is not to just admit the self evident truth, but to have a plan that will help restore this country. Apparently all Hillary has is platitudes and pablum for the masses, exactly what we don't need. Thanks, but I'll stick with Kucinich, he's willing to admit the truth and has plans to change this country for the better.

"This is why the DLC is dangerous. For all their claims of supposedly wanting to help Democrats, they employ people like Marshall Wittman who specifically try to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means he has to publicly defecate out the most rank and easily-debunkable lies. They reguarly give credence to the right wing's agenda and its worst, most unsupportable lies. They are the real force that tries to make sure this country is a one party state and that Democrats never really challenge the Republicans in a serious way."

www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is...

after the 2004 stolen elections, going on and on about values voters -- that no one has ever been able to find, as if they were anything more than a convenient fiction.

This is an incredible website BTW.....http://www.nndb.com/group/269/000093987/

New Democrat Movement


The right wing current of the Democratic party, characterized by its neoliberal economic policies, support of Israel, desire to increase defense spending, and links to heavy donors and fundraisers.

Believes that "left-wing" positions are not politically viable. Describes itself as "moderate and pro-growth". Probably responsible for erosion of the Democratic Party's historical labor and minority base due to support of treaties like NAFTA, lack of support for affirmative action and poverty programs, and their siphoning away of campaign funds from minority groups.

At the national level, the movement was founded by the Democratic Leadership Council (501c4 educational non-profit, founded 1984) and includes the House New Democrat Coalition (founded 1997), the Senate New Democrat Coalition (founded 2000), the New Democrat Network PAC (founded 1996), the misnamed Progressive Policy Institute (501c4 think tank, "Bill Clinton's idea mill", founded 1989), and the umbrella funding group The Third Way Foundation (501c3 non-profit, founded 1996).

Since coming to power within the Democratic Party with Bill Clinton's presidency, the New Democrats/DLC have worked towards "essentially the same purpose as the Christian Coalition... to pull a broad political party dramatically to the right" according to John Nichols of The Progressive.

DLC operatives actively worked to sabotage Howard Dean's candidacy for the US Presidency in 2004, claiming that the "far-left" Democrat was wrong to attack George W. Bush's tax cuts and national security policies.

Corporate contributors to the DLC and New Democratic Network include Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, Health Insurance Corporation of America, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Philip Morris, RJR Nabisco, Chevron, Prudential Foundation, Amoco Foundation, AT&T, Morgan Stanley, Occidental Petroleum, Raytheon, and many other Fortune 500 companies.

one of her foremost jobs after 9/11 was to get something done to make New York and the rest of the country more secure. To say that we are not safer now could easily be spun into her admission that she has not done a good job of that.

Much of it is at least arguable, i.e. airline travel is more secure, consciousness is raised, etc.

a mere senator's best intentions may be severely curtailed at the whim of the warring King and his obedient servants tyrannizing the legislature. But the spin machine will conveniently forget that part.

taking risks on behalf of securing New York.

Shortly after 9/11, she stood in the well of the Senate holding a newspaper whose headline read "Bush Knew!!"

She has also strongly criticized bush for his delays in providing the $20 billion that was promised to NYC. In fact, NYC eventually received more than $20 billion

As a NYer, I could go on

What has she done for the first responders who are dying? For the 9/11 families? I really don't know.

Also, Clinton will be leading a congressional investigation into the environmental effects of 9/11, including the effects on first-responders.

and she is about to begin a congressional investigation into the environmental effects of 9/11 and how it has effected the health of first responders.

Thanks for raising another issue where Clinton has done an outstanding job!

Then be easily beaten. :shrug: She seems almost like a cheerleader for the PNAC! "There is a real divide on Hillary Clinton. It is between reality and myth and it is a divide that has existed ever since her husband ran for the presidency. But, as with her husband, the media has done a superb job of protecting its audience from reality.

This mythology will flourish until after the Democratic convention. If HRC wins the nomination, the game will dramatically change. The Republicans would be delighted to have Clinton as the candidate and don't want to spoil their chances by beating up on her now.

It is hard to get Democrats to focus on this problem, but consider this: The Justice Department's and other investigatory files on the Clinton years are currently fully under the control the Bush administration and will be until Inauguration Day." http://prorev.com/hillary.htm
:wow: :scared:

Hill to win. There was an article about this..they're setting her up..

Was this during the debate or something? Because not only does it make little sense to repeat a Bush talking point, it's factually WRONG! It's complete BS. How can the US be safer after Iraq? How many more potential suicide bombers are there after the chaos? To say this is so stupid, it's stunning. I'm tempted to use real harsh expletives targeted at her, but I'd possibly get my self banned so I'll bite my tongue (or I should say my fingers).

I haven't been watching the debates. All I know is she never had my primary vote and I've never understood what appeal she has. It's going to be tough to even take the time out of the day to vote for her in the general election at this point. I really hope we don't throw this election away by nominating her.

I was quite disappointed.

