Why do any Democrats who want to end the war / and do not want to start another war support Hillary?

I do not undrestand how anyone who states they are a liberal and oppose the Iraq War and oppose attacking Iraq could support a candidate such as Hillary. She has never retracted her stance on the Iraq War, refuses to admit her vote was a mistake and now votes for KYL/LIEBERMAN which not only reinforces her position as a "hawk" in general but opens the door to a potential conflict with Iran. She has also stated that she probably could not bring the troops home earlier than 2012 and wants to leave some "combat" troops in place. She seems to be supported in this position by her husband, the ex president who still says he was NOT opposed to the Iraq war, just the way it was handled. Why would anyone who wants a real end to this conflict support Hillary.?

She wants to change the "mission". there is no mission, it's an Occupation, and the next president needs to get us out.

Hell, our current Senators and congressfunders need to get us out.

.

If you still have a mission, you still have a war.

I will try to find you a link.

"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military."

link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/washington/15clinton.html?pagewanted=print

I disagree, if you change the mission, you change the dynamics of the entire situation....and if you change the dynamics of the entire situation, then that obviously leads to an end to the war.

It's quite simple really.

The only mission should be to end it.

"If you still have a mission, you still have a war."


Now you're saying:


"There can be no mission. It is an Occupation."


So within mere minutes you've said that there's still a mission....to there can be no mission, it's an Occupation.

Huh?

Here it is:

If one believes there is a mission, they believe there is something to accomplish, that there is a reason to stay. Hillary believes, as does chimpy, there is still a mission, she just wants to change the mission.

But that is not the same as saying there is NO mission to be completed. I believe there is no mission to be completed, only an Occupation to be ended.

Might be withdrawing 90% of the troops and leaving 10% behind to man the fort, so to speak, in the event the Iraqi Army need some assistance with dealing with a problem and/or problems that might arise.

Now that WOULD be changing the mission AND ending the Occupation at the SAME time....would it not?

When she, Obama or Edwards, for that matter, talk about drawing down troops, they don't give numbers, and they don't give time frames.

If she came out and said, "I will end the Occupation" or even "withdrawal 90% within a years time" I would accept it at face value. But, she doesn't say that. I appreciate your trust in her. When she talks about a changing mission, without saying directly that the change in the mission would be to end it, what am I to think. I don't try to speculate as to what she means, only listen to what she says.

Be that Hillary, Obama or Edwards....they almost certainly have their own personal view, which is probably that they want to withdraw the majority of the troops.

However, because they're all running for President, and knowing what vicious little shits the GOP can be, they have to all be somewhat vague about both numbers and timeframes.

Instead of pissing away 10 billion a month killing innocent Iraqis

She's proposing only spending 1 billion a month killing innocent Iraqis...

Wow!!!

What a fucking humanitarian!!!

If we have 5000 troops in Iraq we are an occupational force are we not as we don't belong there?

was mistaken in her Iraq vote , I can't see any indication that she supports a meaningful end to the war. She doesn't even think substantial troops can be brought back till 2012. She even advocates leaving "combat" troops in place. Where has she advocated ending the war?

Just for purely common sense reasons, you're going to have to leave about 5,000 troops there, maybe not actually in Iraq, but in a more friendly country nearby, like say Kuwait....just in case something new kicks off in Iraq, and those troops are needed to assist the new Iraqi Army.

The majority of troops will probably be withdrawn sometime in late 2009, but also they'll leave about 5,000 behind for the above reasons.

Will do if she's elected President.

Hillary was asked if she could promise that all the troops would be out by the end of her term. She said she couldn't promise that. Anything could come up, and making promises that might not be kept is dishonest and irresponsible.Refusing to promise the troops that troops will come out is far different from favoring leaving troops there until 2012. Hillary wants to bring most of the troops home ASAP.

2012 is the worst case scenario. I think the best case scenario is being ignored. There are reports that violence in Iraq is down 70%. Of course, I don't know how reliable those reports are.

Bush, whose fiction made up Al Qaeda in Iraq the cause of much of the violence, now says Al Qaeda is largely defeated. I take this to mean that instead of saying we need to stay in Iraq because of all the violence, which would be hell on 2008 GOP chances, Bush is going to declare the war a success. Hillary will be able to withdraw most of the troops. Far fetched? Yes, but possible. Anyway, there's a excellent chance that we'll be out well before 2012.

