Skip to main content

The closer we get to the primaries, the more Hillary will realize that she can't escape her Iraq dilemma.

One of the most important decisions that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton made about her bid for the presidency came late last year when she ended a debate in her camp over whether she should repudiate her 2002 vote authorizing military action in Iraq.

Several advisers, friends and donors said in interviews that they had urged her to call her vote a mistake in order to appease antiwar Democrats, who play a critical role in the nominating process. Yet Mrs. Clinton herself, backed by another faction, never wanted to apologize — even if she viewed the war as a mistake — arguing that an apology would be a gimmick.

I don't want her to apologize. I want her to say, "I made a mistake." Edwards did it. Just about every other Democrat who idiotically trusted this president and supported the war has done it. Had Hillary done this last year, the issue would be moot.

And does she really want to argue that her vote wasn't wrong?

Apparently so.

[Y]esterday morning Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in.

“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Thank you, Hillary. I think I will.

With California moving up its primary, my vote will actually matter next year. And now I can officially narrow down my choices to Edwards, Obama, and Richardson. [Update: Clark as well, if he ever decides to run. Some of the others could be possibilities. Hillary joins only Kucinich and Biden on my "no way" list.]

Her campaign knows Hillary's stubborness means trouble, though they're trying to spin it best they can:

Her decision not to apologize is regarded so seriously within her campaign that some advisers believe it will be remembered as a turning point in the race: either ultimately galvanizing voters against her (if she loses the nomination), or highlighting her resolve and her willingness to buck Democratic conventional wisdom (if she wins).

Ha ha ha ha. No one truly believes she'll actually gain votes in a Democratic primary by saying she made the right call by voting for Bush's war. Like I said -- spin.

At the same time, the level of Democratic anger has surprised some of her allies and advisers, and her campaign is worried about how long it will last and how much damage it might cause her.

Not only is the Clinton campaign pig-headed, they are also remarkably out-of-touch. They are "surprised" at the anger this war is generating? Has she been living in a cave the last four years (yes, the Senate apparently is a cave). The last thing we need in the White House is another out-of-touch, tone-deaf Bush-style presidency, unable or unwilling to admit mistakes and change course as a result.

Hillary will now see her campaign events hijacked by anti-war protesters, with people demanding she defend her vote at every corner. Iraq will dominate coverage of her campaign, and she's on the wrong side of the issue. And by going this far without admitting her mistake, she has painted herself into a corner. Any attempt now to back off and apologize would be met with the proper scorn.

For Hillary, No amount of nuance will make this issue go away.

Today she lost my potential vote. I doubt I'm the only person in this position. Thankfully, as Hillary so helpfully pointed out, the rest of the field 1) didn't make the mistake to begin with, or 2) aren't afraid to admit their mistakes

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:00 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  if she admits that her vote was a mistake now... (9+ / 0-)

    don't you think she'll be accused of playing politics with the war?  Can't you just hear the pundits saying, "She's been forced to move to the left, to reposition herself on the war" blah, blah, blah....

    She's stuck.  If she doesn't admit she made a mistake, she loses.  If she admits she made a mistake, she will get accused of positioning again...

    I think we'd just be better off with someone else.

    •  Poor. Fuckin'. Clinton. (8+ / 0-)

      She got treated like dirt 13 years ago.  I can't imagine what anyone else in the global pool of 6 billion would have to do at being insulted and denigrated... oh wait... most of us already are, with less compensation and less job security.

      Clinton and Kerry have more statesmanship in the left end of their tongues as Stevens, Lott, ad naseum do in their entire bodies.  But this is politics. Nobody gets a free pass, nobody is given immunity.

      (-7.88, -6.10) "Susan Collins is worse than garlic breath and stinky old socks together" me, out of context

      by Nulwee on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:07:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  She's going to get it from the pundits... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rumarhazzit

      ...anyway she slices it.  She's not going to avoid their scorn because of this.  If it's not this then it will be how much her haircut costs or whether she irons her own suits or some other stupidity.

      She's not trying to convince the PUNDITS to vote for her, they're already against her and they won't change.  She needs to convince US to vote for her.

      You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. - John Lennon "Imagine"

      by a dumb dreamer on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:24:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  well, she can never win HERE (6+ / 0-)

      but then she never could

      If she bowed down and kissed the asses of everyone here and recited the right words about her thought-crimes, you all would STILL hate her.

      you all really think the rest of the US cares about these fine distinctions of political left correctness?

      if anything, you HAVE enabled her to paint you as the "extreme left" and run as a moderate.

      Remember:  Americans vote for people they THINK are moderate (we won't talk about the reality)

      •  Remember how popular Chuck Schumer and (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ptmflbcs, mamamedusa

        Nancy Pelosi were before the 06 general election?  Remember how popular they are now?  Kossacks have shown an amazing ability to embrace those they once disapproved of.

        Remember this?
        11/15 DailyKos straw poll results (7/20 results)

        Nancy Pelosi (8,261 results)

        Approve 85 (36)
        Disapprove 14 (52)

        Chuck Schumer (6,359 results)

        Approve 74 (27)
        Disapprove 25 (62)

        I can accept John Edwards not just because he has admitted that his vote was wrong but also because I like the fact that he does what most Democratic candidates don't do anymore, he talks about poverty.  Even if Hillary were to say she made a mistake, she doesn't have anything else to offer.  Even if she had something else to offer, like strong support for a single-payer health care system I couldn't overlook her inability to see that the vote was a mistake.

        They had fangs; they were biting people. They had this look in their eyes. Totally cold... animal. I think they were Young Republicans.

        by msstaley on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:17:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  She has more to offer than (4+ / 0-)

          most of the candidates running. You are just choosing to ignore what she has done for the last 30 years because you are so obsessed with that one vote. Remember, she was the first person to put the idea of universal health coverage into the mainstream.

          •  I've never liked Hillary Clinton before or (0+ / 0-)

            after that vote.  I remember her work on health care, it was a disaster and it certainly didn't put the idea of universal health coverage into the mainstream.  In addition, I believe that LBJ was the first person to put the idea of universal health coverage into the mainstream in the US with Medicare and Medicaid.  If you are referring to the more modern idea of universal health coverage being reintroduced as a mainstream topic, that honor belongs to Harris Wofford who used health care as the main platform of his campaign in order to win a Senate seat in PA.  Hillary has little to offer and has offered little.

            They had fangs; they were biting people. They had this look in their eyes. Totally cold... animal. I think they were Young Republicans.

            by msstaley on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 11:06:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  healthcare (0+ / 0-)

              her husband was the problem with her work on universal  health care, if it didn't have to be such a big damn secret it might have had a chance.(Of course Newt was a dick and probably would've fought it to his dying breath.

              Don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

              by jasfm on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 02:52:38 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, I forgot to mention that most people (0+ / 0-)

            don't obsess over her vote.  It tends to be her vote and then the continued hawkishness that she has displayed in the many years since that vote.  See my other comment on the issue.

            They had fangs; they were biting people. They had this look in their eyes. Totally cold... animal. I think they were Young Republicans.

            by msstaley on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 11:10:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's exactly right. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              shaharazade

              I think it's a big plus if someone was against this war from day one, who spoke out against it, and was consistent in opposing it.

              But I'm realistic. That was a relatively small minority of people at the time, even if most of us Kossacks were in that minority. I can accept someone who voted otherwise... what I cannot accept is someone who now won't admit that this vote was wrong.

              It could be almost as simple as "I was wrong because I trusted this administration and I shouldn't have."

              But it's not enough to say "Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have voted for it." That is not a strong position, it is a weak position.

              "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." --Stephen Colbert

              by InsultComicDog on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 04:38:08 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  And what has she done about universal health (0+ / 0-)

            coverage lately?

            It's not enough anymore that she advocated good things in the 1990's.

            "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." --Stephen Colbert

            by InsultComicDog on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 04:32:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Extreme left? bring it on (0+ / 0-)

        Whats wrong with being on the extreme left anyway? Hillary has one way out  - withdraw her decision to run.

        "How high flies the solitary bird."

        by terryhutchinson on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:27:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Let me get this straight (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ptmflbcs, Kentucky DeanDemocrat

        With full hindsight, calling the Oct. 2002 vote for the Iraq war "a mistake" makes you extreme left? Alito, is that you?

        "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

        by jfern on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:36:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  She played politics with the war (8+ / 0-)

      from the beginning.  She and a lot of other Dems voted for the war because they were afraid if it was successful, a no vote would have been used against them by the Republicans.  Simple as that.

      To say my country right or wrong is something no patriot would utter; it is like saying my mother drunk or sober. -- G.K. Chesterton

      by commonweal on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:29:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Then she should just do what is right (0+ / 0-)

      If she REALLY believes that she didn't make a mistake, she should say so in plain English and the American people (Democrats first) will judge.

      If she believes that she made a mistake, then fess up, apologize and she will have a year to try to move past it.

      Kos is right. Whether one wants to vote for her or not, the current gyrations are absurd and have to stop.

      -2.38 -4.87: Maturity - Doing what you know is right even though you were told to do it.

      by grapes on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:31:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Cry me a river (0+ / 0-)

      She's painted herself in a corner and she has no options.  She's been check mated on the Iraq issue and its here own damn fault.

      If she truly believes that the her 2002 vote was not a mistake then she's lost my vote because at that point she is either like Bush and unable to see any flaw in themselves or stupid.

      If she appologizes then that will confirm my belief that she is a pandering political whore.

      She has lost my vote and there is nothing she can do about it.  She has done to much in the past.  If she can change then good but she does not exist in a vacume.  It is not only how much I dislike her but also how much I like the other candidates.  

      "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

      by Quanta on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 11:59:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh I hate that bitch (14+ / 4-)

    "If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from"

    If you insist.

    Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

    by The Raven on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:03:41 PM PST

  •  I Think This Has to Do With Interest Group Suppor (6+ / 0-)

    and funding support, not primary voters.

    Anyays Clinton 101 is forget the base, they're not going to vote R.

    The netroots need to understand that we can't win every battle, especially battles where the empire is competing against us.

    We should work for other candidates and suck it up if she wins the nomination, which given the forces involved is quite plausible.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:03:58 PM PST

  •  HAAAA!?? (0+ / 0-)

    POTENTIAL???!!

    Lordy Be.

  •  She WIll Not Be Able to Move On... (12+ / 0-)

    while the albatross of her vote hangs around her neck.  Better to flip now, than flop later.

  •  hell will freeze over (23+ / 0-)

    before I will give her my vote in the primary. That said, if she wins the nomination, I will be fierce in defending her, and fighting tooth and nail to propel her into the White House.....

    LOOK OUT! Here comes the pendulum!!

    by Rumarhazzit on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:04:31 PM PST

  •  I think she will change her message in the next (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mapantsula, Pithy Cherub, pioneer111

    3 months, how much damage is done before then is up to her....

    How do you know a Republican is lying? Ask one: If the Republicans can lower gas prices for 60 days before an election, why won't they do it all the time?

    by ca democrat on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:04:54 PM PST

  •  Why should I vote for somebody dumber than me? (43+ / 0-)

    I was smart enough to know Bush was lying about the war. And I didn't get intelligence briefings.

    Having voted against the war is the minimum qualification a candidate for president must have.

    There is no excuse for a Senator to be less well informed than me.

    "Politics is the entertainment arm of Industry." - Zappa

    by CheeseMoose on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:05:11 PM PST

  •  And I just got done saying in the McCain thread.. (16+ / 0-)

    how amusing it is that the media darlings are determined to lose an election that's 21 months away.

    Although I do have to say, this is a very good deal she's offering:

    She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in.

    Done!  Let's shake on it.  Better yet, let's cut out the middle part where a lot of money gets wasted: just withdraw.

    -9.25; -8.56 "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." - Voltaire

    by JAS1001 on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:05:18 PM PST

  •  Stubborn and arrogant. (23+ / 0-)

    Apparently she wants to be identified by these two traits.

    Hmmm. I wonder who else could be described that way?

    •  My exact reaction as well (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hummingbird, LightningMan

      nm

      "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis

      by VA6thDem on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:19:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  He's a two term president (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LightningMan

      so far. I guess she figures whatever he did worked, at least so far as actually gaining and maintaining the office.

      "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

      by Alice in Florida on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:26:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  She's doing the opposite of.. (4+ / 0-)

        what worked for Bush.

        I guess she figures whatever he did worked, at least so far as actually gaining and maintaining the office.

        Bush played to his extreme base, the far right - counting on the fact that even moderate republicans who were uncomfortable with the fundie nutjobs would still vote for him over a Dem.

        Hillary is sneering at the "extreme base" of the Democratic party and playing to the right. Who is she courting?  Because no Republican or swing voter I know would vote for her in a million years.

        If she was smart, she'd play to the Lefty base, while quietly having no intention of really doing anything they wanted.  THAT is what Bush did with his base.  

        Democrats - We refuse to caucus in the missionary position.

        by SaneSoutherner on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:48:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Being stubborn seems to have worked (0+ / 0-)

          for Bush, up until recently. This has nothing to do with political alliances, it's a matter of looking tough so as to gain respect and give the impression of being strong on national security, which helped Bush win in 2004.

          "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

          by Alice in Florida on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 10:28:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  A "mistake" (10+ / 0-)

    I'm sorry, but when somebody tells me they made a "mistake" I think that maybe they ran over someone’s toes with their shopping cart at the store, or maybe they spilled some coffee, or dented someone’s car or something like that.  Starting a war and killing tens-of-thousands or perhaps HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people is not a "mistake". It was an OUTRAGE or an appalling, horrific act.   Calling it a "mistake" is like saying Hitler "mistakenly" killed some Jews or "mistakenly" invaded Russia or something like that.

    •  She won't even admit it WAS a mistake (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kentucky DeanDemocrat, Anna M

      That's the problem.  I can forgive Edwards (and I know you might not be able to, but I CAN, because he's trying to come up with a different answer now and get our troops out and start reconstruction on Iraq) but I CANNOT forgive Hillary.  

      The love affair is over. (As if there ever was one, remember she started out as a Republican, as far as I'm concerned she is just a politician and goes where she thinks the money is... I actually think her husband has a hell of a lot more integrity than she does).

      No on Hillary!

      •  I have the same feeling (0+ / 0-)

        about Bill and Hillary.  I think at heart he's a real Democrat who's compromised with corporate power to the extent he thought he had to to get a few good things done; I think Hillary's the opposite - the Goldwater Girl who married a brilliant politician who happened to be Democratic, and she's trimmed her right wing sails accordingly.  

        She'll always look to the moneyed aristocracy before she makes a move.  (With an occasional crumb thrown to the wild-eyed wingnut base - as with her flag protection bill.  Gag.)  Grass Roots Dems, on the other hand, should be seen and not heard.

  •  The problem I have with Hillary (37+ / 0-)

    isn't so much her vote for the AUMF. I'm willing to give her some benefit of the doubt there. Where I do have a problem is with her conduct in the five years after that, when she was a full-throated supporter of the war, and never used the power of her position as one of the leaders of the Democratic Party to call out Bush on the waste and incompetency of the Iraq War, or on his use of the war to erode our civil liberties at home.

    Not until the Democrats took control of Congress and a strong majority of Americans became opposed to the whole debacle has she been willing to speak up, and then only in very tentative terms. And this is someone we want representing us as our leader?

    Hillary wants to have it both ways--being seen as tough, but not actually taking any tough stands. She's worked herself into a box on her Iraq position out of sheer stubbornness, when she could have diffused the issue six months ago. I think she's underestimating the American people's "stubbornness fatigue," after 6 years of Bush. More and more I'm convinced that she will lose in the general if nominated, and we'll see a repeat of the Kerry 2004 campaign, with slightly more accomplished handlers and spin.

  •  She Didn't Lose My Potential Vote (7+ / 0-)

    Unlike you, I am not a litmus test voter.

    They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

    by Limelite on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:05:50 PM PST

    •  If by "litmus" (27+ / 0-)

      you mean "good judgment" and "ability to admit mistakes" and "being in touch with the public" and ... you get the idea.

      If you don't care about those things, then by all means, you don't need to base your vote on them.

      Edwards voted for the war, yet he's still in the running for my vote. It's what that vote tells me about the candidate that is important.

    •  This is not a "LITMUS" test (4+ / 0-)

      This poster is either a Hillary  plant or extremely naive.

      To "limelite":

      Define "litmus test"?

      This is not a "litmus" test.  Let's examine the facts, shall we?  

      1. This war was based on lies and the cherry picking of intelligence.  Many of us knew this at the time, and screamed in protest against this war.  We knew that the  evidence that Iraq had no WMD was being found even as Colin Powell held up the talcum powder he claimed to be "anthrax"!  The weapons inspectors were SHOWING that to us.
      1.  Even those of us who didn't know it at the time, learned it later with the Downing Street Memo, the revelation that Bush wanted to paint a plane in UN colors to taunt the Iraqis into downing a UN plane, and many more leaks about the manipulation of the media and the intelligence.  Where was Hillary, then?  Why did she not protest?
      1. This war has wrecked our economy.  We may never recover, and our children, are going to have to pay for this when it was a war based on LIES.  If you think we lived through a depression, be prepared, it's gonna be like that, or worse, fairly soon.
      1.  This war was waged on a false idea, period.  It's based on the oil in the middle east which is destroying this planet, and which will destroy this planet unless firm and controlled issues on global warming are addressed.  This is why we need Al Gore.
      1. We've killed half a MILLION Iraqis.  If not more.  And we have no real numbers on the number of American troops who've died because they don't count the kids who don't literally die on the battlefield.  All those who die in route to Germany or after that are NOT counted in the numbers.  And the number of wounded is astounding.  We will have to take care of them if they don't all end up dead because of the lack of care from the VA which is being defunded by this President.
      1. We've killed our military.  Our military has no strength now against REAL threats.  They have no money now for real home defense, and they have no support from the VA, or anyone damaged by this war, and this Congress will try and take more away from them. (it's in the works right now, because Bush wants to strip away more VA money and will not fund our military!)
      1.  In the process of the war, we've used this war to strip us of our civil rights.  It's ok now to strip search 80 year old people in a wheel chair because they might be a serious threat who might get on an airplane, or toddlers because they are mistakenly identified with a name that MIGHT be Muslim.  It's ok to wiretap us, because of this threat of terrorists. Yet we don't look for Osama Bin Laden.  Personally I'm with the truth group on 9/11, but really it doesn't take a conspiracy theorist (which some claim I am) to know that this administration doesn't care about the terrorists that attacked.  "I don't know where he is, I really don't care about him anymore" ~ George Bush  We've all heard that clip.
      1. This war has ruined our reputation in the world.  We are no longer regarded as the "shining city on the hill" we are regarded with disgust because we are bullies and mean.  We TORTURE for God's Sake, but THAT'S OK with Hillary!  We can't regain this back either with any ease, that's why we need someong like Al Gore.  He's the only one with any reputation that will gain respect.  If we elect hillary, the rest of the world will laugh at us, especially now.

