Hillary - Another reason she's my LAST choice - UPDATE ALREADY

UPDATE ALREADY:  Rather than delete the diary (unless you all think I should?), I've just been notified that she signed.  Thanks for the tip to refresh the page tucsonlynn.

I just read a post over at DU that refers to an ABC News blog post:

Clinton Won't Sign Anti-Torture Pledge

Granted, I think the post should have had a few question marks after that title, since it's not quite a fact - yet - but what could account for her "delay"?  Also, the title isn't quite correct either, since this pledge isn't solely about the torture issue, but maybe they were limited on character space?

From the blog post:

The anti-torture pledge, initiated by the American Freedom Campaign -- a group founded by a coalition of civil-liberties groups and liberal activists -- commits the candidates to disavowing some of the controversial tactics employed by the Bush administration.

"We are Americans, and in our America we do not torture, we do not imprison people without charge or legal remedy, we do not tap people's phones and emails without a court order, and above all we do not give any President unchecked power," the statement reads. "I pledge to fight to protect and defend the Constitution from assault by any President."

The freedom campaign first sent letters to the presidential candidates in August, asking for their pledges. With Sen. Barack Obama's commitment on Tuesday, all of the Democratic candidates except for Clinton have signed off on the commitment.

"We're waiting for it, that she'll be willing to stand up for the Constitution," Steve Fox, a spokesman for the American Freedom Campaign, told ABC News. "Her campaign is well aware of what we’re doing, and that all of the other candidates have signed on."

"We're willing to give the benefit of the doubt for a little while -- not much longer," Fox added. "We're not ready to say Hillary Clinton is against the Constitution, but we’re looking for her to take a strong stand."

I'm a bit baffled.  What the hell is wrong with her?  How hard could signing this letter be?

Apparently she thinks this is not an important issue, or she doesn't like pledges?   Just another reason she's DEAD LAST on my list of Democratic candidates, and at this rate, she isn't doing much to change my mind.

•  Tips? Flames from Hillary supporters?

  That she's tops in many polls makes me cringe.

  by Terre on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:06:50 PM PDT

  •  for being brave

    by icebergslim on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:07:19 PM PDT

  •  Move along, she signed it.

    Sure it would have been better for her to sign it within moments of getting it, but it is done now.

    by tucsonlynn on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:18:27 PM PDT

    •  That was fast!

      I just refreshed the page.  I'll add that.

      by Terre on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:21:25 PM PDT

      •  She read your diary!!

        Hey, I am one of the very few Hillary supporters here, and I was very dismayed to read your diary. as I clicked on the ABC blog post, it reflected the new news.
        Big sigh of relief mixed with why the hell didn't she sign it the day she got it and fedex it back to them dammit...

        by tucsonlynn on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:25:17 PM PDT

        •  Surprised me too

          Both that she was SO slow, and that my diary is already outdated.  LOL

          Actually, I'm supporting Edwards, and was a bit dismayed to see he waited almost a month.

          by Terre on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:27:17 PM PDT

          •  Edwards waited a month?.

            obama signed two days ago? Now Hillary has signed.  So, your point is?

            by Lying eyes on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:13:58 PM PDT

          •  Did Edwards really sign this?

            and above all we do not give any President unchecked power

            Isn't he on record as saying that he would attempt to eliminate Congress's medical coverage until they agree to his health care plan?  Tough stand and all, but when the President exerts that kind of control over the Congress what can't he do?

            by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 04:17:20 PM PDT

    •  It remains amusing to read the comments of

      those supporters arguing she shouldn't go along with the pledge.

      Now that she has . . .

      Images of a tree branch and Hillary holding a saw fill my head. But many apologies, that image is not charitable.

      by Bill White on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:22:14 PM PDT

      •  I have noted before

        the Hillarybots here (which are not all Hillary supporters) are authoritarians.

        They worship popularity. They live to obey.

        Makes up for something, I guess.

        by Smallbottle on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:28:54 PM PDT

    •  Again, had to wait to make a decision?

      on torture?  "roll eyes"

      by icebergslim on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:28:26 PM PDT

      •  Not fair.

        Focus groups take time.

        by chicago jeff on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:33:56 PM PDT

        •  What took Obama so long?

          The group sent out this pledge in August. Obama didn't get back to them until Tuesday.

          by zed on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:39:31 PM PDT

          •  I don't know.

            What took Clinton so long?

            by chicago jeff on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:43:53 PM PDT

            •  Oh.

              So there's no difference then between the two. Glad that's been settled.

              by zed on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:46:22 PM PDT

          •  Isn't all her experience supposed to help her

            lead the way instead of follow?
            It's like Scooby Doo when they say
            "you go first, I'll be right behind you."

            by chicago jeff on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:45:42 PM PDT

    •  Move along, she signed it.

