Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Democrats

The Democrats.
Hillary Clinton.
Let’s take a look at the Democratic Senator from New York, I mean Arkansas…..or is it Chicago?
I can’t keep track.

Hillary Clinton, who has done nothing for the State of New York except rally against military base closings that even the citizens of the areas affected knew were sensible. Due to the ending of the "Cold War" the practicality of the decision to close the bases she wanted to "save" was obvious and inevitable. (Do I smell a photo op and pro military press?) Watching her and Bill wolf down a Sausage with Peppers and Onions at the NY State Fair doesn't exactly inspire me but I guess that added to our economy somehow.
She has been working diligently to take on as many personalities and accents a person possibly can without being hauled away for psychological evaluation for multiple personality disorder. (She fo sho does sound mighty fine.) She's obviously been working on her phony, sinister, disturbing cackle. That could come in handy if diplomacy fails. Imagine the look on the Iranian Presidents' face when he hears that for the first time.
She has demonstrated that becoming Jr. Senator for the Empire State was basically a launching pad for her real goal of becoming the President. Unfortunately for launching pads, they get burned on take off. We're getting scorched big time.
Hillary Clinton voted to invade Iraq based on intelligence that half the country, without her resources found extremely questionable and misleading. She voted to give the power of the citizens of New York and her responsibility to represent our interests to the most corrupt and inept presidential administration in recent history. She wanted to look tough on terrorism.She has played politics with the lives of the men and women of our military. She doesn't want to look like she's not for our troops? She has been campaigning for so long she somehow forgot she had a job already.
She has tip- toed around Washington hoping not to step on any toes that would cost her the only job she really wanted. She was for the war she's now against because she chose not to do her job that she's now claiming to do all the while not really doing the job she's supposed to do, therefore claiming to have done nothing wrong because doing nothing cannot be seen by voters as wrong because ther's nothing to assess. (Clever like a useless Fox) Leaders don't tip toe, they act in the best interests of those they serve. She has danced around the issues so often, she seems almost comfortable when she's asked about her ineffectiveness while at the same time proveing the questioner correct with her evasive, ineffective and almost laughable double speak. When you spend more time justifying your decisions than making them, you are no leader. If you are more interested in face-time than showing your true face, you are no leader. When you'd rather do nothing to preserve your elect ability rather than make noise on behalf of the people who voted for you, you are no leader.
A woman in the Whitehouse is long overdue, but do we want her to be a self- serving, ineffective, fake? A person whose only qualifications seems to be her ability to play the Washington politics game, (Great, more bullshit, lobbyists and cronyism) and her ability to change faces, decisions and votes depending on elect ability and popular opinion?
The worst part about her is she is the frontrunner of the Democratic party and she is symptematic of what is wrong with our party.


Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at October 3, 2007 3:28 PM
Comments
Comment #235162

Andre, well said, and I totally agree. For many of the reasons you’ve listed, and for a few others, I cannot and will not vote for Hillary for president if she wins the Democratic nomination.
Btw, is this the beginning of a series of articles? Will you be giving us your take on Obama and Edwards because they are frontrunners as well?

PS. I’ve been wondering where you’d gone, so it’s very nice to see you posting an article to Watchblog again!

Posted by: Adrienne at October 3, 2007 5:43 PM
Comment #235164

Andre,

Now is THAT a nice way to talk about our next President of the United States? She has the nomination all but locked up, and with all the weenies the Reps are putting up…she’s a shoo-in. The only person that can defeat Hillary is Bill…and if keeps his zipper zipped, there’s no competition.

If you want a few lines that sum up the Reps and your opinion?

The Reps are looking for their next Reagan…

The Dems have already found their next Clinton…

Posted by: Jim T at October 3, 2007 5:47 PM
Comment #235170

Adrienne… can I count on your vote for a third party/independent for president next year then?

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at October 3, 2007 6:19 PM
Comment #235171
The worst part about her is she is the frontrunner of the Democratic party and she is symptematic of what is wrong with our party.
This may be one time when the candidate with the most money doesn’t win.

Hillary Clinton is from the family of Chamaeleonidae. You can never be sure of her real position on any subject. You always get the feeling that it is calculated and could change when necessary.

