Did Hillary really just argue to vote for her because she's a woman?

[GarbagemanLB]

In her final statement she said a woman president would send a strong message across the world. I'm glad Obama didn't make such a foolish argument when he easily could have for an African American president. Overall Obama did excellent in that debate. It is over.

[Oleladylib]

1. Yup, McCain won tonight...

[GarbagemanLB]

2. I think you're confused. Obama won, therefor McCain lost.

[Ikonoklast]

6. Please stop.

Hillary can't seal the deal, no knockout punch even when going negative, she needs to smell the coffee.

[JackORoses]

25. just because Hillary got her ass handed to her, doesn't mean you should support McCain

[PretzelWarrior]

35. don't be an idiot

McCain has so much baggage he's going to need a bellboy to follow him around. He will be a fun target. Crazy. Too old. Sickly. Wrong about so many things. A hugging buddy of Bush.... on and on.

[subsuelo]

85. "McCain has so much baggage he's going to need a bellboy to follow him around."

Bwahahahahaha best quote I've heard in awhile

[Kahuna]

90. Why? Because Rachel Maddow said so? Um. Okay. nt

[OzarkDem]

3. One of many reasons she gave, including experience

and its a very valid reason.

[trueblue2007]

4. NO SHE DIDN'T. What Hillary said was NOT foolish.

take the taters out of your ears.

[HeraldSquare212]

7. She said having a woman would be different - but how? she voted for the IWR

[bellasgrams]

15. So did the male Senators, you can bet BO would have followed

in lock step had he been there. They weren't voting to go to war, they were voting to give the pres. the authority if he deemed necessary. Who knew the idiot would start a pre-emtive war.

[HeraldSquare212]

18. sorry she said a woman would be different - and that just wasn't the case, was it?

[hendo]

102. What I would like to know

is what female leader has ever been noticably different than a male leader in any country.

[Window]

27. Everyone on DU knew the idiot would go to war...and we protested

it in droves.

[krkaufman]

47. "Who knew the idiot would start a pre-emtive war."

You're kidding, right? MILLIONS knew Bush would use that vote to go to war, and that his displays of diplomacy were only accommodated because they fit into the planned timeline.

[JTFrog]

86. Who knew? Are you fucking kidding me?

These people KNEW:











AND HILLARY KNEW:

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0303-23.htm

See Hillary Run (from Her Husband's Past on Iraq)
by Scott Ritter

Senator Hillary Clinton wants to become President Hillary Clinton. "I'm in, and I'm in to win," she said, announcing her plans to run for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 Presidential election. Let there be no doubt that Hillary Clinton is about as slippery a species of politician that exists, one who has demonstrated an ability to morph facts into a nebulous blob which blurs the record and distorts the truth. While she has demonstrated this less than flattering ability on a number of issues, nowhere is it so blatant as when dealing with the issue of the ongoing war in Iraq and Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of this war.

This issue won't be resolved even if Hillary Clinton apologizes for her Iraq vote, as other politicians have done, blaming their decision on faulty intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities. This is because, like many other Washington politicians at the time, including those now running for president, she had been witness to lies about Iraq's weapons programs to justify attacks on that country by her husband President Bill Clinton and his administration.

"While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq," Senator Clinton said at the time of her vote, in a carefully crafted speech designed to demonstrate her range of knowledge and ability to consider all options. "I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."

Hillary would have done well to leave out that last part, the one where her husband, the former President of the United States, used military force as part of a 72-hour bombing campaign ostensibly deemed as a punitive strike in defense of disarmament, but in actuality proved to be a blatant attempt at regime change which used the hyped-up threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for action. Sound familiar? While many Americans today condemn the Bush administration for misleading them with false claims of unsubstantiated threats which resulted in the ongoing debacle we face today in Iraq (count Hillary among this crowd), few have reflected back on the day when the man from Hope, Arkansas sat in the Oval Office and initiated the policies of economic sanctions-based containment and regime change which President Bush later brought to fruition when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

...much more at link



Scott Ritter served as a former Marine Corps officer from 1984 until 1991, and as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 until 1998. He is the author of several books, including "Iraq Confidential" and "Target Iran". He also co-authored "War on Iraq" with William Pitt.

