I *told* you things were changing!

[MannyGoldstein]

Since Occupy, I've been prattling on about how the 99% are starting to wake up after 30 years of slumber and start paying attention.

Today is another milestone - Hillary now admits that her vote on the Iraq War Resolution was a mistake.

Now anyone who thinks about this stuff figured Hillary would go all Elizabeth Warren in public after completing her "I'll soon need to say stuff in public that I don't believe but don't worry!" victory lap of Wall Street. We knew that: she even mumbled "middle class" a few times in 2008, so this affectation was not without precedent.

But admitting that she got the war wrong (while most Congressional Democrats got it right)? That's new and unexpected, I gotta say, I'm impressed. Not impressed by Hillary, but by the pressure she must be feeling from her polling of the 99%. Clearly, they found we're mad as hell and are not going to believe utter bull#%^* anymore.

Good. Let's get mad, and let's get going... lots of work to do.

[OKNancy]

1. Obviously you don't follow the news enough

Maybe spending too much time on DU?

Today is another milestone - Hillary now admits that her vote on the Iraq War Resolution was a mistake.

Anyone who reads or knows about Democratic politics knows that this is nothing new.

I found an article from 7 years ago just for you: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2006/12/hillary_clinton-2/

[MannyGoldstein]

2. I think today's admission is a little different from "If I knew then what I know now..."

But you have a good point.

[sabrina 1]

152. I knew then what I know now, THEY WERE LYING. And I was relatively new to politics at the

time. She otoh, had access, we have learned since that vote, to information made available to the Senate that WE poor slobs did not. But, according to a very credible Democrat, she chose not to look at that information.

So the question is, why didn't she know then what WE knew then? Someone with so much political background?

I remember Sen. Byrd's speech that night before he voted 'NO'. It was an historic speech, I had never seen him before but stood up an cheered after he finished. Then naively, I waited for Hillary to cast yet another 'NO' vote. She was smart, certainly I thought at the time, not someone likely to be fooled by an obvious liar, not someone who was not aware that Iraq was disarmed and no threat to this country because her husband, after all, was part of the process of disarming Iraq.

And when she did stand up, I was shocked. She didn't even sound convincing to herself. It's hard to try to excuse supporting people who are clearly lying I suppose.

She waited a long time to admit what we all knew ten years ago. But to say she didn't know then what she knows now? They question is 'WHY DIDN'T SHE' because 'WE DID'! And if someone got such a momentous thing WRONG, won't they do it again, get things WRONG?

There is no room for error or ignorance when it comes to going to war. We need leaders who get it right the FIRST TIME. Apologies after the disaster, after people tried to tell them, are too late, certainly for all the dead and the tortured and the wronfully imprisoned, the maimed and those who committed suicide. Way too late.

[rhett o rick]

13. So what's your point? That this isnt the first time she admitted this mistake. A mistake that cost

a hundred thousand innocent children their lives. A mistake that most likely ended the American Empire. A mistake that saddled the middle class with two trillion dollars debt. We relied on her and other Democrats to save us from the crazy Repubicans or at least try.

[snooper2]

95. I think Warren said she isn't running, FYI, I might be wrong

who knows LOL

[rhett o rick]

98. She probably wont because the oligarchs have too much power and they support Clinton.

I find it sad that anyone in the 99% would support Wall Street and the oligarch rule.

Your LOL so noted. We probably wont win back our lost freedoms and liberties but we've gotta try. I am not drinking that cool aid.

[snooper2]

100. I think Clinton will lose her next primary fight as well FYI

The people are done with Clinton's and Bushes and Clinton's and Bushes...


We will get somebody badass like President Obama again...probably a governor

[rhett o rick]

102. H. Clinto-Sachs will have the big money behind her. And if we are going

to get someone to beat her in the primaries, we better get hopping.

[merrily]

25. Was that when she said she voted for the war because she didn't bother to read the NIE?

Instead, she just took the word of Bushco to commit our kids' lives, limbs, minds and our tax dollars, not to mention the lives of the Iraqis?

Oh, no, that was another time.

Excuse du jour.

Maybe, if she had read the NIE, she would have known better then, and in time to save some lives and a lot of grief.

Sorry, I have no patience or respect for politicians who reconsider their war vote because they want to be President. To the contrary, I find that kind of cynicism quite shameful.

[GeorgeGist]

3. Did she apologize?

[deathrind]

6. That picture...

Represents a stain on this country that will never be washed out. I commend President Obama for ending the Iraq "war" (how you can end a war never declared still baffles the mind but...ok) as well as the same dubious "war" in Afganistan but letting all from Yoo on up skate for the actions will also be a stain on his presidency. "Looking forward" is not how he should have handled it.

[delrem]

14. Obama "ended" the war exactly according as a timeline agreed on by W. nt

[deathrind]

49. So bush did not end it, he just set a timeline...

[merrily]

44. Obama did not end the war in Iraq. That is one of America's Big Lies. He tried to extend it.

Bush set the withdrawal date with the President of Iraq before Obama was elected. As the withdrawal date approached, the US military, with Obama as CIC, tried to get Iraq to put off the withdrawal, but Iraq would not agree.

As far as looking forward, you might want to check out this thread, that is gathering posts as we speak.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025053200

I will even take the self-serving liberty of suggesting you might start with Reply 92.

[delrem]

11. I liked the FOX version better.

The FOX version of "shock and awe" (a "non-terrorizing" shock, and a "non-terrorizing" awe, of course), overlaid a semi-transparent vid of Old Glory waving in the wind, as background, so it'd be all red, white and blue and hit USians in their most patriotic hearts. The flag and the giddy happiness of the announcers, the jubilation, was overlaid on a live Al Jazeera coverage since I guess that was the only live feed available -- the Al Jazeera sound being blanked out. It was fucking wonderful.