Posted by: d.a.n@One-Simple-Idea.com at October 3, 2007 6:22 PM
Comment #235174

Doug:
“Adrienne… can I count on your vote for a third party/independent for president next year then?”

No Doug, you can’t.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 3, 2007 6:47 PM
Comment #235180

Adrienne… so you’ll vote Republican if Billary gets the nomination… interesting…

uh… for the record… I’m just playing with ya… you can obviously vote for whomever you want…

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at October 3, 2007 7:20 PM
Comment #235185

d.a.n.- I believe I would prefer a Democratic Chameleon or a Tree Frog compared to a Republican
Skunk. I can not see an Independent Ghost Shrimp,
over the horizon, of the swamp, an the Democrats
must win in 2009, an since you nor any other
Independents have offered one of your favorites
from out of the woods, I think our best shot can
only be Gore, if he runs, Obama, or Mrs Clinton an Co.

Posted by: -DAVID- at October 3, 2007 7:37 PM
Comment #235188

Andre- Sounds like sour grapes to me Andre, not all

men believe Women should stay in the kitchen! Hillary must prove herself to be a strong, competitive, and most of all, show a confidence that
most people expect from a presidential candidate.
I believe Hillary must stay strong at all times, in
order to become a successful Presidential Candidate.

Posted by: -DAVID- at October 3, 2007 8:26 PM
Comment #235197

How many more times do will it be said that Hillary is using Bill’s successful model without Bill’s ability to connect with people. Pathetic.

Posted by: Edge at October 3, 2007 10:44 PM
Comment #235207

Edge- What is a girl to do with this competition?

Posted by: -DAVID- at October 4, 2007 3:31 AM
Comment #235208

Andre M. Hernandez - I owe you an apology for the
above post, I re-read that post an I was embarrassed, an besides, that is no way to welcome you back, after your hiatus. I may try being a bit
more dutiful while trying to defend Hillary. I seem
to attempt defending her at my own peril. Anyway,
it’s nice to see you back!
_

Posted by: -DAVID- at October 4, 2007 3:52 AM
Comment #235211

Will Hillary be able to work in the same Oval office without being distracted with memories of activities under the desk?

Posted by: d.a.n at October 4, 2007 6:08 AM
Comment #235254


Hillary is right where she wants to be. In the drivers seat. The Democratic candidates are attacking her because it is their only chance at the nomination and the Republican candidates candidates are attacking her for the same reason.

Can she stay in the drivers seat? Who knows? It looks as though Obama has a good chance in Iowa and South Carolina. Hillary has a commanding lead in most of the other states and several states are planning to move their primary dates up which will help her.

Ralph Nadar has said that he will consider running if Hillary gets the nomination. Perhaps he can prevent her from winning the election. However, the Christian right is blackmailing the Republican Party by threatening to support a third party pro-life candidate if Guliani or another abortionist candidate gets the nomination.

I am leaning towards Edwards in the primary but, if Hillary wins the nomination, I will support her. Although she is not offering the changes that Obama or Edwards are offering, Hillary is heads above any of the Republican candidates. I have been listening a lot to the Republican candidates and for the most part they are doing their best to out Neocon and right wing Christianize each other. Does any Democrat truely believe that Hillary would be worse for our country than Fred Thompson?

Posted by: jlw at October 4, 2007 2:49 PM
Comment #235260

Adrienne,

Thank You.

-David-,

No problem and thank you.

jlw,

I’m done voting for the lesser of two evils.

We deserve better than Hillary, Giulianni, McCain etc.
Edwards and Obama offer change. They offer an alternative to the status quo.
This administration has done enough damage that we cannot just offer a different face with the same flawed thinking. We need to do alot of damage control to get us just where we were pre-Bush.
We need to hold our government and candidates to a higher standard so that we don’t repeat the tragedy that has been the last 6 1/2 years.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 4, 2007 3:22 PM
Comment #235263

Andre M. Hernandez- After reading that attorney

General Alberto Gonzales, approved the “TOURTURE”

waivers, just disgusts me. Edwards or Obama from

the new generation, will do just fine!