And this OP says I speculate?



:rofl:

:beer:

maybe she's unable to promote her candidate, Edwards!

:shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

Start wars with:

Iran, Syria, Egypt, Russia, China, North Korea, the WHOLE of Europe, Australia, New Zealand and JUST FOR FUN she'll start a war with Papua New Guinea because they have a funny name!

Hot Damn! President Hillary Clinton will be the reincarnation of Napolean and Genghis Khan but only with Boobs!



:sarcasm:

crap.She took a hard line stand no other candidate endorsed.

I know you have a problem with it not being a non binding resolution. You need to hitch you tripe to another pony.

Her AIPAC relationship is right up there with Lieberman and that should mean something to those that oppose war..

Speaking at Princeton University on the occasion of the Wilson School's 75th anniversary celebration, Clinton aligned herself with such Republican hawks as Sen. John McCain and the editorial board of the Weekly Standard, calling for sanctions and implicitly threatening war:

"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran – that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."

"The security and freedom of Israel must be decisive and remain at the core of any American approach to the Middle East. This has been a hallmark of American foreign policy for more than 50 years and we must not – dare not – waver from this commitment."

"A nuclear Iran," is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond"

That's the REALITY of the situation....it's tough enough anyhow a woman being acceptable as a possible Commander-in-Chief, Hillary has had to take a hardline stance on defense, if she hadn't of, then the GOP and....let's face it Barack Obama, would have portrayed her as being "soft on defense"

My mother taught me better than that.She was one of the only female lawyers in her class in the 1940's. She always said that no matter what the circumstances, gender should NEVER be used to establish gain if one wanted to be perceived as a "true " equal professionally. If Hillary is doing this she is betraying generations of women who fought to be regarded as equals. If she can't win without playing games she doesn't deserve to win.

.

because she is a woman".That is playing games".


Senator Clinton has had to take a hardline because she's a woman
That's the REALITY of the situation....it's tough enough anyhow a woman being acceptable as a possible Commander-in-Chief, Hillary has had to take a hardline stance on defense, if she hadn't of, then the GOP and....let's face it Barack Obama, would have portrayed her as being "soft on defense

And it doesn't mean that Senator Clinton is "playing games"....it means she's living in reality.

this behavior. I guess she can't get elected as herself but has to "pander" to an image.

I believe she's a tough cookie, it's one of the reasons why I like her and are supporting her.

a woman. I disagree and find it disgusting that she does so.

It shows how weak and corrupt she is in bowing to the warlords and big business not to mention the other party. She is bought and paid for and anyone that is bought and paid for is weak because of their own greed and not because of gender. Next thing these hillaritybots will be singing the blues saying we are all sexist because we don't vote for a woman. You people are pushing a weak candidate and you push weak excuses for us to HAVE TO VOTE FOR HER OR ELSE. I haven't seen the pushing of a candidate like this since the republicons pushed W. What ever happened to real issues and real talking points based on good achievements or does hillary feel those of us in the Democratic party should be like the republicon party and blindy follow her as a candidate? You don't go on her records or achievements because she isn't doing much to benefit us let alone what's right so you have to spin and damn near strongarm people by verbal coercion to vote for her. It won't work and it shouldn't work.
Even citing polls saying hillary is so wonderful doesn't work because they are easily refuted as biased by more obvious common sense points. Here's an example. It's been said hillary is the most electable Democratic candidate by 80%. Now the obvious is that few know of very many that really wish to vote for her in the primary. Then there's the pulse of the DU as it is shown how much and by how many are supporting which candidates through the DU. That can be seen at anytime by clicking on DONATE beneath any candidate's name on the bottom of the home page. Even a little poll asking here on the DU if they think she is favorable, unfavorable, or undecided has shown her to be very far back in support. She is not a good candidate for the Democratic party from all I've seen and heard.

I'll tell you where Senator Clinton has said that....NOWHERE, that's where.

This thread no doubt will get 40 votes amid a bunch of Hillary bashing....just watch....in fact, if anyone wants to get onto the Greatest Page, all they need to do is post an anti-Hillary thread, and within half an hour, they'll be on the Greatest Page.

Pretty sad and unfortunate if you ask me :(

She says YES to war where it counts, unfortunately.

constraining the presidential powers in this area.

