Why I'm Open to Hillary Clinton

Just wanted to riff off of Stirling's very good diary entry here with some counter-arguments.

I want to make clear first that I think he did a good job presenting his views.  Some commentors incorrectly, I believe, characterized his posting as vicious.  It wasn't.  It was just very, very plain.

So, here is my plain take on Hillary Clinton and the 2008 race.

First of all, although 2008 is a couple years away and Sen. Clinton must first be re-elected to her New York seat in 2006 before any real campaigning can be done ...

I think that it is starting to become clear to everyone that she owns the "inevitability" card at the moment.  Inevitability is one of the most powerful things that a candidate can have in this media age, because it means that you get to create the conventional wisdom.

As long as it lasts.

And as the Howard Dean experience showed us, "inevitability" is a house of cards.  It's very fragile.  Remove just one card from the bottom and the whole thing collapses.  In an instant.

But Sen. Clinton owns the "inevitability" at the moment and that makes her worthy of discussion and consideration hereabouts, even though a formal declaration of candidacy is obviously years away.

Stirling makes some clear points showing that he believes that Sen. Clinton would not govern, as president, in a way that is compatible with some very basic issues of interest to the Democratic base.  Abortion is one good example.  The Iraq War is another.

However ...

I want to caution folks who have been following the discussion about Sen. Clinton on the Daily Kos and are coming away with the idea that she is some sort of lighter, more palatable version of a Republican, a Corporatist or even a Movement conservative.

Listen, folks:

Sen. Clinton is a liberal Senator.

She has one of the most liberal voting records of any Senate Democrat.  She routinely scores in the 90th percentile on all of those grade sheets published by liberal special interest groups.

And on nominations, Sen. Clinton not only voted against Bolton, but she also voted against John Roberts ... SPECIFICALLY CITING ISSUES SURROUNDING WOMEN'S RIGHTS, PRIVACY RIGHTS AND ROE VS. WADE as reasons that she voted against him!

Look, I know that many -- including myself are displeased with Sen. Clinton's "support" for the Iraq War effort -- but, contrary to many arguments made on Daily Kos lately, she has not abandoned liberal and Democratic values when it comes to a women's reproductive rights.  She has not abandoned the fight for jobs for regular Americans.  She did not vote for the evil bankruptcy bill.

Sen. Clinton is not some conservative wolf in liberal clothing.

Sorry!  She just ain't.

The truth is that Sen. Clinton is not 100% there on all of the policy stuff that I want to see.  Her continued "support" for the Iraq War is very troubling and I feel that it will damage her credibility among the majority of Americans who oppose the war.

On the other hand, I could accept the 70-80% of my "personal platform" that I am confident that she would try to deliver as a president.  How do I know about that 70-80%?  Because I have actually gone to her website, I have actually investigated her voting record and I have been closely watching how she is voting on the Supreme Court nomination seats.

What I haven't done is accepted in a blanket way every strident claim about Sen. Clinton as a "traitor," a "DINO" or whatever -- the claims that appear on this website every day of the week.

Beyond this ...

From a purely strategic angle, I believe that Sen. Clinton is one of the strongest political assets that the Democratic Party has.  Anyone who has shook her hand or seen her in person can testify that she has a magnetic presence, is enormously warm and personable and has a scary level of charisma.

To top this off, I believe that, as a candidate, Sen. Clinton would do what it takes to become elected.  I don't think that Sen. Kerry had that same level of commitment or maybe even the personal strength that would be required to carry something through 100% to the end.

It's very early in the race.  I see Sen. Clinton as someone with a political programme that I can accept, if not fully endorse.  And I feel like, as one of the strongest political assets that our party has, we cannot afford to set fire to her now and cast her by the wayside, whatever our personal biases are.

This is why I am open to a Clinton candidacy in 2008.  I want us to run someone who has a good likelihood of getting elected and a good likelihood of governing from a platform that I can live with.  At this point, Sen. Clinton is as good as -- or better than -- any other name that I've seen presented to me.

•  Thank you

  I was going to post a similar diary, but looks like you beat me too it.  If this one goes nowhere, I suppose I'll give it a try.  The thing I can't stand is people mislabeling Clinton's social record.  Her voting record is about as strong liberally on social issues as you can be.  The other post claimed that she didn't support energy independence, yet she's voted against Bush's energy bill, a measure that certain democrats have supported.  She has consistently voted to roll back bush's tax cuts, and put the money into education and healthcare.

  by laughing gas on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 06:46:12 AM PDT

  •  Recommend

    I recommend that someone else give this a try.  I can only do one diary per day, but I think that it would be useful to look at Sen. Clinton's actual record and compare this to accusations that go flying around here, especially when it comes to women's reproductive rights.

    by bink on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 07:30:30 AM PDT

    •  Especially

      I think that it would be useful to look at Sen. Clinton's actual record and compare this to accusations that go flying around here, especially when it comes to women's reproductive rights.

      And especially when it involved anything to do with Hilary Clinton.

      I'm no big fan of hers, but I think she's become a fine liberal Senator.  The HRC bashing for being a DINO and all kinds of other ridiculous charges reminds me of all the idiotic stuff we had to put up with around here last year about how John Kerry was some rightwing DLC'er, a DINO, conservative, yada yada yada.  Like HRC, Kerry's record is very liberal.  Sure, they both cast awful votes on the IWR, but jeeze, just because they cast awful votes on that issue doesn't make them ideological brethern of Charlie Stenholm and John Breaux on every other damn issue.  Even after Kerry started his twisting and turning on gay marriage, and even with Hillary's rhetorical shifts to be more moderate sounding, when you look at their voting records--in other words, when you look at what they actually DO in the Senate--they're both pretty damn liberal, in fact more liberal than John Edwards on plenty of issues, and certainly far more consistent than Russ Feingold.  

      I have issues with Hillary as a presidential candidate, just as I had issues with Kerry, who was no better than my fourth choice for our 2004 nominee, but those issues are more of style and temperament and other things that relate to them being national candidates.  But jeeze, they're not troglodytes, and they sure aren't Joementum, and they damn well are reliable liberals.  If people want to critize Hillary Clinton, I think there are several legitimate criticisms to make, but from a liberal perspective, her overall voting record sure ain't it.

      by DHinMI on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 05:21:31 PM PDT

  •  Where Was Hilliary?

    Where was Hilliary's voice during or after the long overdue "Closed Session" that was forced by the Dems? Nowhere that I could find:
    

    • Nowhere on her website
      
    • Nowhere in the press
      
    • Nowhere in my email in-box

    NOWHERE!

    No support for what we did. NO hedging that we should complete the investigation but we still need to complete the 'mission'. No nothing!

    If she can't support the party, then how can she lead it.

    Hilliary dropped a few notches in my book by here silence in this matter.

    by talex on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 08:44:53 AM PDT

    •  Good Questions

      I wondered that as well ...

      I assumed that it was because Sen. Schumer, who is the senior Senate from New York, was taking such a prominent role.  It could also have been calculation.  I'm not sure.

      by bink on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 08:47:46 AM PDT

      •  Hillary the war supporter

        I want the Dems to be the party that is against Bush's Blunder in Iraq, but Hillary has consistently supported the war effort.  There is no single issue more critical at this time, so she is not qualified to be president.

        What has Hillary ever done to deserve consideration as a Presidential candidate?  It is time to look beyond the Clinton vs. Bush trading of the presidency, we have hundreds of more qualified people.

        Bush I,  Clinton I,  Bush II,  Clinton II  ?

        No way, get a real person elected who will fight against the military industrial complex that is ruining our country.

        by MD patriot on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 10:07:15 AM PDT

        •  Her War Position

          According to the Huffington Post, Hilary is following a rather interesting line on the war:

          Hillary Clinton is the leading Democrat pushing a position that, on the obsolete left-right continuum, puts her to the right of Sam Brownback. According to a Hillary supporter who spoke to her at one of her recent Hollywood fundraisers: "Hillary basically said that since the White House is going to end up pulling troops out anyway before the election, Democrats can just stand by and let it happen without going out on a limb. She thinks that anyone one who lays out a plan is going to be immediately shot down. Better to just keep hammering the president for not having a plan of his own."

