If Hillary had voted no to the IWR, would you be supporting her for president?

[Herman Munster]

I'm trying to understand the Hillary hate here.

[roody]

1. possibly

[Wwagsthedog]

3. Another possibly here. nt

[caledesi]

84. Another possiblilty for me. If she says it was a mistake based on

the lies they were told, hey she is forgiven.

[pennylane100]

14. Maybe

but we should also remember her support of the flag burning amendment.

I thought for a while she was going over to the dark side, but she seems to be coming back a bit. However I will not support her in the primary if there is a candidate who did not vote for the war running against her. I think that means right now I am probably supporting Dennis Kuchinich (sp). And if he is the only antiwar candidate, so be it.

[MH1]

2. No.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2921617

[wakeme2008]

7. So true,,, she has a lot of negatives in addition to the War Vote

:thumbsdown:

[MH1]

9. The one I linked to was the clincher for me.

Evidence of total bankruptcy of character.

I will not support her in the primary and hope to God she does not get the nomination.

Edit to add: I was telling people to hold their fire on her until that day. That really, really did it for me.

[marmar]

4. I'm not a Sen. Clinton supporter, but I don't "hate" her by any means....

And if she's the 2008 nominee, I'll shout and do backflips to help get her elected.
But in answer to your question, the thing that bugs me most about Hillary is that she already seems to be catching that "be-everything-to-everybody" triangulation disease that afflicts Democratic presidential candidates before every election. It fails every time.

[cyclezealot]

5. It would have helped.

I say Hilary hate is a little too strong. IWR a big issue. Also, she is a little too supportive of an ever bigger military budget. Seems her vote on Bankruptacy bill was right. Got to check that out for sure. Dont like her solutions to our health care crisis.

[fujiyama]

49. She didn't vote for the recent bill

since Bill was recovering from surgery.

But she did vote for a slightly different version several years ago (a bill which was vetoed by her husband).

I have little reason to believe she would have voted against the recent bankruptcy bill as well.

[cyclezealot]

53. Trying to understand roll call votes.

A bill 256 was voted on in March 2005. I had thought bankruptacy reform occured before 2005? But, Hilary voted nay on the original bill . On the amended bill 256, she did not vote. The March 8 original bill seemed to be a positive vote? She voted with Boxer that day. Boxer always my guide.
If I can find out she voted against Bush's bankruptacy reform and torte reform , I will think better of her. Those are key votes to this progressive thinker.

[earthside]

6. No.

In a nation of 300 million people, we certainly have more potential 'leaders' than can be found in just two families.

This country was meant to be a democratic republic ... not have 'elected' an monachy.

[William769]

36. But if the people vote for her and she wins, it's not a monarchy

Your post makes no sense.

[Radical Activist]

8. Probably not.

I'd like a progressive with conviction who has a chance of winning. I don't think Hillary is any of those things. However, her voting for the Iraq war is a big part of why I think of her that way.

[Cleita]

10. Probably, but she did vote for it. Can't put that toothpast back in

the tube.

[Demobrat]

11. Possibly.

But then you may as well ask if I would support her if she were somebody else.

[IndianaGreen]

12. Yes

Had Hillary raised doubts about Bush's WMD claims, as the British press had done, and had she taken a leading role in calling for diplomacy rather than war, and she had voted against IWR, she would be riding a wave of popularity all the way to the White House.

She chose undue caution, not just on IWR, but on just about everything that mattered such as PATRIOT and habeas corpus. Promoting her to the White House sends the wrong message to our children that core values don't matter.

[PADemD]

17. Ditto

[bread_and_roses]

18. Well said, Indiana

though the totality of your post illustrates why my subject line answer would be "No" even without the IRW vote. And enough of dynasties as well.

[talk hard]

67. funniest post in a long time

everybody knows you hate the Clintons.

Kinda hypocritical post saying you'd support her if not for that vote when you said you hate her for a thousand other things.

thanks 4 the laugh

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. Probably not,

because my dislike of her comes from her time as First Lady here in Arkansas, and has to do with how she treated a friend of mine and me and the issue of holistic health.

[phillysuse]

15. Hillary couldn't have voted no on the IWR

Hillary could not have voted no on the IWR.
She wouldn't be Hillary.
She needed to triangulate and cover all the bases.
She is trying to please everyone and pleases no one.

[hughee99]

131. Exactly, it's not necessarily the IWR vote itself...

though that certainly is a strike in my book. If I believe that a candidate was genuinely fooled, is genuinely remorseful about that vote, and is now doing something about it, I could probably forgive the vote itself. IMHO, Hillary voted for this to cover her bases, and I personally don't trust her to look after our interests when what is best for the country and what may be best for her, politically, come into conflict. I certainly wouldn't say I hate her, I just don't trust her.

[MrSlayer]

16. No.

It wouldn't change the fact that she just blows in the political winds and stands for nothing.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. If She Hadn't Voted For The IWR, And...

and if she hadn't voted for both "Patriot" acts,
and if she hadn't voted for the first of the two awful bankruptcy bills (and missed the vote for the second one),
and if she hadn't been the sole sponsor of a bill to criminalize flag burning,
and if she hadn't fled from the important business of censuring Bush,
and if she hadn't proposed increasing the size of the military (by 100,000 troops, I believe)
and if she hadn't (probably) launched a brutal attack-by-proxy on Howard Dean,
and if she hadn't called on Kerry to apologize for his botched joke,
and so forth...

I'd certainly consider her for President.

[TexasProgresive]

20. I don't hate Ms. Clinton but she is the pukes' candidate of choice

to run against. I do not believe she can win. I don't think it has to do with her IWR vote but that she is Hilary Clinton.

