AGHHHHHHHH, did anyone see this? (Hillary)

[JI7]

<Sen. Clinton urges Democrats to speak up

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday accused Republicans of "playing the fear card" of terrorism to win elections and said Democrats cannot keep quiet if they want to win in November.

The New York Democrat, facing re-election this year and considered a potential White House candidate in 2008, said Republicans won the past two elections on the issue of national security and "they're doing it to us again."

She said a speech by presidential adviser Karl Rove two weeks ago showed the GOP election message is: "All we've got is fear and we're going to keep playing the fear card."

In that speech, Rove suggested Republicans can prevail in 2006 by showing Democrats had undermined terrorism-fighting efforts by questioning Bush's authority to allow wiretapping without getting court approval first.

Clinton said a convention of United Auto Workers that Democrats should not be afraid to question Bush's handling of the war.

"I take a back seat to nobody when it comes to fighting terrorism and standing up for national homeland security," she said.

Referring to fugitive al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, Clinton said, "You cannot explain to me why we have not captured or killed the tallest man in Afghanistan."

She added, "Since when has it been part of American patriotism to keep our mouths shut?">


http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/election2004/13823625.htm

[WildEyedLiberal]

1. Is this the same Hillary who was defending the war a few months ago?

What a panderer she is! Someone clued her in that pandering to the middle was making her unpopular, so now she's blowing back left. UGH! :barf:

I'll take my president with principles, thanks.

[FreedomAngel82]

20. Trying to play on both fences

I am glad she's speaking up but it wouldn't surprise me.

[BlueIris]

2. Sure thing, Hil. You "first."

Jesus.

[sandnsea]

3. Lot of nerve

She's a real piece of work.

[wisteria]

15. I agree, trying to one-up kerry with his own words and thoughts.n/t

[karynnj]

4. Strange - Of all possible candidates, she's one that we've

heard very little from and given that she has the easiest time getting coverage, this is bad.

She really wants a lot of mileage from her plantation comment. Or did the polls change?

[Mass]

5. She sure is the first one to call for that

:sarcasm:

Happy to see her join the bandwagon, and happy to see that may be Kerry is not that a bad spokeman for the party if Hillary is taking his talking points in her speeches.

[Island Blue]

6. Wow, where have I heard this before?

It's a little fuzzy but I'll try to dig into the ol' memory bank. 2004 (and beyond). I think it was another Senator (tall fella) talking about OBL and the mountains of Torra Borra. He also talked about how patriotism means we have an obligation have to speak out. It's all coming back now - wait, wait ... now I remember! It was John Kerry!

Welcome aboard the train of truth and reason Hillary. It's nice to see you finally decided to join us. :banghead:

[TayTay]

7. She needs more profile, less courage.

It's easy to say you are going to be the rougest toughest hombre on the block. It's another thing to stand up on CapHill and do it. The speeches are great. Now, where is the action, the taking of hits and the public stands on tough issues? Where is Hillary when it counts?

[Mass]

8. What gets me is all the people on GDwho seem to find it is so great!

No "Too little too late" comments.

[ProSense]

9. Where are the

"some Democrats" say comments? I'm sure "some Democrats" have an opinion about Hillary Clinton. These articles are so blatantly pushy: Here's a leader, leader here, see leader....

No matter how the media tries to spin this, Hillary Clinton hasn't been THE leader on the major issues of the day. Too many have stepped up before her.

[whometense]

10. First thing I heard this morning

on the radio.

I woke up thinking, "WHAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTTTT?"

[blm]

11. And when Dems DO criticize Bush's handling of war, BILL Clinton goes on tv

and tells the public that he supports Bush's decisions and talks about how sincere Bush is.

And then pretends like he never heard of the DSM.

[TayTay]

12. This is a bad approach

There is so much wrong with Bush's policies. They were flawed from the get-go and lying down and pretending that dissent = weakness is not the way to go. The Dems must take this issue on completely. The Clinton's are not helping here and the 'insiders' who are urging the Dems to go slowly and avoid anything having to do with defense (except to say, 'me too!') are wrong.

[whometense]

13. And doesn't this

just give you that warm 'n' fuzzy feeling all over? From the pen of the nauseating Elisabeth Bumiller

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/politics/09memo.html

It was one of the most public manifestations to date of the odd friendship and mutual need of two dynasties that, on the surface at least, have almost nothing in common. But as President Bush put it in an interview with CBS News last month, "Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton." Mr. Bush made the remark in a telling exchange with Bob Schieffer, who said, "Well, you know, if Senator Clinton becomes president."