[merrily]

26. Would an apology have prevented the agony of that photo?

Sorry, the time to ponder a war vote is BEFORE you cast it, not when you think it might hurt you in Presidential primary.

[pscot]

4. She's running hard

No longer any doubt in my mind.

[Divernan]

5. Until she declares, she can keep her personal income private.

The only reason we know about the $50 + million personal income (NOT the Clinton Foundation) her husband made since he left office was their joint tax returns required to be made public while she was SOS.

[LuvLoogie]

21. I suppose she should have sent you a postcard.

[Divernan]

24. Your reply is a non sequitur

[merrily]

27. And the disclosures she made when running against Obama.

[bvar22]

7. I wish she had stuck to her old story.

Vote for New & Improved Hillary!
She has discovered a conscience!
No telling WHAT she will do for the poor Common People NOW.
Don't judge her by her old record.
SHE is the "change" Obama promised!!!!

Hope & Change....but THIS time we meant it!!!
(Paid for by the Chamber of Commerce)

[joshcryer]

20. Oh, the RW meme that Clinton is a liar.

Gotta love it.

[merrily]

28. Who needs RW memes? You just have to track the different things she says.

[joshcryer]

32. Good luck with that.

Clinton is pretty consistent. If she "evolves" on an issue, she's a "liar." That's the RW meme. Otherwise she's like any other politician. "Malleable" on a given issue.

But what she has not deviated upon is women's rights. Should really rile up the sexists in the party.

[merrily]

34. Don't need luck, but thanks anyway.

So not talking about "evolving" on an issue (which you were so justified to put in quote marks).

But what she has not deviated upon is women's rights.

Even that view may depend on how one views women's rights. Quite a few feminists are not impressed with Hillary. Morevoer, a woman with political ambition promoting women's rights is not exactly a selfless exercise, is it? Especially a Democratic woman, when Democratic women can and do turn the tide in elections?

[joshcryer]

37. Re-read your post.

It's sexist to the core.

[merrily]

40. Don't need to re-read it. I know it is not sexist.

You can claim that until hell freezes over and it will not be true.

Gotta say, JC, your posts on this thread so far have been mostly attempts to smear those who post a different view of Hillary than you profess to have. That's never a good sign as to the strength of your position.

[bvar22]

129. Thats ALL the propagandists have.

If you point out the many times Hillary has ....ummmm twistedthe Truth,
and cast doubt on her Jail House conversion on Iraq.
then yo are clearly a "SEXIST!!!!",
because what else could if BE????


Maybe it could be that Hillary was the ONLY Candidate MORE COnservative than OBama in the Primaries of 2008,
and a BUNCH of Democrats are sick & tired of being given Trickle Down Wall Street, Free Trading, Deregulating, Anti-LABOR CONSERVATIVES to vote for in November!!!

I will Write In a REAL Democrat before I will cast another vote for a "Centrist" Anti-LABOR Free Trader,
AND I will take as many Democrats with me as I can.
I am TOO Old and TOO Tired to watch the same scam played out all over again
in which we wind up with the Republican-Lite President continue to destroy the last vestiges of America's Working Class.


You will know them by their WORKS.


[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[sendero]

151. Right...

.... fucking on dude. Well said.

[MannyGoldstein]

33. I know, right?

You'd think that after dodging sniper bullets in Bosnia she'd get a little slack!

[joshcryer]

36. Quickest retraction ever.

She only said that one time and retracted it pretty much instantly.

[MannyGoldstein]

41. Because she got totally, massively busted.

There was video footage totally contradicting her. Any alternative action by her would have been insane.

[merrily]

45. Nope. Only after airing of the film showing her being handed flowers in that airport.

In 2008, I was a huge Obama fan, on a board fighting both Republicans and Hillary fans. I remember.

Are you trying to make a virtue of attempting a huge lie, then retracting it after a film airs making a laughing stock of that lie?

Jaysus, how pathetically and embarrassingly little are we supposed to be impressed by or settle for?

(BTW, you may not want to waste your credibility this early in the game, especially something that easily refuted. Maybe you'd be better off sticking to your ad homs against posters, after all. My thinking on that has "evolved" on seeing the nature of your attempt at a substantive argument.

[joshcryer]

73. So petty.

Sniper fire was a talking point, but every other time she mentioned it, it was conditioned on the possibility of sniper fire, not the actuality. She exaggerated one time, once, and pow. Shrill liar. The sad part is how hard she tried to make herself a big player tough foreign policy wise. She is a woman, what does she know, right? Her team won't make that mistake again.

Your personal attacks are pathetic and don't merit a response.

[merrily]

78. Moving the goal post? It's not about whether Hillary made the fastest retraction in history anymore?

Let's review:

Hillary was challenged--by Obama--about her claims of experience, and, most relevantly here, her claims of foreign policy experience. In response, she told a big lie about having dodged sniper fire upon landing in Bosnia, when in fact she had been greeting with flowers. That was not an exaggeration, but a lie and a lie intended to have effect on voters.

You said she made the fastest retraction in history. And I pointed out, as did Manny, that her retraction came only after airing on National TV of a video of the event. Or the non-event. And pointing out that your claim is not exactly accurate means I am petty AND also that I somehow attacked Hillary for being a woman?

Criticizing Hillary does not equal attacking women, as you implied earlier, and my pointing out that your hyperbolic claim is false doesn't not equal either criticizing Hillary or attacking her because she is a woman. Further, nothing I've posted anywhere ever has attacked any woman on the basis of her gender.

I am supposed to sit still for that kind of underhanded, dishonest bs from you about my alleged sexism? Why, exactly should I do that, Josh?

