Questions for Hillary Clinton
The largest surprise in Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president, so far, is her success in establishing herself as a viable commander-in-chief.
As the Globe reported last week, polls suggest that Clinton is widely regarded as “tough enough” to protect national security. Her work on the Senate Armed Services Committee; her early vote in support of the war in Iraq, and her ongoing refusal to renounce that vote; the aggressiveness of her rhetoric after Sept. 11, 2001, including her embrace of the “war on terrorism”; her support, however ambivalent, for missile defense, and her proposals to expand the Army; even her somewhat prickly personality — all of this combines, apparently, to create an image that nervous voters find reassuring. Given the depth of anti-female stereotyping, this is a remarkable political achievement.
As a first-time candidate for president, Bill Clinton had a toughness problem, too. Fighting off his image as a peacenik, he ran a campaign in 1992 that emphasized what he called “a new covenant for American security.”
But after the victorious Gulf War and the Soviet collapse, the nation had turned its attention inward, and Clinton could aim his laser at the economy. Yet he slyly portrayed himself as more militant than George H.W. Bush. “Saddam Hussein still has his job,” ran one Clinton ad, “Do you?”
The final meaning of “It’s the economy, stupid” is that it was stupid to think that economic questions were more important than national security issues in the pivotal eight years of the Clinton presidency. The national security decisions that Clinton made have turned out to be more epoch-shaping than anyone imagined at the time. One needn’t look back on those decisions from a moral high horse to realize how flawed they were.
Coming into power as the world’s relationship to military force was being fundamentally altered by such figures as Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin, Óscar Arias, Lech Walesa, Mikhail Gorbachev, Václav Havel, Nelson Mandela, John Hume, Corazon Aquino, and Pope John Paul II, Clinton was unable to claim what should have been his natural place among them.
Instead, he squandered a golden opportunity to reshape his nation’s relationship to war and peace, preserving a Cold War military ethos — and budget — and handing it on to George W. Bush, fully intact. Whether or not Clinton was tough enough to take on America’s enemies, he turned out not to be tough enough to take on America’s defenders. The great contest given him by history was with the Pentagon — a contest for which he did not show up.
In assessing Hillary Clinton’s readiness to be commander-in-chief, voters can move on from the toughness question to the far more difficult one about judgment. In that, voters have a tremendous resource, which is Clinton’s own history as an intimate witness to, and even participant in, her husband’s administration. What judgments does she make today about the great national security decisions that faced her husband? Take three examples:
Nuclear weapons. Bill Clinton’s most fateful decision was made in 1994, in response to the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review — a call for maintaining the nuclear status quo as a “hedge” against the possibility that Moscow would go fascist. When Clinton accepted the review, the nuclear arms reduction process died, the universally accepted goal of an ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons was abandoned, and the next round of proliferation began. The review, as one wag put it, was the insurance policy that started the fire.
NATO. The Cold War ended nonviolently only because Moscow accepted the admission of a reunited Germany into NATO. Moscow believed American assurances that NATO would move no farther east, but Clinton aggressively sponsored NATO expansion into the former Soviet sphere, dangerously isolating Russia. Today’s tensions between Russia and the United States began with Clinton’s NATO expansion.
Missile defense. Despite knowing the science that debunked the assertions of missile defense advocates, and that missile defense was prohibited by the ABM Treaty, Clinton kept the program alive, laying the groundwork for President Bush’s deployment last year. The weaponizing of space has begun, as have arms-race responses in Russia and China. All for an unworkable fantasy.
Hillary Clinton’s Senate record (as on missile defense) is ambiguous. Her experience of the 1990s could be a greater asset, but she owes voters a more forthright accounting. What did she think of her husband’s fateful decisions then? What does she think of them now?
James Carroll’s column appears regularly in the Globe.
© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company
All that and a smug, self-satisfied expression every time she hears herself speak. But, did you notice yesterday, the sullen expression when challenged? What could the other “candidates” be thinking? Don’t they know that her entitlement is not to questioned?
One day, in the future, America will finally understand that loving peace is an idea taught by Jesus and does not mean you enjoy getting ass raped by Republicans. One day…
For now we will apparently settle for anyone who appears tough since none of us are willing make any personal sacrifices for others.
Hillary’s real problem is that she has spent a lifetime telling powerful campaign contributors what they want to hear. Now she has taken 4 different positions on every single issue.
Seeking Power at any cost… Especially yours.. Vote Hillary (She didn’t give Bill the blow job)
all this ‘air’ time to clinton!!! why keep her name out front? it is time to stop. there are better alternatives/candidates.
Here’s a question for Hillary Clinton:
Why are you running for President when over 50% of the poplution would, under no circumstances, vote for you?
And what are these generalities of widely accepted as tough enough…I wouldn’t trust Rodham to watch my dogs. Some of the articles on CD are way to willing to work within the DLC/ Business parties framework. It’s vexing.
BTW, if Moscow would have “went fascist” we would have bombed them…we would have invested them!
Why would anybody vote for her? Why would anybody want to solidify the US as a country that rotates between 2 dynasties, the Bushes and the Clintons, instead of even having a thin shred of resemblance to being a democracy?
Carroll stated that Bill Clinton provided tough rhetoric directed towards America’s enemies. Wrong! America’s greatest enemies are those running the military industrial complex and he coddled them (though not as much as the Bushes have).
As for Hillary, though her high negatives put her in a poor position in any two-candidate race, she automatically wins any race in which there are more than two viable candidates because of the large percentage of women who will vote for her simply because she is a woman. That means there is no way she can lose the Democratic nomination unless all but one of the other viable candidates bow out. And that is highly unlikely.
kivals,
Wow I’m not quite sure what to make of that analysis. Historically women in this country DON’T just vote for a woman because she is a woman.
And I could be wrong but I would be willing to place a bet in Vegas that Hillary’s current “success” is based solely on name recognition. If you remember back in 2000 Bush was instantly the frontrunner and nobody even knew anything about the guy outside of Texas. Had there been a “real conservative” (aka reactionary) Bush might have lost.
Add this to the fact that Hillary does have competition in in Iowa and I still think Obama or Edwards will get the nod. Hopefully Edwards…
The MSM has already elected Hillary. She is as close to Bush as the Republicans can get and still be on the other side of the fence. The other candidates are just sideliners who do not warrant air time. There are other viable candidates and we need to hear more from them. By November 2008 everyone is going to be campaign weary and it isn’t going to make a whole lot of difference who wins, just as long as it is over!