"There we go," Mr. Bush said.

"Maybe we'll see a day," Mr. Schieffer continued.

"Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton," Mr. Bush responded.

Please excuse me; I just made myself sick.

[TayTay]

14. That gives me the creeps

It's seems profoundly undemocratic. We don't have ruling families in the US. (Though we do have fame that goes on for generations, but that's not the same thing.) I hate the idea of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. Yuck! (And that is beside the fact that I like JK.)

[wisteria]

16. What comes to mind when I consider this is the Kennedy family.

Of course, certain powerful people resented their power and did what they could to stop them. In the case of Hillary, they may be waiting for her with open arms.

[TayTay]

17. I wouldn't want a Kennedy ruling family either

IT's creepy and anti-democratic. Especially in the Presidency.

[Island Blue]

32. I agree. It give me the creeps too.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There will be "kids" voting in the next election who have never been alive when anyone named anything other than "Bush" or "Clinton" has been President. This shows already that there is something profoundly wrong with our system. (IMO) Adding another Clinton to the mix would not help the situation.

My thoughts - Hillary is no Bill. I think once she really starts having to make speech after speech (if she should decide to run) this will become evident real fast. If he stands behind her constantly looking over her shoulder (to appease his "fans"), then he too should be fair game for all other candidates, Democrat or Republican.

Also. The entire Big Dawg/Poppy thing is really beginning to wig the hell out me. I understand that it's possible and probably even healthy for ex-presidents to be friends with one another, but these two just flaunt the fact way to much, especially in light of the fact that DimSon is currently pResident* and Hillary has designs on being president. There's just something not quite right about it.

[ProSense]

19. Rather perverse.

I agree with blm: the Clintons' (in terms of MSM coverage) pro and con statements about Bush equal zero opposition to Bush.

[wisteria]

18. I have major issues with Hillary Clinton and even though I am a

true blue Democrat,I don't think I could support her. I am really torn up about this. When you see these articles out there like this,and knowing how she has pandered and watched the polls instead of really being a leader and you know she is banking on her husband's name for support and attention, it makes me dislike her even more. I don't want to see her run or see her as President. Many other people are more deserving than she is of this honor.

[ginnyinWI]

21. heard on Cspan this morning on the Dem line:

"...we don't really like Hillary..." That's the only part I caught, but it made me smile a little.

[wisteria]

22. Well that is 'music to my ears", so to speak. n/t

[fedupinBushcountry]

23. Did anyone get the feeling I got

as to Hillary standing with Bill and speaking at the Coretta Scott King funeral.

I don't know about anyone else, but the first thing that came to my mind was what the hell? No other wife got up and spoke and Kennedy was representing the Senate and Conyers was representing the House. So why was Hillary up there, and holding hands with Bill, like aren't we grand.

I'm sorry but I thought it was politicing in front of a certain group of voters to say hey you pick me you've got Bill too. I did not like that type of pandering at all.

[Mass]

24. I got the same feeling. I was ranting about that last evening.

Why was she talking?

[jenndar]

25. Me too n/t

[sandnsea]

26. I thought the same thing

But I have to admit that I don't know anything about their relationship with the African American community so until I hear otherwise, I'd have to give it a pass. Maybe they were both asked to speak, I don't know. But I think she will have a very hard time winning the Democratic primary because the left doesn't want her and the centrists are afraid of her.

[karynnj]

27. and Bill implying she was a future president

Did anyone here find it odd that she started by using the same lines that Clinton used for the Kerry Convention ("Send me"). To me it was weird, though it did fit both of them and she also did it less well than Bill.

[whometense]

28. You're certainly not the only one.

My reaction was exactly the same: "What the hell...?"

If she wants to run for president (and didn't Bill make some cutesy remark to that effect?) she has to stand on her own and run on her own merits. I frankly thought that was despicable. But apparently the crowd loved it, so who knows?

[politicasista]

29. I thought the same thing you guys thought.

Me and some fellow bloggers were talking about that at kerrygoddess' blog the other day. About how while Bill got a rousing standing ovation, Hillary was up there with him. It was clearly pandering. It was like she was saying, vote for me, and you'll get more of Bill. All while asking Blinky jr. if he was ok. We also felt it was insulting to the predominately black congregation and the King children to tell them to get involved in saving the King Center, when it is a personal family decision.

Back to the Clintons. It was also brought up that of lot of blacks are starting to see them for who they are. Rev. Al Sharpton brought up interesting observations on Tom Joyner and on TV Land's show "That's What I'm Talking About." He was saying how Carter mentioned that he could not have won without the Black vote, but Clinton has yet to say the same thing. When asked if he is really the first black president (as Toni Morrison called him), he said no because some of Clinton's policies were harmful to AA in terms of crime legislation and the increase in welfare.

