Hillary Clinton: first class pandering ass

[welshTerrier2]

some of you here believe winning is everything ... policies don't matter; getting elected does ... i take this to mean that pandering and bad policy is fine with you as long as it brings in the votes ... you don't focus on peace; you don't focus on death and destruction and suffering and hopelessness ... none of that matters if you don't win ...

there's no point arguing about policy or laying out a strategy when you're out of power ... of course, that's unless doing so leads to more votes ... instead of seeing the campaign as an ongoing struggle for the hearts and minds of the American people, everything becomes a struggle for election day ...

this is crap ... oh, it's not that winning elections isn't critically important ... of course it is ... but it's this detachment from fighting for the right policies and fighting for core values and deeply held beliefs that is so unappealing and unacceptable ... it's foolish ...

elections are the dessert ... the sustenance, however, i.e. the main course that is the foundation of what we need, is the communication to the American people of who we are as candidates and who we are as a party ... if we are "do whatever it takes to get elected" then we are empty shells ... we are political hacks ... we are soulless seekers of power ...

yes, power should be highly valued ... it allows for the ultimate implementation of our agenda ... but that agenda must stand for who we are and for what we believe even if some of it is NOT popular ... we are not cheerleaders competing for Miss Popularity in a Beauty Contest ... we are seeking power to govern based on who we are and on what we believe in ... when we are about tricking voters or marketing ourselves as products without souls, we cannot govern as we should even with electoral victories ...

the process of educating voters need not be done in a dry, lifeless, humorless way; it should be done, however, in a truthful way ...

below are two views of what's going on in the Middle East ... one view seeks peace; the other view seeks someone to blame and does nothing more than prolong thousands of years of hatred ... Hillary wants to be oh so tough and oh so militaristic and oh so loyal ... when you pick sides in a crisis like the Middle East rather than mapping a path to peace, you will only bring more suffering ... what Hillary has said could just as easily have been said by anyone's favorite neocon ... Hillary's looking for votes when she should be looking for solutions ...

here's an excerpt from Tikkun followed by one from Hillary ... which do you prefer?

source: http://www.tikkun.org/rabbi_lerner/news_item.2006-07-17.9426591429

The people of the Middle East are suffering again as militarists on all sides, and cheerleading journalists, send forth missiles, bombs and endless words of self-justification for yet another pointless round of violence between Israel and her neighbors. For those of us who care deeply about human suffering, this most recent episode in irrationality evokes tears of sadness, incredulity at the lack of empathy on all sides, anger at how little anyone seems to have learned from the past, and moments of despair as we once again see the religious and democratic ideals subordinated to the cynical realism of militarism.

Meanwhile, the partisans on each side, content to ignore the humanity of “the Other,” rush to assure their constituencies that the enemy is always to blame. Each such effort is pointless. We have a struggle that has been going on for over a hundred years. Who tosses the latest match into the tinder box matters little. What matters is how to repair the situation. The blame game only succeeds in diverting attention from that central issue.

and one from Hillary:

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/18/nyregion/18hillary.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"We will stand with Israel because Israel is standing for American values as well as Israeli ones."

"America will support Israel, in her efforts to send a message to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians, to the Iranians — to all who seek death and domination instead of life and freedom — that we will not permit this to happen and we will take whatever steps are necessary."

"It is a message that we want not only those in the Middle East to hear, but the world, because no nation is safe from these terrorist extremists," she said. "They do not believe in human rights, they do not believe in democracy. They are totalitarians, they are the new totalitarians of the 21st century."

"I want us … to imagine, if extremist terrorists were launching rocket attacks across the Mexican or Canadian border, would we stand by or would we defend America against these attacks from extremists?"

[Lindacooks]

1. You're missing the point.

Unless Democrats are in charge in Congress, we have no control over policy. If Democrats don't have the chairs of committees, none of our platform will ever be put into place.

The first step is to regain control of Congress this fall. Without that, nothing else will get done.

[Totally Committed]

4. Oops... wrong position.

Sorry. Self-delete.

