Hillary on the Right

[shance]

I have been both a supporter and defender of Hillary Clinton in the years past.

This is but one of the many reasons I'm saddened, disappointed and frankly somewhat betrayed by the way in which she describes herself, versus the actions she employs and the legislation she has voted in favor of the past four years. There is little doubt Mrs. Clinton has many positive attributes. However, in the midst of the Hillary media frenzy, I prefer substance to style and hollow speeches. It's the life-altering decisions which she has been granted the power to make by her constituents that she should be judged upon. She (and others) are failing Americans on the most vital choices facing Americans.


Hillary on the Right

by Matthew Rothschild

More than 1,750 U.S. soldiers have died so far in Iraq, needless victims of Bush’s maniacal war.

So what is the leading Democrat proposing instead?

Withdrawal of the troops, and an end to the occupation, and a sober reassessment of U.S. foreign policy?

Nope.

There was Hillary Clinton instead calling for 80,000 more troops for the Army so that the United States can be fully equipped to patrol the far corners of the empire at a moment’s notice.

<snip>

She’s always been for the Iraq War, and she still is. And in case you needed any other clue about where she stands, she was accompanied by Joe Lieberman at her press conference calling for more troops.

“She has emerged as a staunch ally of the armed services and a strong proponent of a forceful American military presence abroad,” as a recent profile in The New York Times noted.

But we do not need Hillary Clinton to run the empire.

We need to stop being an empire.

And for those who invest in Hillary as some sort of savior, you’re making a bad bet. I prefer the immortal words of Milton Mayer, who for decades wrote for The Progressive: “I won’t be disillusioned because I was never illusioned.”

Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine, which is one of the leading voices for peace and social justice in this country.

© 2005 The Progressive

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0717-26.htm

[punpirate]

1. She should stop hanging around with...

... Lieberman and spend a little more time with Kennedy. "The last thing this country needs is another Republican Party," Ted says.

[jonnyblitz]

2. "....accompanied by Joe Lieberman..."

:eyes:

[whyverne]

7. Lieberman-Yiddish word for quisling.

[bliss_eternal]

3. Is it possible 'her people' are advising her on her image

in the event she does try for a run in '08?

Either way, this is disappointing.

Instead of rallying for more troops (if she is indeed doing this) why isn't she calling for investigation of DSM? Or Rove? Or the end of the war?

[Cha]

9. I think it's quite "possible"..in fact

that's all I see when I read stuff like this.

And it irritates the shite outta me. I think she's backing the wrong horse.

[shance]

11. Yes, that could be true, which speaks volumes, doesn't it?

That it's more important to listen to advisors that the majority of Americans.

[Sparkly]

4. I think that's a narrow view of her.

Her position on the IWR vote is pretty much the same as Kerry's and Edwards'.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority."

"How could they have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Hussein?" the New York Democrat asked Tuesday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

"I don't understand how they had such an unrealistic view of what was going to happen."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/

She did, however, vote for the $87 billion authorization later, iirc.

I dug up an article to find out about the proposal for 80,000 more army soldiers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/politics/14army.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1121653229-OjLoYE/HGGvqjSh7SIJTxw

I think it's a sad but valid challenge to BushCo, who can't even keep up with current recruitment goals. It pushes them to fish or cut bait.

I do not think she's a warmonger a la Chimpy.

[papau]

5. I agree :-)

:-)

[hopein08]

6. One of the worst things about the Kerry/Edwards loss was...

that it left the 2008 nomination open for Hillary. If Kerry & Edwards had won, it would have been Kerry's in 2008 and Edwards' in 2012 and/or 2016. It would have completely closed out Hillary's ambitions. That would have been best for this country.

JMHO

[Sparkly]

8. I wanted Kerry to win desperately.

But, I think Hillary Clinton would be a good president. I'm just not sure she's the best candidate right now.

What's odd to me is how certain people, by virtue of being strong personalities, are cast as "ultra-liberal" by the MSM -- Clinton and Dean are perfect examples. In office, both have been fairly moderate. Yet both are "controversial" for no reason that makes any real sense.

Conversely, General Clark is cast as "moderate" simply because his biography fits with what the rightwing has tried to pretend it embodies, yet his political views are liberal, and he never shies away from that.

I think Hillary Clinton is getting skewered by the right as "ultra liberal" and by the left as "DINO," and I don't think she's either. But again, I'm not convinced she's our best candidate, either.