Posted by: -DAVID- at October 4, 2007 3:37 PM
Comment #235267

-DAVID-,

Exactly and who among the frontrunners gave the President and his administration the green light to interpret our opinions, the constitution and the neccesity of checks and balances to fit their misguided, twisted neocon dream of world domination?
Hillary and the republicans who voted for the patriot act and the war on terror bill that allows emperor G.W. and Cheney to ignore the will of the people because they voted to give him that power after 9/11. It’s easier to give away our right to representation and her responsibility to speak for us so that she looked tough on terrorism.
That’s is not a leader. She’s actually worse than them.At least they truly believed in this debacle. She just stood pat, hoping to get to the Whitehouse.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 4, 2007 4:22 PM
Comment #235275

Andre,

Hillary is a good and discplined politician and that may be the problem. However, have you and other Hillary bashers forgotten already how Rove and Bush outmaneuvered Kerry and Gore? I mean, it shouldn’t even have been close in the 2000 election. Even with her high negatives she is the only candidate who has proven she can fight back against the smears. I’d rather have her by my side while backed into the political alley than the other Dems. Do you think Obama or Edwards and their teams have the wherewithal that Clinton does to respond quickly and effectively to Republican attacks? Her weakness also happens to be her strength. If some of you would rather vote for Nader or whoever in the general election over Hillary then I have two words for you… President Giuliani.

That laugh does me cringe. I would rather have a more seasoned Obama or Edwards. Is there a Democratic Machiavelli out there to take Obama along for the political ride?

Posted by: chris2x at October 4, 2007 5:13 PM
Comment #235277

By the way Andre,

The sarcasm in your first line about where Clinton hails from is completely unfair and pointless. The carpetbagging complaint, especially in New York, rings hollow.

Posted by: chris2x at October 4, 2007 5:21 PM
Comment #235278

Andre said,

We need to hold our government and candidates to a higher standard so that we don’t repeat the tragedy that has been the last 6 1/2 years.

Do you seriously think if Clinton or anyone except the neocons were elected President 6 1/2 years ago as President we would have had the tragedy perpetuated by the current administration? Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Posted by: chris2x at October 4, 2007 5:29 PM
Comment #235286

I read all the trash talk on this blog about President Bush and how stupid and ineffective he has been. Have any of you a kind word for the work this administration has done in disarming North Korea of its nuclear weapons? The entire world will sleep better for this successful effort and there should be a hearty Thank You from all the world’s peoples, even Bush-hating liberals.
As for the Hillary bashing, I won the bet I made with a liberal friend because y’all started trashing her before mid-October. All it took was the last Dem debate where not one single front-runner would say the words you Moveon.orgasim folks wanted to hear…All troops removed from Iraq before the end of their first term. It must be very difficult to support any of your candidates when they won’t parrot the words you pay dearly to put in their mouths. Will all of you keep spending your money for candidates who refuse to back your number one priority? If not, where do you go for relief, to whom will you turn?

Posted by: Jim at October 4, 2007 6:26 PM
Comment #235291

David, “What is a girl to do with this competition”

I guess that makes me think about that fact that she is running with no precident. So it is hard to judge. Easy to complain ;).

It must be difficult for Hillary to weave her family name, existence as a woman, mother, etc. together into a role American’s have not experienced.

Per Jim’s post right above, the trash talking is really taking me by surprise when she leads the polls. Seems like the Democratic party is allowing itself to be shot in the foot by the media and far left. It is probably just noise with no bearing on her votes.

Her recent media tour and focus on partisianship is right on in my opinion. It is a shame it is dismissed as a lie. And I look sideways too when she makes these comments. But I think about what we face ahead as a country and getting some semblance of cooperation would be great for our country right now.

However, as a Chicago White Sox fan, if Hillary thus dones a Chicago Cub hat … I might have to move towards total hatred. That would take it too far.

Posted by: Edge at October 4, 2007 6:43 PM
Comment #235295

Edge,

I’ll add “White Sox” to my list of single-issue voters.

Long live the National League!

Posted by: chris2x at October 4, 2007 7:14 PM
Comment #235308

Jim- I find in your defence of President Bush, with

a one, unverifiable example, seems to be lacking

something. Bashing Democrats does not command

respect, and only shows us that Troll Baiting is still

loose on the premises.

Posted by: -DAVID- at October 4, 2007 9:28 PM
Comment #235309

d.a.n. - Hillary will do just fine as long as she

does not look under the desk of the oval office!

George might still be hiding under where.

