Someone please explain Hillary's vote on Kyle /Liberman. Why did she vote to support it?

[saracat]

[rateyes]

1. She believe in it...

which scares me to death.

[Klaxon]

2. Because she is a FRAUD!

...I wonder how this will pan out for her :grr:"liberal":grr: voting ratio...

:banghead:

[Dr Fate]

3. Because she agrees with The DLC's & Lieberman's conservative, Pro-Bush 3rd party on this...

...more so than she agrees with the anti-war DEM base.

Get used to it.

It was no secret that she showed more support for Joe (I-3rd Party) than she did for than Lamont (D)...thus her continuing agreement with Joe (I-3rd party)on the war should never be a suprise.

[tekisui]

4. She would love to prove herself with a war in Iran?

[zalinda]

5. I just wrote to her as my senator and told her that

I can't support her any longer. That I forgave her Iraq vote, but would not forgive her Iran vote, that she should know better than to give this administration even an inch. I also suggested that she talk Chelsea into joining the army since this Iran thing is so important, so we poor folk don't feel like we are shouldering the entire burden of war.

zalinda

[Cha]

70. Thanks..I'm sick of

writing of to her but I probably will again when I've had a day to simmer down.

[AtomicKitten]

6. HRC supporters don't want to talk about her "yes" vote.

They want to trash Obama for not voting on the egregious measure she just voted "yes" on.

Go figure. :eyes:

[Dr Fate]

9. They will talk about her speech before her Iraq war "yes" vote though.

You know- the one where her mouth said "no" to the invasion (or so they will try to tell you) but her vote said "yes."

You are correct- and we should also note that Hillary's supporters dont ever want to talk about the DLC's support for Joe Lieberman (I-3rd Party)against the DEM nominee

DLCers supported him after he threatened a 3rd party run if Lamont (D) won- and continued to support this 3rd party even when he was ruinning against the legit DEM nominee...

The Clintons? All you have to do is count the personal appearances in CT they made for Joe , vs. the ones they made for the DEM nominee (Hint- they made ZERO stops in CT for the DEM)

[AtomicKitten]

23. As I have mulled over events and watched this campaign evolve --

I can say in good conscience that you, good doctor, are correct.

I simply cannot reward Hillary, Edwards, or any of the other knuckleheads that abdicated their Constitutional powers of declaring war to Junior. I can't let it slide nor do I want to.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

7. She wants appeal to the rigtwing, and she can lie and say she didnt vote for war

if it blows up in her face.
people continue to let her off the hook for enabling bush all the way on iraq, so she figures dems will do the same on iran

[rinsd]

8. I am waiting for her to put out a statement on it.

Or perhaps she will be asked about it at tonite's debate.

I do not agree with her vote.

[Klaxon]

16. Well if you wait for more of her BS...

Perhaps I can interest you in some infrastructure


I have a bridge to sell you in Minnesota, real cheap..


*some assembly required

[rinsd]

31. Yes its more fun to assign motivations from out of thin air

:eyes:

[knight_of_the_star]

20. I could care less what the bullshit is about this

All it proves is she may think she is fit to be carved in stone but has rocks in her head.

[GDAEx2]

10. She Fancies Herself A "War President", See?

[ShortnFiery]

11. Because she wants to be An American Warhorse Iron Maiden - like her heroine, Maggie Thatcher. nt

[killbotfactory]

12. Because she really believes Iran's army is a terrorist group?

Short answer: AIPAC

[Dawgs]

13. Wasn't this a vote for military action against Iran?

[rinsd]

21. No, here's the language of the resolution.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/kyl-lieberman-amendment/

I disagree with her vote but this was not an authorization for war with Iran.

[saracat]

25. You are right about the "language rinsd. But I still can't imagine how

any can defend that vote.

[rinsd]

29. I disagree with the vote and hope she addresses it soon.

[cascadiance]

135. Hmm... That sounds JUST like what John Kerry said!

and you saw what happened to him!

[snappyturtle]

27. What I got out of it is that the Revolutionary Guard is regarded

as a terrorist group...and we all know bush can do anything to terrorists....even American citizens if he labels us as such.

[Cameron27]

14. This was wrong,

I'd like to hear what she has to say about it.

[Dr Fate]

17. I'd like to hear what conservative midwestern & southern focus groups want her to say too. n/t

n/t

[reggie the dog]

she is a neocon that happens to be a Democrat.

She is against the IRAQ war but she never said she was against the IRAN war.

