Skip to main content

When trying to maintain your membership in the exclusive Liberal club, it isn't exactly a good idea to criticize the current party darling, Hillary Clinton, but I'm going to do it anyway. I have a ton of concerns about her both as a candidate and as a president. Is she right for this country, or is there a better liberal/progressive out there that will be better?

Over the weekend, Clinton gave an interview to The Atlantic, in which she criticized the Obama Administration for failing to arm the Syrian rebels. This has led to some calling her a neocon. That's not a nice word to be associated with, especially if you're supposedly a democrat. You'll all remember who the last neocon to take office was, and that didn't work out so well.

I'm not sure that the label matters so much, it's what she said that worries me.

“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.”
Remember Osama bin Laden? We gave him guns in the 1980s when we were worried about communism. Once the war was over, he turned them against us. We gave Iraq military support when they were fighting Iran (well at least one of the times they were fighting Iran). We've went to war against that country twice (and it looks like we might have to go back).

I'm not a complete isolationist, though the idea has some appeal. I am, however, a historian who considers history cyclical in many ways, and it doesn't seem like a grand idea to give anyone in the middle east weapons, even if it could help them defeat a royal douche like Assad. What happens when they do defeat him? Are they going to be our friends and allies? I mean that did work out once, we gave Great Britain arms in World War II and they are closer to us now than they were before the war. But I don't think the Syrian rebels are the same, and the outcome is likely to be one we didn't foresee.

The point of it all isn't really about this one specific case. What we should take away from this is that Hillary is a hawk, and that maybe isn't what we need right now. President Obama has done an incredible job of keeping us out of another war. There have been several occasions where he, had he been neocon/hawk/any republican, could have sent American troops into battle (Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Ukraine). He didn't. While I think he enjoys drones a little too much, it's hard from a "keep our troops at home" stance, to criticize him for his foreign policy.

Let's ask ourselves a question. If Hillary had been president during those crises, would she have had the will power or willingness to stick to sanctions, drones, and diplomacy? That's the question, and I'm worried about the answer.

I think that Hillary will be fine domestically, should she become president after the 2016 campaign. I don't think she's a perfect democrat by any means, but her husband wasn't perfect either and he did just fine in the end. But I think we liberals get confused a bit when it comes to Hillary. She is not her husband. She's a strong and clearly opinionated woman (which is fantastic), and she won't be toeing her husband's party line. The question we, as democrats, need to ask ourselves is, is she really right for America or would there be a better choice?

A friend and I discuss Hillary in detail in this podcast, you might find it interesting.

Poll

Is Hillary Right for America?

18%20 votes
63%69 votes
7%8 votes
4%5 votes
6%7 votes

| 109 votes | Vote | Results

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

  •  Who do you want ? (9+ / 0-)

    Put up some names .
    Don't just do the negative thing that so many have done before .

    "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

    by indycam on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:21:40 AM PDT

    •  We've all heard the names before... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CIndyCasella, Sunspots, Max Udargo

      Liz Warren is by far my favorite, though I suspect that she's too lefty to get elected to the White House.

    •  Martin O'Malley (12+ / 0-)

      Successful governing as a progressive. He's brought real technological innovation to government to improve performance. He's funny. He's only 51. He's a good speaker who connects well with his audience. He's not acerbic, but rather firm and passionate, yet self-deprecating.

      Listen to any of his speeches on Youtube. You won't find an Obama-level orator, but you will find someone comfortable and confident with the audience and with himself.

      Of the almost 1,900 dead Palestinians, the IDF said it killed "900 terrorists" in Gaza. Add that to its long list of lies.

      by pajoly on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:48:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  e.g Martin O'Malley (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, marina, Portlaw

      KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

      by fcvaguy on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:49:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is my problem with anti-Hillaryites (8+ / 0-)

      There just isn't anyone else IMO who is clearly better.

      Warren is great on the issues but I've got questions about her ability and interest to actually run the government.  O'Malley is a bland guy with little charisma.  Yes he takes liberal positions, but I don't see anything to suggest he would actually shift away from the Washington/Wall Street consensus.  Brian Schweitzer is a douchebag.  Andrew Cuomo is even worse.  Deval Patrick would probably be the best of the likely choices, won't run, and could lose the general if he did.  Sherrod Brown is probably too abrasive to win the primary.  Tammy Baldwin is not ready (I think she may make a wonderful option in 2020 or 2024).  

      I'd prefer Obama for a third term over all of these options (including Hillary). The Dem bench leaves a lot to be desired.

      If you refuse to vote for the Democrat in a Presidential general election, then I hold you personally responsible for any right-wing Supreme Court decision.

      by USA629 on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:51:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's true... (0+ / 0-)

        that the bench isn't deep, but we didn't see Obama coming in 2008, so we might be surprised, though I expect that it is already too late for this election cycle. That's why it seems like Hillary has it wrapped up.

        •  We saw Obama at this time in (0+ / 0-)

          the respective point in the 08 cycle. It's a myth that no one saw him as at least a potential challenger to front runner HRC at this point.

          •  2004 (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dr Swig Mcjigger

            He didn't come on the scene nationally until 2004 when he gave his famous speech. The last convention we had (2012) would have been the last time we could have had a candidate take a similar path to PBO. Which is why I said it might be too late for a candidate to come out of that path.

            •  Has anybody mentioned (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BlueKing

              Steve Beshear, Governor of Kentucky as a possibility?

              I don't know all that much about him, but the things I know about I like a lot.

              The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any. -Alice Walker

              by LibrErica on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 12:36:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

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

                He's 71 years old, supported a creationist museum and supports the anti-gay law in Kentucky.  That's fine for someone in Kentucky, especially given how well he administered Kynect, but he's too conservative for a President.

                If you refuse to vote for the Democrat in a Presidential general election, then I hold you personally responsible for any right-wing Supreme Court decision.

                by USA629 on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 03:17:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh, he looked younger in the picture I saw of him (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  USA629

                  And I can't support someone who doesn't support equal protection under the law, so being anti-LGBTQ tanks him.

                  All I really knew was that he implemented the ACA pretty successfully. Thanks for the info.

                  The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any. -Alice Walker

                  by LibrErica on Wed Aug 13, 2014 at 10:15:19 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  O'Malley has more charisma than Hillary. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlueKing, k9disc, native, marina

        He has gotten a great reception in Iowa during his trips there. He's an actual rock star too since he is a lead singer in a band.

        O'Malley has years of executive experience and he has a long list of progressive accomplishments to run. Hillary has campaign promises.

        Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

        by askew on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:59:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He also botched the rollout of HCR... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus, Dr Swig Mcjigger

          ...despite everything in his favor.  That's going to sting.

          It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

          by Rich in PA on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:25:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No one is going to care about that after (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Just Bob

            a successful enrollment this year.