[CTLawGuy]

89. yeah

who thought the president would use an "authorization for use of military force" for you know "using military force"...

[Kahuna]

92. Everybody except the most naive among them knew bush had already

decided to invade Iraq. The IWR was only an afterthought.

[Nederland]

94. Who knew the idiot would start a preemptive war?

Smart people like Robert Byrd knew and said so. Clueless people like Hillary didn't. End of argument.

[casus belli]

96. Obama would have? You sure? Can I borrow the magic 8 ball? n/t

[ecstatic]

30. Yep. And other things that make me question what type of feminine judgment

she'd bring to the table. I won't bring that issue up now but it's been rehashed on this board over the past few days.

[Whisp]

10. it wouldn't have been if she was talking about another more qualified woman.

[book_worm]

5. It's her hail Mary moment--her last grasp at straws rallying her female "base"

[greguganus]

17. I am woman, hear me roar!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VkCKhP9AUtU

[jenmito]

8. Yup. So I guess she thinks Condi Rice would be a good president. n/t

[DB1]

9. That's what I clearly heard. The smattering applause sealed her fate. N/T

[Az_lefty]

11. that's what I heard...gender, gender, gender. Sorry Hill, that's not the issue

[Medusa]

12. Better indicator:

look at the audience. He's still got a huge crowd wanting to get his autograph, not as many want hers.

[high density]

13. Yep

"I'll do anything to win."

Then the next breath it was "I'm a woman."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. She Was Trying To Cement An Image Of Change. If Voters Want Change, There's No Bigger Change Than

that. That's what I think she was getting at. If the voters overwhelmingly want change, then there's not much of a bigger change than having a woman in the highest office for the first time. It's a pretty good point actually, but not one that I think will affect many as to how they'd vote. But I think she was being sincere about it, and I think is a core passion inside of her as to why she's running.

[JeanGrey]

20. Of course there is. Having an African American is the biggest

change of all. I myself never thought it possible, I believed a woman would get the nod first.

[Breeze54]

21. No it isn't. Obama is a man...not a woman...there has never been a woman US President

That's why it would be the biggest change in the US, in that office.

[JVS]

24. And we've had 10 black presidents?

[Breeze54]

29. I don't know but there's never been a woman.

[JVS]

32. You honestly don't know this?

[Breeze54]

38. How would I know someone's DNA?

We very well could have had an African American in the WH and not even know it.
Don't you watch PBS? Even Obama is only half African American, the other half is Irish.

[JVS]

46. Oh boy. This is like a cheap plagiarizing of Steven Colbert, but wtf, I'll play along.

What makes you so sure that none of the previous presidents have been female, since you need to see the DNA to be sure of blackness of a president. Are you telling me that you know for certain that every president had both an X and a Y chromosome.

[Breeze54]

48. I didn't say I needed anything. I pointed out that neither of us knows for sure.

Why don't you go watch the show, read about it and then maybe you'll understand.

The facts with Obama are there. He's male, half African American and half Irish.

We've never had a female president, of any color, in our history as far as we know.

[JVS]

52. How can we know that none of the presidents had 2 X chromosomes?

You'd better prove to me that they were all men, because I ain't buying

:tinfoilhat:

[JeanGrey]

33. No, sorry. Having a black president is bigger and something

I thought I'd never see in 30 years.

[Breeze54]

40. But he's half Irish.... and a man

[apocalypsehow]

77. Oh, Jeesuz - I've truly seen it all now. Do you even look before you hit the "post message" button?

Or does your posting finger have internet Tourette's syndrome?

Christ, have IQ levels in this country really slipped that much during the Bush years?

[Breeze54]

108. Are you

capable of reading a thread in sequence, instead of nitpicking on one response,
without reading what that was in response to in the whole sub-thread context?

