Not voting for Hillary. Too pro war!

Mrs. Clinton is talking out of both sides of her mouth. The fact is she supported this ridiculous claim that Iran is a threat which is simply not true and although she has consistenly backed hawkish measures by Bush and LIEberman and the Israeli lobby which will lead to disaster for the United States.

Now that the Iranian military is considered a "terorrist organization", Bush does not need to declare war or ask the legislative branch for permission to invade.

It's already covered under Bush's silly "The War Against Terror" (T.W.A.T)...and Hillary only only is one, she supports one.

Maybe SHE should do her own research?

dear dan,dont worry,hilliary was just'projecting'..assuming that 'all'real professionals are fed their words,lines and ideals,over coffee,toast and a newspaper,every single day.any real person will see thru that.....

Go ahead. Vote for the corporate whore/psychopath. Nothing will change. You will stll be stuck in Iraq, Iran will be a bombed-out irraiated shell of a country, opium will still be flowing out of Afghanistan, and the US will be a nation sliding into the horror of a post-oil world with no other alternatives but more war, suffering and death.

You can vote for Gulliani. Same result.

Or you can break the cycle of death and suffering by rising up and throwing off the shackles that Eisenhower warned you against. Your choice.

im not an expert on the subject, but from what i understand labeling an organization terrorist basically gives the president the right to make war on them in the "war on terror".

this the the same b.s. rhetoric she used for the 2002 resolution to give bush war powers in iraq. later she will say "i didn't think i was authorizing an attack, bush tricked me!"

giving her the benefit of the doubt that still makes her a moron, which im sure she is not.

vote for DENNIS KUCINICH! he voted against the resolution, and against all other war resolutions and funding.

Who cares how Clinton interpretes the just passed " Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as terrorist organization" legislation. What matters is how BUSH will interpret it. And frankly, any wiggle room will be used by Bush to justify his actions. Clearly his actions are all aimed at starting a new war with Iran. Clinton is either too dumb to be president, too naive to be president or ... well... frankly just another war-mongering politician. She's lost my vote.

Hillary R. Clinton does speak out of both sides of her mouth. She is a supporter of Bush and contrary to campaign talk, has been on his side, starting with her signing of the Un-American Patriot Act. Ms. Clinton's voting record says much. Between Ruppert Murdoch, the media monopolist, supporting her, and the Israeli lobby as well, and the death and destruction industries, and the pharmaceutical companies, it should be clear where her allegiance is. Ever wonder why MSM keeps the spotlight on her?

Kucinich in 2008!

Clintonese doublespeak and spin designed to confuse the non-reading public. Rolph saw through it. Remember, Clinton's an attorney.

Incisive reporting from the Washington Pot. Hillary came out the victor in a public one upmanship contest. What's missing here? (Hint: a little anaylsis of what Hillary voted for)

I'm going to write Kucinich into my vote no matter which other completely cowardly BORE the media put up for the DNC, and the consequences be damned. No more votes for lesser evils, including my state senator John Kerry

The distance between the DLC establishment and us plebeians is measured by her response: She & her friends are the ones who really know what's going on & how government works while we are intruders & serfs whose sole job is to be faithful to our vow of fealty when we are summoned by the lord or lady of the manor.

If she had a substantive answer, or if she believed that the people were sovereign, she would supply that answer.

This is the woman who, when NOT elected, hid from public view the proceedings of the group she headed on the grounds that she wasn't elected.

Just like her husband didn't go after bush I after the scandalous Reagan years, the Clinton's wanted to show the big boys they could "play the game" in the rarified air of Washington. So they shut down the investigations into what passed for foreign policy gambits into any one of the republican adventures that involved murdering innocents and stealing their resources for the multinationals.

Hillary will similarily take the same road, and drop any investigations that SHOULD be pursued into the crimes of the bush/cheney illicite junta. A vote for her is a vote for business as usual and a wink and a nod to war criminals.

