Hillary Clinton, the unrepentant hawk

[n2doc]

Steve Chapman
April 27, 2014

When he ran for president in 2000, George W. Bush promised to "stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions." When he ran in 2008, Barack Obama trumpeted his opposition to the Iraq invasion while asserting that our "strength abroad is measured not just by armies but rather by the power of our ideals."

They didn't quite practice what they preached. But Hillary Rodham Clinton is different. She won't disappoint anyone hoping for greater restraint, because she has no use for it. The former secretary of state is a long-standing and unblushing advocate of frequent military intervention abroad.

Unlike Obama, Clinton supported the Iraq invasion. In the months before the war, she defended Bush's handling of Saddam Hussein in a way calculated to make her look presidential. "I know a little bit about what it's like on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, making these difficult decisions," she confided.

Her Iraq vote dogged her during the 2008 primaries. But as secretary of state, she proved that it had not affected her thinking. Over and over, Clinton has opted for getting into wars rather than staying out.

more

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-hillary-clinton-war-oped-chapman-0427-20140427,0,2788945.column

[Kath1]

1. That is the problem I will always have with her.

I think she's great on social issues but I can't get enthused over anyone who supported that hidious Iraq war in any way.

[KoKo]

4. Hillary says she's a huge advocate for Women's Rights in third world countries...

She seems to justify US intervening in countries where Women's Rights are being harmed. Yet the countries we've invaded have less rights for women children and families than before we intervened. Families torn apart by death and destruction of their homes, land and ability to earn a living. Children maimed or killed by cluster bombs and deformed by the depleted uranium in the weapons used in the conflicts. People living in refugee camps for years with no hope of rebuilding their lives...and on and on. But, this is what she seems to think will be positive for Women's Rights in the long run.

[roguevalley]

32. yes. she might keep her own daughter and grandchild in mind before pulling the trigger on someone

Else but I won't hold my breathe

[GOPee]

101. Hillary is not my first choice, but she wasn't the boss as SOS.

When I take a job, not to mention an oath, my job is to be what the boss says it is. President Obama was her boss and her oath was to the office, and the Constitution, which places her in the service of the administration, so if you have a problem, start with her boss.

[magical thyme]

103. Hillary was a war hawk before being SOS.

She was a war hawk as a Senator.

Furthermore, with this administration, two factions presented two different scenarios on Afghanistan to President Obama. Hillary sided with the generals and pushed the "surge." Biden wanted to narrow the scope and focus strictly on al Qaeda.

Obama chose to go with Hillary and the generals, not the other way around. Later, when that surge failed miserably, he changed to Biden's proposal to narrow the scope and started getting us out of there.

She is a warhawk and a corporatist. There is no getting around that.

One thing I'm finding in myself and those around me, my sisters in their 60s and me just turning 60, is that with time we are becoming more of who we always were. Hillary started out as a Goldwater republican. That is who she is at heart. She may talk the talk about women's and children's rights, but she has no qualms about bombing them to pieces.

[GOPee]

104. I wasn't in the meeting, but you may have better access.

I understand what you believe, and you may be right, but where I come from, if you are an adviser, you advise, as required, and so do the others in the room with similar commitments. I take exception to your insistence that she overpowered our President over his Vice President, but would love to see your links to that encounter, and dialog.

She appears to be a hawk, here we have agreement, but something above my pay-grade, tells me the President listened to all the voices and determined his mission, and issued his orders to proceed. What happened next was her and everyone else following orders.

[magical thyme]

105. there were articles at the time that spelled it out.

She didn't overpower the president. She out-persuaded the vice president.

To Obama's credit, when it became clear the surge was a failure, instead of doubling down he switched strategies.

And the fact remains that in advising the President on Afghanistan, Hillary was a war hawk.

[the_working_poor]

39. I don't want MRS Clinton to run for several reasons

not least of which is if you think the hate against President Obama is bad...

Am I the only one who remembers the 90's?
The vitriolic, foaming at the mouth HATE that Hillary will get will make everything that has happened to Obama look like a love fest!

Then there's her very conservative policy beliefs.
VERY wall street. VERY Corporate... not very little guy.

Bill was the one on the side of the little guy in that government, not Hillary. . . and he did a marginal job at it too!

That aside, I thought she was a fine senator. She got stuff done. She had respect from her peers because she was relatively speaking under the radar. I'd LOVE for her to run for senate again. we need strong Dems in the senate, even a blue-dog like Hillary. When she's not fellating the corporations, like her husband before her, she does really great work.

My only real problem with Obama's presidency (ok I have tons of them) is that he took away so many senators from the congress when we could not afford to loose them!

THAT is a major reason why the "super majority" we supposedly 'had' in 09 was total bullshit. We didn't.
At no point did we have a complete 60-member caucus of senators.

Sadly I doubt anyone will actually read my reasons. only look at this or that minute detail and attack me for this post.
*sigh* I miss the old days when we could disagree on certain things but agree on the whole we hated bushco.

[Thinkingabout]

2. The support was given and Bush was supposed to exhaust all avenues but he did not.

He did not allow for the inspection to locate WMD's he claimed they had. He ignored a report which Joe Wilson made on Iraq acquiring the needed items to produce the WMS's. Bush blotched his decision to invade Iraq, plain and simple. He wanted to invade and he did, a useless war and unneeded.

