Anti-War Demonstrators Interrupt Hillary Clinton (Chicago)

you are slick, but still not my choice. Gain some conscience and lose some of that ambition.

First, a group in the balcony chanted and held signs that together read "Out of Iraq."
They were silenced after a minute or so...while someone else held up a sign nearby. Then a group elsewhere in the auditorium starting chanting. Some of it was inaudible, but they could be heard at one point saying "Troops Out Now." Clinton addressed them, saying she appreciates their passion and intensity, and that she would address their concerns at the end of her speech, but that she didn't believe the audience wanted to hear from them at the moment...receiving applause from the audience.

She is an enabler. (*-lite)

I pray she ain't our choice when the time comes.

She's a *-lite gutless DLC sellout.

For many reasons, not the least of which is her new-found chummyness with this immoral, illegal bush*war of CHOICE based on LIES!

Thousands more will die because of her

Darn right.

Just beat the Packers! Yes! Sorry about giving the world Hillary. She's far too polarizing a would cost the Dems the WH.

Dean has stick to the Dem principles. Hillary is a sell out. She'll protect the corporate interests and military war machine.

DNC chair. He promised not to run.

unless they were scared of him?

Shouldn't the best person for the job, the strongest candidate, be the nominee?

What's with the game playing, the 'promises' not to run?

Fuck, I wish I had supported Dean in the primaries. I bought into the bullshit about Kerry being a 'fighter' who was 'more electable'.

I think Dean would have fought harder... and I definitely think he would have been more electable in the end.

As for 2008, I have two words: Al Gore.

The role of the DNC chair is to manage the strategy, the cash, the grassroots support in the states, and the day to day business of the party. When you agree to take that job, you agree to become a manager, not a player. You cannot put the best interests of your players first if you want to be the star of the team.

He SOUGHT the job, in fact, there were a lot of people who did not want him to have it. By seeking the job, he was, in essence, taking himself out of the game, and applying his considerable networking and consensus-building talents to helping others run and win office.

Because he had made such a splash on the national scene, he was asked the question, directly, in a number of media interviews. He flatly stated he was OUT OF THE GAME for as long as he held the job, and that included 08. He stated it clearly, unequivocably.

No one forced him--if he wanted to go again, he would not have campaigned for the DNC slot.

Clearly, the Little Rock Axis didn't want it. I'm sure many of 'em thought Terry MacAuliffe was doing a bang-up job.

(...Yeah, I remember that guy. His obnoxious fundraising tactics almost made me join the Green Party in 1996 , because the DNC was averaging four to seven excessively agressive "how much can we put you down for?" calls a day- to my place of WORK.)

That said, I strongly supported Bill Clinton for eight years. I think he was the best President of my lifetime. But the Clinton name doesn't automatically deserve the nomination, or own the party.

But yes, I understand that Dean isn't running in 2008. Which is why i hope to hell Al Gore is.

though Schumer and a few others wanted him to stay on--like him or not, that guy could raise some serious cash, and thanks to him, we now have a decent building to work out of.

Some wanted Tom Vilsack for the job, if I remember. Ron Kirk and Martin Frost were in the running too, but what put Dean over the top was the endorsement of (get this!) Jack Murtha! Once Murtha got behind Dean, all the opposition sorta melted away (and there was plenty of it, too, at the outset).

I want to hear from all the candidates, and I hope we have a varied primary field. The more voices, the more ideas...and we are the party of ideas...

And it's unfortunate, since I used to like Hillary. But none of the ideas I've heard coming out of her lately have made me remotely interested in supporting her. To the contrary, I've gone from liking her to having her right down next to the Lieberman spot in terms of my preferences for the '08 nominee. You'll find Ol' Joe down about where I, a lifelong yeller dog Democrat, start hunting around for a Libertarian leaning Green or a Green leaning Libertarian.

And if you're a mucky-muck in the party, you should know that I am extremely typical of a LOT of Democrats in my state... Perhaps you've heard of it. It's called California.

But re: the party chair, there has to be more to the job than just raising scads of cash. Dean knows this, thankfully.

(There's a line between 'raising serious cash' and extortion, too. The thing with the phone calls I told you about was AFTER I told them to stop calling me. Repeatedly. And repeatedly again. Given where I worked, at the time, they could have actually gotten me fired. --Silly me, for putting the number down. I was little more than a kid back then. Live & learn-- And let's be honest, a good chunk of Macauliffe's fundraising skill had to do with a popular democrat in the White House who knew how to prime the pump of power, as it were.)

He can't run. He made up his mind before he took this position.

but of course you knew that. Howard Dean is right where he wants to be---Chair of the DNC and doing a pretty good job.

...attractive to Conservative Republicans, I don't see any point in having another person in the White House that will just continue the current policies, or lack thereof.

What we don't need is "Bush Lite." Plus, she's simiply un-electable as president, and undesirable even if she were. She's a Clinton, and that name alone provokes the most visceral response from everyone from centrists to neo-con repukes... she's just too hot a potato politically to get elected. Hell, rumor has it she may be in trouble keeping her senate position 'cause of some Dem spoiler in NY. I've not read too much about it, though. Even is she were elected, the repukes would dig in and make it their sacred mission in life to thwart her every move, and I don't think that we're gonna get much done with that kind of instant, guaranteed hostility towards a candidate for the big chair. But then, I'm a social democrat, and as such, oftentimes Wild Bill was too conservative to suit me. It's a realy quandry... how to sell a progressive candidate and his/her agenda to an increasingly snake-bit electorate. Folks hate bush, but at least they're familiar with him. It's almost like a "stockholm syndrome" kinda thing. Change, I'm talking big NEEDED change, is gonna scare the pants offa the bass ackward puddin' heads whose only "clue" comes from the MSM and the pulpit. Even considering a righteous mid-term bloodbath for the re-thugs, (and I'm making book on it), we're gonna go into the presidential campaign almost gut shot. Trepidation is the word of the day. I'll back whoever is chosen to run like fightin' fire, but I'll be the choir to whom they will be preaching... ya need to get the back row pew polishers on board, and that, my friends is gonna be a long row to hoe. I apologize for plunking down my kitchenaid mixer and fillin' it up with metaphors. So I'm not a Creative Writing Major...

:dem:
powwowdancer out

She has nothing to offer me.

I will hold my nose if need be in 2008........ because the STINK of 'Repug Lite' is quite toxic.

with B.C. hobbnobbing with Poppy these days,:eyes:
we certainly don't need another Clinton in office.

Time for a new fresh face!

But now? Fuck that.

I want AL GORE.

The 1988 version.

there are no other choices. Reminds me of one of those Survivor episodes where the loser never even sees it coming.

White Courtesy Telephone.

That is what she said following Byrd's historic speech on the floor of the house--Byrd condemning the idea of handing over Congress's exclusive power to declare war to a greedy little Chimp.
That will echo in my head til the day i die--I heard it live on KPFK and nearly hit the ceiling!!!!!!! Clinton caves in---!!!