[Klaxon]

19. Yeah...

Like the Israeli government.. She does not think we should of attacked Iraq... but we should of attacked IRAN all along...

Thats where Al-Ciaduh & The Terrists was hiding all along!

[peacetalksforall]

45. Your first four words said it all - SHE IS A NEOCON. !!!!!!!!

She is an assertive and agressive neocon.

Yes, the DLC reigns as long as they and the Republicans rig it all (and then watch the Republicans do their thing).

[Carrieyazel]

123. Her foreign policy is little different than Shrub's or Ghouliani's

That's a HUGE problem for her in a general election. She can't make a distinction at all. She'll be agreeing with the Repuke nominee most of the time on "war on terror" and fall right into their trap. If we're stuck with her as the nominee it'll also be a huge problem for Dems across the country. She is a lousy candidate and millions of Democrats know it.

[aquart]

15. Why did Schumer?

Hillary votes with Schumer.

[ChiciB1]

62. Well I Think Hillary Learned Early On To FOLLOW Schumer's Lead!

I saw HIM as her mentor when she first decided to run for Senator in NY! He was one of those who pumped and pumped for her! Or use any word that comes to mind!!!

[monmouth]

18. At this rate HRC will name Lieberman as her VP. I really wanted and hoped

and wished and liked her for the nom. On many levels. I personally liked the fact that Bill would be in the background, but close by for his expertise on the daunting tasks facing her if she became POTUS. I'm not a young or impulsive person, but she is starting to leave a very bad taste in my mouth. She was my top choice three months ago. I became wary with the Murdoch chumminess and my wariness has thus grown with her closeness to the corps and big dogs that fund whomever they "want" in office. This is not good. And then!!! Taking advice from Bush on the ME???? Nah, Hillary, I'm looking for a fork, for me, you're done.....

[Generator]

88. Now you're talking!

That would be fun as DU membership goes down to twelve. I'm expecting to find something else to do with my hour or so a day here when/if HRC is anointed. I would love to see the spin of her rehabilitation though-that should be amusing.

[peacetalksforall]

130. I want Gore. I want Kucinich very high up there. I like that Edwards

won't take corporate money for this race.

But she is definitely not in the running - starting with the DLC, Iraq, and poof positions when everyone else is talking death and soldiers and prisons and torture, plus hard war. She is in another world that I can't connect with because I prefer peaceful co-existence that we were challenged to pursue when we were born (my faith). 'My faith' is not in sync with hers.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

22. Same reason she voted for the IWR.

Politics.

Next question?

[Steve_in_California]

24. Four words:

Her heavily Jewish constituency.

[Bonobo]

30. That is NOT fair. Plenty of Jews are against this crap. Plenty.

You cannot find any group more consistently voting democrat even when it is against there economic benefit.

[karynnj]

68. I agree - I'm Jewish and one state over

Most Jews are not neo-cons.

[Cameron27]

36. BS

Nice talking point Steve. :thumbsdown:

[gaiilonfong]

26. TRIANGULATING Hillary strikes again

Anyone who thinks that Queen Hillary will not act like King George W is fooling themselves.
This vote today hopefully puts another glitch in her nomination...That is 2 in one week
The Move-on vote, now this...one more and 3 strikes she should be out.
At this point Queen Hillary thinks she the nomination sewed up so she is going to start showing her true self.....

[Bonobo]

28. She will spend 4 years "proving" she isn't a liberal and weak on defense.

She is doing it to remake her overly liberal image.

The sad thing is, I think she really, really was a liberal, once.

[TwilightGardener]

32. When two Repub Senators voted against it, NO Democrat should

have voted for it--especially not the potential leader of the party. Shame on her.

[Think82]

33. Obama

didn't vote at all. NOR DID HE VOTE ON BIDEN/BOXER. explain that!

[TwilightGardener]

41. Can't and won't explain it--he should have been there, and should have voted NO.

[maximusveritas]

46. The explanation is that the vote wasn't supposed to be today

He didn't know it was going to happen, so he went to his campaign events as previously planned. It's Reid's fault for pushing this vote today when he said he wouldn't.

[karynnj]

73. It actually wasn't close - so that in and of itself

makes it less important. The question I have is whether he had Reid insert the direction he would have voted - as Kerry did in 2003 and 2004 on votes he missed. Not doing this means that he opted not to be on record. (I would like to know, if they had to vote, which way Edwards and Richardson would.

[ChiciB1]

67. I'd Like To Know This Too! Pulling A McCain I Think... If I Don't Vote...

I don't have to explain what I think!! I'm very definitely NOT a Hillary supporter, but at least she actually voted, but that might be because she feels she has it wrapped up! Politicians know so much more than "we the people" do and I'm sure she knows where her chips are coming from!