[joshcryer]

80. At the time it was an attack against women.

If you didn't see it then it would be impossible to convince you now.

Obama at the time had far less experience but as a man could get away with it. It's cute, he voted for telecom immunity for that reason, to come off strong foreign policy wise. Clinton voted against it.

[merrily]

83. Let's not move the goal post again, You accused me, on this thread, today, twice, of sexism.

That has nothing to do with how Hillary's lie about what happened to her in Bosnia was seen in 2008. Especially when one of those times, I was only correcting you.

And you haven't apologized. You just keep moving the goal posts and trying to change the subject.

Here's what. If you don't want personal comments from me--and I guess disputing your claim about Hillary is personal in your eyes, then stop the total bullshit about my being sexist.

[joshcryer]

88. Oh yes, because sexism had nothing to so with it.

You bring up some fond memories of those primaries. Looking forward to the same shit by the same two faced people over trivialities.

[merrily]

89. My posts are not sexist, Josh. However, if you are going to keep up this shit,

then at least have the grace not to whine about my allegedly personal comments about blowing your credibility this early with a false statement.

Though, from what I see, the ship of your credibility may have sailed earlier, anyway.

[joshcryer]

92. The sniper story was sexist.

Those parroting it today are absolutely invoking that sentiment.

[merrily]

96. I posted to refute YOUR claim that it was the fastest retraction in history.

And no, pointing out that a candidate for President told a flat out lie about her alleged foreign policy experience is not sexist, Josh, except in your imagination. (It was odd that she thought being shot at in an airfield was foreign policy experience to begin with, but that's another story.) A flat out lie during a Presidential nomination campaign does not become off limits simply because a female candidate told it.

Otherwise, the first one you should accuse of sexism on that particular score would be Obama, the man you defend against anything that might possibly reflect badly on him.

[joshcryer]

97. I did at the time.

And it was sexist, she used a similar variant of the sniper story many times because no one found her "credible" on foreign policy. People made fun of her as just a first lady. I thought it was dumb to use the sniper story but she needed something.

Sorry it bugs you when I call out the RW trash. When Obama stooped to the Harry and Louise ad I knew we didn't have a progressive running.

[merrily]

101. Stop digging, Josh. And stop trying to change the subject.

You know what I am saying has nothing to do with 2008.

Sorry it bugs you when I call out the RW trash.

LOL, doesn't bug me at all. We both know what you are really doing, though. And I very doubt we're the only two who get it. It's pretty pervasive from you guys and also pretty transparent.

When Obama stooped to the Harry and Louise ad I knew we didn't have a progressive running.

Oh, my. Attacking Obama to help Hillary, after trying so hard to protect him all this time. Must be I guess that's something that certain Democrats who have been protecting Obama are going to have to do now that she's the anointed and he's the lame duck. I'm glad I don't have to change things up like that.

[joshcryer]

110. So weird.

I've always been critical of Obama, from the drone wars to the surveillance state. I just defend him from the mindless hyperbole.

But it's quaint you think the president needs "protecting." What a sad state.

[merrily]

115. No, you don't "just defend him from the mindless hyperbole."

But it's quaint you think the president needs "protecting."

No, I am not the one who thinks the most powerful man in the world needs protecting by DU posters. That is the bizarre delusion of some DU posters who leap to protect him from anything and everything they think even might reflect badly on him and demand "we" have his back.

What's actually weird and quaint? That you that you impute that to me. I am about the last one anyone can rightfully accuse of holding that particular view. Then again, you think you know my thoughts better than I do and that I am shocked, shocked to learn of overlap among political ideologies. So, who can possibly know what image you have of me or how you arrived at it.

But, as much fun as this hasn't been, I have to leave for some errands. Catch you another time. Hopefully, it will be less tedious next time.

[Whisp]

121. How could that sniper story be 'sexist'?

I think what you are trying to do is protect Hillary from her own huge big supersilly mistake of making shit up. That was mind boggling stupid. Unbelievably stupid thing to do which makes me question her sense of reality and judgement.

Pointing that out is sexist?

[leftstreet]

130. What was once racist is now sexist

Ugh

Welcome to the new Loyalty Oath Goalpost

We can look forward to 2 years of campaigning and a 4 year administration of this crap

[bvar22]

131. I rarely agree with you, but I do here.

[joshcryer]

144. Everyone was piling on her foreign policy experience.

Obama didn't get a tenth of the scrutiny, so when she doubled down and started exaggerating (yes, lying), she got caught. But she wouldn't have had to double down and exaggerate or even use the story if she wasn't continually pressured, as a woman, to inflate her foreign policy experience. When the plane was landing she and Chelsea had flack jackets on and were made to go into the more shielded part of the plane. She obviously kept going over it in her head and imagined what wasn't there. This doesn't make her some evil shrill liar, it means she got caught up in the media's sexist narrative.

I said the story was stupid to begin with, she went on a comedy tour in a war torn area and wasn't in any real danger, so why she allowed herself to be caught up in it after all those years calling out the "great right wing conspiracy" I dunno. I agree it was a serious lapse in judgement. Because she went on the defensive over foreign policy experience that she was being called out on (while Obama got a pass; her 1995 "Women's Rights are Human Rights" speech in China should've given her credibility on that issue alone). It won't happen again.

[TheKentuckian]

148. How the hell could it possible be sexism to call her on her fictionalized account?

She is the one that spun that yarn, not anyone calling her on it.

This "defense" is as stupid as it is clumsy and dishonest, Josh.

It is also beyond lame to just fall back on if you can't see it then you never will because it is impossible for you to articulate why without getting your clock cleaned.

Actually, what would be sexism is to give a female a pass on telling whoppers for political advantage due to gender.

[joshcryer]

149. When Obama got a pass?

It's not sexist when a man doesn't get scrutinized for something but a woman is?