Also, if you can understand that Hillary Clinton is a woman, she cannot be seen as being "weak on defense", she must adopt a Hawkish attitude, because if she doesn't, the Republicans will label her as "soft on defense" and that the public can't "trust her" on "protecting them from terrorism"

her.I judge a woman by exactly the same standards as I do a male candidate and she has to have the same qualifications. She doesn't get to play games because she is a"female' and "use" her gender to hide behind. Are you seriously saying she doesn't really "mean" it but has to "look strong" so as not be be viewed as a wimpy "female". This is disgusting.

:P

The thing is, many people DON'T judge a male and female candidate for President in the same way....I know it's wrong, but that's how it is.

Senator Clinton is more than qualified and capable to be President and Commander-in-Chief....but unfortunately, there's a good percentage of the population who still think that a woman "isn't up to the job", so because of that, Senator Clinton HAS to take a hardline of defense issues....ALL defense issues.

chances for other women who will now have to adopt aggressive masculine traits in order to be considered capable and "strong" We should be moving away from the perception not endorsing it. I find this digusting. It is too bad we can't elect a woman as president who has the strength to be herself.

NOBODY thinks Barbara Lee is "weak"!

Majorities or at least pluralities oppose most of the hawk agenda. The idea that one has to "look tough" to win is a DLC creation. The first candidate who is smart enough to see through it, change the framing to fight it and go with the majority of Americans will score big points.

I agree that's harder for a woman but Hillary would still benefit, just not as much.

you are talking about. I think you are being overly optimistic. Any candidate that comes out and says for instance: "let Iran have nukes we can't really stop them" goes down in flames.

But Hillary isn't being hurt by stressing diplomacy as the best option and holding out military action as nothing more than a hypothetical option for down the road. 68% are currently opposed to a war with Iran.

Other polls are mixed depending on how questions are worded but they seem to all come down to the public saying that Iran is a threat that should be taken very seriously but war isn't a good idea at present. Just what Hillary is saying.

http://pollingreport.com/iran.htm

I must have misunderstood you before. I thought you were saying she was playing to much to the hawks?

but she is making a big mistake favoring bigger military spending. It can't be afforded and a plurality is against it now. When people figure out they have to give big medicare cuts to pay for bizarre weapons systems that have no useful purpose the public will freak. That day is coming in less than eight years.

on it, I would be surprised if she was pushing big weapons systems at this stage. Not surprised if she is talking about increasing the forces and their defensive armament etc.

Nobody thinks Barbara Lee is "weak"!

Sen.Byrd was against the Iraq war from the start.Which is more than can be said for Hillary who won't even admit her vote was wrong.

More Americans have died from not having health insurance than have died in the war

You can overlook those deaths, but not those from war

and you support the man

That's just spinning to take the heat off of hillarity and her obviously hawkish votes that align with bush seeing it's bush's war for oil she authorized. And quit insulting our intelligience trying to make hillarity out to be a liberal's dream candidate. I look to see what the results are of what she has done to judge those results as good or bad to determine if the source of those actions, being hillary, is good or bad.

I am weighing all the information to determine which candidate would be best for the nation

If you find a perfect candidate, please let me know

There needn't be a perfect candidate as that is an impossibility. So are you now saying we must support hillarity if we can't come up with a perfect candidate? And you're saying her voting for war is justified by the many that died because they didn't have health care. By your logic who needs healthcare when hillarity is helping to get many of us killed in needless wars. You guys did nothing but gang up upon the OP poster and never really answered the question as you've spun into oblivion.
I agree with the op that you must be a hypocrite to say you oppose war and bush, but then vote in favor of bush's war machine time and time again. I don't care what way you spin or polish it, she doesn't speak for most Democrats as most see her as more of the same we got from bush.

"weigh all the information to determine which candidate would be best for the nation"

and since you can't understand the written word, I will say "Welcome to my ignore list"

More like ignoring the truth.

just like the bushbots...

and you just failed the test in seeing that the post you responded to attempted to point that out.

is fucked!!!

Shoveling more money into the pockets of the health insurance mafia and big pharma is NO solution to the health care problem...

If hillary's elected you can kiss affordable, universal health care goodbye for ANOTHER 14 years (at least!)... She fucked it up once and she'll do it again...

I don't support her, but there are people here who do, who are clearly knowledgable and who think for themselves.

I'd never make such a remark about the supporters of ANY dem candidate.

Ah, okay.

her supporters here are simply supporting her due to MSM influence- as you claimed?