IOW, we'll be SAFER when we go back to NO plots!

Now I know, Hillary has been drinking the Koolaide to say we are safer. She sure wasn't talking about most of the free world or N.O. or the troops. She may as well have given bush a kiss with that statement! I am frustrated and disappointed she doesn't care to listen to us! :cry: I recommend she read the book 'The Assault on Reason'. Edited to say: We need A President we can trust like Al Gore to make us safer!

that the plots are true....NOTHING THAT COMES OUT OF THIS GOVERNMENT CAN BE ASSUMED TO BE FACTUAL AND NOT A LIE! Does she not understand that Bush and his thugs are a CRIME FAMILY?

I am so damned sick. I wonder what she actually truly believes, rather than the focus grouped bullshit she spews daily. Go away, woman.

But, at least she's dropped the "failed insurgency" line.

If she had answered no, then the republicans would be able to beat the war drums saying "Even Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton agrees that we are in a more perilous situation than before. We need to attack (fill in blank)"

Of course, the answer she did give lets them say "see, even HRC thinks were making things safer"

We might have stricter plane security, but the invasion has fostered more terrorists and Bush hasn't funded security here at home. There are more ways than planes to cause damage.

the truth. Whoever manages to do that will win.

Unless you're Jesus Christ and can quickly think of a third way to answer.

Today, we are safer, but we are not yet safe

"we're safer" -lies bush


We are safer -- we are safer and the world is better off because Saddam is sitting in a prison cell.

Ugly fact is, when Bush or anyone says, "We're safer now...", it is seen in the context of - America is safer thanks to the actions (of Bush/govt.) since "911". Another ugly fact is - America is far less safer because of the actions of Bush/America's government since "911".

"We're safer" is a bullshit talking point. It promotes the thinking that everything Bush has done has made America safer. It justifies invading Iraq, torture, extraordinary rendition, illegal and indefinite detentions - as well as the erosions of civil rights and spying on Americans.

Because ALL of those things are supposedly why "we are safer than we were"

People can justify it any way they need to - Claim the "we are safer" talking point is based on increased searches at airports and beefed up security in other areas...but don't lie to yourself about everything it means.

:thumbsdown:

But I was convinced of that a long time ago.

And the Hillary squad has yet to show up. Maybe because they've realized their candidate has done something truly indefensible even for them.

x(

an article about an intelligence report that was declassified a little while ago that said the world, including the USA, was not safer because of what is going on now in Iraq....I have to find that article.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

more here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ei=5088&en=da252be85d1b39fa&ex=1316750400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

HILLARY IS A LIAR....

I try to believe only in what is real.

Clinton: The vote to authorize the president to fight the "war on terror" seemed reasonable at the time. We are safer than we were before 9/11 but not safe enough.


.... and insulting. :puke:

:grr:

IMHO. I think that if we were to get attacked from either the outside or inside, we are going to get attacked. These bozos in power have shown repeatedly that they cannot protect us. The only thing we have now is a common awareness that something could happen somewhere..sometime. That's all.

And whether the increased collective awareness makes us safer or not is debateable. I think we should let this particular comment go. It played well to the right, and it wasn't an outright lie.

All over Europe, people live their lives without fear, just aware of their surroundings.

Google

she said it during the debate and it is in a NYT article.

Google:

Search words: Democratic debate, transcript, June 3

yields:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Democratic+debate+transcript%2C+June+3

which yields:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19015716/

"Still, she said, “I believe we are safer than we were.”"

which yields:

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=06640a30-7a49-4b1b-861c-e8319f213a5b&f=00&fg=copy

The MSNBC link even comes with video which clearly shows - she said it.

In the OP, the Center for American Progress is the source for the graph - not Clinton's quote.

The other link is the source for the rise in terrorist activity

We have eight candidates. Let's not pick this one.

She says what she THINKS people want to her. What I would like to hear is a sincere, truthful answer. She's all about winning and doesn't appear to have principles.

I doubt Hillary thinks otherwise.

He's a bushbot and his explanation for this is, "All I know is that we haven't been attacked again."

here.

That is the stupidest thing she could have ever said.

Ugh.

I'm already so sick of her and it's a year and a half before the election ...

:D

She plans to continue the armed presence in Iraq to protect the interests of the Global Corporations and keep the AIPAC money rolling in.

In order to continue the Occupation (the permanent bases and the Green Zone Imperial Palace) she MUST insist that the occupation has made us "safer".

WORD!

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

I don't think I could give my support to someone who reminds me so much of Lieberman. I don't have any way of knowing if deep down she's a smart person, or even a good person, but she just isn't up to the job, imho

Feingold isn't running, so please, please ...Gore.

that wants to undermine the Democratic Party. See post 41. If DLC manipulates the primaries again and Hillary is the nominee, I'll write in DK.

that the Senator from New York has gone a little nuts.

(Sorry, too much caffeine )

That is not a smart belief in any way.

Schumer Leaps To Hillary's Defense Against Obama

DU discussion here.