Skip to main content

Hillary Clinton is the presumptive front-runner for the Democratic Party nomination for the presidency. It's something that my own analysis confirmed, as well as what a slew of public opinion polls have been saying for almost all of 2007. Part of this seems to be Clinton's ability to blur any real distinctions between her and the other top tier candidates, Barack Obama and John Edwards. As Chris Bowers notes, she has essentially eliminated any deficits she had faced demographically with Obama, and she has now begun to eat into Edwards' already-thin support.

If one examines her campaign closely, though, all you will find is this: Hillary Clinton is the DLC candidate for the presidency - not only because of her brand of cautious, timid politicking, but also because of the way she portrays herself at campaign events. In the next few days, I will be taking a comprehensive look at Clinton's positions and rhetoric to make the case for Clinton being the DLC candidate in 2008.

Part I: Going AWOL on Foreign Policy

Clinton's campaign materials are startlingly missing when it comes to issues of national security and other foreign policy affairs. Whereas other candidates such as Obama and Bill Richardson devote an ample amount of space to their beliefs on various foreign policy matters, Clinton devotes one link to Iraq, while she gives only a little more space to other foreign policy matters, focusing on issues that aren't even on the mind of most candidates (Northern Ireland, much more of an issue during her husband's administration, is given equal time as Darfur, a much more pressing issue). Granted, foreign policy is probably Clinton's weakest area; it is where she has taken the most heat from the grassroots and the netroots, particularly for her refusal to admit she made a mistake in voting to authorize the war, as well as asinine comments that America has better homeland security under the Bush administration than it did before.

But it also speaks to the DLC's quietness on the matter of foreign policy. They were big cheerleaders of the war before it started; see this piece from DLC ally and the aptly misnamed Progressive Policy Institute by Will Marshall. While critical of the reasons used by Bush to invade Iraq, he instead says we should occupy the country to make it a democracy, which is arguably worse. In addition, they were at the front of calling for 'unity' once the bombs started dropping:

Now is the time for Americans to unite in support of the president and our troops as they finish the job left undone in 1991 as quickly and humanely as possible. The time is over for recriminations about how we reached this point of confrontation with Iraq, and whether we could have reached it with more support.

Does the DLC still hold the same beliefs? Unlikely; similarly, Clinton's position on the war and other national security affairs have changed over time. That being said, her lack of substance on the issues mirrors the same lack of substance that the DLC's website has when it comes to foreign policy (which, for the DLC, apparently only includes national security; they have nothing about any other foreign policy 'ideas'). It's telling that the amount of material generated by the DLC, the PPI, and other centrist organizations stopped talking about foreign policy when the worst outcome did materialize in Iraq - as many of us predicted would happen 5 years ago. They just stop talking about it.

Clinton, on the other hand, has to address the topic at the debates, given that Iraq and national security matters are going to dominate the Democratic primary and after that, the general election. She keeps referring to her vaunted 'three-point plan' on Iraq (which, if her website is any indication, is a few sentences long; it also needs new dates), but aside from that, what else does she think needs to be done? It's hard to say, given what she's said at the debates so far:

April 26, 2007:

I'm very proud of the Congress under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid for putting together a piece of legislation which says we will fund our troops and protect them, we will limit the number of days that they can be deployed, and we will start to bring them home.

And I think that is exactly what the American people want. This is not America's war to win or lose. We have given the Iraqi people the chance to have freedom, to have their own country. It is up to them to decide whether or not they're going to take that chance.

But I think that the real question before us: Is what do we do now? How do we try to persuade or require this president to change course?

He is stubbornly refusing to listen to the will of the American people. He threatens to veto the legislation we've passed, which has been something that all of us have been advocating for a number of years now.

And I can only hope that he will not veto it. And I can only end by saying that if this president does not get us out of Iraq, when I am president, I will.

June 3, 2007:

I am a senator from New York. I have lived with the aftermath of 9/11, and I have seen firsthand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists who are intent upon foisting their way of life and using suicide bombers and suicidal people to carry out their agenda.

And I believe we are safer than we were. We are not yet safe enough. And I have proposed over the last year a number of policies that I think we should following.

I thought the best way to support our troops was to try to send a very strong message that they should begin to come home. That is the best way to support them. And I thought that vote was an opportunity to do so.

Everybody on this stage, we are all united, Wolf. We all believe that we need to try to end this war. In two nights you're going to have the Republican candidates here. They all support the war. They all support the president. They all supported the escalation. Each of us is trying in our own way to bring the war to an end.

The differences among us are minor. The differences between us and the Republicans are major. And I don't want anybody in America to be confused.

July 23, 2007:

COOPER: Senator Clinton, would you agree with Senator Biden? American troops should got to Darfur?

CLINTON: I agree completely that what we need to do is start acting instead of talking.

That means accelerating the United Nations peacekeeping forces along with the African Union. It means moving more quickly on divestment and sanctions on the Sudanese government, including trying to use the diplomacy to get China involved.

And, finally, it does mean a no-fly zone. We can do it in a way that doesn't endanger humanitarian relief.

I happen to agree that there is no military solution, and the Iraqis refuse to pursue the political solutions. In fact, I asked the Pentagon a simple question: Have you prepared for withdrawing our troops? In response, I got a letter accusing me of being unpatriotic; that I shouldn't be asking questions.

Well, one of the problems is that there are a lot of questions that we're asking but we're not getting answers from the Bush administration.

Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.

And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.

August 7, 2007

Well, I have a three-point plan to get out of Iraq, starting with redeploying our troops, but doing it responsibly and carefully, because as many of the veterans in this audience know, taking troops out can be just as dangerous as bringing them in. And we've got to get out of Iraq smarter than we got in.

Secondly, we've got to put more pressure on the Iraqi government, including withholding aid from them if they don't begin to stabilize the country themselves. And thirdly, we need an intensive diplomatic effort, regionally and internationally.

But if it is a possibility that al Qaeda would stay in Iraq, I think we need to stay focused on trying to keep them on the run, as we currently are doing in Al Anbar province.

Well, I do not believe people running for president should engage in hypotheticals. And it may well be that the strategy we have to pursue on the basis of actionable intelligence -- but remember, we've had some real difficult experiences with actionable intelligence -- might lead to a certain action.

[...]

So you can think big, but remember, you shouldn't always say everything you think if you're running for president, because it has consequences across the world. And we don't need that right now. (Chorus of boos.)

I didn't include every single foreign policy-related quotation, but having watched all of the debates to date, I feel comfortable that this represents an accurate cross-section of what Clinton has said to date regarding foreign policy during the debates (is there a transcript for the Yearly Kos debate? I could not find one via Google).

What becomes clear? First, Clinton is more in her element when she turns blame towards Bush and the Republicans for Iraq as opposed to setting out clear ideas about how we should get out. What was particularly galling, I thought, was her use of the Al Anbar province as what we should be doing in Iraq. That's a great sentiment and all, except we don't have enough troops - by far - to go through and sweep the entire country (much less Baghdad) to decrease the violence. And despite the escalation, the casualties in Iraq have been higher than ever. Furthermore, that argument gives more ammunition to the right wing that Democrats are seeing that the surge is working.

Secondly, she hasn't really given much thought to foreign policy issues in general. Her answer to the Darfur question seems quite similar to Joe Biden's detailed stance on Darfur, perhaps in part because she answered the question right after Biden. It's in line with the lack of detail on her website and in line with what appears to be a general disregard for non-national security-related foreign policy matters.

Third, Clinton is being deceptive on what her position on Iraq really is. In today's New York Times, an article details how Clinton (along with Obama) would leave an unspecified force inside Iraq for an indeterminate amount of time. That's quite unacceptable, but it seems to be a slow shift on the Democratic side from total withdrawal (which, of the serious candidates, only Richardson supports) to something less, an issue LithiumCola details in his excellent diary, Exit Creep. Given her hawkishness on defense, though, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Clinton, despite her common refrain of ending the war if Bush doesn't, isn't being completely honest.

Lastly, the image of Clinton as strong on national security - similar to that of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani - may very well come from her emphasis that she was a New York politician on September 11th. As a New Yorker, this infuriates me more than just about anything else in politics, and I chronicled my problems with her words a couple months ago. What we need right now isn't someone who is 'strong' in the hawkish sense on national security. We need a candidate who is sensible about national security matters and understands that with America's standing in the world as low as it is, there are more important priorities than swinging around a big stick.

(also posted at Open Left)

Originally posted to PsiFighter37 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 02:46 PM PDT.

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

  •  Tip Jar (197+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rebecca, ElitistJohn, JekyllnHyde, cdreid, Marc in CA, PLS, pine, Night Owl, miriam, bluecayuga, areucrazy, left of center, rhfactor, mickT, latts, cosbo, RunawayRose, dengre, Hummingbird, wu ming, anonyMoses, GayHillbilly, eeff, RFK Lives, wild salmon, Walt starr, bumblebums, catchawave, HighSticking, Heart of the Rockies, shermanesq, opinionated, Mooncat, bronte17, BlackGriffen, carolinadreamer, srkp23, Morague, Pithy Cherub, chuckvw, roses, JuliaAnn, DavidHW, oceanspray, antifa, emmasnacker, casperr, smash, churchylafemme, mcfly, The Termite, chillindame, onemadson, beachmom, RebeccaG, lcrp, alizard, TheJohnny, dkmich, randallt, andyj2287, vacantlook, vivadissent, greeseyparrot, Brecht, rapala, lavaughn, Bluesee, 3goldens, Alexander G Rubio, bellevie, blueyedace2, PBen, andgarden, KnotIookin, snacksandpop, Ranting Roland, Salo, Bouwerie Boy, majcmb1, CarolynC967, EvilPaula, John DE, GreyHawk, machka, sheddhead, annefrank, blue jersey mom, Arturo52, The Raven, Rogneid, bookwoman, JanL, Ekaterin, murasaki, mightymouse, martini, kovie, Major Danby, gwilson, Keone Michaels, Distaste for Dissent, BlueInARedState, victoria2dc, martyc35, Truza, buhdydharma, Junior Bug, Marcus Tullius, play jurist, blueoasis, tecampbell, MJ via Chicago, Tanya, funluvn1, OneCrankyDom, vickie feminist, Data Pimp, BalkanID, plf515, CTLiberal, Potus2020, ER Doc, edgery, feduphoosier, Unitary Moonbat, MBNYC, JugOPunch, profh, nannyboz, Statusquomustgo, pkbarbiedoll, Johnathan Ivan, slksfca, sea note, theark, sdgeek, BentLiberal, cjallen, lams712, One Pissed Off Liberal, Reagan Smash, Guy Fawkes, rchipevans, TrueBlueCT, Nab, America08, FishOutofWater, Matt Z, NCDem Amy, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, MI Sooner, progressivevoice, mcc777c2, chicago jeff, ashlarah, Junglered1, sabershadow, dgil, pioneer111, madgranny, Puffin, Predictor, SouthSideDem, TomP, extradish, cville townie, freeman11, AJ WI, davidseth, ferment, ShadowSD, dotster, RSA TX, RedJet, canoeist, Thomas Twinnings, Wes Opinion, pdxattorney, Archangel, alasmoses, pamelabrown, smartdemmg, icebergslim, enarjay, smitha007, journalschism, valsagem, waiting for hope, CeeusBeeus, george neville, lenzy1000, Tyrannocaster, chadmichael, In her own Voice, Maverick78, namingnames

    Part II will be posted tomorrow.

    While Clinton would be better than any of the Republican candidates, I cannot bring myself to support her as a candidate for president. Of all the serious candidates, she has less substance than anyone else. It's surprising on foreign policy as well, as this is supposedly where her 'experience' should come in handy.

    "If you've read me...then you know what to expect. If not, it's really simple: I say what I mean and mean what I say."

    RIP, Steve Gilliard

    by PsiFighter37 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 02:47:27 PM PDT

    •  Ms. Clinton has done nothing more this early (45+ / 0-)

      cycle in the Democratic run for the Presidency than the obvious, which is to say what we Democrat's all say.  Bu$hCo is the problem and they are the cause of all of America's issues.

      Bu$hCo is a problem.  They have caused this country to become something that is unrecognized when the words United States of America are spoken.  Yet, still Hillary, they didn't start the spiral down.

      Ronald Regan did that for us.  His was an administration of horrible ideas and stupidity when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world community.

      Hillary is doing nothing to lead us forward.  I'm sorry to say, her background and her discussions only make me believe she will hold the line as it stands the day the next President takes the Oath of Office.  

      That is unacceptable.

      Adequate resources are necessary for feasible tasks. -6.00, -6.21

      by funluvn1 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:00:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course Bush is a problem (34+ / 0-)

        As was Reagan a few decades ago.

        But I'd like some vision as to what a Hillary Clinton presidency will be like. The only vibe I get is that it might be something like Bill Clinton's presidency, which wasn't exactly the greatest.

        "If you've read me...then you know what to expect. If not, it's really simple: I say what I mean and mean what I say."

        RIP, Steve Gilliard

        by PsiFighter37 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:11:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And we'll never get a "vision" (24+ / 0-)

          from Hillary as to what her Presidency will be like.

          I have a friend who worked on Capitol Hill for a year as an intern for a congressperson in 2006.  This was before she had officially announced.

          He said her office staff, including interns, were like robots.  They all had pre-scripted answers to any questions about Hillary, even when those questions came from friends & other interns.  He said her office was more tightly sealed than a tupperware container.

          That doesn't show me a politician with vision.  It shows me a politician who's paranoid and calculated.  It shows me a politician who has a staff that has been in politics way too long and is playing the election like a mathematical game.  To me she is the anti-Dean, and that is why I have such a problem with her.

          Feingold is my hero

          by Marc in CA on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:32:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  to me it seems like (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            talex, jxg, masslib, Andrew40

            she has a professional staff who knows better than to spread office gossip and also know they are working for someone who might take them to the White House.  I'd guess that most senators would like such a staff.

            •  oh i'm sure they would (8+ / 0-)

              but taking the human out of a politician leaves an uninspiring candidate.

              vision takes risk and leadership.  senator clinton has proven she's really good at avoiding both.

              Feingold is my hero

              by Marc in CA on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:19:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  NYT reporters book on Hillary (6+ / 0-)

                says she resides in a bubble - everything is scripted. Prior to the few interviews, aides have approved reporters' questions. And of course, Sunday talk show interviews are a no-no.

                •  Stepford Candidate (6+ / 0-)

                  Total lack of authenticity and spontaneity.
                  Programmed to acquire power.
                  Utter disinterest in human cost of war, on either side.

                  •  Refusal to apologize for her war vote (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cdreid, rhfactor, bobbyd100

                    is indicative of a lack of character, self absorption, and perceived power.
                    And yet - she plans to represent America in the middle east negotiating resolutions.

                    •  I completely agree - this calculation (13+ / 0-)

                      is one that may WORK for her and her electoral victory, but it completely disgusts me as a conscientious U.S. citizen.

                      When you zoom out really wide, and look at this Democratic Party, and this site, you can pretty much divide everyone into two piles, with many sub-piles and refined positions:

                      (1) Democrats who respond to the disastrous Republican menace to America and our Constitution -- with a single-minded focus on "doing whatever it takes to win" and put a Dem in charge again.

                      and

                      (2) Democrats who very conscientiously believe that THAT is not enough to fix the almost-totally-broken American system -- and who believe, like Howard Dean believes, that in order to restore goodness to our country, followed by greatness, and fairness, and vigilance against corruption, we must reform this Party dramatically, and jettison the entire Republican-light components and machinery.

                      It really is that simple, this big distinction.

                      There ARE those who straddle the middle, and give some lip-service to the need for major reform within the bowels of the Democratic Party and what it stands for -- making it walk its talk again vs rhetoric to win elections. But, I'm pretty certain if you put a gun to anyone's head here, and said, You have 3 seconds, what's it going to be, you have 2 seconds left:

                      (1) Any Dem is fine with me

                      or
                      (2) I'll vote Dem to end this nightmare, but I may not in the future if they don't reform and perform as we the People instruct them to.

                      There were a lot of people at YearlyKos wearing the button: "Dean was right."

                      Damn right he was, and still is. We will NOT take back our country until we've taken back our Party.

                      We may stop-gap against the abomination that's devastated America due to GOP Necon Rule. And that for sure is good. We must do that AT MINIMUM. And Hillary, or any of the other Dems running can and will achieve that.

                      But we surely will not turn the tide and rise again as a great nation until this calculating-centrist detour we took 20 years ago is obliterated and CONSCIENCE is restored as an essential ingredient to leadership from anyone seeking to guide America in the future.

                      She's a home-run SHORT-TERM FIX by blocking Neocon Obliteration of our Constitution, no doubt. And it boils down to, do you want JUST a short-term fix, or do you want a path to greatness again?  

                      _________________
                      --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                      by rhfactor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:08:18 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Bottom up (4+ / 0-)

                        (2) Democrats who very conscientiously believe that THAT is not enough to fix the almost-totally-broken American system -- and who believe, like Howard Dean believes, that in order to restore goodness to our country, followed by greatness, and fairness, and vigilance against corruption, we must reform this Party dramatically, and jettison the entire Republican-light components and machinery.

                        What you need to address for that is changing the appropriate members of congress in both chambers.

                        A President no matter how progressive is going to change things as you outlined above without the right members in congress. And that is why Dean is working bottom up instead of top down.

                        I just read an interesting article about John Dingell and it reminded me of the awesome power that committee chairs have - even over their party leaders. Yo should read it I think you would enjoy it and refresh your memory as I did.

                        http://www.latimes.com/...

                        "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                        by talex on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:23:06 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  If you have the right leader you accelerate (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          rhfactor, Brecht

                          the transformation.  If you have the wrong leader you hold back the transformation.  It is true at every level but especially with the POTUS as Bush has shown us.

                          It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

                          by pioneer111 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:09:36 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Perhaps. (0+ / 0-)

                            I'd like to see some historical reference to that happening though. I can't recall when a President influenced the election of different types of Senators or Representatives in a positive way.

                            Sure if a President is popular candidates latch on to their coattails but I don't remember seeing a sea-change of the types of candidates that Dean or the rest of us envision as a result.

                            As far as I'm concerned democracy always percolates from the bottom up starting with the people and who they elect at the lower rungs. Many of our most progressive reps started at the city and state level. Sanders and Kucinich are two examples.

                            "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                            by talex on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:53:09 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Rhfactor - brilliant commentary - thanks (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        rhfactor, feduphoosier
                        •  thanks (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Morague, EvilPaula, annefrank

                          I've been really reflecting a lot since YearlyKos... And it was so palpably clear there:

                          This division within ranks of progressives.

                          And too many people here, I find, take some form of stance that, if you are taking "my candidate" to task, then you either:

                          • hate them, and have it in for them

                          or

                          • you're actively supporting some other candidate, so it serves you to bash mine.

                          I just don't think it's that simple. I think so many people here are so deeply conscientious, they really truly believe that short term competence is not enough. AT some point, patching the levees in New Orleans is not enough. And the engineering and whole flood-protection strategy has to be re-imagined, re-invented. You can only take small incremental change so far.

                          I'm not saying that those people here who are in Category B, as opposed to A, are better people, better Americans. I am saying that Category B are looking at a longer time-horizon, and they don't accept that we can only nuance our way forward in this bitterly divided country --- polarized to the max by an extremely well oiled message machine and delivery system.

                          In going to the moon, if you don;t fire those rockets at the tight timing windows and get enormous propulsion, you don;t get a lot of 2nd and 3rd chances. If you don't hit the escape velocity, you're doomed to orbit the earth, mission NOT-accomplished.

                          There are those of us who believe we have, as a country, avalanched so far to the edge of total collapse of the Great Experiment, our core 3-branch democratic govt structures destroyed by Neocon Agenda, that if we don't move more boldly, we may just run out of time.. with every forward step met by two-back from the GOP machine.

                          Yes, we'll make progress with any of these Democrats as President. That's great. I'll vote for the nominee, no sweat. I just deeply believe that reversing the engines, and carefully setting a few new things inot motion is not enough to counter the desperate and intensely-waged counter-war that is going to be mounted by a well-funded GOP machine who are years ahead of us in understanding and applying media to influence and shape public opinion.

                          There is no doubt in my mind that the GOP think tanks have not thoroughly war-gamed each and every scenario of who's President, and what strategy gets applied in each case.

                          When you think that they had GWB43.com in place and in use, with dual sets of Blackberries, all the way back to 2001 -- and all along were using this backchannel system without any awareness whatsoever from us, anyone on the Democratic side, until MARCH 2007 -- that's 6 years... And they had that much strategic thinking all mapped out I'm sure before they occupied office.

                          They were SO pissed off at Bush Sr being cut off from 2nd term, they had 8 years to think, strategize, plan, execute -- and they got their man in office, they used the Supreme Court, they fulfilled Step 1 of the PNAC Sequential Regime-Change masterplan, they're working unimpeded toward Country #2 -- and all the while kicking our asses in the Oversight Committees, neutering the immense power that THEORECTICALLY flipped to us in the 06 election.

                          If they are shut out again in 2008 -- and most of us believe they will be, they are going to execute like wounded Rhinos charging madly without concern for who gets taken out. For anyone to think they haven't wargamed ALL of this out already, with attack & response plans for each possible candidate, and how to plan for 2016, such persons are extremely naive.

                          THIS is why I worry about Hillary. Not at ALL that she would be incompetent. She'd be incredibly competent. But at what cost to the entire opposition machinery (which she rightfully identified years ago as the VRWC!)  trained on her like lasars, but next-generation lasars using media artillery that we have yet to see.

                          I really do worry about it. I have seen how my Republican family has been so thoroughly conditioned to hate her, no matter what. Multiple that out and -- well, I wouldn't rule out violence -- whether planned or allowed, from hate militias to seeded discontent. Meteor Blades has given a lot of thought to violence erupting if the GOP loses in 08 -- and they will unless we colossally screw up, which, as the Democratic party has proven time and time again, unfortunately, is certainly possible...

                          He hasn't made the same arguments I have -- but he likely does not have GOP family.

                          Will a Hillary win REALLY be worth it for America? Or will it fulfill a longterm vanity wish, and in the process descend this country into an even deeper partisan-hatred war, Americans against Americans.

                          I want what's best for our country, and for our families going forward.  

                          _________________
                          --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                          by rhfactor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:25:43 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  Jeff Gerth and Don Va Nata (0+ / 0-)

                  are partisan reporters. Jeff Gerth was unmasked in Gene Lyons' and Joe Conasen's book "The Hunting of the President: the ten year war to destroy the Clintons"  Please read another book, the Carl Bernstein one, for example. His is more even handed.  And if you hate Hillary so much why not read the Lyons/Conasen book first.  It could give you some perspective.

                  Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities-Voltaire

                  by hairspray on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:32:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Well (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Blue Generalist

                  you can inspire the base and say everything like Edwards and poll in the low teens or you can dod what works and maybe win.

                  As much as liked and worked for Howard Dean I learned a lesson about candidates being too footloose. If they inspire but don't win then nothing was gained at all except the public impression that those types of candidates don't win and therefore their must be something wrong with them.

                  It is better to temper yourself somewhat in order to win and have the opportunity to actually do something. That is why I am so often in disagreement with many in this community. Most everyone here want to go balls-out on everything but that isn't the proven way to get things done - - but it is the proven way not to get things done. But people her can't see that. They get played at primary time and think they have power but after that their voices aren't heard as much because of their approach.

                  "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                  by talex on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:33:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  NO ! ! (3+ / 0-)

                    If you don't project what you want.  If you don't demand what you want.  If you capitulate and compromise your entire lifetime.  If everything you do is calculated to win, you NEVER get what you want and as we are seeing NOW you get what you deserve.  If "none of the above" is my choice I'll write in who I want Democrat or not.

                         

                    •  Totally Disagree (0+ / 0-)

                      My world has been one of practicing law and owning businesses. And in each of those you can't conduct yourself the way you describe. Politics is the same as my Edwards example shows.

                      You sound like a purist and the world is not pure. Humans have the capacity to calculate and accomplish things in increments for a reason.

                      If you continue to demand balls-out politicians you will probably never get what you want.

                      "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                      by talex on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:59:53 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Excellent strategic thinking (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    talex

                        Yes, there is too much impatience running here.
                    This only inspires magical thinking. Let's condemn the nonpurists. Lets get rid of the damage in the Democratic party and have a fresh start. Let's start from scratch and start the great revolution in one election.  If only politics were a logical sport run by do gooders.  I can just see someone playing poker and tearing up his cards because he doesn't like the hand he was dealt. Sure thing, just toss your cards in, and hand over your money to your opponents. If you study military strategy, the first rule, is you don't hand over your plans and resentments to the enemy.  You don't attack the generals because you don't like your orders. You work with what you've got, a Democratic party.  Changes will happen over time, and the party will adapt after being out of power for so damn long. There is a great deal of damage to repair in this great country, and all the great changes demanded here won't happen in one election.  Let's not kill our candidates because blogging is a blood sport that is a thrill to typists who demand recognition for their intellectual prowess. You would think, that after a neocon nightmare, that the real enemy is the right wing machine, the bought and paid for media, and Republican candidates that are the real targets for rage that is in need of venting.

                  •  I believe that (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Morague, OneCrankyDom

                    Hillary's high national numbers are in part due to her name recognition rather than as a result of a  thorough understanding of her policy positions.

                    Didn't Lieberman have the highest numbers at this time in 2003?  

                    If she had her name recognition and a truly progressive stance on many issues, she would poll as high or higher I believe.

                    Official Tequila Enthusiast of the Stephanie Miller Show

                    by EvilPaula on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:23:59 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If you look at the polls (0+ / 0-)

                      it is not just name recognition. She polls much higher in many categories than do her opponents. Go to pollingreport.com and yo will find polls that ask about a number of candidate attributes.

                      "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                      by talex on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 08:02:43 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Just let me have my tiny glimmer of hope (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Brecht

                        I do not desire a President Hillary Clinton.  National polls show her in the lead, but that is amongst all people.  The polling on dailykos is different than the national polls.  Yes, we are more liberal/progressive than the average American or Democrat in many ways, but we are also more concerned and educated about the issues we are facing.  I think the races would be tighter, and we may indeed have different candidates were all Americans more concerned about what is happening in this country.  As that will not happen before the 2008 election...I need this glimmer than HRC is not inevitable.

                        If she gets the primary, I will be relegated to diaries where we discuss what congress is not doing, and whom to write to.  There will be little point (I think) to diaries about the Republican nominee...they would be preaching to the converted.  And as I am not a fan of HRC, going to diaries about her would not be of interest to me either.

                        Oh well....

                        Official Tequila Enthusiast of the Stephanie Miller Show

                        by EvilPaula on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 03:09:03 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  what a good JOE she is (8+ / 0-)

          Clinton's free-trade economics and posturing on security could endear her to conservatives unimpressed by the GOP field.

          Hillary Libershman !!!!!!!!!

          August 10, 2007

          Is hell freezing over? One might think so after reading recent comments from editors at National Review and the Weekly Standard, America's leading conservative magazines. Over the last 15 years, both magazines seldom have passed up an opportunity to excoriate Hillary Rodham Clinton as some kind of crypto-communist.

          No more. Today, Sen. Clinton is rapidly becoming not merely acceptable to many right-wingers but possibly even their candidate of choice.

          Listen to Kathryn Lopez, editor of National Review Online, who was blogging live during the AFL-CIO Democratic debate Tuesday in Chicago: "In response to more than a few answers tonight -- on Iraq, on China -- I've said, 'She sounds reasonable.'

          http://www.latimes.com/... "

          Demand a more realistic and strategic appraisal on the Iraq issue, stop talking troops and start talking policy. - Wes Clark, Aug 08, 2007

          by pollwatch on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:40:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Here ya go... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GayHillbilly, annefrank, pdxattorney

          this is Hillary's real image.

          If elected she will be a disaster as she does not understand that her form of money based politics has all but destroyed our nation.

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

          by Nestor Makhnow on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:42:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I have known Hillary Clinton for many years. (11+ / 0-)

        She and Bill are two of the most intelligent, dedicated, committed, sensitive, synmpathetic and empathetic, and bravest people I have ever known.  She will be a great president.  She has my support and my vote.  I am sick and tired of the attacks on Hillary by people doing attacks for Repugnicans.  I think that most of you making these attacks are people who are scared to death that the GOP will take back not only the White House, but the Congress.  Hillary will be a great president.  And I want to see Bill Clinton back in the White house, even if it is just as First Man.  

        A private gyn office offering full gyn services including abortion care to 18 weeks.

        by william f harrison on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:01:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  she will ruin down ticket candidates (15+ / 0-)

          as she brings out the vote on the right and religious right in unprecedented numbers. She will lose as the left refuses to collaborate in the DLC franchise hand-off from the BushCo franchise.

          •  in Texas and other red states (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            patachon, EvilPaula

            ...her negative coattails will cost Democratic members of the Legislature their seats in conservative parts of the state like East Texas, and will have a devastating effect on the party in Texas for a generation. That was the prediction of a male party leader in Texas from a red county, but was also the opinion of a female Democratic Texas judge from a blue county.

            Among those who view Hillary unfavorably, it isn't a mild distate, it's a visceral reaction of repulsion. This is just one reason I believe that Hillary as the nominee would give the election to the Republicans. There are a LOT of electoral votes involved in many of the red states.

            If Hillary did get the nomination, the negative ads would roll out and among them will be some times when the expression on her face was very sour. One of those occasions was at the 2004 Democratic Convention when Howard Dean began to speak. She and Chelsea were seated with glasses of wine in their hands in a box. The expression on her face was contemptuous as Dean spoke. She had a similar expression during one of the State of the Union speeches during Bush's first term. Show those scenes and you wouldn't have to try any "Swiftboating" ads...she'd have undone herself without any help whatsoever.

          •  Just like Ron Fournier of the AP says (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            patachon

            http://apnews.myway.com/...

            Clinton a Drag? Dems Fear Her Negatives

            Aug 12, 1:32 PM (ET)

            By RON FOURNIER

            (AP) Democratic Presidential hopefuls, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., left, and Sen. Barack Obama,...