[MGD]

34. I think she'll have a tougher time winning the primary election than the general election myself.

Senators in general have a tougher time than non-senators because it's all too easy to throw votes in someone's face. I think if she could escape from that albatross, she could run on her true strengths and win (success, hard work, competence, experience, proven reliability, etc). I think if you put her resume next to any resume the Republicans care to go with in 2008, she'll be looking better qualified without question. Frankly, I think the same thing hold true for just about any other Democrat that cares to stick their resume beside hers too.

[havocmom]

21. No

There is no way she would take the election, so don't even try to run her.

[sandnsea]

22. No.

I want health care for all, trade that works for human beings and the environment, truly good education, a real safety net, a new foreign policy, a committment to bringing the world together. Hillary can't do that because she can't see any other way except free market and protecting oil and fearing the corporatists.

Her vote on the IWR is irrelevant to me, although her warhawk attitude, that has hurt the Democratic Party and the country for so long, nauseates me too.

[whalerider55]

23. no, because...

1980-1984 Bush Vice President
1984-1988 Bush Vice President
1988-1992- Bush President
1992-1996 Clinton President
1996-2000 Clinton President
2000-2004 Bush President
2004-2008 Bush President

Possibly:
2008-2012 Clinton President
or
2008-2012 Jeb Bush Vice President

Does anyone else think there may be a pattern here that could be problematic?

whalerider 55

[morningglory]

24. She proposed a flag-burning ban. That is one of the bs-type wedge

issues that the repugs use to appeal to their most ignorant base. I lost all respect for her after that.

[MGD]

35. Her constituency didn't seem to mind and that's who she was elected to represent.

You aren't part of her constituency are you?

[IndianaGreen]

38. The more reason why New Yorkers should keep her in the Senate

We sure as hell don't want to promote a woman that enabled the deaths of nearly 3,000 GIs and caused the deaths and displacement of millions of Iraqis, particularly when she still remains unrepentant about her prowar votes.

[MGD]

44. A.) I was referring to the flag burning amendment. B.) Lots of Dems voted for the IWR

It was the right thing to do at the time. It isn't their fault that it turned out the way it did and it isn't right to throw it in their faces just because it is politically expedient to do so now. You and many others who condemn her for this are sounding exceedingly single issue which just doesn't seem very useful to me. No candidate is going to make everybody happy. The question must not be, "which candidate best embodies my single issue", but rather, "which candidate is best qualified to unfuck America"? That's Hillary IMO and that is the only reason that she has my support at this time.

[Hippo_Tron]

50. Seemed like the right thing to do? Oh boy do you have that wrong

Robert Byrd went on the Senate floor and said that this is the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution all over again. Coming from a man that was in the Senate to vote for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

Wes Clark was testifying before congress telling them that while Iraq was a threat they should not give the President a blank check to go to war.

Jim Webb was writing about how despite Bush's rhetoric, the Iraqis wouldn't be greeting us as liberators and that our troops would be terrorist targets.

The RIGHT thing to do at the time, given the evidence, would've been to pass a resolution stating that the President should go to the United Nations and build an international coalition committed to disarming Iraq. Then if military action was required he could've come back to the congress to get approval for war.

Senator Clinton and all of the other spineless presidential hopefuls as well as those who just wanted to get re-elected didn't want to be seen as letting France control our foreign policy. 23 Senators, some with nothing to lose, some with everything to lose like Paul Wellstone didn't care what the GOP would say about them and did the RIGHT thing.

Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy have both stated that voting NAY on the IWR was the best vote they ever cast. And coming from Ted Kennedy who has been in the Senate since 1963, that's saying a lot.

The IWR wasn't just a vote, it was the one opportunity that members of congress had to question Bush's absolute authority before we were stuck in Iraq and they failed miserably.

[AtomicKitten]

77. indeed

Senator Clinton and all of the other spineless presidential hopefuls as well as those who just wanted to get re-elected didn't want to be seen as letting France control our foreign policy. 23 Senators, some with nothing to lose, some with everything to lose like Paul Wellstone didn't care what the GOP would say about them and did the RIGHT thing.

[tabasco]

59. Right thing to do? Please explain?

Many Democrats, like both of my senators, were wise enough and courageous enough to vote "no" on the IWR. That's the kind of person I want running the country, not one who showed cowardice in the face of the warmongering asshole republicans.

Right thing to do. Uh-huh. Explain that to the dead.

[Imagevision]

25. Ever since the Bill & Poppy togetherness of late, I don't trust the Clintons anymore, and

Bill did have the chance to nail OBL. and blew it!

[KAT119]

26. yes!!

[aquart]

27. Possibly, too.

[longship]

28. I am supporting nobody.

First, it's just too damned early. Hillary hasn't even announced her candidacy yet, and if she's smart won't do so until after summer, 2007.

Second, if Hillary had voted "No" on IWR that would be one thing in her favor. However, what's really inexcusable is not that she voted "Yes"--many Dems did so as well. It's that her current position on Iraq is 180 degrees out of wack with the vast majority of citizens. This is unconscionable and inexcusable.

That's the main reason why I cannot and will not support Hillary Clinton for President. I cannot see this changing. She'd have to make a 180 degree change in her position on Iraq for that to happen. I just don't see that happening.

Hell! As long as she maintains her current stand I don't know if I could even vote for her for President if she gets nominated. It would be a tough call for me.

No matter. I'd put money on the prospects that by this time next year Hillary Clinton will no longer be perceived as a candidate.

[whalerider55]

29. I also a little worried that nobody will run in 2008.

still, if they were the only candidate, I guess I'd have to support them too.

whalerider55

[Ninja Jordan]

30. No, her voice is terrible

She has few redeeming qualities

[longship]

54. Ad hominems are not an appropriate opposition strategy.

Either oppose her for her issue positions, or be quiet.