So bizarre. Her yarn should've been dropped as soon as she retracted. Instead it is used to this day.

[TheKentuckian]

150. Obama got a pass for lying about getting shot at? When was this?

[joshcryer]

153. Obama got a pass for inexperience.

[TheKentuckian]

154. I don't recall it that way. I remember him getting lots of inexperienced and not ready pushback

including from Clinton who actually even said the McShame was ready and Obama wasn't including the infamous 3am phone call shot (which is why she got pushed back on her own lack of experience and she made up this fable to pad her resume) so to the best of my recollection, she fucking started it anyway.

Obama scrambled to get a world tour going and asserted his involvement with Dick Lugar's anti proliferation efforts. Neither of them really had any experience and neither really did McShame of any particular relevance.

I don't see any pass nor any excuse for making up something so silly but she wasn't comfortable highlighting the experience gained in such areas (unofficially but certainly) as First Lady and went with complete and easily verifiable nonsense.

All of that said, calling her for such a self inflicted fabrication isn't sexist and insisting it does devalues actual sexisim that is happening every damn day.

To pretend that her response was reasonable is just silly, Josh. Probably sexist too, in a soft bigotry of low expectations sort of way.

She "had to"? Nonsense, doing so helped her how? Made any sense in what possible way? Was not going to be quickly discovered and make matters worse in which alternative universe?

[bvar22]

133. Josh...Just ADMIT you posted BS.

joshcryer
36. Quickest retraction ever.

She only said that one time and retracted it pretty much instantly.

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

You have been corrected, and, as much as you would LIKE it to be true, it isn't.
The incontrovertible PROOF is that your statement was FALSE.
The adult thing to do here is admit that you were WRONG,
and then move on.


Anything else just makes things WORSE for you.

[Divernan]

81. Cryer's statement is factually disproved. Period.

Will it take him four months to admit it?
I quote him: "She only said that one time"
I documented she said it AT least four times
and he wrote:
"and retracted it pretty much instantly".
I documented she first said it in December and didn't retract it until March.

He's like the Black Knight in Monty Python. He's left without a leg to stand on and telling himself no one's laid a glove on him. That's fine with me. If he can't admit facts when he's hit over the head with them, his credibility on this board is de minimis.

[joshcryer]

85. When it came to light.

She used a variant of that story many many times but only once said she was actually under fire. The RW will be sure to remind everyone when she runs.

[merrily]

87. Ever hear, "When you're in a hole, stop digging?"

[merrily]

103. Thanks. Nice to know someone on this thread is in reality and willing to admit it.

And now, I think I have to leave the thread and try to wash some of it off.

They should never have anointed Hillary so early. They should have learned from last time.

Meanwhile, I don't look forward to having to wade through stuff like this for much longer, I can tell you that.

[bvar22]

132. Old Josh doesn't have much "credibility" here.

He was a BIG backer of "The Rebels" (Al Qaeda) during the illegal bombing of Libya and Taking Out Gaddafi.

How is the Libyan "Spring" going for you NOW, Josh?
The once most modern city in Northern Africa has just instituted Sharia Law,
and instead of driving cars and attending University,
the women are back in Burkas,
BUT, the IMF and Global Banks now have access to the mineral and resource riches of North Africa.
Well Done, Josh!

[Divernan]

55. 1st said it Dec.'12; repeated at least 3x; retracted 4months later.

As reported by The Des Moines Register, the Washington Post, Politifact and Reuters.

During an introduction to a foreign policy speech on Iraq on March 17, 2008, Sen. Hillary Clinton reminisced about her days as first lady and a trip to Tuzla, Bosnia, she made in March 1996. "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

On the campaign trail, Clinton has discussed the danger of the trip before and how it gave her important foreign policy experience. The Des Moines Register reported her saying on Dec. 30, 2007, "We landed in one of those corkscrew landings and ran out because they said there might be sniper fire. I don't remember anyone offering me tea on the tarmac there."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/mar/25/hillary-clinton/video-shows-tarmac-welcome-no-snipers/

In a speech in Washington and in several interviews last week Clinton described how she and her daughter, Chelsea, ran for cover under hostile fire shortly after her plane landed in Tuzla, Bosnia. . . .She also told CNN last week: "There was no greeting ceremony and we were basically told to run to our cars. Now that is what happened."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/26/us-usa-politics-clinton-idUSN2540811420080326

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/hillarys_balkan_adventures_par.html
Hillary Clinton has been regaling supporters on the campaign trail with hair-raising tales of a trip she made to Bosnia in March 1996. In her retelling, she was sent to places that her husband, President Clinton, could not go because they were "too dangerous." When her account was challenged by one of her traveling companions, the comedian Sinbad, she upped the ante and injected even more drama into the story. In a speech earlier this week, she talked about "landing under sniper fire" and running for safety with "our heads down."

It's even more striking to watch the CBS News Hillary footage when it's dubbed with the actual audio from her March 17th speech:

Listening to her describe, with a bit of a chuckle, how there was no greeting party and she ran from sniper fire is pathetic when juxtaposed with images of her cheerfully greeting a small child.

[Whisp]

64. and calling it all a 'misspeak' - how bizarre.

Obama 'misspoke' when he said that 53 states thing, THAT'S a mispeak, a mispeak isn't making up a ridiculous whole story of fantasy.

And even more bizarre is that the Clinton camp wasn't smart enough to figure that tape would be dug up.

strange stuff, but entertaining as heck.

[merrily]

105. In fairness, "misspeak" was always a fictious thing, a word created to

save politicians from their own dumbass comments. Politicians never err, like the rest of us humans; but they do "misspeak."

And when they "misspeak" beyond the pale, they may even have to be sorry if anyone was offended by their remarks.

