Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Following the Herd - Media Echo Clinton Foes that HRC "Moving to Center"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 02:52 AM
Original message
Following the Herd - Media Echo Clinton Foes that HRC "Moving to Center"
Following the Herd: Media mindlessly echo Clinton foes' claim that Hillary Clinton is "moving to the center" for presidential run
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505310002

In "Following the Herd," Media Matters for America will periodically examine the ideas, preconceptions, and assumptions underlying the news media's conventional wisdom. In this first installment, we investigate the rapidly spreading idea that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) is "moving to the center."

Sources: Both journalists and conservative commentators. On a few occasions, progressive commentators have also echoed the claim.

Serial proponents: Dick Morris, Chris Matthews, Deborah Orin

Assumptions: At some previous, usually unstated time, Clinton was more liberal than she is today. More recently, she has changed positions, shifting to the center in preparation for a potential 2008 presidential run.

Phony supporting evidence: Clinton has allegedly become more hawkish on foreign and defense policy, particularly in her service on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Proponents cite her support for the Iraq war -- something that has not changed from the beginning -- as a recent example of repositioning. By stating that efforts to reduce the number of abortions through adequate birth control can serve as common ground between pro-choice and pro-life forces, Clinton has supposedly moved to the center on abortion -- although she has not changed her position on anything having to do with abortion, whether the larger issue of reproductive rights or specific issues such as parental consent. Her discussion of her personal religious faith is also offered as proof of the alleged move to the center, though Clinton has been quoted on this topic going back at least a decade. In short, proponents have failed to locate any specific policy issues on which Clinton has actually shifted positions -- to the center or in any other direction. But when she takes a position or makes an argument that seems at odds with proponents' perception of liberal orthodoxy, they characterize it as a "move" or a "shift," even if she has taken the same position throughout her career.

Discussion: The idea that both Bill and Hillary Clinton are extreme liberals has been a conservative staple since the early 1990s. Newt Gingrich even referred to the Clintons as "counter-culture McGoverniks." This notion persisted despite Bill Clinton's leadership of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council and his relatively conservative positions on issues including welfare reform, the death penalty, missile defense, and the North American Free Trade Agreement -- positions that Hillary Clinton shares. So where does the idea come from? Those most likely to describe Bill Clinton as extremely liberal are extreme conservatives; National Election Studies data show strong conservatives rating Clinton more liberal than any other Democratic presidential candidate, including Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, George McGovern and Hubert H. Humphrey. This feeling is probably more a translation of generalized antipathy into an ideological assessment than a realistic conclusion based on issues. Put simply, conservatives say they don't like the Clintons because they believe they are too liberal, but in reality, they just don't like the Clintons.

As John F. Harris recently wrote in his book The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House (Random House, 2005) and adapted in a May 31 article in The Washington Post, advisers to Hillary Clinton say her political strategy "has three elements":

On social issues, it is to reassure moderate and conservative voters with such positions as her support of the death penalty, and to find rhetorical formulations on abortion and other issues -- on which her position is more liberal -- that she is nonetheless in sympathy with traditional values. On national security, it is to ensure that she has no votes or wavering statements that would give the GOP an opening to argue that she is not in favor of a full victory in Iraq. In her political positioning generally, it is to find occasions to prominently work across party lines -- to argue that she stands for pragmatism over the partisanship that many centrist voters especially dislike about Washington.

Whatever one thinks of this strategy, none of it involves changing position on any issue.

A sampling:

"Well, she's trying to move to the center ... she's been 'the hawk' Hillary, among -- in recent days. But, look, the key point is that people aren't going to really forget what Hillary really is, and she is a liberal and she's very polarizing ... at the end of the day, I believe she's trying to be the new Hillary, but she's still the old Hillary. Well, she's trying to move to the center."

"In preparation for a political run, the liberal senator has impressed many by moving to the middle on a number of key issues such as abortion and immigration."

"She puts herself next to Newt Gingrich and helps move herself, as she has been doing, on social issues, on defense, into the more moderate center of the Democratic Party, and perhaps in a bid for her run in 2008 to shed some of her past more liberal images." -

"A couple of weeks ago, certainly a couple months ago, Hillary was off there on the left. We thought of her with maybe Barbra Streisand, Barbara Boxer, Rob Reiner, Chuck Schumer even. Now I see her as sort of part of this drift toward the center. She's on Armed Services. She backed the war."

"She is moving to the center on gay marriage, things like that. On the war, she is very hawkish."

"With many Americans certain that former first lady and current New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton will run for president in 2008, they point to what appears to be a concerted effort to move her toward the political middle on one of the nation's most contentious issues -- abortion."

"Clinton made news earlier this year by advocating fewer abortions, in a move many interpreted as an attempt to move to the center as she contemplates a presidential run in 2008."