Her voice, her face, her figure, and none of the rest of that stuff is an appropriate argument for not supporting her in 2008, if she chooses to enter the campaign, which she hasn't.

Please give the ad hominems a rest, my friend.

[Ninja Jordan]

73. I'm not your friend.

And I have just as much right as anyone to say WHY I wouldn't be inclined to support a certain candidate. Buzz off.

[longship]

78. This is not surprising.

That the same person who would attack a person with such a classic ad hominem would respond to a calling down on that account with such a ridiculous justification. I am not for Hillary, however my opposition is based on well-reasoned and well thought out political positions, not silly ad hominems.

Alerting your post.

BTW, I am now eminently aware of the fact that you are not very many people's friend.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[Ninja Jordan]

82. Alerting my post for what?

A critique of a national politician's vocal style? Doth thou protest too much?

[oasis]

95. Obama's big ears have always been a problem for me.

:eyes:

[Ninja Jordan]

113. Right, because my criticism of Hillary's vocal style is tantamount to a veiled racist pejorative!

Try again.

[oasis]

126. John Edwards' hair, Gore's pot belly and Teresa Heinz Kerry's accent will

turn off many voters. You and I have plenty company in our shallow world.:grouphug:

[featherman]

31. I would have more respect for her than I do but I want to WIN and she is not

the candidate I think who can do that. Her negatives among DEM-leaning older voters especially are too much to overcome. Just MHO

[MGD]

32. Yes, but probably with not as much enthusiasm.

She voted correctly. The current situation is not her fault.

[Dr Fate]

89. WRONG. She did NOT "vote correctly." She voted "yes" instead of "NO."

n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

33. hate?

It is hard to have a discussion when you start out with inflammatory nonsense like "the Hillary hate here". If some of us disagree with the political positions held by a particular candidate, that is not hate, it is a politicial disagreement.

As to your other question, had Clinton voted against the IWR she would not be Clinton.

[William769]

37. Anyone who has been around DU even for a little while

Knows it's hate. Lets call it what it is no sugar coating please to make a certain group here look benevolent.

ON EDIT: your last sentence says it all.

[IndianaGreen]

40. It is callousness to remain unconcerned about the millions of Iraqis

that have been killed, wounded, or displaced on account of a cowardly vote for war, a vote for which Hillary remains unrepentant.

[MGD]

48. Saddam Hussein managed to make the trains run on time and there's something to be said for that

but I'm just as glad to see him awaiting his noose never-the-less. And I don't think you can entirely blame Hillary or any other congressperson who voted yea on the IWR for the problems that currently plague the Iraqi people. There were plenty of terrorists who fomented the civil war that accounts for most of the violence today and there were plenty of Iraqis who caved into their petty hatreds and dragged their own country down into this mess.

[Warren Stupidity]

64. So it is the Iraqis fault that we broke their nation.

Great news then as if we have no responsibility for the mess we created then the (ir)rational of the course stayers: we broke it so we have to continue staying there creating more damage, does not apply and we can depart tomorrow and leave the Iraqis, and the mess they are responsible for, to themselves.

[Warren Stupidity]

63. Once again it is not hate.

And when you characterize our differences with Clinton as hate, you are not looking for discourse you are looking for a fight. I disagree with Clinton on her policies and tactics. I have no particular feelings toward her as a person, one way or another. I do not hate Clinton. Of course I cannot speak for others, however most of the what I have seen here are complaints from booster's of Senator Clinton's political ambitions that the opposition ro her here is irrational and emotional, and I reject that complaint.

My last sentence is a truism: as she voted for the IWR she would have had to be somebody else to have voted against it. More to the point, her vote was typical of her political tactics, which I heartily disagree with, of never taking risks on issues. I assume that she knew, as anyone paying the slightest attention knew, that the justifications for starting a war against Iraq coming from the white house were total bullshit, that there was in fact no just cause for war. Clinton, as did many other Democrats including Kerry of course, made the decision that their careers would be advanced by voting for an immoral war, and that their careers would be impaired by voting against it. By that decision and that act they participated in a war crime.

I supported Kerry in the presidential campaign despite his IWR vote and I will support Clinton if unfortunately she is our candidate, despite her IWR vote. What I cannot forgive either of them is that they made that decision.

Kerry, as have several other pro-IWR voters, renounced and apologized for his vote. Clinton has yet to take this step unambiguously. This I believe exhibits a flawed personality trait, one best seen in our current sitting president, of being unwilling or unable to admit one's mistakes. I do not think the nation needs another leader as flawed in this respect as our current president.

[Digit]

39. No

[silverojo]

41. Hillary is part of the DLC

Her vote on the war was just one of many sins. The Clintons and Carville are against Howard Dean and the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party". I want a real Democrat, not someone who'll just pander to the left or the right because she thinks it'll get her more votes.

[illinoisprogressive]

42. Absolutly not

It's more than the war. She panders so blantanly like with the video game thing and now, hiring a faith advisor. Please. She is the queen of the DLC and loves free trade. She cannot give a speech to save her life and she is the ultimate Washinton insider.
The clinton machine wants to own the party
She is not a people person who would be comfortable getting in with the 'little people'
She has no message. Why does she want to run other than for power for Hillary. She has no reason to run.
Last and not least: She is a dynasty. the bush clinton monarchy.
I could go on but, I think I make the point.
Oh, I forgot what was posted above about Dean. Yeah, the failed coup against Dean. We know that has to do with taking power of the party for her cabal and so she can use it to get the presidency. No. the party is a free party for all and not for the previldged circle. It is a party for us to put in who we want and not for the clintons to control

[Imagevision]

87. NO!

[jwirr]

43. I would still hesitate. To begin with her campaign would end up

rehashing all the bull the pugs have dragged them through before and while people are fed up with the crimes of the *ss administration I don't think they have forgotten our problems. Then I think that Hillary and Bill are centrists who lean too far right on some of the social issues. I just do not trust them. I loved them when he was running but things like welfare reform and NAFTA have made me think twice. I am supporting Gore and Edwards at this point.