I will just treat her the same way she treated us when we were so desperately begging her to just to meet us before the Iraq war vote.
I do not think that just because she is a woman she will get all of the feminine vote. She certainly hasn’t made any attempt to coddle the women’s issues. The women I know are not likely to vote for Hillary because of her pro-military stance. And, she is dragging her feet on the issues that women care about. I won’t vote for anyone, man or woman, who has decided to cuddle up to Rupert Murdock.
annabelle,
I disagree. Just as with the Dean phenom of 04 this too shall pass.
I think we can all agree that MSM has been surprisingly gentle with Clinton. I think they are waiting for her to get the nomination to light into her. I don’t know about Thompson’s conservative credentials but Gulliani has none. The republican base recognizes he has too many political liabilities to get elected. For instance, I’m not sure any social or religious conservative would vote for a man who cheated on his wife with his secretary…unless it was a vote cast against Clinton…
How come robert kennedy jr’s name doesn’t come up as a candidate? His work on the environment and election fraud demonstrate the qualities I would like to see in a president.
A couple of supporters…
“Former Hollywood madam and current rural Nevada small businesswoman Heidi Fleiss was turned away from Hillary Clinton’s appearance in Pahrump last week, but she doesn’t hold a grudge.”
(snip)
“Fleiss is not the first sex-industry veteran to endorse Clinton. The campaign has the official backing of porn star Jenna Jameson.
Well if two bona fide whores of babylon support Clinton why aren’t we all following their example?
Thenihilist,
I am just going by polls I have seen, where there is a significant difference with regard to support of Hillary by gender, with younger women preferring her by a large margin. Hillary has not talked up the women’s issues, but, as she did at the end of the Sunday morning Iowa debate, she has repeatedly tried to tie her candidacy to the historical struggle for women’s rights and women’s equality. And she has apparently succeeded in the minds of quite a few women, especially the younger ones.
Historically women have not been more likely than men to vote for female candidates by large margins, but there has never been a viable female candidate for president before.
And I do not mean to sound like a misogynist, as I am sure that if there were one viable male candidate and seven female candidates that male candidate would have a huge advantage because of the number of men who would vote for him simply because he was a man.
And I also recognize, and have pointed out before here in CD comments, that the corporate media is laying off of Hillary until she formally gets the nomination. Then all hell will break loose.
Meanwhile, back on the farm, Kucinich was the winner of Sunday’s debate in a live on-line poll conducted by abcnews.com. He won by more than 2,000 votes. Why the HELL are we still talking about this power-hungry, self-centered, condescending scorned sister of a woman? More than anybody, I would love to see a woman become President of this totally misguided country, but please! Not her.
The MSM is nothing more than a corporate sycophant at this point, Boston Globe included.
Mrs Clinton below are some questions for you:
1) Why do you take AIPAC’s donations when you know this is coming from a foreign lobby group that wants war with Iran?
2) Why did you change your position on universal health care? Was it because your recieved donations from the healthcare industry?
3) What are you going to do about America’s inflated housing crisis? Would you give back your donations from the National Association of Realtors and the Mortgage Banker’s Association?
4)Why do you think you would be the best candidate for this country? Most people look to you as a divider and I think we have seen enough of that. In addition, we have had over 28 years of Bush or Clinton on the ticket as Prez or VP don’t you think it is time to have someone new? America is not a monarchy/dynasty.
Notice they ignore the polls when Kucinich wins.
He was great and getting better all the time. Stole the show and had the best laugh line. And speaking of women, the camera loves his wife.
Beware, Hillary is just Bush in drag, and will start more Corporate Wars just to prove she has a pair.
“Bill Clinton’s most fateful decision was made in 1994, in response to the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review — a call for maintaining the nuclear status quo as a “hedge” against the possibility that Moscow would go fascist”
Who would have guessed the USA would go fascist instead?? (hint..I did)
“I do not think that just because she is a woman she will get all of the feminine vote”
come on..Dennis Kucinich is WAY more woman than Hillary will ever be…
kvivals,
I don’t think you’re a misogynist at all. You’re truthful. I’m tired of the idea that pointing out elementary truths makes you a (whatever)ist. I think it underscores the fact that gender-bias is so irreparably grafted to American Society that we can’t fairly consider women politicians for high office and we can’t find women comedians funny. Sad but true.
As for the MSM, HC’s strategists, if they’re half as smart as they clearly think they are, have to be waiting for the other pin to drop.
I’m from Iowa and from my observations Hillary comes in 3rd behind Edwards and Obama. And she does not have the woman’s vote locked up by any means…When we caucus here and God only knows how soon that may be a candidate has to have a certain percentage depending on the number attending each event. Should some candidates fall below that number there is then those who will try and pull them over to a viable candidate to gain a higher percentage. It is in this moment that many folks will make their final decision and where the soft support for Hillary will fade…hopefully.
Sure there are many things in all this that we could criticize but to be constantly critical of every candidate gets us no where. So pick your candidate and give that person your full support and let the chips fall where they will.
“He won by more than 2,000 votes. Why the HELL are we still talking about this power-hungry, self-centered, condescending scorned sister of a woman?”
If anything, “we” are not talking about her. Corporate media is busily planting the seed that she is THE winner, so we’re supposed to give it up.
Listen, with the massive rigged elections of 2000 and 2004 (and perhaps 2006), I now believe that everything can be rigged by the ‘cons…including their damned “polls”.
If Clinton is accepting Murdock’s dirty money, she’s poison, in my book.
And I agree with somebody above: This country should have had enough of the Bush and Clinton dynasties by now. Good God, they’re destroying us.
I’ve noticed….. The women who don’t like Hillary feel as they do because they are ashamed of their lack of lifetime accomplishments as compared to Hillary’s. The men who don’t like Hillary are threatened because she is a female and they are insecure.
How about looking beyond the fact that she is a woman and considering her credentials? She is the most experienced of the Dem candidates by far in nearly every arena. She’s been around the block. She knows how to play hardball. She has dealt with enough crap in her lifetime that she knows how to get things done. If that makes her a b*tch, fine. We need a president who can kick some butt.
It is hard to care if the republicans win or the democrats. While not travelling at the same speed, they are both headed down the same road. They both accept war as a first resort action, especially to protect corporate assets, and in all this politicizing, compromising, don’t accept third party messages, there is one group that comes in last (or not at all)- the general public.