:shrug:

Only men have held the Presidency. No women have yet.

That was the conversation, in a nutshell.

:hi:

[Splinter Cell]

44. History

History has been made in this campaign, as an African American and a female candidate have outlasted all the white males in the race.

Both are huge steps forward, and though it would be a sign of MAJOR progress to have a female president, I think it would be an even GREATER step forward to have an African American president.

Woman have had to fight for equal rights for so long, but keep in mind that when our great country was founded, African Americans were actually bought and sold legally under US law, and were not even seen as human beings by much of the nation.

Just think what George Washington would say if he knew we are on our way to having a black president. It's very exciting.

[Breeze54]

49. Women are still fighting for equal rights.

"I think it would be an even GREATER step forward to have an African American president."

Why?

[GarbagemanLB]

50. Please show me where in U.S. history women were whipped, traded like cattle, and lynched.

[Breeze54]

57. Why?

Have African Americans been treated badly and unfairly and cruelly? Yes.

Women were also considered property and also had no vote and they also had hard lives.

In fact AA men got the vote before women did but that isn't what this was about and I'm

not going to get into a 'who got treated worse' debate. The fact remains that there has

never been a female president, period. We've only had male presidents. End of story.

[Recursion]

72. That's crap

In fact AA men got the vote before women did

Umm... women got the vote in 1920. African Americans got the vote in 1964.

[Breeze54]

75. Black Men got the vote in 1869 (15th Amendment.) Women didn't get the vote until 1920 .

Congress expands suffrage in D.C. on Jan. 8, 1867

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7771.html

By: Andrew Glass
Jan 8, 2008 05:57 AM EST

On this day in 1867, a Congress dominated by radical Republicans overrode a veto by President Andrew Johnson, thereby granting voting rights to all adult male citizens of the District of Columbia.

It was the first law in U.S. history that extended the ballot to African-American men. Under the bill, every male citizen of the nation’s capital who was 21 or older became enfranchised. The exceptions were welfare or charity cases, those under guardianship, those convicted of major crimes and those who had voluntarily sheltered Confederate troops or spies during the Civil War.

The Senate overrode Johnson’s veto, which he issued Jan. 5, by a vote of 29-10, while in the House the vote was 112-38.

At the time, under a charter granted by Congress in 1802, Washington voters had the right to elect a local legislature, called a council, which could enact laws and levy taxes on real estate to pay for city services. The local government also included a mayor named by the president.

The new District law proved a precursor to nationwide enfranchisement of African-American men. In 1870, the United States ratified the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting any state from discriminating against potential male voters because of race or previous condition of servitude.

more...

http://learning.loc.gov/ammem/aaohtml/exhibit/aopart5b.html">Reconstruction and Its Aftermath

An African American Majority in the South Carolina Legislature


Radical Members of the First Legislature after the War, South Carolina. Photograph.1878.


Because blacks in South Carolina vastly outnumbered whites, the newly-enfranchised voters were able to send so many African American representatives to the state assembly that they outnumbered the whites. Many were able legislators who worked to rewrite the state constitution and pass laws ensuring aid to public education, universal male franchise, and civil rights for all.

[Recursion]

76. Under the decade of military occupation known as "reconstruction"...

...yes, African Americans in the south were allowed to vote (they were, in general, not allowed to vote in many non-former-Confederate states, which had pseudo-Jim-Crow laws and grandfather-claused poll taxes on the books in anticipation of the 15th amendment).

When Hayes won the Presidential election of 1876 (brokered by the House, due to voting irregularities in -- wait for it -- Florida) he won because he agreed to end reconstruction. Virtually overnight, African americans were again denied the vote in the South, as they still were in much of the north.

To pretend that a 10-year period of black suffrage enforced in part of the country at the end of a bayonet is actual enfranchisement, and indeed to pretend that black suffrage was in any sense achieved before the Civil Rights Act, is simply laughable.

[Breeze54]

106. You denied the 15th Amendment existed. I posted the facts.

We weren't discussing all the societal BS of that time period.