          How very meta. Say that we need a plan, criticize the president for not having a plan, but avoid -- at all costs -- coming up with a plan of your own.

          This is a ridiculous and Spineless position to take in helping our troops.  It may be good politics but it is awful governance.  If she does think the president will have to pull the troops before the election why doesn't she say so.  I want politicians who will tell us what they believe and will fight for especially on such an important issue as war.

          I don't think that individual legislatures need have a specific plan, but they do need a position and should do what they can to make it happen.  And push the administration to administrate in some reasonable way.

          by Luam on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 10:23:41 AM PDT

          •  I can't and won't defend that...

            but this something Hillary said to an aide who said to Arianna who wrote to us all. I'm sure nothing gets jumbled in translation.

            About the current mess:
            We have a moral obligation to do what is best for them. Is withdrawing the troops ASAP really going to be in their best interests? Can someone explain to me how removing 150,000 troops from a country with one combat ready division would help the security situation? Please I'm all ears. Everytime I ask someone this question all I get is a long rant about how going to Iraq was wrong. I get that, but that wasn't my question.
            

            by crazymoloch on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 10:36:56 AM PDT

            •  Withdrawl method

              Well, I am not sure what the best way out of this mess is.  I agree with you in not insisting that our leaders share my pet solution.  They should have some ideas on how to get us out, or at least be calling for our Department of Defence to formulate some plan for our withdrawal.

              I do know that our presence in Iraq is one of the main causes of instability and that an Iraqi government which is not seen as a tool of Bush would have more legitimacy in the eyes of the people.  Americans are not suited for occupation, our troops have neither the temperament nor the training.

              Personally, my plan would be to ask, and beg, for international help in forming a stable Iraqi government.  Forgo the spoils and take a second row seat in deciding what should happen.  We are not a trusted player and we need to acknowledge that mistrust and apologise for the root causes of it.

              Much of the world would be interested in helping rebuild a crippled Iraq if a humbled America were to step aside and yield control of the country and the profits.

              by Luam on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 10:47:40 AM PDT

              •  Hmmm....

                I do know that our presence in Iraq is one of the main causes of instability and that an Iraqi government which is not seen as a tool of Bush would have more legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

                Do you honestly think that it would stop the terrorists there who are targeting civilians?

                Americans are not suited for occupation, our troops have neither the temperament nor the training.

                You know this because.....? The soldiers don't have the temperment? I reckon we did a good job in post WWII occupation.

                Personally, my plan would be to ask, and beg, for international help in forming a stable Iraqi government.

                What exactly would they do to make the government more stable?

                Much of the world would be interested in helping rebuild a crippled Iraq if a humbled America were to step aside and yield control of the country and the profits.

                I'm pretty sure the rest of the world wouldn't touch Iraq with a ten foot pole.

                Your suggestions are either vague or grounded in fiction. Don't get me wrong, unlike you I have no clue what best recourse is.

                Iraq is surrounded by terror sponsors in Iran and Syria. Any solution is going to have to involve getting them to back off. Getting Arab troops in there would be huge boost, but I can't name any Arab democracies. If I'm a despot I sure as hell ain't gonna send troops to build a democracy next door. I don't want my subjects drinking the democracy kool-aid. I don't have a clue.
                

                by crazymoloch on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 11:20:16 AM PDT

          •  Agree, Was about to cite that piece on her

            ify ify position on the war..

            Here is my theory, all those who are promoting her candidacy are subconciously wishing for the return of Bill Clinton. Vote for Hillary, we get Bill.

            Let me ask this, given Hillary's various positions on the issues, if Bill Clinton was not her husband, would you still promote her candidacy? Would she have the stature?

            by idredit on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 10:47:06 AM PDT

          •  Should we believe hearsay?

            by JPete on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 02:43:23 PM PDT

        •  Hillary's Privacy Position

          I can live with her position on the war--only because people can have an honest difference of opinion there. What I cannot abide is her lack of support for simple American values like the right to privacy.

          She is not a liberal. Only the MSM claims she is. She doesn't believe in the most fundamental liberal positions. Hillary Clinton wouldn't recognize the Bill of Rights if it bit her in the ass.

          Join the ABC group and help get Anybody But Clinton on the ticket. Putting Hillary on the ticket is a way of saying that big money still controls the party. It would represent a public rejection of liberalism. The MSM would portray this as a failure of the Democratic Party to embrace its progressive values and it would be another way of shifting the country to the right.

          We have to put a stake in the ground and stop the party moving to the right. That also means stopping it from moving to the center. Hillary is a centrist, not a liberal. That's her danger to us and the reason we have to resist her nomination.

          Think, liberally.

          by Liberal Thinking on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 11:37:44 AM PDT

          •  Details, Details, Details

            Whatever Clinton's positions are on issues, I don't believe another (perceived) liberal from the east coast will win.  The Democrats must get a person that the middle of America can feel comfortable with. period.

            by hairspray on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 02:31:55 PM PDT

            •  Unfortunately I agree

              I don't know a single Democrat that wants Hillary to run(and yes there are a few in Tennessee). Even those who loved Pres. Clinton feel that the Hillary hatred in the south will doom any candidacy by her. Is this right? No, but I believe it is true and that she'd lose the South badly. We need Clark or Edwards to win down here unless we want to depend on the same state battleground states that we had in 2004 and write-off the south altogether.

              by tabbycat in tenn on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 04:51:59 PM PDT

            •  That Would Be Clark

              Clark is a liberal and he's from the center of the country. He has the credentials to win in all parts of the country. But he's not a fake liberal, like Hillary, who is only "liberal" because the Republicans keep painting her as one to scare people in the South and the West.
              

              Think, liberally.

              by Liberal Thinking on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:44:45 PM PDT

    •  asdf

      I really think you're reading way too much into it.  I don't see anything on Durbin's website about it and it's clear he supported the closed session.

      Look, there may or may not be valid reasons to oppose Clinton - let's not go out of our way to look for things to get indignant about.

      by patagonia on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 08:52:15 AM PDT

      •  Durbin was

        all over the news afterward. What more statement do you need? My point is that Hillary has said nothing that I can find. Why not?

        by talex on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 10:05:34 AM PDT

        •  Grandstanding, not?

          It's a team effort. Sometimes you let other people score the goals. Hillary's been very good about not hogging the ball.

          Personally I don't like Hillary. She's a lawyer. I see no place for lawyers in politics. They should be relegated to the judiciary. But ...

          The people piling on against her in these two diaries are enough to make me reconsider my stance against her. Mind you, I greatly value Stirling's overall contribution to kos, so he's not the target of my objection. But why should we prejudge things now? People are slamming her with gossip and ineundo, and generally missing the nuances of real leadership. Real leaders do not just run to the head of a predictable mob agreeing with all their slogans.

          Let's wait until '07, and see where reality lays then, before we make firm commitments for or against any potential candidate. If we make up our minds against her (or any other), that's the surest way to make sure she won't even bother to try to reach us, won't bother to earn our votes with strong stances on the issues that matter to us where she does tend to agree.

          by wytcld on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 12:54:47 PM PDT

    •  Only 4 senators knew what was going to happen!

      The 4 senators:

      Reid
      Schumer
      Durbin
      Rockefellar

      There is no senator named Clinton that knew ahead of time.

      by hb12 on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 09:13:37 AM PDT

      •  Also Stabenow

        She was in the meeting with Reid, Durbin and Schumer.  Then, after the meeting but before making the call for the closed session, Reid consulted Rockefeller, whose committee it involved.  See more here.

        by DHinMI on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 05:11:33 PM PDT

    •  She's still a freshman Senator from New York.....