Posted by: -DAVID- at October 4, 2007 9:37 PM
Comment #235342

I’ve seen the real deal, and I want a fake.

Bush is the real deal. He’s bitterly partisan, thinks he’s the only person that can be right, doesn’t listen to anyone else’s opinion, and won’t bend for anyone. What a mess he is.

Hillary has shown she’s capable of learning. She’s shown she can get bipartisan support when needed. She’s shown that she’s willing to compromise. She’s also shown, in my opinion, that she knows how to give as good (or better) than she gets and will fight for what’s right.

You can call it being fake. I call it being adult. I like O’Bama a lot, but there’s something great about the idea of Hillary as president as well. She’s got the connections and know how to start her presidency off at a gallup. She’s in a great position to make changes. She already has great credibility worldwide. She may be our best shot at reversing the damage caused by the ass in office.

Posted by: Max at October 5, 2007 10:48 AM
Comment #235347

So Max, voting for the war, not bringing the troops home tomorrow, being corrupt, being bought by corporations, flip-flopping, using the military for political gain etc… Are only bad as long as the person guilty of them is Republican?

Thanks for providing a great example as to why our govt isn’t going to change for the better and things are only going to get worse.

And while I disagree with the liberal direction Andre wishes to take this country, I have to say at least he isn’t settling for the status quo and is trying for change.

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2007 11:50 AM
Comment #235354

Jim- I find in your defence of President Bush, with

a one, unverifiable example, seems to be lacking

something. Bashing Democrats does not command

respect, and only shows us that Troll Baiting is still

loose on the premises.

Posted by: -DAVID- at October 4, 2007 09:28 PM

Sorry David, I thought everyone was aware of the progress in disarming the North Koreans. And, please understand the Hillary Bashing is coming from your liberal friends so please address them as the “Troll Baiters”, whatever that means.

Posted by: Jim at October 5, 2007 12:28 PM
Comment #235361

So Max, voting for the war, not bringing the troops home tomorrow, being corrupt, being bought by corporations, flip-flopping, using the military for political gain etc… Are only bad as long as the person guilty of them is Republican?

1. She voted to give the president the authority to use force. She didn’t make him an idiot or ask him to invade Iraq.

2. Bringing the troops home tomorrow would be irresponsible. Their leaving must be planned, just as invading should have been. There’s a big difference between asking for an immediate, phased plan, and having no plan, which really means leaving them there indefinitely.

3. She accepts the maximum amount of $2,000 from corporations for her campaign. She’s hardly bought. For me, this is a non-issue. A little different from the millions upon millions Bush received from Enron.

4. Flip flopping? Don’t know what you are talking about. Like I said, I actually want a leader that can learn from their mistakes and change their minds.

5. Abusing the military for political points? Why? Because she wouldn’t denounce Moveon.org? Again, there’s a big difference between denouncing a group for titling an ad with extreme language, and supporting a group that is using lies to smear a candidates good name a la the Swift Boat veterans.

Honestly, this reminds me of the post where Jack compared some kids slashing a Republican’s tires who worked at a voter registration office to the many thousands of democrat votes that were literally thrown in the garbage by Republican officials in Vegas. If you see all that stuff as the same, you have no sense of scale or context.

Has anyone else noticed that Republicans have big mouths and yet are the thinnest skinned people alive?

Posted by: Max at October 5, 2007 2:24 PM
Comment #235363

Max, all of the above AND in a constant state of spin….

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at October 5, 2007 2:33 PM
Comment #235364

And Max, as you’ve inferred, changing our minds if the situation calls for it is not a bad thing, but shows that we are flexible and willing to adjust and adapt.
lock·step (lkstp)
n.
1. A way of marching in which the marchers follow each other as closely as possible.
2. A standardized procedure that is closely, often mindlessly followed

Better than a lemming….

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at October 5, 2007 2:44 PM
Comment #235366

Wow Max. I simply restate what Andre has basically said and you get all upset.

1. I know its common over here to blame others, but the fact remains that she voted for the war. She saw the same things the Republicans saw, but for some reason, I doubt you would say the same about them.

2. Which Republican running wants to keep the troops there forever? Not your guesses, but who has actually said they did? How do their plans differ from clinton’s?

3. Wanna know a secret? Bush is not in the race. Campaign finance reform is a non-issue with you or is it only a non-issue as long as they play by your rules? She takes money from corps and special interest groups. You either support it or you don’t.