[MGD]

45. I don't think Gore is going to run though. If he does, I'll support him

but if he doesn't, I'll wash my hands of him forever.

[jwirr]

46. I will not distrust his decision not to run. I will just expect whoever

wins to give him the best post in the cabinet so he can use his knowledge from inside the government using its power to further his plans. Either way he will be working for what I want.

I am old enough to know that sometimes the loser in a political race actually is more influential than the winner.

[Hardrada]

47. We already have, thank God, signs on farm and other roadside

buildings here in Iowa, signs that proclaim: HILARY, STAY, HOME!!

[Hippo_Tron]

51. I'll be the first here to say Yes

I dislike Senator Clinton for a lot of reasons but most of them come back to the fact that she's never been a leader in opposing the Iraq War, which is my number one issue.

Here's an example. I could live with her tirades against video games, which I disagree with, if she were also taking an equally hard stance about the Iraq War. The fact that she talks about video games more than Iraq shows me that either she has no priorities or she's more into pandering than talking about issues that actually matter.

Ted Kennedy said that voting against the IWR was the best vote he's cast in his career and considering he's been in the Senate since 1963, that's saying something. I think the IWR was the most important vote in decades and despite the fact that it's one vote, I think it was a huge test for our legislators of whether they will do the right thing or the easy thing.

[mloutre]

52. Even compared to other professional pols, Hillary is a cold calculating self-centered b-word.

Other than that, of course, she's fine.

Just my $.02, YMMV.

[ima_sinnic]

55. that is such an imaginary question I can't even answer it

If she had voted against IWR, she wouldn't be Hillary, she would be a different, perhaps PRINCIPLED person. But like a poster reminds us way upthread, HRC joined the faux outraged chorus who twisted Kerry's recent misspeak and therefore demonstrated once again that she has no principles whatsoever, she will say and do whatever she thinks will "win votes," not what could benefit We The People. She could have used that occasion to clarify and reinforce Kerry's point that we are being led by an ignoramus off the edge of a cliff--but no, she manipulated it to "help" herself.
F**K HRC. I don't like her at all and will NOT vote for her. Having one person already as "president" who thinks it's all about him is one too many.

[PresidentObama]

56. No.

It goes beyond her IWR vote.

[Ken Burch]

57. I don't HATE HRC, and yes, it would help if she'd been on the good side on the war from the start.

I'll support her if she's nominated.

The biggest stumbling blocks for me are the idea that she'd be a return to the Nineties(we will NEVER have a good reason to nominate another DLC candidate)and that her supporters seem to think that she has a divine right to the nomination and that they are above having to make an actual case for nominating her.

I think this is more a case of some of the arrogant jerks who support the senator than the senator herself.

[rox63]

58. No.

Not only do I prefer another candidate to HRC, I prefer several other possible candidates to her. It's not the IWR vote that I begrudge her. Lots of good Dems voted for it, even though most have since publicly expressed regret over that vote. The vote itself was set up by the * admin as a trap, on the eve of an important election. It was the only way a lot of Dems saw to insert the UN and the weapons inspectors into Iraq. They thought that * would simply go to war with no oversight unless they approved the IWR.

What bothers me most about HRC is the constant triangulation on every single issue, the constant pandering to her own (and Bill's) personal ambition. Does anyone here really think she would have run for the Senate if she had no intention of using it as a stepping stone to the White House?

If HRC is the Dem nominee in 2008, I will vote for her. This country can't take another rethug administration after the damage that * has done. But I won't vote for her in the primary, no way, no how.

[tabasco]

60. Sure, and when we criticize actions of the American government,

we hate America too. Stupid premise and a stupid question.

[Cameron27]

61. I don't hate her and

yes, I could support her if she'd voted no to the IWR.

[durtee librul]

62. I don't care for her for the simple reason

she waffled when everyone else did with Joe Leeberlite. If she hasn't got the courage of her convictions, then she can't be president. Period. You don't do things just because 'everyone else is.' We aren't a society of lemmings and the last time I looked and voted, I didn't vote for someone who would fall in line so as to not make waves.

To be the Prez in my book, a person has to be willing to make uncomfortable decisions even if it means going against your closest advisors and using your own God given common sense.

Hillary is way too political and I really don't feel in my heart she has anyone's best interest at heart other than her own personal agenda whatever that may be.

[Pithy Cherub]

65. No

She would have had a better shot if she wasn't triangulating and spoke up about principle to her DLC buddies, including Holy Joe. The vote for the IWR was one of political expedience and was the final straw. And I was fine with her hubby for the most part. Voted for him twice.

[gulliver]

66. No. Two things disqualify her.

1. She is married to Bill Clinton. That makes her a legacy -- like Bush. I am against all legacies. They create too much of an opportunity for the brain dead to vote (for or against) on name recognition and family ties alone. The real issues disappear in a sea of noise.

2. Too much baggage. The other side hates her. Our side (rather unfairly and knee-jerkingly) thinks she is a "war supporter." I want someone who is somewhat popular with the other side, not unlike Bill Clinton.

Neither of these disqualifications is fair to Hillary. That's too bad. She's a big girl. It's not fair to the country to be divided over Hillary's marriage and personality. Times are too serious.

Although I consider her candidacy grotesque, I now hope she runs. I expect her to be trounced early or to uncover some side of her character that makes her worthy of the office -- a side I have not seen. Either way we Dems get her out of our system. If she didn't run, the media would have a paragraph on a "possible surprise Clinton candidacy" in every news piece throughout 2007.

