Shame shame Hillary

[wegottem]

Her stand on agreeing with the nit wit in office on Iraq made me think twice or more about Her. There was no danger from Iraq then or now or never to me or the U S, only to the jews. We should withdraw immed. We have no business there. We badly need the money being spent (thrown away) there at home. We badly need a Demo. canadaate, any one. Any port in a storm, and we are in a storm.

[trumad]

1. Context/Link....always helpful in GD

[La_Serpiente]

4. I believe that it happened on the Sunday Talk Shows

but maybe he could have a link too.

[KG]

2. while dissapointing, it wasn't surprising that she voted for the IWR

contrary to the widespread belief, the clintons aren't lefties or liberals, but modern, new dem, neo-lib, DLC conservative corporatists.

[papau]

3. or as she said- she's a little to the left of the center most folks are at

and she trusted the info provided by the executive.

So this makes her bad?

don't think so

:-)

[Bridget Burke]

5. Interesting phraseology here

It's one thing to disagree with the Israeli government's treatment of the Palestinian people, it's another to make blanket statements about "the jews".

Besides, she's not a candidate.

[cthrumatrix]

6. she could have been tougher....she has decided to go lite on the

911 issue and the lead-up to prior knowledge ...that is of concern to me...

she could have said alot more........

[Rowdyboy]

7. I saw the same shows Sunday and came away

proud of her. Go figure...

[JNelson6563]

8. I thought she did well too

The emperor is naked, laughing out loud at absurd quote read to her, remarks like "that's just sad" when shown Hillary-haterz-attacks, she was great. Great attitude.

Julie

[msmcghee]

9. Some here just don't get it.

It would be suicidally stupid for any prominent Dem going into the most important election in decades, to take an ideological stand against the 60% or so (depending on which poll) of Americans who believe we were right to go into Iraq - that we "had to do something in answer to 9/11" as I read a quote from a vet yesterday.

This is especially true when the opposition will certainly make national security "the" issue.

In our winner take all system - "right" and "wrong" are just swords that can be used to kill your opponent if they try to use them against, rather than with, the trend. That's how our system works. It is not HRC's fault or Kerry's fault or Clark's fault but that's how it is. That is why Dean is seen as unelectable by some - it's that issue.

I wish we had a different system that rewarded politicians for being honest about their beliefs. But we don't. A hard line in the sand is a line that allows a smart opponent to take all the votes to his side of your line. If you voluntarily draw a line that encloses a minority, even if that minority is right and the majority are monumentally wrong, you lose. Elections are not about right and wrong (even though we dreamy eyed liberals want to believe they are) - they are about minorities and majorities. Liberals who insist on ideological purity, especially during a campaign, are insisting on four more years of Bush*.

Our Dem leadership and candidates are doing the best they can against heavy odds - and trying not to get sucked into ideological traps to be pounded by the RW - and trying to win for us, for our values. This is the time to support all true Dems - not make ideological demands of them.

My 2 cents.

[lewiston]

10. Best 2 cents you ever spent...

n/t

[PatrickS]

11. Hillary is no better than Lieberman

From Safire's op-ed, Hillary, Congenital Hawk.

"Consider the political meaning of all this. Here is a Democrat who has no regrets for voting for the resolution empowering the president to invade Iraq; who insists repeatedly and resolutely that "failure is not an option"; who is ready to send in a substantially greater U.S. force to avert any such policy failure — and yet whose latest poll ratings show her to be the favorite of 43 percent of Democrats, three times the nomination support given front-runner Howard Dean."

[mrgorth]

12. F the war.

[FDRrocks]

15. Agreed.

[Gringo]

16. As late as fall of 2002, 70+% of Americans were OPPOSED to an invasion

of Iraq. It was only after MONTHS of endless repetition of the WMD lies that the public came around. During those months, the congressional democrats remained silent, even though we ALL knew then that there was NO intelligence indicating a WMD program in Iraq. The dems also failed to stand up and say "Even if they had WMD, that gives us NO right to atack a sovereign country that has NEVER attacked us."

The reason so many Americans came to support the war, is that so few democrats stood up when it counted, and the media willingly turned itself into Bush's megaphone for months on end. What a disgusting period in our history - and it hasn't ended yet.

[msmcghee]

13. And while I'm at it . .

. . the same logic applies to those who deride Clinton and the "New Democrats".

The reason Clinton was so successful was that he understood that to get elected in a nation where the RW had totally changed the political landscape in their favor - he had to appeal to American's sense of fair play and our hopes for better economic times.

If he had been ideologically left wing (as most here at DU would have preferred) then Bush I or Dole or some other RW asshole would have been president thru the 90's, not Clinton.

Instead he got himself elected to two terms in the face of the most outrageous opposition imaginable. He rewrote the record books on economic prosperity and scored heavily for our team. I didn't like his "don't ask, don't tell" policy and I didn't like his anti-drug stance.

But I thank my lucky goddess every day that he was much smarter than I was - because he made my life better, along with millions of other women, children and poor people, in America and throughout the world. To me, that's a lot more important than maintaining some phony notion of ideological purity.

[Gringo]

14. Fair enough, but most of the Congressional Dems went along

with the scumbag's war plan. Why single out Hillary? I distinctly remember Sen. Byrd's and Congressman Kucinich's opposition to the IWR because SO FEW democrats were willing to vote against it.

What about Kerry? Edwards? Gephardt? Daschle?

[msmcghee]

17. And about the Jew thing.

Regardless of what you may think about Isreal and the Palestinians, and even though the majority here have no problem with anti-semitism - I do have a problem with it anytime someone attacks a whole people and not their policies.

For the record, that was a disgusting low-grade antisemitic remark and I don't approve. I don't expect to change your mind about it. In fact, from the general quality of your post, I doubt I'd want to discuss anything with you personally, but I don't like to let these things just pass by like they are OK.

[opihimoimoi]

18. Her overall track record is admirable, she cares and she shares

She will go down in history as one of the better senators

:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:

so much so, she would make America stronger and wiser if she were to be in higher office.

Come, we go hunt boars

[BurtWorm]

19. What do you mean "only to the jews?"

Don't confuse PNAC with "the jews." That makes you fair game for the charge of anti-Semitism.