      Where was that coward Obama (please note sarcasm)? If HRC, a freshman Senator, started acting like member of the Seante leadership, all you Hillary haters would be up in arms about Hillary throwing tradition out of the window for crass political gain. There is a way things are done in the Seante. Notice that Obama is also rarely seen or heard from?

      Time to debunk some lies:

      - Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.
      [There was no strong candidate to challenge Santorum. If pro-life Dems are so bad, why aren't we throwing Reid overboard.]

      - 2004  Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union 11 percent in 2004.
      [She's definitely pandering to the right on taxes!!!]

      - 2003-2004  Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004.
      [Could be better here, but so could Feingold!!!]

      • 2003-2004  Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

      • 2003-2004  Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 100 percent in 2003-2004.

      You know what what Hillary haters? Look it up on your own..... I'm not wasting my time for people in the faith based.... or should I say fear based community - http://www.vote-smart.org/...

      Just for the record, I'm not a Hillary fan. Feingold and Edwards are my guys. I'm going to do what it takes to get those guys the nomination. Should HRC win, I'll sleep just fine and won't have any trouble working my ass off for her. Anyone who thinks she's conservative needs to get their eyes or head examined. Anyone who thinks she's polarizing figure needs to grow some cajones. She has taken a lot of crap from the VRWC. If anyone can deal with their muck, its HRC!

      by crazymoloch on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 09:38:17 AM PDT

      •  Couldn't have said it better.

        It's almost like listening to repub talking points about Hillary, kind of in a backwards way.
        (I hope you understand what I meant by that). I mean people are just slinging sh_t about her that is just not true.

        by redstateliberal on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 09:52:06 AM PDT

        •  It sounds like a lot of people

          here have bought the Republican spin on Hillary.  I like her and the fact that she is very competent because after eight years of Bush we will need someone in charge that has been there before, knows how to get things done, and knows who the best people are to get those things done.

          by LimosineLiberal on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 03:27:40 PM PDT

      •  I'm not a Hillary hater

        I'm just asking why she did not vocally support the closed session afterward like others did (see down thread). It's a fair question and does not deserve the "two" rating you gave me. How petty.

        by talex on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 10:09:36 AM PDT

        •  If only you had asked.....

          .... a question. You slammed Hillary for not being there. Don't pretend that you were asking an innocent question. You had apretty good handle on the point you were trying to get across.

          p.s: IF you were only asking a question, you don't desrve the 4s either. Quit crying about it.

          by crazymoloch on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 10:24:34 AM PDT

          •  Hey Genius

            Read the Heading of my post: "Where Was Hilliary?"

            See the question mark? That makes what I said a question. The fact that I pointed out where I did not see or hear any comments from her just reinforces that it is a legitimate question.

            People who react emotionally and make accusations about a post without really reading it add nothing to this site.

            So to your "If only you had asked a question" - - I did ask a question

            by talex on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 10:50:29 AM PDT

            •  Ok.....

              Please read your original post out loud to yourself. Tell me that doesn't sound like a screed. I wasn't the only one.

              p.s: GROW UP!

              by crazymoloch on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 11:05:04 AM PDT

              •  Child

                More agreed than disagreed with me. My post had several questions - and I notice that once I pointed out your error about my post not having questions you have nothing to say, Ha ha.

                Take your fingers out of your ears - yours is not the only opinion on this board. You are the one who has some growing up to do.

                </end conversation>

                by talex on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 12:10:30 PM PDT

      •  I could have trouble

        ...working my ass off for her. Last fall it took me a month to recover from Kerry's acceptance speech before I could throw myself into election work. We are stuck with the worst President in the history of the US because the Dems ran perhaps the worst campain ever to lose to the most vulnerable incumbant ever. Has American civilization reached a  point where it is incapable of producing competant political leadership?

        I must say this is an interesting and informative discussion for me.

        by Cautopates on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 10:42:52 AM PDT

        •  Just to give you an idea ....

          .... of the how big an achievement beating Bush would have been - THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR IN THE U.S SENATE WOULD HAVE BEATEN A WARTIME INCUMBENT REPUBLICAN!

          What do you know about campaigns to call his campaign imcompetent? Mistakes were made. All campaigns make them. A swing of 50,000 votes in Ohio and he's our President!

          Democrats currently suffer from what I McGovern-o-phobia. They're so afraid of getting their clocks cleaned that they fail to stand up for what they believe.

          This election was about Iraq. This is where Kerry was weakest. You can't run against a wartime President by nitpicking his execution of it. It looks petty and people are more inclined to give Bush points for taking a stand. By supporting the  IWR Kerry guaranteed his own defeat. The best line from Bush's own campaign was - "you may not agree with me, but you'll always know where i stand." That sentiment resonates with people in wartime. Its hard enough to get people change Presidents in the middle of a war(never happended before), but to getting them to vote for someone who SEEMS to be straddling the political line is impossible.

          If you want to blame anyone for last year's loss, blame Iowa. Fuck electability. In the middle of a war the candidate you want is the one who has a CLEAR position. The last thing people want to see from their President in the middle of war is doubt. There was no doubting Dean. I'd bet all the money in my pockets that Dean would have scored as well if not better than Bush on the question of whether he was a strong leader. Kerry was at 39%!

          Maybe Dean would have lost in a landslide. I would had my head held high because I would have worked for the 'real thing'. All I got from Kerry's "lets-not-piss-anyone-off" campaign was this lousy sticker. Blame the Iowa Democrats. Kerry did the best he could. He just wasn't the best we had to offer.  

          by crazymoloch on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 10:59:07 AM PDT

          •  I wonder if we've ever had a war before

            like this one. It looked dangerous and reckless (as well as wrong) to me and many many others before we started it. The incompetance of its execution is mind-numbing, absolutely mind-numbing, the corruption mind-boggling. Oh but we've got to support our troops. So let's not be too critical of our leaders. If ever there was a war which begged for a change of President it was this one.

            I felt the same way about the Gore campain in 2000. There were issues I kept waiting for them to raise that were never raised or only half-heartedly raised. Democratic issues like Bush's healthcare record in Texas. I think the DLC types were afraid of offending someone or anyone with big money.

            I just heard Mike Papantonio on Ring of Fire talking about the law firm Bill and Hillary come from, a corporate defense firm, very conservative, "their base", he called it. He's faced their lawyers many times in court. A Democratic Party dancing to that tune will always be impotent.  

            by Cautopates on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 05:24:37 PM PDT

    •  Here are three who spoke afterwards...

      about the closed session for those who made comments defending Hillary:
      

      
      Senator Dianne Feinstein released the following statement regarding yesterday's closed session in the Senate that was spurred by Harry Reid invoking Rule 21: "It's now very clear that the intelligence that led many members of Congress to vote to authorize the use of force was both bad and wrong. I believe that the American people deserve to know whether that intelligence was misused by the Administration in building up the case for war.

      Boxer made comments on the Daily Show:
      http://onegoodmove.org/...

      Kennedy: ''The Senate Republican majority has obediently stifled any serious investigation about how this happened. We need an investigation, not a cover-up, and it's long past time to conduct it fully, fairly, and honestly," said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts.
      

      And I am sure there were more - - where was Hillary?

      by talex on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 10:03:02 AM PDT

    •  You Need To Understand How a Caucus Works

      People who take credit for every damn thing their caucus does are immediately seen as grandstanding blowhards by their colleagues.  Being in a legislative caucus is like being part of a team.  Each person has a position, and they play their position and not that of others.  The people who's "position" it was to play prominent roles in the closed session were the official leadership team: Reid, Durbin, Schumer and Stabenow.  When Reid seriously contemplated the move, it was only the four of them who discussed it.  Then, since it directly pertained to his committee, Rockefeller was consulted before they made the move.  Then they did it.  I suspect the first person they brought up to speed on it was Levin, because the issues relate directly to his work as ranking member of Armed Services, and because he's been by far the most aggressive member of the caucus on those issues.