TC

[Donna Zen]

6. If you believe that 06 is important

then we agree. Now, when are high-profile Dems like Hillary going to stop draining the money out of the over-stretched primary budgets. Many of those trips she makes are only for her coffers. Meanwhile, Rahm keeps bitching at Dean? $20 million and no opponent.

[LincolnMcGrath]

15. "$20 million and no opponent."

Good Point

[welshTerrier2]

7. well, someone is missing the point

funny, i think it's you who are ...

let's really dig down deep on your statement that we have "no control over policy" unless we are in charge of Congress ...

on the surface, taking the shallowest possible view, you're, of course, totally correct ... we can't pass legislation ... we can't even get legislation to the floor ... we have no subpoena power ... we can't call formal hearings ... doing OK so far? have i captured some of your arguments?

but that takes a view that our only business and the only progress we can make focuses on the next election ... it says that 100% of our energies should go to campaigning to win the next election ...

what it doesn't do is focus on why we're campaigning ... is it only to win or is it to win so we can achieve something once we have power??

i'll speculate on your response ... you will agree with the latter choice as long as i agree that we have to get that power first before we implement any agenda ... how'd i do?

but that is wrong ... the time to build the direction we want to take the country is not after we get power ... if we are elected on a vague agenda, it will be next to impossible to implement that agenda if we win ...

here's the key point: the battle for the hearts and minds of the American people and the battle for the direction of the country is not only determined in the voting booth ... we need to be about more than candidates and campaigns ... in fact, if that's all we're about, our candidates are "on their own" ... this is, they do not emerge from a foundation put in place by an ongoing campaign about educating the voters on our views ... the way the party currently runs campaigns, every candidate is completely on their own ... the republicans have a huge advantage before any individual candidate even begins to campaign ... we already know most of their issues and their beliefs ... our guys run as individuals; their guys run as part of a team ...

without developing the themes of who we are and working hard, even in non-election years, we dig ourselves into a huge hole ... we cannot succeed longterm absent a meaningful platform that can answer the question: "how will returning Democrats to power really make a difference?"

every year, tens of millions choose to not vote at all ... republicans vote; Democrats grow cynical when they see the parties as purely political and self-serving ... they want answers to give them hope ... they don't want to be pandered to with a bunch of slick campaign slogans that they don't believe ... each year, as more and more are turned off by campaign lies, democracy dies a little more and faith in government goes with it ... my view is that this, more than anything else, is what has hurt the Democratic Party over the last 25 years or so ...

campaign strategies are important to be sure but we need to understand that we are not powerless when we are out of power ... the dialog with the American people should never stop ... the party that voters believe has the right vision is the one that will have electoral success ... if we are seen as only wanting to win, our credibility is gone and our only chance will derive from hatred for the failed republican regime ... that might win us a round or two; it will not sustain us ...

[LWolf]

28. I don't miss the point.

I just don't think it's valid. If Democrats run on bad positions, and win on bad positions, we're supposed to think they're suddenly going to turn around and do the opposite of their campaign rhetoric once they're elected?

I don't find "winning" by taking objectional positions on issues to be a real "win," and as I've experienced, putting people into office and expecting them to change after they get there does not achieve the change I desire to see.

[Lindacooks]

30. That isn't the point either.

Unless we control the committees, repukes are going to continue destroying this country and the world. The first step is to win back control of Congress. It's foolish to start second-guessing how Dems are going to vote down the line. We need Congress back. If you can't see that and there are enough Dems like you, who vote 'purely', repukes will be in power for the forseeable future.

[Sammy Pepys]

2. Bingo

Thanks for this post!

[AJH032]

3. well, I actually agree with what she said

do I have permission to support her now?

[welshTerrier2]

8. a sin of omission

it's not what she said it's what she didn't say ...

where's her call for addressing the problems faced by all countries in the region???

where's her call for peace and calm?

where's her call for diplomacy?

where's her recognition that both Israeli citizens and Palestinians and Lebanese citizens are suffering with little or no hope in sight?

all she's pushing is macho militarism? is that what you support? you're going to teach a lesson to those terrorist bastards? nice ... that should bring peace to Israel ... how's that been working out for you???

if you read the whole Tikkun article linked to in the OP, you'll see some proposals for peace ... that's what i'm pushing for - how about you?

