Every year I go to a fundraiser luncheon sponsored by group called Eleanor Roosevelt’s Legacy Committee. It’s a group that raises money, recruits and trains Democratic women candidates and give campaign grants to those running in New York.
Hillary Clinton has been a patron of this organization from the beginning, and is often the keynote speaker. As you can imagine, the lunch this year was Hill chillin’ with her homegirls.
So, maybe it made her let down her guard? Or maybe she recognized that a group of politically active NY Dems is no place to advocate for residual troops, or maybe the polling after the last debate convinced her that being Joe Lieberman light is not playing well? Who knows?
What I do know, is that I heard her say that she would end the Iraq war immediately upon taking office. Lots of heads snapped up when she said that (and there was plenty of applause, even a little whooping) and the very politically plugged in person sitting next to me remarked that the statement was “completely new”. She went on to say that the troops had already done everything they had been asked to do: got rid of Saddam, created a situation where elections could take place, surged to create political stability so the elected Iraqi government could do some legislating and work out a political solution (which she said they have not done) and that it was unfair to ask our troops to stay in Iraq and “play referee to an Iraqi civil war.” She said there is no military solution.
I’m not a Hillary watcher, so somebody in the comments may want to contradict that, but it certainly is the first time I’ve heard that and is very different than what I heard her say in the last debate.
Some of the big applause lines were:
- She said she would “take the tax subsidies away form the oil companies, they don’t need them anymore’ and use that money to create a strategic alternative energy reserve.
- On pledging to change our posture and direction vis a vis other countries: “You can’t lead if no one is following.”
- “They say we can’t be both secure and free. Yes we can, by following the Constitution.”
- And she spent many minutes body slamming Bush on No Child Left Behind and for vetoing SCHIP.
In addition to the regulars who always come like Jerry Nadler and NYS Comptroller Tom DiNapoli and most of the women elected from around the state, Sen Mary Landrieu of Louisiana showed up and I cannot figure out why. She didn’t work the room, so I don’t think she was trolling for donors and other than being asked to stand for applause, appeared to have no purpose there. It was slightly odd, or else ERLC is getting to be THE COOL KIDS CLUB. Who knows?
Related posts:
- Breaking News: Wichita Doctor George Tiller Murdered at Church
- Late Night: Hatin’ on Hillary – Get Over It Already.
- 32,000 Signatures Delivered to Jim Clyburn; Majority Whip Pledges to “Get This Done”
- Breaking: Obama Writes Letter Opposing Inclusion of Graham-Lieberman in Supplemental
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Hillary Rettig, The Lifelong Activist: How to Change the World Without Losing Your Way
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
LHP! Was this captured on tape or video?
I am absolutely beside myself.
I’m still skeptical, but LHP, it’s good to see you!
-S
p.s. So here’s the question — is she willing to go on the record in a larger venue with this? I’m no Hillary fan, but if she’s sincere about ending the war immediately upon taking office, she may get some votes as a result.
If we could only trust her words, I would love to see the oil companies get their gravy dumped in their laps.
Stunning political statements. I’m going to have to hear this more than once.
And why not? With the current numbers, she doesn’t have to steer to the right of the rest of the Democratic field — she’s already perceived as being to their right. And come the general election, the war will be even less popular. I’m amazed it took her this long.
Whoa!
Mary Landrieu? At a meeting of a group that honors Eleanor Roosevelt?
Maybe she felt she needed to learn how to have a heart in voting matters and not be so fearful of the reactions of those on the right.
My take on Hillary is that, in her heart, she’s a got decent liberal instincts. But as a politician she lets them become subsumed by triangulation in order to win.
Taking this into consideration, I think she’s someone who can be “pushed” in the right direction by a large-enough activist movement. Since most people in this country are much more liberal than any of our politicians, I think were she to become president we could very well see her inner liberal come out more. This incident may be a sign of that.
Now if HRC would only resign from being a Team Leader for the DLC. Do you think that’s coming?
puppethead @ 9
You think this is an “incident”?
LHP – thanks so much for the report. can you clarify a bit for me?
does this mean bringing home all the troops – not just “combat” troops? does this mean turning our bases over to iraqis?
thanks again… sorry to have to ask the questions, but i’m feeling a bit played (not specifically by clinton – today it’s the house dems).
LHP – I’m from New York State and I have to admit that I have never, ever heard of this group. I will have to send this on.
I like Gore. I like Edwards. I like Kucinich and Richardson.
wow
she better parse that, “immediately” doesn’t fly even with most progressives, myself included
she has to define “immediately” to be “as soon as practicable” or something similar
If that’s really the case, why on Earth would she want to wait until Jan. 2009 for the pullout to begin?
Having as much of the withdrawal and its messy consequences happen on the Republicans’ watch seems like a really good idea.
raven @ 11
In the sense that it’s happened once, in front of a select audience, sure. Let’s see her continue these messages in her broader campaigning before declaring her positions as being solid. As I said, she loves triangulating.
FUNNY!!
There is no mention of her stating she would ‘immediately’ end the war in the NYSUN ‘neocon’ rag – I believe they would have been the first to relay this piece of ‘astonishing’ news?
http://www.nysun.com/article/64593?page_no=1
allan_in_upstate @ 16
Uh, maybe because she can’t.
selise @ 12
Great questions, Selise.
Wow. For the last few months, I’ve been thinking that the person who wins the Democratic nom will be someone who pledges to end the war. My guess was Richardson. I never thought Hillary Clinton would even be on the list.
Errrrm, she can do it quicker than that if 1) she goes up to Pelosi and Reid and tells them to defund it; 2) cosponsors a bill with Feingold, and twists arms to get it passed; 3) Gets Bill to lobby for it
puppethead @ 17
Aha, gotcha. Might have been an “accident”.
You blew it on Iraq. You blew it the other night on Iran. And now this. Is this what your twenty-two consultants and Bill told you to do? Good gawd Hillary.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 24
Right on!
How very Kucinich of Hillary… Except Kucinich was correct all along and says so very publicly every chance he gets.. Oh and I will wager Kucinich read the intel reports before voting no on the war originally.
Every reason Hillary cited for ending the war, carrot, if elected, are all true now and why as a sitting senator she should not sleep while troops die one more day.
I say do something serious about ending the war now, Senator.
Similar reports of Hillary’s intention to pull U.S. troops from Iraq are here and inferred on Hillary’s web page
Hillary, you really needed to say somthing a long time ago.
Hillary is nothing if not attuned to the dominant political sentiment that surrounds her, and more than willing to do/say whatever it takes to play to that sentiment.
Given that, this is a stunning tribute to the netroots activism and the criticism she has taken for her earlier stance (which was IMO tailored to dispel any right wing talking points about her being “soft on terror” or “weak on defense”) and the overwhelming popular support for ending this occupation right now. Hillary knows on which side her bread is buttered.
We can only hope that this position morphs into the proper one of not leaving significant, or any, troops behind in Iraq, after the “war” is “over.” We can also only hope that she is sincere in her evolving beliefs, and not merely saying what she thinks people want to hear. I’m skeptical, but only time will tell.
“We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office” in January 2009, the former first lady said.
john in sacramento @ 22
Such an interesting comment, John. In that light, it then would be an “elect me” comment from Hillary, not a comment of deep conviction.
I think that we need clarification of just what she means by this statement before getting too excited. Nevertheless, it is encouraging.
I am less interested in where candidates stood in the past than what they commit to do in the future.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 10
Senator Mary “Lieberlovin’” Landreiu also goes way back with the DLC.
We still have one year and three weeks until the election, there is still a lot of room on the dance floor.
