"Why Hillary is Not the One" - The Progressive

[ProudDad]

Just got the latest issue in the mail. Provocative article by Cindy Sheehan in the mag for those of you who get it. It doesn't seem to be on the web.

"Let's face it: in 2008, we are not going to get much worse than george w bush. I shudder to even think of what a president worse than george would look like."

"I am hoping with 2008, though, that the American electorate will not settle for someone who is not as bad as george w, but we will seek out, support, and celebrate someone who is far better, someone who will lead our country back on a path of healing and peace in a way that will also show the rest of the planet that the United States is regaining her sanity after the horribly destructive bush years."

"I am praying that we are finished with politicians who either don't listen to the American public at all or, like Hillary Clinton, play political games while our troops are dying by the dozens every week. It's hard to figure out which Hillary will appear on a given day. In a voice that alternates between nails on a chalkboard and the charm, warmth, and modulation of a dripping faucet, Hillary changes her rhetoric and her positions as fast as her adviser can send a message to her Blackberry."

Unfortunately, it's not on their website but now would be a good time to subscribe. They also critique Obama and Al Franken. They DON'T ENDORSE or un-ENDORSE anyone, they just allow people to tell it how they see it.

The Progressive -- a great magazine. http://progressive.org/

[IndyOp]

1. I agree with Cindy. Hillary has now said that military action on Iran should not be

"taken off the table" and that we "may need to keep troops in Iraq permanently" -- both of which are completely unacceptable to me.

[blm]

2. It was SMART that Hillary stayed closer to Bush on military issues for the last 6years.

And I think it's great that she and TeamClinton are using their considerable ferocity to attack other Democrats after keeping silent for the last 6yrs while BushInc attacked Dems and the party.

She was so smart to not stick her neck out for any Dem issue and kept her powder dry and unused all these years for when she needs it now against other Democrats.


Here's to Hillary - a real leader.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[youngdem]

4. Yeah, keep your 'power dry' while your country and party die

Politics before country. Great illustration of EXACTLY why I hate Hillary sometimes.

[Greyhound]

196. You said it. Don't forget personal ambition before anything, including

allowing more and more people to be killed for no reason at all, rather than standing against it. Yeah, some leadership. :eyes:

[Greyhound]

197. Server fart. n/t

[Old and In the Way]

5. I'm undecided in the primaries.....

but I do know who I won't vote for - Hillary Clinton.

[Labors of Hercules]

6. cheers to Hillary! Hip Hip... Hooray!

She's so smart and snazzy and oh so inspiring I almost can't STAND it! And what a Fantastic Standardbearer for our Democratic ideals! The strongest and truest of them all! :beer: yes, I'll have another, Hillary... and the check will be with my agent on Tuesday, right? Okay, Thanks luv.

now... where was I?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

and such a strong, brave leader on hard issues!

and so warm and independent, not relying on any polls or focus groupies.

[Forrest Greene]

52. And, a-and

...She lets us call Her by Her first name!

[MH1]

12. Yep, leading with the knife in the back of a good Democrat. n/t

[MH1]

14. Speaking of which, I think this one shows her leadership more plainly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBywaYuScCk

(even if it is a silent movie)

[intheflow]

49. Very good video. Thanks. n/t

[blm]

69. Thanks - I hadn't seen that one.

.

[Kolesar]

110. Stupidly produced--it does not even say its about JK's "Stuck in Iraq" "badly worded joke"

If I did not follow the news, I would not have been able to infer what the youtube video meant

[MH1]

119. It was timely. At the time it was produced, you could not NOT know what it is about.

It is not the best produced video. I didn't produce it. However, it sums up quite well what is the problem with Hillary - she is utterly devoid of character and decency.

[Kolesar]

123. That lame video was devoid of the whole damn quote the "producer" was so "up in arms about"

How could that be considered anything but lame, off the point, indecipherable and deficient?

One could create a lot of ill will and trouble on this website with blanket statements like this. Some people get really invested in their candidates:

Hillary - she is utterly devoid of character and decency.

[Greyhound]

198. "Straws! there must be some straws around here somewhere!"

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

But really, it is hard to constantly try to find someway to criticize when you have nothing to advocate. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[JNelson6563]

33. Lots of good points blm

and made with surgical precision.

Julie

[blm]

82. Grazie, Ms. Julie.

.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

60. GREAT VIDEO. it show who she really is.

as for all of her apologists here, Say, Hilliarians, how do you explain her own words?

Kind of tough, eh?

I do like the idea of running for one reason. I can jump a victory dance and shout with glee when she withdraws. We need Clinton like Iraq needs another surge. Oh wait, she supports the war, and then she doesn't. maybe. perhaps. it depends.

Don't expect hard answers to hard questions. She will NEVER take a stand that might offend AIPAC, the DLC or her "moderate" and "religious" supporters.

[AtomicKitten]

84. and your knife

... in the back of other Democrats is different how exactly?

[blm]

149. The knife was Bill's when he stabbed the entire country in the back by letting BushInc off

the hook when he took office and after some Dems in congress worked for YEARS to investigate and uncover Poppy Bush's crimes of office.


Many Dems protected Bill day in and day out even as he was siding with Poppy behind all our backs.


Your cartoon is a cruel joke because it is in no way based in reality.

Clinton couldn't have won in 92 without other Dems contributing to the climate against Poppy Bush, and with Dems who served publically defending the draftdodger charge.

How did Clinton reciprocate from 2001-2005, AK? You think staying close to Poppy and supportive of the Bushboy's military strategy on terrorism and Iraq war was a PLUS for any Democratic candidates running in 2002 and 2004?

There would BE NO BUsh2 running for office in 2000 if Clinton hadn't spent his terms in office PROTECTING Poppy Bush and his cronies and their fascist agenda.

[AtomicKitten]

152. correction

There would BE NO BUsh2 running for office in 2000 if Clinton hadn't spent his terms in office PROTECTING Poppy Bush and his cronies and their fascist agenda.

The 2000 election was a judicial coup d'etat and had ZERO to do with Clinton.

The 2004 election would have deprived Junior of a second go had Kerry (1) stood up against the Swift Boat Liars and (2) fought the fraudulent election as he promised. Get that part straight.

And if you don't like being portrayed as having a knife in the Clintons' backs, I suggest you take it out and stop spreading outrageous conspiracy theory bullshit that has no basis in fact.

[blm]

153. No basis in fact? Then you can show in Bill's book where Poppy Bush was held accountable

on all the outstanding matters of IranContra, BCCI, Iraqgate and CIA drugrunning.

CIA drugrunning story should be an easy call for you - after all, the story only came out in 1996, so there should be plenty of evidence about how Bill Clinton and his administration helped the investigation that uncovered the tons of IranContra cocaine that was being dumped in black communities by an operation condoned by Poppy Bush.

Right? After all - if Bill DIDN'T cover it up for Poppy, then that means his WH helped bring Poppy Bush and his cronies involved to justice, eh?

[AtomicKitten]

155. * sigh *

Do I have to tell you that omission does not equate to guilt? The fact that Bill Clinton did not broach subjects in his book that you are jones'ing for does not make him guilty of anything. Your extrapolations pulled out of thin air for the sheer purpose of blaming are absolutely mind-boggling.

You claim to seek the truth, yet you seem to do everything you possibly can think of to muddle facts to somehow "prove" a conclusion you have already reached. That's bias that has ZERO basis in fact.

I realize you thrive on division and rallying support for your theories, but I see your campaigns as bipolar in content: abject seething contempt for the Clintons on one end of the spectrum and unrealistic adoration for John Kerry and now unbridled anger because he is not running for president on the other. It seems your input at DU is generated entirely from that stark, scorched earth, diametrically opposite point of view and blaming is your M.O.

Nothing in life is that absolute and I am not moved by your grotesque exaggerations of truth and reality.

[blm]

157. Haha. Yeah - because he only omitted those incidents because they were so inconsequential

and none of them contained any problems for the Bush family.