And actually, I wouldn't know first hand how the MSM is covering the race, as I don't even stick my toe in- unless you count the Sunday times I get once a week.

It's funny how some people feel the need to exaggerate in order to fuel their outrage.

being a bold faced...

What you said in response to the OP as to why people support Clinton:

"the MSM told them to"

Got that?

You said:

"the MSM told them to"

I love it

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And just so you know, you, just you, are responsible for a wonderful DU'er (and not an Obama supporter ftr) leaving DU.

You might want to tuck in some of your nastiness.

for us. :eyes:

Why WOULD any fairly left-leaning person want to vote for her, especially with the other candidates who are quite viable in the general election who are farther to the left? (I think we can scratch Obama now--to use his own term--he may not know it, but he's over now.)

Why, you ask?

To rub the reactionaries' noses in it by bringing back the Clintons

Because they don't know her true policies

Because they've committed to her in public and can't back down

Because they want a woman president, virtually ANY woman president

Because they don't buy her strutting puffery of trying to out-male the males

Just because

to improve the lives of the poor, minorities, women, for health care for all and long list of accomplishments

for the poor minorities and women doesn't preclude her voting to blow them up for nonexistent WMDS and the acquisition of oil! Perhaps she can work on getting the amputees and disabled iraqis health care. I am sure they would see that as a fair trade for their lives.:sarcasm:

18,000 a year is the estimate. Times 14 because it's 14 years since 1993.

252,000 deaths

That's why I'm voting for Hillary

No need to vote for Hillary.But this is about Iraq. And there are way more deaths in Iraq as we speak. But some don't even care.

and you don't care

who sold out to the insurance industry. If you really cared about those people without heathcare, and I used to be one of them till recently, you should be looking for a candidate that would fight Big Pharma and the insurance lobby rather than getting into bed with them. But this is just a straw man to you as it is to Hillary.

Now you're denying that you asked about why people support Hillary. You think you asked about the war

Hillary voted against the prescription drug benefit expansion of medicare. That was the biggest gravy train big pharma ever got. Hillary also supports and voted for allowing the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices. Hillary also voted for allowing US citizens to import drugs from Canada.

If Hillary is in bed with big pharma, big pharma must be masochistic.

Your posts have nothing to do with the OP - I believe that's called a "strawman". You're voting for Hillary because of Senator Byrd? That's the most interesting reason I've seen so far although my husband likes her because her birthday is the same as his. He's not voting for her, though.

There are quite a few candidates who have good plans for healthcare, and Byrd isn't running for President, just in case you weren't aware of that. In fact, I'm not sure Hillary's plan is the best - if you're that concerned about healthcare, why don't you check out all of the candidates plans? You might find one you like better...that involves corporations a bit less.

That we're not against the Iraq War and the continuing occupation of Iraq.

Personally I've been against the Iraq War from day one, and I'm against the continuing occupation of Iraq.

But what doe he know?

they argue about.

I am almost certain, That It was me that got a certain someones panties tied up in a bunch for this thread.

I'm sure she really helping Edwards out with her inanity

and she is the "Only" Democratic candidate to vote for KYL/LIEBERMAN.

In the last debate all three of the Top Tier Democrats ALL said the same thing about the Iraq War.

The Kyl/Lieberman Amendment is NON-Binding.. why don't you read it and read for comprehension.

Kyle-Lieberman Amendment

9-26-07

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/kyl-lieberman-amendment/?resultpage=1&

of the top four with the guts to commiting to a complete pull-out

Edwards, Kucinich, Richardson and Obama all called her on that point.

The majority of troops will be withdrawn I imagine by Senator Clinton, but common sense dictates that at least 5,000 troops will have to remain behind in case they're needed.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error and FU link that I ditched....D'oh!

Have you told Hillary about this imaginary plan for withdrawal?

Recommending Post #84 for a Duzy!

I distinctly remember Edwards saying he couldn't guarantee a timeline when troops would be redeploying out of Iraq and the necessity of residual troops (several battalions in fact) left behind to secure troop redeployment when happens, besides securing the safety of foreign and US diplomats, the Iraqi Embassy and contract workers rebuilding Iraq.

Your assertion just doesn't hold weight against what we already know to be a preliminary outline before a fully fleshed out plan.