As far as the Clintons relationship with the black community, many relate to him because of his upbringing. He was brought up in a poor, abusive? household, and came from a humble background to be something. He speaks with "flava" and a plays the sax with a smooth swagger just like a black man. He has a story to tell. I still think a lot of them were very spoiled by him, and for good reason. We had eight years of Bill and Hil, eight years of funny jokes, eight years of peace and prosperity.

[whometense]

30. I'm glad to hear you weigh in on this.

There's been so much StupidTalk everywhere around this funeral, I've mostly been trying to tune it all out.

The one person I've heard who made sense to me (and there may have been others I just haven't heard) was actually Ed Schultz, of all people, who spole with plain common sense when he said, whatever happened at that funeral, if it happened with the approval of Coretta Scott King's children, then it was appropriate. He made the point that no one on the screaming head shows had bothered to simply ask the King children what they thought of the funeral. Of course, we know why no one asked, don't we?

But as for what you say about the Clinton - very interesting. It's really more of a style than substance thing, then? He's someone the black community feels naturally comfortable with. That makes sense.

I actually read somewhere the other day - I wish I could remember where - someone wrote that Clinton had set a ridiculously high bar for future dem candidates in terms of style. I mean, why should we expect every candidate to have what Clinton had? He just pisses me off more every day. I have no idea what he really stands for - nor Hillary either - and his act has worn way thin.

[karynnj]

31. Also, it took time for people to see the style

He is charming, but he really didn't start his general election campaign as a rock star. I would say that Jack (and Jackie)Kennedy really did raise the bar. But, I realize that reflects my idea of style. There are even (deluded) RW people who really think Laura and George did. I don't think 40 years from now Clinton will be thought of like those of us were young in the 60s think of Kennedy.

[politicasista]

35. Oddly enough some AA identify more with the Kennedys

One of my parents brought this up while Sen. Kennedy was give his eulogy. They did more from blacks than Clinton did, especially Bobby. The Kennedy family was very much involved in the Civil Rights movement.

I remember Dexter King told a story about the day his dad MLK was asssainated. Bobby was one of the first to visit the family. (I think he charted a plane as well).

I think the nice standing ovation Ted got was cool. He liked Coretta.

[TayTay]

37. There was a real growth in that relationship over the years

John Kennedy didn't start out as a leader in helping the civil rights movement along. But circumstances brought his views around and he did end up helping out a lot. Robert Kennedy, after his borther's murder, went a lot further. He really became a voice of conscience and respect that bridged different segments of America. It is so sorrowful to think of his life being cut short so early, as his journey was only half done. I think he would have been one of the towering figures of American history, had he lived.

Teddy is a good man and he has been the standard bearer for a progressive vision for America ever since he was elected to the Senate in 1962. There is a deep bond there between the Kennedy's and the Kings. (On good days, I like to think it is the better side of Massachusetts that the good Senator, that both Senators are representing. There have been a lot of bad days as well. But there is a progressive vision of what we want to be and where we want to be that is in the soul here and I think that Sen. Kennedy is a good representative of that.)

[politicasista]

34. Thanks

Someone was saying on Hardball (the guy from the Washington Post) about how Clinton should have been a preacher cause he just always feels right at home with blacks. It was like his eulogy at Rosa Parks' funeral.

The same blogger was also saying that it's time for blacks to stop seeing Democratic candidates through the Bill Clinton prism, noting that Kerry's portrayal among blacks, black leaders, and the media was inaccurate.

[ProSense]

36. That is the key point:

The inaccurate portrayal of Kerry in the media. Yeah, Clinton is revered, but only part of that is what you (Sista) said about identifying with Clinton's upbringing. Another big part is that he was the first president the black community believed took the their issues seriously. Then there is also the fact that Clinton had eight years to nurture that image.

Look at any photo of Kerry interacting with black leaders and other public figures and they tell a completely different story that the media reports. I have absolutely no doubt that a Kerry presidency will inspire the black community in the same way Clinton's did. IMO, Kerry has the potential to exceed Clinton in many respects.

[Island Blue]

33. I got that feeling too.

If any of the First Ladies should have spoken, it probably should have been Mrs. Carter. Afterall, she probably had the most direct contact with Mrs. King through the years.

[MH1]

50. I thought that was very strange.

A friend of mine who isn't even that politically involved mentioned it too, and asked what the hell was that about?