Do I want a spineless wimp to represent ME after 8 years of repubes bankrupting this country and killing countless men women and children????
HELL NO!!!


Byrd knew it was wrong--
Hill 'o weeee did not-
Bernie Ward on KGO knew--We all knew--
if Hillary didn't know then she is just and absolute idiot...
or worse---is herself part of the greed machine that would support invading countries that pose no threat to any of their neighbors (much less US) to secure natural resources for our corporations to turn a profit on.

Killary Hint'n....just thoughta that !
Killin' troops by not standing up for them and bringing them home.

I want to see a woman president within my lifetime and I only have about 20 more years to go if I'm lucky.

I'm waiting until we get to see her campaign, however. It's then that I think the excitement will begin to build around her. My daughter just went to a fundraiser for her and called very, very excited...said she was totally present, that she listened intently to what everyone said. She was blown away and has met several presidential candidates in the past. She was unique among them, she said...including my adored Wes Clark.

I find it absurd to hone in on the vote for the war as a litmus test for our presidential candidates in 2008. Besides, it is way too early and entirely too much can happen between now and then. I have to come to her defense where she's bashed, tho, because I find her remarkable.

Do they have to wait until the end of her speech to hear her try to justify complicity in war crimes? I don't think so.

Hillary is done. She and fat boy misread the tea leaves regarding the war, and they'll end up back in Arkansas, and sooner the better.

I wish she'd pick a position and stick with it for once. Or perhaps she's trying to join the John McCain School of "I've Give Myself and Everyone Else Whiplash the Way I Change With the Polls" Politics.

I'll bet you don't say that to the MEN who run for office.

I guess women just don't know their place do they?

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

'Bout time she learn the truth.

ABBers from 2004 don't want to repeat the traumatic experience of giving their souls and hearts to a candidate that fails them on peace.

while guaranteeing the alienation of the majority of voters, who happen to be liberals demanding a gutsy leader, not a tightrope walker?

and have had NY State elect a real Democrat for the Senate.
Not a repuke wanna be. :eyes:

she is better than any republican and a number of democrats. You purest make me sick to my stomach.

at least this so called "purest" does not resort to personal attacks on DU. I can not think of one Democrat worse than hillary except Lieberman, and not by much.

:eyes:

...well-served to do some research on where she stands on a number of issues. You might be surprised to learn that her position on a number of major issues is very close to that of Lieberman and Biden, senators who I believe are NeoCons in Democratic Party clothing.

Yet he does not catch 1/100th of the shit she does on this forum.

I find that curious. Gender bias, or an unawareness of the stances of the potential candidates on the issues?

She is LEFT of both Biden AND Clark, FWIW.

plain and simple, easy to understand positions of our "allies" or "coalition partners", COMPLETELY OUT IN 3 MONTHS! See, its easy. Any other position reeks of continued Oil Imperialism and is utterly destined to fail.

caught a HUGE amount of flak around here. And rightfully so.

Look, we shouldn't BE in Iraq, the people in Iraq don't WANT us there (it's the only thing they can all agree on) and yet, for some unfathomable reason, we're building something like fourteen permanent military bases there.. does that sound like we're 'gettin ready to leave as soon as they get their act together' to you? It doesn't to me. Murtha is right- our presence there is NOT helping anyone, with the possible exception of KBR, Bechtel, and Halliburton.

...on those positions.

She idiotically believes that she can attract voters from the right who extremely loathe her. She can't admit a mistake. Fuck her.

I mean, why would we bother "turning back the clock" and examining all those whopping lies, anyway?

Again: never getting my vote. Not even if she IS the candidate. I'd stay home.

A vote for no one is a vote for a Republican.

THAT is a vote for a Republican.

Sorry, but for lots of us, a woman's right to choose is a deal breaker.
for lots of us, equal rights for gays, lesbians, etc. is a deal breaker.
for lots of us, support for separation of church and state is a deal breaker.
for lots of us, unequivocal opposition to censorship is a deal breaker.


and, for a GREAT MANY OF US, the Iraq War is the NUMBER ONE deal breaker on the list this time around.

The seas in front of her are not near as smooth as she is imagining.

The majority of Americans are sick of the war and clearly see it as associated with Bush and the GOP. Hillary allows the GOP to destroy that arguement and go back to "blame the liberals."

She cannot make clear distinctions about the massive amount of information against the war. Scott Ritter, weapons inspector, clearly said there were no weapons or evidence of weapons. So Hillary's position is either "Saddam was worth it" or kick their ass and steal their gas.

I think she believes the second and uses the first as a cover. How she expects the US to pay for this war and any liberal programs is a mystery also.

I want to vote for a pro-peace Democrat just once. I'm tired of holding my nose and voting the party line only to get pushed out the door when elections are over.

families, a reasonable tax structure that does not crush the middle class, better schools, a cleaner environment and a sustainable energy policy, strong veteran's benefits and help for returning soldiers, family support and service for active duty families...

So, if you think those are GOP issues, and there is no difference, well, you just stay home--if she even runs, and we don't know if she will or not.

Be my guest.

.

That's about half past never at the current rate of improvement. Just a little reminder: last month US troops destroyed several bridges over a river to deny resistance forces their use. That's an action of retreating troops in an area they don't expect to control anytime soon.

Five billion a month forever when a ten billion one-time payment provides clean drinking water for everyone in the world.

She can give us a date or STFU.

But we cannot tell "them" until they are elected this month--you have to have someone to deliver the message to, after all. She does not want to just up and leave now, but she really does want to get out of there--I imagine she will have still more to say on the subject after the elections:

Speaking to reporters in Rye Brook, N.Y., on Monday, Clinton recommended that pressure be put on Iraq's new government after the Dec. 15 election.

"Then we have to tell this new government we are not going to be there forever, we are going to be withdrawing our young men and women and we expect you to start moving towards stability," Clinton said.

...She suggested, however, that Iraq may not be stabilized until the United States signals its intention to leave.

Clinton said the Bush administration's approach amounted to giving the Iraqis "an open-ended invitation not to take care of themselves."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/IraqCoverage/story?id=1338211

That link goes to some comments by her as covered by ABC news.

You can also see her written statement at her Senate dot gov website.

I went to a Hmong cultural festival oh, about a month ago. My kids attended a Tai Kwon Do classes taught by a refugee from the Iranian revolution. Have you checked into Miami's political scene lately?

Refuse our allies in Iraq the legal right to political asylum in the US after they fold and then I'll believe they have spine. Until then I say we start leapfrogging our troops back to Basra for a nice cruise home. Some of those spare ships left over from Katrina should work fine.

That bastard probably beat me back here! The Shah got out way before I did!