            WASHINGTON (AP) - Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.

            They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.

            In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.

            "I'm not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag" on many candidates, said Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of Washington, Ind.

            (AP) Democratic Presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., addresses members of the...
            Full Image

            Unlike Crooks, most Democratic leaders agreed to talk frankly about Clinton's political coattails only if they remained anonymous, fearing reprisals from the New York senator's campaign. They all expressed admiration for Clinton, and some said they would publicly support her fierce fight for the nomination - despite privately held fears.

            Ron Fournier - tool.

        •  I don't want to see both of them (5+ / 0-)

          in the White House. I think it's not right.

          Considering their talent and experience they both have failed on foreign policy and national secruity issues, have failed to judge the invasions into Iraq from a legal, moral and political point of view on time as what it was, illegal, imnoral and politically risky, reckless and dangerous.

          Now we have the total mess. Times have changed. We need much stronger, much more principled and more courageous characters.

          "False language, evil in itself, infects the soul with evil." ----Socrates

          by mimi on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:38:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not a doubt in this world she is (7+ / 0-)

            immensely talented, capable, experienced, and strong enough to put an immediate tourniquet on this destruction of America.

            The question is: is a tourniquet enough for the complexities America faces AFTER the rule of Neocon rape & pillage is halted?

            As I mentioned above in a comment re the ultimate bifurcation of Democrats, and DK site members, those who see America restored to greatness again, domestically, socially, internationally, and entrepreneurially, simply by having a Democrat restored to office of Presidency -- are challenged by those who say it is not enough to halt the abuse and try to bring us back to ground level.

            That's hard enough, and will take years. But to be great again, America needs inspiration and integrity -- not just political skill and immense mechanical competency in how to wield the tools and levers of power to get things accomplished.

            There is no doubt in my mind, and prob in the minds of anyone on this site, that she has the mechanical prowess to "rule" effectively for 8 years in America. But just as Dean, in his campaign in 03, spoke often of how the Native Americans wisely planned and lead in terms of the effect of "Now" upon SEVEN GENERATIONS forward, I agree with him that we ned to stop looking at America in terms of simply 4 and 8 year cycles.

            We can have competency in the White House from any of our candidates. The question is, do we want, and can we get more than that, and set us on a long term trajectory that brings out the best in most Americans, and in so doing helps up improve as a nation, and thereby solve problems more effectively.

            Simple fact: You can never bridge that gap when close to 50% of America hates you no matter what you do. this is the America we will live in under 8 years of Ms. Clinton as President: a partisan divide exponentially greater than the one we suffer through now, with Americans against Americans.

            I'm sorry, she may not deserve it, it may be totally unfair, but she may win -- and dp some good, but she will never ever unify this country or bridge gaps or heal wounds. 8 years later the divide will be even greater. I think that's a mistake.

            _________________
            --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

            by rhfactor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:28:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  mimi - i replied to wrong person (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            churchylafemme

            sorry bout that. My reply above is not to you or your comments.

            _________________
            --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

            by rhfactor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:30:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  So you are saying tha Psifighter is a hit man (5+ / 0-)

          for Republicans?

        •  As always (8+ / 0-)
          Hillary supporters refuse to engage on issues. On her statements. And i would bet more than a few "hillary supporters" are paid professionals.

          What "we" object to, if i may be so presumptuous, is that she is running as a moderate republican. To the right of even bill clinton. She's made an alliance with Rupert Murdoch. She supports Nafta/GAtt and the policies that have devastated the working classes (middle and lower). She supports trade policies that undermine consumer protection (china mfn etc) and foist deadly products on americans. She has openly supported attacking IRAN and starting a THIRD war for oil. Etc etc etc.

          In the end.. she's a republican.

          "All you have to do to qualify for human rights is to be human" An 11yo Girl. Unbossed.com

          by cdreid on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:01:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  paid professionals - i sometimes overlook (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cdreid, Salo

            that.

            You are so right. With her superior warchest, and her new recognition of the power of the blogopshere to help shape public opiniin at large, anyone who DIDN'T pay people to be fulltime blogosphere monitors and "Rapid Responders" would be STUPITTT.

            And she may be a lot of things, but she surely is not STUPITTT.

            Therefore, will all paid blogosphere operatives please now raise you hands and volunteer to do democracy a favor, and lay down your keyboards, and go off and do something more constructive with your lives?

            (hah hah!  I've thinking of John Carpenter's amazing movie, They Live, whereby suddenly the entire DailyKos site is scanned by X-RAYS, and all operatives paid by any of the candidates, from either party, are lit up and exposed in ghostly lavender-tinged holography)

            (oh well, that was way too abstract, but some of you may have sen the movie made as a response the Reaganization of America)

            _________________
            --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

            by rhfactor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:38:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  You say: (6+ / 0-)

          "I think that most of you making these attacks are people who are scared to death that the GOP will take back not only the White House, but the Congress."

          BINGO!  Damn straight we are scared to death of this.  I think it is a very good and sane thing to be scared of.  Especially since Hillary Clinton's consistently high negative ratings make this scenario all too horrifically possible.  And would someone please explain to me why, WHY, after one Democratic senator after another has been beaten for president, we are even considering making this move again?  Can't we learn?  Are we the very definition of insanity?

          Hillary Clinton is one of my senators.  I voted for her.  She has been an adequate senator--or was before she left the state to campaign--but she was not more than this. Why would I believe she will a better president than she was a senator?  Doesn't America, in a time of such peril, need more than just adequate?  

          To God: Please stop talking to George Bush. Too much is being lost in translation.

          by miriam on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:08:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  beautifully put (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            churchylafemme, Danjuma, EvilPaula

            There was considerable attention paid to this in 02-03-04 -- about the statistical track record of a Senator, any Senator, becoming President.

            It's pretty bleak. And makes perfect sense too. Two very different skillsets.  The reason why Dean would have been a fantastic President is because he was a MANAGER, the CEO of a state -- who dealt day-in and day-out with tangible budgets and departments and contracts and construction etc. -- vs the theoretical grasp on all of these things by a Senator -- whose job is more deliberative, like R&D, vs managerial.

            Senators speak and sit in chairs and hold hearings, and sit in chairs and vote, and sit in chairs and confirm or not confirm, fly around to their states to do god know's what because it's certainly NOT "listen to my constituents". But they do not manage.

            A good President brings tangible management skills to the table.

            To me, the person with MANAGERIAL skill and prowess is Wes Clark... but that's a different matter since he hasn't chosen to run or not.

            _________________
            --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

            by rhfactor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:46:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, and it says something (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rhfactor, Danjuma

              very unsettling about politics in America that Clark either won't or can't run.  He is the leader we so desperately need; the current candidates are all followers.    

              To God: Please stop talking to George Bush. Too much is being lost in translation.

              by miriam on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 10:28:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  please elaborate (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                miriam, Danjuma, EvilPaula, dogtracks

                Gore has reflected and concluded, in his own words, "I am not good at politics" -- but he refers to its current operating rules, laregly having to do with the role of media in shaping public opinion and emphasizing horserace over substance, who you'd like to have a beer with over problem solving.

                Can you imagine what it must feel like to have been in Debate # 2, I believe it was, in 2000, and to have been coached by your own campaign staff to "dumb it down, Al. Don't be too smart with your answers. It doesn't play"...

                And so all the while he's trying to be someone he's not -- a dumbed down politician -- and he doesn't carry it off because he's fundamentally smart, high IQ, he's thought deeply about the problems facing America, and he's thought about solution paths, and how he'd at least approach working with others to find solutions.

                And what happens?

                Bush gave a goddamn stupid-ass empty answer that Jim Leher let go without challenge, and Gore "slipped up" when he could not restrain a simple "sigh"...

                Ohhh. That sigh became THE EVENT of that entire debate. Nothing of substance mattered. THE SIGH -- oh that was it. Hew thought he was BETTER than Bush. Better than  those who'd enjoy having a beer with Bush...

                Can you imagine what that feels like?

                It's like high school, where you're smart but the teacher asks you, after class, please don't raise your hand so often. It discourages the slower students.  I mean imagine Einstein being told ---

                "Now wait a minute... hang on Al, that scruffy hair makes it seem like you don't care the least bit about what other scientists and mathematicians say, and that puts a damper on them and their thinking. Afterall, you're not the only physicist out there, and you kind of disrespect them by jumping so far ahead... You just make matters worse when you dress that way. It mocks them, makes them think they aren't as smart"

                Imagine that.

                Gore has. He's been there, and it doesn't suit him, no matter how much we want him in that role. He has to sublimate so much of who he is as a person, to play the game of being more of a dumbass, less he look and sound too superior. Jesus H. Christ. What a waste.

                So, I have no idea how Wes Clark views all this. I know there are people who don't think he's a good choice, or blah blah he hasn't put his hat in ring so screw him... But to me we have an incredible highly-ELECTABLE President on the sidelines staring us in the face. Speaking to us a YearkyKos. Spent several years cultivating respect from Republicans by his being an analyst on Fox News. I have been convinced from the start that that role was a strategy for him.

                Play any videotape of his appearances on Fox as an analyst, and he couldn't be touched. They'd try, Oreilly would, Cavuto would. But Wes Clark would, every time, win the rounds not just with facts -- that's the key point here -- but with emption. He knows how to press that button and play emotions with his audience. He is highly highly skilled at this, but I also think it came to him as a natural born leader.

                When he needs to, he;d push back and challenge them "How dare you say I don't support the troops. I love those men and women. I'd give my life to those men and women in uniform. Now you listen for a moment, and I'll tell you what the truth is..."

                ANd what he'd say would make so much sense -- and he'd never place it into redmeat language like "Bush is stupid" or incompetent. Rather, he'd make his points so eloquently that the segments would end with O'Reilly maybe being reduced to saying "Well I disagree with you on that, General, but always good to hear you" etc.

                TRANSLATION:  Wes was on Fox as a military analyst for what 3 years? I know since 2004. To me, there is no way he cannot have favorably influenced GOP moderates who watch ONLY Fox News. There's NO way he can be called soft on terrorism. no way he can be accused of Bush-bashing to score cheap points.

                My family is all Republican back home in New Orleans. They are glued to Fox and Rush. I have not queried them specifically, but i've been around those people -- and many many like them -- for decades -- and I believe, though i have not yet tested it, that if I were to ask "do you respect Gen Wes Clark?", they may pull their partisan crap and say "well, he clearly is a Dem and so he's biased towards them", but i believe if pushed to ask "Does he make sense?" "Do you trust him?", I just don't see them saying "No, I don;t trust him!" or "No, he's full of shit".

                So your point is a good one. What is going on in America that keeps these candidates on the sidelines?

                I really would love to get inside Wes' head... Something has been telling me for a year that all that Fox News analysis was a strategy... and that the more Iraq has played out as the #1 issue, who better than an experienced combat General, to enter the race and say "I can lead this nation to safely extricate our men and women from this debacle -- while keeping the region stable."

                He's got great visual presence, great audio presence, he smiles easily and naturally, and he's perfected the art of being on TV in  a talking heads shootout.

                I can't imagine he would not cream the competition as utterly refreshing. He was against the Iraq invasion from the start. I don't know what more people could want?

                The only "negative" assigned to him are by Horserace Advocates -- the conglomerate media, and the Campaign Industry.. who simply ASSERT, "you must be in the race by now in order to have a chance."

                I'm a media person, not a political  pro who crunch niumbers and speak of Warchest funding and this & that poll. Maybe in the end it all DOES come down to mechanical numbers and predictable trajectories. But I protest.

                What if -- what if the strategic General really HAS been doing what many have wondered -- letting the field play themselves out, thin it out a bit, let them exhaust their funds -- the 2nd tier candidates -- and then, at a strategic time, jump in.

                Warchests are in direct relation to popularity and perceived electability. Not "what you did last week". If Clark were to jump in at end of September, after Petraeus' report, and the Bush inevitable extension of the surge, and the predictable weak-kneed Dems funding yet AGAIN another cycle lest they be accused of not supporting troops... Wes would already be on TV as an analyst for MSNBC, and he'd be givig his point of view of the military calculus of what we need to do...

                So why in the world would anyone think he couldn't jump in right then, score a HUGE hit of media, in Sept, when you roll out new products -- and people are tired of the 9 or 10 or whatever, and love the idea of someone new... Someone's going to tell me he wou;dn't suddenly raise a boatlaod of cash, enough to jumpstart his already-built WesPac and Securing America and VoteVets organizations?

                To me that would be the smartest move of the entire campaign. Generals and militaries understand timing and surprise and keeping people guessing. Then , we you hit the switch to go, you go with clarity of purpose.

                Okay, these are my way too verbose thoughts at 1:30am on a Monday morning. I sincerely hope Wes has indeed been planning this all along.

                I'm fine with people laughing at this. Doesn't bother me a bit if I am dead wrong. And he ends up not jumping in. Fine. It's just a theory... but a theory with merits i think :)

                _________________
                --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                by rhfactor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:36:06 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I agree with everything except... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rhfactor, Danjuma

                  the "score a HUGE hit of media."  The last time round the media blacklisted him and he couldn't get even a mention.  I know, because I was keeping score.  The corporate-owned press was either directed to do this or decided on its own that Clark was the last man on earth it wanted in the White House.  

                  Now, one thing might change that this time: Clark has a book coming out next month.  His publisher and agent will try to generate press coverage and that means talk shows, etc.  

                  We know his son Wes Jr. is opposed to his father running.  His wife may be too.  I doubt Clark will ignore them.  At the same time, I don't yet give up hope that your scenario might be right.

                  History tells us that timing is everything.  And Clark is exactly the right person at this time.  He would make an extraordinary U.S. president and world leader.    

                  To God: Please stop talking to George Bush. Too much is being lost in translation.

                  by miriam on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:53:21 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  very good point re media being dependent on how i (0+ / 0-)

                    it fits conglomerate narrative... I hadn't thought of that.

                    A book would give him a window...

                    As for his son & wife not onboard, I simply have not known this.

                    Is this widely known, or sorta close insider info?

                    I'm just wondering could wes jr's "had enough" street-corner impeach campaign been factored into this mix? What's son's rationale for not wanted his Dad to run?

                    To me there is a big scenario difference between Gore and Clark.

                    Gore is not ruling out, but he's said in so many ways he really doesn't like politics and realizes he's not good at it ( from the operating rules imposed by conglomerate media)... Meanwhile he's found major traction in coroporate entrepreneurial world.

                    Wes Clark has been active in multiple netroot ventures:  Securing America, VoteVets, etc ... but can he do MORE on the outside vs inside? I think resoundingly NO. He could only multiply his effectiveness and push his agenda as Chief Exec of the Country.

                    If Clark was testing the waters at YearlyKos, he knows the water is temperature perfect for him to dive in -- if he chooses.

                    gauging by only 1 comment here -- yours -- who knows though :)

                    _________________
                    --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                    by rhfactor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:19:56 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  I am with you, sick and tired of hit pieces (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ademption

              How strange, when the other shoe drops. In diaries above, there was real rage over Ford's mistake about Kos.  Even Markos tried to set him straight by telling the DLC NOT TO ATTACK DEMOCRATS.
          And then we come to this diary, another in a long list of bash Hillary diaries.  Look at me, how smart I am, how I can clean the nose of any candidate with such ruthlessness. You would think this was a conservative blog if you were new to this site. The odds are she will win the nomination.  Then what?  Will all the Hillary bashers vote for Nader? That'll show her who is boss as far as political influence and muscle is concerned.  I can just see it now, the netroots shooting themselves in the foot , because it is all about principle.  This reminds me of that mega church in Texas, who refused to perform a ceremony for a gay vet who had died, and the leader of the church, said it was not based on bigotry or homophobia, but on "principle."  Yah, right. the Right wing principle is attack, smear, belittle, humiliate, all in the name of power.  It makes me sick that Hillary bashing has become a fad, for so many democrats who are so well informed, bloggers, and just love to find the latest target to go after.
          I do realize it is cathartic, anonymous, and a thrill to sit behind a computer and rant and rave.
          The democratic party is a large tent with varying opinions and views, thank god. I am not particularly interested in a one track group mind, where certain democratic candidates are cherry picked to project their own insecurities, or deeply buried  resentments by being jilted or rejected by good looking girls, because they were geeks in highschool.  I guess, the anti Hillary hit pieces can be called the Revenge of the Nerds. Let's fuck the front runner, and hand the country back to the fucking Republicans who are doing an outstanding job.  Or in real get even fashion, lets not vote at all, or write in Nader as the savior of the Democratic party.  We can all worship at the feet of Billo, Limbaugh,  Mathews, Beck, Tucker, etc who  are taking notes from these diaries. Thanks for feeding the beast.

          •  Re: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Blue Generalist

            If Hillary should win the primary, then perhaps diaries like this would fit into your definition of attacking Democrats.  Myself, I do not support her, so will lay low on a lot of diaries should she get the nod.
            But right now, we need to determine who will represent the Democrats in the general.  Everyone has the right and obligation to put forth  their reasons why we should support or not support any candidate.

            Official Tequila Enthusiast of the Stephanie Miller Show

            by EvilPaula on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:45:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  She MIGHT get my vote if she's nominated (19+ / 0-)

      That would be the extent of what she'd get from me, and the chances of her getting even that much drops every day because she's too obtuse to admit her mistake (IWR vote).

      PEACE, through superior DIPLOMACY!

      by Walt starr on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:11:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  She'd get my vote (33+ / 0-)

        I'd spend any free time I had doing volunteer work for local and congressional races. Not a minute spent or a dollar donated to the presidential race if she is the candidate.

        "If you've read me...then you know what to expect. If not, it's really simple: I say what I mean and mean what I say."

        RIP, Steve Gilliard

        by PsiFighter37 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:16:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  She would really damage down ticket candidates (24+ / 0-)

          We could even lose the Senate.

          PEACE, through superior DIPLOMACY!

          by Walt starr on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:26:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Eh (7+ / 0-)

            I wouldn't go that far. The GOP is going to be hard-pressed not to lose at least a couple of seats this cycle.

            "If you've read me...then you know what to expect. If not, it's really simple: I say what I mean and mean what I say."

            RIP, Steve Gilliard

            by PsiFighter37 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:27:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Look again (11+ / 0-)

              There are a few Democratic seats up for re-election that could be threatened by a Clinton candidacy.

              PEACE, through superior DIPLOMACY!

              by Walt starr on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:34:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Maybe you're right (22+ / 0-)

                Something to keep in mind. If a Clinton presidency starts to look like a lock, I could see a lot of people wanting to "balance" her with an opposition Congress. I could see the RNC getting traction with that.

                Mostly though, I'm in agreement with Psifighter here: She'd be a lackluster president. I'd go further and predict that her priorities would be somewhat Bush-like, in that rewarding her donors with sweetheart contracts and favorable legislation would be job number one.

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

                by The Raven on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:47:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well if this Congress keeps up its dismal record (14+ / 0-)

                  It won't be HRC that takes them down, but their own Duplicity in this Bush Debacle.

                  I predict Dems will lose Congress in 2008 unless they get some kind of clue (and spine) that they were handed control in 2006 to do what must be done.

                  If they think the pisspoor performance of the past few months is going to get any of them re-elected as the majority, they are more delusional than GW himself.

                  If Dems lose Congress in 2008 it is because they earned it, not because of HRC.

                  My fear is that Dems will nominate HRC, the wingnuts will turn out in droves, the Indies will stay home in disgust and protest, and the GOP goober wins the day.

                  This is the GOP strategy, you can count on it. They are not running electable candidates or on hotbutton issues, they are banking on being the anti-Hillary flagship.

                  And it will probably succeed.

                •  to get an "opposition" Congress to balance (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cdreid, William Domingo

                  HRC, one would have to vote Green and/or Libertarian since there really isn't a progressive party as such yet.

                  The difference between Hillary DLC and Wall Street GOP neoliberal + neocon economic political positions would be of more interest to a semantician than to anyone else.

                  Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                  by alizard on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:24:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  an "opposition" Congress (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    The Raven

                    I'm sure a DLCer like her would prefer a Republican Congress and Senate. That way she could sign Republican bills sent to her desk rather than Democratic ones, just like her husband did. See, you can't get Republican bills sent to you unless the Republicans are in charge.

                    Bush's post-9/11 counter-terrorism defense policy -- strike hard where they aren't and go easy where they are.

                    by William Domingo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:55:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  (to The Raven) ********** (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  The Raven

                  That's ten stars. Since I cannot rate your post as a 10. But that's what it merits. SO much so that I will quote it again,l since this is so far down-thread:

                  If a Clinton presidency starts to look like a lock, I could see a lot of people wanting to "balance" her with an opposition Congress. I could see the RNC getting traction with that.

                  Mostly though, I'm in agreement with Psifighter here: She'd be a lackluster president. I'd go further and predict that her priorities would be somewhat Bush-like, in that rewarding her donors with sweetheart contracts and favorable legislation would be job number one.

                  Which would translate to: Win the Battle for the Presidency, Lose the War for Legislative Power. I state way upthread that though she would be very very competent and skilled, 8 years later we would end up with an even MORE polarized country with Dems and Repub hating each other. I think many many people are overlooking this. There is way more to the Chessboard of America than who is elected Chief Executive in Nov 2008.

                  _________________
                  --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                  by rhfactor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:55:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  yes---we are starting to hear some rumblings--- (16+ / 0-)

                a fear expressed that Clinton will hurt their chances for re-election.  And in some places hurt all the down-ticket races.

                •  it drives me crazy (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  alizard, Brecht, 3goldens, snacksandpop

                  These "rumblings" you speak of drive me crazy because they almost always come from anonymous sources. Those in the DC Establishment who fear Hillary would do the party a great service by going public with their concerns, instead of this absurd cloak-and-dagger routine.

                  •  Hey, I was at YearlyKos, (19+ / 0-)

                    and made a point of asking Congressional challengers who they preferred at the top of the ticket.

                    Not one of the many I asked said Hillary.

                    If we nominate Hillary, all we do is re-fuel the Repubs "family values" campaigning. Sigh.

                    The Party of the People needs to be centered on something greater than the Clinton Gang! Please don't put a DC face back on the Dem Party!

                    by TrueBlueCT on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:52:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That is an interesting bit of information (9+ / 0-)

                      Could you turn it into a diary.  I wonder how many congresscritters want her at the top of the ticket?

                      It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

                      by pioneer111 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:57:27 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Someone with more credibility than me (11+ / 0-)

                        should conduct an off-the-record poll, of both Congressional challengers, and red state freshmen.

                        To me, running Hillary is the equivalent of waving a red flag at the GOP bull, -- in other words just plain stupid.

                        The Party of the People needs to be centered on something greater than the Clinton Gang! Please don't put a DC face back on the Dem Party!

                        by TrueBlueCT on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:39:05 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  "waving a red flag at the GOP bull" (5+ / 0-)

                          I don't think it can be made any more succinct than that.

                          People who support Hillary believe that those who oppose her simply hate her --- oddly the very same sentiment expressed by the Right Wing Noise Machine re liberals who are opposed to Bush: they simply hate him.

                          This is simply not true.

                          Though there most certainly are paid operatives here hired by other candidates to slam her at every chance, that is just a result of the net being "yet another tool in the arsenal" for communicating in a campaign. But I believe that many many many if not the vast majority of those who oppose Hillary as Presidential nominee do so because they sincerely believe she will polarize America -- even if she wins!  Right or wrong, for good or bad reason, for 15 years, the rank & file Right has been conditioned by the GOP thinktanks and their resulting media sabotage campaigns that she is an enemy to the Right-wing and to American values.

                          It is disgusting what they succeeded in doing, but they did succeed. She may win -- and more power to her if she does... God knows a lot of people do not like her -- but a win by her will just unleash a holy shitstorm of backlash the degree of which we have not come close to seeing. That Vast RightWing Conspiracy will double its funding and efforts to sabotage every single thing she does -- irrespective of whether or not it is good for the country.

                          They don't care in the least what is good for our country. All they care about is preservation of power -- GOP power. And they will use her as the ultimate lightning rod to re-open the seething hatred towards her created by the Right Wing machine.

                          She is a formidable politician, with a disciplined and well-financed campaign. That she could win is not even an issue, She can and might. the issue is, have all these Hillary supporters ever stopped to think about the ripple effects. They'll be tsunamis, not waves.

                          If anyone believes she can "heal" that rift with the right wing and somehow win people over by successfully performing her job as President, I don't know what other word to use other than, y'all are NUTS.

                          So, it makes me wonder if the answer to that concern -- of extreme hatred by the right -- toward her and anything she does, good or bad in their quiet reflective views, is that "we will just have to live with that... and keep growing the Dem party until the hateful right is overtaken"....

                          Because if that IS the strategy or belief, I would like to hear more about it, sincerely. because if this has really been thought through, and that is the master plan & scenario for how to deal with the hatred backlash, then maybe I can be persuaded to chnage my mind about the OUTCOME of all this increased partisan hatred.

                          But regardless, it is not personal. It is not "hillary-hatred".  There are, unfortunately in life, events and timelines which conspire to make someone non-viable as a "brand". If I go reflect on this I know I can come up with an example.

                          But until that, I will substitute this thought:

                          I don't believe Hillary, or her campaign, are fated for the brand-rescuing that occurred with Tylenol.

                          What???

                          Here's what: Tylenol overnight became an untrusted brand after package-tampering and cyanide poisoning. Most observers pronounced the Tylenol brand as dead, over.

                          I didn't believe it. I was sick of seeing the "instant analysis" on TV by so-called experts who swore that no brand could ever come back from this kind of tainting.

                          Tylenol did though, due to brilliant management, absolutely best-of-breed. They looked at the problem, and they took their time. And they went off and did R&D to then develop and bring to market an entirely new concept: tamper-proof packaging. It revolutionized an industry, and shot Tylenol back into its status as a trusted and now innovative brand.

                          I use this as a substitute example -- by stating I don't believe Hillary's team has done anything SUBSTANTIVE to offset the brand. They have merely built it up with careful media play and careful staging of how she plays everything. But they did not innovate her. And my view is that despite the favorable ratings she is getting from DEMOCRATIC voters, her negative brand will unleash unholy terror that will result in a different kind of Civil War in America if she becomes President.

                          If there IS a strategy to innovate her brand, and win people over by SUBSTANTIVE improvement, I'd like to hear about it. otherwise...

                          caveat emptor

                          come back to this post in 8 years.

                          _________________
                          --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                          by rhfactor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 10:28:14 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  interesting (3+ / 0-)

                      Out of curiosity, who did they prefer at the top-of-ticket?

                •  yeah yeah (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  hairspray

                  "some people say" those rumblings are your own stomach.  When you have some real sources get back to us.

          •  She could really damage down ticket candidates (20+ / 0-)

            Democrats quietly fear a backlash from Clinton

            Candidates at the bottom worry about a polarizing politician at the top.

            WASHINGTON - Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.

            They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.

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

            Bush's post-9/11 counter-terrorism defense policy -- strike hard where they aren't and go easy where they are.

            by William Domingo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:05:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Damage down ticket - that's today's AP meme (0+ / 0-)
        •  I so want a candidate I can get behind (13+ / 0-)

          I could get so energized by Obama as the nominee, and could support and work for Edwards (my second choice) if he won the nomination. I'm with you, if Hillary wins, I'll be working exclusively on other races.

        •  I'll vote independent (17+ / 1-)

          I will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances.  We need real change, and she is not capable of bringing it about -- she is too wedded to the failed policies and tactics of establishment Democrats.  I'm reasonably certain that if she becomes president there will be very little, if any, change from the way the country is run at present.  

          "Sometimes I think it's a sin when I feel like I'm winning when I'm losing again." -- Gordon Lightfoot :::::::: I BOYCOTT the NY Times and the Washington Post.

          by asskicking annie on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:59:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I Won't Vote For (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PaintyKat, masslib

            Obama or Edwards under any circumstances.

            [/snark]

            "Well like you always say. Focus on the Good Times." -- Hillary to Bill on the Campaign.

            by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:01:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I would like to (7+ / 0-)

            know the specific reason this was TR'd, because I have made similar statements, and would like to avoid TRs.
            The poster doesn't have a new UID, so I don't assume they are a falafelbot trying to stir things up.
            Does the poster have a history?

            Official Tequila Enthusiast of the Stephanie Miller Show

            by EvilPaula on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:10:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Because someone (3+ / 0-)

              is a mindless idiot. And a hillary fanatic apparently.

              "All you have to do to qualify for human rights is to be human" An 11yo Girl. Unbossed.com

              by cdreid on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:11:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  These Hillary wars are getting ugly (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              EvilPaula

              I have some sympathy with what asskicking annie wrote, and I wouldn't troll rate it - but it doesn't deserve all those recs, either.

              The best rationale for the TR would be: this site is dedicated to electing Democrats, and we all ought to vote for Hillary if she's our candidate, because she'll be a better president than any of the Repub. candidates. And that's a fair statement.

              Considering how extreme Bush, Cheney and their cronies are, "I'm reasonably certain that if she becomes president there will be very little, if any, change from the way the country is run at present." is not a reality-based assertion.

              If this were anything but a Hillary-bashing diary, I don't think you'd see that ratio of recs/TRs for such any anti-Dem candidate statement.

              On the other hand, asskicking annie is not actually advocating for a non-Dem candidate (which is what earned all the Ron Paulbots donuts), and carneystaff has been throwing around donuts just to express disagreement.

              "Problems can't be solved by the same level of thinking that created them" Einstein

              by Brecht on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 10:06:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  yes, exactly right (4+ / 0-)

                I think you expressed it perfectly.

                asskicking annie is as fed up as many many people here, who consider the salvation for America, and its recovery and rebirht to greatness requiring more than simply putting any Dem in the White House.

                If I've pegged her underlying concern right, then I agree with her. It's a tough place to be in. This site is FULL of Howard Dean supporters who worked their tails off for that man to become President because he was, is, and represented a bold new assertion that "we are who we are because it's right, and good, and completely in keeping with the spirit and letter of the promises made in the US COnstitution and our Bill of Rights. Stand up for yourselves."