[AJH032]

10. A few points

First, why are you singling out Hillary? Most, if not all senators have itterated essentially the same sentiments as Mrs. Clinton, so why criticize her and not everyone else?

Second, Hillary did not say anything against the citizenry of any nation. She simply spoke against the extremists. Yeah, I'm kind of against them as well. Should she have? Yes, you're right, she probably should have voiced a concern and a call to shield civilians from military combat, but then again, so should everyone else.

Third, of course I support peace and diplomacy. But when you have people (on both sides!) who don't, that's not something you can just call for and get.

[welshTerrier2]

14. a few responses

singling out Hillary: well, she is among the very most prominent Democrats for starters ... i just read the article about her speech and my post was a reaction to it ... but, fair point ... i'll tell you what: show me others making the same points as Hillary and i'll be glad to call them pandering asses as well ... fair enough?

shielding civilians: you wrote "so should everyone else" ... you got that one right!!!

peace and diplomacy: you wrote "that's not something you can just call for and get" ... got that one right too ... but it's what real leaders should be doing ... it may take years but if our leaders are just banging war drums and cheerleading for Israel, the real cause of peace will never see the light of day ...

the US could be a major player in bringing peace to the ME ... instead, we get PNAC and then piled on top of that we get the kind of PNAC supporting rhetoric Hillary spewed out yesterday ... it would be a truly great thing if people with her prestige, an American with her prestige, focused on peace IN ADDITION to US ties to Israel ...

but nooooooo ... Hillary had her audience and was selling that red meat as fast as her butchers could slice it up ...

from now on, my deal is going to be that i'm going to blame the blamers ... those who don't understand that poverty and desperation and hopelessness are the enemies of peace and safety and national harmony are the ones most at fault ... this does NOT mean security is not critical ... this does NOT mean that Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself ... this does not mean that the US should not condemn attacks, from either side, against civilian targets ...

the damned hatred has gone on for thousands of years ... we live in a powerful, maybe still wealthy nation ... we have a real obligation to work for peace ... waving red meat around at rah-rah rallies is a truly sad way of throwing away our opportunities ... and many American Jews know that's the truth ...

[LWolf]

29. You don't need permission.

If you agree, you should support her.

Of course, since I emphatically disagree, I also don't need permission to reject her.

[Totally Committed]

5. As usual, a gret post.

Thanks for this.

TC

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Maybe, but what would YOU do if...

you were speaking before a group that was solidly behind Israel and made it clear it wanted no talk of peace?

A group which is is extremely significant in NY politics, with vast amounts of fundraising and other support?

Maybe, just maybe, she could have stuck a word in there about how tragic the whole situation is, but she didn't. Because the group she weas talking to didn't want to hear it.

Some call it pandering, some call it doing the will of your constituents. Either way, since when do we demonize politicians far acting like... politicians?

There is no ZOG and Jews don't run the country, or even NY, but there are some groups you just don't want to piss off. If yer gonna be stupid, might as well do it right and complain about the Pope on St. Patrick's day and all during the San Gennaro festival.

That's not the same thing, you say? The hell it isn't in NYC.

[welshTerrier2]

11. Tikkun

Rabbi Lerner is very well known both inside the Jewish community and outside of it as well ...

to speak of strong ties to Israel is fine ... to do so without commenting on bush's failure to work for peace in the ME is not fine ... to not differentiate between innocent civilians and Hezbollah and Hamas is also not fine ...

you seem to assume that helping Israel find peace would be politically unwise ... i couldn't disagree more ...

[TreasonousBastard]

13. She wasn't talking to Tikkun, and...

there are a lot of Israelis who won't talk to Tikkun, either.

Personally, I think Rabbi Lerner is a great guy, but he's about as influential as the Christian Peacemaker teams, and nobody wants to hear it when it's raining rockets.