You said black men didn't get the right to vote before women.

You were wrong. They did get the right (on paper mostly) but

they still did get the right way before women did.

That was what we were discussing. Stay on topic.

[Recursion]

114. I knew perfectly well about the 15th amendment

you just seemed ignorant of the 100 years that followed it.

[ContinentalOp]

54. Look at it from more of a global point of view.

There have been many women at the helm of western democracies but as far as I know there have been no black heads of state outside of Africa.

[LeftyMom]

61. Because black men historically have been and still are more oppressed than white women

Compare incarceration rates, likelihood of poverty, life expectancy and medical outcomes, any educational measure, and you'll see that this society does a hell of a lot more to raise white women up than it does for black men. Hell, look at media depictions- how many educated, successful white women do you see on tv? How many criminal, trashy or generally low-life ones? What's that ratio look like for black men?

Don't get me wrong, this society has a long way to go in fair treatment of women, but there's no fucking comparison. And I say that as a (mostly) white woman generally assigned the various advantages of perceived whiteness.

[Breeze54]

63. We

were not getting into a debate about who got treated worse.

At least I'm not going to tonight.

I've already acknowledged a lot of what you posted.

My comment is that there have only been males elected to the presidency.

No women have attained that position yet.

[LeftyMom]

66. Oh trust me, I'm not debating anybody.

Unless you've (general you) got your head waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay the fuck up your ass it's not even marginally debatable.

I'm definitely not encouraging anybody to vote based on who represents the more marginalized demographic (honestly, I don't really care which of them gets the job, as I'm not impressed with either,) but if anybody had asked you four years ago if we'd have a black man or a white woman in the oval office first, do you honestly mean to tell me you would have guessed a black man? Because I'd think you'd be about the only one.

And to go off on a bit of a tangent, can we get an atheist soon? We've also had an unrelieved string of Christians, as long as our streak of stuffy white dudes, and no matter who gets elected we'll get another this time (all a bit on the devout side for my taste) and that little monopoly is getting rather old too.

[Breeze54]

74. How about we elect

a female, African American, American Indian, Athiest, gay single Mom with a disability?
That would be good! ;) I'm not 'taken' by either... um... either, for various reasons.
I saw Obama 4 yrs ago give that speech at the '04 DNC and I had a 'feeling' but did I
know 4 yrs. ago that it was long overdue that a female or a 'not-white male president'
was elected. (I actually have thought that for a long time) And when my state got the
opportunity to vote for a new candidate they came out in droves to vote for him. I thought
that was awesome and I understand the thrill and the thinking behind many here because I felt
the same way and thought it would be great to have an African American Governor! Maybe I've
been there, done that and now I'm ready to keep going! :P (J/K) But the fact remains that we've
never had a female president and the who got treated worse back in 1840 doesn't fly because
this is today and that was then.

[misanthrope]

79. We've already had one gay president, thank you**nm

**

[Kahuna]

97. How many women senators are there? How many blacks? Don't

even try to compare the plight of women vs. blacks. It's really naive to try to make that argument. If you read about the plight of women and equality it will piss you off. If you read the plight of blacks and equality it will break your heart if you have one.

[Breeze54]

107. They both have and have had struggles.

Are you saying black women don't deserve to have a woman representing them in the WH?

Black women were brutalized also. Did you ever think maybe they'd like a woman president?

I wasn't comparing, by the way and you really should read the whole thread, in sequence, before you jump in.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

34. But she's a white woman, and we've had all white presidents.

[Breeze54]

41. How do you know they've been all white?

Look up The African-American DNA "Roots Project"; and Dr. Mark Shriver

AFRICAN-AMERICAN LIVES, A FOUR-HOUR DOCUMENTARY SERIES TRACING BLACK HISTORY
THROUGH GENEALOGY AND DNA SCIENCE, TO PREMIERE FEBRUARY 2006 ON PBS
http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/news/20050713_africanamericanlives.html

It's quite an interesting show. You should watch it if you get a chance.