            This is much more exciting news from Maryland on health care and worth following:

            Through innovative methods and a data-centric approach, Western Maryland Regional Medical Center, has become the cornerstone in Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley's ambitious makeover of the state's healthcare programs.

            The facility, which is located in a far corner of the state, has managed to strike the elusive balance of cutting costs and improving the quality of patient care — all while improving access to preventative care and the relative health of the community. Specifically, the facility has served as a showcase for O'Malley's plan to reduce preventable hospitalizations throughout Maryland.

            Jo Wilson, the vice president of operations at the hospital, said last week that there had been a 21% year-over-year reduction in admissions, helping to contribute to an overall 11.5% decrease in preventable hospitalizations per 100,000 Marylanders between 2011 and 2013. That decrease exceeds O'Malley's goal of a 10% reduction by the end of next year.

            At the same time, since November, the hospital has saved $3.5 million in costs. A new clinical center has saved patients approximately $1.4 million.

            Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

            by askew on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:58:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Hillary botched hcr in Bill's administration. (0+ / 0-)
            •  She didn't botch anything................ (0+ / 0-)

              She was amazing in her knowledge and advocacy.  I'll never forget how she took a congressional committee to school and pissed off the chairman whose name escapes me at the moment.  Anyway, the country wasn't ready.  It had to experience years more health care horrors to even consider government intervention.  

              Proud to be a Democrat

              by Lying eyes on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 02:41:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  There are countless politicians who would do (5+ / 0-)

        a much better job than Hillary. They just don't have the backing of the Party establishment.

        “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

        by 420 forever on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:00:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Name them (0+ / 0-)

          Remember that for me, electability and ability to govern is a requirement.  If you want to give me some unqualified nut job and say they would be better than Hillary, then I don't have time for that.

          If you refuse to vote for the Democrat in a Presidential general election, then I hold you personally responsible for any right-wing Supreme Court decision.

          by USA629 on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 11:45:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There is no way to prove electability until (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BlueKing, 420 forever

            the election is run. Using that as a criteria is silly. And if you use ability to govern then Hillary should be at the bottom of your list. She's never run an executive branch. She's worked for Obama as SoS and was a backbencher Senator for 8 years who has nothing to show for her time in the Senate outside of naming some post offices.

            If you look at managerial experience, her campaigns were poorly run disasters. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

            Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

            by askew on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 12:00:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  lol - that's the point, (0+ / 0-)

          if you don't have the party establishment you don't become the nominee.  And I don't agree there are "countless politician" who have the knowledge and expertise and experience to do a better job than a former first lady, Senator and Secretary of State.

          Proud to be a Democrat

          by Lying eyes on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 02:44:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Hillary talked about obliterating Iran. She is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FakeNews, Portlaw

        basically Netanyahu's mouthpiece.  Enough killing.  It would be nice to have candidates free of the sword of AIPAC and the MIC, who could get our country back on track.  

        Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

        by CIndyCasella on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:17:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hillary hints demonstrators are anti-semitic (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FakeNews, Odysseus

          who are appalled at what Israel has done to the Gazans, killing over 2,000 people and destroying their water supply, electricity, homes, schools, etc.

          Hillary Clinton:

          "....we do see this enormous international reaction against Israel, and Israel’s right to defend itself, and the way Israel has to defend itself. This reaction is uncalled for and unfair.”

          She went on, “You can’t ever discount anti-Semitism, especially with what’s going on in Europe today. There are more demonstrations against Israel by an exponential amount than there are against Russia seizing part of Ukraine and shooting down a civilian airliner. So there’s something else at work here than what you see on TV."

          Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

          by CIndyCasella on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:33:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Lots of them are anti Semitic (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lying eyes

            waving Nazi flags will do that to you.

            •  Where are the Nazi flags? In the closets of the (0+ / 0-)

              thugs the neocons put in place in Ukraine?  Oh, just give it a rest.

              Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

              by CIndyCasella on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 02:28:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  on the news (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Lying eyes

                All over the globe.
                Please pull your head from your ass for a change.

                •  Not in Boston. Show the photos. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ginny in CO

                  Provide a link.  

                  Your language speaks for your ability to debate respectfully.  

                  Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

                  by CIndyCasella on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 02:39:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Boston being the sum total of what happens in the (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Lying eyes

                    world, right? Or is it all a media conspiracy?

                    •  Well, I haven't seen these signs, but (0+ / 0-)

                      I do know that the photos of a statue tumbling down in Iraq was pretty much staged.  I also was present at a protest in Boston during which a goon harassed peace protesters, and when he upset a guy by smashing into his girlfriend, a photographer took the photo in such a way as to not include the goon, but have it framed to look like the protester was yelling at a pretty girl holding a sign in favor of the war.  I saw that with my own eyes.

                      It's also well known that during the Viet Nam war there were agent provocateurs in the crowd acting up to make the peaceniks look bad.

                      Give me a link to see the Nazis.

                      You still have not provided me with any evidence.

                      However, even if some Nazis were seen in the protests, it's illogical to assume that all the protesters were Nazis.

                      Grasping at straws here.

                      Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

                      by CIndyCasella on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 03:06:43 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Where did I ever claim this? (0+ / 0-)
                        However, even if some Nazis were seen in the protests, it's illogical to assume that all the protesters were Nazis.
                        I never made that claim. I claimed, accurately, unless 100% of all media outlets, foreign and American are engaged in a giant conspiracy (let by you know who!), that Nazi flags have appeared at pro Palestinian rallies.
        •  She talked about that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bill W, Lying eyes

          IF Iran nuked Israel first. Do you think Iran should get a free nuke shot at Tel Aviv?

          •  That whole narrative about Iran nuking (0+ / 0-)

            Israel is a bunch of bunk like Saddam was behind 9/11 & shopping for yellow cake in Niger, and we are all sick of the neocon fear mongering lies to start wars to reduce the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) list of countries to rubble.

            Talking about obliterating a country is nuts.  

            Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

            by CIndyCasella on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 02:21:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No it isn't (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lying eyes

              Iran has a nuclear program and to date refuses to comply with the NPT, which it is a party to. They have in the past threatened to level Israeli cities. Whether they can do so remains to be seen. I rather doubt it, but that's the whole point of these negotiations, to make sure they never have the capacity to do so, at least not with a nuclear weapon. The question to which Clinton responsnded was a hypothetical, the kind that candidates for President get all the time. Her response was totally ration. She said if Iran did that, they know that we can oblitatate them. In other words, she was talking about the deterrent value of knowing that there will be overwhelming retaliation in kind. Most sane people have no problem with this.
              You however, still don't answer the question as to whether it would be ok to nuke Tel Aviv and not pay a price. Why is that?

              •  All of this is propaganda. No links, just (0+ / 0-)

                talking points from the think tanks that lied us into one war after another.