[bvar22]

7. And THAT is why Hillary stood up in the Senate,

appeared on all the Celebrity Talking Head Shows,
and took out full page ads
condemning the Bush Administration for abusing and exceeding the authority
granted in the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq (DUH)

In a fiery speech from the Senate Floor,
Hillary pulled NO punches.
[font size=3]"The President LIED to us, and I want that entered into History and the Senate record!!!"[/font] she insisted.
[font]"I did NOT vote for this WAR!"[/font]
.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh Wait.
My Bad.
That NEVER happened.
She was perfectly happy with her vote as the US Tanks rolled into Baghdad.

[Thinkingabout]

13. True facts needs to enter into reality, you are entitled to the facts, you must

know Bush moved before the inspections was complete. Had there been WMD's then Bush should have invaded Iraq.

[rhett o rick]

19. So are you suggesting that Georgie Bush fooled Hillary Clinton?While most of the world was screaming

as loud as we could, "It's a trick, it's a f'n trick. Dont trust Bush, dont trust Cheney, dont trust Republicans." But besides all that, nitwit Georgie Bush tricked Hillary Clinton. And to the consequences that alienated all of our major allies, lead to the deaths of thousand of American troops, the wounding of tens of thousands of American troops, and how many dead Iraqi's? Totally destroyed a innocent sovereign nation. That would have made me furious if I was her. Didnt seem to upset her at all.

When I see a homeless vet on the street, I think of how she let us down. She had a responsibility to fight the neocons, fight the warmongers, fight the war profiteers, and save the Iraqi children. She isnt the only one that betrayed us, betrayed Iraq, betrayed the world, but she is running for president.

[Thinkingabout]

38. Where did I say Georgie Bush fooled Hillary Clinton? Don't write words I did not say

[rhett o rick]

48. Since you were only insinuating and not coming out and saying anything, then I have

to guess what you mean. If I guessed wrong, please set me straight.

This is a thread about Clinton's unrepentant support for the Bush/Republican/neocon war. Your explanation of how George didnt do what he promised seems to me to be aimed at excusing H. Clinton-Sachs.

I can only see two possibilities for her actions. One, she trusted Georgie. Two, she recognized Georgie as the bold faced liar he is and went alone because she agrees with the neocons.

If you have a different explanation, please help me out.

[Thinkingabout]

55. Let me say this one more time. A bill went before Congress to authorize war.

It was voted to authorize war after the inspections was completed by UN to locate WMD's. Was inspection complete when Bush decided to invade? Also Joe Wilson was sent to determine if materials needed to produce WMD's was acquired and Bush did not use this information. These are facts easily researched, widely known. Just as some are determining Hillary was for one thing or another you are now judging me. Judge on the facts not by opinions, opinions are the rant Sean and Hannity does. RW talking points are not fact based.

[sulphurdunn]

30. Under what authority?

Nothing in American or international law gives one nation the right to invade another over WMD. Were that so, we'd have had WWIII long ago. Bush I didn't occupy Iraq because Saddam did have them. Junior occupied the whole country because he knew Saddam had abided by his agreement to destroy them after the first war. Most likely Hillary Clinton knew that too. In matters of foreign policy there's little separation between the ruling class political parties.

[Thinkingabout]

43. Go back to the facts, not what those like Rush or Sean would give, just the facts.

[sulphurdunn]

50. The facts are that

Rush and Sean beat the war drums as hard and long as Hillary. You can't defend her by committing a logical fallacy claiming those who called her on her record are wrong because right wing clowns pushed the same war she did.

[Thinkingabout]

57. I can defend her with the facts, true facts are important. Always go with the facts.

Sean is still ranting about Benghazi, he was an early backer of Bundy also, there are the facts on Sean.

[Martin Eden]

60. The FACTS are not on Hillary's side here.

From the Iraq War Resolution:
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/jt_resolution.htm

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to-- 1. strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
2. obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .

and

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- 1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .

-----------------------------

SEC. 2. states that military action against Iraq is to enforce UN Security Council regulations. If you recall, a second vote was needed in the Security Council to authorize military action. Bush lobbied hard to gain the necessary votes, and when he saw he'd lose he called off the vote. And invaded anyway. Do you think Bush exceeded the authority granted to him in the UN Charter and in the Iraq War Resolution passed by Congress? If so, please show me where Hillary Clinton denounced him for it, or at least pointed out that he exceeded his authority. Not years later when it was politically expedient to do so, but before the invasion/occupation turned into a fiasco.

The key words in SEC. 3. are "as he determines" (referring to the president). This part is absolutely crucial. Why? because pretty much everyone at DU and most of the world outside the United States knew the Bush administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq, even if they didn't know about PNAC and the fact that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and several other key figures in the Bush administration were PNAC signatories and that invading Iraq was #1 on the agenda for their New American Century.

Do you think Hillary knew that?

If she didn't, she was inexcusably ignorant.

If she did, she knew (as we did here at DU) that if the IWR passed Bush would invade Iraq. Regardless of the UN Security Council and the inspections process. Period.

[Thinkingabout]

62. It may surprise you Hillary Clinton was the elected Senator of NY and as

The elected Senator who should abide by the wishes of those in their represented areas, it should not be solely on the wishes of the elected person. Do you think her office may have been getting information from the constituents' in NY? You can vote against anyone and find an issue the person has participated,said, wrote or any means, it will mean there is not a candidate who has run or will run whom every issue is perfect and that includes one's self.