Unless you own stocks in oil and weapons, you are part of the society that is never considered when decisions are being made that that effect our well-being.
How do we counter it? Don’t accept the fact that Hillary is commander in chief material, because what we want in a commander in chief is someone who uphold freedom, peace, and human rights for all, first and foremost. To accept anything less is criminal and results in unnecessary suffering.
www.NotOneMore.US - Pledge for Peace
The MSM motto should be: We Decide. You Consent.
ODE magazine called Hillary a true believer. If true it explains a lot.
She was slick willie’s “cheney”. While Clinton was in office I cast my first non democacrtic presidental vote. The CLinton’s have done more to mess up the Democratic party than any one else. Their “triangulation” was a fancy name for pandering. Most people find them slimey. Haven’t we had enough slime from the bush and clintons to last us for generations.
My feeling is that Hillary has already been picked to be the Democratic nominee. All others are the 2008 versions of Howard Dean. They are only there to draw in different people into the Democratic Party.
Hillary “judge me by the content of my image” Clinton was thoroughly denounced at the 2006 West Point protest against President Bush. Those denouncements were all but absent in the 2007 protest against Cheney.
Presently, there are no top tier candidates Party who can be viewed as promoting peace. Thus the peace movement must promote 3rd party candidates for the Presidency at all rallies and in all correspondence. If the number of people who are in the peace movement can be counted on to support 3rd party candidates, perhaps then the Republican and Democratic Party candidates will start to listen. Without a large number of people willing to vote 3rd party, it will be business as usual regardless of who is elected.
Hillary has done a good job. It is tough out on this long primary trail that was made even longer this time around. The candidates try not to say anything that will get them in trouble, but try not to look like they are dodging the questions and repeating things to run out the clock. I have not watched much of the debates, but she seems to be doing well.
“Thus the peace movement must promote 3rd party candidates for the Presidency at all rallies and in all correspondence.”
Agreed.
“If the number of people who are in the peace movement can be counted on to support 3rd party candidates, perhaps then the Republican and Democratic Party candidates will start to listen.”
Agreed.
“Without a large number of people willing to vote 3rd party, it will be business as usual regardless of who is elected.”
A large number of people voting third party against the occupation will make sure Republicans get elected, guaranteeing the occupation continues for another eight years.
Instead, better to vote your conscience: vote against Republicans.
To CADAY5: A 3rd party that matters isn’t going to happen. Do you want Romney in the White House for 8 years? If not, get behind a Democratic candidate who has a chance.
wpblaken: Personally, I take MAJOR offense you suggesting that I, or many others of us here, are against a Hillary Presidency because we are not “looking beyond the fact that she is a woman and considering her credentials.” Before you make sweeping judgments like that, perhaps YOU should look beyond your obvious sexism and look inter her past policies yourself! The reason I don’t like her is because of the following, among many other things:
- She took a buyout from the health care industry lobby when it became clear in the 90’s she was not going to win the battle for universal health care.
- She voted for the war even though there was plenty of evidence available to her that warranted a no vote.
- She does not have the respect, nor the courage to apologize for voting for a war that has ravaged a country to the ground, killed nearly 4,000 of our young men and women, and made casualties of nearly a million Iraqis!
- She is neoliberal all the way, and so has no problem supporting the tyranny of the bottom line in America, even at the expense of the livelihoods of people in the Third World, and obviously has no problem with NAFTA and I’ll bet she would vote for CAFTA too.
- She is condescending to the other candidates.
- She is more content with trying to make Barack adn all the others look bad than to just put forward a good platform that stands on its own merits, like Kucinich is.
Look, I could go on for days like this. You can take your comments and shove em’. I would LOVE to have a woman President. I personally am a proud feminist, as a matter of fact, but she - in my humble opinion - does not offer a viable alternative to what is already going on in this country. We need real change, and she is not it. So stop with the crap about us just bing too blind to see through our sexual preference.
I would argue you cannot see clearly through the blindness of your loyalty to her, simply BECAUSE she is a woman, dig?
to wpblaken,
But the Democratic candidate is not that different from the Republican candidate. See Chalmers Johnson’s comments comparing Bill Clinton with George Bush in his book “Sorrows Of Empire” or Chomsky’s comments comparing John Kerry with Bush in his Book “Interventions” on pg 75.
For as long as we have the 2 parties of Them and Not Them, we are powerless as voters. All the Not Them candidate has to do is show that they are different from the Them candidate. They do not have to do anything else.
Each election, the Republican candidate will be the evil alternative to the Democratic candidate. But when the Democratic candidate is evil lite, what is a voter to do? The only way to change the system is change how we vote
James Carroll’s questions are excellent ones to put to Sem. Clinton. I hope someone asks them of her in a public forum.
Besides her record and Bill’s - a true disappointment - I can’t see myself voting for her.
Now, instead of a two-party system (which is a big limitation in itself) we seem to have a two-family system. If she is nomniated it will be a Bush or a Clinton running for president for the last twenty years. THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE.
Well, her policies and actions may not be that different from dubya’s, but at least she’s articulate and easier to listen to than he is…and likely she won’t need a transistor hidden under her shirt to assist her in answering questions, either. @@
IMO, that’s about the only thing in her favor at this point.
You can call me anything you want, but there is NO WAY I’ll vote for either Hillary or Obama. I have voted for the lesser of two evils for about 12 years now, and that’s what I’ve got…the lesser of two evils, or the W(orse.)
I even accused a friend of throwing the election to Bush for voting his conscience (Nader.) From now on, I vote MY conscience, Dennis Kucinich. Heck, I’d even vote Ron Paul before Hillary or Obama, and that’s coming from a life-long Democrat.
Even my new Senator, Amy Klobuchar, couldn’t wait to vote with the Republicans! A pox on both major parties!
“Protect our National Security”
Ok, WHO is threatening it? The answer is NOBODY.
September 11 was a self-orchestrated event in order to create an adversary. Bin Laden was an all too convenient patsy and as a nation we took the bait. It was the catalyst that propelled the Bush administration to untold levels of power. The implementation of the ‘Patriot Act’, torture, illegal detention, wiretapping, etc. are all possible because we need to protect our “National Security”.
The enemy is a ghost - Bin Laden in Afghanistan, chemical bombs in Iraq, nuclear bombs in Iran, terror training camp, bomb plots - it’s just smoke. When you get close to one of the ‘enemies’ a new one will take it’s place to distract you from the old one.