It really struck us both as inappropriate and odd, although I confess I didn't watch the whole thing, so maybe I missed some context.

[Mass]

38. She attacks Kerry on not being tough on defense, but steals his lines.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/ny-ushill0209,0,4059951.story?coll=sfla-newsnation-front

Clinton exhorted Democrats to challenge the administration on Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terror, while seeming to bemoan the failure of former Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and Al Gore to overcome claims that they were soft on defense.

"We've lost two elections and we lost them on the issue of security," Clinton told the United Auto Workers convention in Washington. Republicans "are doing it to us again," she said.
...

"Since when has it been part of American patriotism to keep our mouths shut?" she said.

Clinton drew thunderous applause when she mocked the administration's failure to track down the 6-foot-5 bin Laden. "You cannot explain to me why we have not captured or killed the tallest man in Afghanistan," she said.

[jenndar]

39. Was she trying to make a joke?

The tallest man in Afghanistan? What is that about?

[karynnj]

41. Not really a joke -and possibly true

Bin Laden is suppose to be about 6' 5". He may be in Afghanistan and there may be no one taller there - even on the day the Senator visited.

[karynnj]

40. Makes you want to see tham side by side in a debate, doesn't it

Hillary was as quiet as a mouse in 2002 (from my memory). The only one I remember speaking out at that point was Kerry. (Also with Clinton against him, I wonder if he can/will push BCCI more.) I sent the "Follow the money" article to a few people who were Democrats concerned that the empty suit RW lie had some validity - it was great as it showed how serious and tenatious he is.

[Mass]

42. Apparently, Hillary would not even win MA.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x388779

[karynnj]

43. I wonder though how fair the McCain vs ( ) comparisons are.

McCain has baggage that hasn't been exposed and he has gotten at least 6 years of great press. With the Obama episode you can see the strength he had. With a letter that was clearly nasty, people split (in polls) 50/50 between him and Obama. Obama has incrediblely high positives - so this is not good.

But, it does mean that Obama likely has to avoid ANY thing else that is similar to this. He does have a nasty, vindictive streak and a temper that he has difficulty controlling. If there are other reported incidents, he won't continue to get the benefit of the doubt.

I do think that one liability he would have is that he is even more pro-war than Bush. Here, Kerry with sensible plans to get out and a call to reject US dominence in this area (via permanent bases) might contrast better vs McCain. (Also, Kerry did a beautiful job pushing Bush's buttons in the debate and he likely knows where McCain's are. Reading of how when Kerry left VVAW, he spoke against Hubbard (who had lied about his service) to the point Hubbard had to be held back physically from going after Kerry - I think Kerry has known for years "how to use his words" while appearing the calm, responsible sane one. )

[Mass]

44. Actually, I was amazed how most people missed the point

My point was double:

1/ You should not take any state for granted (as TayTay justly said). Most people assume that MA or RI or CA or NJ will vote Democratic whoever the nominee is. They spend hours and hours finding the nominee who will get the red states. What good is it going to do if this nominee will lose us the blue states against a moderate (or seen as moderate) Republican? When people are pushing Warner or Bayh as the ultimate winner because they will appeal to the south, they never consider if they will lose MA or VT? I am not saying they will, but they could and it is never considered.

2/ My other point is that McCain IS dangerous and that many Democrats (including Kerry, even if he does that a lot less than others) are promoting him as a moderate and responsible Republican at their own risks.

Your point is well taken too, but I am still amazed to what point some people are short-sighted and have a short memory when they analyze who should be the nominee. If they want to strategize on who is the best nominee, at least they should include all variables.

[ProSense]

45. Great points on Warner and Bayh. The problem with McCain

is that some polls are pitting him against Clinton, while others have him losing the Republican nomination to Giuliani and doing a little better against Rice, and some have her ahead. This doesn't make sense.

McCain is dangerous because most people still believe he is this bipartisan guy, but that can be changed. He has a very unpopular position on a very unpopular war.

Yesterday, the NYT did a nine-page article on Hagel. Who is likely to be the nominee: Hagel or McCain?

Article:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2452148&mesg_id=2452148

[Mass]

46. I agree McCain's view can be changed, but it is very difficultt when our

own nominee wannabees are the one who make the promotion: I am tired to hear Biden touting McCain's creds as a moderate or to see others rush to co-sponsor a bill with him. This does not make any sense.

If Obama wants somebody to co-sponsor his bill, he should call Durbin or Kerry, not McCain. This BS of Obama criticizing Democrats and rushing to McCain even after the letter is just silly.

