Skip to main content

View Diary: Women of Peace and Courage (and a challenge to Sen. Clinton) (73 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I've made my point (0+ / 0-)

    If this was about the great women above, I'd recommend it.

    This has a different purpose.

    I think Clinton has passion.  But I also think she's a Poltician.  Not an activist.

    But the other Candidates are also Politicians.  They are not activists either.

    I think you're comparing apples and oranges.  If you compare any politician.  Any Politician at all to an activist, that politician will always compare dis-advantageously to the activist if the topic of Passion is being discussed.

    I don't want to get into a flame war about this, the rest of the Post was very beautifully written.

    And you have a right to your opinion that Clinton lacks passion.  Fine.  I think she has some fire in her.

    More time is being spent trying to create agreement in the Dem Party than is being spent trying to exploit disagreement in the Republican Party.

    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 08:55:46 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  what do you see as her fire? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      paul2port, CanadianBill

      Edgar08, I am genuinely curious as to where you see her fire? Do you think she has a vision? That's not snark or being anti-Clinton. I am genuinely curious as to what you see as her overall vision. I don't see it, but I would like to.

      I understand the distinction between politician and activist, although I don't think it should be as deep as it is. (For comparison, the other side seems to do just dandy with all kinds of activist-type crusades.) What I would like to see is for her to become a politician of more vision--a stateswoman, as I said above, someone who can involke the vision of activists and mean it.

      What I would like is to see her with something as defining as Edwards' "Two Americas." It doesn't have to be human rights oriented, but that would be amazing. She is still respected and admired outside the US and I would like to see her spend that capital. The world needs what she could do.

      •  The first Google Link I clicked on (0+ / 0-)

        "We have to have leadership again that asks us to step up and show the world who Americans are and what we can do," Clinton said during her first visit to Texas since announcing her candidacy. She met with supporters at a breakfast before speaking at the Wesley African Methodist Episcopal Church.

        Criticizing the Bush administration on a range of issues, the New York senator said she would create a universal prekindergarten program, provide healthcare for all Americans, and generate jobs.

        "During the 1990s, we lifted more people out of poverty than any time in American history and now they've fallen back in," she told church congregants. "We had more bankruptcies last year than college graduates."

        I wasn't there.  I can't tell if that was the most passionate speech she's ever given.

        I think people choose to see it or not depending on a predisposition.

        Just my opinion.

        More time is being spent trying to create agreement in the Dem Party than is being spent trying to exploit disagreement in the Republican Party.

        by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 09:15:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Let me tell you what clued me it (0+ / 0-)

        You alluded to her plan to keep some troops in Iraq to combat actual terrorists (not patrol the Civil War) as an "Imperialist Adventure."

        Only someone with a Pre-disposition to disliking Clinton would do that.

        I believe you believe you're trying to give her a fair shake, and want to see more, but no one who is actually giving her a fair shake would ever characterize her plan to keep some troops in Iraq to combat real terrorists as an "Imperial Adventure."

        It's such a blatant mis-characterization of her plan that the inherent bias is revealed.

        More time is being spent trying to create agreement in the Dem Party than is being spent trying to exploit disagreement in the Republican Party.

        by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 09:22:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  articulation (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          paul2port, fiddlingnero

          Thank you for the quote. I can understand your point about the idea that passion is in the eye of the beholder in terms of imagined delivery. I guess I still don't get a sense of her vision here: is it essentially anti-poverty (which would be great), do you think?  Or is she also doing something about the middle class--her own verison of "Two Americas"?

          •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

            It's anti-poverty.  And while it might not be awe-inspiring rhetoric, she's pointing to a proven history of results.

            More time is being spent trying to create agreement in the Dem Party than is being spent trying to exploit disagreement in the Republican Party.

            by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 09:25:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  perhaps that theme will develop (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              paul2port, fiddlingnero

              As I said, I don't see the articulation clearly here, nor in her overall presentations thus far. But if that theme is developed further, it would certainly be powerful. I would look forward to her putting this idea out there in a manner that would capture the imagination of the American people. For better or worse, the "Great Society" was a fantastic vision , sadly hampered by Johnson's other policies. For her to reclaim that banner would be most welcome in my estimation.

              •  You don't see it (0+ / 0-)

                Ok.  Like I said.  That's OK that you don't see it.

                I do.  

                More time is being spent trying to create agreement in the Dem Party than is being spent trying to exploit disagreement in the Republican Party.

                by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 01:19:09 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  imperalism (4+ / 0-)

          Actually, I have very strong feelings about imperialism generally. That has nothing to do with Senator Clinton. In fact, it's not her imperial adventure I'm alluding to, but the American imperial adventure in the Middle East pursued by the neocons (note I said continuing "the" imperial adventure, not "her" or "your" imperial adventure.)