                Her response was completely off the wall.  I'm not alone in thinking that her heartlessly saying "obliterate" an entire country was a deal breaker for many of us to ever vote for her.  

                Hypothetical questions?  A good leader doesn't answer them.  That crazy question in and of itself is an indication of how biased our bought and paid for news media is.

                I'm not answering your paranoid question either, no matter how much you swear at me, insult me, or act like an aggressive bully.  

                No one is afraid of these ad hom attacks any more or these ridiculous litmus tests.  

                Hillary's behind the curve by saying these outlandish things to placate the war hungry extremists.  It's 2014, and we are sick of these wars based on lies and hypothetical fear mongering.

                Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

                by CIndyCasella on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 02:49:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Of all the carnards that's the biggest. (0+ / 0-)

          What she said was Iran knew they'd be obliterated if they used a nuclear weapon and that's just a statement of fact.  I'd go further and say any country which used a nuclear weapon against the US or its allies would be obliterated.  That an obvious reality.

          Proud to be a Democrat

          by Lying eyes on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 02:48:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The trick isn't to dis people . (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LibrErica

        The trick is to find a person or persons to support .
        Try to find someone to support , put your energy / effort into that .

        "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

        by indycam on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:25:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  'bout covers it. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        USA629

        Come together and we'll win with Hillary and eventually   have a Supreme Court which can reverse some of the horrors of rightwing rule.    Of course some here will be unhappy but they are always unhappy.  Bless their pure little hearts.

        Proud to be a Democrat

        by Lying eyes on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 02:31:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  hannah mentioned Biden. I could actually vote (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BlueKing, Richard Villiers

      for a Progressive Biden - not beholden to credit card companies and whatnot, from Delaware and all - if he came out with some Harry Truman, or even Eisenhower, I'd consider voting for him

      If he nominates a LIEberman type and runs DLC he might lose me, but I don't really think that's his style.

      Biden or Warren.

      Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

      by k9disc on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:52:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  People have been supplying names for ages now (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BlueKing, k9disc, native, blackhand

      on this blog and Hillary supporters keep ignoring them and then asking for names.

      Martin O'Malley
      Deval Patrick
      Elizabeth Warren

      are all viable alternatives to Hillary and O'Malley is definitely running.

      Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

      by askew on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:57:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nice sig line you got there . (0+ / 0-)
        People have been supplying names for ages now on this blog and Hillary supporters keep ignoring them and then asking for names.
        I asked the person who wrote this diary for names . I did not ignore names put forward by others . There is a big difference between those .
         

        "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

        by indycam on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:21:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My sig is a reminder of what is wrong with Hillary (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FakeNews, Just Bob, Portlaw, pigpaste

          in a nutshell. Any other politician would have been laughed out of politics after engaging in a whopper of a lie like Hillary did. She made up some insane story about dodging sniper fire when in fact she was greeted by a young girl with flowers on the tarmac. Sinbad was the first person to call her out on that lie. The media, many of whom were on the trip, said nothing as she repeated that lie over and over again.

          What was Team Hillary's response to getting caught in a lie, to attack Sinbad and say Hillary was tired.

          Her inability to take responsiblity for her mistakes and her bizarre need to lie about stupid crap to make her look tough are reasons she doesn't have the character to be president.

          And in every Hillary diary we get the same nonsense that we saw in 2006. Demand a list of potential rivals to Hillary and then attack them when named. It gets old.

          Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

          by askew on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:37:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Deval Patrick. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dr Swig Mcjigger

        Do you WANT the Republicans to win?

    •  Look, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BlueKing

      I'm as intolerantly dogmatic as the next guy, but we should probably allow a little space on the internet for somebody to criticize a candidate without dismissing his objections because she is the only politically expedient candidate.

      I don't think BlueKing has to justify valid criticism by proposing a viable alternative. If Clinton is our only option, that doesn't make her suddenly perfect, or beyond criticism. That's not supposed to be how members of the reality-based community look at things.

      I like Hillary. I like her for the same reason I liked her husband: because she plays for my team and she wins. But we liberals are supposed to stand for a set of values, and neither of the Clintons are paragons of liberal ideology.

      We've all agreed to overlook the indisputable fact that Bill Clinton is an unrepentant, serial perpetrator of sexual assault. We do that because he's so good at kicking Republican ass. And we do that at the cost of our integrity. But we all have apparently collectively agreed it is a price we're willing to pay.

      So now we're supposed to afford his wife the same immunity? I'm not aware Hillary Clinton has done anything in her personal life as repugnant as her husband - although she's been actively complicit in his refusal to acknowledge his crimes - but her tendency toward a neoconservative ideology is more relevant to her role as a presidential candidate, and could affect a lot more lives.

      I expect Hillary to run and to get the Democratic nomination, and then I expect to vote for her. But I don't see why we would want to pretend she's beyond criticism, or why we would want her to be comfortable in the belief we will support her no matter what positions she takes.

      •  Um, Bill Clinton is what...? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dr Swig Mcjigger

        Next, you'll be saying that we've been overlooking Obama's lack of US citizenship because he's such an inspiring leader?

        •  Wow. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BlueKing

          Maybe this isn't such a "reality-based" community after all.

          •  Do you also think... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lying eyes, Dr Swig Mcjigger

            ...Bill and Hillary had Vince Foster and Ron Brown whacked?

            •  lol - Doesn't everyone? nt (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dr Swig Mcjigger

              Proud to be a Democrat

              by Lying eyes on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 03:03:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Of course not. (0+ / 0-)

              Those are crazy, baseless conspiracy theories, like the allegations that Obama was born in Kenya.

              Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey both accused Bill Clinton of behavior that was clearly sexual assault. In fact, after Willey appeared on 60 Minutes, NOW president Patricia Ireland said, ""It's not just sexual harassment. If it's true, it's sexual assault."

              Is Patricia Ireland part of some crazy, right-wing conspiracy? Was Kathleen Willey, who was an ardent Clinton supporter?

              I know the accusations these women made were exploited by Clinton's enemies, but that doesn't mean the accusations aren't true or meaningful. And I know there were questions raised about the veracity of the two women's accounts, but if we weren't defending The Big Dog, wouldn't we be angry about that? Have we ever been willing to make so many excuses for any other man accused of sexual assault?

              Dismissing such allegations against a man who was obviously capable of grossly irresponsible sexual behavior is not intellectually honest.

              •  None of those allegations were close to (0+ / 0-)

                being proven.
                Willey's in particulary was pretty much debunked.

                In fact, after Willey appeared on 60 Minutes, NOW president Patricia Ireland said, ""It's not just sexual harassment. If it's true, it's sexual assault."
                This is right after. IF true. No evidence was ever produced to support it and subsequently, Willey's credibilty took many hits.  And what does true OR meaninful mean? If they aren't true they aren't meaningful.
                •  You're illustrating my point. (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm not sure what evidence Willey was supposed to present to support a groping that took place when she was alone with the president. I'd be curious to see any links you have that support the assertion that her story was "pretty much debunked."