      Thus, those are the people whose "position" on the team gives them the most prominence, and they're the ones who take the lead, and everyone else defers to them.

      For another example, what happened with the Katrina response?  It was Landrieu, because it was her state, and Lieberman, because he's government affairs or whatever they call that committee.  (And from what I can tell, he's actually doing an OK job on it.)  In the House, it's Melancon, Jefferson and Taylor because they represent the affected areas, and Waxman because he's ranking member on the Government Oversight committee, which investigates those issues.

      Hillary Clinton didn't have an obvious role on the closed door session, and it would be wrong, from a caucus/team perspective, for her to take a central public role.  It's bad form, especially for her, since she suck up any attention because of her high profile.  So in this case, she was doing the correct thing for all Senate Dems by not getting in front of a mike and dominating the Dem message on the shutdown.  That job belonged to Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Rockefeller, and to lesser extents, my homestate Senators, Levin and Stabenow.  

      by DHinMI on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 05:08:34 PM PDT

  •  Sorry, but the diarist here

    is a bit disconnected when it comes to the rustbelt, the south, & swing states in general.
    In the midwest, repubs and independents & even some progressives hate, and I mean HATE Hillary Clinton. They see her as disingenuous, insincere, full of herself & full of BS...it doesn't matter if you disagree with that, because i'm telling you, that's HOW IT IS HERE.
    We need honesty, straight talk, an unabashed progressive with a common sense delivery.
    In my state, Russ Feingold won 1 out of every 4 Bush voters this last election.
    My father, a staunch evagelical christian republican, hated John Kerry but thought Howard Dean was "a man of principle" even though he disagreed with him.
    When 3/4th of the country now thinks the iraq invasion was a mistake, we don't need a candidate who remains in the 25% of terminal dumbshits, sorry. Not only is she disconnected from the american people, but from the party base as well.
    This is a lose/lose, and if she's nominated, we will lose again.

    by astronautagogo on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 10:36:12 AM PDT

    •  Exactly right

      Hillary's supporters have no idea how much people down South DESPISE her (I know, I lived in VA and KY).  If they thought the GOP mobilized the base in '04, just wait 'til we nominate Hillary!  People will be crawling from the death beds to vote against her!  The GOP will be able to raise huge amounts of money.  Worse yet, people who are getting killed economically by GOP policies will vote for the GOP candidate just to vote against her.  We have a shot at winning VA, WV and KY in '08.  BUT NOT WITH HILLARY!!!  

      by moggie12 on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 10:50:04 AM PDT

      •  She's Bill's Wife, Major Legacy, Reflection...

        so for many, many folks, she is Return of Bubba. If you want to see Rove's wet dreams of the Base regenerated, nominate HRC. Where's Bubba? Attached to Poppie Bush's thigh. Where's Hillary? Trying on her Valkrie helmut, polishing her spear, calling for more troops, more DoD money ($500B not being enuf), more "security". Which makes her social stances, mute. After her Ohio performance is there any doubt, any, that she is DLC's annointed one?  

        by vetfordean on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 12:32:25 PM PDT

      •  Add Indiana to that - you get Clinton-Bayh 2008

        Indiana is exactly like you are saying. INDIANA > no fans of Hillary and remember in 1996 Indiana had still not gone Red for Dole until about 9:30pm. A record in this Republican state. Indiana is almost always the first state projected by the networks RED on election night.

        How will Hillary fare? with Bayh maybe the same as 1996. And still lose Indiana - maybe  

        That is why I predict and have since first of the year that it will be a Clinton-Bayh ticket. I also have said Evan would be President since early 90's and have not been to wrong on that. He was second to Lieberman in 2000.
        I will go further to bet that a Clinton-Bayh ticket has already been discussed with the former head of the DLC - Bayh.

        Bayh might help her in the Midwest. Even get Indiana and more. Not sure if that enough to turn the election.

        by AustinSF on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 12:43:52 PM PDT

        •  Veep choice

          The veep can get you 2% or so in the guy's (or gal's) home state, tops. (Remember Kerry lost NC by like 10 points, even as Dems were sweeping all the state government offices.) So with Bayh on the ticket, instead of losing Indiana 60-40 it'd be 58-42. And that assumes that HRC would do as well in Indiana as Kerry did, which I sorta doubt.

          I'm still not even convinced that Bayh could carry Indiana if he was at the top of the ticket.  It would depend who he was running against. If it was Giuliani, Bayh could probably win Indiana. Against Allen, McCain, or Brownback, I doubt it.

          by taliesin on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 05:15:18 PM PDT

      •  Amen

        The Republicans will get the Republican vote and the anti-Hillary vote. It won't matter who they run. We WILL lose. I swear this is a true story. I work in a large office of professional people and as we gathered around the TV to watch Bush's speech after Kerry conceded, the women were waiting anxiously to see what dress Laura had on! I swear the people down here want soft, sweet woman to be first lady only and would never consider a woman president yet. These same people hated Tipper Gore because they thought she was too outspoken. We will write-off any chance in the South with Hillary. Don't people realize our last two Democrat presidents were from the south? Northerners can look past their regional bias and vote for a southerner but it doesn't work the other way around. It takes an exceptional northener to win the south. I think Howard Dean might have managed because he reminds me of our very popular (and northerner) governor.

        by tabbycat in tenn on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 05:07:56 PM PDT

        •  I hope that doesn't sound

          anti-yankee!! I'm not, I married one.

          by tabbycat in tenn on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 05:08:43 PM PDT

        •  We don't need the south

          Which is good because we won't win it. In a big dem year, we might win Virginia and be competitive in NC. Florida's always in play, but it's drifting redder over time. Other than that, TN, KY, AR, MS, GA, SC, TX, forget it, it's not going to happen. We are as likely to win those states as the Repubs are to win in the Northeast, ie not.

          Dems need to stop worrying about the south. The regions where we can pick up EVs are the Midwest (IA and OH) and the Mountain West (AZ, NV, NM, MT, and especially CO). Win all of these states plus those Kerry won and you're at 325 or so EVs. An economic populist with a libertarian streak (ie opposed to gun control, at least at the federal level) could win in these regions.

          by taliesin on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 05:29:26 PM PDT

          •  Tennessee is a possible for a Dem

            Clinton carried here and we have a Dem. governor who is very popular. Gore was just an oddity, I think. People resented that he grew up in Washington DC even though his father was a Senator. They said he'd never be a Tennessean again. I guess he showed them. He lives near Nashville. Plus Bush paid the religion card and it played well here.

            by tabbycat in tenn on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 06:49:25 PM PDT

            •  Ooops. Clinton lost here. Sorry.

              by tabbycat in tenn on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 06:53:21 PM PDT

    •  You Seem Disconnected From the Diary

      You know, what's actually written in the diary, and not arguments that he didn't make or engage.

      This diary isn't primarily a brief for a Hilary Clinton presidential candidacy, although he does mention some aspects of judging her as a potential candidate.  No, at it's heart this diary is a refutation of the claims that she's not a liberal.  The issues you raise may be relevant to her potential candidacy, but they're irrlevant to the empirical question of whether it's accurate to say that Hillary Rodham Clinton is not a liberal Senator, and Bink is asserting--I think quite persuasively--that decrying a potential Clinton candidacy because she not a liberal doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

      by DHinMI on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 05:28:32 PM PDT

      •  HEL-LO?!

        The dairy is called, "Why I'm OPEN To Hillary Clinton" meaning, why i'm open to Hillary for the nomination. So, some of us rightfully responded to why we are NOT.
        

        by astronautagogo on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 06:09:31 PM PDT

        •  Oh, OK

          Then you just read the title, and not the diary underneath.  