          I think retaining enduring bases in Iraq is a terrible mistake, and will be perceived as a continuing imperialistic presence--I don't think retaining troops and bases will help ease the violence at this point. I'm very concerned about our slide into open imperialism under Bush, and I'd like to see a much clearer break than she seems to be proposing. My general foreign policy viewpoint is strongly multilateral, and I would like to see more of that articulated in her vision of Iraq. I admired Bill CLinton's multilateralism in dealing with Bosnia, and a commitment to that sort of approach from ehr would be highly desirable.  

          •  If it has nothing to do with Clinton (0+ / 0-)

            You certainly sent the wrong the message when you brought it up in the context of Sen. Clinton.

            You tipped your hand.  That's cool.

            More time is being spent trying to create agreement in the Dem Party than is being spent trying to exploit disagreement in the Republican Party.

            by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 01:18:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  it's relevant to her... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              paul2port, fiddlingnero, CanadianBill

              statement about troops.  What my comment above says is that my strong feelings about imperialism are not driven by my feelings about the Senator. It's not an "imperial adventure" because she is involved, nor is using those words meant as a slam at her in particular. I'm not sure what you mean by using that phrase "tipping my hand." It's not a joke or a hidden agenda: I would, honestly, like to see her disavow using hard power to pursue  terrorists, as part of a wider vision of how to more fairly and effectively use our military. That's what the point is about, nothing more or less.  

              Edgar08, I appreciate that you and I have kept this a polite and (I think) mostly positive conversation. I can see this touches a nerve with you, and I understand that it is not easy to be a fan of the Senator at dKos. Whatever I say, you seem to be convinced that I harbor some deep prejudice against HRC. I'm sorry about that, because it's not the case. Rather, it's that I would like to see her aspiring to be one of the greats---not just a comptetent president and not just "Bill the Second." Like it or not, she is a groundbreaker, and she has the stuff to rise above.  I would love to see her bring a clear vision--her own version of the Just Society (a  la Trudeau), of the New Deal (FDR), People Power, whatever---I'd like to see it clearly articulated and driven home. A broad vision supported by details.

              I'm sorry that this comes across to you as being unfair. Perhaps we should just leave the conversation where it is. To end on a positive note: the Senator is lucky to have a supporter with your loyalty and dedication. If you're one of the ones shaking hands and walking the neighborhoods on her behalf, she is fortunate indeed. Maybe our conversation will help you engage those who are uncommited.

              •  If you think how you qualified (0+ / 0-)

                Clinton's plan is relevant to any statement about troops, then you're clearly pre-disposed to assume the worst of anything she says.

                I doubt you're refuting my point at this point.

                If you were pre-disposed to assume the best or at least not the worst, you'd have never said "Imperialist Adventure."

                More time is being spent trying to create agreement in the Dem Party than is being spent trying to exploit disagreement in the Republican Party.

                by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 08:19:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  pre-dispositioned? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  paul2port, fiddlingnero, CanadianBill

                  I don't understand the terms of our discussion. You want to interpret my remarks in the worst possible light, but you also want me to put the rosiest and best interpretations on Senator Clinton's remarks?

                  I don't think our discussion is going anywhere, in that case.

                  Thank you for the time and effort you have put into it, but I think we are coming from very different places. Best wishes to you (I mean that, by the way, as well as my earlier comments about your loyalty to the Senator).

                  •  Lets recap then (0+ / 0-)

                    the discussion.

                    You alluded to Clinton's plan to leave some troops in Iraq to combat terrorism as an "Imperialist Adventure", and then claimed to want to like her or something like that, but then I pointed out that anyone who wanted to like her would never allude to her plan in those terms.

                    Only someone who was trying to get other people to not support Clinton would put it in those terms.

                    I've claimed that's what your agenda is.

                    That's the terms of discussion.

                    And just to be clear about where I'm coming from.  My loyalty is not to Sen. Clinton.  My loyalty is to the truth.  If you were to allude to Obama's plan in the same manner, if you called his plan to leave troops in Iraq to combat real terrorists an "Imperialist Adventure", my response to that would be very much the same.

                    If Edwards said "we need to keep a few troops in Iraq to keep tabs on Terrorists," and someone calle that an "Imperialist Agenda" my response would be the same.

                    It's wrong.

                    More time is being spent trying to create agreement in the Dem Party than is being spent trying to exploit disagreement in the Republican Party.