Are you saying Bush waited until the inspectors determined there was WND'S before invading?

[Martin Eden]

66. Your response is besides the point, and devoid of relevant Facts.

All members of the House and Senate (unless they were appointed) were elected, and get feedback from their constituents. But you have offered zero facts regarding that feedback. Do you recall the huge protests in NYC against the war, before the war was launched? Also, are you saying a senator should abdicate her own best judgment in matters of war & peace based on the relative handful of constituents who provide feedback?

All of which is entirely besides the point, which is why your response is a non-sequitur.

The issue at hand is whether Hillary Clinton should have known the Bush administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and that a vote for the Iraq War Resolution would result in war in Iraq.

You haven't addressed that key point at all, except to ask a question which confirms the point I was making in my previous post. I clearly stated Hillary should have known Bush would invade regardless of the inspections process, that Bush exceeded his authority, and that Hillary failed to call him on the carpet for it.

The only thing we agree on is that no candidate is perfect on every issue. By stating the obvious, you appear to have conceded Hillary was not perfect in her vote for the IWR.

I will further define what "not perfect" means on this particular issue:
If ever strong Democratic leadership was needed to avert a foreign policy catastrophe, it was the IWR vote in October 2002. Anyone who was not woefully ignorant about the available intelligence and the PNAC agenda for invading Iraq knew a vote for the IWR was a vote for war. For anyone with presidential ambitions, this was a crucial test of judgment and leadership. Hillary Clinton, and every member of Congress who voted for the IWR (including John Kerry & Joe Biden) failed the American people miserably when judgment and leadership were needed the most.

[Thinkingabout]

77. Shouldn't a good Senator vote along the lines of their constituents?

Do you know what her constitutes was requesting? I realize there are Senators votes the way they want but they should be voting the way their constituents desire.

[Martin Eden]

84. You're totally avoiding the point of discussion.

Should Hillary Clinton have known Bush was hell-bent on invading Iraq regardless of the UN Security Council and inspections process? It has been explained to you, and not just by me, that any informed politician should have known this. We here at DU sure as hell did.

You talk about facts and what her constituents were requesting, but you've offered no facts regarding what her constituents were requesting. Nothing to counter the huge anti-war rallies in New York City.

And although it's a red herring to the point of discussion, I'll answer the question in the subject title of your post anyway. My answer is no, a good senator should not vote along the lines of their constituents -- not when their constituents are terribly wrong in matters of war, and especially not in the matter of Iraq.

Why?

I'll tell you why.

The Bush administration orchestrated a systematic campaign of misinformation to deceive the American people about Iraqi WMD and alleged ties to al Qaeda. To a large extent, this campaign was successful. The mainstream media was little more than a stenographer for the Bush administration's claims, and most people didn't have the time or the tools to dig deeper.

But a United States Senator is supposed to dig deep, for facts and for understanding the agenda & its consequences.

A United States Senator is supposed to faithfully represent the interests of her constituents -- even when (or especially when) the people have been egregiously misled by warmongers steering a course towards disaster.

[Thinkingabout]

99. Enough said, the facts are still the facts, you can continue to rework Bush

administration or we can progress to the future, I choose to look to 2014, 2015 and 2016.

[Martin Eden]

102. Rework Bush administration?

If anyone is doing some rework here, it is you -- trying to rework/rewrite Hillary Clinton's vote for the Iraq war in 2002.

I am most definitely thinking of forward progress and of the future, and it does not bode well for the future if we fail to learn the lessons of the past -- or if our next president has a predilection for unwise military action, which Hillary does.

This entire discussion is about making a wise choice for who will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2016. Personally, I will never, ever, vote in a Democratic primary for someone who was for the invasion of Iraq. And I will never stop arguing why others shouldn't as well.

Enough said.

[sulphurdunn]

69. Please don't change the subject.

Hannity and Clinton were in bed together on the Iraq War. The fact is indisputable.

[Thinkingabout]

44. read the facts, there is where the best answers can be found.

[sulphurdunn]

47. I'd be happy to read the facts.

Please present some.

[Thinkingabout]

63. Research it is a good tool.

[progressoid]

87. Wow, that's some irony.

Multiple posters have refuted your supposed facts with actual citations.

While you keep touting "facts" but refuse to submit any.

[Thinkingabout]

97. Can you present fact contary to my facts?

When I need facts I do my own research, know the sources and don't rely on Sean and Rush. Some of the facts should be know like knowing Hillary Clinton was Senator from NY.

[progressoid]

98. Martin Eden already did that and you ignored them so what's the point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4878186

[H2O Man]

61. Facts vs Truth

What you are stating about Bush not allowing the UN inspectors time to complete their task is indeed a fact. Likewise, the wording of the congressional authorization did, in fact, imply that the president should use war as a last resort.

However, the truth is that everyone who voted for that authorization knew full well that Bush and Cheney were 100% intent upon invading Iraq. More, any person who would be a US Senator should have known full well that Bush-Cheney had to begin the war before the UN inspectors completed their task -- for the WMD/mushroom cloud nonsense was merely a lie to justify the military invasion.