I’ve heard her say exactly that before, but I can’t cite where it was, but it was a while back.
You know what, though: I’m much happier with someone WHO IS WILLING TO CHANGE THEIR MIND ABOUT THINGS.
It’s the damnfools who continue on thru hell and high water refusing to admit any possible other course that get me tetchy.
So I don’t mind this change. I’m wary, but **changing one’s mind is NOT a bad thing**!
Polling is likely telling the HRC managers and consultants that is time for a wee bit of a left turn.
Johnny and Barak are picking off stragglers, so HRC is told she’d better get the lasso out.
As for Senator Mary Landrieu, HRC volunteered to show her how “triangulating” is done by a Pro.
Mary desperately wants to learn this so as to retain her seat from LA.
Gonna be hard given the intellectual disparity, but HRC said she’d provide Mary a crib-sheet.
peanutbutter @ 36
There sure wasn’t that attitude when everyone was jumping ugly on Frank Rich yesterday.
I’ve said here before that I’d never vote for Clinton, even if she’s the Democratic candidate…
…but if I get the sense that this is something she’d follow through on, and that we don’t pull out of Iraq just to be in Iran, then I’ll change my position and vote for her. Not without some severe reservations, but this is enough to make my other problems with her relatively insignificant.
Please, let this be true.
Bustednuckles @ 34
Are the candidates doing the buck and wing, or is it the shuck and jive?
i haven’t read this yet (had bookmarked it to read later), but here’s senator clinton’s essay in the new foreign affairs journal, “Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century “
here’s what looks like the relevant bit (i’m not going to blockquote, because it’s already long, and blockquoting will just make it take up more space)…. doesn’t sound bad to me:
………………………………………………………………………………………
Ending the war in Iraq is the first step toward restoring the United States’ global leadership. The war is sapping our military strength, absorbing our strategic assets, diverting attention and resources from Afghanistan, alienating our allies, and dividing our people. The war in Iraq has also stretched our military to the breaking point. We must rebuild our armed services and restore them body and soul.
We must withdraw from Iraq in a way that brings our troops home safely, begins to restore stability to the region, and replaces military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in securing Iraq’s future. To that end, as president, I will convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of defense, and the National Security Council and direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home, starting within the first 60 days of my administration.
While working to stabilize Iraq as our forces withdraw, I will focus U.S. aid on helping Iraqis, not propping up the Iraqi government. Financial resources will go only where they will be used properly, rather than to government ministries or ministers that hoard, steal, or waste them.
As we leave Iraq militarily, I will replace our military force with an intensive diplomatic initiative in the region. The Bush administration has belatedly begun to engage Iran and Syria in talks about the future of Iraq. This is a step in the right direction, but much more must be done. As president, I will convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all the states bordering Iraq. Working with the newly appointed UN special representative for Iraq, the group will be charged with developing and implementing a strategy for achieving a stable Iraq that provides incentives for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey to stay out of the civil war.
Finally, we need to engage the world in a global humanitarian effort to confront the human costs of this war. We must address the plight of the two million Iraqis who have fled their country and the two million more who have been displaced internally. This will require a multibillion-dollar international effort under the direction of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Meanwhile, the United States, along with governments in Europe and the Middle East, must agree to accept asylum seekers and help them return to Iraq when it is safe for them to do so.
As we redeploy our troops from Iraq, we must not let down our guard against terrorism. I will order specialized units to engage in targeted operations against al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist organizations in the region. These units will also provide security for U.S. troops and personnel in Iraq and train and equip Iraqi security services to keep order and promote stability in the country, but only to the extent that such training is actually working. I will also consider leaving some forces in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq in order to protect the fragile but real democracy and relative peace and security that have developed there, but with the clear understanding that the terrorist organization the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) must be dealt with and the Turkish border must be respected.
Getting out of Iraq will enable us to play a constructive role in a renewed Middle East peace process that would mean security and normal relations for Israel and the Palestinians. The fundamental elements of a final agreement have been clear since 2000: a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank in return for a declaration that the conflict is over, recognition of Israel’s right to exist, guarantees of Israeli security, diplomatic recognition of Israel, and normalization of its relations with Arab states. U.S. diplomacy is critical in helping to resolve this conflict. In addition to facilitating negotiations, we must engage in regional diplomacy to gain Arab support for a Palestinian leadership that is committed to peace and willing to engage in a dialogue with the Israelis. Whether or not the United States makes progress in helping to broker a final agreement, consistent U.S. involvement can lower the level of violence and restore our credibility in the region.
To help our forces recover from Iraq and prepare them to confront the full range of twenty-first-century threats, I will work to expand and modernize the military so that fighting wars no longer comes at the expense of deployments for long-term deterrence, military readiness, or responses to urgent needs at home. As the only senator serving on the Transformation Advisory Group established by the U.S. Joint Forces Command, I have had the chance to explore these issues in detail. Ongoing military innovation is essential, but the Bush administration has undermined this goal by focusing obsessively on expensive and unproven missile defense technology while making the tragically misguided assumption that light invasion forces could not only conquer the Taliban and Saddam Hussein but also stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq.
Maybe Hillary didn’t realize that LHP would be in the audience.
raven @ 38
Don’t recall commenting in that one.
peanutbutter @ 36
exactly right, none of us are always right…when we find out we are wrong we have to do something about it
this is actually why the republicans went after the big dog;
he took all of the very best republican brand and made progressive proposals
democrats wouldn’t vote against it because it was a democrat pushing and republicans couldn’t vote against them becuase it was their brand
therefor they had to attack him, they couldn’t go after his record
peanutbutter @ 43
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean you. There was a pile-on about his op-ed in the Times.
Mad Dogs @ 37
Don’t forget Al Gore unbound! He’s now in a position of someone who can move the political discourse in a direction like no-one else, even if he doesn’t run. He can put out more videos on policy and give more unbelievable speeches and people will hear him. He’s solidly an international figure now, and if he keeps things up it can’t help but push all of the Democratic candidates more to the left.
Hmmm. I think she means end the “war” (that undeclared one, that doesn’t really exist). Using the term “war” is so misleading, because what “it” is, is an invasion and occupation coupled with constant resistance violence. She has indicated that she will end combat, but that she will continue to have a presence there in the form of training the Iraqi troops, fighting Al Qaeda, and guarding US interests. The only war going on over there is a civil war. They are all, all over the place on this. Just a bunch of semantics.
What exactly does “end the war” mean?
When Hillary was a Barry Goldwater Girl, I was a Bobby Kennedy Boy.
raven @ 19
Can’t what? Can’t put her weight behind a withdrawal sooner rather than later?
I suspect this is due to Mark Penn’s superb reading of where the public stands on the war.
BTW,
Nice scoop LHP!
Looseheadprop and Hillary! What fantastic news!
A few days ago, in the middle of a (unrelated) tense moment in the comments, I urged firepups to celebrate the American military victory in Iraq. Wise guy, you know.
The Iraqi Sunnis have made it very clear that Al Qaeda has no future in Iraq, resolving that last rationale for our presence.
The U.S. military has won, bring ‘em home.
Now Hillary, about those Blackwater contracts…
Please let this just be completely true…no BS…just completely true. If she repeats this and clarifies it and flat out goes with it, I will be ecstatic!
Folks, I realize that there are a lot of folks who are extremely skeptical of anything and everything said and done by Hillary. but can’t we accept that just maybe, she has made a statement that she intends to follow through on? I mean, I know for many of you, that would mean you’d have to release a lot of pre-conceived opinions about her.