                  I don't believe Willey ever formally charged Clinton with anything, as her story got entangled in Ken Starr's idiotic investigation.

                  After Clinton failed to quash her civil suit on the basis that he couldn't be sued while he was president, he was finally able to defeat her suit by arguing that she had suffered no material damages. He was famously videotaped celebrating this victory with a room full of male staffers by smoking a cigar and banging on a bongo drum.

                  Nevertheless, he eventually made it all go away by settling with Jones, reportedly giving her $850,000.

                  But we refuse to see this as a story of a powerful man using his influence, wealth, and a battery of lawyers to squash some woman who claimed he had used his position as Governor of Arkansas to secret her into a room where he dropped his pants and instructed her to suck his dick.

                  According to the Washington Post, Clinton's lawyers dug into her professional and personal past looking for things to use to discredit her. Here's an excerpt:

                  Venturing into more salacious territory, they interviewed as many as a half-dozen men who claimed to have had sex with her, including some who said they met her casually at parties or bars and then engaged in quick encounters, according to people close to the case. One former boss signed an affidavit alleging that she pursued him at work and that they slept together. After their short-lived relationship ended, he fired her -- in part, he said, because she dressed too provocatively.
                  How is this legal strategy any different than the typical effort to shame and discredit the woman making accusations?

                  But forget all that. Because Bill Clinton was a man of great personal discipline who would never lie about anything. I guess.

                  •  The third paragraph is meant to reference (0+ / 0-)

                    the lawsuit brought by Paula Jones.

                  •  What is your point? (0+ / 0-)

                    Other than you like spewing discredited right wing garbage?

                    In an allegation like Willey's, any evidence would be her own testimony, which in her case proved to be worthless.
                    For example:
                     T

                    he problems began on October 2, 1998, when Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr conducted his high-profile “document dump.” (This was a major news event.) Included was the grand jury testimony of Linda Tripp, who worked with Willey in the Clinton White House. In the course of her lengthy interviews before the grand jury, Tripp was repeatedly questioned about Willey’s relationship with President Clinton. And, as her transcripts made abundantly clear, Tripp substantially contradicted the story Willey told on 60 Minutes.
                    A
                    ccording to Tripp’s detailed, sworn testimony, Willey pursued a romance with Clinton right from the start of her White House employment. Willey had speculated with Tripp as to how she might be able to set up an assignation between herself and the president. She routinely attended events at which Clinton would be present, wearing a black dress she believed he liked. According to Tripp’s testimony, she wondered if she and Clinton could arrange to meet in a home to which she had access along the Chesapeake Ba
                    y.

                    This is Linda Tripp, for God's sake. The woman who hated Clinton and helped get the Lewinsky ball rolling. What is her motive to lie?http://www.dailyhowler.com/...

                    Then there's Robert Ray's office, which found her to have lied under oath on multiple occasions:

                    he Final Report of the U.S. Office of the Independent Counsel report noted that "Willey and President Clinton are the only direct witnesses to their meeting, and their accounts differ substantially on the crucial facts of what occurred." It also stated "Willey gave false information to the FBI about her sexual relationship with a former boyfriend, and acknowledged having lied about it when the agents confronted her with contradictory evidence. Following Willey’s acknowledgment of the lie, the Independent Counsel agreed not to prosecute her for false statements in this regard."[3] According to Independent Counsel Robert Ray’s report, "Willey’s [Paula] Jones deposition testimony differed from her grand jury testimony on material aspects of the alleged incident."[4]
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                    If you want to report the Willey accusations as fact in 2014, perhaps you'd be more comfortable at the American Spectator.

                    •  So here's your argument: (0+ / 0-)

                      1. Linda Tripp is credible (but only in this one regard, of course), and Kathleen Willey is not.

                      2. Bill Clinton, a man who has been accused of sexual harassment and even sexual assault several times over the course of many years, a man who we all know had a sexual relationship with a 22-year-old intern in the White House, and then lied about it to his friends, supporters, staff, and the American people, is also credible when he denies Willey's allegations.

                      3. Willey is not credible because she gave the FBI false information about a previous relationship.

                      4. If I refuse to accept this double standard, I should just leave because I'm obviously not comporting myself according to the standards of ideological purity you feel participation in this community requires.

                      5. We all really do care about sexual assault. No, we really do.

                      Actually, you didn't make that final assertion, did you? I shouldn't put words in your mouth and accuse you of hypocrisy. Willey was also not comporting herself in proper accord with the requirements of ideological purity when she made the accusations, so who cares what happened?

                      •  Could you be more intellectually dishonest? (0+ / 0-)

                        1. My point isn't that Tripp is necessarily credible. My point is that Willey has enormous credibility problems and this matter, since it lacks things like physical evidence, documentary evidence and third party witnesses depends entirely on her credibility. Her's is shot having lied under oath on multiple occasions. A No one has contradicted Tripp's testimony on this matter and she has no motive to lie, since she's not a member of Team Clinton and if fact, was allied with his foes. It's possible, but highly unlikely that Tripp is lying.

                        2. He's been accused. Yes. Accusations are not proof. And that is why I don't believe the Willey accusation. Yes, Clinton has credibility problems as well, as he lied in the past. But he is not the one being undercut by the testimony of others in this matter, Willey is. Clinton doesn't have to prove anything here, Willey does and can't do it.

                        3. Not what I said. Read the links and educate yourself on this matter. Willey lied on numerous occasions. Not just about the boyfriend, but grand jury and deposition testimony varied significantly. She also made up ludicrous conspiracy stories like the Cody Shearer "Jogger" allegation, even though Shearer was on the other side of the country when this allegedly happened. Her ex friend Julie Hyatt Steele also testified that Willey asked her to lie under oath to provide "corroboration." Steele refused and was prosecuted by Starr in a GOP district in VA and Starr couldn't win a conviction. Wi

                        4. I am suggesting that your peddling of ancient, discredited right wing smears would fit better elsewhere.

                        5. I care about sexual assault. I have no idea if you do or not and don't much care. Caring about sexual assault doesn't mean accepting every allegation at face value, even when there are solid reasons to believe that they didn't happen, as with the Willey case.

                        •  I'm trying not to be intellectually dishonest. (0+ / 0-)

                          Don't you think it would be easier in every way for me to dismiss the allegations of Jones and Willey? I'm a Democrat and a liberal, but I believe in intellectual honesty.