Yeah - he omitted them accidentally because he just never had cause to think twice about AQ Khan, Marc Rich, the Bin Ladens, and minor issues like the crack epidemic that blossomed from the dumping of tons of cheap cocaine in black communities all over the country - yeah - nothing any president should concern himself with - armsdealing, nuclear proliferation, drugrunning , and moneylaundering operations that funded and protected global terror networks were definitely issues to not bring up in a book written after 9-11. What citizen would even think of caring about such issues - only BAD citizens and BAD Democrats would care about those issues, while all the good Democrats and citizens were held in thrall with stories of much greater consequence - like how most Democrats rallied around him after the GOP attacks on him for having a girlfriend.

[AtomicKitten]

159. my then 13-year-old daughter

... demonstrated the same level of drama you are exuding here with your gross exaggerations of good/bad scorched earth whining. Please refrain from threatening to eat some worms, kay?

If you don't like being called on your knife in the back of the Clintons, the solution is simple: Stop it. You are being unreasonable, unfair, and for the most part flat-out untruthful in your extrapolated assertions and blaming. Perhaps if you took it down a notch it would be more palatable. No worries, there are plenty of people here at DU willing to buy into your campaign that will make you feel validated. Me, not so much.

[blm]

162. No one knifed the Clintons. Bill knifed the party and the country by protecting BushInc.

You seem to believe that Bill never did that. Many of us believe it because NO EVIDENCE EXISTS that shows Clinton did anything OTHER than protect Poppy Bush on every serious matter outstanding.

Your decision to ignore those matters as if they had no consequence speaks eloquently of YOUR priorities and standards.

Your decision to attack those citizens who speak of accountability for government corruption and who hold a reverance for open government is a curious thing.

And sad that you need to do it even as you claim that no one cares what is said.

If you believed that, you'd stop even trying to defend the Clintons' indefensible protection of Poppy Bush.

[AtomicKitten]

163. ya know what is sad?

What is sad is wasting time interacting with your nonsense.

You've got a bee in your bonnet, wound yourself up, and off you go.

[blm]

165. What's accurate is that you got NOTHING to defend Clinton on his protection of Poppy Bush

so you depend on your frivolous personal attacks against good citizen Democrats who have pushed for DECADES to get BushInc exposed and held accountable.

Somehow Democrats posting AGAINST the coverup of government corruption are bad citizens to you and your friends.

[AtomicKitten]

168. nothing personal about calling you on the fact

that you have NO FACTS WHATSOEVER to back up your nasty, scorched earth accusations. Zip, nada, goose-egg.

You cannot engage in reasonable conversation on issues when you are incapable of being reasonable. You may find a cheering section here for your accusations, but they are based on preconceived bias with no real concern for truth, although not ironically (but rather manipulatively) that is the label under which you market your product.

You are all over the map in your repartee, drawing conclusions from sloppy extrapolations of unrelated information and then donning the 'woe is me' mantle when confronted (never said you are a 'bad' citizen but it is clear you are acting out extreme yet misplaced anger in a very misguided way).

And I have no expectation that you will rethink your spiel here because you have no insight whatsoever. So, by all means, spread your message like graffiti on a bathroom wall. That's the opportunity message boards on the internets provide people like you. Take your best shot over and over again. People can decide for themselves.

[mtnsnake]

169. Ouch!! Great post, AK!

Isn't it amazing how far some of these people will go to demean one of the top 5 best presidents ever, Bill Clinton. All because the Clintons and the Kerry's don't get along like family the Kerryites have to take it out on Bill and Hillary and spin fabulous yarns about them, going so far as to make them look like traitors. I guess that's what happens when their favorite candidate, John Kerry, gets his ass kicked in 2004 by a moron. They take it out on one of their own. lol

[Tellurian]

171. Ooops! Good on ya, AK!

I can hardly believe BM prognosticates a tad more than Alberto Gonzales. The spin, spin, spin, she's been spinning so long has become her reality. Thanks, for straightening BM out.

[IndianaGreen]

164. Hillary will do Bill Clinton one better!

As President she will pardon Bush & Cheney and she will block any attempt to have them extradited to The Hague.

Of course, Hillary (and all other Democratic candidates) can always make a public pledge that they won't issue a pardon to Bush & Co., and that they won't block their prosecution by the International Crimes Court.

[mtnsnake]

170. That makes as much sense as "Kerry threw the election to Bush cuz of skull & bones"

Your claim is just as wild as the skull and bones one, only more ridiculous yet.

[IndianaGreen]

173. Can I deduce from your post that Hillary refuses to pledge that she won't pardon Bush?

After all, sending Bush & Co. to The Hague may prove to be dangerous precedent if Hillary decides to stick out in Iraq as she told the NY Times. She might find herself on the defendant's dock!

[mtnsnake]

186. Are you trying to say that Hillary said she'll continue the war??

Don't get "stick out in Iraq" mixed up with fighting the war. She already promised to end the war, if it's still going on, the second she takes the pledge...if she gets elected.

"Stick out in Iraq" means different things to different people.

[IndianaGreen]

190. In a lenghty interview with NY Times, Hillary specifically said she was keeping troops in Iraq

to, among other things, fight Al-Qaeda and Iranian aggression. That's continuing the war!

Hillary also said that US troops needed to stay in Iraq to "defend Israel." I suppose that's her loyalty oath to AIPAC.

[mtnsnake]

191. Instead of spinning it your way, how about her entire transcript of what she said

word for word, the whole thing. Thanks.

[IndianaGreen]

194. It was posted and hotly debated in DU over 2-weeks ago

Of course you know that, for you were among the Hillary apologists that leaped to her defence despite the growing evidence that Hillary has the same goals in Iraq that Bush has. Hillary is only critical of what she calls the "management" of the war.

Here is what the Queen of Diamonds had to say:

Published on Thursday, March 15, 2007 by the New York Times

If Elected... Clinton Says Some G.I.’s in Iraq Would Remain

by Michael R. Gordon and Patrick Healy

WASHINGTON — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

<snip>

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0315-02.htm

[mtnsnake]

200. You were proven wrong 2 weeks ago & you're 100% wrong again.

The problem you have here is that you quoted what the article said, not what Hillary actually said. What she actually said is NOTHING like what you said she said or what the opening paragraphs of the article interpreted what she meant, which wasn't even close to what she said either.

It's sickening how you make her out to be a war monger, which she isn't. Next time try pasting actual passages that are in between the quotation marks of something that Hillary actually SAID and not something that the author of the article said she meant.

Unbelievable.

[IndianaGreen]

201. Do you dispute the Hillary quotes in the NY Times interview?

Where is your transcript of the interview?

[mtnsnake]

202. Not at all. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Stop playing games

Either show me the direct quotes by Hillary (not by the author of the article) where she said she's keeping troops there to fight ANYONE or stop making her out to be a war monger. Show me the direct quotes by HER not the author.

[IndianaGreen]

203. The burden of proof now lies on Team Hillary's shoulders

All we get from your side is the same bluster and hot air we get from the Bush camp when they caught in a situation where the facts contradict their position.

I suppose we can't trust anything that comes out of Hillary's mouth for it will be reinterpreted by her cadre of worshipers to fit any given occassion.

Explain to us Hillary's comments that "all options are on the table" when it comes to Iran, which I can safely assume includes war, that she told to AIPAC last month. Or are you denying that too?

[mtnsnake]

204. Just as I thought! You can't provide me her quotes because they don't exist

She NEVER said anything like what you said she said in post #190. It's time for you to give it up.

[IndianaGreen]

205. Are you disputing NY Times' quotes of Hillary? Has she renounced or denounced the piece?

Hot air is all we get from Team Hillary. You sure Tony Snow doesn't work in the PR department?

[mtnsnake]

207. You have a choice. It's either time for you to admit you lied or admit you made a mistake

Stop trying to spin it that the Times quotes of Hillary are the same thing that you claimed she said and meant in your post umpteen posts ago. Put up or shut up.

[IndianaGreen]

209. Your authoritarian tone is more typical of the likes of Al From and his ilk

I stand by everything I posted on the NY Times story and Hillary's own statement that she will keep troops in Iraq for the reasons she was quoted.