Odds are a lot of those kids will end up farting around in Oman and Kuwait, or even Bahrain (not a lot of room there, though), waiting...even best case, that will probably be the result. Fortified base camps at the periphery, and in well defended enclaves.

after Dec 15. How many friggin elections do we need to see that Iraq is a clusterf*ck?

Which surprised me, because she sure sounded believable when I heard her speak at the big pro-choice march in DC last year. Guess that "value voter mandate" in November changed some of her fundamental feelings on the issue.

But I do hear that she has come out strongly and uneqivocally against porno in video games.

for her stance on that issue. She is the one really sticking up for the seriously wounded and the PTSD returnees, and pushing for improvements to the VA, as well as help for military families--and the reservists do NOT get the same help as the acdu types.

As for the abortion issue, she is on the exact same page as Howard Dean: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-29-court-abortion-inside_x.htm

Scroll down a bit to read her and his comments just last week on the matter.

to woo the fundies and losing her base.

:)

Your threat is decidedly unpersuasive, but hey, thanks for playing.

Hillary's NYC office from the vigil for the 2000th soldier, all i could think was

I HOPE SHE SLIPS ON IT!!!!!!!!

Now, i knows that's terrible, but, real people in a real war are not about some "polite waiting" for the end of her speech. People need to remember we are a nation at war. We need to take that FACT very personally. It is our responsibility to stop it.

We need more of these protests.

It's no wonder she's not been speaking in NY lately...we're ready.


visit: www.mfso.org

as well as ordinary Republicans.

Yep. This is good. We want to win, but only with our own hand picked, pie in the sky candidate who would have no chance in hell of winning.

Although I am not a Clinton supporter, I am willing to listen.

Many on this group seem to think that we could win with a far lefty. Good luck. A left as I am, I at the very least know the realities of politics.

Hey it is POLITICS! There has to be give and take, but not so extreme on either side. That is why it is called politics.

If you want to protest the *uckin war, do it to Cheney or bush.

You wonder why people who hate Democrats so much stay here....

but were she our nominee I would vote for her in a heartbeat. The war is the same thing that gave me reservations about John Kerry at the beginning, but I realized that if I decided I didn't like them because of one vote, then I'd be as bad as those single-issue morons on the other side who are convinced that Democrats are "baby killers" or "gun-grabbers."

I respect and admire Kerry for the way he handled himself, especially during the 2004 campaign where everyone in the fucking media seemed to hate him for no good reason--one of the same reasons I like Al Gore so much. I don't like the fact that Hillary will not admit she was wrong to vote for this travesty of a war, but I respect the fact that she at least wants to work to change the way things are handled. Democrats are almost completely united on one issue--Bush has royally fucked up in Iraq, and we either need to get our troops out of there or change the way things are done. We just have a range of different proposals for how to deal with it.

It is possible to like a range of Dem politicians--can't people here see that?

The one-issue 'fundie' like cries from the 'lefties' really takes away any momentum for getting things done.

The other thing is 80% of people approved of the IWR at the time due to 9-11 and the fear of attack. People were suckered but they were suckered by pros! If only the few who "knew it all along" vote for that same person, then I guess we're likely to see another 8 years of Republican rule.

I respect John Kerry too, because his vote, which he made clear, was not a vote for war but a vote 'of confidence' that the president would create a union of support and would ONLY go into Iraq if all else failed. He had the example of GHB to believe this one would do the same. He was wrong. He admitted it. and he's sorry.

I'm like you...I believe we need to accept a range of dems. But then again, sometimes I don't believe D.U., Kos, Boomer, are dem sites but instead extreme lefties with the 'one issue' and hear no evidence kind either!

I've never seen so much ire directed at one woman. It is very curious to me. Funny, Mark Warner, who has the EXACT same position on Iraq, doesn't catch any shit. I hope there isn't any misogynistic reason behind this disparity--that would be SO un-Democratic, IMO!

I for one am against her being in any public office, for the same reason that I'm against any Bush or Kennedy or Reagan, et al... Not because of her sex, but rather, because in our political system, (the way it was originally designed), it should be impossible to "inherit" office by virtue of noble birth. We have evolved far enough away from the founding father's intent that we now have an acknowleged, if un-offficial "nobility" class. (Sans any of the traditional "Nobless Oblige, alas.") I'm sorry that more "pro war" bush butt-lickin' democrats aren't handed a big ol shit sandwich, (God knows they all need to be force-fed super-sized portions, and bon apetit!), but I don't think it's misogyny so much as guilt by "noble" association that drives the animosity. House Clinton has been besmirched, but the good news is, so has House Bush. Hell, if a bunch of libs like us can't agree on her, she's positively political radioactive waste to the rest of America. Ugly but true. We've been so conditioned by corporate advertising and our addiction to conspicuous consumption, that name recognition counts for more than skill. Buy the brand name, generics aren't as good, right? Phugh...

:dem:
powwowdancer out

see happening is that they will all talk about this at their Bohemian Grove meetings,
how they realize that America is soured on the G.O.P. right now so just to save face
they will put Hillary in there as the only Dem candidate, because they know that
many people will be fooled into thinking she is opposite of the G.O.P.,
then she will get elected and the they will further accomplish their goals
because she is a Repuke-Lite, and that they can pull her puppet-strings.
Then our country will continue on with the same shit.:hurts:

:tinfoilhat:, but maybe not.

I take your point, though. A name should not be a pass to fame; in fact, if the promise of our democracy was fully realized, a name would be something that one would have to OVERCOME in order to be taken seriously.

But it is no secret that Hillary is one smart woman,even if one disagrees with her politically, and even Bill says, and it's not false modesty, that she is the brains of the family.

She's wrong on Iraq, the most pressing issue of the day, until she comes around she cannot have my support.

a Kerry, than they are for such an amoral creature like Hillary.

Hillary is the great unifier! She will unite the Left and the Right against her!

:toast:

Y'all need to check the candidate's stances before you criticize one and lionize the other.

From his OP ED: In the old, familiar fashion, mounting U.S. casualties in Iraq have mobilized increasing public doubts about the war. More than half the American people now believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. They're right. But it would also be a mistake to pull out now, or to start pulling out or to set a date certain for pulling out. Instead we need a strategy to create a stable, democratizing and peaceful state in Iraq -- a strategy the administration has failed to develop and articulate....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/25/AR2005082501623.html

Under his plan, we could be in that mess for another ten years...granted, he advocates getting help from the Europeans, but who will guarantee that they even want to get involved at this point?

a whole bunch of members of the party. Voters and donors are not just signaling Hillary.

where Hillary gets nailed, and Clark and Warner get kudos. Warner shares Hillary's position, and Clark is to her right. Biden is to her right.

Much of what Hillary says, if you actually READ her position statement, is quite similar to what Murtha is saying. The only nuance between the two is that Hillary wants to see what happens in the December elections before she commits to a timeline, but she wants it understood that this is not an open ended deal--troop reductions need to start happening. She wants to start getting our people out, moving them to the periphery and to hardened sites with quick strike capability, and telling the Iraqis to get busy and get trained up NOW. Enough of this driving around and getting blown up shit....