After you are caught in the spider web of “danger”, the ‘tough’ candidates (like Hillary) are thrown in your face by the media to ‘protect you’ so you will be distracted from the one’s that should be elected (like Dennis Kucinich).
Break yourself free and help others to see reality before it’s too late.
So Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss and porn star Jenna Jameson support Hillary’s White House run.
I guess they know a fellow whore when they see one.
if your goal is to get dems in the shite house, by all means vote hilary.
but if your goal is to do anything to slow down (much less dismantle) the military-congressional complex, slow down or stop US imperialism, why the hell would you even consider voting for her? carroll is being too polite here. he already knows the answers to his questions, and knows that rodham doesn’t have the fallopian tubes to do anything about US militarism.
TheLorax said “Break yourself free and help others to see reality before it’s too late.’
It’s not easy though. Most people’s minds seem to be frozen solid on the topic of Kucinich. What is crystal clear to me seems to be invisible to many.
I saw only part of the debate yesterday, it’s such good news that Dennis did well again, but disappointing that there is silence everywhere (except here) about that aspect.
I’d caution anyone who is thinking of voting for H. Clinton because “she’s a woman, and women are more compassionate, wise…la-di-da”.I lived in Britain through the reign of Maggie Thatcher - enough said. H. Clinton reminds me of M Thatcher each time I see her on TV.
Vote, schmote.
Until we take EVERY computerized voting machine in this country and chuck them off a cliff, we can shine on “elections”!
Not to mention the “polls”. Ahhh. The polls, the polls. I LOVED it when Stephanopalous began the “debate” Sunday morning (6 a.m. for the Left Coast….snore…..), with the results of their most recent “poll”.
I don’t trust any of their rotten polls any more than I trust the computerized voting machines! Heck! Just look what happens to some of our posts right here on CD!!
I say there should only be ONE poll and that is on Election Day! Polls should be BANNED!!! It’s fantasy brain-washing for all we know! Think about it!! We don’t know that they are even DOING a poll! What questions are being asked? By whom? To whom? Who decides?! How do we know the results aren’t completely skewed to simply influence the thinking of everyone?? Think about it!!
Here’s the only “poll” that should be taken: Election Day! The PEOPLE will decide who they’d like to represent them, NOT ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS or The New York Times!!
But folks, unless we stand up NOW for a change in the way we vote we can just all bend over and kiss our…..
Please go to YouTube and search “Diebold Princeton University” if you doubt there’s a problem with the way we will be expected to vote in November of 2008.
We MUST demand that these machines be deep-sixed, that only verifiable paper ballots will be used and that any American who would like to participate in the COUNT will be allowed to do so!
As I’ve said on this website many times, we must remember what Stalin said, “It’s not the voting that is important. It is “WHO” COUNTS THE VOTES.”
Oregon votes by mail. No machines. No polls to watch. No lines. No voter eligibility lists to alter or voters to turn away. No time lost from work to vote. A fraction of the expense for every election. The USPS would have to be meticulously corrupted to enable fraud. High voter ‘turnout’. Envelopes are opened and votes are processed at the county levels by civil service workers. It should be adopted as a national voting system.
“One day, in the future, America will finally understand that loving peace is an idea taught by Jesus and does not mean you enjoy getting ass raped by Republicans. One day . . . ”
Everq-uotable Gandhi: “The only people who think Jesus wasn’t a pacifist are Christians.” Probably more Christians today than in the past believe that he was.
Still, Jesus’ non-violence was not about resisting the rulers, but about obeying them. It really took Tolstoy to take Jesus’ words out of their context, in which they always reinforced the warring power of the state, to make them into a means of disobedience.
Hilary’s Jesus is of the Christian soldier variety, not of the Tolstoy-Gandhi-King variety.
OR does she think At ALL? Humanity is slowly (or rapidly, if the wrong buttons are pressed) extirpating itself with fissile nuclear fuel and bombs; presidents, and candidates and their children included. Such Manifest Insanity must Stop NOW!
Shillary promises only more of the same. Kucinch is the best alternative out there. Failing that I’d sooner vote for Ron Paul than any of the mainline democrats. At least he stands against the erosion of our civil liberties.
We want DENIS!
Smart, thinking women/voters of New Mexico
This country needs a third party (At least one more)
Again, Kucinich is the only true progressive candidate. He is the only option!!!
Hillary vs. Godzilla? Hmm… That’d Be Tough
Stay Outta This, Ken Starr!…..
Repubs are in a win-win. All they need to keep a sister in the white house is keep the 2,000,000 pages of the Clinton’s political activities secret until AFTER the election, as she’s demanded.
July 31 (Bloomberg) –
Attorneys at the law firm Kirkland & Ellis - home to Clinton’s relentless persecutor, Kenneth Starr, have donated more money to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign than to all the top Republican candidates combined. Yeah! , Google it. Huh!?, if I didn’t know better I might think there really was a “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” —that’d be the hard right conspiracy led by Clintonista “democrats.”
With Obama, Edwards –and god forbid, Kucinich, they’d be forced by an *Authentic Democrat to end a decade and one-half of battering the populace. The other candidates fear Hillary for good reason– the political arena is strewn w/casualties who tried to expose the Clinton’s right-wing extremism. Bill, the “Uniter,” actually DID unite us under a Non-participatory (totalitarian) regime and if they have their way–and their power is ubiquitous, it’s gonna stay that way.
This makeover didn’t happen overnight. In the 90’s, as the whole world watched the heavy hand of Market Imperialism made us the World’s Public Enemy # 1. I mean were you expecting GWB to resurrect corporate integrity, the public trust or bring back consumer protections? Bill, I know you feel our pain but, where! was your finesse’ when the U.S. really needed it. Osama went public w/his plans to attack the U.S in ‘98 on the heels of the sweeping NAFTA foul play & genocidal punishment for Iraq’s imagined “WMD’s.” Just two of many unrestrained right-wing reforms. Come on democrats–we have a right! to see Hill’s record, and not be pressured to ignore past performance and blindly rely on the cunning demagoguery of Hill & Bill Clinton
DENNIS! DENNIS !! He’s our man. Yes.
Start a third party. We will join you, Dennis.
From the thinking, smart women voters in NM.
Hillary vs. Godzilla? Hmm… That’d Be Tough
Stay Outta This, Ken Starr!…..