          Thanks for clarifying.  And thanks for not noticing the distinction between "I'm open to" with my phrase, "isn't primarily a brief for a Hilary Clinton presidential candidacy."  And thanks for completely missing the point that the reason he's "open" to a candidacy, in direct contrast to Sterling Newberry's diary, is because of her record as a Senator, and the fact that instead of not being a liberal, it's exactly because she's a liberal that he's open...something you completely ignored in your comment.

          Hel-lo yourself.

          by DHinMI on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 06:26:18 PM PDT

          •  Yeah

            She's a liberal, a hypocritical, finger to the wind, warhawk liberal. No thanks.
            By the way, I got a great website for you to put your dollars into action:
            http://www.dlc.org/

            Come primary season 2008, I'll be voting for RUSS FUCKING FEINGOLD. Wisconsin progressives don't play. I'll be proudly freezing my ass off in Iowa to make sure our party doesn't get hijacked again by corrupt, wishy washy, "oh it's my turn, i'm entitled!" opportunists.
            

            by astronautagogo on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 01:50:07 AM PDT

            •  You Know, You're a Fucking Moron

              I'm as far from a DLCer as you can imagine...well, probably not, because you apparently can't imagine anyone thinking something different from you unless they're something horrible.

              And Russ Feingold?  The only Democrat who voted to confirm John Ashcroft?  Who voted to confirm John Roberts?  And Hillary isn't a liberal, but Feingold is?

              You're fucking incoherent.  

              by DHinMI on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:20:04 AM PDT

              •  Wow

                You went straight for the Lowest Common Denominator on that one huh?
                Yeah, Feingold believed in giving the former senator the benefit of the doubt, despite his reservations.
                Feingold said he worried that if Democrats moved to block Ashcroft on ideological grounds, then no one with strong views - be they on the right or left
                - could ever be considered for the Cabinet.
                In other words, Feingold voted for Ashcroft in a gesture of good faith, which well positioned him to critize the Ashcroft & the patriot act, which Cheney would have instilled, no matter what anyways.
                Also, it well positions Feingold the justification to appoint strong progressives or be appointed himself for such positions in the future.
                Besides, it doesn't matter what I think of Hillary, cause she will fire up the midwest repub base and most swing voters here who hate her to our landslided demise.
                I will refrain from the crass blatant name calling, and instead resort to directing you once again to your long lost pals:
                www.dlc.org

                by astronautagogo on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 02:36:19 PM PDT

                •  Like I Said

                  If you think I'm a DLCer, you're a fucking moron.  And since you obviously think being a DLCer is an insult, when you claim you're not namecalling you're also showing that you're dishonest.

                  You're probably dumb and without a doubt dishonest.  And therefore, you're not worth any more of my time.

                  by DHinMI on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 03:09:39 PM PDT

                  •  oh no problem, here ya go...

                    http://www.dlc.org
                    

                    by astronautagogo on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 05:34:02 PM PDT

•  too early

  shouldn't we be waiting to see WHO decides that they are going to run and WHAT their platform is before deciding to jump on or off any bandwagons?? I'm open to all candidates right now....bring em on!!  Let's have a discussion and let the chips fall where they may.  But to start bashing any candidate at this point is really counter productive.

  by bluestateonian on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 06:47:47 AM PDT

  •  problem with this

    is that the candidates themselves aren't waiting.

    The time to stop--or influence--Hillary or any other candidate is now, before they lock up endorsements and promises of support, before they can buff and lacquer that "inevitability." Now is also the time to get them to commit to progressive aims--and if they won't, to start rallying support behind somebody else.

    I won't claim to be neutral in this argument: I really dislike Hillary at this point, and I absolutely dread her candidacy in 2008. There are three primary reasons for my view, which overlap somewhat with Stirling's diary but get into other considerations as well.

    1. The country is ill-served by dynastic politics. Hillary Rodham Clinton certainly comes much closer to "meriting" her place of national prominence by intrinsic ability than does George W. Bush, who if born with another name would have faced life options ranging from "town drunk" to "sporting goods store manager." If she hadn't married Bill Clinton, she'd still be doing something of wider consequence with her life. But if it weren't for Clinton, she wouldn't be a presidential contender; she wouldn't attract the non-stop attention and deep speculation that her every move now triggers. That she does, illustrates our national fascination with celebrity and personality, with the consequence that actual issues and policy positions get pushed into deeper background.

    For mass democracy to work, we need voters to engage with the issues; every Clinton or Bush who hogs the national spotlight lessens this prospect.

    2. We don't want to re-fight the bullshit Clinton Wars in 2008. To me, Bill Clinton rates as maybe a B or B- president. He managed the economy pretty well and pushed through some incrementally progressive changes that made the country a somewhat better place. His record is pretty good. Of course, the past as dredged up in a Hillary campaign won't focus on the record economic expansion or the fact that the income gap slightly closed or the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act. It'll focus on Bad Billy's schlong and all the misery that Kenneth Starr put the country through in 1998-99. We'll also see the ghoulish resurrection of Vince Foster, the FBI files, the haircut, and every other banal controversy of that era.

    Why? Because that's how the press works in this country. For every serious consideration of how America worked in the 1990s as opposed to the dismal 2000s, we'll see 10 TV segments or attack articles about the controversies.

    Think about what we're going to be facing as a country three years from now. A foreign policy in ruins, an ever-worsening energy crisis, unprecedented indebtedness, a social safety net shredded to (sort of) pay for tax cuts for billionaires, the leading edge of a demographic transformation that will further bust the budget and deplete our skilled workforce. With all that on the agenda, do you really want to talk about "Travelgate"?

    3. Hillary is not a progressive champion and has the wrong priorities for the country. I'll keep it short here, because Stirling hit most of this. But to me, the key moment came a few years back when Hillary waded into the welfare reauthorization discussion. A "tri-partisan" (Dems, moderate Republicans like Snowe, Jeffords) proposal was working its way through the Senate that would have allowed a modest increase in the "work requirement" for TANF recipients, in exchange for boosts in a whole slew of work supports including access to training and education--the most important support in terms of moving people from dependency to self-sufficiency. Prospects for passage were decent; a number Republican state governments, like Pataki's here in New York, were lobbying on its behalf.

    Then comes Hillary with a different deal: raise the work requirement much more--from 24 hours per week to 36 or so, rather than the 28-30 considered by the Tri-Partisan piece--don't worry about most work supports, but dump in an extra $6 billion for child care. The measure, of course, would have allowed Hillary to present herself as "tough on welfare," while still preserving the fig leaf of the childcare money.

    But it would have been shit policy: upping work requirements without training opportunities, career ladders and other supports essentially just makes recipients jump through hoops and perpetuates their time at the low end of the unskilled labor market. The welfare policymakers within moderate Republican state administrations had a much better grasp of this than the supposed liberal lioness.

    Hillary's bill didn't pass, but it did derail the Tri-Partisan legislation, and years later we still don't have a reauthorized TANF law. (The 1996 law has been extended something like 12 times now, for three months each.)  If/when the act is reworked, it will probably include higher work requirements and little/no new money for work supports--in other words, Hillary's bill without the childcare.

    This whole story isn't as high-profile or sexy as her war position, but I think it's of a piece with it because it shows her willingness to sacrifice principle and good policy for a  better "triangulated" political position.

    I can't support her--I'll probably vote third-party in the Senate election next year--and I'd love to figure out a way to oppose her in 2008 right freakin' now.

    by dajafi on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 09:55:18 AM PDT

    •  Amen, say that one more time

      we may as well commit political suicide. Load the gun now and pull the trigger.

      As I posted upthread. Voting Hillary ain't gonna get us Bill.

      by idredit on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 11:07:44 AM PDT

    •  Great info

      I didn't know about HRC wading into the welfare bill.  If what you say is true, that's just one more nail in the coffin for me.  It reminds me of her rather politically inept attempt to get health care legislation during Bill's presidency:  Though there were major "evil" forces arrayed against her, she played her hand badly, needlessly antagonizing those who could have helped.  (And by the way, if she runs for President, that Rube Goldberg-like health care organization chart she produced is going to be used against her, successfully I fear).