I like it nice ans simple like the Sapnish, Italians, and Polish, out in 3 months.

"Anus in the Morning" plan--give the keys back to Saddam, say "nevermind!!!" and march smartly out of there!

war crimes tribunal and try him right next to Bush. The use of White Phosphorous on Iraqi civilians needs to be addressed and rectified.

what i really think of hillary i got my post yanked..so let`s put it this way..i`ll stand beside murtha.

We must take to task every politician who supported the war, repug or Democrat or other. We can't fault bush for starting the war without faulting all the Democrats who voted for it.

repugs will be hypocritical - I won't. Not only that, she's the one betraying us - not us betraying her. She's siding with the repugs on many issues, thus betraying the Democratic party.

That's why she needs to be protested, along with bush and any other of the chickenhawks.

Less and less every day, though.

Think about it. What will you accomplish?

Anyone? Anyone?

You may feel good coming home, but the problem will remain. If you cant look towards the future, in order to solve a problem, then go protest Democrats and feel good about yourself.

For a day or two.

You do it because it's the right thing to do. Also, it lets Hillary know that she can keep the (D) after her name and vote like a repug without consequences.

So your saying that you would never protest Democrats like Zell Miller or James Traficant? Both were Democrats in name only, and Hillary's not too far behind them. If we don't take a stand against her war vote, she'll end up just like them.

This isn't an issue of PERSONAL gain, it is gain for the next generation, and the one after that. Wes Clark wants to increase our investment in Iraq, and stay there possibly for a decade or more, yet no one goes after him. Mark Warner has the EXACT same position as Hillary, yet he gets a pass...and neither one of those guys had to go to the Senate and vote as a Senator from the state that got hit on 9/11, and was out for blood, even if it was the wrong blood.

It's easy to say how you 'woulda' voted, when you don't have to flip the switch and so do.

And the Zell/Traficant arguments are just absurd. Zell is nuts, he is getting out of politics, and Traficant is in jail. So why would anyone who thinks their time is halfway important protest a lame duck and an imprisoned slob? And why compare them to people who are not insane or imprisoned? It's a nonsensical comparison.

Of course, on the bright side, if you show up at a protest against any Democrat, those nitwits over on the right just might let you use their portapotties....have fun!

She's on her way there. Her votes are starting to be more and more repug, and she's breaking away from the Democratic party with her votes and pro-war rhetoric. She's not nuts like Zell or Traficant, yet...but she's on her way there, and I don't want to see that. Both Zell and Traficant started siding more and more with the repugs before they went off the deep end. Is she there yet...no. However, I can see her going over to the dark side and that would be a shame.

As far as Clark and Warner, the same goes for their pro-war stance, but Clark can't vote on anything now...he's never been elected to any office. What's there to protest? Concerning Mark Warner...again he has no voting record to impeach (as far as I know). His pro-war stance is also unacceptable, and should he run for President without having a change of heart, I'd feel the same way about him.

Also, just because somebody's a Dem doesn't make them right. If Kucinich started doing what Hillary's doing now, I'd protest him in a second. I'm not loyal to a party or a person....I'll do what's right even if it hurts. The repug way is to fall in line, lockstep, behind someone no matter what they say, and to obfuscate and gloss over their votes you don't agree with. The Democratic way is to stand for what's right, no matter what the consequences. The ends don't justify the means.

Remember...it's Hillary who betrayed us with her pro-war stance, not us betraying the Dems. She did the wrong thing, and she needs to know about it.

I am not suggesting you are not free to criticize within the party, but if , as you stated above, you have no loyalty to the party, the big tent, the willingness to listen to all ideas with an open mind, it's almost a waste of time for you.

And I think a politician who learns and grows is far more valuable than one who does the Monkey thing--take a stand and stick to it, no matter how stupid or counterproductive.

If you look at Hillary, she is tacking left on the war. Are you going to punish her, if she even decides to run, because she didn't get on the bandwagon fast enough?

She wants to tell the new Iraqi leadership to shit or get off the pot. That cannot happen until we know who the leadership will be. The elections aren't happening until mid month. When they happen, I suspect she will have more to say on the issue.

LOL...

I'm the one loyal to Democratic ideals, the big tent, and listening to things with an open mind. I'm extremely open minded, almost too much so. That's why I'm supporting the protests against Hillary....she is currently opposing all those thing you say I should be loyal to. She's the one who's doing the wrong thing, and I'm not going to support anybody who's not doing the right thing - I don't care what political party they represent.

If the Democratic party decides to take up pro-war and corporate interests, then it's no longer the Democratic party, and I shouldn't vote for the candidate with whom I disagree with. We always criticize the dumb Joe Sixpack repugs for following their party blindly and voting against their own interests. I'm not going to do the exact same thing that I call them dumbasses for doing.

You just said she's tacking to the left on the war....funny, it looks like the protests have had the right effect. It looks like they worked, like they were productive. You want to tell me it's a waste of time, but it looks like in the same post you just validated my point...it worked.

I would be for Hillary if she decided to come back to the Democratic party ideals - no problem. People make mistakes, and can be forgiven. However, she lives in an isolated world away from the concerns of everyday life - most politicians do. A protest is a good way to get her attention, and according to you it has gotten her attention and has worked.

party or a person...that would make you either an independent (and actually, that is a party, so it really does not apply) or 'unaffiliated.'

values.

The Democrats haven't always been the liberal party, and the Republicans haven't always been the conservative party. Through most of the 1800's, they were on the opposite side that they are now. Somewhere along the line, they switched positions. If that happens again, then I'm not switching with them.

MADem wrote:

"Wes Clark wants to increase our investment in Iraq, and stay there possibly for a decade or more, yet no one goes after him. Mark Warner has the EXACT same position as Hillary, yet he gets a pass..."

Yes.

"and neither one of those guys had to go to the Senate and vote as a Senator from the state that got hit on 9/11",

And therefore is EXACTLY why she is slammed worse than they are.
She has a responsibility that she must shoulder as a member of the Senate.

"and was out for blood, even if it was the wrong blood."

You're wrong here. NY was 95% AGAINST the Iraq war and had a HUGE protest of about a million people that said "not in OUR name"
This is precisely why she is facing such hell and rightly so.
The ONLY Senator that betrayed her constituency worse than Hilary was Diane Feinstein with 99% of Californians wanting her to vote no. She voted yes and now is retiring.

She betrayed NY. A constituency that welcomed her with open arms when her own home state wouldn't.
That the same constituency faced the greatest attack on American soil, makes that betrayal even MORE despicable.
This speaks to her trustworthiness, and honor... 2 qualities that people expect to see in a President.