      It's a combination of things, and on mainly this war, which was based on oil revenues, and on helping military contractors steal as much as they can. We were warned about the military industrial complex, but we didn't pay Eisenhower the heed we should have.  

      This is not a "litmus test".  The Iraq war has shown all that is wrong with America, and Hillary's arrogance is the "litmus test" of that.

      She's failing the BASIC test of whether she wants this country to be strong and GOOD.  If that's your litus test, then fine, I'm satisfied with that as a litmus test.  Because I don't want our country to die because of 6 years of a complete asshole in office.  And Hillary would just be another one.

      So my "litmus" test is if you support this god awful war.  and if you don't apologize for supporting it, you FAIL!

  •  Wait just a durn minnit... (12+ / 0-)

    Wasn't there a major diary on the front page recently that covered the Vote to Authorize Use of Force? Didn't it point out how the word Iraq wasn't even in the language of the resolution, yet the language did include wording that the resolution was intended to cover actions against the countries that conducted the attacks on 9/11?

    I'm not happy Hillary voted the way she did, I'm somewhat on the doveish side of Kucinich, but I refuse to accept that Senators were voting "for the war," when they approved authorization of Use of Force. This is a canard, and it's beneath the efforts of the reality-based community.

    I also feel it's unfair to rob Hillary of her very cogent point that it was Bush and the Republic Party that made all the mistakes worth noting.

  •  Wow! Hillary's bending over publicly (9+ / 0-)

    for the military indu$trial complex!

    Support our Troops - Stop funding the War!!

    by annefrank on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:06:17 PM PST

  •  She wants me to look elsewhere? (10+ / 0-)

    I have NO problem doing that.

    As I said earlier today, a Clinton presidency would mean there's been a Bush or Clinton as either POTUS or VPOTUS since 1981.  Fucking ridiculous.

    "I believe that ignorance is the root of all evil. And that no one knows the truth." - Molly Ivins

    by littlesky on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:06:57 PM PST

  •  Feb 5th (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aimeeinkc, bloomer 101

    California Primary? It's about time!

    So far, I'm all about Edwards, but I'll await the debate.

    Republicans: Proudly placing yellow smiley-face stickers on the face of doom since 1969 -8.88 -5.08

    by SecondComing on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:07:30 PM PST

  •  Another Faction? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosbo, kaye, algebrateacher

    "Yet Mrs. Clinton herself, backed by another faction, never wanted to apologize — even if she viewed the war as a mistake — arguing that an apology would be a gimmick."

    Who this "other faction"?  I'm betting it's the usual Dem centrist suspects.

  •  Count me out (8+ / 0-)

    Her desire to try and develop crossover appeal with the general electorate is something that I once thought that she could use to her advantage.

    She's going to learn what its like to be a frontrunner in a Presidential primary with the rest of the field and an army of activists gunning for the top spot.

  •  This really frustrates me. (16+ / 0-)

    I understand both sides of the issue.  I understand that people want her to say she made a mistake, and I understand the arguments that she has already done enough and that she doesn't need to bow to the netroots.  

    This

    If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from.

    just seems so profoundly dismissive of people who have legitimate, serious concerns about her vote.  I'm really just at a loss.

    Any force that tries to make you feel shame for being who you are...is a form of tyranny... And it must be rejected, resisted, and defeated. ~Al Gore

    by Sinister Rae on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:08:32 PM PST

  •  You make the total anti-Hillary case (17+ / 0-)

    The last thing we need in the White House is another out-of-touch, tone-deaf Bush-style presidency, unable or unwilling to admit mistakes and change course as a result.

    She's basically announced she isn't qualified for office. "I don't recognize a mistake" on a vote like that just shows she'll let her vanity trump reality. Equals "not capable of leading wisely."

    The Bush crimes will continue every single day for the 746 between 1/04/07 and 1/20/09. Every single day. Our plan to stop him is...?

    by Jim P on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:09:48 PM PST

  •  Agreed (6+ / 0-)

    I was trying to keep an open mind with Sen. Clinton, then I went to a campaign event im Concord, NH.

    She was asked abut Iraq repetedly, and gave the responces we are all familiar with.

    I, too, am relitivly certain now that I won't support her in the primary.

  •  I can see it coming (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cowalker, Gooserock, bess, Nulwee

    a new Independant party:

    "Americans for Hillary"

    worked for Joe(I-CFL).......

  •  If Hillary thinks (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fugue, kaye, SaneSoutherner, seminole83

    this is her "sister soldier" moment, she is sadly mistaken.

  •  WTF? (9+ / 0-)

    Her decision not to apologize is regarded so seriously within her campaign that some advisers believe it will be remembered as a turning point in the race: either ultimately galvanizing voters against her (if she loses the nomination), or highlighting her resolve and her willingness to buck Democratic conventional wisdom (if she wins).

    You're gonna Sister Souljah me on this? On the war?

    Please.

  •  Bill never had sex with "that woman" and... (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lois, Feanor, aimeeinkc, MBNYC, LynneK, seminole83

    ...Hillary wasn't responsible for giving Bush the okay to invade Iraq.

    America deserves better than another Bush or another Clinton.

  •  Hillary - Lieberman '08 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Irishkorean, seminole83

    Republicans: Proudly placing yellow smiley-face stickers on the face of doom since 1969 -8.88 -5.08

    by SecondComing on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:11:30 PM PST

  •  If Gore is not on the ballot, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, aimeeinkc, hopscotch1997, Limelite

    I will seriously consider Clinton, her Iraq vote notwithstanding.

    Memo to James Carville: sit down and shut up! You too Begala!

    by Radiowalla on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:11:34 PM PST

  •  Why can't she just say... (6+ / 0-)

    I made a mistake by trusting this president!

    I've never heard anyone say that, and after all, it's the ultimate truth, isn't it?

  •  Game and set.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kaye

    match?

    The last thing we need in the White House is another out-of-touch, tone-deaf Bush-style presidency

    I believe so - one thing we are all sick of is bubbles..


    ..those who would pronounce this God..
    ..are those who make this Hell - Roy Harper

    by Blue in VA on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:14:11 PM PST

  •  She knows she made the wrong call, she has said (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, aimeeinkc

    as much, ± "If I knew then what I knew now I would have voted differently.

    She ought to repeat that, and it ought to be sufficient.

    But she is caught between the desire of the left for a pound of her flesh in the form of an actual apology (in other words, they want her to acknowledge that her vote was morally wrong as well as made in ignorance of the truth), and her own inexplicable and offputting need to have a rigid exoskeleton.

    If character is fate, hers may be to split the Democratic party and, whether she is the nominee or not, hand the 2008 victory to the Republicans.

    Their real God is money-- Jesus just drives the armored car. © 2006 All Rights Reserved

    by oblomov on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:14:14 PM PST

  •  How is she even in this? (6+ / 0-)

    I have no idea how she has a shot at winning the nomination?  Who are her supporters?  I am a Richardson guy right now (as long as Gore doesnt jump in), and it shocks me that she can be leading (according to the MSM anyway) when she has to be the least progressive of them all.  Richardson has all the experience in the world, and i think he has what it takes to get us out of the mess in the middle east, and more importantly, diplomatically patch up the non-existent relations we have with every other country in this world.  I am very surprised he doesnt get more attention than he is getting.  He has shown some momentum, but how someone would vote for Hillary over a guy with the qualifications of Richardson boggles my mind.  I would easily choose Edwards and Obama over her as well, but i think they both have more weaknesses than Richardson does.

  •  Perhaps she thought these aren't the primaries (4+ / 0-)

    and she's now presenting herself for an exclusively Reublican audience??
    Like maybe the Pirmaries were over when she made her announcement?
    Like perhaps she already won the Primaries?
    Like the Primaries are just a formality?
    Because rememeber even Bush once chuckled like he got a big kick out of it - it could be Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton!

  •  Are you saying (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    timber, ptmflbcs, aimeeinkc

    you won't consider Clark?  Or just that you won't consider him until he's officially in?

    Other than that, your three choices are my three choices too.  And Clark is definitely my fourth right now.

    •  Yeah (4+ / 0-)

      I'll consider him if he jumps in.

      Remember when he was about to do so? Wasn't that like 2-3 weeks ago? I'm not sure what he's waiting for.

      •  Seems like (0+ / 0-)

        he's waiting for the same thing he was waiting for in 2003.  Whatever that was.

      •  He's been out and about (0+ / 0-)

        I think he has been advising Congress on the Iraq surge and Iran. Maxine Waters mentioned it on Hard Ball on Feb. 8th.

        He also will be attending this conference as an invited speaker:

        Chairman Sami Bahrawi Launches First Ever Interactive Jeddah Economic Forum

        Global Leaders To Address Multinational Gathering

        Jeddah, Saudi Arabia - Feb 17, 2007 (PRN): In a press conference hosted by the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce & Industry, and Sami F. Bahrawi, Chairman of Jeddah Economic Forum 2007, the program and speakers were formally announced today.

        Her Majesty Queen Rania Al-Abdullah of Jordan will deliver a special keynote address at the conclusion of the opening day, Sunday 25th February. Plenary Speakers will include: HRH Prince Turki Al Faisal, H.E. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister of Turkey; The Hon Dato' Sri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak, Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia; H.E. Lech Walesa, former President of Poland; H.E. Benazir Bhutto, former Prime Minister of Pakistan; The Rt. Hon. Jean Chretien, former Prime Minister of Canada; Minister Liu Jiangfeng from China; General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO; Mr Peder Wallenberg, Founder of Carpe Vitam and Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, UK Chair of the Saudi-British Business Council.

        Sami Bahrawi, Chairman of the Jeddah Economic Forum said, "Our speakers have been carefully chosen to address the themes of the Forum with authority and experience. They are all influential global figures and the 2007 Jeddah Economic Forum is honored to host them." ......

        "The 2007 Forum will point the way to the economic future for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf," Bahrawi said. "Our vision is to set the standards and process for national, regional and economic development for the Gulf and beyond."

        http://www.pressreleasenetwork.com/...

        Clark will host the UCLA Burkle center’s inaugural conference on national security.

        The first conference, to be held March 6-7, 2007, will explore the emerging challenges of nuclear weapons in the 21st century.
        www.securingamerica.com  

      •  Crazy nut-job conspiracy possibility (0+ / 0-)

        What two non-candidates are doing lots and lots of campaigning and political commentary?

        Is it too crazy to think that G and C are doing this together?

  •  um (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sam Loomis, Lysis, madgranny

    Hill appears to be calling for a 90-day deadline on the beginning of redeployment.

    Clinton urges start of Iraq pullout in 90 days

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has called for a 90-day deadline to start pulling American troops from Iraq.

    Clinton, the wife of former President Bill Clinton, has been criticized by some Democrats for supporting authorization of the war in 2002 and for not renouncing her vote as she seeks the U.S. presidency in next year's election.


    Freedom is always at the beginning and not at the end. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:15:57 PM PST

  •  Her very own Sister Souljah Moment(tm) (12+ / 0-)

    Just like hubby did with Sister Souljah in 1992, she took a gratuitous swipe at war opponents to establish herself as "centrist." I'm not amused.

    And no, Senator Clinton, you can't unring a bell. You voted in October 2002 to hand a blank check to a reckless and immature president. Twenty-three of your Senate colleagues saw through the administration's trumped-up case for way. Why didn't you?

    February 15: Pitchers and catchers report.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:16:26 PM PST

  •  Well, it would be a gimmick (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aimeeinkc, JerseyGirl226

    if she's not sorry.

    arguing that an apology would be a gimmick.


    Freedom is always at the beginning and not at the end. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:17:02 PM PST

  •  I'll also be voting in the CA primary, (5+ / 0-)

    and I think that this whole issue is just baiting and frankly a bit ridiculous. I think she'd make a better President than Obama or Edwards, certainly, and I'm not even a big fan. I'd take Clark or Gore over Hillary any day.

    •  You are entitled to your opinion! (0+ / 0-)

      It'd be nice to know why...can't really understand how she stands out to anyone at this point.  Too many other stronger contenders.  YMMV. :)

      A little about me here. -8.63, -7.44

      by sick of it all on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:14:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have to admit (0+ / 0-)

        that I'm a bit closer to the center, however you want to frame that, than most of the people here at DailyKos seem to be, although I've been a registered member for years. (This is not my first username.)

        That said, Obama just doesn't have enough national-level experience, let alone foreign policy wherewithal, to be President. I had hoped that he would run in 2016, and his impatience for the top position makes me very uncomfortable. Edwards is stronger in that regard than Obama, and his policy moves generally suited my politics.

        As for why I prefer Hillary to Edwards, that's a tougher question. I was disappointed that she didn't make more contributions to other 2006 Congressional candidates, and I know that she's got some powerful negatives in terms of "electability". All the same, I wasn't that impressed with Edwards's performance in the 2004 election, and, if I recall correctly, he couldn't even bring in his own state for the Democratic ticket. Hillary to me just seems more "presidential"; to be frank, I think she's smarter, tougher, and would make a better President than Edwards.

        To me there are other fringe benefits: she's a woman, which I like, rather than a white man from the south, and she'd bring Bill back into the White House, where if history is any indicator he'd have difficulty staying out of the loop.

        Finally, I love this website, but the Hillary-bashing, tacitly endorsed by Kos himself, makes me nuts. It just seems utterly beyond the bounds of what is sensible.

        •  I really appreciate your (0+ / 0-)

          thoughtful and reasoned response!  I'm glad you took me seriously.  I do have a hard time with HRC, but it has more to do with intangibles about her than her policy/issue stances.  I do know that there is a comfort level with her, that's for sure.

          If I may be so bold as to encourage you to seriously consider Obama.  Yes, I know he is "young", but he truly has had amazing experiences throughout his life that gives a entirely different level of credence to "foreign policy" and other pressing issues than the standard fare.  I've read both of his books; no other candidate I know of lays out such an honest and frank reflection on our country.

          I don't see Barack as "impatient" at all.  His run is necessary at this point.  People have convinced him of this - he had no intentions of running and agrees that to others this comes off as "audacious"!

          Since I'm from Illinois, I have watched Obama longer than the average American.  I get that and so does he.  Not sure where you live, but if I could ask a favor and go and see him if he comes to your area??

          I hate to sound like I'm begging, but I kind of am!

          I love DKos for many reasons, but admit to many of the same frustrations as you have.  The arrogance is palpable on too many occassions for me!

          I wish the best to you and greatly appreciate the exchange! :)

          A little about me here. -8.63, -7.44

          by sick of it all on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 11:11:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, his supporters are certainly fervent... (0+ / 0-)

            Although, like many others, I continue to hope secretly that Gore will throw his hat into the ring, I haven't chosen a candidate yet. I've requested Obama's book from the library system and will attempt to read it when it arrives.

            Thanks for the recommendation, and keep your mind open about Hillary in the interim. ;)

            •  OK - it's a deal! (0+ / 0-)

              If you are willing to give Obama's book a shot (I just finished it last night!) then I certainly will follow Hillary more closely and pay attention to what she's up to!  (I will also keep my fingers crossed for Gore for you - and a lot of others, although Obama will have my vote. :)  "Fervent" is a gracious adjective - I've been called worse!)

              Take care.  One thing's for sure, thank God there can only be two terms for Georgie.  Our country couldn't take any more of this insanity!

              xoxo

              A little about me here. -8.63, -7.44

              by sick of it all on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 07:03:12 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I wonder whether he would win, (0+ / 0-)

                if able to run again.

                •  OMG! (0+ / 0-)

                  This raises quite a question!!  I never even thought of that.  Are you going to write a mini-meta diary?  I'll rec it!

                  What makes it so good is that there are still so many insane supporters...how many, though?  Wow - what a concept.  Almost worth paying a company to do a big whama-dine statistically reliable survey and find out just how screwed up the American people still are!  But those exit polls were "wrong" - so who knows!

                  I'll delude myself into thinking that America has woken up and seen the idiocy.  Although, I thought that in 2004...

                  Cheers!  (Just poured myself a glass of red wine.)

                  A little about me here. -8.63, -7.44

                  by sick of it all on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 04:33:22 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Me, again! (0+ / 0-)

          I just clicked on your user name.  With that description in your bio, please,please,please, look at Obama and read Audacity of Hope! (please?)

          OK - I'll stop now. :)

          A little about me here. -8.63, -7.44

          by sick of it all on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 11:14:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  The "Sister Souljah" strategy??? (7+ / 0-)

    Maybe Hillary's DLC hacks are telling her to bounce off Democratic "doves" so she can appear like  a "moderate hawk" in order to appeal to winger voters. A similar thing happened when Bill challenged Sister Souljah in 1992. Unfortunately for Hillary, her mindset is in 1992, not 2006. Americans want out of Iraq NOW.

    "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." -- Abe Lincoln

    by munky on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:18:33 PM PST

  •  Just sent her an email (3+ / 0-)

    Letting her know I will take a pass on her and consider the other candidates.   Wished her luck with with the mythical "Republican crossover" vote.

  •  Why Hillary? (15+ / 0-)

    Let me repeat what I wrote about supporting Sen. Clinton's candidacy several days ago:

    I can think of three good reasons to remain supportive of Hillary -- her comments about her Iraq War Resolution vote notwithstanding:

    1.  Supreme Court nominations
    1.  Supreme Court nominations
    1.  Supreme Court nominations

    Given Hillary has voted against more of the Bush judicial nominees than any other Senator, and gave such an excellent speech against the Alito nomination, I predict she won't be like her husband in her judicial nominations, and whimp out with nominees like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer (who are still far better than any nominee we would get under the last three Republican Presidents).  Hillary will nominate a Stephen Reinhardt (well, a younger one), a William Brennan, Jr., a Thurgood Marshall.  She'll be as combative as President Bush has been with his judicial nominees.

