On The View, Whoopi asked Clinton to list her 1st three tasks upon winning the Presidency:

Her exact answer:

1. Begin a careful withdrawal of the troops in Iraq
2. End the era of cowboy diplomacy/begin working with other countries
3. Rebuild a prosperous middle class in this country

Is anyone thinking what I'm thinking? :scared:

your shivering scared face confuses me. What SHOULD we be thinking?

:sarcasm:

"Run whoopi run"? "Whoopi is getting fired"?

It is just too bad we have to wait for her to be inaugurated in January of 2009. Is that what you were thinking? Because I thought her answers were excellent.

should happen like troop withdrawl, quit the agressive/belligerent postering, use diplomacy instead and last but not least revive middle class standards.
How ya' going to do it, Hillary? That's what we'd like to hear. I remember JF Kennedy's campaign when he was running for the big job. He actually proposed and had definate plans; his well spelled out plan for tax reform, his planning for peace corp, programs to help the poor; real plans not rhetoric, plans of action.

Is she building the Indian middle class?

I'm going to have to practice my mind reading if I want to continue on DU.

I never would have gotten that.

GEEZ!

Because obviously they missed the memo. Memorandum #3688 clearly states that you MUST bring your crystal ball to all Hillary Clinton threads. Geez. :eyes:


:P

1)Invade South Korea
2)Start an era of Klingon Diplomacy
3)Suck the life out of puppies and kittens.

Am I close?

bases? Leaving in place the oil law that allows US corporations to steal Iraqi oil or not?

Her answers are not acceptable.

much like her. "End Cowboy diplomacy"? And replace it with what? COWGIRL Diplomacy? And you are right about the bases, she has a long term goal for them just like the neocons and it includes........


http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/10/15/clinton-no-nukes-for-iran/

Clinton: No Nukes for Iran

Jay Solomon reports on Clinton and Iran.

Unbowed by her political rivals, Sen. Hillary Clinton is continuing to take a hard line on Iran and its pursuit of nuclear technologies.

The Democratic front-runner, in outlining her key foreign policy objectives in the coming issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, argues that her administration would be unwilling to accept an Iran with the capability to produce nuclear weapons, according to her aides.

If Iran fails to comply with the international community’s demand that it desist form developing a nuclear fuel cycle, Clinton believes that “all options must remain on the table” to confront Tehran, says the Clinton campaign’s national security director, Lee Feinstein.

Should Iran comply, however, Clinton believes the U.S. and international community should be willing to provide Tehran “with a carefully calibrated package of incentives,” says Feinstein. He outlined the key points of Clinton’s Foreign Affairs article for reporters today.

Clinton’s Democratic rivals, particularly Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards, have been stepping up attacks on the former first lady’s Iran position in recent days.

:eyes:

from anything she said on the Sunday shows last week or on the stump. She has said that cowboy crap repeatedly.

:eyes:

If it works for her, she'll be President.

more of the same war shit for america. On To IRAN!!!!!

Clinton may be to the right of what you want. She is to the right of me.

But she is also on the correct side of numerous civil rights issues, and would certainly be more competent than the crowd in the WH now.

If she is what the voters want, I can take it.

70% of americans want and end to the Iraq war and out of the Mideast. Clinton talks about keeping troops in enduring bases for decades and "incompetence" as the reason for failure. The reason we are failing in Iraq is we never should have been there. She is also for bombing Iran and escalating the Mideast conflict. If it walks and talks like a neocon.


Life is good right? :eyes:

The public also doesn't want funding for the troops cut off.

in Iraq.

And please show me when she has said she is "for bombing Iran." There is a world of difference between opposing unilateral disarmament -- as in refusing to say "I would never bomb Iran under any circumstances" -- and being "for bombing Iran."

I have heard her acknowledge that any working Embassy would need protection, but other than that, I haven't heard her say anything remotely like what you have claimed.

no permanent bases vs "a long term military commitment" training Iraqi forces and advisers in the Kurdish area? How many troops is that? 50,000? 70,000? How many contractors? 100,000?? Where will they stay? In hotels? How long will this last? Has the US ever abandoned permanent US bases in foreign countries that have precious natural resources? She triangulates like none other!
I love how she still can not say Invading Iraq was wrong, "it just was not done right"! Sickening....


http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=76709


<snip>

The Democratic Party, which has been in control of both congressional chambers since its landslide election victory last year, is divided over Republican Bush's plan.The party's left wing wants withdrawal as soon as possible, while security-minded Democrats and centrists, including the top presidential hopeful for the 2008 bid, Sen. Hillary Clinton, favors a long-term military commitment to Iraq on condition that this will not be perceived as invasion and will not involve permanent bases.Clinton last week cited – among other things, including countering Iran and Sunni radicals – the protection of Kurds as potential reason to leave some American forces behind. "We also have to look to see how the Kurds are being treated, because the Kurds have behaved very well in this," she said. "They took their opportunity for freedom from (former Iraqi leader) Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule, and they've been building their society in the north of Iraq." Turkey is wary of Iraqi Kurdish inspirations for independence. Kurdish leaders say they presently opt for staying inside a federal Iraq, but that self-determination is their right. Massoud Barzani, leader of the Kurdish regional government in the north, has said the Kurds will welcome U.S. bases in their area, while some other leaders have voiced concerns that the Kurds might once again face a U.S. "sell-out," referring to conflicts in 1975 and 1991 in which they say they had been encouraged by Washington to rebel against Baghdad only to be abandoned later.U.S. plans for a Korean model for Iraq did not come as a surprise to Turkish military officials.