                Fine, he didn't win, for reasons we all know, including the overt and covert disdain of the DLC machinery and power structure.

                We were told to support the Dem (who turned out to be the UN-electrifying Kerry, a candidate so many of us knew from the get go would not have the right stuff to go all the way,  and even if he won, he'd be timid in office, and not reform the Party as Howard identified as being necessary.

                So we all did the right thing and held our nose and not just voted for him, but helped him get elected.

                We were rewarded with a loss. A pathetic loss, because the party higher-ups would not listen to the wisdom of the netroots, who understood America a hell of a lot better than the Beltway Hacks did.

                many good and hard-working people felt betrayed by the Dem party for both sabotaging a GREAT candidate and at same time failing to steer a mediocre candidate to electoral victory.

                Some of those people got disaffected and crawled back under the rocks they came out from when Dean awakened a whole section of Americans who had never ever before gotten involved with politics -- becasue they found it disgusting, and completely devoid of integrity. Howard was the antithesis. So some left completely after he was taken out by the Centrist machinery who were scared of how he'd clean up Dodge and in so doing, strip the centrists of their cozy positions of power.

                I believe asskicking annie represents a whole bunch of us who DID NOT LEAVE.  They licked their wounds, and came here to help carry out the 50-state electoral strategy, with the hope and intention that it would lead to a new progressive majority, and a reform of the Democratic Party.

                Thus, and I guess this is all obvious and need not be hammered over head with a 2x4: asskicking Annie is basically saying "How long do we have to put up with mediocrity and "safety" and mechanical targeting and careful crafting? How long?  (To use Jon Stewart's take on Bush's use of "in other words"...)

                In other words, we did our part: we held our noses and worked asses off to get Kerry elected.

                To me there is nothing wrong with stating here boldly, "we can do better", and like MLK, "No. NO I am NOT satisfied" ...

                So, troll-rating that sentiment is very suspicious, in my view.

                _________________
                --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                by rhfactor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 10:55:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Amen (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rhfactor, asskicking annie

                  For the supporters of HRC, I have no desire to even try to change your mind.  And since you won't change mine, I try to avoid the pro or anti HRC diaries...no good is coming from them.

                  I am REALLY going to avoid the HRC diaries if she wins the primary.  They will all become the "fall in line" diaries that I have come to loathe.

                  Official Tequila Enthusiast of the Stephanie Miller Show

                  by EvilPaula on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:29:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Maybe what we need is to get Hillary out of the (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cdreid, EvilPaula, smitha007

                  way so that we can have a real Democratic primary.

                  "Problems can't be solved by the same level of thinking that created them" Einstein

                  by Brecht on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:36:24 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  how in the world would that happen? (0+ / 0-)

                    ... unless this was snark ?

                    it's late -- so my brain is misfiring. I can't tell.

                    _________________
                    --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                    by rhfactor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:48:22 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well, I see two new developments in this diary: (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      rhfactor, EvilPaula

                      The first is just how strong the general DKos anti-Hillary sentiment is. I've seen a fair bit of that before, but here it's almost universal. Maybe Berkeley Vox wasn't around to fight it.

                      And the second isthis article, which has been quoted a few times in the comments. That's just bad voodoo for Hillary, and makes me wonder if the tide is starting to turn.

                      Obama has a deep, principled side and an accomadationist, pragmatic side; having to compete with Hillary keeps dragging him to the right. Edwards is a lot closer to the vital essence of the Democratic Party, but he's also more threatening to established power and is being trivialized by the MSM.

                      If we had a healthy, fair and balanced democracy (using that phrase entirely unironicly) Hillary and the DLC would be on the sidelines, and we'd be seeing a real debate between Obama, Edwards, Dodd and Richardson, and people would even listen to some of Kucinich's ideas. Perhaps Hillary would be in the debate too, but she'd be around 4th place. We have lost our way in the last 30 years and become an oligarchy - we don't need two damn parties for corporate interests.

                      "Problems can't be solved by the same level of thinking that created them" Einstein

                      by Brecht on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:25:14 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I concur completely. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Brecht, asskicking annie

                        And, however this fits into it, I loathe our 2-party system. I can say with conviction now: It doesn't work. If it did,  no way in hell Bush would have had a 2nd term.

                        American Democracy is in meltdown. The structures of 3 branches maintaining a balance of power have been demolished. Not one of them is healthy. Not one.

                        Add the 4th estate, totally GOP-conglomerate controlled, and that's all FOUR branches.

                        This is not -- in case anyone tries to go there -- some argument validating Nader's "no difference". I don't subscribe to that at all. There are significant differences -- but how in the world could an opposition party not prevail in 04 against a colossal failure in EVERY DEPARTMENT?

                        To me that sealed it for me, America's fundamental structure, and self-correcting mechanism, failed miserably. I never thought that could happen.

                        Fool me once -- sure. They did that in 00.

                        Fool me twice -- that is catastrophic failure in my eyes. And the Democratic Party caused thait failure by interrupting the natural order, and using every avail means to derail Dean's campaign, then install a poorly chosen candidate to go up against the perfected GOP Media Machine.

                        The two parties are indeed different. But if the Democrats cannot get their act together in terms of opposition party mastery, and in wargaming, thus preparing Plan Bs and C's for worst case scenarios, then it really will not matter how different the D's are. If they can't hold power -- and then be bold enough to USE it when they have it.

                        Blah blah votes, don't have the votes. As we know, a House Speaker has extraordinary power -- if she uses it.

                        _________________
                        --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                        by rhfactor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:58:29 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Thats the best (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Brecht

                        and most honest analysis of our candidates ive ever seen.

                        Obama has a deep, principled side and an accomadationist, pragmatic side; having to compete with Hillary keeps dragging him to the right. Edwards is a lot closer to the vital essence of the Democratic Party, but he's also more threatening to established power and is being trivialized by the MSM.

                        "All you have to do to qualify for human rights is to be human" An 11yo Girl. Unbossed.com

                        by cdreid on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 04:25:40 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  it is late - I see I didn't eanswer your question (0+ / 0-)

                      there are two ways I see Hillary falling by the wayside.

                      The likelier is that she rides high until the primaries, then we find out the polls were wrong all along because everyone with cell phones (who are under-represented in polls) wants Obama, so suddenly in February he becomes the new comeback kid.

                      The second option is that right now, in this slow news month for politics, the netroots turn on Hillary, people realize there's something creepy about her right-wing endorsements, other Dems get scared of the down-ticket losses her candidacy will bring, the MSM sours on her, and her campaign just loses steam. The great thing about this early solution is it gives the Democratic battle time to move left, to where the real issues are: leaving Iraq and throwing the bums out.

                      "Problems can't be solved by the same level of thinking that created them" Einstein

                      by Brecht on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:34:09 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  A lot to consider there (0+ / 0-)

                        Those are some big IFs.

                        I don't know... I can't see her campaign crashing & burning -- like, for example, McCain's (hah hah, this is my only satisfaction these days re GOP, given Oversight has produced some thrills, but no climaxes. I just love it that Mr. Sell-His-Soul destroyed everything he's worked for since coming out of that Hanoi Hilton, and I'm as happy as can be about it. He had the juice to stop the Iraq debacle -- and he knew. But Presidential aspiration and career-topper mattered more than anything else to him.

                        To be honest, I am very surprised she has come out the gate with such numbers and backing. I really did not think the Democratic machine would back her based simply on how must she is reviled by conservatives. Why take that risk?

                        But in this regard I readily admit I was wrong. She is a formidable force.

                        Since I've seen that in play, it's undeniable, and thus my arguments are not predicated on her inability to win the Dem nomination -- I feel certain she could, if all goes according to plan. My arguments are abiut the short-sightedness of getting to THERE -- and THEN what?

                        I don't think it's been thought through or wargamed... Just as the clunky Dem machine never wargamed how Kerry's anti-war chapter, with hanoi Jane, would ever overshadow mr hero Vietnam. That is a perfect example of Democratic Party short-sightedness, combined with the hubris of these Beltway Hacks being so cock-sure of their numbers and projections.

                        They clearly do not wargame for worst-case-scenario. Which is their biggest failing. I worry about that for 2008. None of this is personal against Sen Clinton.

                        But whatever she is or isn;t, she's got a crackerjack team and it's probably got "redundant back ups" and a whole host of readiness for anything. I don't easily see either of your scenarios happening -- but truly i am not skilled in this arena, My skills are in media communication, branding and marketing.

                        _________________
                        --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                        by rhfactor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:46:33 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  I support Democratic values (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  EvilPaula

                  Since 2004, I have seen less and less correlation between Democratic values... and Democrats.  I see fewer and fewer differences between Democrats and Republicans.

                  I'm ABSOLUTELY not going to vote lesser of two evils again.  I will not vote for Hillary -- or Obama.  Period.  I may not even vote for Edwards.  I am leaning more and more to not voting for any Democrats at all in 2006, in order to punish them for their absolutely pathetic performance these last few years.  More and more I believe they are complicit with the Republicans on the war, on the dismantling of civil liberties, and on the corporatization of America.  Where are the Democratic values of these Democrats?  What have these sewer rats done to earn my confidence or my vote?

                  "Sometimes I think it's a sin when I feel like I'm winning when I'm losing again." -- Gordon Lightfoot :::::::: I BOYCOTT the NY Times and the Washington Post.

                  by asskicking annie on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:06:48 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  just to clarify... (0+ / 0-)

                    You would, then, abstain, is that correct?

                    No way you would vote Republican, so I just want to hear you say where you are heading if an acceptable candidate does not emerge for you.

                    _________________
                    --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                    by rhfactor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:02:58 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Abstain or vote independent (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      rhfactor

                      No, I've been registered to vote since 01/09/82 and have never voted for any Republican, and would never do so.  I left the Democratic Party in late 2005 -- after the Democrats were complicit in the Roberts confirmation -- and have been an independent since then.

                      To me, it's about the values, not the party.  I am still a believer in Democratic values; the Democratic Party, apparently, is not.

                      "Sometimes I think it's a sin when I feel like I'm winning when I'm losing again." -- Gordon Lightfoot :::::::: I BOYCOTT the NY Times and the Washington Post.

                      by asskicking annie on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:53:58 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  I think many of the recs (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Brecht

                are to counteract what is seen as an unfair TR.

                Official Tequila Enthusiast of the Stephanie Miller Show

                by EvilPaula on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:23:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Do NOT troll rate (0+ / 0-)

                "un Democratic" comments. Do NOT troll rate someone who comes on supporting anyone.. even a rethug if they're honest, intelligent, respectful. Dailykos has never EVER been a leftist version of the censored sheep pens of the right (freeperville etc). We use reason, logic, compassion, discussion etc here. Not censorship. And unless Markos has changed the rules overnight that includes republicans who dare show up.

                And Hillary IS a socially moderate republican. Doubt that not.

                "All you have to do to qualify for human rights is to be human" An 11yo Girl. Unbossed.com

                by cdreid on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:54:30 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Just a note to the TRer (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            churchylafemme, andyj2287

            If your troll-rate is counteracted by many recs,
            Then

            Official Tequila Enthusiast of the Stephanie Miller Show

            by EvilPaula on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:46:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, she denies her mistake... (16+ / 0-)

        and she conveniently doesn't mention the advice the Dem caucus got from Bob Graham.  Graham told the caucus to read the NIE, as its contents led him to decide to vote nay.  HRC didn't read the NIE, and she voted aye.

        I'm beyond tired of her "if I knew then" BS.  Graham told her then what she needed to do to know, but she disregarded his advice.  Claiming that she was misled under those circumstances is like not bothering to open the textbook and then blaming others when you flunk the course.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:26:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Any links on the NIE confirmation? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lenzy1000

          I've read a number of times that Edwards and Clinton did not read the NIE but never found any quotes or confirmation. Maybe you can point me in the right direction?

          I thought it was beyond belief when Kerry challenged if Bush had ever read the NIE and then Kerry had to explain that he'd relied on a Tenet briefing and didn't read it himself. I wonder if there's a backstory with this?
           

          Still uncommitted, undecided...enjoying the dates; not ready for the ring or uhaul.

          by kck on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:46:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Pretty much no one read the NIE, they (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kck, Andrew40

            were briefed on it.

            I'm a Hillary Democrat.

            by masslib on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:58:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, I've read less than half a dozen did... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              masslib

              Tenet must have done a heckuva good job.

              Not reading the NIE AND voting in opposition of party leaders in the know, Levin and Bob Graham...very hard to understand.

              Because of the whole bamboozlement and the actual AUMF conditions, I'm not letting it be a showstopper, but that's difficult.  

              Still uncommitted, undecided...enjoying the dates; not ready for the ring or uhaul.

              by kck on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:10:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, Hillary always made it clear (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kck, Andrew40

                she expected Bush to use diplomacy first, let the inspectors finish their job, etc., as he promised.  The AUMF was just a dog and pony show in many ways.  He didn't actually need another authorization. Also, there was a school of thought that President's dictate foreign policy, and after what happened with Bill Clinton and Kosovo, I'm sure that weighed heavily on Hillary's mind.  Remember nobody knew what an extreme disaster he was.  But, yeah, I understand your discomfort.

                I'm a Hillary Democrat.

                by masslib on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:15:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Why on earth would she trust Bush? (4+ / 0-)

                  Unless HRC had been living underground for several decades--which we know she did not--I cannot begin to imagine why she would trust anyone with Bush's long and abysmal track record for untrustworthiness.  How reliable does that show her judgment to be?  

                  To God: Please stop talking to George Bush. Too much is being lost in translation.

                  by miriam on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:22:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  He didn't have a record of untrustworthiness. (0+ / 0-)

                    He was relatively new to the job.

                    I'm a Hillary Democrat.

                    by masslib on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:24:24 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Anyone who didn't doubt W's credibility by 10/02 (0+ / 0-)

                      isn't smart enough to be senator, much less prez.

                      Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

                      by RFK Lives on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:54:44 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Of course he had a record. (0+ / 0-)

                      Do you dismiss his AWOL from the National Guard?  His abject failures in the oil and baseball businesses, so catastrophic to stockholders that his father's friends had to bail him out?  His drinking and driving?  I don't know about you, but to me those episodes are  characteristic of one who is untrustworthy.  And they occurred long before the Supreme Court handed him the presidency.

                      And Hillary Clinton trusted this man?

                      To God: Please stop talking to George Bush. Too much is being lost in translation.

                      by miriam on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:08:12 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  NYT reporters Jeff Gerth AND Don Van Natta, Jr. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                GayHillbilly, RFK Lives, kck

                wrote the cover piece on Hillary's IWR vote, "Hillary's War," published in the Sunday magazine June 3.

                But it's not clear that she was equally diligent when it came to the justifications for the war itself. So far, she has not discussed publicly whether she ever read the complete classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate, the most comprehensive judgment of the intelligence community about Iraq's W.M.D., which was made available to all 100 senators. The 90-page report was delivered to Congress on Oct. 1, 2002, just 10 days before the Senate vote. An abridged summary was made public by the Bush administration, but it painted a less subtle picture of Iraq's weapons program than the full classified report. To get a complete picture would require reading the entire document, which, according to a version of the report made public in 2004, contained numerous caveats and dissents on Iraq's weapons and capacities.
                ...
                She could have done the reading herself. Senators were able to access the N.I.E. at two secure locations in the Capitol complex. Nonetheless, only six senators personally read the report, according to a 2005 television interview with Senator Jay Rockefeller, Democrat of West Virginia and then the vice chairman of the intelligence panel.
                ...
                The question of whether Clinton took the time to read the N.I.E. report is critically important. Indeed, one of Clinton's Democratic colleagues, Bob Graham, the Florida senator who was then the chairman of the intelligence committee, said he voted against the resolution on the war, in part, because he had read the complete N.I.E. report. Graham said he found that it did not persuade him that Iraq possessed W.M.D. As a result, he listened to Bush's claims more skeptically. ''I was able to apply caveat emptor,'' Graham, who has since left the Senate, observed in 2005. He added regretfully, ''Most of my colleagues could not.''

          •  Any links on the NIE confirmation? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Brecht, kck

            Report: Clinton didn't read National Intelligence Estimate before Iraq vote

            Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., didn't read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before she voted in 2002 to authorize the president to use military force against Saddam Hussein, according to new reports.

            The Washington Post, which obtained a copy of Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, says a spokesman "seemed to confirm" the book's claim that Clinton didn't read the NIE before she cast a vote that has proved controversial during her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

            http://blogs.usatoday.com/...

            Bush's post-9/11 counter-terrorism defense policy -- strike hard where they aren't and go easy where they are.

            by William Domingo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:15:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I doubt the NIE would have changed minds. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rhfactor, jxg

          The Republicans could have rammed through the bill without many Dems.

          The Iraq war was on 2001.

          My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

          by Salo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:02:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But that damning claim is bandied about (0+ / 0-)

            on Edwards and Clinton and I'd like to know one way or the other.

            Still uncommitted, undecided...enjoying the dates; not ready for the ring or uhaul.

            by kck on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:05:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Only 6 senators read it. (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mickT, RFK Lives, EvilPaula, kck, Corwin Weber

              I opposed the war, and I didn't need a dossier.

              Clinton, Biden, Dodd and Edwards had their own reasons for their vote.

              My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

              by Salo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:18:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I may not need a dossier to vote against war (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                casperr

                But I should would to vote for war.

                Still uncommitted, undecided...enjoying the dates; not ready for the ring or uhaul.

                by kck on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:53:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  that NIE excuse is a complete red-herring (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kck

                and should be completely taken off the table (to quote our Speaker, the "off the table" portion).

                Spending time on that is akin to arguing whether or not valerie plame, at the time of plamegate, was then and there covert. IT WAS IRRELEVANT, and everyone knew it. But it could succeed in raising doubts if repeated over and over again enough times.

                Jesus H Christ. It would take about 2-3 days, but all you'd have to do to REMIND oneself how fabricated this whole "shift to Saddam" off of OBL would be to read the headlines of Page 1 of the NYT from Sept 11, 2001 thru March 17, 2003.

                Even though the NYT and press were complicit in selling war to America at large is NO EXCUSE for selling it to our Senators as well. It's as if only the NIE had the secret information about what BushCo knew and didn't know. It's as if Hans Blix didn't exist. Like Colin Powell's initial adamant voice that going after Saddam was wrong and takeing our eye off the ball.

                Please.

                Anyone that claims you had to have that special double-secret access to the NIE in order to understand whether Iraq was an imminent threat to us -- IMMINENT -- as in, related to 9/11 -- is a fool, or delusional. It doesn't wash with what was known then.

                I just reread DailyKos.com from May 2002 through and beyond March 17th, 2003 -- thre night Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to leave.

                It's clear as day, without even having to strain your brain half a micron... anyone claiming they couldn't figure out if Bush was sending us on a wild goose chase that took our eye off the prize (OBL) is an outright liar, or -- if not a liar -- incompetent to hold any public office.

                The NIE excuse is a wonderful red-herring for anyone living in la-la land and who refuses to see what else was in plain sight all that time.

                _________________
                --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                by rhfactor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:23:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  true but (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            miriam, RFK Lives, pdxattorney

            how much better it would be if all of our major candidates could today say what Obama and Kucinich can - "I knew this was a bad idea then, and I still do."

            Edwards and Clinton can't.

            I really want a nominee untarnished by war support.

            •  bullshit. they DID know. They just (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Brecht, Salo, mightymouse

              voted strategically, knowing the state of mind of Americans at the time, whipped to a frenzy by the GOP noise machine.

              Please.

              To suggest otherwise is to virtually state:

              THEY ARE STUPID.

              Neither is stupid.

              They are strategic, and they chose wrong.

              Edwards understood, given how things unfolded -- and that it was NOT a shock n awe cakewalk (which would have made his vote a PLUS by this time in the political life cycle) -- that in order for him to have any traction whatsoever in this election, he would HAVE to apologize.

              This is a tactical issue. This isn't a moral difficult decision he made. It was practical and obvious. (1) Don't apologize and instead stonewall you did the right thing -- and play defense all the way to the end -- and likely not win, or (2) get it over with fast, get it open, do a mea culpa, score good points for candidness, and then it's behind you... and you can campaign using offense.

              Hillary voted on similar strategy:  (A) Bush would be crazy to go against all the European nations and start a pre-emptive war, and (B) In the event that he DID, at least our superior military forces would win quickly and that would be sen as a positive for her -- backing "the troops" and all.

              But she miscalculated. And any scenario like NIE is all sugar coating over the simple truth: She miscalculated.

              And her choice was the same as EWdwards' choice: How to undo that with the least amount of blowback.

              Her strategists took a different approach, and they are sticking with it/ There's a lot to that consistency strategy, given what the last 7 years has proven about the American people and their character: They awarded Bush high points for sticking to his guns, even when everyone was against him/ this was, and is, perceived as "tough, decisive, risktaker, strong, able to withstand criticism".

              That has worked very well for Bush, and I'm sure it was Cheney-Rove who played that card... like going right up inot the colon of it all. It would bluff a lot of people.

              Hillary's team are quite astute at focus groups and gauging the capacities of the American People. Their strategy is to "play it tough" -- show em you THOUGHT you were being strong for America -- but you got had -- and that you're not going to run away from that. You're going to TRUMPET it as, like Bush, a show of strength and resoluteness that you won;t back down to anyone. That's a national security impression strategy.

              Imagine if, after or during YearlyKos, she were to "crack" and admit "Yes I was wrong, but I am determined to correct that" or whatever spin strategy they were to develop for extricating oneself from the condemnation... Though some people here would cheer and say "SEE! She CAN admit her mistakes. So if people accept Edwards' admission, they should now accept HER admission, or they are hypocrites!" -- a lot of people would instead go:

              "I knew it. I knew it. She;s just a tool who votes whatever is strategically good for her at any moment" --

              And this would undermine her support, not help it at this stage. Face it. She calculated during the VOTE itself. It didn't work to her favor, and they calculated again how to best manage that. They decided, stick to your guns. That was the decision. She is not about to back off from that, lest she play LOSE-LOSE... She's playing her best card, knowing she's pissing off a lot of people here, but believing those get offset by the reputation for "sticking to her guns",. hoping this will play well to the swingvoters who think she may be soft on terrorism.

              It's a calculation, like everything. Becasuse she is a consummate pro. And it's these very skills -- professional politician skills -- that she and her campaign see as her USP: Unique Selling Point -- which sharply differentiates her from other brands.

              You have to look at the whole chessboard as marketing and branding. That's all it is for the Professional Politician. They are in an industry, like any other business person, and at the end of the day, those who market their brand best win.

              To look at it in any way other than this is, sorry to say, naive. This aint Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

              _________________
              --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

              by rhfactor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:46:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Nobody read the NIE (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hairspray, kck, Andrew40

          Kerry didn't and neither did Edwards,  And claiming she denies her mistake is a lie.  She said that if she had known then what she knows now she would not have voted the way she did. And she she said it long before Kerry and Edwards did.  The only thing she hasn't done is some sort of phony apology. Get over it.

          •  bollox. (8+ / 0-)

            she was still talking about Victory in 2005.

            My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

            by Salo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:33:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Lemme get this straight... (14+ / 0-)

            She was clearly wrong on the most important vote of her Senate career.  Her excuse for getting it wrong was that she lacked accurate information at the time she cast her vote.  She made a conscious decision not to review accurate information that existed at the time even though one of her caucus's most trusted members on intel matters told her to review it.

            I don't plan on "getting over" that misstep of epic proportions any more than I ever "got over" the theft of the 2000 election.

            Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

            by RFK Lives on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:05:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  "get over it" is something Kerry (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RFK Lives

            indelibly said re the electoral and Supreme Court tampering with the legitimate outcome of the 2000 election.

            It was a stupid thing to say then, and a stupid thing to say now.

            Not everyone here deals with the expedient, and glosses over little mistake like "oh, was there something I was supposed to read?"

            The truth of the matter is even that NIE excuse is some phony safe haven from the reality of what anyone here who read the Guardian, BBC, Salon, Palast and many independent journalists from 2001 thru 2003 knew:

            The runup to war was bogus, the shift from OBL to Saddam was absurd, and stuck out like a sore thumb; anyone who'd had even a slight familiarity to PNAC would see the clear-as-day roadmap announcing the intentions of the Bush Admin, and given they wrote a major letter to Bill Clinton in 1996 or 8 (not in front of me), it would seem likely she was familiar with that group -- the group in charge of the Persian Gulf War... So please, trying to hide all this crap behind who did or didn't read the NIE is a total McGuffin -- red herring -- designed to provide cover for what were calculated risks taken by politicians who, unless hey were asleep or in a coma, had all the same access to information that little old we had during that runup.

            If you're going to use a "get over it" argument, which I argue is stupid to begin with, but fair enough, your prerogative to use it anyway, then get your facts straight of who knew what when.

            We're not ALL gullible and complicit like the NYT.

            _________________
            --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

            by rhfactor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:10:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I used to have that attitude (7+ / 0-)

        Then I realized that the real reason she voted for it was not pretty.  Not pretty at all.  She is never going to convince me that she didn't know that the country was being lied into this war.  I simply don't believe it, easpecially after having met her and listening to her in person.  Whe's way too smart.  And the only way I could reconcile myself to her her reticence about admitting to the mistake was because despite it all, she probably didn't think Bush would screw it up this badly.  She probably thought it would be a Granada.  Short and to the point.  An easy target.  Something to satisfy America's bloodlust for revenge,  And anyhow, we would get rid of Saddam once and for all.  
        Whatever the reason, I'm convinced that she intends to get us out.  As president, she can't afford to have a fatigued and broken military with a worldfull of enraged Islamists like bin Laden.  
        She made a political calculation (campaign money was prime motivation IMHO) and underestimated Bush. It is her Karma to fix it.

        -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

        by goldberry on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:18:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There are noble reasons. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          andyj2287, goldberry

          1.Saddam was a murdering thug.
          2.If the nation goes to war, unity is important.
          3.Opression: The Kurds, The Shiites.

          Not that any of those reasons really add up to the cost.

          My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

          by Salo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:21:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nope they were insufficient reasons (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            John DE

            1.) Robert Mugabe is a murdering thug
            2.) If the Congress had been divided, it might not have made a difference if Bush was determined to do it anyway but it would have been more clearly Bush's fault
            3,) Opression: Darfur

            -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

            by goldberry on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:26:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You list three different states. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rhfactor

              With Iraq it all happened with one easily demonized leader. I can add a 4th.  Unfinished war.

              I'm not sure how you can so passionately support Hillary if you hold that attitude.

              I'm dispassionate about the whole IWR, Saddam was public enemy #1 for a decade, Bush had his party in power and he was going to get what he wanted--with Democratic Support or without it.

              It's very disappointing to see how the people went along without burning down DC or blowing up CNN's HQ or something of that nature.

              My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

              by Salo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:32:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  In a perfect world,,, (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rhfactor, hairspray

                ...none of our candidates would have done anything with which we disagree.  
                In a perfect world, citizens would cool their passion with reason.  
                In a perfect world, the protests that did take place would not go unreported.  

                Given the well know ethnic tensions in Iraq and the inability of Iraq to do us any harm, there was no good reason to invade it.  
                None.  
                I can not even make the argument that the oppressed in Iraq are better off now.  They aren't.  Their infrastructure is in shambles, there are death squads roaming the country and the government is feckless.  Women have lost their rights on top of it all.  Shall we ask them whether the war was worth it?  What do you think they would say?
                We will have much to repent for in the decades ahead: that we didn't speak loudly enough, we weren't courageous enough, we weren't unified in our opposition.  
                What she did was borne out of political calculation, not naivete.  It's still reprehensible but I believe she can remedy the situation better than the others.  

                -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

                by goldberry on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:59:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You do realize... (0+ / 0-)

                  ..that Hillary will almost certainly escalate the conflict.  I'm certainly not attempting to sell her IWR vote--I think you completely missed the point.

                  My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

                  by Salo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:25:15 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, I don't believe that (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    rhfactor

                    I have no reason to believe that is what she will do.  What she has said will certainly not satisfy people who  would like us to get out of Iraq yesterday.  It's not going to be like that.  It's going to be like a game of Dr. Tangle.  It's going to be untying one knot at a time.  You may interpret that as not good enough or as escalation.  I see it as meaning that stabilization may be required before we can remove our forces safely.  
                    But whatever her plans are, she sure as hell isn't going to lay it all out for us before the election.  And the reason for that is because it will leave her vulnerable to criticism from the Republican nominee.  No matter what she proposes, they are going to twist it as inadequate and dangerous.  So, I think we have to watch what she does more than what she says.  Her request to Edelmen about what the plans are for withdrawal was a politically savvy move.  You don't have to be a foreign policy wonk to figure out why she's asking. (and the response was equally revealing as a sign of things to come from anyone who challenges the Bush doctrine of endless war for national security purposes) And THAT doesn't sound like escalation to me.  

                    -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

                    by goldberry on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:35:42 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Ah, the Burns Maneuver! (0+ / 0-)

                      goldberry, in defense of Hillary Clinton:

                      But whatever her plans are, she sure as hell isn't going to lay it all out for us before the election.

                      Conrad Burns, in defense of George W. Bush:

                      We’re not gonna tell you what our plan is, Jon, 'cause you’re just gonna go out and blow it!

                      He says our president don’t have a plan. I think he’s got one. He’s not going to tell everyone in the world.

                      History repeats itself.

                      "I remain just one thing, and one thing only, and that is a clown. It places me on a far higher plane than any politician." - Charlie Chaplin

                      by Junior Bug on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:50:16 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  How do you know this? n/t (0+ / 0-)

                    Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities-Voltaire

                    by hairspray on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:45:57 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  events are likley to barrel out of control. (0+ / 0-)

                      No matter who gets elected.

                      My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

                      by Salo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:37:51 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  I need to bookmark you as a Grade-A Analyst (0+ / 0-)

                  Every so often, certain people here fly way high above the on-the-ground view, and see the whole chessboard, the whole lay of the land over time. And they analyze from that point of view.