    Enough said.

    Today, the Court purports to be the dispassionate oracle of the law. - Justice Blackmun

    by jim bow on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:20:02 PM PST

    •  that's a really good point (5+ / 0-)

      i didn't realize that she had voted against more of bush's nominees than any other senator. on another note, i believe that she voted against cloture on alito as well, which is more than we can say for many other democrats in the senate.

      •  Well, here is what won me over (8+ / 0-)

        An exerpt of her speech against then-Judge Alito's nomination:

        You know, the way I read American history, is that the key to American progress has been the ever-expanding circle of freedom and opportunity. That has been the common thread through all periods of our history: greater rights and greater responsibilities of citizenship and equality. Each time we have made strides forward, there have been voices – vocal voices – of opposition. There have been those who have wanted to go back. And at those moments of profound importance to our country, the federal courts have been the guardians of our liberties, have stood on the side of freedom and opportunity. ...

        Our greatest strength has always been our commitment generation after generation, with some fits and starts, to enlarging the circle of rights and equality. ...

        Time and again when given the choice, he [Judge Alito] has voted to narrow the circle, to restrict the rights Americans hold dear. And now is not the time to go backwards.  ...

        That's the kind of speech we'd expect to hear from a Mario Cuomo, from a Stephen Reinhardt, from a Thurgood Marshall, from a William Brennan, Jr.

        Today, the Court purports to be the dispassionate oracle of the law. - Justice Blackmun

        by jim bow on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:58:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks -- an Informative Post (0+ / 0-)

          like yours is a cut above the "why I will" "why I won't" vote for Clinton posts.

          This is a solid, reasonable statement that reflects the vision I share, the Democratic values that are important to me, and the hopeful, and at the same time, well thought out tone that helps give me insight into a candidate's character and beliefs.  And contributes to my decsion making process as a voter interested in portfolio, not just "politico."  

          They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

          by Limelite on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:22:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Good information. (0+ / 0-)

          I appreciate it.  Just in case she gets the nomination, I will be able to enter the booth and vote for her without becoming deathly ill (though I suspect Iraq and her flag protection bill will still cause a bit of nausea).

          I still hope someone else (almost anyone else!) is nominated, but in a general election for the Presidency, we must never, never forget the Court.

          (By the way, I think Bill Clinton hit one out of the park with Justice Ginsburg, though I'm not a big fan of Breyer.  If you're still around, would you mind saying why she's not your cuppa tea?)

          •  Sure (0+ / 0-)

            Read this:

            According to a Legal Times study of voting patterns on the appeals court in 1987, for instance, Ginsburg sided more often with Republican-appointed judges than with those chosen by Democrats. In cases that divided the court, she joined most often with then-Judge Kenneth W. Starr and Reagan appointee Laurence H. Silberman; in split cases, she agreed 85 percent of the time with then-Judge Robert H. Bork -- compared with just 38 percent of the time with her fellow Carter appointee, Patricia M. Wald.

            Also, has Justice Ginsburg ever written an opinion saying that capital punishment violates the 8th Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, and is therefore unconstitutional?  Justices Brennan and Marshall did consistently throughout their tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court.

            How about on the constitutionality of states passing laws that limit a prisoner's visitation rights to family members?  Justices Brennan and Marshall would have none of that, but Justice Ginsburg joined a unanimous Court saying that a state could limit the rights of prisoners to see their family members.

            Those are just a few examples of why I feel Justice Ginsburg was a whimp out -- certainly compared to his first two choices, then-New York Governor Mario Coumo and then-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell.  With 55+ Democrats in the U.S. Senate, Bill Clinton could have had DC Circuit Judges Harry Edwards, Patricia Wald, or Abner Mikva, Prof. Laurence Tribe, 9th Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, 6th Circuit Judge Nathaniel Jones, etc.  Orrin Hatch knew Ginsburg was far preferable to any of those people who I just mentioned, which is why he suggested Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, and the two passed with overwhelming Republican support.

            That said, Justice Ginsburg, at the time she was chosen, was a major improvement over her predecessor, Justice Byron White.

            Today, the Court purports to be the dispassionate oracle of the law. - Justice Blackmun

            by jim bow on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 06:27:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Nope (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hopscotch1997, jim bow

      Sorry.  Can't be true.  Nope.  Not gonna hear it here in the He-Man Hillary Haters Clubhouse.

      /snark, for the humor challenged

  •  Richardson and Edwards made same mistake.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    miriam, kaye, fairleft

    richardson and edwards both supported the war in 2002.......experience does not negate bad judgement.  What mistake will they make in the future?

    Edwards has already ruined his chances to succeed, on  HBO last night he promised TAX increases and to DEFUND the war if he is elected......GROSS ERROR IN JUDGEMENT.

  •  Every One of Us Here Knew in 2000 (4+ / 0-)

    That Bush was a lying sack of excrement who was going to get us into a war against Saddam, no matter what. My only mistake in thinking was, as Bush was being inaugurated in 2001, that he would surely surround himself with some of the more intelligent people from Daddy's administration, and thus buffer us from W's monumental ignorence and possibly keep us out of policy disasters. But no. Cheney. Rummy. Asscroft. I was wrong about the moderation. But what do I know -- I wasn't IN THE WHITE HOUSE at the time.

    Nobody buys Hillary's ignorence. Not those of us on the left. Not her enemies. Not even the mindless middle who wonder endlessly why Anna Nicole REALLY died. Nobody.

    George W. Bush is just like Forrest Gump. Except that Forrest Gump is honest and cares about other people.

    by easong on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:20:22 PM PST

    •  It wasn't just BushCo (0+ / 0-)

      Clinton intelligence folks were telling senators that there were biological and chemical weapons and that Saddam was a threat to US interests in the region.  Since the Clinton administration regime change was official US policy.  Saddam was violating UN resolutions and not allowing inspections of dozens of "presidential sites."  Saddam had a secred nuclear program in the mid-1990s that had escaped the attention of UN inspectors and only came to light when his sons-in-law defected to Jordon.

      It wasn't nearly as cut-and-dried as you claim.

  •  so you'll vote for the Republican? (6+ / 0-)

    Of course you have always supported other candidates and will continue to do so.    all well and good.  This is America.. this is your blog

    You'd be more honest if you would just admit that you ARE taking sides.  

    You were NEVER EVER going to vote for Hillary.
    Never.  
    There is nothing she could ever have said about the war or any other issue that would have changed your mind.

    As it is, you're just providing ammunition for the future swiftboating of Hillary.

    Or maybe you'll just enable President McCain or President Giuliani by not voting for the Democratic candidate.

    yes, I sincerely wonder if your hatred for Hillary (this is, what, your 4th anti-Hillary diary this week?) is so extreme that you would rather have a Republican for President.

  •  Way to go Kos (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dss, Junior Bug, LynneK, seminole83

    I agree 100%

    If you make a mistake- own it.

    If you can't own it, you lack integrity.

    The Dems have put forward some excellent choices and they ALL have integrity except Hillary.

    Maybe now the pro-Hillary crowd will leave this blog alone.

  •  The nice thing about a Kos thread on hillary (3+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Lois, allmost liberal european, Junior Bug
    Hidden by:
    hopscotch1997

    Is that her brigade of bashers can't call you names for pointing out the truth of her position then and now.

    I am a democrat, not a progressive. I can live with a lack of progress, and have been doing so for over four decades.

    by seminole83 on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:21:14 PM PST

  •  hypocritical kossacks (6+ / 0-)

    edwards's "apology" didn't bring back the dead soldiers that his vote killed. neither will clinton's. kos is just looking for an excuse to hate hillary. you hypocritical kossacks are just looking for an excuse to vote for edwards too.

  •  I have a Hillary bumper sticker on my car! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aimeeinkc, sick of it all, eddersen

    But ever since Senator Obama announced he was considering a run, my support for her has wanned.  I've been meaning to switch that sticker, just haven't gotten around to it yet.

    Still, I like her.  If she wins the nomination, I'll back her 100%.  But my vote in the primary will almost assuredly go to Obama.

  •  Tragically missed opportunity. We need a woman (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, optimusprime

    in the White House other than a first lady. I held out hopes for her when I read her first universal health care plan.  Being strong is one thing...but being stubborn is another (I know....I am preaching to the choir!) It will be a while, but eventually a woman will win.  Perhaps the next Clinton in the White House will be Chelsea.

    Health care for people, not for profit.

    by bloomer 101 on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:21:45 PM PST

    •  The Woman We Need Is Heads Another House nt (0+ / 0-)

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:11:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  One per family (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      orchid314, Dump Terry McAuliffe

      We don't need another Clinton in the White House, nor another Bush.  America does not need a hereditary head of state.  

      IMHO a good bit of W's bad judgement comes from father/son relationship baggage.  Think Pres. Hillary wouldn't be trying to fix Bill's mistakes or one-up him?  We need a one president per family rule in this country.

  •  if (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse, SaneSoutherner

    If Hillary is the first to ask for impeachments, she will win over many Americans.  The president lied to her, doctored the intelligence, sent Rice and Powell out to lie to the world, these are the reasons she can use to demand impeachments.  She wants to stop the loss of life in a replay in Iran.

  •  President Hillary ? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kentucky DeanDemocrat, munky, MBNYC

    Not a chance, she is still using the Iraq/911 connection and the longer she continues to support war the more irrelevant she becomes. The winning ticket should be Edwards/Obama

  •  She thinks everyone has a very short memory (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kentucky DeanDemocrat

    This isn't about principle.  Its the same thing the Clintons did in '92 when the Gennifer Flowers story came out:  Hillary announced that anyone who was bothered by it shouldn't vote for her husband.

    The rest is history.  Her husband took it as his permission to engage in sexual dalliances in the White Houses that ended up getting him impeached.  If she gets a pass on admitting that the Iraq War was a horrible, disastrous mistake for our country, she'll take it as her permission to bomb Iran.

    •  What? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mhtims, Back in the Cave

      Did Bill tell you that?  Do you have a pipeline into their private marital conversations?

      Sheesh.  It never fails to amaze me when people psychoanalyze someone else's marriage and offer explanations for why they did thus and such.  

      Memo to James Carville: sit down and shut up! You too Begala!

      by Radiowalla on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:54:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not quite (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kaye

      I don't buy for a second that zippergate stemmed from the "If you don't like Bill then vote for someone else" moment.

      But I do think that moment, and her reprisal of it now, shows just how easily she can use that issue to drive a wedge between herself and the "too liberal" left in the minds of mainstream voter.

      It also sets her up to take one hell of a swipe, repeatedly, at Bush for lying to her and rest of Congress about Iraq.  That's a completely different ball of wax among the mainstream than it is here.

      Folks, you've just been Sister Soujah'd, and you don't even know it.  You're looking for purity right now and she's playing three or four moves ahead.

      And no, I'm not a Clinton supporter; I have yet to make up my mind, and I think Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Richardson, Clark or (gasp!) Gore would be light years better than anyone the Rethugs will nominate.  And I will vote for any of those Dems with a big smile.

      •  Hope she gets questioned about it. (0+ / 0-)

        It'll be interesting whether the media picks up on her doing the same arrogant "F - U, voters" bit again.  And then the discussion could proceed to her second line of defense for her husband's behavior, that its all a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy."

      •  I beg your pardon. (0+ / 0-)

        I most certainly do know I've been "Sister Souljah'd," and I think most others do too.  Do you really expect us to enjoy the fact that a candidate who's seeking the Presidential nomination of our party has just coolly informed us that she doesn't want or need our votes?  The arrogance is breathtaking.

        What's more, I'm not impressed with the kind of "moves" she and her army of corporatist DLC advisers have, or how many "moves" they've made.  This nation's future is not a game.

        You must admire the hell out of Karl Rove.  Think of all the "moves" he made.

        I will vote for Hillary IF she gets the nomination, but I sure as hell don't have to like or admire her.  

  •  Richardson (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JAS1001

    Hillary is obviously as nutty as Bush.  Richardson is the best qualified and tells you where he stands.

  •  I'm done with you, Hillary. Your hubris is ... (6+ / 0-)

    . . . almost as annoying as the Moron in Chief's.

    BenGoshi
    __________________________________________________

    We're working on many levels here. Ken Kesey

    by BenGoshi on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:30:52 PM PST

  •  Me too. (4+ / 0-)

    I'm another rabid lamb against Hillary.

  •  Doesn't seem that long ago that (5+ / 0-)

    I was excited about a possible presidential run by Hillary.  Now, I can't even look at her and her recent speeches on Iran have pushed me beyond anger.  She friggin' sounds just like Bush.

    I, too, am a California resident and I will take great pleasure-for the first time ever-in having my primary vote count.

  •  She obviously (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LynneK

    did not learn from her husband when it comes to running campaigns.

  •  Hillary Has Failed Us All (14+ / 0-)

    Great.  In 2004, we Democrats had to try to argue our case with a candidate who was for-it-before-he-was-against-it.  Now Hillary wants us to have to be a part of her I-wasn't-wrong-before-I-wasn't-right campaign.

    No thanks.  

    If she wants to torpedo her own career, fine.  But she's reached new heights of arrogance if she thinks she's gonna take a whole Party down with her.

    Al Gore, Wes Clark, and Barack Obama were right on the war rom Day 1.  They don't need excuses.  They don't need apologies.  They don't need explanations.  They don't need mea culpas.  And they don't need Hillary's brand of arrogant pig-headedness.

    Al Gore, Wes Clark, and Barack Obama have been courageously voicing the true Progressive position all along.  We've got three great choices.  

    Hillary, on the other hand, failed us in 2002.  She failed us in March of 2003.  And she continues to fail us today.

    •  Exactlyt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      landrew, dss

      Hillary must be stopped. She's the Joe Lieberman of the 2004 election, except that she's just stupid and not a DINO.

      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

      by jfern on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:53:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Iran compunds her problem (3+ / 0-)

    U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons... In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table.

    It is not just the question of apology. It is about her wisdom and foresight. So far, she is at the Bush level.

    •  A nuclear Iran is OK? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Buddha Hat

      No, I don't think a nuclear Iran is in the best interest of the United States. Not as long as their government remains a pseudo-democratic dictatorship.

      Hillary is right on that point.  However, there are a lot of ways to deal with Iran and it begins by talking with Iranian officials, something the current Administration won't do.

      •  I have few problems with a nuclear Iran (2+ / 0-)

        People need to CHILL. A nuclear Iran is 10+ years away and I totally disagree that it would attack the USA. I also disagree that the mullahs are "crazy people" who want war with the United States.

        "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." -- Abe Lincoln

        by munky on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:49:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The mullahs are dangerous (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Buddha Hat

          because they are despotic dictators that crave nothing but power.  Many Iranians have shown discontent with their government and the Ayatollah would not be above manufacturing a war with the United States in order to retain his grip on power.  

          Unlike most Middle Eastern countries, Iran has a strong national identity. If the only way the Ayatollah can hold onto power is to whip the country into a nationalistic fervor through war, then war it will be.  

          That's why as long as the Iranian government remains in its current form, it will remain a threat to the interests of the United States.

          •  LOL (3+ / 0-)

            "because they are despotic dictators that crave nothing but power."

            Craving power does not make someone dangerous. Hell, Hillary craves power.

            Many Iranians have shown discontent with their government and the Ayatollah would not be above manufacturing a war with the United States in order to retain his grip on power.  

            Iran is less inclined to start a war than Bush is. Iran can simply sit back and watch Bush implode inside Iraq. They don't need to start a war with the USA.

            The real fanatics are in the White House, not Iran. It is Bush and Cheney who want war, not the mullahs.

            I 100% disagree that Iran is a threat to the USA. We should NEVER get involved in the wars of the Middle East ... EVER.

            "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." -- Abe Lincoln

            by munky on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:58:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Iranians also know (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kentucky DeanDemocrat

            relyiing on America is a prescription for total disaster. You have a wonderful experiment in Iraq still under way, remember. That place is a cemetry for all the goods and ideals America once represented and are now left to rot.

            Can a person who did not have the guts or foresight to oppose the disaster achieve anything?  All she will achieve will be just another turkey photo-op moment or two.

      •  There is a big difference... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kentucky DeanDemocrat

        between having force quietly in the background on the table, just in case, and relentlessly sabre-rattling that threat of force in the face of the enemy.  

        Diplomats know this.  She's a hawk, not a diplomat.

        Democrats - We refuse to caucus in the missionary position.

        by SaneSoutherner on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:17:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Why do my thoughts turn to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kaye, ms badger

    Rummy, never met a mistake he didn't make.

  •  What Bothers Me (4+ / 0-)

    is that I've listened to six solid years of this. "George Bush is resolute and strong-willed," the pundits gushed, when in reality, Bush was being childishly stubborn. When people won't admit they're wrong, they aren't capable of learning from their mistakes. Plus, the issue is never addressed, just their feelings about that issue. I've had enough of that drivel.

  •  can you spell AIPAC (3+ / 0-)

    A  I  P  A  C

    that is the way HC spells reality.

  •  Hillary lost the potential to get my (0+ / 0-)

    vote for the nomination when she said she didn't vote for this pre-emptive war when she was on Olbermann.

    They had fangs; they were biting people. They had this look in their eyes. Totally cold... animal. I think they were Young Republicans.

    by msstaley on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:40:06 PM PST

  •  What monumental, stupefying, arrogance. (4+ / 0-)

    And now that she's said that, she can't turn around later and say, "Oops! I made a mistake".  She has lost all of her credibility now.  There's no way to retract a statement like that without it looking like the ultimate in pandering.

    I'm not sure what is wrong with her.  She leans so much to the center (and now, a long way away from the center and to the RIGHT) she may very well tip the race to anyone else running.  That's fine with me, she's so DLC she makes me nauseous, but surely her political advisers would have told her that this was a political suicide for her campaign?  Who the heck  is advising her... oh, ya, Terry McCauliffe.  When are we going to drop that idiot in the dust bin and get him out of political campaigns?  Just as well though, I didn't want Hillary, so if she has an idiot like that advising her, it's all the better for candidates that might do something decent for this country.