If Hillary Clinton didn't know this, she isn't smart enough to be president. Of course, she did know it, and cast a vote that granted Bush-Cheney the authority to do exactly what she knew was going to happen.

Facts are funny things. A person can use them to tell the truth, or to tell a lie.

[Thinkingabout]

64. As you saidcas a last resort. Even before 9/11 Bush and Cheney was set to invade

Iraq. Joe Wilson blew the whistle but they ignored his findings and as a favor the administration outted Joe Wilson's wife.

[sulphurdunn]

67. True enough, but

we weren't talking about Joe Wilson. We were discussing the culpability of Hillary Clinton in the Iraq War.

[Thinkingabout]

74. Wasn't she elected as Senator of NY?

[sulphurdunn]

76. She also once sat on the board

of Walmart. That's also a fact. It bears no more relevance to her Iraq War vote than which state sent her to Washington.

[Thinkingabout]

100. So just who would be your perfect candidate?

[sulphurdunn]

109. The issue was Clinton's

fitness, not a perfect candidate. There are no perfect candidates, just fit and unfit candidates. To my mind, Clinton is one of the latter.

[Thinkingabout]

110. If you are judging by fit, then she is your candidate, none of the others has as much

experience she has, maybe not their fault but fit she is. She can top the GOP's and Libertarians also.

[H2O Man]

72. Right.

Now, that is a fact, and it illustrates a much larger truth.

I'm not the least bit concerned how any person on this forum votes, so long as they do vote. I can fully understand and respect why many people would vote for Clinton, or not vote for her. My only concern is that people have enough information needed to make an informed vote -- and that requires both the facts and the truth.

I can say this: Back in 2004, when I was one of the group that posted a significant amount of information on the "Plame scandal," I had a phone conversation with a gentleman who was associated with Senator Clinton. He did not work for her; he was a journalist, but had some connections to her, and remained a supporter of her in the 2008 democratic primaries. He wanted to discuss information that I posted here, which had not been reported in any of the corporate media. (Some of it came out in Scooter Libby's trial, in which Cheney's top dog was convicted on five felony charges.)

He wondered where I got my information. While that's not important, at least in terms of this conversation, he said he had engaged in discussions with Senator Clinton and some of her staff, about the role of VP Cheney, etc. Two facts that I had wrote about here, in the late spring and early summer months of 2004 (regarding who was in front of the grand jury) were of interest to them.

One could view this in at least one of two ways: Senator Clinton and her staff were serious about getting answers about Scooter's "black bag" operation; or they were somewhat aware of the scope of that crime, and how it related to the war, but opted to not follow through with a call for Cheney's impeachment.

We are in a strange and dangerous time in our nation's history. That requires that we try to identify and elect the person most capable of accomplishing "good" as president. I do not believe that we can get a "perfect" candidate. Even if we could, Congress would handcuff her/him, and corporations would kneecap her/him. Thus, in real life, one of the options is Hillary Clinton. People can make rational, important cases, both pro and con. While I'm far more concerned today with this year's elections, I find the conversations about 2016 to be interesting. I'm hoping that the majority of them stay focused on facts and truths -- and even opinions -- rather than the emotions and name-calling that soiled the majority of threads here in 2008.

Peace,
H2O Man

[Thinkingabout]

75. I agree, also there is not a perfect candidate. I have heard so many times this or that one is

For or against abortion and they vote foe this one single issue, no matter what the other qualifications may or may not be. Hopefully the DNC will produce a strong candidate and then we need to GOTV and elect that person.

[99Forever]

3. One reason among many...

... I will never support or vote for her for any office, but least of all POTUS.

If she is the Democratic nominee, our next prez will be a Republican.

[Avalux]

5. So you won't vote and allow Ted Cruz to become Prez?

I see you've got Bernie's pic as your avatar, so you'll probably vote for him, and so will I if he's nominated. But if Hillary is the nominee you'll sit out the election?

I just want to make sure I'm clear on what you're saying, because that's just plain idiotic.

[99Forever]

6. To be clear:

I will not support or vote for Hillary Clinton for any elected office. Period.

The rest of your bull shit, is just that, bull shit.

Speaking of, "plain idiotic."

[Avalux]

9. Then you have no right to complain about anything. Might as well quit posting here. n/t

[99Forever]

15. You are joking, right?

I give up my rights because I dare to not be bludgeoned into agreeing with your POV?

Democracy at work.

[Ichingcarpenter]

20. George Carlin

if you vote, you have no right to complain. I know some people like to twist that around and say, "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain." But where's the logic in that?


Think it through: If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and you screw things up, then you're responsible for what they've done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain.

I, on the other hand, who did not vote—who, in fact, did not even leave the house on Election Day—am in no way responsible for what these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created. Which I had nothing to do with. Why can't people see that?


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Carlin

[L0oniX]

34. ^^^this^^^

[rhett o rick]

58. I look at it a little different. "Not voting, is voting."

What's the difference if I dont vote or mark the ballot with a vote for "None of the above" or Mickey Mouse?

It Oligarch Thing 1 is running against Oligarch Thing 2, why should I vote and validate the mockery? But I consider my non-vote as indicating my choice of "None of the above."

Having said that, I encourage everyone to go to the polls and at least write in a candidate.