Most of her positions on the issues are triangulated non-positions that don't really satisfy anyone on either the left or the right, and the middle, well, it seems that one moves to the "middle" by not really demanding much at all. As has recently been said on DU, the left and right espouse opposing world views where one is probably true and the other mistaken, but the middle is where nothing is actually true or false.

I suspect for many Clinton supporters it's about winning at any cost-- if Ghengis Kahn were the "undisputed front runner" they'd support him just as vociferously.

she is the most polarizing figure of the 21st century!!!

you could be one of the last vitrolists propagating that endangered meme!

:rofl:

That's a crock.

In his time and place, something of a progressive by local standards: a committed enemy of hereditary aristocracy, certainly a man of the people, having risen from outcast status, even slavery, to high rank, a determined modernizer in social and technical spheres, tolerant of a variety of competing religions....

You're right about Khan.

Steppe history is one of my little specialities, and that old figure sometimes strikes me a bit sour. Glad to see you do know better.

It appears our reading list overlap

and second, she won't ever order an invasion for similar pretenses (preemptive war doctrine) should she become President.

There is no confusion for most Americans about this. Hillary was for bending over Hussein and inserting UN inspections, not for an occupation.

country for similar pretenses at all.To this day she hasn't admitted her vote was a mistake and her so called "chief adviser" Bill Clinton says he supported the Iraq War. I see no reason whatsoever to believe she wouldn't at least be tempted to do exactly what Bush did.

I thought in your OP you were speculating that Hillary was going to have war with Iran?

voted for that or supported her on that vote. Why was that do you suppose? Her past voting history indicates she is not opposed to war. And is not apologetic for her Iraq war vote.

.

When you declare even non-bindingly an enemy, what makes you think bush won't or can't act upon it? So you'll say he'll do it anyway. This is true, but isn't it nice when he knows he's got support for another war and from whom? Yes, there's nothing like an approval for these illegal wars and maybe all who have voting even in non-binding resolutions should be made answerable to the same crimes as bush and company seeing as how he wasn't alone.

I thought in your OP you were speculating that Hillary was going to have war with Iran?

a quote (not out of context of course) where Hillary says she is ready and willing to invade Iraq right now, same goes for Bill. That means with no context regarding conditions in the IWR having to be met first. That means I don't want anything in the context about allowing UN inspections to determine the extent of his nuclear program.

I could of course provide quotes where both of them say that Bush should not have ended the UN inspections when he did. But you first.

If you don't want to answer the topic in question, don't. Hillary has cast at least two agressive votes IWAR and KYL/Lieberman, binding or not.There is no defense for those and she does not apologize.

All you are demonstrating is that you have no appreciation for foreign policy maneuvering with countries like Iraq and Iran. The preemptive war doctrine was authored by the Bush Administration. There was nothing like it in the Clinton years, and it will be one of the first casualties of the Bush Administration when Hillary takes over.

Individual senators CANNOT order the invasion of another country. They lack that authority, so your statement amounts to "Clinton did not do anything she could not do." Good on her. On the other hand, the closest that members of the legislative branch can come to "invading another country" is to vote for declaring war or to authorize the use of military force. Senator Clinton DID do that, so there is every reason to believe that, given the power, she would have chosen to do precisely the thing she supported the president doing.

please try again.

but I guess you have other priorities

what's with the health care, here?

if they really want an end to the Iraq War, she isn't the candidate to do it?

I have been wading through so much bullshit in this thread, what is the question you want answered?

Supposedly, her vote for IWR and Kyle/Lieberman is supposed to disqualify her.

I consider the lack of univeral health care a more important issue. 16,000 people die every year because they don't have any health insurance. Millions more are driven into bankruptcy, along with their families, because of inadequate coverage. Medical procedures and formularies are limited based on cost and not effectiveness.

IMO, this issue is more important than the Iraq occupation which will be ending no matter which democrat is elected

:rofl:

If you think I'm breaking the rules, hit alert. You just broke the rules, IMO

I get it, good point, of course I agree on health care being a VERY important issue, do you think Hillary is the better candidate in she'll do more than any other? I mean look at her last crack at health care reform, didn't go so well. Ideas?

I think all of the candidates will try to improve the health care system and reduce/eliminate the # of uninsured. However, I believe that Clinton is the one best prepared to actually get the job done.

As far as 1993 goes, I do think it's fair to look at what happened in 1993 and I think she does bear some responsibility for what happened, but there are others to blame (see my posts above about Byrd) and at the time, she was only a First Lady. I think she will be more effective when she has the power of the Presidency behind her.