[NDambi]

53. You have to check the

DNA of all presidents..the burden is on anyone that claims we may have already had a black president. Because history says otherwise

[Breeze54]

60. I made no claims, so don't put words in my mouth.

I asked a question. "How does anyone know?"

We don't ...yet but we do know there haven't been any women.

[NDambi]

68. So you really know that for sure..lol

History says, there have been no black president. period.

[Breeze54]

69. Why do you keep changing what I said or the intent?

I never said I knew anything about that for sure.

If anything, I said we don't know yet!!! Go read my responses.

There's one that also contains info. about a DNA study, called "The Roots Project".

Go read it!! It's quite interesting but stop trying to twist my words.

It isn't appreciated. What I do know, is that there has never been a female president.

[NDambi]

82. We don't know for sure that there hasn't been a

or even a Hermaphrodite president...either

so what...

As I said, History says presidents have been all white..until proven otherwise, that's what they were...

[apocalypsehow]

78. You know, semantics games really are the last resort of those with nothing left to say.

You do know that, don't you? :shrug:

[NDambi]

83. Ha..where have I heard that before.....Go Bama!

[fudge stripe cookays]

81. There are claims...

that Warren Harding possibly had some black blood. Not all historical documents say the same thing.

[NDambi]

84. What does history call him...Pres Harding with black blood..or a white president?

He could have had a penis and vagina for all we know..but what does history call him? A white Male President. Period.

[Kahuna]

95. There have been and there are women presidents in other first world

countries. There has never been a black person as president of a first world country. Ergo, A black person would be the biggest change.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. I Wholeheartedly Disagree, At Least In The Context Of How She Meant It.

Though it would be historical and obviously something that shows a HUGE amount of progress as a country, it DOES NOT carry with it the type of presidential change she's referring to. There is no readily available mental image that could be conjured up as to how a black man would lead or make decisions differently than a white man. However there are TONS of mental images that could be conjured up as it relates to the types of stark change a woman's perspective could bring to the position than a man's perspective. That's what she was getting at. That this country has always been led by men, regardless of race or religion, but that bringing the fresh and different perspective of a woman is the largest degree of change you could get. She's right there. I don't think anyone will change their votes based on that, but I still understand what she's getting at.

[JeanGrey]

36. I'm sorry but I disagree. We are 14 YEARS from the OJ

Simpson trial, that still causes people to almost fist fight. The fact that Obama is getting the support he is getting from EVERYWHERE even the south, is simply historical. A female president is still a white one.

[Breeze54]

42. What?! "A female president is still a white one."

We can't have a brown one?

Obama is half white. That's a fact... and a man.

[JeanGrey]

58. I didn't say that. I said it is more likely we would get a

female before we'd get a black president. So I disagree with what Hillary said.

Look, Obama has got it. It's inevitable and over. He's got the "it" thing, the charisma that makes people go out for him irregardless almost of what he stands for.

Hillary irritates if not worse about half of the electorate. I want us to win.

[Breeze54]

62. I quoted you directly. You did say that but

this little conversation wasn't about Obama or Clinton, per say.

We were discussing male vs female having held the presidential office.

So far, only males have held that office.

[JeanGrey]

104. It is still a bigger thing that a black will.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

43. You're Arguing The Wrong Topic.

We aren't debating which victory would be considered more historical. We're talking about which would bring more change. In this context, as she meant it, change signifies the ways in which one would go about being president, making decisions, etc. A black man does not bring anything much new to that process than a white man, whereas the point she's trying to make is that the mindset of a woman versus a man, is potentially quite significant in the differences. That's what she means by change. There are far more changes one could speak to as it relates to a woman's perspective as president versus a man's perspective as president than there are between a black man's perspective and a white man's perspective. Biologically and physiologically, black men think the same as white men. Biologically and physiologically, women and men think differently. That's the change she's talking about.

[JeanGrey]

59. I'm sorry but I disagree. We'll just have to agree to

disagree on this one.