    Thank you Markos, for pointing this out and for also stating that she's lost your vote.  That has influence. She's lost my vote as well - though she never really had it, I'm still holding out for Gore.  This will have repercussions that I think she had no idea of. I just called her campaign and told them off, and said she should drop out of the race (as if she will).

  •  It's been clear for some time now that she is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse, BentLiberal

    carving out a voter market niche.  It just happens to be the wrong niche.  God only knows what motivates her to adopt these positions that seem to be designed to carve out this niche, but are contrary to the way the rest of the country thinks..

    WJC has to be her principle advisor, so it must be that he has been corrupted and needs a reboot.  Is there some other explanation?

  •  Lyndon Baines Clinton (4+ / 0-)

    If a pro-war Democrat wins the presidency it will set back the Demorcratic Party and the nation.

    "This is not a time to finesse the situation. This is not a time for a slow walk." Feingold

    by BentLiberal on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:44:47 PM PST

  •  Today, Hillary ceded her oppurtunity to be (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bess, pedro46

    the first female POTUS, in my mind.

    This is why she's no Bill Clinton.  She and her advisers have tin ears. Hillary is more disciplined than her husband, but lacks his political intuition.

    I started out wanting her to win, wanting to vote for her in the primaries.

    That's over now.

    Today, the 'Third Way' led directly over the cliff.

  •  Frank Rich (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    espresso

    "Maybe the Bush White House can’t conduct a war, but no one has ever impugned its ability to lie about its conduct of a war. Now even that well-earned reputation for flawless fictionalizing is coming undone. Watching the administration try to get its story straight about Iran’s role in Iraq last week was like watching third graders try to sidestep blame for misbehaving while the substitute teacher was on a bathroom break. The team that once sold the country smoking guns in the shape of mushroom clouds has completely lost its mojo. - "Frank Rich, "Oh What a Malleable War"

    JP
    http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogs...

    Defending bad taste and liberalism since 2005.

    by jurassicpork on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:45:36 PM PST

  •  I'm sorry (7+ / 0-)

    I have to lean towards siding with Clinton on this one.

    Apparently "knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have voted for it" isn't enough (of course it isn't. once people get that, they'll demand that candidates go even farther.  This will probably become a contest of which candidate can be the most anti-war candidate)

    Now you're demanding that candidates say their vote was a mistake, even considering what they believed to be true that the time.  In other words, even though at the time you believed Iraq had WMDs and had ties to al qaeda, you think the vote was a mistake.

    Sorry, like clinton, I wouldn't want to go that far.

  •  The more I see of this slicing and dicing, and (14+ / 0-)

    demands that Hillary play to our expectations, the more I begin to question the validity of those expectations. I don't buy the frame that Hillary must play like a violin because we rosined the bow, just so.

    Sorry.

    "If the most important thing to any of you" is a crucial qualifier of her statement. And it is a valid qualifier. If the test of Hillary's fitness is to be determined by a single stance like this, it can be quite counter productive.

    Consider this: I'd say most of us would agree that Chuck Hagel's position on Iraq now is more in line with ours than that Hillary's, now. How many here are willing to commit to vote for Chuck Hagel, if he were the nominee, over Hillary Clinton?

    Getting Hillary to 'admit she was wrong' is really low on my priority list for qualifications for President. I have other problems with her voting record, but nothing that sounds the alarm bell of instant doom. She's number 4 or 5 on my list right now, but she's still on my list.

    This constant pushing of this concept that Hillary must bow to our flex is jumping the shark. It's not going to happen. She is not going to roll over and play nice to the netroots.

    This 'concern' about an 'apology' seems to have nearly zero traction in general mass of other Democrats {and Republicans who potentially will vote for Hillary as well}.

    Can we survive furious George's 'Quest For Stupidity'TM?

    by shpilk on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:47:12 PM PST

    •  Not only that (12+ / 0-)

      but from what I can tell, even if she did do what the Netroots wanted, the Netroots still wouldn't vote for her in a primary.

      Jumping through hoops just so a blogger can say "I might" when everyone knows that blogger hates Clinton ... and won't is bloody freakin' stupid.

      •  Of course not (4+ / 0-)

        Hillary could invent a way to cure cancer at a total cost of $1 per patient, and some people here would still have a bitch fit that she didn't do it sooner, didn't tell people currently getting chemo that she was working on it, etc.

        The blogosphere is making one hell of a bet with their credibility by taking this stance.

        And lets us not forget for a nanosecond that every time someone diaries or comments about Hillary's lack of conformance to this ideal stance, it makes it that much easier for some people who are so inclined, if Hillary gets the nomination, to be whiny little brats and vote Green or not at all, which could be the biggest gift the Dems gave the Rethugs since McGovern.

        The myopia here on this issue so absolutely breathtaking.

        •  She'd be pandering (3+ / 0-)

          to sick people.

        •  It is breathtaking and breathtakingly (4+ / 0-)

          sad.

          After reading all the trashing of Democrats here, I am really weary and think it's time to step away for a while and clear my head.  This site feels really hostile right now and I've been here a long time.

          Memo to James Carville: sit down and shut up! You too Begala!

          by Radiowalla on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:10:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Rather... (6+ / 0-)

          Hillary as nominee would be the biggest gift we could give them since McGovern. Hell, since Al Smith.

          And no, it's not just about the war. It's about the god-damn triangulating, it's about the selling out of everything that's dear to Progressives, it's about the dynasty problem, it's about the sense of entitlement.

          "Hey you, sit down, shut up, my name is Hillary, and it's my turn to be Prez. Don't like it? Too bad. I can buy the nomination, you know."

          So no, sorry, many people here are not going to bend over for the powers that be, as upsetting as that is for the power structure. Sorry about that.

          The Daily Gotham - Blogging the vast leftwing conspiracy in New York

          by MBNYC on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:17:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Triangulating is another useless (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shpilk, kindertotenlieder, Buddha Hat

            obsession of the blogs.  I am frankly, sick of hearing the word.  It is a word that very few real voters in the real world know the definition of, and even fewer could give a shit about it.  

            When we start concentrating on the issues that the general population is interested in and that affect their lives, then we will be helping some democrats win.  The war is something that people are interested in.  But whether or not Clinton said it was a mistake , issued a scripted apology for it, or said it while chewing gum, and blowing her nose at the same time, is something that an ordinary person is not going to waste their lives over.

            A blog to elect democrats, my ass.

            "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

            by hopscotch1997 on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:23:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sick, eh... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kentucky DeanDemocrat

              ...that's exactly how I feel about the HillaryBots and their constant bleating that we all need to get behind a done deal.

              And for the record, the 'average population' is interested in Iraq. It is interested in authenticity. And honesty. That's what November was all about. Demeaning the discomfort Democrats have with Hillary, as you are doing, as the whining of people who are not part of the 'average population' is exactly the kind of Beltway BS people are tired of.

              The Daily Gotham - Blogging the vast leftwing conspiracy in New York

              by MBNYC on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:34:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're easily "demeaned". (4+ / 0-)

                Fact is that the mindset here, does not equal or come close to being the mindset of the multitude of voters we will be facing in 2008.  you can deny it or not.  No consequence to me.  But I will say that any support I have for Clinton is a direct result of watching the vitriol and hatred put out by Hillary Bashers on this blog.  It is over the edge, and lacks rationale in relation to how the other candidates are and always have been treated.  So rather than driving people away as you hope to do by your spewing of hatred and disgust, you are creating new "bots" everyday.  

                "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

                by hopscotch1997 on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:48:10 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  This isn't about the blogs... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alvin K

      Her refusal to budge on Iraq isn't about what it means for the blogs. We're relatively insignificant. It's about what it means for the base of the party. You tell me how refusing to budge on this helps her. I don't like politicians who make stupid moves like this because their consultants tell them to. It's too typical of where the Democratic Party has been for the past decade. And it needs to change.

    •  What could be higher on the priority list? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kentucky DeanDemocrat

      Getting Hillary to 'admit she was wrong' is really low on my priority list for qualifications for President.

      Then what's higher on the priority list? The Iraq War is far and away the most important issue that the nation is facing -- as of this writing, there are 3,133 reasons for that. It will be the most important issue in 2008, whether someone like Hillary Clinton cares to accept that or not.

      We can't change what happened in the past, but if we want a better future, we certainly ought to learn from the errors of the past. The Iraq War gives us an excellent opportunity to judge the candidates' ability to be President -- and yes, it's a serious enough matter that the one issue alone is enough for someone to be disqualified.

      If a candidate lacks the wisdom to recognize and acknowledge that the Iraq War was a catastrophic error right from the very beginning, s/he might very well make similarly disastrous errors as President. Such a person is definitely not qualified for the job. What higher priority than that can there be?

      It's not a matter of "making someone conform to our expectations"; it's a matter of ruling out someone whose judgment is so dangerously bad that she must not become President.

      Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

      by Buckeye Hamburger on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 05:36:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  At least now I have a sound reason (0+ / 0-)

    to not support Senator Clinton. I don't think that she really needs to "apologize", but I do think that she needs to admit that her vote in favor of the AUMF was wrong. I would admire her more if she were willing to admit that she was wrong on this, but, since she seems determined not to do so, I will not be supporting her in the primaries. In fact, the only way i can see myself supporting her will be if she wins the Democratic nomination, which I don't believe she will be able to do after this statement.

    "Truth never damages a cause that is just."~~~Mohandas K. Gandhi

    by LynneK on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:48:36 PM PST

  •  Triangulation (0+ / 0-)

    "And now I can officially narrow down my choices to Edwards, Obama, and Richardson."

    Exactly.  I've been, and still am, leaning Edwards. For me, it isn't so much how she voted, I could forgive that.  It's that she's trying to triangulate it.  

    "We do not torture" is the new "I'm not a crook."

    by mmt006 on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:50:52 PM PST

  •  President of the US requires leadership (0+ / 0-)

    Hillary enabled Bush's far right-wing war agenda, and then won't admit a mistake. How do we know that she won't stupidly fall for something similar again? Hillary does not have the leadership required to be President. It was obvious at the time that her vote that of a political coward.

    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

    by jfern on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:51:07 PM PST

  •  Sen. Clinton (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandy on Signal

    has so much to recommend her. But she has positioned herself on the wrong side of this issue. She started out on the wrong side of the war and she steadfastly remains there.

    That's two mistakes.

    Peace,

    Andrew

    Rule #62: Don't take yourself too damn seriously.

    by Andrew C White on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:51:15 PM PST

  •  Hillary's position is the same as George Bush's (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theboz, shaharazade

    Both deny it was a mistake to authorize the war.  

    I won't be voting for any candidate who can't admit making a mistake... I've had enough of that BUSHit .

  •  She made 3 major mistakes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    steelman

    1st.  she never read the intel. or like those that did, she should not of voted for it.

    2nd. She, a former 1st Lady had better contacts than most if not all the Congressmen, and either ignored it or misjudged it. I'm not sure which is worse.

    3rd. She thinks she can't admit the mistake, this one is the least of them to me, but may be her beginning of the end.

    -8.63 -7.28 Molly Ivin : "..We want to find solutions other than killing people. Not in our name, not with our money, not with our children's blood."

    by OneCrankyDom on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:53:10 PM PST

  •  How about Clark? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    diplomatic, Marshall Collins, hsvscg

    What is the Deal on Richardson?  Even MyDD is uptalking Richardson?

  •  Unfortunately, (0+ / 0-)

    Clinton still wins the money primary.  She gets all the pro-Hillary money.
    The anti-Hillary money is split a minimum of three ways.  I hope there's a shakeout soon on that side, so a proper challenge against Clinton's "inevitable" nomination can be mounted.  Obama, Clark, Richardson, Gore, I'd take any one of them, possibly even Edwards, whose repudiation of his authorization vote I do appreciate, even though it tells me that he is, or at least was at one time, a man who could be hoodwinked by George W. Bush, which does not speak well to his judgement.

    I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.-Barack Obama

    by jazzmaniac on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:57:04 PM PST

  •  I'm getting really, really tired of Hilary (4+ / 0-)

    Watching her maneuver is like watching a 13 year old boy before his first big dance.  Alone in the living room he moves and sways while reciting the mantra: One-step-forward side-step side-step.  He knows he isn't prepared and so he lowers his voice but his lips still move: One-step-backward side-step side-step.

    I'm a vet. I was against this war from day one.  I just hope I don't have to hold my nose when I cast my ballot.

    (-9.00, -8.92) No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. --Edward R. Murrow

    by craigb on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:57:31 PM PST

  •  Right with you Kos (0+ / 0-)

    As it stands now, I am moving ever further into being a solid Richardson backer. Already donated to his campaign some, and will donate more as the weeks progress. Click on the link in my sig if you want to support a Governor, with real Executive experience, REAL foriegn relations experience (former UN Ambassador), was and is against the war, and has a rock-solid resume, down-home and personable to boot.

  •  Kos, every diary I open this evening, (0+ / 0-)
    including this one, has the following tags:

    "Tags: Troll diary, anti-semite, eggshells  (all tags)"

    WTF? There is a bug in the system, as this was happening to some diaries yesterday too, diaries that had nothing to do with I/P subjects. I haven't been posting much, so I don't have TU right now, or I would fix them. You need to have your computer people find the bug, and/or, the troll who is hitting all these diaries.

    NO MORE DYNASTIES! No more triangulation! No more lies! No more war! No more corporatists! ELECT PROGRESSIVES NOW!

    by Hornito on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:59:46 PM PST

  •  At least Edwards admitted (0+ / 0-)

    that he was wrong.  He's got my vote.

    •  My baby son had his circumcision botched (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      diplomatic, Edgar08

      I told the surgeon that if he apologizes and admits that he messed up, I'll let it go and even recommend him to other parents expecting a baby boy, but if he claims that my son's genitals are supposed to look like that, I'm suing for malpractice.

      Note: This story is also untrue but it's the same principle as your position on Edwards seems to be.

      Join the College Kossacks on Facebook, or the Republicans win.

      by DemocraticLuntz on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:09:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Stop Blaming the War on Democrats (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pink Lady

        It wasn't John Edwards who reniged on a promise to only go to war with UN Security Council OK.

        It wasn't John Edwards who told Hans Blix to leave Iraq early so he could invade.

        It wasn't John Edwards that refused to even visit and talk with allies in order to form a broad coalition against Saddam.

        Nope, it was George Bush.

        So, you're suing the wrong guy.

        Case dismissed!

        •  It was John Edwards who co-sponsored (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          diplomatic

          the AUMF (and yes, it was bipartisan; it consisted of such progressive Democrats as Evan Bayh, Max Baucus, John Breaux, Mary Landrieu, Tim Johnson, Zell Miller and of course Joe Lieberman and such moderate Republicans as Wayne Allard, Jim Bunning, Pete Domenici, Jesse Helms, Tim Hutchinson, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Strom Thurmond and John Warner).

          It was John Edwards who voted against providing a termination date for the AUMF, which, if it had passed, would've made it a lot easier for Congress to stop the war right now (John Edwards is the only Democratic presidential aspirant to have voted against time-limiting the AUMF)

          It was John Edwards who ensured that it would be possible Bush to renege on his promise to only go to war with a U.N. security council OK.

          It was John Edwards who voted to allow Bush to have the authority to invade Iraq when Hans Blix hadn't found anything constituting an imminent threat.

          And it was the fact that John Edwards and 28 other Democratic Senators voted for the AUMF that allowed it to pass. If every Democrat had voted against it, it would have failed 48-52, thanks to Chafee's opposition (if Dems had shown some backbone, Arlen Specter, who supported some of the limiting amendments, might've votes against authorization as well, in which case it would have failed as long as Joe and Zell were the only Democrats to vote for it).

          Join the College Kossacks on Facebook, or the Republicans win.

          by DemocraticLuntz on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:29:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, doctors' apologies do matter (3+ / 0-)

        In her book "Blocking the Courthouse Door," Stephanie Mencimer mentioned that some victims of medical malpractice sue only after being stonewalled by doctors and hospitals about what happened to them. There was also a recent article in the Wall Street Journal about the medical profession's effort to encourage doctors to apologize for mistakes.

        February 15: Pitchers and catchers report.

        by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:51:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why do I have the feeling (0+ / 0-)

          WSJ was suggesting an apology would be good to take the place of any malpractice litigation?

          I had a co-worker once who didn't want a raise.  She wanted her boss to admit he was wrong.

          Her boss said "Ok, I was wrong," and gave her a .05% bump.

          She really didn't feel any better.

          •  Actually, it was a news story (0+ / 0-)

            But the WSJ edit page has aired proposals for taking malpractice cases out of the court system and having them heard by "medical courts" with no juries, strict rules of evidence, caps on damage awards, and presumably, judges beholden to the health-care and medical professions.

            Pennsylvania came up with an approach under which doctors could report mistakes on a strictly confidential basis to a state agency, which was supposed to use the information to recommend best practices for doctors and hospitals. I'm not sure how well it's working.

            February 15: Pitchers and catchers report.

            by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:08:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  AL GORE RULES OUT RUN IN '08 (0+ / 0-)

    http://www.france24.com/...

    I'm sad. It's big enough that this should be a diary, but, I'm following the rules. This link came from Huffington Post.

  •  She had already lost my support (0+ / 0-)

    As a resident of New York State, her actions for several years now have led me to question whether she's living in a cave.  She's done next to nothing for working-class New Yorkers as far as I'm concerned.

    I'll hold my nose and vote for her in Nov. 2008 if she is the nominee, but that will be the sum total of the support she gets from me between now and then.

    We need your help Wes to clean up this mess.

    by Paper Cup on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:05:46 PM PST

  •  The nomination would be hers (0+ / 0-)

    If she had rubbed two brain cells together back in Oct. 2002, and joined 23 other Senators in voting no on allowing Bush to warmonger.

    The fact that now, 52 warmongering months later, she can't figure out why that was a bad idea has made her completely unqualified to be President.

    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

    by jfern on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:07:30 PM PST

  •  I don't support Hillary Clinton (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dumbo, Kentucky DeanDemocrat

    Hillary Clinton was a successful lawyer and was an important advisor to her Law Professor/Attorney General/Governor husband for many years. She was an outstanding First Lady and made a principled and well argued case for Health Care Reform in 1994.