Finally, let's not ignore your gratuitous abuse of the term "hate" here. It's Rovian, IMO. I'll bet very few people who are against a Hillary candidacy "hate" Hillary. Misusing the word "hate" waters it down. Then there is no word to use for real hate.

[SaveElmer]

107. Your first point...

1. She is married to Bill Clinton. That makes her a legacy -- like Bush. I am against all legacies. They create too much of an opportunity for the brain dead to vote (for or against) on name recognition and family ties alone. The real issues disappear in a sea of noise

Would you have voted against Franklin Roosevelt and Bobby Kennedy?

[gulliver]

116. Good question.

If it meant no more Dubyas I would indeed do without FDRs and RFKs. I would do without Marcus Aurelius to avoid Caligula and Nero.

We are in the real world, however, so I don't get to play idealist with my vote -- only with my opinion. While I am completely against legacies on principle, the fact that others don't share that principle means I have to compromise. I am forced to vote for a dynastic candidate simply because the inherent illogic and unfairness of it is so ingrained in our civilization that it is considered reasonable. It isn't reasonable, but it is unavoidable.

Let's look at FDR and RFK (and assume for the sake of argument that RFK would have been elected). I can't argue there was a better candidate than FDR or RFK, because I don't know what candidates were available. Name recognition, money, aristocracy, to say nothing of racism, sexism, unreliable media, etc., likely kept better candidates from even making it to square one. We may never know if there was a stronger, more intelligent, wiser leader for our country in FDR's time.

I assume you don't imply that the specific existence of an FDR or RFK generally justifies dynastic politics or even HRC's candidacy. I don't think that holds water. I think that Bush and HRC demonstrate the downside of dynasty. It "spurns patient merit." It raises what we can all now clearly see is the danger of presidency by a continuing enterprise. In HRC's case, it is especially pernicious because it follows a particularly clear-cut case of dynastic catastrophe. In so doing, it implicitly validates the error that is George W. Bush.

[SaveElmer]

120. Personally...I don't care who the candidate is related too...

If they are the best for the job IMO I will support them. Because the American people were stupid enough to elect W twice based on his name does not make HRC a less compelling candidate in my book.

And I will not disqualify her simply because she was married to a previous President.

I could take the obverse of your argument and say with equal validity, what candidates have we disqualified simply because they are related to a recent President.

I understand and respect your opinion however!

[gulliver]

124. Fair enough!

Back at ya on understanding and respecting your opinion!

[talk hard]

68. no I wouldn't

[Redneck Socialist]

69. No n/t

[beachmom]

70. Unlike some of the other Democrats, I can't imagine Hillary NOT

voting for the IWR. She is politically calculating and seems to have no moral core. MH referenced above her betrayal of Kerry one week before a very important congressional election, endorsing Karl Rove's tactics. That was really unprecedented, but I guess isn't a surprise. She also hates us, by the way, unless we're defending her husband. Go over to dailykos and see how her name is like poison. I suppose that is borne of her support for the Iraq War long after others had realized their error. But there's something else going on, too. The fact that every time she goes to vote, I'm holding my breath wondering if she'll do the right thing or will it be another politically calculated vote. She's been labeled a liberal by the Right. So why the hell not BE a liberal? I think her calculations are wrong. She will not be our nominee.

[talk hard]

71. she didn't betray Kerry

Any Democrat up for re-election had the right to do whatever it took to recover from Kerry's flub. Your view of this is really biased. He is just as guilty about the vote for the Iraq war as her. I dont' think saying sorry matters to the people that died. It is Kerry that wont be the nominee.

[IndianaGreen]

74. Hillary knew Kerry flubbed a joke, yet she made it sound that Kerry attacked the troops

She validated the rightwing attack on Kerry by repeating the smear that Kerry had called the troops stupid.

That's not all!

Hillary publicly disassociated herself from John Murtha's call for troop withdrawal, going to the extreme of repeating the White House lie that we are not losing the war in Iraq.

[talk hard]

76. what a surprise that you would say that

You don't know shit about what she or anybody else knows. Kerry screwed up, 99.9% of people think that, and you are just using it to trash people you don't like. I don't think I've ever read an opinion by you that isn't using something to slam your favorite targets. And Im sorry but anybody that voted for the war is a jerk. Including Kerry and Hillary.

[mtnsnake]

90. Good post!

You don't know shit about what she or anybody else knows. Kerry screwed up, 99.9% of people think that, and you are just using it to trash people you don't like. I don't think I've ever read an opinion by you that isn't using something to slam your favorite targets.

Amazing, isn't it, just how far some of these people go with their out-of-text propaganda and spin, all geared to come off as fact when it is anything but that. I guess they believe that the more they repeat the garbage, the more that people will start believing it. Unfortunately, that's what happens to some extent. The rumor mill never ceases to spin and do damage.

[Dr Fate]

92. WRONG-" 99.9% of people" did NOT believe the media/Hillary spin on Kerry's comments...

...in reality, most non-freepers and non-FOX news viewers shrugged and wondered what it was they were supposed to be so upset about.

Then they all went out and voted for and elected the candidates that Kerry stumped for.

[Dr Fate]

91. WRONG. Most NORMAL people shrugged at what Kerry said...

...the only people who were upset were RW Radio, FOX news, freepers and those would-be opportunists who apparently agree or pretend to agree with all of them on that fake "issue"- like Hillary & Ford.

NORMAL people either knew it was flubbed joke or even agreed with the percieved suggestion that poor kids with bad or mediocre grades often use the military as a career option.

IG is right this time- Hillary decided to go with FAKE media inspired perceptions instead of going with the facts- just like so many did with their War votes.

