Only on DU....

Only on DU (and probably Free Republic as well), could Sen. Clinton be CRITICIZED for saying that she would consider giving up some of the Presidential powers granted to George W. Bush.

In the LBN thread on the subject, there's a lot of "oh, how nice" in response to Sen. Clinton's statement.

I could be wrong, but I have not really heard any other Presidential candidate speak out this substantively on this particular issue, and say that they would be willing to live without some of the powers that Bush is enjoying today.

Yet, the anti-Hillary contingent cannnot find it withem themselves to applaud and truly get behind Sen. Clinton's statement. I feel extremely comfortable in saying that had it been any other person with a "D" behind their name making that statment (i.e. Obama or Edwards) you'd be heaping globs of praise on them.

she occasionally says things just to appease the masses? :think:

I think Sen. Clinton is the exact opposite. One of the things I like about her, is that she doesn't say the politically expedient thing. If that were the case, she would have appeased the far-left wing of the Democratic Party a long time ago, and renounced her IWR vote. Instead, she has consistently focused on the way George W. Bush used that vote.

If she were into doing the politically expedient thing to appease the masses, she would have renounced her IWR vote.

So I disagree with you.

disagreement.

It's the nature of the business.....politics. But,saying something positive is good. Saying the opposite would have been poitical suicide to a democrat. It would have been political suicide for a republican to try to usurp the constitution in the past, but republicans lost their way when Bush was selected. They were so happy to win, the consequences of that win did not matter. Now, they are stuck with the changes he pushed through, and must see them passed to a democrat. Oh! The horror!

outside the circular firing squads, if I can contain myself. ;-)

We should all keep open minds and focus our energy on getting our nominee elected without trashing fellow democrats. Each and every candidate we have is capable of being president, and one of them will be! Hallelluya! We can close the book on the Bush years and commence to mend the damage he has done to the constitution, the American image, and the American workforce.

the people, and then act accordingly. What an extreme change this would be compared to the circus we now find ourselves an audience of.

....the only powers a president should have are the ones afforded him in the constitution, nothing more. Bush tends to think republicans think the same as he does, therefore he IS listening to the people. But, the phrase "by the people, for the people" got lost somewhere when he was stocking the empty space in his brain. And, of course, it never existed in Dickhead Cheney's!

that's the fucking last thing i want.

I elect my reps to listen to their constituents and to use their best judgement.

That's a lot better than your suggestion.

like someone - on whether or not you will overlook bad things and praise them for good things.

Needless to say, I bet if Bush ever did anything good (which I did a poll here once and only got one answer - he protected some land in Hawaii from development) no one would ever praise him

Bottom line - most here just plain out don't like her, trust her, or want her leading us. Not when we have this golden opportunity to pick someone we'd all walk 10 miles in the snow to vote for.

magically elected, earthquakes will cease, fires will dowse themselves with water, sickness will disappear, money will fall from the trees, greed will disappear, the military industrial complex will just roll over and get in the soup line, animals will stop being turned into roadkill, tires will not go flat, inflation will not inflate, bread will cost 5 cents a loaf, lions will ask antelope if it is ok for them to make a meal out of them, dogs won't howl, cats won't scratch, sewage plants will smell like a bouquet of fresh flowers, cars will simply glide over the potholes in neglected roads, bridges will put themselves back up after a collapse, and on and on.

The point is that they are trying to lay out why it would be so much better to have them in office rather than someone who is pretty much of the same cloth so to speak, it must be a tough thing to do, perhaps the toughest part is convincing yourself that you could be so much better than candidate xyz.

...but most Americans like her better than the other candidates, at this point. She is a democrat, and that is good. I'm not sure why people are intimindated by her, or the thought of her becoming president. I think her ideology does not differ that much from Bill's, and personally, I would take eight more years of him in a heartbeat, compared to what we have been subjected to for the last eight. The nineties were a great time for America and Americans. We prospered, peacefully, and turned around deficit spending into fiscal responsibility. If she can accomplish the same, she will be right up there with the best! If not, her administration will fade into mediocrity.

is our eternal optimism and idealism that's in play here. The deep desire to not just have someone who is better than than the other one. But, to have someone who is great on their own merit. Someone we can look up to, admire. Maybe it's like you're a kid and you get taken for ice cream but all they had was chocolate. It's still ice cream but chocolate is your least favorite.