[mod mom]

101. She who stands with * against Sen Kerry will NEVER GET MY VOTE! Thanks for posting video.

[RapidCreek]

136. Keep your powder dry?

Jesus, next your gonna tell me she is nuanced. She has no powder chief and she never will. She's a former Republican who's kid isn't in Iraq....and who's friends kids aren't in Iraq. Smart not to stick her neck out? How is saying it like it is sticking your neck out....seems to me an honorable person doesn't try to fool the American people into voting for her. She presents herself as she is and let's the cards fall as they may. Then again perhaps you feel she is not an honorable person....and if you feel she isn't I would concur. But you see, I don't think this country needs another dishonorable person as president. Evidently you do. Some folks seem so confused...they confuse slyness, opportunism and duplicity with goodness. It is what it is my friend...and it ain't clever.

RC

[blm]

150. Of course, you're right - that is why I posted it in the way I did.

It was a parody of a REAL defense of Hillary as she REALLY is.

[RapidCreek]

166. ok sorry

rc

[blm]

167. No problem - in fact, I'm flattered.

heh

[waiting for hope]

3. Edwards can heal us -

He's the only one out there to me, that truly cares about the American people and about doing the right thing.

[mnhtnbb]

74. Yes.

[Tellurian]

7. But who is capable of ending ALL the Wars for US?

We know Kucinich is impotent. Obama hasn't been tested to even win an election with a legitimate challenger. John Edwards has his hands full right now. Guiliani doesn't think before he speaks. John McCain is going to Iraq/Iran? to get a good night's sleep. Fred Thompson doesn't know if he wants to play a president on tv or be a real one..

Theres only ONE person left standing. And thats Sen. Hillary Clinton, who is capable of saving US from ourselves!

[ProudDad]

8. Hillary would "end the wars" in '09

the same way she gave us "universal Health Care" in the 90's

[Tellurian]

9. Well, I want more..

I want my candidate to end the War in THIS country and Iraq and Iran (if Bush starts one there!)
I want my Constitution back. I want Louisiana and Ole Miss put back together again. I want MORE!

[IndianaGreen]

10. Hillary is partly to blame for our current problems

Had she spoken about the illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq, something that she has yet to do, she might have had a major impact in influencing public opinion and in saving lives.

Hillary won't save us from ourselves, when it is us that need to be saved from the likes of her, and from all neoliberals and neocons the infect both major parties.

[Cha]

11. There's the

crux right there. But, she chose to be a follower not a leader and she wants to so-called lead us now?

No.

[Tellurian]

13. I disagree..It was all Kucinich's fault!

Why didn't he use his persuasiveness to convince Hillary, John Edwards and Kerry to vote against the War? huh?

Really a dud when it comes to effective leadership. Wouldn't you say?

[IndianaGreen]

15. Obviously Hillary turned a deaf ear to Sen. Robert Byrd's warning about the war

as she did to Al Gore's warning on Bush's power grab and the infringement of our civil liberties.

Hillary is now triangulating and repositioning herself to have it both ways. For a woman that claims strong spiritual values, she shows a total lack of them.

[w4rma]

16. True. I've never heard Hillary, even once, even *try* to protect our nation's checks and balances.nt

[IndianaGreen]

18. I don't recall Hillary ever calling for repeal of PATRIOT

The PATRIOT Act is as much of a threat to our liberties in the hands of a Democratic President as it is in the hands of a Republican. None of us are safed as long as this bad law remains on the books!

[Tellurian]

17. But neither one of them intended to run for President.. but Kucinich did..

Why couldn't Dennis convince Kerry, Hillary, Biden. And why did Kucinich throw his support to Edwards when Edwards cosponsor the bill to go to War. Seems quite disingenuous to me. To be against something and throw your support to something your against.

[IndianaGreen]

19. Hillary ran for the Senate in NY as a stepping stone to Presidency

Hillary's Presidential ambitions were never a secret to anyone!

[Tellurian]

23. Kucinich throwing his support to the cosponsor of the Iraq War Bill IS Hypocritical..

safe on his part, throwing his support to Edwards. Conflict of principles maybe?

your last response never addressed my question and why I restated the original.

Did I mention:

HILLARY IS THE ONE! :hi:

[Carolina]

38. so your point is abandon your principles because

you're not intending to run for president? Sheesh. If Hillary, Kerry, Biden et. al. wouldn't listen to the Senate sage -- Robert Byrd -- then why would they listen to lowly Congressman Dennis Kucinich?

But more importantly why didn't they do their own homework and exercise their own judgment ... after all, they're supposed to be soooo smart! People on this board knew Iraq was a mistake before the IWR vote in 2002, why didn't they? Twenty-three other Democrats KNEW not to give Bush such authority. They stood on principle, on their own. Why didn't our presidential hopefuls Kerry, Hillary and even Edwards do likewise? I hate this war. I always opposed it and I while I held my nose and voted for Kerry, I will never again vote for any finger-in-the-wind, do-anything-to-get-votes alleged Democrat.

I want to vote for SOMEONE who CLEARLY stands for something, not merely vote against the repuke du jour.

[Tellurian]

43. You held your nose and voted for Kerry?

what other choices were you considering, Bush?

Apparently you are considering voting Republican again.
Because Hillary will (TG) be our nominee.

[Alcibiades]

85. I am considering voting Republican

or, rather, DINO. That is to say, if Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for her.

Vast numbers of Democrats will not. I don't know anyone who is excited about her candidacy.

[Carolina]

89. yes, because I had no choice

How someone who fought, was wounded and then protested against a wrong war in Vietnam could then give Bush the authority to go to war (and that's what it was) is beyond me. How Kerry didn't stand up to the swift boat liars and GOP chickenhawks showed a lack of fight. Then how he said in August of 2004 that knowing what he knew then, he'd still give Bush the authorization totally disgusted me. SO YES, I HELD MY NOSE AND VOTED FOR KERRY BECAUSE I HAD NO OTHER CHOICE!

Money and machine gave us Kerry and it's about to do the same with Hillary. And no, I won't vote for a repuke, or a repuke-lite like Hillary because for the only time since I could first vote in 1972, I just won't vote!

And besides YOU never responded to the lame point about Kucinich knowing he was running for president and therefore voting against war or how he should have persuaded Kerry, Biden, HRC and all the other DINO weathervanes. DUH!

[dflprincess]

105. I hope you just mean you won't vote in the presidential race

I'm pretty much leaning the way you are. I can't see myself voting for Hillary (unless the Republican candidate is so horrible it manages to make a Dino less disgusting) and it will also be the first time since 1972 that I skipped a presidential race. I will, however, go to the polls and vote in other races.

Several of my friends, who vote Democratic but aren't active are already saying that they won't vote if Hillary is the candidate. I think if she's the nominee it's going to be a disaster and she may bring down other Democratic candidates because Democratic voters just won't bother to vote.

[alarimer]

108. That's what I will do

Or write in someone else's name for President. I am in Texas so my vote doesn't count anyway, at least on the Presidential level.

[Carolina]

120. "she may bring down other Democratic candidates "

Exactly.

So I will vote in the other races (House, Senate and local) but I cannot and will not vote for Hillary.

[emilyg]

111. our nominee

I certainly hope so.

[Tellurian]

73. My point is Kucinich abandoned his principles when he threw his support to Edwards..

Edwards co-sponsored the Iraq War legislation. How does Kucinich square that with standing against the war and supporting it's co-sponsor? Talk about convoluted thinking! And the support it receives on this board.

[John Q. Citizen]

158. Do you have a link to that? I see you keep hammering away on it. I'd like some

info please.

Thanks.

[Tellurian]

172. Heres a link:

Kucinich/Edwards

[John Q. Citizen]

208. Thanks for the link. I don't get what the big deal is about it though. It seems

pretty common sense for both candidates to want to co-operate under the rules of the caucusas.

If Hillary and Vilsak did that I don't think I'd be bringing it up as some major defect four years later.

Why do you think it's so significant?

[rman]

40. you forgot the sarcasm tag,

i presume.

Some years back Bush managed to convince 90% of people, including congress, that the war was a good thing - by your logic that makes Bush a good leader.