It's Northern Ireland, Greek v Turkish Cyprus, Hatfields & McCoys... The fight's been going on so long they're not even sure what they're fighting about any more, but each side is asbsolutely, positively in the right and it's all the other side's fault.

How do we get them to stop? I wish I knew, but I don't. I just wish they would stop, but the only significant outside player is the US, and these idiots running the show are acting like they get off on the destruction. At any rate, they've already closed off pretty much any conduits for talking. When Rice shows up, who's she gonna talk to?

With Eliot Abrams as one of her chief advisors, watch the whole place blow up.

[Mass]

12. Read Henry Siegman's editorial. He is a former head of the AJC.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,,1821605,00.html

While he is supporting Israel, he certainly has a tone that is quite different from Hillary.

However, I will not blame Hillary alone. It is the Democratic Senators in general who do not seem to be able to say the smallest criticism about Israel.

[AtomicKitten]

16. Yes, it is the Democratic consensus position.

... including Russ Feingold.

Hillary is no better or worse than the rest of the Dems on this particular issue.

[welshTerrier2]

17. but is it?

i really have not read much from most of the Democrats on this issue ... here's the statement from Tikkun again:

The people of the Middle East are suffering again as militarists on all sides, and cheerleading journalists, send forth missiles, bombs and endless words of self-justification for yet another pointless round of violence between Israel and her neighbors. For those of us who care deeply about human suffering, this most recent episode in irrationality evokes tears of sadness, incredulity at the lack of empathy on all sides, anger at how little anyone seems to have learned from the past, and moments of despair as we once again see the religious and democratic ideals subordinated to the cynical realism of militarism.

Meanwhile, the partisans on each side, content to ignore the humanity of “the Other,” rush to assure their constituencies that the enemy is always to blame. Each such effort is pointless. We have a struggle that has been going on for over a hundred years. Who tosses the latest match into the tinder box matters little. What matters is how to repair the situation. The blame game only succeeds in diverting attention from that central issue.

do mainstream Democrats disagree with this position? do they argue that retaliation and escalation is the best strategy? do they argue that militarism is the only viable response?

or is it that all they do is express unconditional support for Israel whether the path chosen will lead to peace or not? expressing disdain for Hamas and Hezbollah and the killing of any civilians is perfectly appropriate; failing to call for a meaningful US foreign policy in the region and doing whatever is necessary to bring peace is not ...

where exactly do most Democrats stand on this important distinction?

[AtomicKitten]

20. in response

Russ Feingold's statement:
http://www.jsonline.com/watch/?watch=1&date=7/15/2006&id=8593

"Entire party rallies:"
http://njdc.typepad.com/njdcs_blog/2006/07/entire_party_ra.html

In response to the specifics of your question, the consensus is pretty much the "yeah Israel" position held across the board, focusing on the generic "Israel has the right to defend itself" mantra heard over and over again.

Of course they are not willing to say that retaliation and escalation is the best strategy nor do they argue that militarism is the only viable response.

But the end result is pretty much the same, right?

I have read the statements of the Dems and, yes, they do fall in lockstep on this issue so, no offense, but singling out HRC isn't even in the neighborhood of fair.

The exception to the above is Bill Clinton whose statement was reiterated by of all people Chris Matthews yesterday, calling for a ceasefire to save lives. Can't locate his exact quote but I can say he pretty much stands alone in not taking sides.