But I for one am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she just might have made the statement because she meant it. Hard as that may be to believe, it is always a possibility.
allan_in_upstate @ 49
If and when she is Commander in Chief she can direct a withdrawl. It’s sort of obvious she can throw her weight behind anything she wants and it won’t make a damn bit of difference.
I think she’s “preempting” a possible Gore run. I believe he’s already running in his non-conventional campaign. JMHO. On the other hand, I have no idea what Gore’s position on the war is.
Changing ones mind is admirable, however, we have been screwing the Iraqi genocidal pooch for seventeen years.. I wouldn’t call this change of mind sincere or leadership.
Cliff Varnell @ 52
Heh. My thought, too.
LS @ 56
I believe Mr. Gore was against going into Iraq. And I think he wants us out.
LS @ 35
I agree with you. I remember her saying that if Bush will not end the war before he leaves office, then she will end it when she’s President. (I believe that was in one of their very frequent debates.) But I hope everyone will chill out a bit. It is time to do some serious parsing of words. She said she’d end the war; she did not say she would withdraw the troops that are there.
Also, I wonder what she may have been responding to. On one of the Sunday shows they said that Obama needs to drag Hillary to the left. But it seems a little odd to me that she made this statement just at a time when Al Gore made a statement on what to do about Iraq. His view is that we should get the troops out as quickly as possible, being careful to do as little damage on the way out as possible. But the longer we stay, the more we are a magnet for further violence in a civil war. So who just dragged who to the left?
LS @ 56
Gore has been against the Iraq debacle from the beginning, and has condemned it on numerous occasions.
And thanks for reinforcing my point about Gore. If Hillary is reacting to a possible Gore run it’s exactly as I said, Gore can change the political landscape regardless of whether or not he runs.
Hillary, “Republican lite”, “Corporate Stooge”, “Friend of Big Business”…too bad her voting record doesn’t support the meme
link
link
link
link
I know, I’ll wake up tomorrow morning and my many consultants will tell me to say something different today and that will make eveything hunkie-dorie.
Eureka Springs @ 57
i’m no longer looking for sincerity or leadership. if a politician will do the right thing (for whatever reason), that is good enough for me.
Thanks for the visual,
Gore sticking his head out the window yelling BOO!, and the political paparazzi shitting their collective britches.
LS @ 56
Here is Al’s latest comment:
http://current.com/items/84986…..roops_home
But I want to be president so bad.
She is leaving out something important, that Israel must pull back to her 1967 borders and the right-to-return for Palestinians whose property was seized.
Before anyone gets too excited, let’s think about this: her statement doesn’t really contradict her other statement that she would leave some troops in Iraq through the end of her first term. Any of the current candidates could get good political mileage by saying that they would immediately end the war, because a case could easily be drawn that the war has already ended, and what we’re seeing now is an occupation. Remember – these are politicians speaking … every word that comes out of their mouths is carefully thought out ahead of time (or should be).
Well, well. Ole Gutless & Spineless Hillary is up to her usual tricks. Talking out both sides of her mouth; saying whatever her particular audience wants to hear. A page from the hubby’s playbook.
I don’t know much about this female yankee outfit that Ms. Prop is a member of. And I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of her reporting. But as to Hillary, I continue to have EVERY reason to doubt her.
Ole G&S Hillary: it’s getting to be time to either put up or shut up. Stop running your mouth every which way; depending upon which group you’re in front of.
G&S Hillary, if you really mean what you say, then get up off your ass and start shouting your position to the rooftops. As for me….I remain unimpressed.
Ghostman
Without we do something about global warming, nothing else will matter.
There is nothing random about Hillary.
dakine01 @ 54
it’s not just senator clinton. my lack of trust encompasses almost every politician.
wait… i take that back. i trust most Rs to do the wrong thing. it’s the Ds i generally don’t trust.
that said… i’m always looking to be proved wrong. would make me very happy.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 72
That is 100% true.
Delighted to hear this. Eleanor’s influence perhaps?
I am old enough to remember the living Eleanor Roosevelt and all the work she did for this country and the world after FDR died. She was, and remains, a great American patriot and visionary.
She was, is, and will always be mega-cool.
Mary Landrieu came to the ERLC because, not to put too fine a point on it, she needs all the help she can get.
It’s a pity. She is a smart person whose politics are not terrible, but she feels like she has to be a DINO, or she’ll get defeated. The thing is that a large number of black voters were in effect forcibly removed during Katrina and have no home to return to. This is likely to make the blue center of Louisiana, New Orleans, quite a bit more purple. Sen. Landrieu’s father Moon was a very popular mayor in the African-American community, and Mary got a lot of support by virtue of being her father’s daughter. Now many of those voters are in other states, and her chances of reelection are not good.
I would like to think that Bush’s neglect of the city had nothing to do with its historically Democratic identity, but everything with these clowns is politics. Everything.
When can we expect a radical statement on protecting the earth against global warming from Clinton?
Senator Clinton is not my first choice for Dem nominee for President. But I refuse to trash her and her record just so the RWNM and Trolls can comb through the foul mouthed fem blogs if she gets the nomination and proclaim with their insipid insincerity that “see, even the lefties don’t like/trust her.”
Do you really want to do their work for them?
Think about it this way. Is there any Dem pres candidate who, when elected, would want the US to remain in Iraq a moment longer than the time it takes to get out?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 59
Why don’t you stop by his site and see, OKK? He has a brief opinion video on this subject. In addition, many, many people are using the comments section after the video to, shall we say, encourage him to run. That may be precisely why the videos are there.
selise @ 64
My use of the word sincere means I would believe her, I don’t.. However I have worn the Clinton triangle for 30 years.. I am choking from the smell of the same old rat.
Why make excuses for a disastrously failed Senator who didn’t read the intel by her own admission and voted with the neo cons for this war/occupation. Not president worthy at all, imo.
What happened to by the end of 2013?
Valley Girl @ 79
i don’t know.
and that bothers me.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 77
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=645-i_3ZwHU
dakine01 @ 78
Trash her record? Check the links at 62 and see what needs to be trashed.
dakine01 @ 78
my first commitment is to the truth (not saying i succeed – just that’s my goal). i don’t like spin.
Gore would blow any Republican out of the water in 2008.
Well, I got down to comment 61 and no one has commented on this yet, so I will.
Valley Girl @ 20
I think most of us are reading too much into what Hillary said. By “the war,” I think she means offensive military operations. But it would still be consistent with what she said to leave thousands of troops behind (a) to guard to green zone, and (b) the huge military bases around the country (no, I don’t think that she means to turn them over to Iraqis.)
Guarding these places requires an offensive military posture to be defensive (got that?) That’s because you can’t just sit on a bull’s eye waiting for the mortar shells to land. You have to be actively patrolling (by air) the zone around the base out as far as mortar shells can reach. These bases are so large that even this limited “defensive” posture will require thousands of troops.
I think what this really means is that she has withdrawn to a position more closely resembling John Edwards’ stance, without saying so.
Bob in HI
Oklahoma kiddo @ 87
“would”Will.dakine01 @ 78
Well, if they want to comb through the blogs, they already have more than enough to quote. imo it’s a bad idea to self-censor, bec. honest views might be used against us. With that view, then FDL would have never come into being. And, the conversations at FDL over all are pretty civil, y’know.
Depends on the definition of what “war” is.
Steve-AR @ 85
Sorry Steve, I did check the links and that’s kind of why I said what I did. Those folks who buy the meme of Senator Clinton is Lieberlite, do NONE of us any favors.
So, what does Hillary know about Gore entering the race that we don’t know? Is this something pre-emptive?
Will she forever end illegal spying on Americans? Because it is clear that Congress isn’t going to do it…in fact, they intend to make the illegal LEGAL. The blatantly unconstitutional constitutional.