"I don't think she can afford to be over there on the left. Now, what's going to happen in 2008 if Hillary runs is they're going to re-run all of these clips of her from the early '80s, and again people are going to be presented with two images of the same person. And they're going to say to themselves, 'Which do we believe, the Hillary that was there for years and years?'"

"But does anyone think that Hillary will have a pro -- you say she'll have a problem reconciling her current move to the center with her past image as sort of a Madame Defarge of the left?"

"Clinton's fiery speech contrasted with her recent highly publicized moves to the center."

"The former first lady is seen as the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, and political observers have speculated she is moving to the center for that campaign." .

"I think Senator Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. ... She is professional, smart, systematic and she is moving to the centre in a very rational way."

"While Senator Hillary Clinton continues to move to the center on social issues and tries to position herself for 2008, her foes are already starting to line up."

"Hillary is trying to move to the center, so even though this is an issue that favors the left at this point, she doesn't want to talk about it, because she doesn't want to jam her movement to center."

"She's trying to conceal her liberalism and move to the center in anticipation of a run for the White House."

"Because word from the grass roots is that liberals -- now in control of the Democratic National Committee machinery with Howard Dean as DNC chair -- are getting pretty riled by Hillary Clinton's move to the center."

"Anyone can look at Hillary's 20-year record and can judge whether they feel that she's sincere when she moves to the center as the election clock approaches."

"Mrs. Clinton exhorted both sides of the abortion issue to seek 'common ground,' signaling to many that she was trying to move to the center on an issue that may have harmed Democrats in November."

"And so she is doing what her husband did. Which was not so much move to the center or the right, but figure out a way to bridge the left-wing base of the Democratic Party. And move to the center at the same time."

"This week, she's decided to use her post on the Armed Services Committee to move to the center on troop levels in Iraq."

"And she is already moving to the center or trying to reposition herself towards the center with an eye towards the general election in 2008."

"But she's never going to be able to do it unless she attempts to try this makeover and move to the center that she's now attempting. So, I mean, she's a shrewd politician, and that's why she's attempting it."

"Hillary Clinton, appearing to move center right on issues like immigration, pro-life issues, family values issues. It appears, and it's been written up in the press, that this is a concerted effort on her part."

"How odd it is to see Hillary trying to convince us that she's a red state kind of girl (offering moderate views on abortion, condemning illegal immigration, emphasizing the importance of prayer in her life, and backing the war) even as her party lurches to the Left. As the Clintons did after they lost Congress in 1994, they are moving to the center."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 02:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. too far to the right for me
always trying to be the centrist. :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 03:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. A progressive indie as opposed to a progressive Democrat
in actual ideology, but the truth is there aren't many Democrats at all that would find support in your clan. What you consider centrism is, in fact, much further left in the view of most Democrats.

When Brock mentions HRC "foes," he also includes some progressives.

Brock is fully into truth in media, and some seek it here at DU too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Why don't we RUN someone to the left, for a friggin' change-- because
Edited on Mon Apr-17-06 03:15 AM by impeachdubya
in case the folks running our party haven't noticed, what we've been doing hasn't really been working all that well- and then we can see if all this DLC 'conventional wisdom' about where the center actually lies is true...

or if it's really the bogus blather that so many of us are fairly certain it is.

I think most Democrats-- and most Americans for that matter-- are further to the left (as well as more socially libertarian) than the media would ever want to let on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 03:18 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. the status quo may have swung the pendulum to the left
and that would be a good thing.

That will be determined in the primary process and the 2008 nominee selected democratically. I posted a poll from www.democrats.com, a progressive Democrat website, that has Al Gore well in the lead, and I am thrilled and hopeful that that is indeed mainstream.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. I know. I really hope he runs.
And I can't speak for the rest of DU, but I've been a yellow dog Democrat my whole life. I will of course support our nominee, but truthfully I would prefer a whole list of folks well before I would want HRC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. me too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NotGivingUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. I agree with you 100%! Why on earth should Hillary
be our front-runner? I think the media is promoting her as such. Hillary should go run for the Republican party. Give me someone like Kucinich -- someone who is a REAL democrat -- someone who is REALLY for the people and NOT the corporations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
14. And me.
Hillary is no friend of the left, no matter what Her friends wish to tell us. I'll believe my own lying eyes on this one, thank you. hillary is the surest route to four more years in the wilderness...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 03:11 AM
Response to Original message
3. Yeah, but I'll still take Gore/Feingold in '08-- just to be sure.
I don't care what you call it- Hillary's "We support you, Mr. President" bullshit vis a vis 'terra' and the War on Iraq has thoroughly nauseated -and alienated- me. She's slightly above Joe-mentum in terms of my nominee preferences for 2008, but not by a whole bunch.

And I don't WATCH cable news, so I can't have been brainwashed by Tweety or Dick Morris.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. I am fully behind Al Gore in 2008.
I just would like reasonable, truthful discussion here at DU.