[Tellurian]

47. If you are still exhibiting a sign "somebody Lied"

And haven't figured out to date, WHO did the Lying, I don't know what to tell you.
BUSH LIED to everyone..it's not a mystery and not something whispered about behind closed door anymore.
It's common knowledge now that The Wilsons have bravely demonstrated Bush used Wilson's trip to Niger to bolster his claim for a preemptive attack on Iraq during the SOTU Address.

Better to find a sig sign saying: "Bush Duped US Into A War!"

At least we'd understand, you refuse to remain fooled by him.

[rman]

53. So you agree that being able to convince people is not the litmus test

of leadership?

[Tellurian]

59. I never said it was..

Actions always speak louder than words.

Review Hillary's voting record on the issues at your leisure on both sites.

http://www.issues2002.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/

[rman]

65. You did say that Kucinich's inability to convince, makes him a bad leader

- there you seem to think the ability to convince is quit important.

But you also agree that Bush's ability to convince does not make him a good leader.

So, which is it?

[Tellurian]

72. If you think confusion is preferable to clarity..

continue hiding behind your sign. I said, why didn't Kucinich convince Hillary, Kerry and Edwards to vote "no" when the vote was taken and yes, that is an indication of his (and your) convoluted thinking and poor leadership, throwing his support to the co-sponsor of the Iraq War resolution. Now Kucinich is showboating by bashing democrats.

[rman]

77. What the heck do you mean "hiding behind your sign"?

Why do you keep harping about it?

To me it is a symbol of resistance to Bush's war. Perhaps you think it is me in the photo? It's a WW2 vet (Archie Goodwin) who was with Cindy Sheehan when she first started protesting the war, at Bush's "ranch".

I think it's becoming increasingly clear than more people besides Bush have lied, and continue to lie. So it is as relevant now as it has then.


Regarding the ability to convince: neither Hillary nor Edwards have managed to convince Kucinich to adopt their views on the war and the funding of it - what does that say about the quality of their leadership?

[Tellurian]

80. Then you don't deny Kucinich is doing more harm than good

to the democratic party. Like Nixon, the responsibility for the LIE is at Bush's feet.
Someone had to give the order to Lie...just like Nixon gave the order for the break-in!

[rman]

141. I do deny that.

I don't see the lying of the Bush gang reflects badly on Kucinich. Certainly the fact that presumably someone gave the order to lie, doesn't mean the rest of them is innocent.

[ProudDad]

93. Maybe Dennis couldn't convince

Hillary, Kerry and Edwards because the latter were chicken-shit tools of the corporations? :shrug:

[Tellurian]

188. Then again maybe DK 's hanging back

figured his "no" vote would be part of his platform against Kerry in 04'..

That sounds more like Kucinichthink.

[Tellurian]

25. No, Indy...Men create Wars...Women put a STOP to them..

It's that simple. Throw all the labels you love to assign to people out the window.

Hillary is a new day and a new way out for us.

[Parisle]

27. "Men create Wars... Women put a STOP to them?"

--- I believe that with that statement, you sacrificed your pretense of objective analysis of the candidates, in favor of your advocacy of gender as a qualification, first and foremost. And I'm not faulting you for wishing for the nation's first woman president,... but couldn't you wish for one that could actually win? Failing to recognize or acknowledge Hillary's obvious liabilities in a national election,.. particularly one this important,... does not portray your judgement in a favorable light.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Parisle]

44. Well,.. You may be right about those "A$$et$"

--- But Hillary isn't even the percentage favorite on the DU board, as far as I can see. What's up with that? I doubt she'll do better in the overall electorate, than on an all-democratic discussion board.

[Tellurian]

56. The DU Board is far and away from the average consensus of the country

proof of my statement is- the majority here are Kucinich supporters, Leftists and Progressives (whatever that means). Kucinich, and the Kucinichites although outspoken, are in the MINORITY when polled nationwide, as is any radical group when compared to moderates standing on either side of the political spectrum.

Hillary is standing slightly Left of Center, which is the ideal position to be in when dealing with Republicans.



Hillary is a Moderate Liberal

http://www.issues2002.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

[IndianaGreen]

30. Cindy Sheehan is a woman of peace, while Hillary is a woman of war!

By her own words to the NY Times, Hillary has said she will continue to keep US troops and bases in Iraq. Hillary has also threatened war against Iran and Syria, all in order to promote the foreign policy interests of Israel, and of her AIPAC paymasters.

Hillary is an American Margaret Thatcher!

[Tellurian]

31. More pretzel logic coming from the Left..

Hillary is no more a woman of war than the man in the moon. But it's fine if you think so. The Left and Progressives are becoming as radical as the Right Wingers and do not represent the consensus of opinion of this country.

[IndianaGreen]

75. US troops will continue to die in Iraq with Hillary in the White House

that's a fact that Team Hillary would like for us to ignore. We will have antiwar demonstrations in Washington DC in March 2009, as we will surely will in 2010!

[rman]

79. You sound like a RW talk show host

According to whom those who want the troops home and Bush impeached asap, are "the radical left" - easily a majority of Americans.

And your debating tactics (ad hominem about the image in my sig) also sound familiar.

[blm]

154. The nasty personal jibes in the poster's replies aren't a very healthy sign, either.

It's nasty and BAD form.

[ProudDad]

98. You're 100% off with that statement

"The Left and Progressives are becoming as radical as the Right Wingers and do not represent the consensus of opinion of this country."

And where's YOUR proof of this ridiculous statement?

When asked the right questions the majority of the American people ARE "liberal/progressive". It's the war enabling "center" that's out of step...

[Forrest Greene]

54. Wouldn't Be

...anything sexist about that point of view, would there? No, I didn't think so.

[ProudDad]

94. Oh, Right!

Like Thatcher

Thatcher was the architect of the Falklands war and advisor to ray-gun. ronnie followed her advice and invaded Grenada followed by bush and Panama.

Sorry, you're statement is too simplistic.

My main objection to Hillary is that as far as most policies are concerned, she's not that far from Thatcher.

[mod mom]

102. A New Day for the corporations+ top 1%-perhaps but NOT for the American people.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

46. extremely well put.

Bravo, or brava, as appropriate.

[flpoljunkie]

20. Hillary, on the eve of the Iraq invasion: "The president gave Saddam one last chance to avoid war.."

"Capable of ending ALL the wars for the US?" Surely, you are not serious. Hillary Clinton stood up, not against Bush, but with Bush on the eve of the invasion of Iraq.

Clinton has refused to apologize for her vote in favor of the Iraq War, a decision her campaign explains is driven, variously, by the political imperative not to appear as a flip-flopper, a substantive belief in the importance of executive power in foreign affairs, and -- oddest of all -- the claim that she never actually voted for war. "When I set forth my reasons for giving the president that authority," she recently told the New Hampshire Union-Leader, "I said that it was not a vote for pre-emptive war." She did say that, but it still was a vote for such a war. Later, on the eve of the invasion, March 17, 2003, Clinton was still saying that she hoped to avoid the use of force in Iraq, but at the same time seemed to be justifying the president's rush to war. "The president," she observed, "gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war" by abandoning power and leaving Iraq (Hussein had already allowed weapons inspectors into the country), "and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly." Clinton, in short, understood the severity of the president's words, yet she offered no objection either to his characterization of Saddam Hussein's "defiance" or to an American invasion if Hussein did not give in to threats.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=12574

[Cascadian]

175. Which proves my point.

Hillary will be no different than Bush in terms of policy. PNAC policy that is!


John

[Carolina]

36. Hillary is not able to save anyone

from squat because she's all about Hillary. In the end, she's not even going to be able to save herself from electoral defeat!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

45. I think not. She has one concern and only one. Her election

the nation could rot and fester so long as she gets this office somehow, anyhow, even getting on her knees next to John McCain to service Dobson and Falwell.

She has proved repeatedly that she will say and do anything to get elected.

We need Clinton like we need an invasion of Iraq or Iran. every other candidate would be far better for the party, the country and for the world.

[RapidCreek]

137. I don't know that Kucinich is impotent

then again I haven't been intimate with him...have you?

RC

[UnyieldingHierophant]

146. LOL, save us Hillary, save us!

And thats Sen. Hillary Clinton, who is capable of saving US from ourselves!??? Good Lord!