[MH1]

123. Bob Casey and Joe Sestak - both in tighter races than Hillary - backed Kerry.

Wes Clark did the safe thing and first refused to comment before he had a chance to see the quote in context. Then he came out swinging that this was all spin by the right-wing to avoid talking about the REAL issues. He backed Kerry without effusively promoting him, as Sestak and Casey did. I think his statement could have been stronger but he earned a lot of respect from me for how he handled this. In comparison to Hillary, who caved like a wet rag to the right-wing spin and jumped to push Kerry (and the Dem party) under the bus.

[Hippo_Tron]

80. Oh please, Hillary could've killed a baby on TV and gotten re-elected in '06

I'll buy that they needed to get elected argument for someone in a tight race in a red state like Harold Ford, but Hillary Clinton could have not left her house to campaign and gotten re-elected to the Senate.

[AtomicKitten]

99. I don't think that was the claim.

I think starting with a bias for or against a politician tends to sway one's POV; in other words, not liking Hillary makes it easier for people to be harsher in their criticism of her as compared to others using the same criteria.

I believe the statement was that anyone up for re-election had a right to do whatever it took to put to rest the misstatement that caused a blip in focus during an election. I agree with that across the board.

[Hippo_Tron]

106. I don't agree with the statement in Hillary's case because she had a safe seat

In Harold Ford's case I could understand it. Hillary didn't have to do whatever it took to put to rest the misstatement because it wouldn't have effected her re-election.

[AtomicKitten]

108. IMO

A subjective analysis does not mitigate what is fair and what is not.

[mtnsnake]

93. Damn right she didn't

What she did was help the Party at a crucial time just before the election with some nifty damage control. Sure, the Hillary haters on DU didn't like what she said. No one would expect them to. BTW, it wasn't just Hillary who thought Kerry's flub was out of line. Almost all of the mainstream Democrats in America thought it waranted damage control, and that's why the rest of the Party put a muzzle on Kerry for the remaining days of the election.

[Dr Fate]

94. "mainstream Democrats in America thought it waranted damage control"

So-called "Mainstream Democrats in America" also thought we should all support Bush's war, no matter what the facts said.

Actually, mainstream Americans shrugged at Kerry's comments.

Hillary and these so-called "mainstream Democrats" will apparently always go with RW media inspired false information over the actual facts.

You are right that top DEMS who are always frightened of their own shadows when it comes to being blunt about defense issues thought it warranted damage control in a way that verified RW media lies instead of actual facts...

But that does not mean that regular old people thought it did too.
The average American voter regarded the comments with a shrug and wondered what Hillary and the media were so bent out of shape about.

If it was as bad as the apparent supporters of RW media lies & distortions said it was- the media would have kept it a top topic all the way up to the election, even with Kerry off the campaign trail.

[AtomicKitten]

98. I consider Kerry's misstatement on level of

of the Dukakis photo that had the MSM all atwitter. On the surface, it was no big deal; in an election, it was poison. I think Kerry's supporters are trying to defend it on the merits of the former when it's impact was, in fact, the latter. Maybe it's not fair, but it is what it is.

[Dr Fate]

100. Except the Dukakis thing really did get a bad reaction from the public.

And the other difference is that Dukakis was running for president against the VP of the popular Pro-Defense Reagan, while Kerry was not running for anything-and in a political climate where the GOP Defense credentials was and is a national joke.

If they are comparable at all, we would have seen TV ads w/ the Kerry comments like we saw the Dukakis tank ads. We didnt.

The only people who were upset about the lies told about Kerry's comments were the liars themselves- and a handful of Fox news viewers who will believe anything and never vote DEM anyway.

Everyone else just shrugged and saw how desperate the GOP/media was to find an anti-DEM "story."

This is not about Kerry supporters covering for Kerry- no cover was needed- the American people shrugged and the media quickly dropped it when they knew no one but Freepers and Hillary was taking the bait.

What it IS about is Hillary's seemingly boundless willingness to say "yes" to whatever false perceptions Rush and Fox news put out there over the actual facts.

The "Kerry thing" is only one of many examples of this pattern-and likely DEM primary voters & activists wont forget.

[AtomicKitten]

103. you misunderstand

I never said "cover," I'm saying are sensitive about. Hey, don't get me wrong, I do understand the frustration and the unfairness of it all, but unfortunately that only really resonates with the supporters. If he becomes a declared contender, look for ads using this for fodder on a TV near you.

Your analysis is too detailed; if you stand back a bit, politics is a chess game. The problem is that the MSM will perpetuate the meme and punctuate history, and that is the ugly side of politics and the part the MSM plays in the game. Like I said, it is what it is.

The ultimate winner of the chess game is he/she that dances through the mine fields and comes out the other side in better shape than the opposition.

[Dr Fate]

104. The GOP/media tried to "perpetuate the meme"- they failed...Folks knew it was BS.

...It was a non-story and everyone, including the public, the media and the GOP knew it- if it was a s damaging as some say, the GOP/media would have harped on it until election day just like they did the Dukakis tank thing.

My analysis is not too detailed at all- the GOP of the 1980's was able to shoot-down Dukakis with that ad. The GOP of current times did not even try to do the same with the Kerry comments-they soon realized that folks were not buying it- despite Hillary's joining in- so your comparison is poor.

It is what it is- Hillary agreeing with FOX news and Rush Limbaugh instead of going with the facts.

[AtomicKitten]

105. what matters in the end is the impact

Nothing else matters in politics. It is the perception the general public has that translates into votes. It's a hard cold fact that cannot be mitigated by detailed analysis. Regardless of whether or not it is fair or substantive, Kerry does provide the MSM material. I think many Democrats are afraid of more of the same, fair or not, if Kerry runs for president, nor are they looking forward to the slicing and dicing of Hillary by the MSM no doubt in the cards for her.