                    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 10:56:24 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  those would all be imperialist (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      paul2port, fiddlingnero, CanadianBill

                      Short of a clarer multilateralist explanation, or clear UN peacekeeping, yes, I wthose sound pretty imperialist. Terrorists aren't combated very effectively by armies. As we should have learned by now, as the French learned in Algeria and the British learned in Northern Ireland. Perhaps you don't like the sound of "imperialist," but that's what it is.

                      Please stop assigning me motives that do not exist. I  do not speculate on your motives. Kindly do me the same courtesy.

                      Good day.

                      •  We disagree (0+ / 0-)

                        I don't think that's what it is.

                        Imperialist means to assume governance over a different country.

                        One can maintain a military presence without doing that.

                        Either that or all our bases in every part of the world are Imperialist.  I don't believe they are.

                        In any case, sorry about assigning that motive.  I'll look forward to reading any of your posts about Edwards's and Obama's Imperialist Adventures.  Cause that's their position is as well.

                        No one's claiming to remove every last American Troop out of Iraq.

                        More time is being spent trying to create agreement in the Dem Party than is being spent trying to exploit disagreement in the Republican Party.

                        by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 11:15:54 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Yawn.... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  aphra behn, fiddlingnero

                  tedious, 'My candidate is the greatest...' b.s.

                  Clinton is clearly part of 'The Money Party', she luvs her some Rupert Murdoch, she's stated for the record that if elected we will be in Iraq indefinitely.

                  She often uses Republican talking points and has used the, 'Democrats want the terrorists to win...' meme.

                  You like her.

                  Fine.

                  That does not give you the right to mount personal attacks against those who do not.

                  That's what Republicans do.

                  So...

                  Hike on over to LGF.

                  You'll fit right in there.

                  'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

                  by Nestor Makhnow on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 09:32:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

                    Wrong.

                    There may be good criticisms of Clinton.  Calling her plan to leave some troops in Iraq to combat real terrorists an "Imperialist Adventure" is not one of them.

                    Intentionally mis-leading people about where Democrats stand on issues.  That's a Republican thing to do.

                    Perhaps it's you and the author here who are not blogging on the right blog.

                    More time is being spent trying to create agreement in the Dem Party than is being spent trying to exploit disagreement in the Republican Party.

                    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 10:49:25 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Excuse me, newb? (4+ / 0-)

                      Perhaps it's you and the author here who are not blogging on the right blog.

                      One line in a totally fucking outstanding diary that you take some kind of issue with the wording, and the author is some kind of troll?  You've GOT to be kidding me.  

                    •  Well, if you know of simple, easy, foolproof (4+ / 0-)

                      way of determining who is a 'real' terrorist and who is just an ordinary Iraqi citizen frustrated with teh US occupation please let me know, then I might share your opinion of Sen. Clinton's plan.

                      Until then it just looks to me as continuing the same old clusterf**k, which actually is imperialist.

                      And are there not 'permanent US bases' already built?

                      It's 'imperialist' despite your narrow definition. 'Governance' can always be accomplished by local proxy - see Karzai and al-Maliki.

                      The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

                      by FrankFrink on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 06:18:43 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  You are one deluded fool... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      aphra behn, fiddlingnero

                      ...the people who are killing our troops in The MeatGrinder live there homer. They didn't fly in from Afganistan nor Indonesia.

                      And anybody who does not understand that is just, plain not informed about the facts on the ground in The MeatGrinder.

                      I did not appreciate you hi-jacking my comment to this diarist to spew yer dumb-ass 'analysis' larded with copious quantities of unsubstantiated assertions.

                      Less do I appreciate the assertion that Clinton is right about Iraq.

                      Pay attention here as it seems to have escaped your grasp that:

                      The war in Iraq is illegal according to international law. Yeah, we are now just like the terrorists you are so concerned with in that regard.

                      There are a very, very small number of terrorists in Iraq now.

                      There were none there before Bush started his excellent adventure. None. Saddam killed 'em all.

                      None of this helps us in our very real fight against terrorism. It hurts us. That's why I and many other thinking people want it to stop.

                      Clinton is saying what she is saying about staying in Iraq because she is a member of The Money party not because she gives a fuck about terrorists.

                      I am not misleading anybody about what Clinton has said about staying in Iraq. What you cannot seem to grasp is that she not only has said it she has lied and is lying about the reasons why.

                      If, as I suspect, you really think it's to fight terrorists...

                      Google the following:

                      The Money Party

                      AIPAC

                      Rupert Murdoch and Hillary

                      Military Keynesianism

                      Juan Cole

                      Then get back to me. But...

                      Spare me the unsubstantiated assertions. They are without merit.

                      'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

                      by Nestor Makhnow on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 09:28:05 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site