Hillary Clinton: "Worst administration ever"

Yesterday at a MLK jr event in Harlem Clinton verbally smacked around BushCo, even comparing them to a 'plantation where dissenting voices are squelched'.

While I'm not sure how I feel about pandering analogies aimed toward a specific group, I am pleased to hear this kind of rhetoric in general. IF Clinton runs for president (if, if), she ought to keep this kind of talk up. While she is not my first choice Dem for the job, displaying this fierce attitude will ease my task of pulling the lever for her should she be the nom.

Lemme know if this has been diaried already.

http://msnbc.msn.com/...

NEW YORK - Sen. Hillary Clinton on Monday blasted the Bush administration as "one of the worst" in U.S. history and compared the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to a plantation where dissenting voices are squelched.

Speaking during a Martin Luther King Jr. Day event, Clinton also offered an apology to a group of Hurricane Katrina survivors "on behalf of a government that left you behind, that turned its back on you."

...to thunderous applause. In advance of the Clinton bashing to come, let me say that in my opinion this is exactly the right thing to do on this holiday to her own constituents who need badly to hear this from their representative in Congress.

"We have a culture of corruption, we have cronyism, we have incompetence," she said. "I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country."

That's my favorite line....the worst that has ever governed our country. I have seen a clip of this on CNN this morning, along with several clips of Gore's speech. Its almost like the 90s again.

•  Why do we have to feel so relieved

  when a Democratic office holder says, "The Emperor has no clothes."  This idiot is as naked as a jaybird.  No one should be worthy of plaudits for stating a self-evident conclusion.  But since it is so rare to hear such testimony, let me join you saying, "Hooray for Hillary."

  by DCDemocrat on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:03:05 AM PDT

  •  Yup.

    She was pretty passionate sounding on the clip I saw.

    by ablington on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:06:14 AM PDT

  •  Lead today Hillary, forget 2008

    DC Dem nails it.

    We've become used to being a scared, subservient Party.

    We've (unconsciously, perhaps) absorbed the message that "criticizing the President aids the terrorists".

    So we celebrate when a Dem has the courage, once in a blue moon, to state the obvious.

    Calling BushCo ""one of the worst" in US History is a good start, Hillary, but we need a lot more:

    • We need to hear you say that the Iraq War was a mistake;
    • that the decision to go to war was built on lies;
    • and that knowing what you know now, your vote to authorize the war was mistake.
    • we need to hear you say that your vote to do to war in Afghanistan, and to authorize track down and kill Osama bin Ladin was not in any way an authorization for the President to break the law by spying on Americans at home.
    • We need to hear you say that this administration isn't just arrogant and incompetent, but that it is criminal.
    • and we need to hear you say that George W. Bush should be impeached for his crimes.

    Hillary, you've got a safe seat as New York's senator. The Republicans can't even find a candidate to run against you. You -- unlike Harry Reid or Byron Dorgan or Mary Landrieu -- can speak out with little risk. You can be a leader, Hillary, and not just in the fight against the hordes of flag-burners who clog our streets and pollute our air.

    The only thing that might tempt you to hew a more careful, moderate, cowardly path would be that you have your eye on running for President in 2008. And running to the Right to do so.

    Hillary, we Democrats need to hear your voice now. We need your leadership now. The crisis is upon us, and we can't wait for a cautious Hillary in 2008.

    Show you're a real leader: show you're willing to sacrifice your run for more power in 2008 for the good of the country today. Lead the Democratic Party, Hillary, rather than pandering to potential Red State voters in the 2008 presidential campaign.

    We have plenty of blandly cautious, moderate, fatuous Dems looking to run for President in 2008. That's not what we need. We need a leader today.

    by orthogonal on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:21:51 AM PDT

•  HRC

  has been saying things equally as critical and harsh for at least six months or more.

  This is nothing new, she's just done at a few larger events recently.

  by Marisa McNee on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:06:08 AM PDT

  •  Whats new is that I saw it on CNN

    by ablington on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:06:46 AM PDT

    •  Right

      that's what I mean. But that has to do with the media, not HRC so much.

      First they say she's trying to re-make herself as a centrist, now they're going to say she's pandering to the base.

      by Marisa McNee on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:08:18 AM PDT

•  Good for her

  I heard someone whining that it was all about her legacy.  I don't get that at all.  I think she gave a good speech, she should keep it up.

  by TeresaInPa on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:06:40 AM PDT

  •  That would be

    the RWNM (Right Wing Noise Machine)

    by WV Democrat on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 08:58:44 AM PDT

•  I think she's great

  even if she was grand standing.

  i like her and husband!

  Hillary 2008  :-)

  by vtrob77 on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:12:23 AM PDT

  •  But is she the Strongest and Best chance

    we have in November of 2008?

    She may be great and you may have very valid reasons for thinking so.

    But before you cut a check or slap a sticker on you bumper or canvass that neighborhood or pull a lever -- think long and hard -- some more, becuase you clearly are thoughtful (who among us isn't?) -- Can she win a general election against McCain or Giuliani or even George Allen?

    We cannot afford to lose. Hillary is likely the weakest possible candidate we could nominate.

    A northeastern "liberal" Senator -- (again!?)

    How many times will the Dems blow it? Don't this time.

    by joemcginnissjr on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:22:18 AM PDT

    •  Well, she is technically a midwesterner.