                  Given the well know ethnic tensions in Iraq and the inability of Iraq to do us any harm, there was no good reason to invade it.   None.   ... What she did was borne out of political calculation, not naivete.  It's still reprehensible but I believe she can remedy the situation better than the others.  

                  Great to read this kind of clarity of analysis. ...  Let me guess, you are an attorney, vs a marketing person? Am i close? :)

                  _________________
                  --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                  by rhfactor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:59:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Awww, go on. No, really, go on. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    rhfactor

                    I'm not sure being compared to a marketing person is a compliment.  My academic advisor told me I should go to law school.  But parsing legalese sounded like about as much fun as pounding my head against a wall.  
                    No, I'm s scientist.  

                    My favorite analyst is Digby.  She does analysis much better than I do.  And there are thousands of other voices here as well.  So don't just take my word for it.  It's only opinion and sometimes not well informed at that.  After a while, all these various voices coalesce.  

                    -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

                    by goldberry on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:24:11 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  digby is a great role model ! (0+ / 0-)

                      ah-hah, scientist. what was i thinking ??!! I knew it didn't sound legalese, but i couldn't pout my finger on it. was too tired last night.

                      _________________
                      --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                      by rhfactor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:44:47 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I checked out your photos (0+ / 0-)

                        Was that you who took a picture of me and David after the brunch on Sunday?  I'm not very photogenic.
                        By the way, what is the rhfactor all about?  I am rg negative.  Are you?

                        -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

                        by goldberry on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:14:25 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  ooops. sorry-- those are not MY photos - but (0+ / 0-)

                          I ran out of "sig file" characters to make that clear. The dkos user who put that compilation page together at dkosopedia asked me to help spread the existence of that page, and I said, Okay, i'll put it inot my sig file...

                          So, no, not me. I don;'t know you nor david -- that's like outa thin air!

                          rhfactor is a nickname since college -- and usually I used to always append my mood to it:

                          rhfactor+

                          rhfactor-

                          but over the years i just dropped it to rhfactor... even though a lotta friends still send email to rhfactor+

                          as for my understanding of rhesus monkey, i plead the 5th.

                          i don't even know what rg- means. that's how disconnected the ideas are.

                          _________________
                          --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                          by rhfactor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 09:34:04 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I meant rh negative (0+ / 0-)

                            rh- is very rare in populations in general but appears in a significant concentration among Basques. There are two possible explanations for this 1.) Basques are the remnant of the first African diaspora.  They are the ones that did those fabulous cave paintings in France.  Their language does not fall into any known linuguistic trees.  They have peculiar physiological differences as well, like weird cranial bones and a thicker than average sternum.  (My brother has the sternum thing.)                OR
                            2.) rh- negative is a mutation of the normal human blood group tho' f^&& if I know what kind of selective advantage it is supposed to confer on the bearer. From what I can tell, all it does is manage to keep the population of rh- people from growing.  It has the side effect of causing miscarriages and hemolytic disease of the newborn when reproducing outside of the blood antigen group.  I'm hoping that when the time and circumstances are right, I'll find out what it's good for.  Maybe when faced with a ravenous lion I will find that I can leap tall trees in a single bound or something.
                            Anyway, other than Spain and parts of France, it is found in the Bristish isles and Ireland.  Definitely a migration pattern there.
                            Hmmmm, low uid, had to pinch a sig line, bipolar username.  Veddy interesting.  
                             

                            -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

                            by goldberry on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 10:08:15 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  aww (0+ / 0-)

                            i wtote a reply but i am tired and ended up not posting, merely previewing, thren closed the tab. i can't even remember what i said other than

                            Hmmmm, low uid, had to pinch a sig line, bipolar username.  Veddy interesting.  

                            wtf? there is no discernable relationship between the three other than they relate to me ... so how in world does that merit any statement. it must be snark.

                            note to self: preview, then post, then shut browqser

                            _________________
                            --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                            by rhfactor on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:23:05 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No reason (0+ / 0-)

                            I just got a new wireless laptop and I'm afraid I am guilty of overindulging.  My mind tends to wander freely from topic to topic, especially when it's past midnight on the east coast and I should be sleeping.  
                            I'm genuinely curious about Kossacks with low uid's.  How did you guys find this place before I did?  I spent months typing "hate, hate HATE George Bush" into Google and couldn't find any like minded people back in 2002-2003.  I guess none of you guys were actually posting "hate George Bush".  
                            So, what was going through your mind when you found DailyKos?  You don't have to answer this.
                            Must. Put. Down. Laptop. And. Go. To. Work.

                            -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

                            by goldberry on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 05:31:46 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

            No one here likes Saddam, or the repression that was going on in Iraq, etc.
            But this war was not the only way to change it.  If you hear someone on FOX equating not supporting the war with being OK with Saddam in power, they are trying to push this false dichotomy.  

            Official Tequila Enthusiast of the Stephanie Miller Show

            by EvilPaula on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:06:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  goldberry, you are a very sharp analyst (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          andyj2287

          And the only way I could reconcile myself to her her reticence about admitting to the mistake was because despite it all, she probably didn't think Bush would screw it up this badly.  She probably thought it would be a Granada.  Short and to the point.  An easy target.  Something to satisfy America's bloodlust for revenge,  And anyhow, we would get rid of Saddam once and for all.  
          Whatever the reason, I'm convinced that she intends to get us out. ...  She made a political calculation (campaign money was prime motivation IMHO) and underestimated Bush. It is her Karma to fix it.

          Excellent. I concur.

          _________________
          --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

          by rhfactor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:52:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  paternalistic (0+ / 0-)

          While I applaud you for at least trying to see something positive in her failure to lead on Iraq, I find this suggestion incredibly paternalistic.

          It might give you a warm fuzzy feeling to think about "the grown-ups" coming to save us after they lied us into war.  It's not something I could support in real life though.  If she was stupid enough to go along with it despite all the warnings (not likely), or knew what was really going on and thought this would pan out - it would be beyond irresponsible for us to give her an opportunity to set karma straight.  This is a really ridiculous notion.  

          "It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship"

          by andyj2287 on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:39:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  When did you realize your parents had sex? (0+ / 0-)

            You are right about one thing, her failure to lead on Iraq up to this point has not earned her any brownie points and I understand Kossacks being angry about how we got into the war.  
            But lately, I see that she is doing things that are going to drive the lazy Bushies nuts.  She is challenging them to brief her on the withdrawal strategy and today, she challenged the War Czar, General Lute, to come clean about the draft rumors. She is starting to get the hang of the offense.  This could be fun.
            People do a lot of things that are craven and opportunistic.  But other than her vote on the IWR, her record is consistent and progressive.  She's not faking it.  She really does seem to vote for the things she says she believes in.  
            However, if you aren't comfortable with Clinton, by all means, support your candidate and help him win.  

            -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

            by goldberry on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:00:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  well done. (51+ / 0-)

      She's the Sphinx.

      I found the "I'm your Gal" to be disconcertingly dishonest.

      She and Bill  fucked up healthcare reform, switched from that to backing NAFTA, butchered Welfare, bombed Iraq every six months.

      One good moment was Serbia (many may disagree) and the economy in general.

      Then he had an affair and the end of the administration was ruined.

      Basically she "fought the rightwing" on behalf of Bill Clinton's libido. That was it. The only time they fought back was to stay in office.

      She's making a tautological argument when she says she fought the "right wing machine". It was all defensive rear guard action from 1997 onwards. Clinton was always on the backfoot and staggering.

      I don't want a defensive President: I want a brutal frontal assault on the Republicans, not a fucking desperate holding action.

      Edwards or Obama could deliver the coup de grace. Not a Clinton.

      My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

      by Salo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:14:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And PSI do some analysis (14+ / 0-)

      on Clinton and what is out on the wires about what "elected democrats" are saying about her.

      They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.

      In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.

      "I'm not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag" on many candidates, said Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of Washington, Ind.

      Unlike Crooks, most Democratic leaders agreed to talk frankly about Clinton's political coattails only if they remained anonymous, fearing reprisals from the New York senator's campaign. They all expressed admiration for Clinton, and some said they would publicly support her fierce fight for the nomination — despite privately held fears.

      The chairman of a Midwest state party called Clinton a nightmare for congressional and state legislative candidates.

      A Democratic congressman from the West, locked in a close re-election fight, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate most likely to cost him his seat.

      A strategist with close ties to leaders in Congress said Democratic Senate candidates in competitive races would be strongly urged to distance themselves from Clinton.

      "The argument with Hillary right now in some of these red states is she's so damn unpopular," said Andy Arnold, chairman of the Greenville, S.C., Democratic Party. "I think Hillary is someone who could drive folks on the other side out to vote who otherwise wouldn't."

      "Republicans are upset with their candidates," Arnold added, "but she will make up for that by essentially scaring folks to the polls."

      In national surveys, Clinton's lead over chief rival Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has widened. Her advantage is much narrower where it counts most — in early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire. In matchups against potential GOP presidential candidates, Clinton leads or is tied.

      The Clinton campaign points to those figures to make a case for her electability in a constant stream of e-mails, letters and phone calls to jittery Democrats across the country. A key to their strategy is to give Clinton's candidacy a sense of inevitability despite her negative ratings, which aides insist will go down.

      "All the negatives on her are out," said Clinton's pollster and strategist Mark Penn. "There is a phenomena with Hillary, because she is the front-runner and because she's been battling Republicans for so long, her unfavorability (rating) looks higher than what they will eventually be after the nomination and through the general election."

      What the Clinton campaign doesn't say is that her edge over potential Republican candidates is much smaller than it should be, given the wide lead the Democratic Party holds over the GOP in generic polling.

      The problem is her political baggage: A whopping 49 percent of the public says they have an unfavorable view of Clinton compared to 47 percent who say they hold her in high regard, according to a Gallup Poll survey Aug. 3-5.

      Her negative ratings are higher than those of her husband, former President Clinton, former President George H.W. Bush and 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry at the end of their campaigns.

      A candidate's unfavorability scores almost always climb during campaigns. If the pattern holds, Clinton has a historically high hurdle to overcome.

      "For Hillary, who has been on the scene for so long and has had perception of her so ground in ... there's no question it will be really hard for her to change perceptions," said Democratic pollster David Eichenbaum, who represents moderate Democrats in GOP-leaning states.

      Her baggage is heaviest in those states. Private polling conducted in Colorado, for example, shows that Clinton's negative rating is 16 percentage points higher than her favorability score.

      Colorado is a state Democrats hope to win in the 2008 presidential race. It also has an open Senate seat, with the Republican incumbent opting not to seek another term and Democrats targeting it.

      Obama has much lower unfavorability ratings than Clinton, though Democrats say he may have his own problem — that of race. It's hard to measure the impact of being the first party to put a black at the top of the ticket, Democratic leaders said.

      Some Democrats hold out hope that Clinton can turn things around.

      "She's got a tough road to hoe because people have formed opinions of her," said Rep. Tim Mahoney, a freshman Democrat from Florida. "But I can and will tell you that when I see Hillary get out there with the public, she changes people's minds. She's not the stereotype that people know her to be."

      In Indiana, where three freshman Democratic congressmen are fighting to retain their seats, Crooks said Clinton would be a burden in districts like his full of "gun-toting, bible-carrying, God-loving, church-attending" voters.

      "She is just so polarizing," the state lawmaker said. Clinton would drag any candidate down 3 or 4 percentage points, he said.

      "I'm one of these Democrats who has some legitimate reservations, because the Clintons have in the past invigorated the Republican base," said Carrie Webster, a leader in the West Virginia state House who served as executive director of the state party when Bill Clinton won the 1992 West Virginia primary.

      "But the fact that so many prominent Democratic males are getting behind her at this early point makes me a little more confident that she could overcome some of the more obvious hurdles," she said.

      Nebraska party chairman Matt Connealy said he believes Democratic candidates will be able to avoid a Clinton backlash.

      "I probably would have given you a different answer a month ago," he said, "and maybe will give you a different answer a month from now."   link

      •  I have already read that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rebecca, hairspray

        However, as I noted below, it's not salient to what I am discussing in this particular diary.

        And next time, please obey the Fair Use rules. You can get banned for abusing them.

        "If you've read me...then you know what to expect. If not, it's really simple: I say what I mean and mean what I say."

        RIP, Steve Gilliard

        by PsiFighter37 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:21:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The dirsty little secret is that... (33+ / 0-)

        ...she is the one candidate that will ENERGIZE the Republican base. The hatred for the Clinton family runs so deep in the right-wing noise-machine world that a constituency that should be demoralized because of the failures of the Bush Administration will come out of the woodwork in droves to vote against her.

        "...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine...." {-8.13;-5.59}

        by lams712 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:23:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  LOL - How is that a secret? it gets posted 150 (9+ / 0-)

          times a day here.

          Everybody knows that her non-supporters think that. No one has posted any evidence to substantiate it yet.

          •  It's a secret to those who support her... (7+ / 1-)

            ....obviously, becasue they still blindly follow her in lock-step. Adolph Hitler would be envious of how she is able to command such blind obedience in her supporters.

            "...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine...." {-8.13;-5.59}

            by lams712 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:49:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  My oh my, such a fantasy you have. (9+ / 0-)

              Perhaps you'd like to demonstrate this so called blind obedience.

              •  that's YOUR job (4+ / 0-)

                and you're very good at it, though you're hardly the only or even the best HRC fanatic to demonstrate this.

                If I'd come into this with no opinion about HRC (i.e. if I'd spent the last generation in a cave without Net access), posts by HRC supporters would have been adequate to persuade me to find any other candidate to support.

                Oddly enough, batshit Obamaniac posts and diaries seem to have faded out of here, though his support hasn't.

                Enthusiasm for a candidate is cool, enthusiasm for a candidate  one is clueless about is something else entirely.

                Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                by alizard on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:44:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I am not a Hillary supporter at this time (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jxg, TheMomCat

                  but I can't get over the pure hatred of this woman by so many on this site.  All sorts of negative personal characteristics are ascribed to her.  It is like reading a right wing blog with all of the bloviating. Sad!!

                  Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities-Voltaire

                  by hairspray on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:57:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I can't get over the pure hatred of this woman (0+ / 0-)

                    So this is "a hate site", is it? That's what Bill O'Liar said. BTW. What do you think of the DLC?

                    Bush's post-9/11 counter-terrorism defense policy -- strike hard where they aren't and go easy where they are.

                    by William Domingo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:42:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Since when is worrying (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    GayHillbilly, alizard

                    about the future of the country and the Democrats an indication of hatred for Hillary Clinton.  I am a New York resident and I voted for Hillary for senator.  That does not mean I think she would be a good president.  How does making that distinction add up to hatred?

                    To God: Please stop talking to George Bush. Too much is being lost in translation.

                    by miriam on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:50:01 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  one doesn't need to hate her (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    rhfactor

                    one simply has to understand her philosophy of government to understand why progressives need to vote against her, and why her election will be the last big mistake the Democratic Party will ever get to make should this happen.

                    I barely qualify as someone who even dislikes her.

                    Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                    by alizard on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:04:04 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  ditto. that other conclusion is same as (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      alizard, andyj2287

                      Hannity & O'Reilly use to ascribe motive to liberals/progressives who do not like nor support Bush's policies. The only conclusion must be:

                      They hate Bush.

                      We know that to be absurd here.

                      So likewise, to suppose people's disapproval of the candidacy of Hillary is because they HATE her is to be equally absurd.

                      It's convenient, and may make those who use that sentiment happy -- because it somehow eases the pain of dealing with a strong degree of disapproval her candidacy generates within this site. But it is a sloppy rationale, and I believe one without merit.

                      _________________
                      --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                      by rhfactor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:18:23 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I suspect that if I knew HRC (0+ / 0-)

                        personally, I'd probably like her. I like strong, forceful women. Though without changing my opinion of her public policy positions and her other associates.

                        However, I suspect that if I knew W personally, I'd really hate him.

                        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                        by alizard on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:11:59 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Completely agree! (0+ / 0-)

                          I too love strong, smart, independent, feisty women! (though i wouldn't call Hillary feisty. Ann Richardson, yes. Molly Ivans, yes. But Hillary's got 3 of 4 :)

                          I feel certain that she would be fascinating to talk to. (I'd also like to learn how Chelsea has turned out... I'm GLAD she is currently being left alone.  But that will change, unfortunately. And I'm just curious from a personality point of view, does she blend her parents, or does she resemble one or the other more?)

                          I have nothing against her personally. I just don't respect her choices and careful straddling through the centrist corridor when we need so  much more than that.

                          As for W -- did you ever see the animated gif graphic after Bush assumed the White House role in 2001, that showed Poppy & Bar Bush holding a sign, ostensibly to America, which read:

                          "We're So Sorry!"

                          as in, look what we've heaped upon you; no one deserves this.

                          Of course that doesn't mean I like either of THEM either; in fact I can't stand them... even if my sister DID project manage the building of their home in Houston. ...

                          _________________
                          --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                          by rhfactor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:19:40 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  project manage the building? (0+ / 0-)

                            I won't ask if any of the conventional addons like aerosol itching powder dispensers or web-accessible wiretaps and bugs were added on at the usual cost-plus basis to the client. :-)

                            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                            by alizard on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:19:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  she wasn't in the covert loop... but the basement (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            alizard

                            bowling alley, yes. And keeping Barr apprised of things so she wouldn't waste her beautiful mind on minor details or mess with any Mexican labor. but I don't think Mexican labor saw the light of day on that structure. National security and all.  

                            Barrr did like her scarf, though. That was delightful.

                            _________________
                            --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                            by rhfactor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:30:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  That's the great irony (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    alizard

                    On one hand, Hillary supporters complain about a near-universal "hatred" directed toward her by the left-wing.  On the other hand, they defend her electability by declaring it a myth that she's hated by the right-wing.  

                    "I remain just one thing, and one thing only, and that is a clown. It places me on a far higher plane than any politician." - Charlie Chaplin

                    by Junior Bug on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:07:07 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  They remind me...... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  alizard

                  ....of teenage fundiebots.  

            •  you channeling Billo or what??? n/t (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              0wn, masslib
            •  It's curious to me. (8+ / 0-)

              We have all these polls that say Hillary is 20 points ahead, but they're all wrong, or if they're right, it's early, and they mean nothing.  We have a few polls that suggest she has unfavorables that match her favorables, and these are not only Sacred Scripture but unalterable facts indelibly written into the very chasms of time.

              Hillary Clinton: America's First Woman President!

              by DCDemocrat on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:43:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If unfavorables always go up . . . (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                patachon, greeseyparrot

                That MSNBC article said unfavorables go up during a campaign and that sure happened with Kerry.  Hillary Clinton starts out as toxic as Kerry and Gore were on election day and will have a harder time winning over supporters of the other Democratic candidates if she is the nominee than Kerry or Gore had, IMO.

                •  Yes, (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  hairspray, masslib, Andrew40

                  and the planets move in precise elliptical orbits around the sun (except that they don't.)  People's consciousness of immutable laws of social behavior betrays only the fact that human beings are flexible and adjust.  

                  If you believe that Obama or Edwards can catch Hillary, you have to believe that she can improve her favorables.  If people can change in one circumstance, they can change in another.  Besides, she only has to win, and that can be one vote or 20 million.  It's make not an iota of difference.

                  She's gonna win.  

                  Hillary Clinton: America's First Woman President!

                  by DCDemocrat on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:37:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  She may win (5+ / 0-)

                    I don't say that she can't win.  All of our candidates can win, imho.  What I do believe is that she would drive Republican turnout up and definitely hurt downticket races, from Senator to Congressman, to state judge to county commissioner.  Hillary would not have coattails where I live and that would be bad for other Democrats running here.

                    •  (sigh) This is so clear, I wish addict-supporters (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Mooncat, andyj2287

                      would simply process this and factor it in. It's more than a simple election for President.

                      She may win. I don't say that she can't win.  All of our candidates can win, imho.  What I do believe is that she would drive Republican turnout up and definitely hurt downticket races

                      I don't understand how this can be so blatantly disregarded.

                      All we need do is compare our excitement about the House Majority win in 06 -- and the result of Bush vetoes. They work in unison. Neither a Congressional Majority nor Presidential win are sufficient in and of themselves.

                      We better factor in Big Pictures, because micro-analyses in a vacuum are distorting.

                      _________________
                      --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                      by rhfactor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:24:28 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  even if she squeaks through with a win (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    patachon, rhfactor, churchylafemme

                    she could cost us a number of close House and Senate races. The few extra percent of Republicans who show up to vote against Hillary are likely to vote against all our candidates.

                    Why on earth would we throw away a chance at a realigning election? I don't get it.

                    Find out what firefighters really think of Rudy Giuliani

                    by desmoinesdem on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:06:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I think her chances of winning (0+ / 0-)

                      are better than the other candidates.  I think they have been running campaigns that will get run over in the general.  Your analysis might be more attractive to me if I thought either Edwards or Obama was up to the Republican machine.  I don't.

                      Hillary Clinton: America's First Woman President!

                      by DCDemocrat on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:14:13 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  If Gore was toxic on Election day (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  hairspray, NeuvoLiberal

                  why did more people vote for him?
                  That makes about as much sense as saying more people liked Bush and wanted to have a beer with him.

                  •  Basically it was a 50/50 election (0+ / 0-)

                    The MSNBC article said that unfavorables go up during a campaign so, my point was that we're being sold a canard that Hillary Clinton's unfavorable rating can't go up higher than it is now.  IMO, the Democratic candidates are treating her with kid gloves because she is a woman and a former first lady.  If she's the nominee, there are many ways of taking her off her pedestal that the Republicans can pursue, IMO.  

                •  Gore won the popular vote (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  churchylafemme

                  and likely won FL and the electoral college as well.

                  Gore/Obama 2008: Truth, Reason and Hope!

                  by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:34:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  FYI, you don't know what you're talking about (0+ / 0-)

                  Gore's unfavorables were around 35% on election day. His unfavorables rose after the election:

                  1. when he was fighting the 35 day FL battle
                  1. when he opposed the war in his landmark September 2002 speech and the pro-war pundits/media hammered him on it
                  1. his subsequent speeches against the excesses of the Cheney-Bush Regime.

                  Gore/Obama 2008: Truth, Reason and Hope!

                  by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:37:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  We have all these polls (0+ / 0-)

                The polls are about Dems only, who make up just a third of all voters. Her unfavorables are with all voters. Of course I'm sure you already knew that.

                Bush's post-9/11 counter-terrorism defense policy -- strike hard where they aren't and go easy where they are.

                by William Domingo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:48:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  wow (7+ / 1-)
              Recommended by:
              jxg, oysterface, TheMomCat, hairspray, ademption, Andrew40, demEZ
              Hidden by:
              lams712

              comparing Clinton supporters to Hitlers followers, thats a new low for this site. I can't believe people actually recommended that comment.

              The fact is that your statement is opinion and you have yet to back it up.  In deed I know quiet a few republicans who plan to vote for her.  They aren't all ditto heads and women in particular are excited about having a woman president. The fact that she comes off as a moderate helps.

              •  I was simply saying that the HRC supporters... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KenBee, bobbyd100

                ...are extremely loyal to a fault, like doling out BULLSHIT troll ratings. And also being blind to the fact that she carries alot of baggage that your typical candidate does not have.

                Since you have abused your troll rating, enjoy this donut from me. Besmirching my record here will not go down without a fight. If the community thinks that I am in error I will gladly remove it. Just because I used a Hitler reference does not automatically make me a troll. I must thank you, carneystaff, though, for proving my point.

                "...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine...." {-8.13;-5.59}

                by lams712 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:21:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  another abuse very lame of you (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  patachon, jxg, TheMomCat, hairspray, Andrew40

                  retaliating is against the rules.  You compared Clinton supporters to Nazis.  That was way out of line and you know it.  They have as much right to post here as you do and the person you were addressing was right.
                  I certainly did not prove your point.  
                  But of course the general consensus here will not disagree with you because this place turns into a partisan swamp of non logic when it comes to Senator Clinton.

                  •  Oh please (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    churchylafemme, EvilPaula, KenBee, lams712

                    You're one to talk about ratings abuse. Care to troll rate me again for not being positive about Hilly-Billy?

                  •  It's NOT RETALIATION (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    KenBee

                    You abused your TR. I don't think I should just let that slide. I invited the community to let me know if I'm being too sensitive, but I have been here for like a year and a half and have built up TU status and will not just sit around while I get slapped with troll ratings I do not feel are justified.

                    "...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine...." {-8.13;-5.59}

                    by lams712 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:13:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yep (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      EvilPaula, lams712

                      Carneystaff openly said he/she was joust going to always troll rate me because I'm mean to Hillary. Classic ratings abuse in action. So you aren't the only one.

                      •  Re: (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        lams712

                        Link

                        Yeah, I am a little sensitive to troll ratings abuses at the moment.  A few days ago I read thread and 2 people were going back and forth, neither giving way.  One person then posted a bisquit recipe.  The other was offended (because recipes are for trolls) and troll rated the recipe.  I uprated the recipe because the troll rating was inappropriate...and I got a troll rating for my trouble.  Idiot tried to justify it.  

                        First troll rating ever, and for uprating a damn recipe.  How embarrassing.

                        Official Tequila Enthusiast of the Stephanie Miller Show

                        by EvilPaula on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:14:36 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  illogical statement = self-reflexively funny (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    andyj2287, EvilPaula, lams712

                    But of course the general consensus here will not disagree with you because this place turns into a partisan swamp of non logic when it comes to Senator Clinton.

                    Uh huh. Right. A partisan swamp of non-logic.

                    By the way, speaking of non-logic and non-sequitors, I figured out your name, it's very clever:

                    Carney Staff

                    That's someone who travels with a circus full of bizarre acts designed to dazzle before you pack up and move on to the next town.

                    Or campaign.

                    Or whoever is throwing a little scratch at you for your services rendered.

                    I like it. good name! fits.

                    Now if you'll excuse me, i must get back to being totally illogical. I think my co-conspirators must miss me.

                    _________________
                    --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                    by rhfactor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:32:25 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  I think using Hitler's name to describe (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  patachon

                  supporter of Hillary is quite, I don't know what word to put there.  Maybe juvenile is the best.

                  Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities-Voltaire

                  by hairspray on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:02:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I didn't actually say that.... (0+ / 0-)

                    the direct quote is:

                    Adolph Hitler would be envious of how she is able to command such blind obedience in her supporters.

                    I am saying that HRC supporters are like REALLY, REALLY loyal.

                    "...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine...." {-8.13;-5.59}

                    by lams712 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:10:52 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Blind obedience is not really why people (0+ / 0-)

                      follow Hillary Many that I have talked to think she has been through the ringer and is tough.  They also think because she is centrist she has a better chance of winning than someone like Obama.  They remember the Clinton years as pretty good years for the general population.  I know I do.  I live in a urban city and poverty rates were down, jobs were available, our deficit was going down so money was cheap and the less fortunate could get loans for  homes. Home ownership went up, and so on.  Yes, I didn't like NAFTA, but I think if a Democrat had won in 2000 life for Americans would have been a whole lot better. And I think the netroots has a better chance of taming the corporate greed than if a Republican is in charge.  What we have had for the last 7 years has been a night mare and I will take Hillary in a heartbeat if we could have our country back.

                      Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities-Voltaire

                      by hairspray on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:32:04 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Maybe that's why they are so loyal... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        KenBee

                        ...really nothing wrong with that. I just said that they are loyal. There are some here at DailyKos that constantly shill for HRC and there is a coterie of "Clintonistas" who come out and post comments on any and all Clinton diaries to put out the official spin.

                        I really don't care how or why they are so loyal, I just want them to know that I know the truth, and that is, in short, that Hillary Clinton has DLC written all over her--Hawkish in foreign policy, "centrist" on soical issues and corporate-conservative on economic ones.

                        The "Clintonistas" will try to hammer the "electability" point over and over, but I will hammer that fact that the Presidency is NOT a political "hot potato" to be passed back and forth between DC-insider families. They might try to hammer the "inevitability" point, but I will hammer the fact that she must be stopped if the Democratic Party wants to actually mean something other than Republican-lite.

                        "...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine...." {-8.13;-5.59}

                        by lams712 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:49:49 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Inappropriate Comparison n/t (0+ / 0-)

                      Independent Illinois Grassroots: IllinoisDemNet.com

                      by patachon on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:21:55 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •   by the time we see the real evidence, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mooncat, ER Doc

            it will be too late.

          •  You haven't noticed (0+ / 0-)

            the hateful significance the word "Clinton" has attained among the right-wing? They say it more often than "commie." They all but spell it with four letters.

            "I remain just one thing, and one thing only, and that is a clown. It places me on a far higher plane than any politician." - Charlie Chaplin

            by Junior Bug on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:00:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I know, (10+ / 0-)

          it totally pisses me of how the MSM stays mute on that subject. In 2004 we kept being told that Dean wasn't electable, and now they give her a pass? The agenda is so clear, she is the most easy to beat, and if she wins it will not turn out to badly either. She will breath new life into the Republican party, and have such opposition that she couldn't do much damage to the current corrupt system if she wanted too...and it's not all that clear that she does anyway.

          They cannot stand Obama, as he could really upend the apple cart. Ever notice how they play up his national numbers, hardly ever talk about the fact that he has closed the gap in the early states, and never even talk about why that might be or what it means?

      •  She'll run aground the sandy shoals... (13+ / 0-)
        ...off Edwards Sound in Iowa me harties...garrr.  That's the only place we get to make a stand. She wins there it's all over. She's halfway to the nomination now. I can't think of another way to beat her.

        The only things that work are:

        1.She's an insiders insider
        2.She's a hawk.
        3.She's running on a name.

        Hopefully the Iowans have the good sense to keep the door open for Edwards. This would give Obama his chance in SC or NH.