[Breeze54]

64. Thank You....

I know you were referring to Sen. Clinton but you nailed what I was trying to say too. ;)

"Biologically and physiologically, black men think the same as white men. Biologically and
physiologically, women and men think differently. That's the change she's talking about."

[CTLawGuy]

91. wow

talk about "change" that is vague and non-substantive. Women THINK differently, therefore Hillary is the "change" candidate?

[Breeze54]

109. Where did I say anything about

Hillary? Can you not see my sig line?

WoW is right.

You assume to much and you know what they say about that, right?

[CTLawGuy]

113. its "makes an ass out of you"

and I forget the rest, but that sounds about right.

Your sig is "Dennis" in a giant yellow rectangle. I give up...

[casus belli]

98. The other side of that would be...

you don't want the change she's selling? Vote for a man. But, no one in their right mind would say something like that unless they didn't mind being called out as a sexist. However, voting for a woman because only a woman can represent real change isn't exploiting gender at all right? Would you be ok with Obama saying, well we need to project strength, and who better to do that than a man? the entire argument is ridiculous.

If she doesn't want to subject her gender to criticism or potentially sexist remarks, she shouldn't be campagining on it. How about let's select the best person for the job. If that happens to be a woman, then great.

[gabeana]

112. lynching

I teach at the college level history and Ethnic studies, In
one segment I show numerous pictures of the 1800's to 1950's
of lynchings. With white men and women posing with the victims
bodies or photos of people (male, female)smiling, laughing at
the bodies. I also read the back stories of these lynching.
People actually framed photos, passed them down as family
heirlooms, made post cards out of them. It is heartbreaking
where many in my class are brought to tears.To think that this
country in a 100 yrs give or take a decade or so, could
possibly have a black president is amazing. As for change
there are more women governors than black, more women in the
senate and congress. Are tangible better off? If we want to
know about feminst we need to read Emma Goldman, Mother Jones,
Hellen Keller, or a modern feminst Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. These
were and are women that worked for real change By the way just
because Barack has color is not reason enough to vote for him.

[greguganus]

16. Well, that's one thing Obama can't outdo her on. n/t

[MzShellG]

28. Meaning what? nt

[PurityOfEssence]

19. Yes, and he said he was better because of religion

This was an integral part of his summation.

Once again, the big bugaboo for many of us about this guy: creeping theocracy.

All-in-all, they were pretty well-mannered.

[LucyParsons]

23. Fuck that.

She authorized warmongering. FUCK THAT.

[Breeze54]

31. Actually...technically...

that vote was not supposed to be a permission slip. Go read it.

Bush DID give Congress the bird and invade without permission.

The real issue with the Kerry, Edwards and Clinton is that they

didn't have the foresight to see that Bush would do what he did.

That's where it became a matter of lack of judgment compared to

the ones who voted against the IWR. ie. Senator Kennedy, etc.

Kerry regretted his vote and then a couple of years later Edwards

regretted his vote but HRC refused for 18 months to even consider

saying that or apologizing for that error. That pissed off a many.

[cali]

80. What a stinking pile

I've posted Leahy's pre-vote speech on DU dozens of times as proof that what you're positing is a lie. As he said, it was a BLANK CHECK, a Tonkin Gulf Resolution and unconstitutional. He said no president should be given such a blank check.

[Breeze54]

111. Well, aren't you lovely, as usual.

:sarcasm:

The people who voted for the IWR used poor judgment.

If you don't agree. Tough.

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

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107PXI9f3::

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

-----------

War Powers Resolution

In the United States, the War Powers Act of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148), also referred to as the War Powers Resolution, is a resolution of Congress that the President can send troops into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if American troops are already under attack or serious threat.

Bush didn't have that authorization.

[JTFrog]

87. I'm sorry but you really must be having a bad day. I usually don't disagree so vehmently

with you about things, but I do here. Hillary's vote was not innocent or naive. She flat out suggested the course for them to take in order to be able to use force and then voted in favor of it.