      Like the stupid Mitt Romney, she can claim many hometowns.

      by ablington on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:27:09 AM PDT

    •  I'm in the nominate a gov not a sen camp myself

      I strongly believe that Governors make for better presidential candidates than Senators. Sure there are exceptions to every rule but I think 2004 cemented in my mind that governors make better candidates. I love Hillary -- I really love Hillary, but come the 2008 primaries, I'll be pushing the button for Mark Warner instead.

      by akeitz on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:28:53 AM PDT

      •  I'm with you on nominating a governor

        Unless we have another terrorist attack and 2008 is another "national security election," the big issue next time around is integrity in Washington. Same issue that propelled Jimmy Carter from nowhere to the White House.

        by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:33:24 AM PDT

        •  Maybe not a Governor per se

          but someone very popular within his own state.  Someone like Carter who's got the ambition and can-do attitude.  Someone like Edwards.
          I think he has a great chance at the nomination and would be highly electable.
          And yes, electability counts when asking your party to get behind you.  I wasn't wild about Kerry, not so much about his centrism but his elitism and the way he carried himself.  I still believe he was the most electable candidate in 2004 but screwed up his own campaign, a lot of bad advice to boot.
          I would rally behind Clinton if I truly thought she was electable.  She is not.  She cuts too a disconcerting figure and would be a field day with the Repugs as a straw woman who will be lambasted as a fringe liberal no matter how conservative she postures.  She has the ability, as proved by her crusade against the flag-burners, to totally confuse the issues at hand and lose the public for what she stands for.

          by edsdet on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 09:35:39 AM PDT

    •  Electability is no basis for choosing

      I don't believe in voting based on electability. I think it's wrong. That's why I'm supporting Kerry in 2008 -- he's the one I actually believe in, regardless of what people think about his electability.

      by Noisy Democrat on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:34:04 AM PDT

      •  McGovern - Mondale -Dukakis - Kerry - Hillary

        Which of these things will be like the others come November, 2008?

        Here's a hint: sounds like "Billary"

        And what are they like: miserable failures as Democratic Presidential nominees.

        So stick with Kerry and keep your chin up and your gaze straight ahead and march on -- and do yourself a favor - don't look down -- that last step is a doozy.

        by joemcginnissjr on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 08:28:05 AM PDT

    •  she is divisive; people either

      love her or hate;  

      i honestly believe she would be a stellar first female president and who would be a better first man, than Bill!?

      but it doesn't matter to me...  If she runs in the primaries she gets my vote, unless feingold runs and then its a tough call...

      but whoever the Democrat candidate is, they will get my vote.

      I like McCain, but since I'm a partisan democrat for the forseeable future; he wouldn't ever get my vote.

      by vtrob77 on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 11:40:14 AM PDT

•  Is the old Hillary back?

  Maybe the Hillary people are paying attention to what goes on here on this blog. I am thrilled she has spoken out. The media covers everything and anything Hillary, we need her voice. Now if we could just get her to speak out against the evesdropping and the war, she just might be a contender.

  by Vera Lofaro on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:12:48 AM PDT

•  MSNBC poll

  Was Hillary's comment too harsh?
  
  

  by annefrank on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:17:35 AM PDT

  •  It wasnt harsh enough.

    BushCo deserves public F Bombs.

    by ablington on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 08:03:24 AM PDT

  •  Oh please....

    ...Hillary's remarks are "too harsh" while swiftboating a war hero like Murtha is just okie dokie. I just hope the Dems don't cut tail and run when their bullies accuse them of being mean.

    by MariaSquared on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 08:03:47 AM PDT

    •  Exactly!!

      and harsh words get media attention.
      

      by annefrank on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 12:46:51 PM PDT

•  Agree with her

  but not voting for her.

  Let's see why: Bill Clinton's Nafta Vote and all the other Republican legislation he got passed while he was president and she was riding his cottails.  They can talk real good all they want; what they did while in office has more influence with me, and what they did helped the neocons and moved us toward the right wing.  Bill was the best friend a Replublican ever had.

  by Silverbird on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:32:58 AM PDT

  •  I like NAFTA

    Free Trade is the only way to get rid of economic inefficiencies in markets and allow capital to flow where its needed...

    it's naive to think that articifically propping up industries is viable for the long-term...

    by vtrob77 on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 11:42:18 AM PDT

•  I'm glad she said this

  but this in no way makes up for the years she spent cheerleading the war and otherwise kissing up to Bush.

  by TLS66 on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:39:28 AM PDT

•  Bravo to ALL who are speaking up and out

  So many of us have been angry and ranting and raving for months and months and it seemed like ,except for the choir, no one was listening.

  The BIG wheels have finally reached an agreement- that Bush and his cronies SUCK and are bad for America and the World- and now the real wheels of true democracy are starting to roll!!

  We must remember that our culture has become one of the expectation of getting and receiving "instant gratification". As they say 'be patient.'

  I will admit that I am not a  patient person, but I also say 'Better Late than Never!'

  "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

  by roseeriter on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:42:39 AM PDT

•  Eh... bad analogy

  I'm not a Hillary-hater (although I'm not what you'd call a supporter, either), but this is probably going to blow up the way pandering associations with disenfranchised groups usually do for Dems.  Besides, it's inaccurate-- she should have claimed similarities with the Jim Crow era if she simply had to draw these parallels.  No one's really whipping the Dems; they're making them completely irrelevant by constant rule-changing and then [figuratively] lynching them whenever they step out of place.

  But it would have been better not to make DC Dems into African-Americans at all, IMNSHO... it always backfires.
  

  by latts on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:53:43 AM PDT

•  I Don't Love Hillary, But...

  Her comments were pretty strong and are getting a lot of play in the press (of course with the obligatory, "did she go to far with the plantation remark" right-wing frames).  

  I think it speaks volumes about DailyKos and its attitudes towards Hillary that this got so little coverage.  Now, some of this skepticism is well-justified, but a speech like this deserves praise.

  by dansac on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 08:00:30 AM PDT