                          1. No one has contradicted Tripp's testimony? Willey's account contradicts Tripp's testimony. You're just choosing to believe Tripp over Willey because Tripp is saying what you want to hear. You say it is illogical for Tripp to contradict Willey because Tripp hated the Clintons, but you find it perfectly logical that Willey would attack Clinton despite being an ardent supporter of the Clintons.

                          One thing that seems clear to me when I read about the role Tripp played in all this is that she was often driven by very personal, often petty impulses, and she had her own ideas about other people's motives and their "real" intentions, regardless of what they might say. Who knows what she thought of Kathleen Willey and her relationship with the president? If she disliked Willey and saw her as a Clinton supporter, that might have been motive enough for her to contradict Willey's account and claim Willey had the hots for the president. Who knows?

                          2. It is true that accusations are not proof, but it does not logically follow from the premise that an accusation is not proof that an accusation is not true. Willey accused the president of something that happened between them in private, with no witnesses, and nothing she alleges would have left physical evidence. There's no way to prove anything, one way or the other.

                          3. I don't see any reference to Cody Shearer in the link you provided. It's mostly about Tripp.

                          Bill Clinton was the most powerful man in the world. He had an army of lawyers who had already successfully defended him from similar allegations made by Paula Jones. They defended him using the same techniques powerful men always use when confronted with allegations of sexual abuse: they attacked Jones' credibility and tried to paint her as a wonton slut who was asking for it and then got mad when she didn't get it because the powerful man of course was not interested in such salacious shenanigans.

                          As soon as Willey went public with her account, she was placing herself right in the middle of a political and legal storm that had been ongoing for years. Caught up in all that, and having no weapon except her own account of the incident, I am not surprised if she made some desperate and bad decisions before she too was blown away.

                          Finally, the point is that neither of us knows what happened between Clinton and Willey that day. It is possible she made it up. But did Paula Jones also make it up? What about the handful of other women who made similar allegations over the years but quickly backed down?

                          Sexually, Bill Clinton was clearly a man with little self-discipline or common sense. Such traits are not criminal or even uncommon, but when combined with power, unabashed dishonesty, a lack of self-awareness, and an undeniable contempt for the professional boundaries that normally apply to an authority figure and his subordinates, it doesn't warrant faith in his credibility in the face of the various allegations.

                          But you're extending him that faith, because he's a powerful Democrat. That's not right.

                          It is long past time for Bill Clinton to come clean. We Democrats should be demanding that if we're going to continue to welcome his undeniable talents and his efforts to further our cause. He apologized for the Lewinsky affair, but there's obviously more there. If we really care about sexual harassment and sexual assault, we should demand he provide a more complete accounting of what happened between him and Jones and Willey, and not hide behind his legal muscle and partisan loyalties.

                          Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey were just two women I read about in the papers back in the 90s, but they were real people and they were women who claimed they had been sexually assaulted. That should matter to us more than the right-wing bullshit they stepped into, more than knee-jerk, partisan impulses, and it should matter more than loyalty to political celebrities.

                          •  "wanton," obviously. n/t (0+ / 0-)
                          •  You aren't trying to be intellectually dishonest (0+ / 0-)

                            You are succeeding.
                            1) Yes. No one contradicted Tripp's testimony. No one.  Tripp's testimony is that Willey was in love with HRC and striving for a meeting. Willey doesn't deny this. Tripp says Willey had a joyous look on her face. Willey doesn't deny this.  More importantly, Willey contradicted her own testimony. This is fatal to any case where it is essentially a "he said, she said." Robert Ray, no friend of Bill realized this years ago. Why can't you?
                            And the hits to Willey's credibility, such as it is, keep on coming:

                             

                            Further damaging to her claims was Willey's admission to the jury that she was granted a second immunity deal from Starr's office after she admitted lying about the details of a relationship she had with a younger man. Willey admitted that she falsely told her then-boyfriend she was pregnant because he had humiliated her.

                            Willey also acknowledged telling a grand jury that Steele, a noticeably petite woman, was anorexic, and she told investigators that there could be legal problems with the adoption of Steele's son. She admitted to having an affair with a married man and asking Steele to cover for her when she left a family funeral to visit him in Philadelphia. And she acknowledged trying to avoid paying off the $274,000 her husband stole from clients. Edward E. Willey, a lawyer, killed himself over his financial troubles on the same day as the alleged encounter with Clinton.

                            http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

                            prosecutors, jurors, the public at large have trouble believing her, with excellent reason. Yet you, have no problem presenting her  unsupported allegations as fact. Any intellectually honest person would look at this and at least question whether it is true.
                            As for this:
                            I

                            f she disliked Willey and saw her as a Clinton supporter, that might have been motive enough for her to contradict Willey's account and claim Willey had the hots for the president. Who kno
                          •  You're becoming a bit redundant. (0+ / 0-)

                            But I guess I am as well, because we're going in circles.

                            I've said several times it's possible Willey could be lying. I recognize the weaknesses in her credibility, which you've articulated well, providing ample citations. I remember all of this from many years ago.

                            I also recognize the weaknesses in Clinton's credibility, and I recognize that Willey's accusations are similar to accusations made by Paula Jones and others. You've consistently ignored Paula Jones. I overlooked that because my reference to her part in this was done so clumsily in an earlier post that I had to add an addendum to clarify what I was talking about. But at this point your refusal to acknowledge her is clearly dishonest. You're finding it easier to attack Willey's character. But Jones should be an easy target too. Hell, she eventually posed for Penthouse, so slut shaming her should be a breeze.

                            I haven't argued that Willey's account is beyond question. I've explicitly acknowledged the opposite. It is you who are adamantly insisting on Bill Clinton's credibility, and, hilariously, Linda Tripp's. I am not blindly falling in with a right-wing smear, it is you who are blindly falling in line with a partisan consensus of denial.

                            Your points have merit, and I'm not feeling as confident of Willey's account as I was when we started. It was a long time ago and you've reminded me of some details I'd forgotten.

                            Like every other Democrat and liberal at that time, I was eager to seize on any evidence that Willey's account was incredible. We were all so sick and angry over Starr's idiotic investigation and the disgraceful political spectacle that would soon lead to impeachment. And weren't we all happy when she quickly went away.

                            But I never forgot Patricia Ireland's words, and I knew that we would have treated Willey's allegations differently if she had accused almost anybody else or if she hadn't made them at exactly the wrong time politically.

                            Because, after 12 years of Republican presidents redefining the nation's character, we weren't going to turn on the one guy who had the skills to beat them. We weren't going to let women like Willey provide ammunition to the only weapon the Republicans had against the Big Dog.

                            And so we made the same choice people so often make when a powerful, successful, productive, popular male assaults an anonymous female somewhere further down the hierarchy: We started making excuses and rallying around him.

                            And we had been doing this for Bill Clinton all along. We were happy to ignore Paula Jones, or better, mock her for being physically unattractive and low-class. We liberals were doing that. I remember.