Will she do what Democraps in Congress simply refuse to do and roll back the whole ‘unitary executive’ nonsense? If so, then I will change my mind and actually cast a vote for her if she is the nominee. If illegal/unconstitutional domestic spying gets carved in stone with her blessing, then NO WAY do I vote for any Dems in 2008.
puppethead @ 61
I said last week that I thought he might be running kinda a stealth campaign and had been for a while.
dakine01 @ 92
I miss read your comment, I think we have the same feeling. If Hillary is going to be trashed at least be factual.
Valley Girl @ 1
Sorry, I’m late to the thread, I was in a meeting. Had to do something billable today.
Yes, there were all kinds of video cameras(the big TV kind) and print phtogs there
Steve-AR @ 74
If you had to sum up Hillary in one word, wouldn’t that word be “calculating”?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 87
Call me a cynic, but I see Hillary’s tack as either a preemptive response to Gore getting in, or some sort of deal for keeping Gore out.
selise @ 86
Then part of the reality is, you are doomed to a life of frustration. I remember a Presidential candidate who proclaimed he would never lie to us. He did have to shade some things for security purposes and was roundly thrashed for having “failed in his commitment.” That was Jimmy Carter.
I learned to accept that there probably is no such thing as a totally honest politician. That’s where we come in as we have to force them to do what they say and I have no qualms in doing that.
Strategerie @ 3
Who knows? maybe it was a trial balloon, maybe she didn’t want to do anything to screw up the lovefest today? I’m just telling you what I saw and heard. I have no clue what it’s larger implications are yet.
Thanks for the report, LHP. And nice pic. Where did you find it? Vintage?
Ann in AZ @ 98
One word wont do it. You have to modify: “calculatingly triangulating”
selise @ 12
She did not define terms, but she did say our troops should not be left there to referee in an Iraqi civil war.
Valley Girl @ 90
Honest debate is one thing. And most of us are to the left of Senator Clinton. But we sometimes seem to have folks who go after her personally and sound like they could be coming from the RNC in the attacks.
Ann in AZ @ 97
One word..not possible for a comples person but calculating is near the top..and I don’t have a problem with that. Calculating implies thought and evaluating options..a good thing IMO.
looseheadprop @ 97
great scoop!!
Has this news been reporting by anyone else, lhp?
Steve-AR @ 62
i think it’s just silly to use nomination confirmations as a way to compare votes with feingold. everyone knows that’s his weakness, he thinks presidents should generally get to work with who they want to. i disagree – but this is hardly the set of votes to use for feingold.
that said, i haven’t studied the details yet (bookmarked for when i have some time).. so, i reserve the right to completely agree with you… but the use of feingold in this way does not sit well with me.
Toby Wollin @ 13
ERLC is a great organization. They do candidate training in conjunction with Emily’s List and they are teaching women how to be donors. Thay raised over $500 K in this lunch aloneCheckingIn @ 18
can’t help you there. All I know is what I heard an saw.
SOMEBODY PLEASE HELP!
I called Mike Rogers MI-08 to discuss his position on the SCHIP override.
Here is a briEf synopsis of the letter I received back.
In a word NO. But here is his excuses:
1. Allow states to enroll kids from families making up to $83k/yr
2. Would cause kids who have private insurance the ability to drop and enroll in SCHIP
3. Illegal Immigrants – Claims the legislation repeals the requirement that states verify citizenship
4. Concerns about the tax increase.
Who can script me on debunking his lies and give me the game to counterattack his staff ;g
I imagine if the Nobel Peace Prize winner called the junior senator from New York up, and left a message on her answering machine that said, “I’m thinking of getting in, because I don’t think you are actually going to end the war. And if I get in, I’ll beat you. I’ve already been elected President once. I got more votes than your husband ever did. So, I’m going to jump in, and your campaign will collapse in some kind of Johnson-esque meltdown…or you can announce some kind of bold plan to end the war. Call me later! Bye!”
that the end result would be something like what we’ve seen today.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 87
Re-elect Gore 2008!!!
Gore doesn’t want to run – he’s passionate about what he is doing, and why would anyone in their right mind abandon that to trade puerile jabs with Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani?
But there’s no question he’s feeling the pressure to jump in. Maybe these videos are one line of defense against getting in – so he can point to subsequent statements from the Democratic candidates to say “see? I can change the terms of debate, I can move the argument forward without having to run.”
Just an idea.
We in this family look at the candidate’s record and their votes.
lahoma
Steve-AR @ 106
Now don’t get all squishy here. For her (and all DLCers) it is NOT a “good thing” because the way the “evaluate options” is to look at the mutually contradictory options and triangulate some mushy words that can be interpreted to mean either option without actually committing to either. Tri-ang-u-la-tion!
Praedor Atrebates @ 103
I can do it in one word:
Establishment.
Eureka Springs @ 33
Maybe Landrieu is asking Hillary to whip HoJo into shape.
dakine01 @ 78
With all due respect, I just call ‘em like I see ‘em.
In other circumstances I’d see your point, but the Republican field is weak and collectively getting weaker.
Let’s get Hillary’s ear now while she’s listening.
A tonic of good snark, whatsay?
cleter @ 98
There is no doubt in my mind that she sees Gore as her biggest threat. That’s not something bad against her; it’s just smart. But more importantly, the Rethugs know that if he gets into the race and wins the nomination, they are dead in the water. They are very afraid of him, and for plenty of reason. The man has his own platform, for doG sake!! He can go straight to people’s living rooms or offices, or whereever the internet is. Talk about changing politics. He can stand it on its ear!
dakine01 @ 100
we’re not there yet.
exhibit #1: congress (iraq, fisa, iran, trade, ….)
i couldn’t even get a straight answer out of pelosi’s office today.
Senator Clinton has previously said if the war is still going on when she takes office she will end it. The much merchandised Russert question in an inaccurate depiction of all the candidates.
cleter @ 109
Cleter, sorry but I think you are living in imagination land on that one. Hardly sounds like something Gore would do. And, Gore will not run- I offered a cash money bet on that one at FDL (sorry, betting is closed now).
Here’s the thing about the troops that seems unrealistic. I find it hard to believe that you can decrease the troop strength in Iraq substantially in that environment. Either you get everybody out of the country and give up your long-term embassy plans and strategic positioning, while engaging in full force diplomacy with everyone in the region; or you stay in substantial numbers. I don’t think you can have it both ways. The Iraqis will not stand for Americans staying, and small numbers of troops would be sitting ducks for those favoring retaliation for the occupation and mass destruction of their infrastructure. Obviously, I prefer the former, but the powers that be are so afraid of losing control of what they think they have. They are delusional. The Arabs will never give up. Never.
I’m not sure the GOP is particularly scared of Gore. I think they see him as damaged goods, like Kerry or Walter Mondale. Just another loser. I think Guliani would rather run against Gore than Hillary.
selise @ 107
I am not sure why Feingold was used and I am a huge supporter but voting for Bush’s judges is one of the most damaging votes a Senator can make, IMO.
I would have to hear Hillary make these statements several times over to a mixed audience and across the media before I place it the “what she stands for” pile and not “what she says while working the crowd” pile. People can do and say anything, once.
I also want to know who her advisors are in this new position. Like her health plan, I’d like to know her troop withdrawal plan. What does she recommend leaving behind and why?
This isn’t skepticism, it’s reality.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 2
Heh, My same reaction, too…!!! *g*
puppethead @ 61
Ellen Malcolm (the founder of Emily’s List) hinted at something that may partly explain why Hillary MIGHT be taking a turn to the left.