But as I said, she voted and I will also say, she's LAST on my list for nominee!

[karynnj]

69. Not only 2 Republicans - but the top 2 on the Foreign Relations committee

The top 5 Democrats (Biden, Dodd, Kerry, Feingold and Boxer) were nos too.

[William769]

34. Instead of having a orgasm over it

Would it not be prudent to wait to see why Hillary said she voted the way she voted?

Until then it's all speculation, oh wait thats right I'm on DU, some people don't want the reasons why, they just want to...

[knight_of_the_star]

35. Reasons don't matter

At this point her actions have spoken louder than her words ever possibly could. No amount of hot air could justify giving Bush another blank check of the worst kind at the worst moment possible.

[William769]

37. How does it give Bush a blank check whe Democrats are the majority of both chambers?

Unlike last time.

[Dr Fate]

42. Dont worry-the "we dont have the votes" excuse will be trotted out soon enough. n/t

n/t

[Silent3]

59. It helps to understand how the voting works.

Democrats don't have enough to votes to overturn that which has already been voted into law. The Dems have little power to change things as they are, and law that's not set to expire on their watch. BUT there also aren't enough Republican or hawkish Democratic votes to put through anything new like authorizing an actual new war against Iran.

The saber-rattling at Iraq doesn't upset me much because -- despite the paranoia caused by the "this is the same stuff that got us into Iraq!" feeling -- we simply aren't capable of mounting a new war. Our military is far too overstretched now.

Additional funding for the war in Iraq is something Democrats can theoretically stop if they wish. But the only way to do that is to essentially shut the Congress down, because even a pull-out requires money and authorizing an appropriate bill for a pull-out would get locked up in a filibuster too. Even the incredibly reasonable bill to get more at-home time for soldiers (a year off for every year served -- I can't remember off the top of my head the name of that bill) only reached 56 votes, not the 60 needed to end a filibuster.

Knowing Bush, even if all funding were cut off he'd still not pull the troops out -- he'd insist that as "commander in chief" he could do whatever he wanted with the troops, and he'd do it without the money. He'd gladly reduce our soldiers to pillaging what little is left of Iraq to keep them going, and blame every death due to his intransigence on Democrats for not "giving the troops what they need."

I'm pissed the Democrats in Congress aren't doing more to end the war myself, or at least make a bigger stink about the current situation, but in the end I don't think there really is much they can do beyond symbolic gestures, not until 2009.

[saracat]

38. But I would think those who support her might be able to defend this vote.

If there is a good reason for this vote, why do you have to wait for her to give it to you? Do you or do you not agree with this vote? Can you have an opinion that she doesn't feed you?And I do realize that the OP asked for an explanation of Hillary's vote and that some supporters may have a different explanation than the Senator but surely supporters can also ahve an opinion about this vote!

[Dr Fate]

40. 1st the focus groups have to tell her what to say, then DLC memes tell her supporters what to say.

Got it?

[William769]

47. How can we defend what is not understood.

Only a stupid person would do that. But then again looking at some of the responses in this thread, I can understand where stupidity reins.

[Dr Fate]

52. LOL! We are not the ones who are failing to understand anything.

And only a stupid person has to wait to be spun at & probably lied to before they can discern the motivations of those who side with Joe Lieberman (I-3rd Party) on FP & defense issues.

Regardless of any speculation, correct or otherwise, we have to wait and have Hillary explain her vote after the fact- as the DEM base we certainly have zero input in these matters until after the fact.

[William769]

56. Your talking in circles.

[Dr Fate]

58. No-I'm straight up telling you that Hillary agrees with Joe (I-3rd Party) and opposes the DEM base.

And you fail to tell us "why" because either you havent thought of why, or you havent been provided with the proper excuse/talking points yet.

[William769]

60. I am not going to put words in Hillary's mouth.

Which BTW you seem not to have a problem with.

[Dr Fate]

65. I'm not doing that. I am stating the fact that she sided with Joe (I-3rd Party)...

...and opposed the anti-War DEM base.

Whether history will be on her side or not, I'm not putting words in her mouth- I'm just stating facts.

She agreed with Lieberman(I-3rd Party)on this vote, and disagrees with us. It's just a fact.