She needs to apologize.
Not for the war; for her betrayal.
She could accomplish this by apologizing for her vote. I'm not even saying that she has to admit she's wrong, but you are living in a fairy tale world if you think she can outrun this.
It is the single biggest issue of our time.
This issue will tear her down if she doesn't.
So I guess it boils down to how badly she wants to run because believe me, if she had to run against an Al Gore, or someone who has been consistently critical of Bush's war, without a doubt, that apology wouldn't be out of her mouth quick enough.
Her handling of this will either make her or break her so Dems had better have an alternate waiting in the wings.
Des

You use politics and work within the system and then change the system. That is what you do.

Instead you stick your damn head in the political pie in the sky sand and yell FREEEEEEE!!!! when you die.

Great. It doesnt accomplish a damn thing.

Put your damn energy into electing someone who can get elected, then work to move them to the right position.

Or stand on the sidewalk waving your flag in your sandels and tie dyed t-shirt and continue to bitch when your candidate gets 2% of the vote.

The system is full of corruption and electronic voting machines that steal our votes.

Working within the system is what makes it so the Average Joe can't tell the difference between our candidates and the repugs - all the candidates look corrupt and sing the same tune. Working within the system brings you a candidate who kowtows to corporate interests and big campaign contributions. Working within the system has lost us not just the last three elections, but has sucked the soul, the spirit, the fire, and the fight out of our party.

Funny you say about saying standing in "sandals" and a "tye dyed t-shirt."...I've never owned either, and I'm a former Marine. I'm far from the hippie that you'd like to portray me to be. It doesn't make my opinion any more valid than yours, but your stereotypes are way off. You make assumptions about your friends (me) and your foes.

You talk all that mess about putting your energy into someone who can get elected and moving them into the right position....that policy has failed us the last three elections. We need to put up a candidate that shows a clear difference between what the repugs and Dems stand for - somebody who the Average Joe can see a real difference between him/her and the chickenhawks - somebody who the public doesn't see as just a career politician who's stance follows the latest fad.

You want to doom us to repug rule my whole life - that's what working in the system will do. The system is totally fixed now, you can't win working within it without selling out.

That's why Hillary deserves criticism, and yes protest, over her stance on the war. I don't disagree with Hillary on everything. However, as a Dem, her pro-war rhetoric and voting is unacceptable - she needs to know this. I like Hillary as a person, and she's endured a lot. However, she's coming close to becoming another Zell Miller, for real. I don't want that. I want her to come back to the Democratic side, so maybe when she sees the protests, she might get the message....maybe she won't.

and just wanted to say that! :thumbsup:

It's good to know that when I pour my feelings out about how bad "the system" is, that some people feel the same way, and can see the same thing.

or wolves in democratic clothing.

Sorry. I don't buy that Bush and Cheney are the only enemies in this picture. Those paper tigers that enable them are just as complicit.

I was unaware that anyone here wanted to get behind a Maoist or Stalinist candidate - you know, an ACTUAL far lefty.

"We have ended America's ground combat role. No draftees are being sent to Vietnam. We have reduced our casualties by 98 percent. We have gone the extra mile trying to seek a negotiated settlement of the war. We have offered a cease-fire, a total withdrawal of all American forces, an exchange of all prisoners of war and internationally supervised free elections with the Communists participating in the elections and in the supervision."

- Richard M. Nixon
August 23, 1972

NT!

> There has to be give and take, but not so extreme on either side.

It seems like we (on the left) have given and given and given.

We've given money, time, position on dozens of issues that matter a lot to us,
and all "they" do is take. We helped elect Hilary, and one of her first actions
was to enable Bush's war.

When can ge expect that they will give something for us to take?

Tesha

Do you think our kids will be any less dead because a dem PNACer is in charge as opposed to a repuke?

I don't.

She's gonna do an LBJ, that silly freak

And if the GOP had exercised discrimination (in the sense of sorting good from bad--and not any perversion to prejudice) we might have been spared Nixon, Bush, Reagan and Bushitler.

It is good that active Democrats can see the difference and choose the better path (if they make the effort).

Who would that be? Apparently anyone who is not, or not anymore, or not yet a republican. A group, or a party, or even an individual who fights and does not "win", which apparently means "gets elected somewhere", is often way more useful to its time. Without "far lefties", who did not "win", most of what the people painstakingly acquired would not be. As to protseting the war, it also means protesting those who voted for it. Which is just fair since there are a ,very, few who did not.

There are people on this site who do far more attacking of those who question the stances of pro-war Dems than dealing with any other issues.

They were doing it before any of the big names called for withdrawal in any form so they were all for whatever Dems of this stripe were for-- as wrong as they were to have remained silent for so long--and now are in favor of the half-measures and lipservice to ending the war we hear from the Hillary's and Kerry's and Bidens and Liebermans.

The critics of these pro-war Dems learned a lesson from 2004 which hasn't sunk in with some here who hollowly intone shit about "eating our own" (as they then rabidly proceed to attempt to eat our own): that sticking close to Bush's war position is not gonna help in 2006 and 2008, just as it didn't in 2002 and 2004.

According to their logic and you know who you are, Murtha saying his is the only plan that makes sense to him is "eating our own".

Hillary is coming around on the war, but nooooooo, that isn't good enough. Screw her!! She only cares about stupid things, like health care for all, decent schools for our kids, safe working environments, protecting families against domestic violence....yeah, she's a real ASSHOLE!

I'm with you--first, let's see if she even DECIDES TO RUN. Then, a bit of listening to what her plans are to get this country back on track might not hurt. Finally, ya make your pick, and you vote in the damn primary.

If Pee Wee Fucking Herman wins the primary, he has my vote in the general election. Any (D) is better than any (R), at this point--they've had the whole ball of wax for way too many years, and they have screwed it up completely!

and her mouth is a cesspool of DLC talking points.

And your point was?

The underlying assumption is that the 'peace party' is a subset of the Democratic party.

They are not. And I think they feel generally homeless.

have those big SUVs with yellow ribbons that say "Support The Oops!"

None!

Zero!

Nada!

"Flyers were also thrown down from the balcony, accusing Democrats and Republicans of being alike when it comes to Iraq policy..."
Yeah, the Freepers have been trying to blame Democrats for Chimpy's war for months.

Until then, your assertion will go in the "wild speculation" file of, I daresay, most people here.

until then, I really doin't care what most of the people in this thread think...especially those can't tell the difference between an assertion and a question.

Your opinions are your own, and you are more than welcome to keep them.

And remember this wild speculation???

Who'd have guessed that could happen in a million years...

Hence, no longer wild speculation.

As I said - if someone has evidence, present it. I'll take an honest look at it.

at the anti Bush rally last week where several College Republicans got caught out waving signs that supported Saddam.

That sort of thing goes on all the time - I don't find Mr. Benchley's suspicions about Republican dirty tricks at all out of line.

Has it happened? Yes.

Did it happen here? Still waiting to see the evidence.

...the so-called Democratic Party leaders like Hillary that publicly state that they are still supporting that illegal and immoral fiasco in Iraq.