[joshcryer]

68. might be != was

She only said there was one time.

[Whisp]

123. The kicker is she got Chelsea to go along with the bizarre lie.

I wonder whose idea it was to begin with. Smells like a Bill idea - he's not near as smart as some think he is.

He suggested it to Hillary and coaxed Chelsea to support it.
Can't see it happening any other way. Why Hillary listened to her dumbass husband during the primary is beyond me. Tweedle dee and tweedle dum.

[Divernan]

124. Apple, meet tree. Sinbad was also on that trip.

Sinbad, along with singer Sheryl Crow, was on that 1996 trip to Bosnia that Clinton has described as a harrowing international experience that makes her tested and ready to answer a 3 a.m. phone call at the White House on day one, a claim for which she's taking much grief on the campaign trail.

In an interview with the Sleuth Monday, he said the "scariest" part of the trip was wondering where he'd eat next. "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'"

Threat of bullets? Sinbad doesn't remember that, either. "I never felt that I was in a dangerous position. I never felt being in a sense of peril, or 'Oh, God, I hope I'm going to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank.'"

In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady." Say what? As Sinbad put it: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife (and daughter)...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html

[winter is coming]

99. She shouldn't have said it, even once.

It was dishonest and unnecessary bit of self-aggrandizement that was flat-out stupid.

[joshcryer]

113. I agree it was stupid.

She should not have had to come up with some lame story about her experience. But she was forced to because Obama's campaign and the media framed her as inexperienced.

This time, as the single most qualified candidate in modern history she will rightly shrug off such attempts to question her ability to lead.

[winter is coming]

128. She wasn't "forced to", she chose to.

And by doing so, she's shown us what sort of leader she could be. Deadly mistake.

[joshcryer]

135. Yes, she was forced to mention that story.

She fucked the story up one fucking time and all hell breaks loose.

[winter is coming]

137. She didn't "fuck up a story". She lied, to make herself look more impressive.

What else is she willing to lie about?

[joshcryer]

138. Oh yes, spread that meme with the right wing.

[winter is coming]

140. Meme? Maybe you trust people who tell stories to make themselves seem more important,

but I don't. That's not a RW meme, that's common sense.

[joshcryer]

142. I said it was dumb.

Short term memory problems?

That is what she chose to do. It was a huge error. This is someone who couldn't even cry after a stressful campaign event while an alcoholic, oranged skinned man can cry on a regular basis. The bull shit will only get deeper.

[bvar22]

134. OH, she HAD to LIE because Obama forced her to do it.

Come on, Josh.
You are embarrassing yourself.

[joshcryer]

136. IT WAS ONE TIME

Telling a story she told DOZENS of times before, but one time she flubbed the story ONE TIME, she's a freaking untrustworthy liar.

It's just so shallow.

[merrily]

38. Cmon, Manny. You know we're just supposed to quake and cave when someone

Last edited Fri Jun 6, 2014, 08:56 AM - Edit history (1)

aligned with the center right slings the RW label at those of us who dare to be to the left of New Democrats. We're supposed to buy that being to the left of New Democrats equals being to the right of everyone.

Because Newspeak. Well, maybe that, and not much else to say that might make more sense to the rational reader than "Left equals Right."

Facts have nothing to do with anything, so why even bring up the Bosnia lie? And don't even think about bring up her base of "hardworking white people" remark.


We've been duly called out as repeating a RW meme.






Nothing left to do after that but shut up and look properly ashamed. So, shape up.

[MannyGoldstein]

42. Just curious - are we Libertarians, Conservatives, or Tea Partiers?

Or Putin fanboys?

[merrily]

43. Beats me. I thought I was an FDR, HST, LBJ Democrat, but sans the never-ending war with Eastasia.

But, Josh says I am a sexist RWer. Yesterday, he also claimed to know my thoughts better than I know them, so I guess he knows better than I do that I am one sexist, feminist RWer who is to his left.

I hope that's clear enough?

[noiretextatique]

108. +100000

rw sexist, racist firebagger what will they think of next?!

[merrily]

111. Well, now that you've gone and outed yourself, I have no choice.

[noiretextatique]

114. love that movie

And what an accurate depiction of what's going on here

[merrily]

119. Shh.

I'm not sure I've ever seen it. I know I read the wiki, but I probably should watch it. But, I'm convinced that the only way to handle some of this ludicrousness is to label it for what it is and maybe to mock it. Trying to respond to it as though it actually has some rationality, which I used to attempt, is just not the way to go. As for the ad hom, especially calling me a bigot, or implying it, the purveyors of that cray can kiss my gorgeous ass.

But, now, I have to go do some errands I should have done this morning. Until next time, take care.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

143. Sounds Palinesque

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/submission/5222/PALINESQUE

[WillyT]

8. K & R !!!

[Half-Century Man]

9. Show her the way home, it's just ahead on the left.

I fucking hate the idea of a dynasty with all my heart.
But go left Ms. Clinton, and you have my complete support. I have been searching my whole life for a leader worthy to follow. Is it you?

[Oilwellian]

10. Doubtful

The only way another Third Wayer will win the White House is if they lie and the people believe those lies. Like fellow DU'er bvar says often, "you will know them by their WORKS."

[Half-Century Man]

23. And that is what I wait to see.

[rhett o rick]

15. If she does go left, will you believe it? nm

[merrily]

35. And how does that change the dynasty thingie, anyway?

[delrem]

17. You seem to be almost begging to be deceived.

Do you really think that Hillary Clinton will change who she is?

[LuvLoogie]

19. Oh sure. Hugh E. Rodham & Virginia Clinton Kelley

are just like Joe Kennedy and Prescott Bush!

The dynastic nepotism that gave us Dubya AND Hillary. I hate that.