[Cascadian]

178. At least Kucinich has the vision and pulls no punches.

Hillary could learn a lot of Dennis Kucinich. It is good to see a real Democrat still within the ranks of the party. Kucinich and people like him give me hope for that this party maybe salvaged yet.


John

[AtomicKitten]

21. democracy is awesome

At the end of the day and when all the ink has been exhausted,
we still end up with one vote each to cast as we see fit.

[ProudDad]

22. You're right

Democracy is (an) awesome (idea)!

I wish we had some of it here in the U.S. of A.

[Imagevision]

24. Hillary is like a female version of McCain...

[Tellurian]

26. Absurd..and you know it..

Believe it or not, I feel bad for McCain. He's stuck with one message...SUPPORT THE WAR!

[Clarkie1]

29. Hillary has supported and continues to to support the war.

I am really liking Richardson's call to bring all the troops home this year. He's a strong candidate, and I just might send him some money.

[Tellurian]

34. Clarkie why Lie about Hillary. It gives us pause regarding your credibility..

Hillary's Troop Reduction Act of 2007

...Hillary has been actively supporting getting the troops home since June of 06'

February 17, 2007

Clinton Plan to End War:

Reject the President's Escalation; Protect U.S. Troops in Iraq; Begin Redeploying Our Troops; Enables President to End War Before Leaving Office

Introduces the Iraq Troop Reduction & Protection Act of 2007

Washington, DC - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton renewed her call on President Bush to reverse course and endorse the plan she outlined several weeks ago that would cap the level of U.S. troops in Iraq at the number prior to his escalation plan, and begin the long overdue phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq beginning in 90 days. Senator Clinton outlined her plan when she returned last month from her third trip to Iraq and is formally introduced the legislation yesterday.

"I came back from Iraq more determined then ever to stop the President's escalation of troops into Iraq, and to start the long overdue redeployment of troops out of Iraq," Senator Clinton said. "The Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act that I proposed last month and introduced this week caps the number of troops in Iraq at the level before the President's escalation. It would be against the law to send more. The legislation also protects our troops who are performing so heroically, by making sure they aren't sent to Iraq without the body armor and training they need - empty promises from the President just aren't enough anymore. And it calls for the phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. I've been pushing for this for almost two years. Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in ninety days or we will revoke authorization for this war. This plan is a roadmap out of Iraq. I hope the President takes this road. If he does, he should be able to end the war before he leaves office."

The Iraq Troop Protection & Reduction Act of 2007 presents a comprehensive approach to Iraq that halts the President's escalation policy and provides an alternative strategy in Iraq with the goal of stabilizing the country so American troops can redeploy out of Iraq. Senator Clinton's legislation puts real pressure on the Iraqi government, requiring the Iraqis to make political progress or lose funding for their military and reconstruction, require the Bush Administration to begin a phased redeployment and convene an international conference within 90 days or a new Congressional authorization would be required to remain in Iraq. Finally, the legislation would prohibit the use of funds to send troops to Iraq unless they have the proper equipment and training. If the President were to follow the provisions in this legislation then the United States should be able to complete a redeployment of troops out of Iraq by the end of his term.

A Summary of the legislation:

# STOPPING THE PRESIDENT'S ESCALATION OF THE WAR: This legislation would cap U.S. troop numbers in Iraq at the January 1, 2007 level - prior to the announcement of the troop escalation by President Bush. It would require Congressional authorization to exceed the cap.

# ENDING THE BLANK CHECK FOR THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT: Recent press reports have indicated that U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces may be infiltrated by Iraqi militias and thus U.S. funds may have been used to train the very people that our men and women in uniform are fighting. In order to exert leverage on the Iraqi government, the legislation would cut off funds for Iraqi security forces, including private contractors as well as reconstruction funds within 90 days unless the President certifies that the Iraqi government has met certain conditions. The legislation would require that the Iraqi government meet a number of conditions, including:

• The security forces of the Government of Iraq are free of sectarian and militia influences;

• The security forces of the Government of Iraq are assuming greater responsibility for security in Iraq;

• The government of Iraq provides for an equitable distribution of the oil revenues of Iraq;

• There has been significant progress made in political accommodation among the ethnic and sectarian groups in Iraq.

If Congress disagrees with the President's certification, Congress would have 60 days to "disapprove" of the Presidential certification resulting in a cutoff of funds for the Iraqi government.

# STARTING PHASED REDEPLOYMENT AND INVOLVING COUNTRIES IN THE REGION IN THE FUTURE OF IRAQ: The legislation requires the U.S. begin a phased redeployment of U.S. troops in 90 days or the authority of the use of force would cease. Specifically it requires that a phased redeployment of United States military forces from Iraq has begun including the transition of United States forces in Iraq to the limited presence and mission of:

• Training Iraqi security forces;

• Providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces;

• Protecting United States personnel and infrastructure; and

• Participating in targeted counter-terrorism activities.

The legislation also requires that the United States has convened or is convening an international conference so as to:

• More actively involve the international community and Iraq's neighbors;

• Promote a durable political settlement among Iraqis;

• Reduce regional interference in the internal affairs of Iraq;

• Encourage more countries to contribute to the extensive needs in Iraq; and

• Ensure that funds pledged for Iraq are forthcoming.

# PROTECTING OUR TROOPS SENT INTO IRAQ: The legislation would prohibit funds from being spent to send troops to Iraq unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the troops being deployed are adequately equipped and trained for their mission in Iraq.

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?i...



more her on her War efforts here:

http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/iraq /

[Clarkie1]

63. She has said she sees a presence there of indefinite duration. That's unaccpetable. nt

[Tellurian]

67. There needs to be a troop presence there

for training Iraqis and security during troop redeployment.

You can read here of what her plan entails as a preemptive strike for your next maneuver.

http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/

[IndianaGreen]

76. That's the same logic that got us into Vietnam after the French were kicked out

But if Team Hillary wants to adopt the Iraq War as their own, and have their Queen replace Bush as the world's war criminal, just go ahead but it will end badly.

[Tellurian]

81. For some reason you believe because you say it; it must be so..

If you prefer darkness to the light. I won't stand in your way!

[Cascadian]

177. Because it's true.

If this were the 60's, you'd be backing Johnson in his escalation of Vietnam. This is the same damn thing! Only the geography has been changed.

Your gal better wake up and realize the mistake she made in backing the IWR and come on strong with a more comprehensive and swift move against Bush's war or get out of the way and let a real Democrat be the nominee. One that will really get us out of there.


John

[Clarkie1]

88. I disagree. I prefer Richardson's plan. What the hell are "Hillary's jewels?"

:puke:..Hillary's jewels

[Cascadian]

176. BALONEY! They must come home....NOW!

To continue the troop presence only exacerbates things and while that happens more of our men and women there die or get maimed. Is that what you really want? Maybe you will support Hillary if she decides to go along with Bush in air strikes on Iran too.

This attitude of "we broke so we must fix it." does not wash with the American public anymore. Hillary made a huge mistake in supporting this in the first place. It is high time to bring our people home from Iraq! Don't you get it?



John

[Tellurian]

185. We don't have the majority of votes to over ride Bush's veto..

Don't you get that?

We all want the troops home. We need a 2/3 majority to override Bush's Veto power. We don't have it yet!

[Carolina]

90. Exactly! Not to mention she voted

to give the moron-in-chief the authority to go to war in the first place. She didn't listen to sagacious Senator Robert Byrd's warnings or even follow the other 22 real liberal Democratic senators who voted NAY. She was hedging her odds and trying, even then, to position herself for a presidential run in 2008.

The repukes were never so generous to Bill when he was president. They voted nearly lockstep against everything he proposed starting with his cabinet nominees (specifically AG), his omnibus budget bill of 1993, etc. Then they vilified her (remember the taunts "who voted for HER") over health care reform, never giving it a chance. Even leaving the WH when Clinton folks warned the incoming Bushbots about terrorrism, they said they had other priorities and promptly proceeded to undermine everything Clinton and even besmirch the Clintons further by saying they had vandalized the WH and stolen state gifts.