We all know that Congress DID NOT get the same intelligence data that was provided/manufactured for the NeoCon Junta leadership. They voted to invade Iraq based on the information they were given...which we all now know to have been a pack of lies.

But, IMHO, there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for any Democrat to support keeping troops in Iraq at this point in time.

and you want to pout.

This last group was 18 year olds being led by a 23 year old. WTF Where are the brave generals? Where are the Republican kids and Republican lite kids.

MASTERS OF WAR BOB DYLAN

The old Atwater tricks...grassroots/astroturf...'citizen' riots over the Florida recount....McCain in South Carolina...smells the same to me.

Of course, some will buy in, be duped, and not see where it is coming from. They'll read about it years from now in a history book, and hope like hell their picture isn't in any of the illustrations...

"Ordinary citizens" exercising their first amendment rights:

Sounds like nader's rhetoric or LaRouche's tactics.

this is why Hillary can't be the next presidential candidate

NOT GONNA HAPPEN!!!

"this is why Hillary can't be the next presidential candidate"
Because a handful of loonies is going to throw a dishonest little snit in public?

"The news media is partly to blame for many Americans' misconception that the Democratic party is badly divided on the Iraq war, because they seek comment mostly from what they consider the party's elite, Miller said. Democratic senators like Sens. Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman - who voted in favor of the war and who now can find no graceful way of admitting they'd made a mistake - don't necessarily hold the party's majority view, Miller said."


--California Rep George Miller (yesterday)

A true public servant and statesman! I'm so glad you quoted him!

http://www.timesheraldonline.com/ci_3268714

It's a keeper.

Man. Does that say it all, or what? Like "leadership" was a herd activity.

has her party wrapped up and all she has to do is attract the moderates in the middle. Well, I know a whole bunch of Democrats who will vote 3rd Party before supporting Hillary's nomination.

Regardless if this costs the election, I will vote my conscience from here on out and not some blind party affiliation.

The question I have for them is "What exactly have we won by eating the crap that they shovel in front of us?"

I realize I can't always have a juicy steak, but I'll be damned if I'm eating Republican-lite fast food again in 2008.

It really has gotten us nowhere.

Every time they do, it strengthens my resolve to never vote for their candidates even more.

See, I don't vote for candidates pushed by liars too ignorant of the body politic to realize that the majority of Americans want the OPPOSITE of the policies pimped by the DLC corporatists.

So let them yammer on - nothing they can say will change MY mind, because they're full of shit and untrustworthy.

"democrat" in office if they are going to triangulate and obfuscate the truth to death to appease the other corporate lords? No thanks. Hillary will never get my vote.

ROBERT BYRD. She has her seat, as a female freshman Senator, on the high profile SASC BECAUSE BYRD GAVE HER THE NOD.

He regards her as one of the hardest working Senators in that body, and holds her in very high esteem.

named the Democratic nominee! All the pundits seem to assume she has it locked up and she's playing it like she is already running to the middle.

behalf of House, Senate and state candidates. She HAS been raising a ton of dough, but the speaking cash is not earmarked for her.

She's a draw, a moneymaker. Good thing we have someone who can loosen the grip on the wallets--these elections do not come cheap!

I'd laugh if she chose not to run after all this hue and cry...and the Democratic president decides to appoint her to the Supreme Court! That would twist the shit out of the GOP, which is why I like the idea...and she would have to be known as JUSTICE RODHAM, because that is the name on her law degree! Ah, the fundies would shriek like mad!

:toast:

Source - Salon July 24, 2004

"We failed" on the question of the war, Byrd continued. "We relegated ourselves to the sidelines. How many times? How many times did I hear the words, `Let's get this thing behind us. Let's talk about something else. It would be better for us in the election if we changed the subject.'"

When asked why Democratic Senators were so silent, Byrd said that Senators who were running for reelection "were afraid," that they "didn't want to be charged with being unpatriotic...They believed the garbage that was being spewed out by the administration."

Byrd may hold Hillary in high personal esteem, but not her IWR vote.

Seriously - I like the woman and would love her to be Senator for another 30 years but her presidential aspirations are embarrassing and will lead to massive Dem losses if she gets the nom.

Far ahead of Gore, Edwards, Kerry, and Clark.

Whoever gets the nomination in 2008 gets my vote.

Yellow Dog Democrat to the end.

that turns Bush's war into a Democratic war?

I remember when a Democratic war in Vietnam became a Republican war under Nixon. Is that who you will support, a Democratic Nixon?

Do you think that any realistically potential candidate in any party will end the war after the election?

And I didn't say I supported the war.

NT!

.. I for one condemned the war & still do. However, now that my country is in Iraq along with the US, I say that we have damn better stay until the current mess is fixed. If we pull out, who's going to take over? The Iraqi army/security forces, that just about every DU'er likes to point is pretty much confined to a single brigade? The UN, in which case the US will most likely be told to make up a majority of the security forces, since they already have the material & infrastructure in place? Private contractors, whom most DU'ers points out are already being overpaid for what little work they do?

And if we pull out now, what is that going to do to an already damaged reputation that the US have among the moderate & extremist Islamic groups?

for killing his sons. You then turn Saddam lose and he will take care of Al-Qaeda and the religious wackos, and their allies in Iran.

NT!

.

that would be a deal breaker for me and a bunch of others.

Remaining in Vietnam Iraq is a deal breaker for many of us. People cannot continue to die for an Oil Imperialism.

Hillary may very well muscle her way to be the Dem nominee, but it may be at a price that could cost her the election.

remember hillary-chicago is a tough audience. not everyone buys your bullshit brand of republican...opps...me bad....democratic principals.
any democrat that doesn`t stand beside murtha is a coward.

I will not go so far as to say that Hillary should not run, or progressives should not support her. I don't really think it's going to matter in the long run, because I don't think a Dino who supports this war will have a chance in hell of winning. I believe it is time for DUers to take a quick little refresher course on recent history.

It was the Democratic Party Convention that was being held in Chicago in 1968 when that massive protest and police riot took place. They weren't protesting against the Democrats so much as against the war policy and the party that supported it. They went to make it known that this country needed a president who would lead this country out of Vietnam.

And what did we get from the Dems? Hubert H. Humphrey. Who seemed to have learned not one damned thing from LBJ's Vietnam lessons - No, old HHH explained in all his speeches how we had to stay the course until the right time. We had no option, we couldn't allow the godless commies to commit a blood bath by cutting and running. We were subjected to that from the Dems all through that campaign.

And what did the Republicans say? Old Tricky Dick Nixon was out there proclaiming he had a PLAN to get us out. He couldn't tell us what it was - it was a SECRET PLAN. But he promised over and over to get us out. He promised. His secret plan was his mantra, and this country bought the secret plan, and Tricky Dick with it.

Some option, huh? Dems and Hubert Humphrey and more war, or Repubs and Dick and a plan to get us out.