[William769]

66. That kind of logic baffles the mind.

[Dr Fate]

77. Hillary's agreement with a conservative 3rd party shouldnt be too baffling.

Her flag ship organization, the DLC, makes no secret about their support for him and his views- in fact, Harold Ford, the leader of the DLC openly endorsed him against the anti-war DEM nominee, while DLC staffers are openly employed by Lieberman (I-3rd party) right now.

It all makes perfect sense unless you are straining yourself to make excuses.

[Exultant Democracy]

117. Not surprised, that explains why you continue to support her.

[waiting for hope]

100. It's like her flag burning gaff -

I got an earful the other day by a supporter defending it - said it was basically a "ploy" to divert attention from the other bill about flag burning that was coming up. Hey, do you think this person would want to buy some land I have in Florida?

[Dr Fate]

39. Yes- considering that consulting the DEM base about it before-hand would be out of the question.

The next best thing is for us to wait for her to explain herself, right or wrong- and accept the consequences after the fact.

After all, the anti-war DEM base has been 100% dead wrong on Iraq so far, and Joe Lieberman(I-3rd Party), the DLC , Hillary, Bush, and FOX news has been 100% correct about all of it-showing nothing but the finest judgement- LOL!!!

[William769]

50. Oy vey.

:eyes:

[Dr Fate]

55. Yes. "O-vey." My un-refuted points are correct and my sarcasm is warranted. n/t

n/t

[William769]

57. What un-refuted points?

If you mean what you posted thats laughable.

[Dr Fate]

61. Hillary doesnt care what the base thinks- and tends to agree with Joe (I-3rd party) more...

...on this vote.

It's not laughable- it's a point that is 100% correct- and you have failed to refute it.

You seem to be suggesting that we shouldnt try to figure out why she did this, but just accept whatever she says after the fact, once we cant do anything about it.

[William769]

64. This is what you wrote.

"After all, the anti-war DEM base has been 100% dead wrong on Iraq so far, and Joe Lieberman(I-3rd Party), the DLC , Hillary, Bush, and FOX news has been 100% correct about all of it-showing nothing but the finest judgement- LOL!!!" Not only is it laughable it's down right ignorant.

Since you seem to know all I dare you to post her record with Lieberman's and show how she tends to agree more with "Joe"

[Dr Fate]

72. LOL! Do I really have to put a "sarcasm" thingy by everything???

Let me clarify without the use of sarcasm-The anti-war DEM Base has been 100% correct on Iraq- Joe (I-3rd Party) & Hillary have been 100% wrong on Iraq. I'll bet Iran wont be much different.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with now:

YES- Hillary and certainly the DLC did indeed agree with Joe's run against Lamont(D)-even after he threatened to go 3rd party if he lost. The Clintons did indeed campaign for Joe in person, but failed to show up for Lamont(D) even once.

YES-Hillary does indeed often support, agree with and vote with Joe (I-3rd party) on defense and FP issues- as she certainly did today.

[William769]

80. And wheres your proof because your word is just not good enough.

The information is out there all you have to do is go get it. And no I am not going to do your homework for you, you made the claim so back it up with facts.

[Dr Fate]

84. You need a link to show that Hillary voted with Joe (I-3rd party) today?

And you also need a link showing that many or most of your average anti-war Democratic base members finds disagreement in this?

You need a link showing that Hillary & the DLC was correct to side with Bush on the war, and the base was incorrect to oppose Bush's disasterous lies? LOL!!!

I dont believe I need links to back up either of these 100% correct claims- except to you, they are common, undisputed facts.

[William769]

86. I know you seem to be a little slow today and are trying to deflect.

So I will help you again.

"Since you seem to know all I dare you to post her record with Lieberman's and show how she tends to agree more with "Joe"".

[Dr Fate]

92. Are you really trying to say Hillary opposes Joe (I) & sides with the base on Iraq and Iran? LOL!

She certainly sided with Joe today, that is for sure, and she certainly has agreed with Joe (I-3rd Party)-and disagreed with the DEM base on Iraq a number of times.


It's a matter of public knowledge-Hillary & Joe agree today, and they have agreed on Iraq numerous times in the past. If you have some previously unknown, secret information to the contrary, I think you are the one who needs to dig that up.

[William769]

93. Stop side stepping the question.

Since you are apparently not smart enough to back up your facts, I'll go ahead and dispute them for you.

Here is a record to go by, read it and weep.

http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/110byranking.html

[Dr Fate]

96. Yes-Hillary agrees with Joe (I-3rd Party) and often votes with Joe on Iran and Iraq.

Your shot-gun link doesnt disprove that. My posts in this thread have been about defense and FP- on those issues, Joe & Hill are often linked to the hip.