Repubs are in a win-win. All they need to keep a sister in the white house is keep the 2,000,000 pages of the Clinton’s political activities secret until AFTER the election, as she’s demanded.
July 31 (Bloomberg) -
Attorneys at the law firm Kirkland & Ellis - home to Clinton’s relentless persecutor, Kenneth Starr, have donated more money to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign than to all the top Republican candidates combined. Yeah! , Google it. Huh!?, if I didn’t know better I might think there really was a “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” -that’d be the hard right conspiracy led by Clintonista “democrats.”
With Obama, Edwards -and god forbid, Kucinich, they’d be forced by an *Authentic Democrat to end a decade and one-half of battering the populace. The other candidates fear Hillary for good reason- the political arena is strewn w/casualties who tried to expose the Clinton’s right-wing extremism. Bill, the “Uniter,” actually DID unite us under a Non-participatory (totalitarian) regime and if they have their way-and their power is ubiquitous, it’s gonna stay that way.
This makeover didn’t happen overnight. In the 90’s, as the whole world watched the heavy hand of Market Imperialism made us the World’s Public Enemy # 1. I mean were you expecting GWB to resurrect corporate integrity, the public trust or bring back consumer protections? Bill, I know you feel our pain but, where! was your finesse’ when the U.S. really needed it. Osama went public w/his plans to attack the U.S in ‘98 on the heels of the sweeping NAFTA foul play & genocidal punishment for Iraq’s imagined “WMD’s.” Just two of many unrestrained right-wing reforms. Come on democrats-we have a right! to see Hill’s record, and not be pressured to ignore past performance and blindly rely on the cunning demagoguery of Hill & Bill Clinton
Logged in as NeoCogito. Logout »
Our country is in serious trouble when “toughness” must be exhibited by a presidential candidate. Hillary Clinton isn’t tough, she’s an opportunist. She takes positions that she thinks will endear her to this group and that group, with no concern for principle and steadfastness. So she tries to talk like George W. Bush who has sold this country a dismal bill of goods about a so-called “war on terrorism”, which is just his cover for his bumbling attempt at grabbing oil-rich Iraq and trying to run the Middle East American style. I shudder at the possibility that the opportunistic Hillary will become our first female president, committing outrage after outrage to prove how tough she is.
DENNIS — DENNIS
Run Dennis as an Independent.
From the smart, thinking women of New Mexico
I agree. Dennis is the only one really trying to debate the real issues that we are concerned about and the MSM treats him like the plague. I am not watching another debate until the networks decide to give each candidate equal time. These ‘debates’ are a joke. It is time for real debates, one on one. As for the Clintons,it makes me wonder about the buddy, buddy relationship with Papa Bush and Bill. Just what is their real agenda? This monopoly needs to end. Like someone said above, this is turning into a two-family system. Not at all a good idea.
ANNABELLE: Right on about MSM has “already ” elected her, and the question is why? The answer, as others have eloquently stated (supported by the facts of her record) is that she poses no threat to business as usual for big pharma, and the military industrial complex.
DCBELTWAY: Apt questions. These should be asked!
THE LORAX: you get the prize for most insightful laser analysis… there IS no enemy, the whole thing is farce of the tragic order, so all this who’s got the biggest dick macho martial posing and posturing is sick, insidious and the moral as well as fiscal basis for this nation’s demise (as the entity intended).
KIVALS AND OTHERS… A great many can and so see pass genitalia. This woman is a man in drag, the political equivalent of the Virginia Slims ad-line, “You’ve come a long way baby.” What, to smoke weapons like a man/men? Yeah. that will really do the world good… given the travesty of Iraq, an open wound, DU included, that is reverberating worldwide like scar tissue to earth and mankind’s collective future. NO MORE of this shit disguised as either intelligence or political wisdom/experience. If all you can conceptualize and/or sell is more war, you are not for U.S. (but those who want the status quo are merely shifting gears. I forget who posted a most interesting political analysis on the manner by which this puppet show occurs, allowing a bit of left leaning democratic policy truncated by moves to the right, and then the leit motif repeats to give the ILLUSION there is choice, 2 parties, and/or progress)
Hillary’s far more determined than inspired.
Like the bogus bond saleman says to W.C. Fields in the movie, The Bank Dick, Hillary says to who’ll ever listen:
“I want to show you I’m honest in the worst way.”
Hillary continues to play dumb and pretends she actually believed Iraq was a threat. She lies and pretends she believed the “flawed intelligence.” She pretends she didn’t know the weapons inspectors were in Iraq and that they only needed a few more weeks to complete their job, but Bush kicked them out before they could report to the world that there were no weapons.
She goes along with Bush’s lie that Saddam did not allow the weapons inspectors into Iraq. Hillary insults people’s intelligence just as the Bush-Cheney Crime Syndicate does with all their lies.
She’s proud that she was raised as a conservative. She needs to go back to the Republican party. I think she’s another Joe Lieberman in war-loving, female form.
Check out The History Channel in about 5 minutes, (9pm Eastern, 6pm Pacific): “The 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction, Theories about the attacks of Sept.11, 2001.
As far as I’m concerned (and obviously I haven’t seen it), it’s merely cover before the opening of “Loose Change: Final Cut” which will be the weekend before 9/11 (Google it).
How many ways can you spell D-A-M-A-G-E C-O-N-T-R-O-L????
Here’s another way you can spell “Damage Control”…..
Lies, lies and more lies.
Thank you Commondreams (CIA…just kidding) for giving me a home from which I may spout my concerns/thoughts.
I live in New York City, and as I speak to many New Yorkers, I’m learning that many of them are not happy with Hillary Clinton. (Mind you, she’s our Senator). Obama is extremely popular with the people I speak to. I’m leaning towards Dennis Kucinich.
New York Mets ROCK!
abbywood– You are dead on right about voting. It makes no difference if we vote for Kucinich (preferred) or some other Dumbocrat unless we can throw out the cheating machines that are manufactured by the Repugs. We all know a bright kid can get into any computer type machine and do all sort of cute changes so why expect our vote to count this time? Unless we get paper ballots we are just a bunch of sheep being pushed around.
Regarding Damage Control and the Conspiracy theories regarding 9-11, Counterpunch had a series of articles trying to show that 9-11 was not a conspiracy. Chomsky made the same point that Scheurer, who was shown on tonight’s show, made regarding the gov’t’s ability to keep secrets in disputing whether there was a conspiracy. This shows that there are credible critics of the Bush administration who do not believe that there was a 9-11 conspiracy.