Ha!

[merrily]

39. Because a family dynasty doesn't include spouses?

Come on, now.

350 million people in the US. Surely, among all them, someone not named Bush or Clinton is at least as qualified as Hillary to run for office. (BTW, I'm not crazy about any political clan, including the Udalls.)

[bobduca]

50. Dynastic Succession Laws apply here!!!111

ITS NOT A DYNASTIC SUCCESSION BECAUSE MARRIAGE!

EVERYBODY KNOWS THE USA IS ON THE Male-preference Cognatic Primogeniture, AND CLINTONS HAD NO MALE HEIR!!!!1111

[LuvLoogie]

67. Would Bill Clinton have progressed to POTUS

if He didn't meet and marry Hillary?

The Clintons are a self-made power couple, not a political dynasty. They might begin to qualify if Chelsea ever runs and gets elected to higher office.

Brick layer, baker, military, doctor political families. What difference does it make if they are good at what they do. Nepotism is a tool-- like a hammer, you can either build something or bash in someone's skull.

Any of 350 million people CAN run, as long as they meet the basic requirements. Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama did it from scratch in single mom households. Hillary Clinton came from a middle class, small-business family with a stay at home mom.

What about the Manning quarterback dynasty? If you've got it, you've got it. Your disqualifiers are irrational.

[merrily]

70. Sorry, I am not in the mood for word games. Where I come from (earth), if you're related by blood or

marriage, you're part of a family. And someone is either okay with making the Oval Office a family business or you are not. I'm not; you are.

[LuvLoogie]

72. So it's a deal-breaker for you?

It's not a word game. Does being married to Bill Clinton make her less qualified to be President?

[merrily]

93. I won't be voting for her.

[LuvLoogie]

104. Not even in the general?

Write in? Who is going to get your vote, "dynastic" lineage notwithstanding? I mean "r n s t l e" Right?

[merrily]

107. "I mean "r n s t l e" Right?" Sorry, no clue what means.

[LuvLoogie]

109. Wheel of Fortune default letter choice...

[merrily]

112. Sorry, never watch.

[LuvLoogie]

116. OK moving on. Not even in the general..

would you vote for Hillary? Would you write in?

[merrily]

120. I don't mean to be short, but I have to leave the board to do some errands.

BTW, have you read the Terms of Service of this board?

[LuvLoogie]

122. Oh Gawd.

Hasta pronto!

[merrily]

29. Sorry, but your post is internally inconsistent.

[progressoid]

12. Politically savvy.

She wouldn't say it for 12 years. I'm not impressed.

[joshcryer]

16. All on board the HRC train!

Manny will be the conductor!

[Smarmie Doofus]

18. Less a "mistake", she's thinking, than a liability. n/t

[RobertEarl]

22. It's been a real struggle

But we do have to be proud we haven't let Iraq be swept under the rug, totally out of sight and out of mind.

It's also nice to know we are not totally being ignored in our clamoring for peace. We kept Syria from getting US bombed, remember?

Like you say, Manny, there is still lots work to do. Sure would be nice if all of the DU members would work with us instead of making things even harder and creating more of a struggle, eh?

[merrily]

30. "We kept Syria from getting US bombed, remember?"

I am not sure what you are referring to. Are you referring to Obama's plan to get involved in Syria? If so:

If by "we" you mean a very thinly-veiled threat of alawsuit from John Boehner, writing Obama after about 100 House members, Republican and Democrat, signed a petition, then, yeah, sure, "we" stopped the US from getting involved in Syria.

In reality, though, the anti Syrian involvement thing was underway in the House well before "we" woke up to it. The reason we woke up to it to begin was all the appearances on TV by House members saying Obama should consult them before starting a war in Syria and all the interviews they gave the press to the same effect.


I never thought anyone but conservatives ended the war in Vietnam or abolished the draft. I know how controversial a view that is, but, whether I am right or dead wrong, it's not 1973 anymore. And even in 1973, the anti war movement had been underway for over a decade and cost LBJ any hope of re-election before it allegedly stopped the war. It was not a matter of a few phones made over a period of a few weeks.

Please think about this hard: In 2014, with all the political and economic interest at stake in a war, would a few phone calls in a country of 350 million really be enough to stop a war?

And, btw, that Syria thing may still happen.

If that is not what you meant, my apologies.

[RobertEarl]

56. I get it

When I say we, i do not mean you. Sorry if it seemed i had included you in the peace movement.

[merrily]

57. Ah, a totally ad hom (and factually incorrect) response to a substantive post. How impressive.

[RobertEarl]

58. Oh?

You are part of the peace movement? It didn't seem you were.

You seemed to think that the peace movement was ineffectual and inconsequential and that it was our fault nixon was elected.

Other than that i don't get what it is you are getting at.

Doesn't matter, Hillary is not going to run... or walk into the presidency. Her failure to be a part of the peace movement has doomed her chances.

Peace.

[merrily]

59. How about refuting something I posted?

BTW, I said nothing about anyone helping Nixon get elected. So, again, I suggest your respond to something I actually posted, instead of attacking me or "responding" to things I never said.

And whatever a decade or more of anti war demonstrations did or did not accomplish in the 1960s and 1970s, as I said, 2014 is a very different ballgame.

And if you want to believe that some emails, phone calls and internet petitions for a couple of weeks made Obama turn on a dime about going into Syria, good luck. I think that is one of the most unrealistic things I've heard. And I don't think it does anyone or any peace movement any good to believe in magic phone calls.

As far as whether I am part of a peace movement, yes I am. I even made some of those phone calls about Syria, even though I never believed for a second that they would change Obama's mind. From my calling my rep, I got a man who seemed unable to hear a thing I said, but I kept repeating it until I thought he may have gotten enough to pass on a message. From Senator Warren, I got an answering machine.