    For these reasons, I supported her candidacy for the US Senate. I had no doubts that she had at least the minimum requirements for that job, and she deserved a chance to prove herself.

    BUT SHE DIDN'T. SHE HASN'T.

    She hasn't accomplished a damn thing as Senator. Granted, she's had little time as a Senator in the majority, and not as much opportunity AS SHE HAS NOW, to distinguish herself. But has she attempted to make her mark as either a skillful minority legislator or as a SENATOR that makes principled and deliberative arguments for policy? NOT AT ALL.

    I've never seen her speak on the Senate floor. I've never even seen COVERAGE of her speaking on the Senate floor.

    She isn't QUALIFIED to be president. She has NEVER even made a speech outlining her views on foreign policy, and she has NO EXPERIENCE OR EDUCATION in that area. She doesn't know a DAMN thing about the military or military policy. THIS is the person that we want to put in charge of a war? At LEAST her husband had the EDUCATION to take on the job! (which is more than we can say about Bush) And speaking of BUSH, do we want another president who is CLUELESS? That turned out great, eh?

    Hilllary Clinton hasn't shown she has enough grasp of the legislative system to exercise the power she has as Senator, but we want to put her in charge of deciding what kinds of legislation should be proposed or signed into law?

    She has ZERO experience or education in administration. There's nothing to recommend that she has the ability to administratively manage the federal government competently.

    She has NEVER displayed an understanding of economics, banking, or trade that would recommend her for the presidency.

    She's an empty suit. She has no vision, and her calculated style of speaking betrays a moral timidity. And this decision of hers to IGNORE the fact that the Bush Administration committed INTELLIGENCE FRAUD to start a war for money, power and political image, shows that she won't even admit she made a mistake when she's a victim of FRAUD!

    Not only isn't she qualified for the job,but this decision to defend her vote for the war leaves her poor judgement naked for all to see, and she probably won't be re-elected to the Senate.

    While this decision will be the deal-breaker for many Democrats, I made my decision shortly after she announced her candidacy. In an interview, she made a point of asserting that Bush would be president for two more years.

    I have to believe the woman isn't stupid or blind, so my only other choice is to believe that even though she knows damn well both Bush and Cheney deserve to be ejected from office and arrested, she will make public statements to further the meme that both war criminals should stay in office for two more years JUST BECAUSE she thinks she should be the first woman president instead of Nancy Pelosi. Good Grief!

    Now let the winnowing begin. The next empty suit to eject is Obama.

    Though Clark and Edwards certainly deserve a chance to make their case, the only candidate I see running who is qualified, visionary and demonstrably competent in all the necessary areas is Bill Richardson.

    I do have a wish that Mike Gravel will last long enough to give what promises to be a memorable public debate, should he be included.

    GORE, of course, would roll right over any competition. Should he run, give the VP slot to Richardson and get on with wiping the floor with the Republicans.

    •  Oh, but she has "foreign policy credentials..." (0+ / 0-)

      or so Tim and his buddies will say.  I mean, she was on a committee for four years, although she didn't do jack shit good for the country in that role, and actually played a big part in the worst foreign policy blunder in US history.

      Seriously, if this is all she has on her resume, she ought to just sluff it and make up a story about being on sabbatical or having cancer for 8 years.

  •  She has so much money, she will... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    steelman, by foot

    overwhelm anything we do here.

    The juggernaut is starting to pick up steam and most voters are ignorant of the facts and issues and policy proposals of the candidates.

    We should be trying to drive policy into the mainstream or creating our own mainstream.

    Otherwise the election will turn on personality qualities.

    The public really doesn't care whether or not she was against the war.   It's how she comes off as a performer in the current media environment.   She has plenty of money to keep herself in the "movie" until the final scene plays.

    "In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes." Chomsky

    by formernadervoter on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:08:50 PM PST

  •  I Don't Want Her to Say, "I Made a Mistake" (5+ / 0-)

    I don't want her to apologize.

    I want her to change. I want her to show, through her positions on the issues and her votes in the Sentate that she's a liberal and proud of it, and that she's given up being a lapdog for big business.

  •  Who honestly expected her to change course? (0+ / 0-)

    I mean really - who did? Were some of us waiting for that Iraq position recind/revision? It's been my issue numero uno regarding her for years and years - followed by DLC disgust and yucky campaign donors.

    Please don't get me started on her unispirational snoresville oratory style... I would have liked a female in the position, just not her. Geez.

  •  This isn't good enough (3+ / 0-)

    http://cbs5.com/...

     "I have said clearly and consistently for quite some time that I regret the way the president misused the authority," said Clinton. "He misled Congress and the country on what he was seeking and what he intended to do."

       "I take responsibility for having voted to give him that authority," she said. "My focus is on what we do now. That is the proper debate."

    and therefore Hillary Clinton is the same as George W. Bush, or even worse {just look at some of the posts downthread}.

    I understand the framing you want to push now, but if she is nominated, what will you say then? How this is going to help elect Democrats in 2008?

    Can we survive furious George's 'Quest For Stupidity'TM?

    by shpilk on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:14:19 PM PST

  •  Great, another diary by a naderite/GOP troll (0+ / 0-)

    /snark

    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

    by Subterranean on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:15:04 PM PST

  •  Snark:She's not Stubborn. She's "Iron Willed" (4+ / 0-)

    just like GWB

    Be carefull what you shoot at, most things in here don't react well to bullets-Sean Connery .... Captain Marko Ramius -Hunt For Red October

    by JML9999 on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:16:05 PM PST

  •  Kucinich saw through the Bush "intelligence" (4+ / 0-)

    The idea that Hillary was mislead by the President is simply a half-truth.

    Kucinich didn't have any problem seeing through the Bush nonsense. A few gems from his speech before he cast his NO vote:

    "The key issue here is that there is no credible evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. Congress has not been provided any credible information which proves that Iraq has provided international terrorists with weapons of mass destruction."

    "Furthermore, there is no credible evidence connecting Iraq to al Qaeda and 9-11, and yet there are people who want to bomb Iraq in reprisal for 9-11. Iraq is not connected by any credible evidence to 9-11, nor is it connected by any credible evidence to the activities of al Qaeda on 9-11."

    So did Hillary see different intelligence than Kucinich?

  •  If she apologizes... (4+ / 0-)

    ...she will be called a panderer, a triangulator, conniving and all the other stuff the anti-Hillary folk call her already.  She'll never appease you because you guys have already made up your minds.  So where's the percentage?

    Teacher's Lounge opens every Saturday between 11 am and noon. It's not just for teachers.

    by rserven on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:18:21 PM PST

  •  Good on you, kos. Even without the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moira977, Kentucky DeanDemocrat

    Iraq defiance, Hillary is a trainwreck.

    I kind of suspected it when I opened up her announcement and heard her say that she wanted to "start a conversation."  But I positiviely heard the freight cars pile up when she uttered "works hard, and plays by the rules . . ."

    Even without Iraq: what rancid, warmed-over DLC hash.

    We're takin' it up the ass and she wants to start a conversation?

    "Life rolls on in George W. Bush's America, forcing us to invent a new word -- greeed" --Molly Ivins

    by rhubarb on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:19:11 PM PST

  •  More than a primary campaign (4+ / 0-)

    this is about the future of our nation's foreign policy. Please take the time to read Steve Clemens' Washinton Note as he sheds some light on what Hillary Clinton's vote and continued stance on Iraq really means. His posts discusses the usual two reasons: courting the center, and avoiding the flip-flopper meme. But there is another reason, and this is much more important:

    And the FPE, you see, is fairly conservative. There's one house, the New America Foundation, that has admirably made itself the center of the foreign-policy opposition in Washington. But outside of New America, the FPE is dominated by conservatives, neo and otherwise in redoubts like the American Enterprise Institute, and centrist Democrats. This last category is typified by Kenneth Pollack, of the nominally liberal Brookings Institution, whose 2002 book, The Threatening Storm, made a case for the Iraq war which many liberals endorsed. In fact, it's fair to say that most of the FPE was pro-war, and even today, many of its prominent members will admit only to botched execution on the administration's part, not to any broader problems with the whole idea from the start.

    This is a bunch whose views are well to the right of the Democratic primary electorate. And it is a bunch in whose good graces Hillary Clinton, a cautious and establishment politician at her core, is fervent to stay. And as was once said of love in the movies, so it must be said today that staying in the FPE's good graces means never having to say you're sorry.

    And this is where a potential Clinton presidency becomes a concern. If she is elected, she will likely draw most of her foreign-policy brain trust from this world -- not from the neoconservative wing, but from the pro-war neoliberal wing; in other words, from a group of people who got Iraq completely wrong.

    I am late to this discussion, but I've bookmarked the Clemens' post because it should not be forgotten or lost.

  •  She's got my vote (6+ / 0-)

    and an enthusiastic one at that.  This place is turning in to a one pony show.  What the fuck is the point of all the whinning over that damn vote.  You people need to grow up.

    www.brocknyla.typepad.com

    by BRockNYLA on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:21:06 PM PST

    •  What's the point of whining over 3100 troops (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jfern, msl, by foot, munky, Universal

      killed, tens of thousands with their limbs blown off, hundreds of thousands of dead human beings whose country and families will view us as mortal enemies for generations to come, flushing what is widely seen on capitol hill as something that we will soon be flushing our 2 trillionth dollar down the toilet off, all to take out Iran's enemies, destroy our troops, waste money, destroy our nations reputation in the world, and make us hated by more people than at any time in history.

      No big whoop right?

      Congratulations, your post is about the dumbest fucking thing I have read here in quite some time.

    •  How do we know she won't be fooled again? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      by foot, munky

      It's pretty clear she learned nothing from the Iraq war that she enabled. How do we know she won't start a war with Iran?

      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

      by jfern on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:32:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Those of us opposed to HRC's candidacy (0+ / 0-)

      need the participation of her advocates to keep it from being too much of a one-track situation.

      So, I hope you'll diary and comment a lot.

      That said, HRC is fairly unpopular here, so you can expect a lot of vigorous disagreement if you do.

      Those who oppose HRC need to grow up?  Sure, that'll bring us around.  Try something else.

      HRC made a significant mistake that she so far has not acknowledged in public.  It was an extraordinarily important vote, and many of her colleagues, as well as zillions of regular citizens, did not fall for the crap Bush was pulling.  It's going to be pretty hard to finesse that.

      It's time to get serious about renewables and efficiency. It's time to win the oil endgame.

      by by foot on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:06:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  important point (0+ / 0-)

        It was an extraordinarily important vote, and many of her colleagues, as well as zillions of regular citizens, did not fall for the crap Bush was pulling.

        If all the dems had supported going to war, I might cut her some slack. But why were those who voted against it so much more enlightened than HRC, not to mention your average Joe on Dkos?

        Remember to call Congress and call often

        by lisastar on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:52:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  zillions? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        moira977, heartofblue

        against the invasion?  I don't know where you live, but here in CA I was called a traitor for opposing the war both before and after it started.  And it was a little lonely.  Maybe the zillions were all huddled in your neck of the woods.

        Most Americans went along with the dog and pony scare show the administration put on.  Voting against the war took a great deal of courage.  I don't condone voting for it, and I wasn't happy voting for Kerry because of his vote.  But let's not re-write the history.

    •  i predict that this primary (5+ / 0-)

      will be a wakeup call for this site.

      ms. clinton has for years been pegged by the right as a lefty.  now, the vocal blog warriors of the left, eager to run slipshod as far to the extreme as possible in order to live up to some self-important roll of angry giant killers, has painted sen. clinton as unelectable because she is too . . . centrist?  

      this vitriol makes her nothing but more electable to the mainstream.  every one of these diaries sounds a louder death knell for the other candidates.

      i predict that ms. clinton walks with this and dKos gets a big thank you card from the administration of the first female president of the united states.  who would have thought that the left would catalyze this momentous event through their opposition to it.

      again, i am supporting no one, so if you choose to attack me, do it because you disagree on point, not because you think i'm in "enemy camp."  please consider that i would be proud to be represented by any of the current candidates.  my vote will be decided the day of the CA primary.

      but, i do agree with you, BrockNYLA.  this is turning into an anti-clinton bukkake fest and is wearing thin.  the hatred behind many of these comments is disgraceful and is exactly the pitchfork mob rule that freaks everyone to the right of havana out about the "progressive" movement.

      i fear that this public stoning is a mass self-castration of a movement.  i also do not believe  that it represents the views of progressives in general, only a vocal few.  what makes me saddest is that so many of them are people i have come to respect.  still do through maddening frustration.

      i wish for the sake of the progressive movement that those who support candidates other than sen. clinton would cease the fox tactics.  our REAL opposition smile at our cannibalism and regroup as we become the new wingnuts.

      thanks markos, for creating one giant collective purity troll on your own site.

      "Life is a dream for the wise, a game for the fool, a comedy for the rich, a tragedy for the poor." --Sholem Yakov Rabinowitz

      by Back in the Cave on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:47:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm really tired of obstinance in our leaders (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lisastar

    Surely to goodness we've had our fill of that from the nutcases in the opposition.

    I don't have anything against Hillary - or for her. But I am utterly fed up with leadership that thinks that being obstinate is the same as being inspiring.

    -2.38 -4.87: Maturity - Doing what you know is right even though you were told to do it.

    by grapes on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:22:37 PM PST

  •  Out of Touch? (2+ / 0-)

    Hillary is running like it's 1999.  So much has happened to our country and the world since then that has made people sit up, pay attention and think about what kind of leader they want to follow, and Hillary and her advisors seem to have missed it.  She is being George W. Bush in 1999 -- I have all the money, I am a strong leader who won't back down no matter what, I am inevitable.  I hope she isn't inevitable, because we have moved on and need a new sort of leader for a different world.  We need a pragmatic problem-solver.

  •  Comparing her to the Senate is no defense (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kentucky DeanDemocrat

    y'know? As if I'm in love with Diane Feinstein and Harry Reid.

    If Hillary Clinton were a man -- she'd be competing with Joe Biden as the least-exciting candidate in the race.

    by Junior Bug on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:35:04 PM PST

  •  First of all, Kos has never given the impression (6+ / 0-)

    to me that he was going to vote for Hillary EVER.
    It was going to be Edwards, or Clark, or Feingold,
    anybody but Hillary. Now there's an OBSESSION with
    getting Hillary to admit her mistake. Enough for
    Christ's sake. Talk about something else, and
    don't waste everybody's time by dogging her for
    her stubbornness. If Kos had an obsessed pack after
    him, he might just say fuck off too. Put your
    obsessive energy into getting SOMEBODY elected and
    get off of it. It's a damned dead end. At this stage,
    do you think that even if she groveled, this would
    be enough? There's more hate here for her than from
    the conservatives. Dick Morris and all the professional
    Hillary haters are laughing somewhere. You've outhated
    them.  

    •  I'll be doing both. (0+ / 0-)

      HRC:  no.

      Clark, Richardson:  yes.

      It's not just kos, and you may call it obsession if you like, but I prefer to think of it as recognizing the importance of a particular vote, the importance of being able to admit one was wrong, and the poor judgment of one who screws up the other two items.

      Hate?  Nope.  If she's the nominee, I will work to elect her.  Meanwhile, I will work to have someone else be the nominee.

      It's time to get serious about renewables and efficiency. It's time to win the oil endgame.

      by by foot on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:09:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If she's ignoring us like this in the primary? (4+ / 0-)

    What sort of bullshit will she pull in the general election? If I wanted a Republican, I'd vote for the Republican. Fuck Hillary.

    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

    by jfern on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:39:01 PM PST

  •  Utterly pathetic ... (3+ / 0-)

    ... response from Sen. Clinton and her campaign.

    Her candidacy does not deserve to be supported, IMO.

    It's time to get serious about renewables and efficiency. It's time to win the oil endgame.

    by by foot on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:43:34 PM PST

  •  Whoever wrote this: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Back in the Cave

    "This constant pushing of this concept that Hillary must bow to our flex is jumping the shark. It's not going to happen. She is not going to roll over and play nice to the netroots."

    Is absolutely correct.  Hillary made it clear today. If you don't approve of her handling of her Iraq vote, find someone else to support.  And good for her.  She's polling very well and sure as hell does not need the b.s. going on in little hidey-holes like dailykos.com

    http://www.hillaryclinton.com

    •  "little hidey-holes like dailykos.com" (4+ / 0-)

      Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Jim Webb, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi and many other leaders in the Democratic Party post diaries on this little hidey-hole. The netroots were far from negligible in the Nov. 2006 elections. We'll see how negligible they will have become by 2008.

      "The cloud of mind is discharging its collected lightning, and the equilibrium between institutions and opinions is now restoring or is about to be restored."

      by nom de paix on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:53:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The netroots did not do Edwards any favors (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Back in the Cave, PhillyGuy03

        The crazed leftwing of the party needs to seriously   take a breath.   The electorate will not let this party control Congress and the Presidency.   They want  grownups.

        •  I will bet (0+ / 0-)

          that we have not seen the last diary that John Edwards will post here.

          "The cloud of mind is discharging its collected lightning, and the equilibrium between institutions and opinions is now restoring or is about to be restored."

          by nom de paix on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:31:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  hear hear (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bandersnatch

          please friends, do not be led blindly by markos into the arms of a distinction the progressive movement does NOT WANT:  that of the new wingnuts.  

          count to ten then count to ten thousand.  breath.  our democratic leaders will manage a responsible pullout from iraq in a manner that restores world faith in our nation - a great nation.  do not push this ship off the deep end just as our collective voice is beginning to be heard through painstaking hours of blood, sweat, and callouses.

          please.

          "Life is a dream for the wise, a game for the fool, a comedy for the rich, a tragedy for the poor." --Sholem Yakov Rabinowitz

          by Back in the Cave on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:59:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  It's this blog's credibility with me (8+ / 0-)

    that's being lost here.  And I'm sorry about that, because this blog was a major source of news for me.

    Hillary isn't surprised about people's anger with the war.  She may be surprised that so many people are angry that she won't express herself in specific words dictated by others.