[shance]

10. I think what is disappointing to me is the talking out of both sides

of the mouth.

I certainly agree she is not as radical as those who initiated the war and promoted it. However, her decision to fund the war helped create the radical situation we are now engaged in. At the same time she fails to take responsibility for the choice she made, by saying she has no regrets, and yet she has regrets. In other words, she takes no responsibility for her part in the invasion. Of course other Congressional leaders are responsible as well, however, they are not pushing hard for the presidential candidacy like she is.

[Sparkly]

12. It's one of the difficulties in viewing Congress as "President School."

A voting record in Congress is red meat any way you slice it -- and the GOP are experts with the knife. Democrats are damned if they did and damned if they didn't vote for the IWR. At the time, they clearly felt heavy political pressure to be "strong" and give the preznit some teeth with the UN. (Maybe they really believed he'd only do what he said he'd do, and not do what he said he wouldn't do.)

In any case, I think Kerry and Edwards are perfect examples of the same issue. Their vote against the $87 bil. appropriation didn't help them after voting for the IWR; conversely, their "yes" votes on the IWR didn't help them since they voted "no" for the $87 billion. ("There's nothing complicated about supporting the troops in war!")

In a Republican-controlled Congress, they're always between a rock and a hard place. That's why the GOP keeps bringing up superficial, symbolic political issues like flag-burning and Terry Schiavo: for political points against Democrats.

I contend that ALL Democrats with a Congressional voting record are handicapped in a national election, now more than ever.

[bliss_eternal]

14. I appreciate your thoughts on this...

You could quite possibly be right--at least I hope you are. I like Hilary and would hate to think she is 'pandering' to the conservatives.

[enough already]

16. Oh, that's great....

"Her position on the IWR vote is pretty much the same as Kerry's and Edwards'."


We all know how well that worked out. We need to get the hell out of there now, not try to appease the war mongers.

[formernaderite]

13. This is just so weird to me....I don't remember her or the big dog

acting this way when they were in the White house before. In fact, it felt a bit demilitarized around Washington. I guess she really is a DLCer to the core.

[CWebster]

15. Yet we are supposed to all rally around her

despite the realty that she can not- or is not, willing to address?

No, no more politicians holding up false illusions at the expense of the world.


Address this, Hillary:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/17/MNG5GDPEK31.DTL&type=printable

[Totally Committed]

17. Her move to the center, and then on past

was a genuine disappointment for me. I am being sincere.

I feel it is nothing more than a cynical, disingenuous, and dishonest move calculated to enhance her "viability" and/or "electability". This, almost more than the move itself, has turned me off completely to her as a potential candidate.

I am saddened.

TC

[Mass]

18. Two very different issues at stake here

1/ she is probably close to Lieberman when it comes to Iraq, at least in words. I gave up on her this winter when she started to say that the time the US stays in Iraq is not important (seems too close to permanent bases for my comfort).

2/ There needs to be an increase in the size of the army. If anything, Iraq has shown that the army is ill prepared if a real and legitimate crisis was to happen. Now the question that is not addressed here is how to get people to enlist (apart stopping an injust war). The dems had good progam in 2004, but it seems that Lieberman and Clinton are only proposing the increase of troops and not the rest. They do not say how to finance it either (how about dropping IDS and spend money on the men in this army).

[noonwitch]

19. I opposed the war, but now that we are in there

We have to succeed. We shouldn't have gone there, but we have to make right now we are there. It is totally unrealistic to expect any democratic candidate for president to say that we are going to totally withdraw troops.

If that is what you are looking for in a candidate, and will not vote for any democrat who says otherwise, look forward to having Jeb as your next president.

[TroglodyteScholar]

20. So what does "success" look like?

I've still yet to be told.

[CWebster]

21. What does succeed mean?

Like winning in Viet Nam?

How can we succeed when the reason for failure is our presence?

[Mass]

22. I did not say anything of the sort.

I just said that I do not like the "stay there no matter how long it takes", that seems to be Hill's line these days. Other Dems who would be claimed as fascists by some here because they do not support an immediate and inconditionnal withdrawal understand it is not only about looking tough, but also about making the conditions right for a large return of troops home.

At some point, we will withdraw these troops I imagine. If this is not what we expect, we do not need Jeb as president, we will have something close enough to that.