Does anyone here even begin to get what I am hinting at here?

Everywhere Humphrey went in that campaign there were demonstrators out against him and his war stance. He never gave a speech that wasn't interrupted. He never developed the balls to stand on his hind legs and repudiate the war or LBJ, even though it was the very thing that brought down LBJ. :shrug: He parsed his words, he refused to stand up and be counted. And he lost to the man with the lying plan.

Now you have Dinos who are equally as dense as Humphrey was that year. The stupid sons of bitches are going to stand there in their smugness and self-righteousness and allow the defeated, vile, disgusting, and lying Repubs to walk all over them in the elections again. Why? Because the Repubs will lie about getting us out. Look at idiot boy now, promising to draw down the troops. And the Dems in "leadership" positions won't even take a principled stand against it. Or expose his lies. Or nothin.

So I don't think it really matters what DU or anyone else thinks about demonstrators interrupting poor old Hillary, or the party eating its own. Of course they're going to demonstrate against any candidate who doesn't oppose this war. What does it say about DUers who would stop them from demonstrating? from trying to change Dino minds?

Unless something drastic happens to open the eyes of these Dinos, or we select different leaders, this Democratic Party is going to self-destruct, once again. We learn nothing from history. And this is just one more instance of history repeating itself in my lifetime.

It hardly makes sense to try to lay the blame on the people who are trying to wake them up.

Wat

only way we get out of war is only after the majority of the people demand it, just like Vietnam ( I prefer the original spelling, that is the spelling I still associate with the deaths of my friends ).

This is why I will not support ANY DINO! Even if that DINO is the parties nominee.

Republican Lites

Vietnam was PERSONAL. WHY? One word: DRAFT.

There is not a sense that you could be snatched up and shipped off nowadays. You don't have to worry about keeping those college grades up to maintain your deferment. Hell, you don't even have to worry about college, your parents hocking the house to pay for school so you don't have to go to the jungle...now the sandbox.

The draft got a shitload of kids in the streets, and quite a few over the border to Canada, or off to Sweden or Amsterdam. That pressing reality does not exist in this environment, and it makes a real difference in the way people view (or simply choose to ignore) the war.

a very important piece of history is being REPEATED all over again, from the very beginning of this fiasco that is costing not only our own in life, limb and treasure, but of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, and beyond. From the urban streets of Bhagdad to the secret gulags in Eastern Europe and Guantanomo.

It is absolute madness for any political leader to wear blinders on this matter who have not experienced Viet Nam, but it is absolutely diabolical for someone who knows first hand our history during Viet Nam.

That's the why the level of animous towards both Kerry and the Clintons and their absolute failure to deal with this issue righteously, is on a level that is expressed here and at that protest today. They'll be more of those. many more.

And one more note on that Convention in 1968. It was the Democratic Party leadership that called out the state police and national guard in advance of the planned demonstration - the police and guard outnumbered the demonstrators by a ratio that was so over the top, i can't recall the percentage at the moment, they were given orders to beat, maim and gas the demonstrators, whatever it takes to disperse them from outside of the convention. They didn't want to hear what America was saying about the war in Viet Nam. And the National Guard turned not only the demonstrators, but journalists and media as well.

That convention was the last convention where the party voted in the candidate.

And they call ours a "democracy".

what a freaking joke.

eom

Democratic Party (which needs all the help it can get.) It was a very successful event, raising over $600,000; we were anticipating $250,000. I appreciate her taking time from her hectic schedule to help us out. Her speech was very level-headed and eloquent; she can actually speak without reading a monitor. WOW! On the majority of things she said I agree wholeheartedly with her: jobs, health care, reducing the deficit, the environment, etc. She had several specific plans for each. She did mention Iraq, admitting that there were differences, but seemed to be softening her approach. I for one am going to voter for any Democrat our members choose; the alternative at this point is the end of our country. Just remember no candidate is going to agree with you 100%.

breaker for me. All other priorities are secondary to me.

PS. I am an investor now that I'm retired. I think that the economy is already broken. I'm keeping my money base in Swiss Francs and not the US Dollar.

On voting for the war, congress didn't have the same information Bush had. They were given a bias summary. And the vote was not to go to war but to give Bush the authority to go to war. Their mistake was to trust him. Who would have thought the president would lie about the intelligence?

These anti-war protesters are misguided. I assume most of them are democrats and this infighting doesn't help our cause. It helps the other side more by making democrats looks as bad as the neocons. We need to stick together and form a common platform.

On Hillary running in 2008... She'd lose. People are going to be reminded of her health care fiasco back in the first years of the Clinton presidency. It was one of the reasons the republicans gained control of congress.

care insurance in this country is atrocious. I think most people will support that, at least Democrats will.

The issue with the war protesters for me is not who started it, or who voted for it, but who will get us out of it. I hear all of these plans with various fine nuances. I am sick of those. Until I hear a plan that says everyone out within a few months, just like all of Bush's "allies" are doing, then I will believe that these plans are nothing more than some type of continued oil imperialism that is utterly destined to fail.

The war protesters are correct in my opinion.

... but not the way Hillary was going about it with all the quotas and affirmative action requirements. That was a recipe for disaster. A better solution might be universal health care insurance, but this is probably a topic for another thread.

by that shithead Newt Gingrich...remember, the panel, the bitching about the open meetings??? Of course, Cheney meets with energy execs in secret to craft legislation and no one bats a goddamned eye...

old crap are extreme RW Republican crazies.

:-)

IF she starts openly and loudly supporting a SPHC system, NOW... AND she agrees that the Iraq war is a brutal mistake which requires a speedy exit for US Troops, NOW..

no ifs, ands, or buts..

Then I promise I will consider STRONGLY supporting her in the Primaries.

elections over there in the next two weeks. I'd be surprised if she isn't already working up a position paper on the matter to be delivered after the elections take place. She touched on it when she was in Kentucky on Friday:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-03-clinton-iraq_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

Quite frankly, I would be SHOCKED if, assuming Iraq is winding down by the time the primaries get underway, Hillary isn't grilled mercilessly on the health care issue at every opportunity--unless we have another "terra" alert in aid of Bush's successor (though odds are good the GOP is going to use the "There's a Mexican under your bed!" approach to divide the country--at least that is what the pundits are saying nowadays).

Here's her health care section of her site
http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/health/index.cfm?topic=affordability in case you are curious about her views on that issue.

within the next year is purely an academic exercise ( we used to call that sort of thing mental masturbation in grad school ). What we have now is an increasing insurgency, the Kurds in the North making their own Oil deals independent of Bush's puppets, and a Sunni population chafing under Shiite rule.

Hillary can hope to hide from the issues, but they are there.

Bush's motto, "Leave No Oil Barrel Behind" is definitely in great peril.

the Iranians to invade and keep order!! Now that would be a scenario...!!!