[welshTerrier2]

22. "singling out"

it was not my intent to single out HRC ... i had just read the Times article and posted this thread to comment on it ...

as i've said above, my criticism would freely apply to all who said and did as she did ... of course, that does not absolve her though ...

it is time for Democrats to wage peace in the ME ... you will hear no criticism from me about those who prefer strong ties to Israel ... but when the blame game starts, WHETHER JUSTIFIED OR NOT, i see escalation and death and suffering and that's all!!

in the end, it doesn't matter who was right and who was wrong when perpetual war is all that's offered ... as the song "For What It's Worth" says: "Nobody's right if everybody's wrong" ... it doesn't matter that they took our soldier and that's why our children and their children have bombs exploding all around them ...

blame, even when justified, just perpetuates the insanity ... and it's not that one side or the other shouldn't point out the wrongs; that's fine ... but all energy should go to prevent future death and suffering ... it's horrible and we, i.e. the US, have not been sincere and effective brokers for peace ... the Tikkun article linked in the OP lays out a pretty good strategy ... if it needs to be tweaked, that's fine with me ... tweak away ... but let's change our focus from militarism as a solution to building hope and infrastructure ... until we commit to that, we're just a bunch of finger-pointers signifying nothing ...

[AtomicKitten]

23. "Hillary Clinton: first class pandering ass" pretty much singles her out.

They are ALL idiots.

[AtomicKitten]

21. more info

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA) and House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (MD)(7/12/06):

"The House Democratic leadership strongly condemns the seizure of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah terrorists operating from Lebanon... Countries with influence over Hezbollah, particularly Syria and Iran, must move quickly to bring about the return of the soldiers and the end of rocket attacks on Israeli civilians from Hezbollah positions in Lebanon. The Palestinian Authority, and countries with influence over Hamas, must take similar action in Gaza.

"Those who finance, direct, or otherwise support acts like these need to understand that they have produced an extremely dangerous situation and that they are responsible for the consequences. Israel has an inherent right to defend itself, and the United States supports our ally."

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (NV) (7/12/06):

"Today's attacks by Hezbollah in Israeli territory were disgraceful and unwarranted acts of violence by a terrorist organization. Hezbollah must release the captured Israeli soldiers immediately. Hezbollah must be dismantled, and all nations have an obligation to cease any and all assistance to this terrorist organization. Israel has a right to live in peace and security, and the United States will stand by our ally in this difficult time."

U.S. Representative Gary Ackerman (NY), Ranking Democrat of the House of Representatives International Relations Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia (7/12/06):

"If the world is serious about peace in the Middle East, then Tehran and Damascus need to be held accountable for feeding, fostering, and occasionally unleashing, these rabid, blood-spattered killers. The money, weapons and political support Hezbollah and Hamas receive from Iran and Syria are not uncontrollable or natural phenomena and the international community must demand that they stop. Cross-border attacks on Israel should result in tough international sanctions on Syria and Iran, and the UN Security Council should immediately pursue this option...

"Israel has an absolute right to defend itself from this aggression and the Israeli Defense Forces has shown it knows how to do this."

U.S. Representative Alcee Hastings (FL), Co-Chair, House of Representatives Democratic Working Group on Israel (7/12/06):

"Hezbollah's actions against Israel are unconsciousable. Instead of working towards peace, Hezbollah has chosen to perpetuate the violence. Terrorist attacks such as these are cowardly and resolve nothing... Let us not be misled into believing these attacks arise from a single source. The terrorist organizations, Hezbollah and Hamas, are unquestionably sponsored and guided by the Iranian and Syrian governments... The Syrian and Iranian governments should be condemned along with the terrorist groups they harbor.

"Israel must have the right to defend herself. Like the United States and other sovereign nations, Israel is justified in reestablishing its deterrent posture."

U.S. Representative Gene Green (TX), Co-Chair, House of Representatives Democratic Working Group on Israel (7/13/06):

"Attempts by Hezbollah to open a second front after the kidnapping from Gaza are an attack on Israel's sovereignty. Hezbollah's actions require Israel to defend itself, and Israel's actions to take out terrorist camps along its borders to prevent this from happening again are warranted and justified.

"Israel has had to defend itself from terrorist organizations that have felt it shouldn't exist throughout its history, and must continue to do so following these killings and kidnappings to protect its people and free the soldiers taken by the terrorist group Hezbollah."