      I really can't figure out why people are so ga-ga for Hillary.  I think it's another case of the "latte-drinking" set not understanding where the average American's head is at.  

      by moggie12 on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 02:48:21 PM PDT

•  Good Counter-Post

  The viewpoints you've expressed here come much closer to my way of thinking than the information in Sterling's post, except to say that, while this kossack prides himself on always being open minded (i.e. "persuadable," and therefore subject to a change of mind on anything always), at this particular point in time, am beyond just being
  "open" to Hillary, but am currently a big fan and strong support. Unless something changes my mind, my plans are to remain a strong supporter of her, to again assist on her Senate campaign, and to work to elect her as the next president of the U.S.

  Hillary...in '06, '08 & '12.

  by wdrath on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 06:51:43 AM PDT

  •  I also like the "open" moniker --

    That's how I'm going to start referring to her candidacy, although I've been a big fan for a while.

    by AnthonySF on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 09:13:23 AM PDT

  •  I hope you reconsider

    Unlike many kossacks, it seems, I don't have anything particularly against Hillary. I think she's been an OK senator, except for her disastrous hawkish stance on Iraq. She's mostly been good on liberal issues, economic, environmental, and social.

    But I will work my ass off if necessary to keep her from getting the nomination in 2008. She would be an unmitigated disaster as a candidate. Assuming we will still have troops in Iraq, which seems extremely likely, she will be in the same no-win position Kerry was in with respect to the war. And she has stayed hawkish on the war, calling for increased troop levels, increasing the defense budget and the size of the army. At least some of the other Dem hawks, like Gephardt, Kerry, Daeschle, and even Feinstein are starting to get off the bus with that lame "If I knew then..." line. So on the biggest issue, the war, she will be unable to distinguish herself from her Republican opponent, whereas an anti-war candidate could seize the initiative.

    Besides this, I think supporters of Hillary fail to appreciate how really, truly, deeply unpopular she is. According to Rasmussen, 45% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of her, and 40% of those polled said they would definitely vote against her, regardless of her opponent. It's just impossible to win with that much baggage, even if she were facing a real wingnut like Santorum or Brownback. The good news is that Bill and Hillary are savvy enough politicians to know this, which is why I would put the odds of her running at only around 40%.

    by taliesin on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 05:49:15 PM PDT

    •  Some of your points are valid

      ...and it is also true that, prior to her run for office in 2000 and improbably victory, the exact same things were said of her here in New York State.

      Watch and learn from Hillary. She's a pro.
      In fact, she started her Senate career with one of the lowest poll ratings of a newly elected Senator in history (in the 30's!), because of the Republicans unfounded accusations that she and Bill were stealing things from the White House upon their departure (later proven to be total fabrications by the ongoing character assassins of the Republicans and right wing of this country).

      After more than a dozen years of constantly attacking her character, Hillary has actually come through looking pretty good.

      Yes, this kossack has, and will always be open to reconsidering new information. However, the "information" in the earlier diary today by Stirling was, basically, a rehash of the rehash of the rehash of the rehash of the rehash as to why they are skeptical about Hillary's chances.
      Not one thing new, except a false adjective or two
      (Hillary is now a "warmonger?")

      The "new" accusations against Hillary are so ridiculous as to be laughable.

      by wdrath on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 07:48:43 PM PDT

•  Hilary's first step to redemption

  will be to come clean and lay things bare on the war:

  1. Exactly why did she vote for the war (no, "faulty intelligence", "administration lies" excuses aren't good enough, unless those are specified in detail along with how she tried to cross-examine the information given to her).

  2. state if she regrets and is remorseful of supporting the IWR, and hence the war.

  3. state what her overall view on such endeavors in the future is.

  4. give an outline of her views on resolving the Iraq quagmire and eventually bringing most of the troops home

  by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 06:59:38 AM PDT

  •  Long Way

    She has a long way to go in terms of convincing skeptics that she has the foreign/military policy chops after her support in handling the Iraq War fiasco.

    I definitely agree with you.

    She has a couple of years to clear this up and convince us that, under her command, we would be able to do better.  If she doesn't do that, she will really have a hard time differentiating herself from any GOP opponent she might have, should she actually be our candidate in 2008.

    by bink on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 07:25:51 AM PDT

    •  Is Hilary representing her

      constituency with her ambiguously pro Iraqi invasion stance, or is she trying to cater to possible swing voters for a possible presidential run who are pro-war/disillusioned with Bush? That is at least the $32,000 question, right? How many times now, and for how long has she been requested to address this issue and has dodged it?

      In my opinion, she either shows the Dem. voters she was hoodwinked like the rest of us, or she points out the target group she is trying to appeal to with her so-far pro-invasion stance.

      As much crap as I may take for saying it, I think it is a waste of money for her to run due to the devisiveness of the Dem vote towards her for the reasons that have been brought up over several previous posts, including this one. As an anti-Bush/anti-Iraqi invasion Dem voter, I will not be compromised just for her attempt to garner more votes.

      Speak up Hillary, we want to know. Remember, you work for us.

      by Skid on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 09:31:25 AM PDT

  •  ANY candidate's road to victory

    MUST include the above. Kerry's biggest liability was his pro war vote which the R's used to give themselves political cover.

    For any Democrat to win

    1.he/she must explain the war vote. (even if he/she didn vote for it themselves they have to have a coherant reason for the democratic shift.)

    2. A coherant plan on what they would do come 2009.

    by PoliMorf on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 07:27:53 AM PDT

    •  In the end her stance may not be too far off

      the main street.

      Do we want to pick up Republican votes
      Do we want to pick up independent votes

      or do we just want to keep Democratic votes??

      A lot of us here at Kos has been all over the place in regard to the war,  -- and whereas we here can change our minds at will - Hillary is not necessarily pro war - she is pro coming up with an exit strategy that will make sense.

      Her views are not out of step with main-street America.

      by sara seattle on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 09:56:11 AM PDT

      •  Hillary supported the Act of War

        "Do we want to pick up independent votes
        or do we just want to keep Democratic votes??"

        Most independents are opposed to the Iraq war.

        

        "Hillary is not necessarily pro war"

        How do you justify that statement in light of her vote to support the war?

        "she is pro coming up with an exit strategy that will make sense."

        Exit strategy is a different matter from invading Iraq in the first place.

        "Her views are not out of step with main-street America."

        They certainly are out of step with a majority of americans at this point, regarding the ACT of war.
        

        by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 10:25:46 AM PDT

        •  So what you want

          is for Hillary to make a Kerry statement:

          I was against the war - before I voted for the war!!

          - - and that would help the Democrats win the 2008 election exactly how??

          Hillary is talking out about what is going wrong in Iraq - she has nothing to gain by coming out with a statement now - it will only be used against her by the Republicans

          -- and sadly by democrats that wants to tear her down.

          by sara seattle on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 10:53:44 AM PDT

          •  no

            I first want to know the truth behind how this unwarranted, ill-advised, and ill-waged war came to happen. And Hillary's role in it.

            period.
            
            
            

            by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 12:30:12 PM PDT

      •  Yup

        Look, removing Saddam went well. Even though nobody accurately knew that he had WMD, everyone knew that he was a genocidal dictator who, if he didn't have WMD it was only because of sanctions ... and those sanctions weren't going to last much longer. Hillary was privy to the intelligence that Bill had received in the White house. She was the only Senator not dependent on the dribs and drabs parcelled out by Bush's team.

        What she couldn't have know was that Rumsfeld and Cheney would totally fuck up the occupation. It was reasonable to expect that Powell's State Department would draw up elaborate contingency plans — which they did. It wasn't predictable that Rumsfeld and Cheney would just throw those plans out; or that they would encourage torture; or that they'd be totally corrupt in giving reconstruction contracts.