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0303-23.htm

See Hillary Run (from Her Husband's Past on Iraq)
by Scott Ritter

Senator Hillary Clinton wants to become President Hillary Clinton. "I'm in, and I'm in to win," she said, announcing her plans to run for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 Presidential election. Let there be no doubt that Hillary Clinton is about as slippery a species of politician that exists, one who has demonstrated an ability to morph facts into a nebulous blob which blurs the record and distorts the truth. While she has demonstrated this less than flattering ability on a number of issues, nowhere is it so blatant as when dealing with the issue of the ongoing war in Iraq and Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of this war.

This issue won't be resolved even if Hillary Clinton apologizes for her Iraq vote, as other politicians have done, blaming their decision on faulty intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities. This is because, like many other Washington politicians at the time, including those now running for president, she had been witness to lies about Iraq's weapons programs to justify attacks on that country by her husband President Bill Clinton and his administration.

"While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq," Senator Clinton said at the time of her vote, in a carefully crafted speech designed to demonstrate her range of knowledge and ability to consider all options. "I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."

Hillary would have done well to leave out that last part, the one where her husband, the former President of the United States, used military force as part of a 72-hour bombing campaign ostensibly deemed as a punitive strike in defense of disarmament, but in actuality proved to be a blatant attempt at regime change which used the hyped-up threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for action. Sound familiar? While many Americans today condemn the Bush administration for misleading them with false claims of unsubstantiated threats which resulted in the ongoing debacle we face today in Iraq (count Hillary among this crowd), few have reflected back on the day when the man from Hope, Arkansas sat in the Oval Office and initiated the policies of economic sanctions-based containment and regime change which President Bush later brought to fruition when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

...much more at link



Scott Ritter served as a former Marine Corps officer from 1984 until 1991, and as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 until 1998. He is the author of several books, including "Iraq Confidential" and "Target Iran". He also co-authored "War on Iraq" with William Pitt.

If you search through DU (and even upthread) you will find pictures of the millions of people who knew that this was a wrong vote. You will find speeches from those who warned about it and opposed the war.

And many of us were beyond pissed off when she said this:

"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from," Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

[ORDem]

26. Yes. Yes, she did. n/t

[goodgd_yall]

37. No, she didn't. n/t

[Cha]

39. These 1500 feminists for peace would

disagree..hilary didn't fool them.. they endorsed Obama!

WillyT (1000+ posts) Tue Feb-26-08 11:04 PM
Original message
Fifteen Hundred Feminists For Peace Endorse Barack Obama - CommonDreams
<snip>

NATIONWIDE - February 26 - Feminists across the country have signed onto a statement endorsing Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee for President. In rejecting the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, they cite her "seven year record" as a US Senator in which she not only authorized the Presidential use of force against Iraq, but until quite recently opposed all legislative efforts to bring the war and occupation to an end.

Under ordinary circumstances "electing a woman President would be a cause for celebration." However, issues of war and peace are also part of a feminist agenda. The country urgently needs "a Presidential candidate who understands that 'pre-emptive' attacks on other countries and the reliance on military force have diminished…our national security…We do not believe Senator Clinton is that candidate."

The statement, "Feminists for Peace and Barack Obama," was initially written and signed by a group of 100 New York feminists in the lead-up to the New York state primary. Since then, feminists in other states have taken up the cause, circulating the petition nationwide. The list now comprises over 1,500 signers from around the country representing diverse backgrounds and professions, ranging in age from college students to the retired.

Says Anne Robinson, cardiac nurse from Austin, Texas, "I have always considered myself a feminist, even when that was not a popular thing to admit in the south. I would love nothing more than to see a woman become president of our country. I am also completely unapologetic for supporting Senator Obama. My first and foremost reason is his position and record on the war. I will not support a candidate was refuses to accept responsibility for supporting this horrible preemptive war with Iraq and who supported a resolution posturing for conflict in Iran."

As explained by Professor Eileen Boris, Director of the Center for Research on Women and Social Justice at the University of California, Santa Barbara, "Voting for Bush's war showed Senator Clinton more concerned with future political viability than with the impact of war on the world's women, men, families and the environment. That's not my idea of global feminism."