[Dr Fate]

109. And the impact was that no one gave a shit, depsite Hillary's agreement with Fox & Rush.

If it had the impact you claim it has, the GOP/media would have ran ads and harped on it until election day- instead they realized that everyone except freepers & Hillary was wise to their BS and dropped the story like a hot potato- and ran nary a Dukakis style ad.(Making your direct comparison invalid)

I agree with you that many Democrats are afraid of what the media says about Kerry's comments- and that many are afraid to correct the media when they lie. Many Democrats in leadership positions are afraid of a lot of things- what is new?

Also-If you think Kerry provides more negative "material" for the GOP/media than Hillary, fair enough- but I heartily disagree.

[AtomicKitten]

110. oh, no, don't misunderstand me

A Democrat needs to merely breathe to provide material for the MSM. They are jackals. It takes an adept politician to maneuver through their little reindeer games. :)

[Dr Fate]

111. I'm glad we come to full agreement on something- you are right on that point. n/t

n/t

[MH1]

125. She hurt the party by perpetuating right wing spin against a party leader. Not "damage control". n/t

[AtomicKitten]

127. nobody hurt the party by doing anything

Kerry brought the election to a screeching halt with his misstatement and subsequent fumbling, and no one disagrees that the MSM were terribly unfair in dealing with it the way they did.

But it is what it is and anyone up for re-election had the right to do whatever it took to bring the focus back to the election. If you were really concerned about the wellbeing of the party, you would understand that.

This would be water under the bridge if you would just let sleeping dogs lie and stop trying to frame this as a RW meme vs. "good" Democrats' issue. It was like someone emitting a loud fart at a formal dinner. Please react differently. Just let it go.

[madrchsod]

72. i see her as a conservative democrat

or a rockefeller republican. i will not vote for her in the primary and will hold my nose if she gets the nomination. i do`t hate her there are just a lot better candidates than her

[leftofthedial]

75. I don't hate her

I just don't plan to support her in the primaries.

[fujiyama]

79. No

She does not inspire me in any way. I find her speaking style droning and irritating. I don't believe she has any political principals anyways. Her hyping of video game violence when there are so many other major problems, shows her sense of priority and her need to pander to whatever group.

And I think her high perceived negatives don't play well either...and she would have a tough time winning the general election.

I don't hate her. I just don't think she should be president.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EndElectoral]

83. Her vote is NOT irrelevant!

Her vote helped contribute to so many dead and wounded over in Iraq, it can never be consdiered irrelvant.

Hilary will not get my vote either. As you state she woudl be trounced in an election against Repubs, but that is not why I will not vote for her. I find her entire approach self-serving, and she bends to corporate interests too easily. If anytihng can be said about her politics is she is a centrist (even though Repubs like to call her a liberal), she is not liberal in the way a Barbara Boxer is (whom I couud support). Hilary is the consumate Centrist poltician, and is all over the place on her statements.

I'm more a progressive, and feel we've NOT been stong enoguh with the progressive message continually apologizing for our platform or backing off if it. We just got a mandate that the country wants us out of Iraq, yet I'm starting to hear conciliatory tones of maybe more troops might be needed.

I think a loud emphatic NO by Clinton (as Dodd has done) might have gone a long way to getting over the poorly decided intial Iraq vote. I'm NOT hearing it loud and clear like a Kuccinich, Clark, Feingold, Boxer, or Dodd. She's a bit like Harry Reid or lee Hamilton in a dress.

I want a progressive Democrat, not a cautious, timid one.

[closeupready]

85. It would have made a difference.

I actually like her, but do not want to see her win the primary - but would support her if she wins the nomination.

Her vote on the IWR is a big deal.

[wiley]

86. John Edwards, Kerry, Clinton

all took similar approaches. Edwards not only supported the IWR, he supported going in just to take out Saddam and instill his own little version of Democracy in that country. Kind of have to wonder how much people who thought they could outsource a better form of government to another country whose people they still know nothing about (Edwards, Cheney, etc.)

Men just want to hate Hillary. If it keeps them from beating or abusing other women, fine. As long as they pose no physical threat to any women. Others are looking for an escapist sunny approach to some very ugly problems - i.e. the candidacy of John Edwards or Obama. The problem is that more Democrats are looking for a physically appealing, good-natured person who plays a President on TV than looking at real qualifications.

We actually have some great candidates with substance and without baggage. I haven't mentioned any of them.

[ChiciB1]

88. She Doesn't Do It For Me!

She's changed so much. I was once so hyped for her, now I PARY she won't run! I worry that I may have to sit out an election if she's the nominee!

I just don't trust he much anymore, I don't think she will stand up for Democrats like she once did. She's playing "the game" and I don't like the DINO thing!

[J Miles]

96. No.

Absolutely not.

And I WILL NOT vote for her if she gets the nomination.

[LWolf]

97. A little limited in perspective, there, don't you think?

Is it possible to disagree with someone, to choose to support someone else, without "hate?"

Is it possible that someone is not one's political choice or cup of tea, without "hating" that person?

Perhaps what you perceive as "hate" is really an angry resistance to having someone else's choice shoved down unwanted throats. Perhaps it's really a fight for the "right to choose" who to support, or not. Perhaps some people don't want the status quo choosing a nominee for them before primary season even starts.

Would I be supporting her, without the obvious IWR vote to cloud the issue? No. While I respect her intelligence, I have never understood or agreed with her choices. We have different positions on some issues of import, and I don't trust her. Lack of support or trust is a world away from "hate."

[Dr Fate]

102. Remember when the GOP/media claimed we all held an irrational "hatred for Bush" ?

No offense to the OP, but it seems like a similar tactic to me.

[LWolf]

130. Yes.

Political spin at it's finest; exaggeration and mischaracterization are not limited to just one side. What's sad is how commonplace and accepted such political posturing has become.