That treatment alone would have made me think long and hard about anything Bush proposed. But not Hillary. She went along with IWR, the Patriot Act, etc. So, no fucking way am I ever gonna vote for her for ANYTHING if it means not voting period.

I have been a Dem since 1960, I remember JFK, but I will sit this one out if the party is stupid enough to give us Hillary.

[JNelson6563]

66. Indeed, Richardsson sounds good on that!

"Out of Iraq lock stock and barrel" I believe were his words. Me likey.

Julie

[IndianaGreen]

78. Bill Richardson knows we have to get out of Iraq lock, stock, and barrel

Let's tell the truth here, those that advocate keeping an American military footprint in Iraq do so because such a force is needed to protect Big Oil.

[ProudDad]

99. I completely wrote off mccain

when he stuck his nose into bush's armpit...




What a dipstick!

No sympathy from me...

[Tellurian]

187. Why would a republican be on your list anyway?

McCain is caught between the rock and the hard place.

He carrys the message of Bush's republican party line!

[Clarkie1]

28. Enthusiastically kicked and recommended! nt

[AnOhioan]

35. Hillary is not the antichrist....nor is she the one

that can fundamentally change what the chimp has created. Hillary is too concerned with the latest focus group polling to let us know where she truly stands. My fear is that she does not have the ability to heal what ails this country.

We could do worse than a Hillary Presidency, we also could do much, much better. Give me someone who understands the working class, give me someone who knows that "rule by the corporations" is a bad thing, give me someone who stands on principle, give me someone who takes a position and fights for all they are worth.

Please give me someone other than Hillary.

[wyldwolf]

37. A magazine founded by a Republican who ran third party in 1924..

... a magazine that has never been a part of or spoken for the Democratic party wants to give us advice on who our nominee should be?

No thanks.

[rman]

39. It's not so much "the magazine" but rather Cindy Sheehan

who gives her opinion about Hillary.

Besides, the political spectrum was quite different 80 years ago than it is now, so it's quite plausible that the republican progressive who created the magazine was indeed Progressive.

[wyldwolf]

41. the same applies to her.

My point isn't the "political spectrum" but rather this is a magazine founded by someone who founded a third party to defeat Democrats. Regardless of anything the magazine has ever written (good, bad, or otherwise), Democrats taking advice from their pages on who our nominees should or shouldn't be is as credible as taking the same advice from The American Spectator or the Weekly Standard.

[Tellurian]

42. I'm sure Cindy Sheehan will realize..

that it was impossible for Hillary to do what she asked at the time to end the war. Specifically because of a Pro-War stonewalling of a Republican controlled Congress. My post #34 designating the legislation Hillary put into place in Feb/07' calling for an end to the War and the Protection of the Troops is an indication she is dealing in good faith, now that she has the power of a democratic consensus behind her.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

48. Why? Was was it so hard to investigate? Why was it so hard to contact

the generals who were kicked out because they voiced their honest opinions? Why was it too hard to pick up the phone and talk to the State Department's superb intel branch (who were spot on about Saddam's WMD AND the probable result of an invasion) and ask them what they thought? Why was it too hard to read the goddamn paper regarding the flushing of raw intel by Cheney, EVEN WHEN her paper, the NYT was writing about it before the war? Why was it too hard to question the crap being spoonfed to us by Bush and his cabal?

I'll tell you why. Because she is not a leader. She follows by focus groups, polls and political consultants who shape her image constantly. Because she did NOT fullfil her sworn oath to protect the constitution from enemies from without and WITHIN. Because she shirked her job as one of 100 senators who are supposed to protect and lead our country of 300,000,000. Because she is a media darling whose claims to fame are marrying well, and supporting a ban on flag burning.

The more I see her, the more I get turned off.

[Tellurian]

51. The more I read your posts

The more I get turned off of your ability to make reasoned decisions based on historical fact.

Because why?

...When have the Clintons EVER been media darlings? They were hunted by the Neocons for 8 yrs and so far, nothing has changed.

...When has Hillary's claim to fame been marrying well? She was married to Bill long before they entered politics.

...When did Hillary support a ban on flag burning? You can read right here to clarify your thinking.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3147704#3147995

[ChairmanAgnostic]

58. she was married in high school when she was a goldwater worker?

prey tell me another one.

[Tellurian]

62. The funny thing is- to some people with a hammer..

everything looks like a nail-

courtesy of Al Gore!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

64. well, If I had a hammer, I'd use it on peter, paul and mary.

seriously, tell me one thing she has done in the senate that should make me change my mind. Seriously, I am curious. I hope that I am open minded enough to learn. Please, tell me one thing that she did in the senate that shows her leadership abilities.

[Tellurian]

70. You can judge for yourself, antifaschits..

I don't have to convince you of anything. Hillary's got the goods and her voting record to prove it.

You can also check out her senate website included in this link..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3190773&mesg_id=3191511

[Carolina]

91. Excellent points, antifaschits!

She is not a leader and she will take the party down the gangplank of national, electoral defeat once again!

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[ProudDad]

130. This is not a fact

"a magazine that has never been a part of or spoken for the Democratic party wants to give us advice on who our nominee should be?"

They're not trying to give you advice... They're just speaking truth to power.

[wyldwolf]

139. yes it is

That mag has never been a part of or spoken for the Democratic party. If rhey have or do, kindly show documentation to prove it.

And with that article you so adore, they're telling us who the nominee should not be.

[LWolf]

50. Hillary is not the one

who will earn my vote. As I've said since before the '08 primary wars began.

[sellitman]

55. Hillary is my choice........my LAST choice.

:puke:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

61. I would not rank her that high

but, everyone is entitled to an opinion. :)

[Kolesar]

57. I am waiting for *any* candidate to distinguish one's self, so I am not ready to scrape Hillary off

...into the compost bin of Democratic candidates. I am looking for somebody who is really smart and will be able to "cut an angle" on the really tough issues like oil dependency and take on Killer Coal.

I don't think this was a very nice thing for Cindy to say:

In a voice that alternates between nails on a chalkboard and the charm, warmth, and modulation of a dripping faucet,

This from a man with vengence in his DU name.

[Ninga]

68. I eagerly look to the debates to carefully listen, study body language, and interpret dynamics.

Until then and beyond, I recommend none of us adopted absolutes about any Dem. candidate.

It ain't over, til it's over.

[Tellurian]

71. many have defined the debates as a deciding factor

of where and with who their votes will be placed.

To me that is good solid thinking. I have the utmost confidence in Hillary to Win the debates hands down.
If that is what you need to be convinced she's the "one"...you'll get it!

[Nedsdag]

106. I still don't see her flipping any red states.

Even if she flipped Iowa and New Mexico, she still loses.

Ohio may be in the hands of Democrats but I don't see her winning Ohio.

[Kolesar]

112. Off track and I don't give a f--k what you think will happen in the "red states"

I was trying to make a point that Sheehan was unnecessarily abrasive and insulting. Has nothing to do with New Mexico or Ohio. So, no thanks for your "input"

[Kolesar]

113. This is way more important than some pugilistic exercise on a message board

Played out by some who have never had to make a tough decision in their whole lives.

[Nedsdag]

145. Someone needs to relax, breathe, relax, breathe,

and to take a major league chill pill.

Again, relax, breathe, relax, breathe.

[usregimechange]

83. k/r

[Pierzin]

86. ANYBODY BUT HILLARY in 2008!! Please God!

Isn't that sad?

She fell for the GOPS tricks of unquestionably following W off of a cliff, and even now is cautious about bringing troops home! I don't want a president like that!

[Carolina]

92. my sentiments exactly!

eom

[Learn2Swim]

151. Agree.

[Cascadian]

180. I agree 100 per cent! n/t

[Skinner]

87. I don't think Cindy Sheehan does herself any favors when she writes this type of personal attack:

"In a voice that alternates between nails on a chalkboard and the charm, warmth, and modulation of a dripping faucet"

It's completely unnecessary. I can't help but wonder if she criticizes the voice or charm of other politiicans, or if Hillary is the only one. Here on DU, my impression is that Hillary is disproportionately singled out for this type of highly personal attack, and I must admit that I find it distasteful. I can't help wondering if there is some sort of sub-conscious reason relating to her gender.