I clearly remember presidents from Nixon on. The bar has been set so low Hillary fits right in.
This is a sad commentary on our system, political parties and the voters. If you are familiar with sheepshead (card game) we seem to be playing a series of leaster hands.
I talk with a heckuva lot of people about politics, etc. and have yet to find one, even one, who has a good word for Mrs. Clinton. I think all she has going for her is, as someone above noted, name recognition plus the MSM and - for a while - the Republican party. I also wonder how much money the Republicans have dumped into her campaign to increase the chance she will wrap up the nomination almost a friggin year before the election - assuming there will be another election. Even if there is another one, if it’s almost entirely done on electronic voting machines then we truly are screwed.
U.S. Supreme Court–have any bloggers here ever heard of it? Democratic appointments to the court are far superior in every way to those made by Republicans. Please stop saying that there is no difference between the two parties when there is this glaring exception. And the same is true for appointments to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
wpblaken,
actually that’s just your feeble mind attempting to to stereotype of a diverse group of people who don’t like Hillary for her politics and her policies. But it is, admittedly, an easy way for apologists, like yourself, to try and counter legitimate concerns about the wife of a war criminal becoming the “leader of the free world.”
“Start a third party. We will join you, Dennis.”
For Christ Sake, parties are supposed to be about political philosophies and platforms not idolatry. People like you are the heart of what’s wrong with the democratic party becuase you’re too oblivious or lazy to support parties that both represent your views and already exist. Sickening…
Siouxrose,
You get my award for being a badass. Rock N Roll!
Glaxia,
I think you broke this whole thing wide open. Hillary Clinton is herself a Republican Conspiracy. Perhaps the lessons learned from 2000 and 2004 are not lost upon the republicans. People are fed up. Repubs are wary of pulling the same shit in 08. So they come up with a new strategy. Operation Trojan Whore. Get HC elected who is a republican in everything but name and their inevitable loss in 08 becomes yet another win for the larger party–the business party. Of course this is just speculation but the ones who I’ve heard touting Hillary as “unbeatable” are, of all people, Republicans Pundits. This is someone they despised for 8 years and all of a sudden they are ready to concede there is no stopping her a year before the elections? It Reeks…
“Our country is in serious trouble when “toughness” must be exhibited by a presidential candidate”
‘Toughness’ has been obligatory for ages — Truman was told he needed to seem tough on communism (so go after professors, actors, artists); JFK’s people invented the missile gap & he complained that Nixon was “soft” on Cuba; we all know about LBJ and Nixon’s obsession with sounding like he could duke it out with anyone; etc. The cult of masculinity, so essential to fascism, has been a fixture of amurrican life since before the days of TR . . .
“She’s proud that she was raised as a conservative. She needs to go back to the Republican party. I think she’s another Joe Lieberman in war-loving, female form”
In her VFW speech, she boasted of intending to increase the number of soldiers by 80,000. She intends to attack Iran just as much as the Beast does, and she professes the “all options” US-can-attack-whoever-and-whenever-a-president-wants doctrine.
To Thenihilist,
Your statement:
“For Christ Sake, parties are supposed to be about political philosophies and platforms not idolatry.”
is one of the best descriptions I have read about party politics and candidates.
“U.S. Supreme Court–have any bloggers here ever heard of it? Democratic appointments to the court are far superior in every way to those made by Republicans…”
Except the Democrats went along with every wing-nut nutjob now on the court, claiming they had to keep their powder dry for the really big fight that was coming up just around the corner….right over the next hill….and as it turned out, they caved and continue to bow to kiss the hem of Bush’s garment everytime the idiot demands it.
My guess is Bush\Clinton is 2 sides of the same coin–and for the Dems to oppose Bush, they oppose Clinton, and the Clintons own the Democratic party- And THAT is very bad for the country.
Hillary is AIPAC’s bitch. That’s all you need to know.
Hillary is Joe Lieberman in drag! She is constanly being praised by neocons. Women of the democratic party please wake up.
we already know from the war that millions of people protesting in the street solves nothing. how about millions of armed people occupying the halls of congress
Who is this “Hilary” person and why would I care when there is a GREAT candidate proposing to do EVERYTHING I want to see acheived by the next president of the United States?
If it’s CHANGE you seek, vote
KUCINICH ‘08
Peace to you and yours.
After watching the latest Democratic debate in Iowa, as well as the AFL-CIO debate, I have come to the conclusion that Kucinich is simply the smartest candidate on the podium. He uses logic and reason to make arguments, speaks clearly and well, and most importantly speaks in terms of facts (e.g. what efforts he has or has not made in the past on certain issues, what he specifically plans in the future, e.g. with NAFTA). All of the other candidates talk in generalizations, using euphemistic mumbo-jumbo that basically insults the intelligence of all of us. Hillary is the worst of all. She barely ever talks in specific terms, usually avoids specific reference to past “accomplishments,” dodges taking responsibility for her record as Senator and First Lady, and always just talks about “what we NEED to do…” and what “I will do when I am president”…as if she had never had the chance to do anything in the past in her two very powerful positions. She needs to be judged ONLY on her record, not on what she claims she will do. She has had tons of power for the past 15 years: what has she done with it? Why doesn’t she harp on her record like Kucinich does? And, I may add, Edwards, Dodd (who just said impeachment would be a distraction), and Richardson, look completely befuddled.
The question I would like to see asked of all the candidates at the next debate would be this: 1) Do you support impeachment. 2) If not, do you feel that the powers seized by Cheney and Bush are legal, and do you plan to exercise them when you are president?
To Pleasethink,
It is not just impeachment that Bush and Cheney deserve, they need to be tried in the International Criminal Court for their waging a war of aggression against Iraq. Submitting ourselves to international law would set a precedent and send a message that could advance world peace.
D. Smith,
I agree that there IS a difference between the two major parties and it is up to the Democratic party to show how they are better.
On this site, if you explain the differences in the two major parties you are branded and “enabler”. Some here like to shout down points of view that do not fit their ways of thinking.
sjc: What’s stopping you from making your points other than cheerleading for the team?
There are sites exclusively for partisan luv fests, but I think you’ll find the party faithful on sites like the Democratic Underground getting mighty pissed off. Maybe you would be more at home among the Conservative pundits who sing Ms Clinton’s praises.
sjc_1 - pray tell - what is the difference between Democrats and Republicans? Anyone?