                            I'm confident we'll never collectively confront this hypocrisy in ourselves. With Hillary's ascendancy pending, such reflection is as politically inconvenient as it ever was. But it has cost us. Because it supports the argument that we are no different than they are, just the mirror opposite, and we have no more of a commitment to what is just or true.

                          •  Re: Jones (0+ / 0-)

                             I don't think she made her charges up out of whole cloth. Very probably, an incident happened in much the way she described. However, there's a good body of evidence that suggests that she was a willing participant, and only became upset when the story was exposed in the American Specator. Danny Ferguson, the trooper supposedly involved in that episode, claimed that it was Jones who approached him and asked to be taken to meet the then governor, not the other way around. He also said that when Paula came out, she was happy and offered to be a regular girlfriend for him. Her own sister says that far from being upset about recounting the meeting, she was  excited and said she could smell big money coming. She did have a co worker who seemed to support her account and another one who contradicted her about being upset. She claimed she was denied merit raises after this alleged incident, but her personnel file proved conclusively that she did in fact receive several of them.
                                It's easy and legitimate to defend people based upon what they say and what they can back up with facts. It's generally the job of the accuser to prove her story. IMHO, she did not do that, nor did Willey.
                              I do think that mocking Jones for her appearance and background were unfortunate. I did not do this. Nor did most people that I know. James's Carville's comment about dragging a twenty dollar bill through a trailer park was reprehensible, but most people I know didn't make comments like that.  We thought Clinton was a horndog and wanted to move on.
                               Jones also played her hand very, very badly. Waiting until the last day of the statute of limitations to file her claim, making the announcement at CPAC. Hiring ultra conservative lawyers to press her case. I also found her to be a bit dis

                            ut I never forgot Patricia Ireland's words, and I knew that we would have treated Willey's allegations differently if she had accused almost anybody else or if she hadn't made them at exactly the wrong time politically
                            .
                            Ireland's words were "If true." If true, I would have believed them. I see no credible reason to believe that they are. In fact, there's good reason to believe that they are the product of someone who was desperate for money, mentally unstable and given to vindictive behavior. She's also still out there, now pushing the Vince Foster conspiracy theory and trying to tie it in with that of the death of  her late husband. And of course, she wants us to buy the book. I see a patter here, even if you are unwilling to. At what point can I stop believing her just because I want to feel good about myself for not being some alleged hypocrite for not believing every unsubstantiated allegation.
                                It's not that I think Bill Clinton has any great credibility, it's that the allegations  cannot be proven or in Willey's case, even supported. If Pete the Pathological Liar says he wasn't drinking after an accident, I don't have to rely on his credibility if there' no evidence that he drank that day. So it is with Clinton and Willey.

                             In terms of "coming clean", how can he do this to your satisfaction? What if Willey's allegations are false? It's pretty obvious from your posts that you take them at face value. If he said that they are false, would you believe him?

                          •  I think there is also a clear pattern in Clinton's (0+ / 0-)

                            behavior. Although I suppose if we discount these two women then the pattern is that of someone with a lack of self-control and common sense, which, again, is not illegal or even particularly scandalous. If every woman Clinton fooled around with was a willing participant, and Clinton's continued popularity results from everybody having seriously considered the allegations and drawn the reasonable conclusion based on the evidence that he was a victim of lies, then I guess there would be no more to talk about at this point. I just don't think that's what happened.

                            I don't feel this sense of closure you seem to feel. Clinton, after bald-faced lying to all of us, finally fessed up to his involvement with Lewinsky and apologized. His denials regarding Willey have the same false ring as his denials regarding Lewinsky, to me. But I guess his alternative narrative is that he remembers the encounter and although she was emotional and he may have tried to comfort her, there was no sexual touching. I guess that's his story and I have to either believe it or not.

                            I've looked up some of the issues that were raised about Willey's testimony. If she really was under the kind of pressure she claims, and intimidated after the incident with the jogger (if it's true), I'm not surprised her testimony was confused and contradictory as she struggled to overcome her fear. I'm not impressed by efforts to make a big deal out of the fact she may have tentatively identified the jogger as Cody Shearer, who we somehow know for sure was on the other side of the country when the alleged incident occurred. Somebody showed her a picture and asked her if that were the jogger and she thought it looked like the jogger. So what?

                            But, you're right, there's no evidence and Willey has since become a willing part of the silly anti-Clinton conspiracy circus, for whatever reasons.

                            So, without conceding anything with regard to how Democrats and liberals treated these women back then, I'll acknowledge that we don't know that Clinton ever committed sexual assault. That's not really far from my original position.

                            You seem like a reasonable guy, and I assume you basically agree that BlueKing has every right to question Hillary's foreign policy positions, even if he can't conjure a viable alternative candidate.

      •  I don't see anyone (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlueKing

        claiming HRC is beyond criticism.

  •  Hilary's understanding of the ME situation (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Demi Moaned, BlueKing, k9disc, Portlaw

    concerns me because it appears she will continue Bill's policies with more or less the same advisers.  After decades of stalemate, maybe it is time for fresh eyes on the problem.

    One constant seems to be that Hamas will have to be considered part of the solution instead of the problem, which is a problem in and of itself.  At the present time, it seems Hamas is not intimidated or cowed by the latest incursion.  We have to remember Tet was a military defeat for the NVA and VC but a political victory.  The US has to remember Pyrrhus as not every problem is a nail that requires a military response  

    •  Well she's a hawk (4+ / 0-)

      no ifs ands or buts.  That's good in some cases (stopping genocide), and bad in others.

      Don't forget that every single Obama foreign policy advisor urged him to attack Syria unilaterally.  It was Obama himself who backed off and looked for a way out.

      If you refuse to vote for the Democrat in a Presidential general election, then I hold you personally responsible for any right-wing Supreme Court decision.

      by USA629 on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:49:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bill seems to have a better understanding of FP (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BlueKing

      than Hillary does and he has the charisma to sell his policies. Hillary just doesn't have his (or Obama's) political skills.

      Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

      by askew on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:00:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  yes there would be better choices (5+ / 0-)

    if none of them run, or one or two run but have no chance of winning, it's a moot question.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:24:17 AM PDT

  •  Oh c'mon! (9+ / 0-)
    When trying to maintain your membership in the exclusive Liberal club, it isn't exactly a good idea to criticize the current party darling, Hillary Clinton
    Lots of liberals criticize Hillary Clinton around here and elsewhere on the left blogs. The issue you cite in particular was highlighted by digby on Sunday. As she puts it:
    This is a very scary interview. Much more hardcore than I expected.
    And I agree with you and her.

    I would be very happy if we could come up with a better President for 2016, but I'm not sure that our system is capable of delivering one this time. Still, I'm open to alternatives, as are many people around here.