Not that it's any of your business. And not that it makes what I said either more true or more false.

Why don't you try dealing with the issues I raised, instead of attacking me for suggesting your phone calls and internet petitions might not really be magical after all?

Never mind.

[RobertEarl]

60. Bwahaha

You are on the attack and complaining about being attacked. Weird.

The peace movement is not making a phone call or two or three, it is a movement that is infinite. One is either in it - with it and a proponent thereof - or one is not.

There is no use debating or even discussing your comments as they are meaningless and devoid of real historical context.

Just try to make this your mantra and you will come around: "The hippies we're always right."

Peace.

[merrily]

61. "Bwahaha" Another mature response.

Are you sure you're old enough to be classed a hippie?

You are on the attack and complaining about being attacked. Weird.

Yeah, it's really "weird" how people who are attacked personally after making a substantive post complain about having been attacked. You can avoid that weirdness by refraining from ad hom responses to posts that don't attack you.

The peace movement is not making a phone call or two or three, it is a movement that is infinite.

No shit. No one said otherwise, but this started about your claim that the people stopped something about Syria. There was not an infinite amount of time between the point at which Obama's resolve to go into Syria became public and the point at which he seemed to have changed his mind. And it's unrealistic to think that the calls did it and not the actions of the House and Boehner's legal letter to Obama.

There is no use debating or even discussing your comments as they are meaningless and devoid of real historical context.

My initial post to you had a lot more meaning and historical context and factual info than any of your replies to me. So, I am not buying that as your reason for going ad hom.

"The hippies we're always right."

Oh, yes, they were right about what they wanted. But they and their successors are not right to delude themselves about the magical impact of a phone calls and internet petitions as to Syria in 2013.

Keep your illusions, but, in 2014, they will only get in the way of things that might actually be effective. And that makes them counter productive.

Bye for now.

[RobertEarl]

63. Heh

Thanks for your kind replies. But after all those words and the show of all your angst and trepidations, i still don't believe you.

Hillary could have been a real heroine for the Peace movement had she just remembered that the hippies were always right and then voted NO to allowing Bush to invade Iraq.

She would have been president in 2008 except she forgot that the dirty fucking hippies were right when they said: Fuck Bush. Never, ever trust him!!

Alas, she forgot. It would do us all well to keep repeating the hippie meme, eh?

[merrily]

66. " i still don't believe you. " Aw, I guess then you'll just keep congratulating yourself for

stopping wars with a couple of weeks worth of magic phone calls and oh so infallibly effective internet petitions, while those of us who prefer living in reality try to have an effect that is not imaginary or ludicrously egotistical.

[RobertEarl]

71. Yes, the Peace movement works

And I am proud to be a member of, and unconditional supporter of Peace.

Your attacks on me for being such a proud supporter makes me question your concerns. Hillary learned her lesson, we can only hope everyone catches on before it is too late.

[merrily]

74. Some measure work; some don't. Phone calls did not stop Obama from going into Syria.

This is not about the peace movement or your support of it. It is about your claim that you and others, but, according to you, not me, stopped a war in Syria. You keeping trying to make it about some thing other than that, and I keep refusing to go along with you in that effort.

A couple of weeks of phone calls and internet petitions did not change Obama's mind and those insist it did are wrong and need a reality check. Concern that.

[RobertEarl]

77. It is about the Peace movement

For the first time ever, our representatives voted NO to launching an attack.

For the first time ever.

Hillary, Obama, and the other savvy pols, saw history being made and have taken notice. We finally won one. Take a bow all you Peace mongers. Wer'e on a roll, but work remains. Never give up and don't let the naysayers disabuse you of our victory!

[merrily]

79. No. You'd love to make it about that, but its about your claim that a couple of weeks of calls

stopped a war. If you actually believe that, I can't help you and I don't know who can.

For the first time ever, our representatives voted NO to launching an attack.

For the first time ever.

Really! Which US vote on attacking Syria are talking about?

[RobertEarl]

82. You should join us

Hillary wishes she had. Heck, she'd probably be president if she had. But no, she had to vote to allow Bush to invade. Shame, isn't it?

Anyway, you should join us in the Peace movement, then you could take a bow. Won't cost you a thing. It's free and easy. War, otoh, is what is expensive, and mean, and makes people uneasy.

[merrily]

86. IOW, you imagined the vote, too, and rather than admit that, you again try to make it about me

being pro-war, also in your imagination.

I won't claim reality is all peaches and cream, but it is the only place anyone is going to be effective. Visit sometime.

[RobertEarl]

90. About you

You have rejected the idea that the Peace movement has had any effect.

So, there you are. I get it.

[merrily]

91. Again, visit sometime.

[merrily]

31. You may not have followed the 2008 primary closely enough.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/13/hillary-clinton-defends-2_n_81261.html

It was clear then that both Bubba and Hillary thought that Obama's speech in 2002 against the Iraq War--when he had the luxury of pronouncing on it while not being in either the US Senate or the Oval Office--was a big part of the reason that Obama was eating through 2008 Inevitable Hillary's 30 point lead.

Hence, Bubba's infamous line, "Give me break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." (Guess Bubba forgot the "I never had sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" fairy tale and the many, many other fairy tales that litter American politics.)

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/bill-clinton-give-me-a-break/

Hillary's tried various stories to distance herself from that vote, which I find cynical and shameful. But, the one story she never told was "Are you kiidding? The US had been attacked and I am a politician. I coujldn't risk a no vote on the Iraq War Resolution." And, that, I very much fear is the only true story about that vote.