I don't really hate Hillary, I know darn well I will vote for her if she gets the nom, heck I voted for her twice for senator. I just like getting all the other Hillary supporters mad!! But I do have to admit that I really like this guy Obama!!

You should've linked directly to the Edwards PR department, because the OP looks lifted directly from an Edwards stump speech.

Forget it. I'm sick of playing this game.

I really don't understand why anyone who is opposed to war or wants to end this war would support her. I don't and noone was able to answer.

You just ignore it, because it totally blows you assertion right out of the water.

So don't you worry your pretty little head about it.

That's all people need to know.

As much as you HRC sycophants would like to declare the primary over, it's not. However, what you are doing with that presumptuous, haughty demeanor is convincing people to not vote for her in the general if she does get the nod. Well done.

Have you checked her lead in California btw....there's no way Obama gets the nomination.

Will have had his impending meltdown well before the Ohio Primary....he's NEVER going to recover from hitching his caboose to the gay-bashing Preacherman....and I think because Obama is so naive and wet-behind-the-ears, his next big gaff is going to be on Social Security....apparently we're told he's going to address the Social Security situation, he's bound to FU and put his foot in it.

Hitching his caboose to gay-bashing Preacherman + Social Security + naive + wet-behind-the-ears = Obama drops out of race prior to the Ohio Primary.

;-)

Obama supplied all that is needed.

bank on it

I don't blame you.

Hasn't hurt her yet. Get back to me when you think it does.

Heads up, HRC sycophant, because many Democrats are re-thinking this rush to war and Hillary's "you betcha" vote on it.

campaign either. Now he looks like he's melting down. He got some nasty press on NBC tonight for flip flopping on negative campaigning.

I'm not worried about the general, but what you just posted your very worried about the Primary.

would you vote for Hillary?

.

Either you're naive or disingenuous.

Senator Clinton voting for Kyl-Lieberman doesn't mean that she supports war with Iran.

IF you're worried about war with Iran, then you SHOULD vote for Senator Clinton if she gets the nomination....because not doing so, allows the Republican candidate to get into the WH and he WILL very probably start a war with Iran.

The liberal CW is that Kyl-Lieberman is an authorization for war...doesn't matter what the facts are, doesn't matter that all possible references to military action were removed at Democratic insistence, doesn't matter that fellow Illinoisan and Obama Mentor Dick Durbin said he wouldn't have voted for it if he thought there were "any way in the world" it could be used to justify military action, doesn't matter if it is non-binding, doesn't matter that the same people criticizing this now were willing to vote for it just a few months ago...

In liberal netroots land it has become a cause celebre and facts simply get in the way of that

Any of them even KNOW what's in Kyl-Lieberman?

I think most of them just saw the name *gasp* Lieberman and immediately fell into a MASSIVE fit....I don't think most of them have any concept of what Kyl-Lieberman even is.

It's non-binding, it's NOT a green light to go to war with Iran.

And yes, I agree with your comments.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

And the evidence has proven time and again that they're not.

Worse than that, they've never been held accountable for any of their past actions- and this vote sent the message that they won't be if they start bombing Iran.

In addition, I see little indication that Hillary differs in an appreciable way with the GOP on this issue. It's losing proposition on both sides of the aisle.

Okay....yeah....if you insist....whatever....

Translation: There's no difference between Senator Clinton and the Republicans....hey DIDN'T we hear something similar prior to ANOTHER Presidential Election?

Yep, remember the crowd that wouldn't vote for Al Gore in 2000, because they INSISTED that there was "no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush"....so those numbnuts went and voted for effing Ralph Nader....is that going to happen AGAIN?

If Hillary gets the nomination, are a bunch of fools going to go and vote for Nader or some other Third Party oaf that might run....because "OMG! Hillary voted for Kyl-Lieberman even though we conveniently forget that it's non-binding, damn her, we're voting for the Greenie oaf again!"

Is THAT going to happen? I effing well hope not.


On Edit: Added comment

There are a LOT of progressives who won't vote for Hillary, period. For this reason along with many others.

You can stomp your feet and call people names- but basic human nature is what it is, and many people feel that way. Considering how Hillary's been campaigning, they aren't likely to change.