[H2O Man]

21. Respectfully disagree.

I'll start by saying that you are among the DUers who I have long respected as a thoughtful and insightful participant on this forum. Hence, while I disagree with you on two points here, it is not without the hope that you do not think I'm disagreeing with you as a person.

First, I've voted for Ms. Clinton twice, in elections; I voted for another candidate once, though in a primary, not general election, because I believed that other person had a greater chance of success in the general election. So I am certainly not "anti-Hillary" ....yet not "pro-Hillary" to the extent that I would always vote for her.

If she were the democratic nominee in 2016, there are a good many states where a person could not vote for her, for a wide variety of reasons, yet raise no risk of her losing their state. And even in states where it could be close, a person has not only the right, but the responsibility to vote as their conscience dictates.

While there is actually far less than ZERO chance that '16 will be a battle between Clinton and Cruz, for discussion's sake, let's pretend that somehow came to pass. If Clinton did lose -- again, impossible -- the "blame" would NOT be with those individuals who vote by conscience. Rather, it would fall 100% on Ms. Clinton as an individual, and the power-brokers who might select her as the candidate.

Clinton has many, many strengths. She also has some very real negatives, and those include things that are not limited to why republicans may dislike or even despise her. Those who do support her, and are advocating she run for president, need to be aware of those negatives. It would seem short-sighted to hold that anyone/everyone who doesn't support her is "wrong," or "not a good Democrat." And it is definitely a short-cut to logic to project blame for a potential Cruz victory.

That said, this forum is as good a place as any for such discussions. It is an error in thinking to suggest that someone opposed to the concept of a Clinton run in 2016 should stop posting here. Ms. Clinton is a democrat, but not the Democratic Party. Her record includes the vote that gave Bush the "authority" to invade Iraq under 100% false pretenses. That alone should give thinking people reason to consider if she is who they could support as a candidate. The Clinton family's ties to various corporations is also worth discussion, and even heated debate.

[99Forever]

27. Thank you, H2O.

You put the words to my sentiments far better that I could. Hence, I'll refrain from saying more at this time, other than I find it quite offensive that anyone on a website thinks that said website can dictate to me to whom I "must support or else."

[L0oniX]

36. Excellent!

[Beacool]

108. I don't think that anyone is saying that Hillary, or anyone else for that matter,

is the Democratic Party. What some are arguing is that abstaining from voting for her, if she's the nominee, it's tantamount to given the vote to the Republicans.

In 2008, the Hillary supporters who were told to "get over it" and vote for Obama. The majority did just that. So, if Hillary run as and does become the nominee, everyone else can get over it too.

[rhett o rick]

23. Oh plez not that already. If Clinton loses it's because some werent smart enough

to foresee it. The responsibility rests with those that nominate her. The American people dont want the status quo. Nominate Ms. Status Quo and many Americans will stay home. They want change, we want change.

[davidthegnome]

29. That's ridiculous.

There is no need to force people to vote for Clinton - there are likely to be several candidates for the nomination of 2016. When and if Clinton does become our nominee, there will be plenty of time then for cries of, "You must want a President Cruz/Paul/Bush/Christie/whatever!"

I'm sorry, but if someone's only choice is between voting for someone they do not like - who's policies they do not agree with, and writing in a name, I will suggest writing in the name. Part of the problem with our entire political system is that too many people vote for the "lesser of two evils". It's time to stop. The lesser evil is still evil.

That said, I do not dislike Clinton, and may vote for her in the primaries if there are no options I like better. But this nonsense about telling people "Vote for Clinton or u sux!" Really needs to stop. It doesn't do us any favors.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

54. Who do you think you are? You think you can tell anyone to quit posting here? Just trying to

get a bird's eye view of the hierarchy around here.

You think you can run someone off or discount the opinion of others just because you say so and because they don't agree with your POV.

Pfffft!

[L0oniX]

12. No shit ...idiotic indeed.

[L0oniX]

10. "allow Ted Cruz to become Prez" LOL "that's just plain idiotic"

If the corporatists, centrists and war lovers select Hillary as the candidate then they are the ones allowing Ted Cruz to become Prez. What's idiotic is to say that if one doesn't vote for Hillary then Ted Cruz will be Prez. Put the blame where it belongs ...on the people pushing for the war monger corporatist centrist Hillary. If the Dem party wants liberal, progressive, populist and peace lovers votes they better not be pushing for Hillary. Clue: It wasn't the centrists that got Obama elected.

[Avalux]

16. So you won't vote for her either if she ends up being the nominee.

In the worst case scenario I've presented, if it comes down to Hillary vs. Ted, those who choose to sit it out have no one to blame but themselves if he's elected.

[JEB]

17. So who do we blame if she is elected?

[L0oniX]

33. +1

[Comrade Grumpy]

51. Heh.

[rhett o rick]

24. Looks like extortion to me. Your friends the oligarchs back Clinton-Sachs

and Dumbo the Republican and give voters no choice. In some countries the voters are given only one candidate chosen by the oligarchs. We are much better. Our oligarchs give us two choices. Of course one is a Clown. But the nitwits are tickled to death to be able to participate and elect the oligarchs choice.

Nominate Clinton-Sachs if you dont care if a Republican Clown wins.

Have some guts and vote against the oligarchs, nominate a progressive.