Let’s see, in the summer of 2004 there was a Democratic Convention in Boston and a Republican Convention in NYC. Same same.
All the large Multinational Corporations courted the party leaders with lavish parties in yachts in the harbor… in Boston AND NYC. Pelosi was taking money from the same corporate lobbyists as W and Rove were. The legislation the Dem’s rail against passed by BushCheneyCo was poassed because of their votes. Similarly in the 90’s Republicans railed against ‘Democratic’ legislation that their own party had to be complicit in getting passed into law. Every tax raise Republicans ever lamented against - they assisted in passing. I know what differences are professed from the pulpit of the campaign trails. Those all evaporate and no one ever seems to wonder why the working poor and middle class are pissed off because their promises were never delivered. No news story on that - no nothing.
Abortion is an example of this in action. Think Roe v. Wade will be overturned? Christian fundamentalists hope so, liberals fear this, and both parties make too much political hay out of this issue to ever make any real changes. Republicans will not change it since they can rally their voters behind it. Democrats use it to get voters up in arms over freedom of “choice” being threatened. Of course on the issue of gun ‘control’ Democrats suddenly lose their desire for ‘choice’ and want to ban all guns. Divide and conquer people… Divide and conquer folks - oldest trick in the book.
Now take a close look at just who it is being divided and conquered…
working and middle class Americans for starters. People get lulled into thinking their own beliefs will become laws and find out way too late in the game that they all got played by the American Aristocracy; the people who fund these charades called US elections.
caDay5 says: Regarding Damage Control and the Conspiracy theories regarding 9-11, Counterpunch had a series of articles trying to show that 9-11 was not a conspiracy. Chomsky made the same point that Scheurer, who was shown on tonight’s show, made regarding the gov’t’s ability to keep secrets in disputing whether there was a conspiracy. THIS SHOWS THAT THERE ARE CREDIBLE CRITICS of the Bush administration who do not believe that there was a 9-11 conspiracy.(emphasis mine)
Chomsky is an interesting character, but he is certainly not God and he is not infallible. In fact, I saw an interview with him which I believe is posted on Youtube in which he says the same thing about 9-11 as he says about the Kennedy assassination: Who cares? Chomsky thinks it doesn’t really matter who caused 9-11–it just diverts us from subjects HE thinks we should be thinking about. Who killed 3,000 American citizens in cold blood is of great concern to me even if Chomsky thinks it is a waste of time. He says that since we know this government is comprised of cold-blooded killers, what does it matter if they DID kill a few more?? So his refutation of all the evidence of Dr. Griffin and others is: “no way could such a secret be kept.” Well, was it kept?? People who spoke out in Congress about the Patriot Act or were in the least bit critical of Bush after 9-11 received military-grade anthrax powder in the mail. I mean, is this disputed??? Do you think Ben Ladin made weapons-grade anthrax in a cave in Afghanistan? It has been reported that this was made in a military lab. I don’t see where they’ve been very secretative about much of anything. They don’t have to be. They did, however, have to MISLEAD the American people who never pay much attention to politics or history or international affairs into seeking revenge against an innocent party, the people of Iraq.
Has the fact gone down the memory hole that every time Bush and Cheney mentioned Saddam Hussein, in the same breath they mentioned the terrorist and 9-11? Yet, later they said, “well, we never ACTUALLY SAID Saddam was behind 9-11–you silly people just ASSUMED that.”
Then we were reminded that we actually went into Iraq to get the weapons of mass destruction and to prevent the “mushroom clouds.” Remember how Condi spouted about that and Cheney spouted about mushroom clouds on NBC’s Meet the Press with never-ask-them-a-tough-question-Russert? I’ve watched Tim over the years develop that double chin–when you serve the corporate masters, you eat pretty good. I believe NBC is also part owner of the History Channel along with Hearst–who also just happens to own Popular Mechanics.–and who is Chertoff at Popular Mechanics–Michael’s cousin. Oh, but wait, I am a conspiracy nut, right?? No way could all those people be lying to us–how could they keep it a secret??? I mean, it’s not like if you said something they didn’t like, such as the TRUTH, when you say Saddam was not out to buy yellowcake–I mean it’s not like they would get all unpatriotic and do something like “out” the truth-teller’wife as being a CIA agent or something, would they? I mean, how could they keep such a secret? There would be repercussions wouldn’t there? Of course, there would. I mean if you did something like that, wouldn’t all of the country rise up and call you a TRAITOR?
And those Muslims who are so close to God that when they took flying lessons in small planes and were so bad at it that the little airports refused to let them fly their planes–well, it is not surprising that Allah had to be with them that day. They were, afterall devout Muslims, with NO TIES TO THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES AT ALL–I mean, some of them did not rent an apartment from an FBI asset–there is absolutely no record of their having such ties, is there? I mean, these things couldn’t be kept a secret?? And these “devout” Muslims did not get drunk and snort coke in night clubs, and go to strip clubs to see naked breasts. I mean, if they had done something like that, I mean, it couldn’t be kept a secret could it? And Allah, smiling on them so favorably that day gave them supernatural flying skills (they certainly didn’t get them in flight school) and they were armed with box cutters with which Allah helped them to overcome the infidels. He also made it possible for calls on cells phones to be made at tens of thousands of feet although most of the time folks can’t get a signal on the ground except in urban areas. A man who actually tested the cell phone theory by flying at different heights and found that none of the cells phones he tested got a signal–well, such a guy would not be put on a “no-fly” list when he tried to fly commerical from the USA to Canada would he? I mean, how could they keep such obvious retaliation a secret? And Allah further cooperated with the “terrorist” on 9-11 by suspending the laws of physics and made buildings fall at faster than free fall. This was to show Allah’s contempt for western man and his science. Galileo be damned. Allah could make 110 story buildings fall in less time than it would take a tennis ball to fall the same distance.
Watching the film of people hanging out of windows begging to be saved, only to die in a fiery crash minutes later is pretty care-inducing to me. Many of these people were in the same areas where the planes struck, yet they waved hankies to show their location. It was obvious that the flames were not so hot as to melt them, much less steel. But how could they keep that a secret? Knowing that firefighters went into those buildings in an attempt to save people and were killed makes me care, too, even if Chomsky doesn’t. There are too many unanswered questions about that day and the 9-11 commission went out of their way to be accessories after the fact. We KNOW the Bush gang are liars–it has been proven again and again. Shall we point out more lies and inconsistencies: OK. Condasleeza said “we couldn’t predict–I don’t think anybody could have imagined flying planes into buildings.” Liar!! On 9-11 Dick Cheney had placed himself in charge of military games–scenario being that terrorists would fly planes into buildings, including the WTC. Funny that “terrorist games” were also scheduled for the same day that bombs went off in the London subway. Hey, if a method works, why change it? But who could keep such a thing secret?? I mean, all people would have to do is google MSM to find this, right? They couldn’t keep it a secret.