4. In Andre’s own words: “She was for the war she’s now against because she chose not to do her job”

5. “Do I smell a photo op and pro military press?”
I served during the 90’s and I can tell you that she does not give a rats ass about the military. I seem to remember some flap about that to.
And the moveon ad thing didn’t get to me either. If she doesn’t want the General in charge to know that she supports him doing his job even though she is now against the war, thats her business.

“Has anyone else noticed that Republicans have big mouths and yet are the thinnest skinned people alive?”

Great, I’m a Republican again.
Care to explain why us “Republicans,” Andre and myself, have “big mouths?” Is it because we dare question your opinions when you try to push them off as facts?

And thin skinned? Please. There is no lie, spin or anything that you could say which would upset me my friend.
However, the calmness you displayed while replying to Andre and then how you got all upset when replying to me, clearly shows just how thin skinned you are.

Sandra
Pointing out truths such as Andre has is not a constant state of spin.
Knowingly making excuses for those truths such as Max did, is.
So, if you want more of the same BS, fine. More power to you. But its nice to see at least one of you, Andre, have the guts and conviction to stand up for what he believes and wants change that actually means something.

Andre’s post should make you all think. Because if you were to think about it some, Obama or Edwards would probably be ahead of clinton IF you really wanted change that might matter.
Think about the nation instead of the party for once.

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2007 3:13 PM
Comment #235367

Voting for something and then bailing out when it looks like there won’t be any credit to take, is a great example of someone who is “willing to adjust and adapt.”
Too bad it was for votes, rather than for lives.

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2007 3:19 PM
Comment #235370


Jim: Compare the Bush/North Korea treaty with the Clintion/North Korea treaty and compare them for yourself. Then tell us which one of them was more naive about the intentions of North Korea and which treaty is the strongest in reguards to America’s position on North Korea. Perhaps you have forgotten that Bush throwed the Clinton treaty in the trash and played his fiddle while the North Koreans did indeed develop and test a nuclear device.

Andre: I still consider myself a Democrat and I believe in democracy even in my own party. I won’t be voting for Hillary in the primaries but, if a majority of my fellow Democrats nominate her I will support her. If She does become the next president, it in no way obligates me to vote for her reelection.

I would like to see my party have control of the government so that I can evaluate their performance. If they fail to meet my expectations, I will join the Green Party and support it.

Posted by: jlw at October 5, 2007 3:24 PM
Comment #235371

Heck Jim, just read what happened yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_North_Korea_nuclear_program

You might also want to JLW. It kind of differs from your interpretation of events.

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2007 3:45 PM
Comment #235372

I don’t “blindly” support Hillary right now…but would vote for her if she bacame our candidate. I thought back before Obama announced as a candidate, that a good ticket for us would be Edwards/Obama. I’m not totally convinced that he is ready…but he would fill the ticket perfectly alongside Edwards. I don’t believe after running as a Presedential candidate, one could accept being a Vice President, but who knows….
We will all do in the primaries what they are for, and say what our personal preferences are, then in the general election vote to support the party. If we can’t support whoever it is, we’ll have to exercise our other options.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at October 5, 2007 4:07 PM
Comment #235373

Hillary Clinton:

  • 2006 PorkBusters Hall of Shame:
    • Robert Byrd (D-WV) (lifetime pork-barrel achiever)
    • Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
    • Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
    • Ted Stevens (R-AK)

  • January 2006 Porker of the Month: Sens. Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)

  • February 2005 New York Sens. Hillary Clinton (D)& Charles Schumer (D)

  • Provided by tax-payers: Hillary Clinton’s $514,148 per year lease (2001) with the most expensive hometown office of any U.S. senator.

  • Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)

  • Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)

  • Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006) {This isn’t the norm for a Democrat politician; could it be Hillary was following the poll numbers?}

  • Opposes illegal immigration, but doesn’t vote to follow up. (Jan 2007) {see previous; seem so}

  • Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006) {just as soon as we get another amnesty passed like the one in 1986 that quadrupled the problem}

  • In January 1996, a long sought-after copy of billing records from the Rose Law Finn were identified and turned over to prosecutors by Carolyn Huber, a White House assistant to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Ms. Huber, herself a former Rose Law Firm employee, recognized the records and realized that they had been among papers that she had removed six months earlier from the First Lady’s book room on the third floor of the White House. The mysterious appearance of the billing records, which had been the specific subject of various investigative subpoenas for two years, sparked intense interest about how they surfaced and where they had been. Shortly after the discovery of the records, Hillary Clinton made history — she became the only First Lady ever called to testify before a Grand Jury inquiry.