        But even given all that, do we tell the Iraqi's, "Sorry, we fucked up. Got to run now!" Or do we, especially now, owe them something? Cut and run is not the morally pure position. Nor was the, "Oh, Saddam is a sovereign, we should just drop sanctions and let him return to his genocidal ways" position. That's the kind of "left" that was happy with Stalin, in the day.

        Despite that I don't like Hillary, she's right about Iraq.

        by wytcld on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 01:58:56 PM PDT

        •  response

          Look, removing Saddam went well. Even though nobody accurately knew that he had WMD, everyone knew that he was a genocidal dictator who, if he didn't have WMD it was only because of sanctions ... and those sanctions weren't going to last much longer. Hillary was privy to the intelligence that Bill had received in the White house. She was the only Senator not dependent on the dribs and drabs parcelled out by Bush's team.

          I am not too sure that Saddam killed more people (beyond the Iran-Iraq war, which we helped materialize) than this war did (if you include combat deaths).

          But even given all that, do we tell the Iraqi's, "Sorry, we fucked up. Got to run now!" Or do we, especially now, owe them something? Cut and run is not the morally pure position. Nor was the, "Oh, Saddam is a sovereign, we should just drop sanctions and let him return to his genocidal ways" position. That's the kind of "left" that was happy with Stalin, in the day.

          I don't prescribe the so-called "cut and run" approach, now that we are already there. I do want us to leave after establishing a sustainable democracy there, and maybe putting an international peace keeping force to see through a few more years.

          But, your likening of folks (whom I currently disagree with) that do want us to withdraw (perhaps Cindy Sheehan is a good example) to Stalin-loving "left" is quite McCarthyish, because, they do have their legitimate points of view, and no honest debate has yet taken place in the public or political sphere to arrive at the "optimal" (or responsible) appoach to take for exiting Iraq.

          ---

          But, returning to your comment, it appears that you are quite happy with the invasion of Iraq in the first place. Can you please explain why that action is justified in the cost/benefit analysis of things, given these costs to the US:

          1. 2000 American lives
             
          2. 200 Alied force deaths
             
          3. $250 Billion dollars so far (and probably twice that when all is said and done) robbed from the tax payers
             
          4. Severly damaged credibility of the US around the world
             
          5. 25000 Iraqi civilian deaths
             
          6. Maybe 100-200K Iraqi combat deaths
             

          
          

          by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 04:07:17 PM PDT

        •  Bullshit

          The sanctions weren't going to last much longer? Says who? To lift them would have taken a security council vote. A certain North American country has a veto on the security council and would never have allowed that. The weapons inspectors were in Iraq until we told them to leave so that we could start bombing. (This is the one area where the pro-IWR senators were right. Casting that vote definitely did play a role in getting the inspectors back in. So if a senator really didn't believe that casting that vote made war inevitable -- though a child could see that it did -- it would be a defensible vote, if that senator had then criticized the president in March 2003 for immediately going to war and not allowing the inspectors to finish their work. None of them did that.)

          This whole idea that the war was a good idea but fucked up by Rumsfeld is also a non-starter. We didn't have enough troops to keep the peace, and we couldn't have had enough troops if we had wanted them. Our army isn't big enough to deploy the 450,000 troops Gen. Shinseki said would be needed. Add to this the fact that, as anyone who knows anything about Iraq would tell you, establishing a stable democracy in Iraq would be a nearly impossible task under the best of circumstances. The most likely outcome of deposing Saddam was civil war, because the Sunnis would never willingly consent to being ruled by Shiites or by a Shiite-Kurd alliance. That's what is happening. Yglesias has devoted a lot of space to debunking this idea that the Iraqi occupation could have gone well, if only it had been managed better, for example here.

          Essentially everything that experts who opposed the war said in 2002 and early 2003 has turned out to be correct, and everything that the hawks like Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Hillary said has turned out to be wrong.

          But that was then, and now we have a broken country that we're occupying. The question of what we do now that the country if FUBAR is more difficult. My personal view is that we should establish a timetable for withdrawal and rapidly remove our troops over the course of next year. (If this is "cut and run," yes, I'm for it.) This will put the pressure on the Iraqi government to get their troops and police trained to keep the peace, and it will remove the US troop presence as an inspiration for the insurgents. It still probably will not go well. Maybe they'll have to establish some kind of martial law or new military dictatorship in the end, I don't know, but a civilian democracy is a long shot even if a full-scale civil war is avoided. However, saying we're going to stay until a stable democracy is flourishing in Iraq commits us to staying, well, probably forever, because such a thing is not likely to happen in my lifetime, and I'm not that old.

          by taliesin on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 06:26:59 PM PDT

  •  and that would be a BABY step

    I see no reason to support her whatsoever.  If the people of NY want her, great, but I sure don't want her as a presidential candidate.

    by Nordic on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 09:15:44 AM PDT

•  It's inevitable

  that there will now be a bunch of pro-hillary diaries cause somebody wrote an anti-hillary diary. Why isn't this in the comments of Stirlings diary? It would provoke discussion amongst those already posting to a diary related to this topic and add value to that discussion.

  Making a new diary is like saying I don't want to talk to you guys and moving to a different part of the room to start your own discussion.

  In any case, I don't agree with any of your statements above. Voting against bolton and roberts doesn't make hillary a liberal. Voting for abortion rights makes her pro-choice. It doesn't make her liberal.

  Stirling didn't go down the list of things that hillary has voted for that are very non-liberal. Like the bill that would have outlawed corporations incorporating in bermuda. She voted against it. She has voted with the republians on some of the nastiest pieces of legislation.

  She supports free trade. Free trade is wrong. At least in the sense that the US uses it. It's not free trade. It's trade that benefits the US corporations (underline corporations) and screws the partner countries.

  She supports the IMF and WTO. These organizations need to be disbanded or seriously reworked. Their function is not to support development and rising standards of living in developing countries. Their function is to support the US fascist corporate machine.

  Anyone who supports these organizations and free trade is not a liberal or progressive. They simply aren't. Those organizations embody everything that progressives hate.

  Hillary clinton is a centrist with republican fascist leanings. Anyone who thinks different is simply letting their support for her cloud their judgement.

  Stirling is completely correct. Giving her the presidency will mean 4 or 8 more years of Bush lite. She will continue the corporate march toward personhood. She will do nothing to reign in lobbying or corporate power. She will do nothing to help the unions. She will do nothing to correct the problems with NAFTA.

  by Cyphrus42 on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 07:00:05 AM PDT

  •  Why

    Why isn't this in the comments of Stirlings diary?

    Because it's waaaaaaaay too long. :)

    by bink on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 07:23:15 AM PDT

    •  When

      did long comments become bad?

      by Cyphrus42 on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 03:18:19 PM PDT

  •  She's not for free trade

    As is illustrated by her vote's against CAFTA. I don't feel like looking up the rest of your claims but, if they're as accurate as this one, I guess I don't need to.

    http://www.vote-smart.org/...

    by Jrviper1234 on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 07:56:11 AM PDT

    •  What has

      she done to get rid of nafta? What about her vote against keeping corporations from incorporating in bermuda?

      by Cyphrus42 on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 03:13:32 PM PDT

    •  BFD

      voted yes for free trade

      That site sucks anyway. It only shows a small part of what she's voted for or against.

      by Cyphrus42 on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 03:17:46 PM PDT

  •  Opposing diaries are fine

    that there will now be a bunch of pro-hillary diaries cause somebody wrote an anti-hillary diary. Why isn't this in the comments of Stirlings diary? It would provoke discussion amongst those already posting to a diary related to this topic and add value to that discussion.

    Making a new diary is like saying I don't want to talk to you guys and moving to a different part of the room to start your own discussion.