    I feel like I'm seeing OCD in a lot of people here.  I'm kind of obsessive myself, so maybe I'm just seeing things through my own lens.  But it really does look to me like people have got themselves fixated on a certain phrase and just can't let it go.

    Hillary has said if she knew then what she knows now, she wouldn't have voted for the war.  She's made it clear she doesn't support the war, and she's made it clear that as President, she will get us out of Iraq if George Bush hasn't done it by the end of his term.  Yet the obsession with one particular set of words is causing Kos and some others here to either not be able to see Hillary's position clearly or to purposely distort Hillary's position.

    I remember when a particular group of influential progressives wanted to hear John Kerry use the words, "I regret voting for the Iraq war resolution," when he was running for the Democratic nomination in 2004.  I was a Kerry supporter in 2004 (because he seemed to me to be the candidate who was most serious about energy independence at that time.)  Yet, the most disappointing part of that primary campaign for me was when Kerry gave in to that group of people and said the words that he had been told by them that he must say if he was to have their support.

    I wish I was a good enough writer to convey my feelings at that point.  I'm not, but I'll try my best anyway.  Thinking about Kerry doing that reminds me of the scene in 1984, when the protagonist finally says to the torturer the words the torturer wants to hear.  Once he does, all is forgiven, and he cries and is embraced in his torturer's arms.  It also reminds me of my feelings about someone who is seen as a religious heretic in some cultish community.  He is ostracized in his community, until he finally conforms to the required behavior or says the required words.  Then, all is forgiven, and he is embraced, while he cries, and is taken back into the community.

    Both those scenes are distasteful to me, and I'm glad that Hillary has chosen not to do that.

  •  Feingold idiotically trusted the President too (3+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Caldonia, kindertotenlieder, Buddha Hat
    Hidden by:
    munky

    and he never apologized. He believed Bush's lie that there were WMD.

    So did many many others, of course, and they have nothing to apologize for. Victims of fraud never do, unless they've been victimized by the same person before and should know better.

    I'm important, and everyone else is too. - G.K. Chesterton

    by fairleft on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:50:06 PM PST

    •  Even my Pet Rock (1+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      algebrateacher
      Hidden by:
      munky

      knew there weren't any WMDs.

      •  So did mine, but the MSM & Colin Powell (1+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Caldonia
        Hidden by:
        munky

        & the CIA Director, and almost all the high pooh bahs and experts, including St. Scott Ritter and St. Russ Feingold, said they were confident Saddam did have WMD.

        I'm important, and everyone else is too. - G.K. Chesterton

        by fairleft on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:01:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I hate to admit it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fairleft

          I was with the people you just listed on this.

          And there's not a day goes by My Pet Rock doesn't let me forget it.

        •  Incorrect. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kentucky DeanDemocrat

          St. Scott Ritter and St. Russ Feingold, said they were confident Saddam did have WMD.

          Scott Ritter said there were no WMDs. Not sure about Feingold, but he voted against the war. Your falsehoods make me less inclined to vote for Hillary.

          "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." -- Abe Lincoln

          by munky on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:07:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, both accepted the WMD thesis in Oct 2002 (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fairleft

            ... when the debate was held and the vote was taken (documented elsewhere in this thread)

            I believe you owe Edgar08 an apology.

            Pass the word -- "No escalation without justification!"

            by RonK Seattle on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:13:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Gimme that apology, not Edgar08! (0+ / 0-)

              Just kidding.

              Thanks RonK, I was too lazy to go upthread and paste that stuff! It's really remarkable how many said they believed Saddam had WMD. I not downthread that Bill Richardson was a believe too.

              I'm important, and everyone else is too. - G.K. Chesterton

              by fairleft on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:22:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, you're so quaint and funny (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Kentucky DeanDemocrat

                LMFAO!

                In 2002, Scott Ritter said, "I've said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact."

                http://www.time.com/...

                "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." -- Abe Lincoln

                by munky on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:26:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Speaking of quaint and funny, can you quote ... (0+ / 0-)

                  ... the sentence immediately before that, please?

                  Her's a couple others, from 9/13/2002 (when, we should note, they were debating a very different proposition ... Ritter arguing for reintroduced inspectors -- which the October AUMF produced!):

                  I'm not saying Iraq doesn't pose a threat ... I'm saying it has not been demonstrated to pose a threat worthy of war at this time. Bush needs to make the case.

                  I've never once said I know what is happening in Iraq today ... What I'm saying is no one knows what is happening in Iraq today

                  Pass the word -- "No escalation without justification!"

                  by RonK Seattle on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:58:59 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  OK I'll re-paste Ritter's February 2003 statement (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  moira977

                  February 6, 2003:

                  Defectors' reports, [Ritter] said, could be misleading, especially those coming from people associated with the opposition Iraqi National Congress, who he said could have been "pre-briefed in advance to tell lies." "Are these legitimate defectors or are they deliberately out there falsifying testimony? I don't know. What I do know is I'm not willing to put American lives on the line based on the testimony from an Iraqi defector. I want something a little bit more solid than that," Ritter said. But he stressed he is not arguing that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction - merely that the U.N. inspectors should be given sufficient time to do their job in Iraq and make a final determination based on solid evidence.

                  The Time interview you quote from, with a fuller context:

                  In 1998, you said Saddam had "not nearly disarmed." Now you say he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Why did you change your mind?

                  I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never! I've said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact. To say that Saddam's doing it is in total disregard to the fact that if he gets caught he's a dead man and he knows it. Deterrence has been adequate in the absence of inspectors but this is not a situation that can succeed in the long term. In the long term you have to get inspectors back in.

                  Iraq's borders are porous. Why couldn't Saddam have obtained the capacity to produce WMD since 1998 when the weapons inspectors left?

                  I am more aware than any UN official that Iraq has set up covert procurement funds to violate sanctions. This was true in 1997-1998, and I'm sure its true today. Of course Iraq can do this. The question is, has someone found that what Iraq has done goes beyond simple sanctions violations? We have tremendous capabilities to detect any effort by Iraq to obtain prohibited capability. The fact that no one has shown that he has acquired that capability doesn't necessarily translate into incompetence on the part of the intelligence community. It may mean that he hasn't done anything.

                  http://www.globalpolicy.org/...

                  I'm important, and everyone else is too. - G.K. Chesterton

                  by fairleft on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 10:06:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I have a special perspective on this ... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fairleft

                ... because in summer '02 I made efforts to introduce lines of argument casting doubt on Saddam's WMD capabilities, and the antiwar movement wasn't having any. Some of these efforts were critiqued as "unhelpful", i.e., so far out as to reflect poorly on the movement's credibility.

                In early 2003 I pressed the argument that IF Saddam had WMD, he was not necessarily a conspicuous danger (either to the US via terrorist hand-off's, or in Ken Pollack's Saudi bank-shot scenario).

                I also tried to bend the argument toward pragmatic analysis of the potential strategic entanglements in which we now find ourselves, and again found them out of bounds. Moralizings about the evils of war were the order of the day.

                I remember the history vividly because I was there, in the kitchen, with the sharpest knife in the drawer, but couldn't get near Colonel Mustardgas for the crowds of pacifists intent on pummeling him into oblivion with marshmallows.

                Pass the word -- "No escalation without justification!"

                by RonK Seattle on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:38:31 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Ah, my error ... and my apologies! (0+ / 0-)

                Pass the word -- "No escalation without justification!"

                by RonK Seattle on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:45:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Wrong (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kentucky DeanDemocrat

              Scott Ritter expressly stated there were no WMDs in Iraq. Get your facts straight, PLEASE.

              "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." -- Abe Lincoln

              by munky on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:23:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Feingold voted against the war (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kentucky DeanDemocrat

      Feingold did not vote for the 2002 resolution.

      "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." -- Abe Lincoln

      by munky on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:01:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary Clinton for President (6+ / 0-)

    Half the twits demanding that Hillary bow at their feet haven't a freaking clue what the woman has said about Iraq.  It's beyond the point of the absurd.  Vote for someone else you Hillary-bashers.  She doesn't need your support.  Her poll numbers keep going up.  76% of Dems across the country favor her over everybody else for the Presidency.  Live with it.  She made her position clear today in Dover, NH.
    It took guts.  It's called honesty.

    Now watch her poll numbers go up even more.

    http://www.hillaryclinton.com

  •  Edgar08 (0+ / 0-)

    Edgar08's PET ROCK FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    http://www.hillaryclinton.com

  •  The hell she wasn't (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kentucky DeanDemocrat

    She is a lap dog for the special interests foreign and domestic that engineered this "war."

    The young man who has not wept is a savage, and the old man who will not laugh is a fool. George Santayana

    by Bobjack23 on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:57:22 PM PST

  •  Leftist wackos will be (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Back in the Cave

    the downfall of this party yet,  even after the successes of last November.   We can thank them for nearly torpedoing  Edwards campaign before it got off the ground, now we see them howling and snapping at the heels of the  candidate best positioned  to actually WIN the Presidency.   What do you people have against   a little moderation so you can actually win something?

    •  Hey, I'm a leftist wacko and I resent that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Back in the Cave, Fenderosa

      I'm a leftist wacko who thinks we need fair debates on real issues within our party (and on this website).

      This is the exact opposite of a real issue, and it would actually be pretty embarrassing if a person with real concerns (like, say she can't pay for her daughter's operation because her crap company doesn't provide them health care) were to look at what our site owner thinks is worth obsessing on these days.

      I'm important, and everyone else is too. - G.K. Chesterton

      by fairleft on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:16:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  One of the reasons I'm opposed to HRC (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kentucky DeanDemocrat

      is that I think she'll be a disaster in the general election - not the candidate best postioned to win. She's not getting any crossover or many independent votes, and now she'd just pissed off a chunk of the Democratic base.

      Democrats - We refuse to caucus in the missionary position.

      by SaneSoutherner on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:30:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So who among the contenders (0+ / 0-)

        can get the independent vote?   I'm Independent and I might end  up voting republican just to keep dems from getting the whole enchilada.

        We've seen what can happen when one party gets all the power.

        •  I think Wes Clark can. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kentucky DeanDemocrat

          Obama can. Richardson might. Vilsack might.

          And if you vote Republican at this juncture in our nations's history, you are a flaming idiot.

          Troll me for ad hominem if you'd like - I'll take the hit for the sake of the truth.

          Democrats - We refuse to caucus in the missionary position.

          by SaneSoutherner on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 10:00:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Everyone you mentioned is a midget at this point (0+ / 0-)

            in time.  I'll vote for whoever I think can lead us back to the straight and narrow.   I want a leader, someone who can put two sentences together and form a cogent thought.  Someone who will continue the fight against radiacl islam and get it RIGHT.

            I'm sick of leftist morons and rightwingnuts bashing each other at the expense of the Nation's welfare.

            Call me names if it makes you feel better.

        •  You're Joking, Right? Have the Repugs (0+ / 0-)

          not shown over the last 12 years what liars and thieves they are?  It will take a long time of governance by real progressives to undo the damage.

      •  See real world polls, not blog polls (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Caldonia, Blue Wave Cometh

        You will see that she actually has the most support among independents and swing voters from the current crop of Democratic candidates.

        So in other words, the reality is the opposite of your impression.

        •  I don't live on blogs. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          diplomatic

          I live in a Red, Red state, with almost exclusively Republican and Independent neighbors and family.  My opinion isn't based on blog polls or MSM polls, it's based on what I see and hear from real people.

          Democrats - We refuse to caucus in the missionary position.

          by SaneSoutherner on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 10:42:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  well maybe where you live it is the case (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Caldonia

            but of course it is also doessn't represent a panoramic overview of the voting landscape across the nation.

            The great thing about a place like this is that we can all share our anectodal experiences and perspectives and readers can get an overall sense of what the whole picture might be.

        •  That's only name recognition (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SaneSoutherner

          Given time, more voters will drop Hillary after they get to know some of the other candidates better.  Besides, for the primaries the independents and swing voters don't matter as much.  Every time we try to cater to them we end up with a worthless candidate like John Kerry.

    •  The moderates got their candidate in 2004. (0+ / 0-)

      His name was John Kerry.

      How did that work out for you?  People like you told us "leftist wackos" that Kerry was the only one that could "win" it.

      How is that working out for you, Mr. Sane Rational Moderate?

      Moderates are what is destroying this party because people like you are simply dragging us to Republican Lite.

  •  If she wasn't wrong, why should she quit the war? (0+ / 0-)

    The past isn't the central issue here. Getting out of the war is. Since there's no chance in Hell a Republican can win in 2008 after Bush's latest strategy flames out, the only way the Establishment that doesn't want to admit defeat can stay in is if the Democrat who wins supports it. That's what the Iraq Study Group was all about, to de-escalate the war to some politically acceptible level and get the Democrats to sign off on it. Since Hillary Clinton won't admit voting for the war in the first place was wrong and is pandering with all that "I'm the Senator from New York after 9/11" crap, why should we believe that she won't do what the ISG wanted in the first place and keep a few thousand troops there indefinitely to try to "salvage national honor?" After all, she hasn't given any kind of a deadline (unlike Edwards, Obama, etc) for pulling the last of our people out of Iraq.

    Senator Clinton can keep her apology if she doesn't want to give one. I'd settle for a fixed timetable to pull ALL our people out of Iraq. I think that's a reasonable thing to ask for.

    •  Obama plans to keep thousands there too (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Back in the Cave

      That's what his plan says.

      Secondly, Hillary has recognized the invasion and occupation were a mistake. She has said that knowing what she knows now (she said this in August, 2004) she would not have approved the authorization of force.

      Anyway, I respect and completely agree with you that the key is what to do going forward. However, all the major Democratic Party candidates are compromised in one way or another on Iraq. Not just Hillary. But, they are what we have to work with.

      I'm important, and everyone else is too. - G.K. Chesterton

      by fairleft on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:43:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's the war, stupid (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mamamedusa

    We're almost four years into this. If you cannot yet (and apparently will never) admit that your vote to enable this colossal evil was a mistake, then I have one thing to say to you, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: FUCK YOU.

    "The cloud of mind is discharging its collected lightning, and the equilibrium between institutions and opinions is now restoring or is about to be restored."

    by nom de paix on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:02:29 PM PST

  •  Has Richardson acknowledged his mistake? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    diplomatic, by foot, Fenderosa, fairleft



    CNN AMERICAN MORNING WITH PAULA ZAHN:

    "only one more chance for Saddam Hussein is going to be allowable. So I think the [Bush] administration is wise in pursuing this course that says OK, total disarmament in two weeks and that's it...Give him one more chance to disarm. I think the odds are not very strong that he will. And after that period, you take action."

    Bill Richardson
    February 18, 2003

    `````
    peace

  •  Stop the presses!!!!!!!!! (4+ / 0-)

    Kos NOT voting for Hillary!

    Like we haven't all known this for years. Here we go again with the circular firing squad.

  •  More Respect For Someone Who Tells It Like It Is. (3+ / 0-)

    I have more respect for someone like Hillary now.

    Why?

    Because John Edwards doesn't give two cents about "Being wrong".  He is pandering to all the idiots who will be sooooo happy he said those things.  He is basically lying to you.

    Hillary is put in a tough spot.  I don't like her, but this makes me like her more: She's simply not pandering to the idiots out there crying for her to say this or that...stuff she obviously doesn't believe in... just to suck up to some voters.

    If you don't like it, and I'm sure you don't, DO NOT VOTE FOR HER.

    Wouldn't you rather know what she is about rather than her pull the wool over your eyes?  

    Sometimes I think this website is full of idiots who can't see through these purely political games.  I guarantee that 90% of these guys don't care about any of you or your wacky views.

    •  She's pandering to Republicans (4+ / 0-)

      When will she start pandering to the Democrats?

      "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." -- Abe Lincoln

      by munky on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:12:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  MSM lie: Democrats are 'panderers' while (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hopscotch1997, PhillyGuy03

        Republicans are 'straight-shooters'.

        It's bias disguised as mind-reading, and we at dailykos should fight it instead of joining in.

        I'm important, and everyone else is too. - G.K. Chesterton

        by fairleft on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:18:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  non-sequitur n/t (0+ / 0-)

          "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." -- Abe Lincoln

          by munky on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:21:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  How do you know she is pandering rather than (0+ / 0-)

            stating her honest opinion? What's your evidence? And why do you believe that 'evidence' rather than just 'not knowing' (the reasonable thing for non-mind-readers to do).

            I'm important, and everyone else is too. - G.K. Chesterton

            by fairleft on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:39:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I don't believe it for a second (0+ / 0-)

          Does the MSM say it this way?  I don't think so.  Actually, the MSM fails on all counts to point out the hypocricy that goes on in Washington: ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.

          Look at ole' Rudy joining in the anti-abortion wagon trying to get votes.  It is sickening!  Is Rudy a straight shooter?  I tend to think, usually, YES.  But even he is realizing he has to bullshit mass quantities of voters to try to win elections.  It is a sad state of affairs in American politics.

          I'd rather have all the candidates just say what they mean...and you can do that by checking their votes.  

          Hillary is saying the troops should be taken out of Iraq in 90 days... who really would throw money down on the fact that she wouldn't "change her mind" once in office.  I wouldn't.

    •  This is all triangulation; it's what she's about (0+ / 0-)

      Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Well, come on, doesn't anybody know!?!?

      by Erik the Red on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:17:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not an idiot (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      moira977

      And I think Edwards has what it would take to bring my country from the brink. Some rude $%#^s out this evening.

      Republicans: Proudly placing yellow smiley-face stickers on the face of doom since 1969 -8.88 -5.08

      by SecondComing on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 12:56:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Clinton Gives War Critics New Answer...'? NO! (0+ / 0-)

    Note the baffling NY Times headline: "Clinton Gives War Critics New Answer on ’02 Vote" Why that headline, when Clinton is actually and emphatically not giving war critics a new answer on the '02 vote?

    Well, it's just reinforcement of the now traditional "The Democrats are flip-floppers" frame, brought to you for years by the NY Times and WaPost and their echo chamber on cable punditland. They will push this narrative, especially Patrick Healy will, even when (as in this case) the facts directly contradict it.

    Fighting these frame-ups is far more important than pressuring Hillary to apologize for not having 2007 hindsight in 2002. But Markos misses it, and it has never been more obvious than in that headline.