That's why she's been annointed as the Dem candidate ALREADY by the MSM.

From democrats.com here is the complete deleted text: "(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies."

Clearly the authors of the bill want pre-emptive war with Iran. So does Bush. Why would they settle for a bill that does not create that possibility? They did not settle. Combined with the War Powers Act of 2001 and the 2002 Authorizations to Use Military Force, they have a bill that allows for war against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard which currently resides in Iran. War against Iran is a done deal using the current over-funding of the Iraq & Afghan Wars.

If Bush needs to, he will attach a signing statement that makes it clearer.

Senator Webb tried to attach an amendment to clarify that the Senate does not want war with Iran. Hillary voted for the bill without Webb's amendment.

"she [Hillary] is working on legislation to put that into law" is a complete lie. Senator Webb already had that amendment ready to go and Hillary did not demand it be attached to the bill she passed.

Hillary gave the war mongers what they wanted. That makes her a war monger too. Unfortunately she's worse than Lieberman... she will lie about it.

Try Hillary for Crimes Against Humanity. She is just as guilty as Bush and Cheney.

Many Dems assumed that Clinton regretted her Iraq vote altho she never apologized for that vote. Her vote for Leiberman-Kyl shows the falacy of that assumption. Even with the two paragraphs deleted it claims that Iran is a terrorist state and that is enough to allow Bush to twist it into an authorization to attack Iran. In addition, Clinton did not commit to withdrawing the troops in her first term. She is a hawk!! Where do you suppose the $22 million came from? If you want to stop the war, vote for Kucinich or Richardson. Richardson has the best resume by far!
Also, why didn't Pelosi allow a vote requiring Congress pass a direct authorization before attacking Iran?

Hillary is just another completely corrupt enabler of the degenerate in the White House. To vote for her is to vote for perpetual war.

As with republicans, actions speak louder than words. It's pretty simple. You can tell a good tree by the fruit it bears.

Media fails to advance presidential race narrative at Johnson County BBQ
http://blogs.dmregister.com/?p=9176

Clinton questioned about Iran in New Hapton
http://blogs.dmregister.com/?p=9179

An open letter to the frontrunners
http://blogs.dmregister.com/?p=9180

Identity politics and the presidential race
http://blogs.dmregister.com/?p=9187

Not much of a difference between Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. Both are controlled by the transnational corporations and the powerful pro-Zionist lobby. That means that they both are brainless and their "brain" is TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND THE PRO-ZIONIST LOBBY.

It is long due that Americans elect someone who has brains.

What's the difference between Hillary and Lieberman? Lieberman ran as an Independent.

Any resemblence between Hillary Clinton, Democrat, and Dennis Kucinich, Democrat, is strictly through the accident of party affiliation.

However, the fix is in. She will be "elected" president in November '08 and take office in January '09, whether "we" vote for her or not.

She is a creature of the entertainment, insurance, retail and Internet technologies industries. They are bankrolling her and they will "elect" her.

The dirty DEAMONcrats will be spewing for lies of fire and all will be clawing for

I will never say that Hillary lost my vote. She never had my vote to begin with.

Ken Mitchell: Gee, I thought the difference was Hillary would wear a dress in public....

The DEMONcRATS will debate tonite on C-Span http://www.c-span.org, I think around 9:00,STARRING.....Shillary, Obamma-O-mamma,Deadwards and others. Tune in to see the backpeddling...tune in to hear the magic of the NEW doublespeak. Hell tune in to just watch DENNIS KUCINICH WIPE THE FLOOR WITH THEIR SORRY ASSES! He is the JFK of our time! Too bad he's one of them, he will be the last for me. Thanks for letting me rant. Texrey

Hillary is being "backed" by the Republicans, just like they backed LIEberman in Conneticut. There is no difference between the two. They belong to the same party as all the other sellouts. That party is the Corporacrats of Zion. Doesn't matter what letter comes after their name (D, R, I). It's all the same.