Hillary agrees with Joe Lieberman (I-3rd party) on Iraq and Iran more thn she does on the DEM base- its what I originally maintained and it is what I still correctly maintain.

In fact, she voted with Joe and opposed the DEM base TODAY on that very issue.

It's amazing- she can do something TODAY and you will still deny it.

Your link doesnt seem to disprove that she campaigned for Joe against the anti-war Democrat either- which also goes to show how much they agree and support each other on major defense issues.

Next you will ask me for a link proving that Joe Lieberman has supported Bush on defense, or that the sky isnt purple.

Stop trying to bring Hillary's domestic record into this- it's not the issue or topic and you know it. The issue is war-Iraq and now Iran.

[William769]

99. Yes it does.

But then again you still have yet to offer any proof of what you said, and it is now apparent you you never will. I am used to people blowing smoke up my ass when they can't back up thier assertions. See ya.

P.S. and for the record this is the assertion you can't seem to answer. That Hillary tends to agree more with Joe.

[Dr Fate]

104. LOL! In your make believe world, Hillary opposes Joe (I-3rd Party) on Iran and Iraq.

...and agrees witht he base more on this! LOL!!!

The fact that she campaigned for him against an anti-war candidate, more often than not -publically agrees with Joe on FP, agrees with him on Iran and voted with him TODAY on that issue seems to escape you.

Sorry, but this isnt about Hill's record on other domestic issues besides Iraq & Iran. You seem frustrated with me that I wouldnt let you steer or frame the debate as such. Too bad.

[SaveElmer]

107. In fact her voting record on Iraq is quite different from Liebermans...

And identical in all particulars for the last 2 and a half years with Barack Obama's

Do you condemn Barbara Boxer in the same disparaging terms for campaigning for Lieberman against Lamont?

[Dr Fate]

108. Yet she campaigned for Joe against a true anti-war candidate. And voted with Joe today.

And yes- I disagree with any DEM who supported a pro-war conservative who started a 3rd party more than they supported an anti-war candidate from their own party. Which is what the Clintons did- they personaly campaigned for Joe and never showed for the DEM. Their flag ship organization, the DLC openly endorsed Joe AFTER the primary.

My problem with the DLCers is they supported Joe AFTER he lost the primary (See their leader, Harold Ford and others...)

My correct contention is that Hillary agrees with Joe (I-3rd Party) on Iraq and Iran much more than she agrees with the base. It's true and you know it.

You and I both know that any honest DLCers outside of DU would balk at the notion that she sides with the anti-war " far left nut roots" more than her fellow DLCers...

I'll agree with you that few DEMS, including Obama, have been perfect in this regard, but some do better than others ...

[SaveElmer]

111. Hillary in fact supported Lamont after the primary...

Sent him money and campaign advisors...

You have posted a number of times now that Hillary agrees with Joe on Iraq more than the base...how about first again, telling us who you consider to be the base...and second post some facts to back up your contention...

[Dr Fate]

112. The Clintons personally campaigned for Joe-but never made one single stop for the DEM. Why?

I'm sure there is an excuse- but the Clintons had no persoanl time for the anti-war DEM-that was all used up on the man who told them ahead of time he would start a 3rd party.

In fact, they both said basically said that it was win win to vote for either. If my memory is correct, Bill went on TV and said that on the eve of the election.

Care to share the numbers with us? The personal appearances the Clitnons made for Joe, vs. the persoanl appearnaces they made for Lamont(D)?

Care to show us the DLC money (The Clinton's Flag ship Org)for Joe vs. the DLC money for Lamont (D)?

This was a case of the Clintons trying to have it both ways-they failed to help the DEM nominee with the same support & star power that they glady lent Joe.

You and I both know that the DLC and their members fought for and prefered Joe. Only on DU do they tell us otherwise.

And see post #109- I dont tend to confuse the DEM base with swing-voters.

[SaveElmer]

113. So in fact you do then admit...

Hillary did not support Lieberman after the primary as you implied in your previous post?

[Dr Fate]

114. No- I contend that the Clintons supported and continue to agree with Lieberman (I-3rd Party) a lot..

...especially on FP, Iraq and now Iran. They may have some minor disagreements from time to time-that's great- but over all I think Hillary is more in line with Joe (I-3rd Party) & the DLC on these issues, not the base.

The DLCers outside of DU will proudly tell you so themselves, wont they?

A good way to try to show otherwise would be to show us that the Clintons made more campaign stops for the DEM than they did for Joe, or to show us that they and their DLC, over all, gave more money to the DEM than they did to Joe.

If the Clintons and their DLC gave more time and effort to Joe than they did to Lamont (D), then my conclusion is pretty sound.

I persoanly think that it shows that the Clintons really did want Joe to win, if not, they would have given as much of or even more of their star-power and appearances to the DEM as they did to Joe....

[SaveElmer]

116. Well if you won't acknowledge fact...

No use continuing the conversation...

[Dr Fate]

119. I certainly wont acknowledge your make-believe that DLCers prefered the DEM to Joe (I-3rd party)

Only on DU do DLCers try to remotely suggest that they preferred Lamont to Joe- what a laugh. In the real world, Harold Ford supports Joe and DLC staffers openly work for Joe- its a fact.

And you cant show us where the Clintons showed up for the DEM, can you? But you know that they gladly campaigned for Joe, even after he TOLD THEM he would start a 3rd party if he lost.

You know that they showed up and personaly campaigned for Joe-but refused to show up at any Lamont (D) rallies, and that their DLC funded and openly campaigned for Joe but not for the DEM.

You are right, there is no point in you continuing anything- Joe (I-3rd Party), the Clintons & DLC got their way in the end after all, so why argue?

I on the other hand, could continue exhibit these examples of the Clintons & the DLC favoring Lieberman (I-3rd party) over the DEM...

[SaveElmer]

102. Who do you consider the base?...nt

[Dr Fate]

109. People who are active in keeping conservatives out of power...

...folks who give money and volunteer their time to do so, year round. People who tend to oppose the far right on the major, all encompassing issues. I would include many partisan DEMS like me who bust their asses.

Hopefully it wouldnt include those who can be persuaded to vote for and agree with the far-right- those would be "swing voters."

[Milo_Bloom]

43. Remember...

Don't pay ANY attention to what candidates actually do, we are only supposed to pay attention to what they SAY they did.

[William769]

51. Well in your case thats true.

[Milo_Bloom]

79. Of course, It's so much easier not to think.

Why bothering thinking about the candidates or their positions, it is so much easier to just blindly follow the heard no matter how much damage it will cause to the country.

I bet your getting tired of shilling for a capitulation candidate, aren't you?

[William769]

81. Pot meet kettle,.

[Milo_Bloom]

83. Care to back that up with a fact?

That would be something new from you.

How did you feel after Clinton's plan turned out to be EXACTLY what I said.

I noticed you never returned to the debate as you claimed you would.

[ripple]

95. Bizarre choice of words in your subject line

But your point itself might be taken more to heart if you and others like you would provide Senator Obama with the same courtesy, particularly given that the schedule for today's vote was changed at the last minute by our senate leadership.

[Milo_Bloom]

44. For the same reason Edwards probably would have voted for it.

They are more interested in politics over actual principles and have proven throughout their careers.

[Dr Fate]

49. Well, "probably would" and "did" are two different animals.

Let's not confuse what you say Edwards "probably would have" done and what Hillary actually did.

Perhaps we will agree that Edwards should explain whether he agrees with Hillary & Joe Lieberman (I-3rd Party) on this particular vote...

[ChiciB1]

74. CHEAP SHOT!! You Have No Idea Or Proof Of That Kind Of Statement!!

But of course, since your feelings about Edwards are WELL KNOWN, you just couldn't resist! Your comment shows more about YOU that it does about John Edwards! Pretty Pathetic statement!

[Milo_Bloom]

82. If his history didn't prove it true, it would be a cheap shot.

However, Clinton and Edwards have nearly identical voting records for their time in the senate. Bother of their health care plans are insurance sell outs. Both of them claim one things in their speeches, but offer different realities in their plans. Both of them have a LONG history of capitulation.

The only current difference is that Edwards can pretend to be progressive from his perch outside the Senate.

The fact that you felt the need to attack on an obvious comparrison based on common history, only shows that you know deep down, I am actually correct.

[Dr Fate]

87. Hillary and Edwards should certainly explain their current positions.

If voters find either to be insincere, so be it.

As it is, "probably would have" and "did" are still 2 different animals.

[Milo_Bloom]

98. History is all we have.

Rhetoric is absolutely worthless.

The only thing we have to judge any of these candidates by is what they DID, not what they say they will do or what they SAY they did.

[Dr Fate]

106. I'll agree with you that we should be skeptical of their explanations.

100%.

[Tellurian]

133. Theres no need to be skeptical..

The non- binding Amendment is here..

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/kyl-lieberman-amendment/

Anything that even sniffed of war powers was stricken. All this non- binding Amendment is doing is reiterating Iran is ready to step into the vacuum created by our troops leaving Iraq. The Amendment is singling out Iranian troops identifying with Shia Militants as terrorists if they are caught in Iraq putting American troops in harms way.

[saracat]

97. This OP is not about Edwards.Nor does his inclusion in this add to this discussion.

Any poster inserting his name in a discussion about another candidate shows his bias and isn't worth considering.

[zulchzulu]

48. She feels your pain...

...and stuck the knife in deeper.

I'll gladly defend Obama's decision to not vote for an idiotic pass for Chimpy to get a chance to attack Iran because the vote was a day late over someone who dares say she has experience to do the same damn crap she did in 2002.

Bring it, Clinton fans. Your Girl proves once again that she thinks you're a fool.

[maximusveritas]

53. Because she feels safe enough with her lead

that she can afford to do this (vote the way she truly feels). If Obama was a little closer to her, there's no way she casts this vote. Similarly, Biden and to a lesser extent, Dodd, voted No because they can't afford not to. Doing so would pretty much disqualify them from the race.

[ronnykmarshall]

54. Because there's not enough threads on DU about it.

FYI - I don't agree with her vote either.

At least she showed up :hide:

[avrdream]

63. I don't understand it enough to explain it.

When I read a thread over in GD that shows the wording of what actually PASSED, I found myself agreeing with the "Sense of the Senate". It certainly WAS NOT a war resolution from what I read.

Now, is it legally the background material for an official attack on Iran later on? I don't know because I don't understand how these things work.

I'm generally a reasonable supporter of Hillary and will look at things from all angles. This is one that I'm still sorting through so I won't try to explain her vote.

[William769]

78. Two things to keep in mind, it's a non binding resolution to begin with.

The other is the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate in 2002, they do not I repeat they do not now. Some on DU saw this as an opportunity to gut Hillary just as they saw an opportunity to do it on her vote in 2002, has that hurt her? No, it has actually helped her. The Hillary bashers are getting desperate and are grabbing at straws, I'm actually have fun watching their demise and utter meltdown.

[Carrieyazel]

71. I would have been stunned if she had voted against it.

Typical Hillary neoliberal "hawk" foreign policy stance. Exactly what I expected. She is compiling a list of unforgivable and deplorable votes. She is making me dislike her more and more each day. These votes must be highlighted by the other candidates and used to call out Hillary. We can start tonight with the debate.

[babsbunny]

75. CLINTON, OBAMA, ETC. ARE BEING BLACKMAILED!

What else can it be?

[Generator]

91. Actually it's the Cheney mind control experiment

They look like Democrats but have been implanted with a chip from the home Darth planet.

[truedelphi]

76. I said this six months ago and for six months had to listen to

Hillary Supporters saying that my interpretation of her "hard line" on Iran was not valid.

Well I was right. Too bad I don't have a nickel for every interaction with the Clinton supporters who defended her and said I didn't know what I was talking about.

[Totally Committed]

85. The words "Warmonger", "Meglomaniac", and "Asshole" come to mind...

But that's only MY opinion.

TC

[Froward69]

89. She will say anything to get elected.

[bvar22]

90. I can explain Hillary's vote:

Any questions?

[kmccaskill]

94. hey

just so everyone knows Chris Matthews of hardball just reported Obama came down with the stomach flu, but he will try to make the debate

[Totally Committed]

101. Better watch out.... I tried something similar to this the other day, and took a LOT of abuse for it

.... I don't regret it at all, I'm just saying.

btw... :thumsup: No questions at all.

TC

[bvar22]

110. I know. I was there.

In fact, you may recognize some of the graphics.
I "borrowed" them from your excellent compilation.
Thanks.

I decided to give my typing fingers a restand let Hillary speak for herself.


bvar22

I am looking foreward to the debate tonight.
Hopefully, Hillary will get asked about her IRAN WAR vote.
I alread KNOW her answer will be an ambiguous triangulation, but it will be fun.

[Clanfear]

103. Because she feels it helps her chances in the GE?

I think it should be pretty obivous that HC has chosen a path more moderate than most of the netroots would prefer, but it has gained her a huge lead. There's no arguing about that. I don't see any reason to think she will not remain under the DLC mold by appealing to the middle on social issues and to be rather hawkish on foreign policy. She stands more to gain in the GE by continuing to play toward the middle than moving to the left especially with her current lead. JMO.

[Dr Fate]

105. I'm not so sure that supporting more wars impresses the middle any longer.

Most people in the middle and even ont he right are getting pretty tired of these campaigns.

But you may be right- time will tell. At best, they will indeed eventually turn against this war too, leaving the DEMS holding much or part of the blame, just like last time.

In any event, "the middle" was wrong last time (Iraq) and the base was right- so I'm not so sure that starting wars based on what the middle says they thinks (or what the media SAYS the middle thinks) right now is always a good choice...

[Clanfear]

115. I haven't taken that stance yet.

I'm not sure it endorses a war, and we all know full well there isn't any way we can wage another war with our military worn out from Iraq. I'm not saying there may not be an air strike, but I don't see any way in hell there would be any ground troops or an occupation.

I think this is more about positioning in the GE. We heard it last weekend on Stephanopolous. She is taking a hawkish stance in regards to FP. I could be wrong but voting against today's amendment would have left her open to attacks about not understanding the "true" threat from Iran, and made her seem weak in that regard.

I have been slowly coming to grips with what seems to be the inevitable nomination of HC, so I have been trying to take a fresh look at why she has been doing what she is doing. Divorcing myself from what I think she should do, because she's not going to do it.

[Dr Fate]

121. Better you than me. I'm done wrestling with other people's lack of morals.

I can tell you why I think what I think, why I support others who I mostly tend to agree with me...Other than that, I cant explain why "centrists" truly do what they do...

We will agree in the element of SOME compromise, but enough is enough...

I'm still not sure that Hill & Steph are right when they think true, informed moderates and centrists-even in the context of the GE- want more war talk- but we will see...

I'll say it again, the pro-war "moderates" who wanted a war in Iraq in the 1st place were wrong last time, and going with what they claimed they wanted at the time didnt really help our party-since now they OPPOSE the war and even blame us for giving it to them...

I'd hate to make that same mistake twice, but these pro-war "centrists" cant seem to ever learn from their mistakes...

[Carrieyazel]

120. This DOES NOT help her in a general election though.

Most independents and Repukes see Hillary's voting their way as PANDERING and her "shamelessly trying to appear like she's a moderate" a quote I heard on a Repuke radio show recently. They still hate her no matter how she votes and accuse her of "posturing". She can't win even when she bows down to the neocons and other Repukes.

[Dr Fate]

124. It's almost unfair. She truly cant win on this, fair or otherwise.

Hillary can truly and honestly agree with George Bush and Joe Lieberman all she wants, and all of the other conservatives will STILL accuse her of being fake or "fronting" to hide her supposed, imaginary liberalism on defense...

It's not fair and I almost feel sorry for her, but I think you nailed it.

No one she is attempting to impress is going to buy it and of course the base hates it.

[Carrieyazel]

125. You're definitely right. It does seem unfair to Hillary. But it is what she has to deal with.

[Dr Fate]

126. If we allow her to win, it is what we ALL will have to deal with by proxy.

And I dont want to have to make stretches for anyone this time around.

I could support your man Richardson (even though I disagree with him on many points too) much easier. Almost anyone could defeat the GOP/media easier then her- but I rather like Richardson on many points...

[EndElectoral]

118. You've got to be kidding me!!! She voted for it?!!!!!!

[jmp]

122. Maybe she was "fooled" again. (nm)

...

[nealmhughes]

127. You are not supposed to ask Whys! It is like Leahy-Feingold -- we aren't supposed to ask

why when our betters have made their extremely complicated decisions upon a vote. . . or more importantly, how a vote will play on FOXNews or the NY Post.

[BootinUp]

128. Someone please explain what your issue is with her vote

for the resolution in question.

[Dr Fate]

131. The OP asks for people to explain why she is supporting it.

I agree that a thread about why people are opposed to it would be interesting too-you should start one- but this thread FIRST asks the question of why it is a good idea.

The OP asks: Why does she support it? I'd like to know too. It's a totally fair inquiry that deserves an answer, not another question.

And if you tend agree with Joe Lieberman (I-3rd Party) on this, please feel free to answer the OP's call of the question and explain why.

[BootinUp]

132. Sorry, I was on the other thread.

Shall we continue over there?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3551793&mesg_id=3552023

[IndianaGreen]

129. Hillary is AIPAC's "girl"!

I will also add that Hillary is the candidate of the status quo. A real change candidate would favour a fair and balanced policy for the Middle East rather than the current "Israel can do no wrong" policy.

[2rth2pwr]

134. She is smart. If there is going to be pressure put on Iran

It can't be just words.