    I'm important, and everyone else is too. - G.K. Chesterton

    by fairleft on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:12:36 PM PST

  •  ASDF (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moira977, Kentucky DeanDemocrat

    Today she lost my potential vote. I doubt I'm the only person in this position

    She lost my years ago. I know too much focus on "purity" can be self-defeating, but her triangulating is so blatant I just can't support her.

    Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Well, come on, doesn't anybody know!?!?

    by Erik the Red on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:13:47 PM PST

  •  Thank you, Hillary. (0+ / 0-)

    I think I will, too.

  •  Maybe she knows she will look foolish if.... (0+ / 0-)

    and when Bush announces a GROUNDBREAKING concord with oversight with Iran.~
    Booz Allen is dying to test ecofriendly reactors with carbon dioxide collecting technology and coopt the save the planet meme.~
    There's the contract right there. So watch: when we back the Sunni's against the Shi'A, it will come to pass as a miracle!!~
    Bush will do it to "get it right." He's just been playing for time. He has a (secret) plan. ssssshhhhhhh. These f**kers aren't done playing us yet.~

    America's Second Harvest (moral compass: -7.63,-6.21) (world view: 9,1)

    by ezdidit on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:18:36 PM PST

  •  Yup, I'm with you kos... (0+ / 0-)

    This, combined with her bullshit about Iran on Wednesday, means no way, no how, is she going to get my vote.

  •  Kos is full of shit. (5+ / 0-)

    What is the difference between apologizing and admitting a mistake?

    Nothing. Kos is picking at straws, and the rest of the community drones on behind. This place is growing increasingly necrotic with groupthink--much more so than a year ago.

    We already know Clinton wants to end the war. That's her "position." So that's Nix Number One for the list of reasons Kos decided to pen this article.

    It's time to be frank here. I'm not going to vote for Clinton in the primaries, maybe not even in the general election.

    Here's why.

    I don't fucking care what she did four years ago. It's over. Done with. That she voted for the war shows she either has shitty judgment or shitty character, and nothing she says or does is going to "fix" that.

    Saying "I made a mistake" doesn't change a god damn thing when you are talking about a fucking war, so as far as I'm concerned, Kos needs to focus his energy on something that's actually substantive. If Clinton got on national TV and cried for three hours about the war, would Kos be happy? Probably. But what the fuck does that accomplish?

    Figure it out for yourself.

    She already fucked up. Now write about something we can change.

    This "article" doesn't deserve to be on the front page, which is a shame, since so many others do.

    •  not everyone :) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      heartofblue

      the biggest irony is that markos, through the creation of the world's largest collective purity troll, will be handing her the general.  nothing that happens on this site will put a dent in the primary results.  please read my comment above.

      "Life is a dream for the wise, a game for the fool, a comedy for the rich, a tragedy for the poor." --Sholem Yakov Rabinowitz

      by Back in the Cave on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 10:11:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  LOL! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kentucky DeanDemocrat

      This "article" doesn't deserve to be on the front page, which is a shame, since so many others do.

      BWahahahaha!!!

      Oh really? It doesn't belong on the front page of its author's blog?? Just think about that one for a minute.

      Do you even know what a blog is? Let's cut the blogosphere dogmatic mystification for a moment. A blog is simply a web log. An online journal enabled by some software. If Markos feels an epic poem based on the life of Flip Wilson is appopriate front page material for his online journal, it is appropriate by definition. he may lose readers, but thats really a different issue.

      Can we please stop pretending that a blog is some sort of transcendent, supernatural experience that we all own collectively, like nirvana or something? Ye gods.

      Get over to the Green Mountain Daily! What are you still reading this sig for?

      by odum on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 10:25:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't miss my point. (0+ / 0-)

        Frankly, "Kos's blog" wouldn't mean shit without its hundreds of talented, unpaid diarists contributing stories every day, the vast majority of which are just as well written--if not better--than many of kos's own entries.

        Frightenigly, this is something every self-proclaimed liberal ought to agree with. The notion of singular ownership by one person of what is clearly a community-empowered movement, a movement whose goal is to change society--not simply to express the views of one person--reaks of conservatism's patriarchal doctrine.

        Secondly, if kos writes an article and posts on the front page of the internet, he ought to expect a great deal of criticism and disagreement, as rightly he should. If nothing else, it's something that ought to make him a stronger writer, and he should be challenged to defend his beliefs. After all, he's making money with them--largely because of readers like you and I.

        There is enough frivolous Hillary bullshit going on in the so-maligned "traditional" media. I don't see why kos believes we need any more of it here at "his" blog.

  •  Does she know what the word 'mistake' means? (0+ / 0-)

    Ladies and Gentlemen. We have met the first flawless human being ever.

    http://rochesterturning.com/

    by optimusprime on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:39:26 PM PST

  •  C'mon, Kos (6+ / 0-)

    She never had your "potential vote".

    You have bad-mouthed every chance you got.  Your disdain for her is palable and of long standing.

    There was no chance at any time that you would vote for her in a Democratic primary.

    My questions for you are:

    1. If and when she gets the nomination, do you vote for her?
    1. Or for the GOP candidate?  
    1. Or for Nader?"

    I respect your choice.  You are welcome to it, and I support your choice as your choice, and your right and capacity to influence others.

    But suggesting that Hillary might have possibly gotten your vote is nonsense.  

    Oh, yeah, she might have gotten your vote if she voted your way on every issue or did everything you want her to do.  

    But she also has the right to think for herself.  And she has the right to run her campaign as she sees fit.  She has one hell of a campaigner on her side, so even without your support, she does have some things going her way.

    Let the best candidate win the nomination.  We have several top notch candidates, and I would be happy voting for any of them.  But what are YOU going to do if and when Hillary accepts the nomination?

    •  the convenience of one-way freedom (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kentucky DeanDemocrat

      But she also has the right to think for herself.  And she has the right to run her campaign as she sees fit.

      But Markos has no right to ctiticize? or to run his blog as he sees fit?

      Do I also have no right to criticize, or do I have to be sufficiently high profile before my own free speech rights must give way to Hillary's right to insult my intelligence?

      9 times out of 10 when someone bites back defensively that "so and so has a right to do/say/be fill-in-the-blank", the real message is that the person who offered the opinion that spurred the response doesn't.

      Get over to the Green Mountain Daily! What are you still reading this sig for?

      by odum on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 10:30:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course he does have the right (0+ / 0-)

        to criticize.

        Read my comment: My point is that Kos is being duplicitous by implying that somehow she MIGHT have gotten his vote.  He can criticize and urge others to follow his lead all he wants!  And I applaud that!  But don't go around telling us he MIGHT have given his vote to HRC.  He hasn't said a positive that I have seen here yet, at least not regarding the Presidency.

  •  Kos is making me want to vote for Hillary (6+ / 0-)

    the more I keep seeing these unbalaned hit-jobs on the front page, the more I want to support Hillary just to spite those who would be king-makers (or king-breakers?)

    •  There was that article Kos wrote (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhillyGuy03

      about hurting your candidate.

      He thinks he's immune.

    •  markos must understand (0+ / 0-)

      that he is handing ms. clinton the general.  please read my comment above.  i believe that markos is a closet clinton supporter.  if so, very sly indeed; and impressively effective.

      "Life is a dream for the wise, a game for the fool, a comedy for the rich, a tragedy for the poor." --Sholem Yakov Rabinowitz

      by Back in the Cave on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 10:15:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  interesting theory! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Back in the Cave
        •  some make the same argument (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          diplomatic

          about san fran mayor and slick enemy of progressives, gavin newsom purposely handing bush a re-election by energizing the republican base with his "well-timed" gay marriage festival on the capitol steps.

          ex-republicans who maintain political notoriety have strange bedfellows and deserve a complex microscope.

          "Life is a dream for the wise, a game for the fool, a comedy for the rich, a tragedy for the poor." --Sholem Yakov Rabinowitz

          by Back in the Cave on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 10:35:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Politics is a high stakes game (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Back in the Cave

            I wouldn't be surprised if there are some actualy conspiracies in play.  It has been the case throughout history, indeed.

            •  we're all children (0+ / 0-)

              in our comprehension of just how high stakes the game is and to what extent those with a grip on power will go to maintain that grip.  raw people power without the benefit of all the tricks stacked against them is like a kindergarden revolt against the school board.  

              conspiracy is a simple confidence game because no one thinks they're gullible.  it's freaking supplemental to campaigning 101 and that fact is no different now than it was before we had our own constitution to bind us.  it's just more complicated.  there were always spies.  thanks to MI5 and MI6, the modern world got double agents, post easter rising, triple agents, and now, the modern political landscape we think we know is a latticework of opaque models of reality for which we are only predictable variables. our continental model learned from the masters.

              nice, huh?  but, these words will escape the attention of the right and won't spoil a thing if in fact there is a nifty layer under the absurd.  

              regardless, i still hold that this wingnutting of the left will predictably aid sen. clinton in the general.

              "Life is a dream for the wise, a game for the fool, a comedy for the rich, a tragedy for the poor." --Sholem Yakov Rabinowitz

              by Back in the Cave on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 11:20:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Hilary's made her decision ... (0+ / 0-)

    And she's helped make mine easier: One less choice to consider. Buh-Bye Hillary.

  •  So much for... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    diplomatic, hopscotch1997

    ...Mr. "Neutral."  

    Rethugs have now reached that point in a western where their gun is empty so they throw it at the other guy and run.~loudGizmo

    by Caldonia on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 10:01:12 PM PST

  •  The Democrats voting in support of Bush (0+ / 0-)

    were chicken-shit. Now they can 't admit that.

    Anybody who can not stand up and say that Bush lied! It was a mistake for me to believe him. He should be impeached for laying to Congress.

    Demand the Truth in America

    by EasyRider on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 10:05:25 PM PST

  •  What if she wins the nomination, Kos? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    diplomatic, Caldonia

    Will you support her and encourage others to support her?

  •  Boy if this thread (3+ / 0-)

    Doesn't prove that Hillary is a polarizing politician than nothing will.

    I still think we are being infiltrated by Hillary campaign people.  Now, they are attacking the BASE.

    Good move, Hillary.  That's a GREAT way to get votes.

    /shakes my head...

  •  Shea Culpa (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moira977

    It's just a damn shame that a woman who is so bright, articulate, informed, and strong has equivocated (so poorly) on THE ISSUE of the day.

    This is/was the BEST chance we have or will have for some time to have a real contender for Woman As President of the United States.

    I'm terribly disappointed in that chance lost.  Lost, I tell you!  All this dilly-dallying, shifting, nuancing, sashaying, scrambling BULLSHIT.  She is starting to parody G.W.

    Does she have the intellect?  yes.
    Does she have the savvy?  yes.
    Does she have the tools?  yes.

    Does she have the humility?

    Umm...

    When are the HANDLERS going to sit up and realize that the American Voters can forgive a multitude of sins.  But they don't take kindly to arrogance?

    Lord knows, we've had more of that than we can stand these past 5 years.

    That's my 2 cents.  Here's your change.

  •  This is getting pretty silly Kos. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caldonia, PhillyGuy03
    •  This is a silly comment (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eeff, moira977, Caroline W
      Tiger, without any merit, because you don't explain why you think that way.

      It's not a silly comment, it's the problem with Hillary's campaign.

      She can't admit she's made a freaking mistake.  It would take very little humility to admit it.  Everyone else has.  This is just one more problem I have with her, including her endorsement of torture in "certain circumstances".

      She's nothing but a DLC democrat and will never get to her base.

      Kos is right.

      I don't always agree with him, but I do here.  (And was ahead of him.)

      •  She's already admitted the mistake, just not (3+ / 0-)

        in the campagin ending terms that Kos and most other here want. Even if she came out and said "I was wrong, Kos was right" they would turn around and start calling her a panderer.

        "Never get the base"? She has massive support in one of the largest and bluest states in the country. I think they pretty accurately represent the spectrum of the base. The base sure as hell isn't the netroots not with the number of people here unwilling to support the Democratic nominee.

        It's very odd. The people on here tend to be pretty liberal. Yet they also focus on tearing down people like Clinton and Kerry, yet prop up Edwards or Webb.

        •  HIllary is not liberal (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kentucky DeanDemocrat

          So that's to be expected. Hillary is a creature of the DLC. The DLC is corporate, and not liberal in the least.  Edwards is pretty liberal.  Webb is just honorable.   Whether liberal or not, is really not the point at this point with him, he's not running, we just like him because he's honest and doesn't play politics, unlike hillary.

          I don't know what planet you are on, but Hillary's position on the war is NOT the majority one.  Nor the liberal one.  And Clinton is decidedly NOT liberal.  Supporting bans on flag burning and flip flopping on abortion rights is NOT liberal.

          •  Please, you are either lying or ignorant. She (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            heartofblue, Caldonia, PhillyGuy03

            did not flip flop on abortion rights. "Hillary is a creature of the DLC. The DLC is Corporate" Do you ever do your own research or just parrot what other people say? She is very liberal on economic and social issues. Edwards was a moderate, well to the right of Clinton during their shared years in the Senate. Clinton and Obama have very similar records (she is better on economic issues, at least in 05) and she is ranked by Progressive Punch as the 10th most liberal Senator and by National Journal as only a few percentage points more conservative than Kennedy. Barbara Boxer co-sponsored the flag burning law.

            •  Furthermore, she has the best record on judicial (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Caldonia, PhillyGuy03

              nominees of anyone in the Senate, having voted against more of them than any other Senator

            •  I heard her flip flop on abortion rights (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kentucky DeanDemocrat

              I don't need to read it in Progressive Punch or in National Journal.  I heard her on the news. I don't parrot anything.  Seems like you parrot her. The DLC is corporate, that's the reason it's funded.  Edwards may have been moderate before, but he's now more worker oriented and Democratic than any of the top-tier candidates.

              I don't believe you on Barbara Boxer, just flat out don't believe you.  You might be right, but if that's the case, I'm sure she has a reasonable reason - or you misinterpreted what she said - indeed I've never heard that on the news or anywhere, including on Daily Kos. Boxer doesn't need to pander in my state to right wing idiots.  Because she doesn't need to, for any reason.  The only thing I'm pissed at Babs at is for stumping for Liebermann - and I told her  that, and she sent me a letter back about that, and I would bet she regrets that today.  So don't attack my Senator in comparison to Hillary who just doesn't compare to Babs' integrity and honor.  At least Babs admits when she makes a mistake, and that's ALL we are asking of Hillary.

              Hillary really isn't that liberal. She's a corporate lackey/whore.  But she helped create the DLC so that's to be expected, because that's what they fund.  Look at who supports the DLC, other than, obviously, you.

        •  oh and Kos is right (0+ / 0-)

          on this one.  I don't always agree with Kos.  But his gist is right.  She has to apologize, because her vote killed a lot of people.  This wouldn't be pandering, this would be admitting you were WRONG, and she definitely WAS WRONG.  This is about morality, not politics.

          There's no one that will bring her to trial for her misbegotten vote, but she should admit she was wrong, just to show she has a goddamned conscience and cares about the lives that were lost. And if she doesn't then the American people will pass judgment and not vote her in.  And they won't. Not now.

        •  And Ya (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          moira977

          She will never get the base.  The base is right here, tiger, and she won't get us.

        •  one other thing (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          moira977

          The panderers are those that appeal to the right, in the case of Democrats, in trying to get as many votes as they can.  That's what Hillary is doing.

          It's not pandering to admit you made a mistake.  McCain is pandering.  Guilianni is pandering.  Hillary is pandering.  Edwards isn't, he's standing up for values.  Wes Clark isn't pandering.  Nor is Gore, the shadow candidate.  Nor is Kucinich, nor is Gravel, nor is Richardson.  I don't know about Obama, he seems the most politcal, outside of Hillary or Biden.

          Pandering is what Hillary is made of.  She's pure politics and won't stand up for real convictions, or for the party, but will waffle in the wind depending on  what she thinks will get her elected. She's grossly mistaken.  But she's a political animal and always has been.  From approving torture, to flag burning amendments (because it was expedient) to supporting a woman's right to choose, she does whatever she can to get elected.  It's despicable, and in the case of the Iraq war, immoral. And it's getting our troops killed.

    •  getting is the new past tense (0+ / 0-)
  •  Does she know anything about McNerny? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kentucky DeanDemocrat

    Do y'all know how it was that McNerny beat Filson in the Primary last year?  His phone banks and canvassers simply identified voters for whom Iraq was the top issue, and used that for GOTV.

    If this is the hill that Senator Clinton wants to die on, so be it.  Telling the most motivated and passionate Democratic primary voters to "bring it on" is just stupid.

    That vote was a judgement call, and she's still showing incredibly poor judgement.  That's not a trait I particularly appreciate or admire in a Commander-in-Chief.

    Don't let Katherine Harris's seat get stolen--fight for the people of Sarasota! www.christinejenningsforcongress.com

    by JR on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 10:31:46 PM PST

  •  IMO (2+ / 0-)

    It appears to me that Hillary wants to have her cake and eat it too.

    She's betting that she will get the Democratic Party nomination, and when it comes down to choosing between a Republican or Democratic candidate for president, most Democrats will vote Democrat.

    She could be right about the latter. My husband voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, and openly admits to everyone now that HE MADE A MISTAKE. He says that he's going to vote a Democratic ticket from here on out even if Buddy's ghost ends up running for president, but he would like his vote go to someone that he likes and respects.

    Hillary's not the Democratic Party nominee yet. I wish that she would stop acting like she already has it in the bag.

    If my husband could admit that he was wrong about voting for Bush, surely Hillary can do the same about Iraq.

  •  Not nothing (0+ / 0-)

    Swimming against the current here, but damn if I don't respect that this is the harder tack to take and I respect her for it.

  •  Hillary's Right...and Will Win Big (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhillyGuy03

    She's right to take the nuanced view of taking responsibility for her vote instead of the "gimmick" of saying it was a mistake.

    She would be crucified if she flip flopped; much more important to be resolute.  She has stepped up her criticism of Rumsfeld and the baboon-like conduct of the war over the last couple of years more than any other Senator.  Name any others who were as tough.