They couldn’t keep it a secret that WTC-7 fell on 9-11 even though it wasn’t hit by a plane–making THE ONLY THREE STEEL BUILDINGS IN HISTORY TO FALL DOWN BECAUSE OF FIRE–buildings that had been designed to withstand plane hits–may Allah be praised. Even Joshua marching around Jericho couldn’t beat that one. And how could a BBC reporter predict several minutes beforehand that WTC-7 would come down? I mean, if a BBC reporter said WTC-7 has fallen, and she was standing in front of a window and you could clearly see WTC-7 standing behind her, and then, minutes later the feed is cut, and the BUILDING REALLY DOES FALL, I mean, it is the sort of thing to give you the creeps. But, of course, it didn’t happen because, who could keep it a secret??? People could go to youtube themselves and search for BBC and 9-11 and WTC-7 and watch such a film. You couldn’t keep a thing like that a secret.
Well, I’m convinced, and I didn’t even see the show. I mean, who could keep it a secret that Marvin Bush’s company had the secruity contracts on those buildings–I mean, all those explosions in the basement of the towers BEFORE the planes hit, I mean, if that happened, who could keep it a secret? And IF strange security measures were taken weeks before, including the shutting down of all electrical power to the buildings so that secruity cameras did not work on the whole weekend prior to 9/11, I mean, if that happened, surely it could not be kept a secret? And if firemen said they heard explosions going off “like controlled demolitions” I mean, who could keep that a secret?
Well, those “credible critics” of the Bush administration have sure convinced me–but I think I’ll just keep that fact my own little secret.
You left out the fact that Larry Silverstein (the owner of all 3 buildings) made nearly 2 billion in profits from their destruction. But he wasn’t involved even though he said “Pull It” before the building ‘collapsed’.
You also left out that quite a bit of MOLTEN metal was found in the debris although no combination of available fuels on the plane or in the buildings could create molten pools of steel.
TheLorax: you mean the molten steel that burned for a 100 days and was so hot that satellites picked up the heat images–suggesting to Dr. Griffin that thermate explosives were propably used because it sheers of metal at 45 degrees angles and leaves great blobs of molten metal-like meteorites when used in controlled demolitions? Sheeeeee! It’s a secret! Wonder when ole Bin Laden “snuck” in there and planted all those explosives? The proper word is “sneaked” but this deed is so dastardly that whoever did it “snucked” us over good! Just goes to show you what a cunning little devil ole Bin is–wonder how he got that kidney daialysis machine in and out of there without being spotted– That and hundreds of other inconsistencies, but we will not know because no FAIR AND OPEN HEARING HAS EVER BEEN HELD BEFORE AN IMPARTIAL JURY. Condi’s co-author chaired the “official” (LOL) hearing. Let’s see, $50,000,000 spent for this bunch to impeach Clinton for a blow-job and $14,000,000 to Bush cronies to “investigate” Bush and Cheney and 9-11. Kind of shows you where their priorities lie, doesn’t it–”lie” being the operative word. But how could they keep such a thing a secret. Nahh, people would be too outraged if such a thing happened.
I just recieved this tidbit from Mike Gravel’s site, maybe it’s old news but I haven’t seen this mentioned yet..
Posted August 21, 2007 | 10:24 PM (EST) Huffington Post - By Senator Mike Gravel
In an attempt to please an audience of veterans yesterday, Hillary Clinton said the surge was “working” and gave a helping-hand to the Bush spin machine, Pentagon dead-enders and right-wing pundits who have already begun to quote her.
“Of course the surge is working,” they’ll say, “even Hillary Clinton acknowledges that!” Just when Congressional Democrats were beginning to grow spines and stand up against the war, Hillary has cut them off at the knees.
As always Hillary tried to have it both ways and went on to say: “We’re just years too late changing our tactics. We can’t ever let that happen again. We can’t be fighting the last war. We have to be preparing to fight the new war.” I’m not sure what she meant by that, but I do know the surge is not working.
Whatever success we might achieve in Bagdad is temporary and isolated. We’ve just nudged the terrorists and death squads to other parts of Iraq. If you want to know the truth about the surge, look at the numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians killed and the number of people fleeing the country this summer. In both cases the numbers have remained fairly steady.
In January, before the surge, bombings in Baghdad killed 438 people. After the surge began in February, that number jumped to 520, declined in March to 323 and rose again in April, to 414. The lowest total came in June with just 190 dead, but then swung back up last month, with 354 dead. And that’s just Baghdad.
Some Americans, like Hillary, might find those numbers encouraging but the majority of Iraqis view us as an inept occupation force that has failed to keep them safe from terrorism, ethnic cleansing and violent crime. That’s why they continue to abandon their homes and families to join millions of their countrymen in refugee camps in Jordan and Syria.
General Petraeus’ September report will of course paint a different picture. He’ll offer the same cheerleading that we always hear from Bush’s media savvy, but militarily clueless generals. We, in the anti-war movement, will counter his lies with facts and try to push the cowardly congressional Dems and wavering Republicans to cut off funding. But thanks to Hillary our task will be more difficult.
After yesterday’s speech, Clinton aides tried to clarify her remarks, saying she was specifically referring to increased cooperation from Sunnis battling insurgents in Al Anbar province. But that clarification was too little too late. Unless Hillary publicly reverses herself and personally calls the surge an overall failure, Bush’s allies in the media and the Congress will have the cover they need to impede any funding cuts next year.
Endorsing the surge is another example of how Hillary is adopting Bill Clinton’s triangulation strategy. After securing the Democratic base, the Clintons always sacrifice their allies to the Right. (Remember Sister Souljah?) Last week Hillary sand-bagged the LGBT community with her states rights argument against gay marriage. This week she throws the anti-war movement under the bus. I’m curious to see who’s going to be next week’s victim
My opinion is that Hillary is not the right presidential candidate for the Democrats. Obama and Edwards are definitely better.