[Avalux]

37. I never said I was a Hillary supporter. But I'll vote for her if it comes to that. n/t

[rhett o rick]

49. Nominate Clinton and enjoy 8 more years of Goldman-Sachs-O-Gold. Wall Street uber alles. nm

[L0oniX]

31. The blame will be all yours for foisting a war monger on the rest of us.

[RufusTFirefly]

25. Ted Cruz! Booga booga! Osama Bin Laden! Booga Booga! Terra!! Booga booga!

Sweet Jeebus on a pogo stick!

Can we stop acting based on fear and shift our focus to pursuing our dreams and ideals?

This can still be a great country and an example to the world.

But we have totally lost our way. Totally!

Politics is the art of compromise, but I for one refuse to be frightened in to voting for someone.

"In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares."

The Power of Nightmares

[sabrina 1]

65. The blame for that goes to the Party Leadership. If they provide and back candidates in accordance

with their Party Platform, eg, I don't see anything in that platform supporting the US running around the world starting wars, they are solely to blame if people refuse to vote for something that they know is wrong.

You are talking to the wrong people here, go tell the Party Leadership to provide candidates the people can support rather than what appears to be a habit lately, asking voters to vote AGAINST the other guy.

Seems you don't understand how democracy is supposed to work. THEY represent US so long as they actually DO. When THEY represent other entities, such as Wall St OVER the interests of the people, the people are in no way obligated to continue to keep them in positions of power.

[sulphurdunn]

35. She will be the nominee.

That was decided in 2008. As for the next president being a Republican, I personally prefer political corruption that is unalloyed with populist hypocrisy. Barack Obama has taught me that. It makes it easier to sleep at night.

[rhett o rick]

53. Ironically Citizens United will be a major force getting her nominated. nm

[sulphurdunn]

56. Yes, the Democrats

have their own stable of billionaire sugar daddies ready to pump big money into her campaign.

[Smarmie Doofus]

82. Alas. Not so ironically.

We are fast becoming Gore Vidal's "One-party state: The MONEY Party. With two right wings."

Clinton's nomination will make it official.

[rhett o rick]

91. This didnt happen by accident. It looks to me like a genus plan. Turn the

Republicans into the Wack-A-Doodle Clowns. That accomplishes two things. One it drives the more moderate conservatives into the Democratic party, thus pulling that party to the right and it makes the Clowns so terrible that the naive are happy to vote for the New-Conservitive Party. The left is left out. Your choices are the Third Way Conservative Democrats or the Clowns. Did I mention that the left is left out.

The Plutocratic Oligarchs will be laughing their butts off if they get H. Clinton-Goldman-Sachs running against Jeb-Corps-Forever Bush.

[Beacool]

92. What a load of B.S.

Do whatever the hell you want with your vote, but if Hillary runs, she wins.

[Ms. Toad]

8. "in a way calculated to make her look presidential"

Has always been my concern about her.

And it is not only her natural MO, the perception she feels she has to counter about a woman as commander in chief of the miilitary exascerbates her normal MO.

As a female in a predominantly male profession (at professional meetings, the ratio is about 15:1 male to female), I understand the need to prove that one's capabilities are not tied to one's gender in order to succeed. When I walk in to a meeting as the lead - accompanied by any male (even with a random male I've grabbed from the parking lot), it is assumed that I am the junior - and that I know nothing. As someone seeking the office of the presidency, given that I do not believe war is ever the answer, the need to be seen as proficient in the job of waging wars - combined with her tendency to plan her moves "in a way calculated to make her look presidential" is particularly dangerous, from my perspective.

I've always said I would love to see her on the Supreme Court. I believe she is brilliant and her brilliance would be far better used in a position which was not subject to the political pressures associated with seeking the next office or appointment.

[L0oniX]

11. Problem: Voting for someone on the basis of gender ...or race.

Intelligent voters wanted.

[Ms. Toad]

78. The unfortunate reality is that voters do.

But regardless of that reality, I want candidates who are not willing to pander to it - and I find it particularly dangerous when a presidential candidate feels the need to posture to prove that she is tougher on terrorists/rogue nations/etc. than men are.

(And if it is not posturing, that is still a problem.)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Playing the "strong leader" has it's drawbacks. See LBJ for precedent.

Not to mention the people killed to forward the "strong leaders" political ambitions.

[TwilightGardener]

18. I don't think she has any deep beliefs on war, foreign policy, what our

strategic interests are. I thought she was a mistake as SoS. It was a vanity position for her. She ended up cheering every bad idea anyone came up with (Petraeus, Gates, Panetta, whichever other neocons were driving the bus at state and DoD). Was there ever a time when she told the President "Maybe we should step back and see how the situation unfolds before we do X or Y?" The Arab Spring bit us in the ass, and we didn't even need to be involved in it--now the world acts like we own the results.

[bigtree]

22. it's absolutely true that she doesn't shy away from most military doctrines

. . . however, she's no stranger to diplomacy.

Still, point taken. Like our present president, Hillary Clinton embraces almost all of the flawed and slippery rationale for the use of US military force. For anti-war advocates and those who believe we need a radically different US military posture and foreign policy doctrine, Mrs. Clinton's certainly not a candidate for all of that.

[zeemike]

26. This may sound petty but.

She lost me when the first bill she sponsored when she became a Senator was a flag burning amendment.
I was overjoyed when she was elected to the Senate...I thought now we have a real progressive in the Senate and the first thing she did was tell me how wrong I was...and went on to double down on it with the Iraq war.
And I supported Obama for those reasons...but that did not turn out all that well either.