If it walks, talks, and looks like a duck, my guess is that its a duck. Same thing goes for warmongers.

Correction: Not only will Clinton not commit to being out of Iraq in her first term, none of the 3 Dimwit frontrunners will commit to being out of Iraq by the end of their second term (2013)! So, there you have it folks. All war all the time - forever!

Vote Kucinich in the primaries!! It's the only chance you get to "unthown" the queen!

PS: Can we lay off the sexist epithets when describing a female warmonger please?

Thanks

So? Hasn't anyone ever seen an Israeli Republican before? She and Senator Joseph invested a lot of effort and taxpayer dollars flying off to Israel to discount Arafat (Nobel Peace Prize) and support Sharon (unindicted war criminal) the fruits of which we all saw on September 11th.

The Merchants of Death will be delighted with her 'election' as president.

HILLARY CLINTON IS A BUSH IN HIGHHEELS.

A sage once opined that if the "end is justified so are the means". In the case of Ms. Clinton her stated "end" is to become President. In this context then any means is justified.

But then is that not a common practice. Yes it is. Its dubiousness comes into play when, as in this instance Ms. [manysided] Clinton poses as a true and principled individual.

To add insult to injury she thinks she is cute. In this regard only her husband knows for sure.

I again ask - who is supporting her? I wonder who the pollsters are talking to. I've called all my friends in Iowa and, to a person, they will not vote for her and they know of noone who will, and theyare all Dems.

This is beginning to look a lot like 2004 primary time when Kerry came out of nowhere and blitzed the opposition to run everyone else off. His money came from strong Bush backers and he eventually ran his campaign as if he wanted Bush to win.

Could history be repeating itself?

Hillbillary, W in drag.

Vote DENNIS KUCINICH for US President for a return to decency, integrity, and common sense. He is our only choice. My choice for VP would be Barak Obama, or Cindy Sheehan, or Michael Moore. Together they and we would get the nation back on the right track. A vote for Clinton is a vote for more of the failed Reagan-Bush policies.

This whole thing is beginning to sound very hostile, lets see how many really put there "X" where it counts in the primary. Want to send a message? Vote anything but front runners. even third party would be better than following what you are told to do by the MSM.
It sure would be a "Pick Me Up" to see someone else . . . anyone jump forward except any front runner, from either Dem or Rep party.
Lord I hope so.

Okay, this and many comments on other stories have convinced me to support Dennis Kucinich for president. I just made a contribution to his campaign. His philosophy is the only one of the candidates that can lead to meaningful change in this country. Even though he is likely not to win the Democratic nomination, I feel it is important to support someone who is so much more closely aligned with my values than Hilary and the other candidates.

There's simply no excuse for Hillary to be so popular if progressives are serious about ending the war. Her thinking is obviously narrow, with the left being James Carville (who is nowhere near left) and the right being Bob Novak. Any thinking to the left of Carville or to the right of Novak she just rules out. That's how she can make the same vote on Iran five years later that she made on Iraq. Her omnipotenceness got the most important votes of her career wrong, yet progressives flock to her as some kind of agent of change.

The reality is that even progressives have a colonialist mentality and believe the latest lying rationale to keep the war going -- that a catastrophe of biblical proportions would occur if we left. That's always the excuse Whites use as to why they should must stay and rob the resources of the countries they occupy.

There is no debate from progressives regarding her Iraq vote. They whine to soothe their consciences and the vote for a warmongerer.

As I have said elsewhere, even when the Dims win, they lose. Or, more precisely, progressive lose.

If the Rethugs had to choose a Dim president, it would be Clinton. Sure, they will go on with all this rhetoric about how she is "polarising" etc. but the truth is, she is not too different from the Rethug neo-con position.

There is no Dem more horrifying to Rethugs than Kucinich, but he has already been de-fanged by the Dims. He will not get the nomination. This is good news for the Rethugs & good news for the Dim leadership.