    She's the strongest candidate and the most believable as President and Commander-in-Chief and will win easily.  She's also being subjected to more criticism and scrutiny from the right-wing attack machine and the  bloggers than any other candidate ever and is handling it really well, which should be reassuring to all of you.

    The simple fact is that Edwards, Richardson and Obama are not believable as President (Obama will be later, but not this year).  If we didn't have Hillary, we'd be in trouble.  She wins big.

  •  She's also on my no-vote list (0+ / 0-)

    Obama, possibly Edwards, Feingold.

    And depending on who the Democrat is who makes it through the primary, and depending on if Hagel actually managed to beat down McCain, I could conceivably see myself voting for Hagel. I disagree with him on a lot of things, but he's a genuine and honest man and that goes a long way with me.

    Somebody really needs to tell the White House that "1984" is a cautionary tale, not a political guidebook.

    by jabbausaf on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 12:03:31 AM PST

  •  Easy to Fix (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eeff

    If Hillary is the nominee in the general, then of course I'm going to vote for her.  But in the primary, absolutely not, although I do admire her position on many things.

    She can say right now that she used bad judgment on voting for the Iraq invasion, and since all elected officials are politicians, she decided not to say she was wrong.  She can say she's human, who hasn't ever made a mistake, and come out and say right now, even tomorrow, her judgment was wrong, because if she had admitted she was wrong, that wouldn't help her campaign to win the Presidency and enable her to fix the Iraq problem when she's in office. She can say upon further reflection, her political strategy was wrong, but she's listened to dissenting opinions and has concluded her strategy was wrong and admit so.  And she can further say she will use that same thought process as president, unlike Bush, who refuses to change course, when necessary, after listening to informed opinions.

    She's got a small window of time, a few days, to change everything for herself and maybe ultimately for this country.  If she's a true leader, she should take the opportunity to step up.

  •  Another McGovern (0+ / 0-)

    Sorry, if this is the best the Democratic Party can do then we're going to lose. We need a star not a first black or a first woman. Start thinking bigger. Paul Newman would get more votes than Hillary. Elliot Spitzer is someone with the fighting spirit that we need. Al Gore could win. I want a win!

  •  Hillary thinks she has the nomination in the bag (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eeff, moira977, Sandy on Signal, fugue, dss

    Hillary thinks she has the Democractic nomination in the bag, so her main worry is to try and lose as few Republican votes as possible.

    This is a big mistake.  The primary is still a long way off.  If Hillary continues to be pig headed about this, one thing, like say, an Al Gore candidacy, would spell DOOM for her, because Former Vice President Gore (and President Elect Gore 2000) would brush her aside with his logical predictions about the fallacy of the Iraq war.  Hillary is betting that 1) Gore will not run and 2) Her money machine will make her unbeatable.

    Hillary would be a solid President, but I long for an alternative, especially when she basically says, "You don't like my vote, go find someone else."

    I intend to, Senator Clinton.  I fully intend to.  And your stupidly chosen words have solidified that.

    Steven Joseph :)

    Science is not the enemy of religion; scientific principles are the guard rails of religion, preventing it from careening off into crazy and untrue assumptions.

    by StevenJoseph on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 12:25:37 AM PST

  •  Tone down the rhetoric, Kos (5+ / 0-)

    This is so embarrassing: "Not only is the Clinton campaign pig-headed, they are also remarkably out-of-touch."  How absurd.  The Clinton campaign has its problems, but it is neither pig-headed nor out-of-touch.  

    If you would like to criticize Clinton or her campaign, please do so.  But do so politely, reasonably, in a productive tone.  We're trying to have a conversation, here.  There are plenty of grounds on which to intelligently criticize Hillary: her stance on Iraq, her ridiculous stance on video games, so many other things.  But ridiculously overblown rhetoric like this lowers the level of discussion.  And if Clinton wins the nomination, it provides easy ammunition to Republicans looking for turmoil among the Democrats.  It's a rookie mistake.  

    Statements like this one hurt the left, undermine reasonable discussion, and reflect badly on DailyKos.

    •  i agree with jdub (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jDub

      kos sounds as pig-headed on this as he insists clinton is.

      good article here about the clinton mythology:

      But the claim that Clinton was once one of the "staunchest" backers" of the Iraq war does not withstand scrutiny -- nor does the claim that her criticism of the war is recent. While Clinton did vote in favor of the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, less than seven months after the war began, she expressed doubt about President Bush's leadership in the war, saying in an October 17, 2003, floor statement, that her "yes" vote for an $87 billion supplemental appropriation "was a vote for our troops, it was a vote for our mission. ... [I]t was not a vote for our national leadership." During the same statement, Clinton accused the Bush administration of having "gilded the lily" on pre-war Iraq intelligence at "the cost of perhaps not being able to take actions in the future that are necessary to our well-being and our interests because we may look like the nation or at the least the administration that cried wolf."

      "It is no sign of mental health to be well adjusted to a sick society." - J. Krishnamurti

      by whaleshaman on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 10:39:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  No second thoughts for Harry Reid and NO APOLOGY (0+ / 0-)

    either - so he is not a presidential candidate BUT he is the Majority leader Super Dem Harry Reid.

    His Powell excuse is embarrassing IMHO. If he really believed his UN song and dance he should not be Majority leader.

    ----
    "While Hillary is getting the stuffing knocked out of her as she travels around the country by Democrats demanding that she apologize for her 2002 vote to authorize the war in Iraq, the most prominent Democrat in the Senate says he has nothing to apologize for:

       As he prepares to lead Senate Democrats in the debate on President Bush's Iraq policy, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada says he has no second thoughts about his vote in 2002 authorizing the president to go to war.

       "The evidence at the time was persuasive -- especially if you go back and look and see what Secretary of State Colin Powell did at the United Nations," Reid said Tuesday.

       "We've learned since then that the evidence was manipulated," he said. "So the answer is no. I'm not going to apologize."

    Can Hillary get away with the same line? I doubt it."

  •  Apology? Who me? - see Harry Reid link (0+ / 0-)

    the hypocrisy on the net is mindboggling IMHO

    http://time-blog.com/...

  •  kos - give us a break (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bten

    kos even suggesting that he would ever have voted for Hillary is the most dishonest thing I have ever read.  Sure markos - we all know you were just waiting for Hillary to change your mind.  Funny how this Hillary hater demands honesty of Hillary, while lying through his teeth.

  •  hey kos (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hopscotch1997

    "Today she lost my potential vote." (kos)

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!  Funniest damned thing I've ever read.  

    •  Enough already with the Clinton hating, kos (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhillyGuy03

      Can the rightwing blogs be possible worse than dkos when it comes to bashing the Clintons. And especially Hillary Clinton?

      Y'all wont rest until a Republican President is elected again. Memories of Al Gore campaign 2000 all over again.

  •  kos kos kos (3+ / 3-)
    Recommended by:
    hopscotch1997, bten, FelisRufus
    Hidden by:
    Sandy on Signal, HarveyMilk, fugue

    "I don't want her to apologize. I want her to say, "I made a mistake."

    Of course you do kos.  Then you can hammer her even harder.  You have lost ALL credibility with your hate campaign.  Arianna runs a close second.  And it just isn't working.

  •  Pissing on paradox (0+ / 0-)

    Pro:  Hillary fell victim to the bandwagon effect--with this "overwhelming evidence" provided in the form of cartoons at the UN. Hillary is an highly capable--more capable than her husband, no doubt.  (Doh!)

    Con: Kos is suspiciously acting like a one-issue voter--but that's just fine by me.  This issue of Iraq DESERVES THE STATUS!!  We should all be one-issue voters when it comes to 3000+ troops dying over a LIE.  

    Who gives a s___:  Just vote for me in 2012; put yourself in suspended animation and wait for the glorious day!

  •  Dear Teresa in Pa. (0+ / 0-)

    Maybe I was wrong a year ago, but kos apparently finally got it.  What about you?

    Don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

    by jasfm on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 03:01:47 AM PST

  •  Wow...alot of Hillary's staff is posting! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moira977, Sandy on Signal, fugue, owlbear1

    That's the only conclusion I can draw after seeing comment after comment slavishly defend someone who seems to be not only aspiring to Cheney-like levels of misdirection (9/11 mention) but stubborn refusal to own up to the mistake she made. Carville and company need to put down the danish and coffee, step away from the keyboard, and realize that she's done in the eyes of the primary voters.

    •  I love it how everytime someone supports (0+ / 0-)

      Clinton, they are staff.  What are you?  Republican staff who is testing out republican talking points prior to the election campaign, or more likely lab rats on the other side of the two way mirror.  

      "Yeah Karl, that seemed to be a good angle to take against Hillary Clinton because all the blogsters loved it.  Let's thank them for helping us out, by giving them our best candidate ever for their next president"  Good job, jas, keep it up.  Too bad you all are such suckers for the Republicans.  They can afford to pick up a Danish and prop their feet up.  All they have to do is read kos as their test group. And they don't even have to used up any of their money to pay you.

      "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

      by hopscotch1997 on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 08:54:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  ha! I wish I was being paid to wade through this (0+ / 0-)

      B.S.

      I post here in support of HRC not because I think she needs my help (she doesn't) or Dkos's help (she doesn't) but because I am concerned about this community. As I see it, Dkos is running itself off a cliff on this HRC thing, and running a real risk of self-marginalizing itself right out of relevance.

      You don't like HRC? fine, but keep it rational, keep it consistent with the facts, and keep it from being stupid ugly.

      Just today georgia10 has a diary on the rec list that is critical of HRC, but vastly more intelligent and reasonable than this diary, and certainly than this thread. Use her as a model

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

  •  Suburban professional dad (3+ / 0-)

    agrees.  I was perfectly willing to go along with the Hillary bandwagon for the sake of party unity.  Her vote on the war troubled me, but her refusal to admit her failure (it was more than a mistake, it was a moral failure) has displayed a fatal flaw in her personality.  One president who cant admit a mistake and learn from it is enough for any decade.

  •  she lost me (3+ / 0-)

    with the flag burning.......

    ADBH - any democrat but hilary

    He may talk like an idiot, and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: he really is an idiot. Send him back to his father and brothers...

    by distributorcap on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 04:06:18 AM PST

  •  Kossacks rewriting history of war? (0+ / 0-)

    Anyone else notice a number of comments in several HRC threads that claim that the AUMF allowed weapons inspectors into Iraq? inspectors WERE ALREADY THERE. Hans Blix was there w/his team in december 02. at least one poster has repeatedly gotten this wrong after being repeatedly corrected.

    "I come from a camp that has no newspaper." -Scoutmaster Lumpus

    by eyeball on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 04:39:15 AM PST

  •  It's her Sister Souljah moment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pedro46

    Her way of currying favor with beltway MSM.

    If Hillary Clinton wins, the Democratic Party loses.

    by Paleo on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 04:49:58 AM PST

  •  Hey Kos (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Azubia
    The moment that vote was taken in 2002, I pledged not one of these people would ever get my support or vote.

    Baucus              Kerry
    Bayh                Kohl
    Biden               Landrieu
    Breaux              Lieberman
    Cantwell            Lincoln
    Carnahan            Miller
    Carper              Nelson FLA
    Cleland             Nelson NEB
    Clinton             Reid
    Dodd                Rockefeller
    Dorgan              Schumer
    Edwards             Torricelli
    Feinstein
    Harkin
    Hollings
    Johnson

    •  Tazz, I was as mad as you, that day. (0+ / 0-)

      But to give full credit to the most un-vote-worthy, you need to be a little more discriminating.  The ones that pissed me off the most were the ones who beckoned on the rest of the lemmings.

      Hillary, Biden, and Lieberman topped that list.  Whatever chance she had to redeem herself is long, long, gone.  

  •  Hillary, unrepetant (4+ / 0-)

    As a new New York resident who escaped from Lieberman's Connecticut, I find myself again represented in the Senate by another strong-headed, "I never admit a misjudgement" candidate.
      Lieberman was termed "our Senator from Tel Aviv" in Connecticut, and Hillary represents the same constituency from New York City whose financial support is indispensable for her Presidential candidacy. That,in part, explains her unwillingness to admit her vote for the war was a mistake. The other part is her unappologetic personality. (A similar characteristic is attributed to Bush.)
      While I have supported both Senators in their domestic policies, I am appalled at their inflexible foreign policy positions.
       Before the war began and again before the Congressional vote to support the war, I wrote my Senator, Hillary Clinton, with a letter filled with information about the real evidence regarding Iraq's WMD's, etc. (i.e. There were none) All this info was widely known by readers of books, articles, blogs, and foreign press, but not apparently to our pro-war national office-holders.
      Clinton's response was a mealy-mouthed three page letter detailing her vote for the war.  Clearly, she had dismissed the anti-war position for the more politically expedient one of having Democrats elected in the off-year election.  She was also trying to confront the false charge that Democrats were soft on security.
      Though I think Hillary has been an excellent Senator for us upper-state New Yorkers, I will not vote for her for President.  The Democratic party will suffer a major set-back at the polls if she is our nominee.
      Nearly every day for years now, my conservative Republican Southern relatives have e-mailed me jokes as well as well-thought-out comments on "Why we hate Hillary".  These Red Staters are dying to have her as the Democratic candidate, so if we progressives want a death wish - go with Hillary! If we want to survive, we should go with Edwards, Obama, Richardson...all of whom, whatever their individual weaknesses, have less negative baggage than Ms. Clinton.  

  •  Edwards (0+ / 0-)

    Edwards pologzed and explained how he committed the mistake.  He said he asked Clinton officials for their recommendation and they recommended to authorize the war as the right course.

    Thus sometimes it is hard to blame Hillary and other Dems.  They sought the advice of knowledgeable and experienced Clinton officials then--and they advice them to voe that way.

    My question was--was the advice due to that it was the right course--or that it was a way not to sound weak on national security.

    Because my opinion was they voted yes for political reasons so that they wont look weak on national security  but if you tell me who those advisers were then we will see if it was a sincere reason.

  •  You guys are all nuts and two faced as well (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hopscotch1997, PhillyGuy03

    You want the White House back?  You want someone who can be elected in this country?  You want someone who can deliver on some of your agenda? I do -- I was the only Democrat in my 200+ house subdivision here in KS -- I don't take Democrat Party representation, for any office, lightly.  I want an electable Democrat candidate in the WH and it will require the only Democrat who can get moderate votes, and that person is HRC

    Then you'd better stop this shrillness about HRC's refusal to apologize. Presidents are elected by per state majority vote which drives the electoral college.  The Democratic candidate must convince many more than the "anti-war" democrats to win. Not every American who wants us out of Iraq has apologized within themselves for their support -- they realize it was a mistake -- so does she. In her own state, NY, she has continually polled as the top Democrat candidate for President.  If her own state is fine with her candor, and we talking about NEW YORK here, you are becoming shrill with this lack-of-apology nonsense.  You'd better get wise on who can deliver the White House and who can get us out of the mess.

    Which leads me to the other point -- if you all are so anti-war, why aren't you guys crucifying all other Congressional Democrats for all this non-binding resolution nonsense?  Why aren't you clamoring for their heads because they aren't stopping the war's funding or doing something more forceful, more hardline to end this war?  

    You want it both ways -- you want HRC to apologize and vilify her when she won't, but you suddenly become very understanding to "politics" when the Reid and Polosi and all the other democrats in Congress do nothing more than some lameass non-binding pieces of paper. "yes, but they are voicing their dissatisfaction...."  So? Why aren't they cutting all funding right now?  Why isn't the Democrat leadership being held to tougher standards  from you guys? Why aren't you screaming for their heads? "oh, but its different..."

    No, its all the same -- Clinton is behaving as consistent as the Democratic leadership.  Either you hold everyone accountable to the same standard, or you marginalize yourselves to shrill eunuchs -- which is exactly how you're behaving with this HRC-apology nonsense.

    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -- Mark Twain.

    by dcrolg on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 05:59:13 AM PST

    •  Want someone who can be elected?? (2+ / 0-)

      "You want the White House back?  You want someone who can be elected in this country?"

      Uh, yeah.

      Your point being?  That Hillary is the only electable one?  Uh uh.  Sorry, dude.  In fact, according to poll numbers, she is so polarizing she may be the LEAST electable one.

      In short, we don't HAVE to support her.

      •  According to poll numbers she has a better (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PhillyGuy03

        shot than the others. Particularly Al Gore, who has higher negative numbers.

        •  According to the polls... (0+ / 0-)

          she loses to Giuliani, the Republican front-runner, this far out.  So she's not electable at all, using your logic.

          •  Guliani is the unknown one this far out. (0+ / 0-)

            His negatives will go up once people find out that he is pro-choice.  Republicans will never ever let a prochoice candidate past spuare one.  And to go for a guy married 3 times who had an open affair while mayor while his family and wife were still living with him ain't gunna fly.  And then there is the gay rights thing.

            Yeah he is ahead this far out, precisely because it is this far out.  Thats how things go.  It's not unusual.

            "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

            by hopscotch1997 on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 08:45:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  And it's only because it's this far out (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kentucky DeanDemocrat

              that Hillary is the #1 candidate in polls for the Dem nomination.  Just as people are going to sour on Giuliani as they find out more about Giuliani's real positions, they will sour on Hillary as they find out more about her entrenched position on the war.

              You have to ask yourself: Is this war going to be over by 2008?  Is it going to be any better?  Is it going to be a MORE tenable position to be the most pro-war Democratic candidate in the pack?  If the answer to all those questions is no, then it is difficult to say that Hillary's star is rising.

              And if Hillary wins the nomination, expect some nasty, nasty, demonstrations at the 2008 convention.  Maybe not like 1968, but mighty damn ugly.  

          •  Yeah, but (0+ / 0-)

            according to most polls, Giuliani would beat Edwards and Obama as well.

      •  she has the best advisor we could ever hope for (0+ / 0-)

        her husband.

        My serious bet is that he has told her what to say and what to do with her Iraq vote and stance.

        You want a Democrat in the WH?  Then you'd better support one who the ultimate inside track of knowledge of what its takes to win the WH -- he's done it TWICE.

        Obama, Edwards -- they only wish they had HRC's bench strength.

        Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -- Mark Twain.

        by dcrolg on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 08:41:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Excuse me? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kentucky DeanDemocrat

      I don't take Democrat Party representation, for any office, lightly.

      "Democra