I know quite a few people like this IRL- they feel taken for granted- sold out and betrayed. They're exasperated with the whole freakin' thing at this point. And that's the base, my friend- those who still believe in traditional Democratic values, not some corporate facsimile.

That's an unfortunate fact- one that that Hillary supporters seem to be in denial of (even though it can and will come back to haunt us all).

However as I said the other day, IF Obama DID get the nomination, then I'd support him IMMEDIATELY AND I'd vote for him.

Now if I can say that, that I don't LIKE Barack Obama and there's things about him that I find rather unsettling, such as his inexperience and his willingness to hitch his caboose to the gay-bashing Preacherman....but I'd vote for him, because the alternative of NOT voting and letting a Republican in is just too scary.

If I can adopt this approach....what EXACTLY IS the problem with the anti-Hillary crowd?

What's your problem?

Is the thing that us Hillary supporters are just MORE grown-up than the Obama crowd, who are often acting like a cross between a Cult and lovesick Teenagers.


On Edit: Added comment

It seems to me in addition to denial of human nature, these sorts of thoughts reflect the arrogance of the Democratic party.

Many people just don't think like you do (and btw, I'm not an Obama supporter, either). At best they may hold their nose and vote against the Republican- but they won't be voting FOR Hillary (or pick a candidate who's likely in their minds to repeatedly sell them out.

Many of them- particularly independents, may not turn out at all- which as we saw over the past 12 years or so, bodes very poorly for state and local candidates and ballot issue.

They should have grown-up years ago....we saw them in action in the 2000 Presidential Election where they out of SHEER spite and stubborness voted for Ralph Nader....AND they'd happily do it again IF Hillary is the nominee.

They're the Teenage Idealist crowd, the Litmus Test Crowd, the Purity Test Crowd....the crowd that cuts their noses off to spite their faces.

And I might add, that the Teenage Idealists who out of SPITE voted for Ralph Nader, have generally been the loudest screechers about the Iraq War, now this same crowd, bizarrely are fantasizing that Al Gore is going to run for President....to the POINT where some want to have him as a Write-In candidate....why? They DIDN'T vote for him WHEN it COUNTED in 2000....now he doesn't want to run, they decide they'll write his name in....why....to SPITE Hillary that's why.

Sorry I thought you were an Obama supporter, so I apologise for that misunderstanding.

My point is a simple one. Choice of evils is not for everyone- and lurching toward the right will a vacuum on the "left."

Nature and politics abhor vacuums, and chances are there'll be someone (or a party) there to fill them when they arise. That's all 2000 was about- a rejection on many people's parts of 8 years of legitimizing and enabling far right policies.

The same danger lurks out there for 2008, yet much of the Democratic leadership doesn't seem to have learned what ought to be a very simple lesson.

You never saw Republicans act that way- and they won election after election, despite some very unpopular positions on the issues. Not sure exactly why, but the Dems seem unable to lift what works from their play books.

And the Iraq Liberation Act that led to the Iraq War Resolution that led to war are just pieces of paper.

Heads up, Iran.

If forced, I will VOTE for her, but I do not support the most hawkish, corporate friendly, likliest to turn out the OTHER SIDE'S base, two-faced, divisive, least electable candidate on our side.

41% of those polled said they are certain they would not vote for Hillary.

43% of those polled said they were certain they would not vote for Edwards.

NOT! It is the stated mission of the DLC to "drain the swamp of the Middle East". I don't see Hillary going against the DLC anytime soon.

but possibly true.

and she has said a number of times that she will. She may not do so in a way that you like, but Iraq is such a mess that it seems to me that there's no perfect way to end it.

Also, I honestly believe that she has no intention of starting a war with Iran.

She'd have to be in her 2nd term just to find out if she was telling the truth now. By then she could fabricate all sorts of reasons to not end the war and being that would be the time of her 2nd term we'd be fucked and I for one don't want to chance anything to her telling us she wants to end it at that time. She does not indicate in her votes or actions anything saying she's opposed to this war and wishes its end. So what do you mean in a way we'd like? Either she'll end it or not.
As to her starting a war with Iran or not may be irrelevant as she's given the decider her approval for such actions by labelling a terrorist organization in a country's military that means that entire country is now prime for attack. But we are supposed to feel vindicated because of your feelings that she won't do it herself? I might add that there is nothing to indicate that she wouldn't do it.

voting for. Hillary sux. More of the same old shit...just a different gender doing it.

...