And there will be plenty of people who do not like Clinton & won't vote for her in the primaries, but they will when election time comes, because of the "OMG! We can't have Giuliani for president!" hysterics.

I'm sick of the spineless "If you vote for a third party, thats a vote for a Rethug" schtick. I say: a vote for the Dims is a vote for the Rethugs.

But 'Mericuns have a knack for wearing blinders.

~ Proud Unamerican

curmudgeon99: Good point! See this OPUS cartoon http://www.salon.com/comics/opus/2007/08/12/opus/

nonamnesiac: See above....

Dems are "flocking" to Hillary? The MSM is framing the debate. The Repugs are also pushing for Hillary, just like they did LIEberman. She is one of them, but isn't going to let us know that unless she is elected. They all belong to the same party - the Corpratocraticans.

The longer she campaigns and the more votes she screws up in Congress, the more it will become an "anybody but Hillary" kind of a primary. DON"T buy into the MSM spin. She can be dethowned!

VOTE Kucinich in the primaries. And get your friends to do the same. It may be futile, but maybe not.....

If you don't like the question, attack the questioner! Hilary didn't need a law degree to learn that one. And if she doesn't want to respond to a question that's been asked before, she shouldn't be campaigning, much less running the country. I think she needs a nap.

What sexist epithet? The only name she was called is a "corporate whore" which she is. Whore is not masculing nor femine. I've known whores of both persuasions...

Wise up Americans: old news that's worth repeating: we have one party government in the USA. This fabulous one party is the party of the rich , which, in turn, has two branches–democrat and republican.

H. Clinton is a party of the rich candidate of the Democrats. As with all party of the rich candidates,Oil, Israel and Middle East Supremacy rules her thinking.

Kucinich, Gravel and a few others have opted out of the failed hegemony program of the monied class.

We used to have propertied men elect the president. Sadly, We still do.

I am continuously amazed and dismayed that no one seems to recall that apparently the first of the Democratic candidates to call for laying off of Iran was Bill Richardson.

Richardson put this petition up way last spring -- http://action.richardsonforpresident.com/page/s/Iran

And this is from Richardson's policies page --

Use Tough, Patient Diplomacy
We need to stop treating diplomatic engagement with others like a reward for good behavior. The Bush administration's refusal to engage obnoxious regimes has only encouraged and strengthened these nations' paranoid and hard-line tendencies. The futility of this policy is most tragically obvious in regard to Iran and North Korea, who responded to Washington's snubs and threats with intensification of their nuclear programs.

And Iraq? He apparently is the only candidate who is calling for swift and complete withdrawal AND has outlined U.S. actions and efforts to help stabilize the country and region after the withdrawal. For that, see http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/iraq

I just don't understand why Richardson's name seldom is mentioned in these remarks/debates. Anyone who reads the interviews with him that are here -- http://www.mytown.ca/ev.php?URL_ID=120989&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201 -- and continues to ignore the guy ain't thinkin' straight.

Regarding the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, both the original and revised amendments recommend designating the Guard as a terrorist organization. The revisions did remove language that could be construed as approving of an Iran invasion. Be that as it may, the real issues are: Hillary's pomposity and the saber-rattling tone of the revised amendment being only modestly muted from the original version. The amendment does not emphasize diplomacy in either version. Hillary's war-mongering proclivities, disingenuousness, and misrepresentations in this matter (and more generally) suggest a recklessness and wretchedness that the country can do without. Dems who vote for her are sucked in by a form of personality-cultism and a win-at-any cost attitude. They ignore the deficiencies in her leadership ability, the lack of efficacy of her policies, her lacks of integrity or originality. She is a poor sixth choice behind (in no particular order) Biden, Edwards, Dodd, Obama or Richardson. Only, sad to say, she will still be better than any likely Republican candidate. C'est la vie!