        My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

        by Salo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:25:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I saw that... (5+ / 0-)

        (btw, you're probably running afoul of fair use policy by copying so much)

        and I'm of two minds on the issue.  One take is that hell, the GOP is going to make anyone who has anything even remotely useful to say 'polarizing,' so we should probably ignore them.  OTOH, I seriously doubt that Hillary will actually do anything that different from the last decade or so-- she's very much the business-as-usual candidate, although I guess her DLC philosophy's open to debate-- so why should we burden ourselves with her negatives minus the hope of actually accomplishing things that need doing?  I think Matthew Yglesias described her as the worst of both worlds from a progressive standpoint: a moderate-to-conservative Dem who's perceived as being too liberal... someone who (this is my translation) will therefore face the opposition a Wellstone would draw while promoting the extremely cautious policies of a Daschle or Landieu.  IOW, we'd have to fight twice as hard to accomplish half as much, which would be galling.

        So I guess I come down on the latter side, lol, but I'm still philosophically opposed to worrying too much about what the opposition will do, because that way lies madness... or paralysis, which is worse.

        "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. -Glenn Greenwald

        by latts on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:28:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  weight lifting while... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cosbo, theark, Reagan Smash

          ...eating potato chips and drinking soda.

          My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

          by Salo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:34:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  the problem with government via DLC (7+ / 0-)

          is that the great majority of both foriegn and economic policy failures for the last generation can be traced directly to the nexus between neoliberal and neoconservative thinking that is "centrism" in the Democratic Party and the Wall Street faction of the GOP.

          The only way to get constructive political change is to have a President and Congress working for the people as a whole instead of the inhabitants of "Richistan".

          For HRC, this means throwing the great majority of her donor money under the bus. How likely do you think this is?

          Worse, if the Democratic Party is seen to favor corporate CEOs over the people once it has the power to keep its political promises, America is going to reject the Democratic Party in 2010 the same way it rejected the Republicans in 2008. 2012? One (or both) of the two major parties will be shoved into third-party status and a third party will hit the major leagues.  

          The American people does not want a continuation of Bush-shit  "business as usual" with "kinder/gentler" rhetoric, and that's ALL a HRC-led Democratic Party has to offer.

          I think that this combination can win in 2008, but once the American people feel as betrayed by Democratic leadership as we do on Iraq, FISA, impeachment, etc., the Party's over.

          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:54:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Diary this. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            churchylafemme, alizard

            She has very bloody hands. If she is elected I suspect she'll escalate. She's got no compunction about this war.

            My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

            by Salo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:27:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Edwards has the highest favorability ratings (9+ / 0-)

        and the best matchups with Repubs. Rasmussen - another reason the corporate media has bashed him  - not his plans and solutions for the middle class.

    •  You don't have to convince me... (16+ / 0-)

      Anyone Rupert gives money to must be Republican or DLC.  

      No justice, no peace.

      by dkmich on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:35:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Health plan (6+ / 0-)

      All of the other candidates have produced a health plan except Hillary. The MSM doesnot even call her on this, but would on any other top tier candidate if they did not have a health plan by now.

    •  It's very strange (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lois, cosbo, HarveyMilk, 3goldens, ER Doc, smitha007

      Of all the candidates, you'd think one who is the wife of a former president might have a few plans lying around.

      Perhaps her silence signifies that she is hiding something...

    •  They way I would phrase it: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cosbo, lenzy1000

      Of all the serious candidates, she has less substance than anyone else.

      I agree with you, but the way i would put it is that she hides her substance, because of the poor advice she gets to triangulate. (or maybe she decided to do it herself)

      "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

      by BentLiberal on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:28:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  May your tip jar runneth over... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cosbo

      ...for a great diary, Psi. I can't wait for the next installment! I take comfort in the fact that there is no way she can win. She won't be the nominee, not now. Not ever.

    •  Pretty Thin Tie To The DLC Psi (0+ / 0-)

      You are doing it through implicitly and innuendo.

      The fact is that Clinton has a pretty outstanding Liberal Rating as I have pointed out before.

      She has a rating of 92.19  which is 14 out of 100 Senators.  

      http://www.progressivepunch.org/...

      "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

      by talex on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:11:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If you want out of Iraq (33+ / 0-)

    either immediately or soon after Jan 2009, Hillary really probably isn't your girl. I wish she would be stronger about what Congress can do now--like Chris Dodd.

  •  I'm glad you're doing this (16+ / 0-)

    but does it really require a multi-part exegesis to make the case she's steeped in the DLC?

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 02:53:24 PM PDT

  •  This is the basic issue...thanks for the diary (6+ / 0-)
  •  She's definitely not my first choice (15+ / 0-)

    but if it comes down to Hillary and Mitt I will have no qualms voting for Clinton.

    Under conditions of peace the warlike man attacks himself. - Nietzsche

    by Distaste for Dissent on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 02:55:03 PM PDT

  •  And if you want to know what she thinks about (11+ / 0-)

    events in this hemisphere (Latin America) you sure aren't gonna find it on her website.

    Maybe I'm just naive, but I'd like to think that instead of voting for a pig in a poke, we'd get to know exactly what the policies are that the candidates endorse.  Maybe Latin America isn't important to most US voters (I'd like to argue it should be), but it is to me and I have no idea what HRC thinks about current policy.  So what is her position anyway?  And why aren't we insisting that we be told exactly what it is?

  •  Never be afraid of showing your intentions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    carneystaff

    Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

    I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.

    And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.

    "Bush always listens to the generals. When he gets tired of listening to them he replaces them. ..." - Wesley Clark.

    by army193 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 02:56:59 PM PDT

  •  Hillary is the Annoited Candidate (18+ / 0-)

    one endorsed by the power brokers in DC:

    The GOP, the DLC, the Military Industrial Complex (hence she is pro war) and the corporate lobbies.

    Where does she get her money?

    Why is she presumed frontrunner?

    Nothing serves the Bushco agenda better than an HRC nomination.

    She is the GOTV tool for the GOP. The wingnuts despise her enough to show up at the polls en masse.

    She is a nonstarter with most Indies who detest the idea of political dynasties or a psuedo-monarchy.

    The Clintons and the DLC have a long love affair.

    We need another option. Only Gore or Clark could get the indy vote, maybe Edwards, but not likely.

    I see all the frontrunners as tainted, by their support for the war, their refusal to speak about the High Crimes of this Admin and the nec. for impeachment to restore our democracy. Those currently serving in Congress are doubly tainted in my book.

    The only vote any of them are getting from me at this point is a No Confidence Vote.

    •  Well, from a political standpoint... (13+ / 0-)

      I also think that Clinton would be our worst candidate - as you mentioned, it will get disenchanted GOP supporters out to the polls. That being said, it's easy to make those arguments; I'm more interested in highlighting the salient points of her campaign and her policy stances.

      "If you've read me...then you know what to expect. If not, it's really simple: I say what I mean and mean what I say."

      RIP, Steve Gilliard

      by PsiFighter37 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:05:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it may be easy but ignored at a cost (11+ / 0-)

        most voters make simplistic decisions about who to vote for.

        most are not going to inform themselves on the salient points or material differences between candidates.

        Why? Because blind party partisanship seems to rule the day in this country.

        I agree with all of your analysis on HRC.

        I do not trust her and never will and it is due to her reliance on corporate money, her loyalty to the DLC, and her pro war (warmongering) stance.

        She is just more of the same, which is why the DC Political Establishment has already handed her the nomination before a primary has been held.

        What DC insiders do not want is fresh ideas, fresh faces, or bold positions. They want more of the same ole same ole fearmongering, warmongering unconstitutional bullshit we have witnessed for the past 7 years.

    •  Dem senators won't consider impeachment - (0+ / 0-)

      it would harm Hillary's presidential ambitions.
      Heck! none of the Dems have even opposed Rupert Murdoch buying a president.

  •  this would be why (26+ / 0-)

    celebrations of the netroots victory over the DLC are extremely premature.  If she wins the primary, it will be a victory for the DLC and a defeat for those trying to change the party.  I would support her over any Rethug, obviously, but we do have to be realistic about what her probable victory means for our movement.

  •  Can't tell you how fed up I am with her. (31+ / 0-)

    Words can't adequately express it.  She IS the DLC. I want everyone to remember how she sat on $37 million in contributions in '06, and when she finally started helping out, made herself out like Mother Teresa.

    Go away.  I don't need old school politicians that triangulate their way into getting what they want.  I want a candidate that will talk to me, that will tell me where they stand and what they stand for, not conjure up agreement with what I believe like some Vegas psychic working a room.

    •  Yeah, she should've helped out more (15+ / 0-)

      But she was trying to break 70% against a no-name challenger. Both her and Spitzer could've given that money to the state party to help out in congressional races. A little more effort, and we'd have taken NY-25, NY-26, and NY-29 in 2006.

      "If you've read me...then you know what to expect. If not, it's really simple: I say what I mean and mean what I say."

      RIP, Steve Gilliard

      by PsiFighter37 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:25:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow! I hadn't thought of that (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cosbo, GayHillbilly, HighSticking, Salo

        But see - Hillary was running for prez while she was running for senate re-election...

        While Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, spent $21.5 million through the same time period, records show, his spending report comprises bills like $30.33 at Papa John’s pizza, $59.50 at Panera Bread and $74.34 at the Olive Garden.

        Not so for Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign reported sending a $6,585 check to Flutterbyes for flowers in Las Vegas, $5,397.50 to Le Petit Gourmet Catering in Glendale, Colo., and $80,000 to Tavern on the Green in Manhattan...

        The chairman of the Federal Election Commission, Michael E. Toner, said only a handful of Senate candidates had ever spent more. The spending patterns of the Clinton campaign demonstrated "an extraordinary burn rate," he said, which was particularly striking considering she did not seem to have a serious challenger in John Spencer, her Republican rival.

        •  I DARE any Clintonista to defend that! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          miriam, annefrank

          Seriously, I had not yet read that snippet and that really put me over the top.  The only reason I was lukewarm on HRC is that I truly, truly believe she'll get crushed and WE'LL get crushed downticket by her.  

          I live in the Bible Belt (hence, the name) and let me tell you: NOBODY but the devil himself could get the fundies to the polls faster than HRC.

          Does she deserve the absolute obsession from the fundies?  Hell no (pun intended).  But for some reason, there's a Pavlovian response to her down here unlike anything I have ever seen.

  •  I couldn't agree with you more! n/t (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosbo, casperr, carolita, Predictor, ShadowSD

    Practice random acts of kindness (favorite bumper sticker)

    by Sally in SF on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:11:39 PM PDT

  •  Tell us something we don't already know... (11+ / 0-)

    ...I have been an "Anybody but Hillary" person since Jan. 20, 2001. Despite the fact that the DLC has been in decline it still carries a lot of clout in the "insider bubble" of Washington,DC and still commands millions of dollars of corporate money.

    In spite of  some attempts by some here at DailyKos at showing how Hillary Clinton is "safe" for liberals, she has shown a great tendency to be on the wrong side of some very important issues.

    All in all, for us to make any progress as a party we must stop the DLC and any DLC-affiliated candidates.

    "...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine...." {-8.13;-5.59}

    by lams712 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:11:59 PM PDT

  •  Leiberman was the candidate ahead and MSM appoint (5+ / 0-)

    appointed obvious dem nom but on the actual caucus and primary voting days = NOT

    hillary supporters should read history books more often then "How to shill for corporate america."

  •  And she'll win UNLESS (12+ / 0-)

    Progressives unite.

    I don't care who they unite behind, Edwards or Obama, but it's going to have to happen.

    The guy with the leading poll numbers come voting time is going to have to get our support.

    Or we lose.

    Anybody wants to argue with math, I'm simply not interested.

    Some Progressives need to face reality or they've earned their "Nader seal of approval." 100%.

    Don't let Bloomberg/Lieberman08 "Nader" our Democratic unity.

    by Lieberberg Plan on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:15:08 PM PDT

  •  if only... (8+ / 0-)

    we (progressives in the Party--otherwise known as "the base"--were united in realizing that John Edwards is the anti-Hillary.
    It would be so obvious that as a workingclass white man, he can help the Democratic Party win back that crucial demographic.  He doesn't have her "negatives," (see AP story on huffington post right now), despite the best efforts of the MSM.  The candidates of Obama, Kucinich, etc, have mucked up the essential truth that we only have this one time to get it right...to get a candidate who isn't going to be another downer on the rest of the Democratic races.  Please, Iowans, if you're reading this....!

  •  Of course, Hillary Clinton is the DLC Candidate (8+ / 0-)

    How can she not be?  She is running and talking their mantra, thanks to Bill Clinton.

    If we want this again, then vote for it, other than that, you know what to do.

  •  Gary Hart has weighed in on government secrecy (15+ / 0-)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    ... Senator Barack Obama was challenged by Senator Hillary Clinton for saying that he would, as president, reserve the option of attacking al Qaeda and Dead-or-Alive bin Laden (remember him?) on Pakistani territory with or without approval from the Pakistani government.

    Senator Clinton did not challenge this proposition. She challenged the announcement of it, saying that experienced foreign policy people traditionally conduct some foreign military operations covertly and that his failure to observe this convention was yet another demonstration of Senator Obama's inexperience in worldly affairs.

    ...

    Though there are a few, very rare occasions where the immediacy of a threat requires both swift and secret action, the Constitutional principles upon which our nation was founded require us to be as honest, as straightforward, and as candid as we can be with ourselves and with the world about what we are up to. By the hollow "dead or alive" rhetoric now conveniently forgotten, we have already announced our intentions to do what it takes. So, Senator Obama does not seem to have gone any further than the ineffective incumbent on this issue. It would be amazing if there is a Pakistani alive, including President Pervez Musharraf, who doubts that we would land the 82nd Airborne, Delta Force, Rangers, and the entire Marine Corps right on top of the bearded villain...if we could just find him...without asking permission from anyone.

    It seems to me that is all Senator Obama was saying.

    I think a good fight within the party is going to have to ensue on vital issues like how honest the government should be about its intentions.  Clearly, the DLC would like to stick to the status quo, while there are others who disagree.

    •  the DLC IS the status quo (0+ / 0-)

      with its combination of neoliberalism and neoconservatism.

      The combination of those two ideologies has put America squarely behind the 8-ball.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:24:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I ricochet back and forth about her (15+ / 0-)

    Although I'm for Obama I was mellowing towards her candidacy;  that was wrecked with her don't-tell-them-what-you're-thinking comment and her tsk-tsk attitude towards Obama.  Now I'm back thinking she's high-handed and running out the clock on her perceived inevitability.  

    I'll get you, my pretty.....and your little dog too.

    by chicago minx on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:27:29 PM PDT

  •  I might add she vocally supported the (7+ / 0-)

    Hague Invasion Act: http://www.hrw.org/...

    This Act protects all US officials from trial by the International Criminal Court.

    What if Cheney is merely a rook? Who the heck is in control of this chessboard?

    by tecampbell on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:31:00 PM PDT

  •  We Enable the DLC (12+ / 0-)

    I find it kind of humorous that we on DailyKos are trashing Ford for being a DLC mouthpiece when we were cheering Ford on and patting him on the back in his Senate race against Bob Corker. Now, I know Ford didn’t win, but is it any surprise that we end up getting Democrats in the House and Senate who let Bush walk all over our Constitutional rights, gut FISA and won’t stop the war in Iraq when we are so willing to support DLC Democrats?!! Is winning with candidates who are not principled progressives really a victory? When are Democrats going to realize you can’t have it both ways? When are you going to realize that you can’t support DLC leaders like Hillary Clinton come election time and then expect you’re going to get something different than Republican-lite when they are in office. Truth is, WE ARE ENABLING THE DLC. We are enabling Republican-lite. You, me, everybody. And unless we speak out against triangulating centrists we get what we deserve.

  •  Check out her health care page (21+ / 0-)

    it's beyond pathetic. All it says is that she's got a history trying to expand SCHIP and has tried to fight Bush on cutting funding for SCHIP. She likes to remind us all about her scars from trying to push health care reform in the 90's, and frankly I'm sick of that tired line. The people with real scars in America are the ones who lost their family members because they couldn't afford the treatment they needed. I hope she gets with the program and presents a UHC plan soon.

    •  Sara its because she unlike Obama and Edwards (9+ / 0-)

      has no healthcare plan. Hillary Clinton is what she accuses Obama and Edwards of being. All Fluff and no substance. She has NO PLANS.Its all platitudes.  The media and the DC punidts never point this put out. This what Bush does. He speaks in silly slogans and catch lines.  But it is up to us to point this out and shape the debate. Listen to the LOGO and the AFLCIO debate. It was her HUSBANDS policies that mostly affected these groups like NAFTA, DOMA and DADT. She never answered the questions.

      ``I like to say that the 51st state is the state of denial.'' - Kurt Vonnegut

      by shanay on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:12:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Did you happen to read this healthcare speech? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ademption, masslib

      She has posted on her website:

      HEALTH CARE: Hillary Remarks on Reducing the Cost of Health Care. It may not be a comprehensive program, but just because you didn't go beyond her Issues section, does no mean she doesn't give a more complex analysis of the problems she sees in the system.

      GOP's Demand for Libby Pardon = The Party of Paris Hilton Law & Order

      by John Campanelli on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:15:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I remember (8+ / 0-)

        being blown away by Bill Clinton in '92.  I went to see him on a campaign stop and even took a trip to Hope, AK.  Later, I couldn't remember why I voted for him.  I stayed home in '96.  While looking through some old video footage from that '92 campaign stop, I remembered, once again why I voted for him.  But I had a different take on it because I knew that all the talk was just words.  He promised so much....they were just hollow words now...where was the democrat?  Was it triangulated into non-existance?  Are trojan horse republican and neoconservative republican all we have left to choose from?

        I agree with Howard Dean, I want someone from the democratic wing of the democratic party.

        People who have no hope are easy to control and those who have the control have the power. Neverending Story

        by choppycursur on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:44:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for the link (6+ / 0-)

        and while she brings up some interesting points like the Geisinger health system as a way to charge a flat fee for certain surgeries, most of what I read unfortunately did not impress me. The fact that she even brought up medical malpractice reform as a way to cut costs kinda pissed me off. Do we need to do something about the high cost of malpractice insurance for doctors? Yes, but malpractice lawsuits are not the reason for high costs of health care. I do like how she stresses preventative care and cutting admin, costs, but how am I going to pay less money? How am I going to get good coverage? She depends too much on the goodwill of the insurance companies, almost like saying since we cut costs in the system, they'll lower their costs. It just won't happen. Thanks for the specifics, I'm glad she's addressing certain problems, but as whole we need a UHC system, not more loopholes for the insurance/health care industries to jump through.

    •  there's a reason why HRC stands on (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cosbo, GayHillbilly, lenzy1000

      her political record on health care. She doesn't want anyone to look at it.

      Hillarycare would have given the USA the most expensive national health care program in the world with locked in profits for the health insurance industry.

      Who opposed it because there would have been some requirement that the industry provide some sort of health care in exchange for the money, locked in profits weren't good enough for the industry to want to change the status quo.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:27:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Can we expect similar diaries (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bumblebums, Caldonia, hopscotch1997

    from you on Obama and Edwards? Not about the DLC, but their positions in general?

  •  She is running her campaign, against George Bush (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lois, vivacia, wild salmon, vacantlook

    period.  And I am glad that you wrote this, because it does make you sit back and state, she does not know all that much, anyway, on foreign policy.  Also, how could she contradict Obama on his nuclear weapon statement, when on MTP a video was shown, her stating the same exact thing?  This is a very interesting diary indeed, and she is the DLC candidate.  And after Harold Ford, Jr. this morning on MTP, who still could not admit going into Iraq was wrong, as she, no thank you to Hillary Clinton.

    •  You're wrong. She's running her campaign against (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      masslib, smitha007, lenzy1000

      the media. She isn't hiding stuff from you and me, she's hiding stuff from the media. That's quite obvious. She's campaigning on a whole different level than anyone else and that's why she's winning right now.  Edwards is the only one who stands a chance against her because he has a diametrically opposed strategy.

    •  ironically her admin would be more Bush lite (5+ / 0-)

      than any other candidate's.

      and she would keep all the executive powers he gave himself (and she helped give him) and perpetuate the same foreign policy.

      •  Bullshit. Obama is clearly the most Bush-like (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        masslib

        Inexperienced, running on charisma, relying on advisors to bail him out when he misspeaks, promising the moon, but vague about specifics.
        Don't get me wrong, Obama's a good candidate, but there is nothing Hillary has in common with Bush---her policies are not anything like Bush's, and there's no mystery about her priorities, her governing philosophy or her abilities. Obama's much more of a blank slate.
        I don't care for charisma candidates, but they do butter our bread.. c'est la vie.

        •  Sorry, but Clinton has that title, (13+ / 0-)

          and after her lobbyist gaffe, continues to have it.

          •  I know that several people agree with me, but (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            masslib

            my real point is that these "Bush-lite" charges are silly. You can come up with one reason to say that about Hillary---I can come up with three for Obama.
            What's the point? If you're talking about political mannerisms and campaign style, you could try to argue the point, but since when does the method of campaigning relate to governing philosophy? I don't see it.

          •  Btw, it's not a "gaffe" if someone say something (0+ / 0-)

            you disagree with.
            A gaffe is when Obama puts his foot in his mouth and one of his advisers pulls it out, all the while explaining that this is perfectly normal.

          •  It's not a gaffe. It's just horrific judgment. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            vivacia, cosbo, alizard

            A gaffe is saying something you don't really mean.  HRC really means that she'll take money from them and feel good about it.

            Where were you in 2002? http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/warspeech.pdf

            by Inland on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:10:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Look she is most like Bush. She never wants admit (9+ / 0-)

          that she was wrong. She has Mark Penn a UNION BUSTER on her campaign. Look at her actions and the people she has around her. Not her words.

          ``I like to say that the 51st state is the state of denial.'' - Kurt Vonnegut

          by shanay on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:14:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  "he's running on charisma, rock star, flavor (6+ / 0-)

          of month, flash in the pan, vague on specifics!"

          Same old shit.  How many diaries have been put out on Obama's specifics?  Whereas, aside from THIS diary, almost nothing comes out on HRC's stands, just another "resistance is futile" diary on polls.

          Where were you in 2002? http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/warspeech.pdf

          by Inland on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:18:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are incorrigible!! You've been called out (0+ / 0-)

            on this lie (that HRC offers no specifics) several times, but you continue to repeat it.
            In fact, the most detailed pro-candidate diaries are about HRC and Edwards, with Obama next. THe problem is that what one person finds compelling and detailed from  Obama, another [me, for example] finds mushy and vague.

            •  WTF you talking about? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              smartdemmg, CeeusBeeus

              THe problem is that what one person finds compelling and detailed from  Obama, another [me, for example] finds mushy and vague.

              One, what you "find" isn't a problem.  Basically, you're telling me that nobody can make you admit anything, which says more about you than Obama.

              Two, and relatedly, Obama is much more detailed than HRC.  If he's mushy, she's incorporeal.  

              But it's part of the HRC strategy to make every take stands and take heat, e.g,  Obama's Comprehensive Strategy address got boiled down to two sentences on Pakistan, which HRC criticized on the grounds that nobody should actually discuss plans or hypotheticals.  Perfect illustration of Obama giving details and HRC evading now that she's the front runner.

              See the video.
              http://www.youtube.com/...

              Where were you in 2002? http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/warspeech.pdf

              by Inland on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:32:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, I'm talking about your lies (0+ / 0-)

                There are a LOT of detailed diaries about HRC's proposals and positions. For you to flatly declare there are none is dishonest. You know it, and I know it.
                Now, if you want to discuss whose positions are more detailed and better, we could discuss the latter profitably, but we're just going to disagree on the former. For example, when Obama says he will use special forces to take out Osama, I don't consider that detail at all. That's just a promise made to pander to voters who want to hear a candidate sound tough.
                It's a reasonable thing for him to say, but if you find that specific, I don't agree.

                I've said many times that Obama has strengths as a candidate. However, I think he is weaker than Hillary, which by the way is not something that thrills me. Nevertheless, I want the best candidate, even if it is HRC.

                •  Ugh. (0+ / 0-)

                  Yeah, like I said, you think it's about you and what you're going to admit.  After all, why won't Obama tell us when and how he's going to take out Osama?  What's the date and time? What's the best way to defend against our attack?

                  Whereas, HRC won't discuss the subject of what she'll do at all.  

                  And you "find" her more specific.  Yeah. Right.

                  You could just be honest and lay off the entire, "Obama's a rock star cipher flavor of month unknown" spin that is so last year and tell us what's really on your mind.  But no.  There's  not going to be a policy debate for HRC.  Not in the nomination process.Not this year.

                  Where were you in 2002? http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/warspeech.pdf

                  by Inland on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:05:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  speaking of a lack of specifics (0+ / 0-)

                  Where's yours?

                  Before posting your assertion, why don't you collect some links to diaries or webpages which you believe substantiates your so far unfounded claim.

                  You may assert Bigfoot's existence, too,

                  EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF.

                  Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                  by alizard on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:46:29 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Hey moron, I'm not the one making the claim (0+ / 0-)

                    that Hillary has no specifics.
                    By the way, I made no extraordinary claim whatsoever. I aver that all candidates are represented by diaries with many specific details, while Inland claims there are NO details about Hillary. That's preposterous.
                    Go away.

        •  I completely disagree (7+ / 0-)

          As an Indy, I have to say Clinton has been in lockstep with Bushco since before the war.

          It makes me sick, personally.

          I don't have a clue as to what she actually stands for other than making people think she agrees with whatever they want.

          She has been more pro war than any of the rest of the Dem nominees and has no intention of getting our troops out of Iraq anymore than Bushco does.

          A Clinton presidency is more of the same shit we have seen for the past 7 years.

          Count on it.

        •  Whoa (6+ / 0-)

          Obama is not inexperienced like W was. Plus, I think the fact that Bush's brain is the size of a peanut, while Obama clearly is a very smart man who didn't get to where he is today because of his daddy is another clear indicator how wrong your statement is. BTW, her priorities are a mystery to me! On one hand, I think she may not be putting a UHC plan because she's going to try and back door it when she gets into office. Or, she has changed since the 90's, and she is bought and paid for, which is what I fear the most.

          •  If you read my whole comment, you'll see (0+ / 0-)

            that I said Obama is a good candidate. I still stand behind the comparison, with Obama being the most unknown factor, running more on charisma than anyone else.

          •  a Hillary UHC plan (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            vivacia

            is going to be carefully examined before any sane person should endorse it, we as a nation can't afford to have a UHC plan backdoored into place.

            Otherwise, we're likely to see something even worse and more expensive than the status quo.

            Imagine what a UHC plan put together by the PR and legal staffs of the 5 biggest medical insurance complaines would look like. Would having Hillary's name on it make it any better?

            And this may indeed be what HRC has in mind.

            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:51:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  She's the Sphinx. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lois, pamelabrown, smitha007

      She gets away with all sorts of galling inaccuracies and memory lapses.

      My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

      by Salo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:52:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I will never vote for her. (13+ / 0-)

    period.  Reason--five troops killed today. Yesterday one troop the day before--I think it was three.  Iraqi children--how many bombed out of their beds?  Babies and toddlers, how many killed and how many without arms or legs .  Well that is real "emotional" isn't it?  Human beings all--and trusting little babies and children who never knew what hit them and ended their short lives.

    She calculated that the vote to let a stupid man invade a country would be just fine, just in case it was successful.  When it wasn't she tried to claim she was duped. Now she continues to avoid it after showing no remorse for that vote and avoiding any policy to end iut--I believe she wants the occupation to continue.

    I will never vote for Hillary Clinton. And the more she goes on, the more I am beginning to really really dislike her.

  •  Thanks for this diary, Psi. I couldn't (8+ / 0-)

    agree more with your analysis (so far).  

    I believe the reason the polls in Iowa & New Hampshire tell a very different story than the national polls is because thsoe people are paying attention right now while the rest of the country isn't (not to mention the MSM is pushing her so hard and trashing Obama & Edwards every chance they get and that's on the national level).

    Don't forget, Lieberman was the presumptive front runner at this exact same time in 2003.

    I promised my family they won't see me dragged from my home by men in black, dangling off ropes from helicopters. www.thejoshuablog.com

    by Junglered1 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:48:35 PM PDT

  •  Great job! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivacia, cosbo, carolita, pioneer111

    I love your post but I take issue with the inclusion of national primary polls.  They are not at all reliable.  Far too many casual Dems (who love Hillary because they think they have to) that won't actually vote in the primary are included.

    Other than that, this is great!

  •  You've missed these points in your analyses (5+ / 0-)
    1.  Have you asked for counter views than from your in NY?  I'm born and raised NY.  I now live in Kansas.  What she says about national security is starting to play over here, whereas it doesnt play to you.  Maybe that's her point -- she doesnt need to play into New Yorkers as she needs to play into Midwesterners.  which leads me to be second question...
    1.  She knows she's a lighting rod to the GOP and RW noise machine.  Its well over a year before the election.  Lack of substance? Why should she need to play her hand, and tip her hand to her opponents any earlier than she has to? Leading to...
    1.  This isn't her first time in the rodeo -- why treat her like a neophyte?  and ...
    1.  Her husband, by law, receives daily intelligence briefings which no doubt, once analyzed by her husband, finds its way to her ear, her campaign and her tactics.  So, given this, she has of substance claim on foreign policy?  That's a dubious assumption, wouldn't you say, with this level of information she has?

    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -- Mark Twain.

    by dcrolg on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:53:18 PM PDT

  •  Hillary is the Stepford candidate (6+ / 0-)

    For more reasons than one, which I'm sure most people here can figure out why.

    I'll vote for her if she gets the nomination, but there's not a chance in hell that she'll get my vote in the primaries (actually, caucuses here in WA, since the primaries are meaningless).

    Unless she finally takes a real, principled and courageous stand on just ONE issue.

    Fat chance of that, of course. Character is destiny and past if prologue, blah blah blah.

    What a monumental waste of talent and experience. Just like hubby Bill.

    No guts, no principle, no soul. What the DLC is all about.

  •  After Harold Ford, Jr and Donna Brazille today (13+ / 0-)

    on the Sunday talkies.....spewing RW talking points against everyone but Hil, I'm convinced WE are all we have anymore.