Evidently the latest poll (i’m guessing it’s a poll Emily’s List paid for) says that Hillary is unbeatable inNew Hampshire by double digits.
More signifigantly she has a 43% lead in NH amoung women. All women. Rep women are in that mix.
Ellen says that the polling is showing that Rep women are flocking to Hillary in droves, and they are anti war.
katherine Graham Cracker @ 121
What she would do on a host of things depends on what her definition of the word “is” is. By “war” what did she mean? We cannot know what ending the “war” means if we don’t know what her definition of “war”. We can’t know if she will stop torture and abuse of prisoners if we don’t know HER definition of “torture and abuse” (we know Bush’s definitions and they are “torture” is not torture and “abuse” is not abuse. There, problem fixed.)
QuakerGirl @ 126
I concur! But, Hill has an admirable Progressive Punch voting record, tho…!!!
“If this president does not get us out of Iraq, when I am president, I will.”
–Hillary Clinton, Democratic debate, South Carolina, April 26, 2007
“I will immediately move to begin bringing our troops home when I am inaugurated…[But there] may be a continuing counter-terrorism mission, which, if it still exists, will be aimed al Qaeda in Iraq. It may require combat, Special Operations Forces or some other form of that, but the vast majority of our combat troops should be out.”
and today Al Quaeda is defeated so no troops right?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 77
her speech had a whole section on that and on what a great job Gore has been doing on this issue for the past 30 years.
Perhaps they had a chat and Gore has dragged her to the left?
Iam just specualting on all the possibilities. I am opinion free at the moment
cleter @ 123
Nah. They know they were beaten fair and square by Gore in the popular vote, and they had to steal the election to get in power. They also know what voter fraud shenanigans they were involved in, and they also know, that we know that too. Things are very different these days.
Steve-AR @ 125
it wasn’t only judges in the analysis. but i totally agree: love feingold, but not his voting on presidential nominations.
my point is only that for looking at presidential nominations, you don’t use feingold has the gold standard – he just isn’t. there’s a ton of other things feingold would make a great gold standard on, for example civil liberties (patriot act to moveon vote)… but not presidential nominations.
Reading lhp’s post makes HRC look more attractive to me in that pic.
Further self evidence it’s not the looks I’m attracted to in women. :)
LS @ 132
I keep thinking voter fraud is why so many Ohio Repub Reps are retiring, am I wrong?
is there a reason conyers is not a candidate for president?
I love conyers
anyway, gleamed from think progress;
cheney immediately set to start spying on his political oponents and his bussiness competitors as soon as he came into office
this is a fact, not speculation
the president lied and said this program bagan because of 9/11…that was a bold, in your face, lie
cheney went to exaactly not one of the anti terror meetings even though he was put in charge of anti terrorism…if he had he might come up with some kind of excuse like;
“if you knew what I learned in these brifings you would have done the same thing”
but he has no such excuse
they were putting into place the mechanisms that would hopefully keep the facists in power for 100 years
but how to justifyt this kind of invasion of provacy?
why, an attack on our soil that’s how
cleter @ 124
Gore didn’t ‘lose’! He did win the Popular Vote by a commanding lead…!!!
Scarecrow @ 102
Actually, that’s not the picture I put in their. The one I used was from last year’s ERLC lunch. She was in agreen suit.
I think I had editorial help b/c somebody put in fancy bullets where I jsut had plain old dashes.
One thing is for sure. I have never regarded Hillary Clinton as an environmentalist.
cleter @ 124
gore scares the crap out of them that’s why they continue to attack whatever he does
My friend who goes to a fundamentalist church is talking nice about Hillary.
Of course, she’s got 2 sons who are Marines, one who has served all his time but knows he can be recalled for a few years if they need him.
My thought is that we really need to do lots of voter registering. LOTS.
looseheadprop @ 97
So, it was 100% calculated – a trial balloon and a pre-emptive move re Gore in the wings. What was it the hunter in Jurassic Park said as he realized the velociraptors had surrounded him?
Elliott @ 106
I have no clue if anyone else is reporting it. I got out of the lunch. Sat in traffic for a few hours and then wrote this up when I got back to the office. Sent Jane an email that it was written and then went into a meeting. That’s been my day
Given her unique position as the wife of the former President, I cannot get past Hillary’s vote for the Iraq War Resolution, period. If she had voted against it 5 years ago, maybe she wouldn’t have to try to figure out how to end the mess now.
Elliott @ 135
I don’t know…could be. I think the Repubs know that they are so caught in so many areas that they just want to shrink back into the woodwork and pretend they are invisible.
I will say this again. Against any of the announced GOP candidates for president, Hillary looks good. Also, as things stand today Senator Clinton will not get my primary vote.
perris @ 136
Yup…nothin’ like that ole’ Shock and Awe to bring the country to its knees. They need to reinvestigate everything about 9/11.
“Hi Mom, it’s Todd Bemer”….think about it.
I don’t want another era of Republican-lite (Clintons.), no matter what they say.
Elliott @ 135
That’s been puzzling me too. Either they’re dirty from that or from the coin scandal, or they realize their ‘brand’ is tarnished, or something. I really wonder.
Further to HRC’s new position or sound bites. Will she remove all military/security US contractors from Iraq? If she brings the troops home but keeps the likes of Blackwater, Halliburton et al there, it is even worse. They are unaccountable to anyone. If they run our embassy, it is business as usual.
Anna Parenna @ 145
She still hasn’t given a good explanation for her Kyl/Lieberman amendment. it’s unlikely there is a good explanation.
Bahaha! Bush just lost Hilary! Rudy s next!
Hmmm…Color me unsurprised that, if these remarks were indeed passed, that it was done at a ‘dark show’ and not a ‘PPV’, to paraphrase sports entertainment terminology.
No doubt camera-ready versions of these remarks are being prepared after the initial blog chatter has been sifted and parsed.
Hey, I’ve got another attention-grabbing applause line that she might care to try out without the big lights on:
‘If elected, upon taking office in January 2009, I will direct the DOJ to begin proceedings against members of the Bush administration for crimes against these United States’
QuakerGirl @ 151
I mean didn’t some of the crap that Bush exploited already exist during the Clinton administration. Um like Contractors fever.
Steve-AR @ 74
And this is bad, exactly how? You can have different opinions about where Ms. Clinton’s heart is, but as Steve-AR hammered home above (BTW, demon research, Steve!), her head is in a pretty good place, even when compared to her primary opponents. Given that, I don’t care if she needs a spreadsheet to decide what color socks to don in the morning. “Genuine” is a pretty lame qualification for the leader of the free world, IMO.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 140
Hillary’s “Environmentalist Progressive Score” 92%
Lieberman, a real corporate hack..72%
Things Come Undone @ 153
I dunnno, Rudy may be a hardcore 29%er.
darkblack @ 153
Bada Bingo, ho ho!!!
LS @ 148
eerie that story, eerie…I know as a fact my cell phone will not work till my plane is almost on the ground
Hillary voted for the Iraq war. Hillary voted for Kyl-Lieberman. Hillary gets much of her campaign money from the same interests as does Joe Lieberman. Hillary helped throw Ned Lamont to the dogs. Hillary is a Leadership Team member of the DLC. Hillary’s chief adviser is Mark Penn. There’s more.
looseheadprop @ 101
I was inartful in my original post, and I apologize. I know it was said because you witnessed it. I’m worried that she doesn’t mean “now” or she means “till we’re going to war with Iran”.
I guess we wait and see if it’s for real, or she’s trying to one-up Obama.