Am I happy that the pro-war vote turned out to be a political risk, too? Well, not exactly. There's been too much blood shed, too many lives lost, too much displacement, too many Iraqi children sold into slavery and sexual slavery to feed the rest of the family, etc. But, I sure do hope politicians in the future remember the primary of 2008 when they assess the political risks of a pro war vote. They do not all weigh in favor of war.

[PowerToThePeople]

46. Can't get fooled again

She is trying to sell herself to the average "non politics following" voter. Fuck, we are probably going to have more years of Corporate fascism.

[merrily]

47. Some posters on this board are giving fooling us again their best shot, though.

Turns out, their best shot isn't very good, but they are trying again and again and again.

[merrily]

48. P.S. I should have noted sooner: While Hillary's attempted recant is not a recent change for her, I

do agree that other things are changing and have been changing since the October6/Occupy Wall Street movement. Just look at the pervasive use of the term 99% and everything associated with it. The change was dramatically fast for those who were (a) awake, (b) not in denial and (c) not lying.

[Jackpine Radical]

52. I'd sorta debate the nature of that 2008 statement.

In it she acknowledged the wrongness of the war, but not of her vote. "I was voting on the best information I had," she was implying. It was sort of a no-fault divorce from her 2002 vote. On the other hand, her current "I was wrong" comes across a little more as a very belated "mea culpa" (albeit still not all the way there).

[merrily]

54. All three stories, though, are attempts to distance herself from the vote.

So, that's nothing new itself, as the OP thought.

When someone gives three different stories about the same vote, I don't feel compelled to take every new nuance as a new thing. And, as I posted upthread, I think the true story is more along the lines of "The US had just been attacked; I had my eye on the Oval Office and I thought I could not risk voting against a war when US bloodlust was that high. Turns out, I may have made the wrong call politically. (Oops.) So, now, I'll keep trying to back away from the vote until something I say does the trick. My more nuanced remarks didn't work, so, now, I'm finally ready to say flat out that I was wrong."

That is my take, so, no, I don't see a dramatic change between 2008 and now in reality, only in verbiage.

Asking to be forgiven for a wrong war vote is asking a lot, IMO, especially when it takes 3 versions of story AND one primary loss to get it right. This is her last even semi viable shot the Oval Office. So she had no more chances to get it right. At that, she did not beg anyone's forgiveness. Then again, how do you ask the family of dead 18 and 19 year olds to forgive you for sending them to war by mistake?

[Jackpine Radical]

126. Basically, I'm in total agreement with your perspective.

[hrmjustin]

51. I forgive Hillary for her vote and will vote for her.

[Scuba]

53. OK, so now she's a peacenik, and we should all trust her on that. But there's still this ...

[SwampG8r]

65. who was the tall black guy talking at the end?

I hope he runs for national office I like the way he thinks!!

[Scuba]

76. Yeah, if only he was President, eh?

[bvar22]

62. I seriously do NOT believe America's Working Class can survive another

Trickle Down,Free Trading, FReeMarket, Wall Street "NeoLiberal" who calls herself a "Democrat".

The recent Make Over for her War Mongering part in the deaths of a MILLION Middle Easterners disgusts me. You can NOT just walk away from that with an "Oh Well. I'm all better now. Vote for MEEEEEE, because its MY turn!!!"
I won't vote for Hillary.

This time, I will vote for a DEMOCRAT, even if I have to write one in.

[nomorenomore08]

117. I know what you mean. But can they survive another (actual) Republican President?

Talk about an impossible dilemma.

[winter is coming]

139. It's only impossible if you assume Dems *have* to settle for a corporatist.

Why the hell should we?

[nomorenomore08]

141. I agree with you. And I'm certainly hoping someone to the left of Hillary gets the nomination.

But if she's nominated, I'll vote for her. We all have to weigh the pros and cons and make our own choices.

[PowerToThePeople]

145. imo

Just get it over with.

Why the long torture before death? Either get someone in to cure us or elect a Republican to finish us off, hopefully quickly. No more.

[Nye Bevan]

69. Well, everyone makes mistakes. Like when Elizabeth Warren was a republican and voted for Reagan.

But I don't hold that against her. It is in the past.

[RobertEarl]

75. What if Hillary had voted NO?

Would she be president today?

I think so. But unlike half the Democrats in the US congress who did vote no, she is now having to second guess her big mistake of trusting Bush/Cheney.

Kinda sad, actually. We would have had a woman president already.

Obama, being the smart politician he is, surely knows better than to disrespect the Peace movement, seeing that it gained him millions of votes that the Clinton's wasted on that one, "Yes - go ahead George" - big, huge, history altering, mistake.

[NCTraveler]

84. Extremely impressed with your ability to link her comment to Occupy. Very impressed. nt.

[fredamae]

94. I don't trust

hers or any other politicians "coming home to reality" moments....it's all bs...and we ought to have learned our Own lessons by now.
I can't speak for anyone else-but I need credible Evidence of Action for Change not just more bs tossed against a wall to see if it sticks with the progressives/populists. Votes Matter--not speeches and empty, tired and worn out tactics of word smithing regrets for any persons previous actions.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

106. Just out of curiousity...

Do you plan to keep this up for the next 15 months? Because you're getting awfully tedious already.

[nomorenomore08]

118. You know what? Despite everything, I'll vote for her if she's the nominee. What choice do I have?

At least the Dems - even the most pro-corporate ones - aren't hellbent on bringing us 'The Handmaid's Tale.'

[TheKentuckian]

125. No, but too many seem peachy with "A Brave New World" and that isn't an alternative

[nomorenomore08]

127. Very true. n/t

[Zorra]

146. Yeh, it's the same old story, entitled "The Lesser of Two Evils". The 1% has designed a flawless

electoral system, the perfect way to make sure that democracy in America can never happen without some type of revolution.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

147. It was politically expedient to support the killing then. Now it's expedient to cover her butt.