  • Voted for Iraq war (Apr 2007) {Hmmm … I see a “If I knew now what I was supposed to know then” moment coming on}

  • Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004) {OK, pro-choice doesn’t mean pro-abortion, but what’s up with this?}

  • Critic of Iraq war, but did not recant 2002 vote in its favor. (Nov 2006)

  • Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)

  • Regrets Bush’s handling of war, but not her own vote to allow it. (Oct 2006) {there’s nothing hypocritical about that, eh?}

  • Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)

  • states: NY share of federal taxes is too high. (Feb 2000) {bringin’ home the pork, bringin’ home the pork, we’re all…}

  • Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006) {this is partly why our tax system is now REGRESSIVE}

  • Voted YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005) {yet, she did it again! this is partly why Warren Buffet (2nd wealthiest person in the U.S.) can pay a smaller tax rate than a secretary making only $60K per year; our current tax system is REGRESSIVE among other REGRESSIVE systems that didn’t all come about by accident}

  • Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs’ effectiveness. (Mar 2007)

  • Rated 21% by NTU, indicating a “Big Spender” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

  • states: Enough with corporate welfare; enough with golden parachutes. (Jun 2007) {Yeah? with a pork-barrel report card grade of 14%, and two porker of the month awards?}

  • And lastly, this is kinda funny
  • . From the smile on Hillary’s face, she does too!

It’s going to be an interesting election and after it’s over, the voters will have the government they elected and deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 5, 2007 4:10 PM
Comment #235375

Jim- I am more than willing too look at any

evidence you have, in N. Korea having removed their

Nuclear weapons program, or their Missile Programs.

Posted by: -DAVID- at October 5, 2007 4:19 PM
Comment #235380

Aw, dang D.A.N. seems you are a loud mouth, thin skinned Republican who does nothing but spin too.

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2007 4:30 PM
Comment #235381

kctim, Your frustration is that all of it is true. I’m not a Republican, Democrat, or Independent, nor belong to any party. If that upsets you, it’s probably because it is all true. And calling me names only helps to confirm it. I do not resort to spin, but facts. If any of the facts are wrong, please feel free to show where.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 5, 2007 4:33 PM
Comment #235383

D.A.N.

I was not calling you names. As I have said before, I respect and appreciate the info you provide us.
I was called that earlier by Max for mentioning how she would be just more of the same. Much in the same way you just did and how Andre’s post showed that.
It was a “silly” attempt to include you into our little group.
I apologize for the misunderstanding it sent to you.

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2007 4:42 PM
Comment #235385

kctim, I’m am sorry. I keep missing that dry human. I sincerely apologize for not recognizing your dry human. Thank you.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 5, 2007 4:45 PM
Comment #235386

your dry human humor

Posted by: d.a.n at October 5, 2007 4:46 PM
Comment #235387

kctim,

I simply restate what Andre has basically said and you get all upset.

Upset? Hardly. Frustrated? Sure. Unfair comparisons always frustrate me.

1. She didn’t vote for the war. She voted to authorize the president to use force. By the way, the Bush administration suggested the force wouldn’t be used, but only threatened to be used. The vote was to give his diplomacy teeth. But, like when Bush said he didn’t care for nation-building, this was an out and out lie. There’s a difference between giving someone a gun, and the person that uses it.

2. General Patreaus speaking on behalf of Bush said that troops must be kept in Iraq indefinitely, and refused to give a date for withdrawal. The minimum time frame required was 10 years. There’s a big difference between planning for withdrawal now, and waiting 10 years to see what’s going to happen.

3. Campaign finance reform is an issue with me, but not accepting donations from corporations, which give in such small increments, again $2000, doesn’t bother me. Again, big difference with the gifts Bush received from Enron CEO Kenny boy Lay.