-S
Hmm, my previous came off a little edgy. [note to self, ease up on the caffeine!]. Oklahoma kiddo: I probably inferred anti-Clinton animus where none existed. Sorry.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 161
Hillary’s got some really icky contributors a la open secrets.org. Murdoch, but also some of the others . . . no self-respecting democrat should go near
perris @ 160
It is a fact…he stated that he was on “the airphone”….Flight 93 reportedly landed at Cleveland. That is pretty close to the ground.
darkblack @ 153
If Hill said that on Faux Spew’s OReally, she’d have my Primary and General votes locked in…!!! 8-)
CTuttle @ 166
If she said, that, probably some other candidate already said it. (Edwards? Dodd? Richardson?). Hypothetically speaking.
katherine Graham Cracker @ 130
It sounds like everything that she has said re Iraq is consistent with this quote, and so her remarks today are nothing new. Am I missing something?
LS @ 165
there were other calls made from cell phones though
I would STFU and send her a campaign contribution.
I don’t see anything here that is different from before. We will see in the coming hours or days if this is a serious conversion or a waffle with syrup.
cleter @ 122
You’re talking about the party that “didn’t have Richard Nixon to kick around anymore” until they did. They also know that this man has really kept his reputation high regardless of their best efforts to burn him bad! Internationally, even. I think they’re scared to death of him, that’s why they keep talking up Hillary. She is who they’ve long wanted to run against. And if they hadn’t brought their own reputations down with so much corruption, they might have stood a chance with her due to her high negatives. Let’s face it, a lot of people just will not vote for Hillary.
WOW! Please forgive the OT from TPM The Air Force procurement officer who had the temporary no-show job commits suicide.
mui @ 158
He’s a hardcore Loser if he doesn’t switch!
Oh why can’t these moderate GOPers like Rudy and Romney flip flop on the war…they have already flipped on everything else.
Why don’t they flip on an issue that could actually win them an election.
Eureka Springs @ 169
Has any of the other candidates spoken to this, justice for Bushco? Kucinich has, hasn’t he?
dude @ 170
But is there really anything new? Look at katherine G C @130. Seems HRC has said this before.
perris @ 169
Just got done watching Chris Matthews interviewing David Crosby and Graham Nash. They are apparently performing at a concert tomorrow night. Does anyone know if that concert will be telecast?
OT..VA Senate race:
Sheesh. It’s a massacre. Q3 fundraising numbers:
Mark Warner (D) $1.1 million (entered race 9/13, so two weeks)
Jim Gilmore (R) $200,000
Tom Davis (R) $222,000
Kos
dakine01 @ 172
perhaps the key word is “apparent” suicide (I don’t trust these people.)
Eureka Springs @ 170
lol! I pretty much agree. She knows, but she has to posture to get votes…but she knows. I believe she is sincere about her visions for the country. She’s really on the “inside” of information. She is walking the razor’s edge…somewhat effectively. Gore knows too.
I wonder if Gore winning the Nobel Prize is pushing Hilary to the left. Maybe Gore told her that if she ends the Iraq war she might be up for a Nobel Prize herself. Hilary is very competive after all, which if she focues on helping people instead of helping business is good.
mui @ 155
They took so much of the NeoCon Repug ground work and turned it into policy. None of it was new, it just became entrenched under them. NAFTA was Ronald Reagan’s brain child in 1981 only it wasn’t called NAFTA, just foreign economic policy. By the time Clinton got to the WH several business sectors were already obliterated and sent abroad. The Apparel Industry was the first, Footwear, Steel and it just kept tumbling. The Clintons bought into so many of these foreign policy plans. The Clintons are smart people so I don’t get it. Well, smart doesn’t protect a person from being shallow.
Elliott @ 179
I don’t particualrly trust them either. However, I don’t think we need to start “Vince Foster” rumors as yet.
Things Come Undone @ 174
You want him to? Come on don’t make me laugh.
dakine01 @ 184
gee, dakine01, you take the fun out of everything! ;)
FYI, SCHIPS Ahoy upstairs
QuakerGirl @ 183
That’s what noone can figure out, except to say “triangulation” they’re Republican lite.
I hereby do not except Hillary as the nominee before the primary.
Here’s a bit of history on military contractors, from a comment by montag, in answer to several questions from me. A blast from the past.
http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..ent-427866
snip from montag (I miss montag!)
~~The bugaboo here is a set of procurement plans and regulations that the Pentagon wrote in the time period of 1988-1992, first by Frank Carlucci (who replaced Caspar Weinberger when he was indicted for Iran-Contra) and our friend Toad-In-The-Hole in 1991-2. Carlucci created a plan which was billed as a means of reducing costs, but, in fact, was a way of hiding defense procurement in other agencies outside the Pentagon–the GSA, Interior, even Agriculture.
Cheney’s plan was even more subversive. After selective use of contractors in the Gulf War, he hailed this as a great breakthrough (about 9,000 were used then), and as part of a uniform program for procurement known as LOGCAP (which Carlucci had helpfully modified), Cheney let a contract to Halliburton/KBR to study the expansion of privatized services, because, supposedly, Halliburton/KBR had the most experience with that.~~~
1arryb @ 163
Don’t worry about it. What you said was fine. ;0)
interesting article (diary) at daily kos about an article HRC wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine very very hawkish on Iran.
as in ‘all options are on the table.’
HRC’s position has been that she would “end the war” for quite a while but she has been unwilling to commit to withdrawing all troops – combat and socalled support from Iraq even by 2013.
Her approach has been to say that all the Democratic candidates agree and will end the war. Unfortunately, she seems to support a rather large continued presence in Iraq.
Siun @ 192
Exactly.
gore would clean the floor with guiliana-
unless he looked for the ‘middle ground’
then it would be close enough for gore to be diebolded again-=
Suicide is such a convenient way to off someone you want to stop. How old is the old suicide routine? Many a Popes were helped along when they didn’t conveniently joint St. Peter at those pearly gates. Name the country and there is mystery surrounding the death of some ruler or prime minister or other powerful figure.
Dear, please drink this hot milk and it will relax you, forever. Does the CIA have a suicide serum? The pharmaceutical industry does.
I’m not bothered by a presidential candidate saying “all options are still on the table.”
There is a chance to negotiate the nuke issue with the Iranian govt.- and it would be wrong to say- “if ya wait til I’m prez- ya won’t have to worry”
It’s the right thing to say it seems to me.
Thanks, Looseheadprop. I have heard her say that on a number of occasions – in debates and in videos on the web. Sometimes I think the fanatical critics (who say she’s for war or torture or bombing Iran) are listening very selectively, if at all.
This does sound like a strong definitive statement, with none of the usual qualifications. So I see it as a positive sign.
QuakerGirl @ 183
The Clintons, both of them, are corporatists and work to further corporate interests. Get it?
“I heard her say that she would end the Iraq war immediately upon taking office.”
I need video/audio proof. Upon which book did she swear this oath? Color me doubtful, but I just don’t trust her to stand up to all the big money folks who are paying to keep this endless war going on into Syria, Iran ad infintium.
Hillary’s not my fave- but I think she’d make a good prez- bout 100 times better than Clusterfuck.
coral @ 197
maybe moving the troops ‘laterally’ across a new border?
The “After I’m elected” should give one’s pause…
QuakerGirl @ 195
I’ll never drink hot milk again: :-(
Help Wanted column:
Average Joe seeks ‘taster’ for part-time position.
Must be allergy free with own car.
Yeah , , , I’ll believe THAT when I see it ! I said i’d NEVER vote 4 her when she came out for an Anti-Flag burning amendment a few years ago , Hillary is a weather-vane, nuff said .