    I know Howard Dean understands us, he kicked butt at YK :)

    •  I got into an argument with my (0+ / 0-)

      father this morning regarding Donna Brazille.  He loathes HF jr. but could not see what a shill Donna is for Hil.  It was baffling.  I need to get empirical proof (besides Brazille's gaffe from this morning of repeating "she's my girl" then saying I haven't endorsed anyone) of her duplicity and the networks' complicity in it.  It's annoying and tiring to re-argue these things with family.

      While otherwise very well informed, my sister and father have not been using their critical reasoning skills regarding the media frames regarding Edwards and Obama.  

    •  Donna Brazille....the embodiment of: (0+ / 0-)

      gee, if we would've just triangulated a little more, we could've won.

      Donna Brazille is an expert at losing debates, equivocating, coming close...but (always) getting well-paid.

      Ugh.  Classic DLC 'snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.'

  •  I look with contempt on any Democrat (9+ / 0-)

    whose sole reason for not supporting Hillary is that Republicans hate her. I don't mind Psi's (thin) analysis, but I see several comments about how she can't possibly win, she'll hurt the party, blah blah.

    The reason I will not accept your viewpoint, mouthbreathers, is that you are buying into a Republican viewpoint which is based on 15 years of continuous lying. Republicans usually believe Hillary is a murderess, a lesbian, a communist, made millions on Whitewater, committed stock fraud, or some combination of the 5. And STILL she has some Republican support. It's amazing.
    I do not believe that Republicans will continue to hate Hillary once they are exposed to her more. Most of them have an opinion which isn't based on seeing her at all!
    There are already some cracks in the dam at the NRO Corner in the uniform Hillary hatred. I expect more.
    But even if I'm wrong, I will not ditch a good candidate because of a campaign of lies.
    The Republicans will lie about EVERYTHING.
    We as a party will not be respected if we let fear dominate our decisions.

    •  Agree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      John Campanelli, masslib

      With the sense of this, though I wouldn't call commenters here especially mouth-breathers, but whatever.  I think Sen. Clinton is a great candidate and I suspect that she is in the process now of radically re-making public opinion about her.

      I think Sen. Clinton would make a very good president.

      by bink on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:08:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  YOU'RE DREAMING, Boring... (6+ / 0-)

      You say that you don't think Republicans will continue to hate Hillary once they are exposed to her, but then say that even if you're wrong, so what?  You're not going to "ditch a good candidate" because of a campaign of lies, and you acknowledge that the Republicans will lie about everything.

      You're going to stick with Hillary no matter what, it is clear.  DAMN THE FACTS!! DAMN REALITY!!

      All of you people who are so gah-gah over Hillary are simply inexplicable to me.  

      I would like ONE of you to explain how she, once nominated (God help us all) gets past negatives that are consistently in the upper 40s, at minumum.  How she has a ghost of a chance of winning any southern state (to be charitable, let's say the ONE exception is Arkansas), or winning any of the western states with the exception of California and Washington (and maybe Oregon).  Please also refute the all but set-in-stone fact that she'll inspire otherwise disheartened and unenthusiastic Republicans to stampede to the polls to keep her out of the White House.  Please also explain how she'll counter the relentless, 24/7 barrage from the multiple convoys of swift-boats that the Rethugs/Fox news (with the help of the MSM) are already prepping in eager anticpation of the Democrat's suicidal nomination her.

      I am all but convinced that the MSM's relentless and blatant embarrasing campaign to push her as the presumptive Democratic POTUS nominee is a calculation.  They all know she's the weakest of our candidates.   I (and undoubtedly they) feel her nomination all but ensures that the Rethugs keep the White House in 2008.  And very likely endangers Democratic pick-ups, or retaining of seats that year.

      In perusing numerous blogs, and posts, I haven't seen a single one from the Hillary enthusiasts that addresses these very legitimate concerns.  Perhaps you'll be an exception?  

      •  sounds like fun to me n/t (0+ / 0-)
      •  How about her polling against GOP'ers (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        masslib

        currently? It's quite good.
        There's one couterargument.

        But really, when I read paragraphs like this:

        "I am all but convinced that the MSM's relentless and blatant embarrasing campaign to push her as the presumptive Democratic POTUS nominee is a calculation.  They all know she's the weakest of our candidates.   I (and undoubtedly they) feel her nomination all but ensures that the Rethugs keep the White House in 2008.  And very likely endangers Democratic pick-ups, or retaining of seats that year."

        I have little hope of reasoned debate with you.
        You're paranoid, and you have no values you will stick up for.

        •  No kidding. It's laughable to suggest (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BoringDem

          Hillary is a media darling or that the MSM is part of some large conspiracy to elect a Republican.

          I'm a Hillary Democrat.

          by masslib on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:16:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  actually, I'm not especially concerned about (0+ / 0-)

          HRC's "electability" and that's probably the only major area of disagreement I have with the diary.

          I think that HRC can win. We might spend election night chewing our nails instead of knocking off for the early victory party that "Generic Democrat" as nominee would give us, but who the hell can lose running against the political ghost of GWB?

          It's the consequences both to the nation and the Democratic Party of two more years of government for, and, by Fortune 1000 CEOs that HRC will provide that concerns me.

          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:59:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  AMUSING TO NO END, Boring... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lenzy1000

          Thanks for making my point for me.  

          Instead of even attempting a "reasoned debate," you, like so many of the Hillary fans, respond with personal insults and name calling.   All that tells me is that you can muster no "reasoned" answers to my points.  

          I won't stoop to your level.

          You say her "current" "polling against GOP'ers", is "quite good," while conveniently omitting the fact that there are many (check out RealClearPolitics) that have her beating Giulliani by no more than the margin of error.  You call that "quite good?"

          How about my other questions, which you glossed over?  The line about how you can't "attempt" a reasoned debate with me is a cop-out, nothing more.

          And for those who think it simply "absurd," or "laugable," that the MSM would be part of some conspiracy to elect a Republican...where have you been the past six years?   Oh, but the MSM would "never" do ANYTHING like that!!  

          I'm not impressed.  I'll be impressed with a reasoned rebuttal of the points I made, not hysterical, personal attacks.

      •  You're half-right, boring. The Repub MACHINE (0+ / 0-)

        doesn't hate her at all because: 1)She will continue their Free-Trade, low wage, rich-get-richer policy, and 2)The NASCAR Dad and RR repubs DO hate the name Clinton
        over his BJ in the WH gaffe, and will be galvanized to vote against her. And if she wins anyway, see 1.

      •  actually, I suspect (0+ / 0-)

        that the Wall Street wing of the GOP probably like her better than any Republican running for President, and an analysis of her donor list should confirm this.

        She favors corporations over citizens, she isn't batshit insane, and pandering to theocrats isn't going to get her anywhere. So if one is a Fortune 1000 CEO, what's not to like?

        Of course, she's going to make the GOP theocratic base turn out en masse.

        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

        by alizard on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:18:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  you're saying that HRC is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      andyj2287

      NOT a mouthpiece for DLC beliefs and that the delusionary neoliberalism + neoconservative worldviews are not at the core of HRC's political philosophy?

      EVIDENCE, PLEASE.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:54:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  who decides who the "serious candidates" are? (4+ / 0-)

    kucinich & gravel = not serious, biden, dodd, richardson = serious? somebody somewhere has decided what our choices are, am i out of line asking who?

    take it from boutros boutros-ghali, put down your gun & listen to bob marley

    by rasbobbo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:04:39 PM PDT

  •  Well done! Thanks! n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    carolita

    http://blog.johnedwards.com/ http://www.actblue.com/page/wilmingtononecorps

    by nannyboz on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:06:06 PM PDT

  •  I Don't Think (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Coldblue Steele, DCDemocrat, masslib

    She needs the DLC anymore.

    I think that it is as apparent to her as it is to us:

    That organization is irrelevant.

    Not because they are ideologically wrong, though they are, but because the political spirit of the nation so strongly favors Democrats now that we don't need a top-down marketing group like the DLC to go out there and sell our party to the people.

    I think Sen. Clinton would make a very good president.

    by bink on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:06:23 PM PDT

  •  Isn't "strong on security" ONLY about image? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivacia, choppycursur, carolita

    I mean, in this day and age, "strong and security" means attitude and swagger, not policy.  That's a goddamn shame, and I think HRC is part of that, not changing it.  

    Where were you in 2002? http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/warspeech.pdf

    by Inland on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:09:07 PM PDT

  •  if Clinton is (9+ / 0-)

    the DLC candidate, then democrats are in trouble.  Judging from what Harold Ford said today on MTP and on Fox, the DLC considers the majority of Americans to be "Liberal" while they (the DLC) represent the "center".  In actuality, what most people want at this site, Universal Single Payer Healthcare, end of war in Iraq and a responsible future energy policy that embraces alternative fuel sources like wind and solar, are the same things that the majority of Americans want.  We are the center.  The DLC is, as someone said previously, a republican trojan horse within the democratic party which sees its mission as akin to being a scold to any democrat that embraces democratic values.  And on the far end you have the neoconservative ultra right wing which does pretty much whatever it wants.  Why doesn't the MSM ever mention that they don't represent the values of the majority of Americans?  Why is it always up to the democrats to "compromise" (read: cave/capitulate) to the republican minority?  And from the late great Molly Ivins, there's this prescient gem (click on the quote for the entire article):

    The majority of the American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) of the American people favor raising the minimum wage. The majority of the American people (60 percent) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The majority (66 percent) wants to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

    The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) thinks big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That is the center, you fools. WHO ARE YOU AFRAID OF?

    I know it's very early but the Edwards and Obama camps have to pick one person.  I've chosen Obama.  I hope others will do likewise.  This Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton tango, I fear is heading a step backward.  We need a fresh approach;  a new way forward.   I like Barack!

    People who have no hope are easy to control and those who have the control have the power. Neverending Story

    by choppycursur on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:11:42 PM PDT

    •  I think Edwards is better for these (6+ / 0-)

      hard times coming up.  I would like to see Obama in 20016 when things have cleaned up a bit.  They both are good men that we should use their talents.  I like the idea of Edwards/Obama for 08 and the Obama/... in 2016

      It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

      by pioneer111 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:16:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know... (0+ / 0-)

        I still vaguely remember being dumbfounded when I learned that Edwards knew that Cheney said something about Edwards that wasn't really true during the vice presidential debates but Edwards didn't challeng him on it.  I vaguely remember something about Cheney saying he hadn't met Edwards until recently while Edwards, we later learned, had attended an extended luncheon with Cheney.  If a democrat had made a mistake like that, he would have been pounded, but Edwards just let it go and followed up later with an interview on the View about the truth.  How many people watch the View?  Wouldn't the time to set the record straight be at the debate setting?  it was a gotcha moment ready and waiting, but it never happened.

        People who have no hope are easy to control and those who have the control have the power. Neverending Story

        by choppycursur on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:26:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He won the debate with Cheney (7+ / 0-)

          that has been debunked over and over.

          He didn't challenge Cheney on the spot for saying he hadn't met him before because it was a stupid thing to argue about.  The networks picked it up and showed that Cheney lied.  Edwards may have been more of a southern gentleman then, but he won that debate no question, and it is revisionist history to say otherwise.  Edwards has been a fighter that has won often.  further if that is the incident that decides it for you rather than how he is running this campaign, then he is not your candidate.  I am much more concerned about today and tomorrow than yesterday.  Yes the past matters but people evolve.  All of our candidates have changed, not all for the better.

          He is who we need at this time imho.

          It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

          by pioneer111 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:47:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  pioneer, (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            vivacia, cosbo, edgery

            I didn't mean to offend you and I can't even imagine all the hard work that Edwards and his campaign have put in these past years.  I'm not aware of any revisionism, I'm only going by what I saw during the debate (I watched it) and then I later saw John and Elizabeth Edwards on The View later.  To my recollection, I only understood the truth about the Cheney statement from The View segment.  Yes it was a stupid thing to argue about but Cheney brought it up with the express purpose of trying to discredit Edwards.  That's worthy of a strong defense, especially if the core facts were wrong and played out across the nation.  Maybe it's true that the media corrected the record; but not everyone watches the post debate media coverage, if, in fact, that's where the facts were laid out.

            Anyway, I just want you to know that I have a lot of respect for Edwards.  For me, however, I've come to the conclusion that I like the fact that Barack Obama has defended himself against Hillary Clinton's attacks, and others.  He's done it with intelligence and with truth and with courage.  I like that he answers questions in a thoughtful manner and you can almost tell that he's looking at the larger issue of whatever he's talking about.  He thinks in big bold strokes and tries to find similarities and commonalities in history and apply them to today.  Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what my impression is.  He's not just intelligent, he's wise.  I think that matters.  I like Edwards too though.  I have a lot of respect for him and I think that what he's doing is noble and honorable.  

            People who have no hope are easy to control and those who have the control have the power. Neverending Story

            by choppycursur on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:35:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for your reply (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Predictor, TomP

              I do respect Obama as well, I just feel that Edwards is who we need now.  What I really would like to see is Edwards 08 and Obama 2016.  imho.

              It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

              by pioneer111 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 10:17:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  I take issue with several of your points (14+ / 0-)

    First, you only went to her Issues section of her website to look for her positions on foreign policy. Did you also look her her Speeches section or do you discount these lengthy pieces as providing an insight into Clinton:

    IRAQ: Speech at the Temple for the Performing Arts in Des Moines

    IRAN: No Military Action On Iran Without Congressional Authority

    IRAQ: Senate Floor Speech on the War

    And especially: FOREIGN POLICY: Council on Foreign Relations

    Of course, you're going to find some way of discounting these speeches because they come Hillary Clinton, who it is so easy around here to bash without ipmunity around here. Nevertheless, these are just the tip of iceburg in terms of evidence that disputes this point you make:

    (S)he hasn't really given much thought to foreign policy issues in general.

    I'm surprised no one called you out on such a ridiculous assertion. I want to get some quick evidence out there right now to show how lazy your research is, but if can show further evidence that in fact she has most defintiely THOUGHT about foreign policy, would you retract that?

    That brings me to a seond assertion you make:

    Lastly, the image of Clinton as strong on national security - similar to that of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani - may very well come from her emphasis that she was a New York politician on September 11th.

    Again, what planet are you from? To compare her to Giuliani is so insulting. Not only is she on the Armed Services Committee but she is also on the Commission on Security & Cooperation in Europe. While you'll probably discount such talk because it comes people in the military or sources in the MSM, but few people who worked with her on issues dispute her voluminous knowledge concerning security. I find it ironic that you somehow discount Edwards or Obama from such criticism because they have a few issues links on their website and ignore strong evidence to the contrary that shows your throwaway line about Hillary to be pandering to a crowd that is already predisposed to disliking her.

    And lastly:

    Secondly, she hasn't really given much thought to foreign policy issues in general. Her answer to the Darfur question seems quite similar to Joe Biden's detailed stance on Darfur, perhaps in part because she answered the question right after Biden. It's in line with the lack of detail on her website and in line with what appears to be a general disregard for non-national security-related foreign policy matters.

    I'd advise you to read her Foreign Policy speech linked above. I won't go through it line by line to dispute your assertion, but I'll post this passage:

    This Administration's choices were false choices. Internationalism versus unilateralism. Realism versus idealism. Is there really any argument that America must remain a preeminent leader for peace and freedom, and yet we must be more willing to work in concert with other nations and international institutions to reach common goals?

    The American character is both idealistic and realistic: why can't our government reflect both?

    I want to suggest three principles I believe should underlie a bipartisan consensus on national security, and consider how they apply to some of the most difficult challenges we face.

    First, and most obviously, we must by word and deed renew internationalism for a new century. We did not face World War II alone. We did not face the Cold War alone. And we cannot face the global terrorist threat or other profound challenges alone either. A terrorist cell may recruit in southeast Asia, train in central Asia, find funds in the Middle East and plan attacks in the US or Europe. We can stop a deadly disease anywhere along the line as it hopscotches from continent to continent -- or we can wait until it arrives at our own doors. We can deal with climate change together now or excuse its calamitous consequences later. We can turn our back on international institutions, or we can modernize and revitalize them, and when needed get about the hard work of creating new ones.

    Second, we must value diplomacy as well as a strong military. We should not hesitate to engage in the world's most difficult conflicts on the diplomatic front. We cannot leave the Middle East to solve itself or avoid direct talks with North Korea. When faced with an existential challenge to the life of our nation, President Kennedy said, "Let us never negotiate from fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." Direct negotiations are not a sign of weakness. They're a sign of leadership.

    Third, our foreign policy must blend both idealism and realism in the service of American interests. If there is one idea that has been floated about over the last six years that I would like to see debunked, with all due respect to some of the political scientists in the room, it is this false choice between realism and idealism.

    She continues from there to put greater meat on the bones of these points in the rest of the speech.

    Man, I knew it was easy to get people around here on board to bashing Clinton with rather superficial analysis, but this takes the cake. In essence, your diary as well as most talking points concerning Hillary Clinton - whether from DailyKos or the Right Wing (sad, how they often reflect one another in quality) - are the equivalent of this graphic:

    Don't get me wrong: disagree with Hillary substantially and accurately. But not with the superficiality and laziness displayed by this diary.

    GOP's Demand for Libby Pardon = The Party of Paris Hilton Law & Order

    by John Campanelli on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:12:22 PM PDT

    •  That is horrid (6+ / 0-)

      And though people may substantively think she is wrong for POTUS few of us would see her in this way at all.  

      It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

      by pioneer111 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:17:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh really? As I say, the manner in which people (7+ / 0-)

        treat her around here is the equivalent of that graphic. Just like right wing attacks, most of the attacks around her diverge from substantial disagreements to outright demonization.

        GOP's Demand for Libby Pardon = The Party of Paris Hilton Law & Order

        by John Campanelli on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:22:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  so you're (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cosbo, wild salmon

          trying to discredit this site because you don't agree with what is said here?  You are the one that posted that horrible picture.  Please take it down.

          People who have no hope are easy to control and those who have the control have the power. Neverending Story

          by choppycursur on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:27:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's a horrible picture (7+ / 0-)

            But I do think it's a symbol of how she's treated by a very vocal anti-Hillary contingent on this site. And just because I disagree with a good many of the anti-Hillary Kossack mob, does not in anyway mean I am discrediting this site as a whole. I am trying discredit those who do not engage in substantive debate, but rather superficial analysis and innuendo.

            GOP's Demand for Libby Pardon = The Party of Paris Hilton Law & Order

            by John Campanelli on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:30:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree. It is so disgusting. These attacks are (6+ / 0-)

              so baseless.  Fuck sake(excuse my language)she wrote a paper for the effing DLC a couple of years ago filled with stuff like baby bonds and solar power.  Nothing remotely right wing.  People here seem to forget that in '96 the DLC splintered and tried to fine someone to run against Bill Clinton in the primary.  This is just ridiculous.  That graphic says it all.

              I'm a Hillary Democrat.

              by masslib on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:42:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Well, shit (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cosbo, andyj2287, annefrank, theark, Predictor

              I don't think of myself as one of the extremely vocal anti-Hillary folks here. Heck, I wrote a diary last year explaining my reasons for why I supported her re-election over Jonathan Tasini, her anti-war primary challenger.

              I still think she does a good job of representing New York. But I don't want her as president, much less our nominee, for various reasons - one of them being that, even if the DLC is becoming more a legacy of the past, she still represents that same constituency that the DLC did.

              "If you've read me...then you know what to expect. If not, it's really simple: I say what I mean and mean what I say."

              RIP, Steve Gilliard

              by PsiFighter37 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:53:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I have no problem in your opposing her (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TheMomCat, masslib

                We're allowed to disagree in that way. But as my above comment makes clear, you make blanket assertions that are easily undercut. I didn't even go into her town hall meeting or Senate floor speech transcripts where she often addresses foreign relation and security matters even further than she does those speeches I cite.  For you to claim such things as "she hasn't given much thought to foreign affairs" is absurd on its face. You know better than that.

                And while your diary demogogues to a group you know already is open to easy attacks on her, I'm not necessarily claiming you demonize her. But read through the comments around here. It is a habit quite easily and often indulged in around here.

                GOP's Demand for Libby Pardon = The Party of Paris Hilton Law & Order

                by John Campanelli on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:07:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  it's only (0+ / 0-)

              symbolic of the hatred you have for others to express their free speech so you try to demonize everyone.  I'm sorry for you.

              People who have no hope are easy to control and those who have the control have the power. Neverending Story

              by choppycursur on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:56:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  one could argue that (0+ / 0-)

            the symbolism given what 2 more years of Bush economic and domestic policy will do to the nation and to the Democratic Party is deadly accurate.

            However, it's more to the point to say that HRC's worst enemy won't mistake a picture of Ann Coulter for HRC.

            While I think the picture should be left up, he can do as he pleases, I saved a copy and will probably use it the next time someone posts a Coulter diary.

            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:19:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  John - we're looking for substance in candidates (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cosbo, GayHillbilly, andyj2287, lenzy1000

          Hillary fails.
          Ex: Media consolidation? she blamed it on Al Gore - but never stated HER position as prez candidate.

          •  Gore's focus on that seems to have been (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cosbo, GayHillbilly, andyj2287, annefrank

            his "Information superhighway" thing.

            She can't blame Gore for something Bill Clinton signed into law, unless Bill Clinton himself says that he was blindly signing it. Let him come out and say that; until then, it will be joint credit or blame between WJC and Gore, just as their economic accomplishments are joint credits.

            Gore/Obama 2008: Truth, Reason and Hope!

            by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:30:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  well - "information superhighway" thingy (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              GayHillbilly, NeuvoLiberal

              is not media consolidation - and as a presidential candidate, Hillary should have answered the question she was asked: What would YOU do about media consolidation? But rather than answer and make a commitment to voters, she showed us what a strong woman she is - by blaming Al Gore!! And we still don't know her position on media consolidation!
              But we do know Hillary needs Murdoch and his media influence - and she's getting it.
              She's getting the money from Murdoch and she's getting 24/7 positive media coverage. What does he get? What do we lose?

      •  I agree, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        andyj2287, smitha007

        The photo is horrid and should be taken down.

        People who have no hope are easy to control and those who have the control have the power. Neverending Story

        by choppycursur on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:28:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  thanks john good post (6+ / 0-)

      All the Hillary haters can do whatever they wish, but if she wins the primary I will work my ass off to see her  the next president of the US.

      And this diary , coming off of todays great appearance by Markos on MTP in which he showed the DLC the evil and failures of their ways, is an insult and a joke.
      There are many better ways to expend energy for the progressive movement than constantly hating on Hillary.
      Get a life.

    •  oh please (7+ / 0-)

      that is absurd

      If HRC can't handle the heat she has earned by her warmongering, capitulation to Bushco in Congress, and her fondness on corporate lobbies and the DLC for the bulk of her $$,  then maybe she should get out of the race now.

      Voters, dems and indies, do not trust her because of her political pandering and her voting record in Congress.

      She is pro war and has no intention of getting our troops out of Iraq anytime in the near future.

      She is about the status quo and nothing more.

      Voters dislike her for valid reasons and most resulting from her own political actions.

      Words don't mean shit anymore in politics. 2006 proved that beyond a doubt. Say what you gotta say to get elected and then go back to Business as Usual in the beltway - all under a cloak of secrecy, of course.

      •  Huh? (7+ / 0-)

        If HRC can't handle the heat she has earned by her warmongering, capitulation to Bushco in Congress, and her fondness on corporate lobbies and the DLC for the bulk of her $$,  then maybe she should get out of the race now.

        How is my coming to her defense, the equivalent of her not being able to take heat? Your comment totally mischaracterizes her character. She takes hits from both within her party as well as out better than most any candidate out there. Just because I dispute what I feel are blanket generalizations about her, does not mean she doesn;t have the character and resolve to fight herself.

        I apologize (snort) if I dared to go against the Hillary-hating orthodoxy around here.

        GOP's Demand for Libby Pardon = The Party of Paris Hilton Law & Order

        by John Campanelli on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:40:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  your post was over the top (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lois, theark

          voters may distrust her but they are not demonizing her as you so graphically claim.

          She is reaping what she has sown.

          HRC supporters can't stand it when we point to her warmongering support of Bush and the Iraq War as the reason we do not want her to win the nomination.

          But her votes are there and just like GWB she refuses to accept full responsibility for her actions.

          Millions of Americans knew Bushco was lying about Iraq and WMD before the war. She had access to the NIE and other intel Americans don't have.

          And she wants to blame her vote on Bush?

          That is why she is a non-starter for me and many, many others.

          •  My post is over the top? (9+ / 0-)

            That graphic is definitely over the top. But what would you call the assertion that she's a "warmonger"? Did you read her original Senate floor speech giving Bush authorization:

            Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

            This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

            However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

            If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

            ....

            My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

            Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

            I would not dispute anyone's claim that Clinton was naive to believe Bush might wait for the weapons inspectors. She trusted this asshole far too much. But to claim she's a warmonger is most certainly "over the top".

            GOP's Demand for Libby Pardon = The Party of Paris Hilton Law & Order

            by John Campanelli on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:59:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I think the real demonization (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Salo, lenzy1000

            will start after she's been in office for a few months and the American people come to the horrified realization that not a damned thing is going to change other than the rhetoric.

            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:24:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I like this part of the CFR speech: (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lois, pamelabrown, viralvoice, lenzy1000

      We have to keep all options on the table, including being ready to talk directly to Iranians should the right opportunity present itself. Direct talks, if they do nothing else, lets you assess who's making the decisions -- what their stated and unstated goals might be. And willingness to talk sends two very important messages. First, to the Iranian people, that our quarrel is with their leaders, not with them; and second, to the international community, that we are pursuing every available peaceful avenue to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

      So. . . . why did she attack Obama for saying he was willing (i.e., "keeping the option on the table" as they say in DC) to talk directly to countires like Iran?  Look, you might be right that there's more to Clinton's foreign policy than equivocation, prevarication, parsing, and "Obama's naive!!  Naiveeee I tell you.  Naivvvvveee!!!!"  But she's got herself to blame for the impressions otherwise that she's creating with her cheap shot politics.  It's just the same as we saw Bush do to Kerry, twisting his words and trying to force him to "clarify".  We'll see if it works.  The yo-yo pundits seem to like how smart and insidery she makes them feel as they denounce the new kid on the block.  That might be effective politics, but don't expect people around here to cheer her on.

      •  No need to cheer her on (0+ / 0-)

        But to use only the debates, which all of us agree are poor forums for flashing out substantial points, to portray as her only substance on foreign policy is not being fair in evaluating her. I'm glad you read through the speech to find disagreement. That's a more surefooted way to arrive at disagreements with her, esp. after this diary makes the absurd claim that Hillary is unthoughtful in these areas.

        GOP's Demand for Libby Pardon = The Party of Paris Hilton Law & Order

        by John Campanelli on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:51:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Mark Penn is still Hillary's chief strategist (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lenzy1000

          Hillary Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, is becoming a liability for her campaign. Following the publication of The Nation's article, Hillary Inc., the heads of two large unions wrote a letter to Clinton, first noted in the New York Times this week, expressing their displeasure that Penn's PR firm, Burson-Marsteller, was helping corporations block union organizing drives, including one their unions were involved in at Cintas, a highly profitable uniform and laundry supply company.
          The Nation

    •  P.S. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      andyj2287, annefrank, lenzy1000

      Read the foreign policy speech from October 2006 (now, one other thing to keep in mind: this is before she started running for president, and it's also 10 months old)...was not impressed by her lack of talking about issues outside of the Middle East and North Korea (exactly one mention about Africa and Darfur). Again, this would appear to emphasize my point that she has a very narrow view of what constitutes foreign policy (essentially the long-standing Israel/Palestine situation and the countries that constituted the 'Axis of Evil'). Nothing about Latin America, either.

      "If you've read me...then you know what to expect. If not, it's really simple: I say what I mean and mean what I say."

      RIP, Steve Gilliard

      by PsiFighter37 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:05:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Again, this may not be on her website (6+ / 0-)

        But this speech she gave last year, shows AGAIN she has given thought to foerign policy, unlike your claim that she has not. This may not be an extensive analysis of the problems in Latin America and elsewhere, but I'd like to ask about what Edwards and Obama have had to say that goes further in depth:

        We need to reverse the decline in funding for scientific research and promote science, math, engineering, and technology education. If we want to keep America powerful, we have to keep the strength of American production and American intellectual property. We need new vision and leadership on energy policy instead of an energy policy that provides more and more tax subsides to oil companies whose profits have soared exponentially. We need, once again, to be a country committed to a great and grand goal — a Manhattan or Apollo project that helps us pioneer the cleaner and cheaper forms of energy and conservation, and recognizes our responsibility to help stem global warming.

        We need new vision and leadership in dealing with so many parts of the world. In Latin America, poverty and inequalities are putting democracy's promise in doubt. In Africa, where the administration put forward a big new aid program and never really funded it, we need to redouble our commitment. In Asia, we have to face squarely the competition that we will have with China — hopefully in a peaceful way that will maximize their development and create centers of stability in the world. And we have to have greater cooperation, creating new international alliances, treaties and conventions to deal with the challenges and dangers that confront the entire world, whether it be a potential pandemic such as bird flu, the continuing spread of diseases like HIV-AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, or so many of the others that we read about on a daily basis.

        Notice how she links our domestic policies with foreign policy. Notice that she doesn't view foreign policy merely about security.

        So far, she has certainly emphasized security over much else when talking about foreign policy. But to claim that's the only prism through which she views foreign policy is again too great a generalization. I did a superificial Google search to dispute your points. You could have done the same before making such blanket statements.

        GOP's Demand for Libby Pardon = The Party of Paris Hilton Law & Order

        by John Campanelli on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:17:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Again, that paragraph you highlighted... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          andyj2287, Predictor

          Only references to Latin America and Africa in there. Darfur didn't even warrant a separate mention.

          I do appreciate that she is able to link a lot of other topics to the foreign policy matters that she addresses, but it's one thing to reference 'values' and another to talk about what needs to be done in particular parts of the world.

          "If you've read me...then you know what to expect. If not, it's really simple: I say what I mean and mean what I say."