But, alas, that is something I am becoming more and more convinced is not going to happen. This is a progressive independent message board, not a progressive Democratic one, and the agenda of the former relies upon misinformation to persuade others to join their cause.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. I'm all for reasonable, truthful discussion. I just don't think you can
Edited on Mon Apr-17-06 03:21 AM by impeachdubya
have one around Hillary without talking about her record on Iraq and so-called "National Security" issues.

On choice, I agree with her- although I didn't appreciate her little pander to the pro-lifers a few months ago, I still think she's solid, and this Putting Prevention First act is right exactly the tack we need to be taking right now. And I used to *like* Hillary, believe me.

But she's got a lot of bridge building to do --not just with me, but with a lot of folks in the base- because of how she has behaved these past few years. I want someone who is not morally ambiguous on Iraq next time around. It, just like choice, is a deal breaker for me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 05:59 AM
Response to Reply #5
13. I am fully behind John Kerry in 2008
But I agree with every word in your post, although sometimes the misinformation isn't even progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. It is important to note
that my OP comes from Media Matters. David Brock is one person who has apologized for being a RW hack and gone on to prove every day that his remorse is genuine by his diligent scrutiny of the media.

I don't know whether the misinformation that I read here at DU about HRC (i.e., that she voted yes on the bankruptcy bill when, in fact, she didn't vote at all) is purposeful or just ignorance, but the damage is compounded when others pick it up and run with it. They confuse their opinion, in this case virulent hatred for HRC, for fact and, in some cases, reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I like David Brock and Media Matters, too. But riddle me this:
I *used to* like Hillary- a lot. Wouldn't it stand to reason that she must have done something between 2000 and 2006 to make me totally nonplussed on the idea of her being our nominee? I'm not saying there isn't a lot of irrational hatred of her from some (mostly right-wing) corners... but I don't "hate" her at all, I just don't think she should be our Presidential nominee next time around - and I do resent the folks, even here, who act like she (as a first term Senator from New York) is somehow automatically entitled to it.

Like I said, I don't know from the bankrupcy bill or these other fiddling around the edges things (although her pandering on flag burning was pretty bad, IMHO) my opposition to her can be summmed up in one word: Iraq.

I know I speak for many others here when I say that, as well.

And I would posit that our feelings about her currently are anything but 'irrational'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Riddle me this, Batman
Edited on Mon Apr-17-06 05:10 PM by AtomicKitten
Much of what I read about HRC at DU is in response to her vote on the IWR which is completely understandable and I too remain disgusted that Congress abdicated their constitutionally mandated role in the declaration of war. However, here's where I stand back a bit and notice that HRC is being dumped on. 23 Democratic Senators voted yes, yet 22 seem to get a pass (albeit reluctantly). I try to analyze why she seems to be the epicenter of the wrath of the left. IMO that is irrational as well as gratuitous, and it bothers me to read false propaganda perpetrated and perpetuated here at DU for the sole purpose of annihilating her political career.

I have stated before that I'm fully into letting Hill be the straw-woman for the right; I just resent the piling on by some on the left since the RW does such a good job of trashing her. Let her be the brunt of the RW teeth-gnashing and hand-wringing and especially their wild speculation. Why would anyone want to assist the RW in that crusade?

It is also clear to me that Al Gore breeches the divide here at DU, although there are some who will not vote for any Democrat. Al Gore has spoken out vehemently and loudly against this administration and all their felonious, immoral policies, and he doesn't have the stink of the IWR on him.

But you are right about the fact that many here at DU hate HRC, and some think anyone that stands in defense of her is a GOP operative/plant. The funny/ironic thing is that could be said of the vehement opposition against her here as well.

I have a lot of trouble with the attacks on Democrats here at DU; I'm talking about scorched earth rhetoric, not simply discussion. But I also realize I am a genuine progressive Democrat, not a progressive independent, and my voice is in the minority here; something I didn't expect considering the name of this site is Democratic Underground. My mistake.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. I think people are disappointed. Not just in Hillary, in good chunks of
Edited on Mon Apr-17-06 11:50 PM by impeachdubya
the party at large. To some extent she's become the symbol for irritation with what is perceived as the influence of the DLC and those who would continue to pull the party to the right. Some of that is unfair, some (IMHO) is not.

The IWR was a biggie; but I do actually think Hillary's problems with Iraq go beyond it. I think his vote for the IWR was one of the biggest problems behind Kerry's campaign, to be honest- and I was one of those people who engaged in calculations thinking he "could win" (and that his war hero history made him immune to the inevitable character attacks) while Howard Dean couldn't.