[Scuba]

59. I had to look that up as I was unaware of the "make flag burning illegal bill" ...

That's really lame. Another reason to not support Hillary. Not the best, but one of many.

[H2O Man]

73. That's far from petty.

It's as important as Amendment 1.

[zeemike]

89. Yes it is.

And if the first one goes all else is gone too.

[H2O Man]

90. Amendment 1

is the cornerstone that the entire foundation is built upon. For this reason, it is currently under attack, in a manner more dangerous than at any previous era in our nation's history. It would be accurate to see the "flag burning" bit as a cheap attempt to score points for personal gain in a political career. It would be dangerous to dismiss it as nothing more.

[zeemike]

94. I took it as a signal to Conservatives

To tell them, see I am not so bad...I can be one of you....and on all the important things like the war she was.

[gtar100]

28. Yea who gives a shit about senators and representatives in Congress when there's a presidential

election coming up.

That's my sarcastic way of saying that the campaign for or against Hillary Clinton at this time is really, really out of place. We have a 2014 election that will most likely make or break this country. I don't see how putting so much effort in the presidential election really helps matters. We have a good president right now who needs a good Congress. This upcoming election is just too damn important to be disrupted by worries of 2016. All in good time.

Vote Udall! Vote for your Democratic representatives nearest you and don't let your friends sit this one out.

[Blue_Adept]

41. We're fully capable of doing both.

Honest and true. People can focus on multiple things at a time. And at different times of the day focus on different things.

Many are focused on 2014. Many are focused on 2016. Many are focused on both because they are tied together.

[gtar100]

45. True enough. But my impression is that this is far more a distraction than a help.

And our discussions of presidential hopefuls seems far out of proportion to the level of its importance in the moment. President Obama needs a Congress he can work with or we will pretty much be up the creek and who the president will be in 2016 will have little to do with it.

[Blue_Adept]

46. It just needs its own forum. nt

[rhett o rick]

52. Are you worried that it will distract us or yourself? If yourself, trash the threads. If it's us,

let us decide for ourselves. I am working on GOTV for Nov. but am very concerned that we may get another Bush in the WH. That would quickly undo whatever gains we make in Nov. IMO if Clinton-Goldman-Sachs is the nominee, Jeb will have a good chance.

[wyldwolf]

40. this thread is one more reason why...

... I'm going to ignore DU during the entire primary process. It's too easy to get drawn into the same discussions over and over and over and over...

[McCamy Taylor]

70. No, don't ignore DU. Please. See my post below. Fight back.

We need voices of reason.

[wyldwolf]

79. who would I be trying to convince?

I know all their arguments and they know mine. Unless devastating new information is released about First Lady/Senator/Sec. of State Clinton, I see no reason to continue the same discussion (for last 10 years!)

[McCamy Taylor]

80. Those who lurk but do not post.

You would be surprised at how many of them there are. Almost everyone I know is extremely interested in politics, but I am the only one I know who writes and blogs about it.

[wyldwolf]

81. even they have read & heard it all. DU represents such a SMALL insignificant part of the electorate

... that's why, traditionally, polling of Democratic voters seldom if ever reflect what people are raging about on DU. Just let it go. DU naysayers aren't going to diminish Clinton's 64 - 69% approval from the electorate.

[JI7]

86. i understand what you are saying

i supprted Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008 and what you get from on the ground is what is really happening. all the while on DU it was mostly negative about both of them.

right now what i'm seeing is most people mostly moving towards hillary clinton . i know it's early but at this point before 2008 there was a good amount of support for Obama . it was early but you could see it. i don't see this with anyone else this time around.

i think those who hate what is going on in the real world like to come on here and get some validation. kucinich and edwards had far more support on here for 2008 than clinton and obama combined.

[Beacool]

93. Yep, the bullshit never ends around here.

If Hillary does choose to run, some of us will be too busy to argue ad nauseam with people who pout and threaten to withhold their vote if she becomes the nominee. I'm not begging anyone here to vote for her. For all I care, they can pout and stick their precious vote where the sun don't shine. These endless battles go nowhere and serve no real purpose.

[KoKo]

106. You mean submit now because Hillary is the Dem Nominee for 2016...

Inevitable and Invincible...

And, who chose her as the Anointed Candidate for the Democratic Party?. You are cautioning that Democratic Voters must not waste time with promoting other candidates and holding Debates and voting in a Primary where voices of other candidates with different viewpoints on Democratic Party governance issues facing our electorate can be heard and voted for.

Who? Who has made her inevitable?

[Beacool]

107. I said, IF she's the nominee.

I have no patience for anyone affirming that they will not vote for her if she's the nominee. Are you having trouble understanding what I wrote?

[Divernan]

42. She'll be a hawk against Americans as well.

She's been building up an enemies list of everyone who crossed her, according to her close friend and confidant, the late Diane Blair, as documented in the recently released "Hillary Papers" - records kept by Blair. The full contents of the archive, which before 2010 was closed to the public, have not previously been reported on and shed new light on Clinton’s three decades in public life. The records paint a complex portrait of Hillary Clinton, revealing her to be a loyal friend, devoted mother, and a cutthroat strategist who relished revenge against her adversaries and complained in private that nobody in the White House was “tough and mean enough.”