U.S. Representative Robert Wexler (FL), Ranking Democrat of the House of Representatives International Relations Subcommittee on Europe and Emerging Threats (7/12/06):

"I strongly condemn the horrific attack on Israel's northern border carried-out by Hezbollah terrorists based in Southern Lebanon. The murder and abduction of Israeli soldiers - in conjunction with the infiltration of Israeli military bases and rocket attacks on Northern Israel - are inexcusable acts of aggression that further destabilize the Middle East.

"These provocations stand in stark violation of international law, and I strongly support Israel's unequivocal right to self-defense."

more from HRC
"The unprovoked attacks on innocent Israelis and the killing and abduction of Israeli soldiers by the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah are dramatic escalations of violence against Israel. The United States must stand by Israel as she defends herself. No government can stand idly by when its citizens and soldiers are attacked and abducted and when terrorist groups make incursions into its territory. These events demonstrate that Hamas’s ascent to power in the Palestinian Authority, and Hezbollah’s participation in the Lebanese government, are dangerous for the stability, not only of Israel, but of the entire region. Hamas and Hezbollah must return the Israeli soldiers they abducted and cease their attacks against Israel.

Israel’s right to exist, and exist in safety, must never be put in question We must also continue to send a very clear message to Syria, Iran and others to join in condemning these attacks and to exercise their influence over Hamas and Hezbollah."

And Later, at the NY rally in support of Israel:

Senator Clinton, addressing a crowd of several thousand people, said the United States must show “solidarity and support” for Israel in the face of the “unwarranted, unprovoked” seizure of three Israeli soldiers by members of Hamas and Hezbollah, which she referred to as among “the new totalitarians of the 21st century.”

“We will stand with Israel because Israel is standing for American values as well as Israeli ones,” said Mrs. Clinton, who was joined by two dozen political and religious leaders on a stage along 42nd Street.

Mrs. Clinton, who is seeking re-election to the Senate and is considered a possible candidate for president in 2008, also compared Israel’s fierce response, which has included heavy bombardment of Lebanon, to a theoretical response by the United States if it faced attacks from neighboring countries.

“I want us here in New York to imagine, if extremist terrorists were launching rocket attacks across the Mexican or Canadian border, would we stand by or would we defend America against these attacks from extremists?” Mrs. Clinton said to roars of approval.

“We will support her efforts to send a message to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians, to the Iranians,” Mrs. Clinton said. “We will not permit this to happen and we will take whatever steps are necessary.”

“It is a message that we want not only those in the Middle East to hear, but the world, because no nation is safe from these terrorist extremists,” she said. “They do not believe in human rights, they do not believe in democracy. They are totalitarians, they are the new totalitarians of the 21st century.”

[welshTerrier2]

24. neocons?

are you able to differentiate between these statements and the war hawk neocons?

sounds very PNAC'y (it's a word - i looked it up) to me ...

these clowns are handing bush a casus belli to attack Iran and Syria ... instead of beating war the drums like this, they need to be calling for more US involvement, more UN involvement, more foreign aid for the Palestinians and cautioning about the absolute insanity that a war with Syria and Iran will cause ...

i am not a pacifist ... the words in these quotes, however, fail to even set peace as a goal ... bush will enjoy parroting them back to America when he unilaterally invades the next "Iraq" ...

[AtomicKitten]

25. you've got no argument from me

I've already stated they are ALL idiots.

[autorank]

18. welShTerrier2 (got it right), You present a sad contrast - human v bot

I read the Hillary quote form the Times. If there were not so much death involved, here statement is almost theater of the absurd comedy. What does she have on the line? Is she some great warrior, a diplomat who knows the truth of how the world works. It's worse than politics, it's rediculous...I can't imagine hearing her and not spitting out my coffee like Carson did or Letterman does on occasion.

Thanks for the Tikun link. That's serious thinking. K&R


On edit: add "2"

[welshTerrier2]

19. nice "S"

mucho appreciato!!!

of course, you still owe me a "2" :hi:

[autorank]

26. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2729238&mesg_id=2729536
:rofl:

[daydreamer]

27. I am a Hillary fan. Now I am disappointed and even a little disgusted

with her.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

31. Locking.

This is flamebait.