    "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

    by Demi Moaned on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:24:22 AM PDT

    •  I'm fine with her (13+ / 0-)

      Most important to me is the Supreme Court and pushing the right-wing out of politics.  I don't think we'll get a serious shift to the left in our country's politics until the GOP is forced to move to the center after it is obvious that they can't win elections anymore.

      If you refuse to vote for the Democrat in a Presidential general election, then I hold you personally responsible for any right-wing Supreme Court decision.

      by USA629 on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:54:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  so very... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dr Swig Mcjigger, BlueKing

        much this!

        "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

        by JackND on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:57:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Any Dem nominee can do all those things. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Just Bob, Portlaw, BlueKing

        We don't need Hillary to get good Supreme Court justices or to shift the country left. In fact, Hillary will make it harder to shift the country left on foreign policy.

        Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

        by askew on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 10:00:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No nominee can do those things (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          USA629, Lying eyes

          an elected president can. Not all of our would be nominees even have a change of winning.  

        •  The Dem nominee has to be able to win (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dr Swig Mcjigger, Lying eyes

          that's my number 1 priority.

          If you refuse to vote for the Democrat in a Presidential general election, then I hold you personally responsible for any right-wing Supreme Court decision.

          by USA629 on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 10:43:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Almost anybody could win against (0+ / 0-)

            the Republican clowns.

          •  Hillary isn't more electable than O'Malley or (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Demi Moaned

            Patrick. They have run in more elections than she has. They have better political skills than she does. They have more executive experience than she does. They have more accomplishments than she does. She has name recognition and a great PR team.

            Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

            by askew on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 11:57:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hillary's secret weapon (4+ / 0-)

              Hillary does very very well among white women.  Far better than any other Democrat would, Hillary would get around 50% of white women vote (versus the 42% that Obama got in 2012).  And she'd do just as well among the rest of the voters as anyone else.  That adds up to a landslide for her.

              There's a big group of low-info white women who are down on most politicians and largely voted for Romney over Obama.  They really like Hillary, because they think she's a fighter and would be the first female President.  

              I love Deval Patrick, he's a better version of Obama (whom I really like); he's more charismatic and I think would be more effective in running the government.  But he's from Massachusetts, and like it or not, a lot of Americans would be hesitant in electing back-to-back black Presidents.    

              O'Malley is bland, and doesn't really inspire anyone.  I've seen him speak many times, and I've never been that impressed.  He'd probably win, but it's not the lock Hillary is.

              If you refuse to vote for the Democrat in a Presidential general election, then I hold you personally responsible for any right-wing Supreme Court decision.

              by USA629 on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 12:10:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You've been pushing this nonsense for a long (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BlueKing

                time now and it still doesn't matter. She may do better with white women but their votes don't count more than any other voters.  She's already causing problems with AA voters through her attacks on Obama and with Hispanic voters with her repulsive comments on the child refugee crisis. She tried to win the nomination with an all-white voter campaign in 2008 and failed miserably. I recall she even lost the lily-white Iowa.

                Obama did better than her with young white women, so there is room for another Dem to improve on her numbers.

                Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

                by askew on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 01:34:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's not nonsense (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Lying eyes, Dr Swig Mcjigger

                  The polling data suggest it.  

                  AA and Latino voters will vote for any Democrat in the general election, the GOP will ensure that with their racism.  The low-info pro-Hillary white women I'm talking about aren't going to automatically vote for other Dems.

                  Obama did better than her among younger white women, but they are base voters.  Hillary's strength includes a substantial number of voters who won't vote for other Ds. That is why she polls so well now.

                  If you refuse to vote for the Democrat in a Presidential general election, then I hold you personally responsible for any right-wing Supreme Court decision.

                  by USA629 on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 01:58:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It's (0+ / 0-)

                    Actually more likely that AA and Latino voters stay home if Dems run a candidate they don't care for. I'm not saying you're wrong about the woman thing, more that the Latino and African American vote isn't something dems (even Hillary) should take for granted.

                    •  There aren't any Ds who are serious contenders (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Dr Swig Mcjigger

                      whom the AA and Latino voters will stay home for.  
                      GOP impeachment attempts against Obama for his immigration policies will guarantee that.  

                      The only part of the Dem base that may stay home are some of the extreme left that unfortunately have an inflated presence on this blog.  Although I suspect that some of them may actually be GOP trolls who are trying to get progressive voters to stay home or vote third party.

                      If you refuse to vote for the Democrat in a Presidential general election, then I hold you personally responsible for any right-wing Supreme Court decision.

                      by USA629 on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 03:21:00 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  This is such nonsense (0+ / 0-)
                  he tried to win the nomination with an all-white voter campaign in 2008 and fail
                  She had huge appeal to latino voters. She beat Obama handily with this large and growing demographic:
                  Hispanics voted for Sen. Hillary Clinton over Sen. Barack Obama by a margin of nearly two-to-one in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, according to an analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center of exit polls taken throughout the primary season. The Center’s analysis also finds a sharp increase in Latino electoral participation in 2008, with their share of the Democratic primary vote rising in 16 of the 19 states for which exit polling makes it possible to compare 2008 and 2004 turnout shares.

                  Latino voters were especially important to Clinton in the mega-states California and Texas, where their share of the primary vote rose dramatically between 2004 and 2008. In California, Latino voters comprised 30% of the turnout (up from 16% in 2004) and in Texas, Latino voters comprised 32% of the turnout (up from 24% in 2004). Clinton would have lost both states were it not for the strong support she received from Latinos.

                  http://www.pewhispanic.org/...
  •  I'm ignoring all Hillary diaries... (7+ / 0-)

    ... until November 5, 2014.
    This also applies to diaries about E. Warrren, Biden, etc. unless it's relevant to the 2014 election.

  •  No. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    k9disc

    Unless by "America" you mean "The people who own America" in which case, yes.

    May you always find water and shade.

    by Whimsical Rapscallion on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:31:06 AM PDT

  •  Yes (3+ / 0-)

    Thanks for asking.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:35:37 AM PDT

  •  She panders to the worst foreign policy elements (9+ / 0-)

    And I don't trust her not to cut a deal with the Republicans cutting social security and Medicare.

    "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

    by Paleo on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:46:19 AM PDT

  •  This is a rational criticism of HRC (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlueKing, jayden, native, Odysseus, Lying eyes

    The two big things that separate her from Obama is her hawkish foreign policy, and her desire for control.

    For example, I'm not sure that Hillary would have allowed the marijuana legalization to go on in the states without some pushback.  I think she has absolutely no problem with NSA surveillance or other violations of civil liberties, unlike Obama who seems uncomfortable with it but too cowardly to stop it.

    All that said, my signature still holds.