4. Like many Americans she gave the war some time to work out - it didn’t, tragically. She voted for authorization. Mistakes were made. She argued Bush should be given a chance. It’s obvious now this war is unwinnable. She can’t change her mind in the face of insurmountable evidence?… That would make her a Republican.

5. I have no idea whether or not Hillary is “pro-military” or even what that means. Sounds like you are suggesting she’s not really a patriot. Nice.

Knowingly making excuses for those truths such as Max did, is.. (spin).
When you simplify a fact to the point where it doesn’t take into account the scale and context of the situation, that’s spin. Why call Hillary a flip flopper for having supported the war, and now not? Didn’t a lot of Republicans make that move? Is there real comparison here with someone like Mitt Romney, who’s changed his position on abortion depending on the state he’s speaking in? Stop throwing around cliches and say exactly what you mean.

Posted by: Max at October 5, 2007 4:55 PM
Comment #235392

Max
1. So she didn’t vote for the war but she doesn’t regret voting to allow it? (in post by d.a.n.)
Her vote gave our President authorization to go to war and she knew that when she voted.
Now, you can make excuses and defend her in order to justify to yourself, but the fact remains that she and every other person who voted knew what could come of their vote.

2. General Patreaus, gave his assessment based on his in-country experience and military knowledge. But even so, how does clinton’s policy differ from the Republican candidates position?

3. So buying a politician is ok as long as you don’t spend as much? Come on man. She is a classic Washington politician who has taken money from people who expect something in return.
And, again, Bush is not running for President again, so comparing her to what you think Bush got doesn’t wash. I would be willing to guess that there is a “big difference” between clinton and Ron Paul also. Does that mean you would consider him? Hardly.

You make excuses for clinton the same way Republicans do for their own and the big money stays in Washington. Just more of the same and you are encouraging it.

4. I really don’t care about her changing her mind to be honest. But one would think she would do something to correct her mistake. If its so obvious the war is “unwinnable,” then why doesn’t she come out and say so and that she would bring the troops home? Edwards was the only real Dem candidate who said he would, clinton and Obama’s responses were more in line with the reality that it will take time to bring them home.

5. Um, yeah. The “pro-military” statement came from Andre. I simply said she was no friend of ours while I served and we knew it.

“Why call Hillary a flip flopper for having supported the war, and now not? Didn’t a lot of Republicans make that move?”

Why yes they did. Apparently, it is seen as a good political move to not support the war by some in BOTH parties now.

You really should read d.a.n.’s post and give it some real thought.

“Stop throwing around cliches and say exactly what you mean”

I did say what I mean: if you are serious about wanting change, you will not get that by voting for clinton.
You personally may be happy simply because a Republican is no longer in charge, but the corruption, cronyism, rights trampling etc… will still be going on. Just as they did under Bush and her husband.

Same crap, different party, different blind cheerleaders.

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2007 5:47 PM
Comment #235396

Jim: Compare the Bush/North Korea treaty with the Clintion/North Korea treaty and compare them for yourself. Then tell us which one of them was more naive about the intentions of North Korea and which treaty is the strongest in reguards to America’s position on North Korea. Perhaps you have forgotten that Bush throwed the Clinton treaty in the trash and played his fiddle while the North Koreans did indeed develop and test a nuclear device. Posted by: jlw at October 5, 2007 03:24 PM

Good Lord JLW, take an achievement that the entire world applauds and trash it because George Bush’s name is on it. No where in my post did I mention Bill Clinton. My guess is that if Jesus Christ Himself returned to earth and it was discovered that he may be a conservative many would hate Him also. How juvenile. Let us celebrate a success together as fellow humans and not let hatred rule our lives.

Posted by: Jim at October 5, 2007 6:14 PM
Comment #235400
kctim wrote: Her [Hillary] vote gave our President authorization to go to war and she knew that when she voted.
That’s very true.

And that responsibility must never be taken lightly, because once given, it’s not easy to undo.
And that probably reveals a serious flaw in our Constitution that could possibly (some day) allow a nutcase to wage war without Congress’ approval.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 5, 2007 7:31 PM
Comment #235530


Jim: You are right. If the whole world is appluading the Bush/North Korea agreement, I should do the same. I am thankful to Bush and his Administration for achieving this agreement and hope it lasts for as long as necessary.

Now it is your turn.

Posted by: jlw at October 7, 2007 5:45 PM
Post a comment