Iraq is not Korea:

"From the very beginning, we have been thinking that the American presence in Iraq had been planned for being permanent," said one official. "You don't invade a strategically important country to pull out shortly afterwards. So this is normal."But the Korea example presumes the presence of a stable, democratic and internally safe host country, like in the model nation, which is not the case for Iraq.Given an environment of extreme violence and an ongoing fragmentation among Shiites, Sunni Arabs and Kurds, who work for their sectarian interests, it is not even clear if Iraq will remain in one piece over the next few years.Presently the Kurds and, ironically, most Sunnis – who have lost their domination of the country under Saddam Hussein's rule to the U.S.-led invasion – favor a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq, while a majority of the Shiites – who form nearly 60 percent of the population – want the U.S. out as soon as possible to have a free hand to carry on with their plans.

Nothing she's said (and nothing Bill did) would lead me to expect that she's going to be a huge warmonger if and when she's President.

and her IWR vote before she re-explains it. Remember she was calling for more troops just like Mccain before it became an extremely unpopular idea to the public? I would not trust her for one second of the day. :eyes:

was to vote en masse against it -- to defeat it, and then watch helplessly while an even worse IWR rose up zombie-like after the Rethug majorities took office in January. The blank check IWR that Bush preferred -- that the Rethug majorities would have given him (his popularity was at something like 90% back then) would have allowed him to attack Iran, Syria -- anywhere he wanted.

So people like HRC voted to approve a compromise IWR, hoping that it would help rein him in. It didn't succeed, not the way they had hoped, since he attacked Iraq without waiting for the weapons inspectors to finish their job -- but we're not in Iran yet. If the other version had been passed by the Rethugs, I'm sure we would be.

who says they are trying to build nuclear weapons and hyping the "threat? bush and the neocons and now apparently hillary when in fact the IAEA has found ZERO evidence of that.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1544119320071015?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews

<snip>

The New York senator said Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, its NATO allies and Israel and accused the Bush administration of negligence in dealing with Iran.

However, she made clear that Iran "must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons."

"If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table," Clinton wrote.



http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.html?id_issue=11887047

Iranian threat "overly exaggerated" - Margelov

MOSCOW. Oct 15 (Interfax) - Military methods are unacceptable in tackling the Iranian problem, Mikhail Margelov, the head of the Federation Council's International Affairs Committee, has said.

"Neither the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), nor anyone else has any convincing evidence suggesting that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. In the absence of any evidence that the threat coming from Iran is real, the use of force would violate all of the relevant international conventions and entail catastrophic consequences for the region," Margelov said on Monday during talks with a delegation of the Assembly of the Western European Union, led by Jean-Pierre Masseret.

"Russia will not support such a scenario," Margelov said.



As for permanent bases in Iraq? As usual she can not quite explain how we will keep tens of thousands of US support troops (non-combat) in Iraq for YEARS without bases. See this.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2054017&mesg_id=2057184

resembling your allegations in that post?

Hillary talks about "enduring bases" for "decades" and she is "for bombing Iran".

Oh, really?

Shit, she's not my first choice- far from it- I'm probably voting for Kucinich in the primary, maybe Edwards.

...but the more I see unhinged people ascribe all kinds of ridiculous shit to her, the more I like her.

And we wouldn't be in this damn war now if Gore or Kerry were President.

two Supreme Courts nominees.

the biggest deficit in history. . . .

attitude toward others who are hawkish...

the present Iraqi government is not long for this world. When Turkey invades, all bets are off.

Our super-military bases will stay open and the Maliki gov't will be propped up as needed to suck the damned oil from beneath their sand.

With anyone but bush or Rudy, our generals will feel they can speak freely, and truthfully.

Like a chicken in every pot thing.

Beware the candidates who voted for war and promise to end it. That is an old trick.

Beware of those who promise pie in the sky.

I'd like to see the exact details of such plans, but so far, so good.

Works like a dog, extremely smart, and savvy.

That gal's going to win, and I'm glad that I'm going to see the first woman president in my lifetime.

http://m-w.com/dictionary/corporatism

corporatism
Main Entry:
we often toss that term around without knowing exactly what it is

cor·po·rat·ism
Pronunciation:
\?ko?r-p(?-)r?-?ti-z?m\
Function:
noun
Date:
1890

: the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction
— cor·po·rat·ist \-p(?-)r?-tist\ adjective


more here if you have a britannica account
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9026396/corporatism

more here

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

Thanks for the definition. I've often wondered where the term comes from, other than being a favorite of Nader's.

How?

are expected to trickle down to the poor. How does she define "middle class"? $50,000 - $150,000?

All three are pretty vague. Does she have a plan for Iraq withdrawal like Richardson and Kucinich do?

:)

Kucinich: Get Ready to Read Bush His Miranda Rights:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2045304

And it would be great if MSM would replay the clip over and over again. I think Kucinich would definitely have a chance in IA and NH after that. That would be so awesome!

What is a 'careful' withdrawl of troops in Iraq?
How does one end the era of cowboy diplomacy/what does begin 'working' with other coutries entail?
and how and who is she going to get to help 'rebuild' the middle class in this country?

And by the way, all three of those "tasks" are vague platitudes.

I guess she's still in primary mode after all.

Because I KNOW he means it.

http://current.com/people/algore

:applause:

goals. We need a return to what this country once was. Sounds like a decent first three steps to me.

:hi:

Hekate

Yep, sounds like that's what's going on here.

... and if she followed through with it, her number 3(Rebuild a prosperous middle class) would naturally flow from regulating these corrupt entities and their practices.

Out with it! The suspense is killing me.