    If you refuse to vote for the Democrat in a Presidential general election, then I hold you personally responsible for any right-wing Supreme Court decision.

    by USA629 on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:46:53 AM PDT

    •  If she's nominated... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jayden, Tuffie, Lying eyes

      I'll vote for her. She'd be 1 billion times better than any RWNJ that could get elected. I should have put that in the diary.

    •  There is a long list of things that separate her (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BlueKing, roycej, native, Portlaw, Odysseus

      from Obama:

      1. Poor political judgment - He was smart enough to not support initial Iraq War
      2. Lack of actual accomplishments - Compare her meager Senate record to Obama's
      3. Her weird need to lie about stupid stuff.  - See my sig for just one example
      4. Her inability to admit a mistake - She still won't admit that Iraq War vote was a mistake and never took responsibility for the bizarre lies she told in 2008.
      5. Inability to learn from past mistakes - She her entire book tour.
      6. Lack of political charisma and political skill

      That's just the short list and all of these items impact a presidency. Her lack of proven ability to get things done should be worrying everyone. Her only attempt at leading on a major issue was a spectacular failure during the health care fight in the 1990s. She hasn't led on any issue successfully. How do we know she can lead as President?

      Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

      by askew on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:05:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama would have benefited from a little more... (0+ / 0-)

      ...of that second thing.  

      It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

      by Rich in PA on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:23:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This morning (7+ / 0-)

    Over the past few days, we saw the potential for an extra-constitutional coup to occur in Iraq over Maliki's refusal to step aside and after Iraq's President chose to select someone else as prime minister and to form a government.

    Well, as of this morning, it appears Maliki has decided to step back from the coup brink as Iran, a Maliki supporter, openly declared support for the Iraqi President's choice.

    If there hadn't been the small rapproachment between Iran and the US, and the small level of cooperation that we're beginning to see in Iraq in the face of the ISIL threat, I don't think an antagonized Iran woujld have done what it did this morning.

    In my opinion, thats a credit to BHO's foreign policy approach over HRC's approach.

    As Democrats who prefer diplomacy over war, we owe it to ourselves to explore alternatives to HRC in the primaries.

    KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

    by fcvaguy on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:49:39 AM PDT

    •  Exactly. Obama may not get credit for it from (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BlueKing, fcvaguy, Portlaw, Odysseus

      the beltway media but his FP approach has achieved results no one thought was possible - Syria surrendering chemical weapons, small reapproachment between Iran and U.S., etc. And note all of these happened after Hillary left as SoS, so credit due to Kerry as well.

      Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

      by askew on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:07:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Clinton Did Fine?? Not If You're In the Bottom (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    native, NoMoreLies

    99.9%, none of whom gained a nickel [classwise] during his so-called boom. Sure incomes went up but they were all spent in rising prices.

    And that calculation was made in the early 2000's before the 08 correction, which took most people back to before his terms. Before Bush's housing superbubble, the Clinton housing bubble had already passed 100 year peaks around the time of his impeachment. That was all phony money for the 99.9%.

    Then there was the media consolidation, financial deregulation and outsourcing.

    If your constituency is a broad 10 times larger than the Republicans' -- the entire top 0.1% and not just the Republican elite 0.01%-- yeah, Clinton did fine.

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

    by Gooserock on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:57:46 AM PDT

  •  Anti-Hillary diary? That's a blackballin'...nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  Yes, she's right for America. (0+ / 0-)

    I'd be righter, but if nominated I will not run, and if elected I will not serve.

    It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

    by Rich in PA on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:22:09 AM PDT

  •  No. She's wrong for America and a huge (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FakeNews, Portlaw, BlueKing, SDuvall

    step backwards for the Democratic Party. We should be nominating someone who sees the future of the country and party and isn't still reliving fights from the 1990s.

    I've yet to see any kind of vision from Hillary on what she wants to do as president. With Warren and O'Malley you can see passion for issues and what they have accomplished and how that would translate to the presidency. With Hillary there is a big bunch of vague nothingness and a great PR team.

    Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

    by askew on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:32:22 AM PDT

  •  She's too 20th Century (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, Portlaw, BlueKing, tardis10

    we don't need that

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by greenbastard on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:35:37 AM PDT

  •  Move On speaks (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, Paleo, BlueKing, tardis10

    http://front.moveon.org/...

    Statement from Ilya Sheyman, Executive Director of MoveOn Political Action, in response to reported comments from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:
    “Secretary Clinton, and any other person thinking about seeking the Democratic nomination in 2016, should think long and hard before embracing the same policies advocated by right-wing war hawks that got America into Iraq in the first place and helped set the stage for Iraq’s troubles today. These hawkish policy stances are also threatening to undermine the peaceful international resolution of Iran’s nuclear program.

    Voters elected President Obama in 2008 to bring the war in Iraq to an end. MoveOn members will continue to stand with elected officials who oppose military escalation that could put us back on a path to endless war.”

    I'm a Vietnam Era vet. I'm also an Erma Bombeck Era vet. When cussing me out and calling me names please indicate which vet you would like to respond to your world changing thoughts.

    by Just Bob on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:42:47 AM PDT

  •  Hilliary should shut her trap and be cool-this is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlueKing, Hawkjt

    why she lost the nomination before. She has great PR but no substance other than her war stance. Domestically-she will be okay. She should focus on the people and the economy. Just sayin'.

    "No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar." Abraham Lincoln

    by appledown on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:43:47 AM PDT

  •  Hillary is a politician, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Swig Mcjigger

    and distancing herself from a very unpopular Obama, though it pisses me off, is probably a good political move.  (of course the reason he's so unpopular is because of made up bs by the right wing, which we need to do something about - another story for another day perhaps?)

    I'm not a centrist by any stretch, and would support Warren 100% if she was running, but she's not.  If we have Hillary, she's the one I'll support.  Republicans don't deserve positions as public servants when they only serve themselves and those with lots of cash.  They lack common decency and humanity at this point in their several make overs over the last decades.  Hillary Clinton is by no means one of them.

    The GOP will destroy anything they can't own.

    by AnnieR on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:50:11 AM PDT

  •  Why do you lead with a lie? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Swig Mcjigger
    When trying to maintain your membership in the exclusive Liberal club, it isn't exactly a good idea to criticize the current party darling, Hillary Clinton,
    Look.  If you've got something constructive to say, just say it.

    Undermining your points this way is ridiculous.

    -7.75 -4.67

    "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

    There are no Christians in foxholes.

    by Odysseus on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 10:07:49 AM PDT

  •  Clinton works for me (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Swig Mcjigger

    And I'm not so far gone that I can't respect a difference of opinion where it concerns Syria, especially given how the line was drawn in the Administration.

  •  I think she's TOO FAR Right for America n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10

    If it's
    Not your body,
    Then it's
    Not your choice
    And it's
    None of your damn business!

    by TheOtherMaven on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 01:44:53 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site