          RIP, Steve Gilliard

          by PsiFighter37 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:24:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't forget the foreign policy footwork (6+ / 0-)

            she did as First Lady. Here is a CNN piece about a tour she made of South America:

            First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton took off Tuesday for a trip to South America aimed at boosting the political and economic advancement of women.

            The first stop of the trip was Puerto Rico, where the first lady will get a first-hand look Tuesday at relief efforts dealing with the destruction caused by Hurricane Georges.

            A congressional delegation and administrative officials, including Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo, accompanied Mrs. Clinton on the tour of the storm devastated area.

            Next, Mrs. Clinton will travel to Santiago, Chile for the annual meeting of first ladies of the Americas.

            Following the meeting in Chile, the first lady's itinerary takes her to Montevideo, Uruguay, for a Vital Voices conference. Vital Voices is a U.S. foreign policy initiative focusing on lifting women's political and economic roles and the gatherings is expected to draw about 400 women from across the Western Hemisphere.

            You can also watch this YouTube clip of her addressing the African Vital Voices 2007 Conference:

            And of course, who could forget her spanking of China when she was First Lady: Women's Rights are Human Rights. Not a word in there about security.

            Of course, now people will want to discount these efforts (as well as others that could probably be uncovered) simply because they don't fit into the narrative they want to perpetuate about her.

            GOP's Demand for Libby Pardon = The Party of Paris Hilton Law & Order

            by John Campanelli on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:39:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I appreciate what she's done in the past (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              andyj2287

              But why has she failed to highlight any of this during the campaign? Why is it so conspicuously absent from her policy papers on her campaign site?

              In short, how do you know she still cares about those issues anymore?

              For example, I liked her health care effort in 1993. That does not mean she should be supported on that issue in 2007.

              "If you've read me...then you know what to expect. If not, it's really simple: I say what I mean and mean what I say."

              RIP, Steve Gilliard

              by PsiFighter37 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:43:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That YouTube address to Vital Voices (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TheMomCat, ademption, masslib, Edgar08

                is from this year. Just because she hasn't made campaign speeches about these issues doesn't mean she hasn't been WORKING on these issues. It's one thing to give a speech. It's another thing to back your beliefs with work.

                Let me ask you this: if you're going to hold Hillary to these standards - claiming she's purely a DLC empty suit because she hasn't given extensive CAMPAIGN speechs on the subjects you like - can you point to speechs other Democratic candidates have given that address such issues? And if they have not, would that logically mean they too are DLC emptysuits?

                GOP's Demand for Libby Pardon = The Party of Paris Hilton Law & Order

                by John Campanelli on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:50:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  while I disagree with your analysis (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lenzy1000

      you have come up with the only legitimate attempt to set HRC's record straight. Though I note in passing that you only refer a few cherry-picked examples of her speeches instead of her voting record.

      Have a "4" for doing a better job than anyone else has.

      Great pic, but even the most serious anti-HRC advocate is going to mistake HRC for Ann Coulter.

      I note as a point of irony that if you'd posted the picture on FreeRepublic, that people would be expressing delight that Coulter is looking healthier these days.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:15:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If you are going to take a look at Clinton's (5+ / 0-)

    positions, then you will probably find that she is the most liberal candidate (next to Kucinich) running in this election cycle. I hope you'll post that.

  •  Clinton's Refusal (8+ / 0-)

    To meet with certain 'radioactive' foreign leaders reminds me a great deal of the Bush Doctrine.  If you don't meet them, then you don't have to deal with their POV.  It places them on the the natural defensive, which does nothing to resolve problems.  Hell, even Israel talks with their enemies (at times).

    But I think of the doors that have opened, through our history, when we finally did start to talk with our enemies.  LBJ with the Soviets in NJ, Nixon with China, even Carter bringing Sadat and the Israeli leader together.  Even non Americans talking, such Kim Dae Jung and Kim Jong Il in Korea, and the Sunshine Policy had great effect.

    Then I think of times when we didn't talk.  Such as in 1954 to Vietnam, when our leaders refused to even shake hands with the Chinese FM who wanted to discuss the issue.  And Korea, for that matter.  Many students of the subject believe that one rebuttal alone did more than anything else to start the war in Vietnam.

    Clinton's pandering to the Right here is downright dangerous, and shows us that her concerns for getting elected, on those terms, trumps her desire to engage in talks which can lead to peace.  That's rock headed, and downright stupid, especially in todays world.  It shows us all, even her supporters, just where domestic political triangulation can lead us.  Her husbands use of it gave the GOP the COngress, and started the ball rolling to where we ended up with Bush.

    Americans want peace.  You can't get peace without talking.  Clinton must view talking as a sign of weakness, and, in her political mind, a great chance to slap Senator Obama.  Obama is not naive, or stupid.  Clinton is a political creature.  Obama wants to try and get peace, Clinton wants to get elected.  If you add it up, her desire to get elected is more important peace.

    Geez.

  •  All candidates need to be able (0+ / 0-)

    to answer the questions:

    Will you support HR 1200?

    What will it take for you to support HR 1200?

    HR 1200 is the American Health Security Act and is in my opinion the most likely bill to emerge from Congress.

    •  HR1200 (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      carolita, theark, lenzy1000

      SEC. 201. COMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS
      (a) In General- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this title, individuals enrolled for benefits under this Act are entitled to have payment made under a State health security program for the following items and services if medically necessary or appropriate for the maintenance of health or for the diagnosis, treatment, or rehabilitation of a health condition:

      (1) HOSPITAL SERVICES- Inpatient and outpatient hospital care, including 24-hour-a-day emergency services.

      (2) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES- Professional services of health care practitioners authorized to provide health care services under State law, including patient education and training in self-management techniques.

      (3) COMMUNITY-BASED PRIMARY HEALTH SERVICES- Community-based primary health services (as defined in section 202(a)).

      (4) PREVENTIVE SERVICES- Preventive services (as defined in section 202(b)).

      (5) LONG-TERM, ACUTE, AND CHRONIC CARE SERVICES-

      (A) Nursing facility services.

      (B) Home health services.

      (C) Home and community-based long-term care services (as defined in section 202(c)) for individuals described in section 203(a).

      (D) Hospice care.

      (E) Services in intermediate care facilities for individuals with mental retardation.

      (6) PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, BIOLOGICALS, INSULIN, MEDICAL FOODS-

      (A) Outpatient prescription drugs and biologics, as specified by the Board consistent with section 615.

      (B) Insulin.

      (C) Medical foods (as defined in section 202(e)).

      (7) DENTAL SERVICES- Dental services (as defined in section 202(h)).

      (8) MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT SERVICES- Mental health and substance abuse treatment services (as defined in section 202(f)).

      (9) DIAGNOSTIC TESTS- Diagnostic tests.

      (10) OTHER ITEMS AND SERVICES-

      (A) OUTPATIENT THERAPY- Outpatient physical therapy services, outpatient speech pathology services, and outpatient occupational therapy services in all settings.

      (B) DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT- Durable medical equipment.

      (C) HOME DIALYSIS- Home dialysis supplies and equipment.

      (D) AMBULANCE- Emergency ambulance service.

      (E) PROSTHETIC DEVICES- Prosthetic devices, including replacements of such devices.

      (F) ADDITIONAL ITEMS AND SERVICES- Such other medical or health care items or services as the Board may specify.

      SEC. 631. MANDATORY ASSIGNMENT
      (a) No Balance Billing- Payments for benefits under this Act shall constitute payment in full for such benefits and the entity furnishing an item or service for which payment is made under this Act shall accept such payment as payment in full for the item or service and may not accept any payment or impose any charge for any such item or service other than accepting payment from the State health security program in accordance with this Act.

      (b) Enforcement- If an entity knowingly and willfully bills for an item or service or accepts payment in violation of subsection (a), the Board may apply sanctions against the entity in the same manner as sanctions could have been imposed under section 1842(j)(2) of the Social Security Act for a violation of section 1842(j)(1) of such Act. Such sanctions are in addition to any sanctions that a State may impose under its State health security program.

      SEC. 615. PAYMENTS FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
      (a) Establishment of List-

      (1) IN GENERAL- The Board shall establish a list of approved prescription drugs and biologicals that the Board determines are necessary for the maintenance or restoration of health or of employability or self-management and eligible for coverage under this Act.

      (2) EXCLUSIONS- The Board may exclude reimbursement under this Act for ineffective, unsafe, or over-priced products where better alternatives are determined to be available.

      (b) Prices- For each such listed prescription drug or biological covered under this Act, for insulin, and for medical foods, the Board shall from time to time determine a product price or prices which shall constitute the maximum to be recognized under this Act as the cost of a drug to a provider thereof. The Board may conduct negotiations, on behalf of State health security programs, with product manufacturers and distributors in determining the applicable product price or prices.

      (c) Charges by Independent Pharmacies- Each State health security program shall provide for payment for a prescription drug or biological or insulin furnished by an independent pharmacy based on the drug's cost to the pharmacy (not in excess of the applicable product price established under subsection (b)) plus a dispensing fee. In accordance with standards established by the Board, each State health security program, after consultation with representatives of the pharmaceutical profession, shall establish schedules of dispensing fees, designed to afford reasonable compensation to independent pharmacies after taking into account variations in their cost of operation resulting from regional differences, differences in the volume of prescription drugs dispensed, differences in services provided, the need to maintain expenditures within the budgets established under this title, and other relevant factors.

      SEC. 811. PAYROLL TAX ON EMPLOYERS.

      [8.7 percent]

      SEC. 59B. HEALTH CARE INCOME TAX.

      [2.2 percent]

      SEC. 821. INCREASE IN EXCISE TAXES ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

      The bill features mandatory assignment. It ensures the bill gets paid, rather than a check is written for an insufficient amount.

  •  I think the tag to Guliani (0+ / 0-)

    pretty much exposes your over-enthusiam.

  •  I want comprehensive plans from all of the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inland, CeeusBeeus, lenzy1000

    Democrats. Since the media required Edwards and Obama to present healthcare plans why can't Hillary be set to the same standards? Should we the voters just trust her because she is a dem. Ha.

    ``I like to say that the 51st state is the state of denial.'' - Kurt Vonnegut

    by shanay on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:39:14 PM PDT

    •  Someone posted the other day that she was (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      masslib

      releasing a health plan in the next couple of weeks.

      •  well I checked out the PDF that was (0+ / 0-)

        linked with her 7? point plan. It is so bad on so many levels it is remarkable. I wish nyceve would do an analysis of what she has put out so far. i don't have the link but it is in one of the diaries from the other day. you should check it out.

        To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men~~ Abraham Lincoln

        by Tanya on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:51:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Will that be before the healthcare debate? Hmmmm (0+ / 0-)

    ``I like to say that the 51st state is the state of denial.'' - Kurt Vonnegut

    by shanay on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:43:37 PM PDT

  •  I'll be glad to support who ever comes out (5+ / 0-)

    of the nominating process. This poisoning of the well is not a good thing.

    Sorry. I cannot recommend.

    socialist democratic progressive pragmatic idealist with a small d.

    by shpilk on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:45:28 PM PDT

  •  Uh...so what? Old news isn't it? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla

    Since Bill Clinton was/is a leader of the DLC, I don't think it takes much "analysis" to "build a case" that Hillary Clinton is also a DLC candidate.

    Isn't that what the entire primary has been about to date?  Clinton as the DLC restoration.  Obama as the agent of change.  Edwards as Southern populist.

    DLC is not monolithic so Clinton's track record and policies have to be the basis for analyzing what a Clinton presidency will mean.

    I'd rank Hillary as liberal Democrat, big on women's rights and issues which go deep into health care, economics and education including child care.  I think she'd make top notch Supreme Court appointments. Be good in energy and the environment.

    She's a bit of technocrat for me but she'd be good for incremental change which is OK.  Against religion in government, for science in government.

    Don't see any reason to demonize Hillary Clinton. Her flaws as a candidate and president are not in her values or her intent.

    Clinton's OK. Obama would be great.

    That's the difference I see.

  •  Oh, come on! Why the hit piece? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hopscotch1997, masslib

    Let me ask you something: how would it help her if she was to come out and say "I will get us out of Iraq immediately?"

    She has to play it close to the vest. If she said something like that she would be pounded on relentlessly by the media as wreckless, as anti-American, as a lover of terrorists, as someone who hates soldiers and loves it every time one dies.

    I have respect for your writing but this piece is rediculous. If you were an adviser to her campaign you first and foremost would be looking over your shoulder at the MSM because they are a rabid pack of liars who are more than happy to distort anything any democrat says. The MSM has gummed up the works of honesty and open debate.

    Look, this is a lady who has in fact taken on the big interests. Remember? She push for national health care and got slaughtered.

    If you think your candidate knows that lesson better than her, or somehow has the clout to take on the big interests where she doesn't, then you are dreaming.

    The same people who want Libby free are the same people who rule out amnesty for illegals.

    by MouseOfSuburbia on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:05:24 PM PDT

    •  My thoughts... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mickT, andyj2287

      how would it help her if she was to come out and say "I will get us out of Iraq immediately?"

      Probably not much at this point. She's pretty much locked in to her current position on Iraq, I think...to have a drastic change such as that this late in the game would come off as disingenuous.

      Look, this is a lady who has in fact taken on the big interests. Remember? She push for national health care and got slaughtered.

      I respect her for her efforts then, but I don't respect the timidity with which she has approached the same issue (health care), along with just about every other issue, during the campaign season. Promising universal health care by the end of her second term? Not very audacious, and very arrogant of her to presume she'll have two terms.

      If you think your candidate knows that lesson better than her, or somehow has the clout to take on the big interests where she doesn't, then you are dreaming.

      I'm undecided. I did write a supportive diary of Edwards recently, but as I disclaimed at the top of it, because I still have time to decide, I'm happy to not commit to a particular candidate at this point in time.

      "If you've read me...then you know what to expect. If not, it's really simple: I say what I mean and mean what I say."

      RIP, Steve Gilliard

      by PsiFighter37 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:10:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I really think the MSM has forced the candidates (0+ / 0-)

        to almost cloak whatever policy they intend to run.

        If, by some miricle, Gore ends up running, his strategy will be seen as genius. The strategy of not announcing, of not talking about policy, of just hiding until the latest possible date could very well be a winner.

        How ironic is that?

        The same people who want Libby free are the same people who rule out amnesty for illegals.

        by MouseOfSuburbia on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:19:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Interesting RECOMMENDED DIARY rapid movement (0+ / 0-)

        PsiFighter37's diary posted at
        Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 02:46:10 PM PDT

        generating 724 comments ... as of 5:30am PDT Monday

        ----
        vs, for example

        Anti-Semitism on Daily Kos? -- An Open Letter to Harold Ford, posted 5 hours earlier
        Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:10:50 AM PDT

        generating 756 comments as of 5:30 am Monday, yet this one still is on the Rec'd list, while PsiFi's slipped off.

        ---

        How does that algortihm work exactly? If I didn't know any better, I'd think that some behind the scenes emailing took place to encourage removal of the PsiFi diary. Isn't it interesting. It's not unusual for actively moving diaries to remain on Rec list for close to 20 hours or so.

        I wonder how that works.

        _________________
        --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

        by rhfactor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:45:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Check her voting record with the blue dogs (0+ / 0-)

    I was wondering when someone was going to come up with this.  I thought I saw her name on the blue dog list a while back..Lets check her voting record and let the chips fall where they may..

  •  Stop with the inevitability meme (0+ / 0-)

    It is getting old. She does not have a lock on the nomination. It's still up in the air. She does have name recognition, but then so does Dick Cheney.

    My money is on Obama. He's a lot stronger than some people give him credit, especially Hillary supporters.

    Now if Gore would only run.

    "I think you ought to know I'm feeling very depressed."   —Marvin, The Paranoid Android

    by londubh on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:11:18 PM PDT

  •  piss-poor research, diarist should learn to read (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mickey, ademption, hopscotch1997, masslib

    Clinton has a number of major speeches on foreign policy on her website. One, from October 2006, is her overview of her approach to foreign policy. Another, from July, is on Iraq specifically.

    CFR published the first speech with video and Q&A. This speech shows that, unlike Obama, whose militarist and American exceptionalist approach "creeps people out", her approach to foreign policy is multilateral and liberal internationalist.

    Together these speeches and the others posted on her site will give you a deep and detailed understanding of her foreign policy positions and approach. Her Senate site shows an even deeper familiarity with the issues. The diarist's claim that "she hasn't really given much thought to foreign policy issues in general" is ignorant slander, and the remainder of his analysis here is similarly worthless since it is based on so little information and so much projection.

    •  See my responses above to John Campanelli (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      andyj2287, Predictor

      I might have done better to link to them, but they would have reinforced what I see as her narrow approach to foreign policy.

      "If you've read me...then you know what to expect. If not, it's really simple: I say what I mean and mean what I say."

      RIP, Steve Gilliard

      by PsiFighter37 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:34:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  thanks for the pointer (0+ / 0-)

        Campanelli did a much more thorough job of taking your post apart. Glad to see you are back-tracking, but "narrow approach to foreign policy" is still laughable.

        By the way, her October 2006 speech was billed as the defining description of her foreign policy should she choose to campaign for president. It was a campaign speech, and it was comprehensive. Obama didn't get anything comprehensive together till when, last month in foreignaffairs.org? At least Edwards figured something out by May.

        In any case, since we have disposed of your "not much thought" calumny, how about the substance? You cry "DLC" which is all well and good but comes down to name calling. Now you have the links to her speeches, do you care to engage what she says about foreign policy? Or is the premise of this diary just a sham and another excuse for bashing?

        My bet is you want to continue to pretend she is "AWOL on Foreign Folicy." I don't think you have any honest interest in her policies, and certainly not when she makes you look like a fool.

    •  She's still supporting her Aumf vote (0+ / 0-)

      and admits she didn't read the NIE before voting.

      And of course, she won't discuss hypotheticals.  Now.

      http://www.youtube.com/...

      Where were you in 2002? http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/warspeech.pdf

      by Inland on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:41:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why do voters have to troll (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      andyj2287, Salo, lenzy1000

      her website for speeches?  Why can't she just state her POSITIONS/Policy and link to speeches if necessary?  The problem with the speeches is that there is room for so much interpretation dependent upon the audience being addressed.  Thus, JRE has a healthcare policy on his site, and he has speeches.  Why can't HRC do the same?  It seems specious to me to criticize this diary  due to lack of research when the research was done, but the candidate failed to provide the information in a readily accessible fashion, imo.

  •  I dunno ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivacia, pkbarbiedoll, lenzy1000

    ... no matter how I slice it, why is it Hillary seems like "business as usual"? And I am so tired of business as usual. She says some of the right stuff, but there's no guts to it. Obama has beaten her in fundraising quarters and he takes no corporate donations? That should tell us something. People are hungry for change. Real change, meaningful change, loads of change. More and more, I think Hillary is chomping at the bit to have what Bush has, not undo it all.

    But I am probably wrong. God, I hope so.

    "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt

    by JuliaAnn on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:27:50 PM PDT

  •  tomato that ate Cleveland (0+ / 0-)

    More important priorites than Hillary swinging around big political SHTICK - -  war talk from the killer tomato.

    Demand a more realistic and strategic appraisal on the Iraq issue, stop talking troops and start talking policy. - Wes Clark, Aug 08, 2007

    by pollwatch on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:29:03 PM PDT

  •  Desperation haunts Hillary haters. (3+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    hopscotch1997, masslib, Edgar08
    Hidden by:
    Salo

    Read this diary. It's simply irrational. This guy is either a troll or over emotionally involved with one of Hillary's competitors for the nomination. Whoever he is he needs to get used to the idea that she's going to get the nomination because while a few hysterics like him don't like her the democratic voters do. She's sitting at around 40% and has been at 48% if Gore is dropped from the polls. Given the number in the race these are incredible numbers. My advice to him would be grow up, support your candidate by all means, but spare us this bs because that's what it is.      

    •  Well, there's a convincing rebuttal. (7+ / 0-)

      "He's hysterical!"  and "Look at her numbers!"

      It's the HRC answer to everything.  If you don't want her, you're nuts, and it's futile.  What a campaign.

      Where were you in 2002? http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/warspeech.pdf

      by Inland on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:39:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'll try and be polite... (10+ / 0-)

      ...even though your post deserves a nice STFU.

      First off, I'm not a troll. Hell, find someone who doesn't like me on this site and ask them. I've been here a hell of a long time, posting about various issues. I pounded lots of pavement for Ned Lamont and Patrick Murphy last summer and fall. So don't call me a troll. Thanks.

      Secondly, your 'inevitability' argument won't play well. Yes, she is ahead in the national polls. Yes, she is in a pretty good position right now. Does that mean the nomination's hers and the others should drop out because they're wasting their time? Of course not.

      Lastly, I'm undecided. I can't believe how many people think this is in support of 'my candidate'. If Al Gore were in the race, then it might be a different story, but he's not.

      "If you've read me...then you know what to expect. If not, it's really simple: I say what I mean and mean what I say."

      RIP, Steve Gilliard

      by PsiFighter37 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:41:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I dont know about irrational (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      masslib

      It really does lack any substance though, but then again most attacks on Hillary do.  

      Sadly I dont believe he's a troll. Just another Hill hater with nothing positive to contribute about her, and worse, little or nothing  to back up most of what he says.

      Whats really sad is that he threatens two or more days of this BS

    •  No desperation at all, otto (0+ / 0-)

      And by the way, it's a GREAT diary. You can pull every number in the world out right now, but there's not one that says this country will vote for her when it counts.

      She's hot right now and you know why? Because not one vote has been cast yet. Not one. But guaranteed when Dem voters stand in the booth and think to themselves, "Will the rest of the country vote for her?" When they start thinking (and rightly so) that this election is too important to lose, safety will trump all.  And there will be "safety voting" in numbers. It's not just my gut feeling that tells me this. It's how America has voted for almost two centuries. It just so happens that this cycle's "safety vote" has a damn good plan to get this country moving in the right direction with a clean break from the triangulating, DLC-appeasing politics of the past.

      John R. Edwards is the 2008 nominee. It's a lock. With any luck, he'll be sharing a ticket with Obama.

      •  I ain't desperate. (0+ / 0-)

        It's almost laughable. I lay out my case and let the chips fall. If Hills is that good I have nothing to be concerned about do I now?

        My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

        by Salo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:56:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I Knew It Was Only A Matter Of Time (5+ / 0-)

    Before this DLC thing just turned into another excuse to attack Clinton.

    Whoever you support you, you don't do them any favors.

    Try writing something positive about a candidate.

    I know.  That won't get Recommended.

    "Well like you always say. Focus on the Good Times." -- Hillary to Bill on the Campaign.

    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:39:04 PM PDT

  •  I thought kos said stop attacking Dems. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hopscotch1997, masslib

    Get it out of your system because I think she will be the nominee.

    I hope this blog will back her.

    Lets take a trip down memory lane when Bill was President.

    Remember, ah good times.

    •  I doubt it (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rhfactor, andyj2287, gotalife, icebergslim

      Because if we aren't supposed to attack Democrats, we should've been really, really nice to Harold Ford this morning.

      "If you've read me...then you know what to expect. If not, it's really simple: I say what I mean and mean what I say."

      RIP, Steve Gilliard

      by PsiFighter37 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:56:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good one. Who do you like for the nominee? nt (0+ / 0-)
        •  Al Gore (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          andyj2287, gotalife

          Of the declared candidates, undecided. If you peruse my diary history, you'll notice I wrote a diary in hypothetical support of John Edwards. However, given that I have 6 months until I vote, I still have plenty of time to make up my mind.

          "If you've read me...then you know what to expect. If not, it's really simple: I say what I mean and mean what I say."

          RIP, Steve Gilliard

          by PsiFighter37 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:01:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The only problem I see with Gore was his choice (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Gram E

            of Vice President.

            He could give her a run for her money.

            •  It Was Clinton's Fault (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ademption, masslib

              He chose Lieberman.

              Right?

              I can only bet that argument's been made more than once.

              "Well like you always say. Focus on the Good Times." -- Hillary to Bill on the Campaign.

              by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:10:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I thought Al distanced himself from Bill and (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                masslib, journalschism

                thought that was a mistake.

                •  They Focussed Too Much (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gotalife, masslib

                  On the Polls that showed people didn't like Bill enough as a person.

                  Instead of focussing on the Polls that showed everyone thought he was tremendously successful President.

                  Focus on the Good Times.

                  "Well like you always say. Focus on the Good Times." -- Hillary to Bill on the Campaign.

                  by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:16:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Indeed. Most popular politician on the planet. nt (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    vivacia, Edgar08
                    •  that it probably no longer true. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      churchylafemme, andyj2287

                      Because of Gore's work on global warming these past few years, I'd say that both Gore and Clinton enjoy anout equal international stature and recognition at this junture.

                      In  recent international poll asking a question of who would the best leader on global warming, Gore polled at the top. Clinton came in  3rd or 4th, IIRC.

                      Gore/Obama 2008: Truth, Reason and Hope!

                      by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:03:12 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  actually, there were direct polls (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    churchylafemme, andyj2287

                    showing Clinton campaigning would have hurt Gore (in addition to the "as a person" unfavorables which as you know were very high for Clinton during 1999 and 2000, and which explain why the impact of his campaigning would have hurt Gore; cause/effect), and especially so with independent swing voters:

                    Clinton campaign effort could hurt Gore more than help, poll suggests

                       CNN, From staff and wire reports
                       October 24, 2000

                       Among independent voters, the net loss for Gore could be far greater: Gallup's survey indicated that 45 percent of independents would be less likely to vote for the vice president if Clinton were to campaign for him, while only 10 percent said they would be more likely to support Gore. Another 37 percent of independents said Clinton's efforts would make no difference.

                    "Instead of focussing on the Polls that showed everyone thought he was tremendously successful President."

                    Gore talked about Clinton-Gore joint accomplishments. But, with the polls such as the above and the high personal unfavs of WJC, it WAS best not let Clinton be seen front and center.

                    There in one other ugly fact for Gore to deal with. Clinton was on tape having lied to the public. Granted t was about his affair, but still a lie is a lie. If Gore were put Clinton front and center, Republicans would have probably played that tape over and over as asked public if that's what they wanted to see continued in the future. In fact, that was Rove Plan B.

                    In addition, as a Presidential candidate, Gore would have been forced to ask the question of what he thought about Clinton lying, i.e. whether he'd approve of such conduct. Gore would have caught in a jam on that question.

                    Had Gore used Clinton visibly, chances are that the entire election would have centered on the discussion of Clinton behavior, instead of what Gore intended to do for the country. I guarantee it.

                    Finally, Gore also had very high job approvals, and most people already made connection between him and Clinton on that aspect. Therefore, there was no need for Clinton to tell people that (65% of whom didn't think WJC was a good person) Gore would do a good job. People knew Gore would do a good job; The main problem on that was that people were taking the accomplishments forgranted.

                    Bottomline in all this: Clinton, as a grown adult should have known that such extreme risks were involved in having an affair right in the middle of the whitehouse knowing fully well that the RWNM was looking under every stone to bury WJC/Gore/HRC.

                    Bill Clinton was selfish and reckless, and Gore+Party+Coutnry paid the price for it.

                    Gore/Obama 2008: Truth, Reason and Hope!

                    by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:00:24 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I Know (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      masslib

                      They focussed on the wrong polls.

                      See my sig.

                      "Well like you always say. Focus on the Good Times." -- Hillary to Bill on the Campaign.

                      by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:01:08 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  There was a game theoretic adversary (0+ / 0-)

                        His name is Karl Rove.

                        "They focussed on the wrong polls."

                        Rove would have focussed on the scandal, and the Clinton ("that woman") tape. So, we dont' get to control the focus, and especially so in the media climate that was at it worst in 2000.

                        RWNM radio network, Limbaugh's impact, Drudge's spam, etc reached their pinnacle around 2000; Netroots weren't yet born to combat that garbage yet. Even now, the RWNM has a short term advantage in terms of injectice their venomous smears.

                        There was a BBC documentary about how ROve/Bush/GOP were prepared to attack Gore using Clinton's bad image explicitly if Gore were to engage Clinton openly. The result would have been devastating, since the election should not have been about the blue dress and the fluids on it.

                        Gore/Obama 2008: Truth, Reason and Hope!

                        by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:09:33 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  A Good Campaign (0+ / 0-)

                          Can control the focus.

                          Back to my sig.

                          "Well like you always say. Focus on the Good Times." -- Hillary to Bill on the Campaign.

                          by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:11:54 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You forget that Gore won, despite the (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            HighSticking, churchylafemme

                            severe and debilitatating double digit handicaps that he inherited (mainly from the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal).

                            Gore DID talk about the Clinton-Gore accomplishments and talked a LOT about what he wanted to do for the future, such  as healthcare, securing social security etc. That's how he overcame the negative backlash from the scandal and won the popular vote and likely the election.

                            Here is another funny thing about the false theories that the Clinton camp has been spinning now for years (that, somehow, magically, Clinton the almighty (:)) was supposed to help Gore, while every logical basis showed otherwise): Clinton only got 49% of the vote in 1996 (running as a relatively successful incumbent, with a strong VP, with no fresh scandals of his own, and no baggage of someone else's scandals, or a pseudo-leftist spolier nibbling away support and damaging in a severe way on message), and Gore got 48.4% despite ALL of those handicaps (not of his making); so how exactly was Clinton supposed to have been helpful, especially when 65% didn't like him them as a person? Unbelievable spins by the CLinton camp (I am not saying you're a member of the official Clinton camp here.)

                            Basically Gore did the right thing by keeping Clinton away from a visible role in the campaign. Without either the media smears or Nader's debilitating strain (in 10+ states), Gore would have still won a landslide electoral college victory, with his approach.

                            The weight of so many hard factors was overwhelming, and yet he eked out a narrow victory (before being denied by 5-4 in the supreme court). You really have appreciate the cumulative height of the hurdles Gore faced. I have come to do so PRECISELY because I have seen mounds of data on this subject over past two years.

                            Gore/Obama 2008: Truth, Reason and Hope!