I think we are better served with unvarnished truth.

[sandrakae]

101. No

[renie408]

112. I don't hate Hillary and the IWR vote is not what drives my decision

for who I would vote for. While I was never for this war, I think I understand why people who might not otherwise found themselves voting for the IWR.

I wouldn't vote for Hillary in a primary because I think her chances of winning a general election are not very good. I feel strongly that we need to send the candidate who, along with a strong plan for turning this country around, has a strong chance of winning the election.

[ShotInTheDark]

114. Re: Hillary's Irrelevant Vote - EndElectoral, you are absolutely correct...

that her vote contributed to our dead and wounded in Iraq.

And regardless of who put our troops in harms way based on lies and perverted strategy---the President, the Republicans, the Democrats---no one should become an apologist for such a cause. Loyalties should not lie with people, but with right, and against wrong.

The vote, a consent that Bush used to undermine America's position in the world and at home, is not irrelevant.

But it IS irrelevant to whether or not I support Hillary for President.

The reason being, that there are other facets which overshadow Hillary Rodham Clinton's support for George W. Bush's war in Iraq:

As you have intimated, she is timid. We agree that she'll get walloped against any Republican with a spine, or a message.

And I respect that the reasons for your conclusion are different. My heart tells me there is legitimacy in the belief that the candidates and the issues should stand on their own merits. Those of you who vote only with concern for the issues are what we Americans should be: ideal citizens!

But, in 1960, as a sweat encrusted, gauntlike Richard Nixon learned the hard way, more than just issues can lose an election.

And such realities are not perceived to be ad hominem, if you want to win elections. Appearance and presentation are still determining factors to gaining Political power, and there is no bigger sweepstakes than the Presidential election.

(Unfortunately, Nixon the thief learned this lesson a bit too well, and starting engineering victories after losing to JFK.)

In this regard, after 9/11, the President and the Republicans had all the pomp and circumstance needed. George Bush rode in on a horse named Patriotism, and basically exclaimed that he would rape America and its enemies. In the end, it was all theater and no substance. Kerry got swiftboated. America changed.

What I'm telling you is that Hillary will get swiftboated.

But we already know that. The real problem is, that she will back down, she will cower, she will flinch, when the attacks come from the Republicans, from the media, from citizens. The problem is that with Bill's wife, we're making the swiftboating all too easy for the right wing. And she will not fight it. She cannot fight it. As a creature of habit, Clinton will do what she's always done, hedge her bets and stick to the "issues."

You see, right wingers know that she has all the aplomb of a cartoon character, and one who people laugh at, and not with. She is a punchline; she rode her husband's coattails into office; she has rubbed elbows with Joseph Lieberman ever since he "balanced" the ticket with Al Gore.

So, in other words, the tightrope Hillary currently has to balance herself upon...is not a circus act compatible with Presidential aspirations. And we Democrats will end up looking like clowns trying to get her elected.

In many respects, it'll be a repeat, on a nationwide scale, of the inept failure that took place in California with Phil Angelides.

Taking the current political climate into account, Democrats cannot afford to support Hillary for President, because to a significant extent, it will tear the party apart (and lose the thoughtful Republicans who desire change).

Internal strife is exactly what those hard line Republicans, who want to stay the course, would love to see happen in 2007-2008. It will effect the elections across the nation, and will put more roadblocks in front of what can be accomplished during the next Congressional session.

I wish Hillary was The One, someone whose issues are worth believing in, who has the charisma to get the job done, to bring this nation together, but for these reasons and the many listed by others, she is not. She doesn't know what to believe in, and is slow to warm up. And that, while an improvement over Bush, are not qualities befitting a President.

During 2007-2008, IMHO, almost any way you slice it, Hillary Rodham Clinton is a clear loser.

[AtomicKitten]

115. spread the love

Democratic Senators who voted to authorize the IWR:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

[ShotInTheDark]

117. AtomicKitten, thank you for reading my post.

You'd make a better female President than HRC !

[AtomicKitten]

119. ***

[ShotInTheDark]

121. ***

You're ok in my book, AK, even if we don't agree.

And yes, most women do rule. Just gotta get the right 'chick' into office!

[AtomicKitten]

122. We most certainly do agree

that it would be disastrous for HRC to run in 2008. The MSM is lying in wait with plenty of dirt archived. Plus the din on both sides of the aisle would be deafening. :)

On edit: It is also my opinion that those that voted yes on the IWR for whatever reason do not have the good judgment required to lead this country.

[renie408]

118. Wow. That is what I think, but DAMN I can't ever say it nearly as well!!

Bingo! Dead on!

Thanks.

[Milo_Bloom]

128. Maybe... but

That was one vote among others where she missed the mark badly.


FOR The patriot act
For The Silly English language statement (unifying)
For wasting money on a 700 mile fence
For Homeland Security Act
FOR No Child Left Behind
FOR a congressional pay raise in 2005

AGAINST The Troop Redeployment Act
AGAINST the Requirement of the President to account on Iraq (Iraq Progress Reports Amendment)

Plus voting for huge pork laden bills.. you can read all of her votes and look up provisions here (http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=WNY99268)

Unfortunately, we have been unable to count on her, when we really need her and I fear that her voting record and statements show that her "principles" are guided by politics far more than her true beliefs on issues.

[Catchawave]

129. I don't hate Hill

But as a moderate independent, I question her 30 million dollar re-election midterm campaign (d'oh) and why she slung an arrow at Kerry over a botched joke. At this time, I will not support her in the primaries, which leads me to believe, if she gets the nod as a nominee, I might be in the wrong party :shrug:

[Zhade]

132. Depends on if she changed her other anti-liberal stances...

...on things like "free" trade agreements and corporate-friendly legislation.