Blair also noted a 1994 conversation in which the first lady asked her for advice on "how best to preserve her general memories of the administration and of health care in particular." When asked why she wanted to keep the documents, Clinton replied, "Revenge."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/17/politics/diane-blair-hillary-clinton-documents/

On top of that, the Clintons are stalling on releasing tens of thousands of additional documents/records from the Clinton presidency.

Yet more records are still being held back, according to Politico: "The Clinton Library has not published a comprehensive list of the materials held back from prior document releases. However, information posted online indicates that a number of the withheld records come from Hillary Clinton’s office.

What is Hillary hiding? I doubt that records of decisions on redecorating the Oval Office or selecting menus for state dinners would trigger a claim of executive privilege. Who knows what fresh hell will be brought to light concerning either or both of the Clintons, should she be the nominee. I have no doubt the GOP's own opposition research is saving a few bombshells to release in the event she is the nominee.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/clinton-white-house-library-records-103959.html#ixzz3056cfEVP

And that level of rage and vengeance was BEFORE she suffered international humiliation with the whole Ken Starr/Lewinsky/impeachment nightmare.

[McCamy Taylor]

68. When I see articles like this, I just naturally think of 5 letters. C-R-E-E-P.

As in the way the Republicans get involved in internal Democratic politics in order to shoot down candidates whom they think they can not defeat in the general. This was a strategy that Pat Buchanan outlines in 1972 for Tricky Dick Nixon:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/buchananmemo.htm

"Hillary the Unrepentant Hawk" is an actual phrase used as part of this strategy in 2008. Maybe it made some sense back then. However, in the intervening 6 years, she has been Obama's SOS. Meaning that Hillary's foreign policy is Obama's foreign policy. So, if she is an unrepentant hawk, then so is Obama. Therefore, rehashing the whole "Hillary supported the invasion of Iraq and Obama didn't" issue makes no sense. Someone in corporate management may have told this guy "We've got to turn dems against Hillary. The polls show she beats any of the Tea Baggers we can run against her." Or maybe Steve Chapman comes by his hatred of Hillary honestly and one of his bosses is as happy as a clam to let him bash the candidate that has the Tea Baggers quivering in their boots.

BTW, I have collected a bunch of mainstream media propaganda from 2008 and put it together in a e-book I call "Food Fight at a Monster Truck Rally". It is available for less than a buck at Amazon for your kindle, but I can send anyone who wants a copy free a word document, just send me an email at [e-mail]. It is all there. The Press v. Hillary. The Press v. Obama. The Press v. The Democratic Primary. Forewarned is forearmed. The so called Race Memo almost certainly was written by Pat Buchanan---or someone who had studied Pat Buchanan---and was supposed to be leaked to the press after the Democratic convention in order to tarnish Obama's image as a values candidate,a uniter not a divider. Smart thinking on the part of a lot of dems including the Huffington Post and Hillary and Obama kept that dirty trick from becoming the Thomas Eagleton (1972) affair of 2008. The GOP won't be deterred. They will try again.

Oh, and I am declaring "Hillary the Unrepentant Hawk" the first official GOP Big Lie of the 2016 Democratic Primary. Part of the Karl Rove "attack them on their strengths" strategy. Everyone loved her as SOS? Make her out to have been the worst mass serial killer since Pol Pot. From the folks that told you that John Kerry was single handedly responsible for the illegal incursion into Cambodia and Laos.

[TheKentuckian]

85. You have lost it if you think these clear and legitimate concerns are new in any way.

Dean near bordering on "the devil made me do it" territory with everything ever being some Rovian plot.

Is it that she isn't a hawk? Is a hawk but is repentant? I wish you well defending either position.

[Vashta Nerada]

71. She would be the worst choice for Democratic presidential candidate.

Not only is she for wars, she's an advocate for the 1%. She makes a fine republican.

I wish people would remember that 2014 election season is here. 2016 is two years form now.

[Enthusiast]

83. That is just one of the reasons I do not want Hillary as the candidate.

[Hekate]

88. Something strange is going on with Putin, & with Xi Jinping of China: both are spoiling for a fight

I only interject this to say that I have been developing the horrible feeling that a war of major proportions may be unleashed during Obama's final years in office -- and if not now, during the next president's first term.

Both Russia and China have developed greedy eyes, and both are seeking to extend the boundaries of their territories. Each of them is looking for an excuse, each is behaving provocatively, as if daring their neighbors to react with force.

These behaviors have nothing to do with us and our foreign policy directly, but the results of a war in either Europe or Asia will most definitely have an impact on us. It may not matter if Hillary is a hawk -- even Bernie Sanders might find his hand forced. Warmongers are abroad in the world at large.

In a sense it feels like the Summer of 1914. I'm wondering if the difference will prove to be the extensive trade alliances and interdependence that have developed in the past generation -- that Putin might find himself much more harmed by economic sanctions than he counted on.

We shall see.

[MrMickeysMom]

95. Perhaps when candidate Clinton starts to photo op that new grandchild ...

Some pictures of Iraqui newborns affected by depleted uranium should appear in the background.

Sound harsh? No, I don't think so…

[Chan790]

96. I think by this point everybody knows I don't need another reason to not support Hillary Clinton.

This however isn't even on the radar.