[ProSense]

47. Agree

When I saw the "chummy" articles about McCain and Obama, first thing came to mind was why the rush on Obama's part to glad-hand with McCain? All Obama had to do was stand his ground---the one stated in his letter.

[karynnj]

49. I agree with both of your points completely

McCain could put together a whole 1 minute video of almost every influencial Democrat saying nice things about him. I have heard many Democrats/liberals say they could vote for McCain - including a very smart guy I volunteered with on election day in 2005. I gave him some negatives that he said he'd look up. (What's sad is that he was involved enough to be volunteering for Corzine - who he thought was very good- and he had gone to Iowa for Dean - surprise for me as he's a retired electrical engineer)

[ProSense]

52. Time on Obama (This is why Democrats

need to stand on principle and stop trying to wiggle to the middle):

The public scolding illustrated perfectly the exquisite dilemma of being Obama: How do you remain as popular as you are, preaching a message of unity, while also making some of the tough partisan decisions that define you as a politician and ultimately help advance your career? Obama's debut on the national stage, his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, mesmerized people because he seemed to speak for almost everyone, black and white, liberal and conservative, immigrant and native born. But in the Senate, where voting means you have to take sides, Obama has found that preserving his Everyman appeal is almost impossible.

While Obama has drawn praise from Democrats and Republicans for his intellect and diligence, he's struggling to please all those who expect something from him: liberals want the formerly feisty antiwar candidate to be the standard bearer for their causes, Democrats in Washington want him to take on Bush, African Americans want the only black Senator to speak out on racial issues, and moderates and Republicans like McCain want to see Obama's bipartisan side. It's a complicated balance, particularly for a man who would need the support of all those disparate groups to become President--a possibility he already has his eye on. "People have enormous expectations of him," says David Axelrod, one of Obama's top advisers. "And to live up to them is difficult. He's just a person, and the minute you start casting votes, you make some people happy and some people unhappy."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1158975,00.html

McCain will try to suck the blood out of anyone who trusts him.

[karynnj]

48. Major error in this post in the second paragraph

It should be McCain, not Obama. (who seems really dignified and nice.)

[ProSense]

51. Time mag on McCain

The Establishment's Pick?
By KAREN TUMULTY / WASHINGTON
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR
Posted Sunday, Feb. 12, 2006

Republicans, unlike Democrats, like to anoint their presidential candidates early. The leading indicator is often the G.O.P. moneymen, who rush to get into the game at the first whiff of a winner. In 1998 and '99 they got behind a newcomer Texas Governor and made him the early, formidable favorite for the 2000 race. Now, although it's two years until the first primary contest of 2008, a surprising number of those very same people seem to be settling on a most ironic choice: Arizona Senator John McCain, George W. Bush's bitter adversary in 2000 and a mischiefmaker whose name has become synonymous with the cause of making money less important in politics.

Reports recently filed with the Federal Election Commission show that McCain's Straight Talk America political-action committee raised more money in the second half of last year than that of any other potential G.O.P. presidential candidate. Even more significant is the number of big-name Republican fund raisers who are climbing aboard, suggesting the beginnings of a money operation that other contenders in the party will have difficulty matching. None of McCain's new allies are more impressive than former Congressman Tom Loeffler of Texas, a mega--fund raiser for Bush. Loeffler says he has told McCain he is willing "to be your bottle washer, or I'll fix the flat on the Straight Talk Express bus." While Loeffler notes that he has been "very, very, very close friends" with McCain since the 1970s, he says McCain is finding new chums among the same Republicans who invested so much to keep him out of the White House six years ago. "The battle of 2000 is far behind," Loeffler says, "and they are looking for a winner in 2008."

Snip...

The moneymen don't always make the winning bet. Just ask President John Connally or President Phil Gramm. And McCain generates little enthusiasm among much of the G.O.P. rank and file, who fume about his many apostasies, not the least of which is the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law.

Still, the Senator is looking more and more as though he could be the mainstream G.O.P. man. He won points in 2004 for the energy with which he campaigned for Bush and for his unwavering support of the Iraq war. His reformer credentials could help inoculate Republicans from the growing ethics scandals in Washington; his efforts to curb Congress's practice of slipping lobbyist-sponsored earmarks into spending bills have put him on the same page as those in the party who are most alarmed over how the deficit has exploded under Bush and the Republican Congress. McCain's public spat with Democratic rising star Senator Barack Obama has not hurt him with his fellow Republicans either. "If you pick a fight with a Hillary Clinton or an Obama, the base watches and approves," says activist Grover Norquist, who is no McCain fan. "So it sends all the right vibes."


more...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1158966,00.html