      Well, no, she actually DIDN'T sign it. She only wrote them a letter saying she agrees with the ideals of the pledge. The headline says she "endorses the anti-torture pledge" but has not signed it. And there's no telling if she ever will.

      In a letter to the group sent Thursday afternoon, Clinton writes that she agrees with the statement.

      "To lead, our country must uphold its most fundamental rules and standards," she writes. "The next president must not only possess a clear-eyed assessment of the terrorist threat, but must demonstrate the moral courage to face that threat without forsaking the values which set our Nation apart."

      Technically, Clinton did not sign the pledge. Instead, she sent a letter outlining her principles and broad agreement with the group's stance

      http://blogs.abcnews.com/...

      by William Domingo on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:13:34 PM PDT

      •  Sorry if I misunderstood.

        I just went to the google and checked again. It does say that she and Edwards sent letters endorsing it and that Obama signed it along with the great statement that Bill White pointed out.

        by tucsonlynn on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 04:34:19 PM PDT

  •  She's afraid of losing

    the 'pro-torture' vote?

    by John Poet on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:22:06 PM PDT

•  She changed her mind again.

  Now she doesn't want the authority to torture people.

  Maybe she means it this time.

  by Geekesque on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:09:47 PM PDT

  •  She is the biggest

    vacumn of nothing and follower in this campaign cycle.  Really, she is.

    by icebergslim on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:10:30 PM PDT

    •  Ready for change, ready to lead.

      Ready to torture?  Let me get back to you.

      by Geekesque on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:11:29 PM PDT

      •  And they questioned my motives

        This morning, when I commented that a big open questions was whether Hillary would voluntary renounce any - any - of Bush's Unitary Executive powers.

        I think it's a fair question.

        by The Raven on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:15:09 PM PDT

        •  Oh, it's absolutely a fair question. eom

          by Geekesque on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:15:44 PM PDT

          •  Actually, it is THE MOST IMPORTANT question

            IMHO, as always.

            by Bill White on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:19:44 PM PDT

            •  Another very important

              pledge she should take would be to keep Dean on [if he so wishes]

              by dfarrah on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 05:00:26 PM PDT

        •  OK, despite my recent pro-Hillary mood...

          I'll agree that I don't have confidence that she will renounce the imperial powers Bush has amassed at the White House.  But you know what - I don't have confidence in any of them to do that.

          The only person I would have confidence in doing that would have been Gore.

          So, how about if we're going to go on getting them to pledge things, we get them to pledge to reverse these powers and restore the balance of power?

          That's a pledge I would get excited about.

          by zed on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:26:55 PM PDT

        •  it's a very fair question

          more than fair. I hope every democratic candidate answers that question.

          by isis2 on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:30:39 PM PDT

        •  Well, as Bush shows, "renouncing" doesn't mean

          stopping: he told us he was obeying the law McCain sponsored but kept on torturing.

           

          by Inland on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 05:30:06 PM PDT

      •  LOL!!

        yes, her message has changed what?  3/4 times?  yes, we are ready for change.  and it is not her.

        by icebergslim on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:18:18 PM PDT

        •  She left out the ellipsis.

          Ready for my position to change, ready for someone else to lead.

          by Geekesque on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:20:57 PM PDT

  •  She's just being pragmatic.

    Like she was on Iraq.

    by chicago jeff on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:37:00 PM PDT

•  she hasn't 'polled' it yet...

  ...and/or her puppetmaster hasn't told her how she really feels yet....that would be my guess...

  

  or, a cynic might suggest she doesn't want to piss off alan dershowitz---maybe he would be her supreme court pick---he LOVVEESSSS the torture.

  by james risser on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:13:36 PM PDT

  •  There's a microtrend in her campaign

    against torture.

    by chicago jeff on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:38:10 PM PDT

    •  you mean 'for torture' i think...

      ....she is going for the pro-torture of muslims wing of certain elements of her interest groups.

      by james risser on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:11:46 PM PDT

      •  For and against, depending on

        undisclosed hypotheticals.

        by chicago jeff on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 05:14:05 PM PDT

•  Hillary agreed (sort of) to the pledge

  by Bill White on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:15:18 PM PDT

  •  She did not sign it.

    by icebergslim on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:17:21 PM PDT

•  Fundamental concern

  The policy of containing evil has been an American principle since WW2. Dem, Gop, whatever. Until Bush launched his criminal invasion, containment kept us safe. From Russia.From China. From Hussein.

  Hillary has made it clear that possessing WMDs is justification for invasion. That's Bush policy, not American policy.