[ProudDad]

95. Read the whole article

I don't agree with her first couple of paragraphs; too ad-hominum in tone but..Sheehan was just using the first paragraphs to get your attention.

It seems to have worked.

If you read the whole article Sheehan's main point is that Hillary hasn't proven she can do anything more than follow the herd into war or parrot tortuous 'triangulation' messages about ending the war but not displaying much in the way of leadership to force an end to the war (and oppose a new one in Iran).

Cindy Sheehan does have an unalterable, inexorable anti-war point of view (not surprisingly) and this article, which I'm sure is the first of many on the subject of Hillary in the Progressive, does display that one dimension. For example, Cindy doesn't cover Hillary's pro-corporate past, present and probable future.


On Edit:

"I can't help wondering if there is some sort of sub-conscious reason relating to her gender."

I doubt that Cindy Sheehan has any problem with Hillary's gender. I don't either. Both Cindy and I have a problem with ANY politician of any gender, creed, color or sexual preference who isn't ready to try to end all wars.

[Kolesar]

107. Skinner did not say Sheehan had a problem w/ Hillary's gender

go back and read the post

[ProudDad]

174. You go back and read the post

"I can't help wondering if there is some sort of sub-conscious reason relating to her gender."

referring to whom???

[Forkboy]

96. Women seem tougher on other women quite frequently.

Either way,it's a dumb way to judge someone.

[ProudDad]

97. See my post #95

Even though it was adhominum in the article, I had to agree that Hillary's voice is grating to me...

But then Dennis Kucinich's voice is not exactly your mellifluous radio voice and I'm about 98% congruent with him.

Just 'cause Hillary's voice sometimes IS fingernails on a chalkboard, that has NOTHING to do with my opinion of her...

[MH1]

103. Hillary is not the only one "singled out", if she is singled out at all.

Kerry gets plenty of the same type of personal, baseless attacks - less now that he's declared he's not running in 2008, but still from certain quarters.

As for gender based dislike? No. Just watch the video in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3190773&mesg_id=3190941

Before that despicable act by Hillary, I was one saying we shouldn't beat up her. Now, I find it appalling that any Democrat would consider supporting someone so devoid of good character, spine, or just common human decency. That still doesn't justify personal attacks - lord knows there are plenty of non-personal reasons to oppose her - but perhaps it does help explain them.

[AtomicKitten]

109. only on DU

Now, I find it appalling that any Democrat would consider supporting someone so devoid of good character, spine, or just common human decency.

That still doesn't justify personal attacks.

:rofl:

[snowbear]

129. Only on DU........ wha....?

If you're talking about Hillary Clinton, Skinner should be happy to know that she fares much better here than she does at many Democratic/Left-leaning websites.

In fact, compared to other sites... the majority of members here are downright angels.

Face it A/Kitten.

Hillary is highly popular in MSM polls, with the 'Republic' Party, and with a small, but vocal group of supporters here.

I haven't dropped in much lately, but nothing much has changed sinced the last visit.

As hostile as it may seem here sometimes --- Skinner or anyone else here during "primary season '04" can tell you, it's not anything close to Primary 04!

(Not yet anyway) There's still plenty of time.

Good to see you all still here BTW!!

[AtomicKitten]

133. I thought it amusing

that a personal attack:

Now, I find it appalling that any Democrat would consider supporting someone so devoid of good character, spine, or just common human decency.

was followed by this sentence:

That still doesn't justify personal attacks.

And from what I hear, I didn't miss anything in 2004. :scared:

I just find some of the posturing here kinda funny sometimes and mostly a complete waste of time. I'm starting to work on more interesting things gearing up for the primary here in California starting with organizing a voter registration drive for the Dems and fundraising projects (Gobama!).

And I'm still holding out for Al Gore to throw his hat in the ring.

[w4rma]

114. Those "certain quarters" are the same ones that defend Hillary, from what I can tell.

Even Hillary, herself, attacked Kerry with an ad hominim about his joke.

[Kolesar]

115. Hillary issued a lame, cover-before-the-RW-attacks statement

But I would not call it an ad hominem.

[w4rma]

116. What else would you call an attack that calls into question Sen. Kerry's support of U.S. soldiers?

That is an ad hominim/personal attack if I've ever seen one.

[Kolesar]

117. what was the quote

that youtube video only says: "what Senator Kerry said was inappropriate". I have not committed the sad caper to memory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBywaYuScCk

[w4rma]

118. Responding to the Kerry Flub, Hillary and Katie Channel Goofus and Gallant

…
Here was Katie Couric on yesterday's Larry King Live: "I can't imagine John Kerry's intent was to at all insult the troops overseas. Because he was a soldier himself in Vietnam."

And here was Hillary Clinton pandering -- I mean talking -- to veterans and military families at a VFW post in upstate New York: "What Senator Kerry said was inappropriate and I believe we can't let it divert us from looking at the issues that are at stake in our country."
…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/responding-to-the-kerry-f_b_33118.html

Democrats cringed, though, at the prospect of the Massachusetts senator becoming the face of the party for the second consecutive national campaign. “No one wants to have the 2004 election replayed,” said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.
…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13018908/

[Kolesar]

121. *That* is *not* an "ad hominem"

Senator Kerry said was inappropriate and I believe we can't let it divert us from looking at the issues that are at stake in our country."

[w4rma]

122. Let's just agree to disagree on this specific topic. (nt)

[Kolesar]

124. hyperbole...eom

[w4rma]

125. I thought I understated her actions, myself. (nt)

[Kolesar]

126. I would call it a Begala

Begala and Ca-ca-carville would run for RW cover else the age spotted Robert Novak attack them and all Democrats for something Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, D-GA, would say. Crossfire was hard to watch.

[w4rma]

127. I agree. (nt)

[ProudDad]

131. Then she's full of sh*t

What Kerry said was NOT inappropriate -- his delivery was lame but what he said was 100% spot on.

"Kerry told reporters in Seattle, Washington, that the remark was a "botched joke" meant to target the president, not U.S. troops."

"The White House's attempt to distort my true statement is a remarkable testament to their abject failure in making America safe," the Massachusetts senator said. "It's a stunning statement about their willingness to reduce anything in America to raw politics."

(and Hillary's willingness to go along with the white house)

Hillary dissed Kerry "But not all Democrats concurred. Vietnam veteran and former U.S. Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia defended Kerry and applauded the senator for showing "our party how to fight back with the truth."

"John Kerry is a patriot who has fought tooth and nail for veterans ever since he came home from Vietnam. He has stood with his brothers in arms unlike this administration, which exploits our troops to make a political point and divide America," Cleland said in a statment."

Here's the Quote:

"You know, education -- if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well.

"If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

By YOU he meant bush got stuck in Iraq...

Hillary should have known better. There's nothing inappropriate about Kerry's comment on bush's lack of education.

[snowbear]

132. Wow.. I completely agree with you Proud Dad. SHAME ON HILLARY.

How on earth could she say such a LAME thing about Senator Kerry?????

O----M----F----G. Disgusting.

[ProudDad]

134. It's because

if bush is "The Decider", Hillary's "The Triangulator" :)

[AtomicKitten]

135. I don't agree -- but for a different reason than you might think.

I thought his comment meant that poor kids who can't afford to go to college end up in Iraq. A statement that is historically correct, and one I agree with, since it was precisely that target group that was drafted first to go to Vietnam. It was yet again a truism that elicited faux outrage from the GOP. But rather than standing his ground on what could have and should have been a salient point in this discussion about who traditionally sacrifices during war time, Kerry hemmed and hawed and tried to say he used an incorrect pronoun or some such nonsense, and in the process brought the last days before the midterms to a screeching halt.

In my opinion, which is different here at DU because I don't coddle John Kerry - a topic that for some bizarre reason is sacrosanct here - anyone that was up for re/election last November had every right to say whatever the hell it took to put the focus of the MSM back on track. I don't blame any of the Democrats that said what they felt they needed to say. Kerry made a mistake at a critical moment and although under normal circumstances it would be no big deal, at that particular time it was.