What's funny about Bill is - you are right - he was an effective president. But I'm not sure how many people, even here - think of him as a great, admirable man.

They do not lie. Deficit reduction, job creation, wages, number of people with health insurance, per capita GDP, household income, poverty rate, and home ownership. The one number I was disappointed with was our trade deficit under Clinton, but you have to admit, he did have distractions in his last term, and the deficit was only one half of one percent (still unacceptable).

accomplishments ! I never understood why in 04 that wasn't brought up every second. Comparing Asshat to Clinton's record.

That was the headline but it was enough to dismiss what I would like to see ALL THE CANDIDATES SAY.

She can't win.

what was stolen from the People by a criminal usurper? I should hope so. It should not be hers to decide, or ANY of the candidates to decide.

Congress allowed the theft and Congress will have to snatch it back for us.

She. Did. Not. Use. The. Word. "Consider".

It was the AP headline NOT a quote.

It is up to Congress to take it back... It is ours by right.

That is why the executive has grown so much in power, and I'm talking about before Bush.

You BET it makes a difference if the President themselves wants to relinquish those powers back to the congress, do you think for a minute a republican would?

for Congress to reclaim it for The People if the President wasn't dead set against it...

follow the law. She doesn't have to do any of that - and Congress has nothing to do with her chosing to or not, does it?

like being allowed to "declare" a citizen to be an "illegal enemy combatant" and thus rescind all his Constitutional protections...

but never let the facts get in the way of a good Hillary-bashing.

The world does NOT revolve around Hillary (or Barack, or Dennis, or Joe, or any other person). Some people are ACTUALLY able and willing to speak to the ISSUE and get out of the stupid grade school game of saints and demons ... where the American Idol fans sit around and pretend they're canonizing or demonizing the individual.

I tire of the messenger-centric bullshit, whether it's regarding the issues and stances taken by candidates or the "discussions" on DU. Get this: It's not really about YOU .. or me or Hillary or anyone else. It's about the fucking issues and the values and principles that lead us to take stances on those issues!


Regarding the so-called "Presidential powers" ... they're stolen from the People contrary to the limits prescribed by the Constitution! It's NOT a choice to "give up" such stolen powers. The assumption of such illegal authority MUST be punished. Far too much of the abuses of today are rationalized on the unpunished abuses of the past. We operate in a legal system that relies on the principles of common law and "usage" where precedent can raise some very thorny difficulties in re-establishing the rule of law.

That was the point I was trying to make!

I'd critize ANY candidate who tried to keep ANY of the powers Bush stole.

THAT is the point.

Hillary could say anything and people would criticize it, even when it is EXACTLY what they have been demanding the candidates should say.

I want Congress to say it, and demand it, on behalf of the People.

The one that just made one of their own grovel for forgiveness for offending Bush?

I've been talking "should".. not "probably will" or "probably will-not"...

I'll read the arguments for or against what was said and respond accordingly. ANYONE who takes the straw-man posture of attacking a DUer based on an alleged candidate bias is every bit as intellectually corrupt as calling another person a bigot for disagreeing with you.

"You only dislike Lieberman because he's a Jew." That was ACTUALLY claimed by a now-tombstoned DUer some time ago. That is, imho, some of the most detestable bigotry I can think of. It trivializes antisemitism to a mere debate ploy and is obscenely slanderous.

At a very minimum, projecting bias onto another where it's not clearly shown is intellectually dishonest. Guess what? Some people ACTUALLY DISAGREE with Hillary and base their opposition to her on the stances she's taken!! Please try HARD to not place the cart before the horse ... and speciously claim that the dislike came first.

Focus on message, NOT messenger. Argue values and principles, NOT personalities or alleged biases.

What I would like...is for them to quit giving THIS administration MORE. I'd settle for that about now.

I would consider going to Florida.

There, I've considered it.

I'm not going to do it.

But didn't you feel all warm and fuzzy knowing I'd consider it??

It's how she treats the voters -- like little kids who will believe anything -- that irks me.