  For this reason alone she cannot be allowed to become president. There are many others, but for me this is an absolute cause to reject her.

  by MakeChessNotWar on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:17:05 PM PDT

  •  Actually you're wrong

    Whether possession of WMD's by, say, Iraq constitute grounds for invasion is a debatable topic, however, it has no connection with Bush's policy.
    Bush's policy was to invade because he could, and because he wanted to. Nothing else.

    by BoringDem on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:20:29 PM PDT

    •  Actually, you are also wrong

      The Iraq invasion was a collective failure of WASHINGTON DC not merely the Bush Administration.

      Figuring out how and why that happened is mission critical for America's vital interests going forward.

      Add in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and FISA and so on and its a HUGE problem that merely changing the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will not fix.

      by Bill White on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:25:37 PM PDT

      •  I was responding to one particular point

        and I stand by my position there. You did not correct me, so you can't say I'm wrong. Pfft.
        I do agree with your general sentiment though.

        by BoringDem on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:27:14 PM PDT

•  Obama still has the most powerful statement

  on all this:

  The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security. We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer - it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration's approach.  

  Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them.

  Torture is how you get bad information, not good intelligence.

  Torture is how you set back America's standing in the world, not how you strengthen it.

  It's time to tell the world that America rejects torture without exception or equivocation.

  It's time to stop telling the American people one thing in public while doing something else in the shadows. No more secret authorization of methods like simulated drowning.

  When I am president America will once again be the country that stands up to these deplorable tactics. When I am president we won't work in secret to avoid honoring our laws and Constitution, we will be straight with the American people and true to our values.

  Succinct, elegant, eloquent and dead spot on.

  by Bill White on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:18:39 PM PDT

  •  Obama responded on Tuesday.

    The pledge was sent out in August.  Obama hadn't responded untill Tuesday, Clinton repsonds today.

    So Obama was a whole two days in ahead in responding and now all our candidates have.

    by zed on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:23:49 PM PDT

    •  His statement today (see quote)

      matters far more to me than the pledge.

      But Team Hillary should have known that once Obama signed on Tuesday, Hillary signing was inevitable.

      Heh! There is that word, again.

      by Bill White on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:27:10 PM PDT

•  re: Clinton Won't Sign Anti-Torture Pledge

  headline, with a smaller hidden in the paragraph disclaimer "it's not quite a fact - yet".

  Talk about sneaky and grasping for straws..

  by phoenixdreamz on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:23:03 PM PDT

•  I recommend everyone read the ABC article

  which is linked. I just looked at it, and frankly, I'm astounded that an ANTI-hillary diary has been made out of this. As far as I'm concerned, this story shows her in a very positive light. I'm quite impressed with her renouncement of endorsing hypothetical "ticking time bomb" torture scenarios.

  Thank you for giving me another reason to support Hillary. By the way, what is Obama's position on the Webb amendment? Does he have one?

  by BoringDem on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:24:49 PM PDT

  •  Well, she just signed it

    So, does that change your feeling about her?

    by Terre on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:30:42 PM PDT

    •  not at all. I'm not surprised in the least

      The whole "Hillary is a moral monster" meme really isn't going anywhere. She has excellent values.

      by BoringDem on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:34:08 PM PDT

      •  My goodness

        I'm not crazy about her, but I certainly wouldn't go quite as far as calling her a "moral monster".  I must have missed those comments.

        by Terre on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:41:02 PM PDT

        •  That's the subtext of a lot of diaries

          Not necessarily yours.
          But "why on earth won't she renounce torture?" is a bit too much, IMO.

          by BoringDem on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 04:07:59 PM PDT

          •  I didn't say that either

            if that's what you meant.  I actually said that the pledge letter wasn't specifically about the torture issue, even though the ABC News blog post titled it that way.

            by Terre on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 04:12:06 PM PDT

•  Might as well delete this diary

  to save embarrassment, and to help your candidate.

  by BoringDem on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:26:09 PM PDT

  •  I'm not embarrassed

    If enough kossacks think I should, I will.  I hate diaries that mysteriously disappear, and I imagine it'll drop quickly down the list.

    by Terre on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:32:44 PM PDT

    •  The topic is fine, and I appreciate the

      attention your drawing to Hillary's  clearer statements on torture. The "ticking time bomb" argument has been used a lot, and it can be quite compelling. I'm glad she has renounced it.

      by BoringDem on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:35:32 PM PDT

    •  perhaps you could change your

      headline:  All Dems Denounce Torture but I still hate Hillary.

      by Lying eyes on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:19:51 PM PDT

      •  Well, that wouldn't have worked either

        at least at the time I posted, and I don't "hate" Hillary, I just don't support her.

        by Terre on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 04:15:03 PM PDT

        •  Which begs the question:

          why did you insist on leaving this up when your premise was refuted?

          by Lying eyes on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 04:58:03 PM PDT

          •  Because no one made an issue

            of me deleting it, and I asked whether I should, more than once.  I didn't "insist" on keeping it up.

            When I originally posted it, she had not yet signed.  The fact that she did AFTER I posted, and that she was the last one to sign, was news in itself - albeit changing the original story a bit.

            And finally, it's now just about ready to drop off the Recent List (if it hasn't already), so there's no point in deleting it now.

            by Terre on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 05:27:02 PM PDT

            •  "a bit" indeed.

              by Lying eyes on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 05:31:00 PM PDT

              •  She was the LAST one to sign

                and Obama wasn't much better.  Not my fault the timing of her signed pledge happened minutes after I posted.  

                She's the one that waited till the last minute, and I could have diaried about that instead, but it didn't work out that way - obviously.

                by Terre on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 06:03:01 PM PDT

                •  Damn. With so much time

                  on her hands I can't imagine why she didn't coordinate her timing with your posting.  

                  by Lying eyes on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 06:07:35 PM PDT

                  •  Geeze

                    She had 7 weeks for pete's sake, whether I posted about it or not.

                    Enough with the sarcasm already.

                    by Terre on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 06:22:00 PM PDT

  •  BTW, would that be Boring, Oregon?

    Just curious.  :o)

    by Terre on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:33:43 PM PDT

  •  Do not delete

    just saying . . .

    by Bill White on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:02:43 PM PDT

•  Consider this

  Hillary is not stupid, she considered her decision and gave it.
  Did the others ?

  by langerdang on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:30:46 PM PDT

  •  Actually, Obama considered his position

    and gave it.

    Clinton considered Obama's position
    and used it.

    by chicago jeff on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:42:30 PM PDT

    •  Politics

      I like the diversity of the Democratic candidates.Obama is indeed brilliant and my opinion of him has changed in the last few weeks. I like him but prefer Hillary.
      Come what will the Democrats have the best people to do the job.
      J,H or B. this is major league quality unlike the repugs and what they have to offer.

      by langerdang on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:59:01 PM PDT

    •  Didn't Hillary

      denounce torture in the last debate?

      by cpresley on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:27:48 PM PDT

•  Or...

  she considered waiting until Obama signed it before she did. Just like she wouldn't vote on Iraq funding until he did.

  The thing's beeen around since August and I suppose it's just a real large coincidence she finally takes a position two days after Obama.

  by RIP Russ on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:37:32 PM PDT

•  Bah.

  They sent that out in August. Candidates probably get a lot of petitions like these, since groups try to use election season to get candidates to make statements for their cause.

  The pledge disappeared into a pile in both the Obama and Clinton offices. For some reason, someone at the Obama office dug it up, and it was decided that signing it was good and additionally, it would provide the usual "Why hasn't my opponent done X yet" (also known was "Will my opponent join me in doing X").

  The Clinton campaign noticed this, and reacted. And that would be the end of the story.

  by Frank on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:48:02 PM PDT

  •  Then their staffs need to clean up their act

    A little error, like leaving something relatively important in their revolving inbox, is something to be avoided.

    by Terre on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:03:14 PM PDT

•  Luckily

  she doesn't need your vote. She already has a commanding lead according to the WaPo poll. In fact, what was interesting about that poll was that it discounts the "high negatives" meme that's been rolling around dkos for a while. here negatives are not especially high. But interestingly, they are lower than Guliani's.

  by Batfish on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:16:00 PM PDT

  •  I hope you're volunteering

    Luckily she doesn't need your vote. She already has a commanding lead according to the WaPo poll.

    for Hillary's GOTV.

    This is a great pitch, door to door.

    by Smallbottle on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:26:49 PM PDT

    •  I rarely volunteer

      for anything. But that doesn't alter the fact that she doesn't need your vote. 53% of Democrats is enough. You can sit back now and take it easy.

      by Batfish on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 04:01:21 PM PDT

•  Extreme Hillary hate alert.

  God this is bs.

  by otto vb vs on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:51:29 PM PDT

•  Let me ask: why do you feel no compunction

  to either delete or edit this diary? Why do you need other Kossacks to tell you what to do? Can you not think for yourself as to whether this is an honest diary?

  If you cannot decide whether it's the morally right thing to do, you have no right to judge Hillary's morals or judgement. Funny how you're pandering to group morally, when so many here are accusing Hillary of the same.

  Typical. I wouldn't expect anything less.

  by John Campanelli on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 05:11:46 PM PDT