I see this whole smelly brouhaha as being cooked up to lob at Hillary in particular. And in that vein, carry on.

[snowbear]

138. Coddle Kerry?

You can coddle a fish.. but you can't coddle a Kerry.. (Well-- you can, but....)

Anyhoo- I haven't popped in lately and to be honest, I only skimmed this thread. I did however read the Huffington Post comments and zow- -- I dunno. When I first heard Kerry stumble a bit while telling the joke, I thought- so the phuck what?

I never dreamed we'd be talking about that damned joke months later! He clarified what he meant, and whether the media is right, left, or somewhere in between--- they should have accepted his explanation and never written about the damned thing again.

He screwed up I think- because he was tired, he was traveling, and he shouldn't been trying to read a dumb joke off of a piece of paper. End of story. Or so you'd think.

I suppose it's normal for the dirtiest of the righties (people like Malkin, Limpballs, and the like) to still bring the verbal gaff up-- but Hillary????)

Why her?

I love you AK..

Hillary? I'm not too keen on seeing her as our nominee --- but I don't want her to come between our friendship on this board!!

I'm hoping she pulls out by June 11.

[AtomicKitten]

148. June 11th

... is my son's 21st birthday. Woo-hoo.

FTR, my most fervent desire is for Gore to jump in, otherwise, I'm on-board the Obama train all the way. I know it's freakish on DU, but I am disgusted with the caliber of HRC-hatred. It's personal, it's disgusting, it's grotesquely unfair. I work with progressive Dems here in SF and not a single one of them speaks of her that way, in fact some actually support her. I guess it's the company you keep. I, in fact, prefer to be around people that can discuss politics without getting ugly.

Politics IMO is a spectator sport and nothing to be taken personally. No worries, I'm starting to get involved in other projects that are infinitely more fulfilling than trading barbs on a message board.

Cheers.

[Name removed]

160. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Adelante]

189. Truth right there, Skinner

"Hillary is disproportionately singled out for this type of highly personal attack, and I must admit that I find it distasteful. I can't help wondering if there is some sort of sub-conscious reason relating to her gender."

[Gloria]

128. Look at the company Hillary keeps, namely, Bill....who is beloved by the Bushes

and was with Sr. just a couple of days ago down in Florida, I think, whooping it up. The picture almost made me vomit.

[wyldwolf]

140. Bill, who is beloved by close to 90% of Democrats and 60% of America

[IndianaGreen]

161. Bill ain't running and Hillary ain't Bill

Hillary is the past!

[wyldwolf]

184. but there they are side by side

Hillary is the frontrunner!

[IndianaGreen]

192. Not in bed they are not!

If the rumors about Bill's "recklessness" are true, and these are coming from California liberals, you can bet that this shit will come out at the most inappropriate time. We can ill afford to take another chance with the Clintons, and their penchant for tabloid headlines.

I don't doubt that anymore than I doubt the stories about Laura Bush staying at the Mayflower everytime Bush is too drunk to handle, which is quite often now.

[wyldwolf]

193. So, have you peeked into their bedroom or become a believer in tabloid stories?

You know, Weekly World News said Howard Dean was a space alien.

[Q]

142. Once again...

...liberals and progressives will be vilified for not wanting to back the Clinton/DLC bandwagon. This is like a bad dream and we can't seem to wake up.

Gone are the days of Public Servants and parties of the people. These are the days of power grabbing and one party states.

I don't recognize the Democratic party. The DLC's increasing 'power' within the party may force me to vote third party for the first time in my life.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

143. what you said. nt

[wyldwolf]

144. of course you don't recognize the Democratic party

you've lived under some grand illusion that it is something that it isn't and has never been.

[AtomicKitten]

156. I think there is much confusion

... with regard to labeling here at DU, i.e., progressive independents as opposed to progressive Democrats. I think you are speaking from an independent POV and I suspect don't subscribe to the theory of strength-in-numbers voting with pragmatism trumping idealism.

I think many at DU have lost perspective and either forgot or don't realize that the GOP is the opposition. It matters to me that we get a Democrat in the White House in 2008. I want a Democrat to appoint the next Supreme Court justice and IMO that is infinitely more important than which Democrat in particular wins.

[Q]

182. No confusion at all....

...and it's BOTH the Neocons and Neodems (DLC) that is the 'opposition. Both are owned by coporations at the expense of the working class.

It won't do any good to 'get a Dem in the WH' if that Dem promotes many of the same politices as the GOP. The DLC has been trying to take over the Democratic party since they rode in on Clinton's coat tails. Using Hillary is just one more attempt at that goal.

The DLC backed candidates want privatization of government/social services as much as the RWingers. And like the Right...they literally want to turn our government over to private industry in exchange for campaign cash.

It's this 'any Democrat' mentality that has gotten us into trouble since the 80s.

[AtomicKitten]

183. again, the confusion I was discussing

is that the mission statement of this particular website declares affiliation with progressive Democrats and that seems to be lost in the shuffle frequently. There has long been unrest between progressive independents and progressive Democrats, the former feeling less proclivity to participate in a cohesive voting block because of no affiliation with the latter. While your points are well taken, if you don't win, you can't govern, and that consequence is something that has been a point of contention on the left for many, many years and I suspect won't be solved in the near future or ever.

[geiger]

147. I think it's a real problem for her, which is frustrating for me, a person who wants any reason

I can get to vote for her.

Unfortunately, being a woman is just not enough, especially when she's acting just like all the men.

[Cascadian]

179. Hillary is not even #20 on my list of choices for President.

I would rather poke my eyes out with a rusty screwdriver than vote or support Hillary. I would rather vote Libertarian than choose her.


John

[DFW]

181. The radical right must be loving this thread

And Skinner is right, Cindy Sheehan's comments were personally, nasty,
and not only uncalled-for, but totally irrelevant to any political point
she may have been trying to make.

I'd rather see Al Gore as President, too, but if Hillary is the nominee
of the Democratic Party, then a vote against her is a vote for a Scalia-
Thomas-Roberts-Alito clone as the next justice of the Supreme Court, just
as a vote for Ralph Nader (72000 in Florida alone in 2000!) was a vote for
Bush. Fine, Nader actually was able to convince people of his unsubstantiated
crap about there being no difference between Bush and Gore. Raise your hand
if you still believe that one. Milk and cookies at 2:30.

Howard Dean is still DNC chairman, and if you think a president Hillary would
be able to ignore him, you're mistaken, and Howard never hesitates to speak his
mind. But the Supreme Court is reason alone to make me shudder to read all the
posts about "I will never vote for Hillary if she is the nominee." So go volunteer
full time for whoever it is you prefer, but don't give us Sam Brownback in the
White House just because you fall for some line that Hillary is no different.
Remember what happened to us the last time progressives fell for that line:
Bush Lite and the Dark Times.

I also think Kerry is being given a bum rap for not attacking the Swift Boat Farts
quickly and forcefully enough. I never met the guy, but my bet is not that he was
too much of a wimp. My bet is that he overestimated the good and the intelligence
of the American electorate. He knew their lies were crap, and I suspect he thought
the people were smart enough to recognize the Swift Boaters for the paid lying
rehearsed propagandists they were. He just wasn't cynical enough to realize how
many Americans (and the media) would fall for them. Underestimating your enemy,
as well as overestimating your allies, is not the same as being a wimp. I think Kerry
figured that the American people were too good and too smart to fall for such a false and
obviously transparent tactic. His wrong guess lost him the election (along with
Kenneth Blackwell and Diebold helping), but that's not the same as taking it
lying down.

[Mass]

195. Hillary has a perfect occasion to show that Cindy Sheehan is wrong.

Be the first presidential candidate to co-sponsor the Feingold/Reid bill (or at least one of the first senators to do it). It would be a sign I would consider as positive.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3194905

[IndianaGreen]

199. As the Democratic "frontrunner," Hillary should come out publicly for Feingold/Reid

and not wait for polls and focus groups, or issue obscure statement on Friday night.

Let's see if Hillary rises to the occassion...

[DFW]

206. I hear that one

It would indeed be a smart step --let's hope her advisers are listening!

[Clarkie1]

210. Keep this one kicked! nt