It would be impossible for me to communicate the extent to which I now believe I was wrong about that, and I feel Howard Dean would have been a far better nominee. It didn't matter who we nominated, they were going to throw the same basket of shit at him or her- and I personally have come to a place, now, where I want my nominee to speak from the heart with no moral ambiguity, (particularly on things like pre-emptive war based on clear lies) and be brave enough take positions which run counter to the "Conventional wisdom".

I agree, I think Al Gore is that guy this time around. And you're right, the stink of the IWR isn't on him, like it wasn't on Dean, perhaps only because neither of them were in a position to be cornered by the fucker when Karl Rove threw it down like a Gauntlet. But it's also worth noting that 23 Senators did NOT vote for the IWR, and when I think about who I want to lead our party in the coming years, coincidentally it is names like these, and NOT names like "Lieberman", or "Biden", or even, yes, "Clinton", that spring immediately to mind:

Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)


THOSE folks managed to figure it out in time ... so why not Hillary? I think it's a legitimate question. Beyond that, you're right. There's a lot of vitriol against Hillary, some is unfair, but I also think much of the irritation you see directed at her boosters comes, again, when folks act like she's got the thing sewn up already, and anyone who dares oppose the mighty Clinton juggernaut is just some far left wacko. (That's not just an expression. I have been told verbatim that since I am not ready to roll over and accept her as the nominee, I am part and parcel of the, quote, "loony left" :crazy:)

Lastly, DU is Democratic Underground-- the rules are pretty clear about supporting our party. If Hillary becomes the nominee, then attacks on her Presidential campaign by 'independents' or others will become a violation. 'Til then, I think it's part of the pre-primary process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 04:04 AM
Response to Original message
10. Hillary would have to move to left to be in the center.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NotGivingUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 07:29 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. Nobody that far to the right is getting my vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #10
24. Amen!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. AtomicKitten why don't you tell us
Why Hillary is a good candidate instead of crying all the time about how badly she's being treated.

If you knew anything about framing you'd accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 05:35 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. It is clear you don't understand the premise of the OP.
I don't think she is a good candidate, although you that despise her don't seem to be able to comprehend that not particularly nuanced distinction.

My OP is from Media Matters, a source most find credible, and my point is just as stated in the article, that her foes - and Brock is clear to include some progressives as well - distort information about her in order to deride and disparage her.

It would be easier talking to someone like you if you actually understood what we were talking about instead of reducing it to "Why Hillary is a good candidate instead of crying all the time about how badly she's being treated?" There is so much wrong with your premise, you clearly don't have a grasp of the conversation I initiated.

Let me break it down for you. I don't think Hillary is a good candidate and I object to the untruthful and unfair way she is portrayed by those seeking to destroy her. Those are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 04:06 AM
Response to Original message
11. I think our nation has a lot more serious concerns
than flag burning or Grand Theft Auto, personally.

If she's not part of the solution, she's part of the problem.

But, yeah...that "moving to the center" nonsense is just that. Nonsense. The whole damn center has been shifted so far right that I'M in left field these days.

Of course, I'm a populist centrist, which isn't really a contradiction in terms, though it may sound like it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sutz12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 05:05 AM
Response to Original message
12. Screw the center
We need a major lurch to the left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #12
26. We need a major lurch to the TRUTH
Edited on Tue Apr-18-06 12:02 AM by iconoclastNYC
Hillary "Queen of the Establishment" is no truth teller.

She's too busy trying to be the type of Democrat a Republican will tolerate to do what's right for the country or the party.

Hillary they'll never love you now matter how much you pander to them.

Pandering is not valued by the American people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 06:16 AM
Response to Original message
15. I always present a different side in these Hillary threads
It doesn't really matter if she's right, center or left, because, she's been so vilified, particularly in the red and purple states, that she won't win a national election, anyway. Democrats need to flip a couple of those purplish-red states to win a general election (and, it would bring the country together a bit more, to boot) and Hillary doesn't fit that bill.

I live in a once-blue-red-turning-purple state and I don't know a soul who would vote for her - Democratic, Republican or Independent. Granted, I don't know EVERYONE in my state, of course, and I'm sure polling data would indicate she's the most well-known Democrat (popularity contests are all the "who would you choose" polls are about this far out), but, when it comes down to brass tax, I believe she would lose my state by 20 percent or better.

Afterall, Republicans think she's the librul witch of the west, the Democrats think she's far too right and the middle-of-the-roaders think she's got the personality of a wet blanket.

I have no doubt the Media Matters article above is accurate and on-point, but it doesn't matter: she still won't win a national election because of and in spite of the media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrgorth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
18. She can't win a national election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
23. As a New Yorker
I must say that she's been a huge disapointment to our state.

I'm voting against her in the primary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoochpooch Donating Member (688 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. I agree,
her refusal to admit the Iraq war was a mistake is disappointing. I think it could really hurt her chances in the future. She's playing into GOP hands out of fear of being a "flip flopper". Come on Senator!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC