Why vote for Republican Lite when you can have the REAL thing ?....

[Postman]

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Senator_Clinton_If_elected_president_we_0314.html

"Senator Clinton: If elected president, we will stay in Iraq"

...oh I know, so there can be Democratic appointments to the Supreme Court....

using Dr. Evil's phrase - "riigghhtt"....

[Deep13]

1. Nice knowing you, Hillary.

When elected Senator from Ohio, Sherrod Brown told the audience that he will never run for president. He was elected on progressive values and would not sell his soul in pursuit of the presidency. Too bad this is not the general feeling in Congress.

[jimshoes]

2. I will not bash but

I am not happy with Sen Clinton's position on this. End the mistake.I want finality.

[natrat]

18. i support hillary or obama-the tv told me to

[skipos]

3. Are you making the Nader 2000 argument

"Dem candidate X is no different than Repub candidate X"
???

Because the Gore=Bush argument really turned out to be a bunch of hooey.

[Postman]

5. Merely pointing out just how radically different Clinton is....

Are you defending the Iraq War now, or just shilling for any Democrat regardless of their ideology?

[skipos]

10. What did I say that indicates I am defending Iraq or "shilling?" nt

[Deep13]

6. I think the OP is suggesting we pick a different nominee.

That's how I read it, anyhow.

[mmonk]

14. No, Hillary and DLC are.

And don't make the mistake, that this isn't the case (not that they are exactly the same but this helps fuel the Green party which takes votes away from the democratic party).

[Lone_Star_Dem]

4. Because they're less filling and have fewer calories?

:shrug:

[Deep13]

7. No, it's because you got your chocolate in my peanut butter. nt

[Lone_Star_Dem]

12. We, my friend, are victims of television advertising.

:toast: lol!

[Deep13]

19. Yup, they keep going and going and going and going....

:evilgrin:

[TwilightGardener]

8. I won't condemn her for this, because she's right--

we can't pull all of our forces out of Iraq. We have to maintain troops there to protect the borders, keep Al Qaeda from taking advantage of a power vacuum, etc.--everything she said. I know it's not what people want to hear, but the Pottery Barn rule still applies to some extent--the Iraqis aren't ready to go it alone. Obama will say essentially the same thing.

[Postman]

9. Look at my watch, you're getting sleepy, very sleepy....

and just how much of the "insurgency" in Iraq is "Al- Aqeada"?

And just how much of a threat to the US is Iran?

So, you won't have a problem in joining Hillary's Army to occupy Iraq?

[TwilightGardener]

11. Actually, I am a military wife, my husband just got back a few months

ago from his latest deployment to the ME (Qatar), and I expect him to go back again either this year or next year (probably Iraq), so I am doing my part in that way, LOL! The military is already forecasting these deployments--we're not going to leave Iraq anytime soon. I don't like any of this either, but from everything I've read and heard, I just don't see how we can completely leave--it's just not realistic.

I supported the terms of the Warner-Levin resolution, which was a compromise between staying there indefinitely in a predominantly combat role (fighting the civil war in Baghdad) vs. total withdrawal. The middle road, as unsexy as it is, is usually best. I don't want to see Iran develop nuke capabilities, either, but I don't believe they're an imminent threat right now--that's being overblown by BushCo to whip us into another frenzy like the WMD thing in Iraq. We can handle that diplomatically, I believe.

[mmonk]

13. The middle road cedes to the original intent

of permanent bases. With permanent bases, the problem won't go away. Why did al Queda hit us as much as they did? American military bases in Saudi Arabia. We can't solve terrorism by going about with the exact same strategy that has led to the ascendancy of the neoconservative movement and the 30 year war delusion.

[TwilightGardener]

15. I don't like the permanent bases there either, because I know that

they foment anti-American sentiment (guess that's why we no have troops in Saudi anymore?). I also suspect that there's another reason for the permanent bases beyond just the protection of Iraq and to fight Al Qaeda--I think they're also being established to either keep a force ready to attack Iran, or at the very least to stop the completion of that "Shia Crescent"--both of which would nicely serve Israel and Sunni Saudi Arabia, by the way. But the bases will be built, of that I have no doubt. We will have to concede some ground to the PNAC crowd, but I am primarily interested in getting our troops out of urban combat and keeping Iraqis from being slaughtered--that's my compromise.

[mmonk]

16. There's no we.

No offense.

[TwilightGardener]

17. None Taken! :)

[mmonk]

20. .

;)

[meldroc]

21. This is why the Dems have been losing elections.

Because of the DLC, the Blue Dogs and the New Democrats. They're making the mistake of trying to be "Republican Lite," which is always a losing strategy. The Republican Party can produce far better Republicans than the Democrats can, and thus they'll always have a huge advantage.

Note that when I actually looked, it was the progressives, the true liberals that sold me on the Democratic Party, not the Blue Dogs or DLC.

Of course, the GOP's making the same mistake - their frontrunners are Democrat Lite - Guiliani and McCain. Maybe that will help us.

We need to break Hilary by any means necessary. If we let her be our nominee, the Democrats will get votes pinched both by the Greens, and by the Republicans. Get a true progressive and we'll do far better.

[shield20]

22. Great - a socialist AND a war-monger. What a weird combo! nt