I don't think mealy-mouthed patchwork answers will work. Not anymore. See, she's moved to the right on this since 1993 (clearly), and I've moved to the left... in part because I have a young relative who is totally uninsurable due to a serious disability. Sorry, from where I sit, tax credits and trying to beg the insurance companies to cut a little off their swollen, fat edges just. isn't. gonna. do. it.

Single Payer Health Care Now. Get the Insurance Companies out of the equation entirely.

It's her state. We will have to see what she proposes at the national level if she decides to run.

I agree with you, though, that health care is a BIG deal, and we need to get onboard with the rest of the damn world. We need more doctors, more med schoolsl, more preventive care, more chronic care, and fewer fast-track drugs tossed out there without adequate testing (if people want to roll the dice and take a chance on a cutting edge medication, fine, but they should KNOW up-front that they are engaged in a risk-benefit scenario, not find out when people start dropping like flies).

If Iraq slides off the table, either through some miracle of peace on earth, or international intervention and assistance that enables us to get the hell out of there, I do think health care is the baby elephant in the room. We can hardly call ourselves a great nation when Cuba, held together with bubble gum and baling wire, has a healthier population than we do.

It's outrageous and morally repugnant.

Anyway, '08 is a long way away. Although she's far from my first choice, Hillary does have plenty of time to convince me.

gets going. I really do want to hear from EVERYONE, and if Hill runs, her too. What will be interesting to see is if the cash she has been raising for the 06 candidates is put to effective use. I sure hope it it is--I'd be happy if we could ride a great big fat 06 wave all the way to 08

what Democrat should have been giving * the authority to do ANYTHING, let alone spend the lives of our troops?

Could we at least expect our Democratic reps to be smart enough not to give any authority to *?

She's living off of that and will do so throughout 2006, so poll after poll of Democratic primary voters will continue to show her way out in front, and the media will treat her as the "front-runner". And we'll all have to play along.

I have no doubt that if she keeps up this American Margaret Thatcher act she will be stopped by the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary voters.

If Hillary runs, she has my vote but I'd rather see a squeaky clean woman like Caroline Kennedy running, and Caroline can/will win. I cannot put up with any more Hillary fatigue.

Although I don't think she would have any part of it! What a lot of folks are forgetting is that Hillary has never said that she was going to run! It's all been MEDIA HYPE!! I have a question for anyone out there who "really" supports a run for the W.H. by Mrs. Clinton. Would you still support her if BILL didn't come along with her as a "package deal"? I think those of us who really appreciated his Presidency (until he screwed it up ...BIG TIME..) would like to see him in the W.H. again in ANY capacity !!! Just my 2 cents worth.

This has happened before, with fancifully-dressed "gays" protesting other politicians. Did these anti-war protestors belong to any legitimate organizations? Did anyone recognize them? This is going to be a strategy we'll see the Republicans use more and more often, especially against front-running Democrats.

It is the only trick left in their bag of tricks that can energize their party.

A nominee like Wes Clark or John Edwards would further erode centrist support for GOP.

I don't know why some people just don't get that.

that views like that become commonplace.

In California, in the midst of homes that involve two commas and eight figures in the sales prices, Hillary has gotten anti-war protestors. Code Pink, definitely on the left and anti-war, stood outside in the police designated spot in the midst of beverly Hills in full regalia and protested Hillary. Hillary counts heavily on three states for her fundraising base: CA, TX & NY.

California is needed by any Democrat who runs for president and right now California is feeling no love for middle of the road or vote for war candidates. Ask DiFi. See new mayors, definitely non-DLC in the major cities of LA and San Francisco. Hillary is losing the base she thought she had.

Let the Liberal Left be loud & heard and if this is what it takes, too bad for Hillary. :)

NT!

edit
Ooops! Got my agendas crossed!

an interesting reference though on a Chicago conservative radio station's website:

I was there. These kids were not acting. It got violent when security was involved.

are the Republicans in Disguise.

(Ever notice that those polls which have her as the front runner never seem to include the name "Al Gore"?)

I don't know too many democrats, where I live, who want her to run in her current incarnation.. in fact, I don't know ANY. But the thought sure does seem to make the pinheads on Right Wing AM Hate Radio start chewing at their leather straps in excitement.

Good for them!

I seem to have missed them somewhere. Anyone know?

peace.

I struggled against pro-war Dems back in the 1960's (LBJ, HHH) and here, by God, they are again. We have such a slick system that can produce death in such a variety of political flavors!

the people to vote them out whenever and wherever they pop up!

They need to protest ALL idiot warmongers, repub or dem. The soldiers and Iraqis are just as dead and maimed regardless of who is promoting this disaster

her sorry warmongering ass , too.

...the illegal and immoral war in Iraq WILL be a MAJOR issue. They need to put their heads together and decide NOW what the Party position is going to be.

IMHO, Hillary has done herself some early, and possibly permanent, damage by waffling on this issue.

Though the protest was rather inappropriate, it was effective in getting the attention of the entire audience. Indeed, every head and news camera in the place whipped around to capture the commotion while Hillary continued to drone on as if the whole thing wasn't happening.

After nearly 30 seconds of shouting from the audience, she finally stopped her speech to address the (now second) group of protesters, asking them to sit down so she could explain her views on Iraq. Security forcibly removed all protesters (some rather violently) and Hillary continued with her speech, only addressing issues in Iraq at the very end. In my opinion, she stubbornly botched an opportunity to open up the very debate that could have put a touch of life in her otherwise humdrum speech. Instead she appeared to view the whole event as a disturbance, at best. For that, she lost my applause.

True patriots protest, and had these particular ones not been strong-armed off the premises, I would have liked to shake their hands.

just like Bush does, and she will use Homeland Security to persecute peace protesters.

UNEMLIGHTENED 'STAY THE COURSE' IDIOTS

The man who said he had a plan to get us out of Vietnam in 1968, 4 years later defeated Senator McGovern, who won 1 State, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia.

From 1968 on the American electorate was far more against the Vietnam War than the electorate is now against the Iraq War. What makes anyone think that America is going to elect a "Peace Candidate" or an Anti-War Politician in 2008 any more than they were willing to elect one in 1972?

Anti-war and peace will always be equated with weakness in the American psyche. The Hawks have won the debate over who loves America more and who will be more able to protect us from any evil menace out there.

People should wake up and not fail to learn the lessons of history!

antiwar efforts then did have some effect. Where is conscription now, I ask you? I think the argument should be reframed to say Reason versus Irrationality with the rational people pointing out that continued militarism drains the budget and fucks the country.

Anti-war and peace will always be equated with weakness in the American psyche.

Each day the US stays in Iraq is a day closer to the collapse of the mighty American military. The day the military collapses from exhaustion, will be the day in which the people of the world will no longer have to fear American bombs on their cities or US Marines on their shores to secure their natural resources for America's endless appetite.

Stay in Iraq, and die... just like all colonial powers!

i honor you