    Well, at the very least, someone who only takes a cursory glace at the front page might assume the prevailing opinion on dkos is that people here are against Senator Clinton.  With two opposing diaries on recommended list, it shows that there are two different trains of thought on her candidacy.

    Moreover, people who are in favor of her candidacy should be able to voice their opinion in a diary they believe more correctly reflects their personal opinion.

    by patagonia on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 08:44:13 AM PDT

  •  Everyone in Stirlings post

    seems to be utterly distracted by  the topic of "cankles".

    by All My Neighbors are NeoCons on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 08:45:38 AM PDT

  •  Good night and good luck

    First you said:

    Hillary clinton is a centrist with republican fascist leanings.

    Followed by:

    Anyone who thinks different is simply letting their support for her cloud their judgement.

    And I'm sure you have a satchel full of evidence to support your position, too...

    by BCF on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 08:47:42 AM PDT

  •  I'm posting here

    because the other one is too big and my computer can't handle it.  

    I missed the other one because I'm on the West coast.

    by Nordic on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 09:16:53 AM PDT

•  Hillary has made election reform a major issue

  I'm kinda reposting this from the other Hillary thread...

  Hillary is the only one of the potential candidates that has already made election reform a major issue thus far, and the only one making promises to at least ensure we get paper trails with the voting machines.

  We cannot get anything fixed in this society until we get the election system fixed. If Hillary continues to be the only major presidential candidate promising to get the voting machines fixed, she will continue to be the only candidate I can support.

  I've been waiting to Clark, Feingold, etc. to make statements on this issue. I'm still waiting.

  I think there is going to be a whole lot of people very surprised to find out how important this issue is going to be in the next Presidential election cycle.

  by Bad Santa on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 07:16:25 AM PDT

  •  But did she follow through?

    See my comment

    thanks.
    

    by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 10:46:06 AM PDT

    •  Paper trails bill petition was on HRC website

      I know... I signed it.

      Hillary was also one of the few Senators who stood up defended Barbara Boxer when Boxer contested the Ohio electoral votes.

      It may not be the best paper trails bill, but it's a decent paper trails bill she's been supporting.... and that better than the dead silence I've heard from the other potential candidates on the issue.

      by Bad Santa on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 11:23:23 AM PDT

      •  Response

        "Hillary was also one of the few Senators who stood up defended Barbara Boxer when Boxer contested the Ohio electoral votes."

        Then WHY didn't Hillary too contest Ohio?
        
        

        by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 11:46:48 AM PDT

        •  Don't even go there.

          You know it was pre-arranged by the party leadership that only one name in each House would be on the paperwork, and only Boxer would stand in the Senate.  Kennedy didn't stand. Harkin didn't stand. Durbin didn't stand.... and not only didn't Feingold stand that day, he didn't defend Boxer either.

          By this convenient standard, even Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, and Maxine Waters wouldn't be worthy of progressive support because their names were not at the top of the House of Representatives paperwork.

          by Bad Santa on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 12:05:20 PM PDT

          •  So be it.

            Boxer for President.

            by HollywoodOz on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 03:09:58 PM PDT

            •  Boxer also refuses to run for President

              Boxer has made it clear she will not run on multiple occasions. This is not a flimsy "I'm not running" at the same time they schedule a bunch of appearances in Iowa and NH. Boxer isn't doing the Iowa/NH chicken dinner tour. She really isn't running.

              by Bad Santa on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 06:20:50 PM PDT

              •  I know.

                But if you want the best person for the job, forget the 'draft Hillary' and 'draft Gore' tickets. Have a Boxer Rebellion instead, and let's move some crap out of DC.

                by HollywoodOz on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 06:30:29 PM PDT

                •  Boxer is not fucking running.

                  What part of "Boxer refuses to run" do you not understand?

                  My time is valuable. I do not waste that time on utterly futile demonstrations keening for candidacies that are never going to fucking happen.

                  by Bad Santa on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 06:52:46 PM PDT

                  •  Why don't you tell me one single candidate...

                    ..who said, two years before primary time, "I'll be running for President."

                    Gimme one name. Just one.

                    Didn't think so.

                    by HollywoodOz on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 11:54:51 PM PDT

                    •  Anyone running on Iowa/NH chicken dinner circuit.

                      They don't announce their plans vocally. They announce their plans via their schedule.

                      Here's John Edwards upcoming schedule from the oneamericacommittee.com website...

                       UPCOMING EVENTS:

                      Nov. 6th - Keynote Address by Sen. Edwards at the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless 25th Anniversary Meeting.

                      Nov. 7th - Sen. Edwards will be on CNN's NewsNight with Anderson Cooper on Monday night. (Previously NewsNight with Aaron Brown) The program starts at 10pm EST. Please tune in!

                      Nov. 15th - 18th - Sen. Edwards will visit India.

                      Nov 21st - Raising the States fundraiser for the NC House Democratic Caucus, Raleigh NC.

                      Dec. 9th - Keynote Address by Elizabeth Edwards, WIMG Luncheon, National League of Cities 2005 Congress of Cities & Exposition, Charlotte, NC.
                      Sen. Edwards will attend Democratic Municipal Officials Reception National League of Cities 2005 Congress of Cities & Exposition, Charlotte, NC.

                      Dec. 10th - Sen. Edwards, Featured Speaker, 2005 Florida Democratic Party Convention.

                      Here's Wes Clark's schedule...

                          * *MEDIA ALERT* Fox News Live Monday 9:05 AM EST (1 day)
                          * November 11th: General Clark will be in Florida with Senator Bill Nelson (5 days)
                          * November 15th: 2005 WesPAC Annual Meeting in Washington, DC (9 days)
                          * November 18th: Tenth Anniversary of the Dayton Peace Agreement Gala Dinner (12 days)

                      Here's a link from Joe Biden's PAC website...

                      Biden Says He Wants To Hear More From Alito
                      Potential Presidential Candidate Visits New Hampshire

                      POSTED: 10:47 am EST November 2, 2005

                      MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Sen. Joseph Biden said he's not sure if he'd vote to confirm Samuel Alito, President George W. Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee, but he predicted that Alito's Senate committee hearing would be different from John Roberts'.

                      "It would be totally disingenuous now for my Republican friends on the committee to say, like they did with Roberts, 'Don't answer the questions, it will compromise you,'" the Democratic senator said Tuesday night following a fundraiser to re-elect Manchester Mayor Robert Baines.

                      When asked if he'd vote to confirm Alito, Biden, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, "I don't know. ... I will vote against Alito if he doesn't answer the questions."

                      http://www.thewmurchannel.com/...

                      Yeah... that WMUR. The one in New Hampshire.

                      How about Russ Feingold? This was at his Progressive Patriot's PAC website...

                      "Senator Feingold's Trip to New Hampshire

                      Senator Feingold visited New Hampshire on September 30 and October 1, continuing his 50-state approach to promoting a progressive reform agenda and helping to elect more Democrats across the country. Feingold held a press event with Mayor Bob Baines of Manchester, a political roundtable with leading New Hampshire Democrats, a speech at the Rockingham County Democrats' Eleanor Roosevelt Dinner, and a listening session at Dartmouth College...."

                      Now... Here's Sen Boxer's PAC website...

                      http://www.pacforachange.com/

                      Here's Sen Boxer's Senate website...

                      http://boxer.senate.gov/

                      What's the difference? Do you see anything trumpeting Boxer appearances in the near future anywhere on either Boxer site like all the above probable candidates have all over their sites? NO! Boxer isn't doing any of that potential candidate test the waters stuff. It ain't there.

                      Boxer is not fucking running for President.
                      

                      by Bad Santa on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 05:37:06 AM PDT

  •  It just doesn't matter.

    Here's the thing: Hillary can't win.

    Sorry, but she has way too many enemies, and way too many voters who will/can never bring themselves to vote for