Adele Welty, a social worker whose firefighter son died in the World Trade Center, deplored Clinton's unfriendly attitude towards antiwar constituents. Noting the Senator's unwillingness to meet with peace groups, Welty described her personal experience of Clinton's "dismissive" staff when she and others traveled to Washington DC. to express their views. "I would love to be able to vote for a woman, but it would have to be a woman who is able to maintain her integrity."

<snip>

Link: http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0226-03.htm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4790287

[sanjiadem]

55. 1500? really ... wow

Ask the 7 million Muslims in America about Obama running to Christian venues and the M$M to make sure they knew he wasn't 'one of them' or who distanced himself from the Palestinians in IL as soon as he considered running for President who they're going to support.

[Cha]

56. buzzoff

[RBInMaine]

45. Again, Hillary double speak.

She has on many occasions said this election isn't about race or gender, and then in almost the next breath plays the gender card. Give me a break, please.

[Barack_America]

51. It was a regrettable statement, IMO. n/t

[Egalia]

65. Gee, women are the majority of the population,

why should one of us ever be president? The menz are doing such an awesome job. <snark>

Go Hillary!!!

[CTLawGuy]

93. by that logic

would you vote for Ann Coulter or Eva Braun?

[casus belli]

101. There are most certainly better candidates that share the same gender.

Or is any candidate fine as long as she's a woman? Because that would be...well, bigoted.

[rodeodance]

67. Yes, it would send a strong message and I am glad she said it.

[Egnever]

70. I agree. Its one of her best qualities

It would be the one thing that made me smile if I had to vote for her in the GE.

[anonymous171]

71. She does that a lot.

I just got used to it. Tribal Politics is old and outdated, but she's free to use them.

[Levgreee]

73. here is her comment

".obviously, I am thrilled to be running to be the first woman president, which I think would be a seachange in our country and around the world. And would give enormous hope, and you know, give a real challenge to the way things have been done, and who gets to do them, and what the rules are".



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434 /

Click on "Jackson on the Debate"

It is at 4:40 in the video



In the commentary afterwards it is said that this is a direct appeal to woman to try to draw some back, a hail-mary to gain more votes. I am inclined to agree.

[indimuse]

88. If Obama were WHITE...HOW would he be different???

He has mimicked her entire voting record in the Senate...less 2...


Step right up folks.."It's NOW or NEVER!" Michelle Obama: Our community.. Black America will wake up! DID SHE JUST SAY THAT?

WHY do you think Obama is running for POTUS?? Because he's purple?

If Obama were WHITE...HOW would HE be different??? Who is HE??? What has he done FOR Chicago...Illinois... that makes him great! Increase poverty...help manufacturing plants close..( his wife did!!!!)???

[casus belli]

100. Obama's not white?

Wow, hadn't noticed. Thanks for pointing that out. This may be hard for you to digest, but race plays absolutely no factor in my vote for Obama. And he would still have my vote if he were white, asian, hispanic, or any other race you call "different". Nor does gender factor in. He is simply saying the right things, at the right time, and is the right person for the job.

As to his record in Chicago, I suggest you do some reading before you completely embarass yourself.

You can start here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4678756&mesg_id=4678756

[indimuse]

103. excuse me..

the obama's are running their campaign based on race.( a sword... and a shield...)..that is a fact! have been from beginning.

[Independent-Voter]

99. Vaginas for Hillary! What a fucking stupid rationale to pick your candidate. Same goes for Obama

being just because he's black. Critical thinking folks - use it.

[Major Hogwash]

105. Is Hillary the one that wears the pants in her house?

Is that because she is lovingly known as "the keeper of the balls"?

That's a joke!!!

I thought she looked really good last night.
She lost the debate, but she looked good doing it.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

110. pretty sexist, isn't it? contradicts herself constantly

on the one hand complains she is picked on.

next she insists she is strong enough to be president.

complains that she is recipient of sex discrimination.

says vote for me because I'm a woman.