LHP, I am a Clintonista and this doesn’t really surprise me all that much. Her position is very much in line with Murtha’s: call it a day, bring most of the troops home, redeploy the rest. I would call that ending the war but some people on our side of the aisle would say it is not. (Though why Murtha can say it and get applause for this strategy and not HRC is beyond me)
She certainly didn’t have to say it this explicitly for me but other people may need to hear it word for word. I would hope that she makes it clear that she intends to leave a residual force in Iraq to provide “event horizon” missions, security and training. It would be the honest thing to do.
And in a way, doesn’t it make sense from a national security standpoint to want to end the war as quickly as possible? The threats to us are real and our army is broken. It’s not a good situation for a new president to be in. Why anyone thought she was onboard with the destruction of our military is beyond me. That kind of policy only makes sense if you are a Bushie neocon, which Clark’s endorsement assures she is most definitely not.
Breaking News: Hillary Pledges to End War “Immediately” Upon Taking Office
She’ll end the war, but will she end the occupation?
I doubt it.
So Hillary “adopts” John Edwards’ health care policy.
And Hillary takes Bill Richardson’s Iraq/war policy. Burgles it really, since she can’t say it out loud.
Is that the king of leadership the country needs now? of a frontrunner?
The country needs a real dialog on this issue, and that means reaching out to Republicans that hate the war and those that support it too. Not telling your staunchest political supporters something you’re afraid to say to the country.
I mean, it’s great she said it. But isn’t that what the Senate is for?
I don’t believe a word that comes out of her mouth. Sorry…
But does “end the war immediately” mean “bring the troops home?” She has repeatedly said that she intends (or expects) to maintain a military presence in Iraq and she just recently, in the debate, stated that there would still be troops in Iraq in 2012. I expect this is just more rhetoric. Feh.
It all depends on what your definition of “ending the war” is.
We ended the war with Japan and Germany, yet have a permanent military presence (Ok, so Okinawa isn’t technically Japan….right)
Valley Girl @ 42
Heh heh…you slay me VG!
There is enormous pressure that people who identify as dems want to be inclusive and make everyone happy.
In the case of Hillary, she’s found herself, or gotten herself into a place where she can make groups happy which are not the natural dem constituents. This means you go to the right and cozy up with bidness interests.
The you realize how damn powerful these corporations and the national security state is and you can’t get anywhere unless you play to them enough to know that you are not going to cut off the drugs.
You really need to have a good plan not to have bidness, media and the MIC make life miserable for you… and balls to go with it.
Hillary’s triangulation demonstrates she can play to these guys enough for them to not feel threatened. She does some sabre rattling to signal the DOD that she’s not going to shrink them down and open the drain in tub… as they get sucked away. She plays the insurance industry the same. Look guys you can stay at the party but the rules are going to change… as opposed to. Insurance has nothing to do with health care.
She may be a realist, a pol a triangulator, but she is trying to be all things to all interest. She seems not to be genuine cos she really takes strong positions which cut anyone out.
You can’t really fight city hall and in this case it is the oligarchy who wield all the power in America… the power behind the thrown.
I think her basic values are ok. But how much will she sell out and how much will she not and return to those basic values.
With Bush you know who his paymasters are. With Hill you don’t know, and don’t want to believe it is the same crowd.
I don’t think you’d get the trashing of the constitution under Hill and I do think she would recind his “rollback on rights”. I’m pretty sure she would not mess with bidness and they are driving the agenda and the guys who seem to wield the real power in this nation.
Would you rather have Fred of Hollowood, or Ghouliani the Adulterer or the mad mormon?
There she goes again. Throwing us a bone. Can anyone say weather vane. She’ll say anything to get elected then she’ll really show us what she’s made off.
A la the bard;
“Lowliness is young ambition’s ladder,
Whereto the climber-upward turns his face;
And when he once obtains the upmost round,
He then unto the ladder turns his back,
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend.”
That is what is in store for all progressives if they waste their vote on Hillary.
Frank Probst @ 21
Hillary Clinton — She can be pushed into ‘leading’ if the polls are sufficiently in favor of it and the negatives aren’t too bad.
Hillary as Julius Caesar? Did she claim to be a God?
David Derbes @ 76
Sad but true. As much as I disagree with her on more than a couple of things, if Louisiana wasn’t trending “right” and New Orleans wasn’t the scene of the latest diaspora she would probably be one of the most kick ass people in Congress.
I saw some footage of her on the floor explaining what Louisiana needed and she was the real deal. Vitter….not so much…Jindal…well these two never met a Republican talking point they didn’t vote for.
Landrieu seems to follow her instincts on what her constituents want. Sometimes that is the Rethug position.
End the war? Well, maybe with a detour into Iran. “Mission Accomplished” for the PNAC, A*P*C and Halliburton war profiteers. They’ve made billion$ in taxpayer/ big gub’mint money, displaced or killed 20% of the Iraqi population & inaugurated a civil war, turned that country into a bloody “failed state” hell for two decades at least.
Occupation’s not popular, but let’s go stir up the hornet’s nest somewhere else. Maybe those Iranians are so sick of Ahmenijjad (the current “new Hitler” (c) now that Saddam’s gone) they’ll welcome us in with flowers & candy. After all, most of ‘em are too young to remember our last quisling, that wonderful, noble Shah.
Please someone please explain to me what in hell a “strategic alternative energy reserve” is. Did she actually say that? So we have enough alternative energy lying around that we can make a reserve to store it in (like the petroleum reserve, of which there indeed is a lot at least for the moment). What will it hold? Hugh amounts of biodiesel (that there is not much of). Big baskets of sunlight? Enormous bags of wind (is that another word for the Senate?)?
Is this pure pandering bullshit or what? LHP, please enlighten me!
LS @ 133
(BIGASSGRIN)
Bold emph is mine . . . *G*
looseheadprop @ 109
I can possibly help here. Who benefits from keeping the Progessive Community attacks on Hillary UP? Who benefits from having that community step out of the Presidential Elections in 2008?
As such the NY Suns failure to clarify or spark interest on Hillary’s positions on Iraq make perfectly good sense. They surely benefit from keeping things muddy and opaque.
I trust looseheadprop on what she said, not the NY Sun!
It’s the neo-Cons that would most benefit from a fractured Democratic party. It’s a technique that they used when they surrepticiously supported a progressive candidate named Nader who constantly stated that Al Gore was “no different” from George Bush.
Landrieu was there because Emily’s List refused to support her for her last election because she had voted for some anti-abortion bill.
EL supports ONLY pro-choice candidates.
Evidently, she got the message.
What Hillary said is that she will begin withdrawing troops immediately, and will withdraw them at a rate commesurate with state conditions on the ground. She has always said that. Get a life.
Lee says: “get a life”.
I can get better than that. Here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usel…..tworkfront
I do not understand why people continue to support someone who doesn’t think that the Himalayan-sized fuckup in Iraq is a mistake.
Her policy differences with george bush over Iraq are miniscule.
IF we’re politically suicidal enough to nominate her, how the hell can she do the ONE thing that any democratic candidate HAS to do to win the white house, which is, flay the ass off them over Iraq?
Hell, I feel like those of us who do NOT want another cliff-hanger for the GOP to steal, are telling democrats to not eat rocks.
Escuse me; of course, “IS a mistake.”
Sorry, but I am doubly negative about what nominating Clinton will do to us.
dakine01 @ 8
VP Landrieu ???????????? could ruin everthing!
Dear Loosehead, I’ll take some issue with that.
I would like to ask the Clinton supporters on here if they blame the “Iraqi government” for “their failure” (As does Clinton).
Because I think it’s an obscenity to parrot this piece of exculpatory bushCo shitspeak.