Ooops. Make her seventh. Put Kucinich on the list of preferable to Hillary--by a long shot!!

Aristotle writes on the slight in Rhetoric:

"There are three kinds of slighting - contempt, spite, and insolence. (1) Contempt is one kind of slighting: you feel contempt for what you consider unimportant, and it is just such things that you slight. (2) Spite is another kind: it is a thwarting another man's wishes, not to get something yourself but to prevent his getting it. . .(3) Insolence is also a form of slighting, since it consists in doing and saying things that cause shame to the victim, not in order that anything may happen to yourself, or because anything has happened to yourself, but simply for the pleasure involved. . .The cause of the pleasure thus enjoyed by the insolent man is that he thinks himself greatly superior to others when ill-treating them. . .A man expects to be specially respected by his inferiors in birth, in capacity, in goodness, and generally in anything in which he is much their superior: as where money is concerned, a wealthy man looks for respect from a poor man; where speaking is concerned, the man with a turn for oratory looks for respect from one who cannot speak: their ruler demands the respect of the ruled, and the man who thinks he ought to be a ruler demands the respect of the man whom he think he ought to be ruling. . ."

Clinton seems to use "the slight" quite a bit, from this little exchange to her smirk or guffaw or chortle or whatever it is.

I crossed Hillary off my list before she announced her candidacy. She is so opportunistic and committed to expediency that she has few solid ethical principles. She is dead wrong on Iraq, Iran, don't ask/don't tell, Cuba, Israel/Palestine, flag burning, on and on. Her positions on all these issues seem carefully chosen to endear her to war hawks, American Jews, the Cuban mafia in Miami and New Jersey, homophobes, and super-patriots. I'm none of the above, so she lost me long ago. Because she apparently has deluded most Democrats and independents I'll probably not vote in 2008 for the first time in sixty years. I'm sick of the political mess in our country.

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Nancy Pelosi both remind me of witches brewing broth in which to stew the American electorate...Not dissimilarly BOTH are just political hacks sold to the highest bidder...

I believe the driving force behind Senator Clinton's run for the Presidency is her singular desire to be president, nothing more. It is not to forward progressive social policy, to be a strong advocate against human kind's contribution to its own demise through overpopulation, resource depletion, and environmental degradation. It is not to serve the people of the United States. It is my conviction that she compulsively and obsessively wants to be elected President, and will do anything it will take to make that happen.

It is satisfying to read so many comments opposed to her. It is depressing that so much of the Democratic establishment has accepted her primary victory as a certainty.

I will never vote for a Republican and never for her in a presidential contest.

jack37 is correct!
Kucinich is the only candidate that holds my views

Edwards is a political whore

Hillary is no less

Obama seems to novice and tends to go with the mone$

Most of the posts on this thread sound like they are written by lunatics from the right. And you call yourselves progressives?!

I was in Whitefish, Kalispell, and Glacier Nat'l Park last week and I did an informal "survey" of presidential bumperstickers on Montana-licensed vehicles. I saw only FOUR bumperstickers -- and all FOUR were for HILLARY '08.

I asked one of the drivers why he was for Hillary and he told me that he thought she was strong, realistic, intelligent, informed, and the only candidate that could easily rehabilitate the United States' image with other countries on foreign policy.

I asked him if any of his friends were for Hillary and he said, "Some have made up their minds and they're for her. Some said they'd vote for her or any Democrat because there is a difference between the parties contrary to all the bullshit I see in chat rooms and read on blogs."

Then he asked me if I was a liberal or what? He said progressives and liberals are gonna "fuck up this election with all their I-want-a-perfect-candidate" and I won't vote for anyone but Kucinich or Gravel bullshit."

Montana has two Democratic senators for the first time in a long time -- remember that Jon Tester beat the Repug incumbent in '06. Maybe ya'll should get out a little more and see that a lot of the country doesn't think like the regular (incessant) posters on sites such as this.