                            by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:34:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm Not Forgetting Gore (0+ / 0-)

                            Won the Vote.

                            "Well like you always say. Focus on the Good Times." -- Hillary to Bill on the Campaign.

                            by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:49:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Gore actually stood by his friend/partner Clinton (3+ / 0-)

                            over impeachment, as good friends should. Gore didn't like what Clinton did (who would have, in his place?), but he never thought that Clinton deserved to be impeached.

                            He said great things about him on the day WJC was impeached and wonderful words in the convention speech as well. In a 2002 interview, he made crystal what he thought about the whole deal (eventhough by then the wheels were spinning in the establishment circle, to keep from running in 2004):

                               Hardball, Dec 2002

                                  GORE: What President Clinton did, obviously, was wrong, and yet the vast majority of the American people appropriately balanced that personal mistake against all of the things that he did for the country as president. And in the heat of that battle on the day when they had committed what I regarded as an injustice...

                                  MATTHEWS: Meaning impeachment shouldn¡Çt have occurred?

                                  GORE: Absolutely not-absolutely not. Not on that. Absolutely not. And as for his record as president, you know the statistics. We had the strongest economy in the entire history of the United States of America.

                                  We had peace, prosperity, advances on every front. I am proud to have been a part of that administration and proud to have been able to do battle during those times when they were trying to run him out of town on a rail and in a very unjust way.

                            This and the other material here.

                            So, here is the summary:

                            • Gore was a great running mate for Clinton. With his foreign policy chops, he helped marginalize Bush-I's distinct advantage in 1992 and especially so over Clinton (w/o Gore, Bush-I's joke about Clinton's foreign policy experience being visits to IHOP would have stuck nicely). And with killer stump speeches like this. Clinton took the lead shortly after he picked Gore and kept it, and Gore was a key component of their victory.
                            • once elected, Gore worked his ass off and helped deliver on those promises on the economic front (seen in the ad above) and rarely came out to take credit. Gore was a key in their joint successes.
                            • Clinton did not keep his end of the bargain and let Gore down severely by caving into cheap thrill of a BJ (not even the whole enchilada, for heavens sake) at great risk.

                            Despite such betrayal, Gore stood by in support of his friend/partner.

                            Gore/Obama 2008: Truth, Reason and Hope!

                            by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:48:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This is Such a Passion for You (0+ / 0-)

                            My only real observation here is that the Gore Campaign put too much value on the Polls that said people didn't like Clinton enough as a pereson, and didn't put enough value on the Polls that said people thought he was a very successful President.

                            "Well like you always say. Focus on the Good Times." -- Hillary to Bill on the Campaign.

                            by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:51:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  He was a very successful President (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rhfactor, churchylafemme, andyj2287

                            but he was a failed party leader.

                            Of course, he was extraordinary as a politician (the highlight of that, in my eyes, is how he beat Gingrich and sent him packing in the end :))

                            But, he was not considerate of Gore when he did what he did.

                            Despite all of this, I still like Bill Clinton. I was a fervent supporter of his until the Clintons both took turn to the right after 2000 (in particular on the war.)

                            Gore/Obama 2008: Truth, Reason and Hope!

                            by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:59:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  (this shall substitute for Edgar Talking Point) (0+ / 0-)

                            since he has failed to post here. I hope this is satisfactory for the moment until he appears to correct this gap. he first has to dig up some dirt on Gore. Any disagreement means you have it in for Sen. Clinton. No other explanation possible.

                            _________________
                            --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                            by rhfactor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:00:19 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  gotalife, (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  churchylafemme, andyj2287

                  may I suggest the following link for you to go over re. the complexities that Gore was forced to deal with in 2000 (mostly not of his own making)? LINK

                  Gore/Obama 2008: Truth, Reason and Hope!

                  by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:11:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe It's a Don't Do As I Say (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mickey, masslib

      Do as I do sort of thing.  Or reverse that.

      It's "Democracy" on a Blog.

      It's being Intolerant if you're the DLC.

      "Well like you always say. Focus on the Good Times." -- Hillary to Bill on the Campaign.

      by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:00:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, and NAFTA, Telecom Act, DOMA, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      andyj2287

      "Don't ask, don't tell", and eight years of Dubya over a BJ. Bill wasn't that great. And I believe it was Kos, himself, that attacked both the DLC and Hillary.

  •  There's Only One Person Who Can Stop HRC - (5+ / 0-)

    He is not current in the race.

  •  In her defense (8+ / 0-)

    1.) She voted for the stupid war and it would serve her right to get us out.  Call it karma.
    2.) I do believe she will get us out as gracefully as possible.  Unfortunately, we can not predict what the situation will look like next year.  Graceful exits may not be as quick as we might like.  
    3.) It is George Bush's fault.  He had help to be sure (see item #1) but this misbegotten war was executed by Bush -very badly.  He is responsible for breaking our military and putting us at risk.
    4.) She was a Senator from NY on 9/11 and if I recall correctly, she worked very hard to secure billions of dollars for cleanup and reconstruction and Bush and the GOP pretty much screwed NYC and held back on a lot of money.  She isn't bragging like Rudy that she was a rescue worker.  She's saying that as a Congressional representative for her state, it was her responsibility to do what she could.  And as a result, she became aware of national security risks.
    5.) She is running a very careful campaign.  What you are asking her to do by explaining her foreign policy would leave her vulnerable to criticism from the GOP.  I think her sentiments are pretty clear.  She wants to get us out.  How she does it must remain vague so the Republican nominee doesn't use it as a cudgel against her.  

    I think I've mentioned this before: I never expected to be won over by Hillary Clinton.  I was very skeptical.  But after having seen her at YK07, I'm convinced that she will be the best one to jump into the Oval Office and tke care of business as soon as she takes the oath.  The others would be good as well but I'm convinced she would be better.
    Your mileage may vary.

    -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

    by goldberry on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:04:45 PM PDT

    •  Nicely said. nt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gram E, goldberry

      I'm a Hillary Democrat.

      by masslib on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:08:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Really, better than Edwards? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      churchylafemme

      I have to ask why? I applaud your courage for making that statement, and I want to understand your perspective. I just don't see it.
      Do you really not believe he will get us out of there quicker and in a less costly fashion than Clinton?

      •  Clinton Is Already (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gram E, goldberry, masslib

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        Forcing the Pentagon to have the Withdrawal planning ready to go the second any Democrat takes office.

        "Well like you always say. Focus on the Good Times." -- Hillary to Bill on the Campaign.

        by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:56:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's a matter of readiness (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        masslib

        I think she is already proactive with her request to Edelman regarding prepartions for withdrawal.  With this request, she is accomplishing two things: 1.) she is signalling to the Bush administration that she is serious about holding them accountable for troop readiness, whether to wage war or to remove themselves from it.  This is in keeping with her committee membership.  2.) She is signalling to US that the removal of troops is important to her.  Whether she withdraws them quickly or over time, she wants to know that there is a plan and even though she is likely to bring experienced people with her, the job will go more efficiently if there is a plan already in place that she can jump off of.
        I suppose Edwards could have done that as well.  

        Maybe you shouldn't ask me about Edwards.  I wasn't happy with his YK07 appearance and I don't think I can be objective.  But if you feel good about his Iraq War plans, then by all means, support him.

        -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

        by goldberry on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:10:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Oh looky. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ademption, masslib

    Another attempt to drag down a democrat, and suprise it's Hillary.  Who would have thought she'd be picked.  Bleh.  

    •  Hey (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ademption, masslib

      It's Only Part I.

      "Well like you always say. Focus on the Good Times." -- Hillary to Bill on the Campaign.

      by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:14:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh yeah you've been backing (0+ / 0-)

      Edwards and Obama from the smear machine.

      My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

      by Salo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:26:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't understand any part of that sentance. (0+ / 0-)

        Sorry.

        •  You have not been... (0+ / 0-)

          ...defending anyone but Hillary, and have piled on the other candidates.  Note above I outline a defence of the IWR vote.

          My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

          by Salo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:37:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I generally do not pile on other candidates. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Radiowalla, masslib

            Find me more than one or two where I have done that.  I defend Clinton, and react when people pile on her, sometimes strongly, but I rarely criticize other candidates.  I do point out that the reason they are knocking her down is partisan.

            Sorry to knock that idea of yours down, but you just pulled it out of the air.

            •  define pile-on (0+ / 0-)

              please distinguish pile on from agreement. thank you

              _________________
              --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

              by rhfactor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:06:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Pile on were Salo's words, but I understood him (0+ / 0-)

                to mean join in with other posters in numbers in order to downgrade them, criticize them, and and basically try to post negative things about them to ruin their chances as opposed to improving your own candidates. As in a tackle, with layers of people piling on.  That is in fact what Salo meant.  He is constantly accusing people of one thing or another, and he is happy to "pile on" Clinton and whatever other candidate he doesn't like.  Again, ask him to define his own term.

                •  okay, got it. I don't follow him. I am not (0+ / 0-)

                  consistently active here at dK, whereas there are people who read & post here for 4-5 hours a day. which is fine.

                  just saying I don't have any experience with Salo orther than interacting last night.

                  I really do understand how many HRC supporters feel their candidate may be subject to operatives and combativeness to try to derail her here on this site. But I really don't see it -- at least from what I do see week to week -- as being more than with any other candidate. I really don't. but when one is committed and staunchly behind one candidate, i understand that barbs and arrows may seem more intended to hurt her, vs help their candidate by contrast.

                  I don't have a candidate, and probably won;t. Take it for what it's worth, but when I write criticism of Hillary and her candidacy, it is born out of truly fearing the backlash. My GOP family has been on hair-trigger re her ever since 2000 -- and they aren't the only ones.

                  I know you'll disagree, and that's fine, but i sincerely do not believe she would be best for america. In that regard, I do not want her to win. But at same time, I have no one I am advocating for. And if she does win the nomination, i'll vote for her in a  NY minute.

                  I think it's impossible to ascribe motive to people's comments here, I guess unless one really has tracked a person daily, and can point to a pattern of malicious postings .

                  I think -- just my observation -- HRC's supporters here oughta try to be even 1/5 as thick-skinned as she is. Hillary is masterful at being able to absorb the punches of any detractors, and remain unapologetic, and on message.

                  just sayin -- she could teach a lot of her supporters some lessons about thicker skin.

                  i doubt this will register on your radar screen, but I do think there is too broad a brush applied to those who do not support Hillary. Certainly you'll agree, won't you, that some people have very conscientious views on her, as they do on any and all candidates, as they do on Pelosi, Reid, COnyers et al.

                  The premise of this thread is: Hillary is a DLC candidate.

                  QUESTION: what if she IS? so what? If that IS what she is, why shoud; it bother you?

                  _________________
                  --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                  by rhfactor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:58:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't care if she is DLC. I don't even really (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Caldonia

                    know much about the DLC, and I know the general public could give a flying----.  I do know, however, that on this blog, DLC is a code word for Republican, or some other negative description, and in that sense a diary proclaiming her DLC attributes, whatever they are, is an attempt to degrade her as a viable candidate. And there are many many more negative diaries about her here than there are about Obama, or Edwards.  I can just imagine what would happen if the diaries and efforts to disqualify those two appeared as often as they do for Clinton.  The diarist would be troll rated as fast as you could read it, and a war would break out to beat all wars.  Clinton people pretty much just have to take it.

                    If you look into it long term, Clinton's negatives have gone down, and they are continuing to do so.  I just saw a piece on the television about people not feeling warmly toward her, but believing that she is electible and capable of handling the job.  Her personal negatives are also going down slowly and this is still early.  She has good poll numbers against the republican candidates too.  People such as your relatives are just so propagandized by the republicans after years and years of smearing her, that they have to be worked out of the false impressions they have.

                    If you have been to see Michael Moores, Sicko, he gives a window on how this smear machine started and how well financed it has been.  It started a lot with her attempts to threaten the status quo when she tried to change health care.  The big money machine of the repulican big business, the pharma companies, and insurance companies.  With that type of money and effort to crucify you, is it any wonder that people have some fear.  She has one of the most liberal voting records in congress though, she isn't as scary as all that.  Now if your relatives are republicans, they probably won't be voting for a Dem anyway.  

                    •  the issue isn't gop voting for her -- it's (0+ / 0-)

                      the exponentially destructive partisan war that will emerge if she were to win. I'm not going to repeat my arguments. Last night I spelled them out in full detail re short term fix vs long term leadership. I have nothing against her personally. But she is, as the saying goes, a lightning rod for hate. It is not enough, in my judgment to prevail as the President if a huge swath of people hate her guts -- for roght or wrong it doesn't m,atter, they have ben conditioned by right wing noise machine.

                      but i'm not going to influence you. and you're not going to influence me about her. I'll happily vote for her if she is the nominee. i also believe she might do some short term good, but propel us into an even darker period of partisan anger than we have ever seen/ you don't have to agree. that;s my view though.

                      _________________
                      --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

                      by rhfactor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:27:29 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  Did you ever wonder how cliches were born? (0+ / 0-)

      Has to do with patterns.

      Patterns where there seems to be validity

      Enough repeating of the pattern and soon it can become predictable.

      But stating that the cliche has no relevance because it has become predictable does not nullify the premise of the cliche.

      Just something to ponder when you do the NYT crossword puzzle today

      _________________
      --> YK Photo Portal | Videos | interviews coming soo

      by rhfactor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:05:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The lack of detail on HRC's website (4+ / 0-)

    is somewhat puzzling for the campaign that likes to talk about how detailed and knowledgeable HRC is.  

    Why can't the early states just settle on a primary/caucus calendar?

    by Newsie8200 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:14:02 PM PDT

    •  the diary is false, she has tons of FP detail (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hopscotch1997, masslib, Edgar08

      Dozens of Clinton foreign policy speeches have been pointed out to the diarist, but so far he refuses to edit the diary. The sheer volume of speeches completely undermines the point of the diary: "she hasn't really given much thought to foreign policy issues" and if the diarist bothered to read them most of his other points would evaporate. Hard to say how it could be edited to be accurate at this point, there isn't anything left to it once the false statements are removed.

  •  Of course she is! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chillindame, Tanya, smitha007

    Great post! She is clearly the darling of the DLC, which is just another reason to fear her being elected president of this country. If the Republicans ever figure out how much they have in common with the DLC, this country is truly doomed.

    •  If they ever figure out? BushI spends more time (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smitha007

      with Bill than BushII. they know quite well whaa tthey have in common and it isn't the best interests of the vast majority of americans

      To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men~~ Abraham Lincoln

      by Tanya on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:08:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I will support HRC if she's nominated (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Frank, ademption

    Dennis Kucinich most closely represents the progressive values I hold.  I'm going to support his campaign as long as he's in the race.

    But I will support Hillary Clinton or any of the other current candidates when nomination time comes.

    When HRC spoke at YearlyKos's Leadership Forum, I was impressed with what she she said learned from her 1993-94 press for universal health care.  She earned her stripes during that fight and has the scars to prove it, she said.  HRC will not be beaten on that issue again.

    I welcome the chance to see her proposals on health-care reform.  And I want to know who's on her policy team on health care and other matters.

    We have an impressive roster of candidates for the presidency.  I'll gladly support any one of them.

    Offer me a lemonade and a warm smile when I knock on your door in support of Hillary Rodham Clinton if she gets the Democratic nomination.

    •  Hillary Healthcare--Once Bitten Twice Shy. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lams712

      She won't fight on that issue ever again.

      My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

      by Salo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:36:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you think she changed her mind? (0+ / 0-)

        What evidence do you have that she's lost her appetite for health-care reform?

      •  Then why did she write an amendment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MsSpentyouth

        that would have made most young people under 25 eligible for SCHIP?  She's actually working right now to expand health care.

        I'm a Hillary Democrat.

        by masslib on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:41:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just don't threaten profits of Big Pharma, etc. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          smitha007

          >>>
          ...She's actually working right now to expand health care.
          >>>

          Yeah, right..she'd 'expand' it as long as it didn't cost her the support of all her heavy contributors from the 'healthcare' industry.

          "You go to war and you could lose your heart, your mind, your arms, your legs - but you cannot win. The soldiers don't win." -- Anonymous Soldier

          by aybayb on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:33:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Grow up, that's not true. I didn't hear (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ademption

            Obama or Edwards argue to get rid of the health insurers.  Further, she want's to expand SCHIP by repealing subsidies to private insurance companies under Medicare Part D.  She voted for importation.  She's for Medicare negotiating drug prices.  Obama only recieved about 10k less than Clinton in health care dollars for the primary.  This is just typical of people who make judgements without actually looking at the record.

            I'm a Hillary Democrat.

            by masslib on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:45:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hillary Won't Rock the Boat (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              masslib

              >>>
              Grow up, that's not true. I didn't hear Obama or Edwards argue to get rid of the health insurers.
              >>>

              You are correct.  Of course you didn't hear Obama or Edwards suggesting it...nor have you heard ANY other major party candidate argue for it...EXCEPT Dennis Kucinich.  Once again, the top-tier Democrats are eating at the same trough as they follow the lead of the Republican Party, being careful to include for-profit bloodsuckers in all of their much-ballyhooed 'universal healthcare' plans...they know which side their bread is buttered on...and they know who has the most 'butter'.

              "You go to war and you could lose your heart, your mind, your arms, your legs - but you cannot win. The soldiers don't win." -- Anonymous Soldier

              by aybayb on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:02:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Like I've said before (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosbo, aybayb, Tanya, smitha007, lenzy1000

    Nominate Hillary and the Dems will LOSE in '08.  Others are beginning to think the same:

    WASHINGTON — Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.

    They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

  •  Impending Disaster (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosbo, chillindame, John Poet, smitha007

    A Hillary Clinton nomination would spell d-i-s-a-s-t-e-r...for not only the Democratic Party, but for America as a country.!  Most people posting here realize that fact; but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that those same people would STILL meekly vote for her

    "You go to war and you could lose your heart, your mind, your arms, your legs - but you cannot win. The soldiers don't win." -- Anonymous Soldier

    by aybayb on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:26:57 PM PDT

  •  She is very beatable. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chillindame, smitha007

    Her unfavorable numbers are a major problem for the general election:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    -fink

    Mr. Cheney is arguably the most powerful vice president in American history, and perhaps the most secretive. - NY Times 3/7/07

    by fink on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:44:23 PM PDT

  •  I'm not "some people" (0+ / 0-)

    If this country is going to continue to be FUCKED OVER in significant ways--- uh, let's see, continued significant Iraq presense, etc--- I'd prefer that the REPUBLICANS continue to fuck it over, and that the American people continue to blame the Republicans.

    Hillary is a non-starter.

  •  Clinton is nothing more than an (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smitha007

    insurance policy.

    If elected, she will take token steps which will slow our country's current direction - but will not reverse it.  This means the GOP will not loose ground in their agenda - only have the implementation slowed somewhat.

    It is time to elect DEMOCRATS.  Not DINOs.

    If education is a product of environment, why is opportunity the product of genetics?

    by Johnathan Ivan on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:58:46 PM PDT

  •  Lois wrote: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Frank

    If either Edwards or Obama became the Democratic nominee, those harsh attacks would be used by Republicans.

    Yet Lois and many other commenters in this diary have NO problem issuing harsh attacks against Hillary which would also be used by Republicans.

    I will say one thing for the rabid Hillary haters ... you are hypocrites of the worst kind.

  •  Despite the media's mischaracterization (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LeftyLimblog, randallt

    Clinton is a fluff candidate, plain and simple. No policy proposals, no record of legislation and legislation, just a popular husband and some really terrible positions. If Clinton is the nominee, I'm going to consider Bloomberg. Even Republicans agree, Democrat-Lite goes down a lot easier than Republican-Lite in the absence of the real thing.

  •  Wow (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosbo, smitha007

    Just got home and I think this is your best diary yet. Thanks Psi, glad you're on our side. You would be scary as a Rethug!

  •  Hillary is teh suck! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caldonia, randallt

    Every candidate deserves to be examined and criticized. However, I don't think there is really all that much more to criticize her for than other candidates, if you consider her long record.

    Yet, many diary entries bashing Hillary make it to the recommended list, because the kneejerking about her is just astounding. In a way, that is her biggest problem:  a number of people have a kneejerk reaction to her, which shows in her negatives, which are often higher than for other Democrats.

    Her campaign seems to be very well organized, though, and she has proven herself to be a good campaigner, so if anyone can overcome higher negatives, it is her.

    All the kneejerking is pushing me towards supporting her because I would sure love to see all the naysayers proven wrong.

    Lastly, the use of the DLC in the title is weak. The link presented between Clinton and the DLC seems to be "Clinton sucks. The DLC sucks. Therefore she is the DLC candidate". That's not unusual, though, "DLC" has become a negative adjective here, that is thrown around in error a lot.

    McCain: a few troops short of a surge.

    by Frank on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:47:02 PM PDT

    •  Clinton is listed as a DLC leader (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      andyj2287, smitha007

      on their web site. The connection isn't contrived.

      •  And? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Caldonia, randallt

        Just the other day on the frontpage, Markos posted on how the DLC likes to claim candidates as "theirs". There are / have been other candidates that were DLC members, but they weren't called "DLC candidates".

        If you're going to call someone a "DLC candidate", show a connection between their position papers and their actions, and I'll accept that. But a mere mention on the website or membership is not convincing at all.

        The use of "DLC" on dKos has come to stand for "someone I don't like so I will use 'DLC' as a connection to an evil establishment organization". It has ceased to mean anything useful.

        McCain: a few troops short of a surge.

        by Frank on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:59:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What do you think of Senator Whitehouse? (0+ / 0-)

        One of the most liberal Democrats in the Senate. DLC. How bout Menendez? Very liberal. DLC. How about Spitzer? Reformer, DLC. How about Sebelius? DLC. How about Edwards? Recently DLC. How about Al Gore? Used to be DLC. How about Mark Warner? DLC.

    •  She's got a lot to prove. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      churchylafemme, andyj2287, smitha007

      She had a hand in many of the pre-cursors to the mess we have today and also has a hand directly in the crazy events of today.

      My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

      by Salo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 10:04:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Should this be troll rated? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        smitha007

        It sure sounds like Cheney or Rove is posting here.  Blaming Clinton for Bush's disasters.

        But Salo is for Edward not Bush.  It get a little confusing as they spew the same hate!

        •  go ahead. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          churchylafemme, andyj2287

          I don't think she's Cheney-lite. She's who she is.

          This is an attack from the left. Hate!

          ahahaha...you guys crack me up with the victim act. You call this hate?

          I'll vote for her if she wins mkay. But she's got her hands very dirty in the Middle East.  

          My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

          by Salo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:18:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Turn Your Attention to Congress (0+ / 0-)

    Frankly, we have lost the battle for nominee to Clinton. We need to think less about this than about the conditions under which she will be President.

    We still have a lot of influence on that, and that influence comes from who we put in Congress along with her, especially in the House. This is why we need to turn our attention to Congress and specifically to electing the kind of representatives we need to force a withdrawal from Iraq and make the other changes that we need.

    To do that, we should start to focus more of our efforts on issues where we are clearly differentiated from the DLC. Probably the most important of these is trade and labor policy. This is the point at which we can most reward the Democratic Party base, the working class. It is also a place where we can leverage our alliance with labor to turn many offices to our advantage.

    If you know someone who can run for Congress, then now is the time to sign them up on our Contenders Registry and publicize their candidacy here. We should make sure to run a challenger for every Congressional in the primary next year, regardless of the current occupant.

    Further, much as many people here will roll their eyes, we need to be very friendly to Cindy Sheehan's run for Congress next year. This is a clear way to emphasize our commitment to getting the troops out of Iraq.

    Also, this doesn't mean giving up on the other presidential candidates. I don't plan to stop giving to Edwards, and I may contribute more to Obama and others. Every vote for these people is also a vote for someone who will be on the platform committee at the convention, and also for the VP candidate. It's a place to have our say. But let's not kid ourselves that the race is going our way. Clinton is building up a lead that will be very difficult to overcome before the convention. She may yet stumble, but we can't count on that. We have to make our plans accordingly.

    •  Ehhh.. no (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Liberal Thinking, churchylafemme

      I don't think Kos was on TV taking on the DLC today because he expects this battle's already over.  We aren't going to hide our faces and shame and retire to the congressional races, after a stinging fight in the presidential primary.

      We're going to win this.  The netroots is on the upswing right now, the DLC is nearing extinction.  Historically, if Hillary Clinton won the nomination, it would be an anomaly.  I think we ought to just keep our minds open and see what unfolds in the coming months.

      "It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship"

      by andyj2287 on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:07:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You really think we can supplant the influence of (0+ / 0-)

      GHWBush and his cronies have with the Clintons, then you need to restudy IranContra, BCCI, Iraqgate and CIA drugrunning stories and realize that there would never have BEEN a Bush2, a 9-11 event, or this Iraq war without the extraordinary help in continuing those coverups that Bill Clinton gave to Poppy Bush throughout his presidency.

      Too many Democrats cannot wrap their brains around the FACT that BushInc was at its most vulnerable in Jan 1993 and was able to regroup and grow stronger with Clinton's protection and without the oversight it had been getting from some dogged Democrats working to expose the corruption and maintain pressure on it through open government procedures, some of which have now been closed.

      http://www.consortiumnews.com/...

      •  Oh, I'd Agree With You (0+ / 0-)

        About the problems that Bill Clinton created. I'm not of the opinion that having Hillary win the nomination is a good thing for Democrats or the country.

        However, it looks like she's ahead and we have to be realistic about what that means. The way to use our power is to concentrate on the Congressional elections, the party platform, and the conditions under which she will lead.

        Beyond that, changing the conditions that lead to a Hillary nomination is the only way for us to succeed long term. We have to get busy on it.

        •  TheClintons have enough centrists in Congress to (0+ / 0-)

          to assure that open government will be a quaint notion from long ago.

          I will NOT go along with smiling faces of fascism any more than I will go along with the aggressive fascists we live under now.

  •  Impact of HRC on down ticket races (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smitha007

    If HRC gets the nomination and were to win, does anyone believe the Democrats will pick up more seats in the Senate and House?  

    I fear HRC will be toxic to Democratic candidates for Congress in the South, Southwest, Rocky Mountain and Western states.  We could see the Republicans pick up seats in Senate.

    Then what is achieved?  Even if the Senate stays under Democratic control, we need 60+ Democratic Senators.  With HRC as the nominee, we risk four more years of gridlock as Republican Senators stop HRC from enacting the far reaching legislation on global warming, energy, immigration, civil rights and health care, and block any liberals nominated for the Federal judiciary.

    Think I'm off target?  Read "Democrats quietly fear a backlash from Clinton" at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

    Bill Richardson on CNN 8 days before war: "What's the rush, really? .[Iraq] is a threat, but it's not an immediate threat. .Let's be calm. Let's be patient."

    by Stephen Cassidy on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:57:12 AM PDT

  •  Hillary is a Moderate Republican (0+ / 0-)

    I was amazed to find, after getting distracted last night, that I had to pull this diary from deep down the list this morning. Thanks, Psi, I look forward to Part Two. Why do I sense a battery of Clinton staffers waiting in the wings to pound the diary into a pulp of "Hillary is inevitable?"
    We are at an historic juncture, a rare opportunity to send the Republicans back to the wilderness for 40 more years. Yglesias is correct--Hillary is the worst of both worlds--it is virtually certain that a lot of the damage Bush has done would remain unfixed by the DLC nature of HRC. This is completely NOT personal. It is 15 freakin' years later than1992--can't we do better, a helluva lot better, than another Clinton in the White House? It's time for another FDR! Edwards gets it best--he gets the class war that has been waged against the American middle class for the last 6 (or 25) years. It is imperitive that the progressives DO NOT FALL for the "inevitability" theme.
    We can, we must, do better!

Rebecca, ElitistJohn, JekyllnHyde, Ed in Montana, cdreid, space, Marc in CA, Maccabee, PLS, Night Owl, thinkdouble, Sally in SF, SMucci, teacherken, Adam B, lipris, Liberal Thinking, areucrazy, rhfactor, mickT, Neil Sinhababu, latts, Pen, cosbo, Unstable Isotope, RunawayRose, dengre, Bernhard, anonyMoses, bramish, eeff, xynz, Sandy on Signal, HarveyMilk, theran, Luam, Meandering Fox, voltayre, wild salmon, Walt starr, bumblebums, catchawave, Heart of the Rockies, Eternal Hope, bronte17, RichardG, BlackGriffen, wonkydonkey, back2basics, clarkent, nyceve, whenwego, srkp23, Morague, peace voter, chuckvw, Dante Atkins, roses, ignu, oceanspray, josephk, Nate Roberts, Alna Dem, Yil, danthrax, missliberties, RallyPoint, casperr, brainwave, joemcginnissjr, desmoinesdem, churchylafemme, lizah, chillindame, beachmom, elizm, RebeccaG, lcrp, alizard, TheJohnny, bwintx, Mark Warner is God, randallt, andyj2287, vacantlook, vivadissent, snowbird42, Gorestro, pontechango, greeseyparrot, Brecht, Bluesee, 3goldens, the green and bold cooperative, Alexander G Rubio, blueyedace2, Pym, PBen, andgarden, KnotIookin, snacksandpop, Ranting Roland, Salo, Bouwerie Boy, Bill White, EvilPaula, jimreyn, Inland, annefrank, blue jersey mom, foxglove, Sharon Jumper, The Raven, neroden, Pitin, LithiumCola, JanL, Ekaterin, empathy, Arsenic, Land of Enchantment, CJnyc, martini, kovie, gwilson, Thundergod, Keone Michaels, vigilant meerkat, Distaste for Dissent, sabeke, BlueInARedState, martyc35, kestrel9000, buhdydharma, rsquire, Magnifico, aet, Junior Bug, carolita, play jurist, blueoasis, tecampbell, MJ via Chicago, Tanya, vickie feminist, Data Pimp, Sagebrush Bob, BalkanID, CTLiberal, ER Doc, edgery, Unitary Moonbat, MBNYC, JugOPunch, Persiflage, va dare, Stripe, MarketTrustee,