The Iraqi government is hiding out in the green zone, trying to escape the mayhem that the invasion which Hillary Clinton has supported, and STILL supports, and for which she will not apologize.
How can we possible nominate her? Iraq is THE issue NOW, and is only going to get bigger, as the campaign heats up.
It’s at the point that the people who are supporting her are shaving points for the GOP.
If the Iraqi government spends 72 hours OUTSIDE of the green zone, they will be converted into Alpo.
Hillary Clinton knows this, and her statements about the “failure” of the Iraqi government are a pornographic attempt to have it both ways.
I would love to see one of the debate moderators ask her what events in Iraq would have to transpire, for her to say that she was wrong to support the invasion.
At this point, I think that it’s more than a fair question. I think it begs to be asked.
“Who benefits from keeping the progressive attacks on Hillary up?”
Answer: The democratic party and the american people.
Cinnamon, if you think differently, please post your reasons, and let’s talk about them. :o)
WHAT is the biggie. She’s starting to catch holy hell for her positions on Iraq, and now she’s starting to feint left.
What the people who are supporting her are saying to the rest of us is this:
“Iraq is going to improve so much in the next year, that it won’t be much of an issue in the campaign.”
And if you believe that, some of us have a pro-war candidate who, under an increasing ton of reality pressure, is now discovering her anti-war inner self, to sell you.
Yes, Perris@15.
What we need to know here, is what her total belief-set is, about Iraq.
Actually, since she won’t say the invasion was a mistake, we already know it. She’s watching Iraq, and she knows that it’s not getting better, but in fact, is getting worse, and she knows that on this most-important issue, she’s getting more and more vulnerable, every day.
Which is why she HAS to win the nomination quickly, or she won’t win it all.
It’s also why she won’t remove her name from the ballot in Michigan; one of the states which are moving their democratic primaries up, against the wishes of the DLC. Which promise of removal, she, along with most of the democratic candidates, made earlier.
This is not complex: because of her votes AND her beliefs, she simply cannot afford to be competing and making speeches 6 months from now, with the realities of Iraq staring american voters in the face.
It will ruin her.
And it should.
MS, can you give us the reasons why we should have to “infer” the SPECIFICS of Clinton’s plan to end the war?
With her track record, at this point, I think it’s fair to ask that. :o)
I find it very hard to believe Hillary will do what she states, the history simply is not there.
http://download.premiereradio……Letter.pdf
As we all know, the Brit media takes a much more cold-eyed and realistic view of Iraq than does our poodle media, and the first paragraph in that UK Guardian Unlimited article that I linked to @ 224 reads:
“Hillary Clinton moved today to secure her position as the most hawkish democrat in the 2008 presidential race, saying she would consider the use of force to compel Iran to abandon it’s nuclear programme.”
What “inference” may we draw from that?
Sombrero@208:
“Burgles it, really, since she can’t say it out loud…”
Best laugh in a few days. :o)
Eleanor Roosevelt is my hero. Though I know it means nothing, I’m inordinately proud that I share her birthday.
If HRC was just playing to the crowd in this particular house, as far as I’m concerned she committed blasphemy.
.
Let’s watch.
I got beer and pizza money that says down the road, she’s going to finally eat her authorization vote. By then it should be; hope it WILL be, too late.
It won’t be a change of heart; just more realpolitik, as the voters look at Iraq and her track record there.
And when she does, John Edwards should scathingly welcome her to the mea-culpa club.
Ask her to define ‘end the war’. My guess it means declare victory, redeploy some troops to other bases in the region, then claim the remaining 130,000 or so troops are just there to train the Iraqis and fight terrorists …ie, exactly what they are doing today. But hey, the war will be over because we say so.
Sorry, I’m cynical, but the above is the general scope of all the other Democratic faux-withdrawal plans. Just note that ‘end the war’ and ‘bring all the troops home’ are not necessarily the same thing.
If this can be authenticated, I’ll back her one-hundred percent.
But I need unequivocal, repeated assurance from her that she will end the war IMMEDIATELY on taking office. That she’ll bring the troops back home. No waffling, no shillyshallying, no backing down.
John A. Broussard @ 238
Not so fast according to the Guardian. Read it and weep. I’ve told you(collective) not to trust her. Thar she blows http://www.guardian.co.uk/usel…..tworkfront
Why she cannot be trusted;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usel…..tworkfront
I’ve said here before that I’d never vote for Clinton, even if she’s the Democratic candidate…
That kind of talk makes Karl Rove smile.
bartcopfan @ 241
In that case lets wipe that smile off his face. Pick someone who reflects the progressive values. That will destroy TurdBlossom’s hidden plan for Hillary.
“That kind of talk makes Karl Rove smile.”
Bartcop: Not nearly as broadly as the kind of desperate teensy little whitewash job on which this thread is premised.
And, I have to ask, how much of a smile do you think Rove and rest of the petro-borgs are enjoying as they read that piece from the Guardian, and think:
“Yep, we own her ass.”
Did anyone by chance hear her say she would come and help me clean up around my house?
Today Hillary is quoted saying that she would use force in IRAN!
Endless war is still on the table. Sigh.
Just curious. When meeting with Heads of State in Muslim dominated countries, would Hillary wear head covering and no make-up?
How hard is it to understand? Clinton was pandering.
Why in the world would you believe Hillary Clinton, least of all when she takes a position without explanation that flatly contradicts her more public statements about Iraq?
As for upholding the Constitution, Bill Clinton wasn’t all that spotless himself. Who invented “extraordinary rendition”?
Few things could cause greater despair to true liberals (those who are in touch with reality, I mean, not their own fantasies) than for the Democrats to nominate Hillary Clinton.
Yeah, right. When she gets the “come to Jesus moment” she’ll regretfully have to keep troops in Iraq until hell freezes over or the oil runs out.
This candidate is only the other wing of the National WarParty.
I don’t know who the bigger fools are; the ones that believe this or the ones that will vote for her regardless of whatever she does or has done.
She’s playin you all!
When I saw HRC speak in Boston last week, she promised us on her first day in office to reverse Bush’s ban on stem cell research. The crowd went wild.
Word games.
The “WAR” was over in no time. The US and allies won the “War” no ifs, no buts.
What’s been going on ever since is “resistance” against foreign invader/occupiers.
Did the lady say she’d end the occupation? Imediately?
If she didn’t, then why all the fuss? What’s new?
Like I said – just more politicians’ word games.
It’s what they “DO”. In fact, it’s the ONLY thing most of today’s sorry excuses for honest politicians “DO” – be it in the US, UK or most other supposed modern democracies political arenas.
Coices? The only real choice for honest people is whether or not to hold your nose when voting – or not to vote at all.
Some choice, eh?
Btw, I know about the typos/errors, so please spare me the grammar police.
Yeah, I’m angry, can’t you tell?
How is this any different than any other politician who crafts their message for a specific audience?
She would no more be bound by these campaign ‘promises’ than GWB by his ‘promise’ to be a compassionate conservative.
This is completely ridiculous. If the Dems running for president had any guts they would stand together and make ending the Iraq war a party pledge, and the major plank in next year’s platform. Forget the politics and do the right thing now.
I wish people would learn that Hillary speaks English like her husband speaks English — they make it do what they want. When she says she will “end the war,” you have to tie her down on what that specifically means. You can “end the war” and still keep 30,000 troops in Iraq. You can “end the war” and still require the government of Iraq to give up control of oil resources to US and other Western companies. You can “end the war” and still maintain permanent (or “enduring”) bases to protect access to oil. So until I hear the details of what Hillary Clinton means by “end the war,” her “new statement” has the same weight as, “it depends what the meaning of is is.”