Hillary Clinton all but authorized an invasion of Iran. If nominated, will you support her in '08?

[derby378]

[aquart]

1. "All, but"?

Perhaps you would like to explain that.

[Minimus]

3. jinx

[Minimus]

2. "all but authorized" Please explain.

[rinsd]

4. Translation: Hillary voted for a non binding resolution.

[derby378]

5. Some of the worst language was removed from Lieberman-Kyl prior to passage...

...but the Petraeus Report has still been given the seal of approval in Lieberman-Kyl.

[Zandor]

11. Shhh!!! You're spoiling a good panic!

:)

[uppityperson]

6. I don't know, a year is a ways off. Depends on what happens by then.

[derby378]

7. Hopefully our troops aren't in downtown Teheran by then

:shrug:

[peacetalksforall]

10. Don't you mean Blackwater or whatever they name if after the trials

or after the pardons.

[derby378]

16. Don't remind me...

:mad:

[atreides1]

21. They won't be

I don't see the Iranians running away like the Iraqis did, from all that I've read the Iranians are very nationalistic and will band together to fight against a common enemy, just like they did during the Iran/Iraq war.

Besides, if Bush does launch a military assault, it will take time to replenish the troops in Iraq, who will be the first targets for the Iranians.

[Zandor]

8. No!!!!!!!! Let's vote GREEN so can have another GOP President!!!

:)

[W_HAMILTON]

12. Hehehehe

Yeah, really.

Let's not vote for Hillary because she authorized "a war with Iran." Instead, let's indirectly help a Republican candidate win so he can actually invade Iran. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? :sarcasm:

[ProfessorGAC]

9. Yes (eom)

,

[golddigger]

13. Yes!

I will vote for whoever is the democratic nominee!

[burythehatchet]

14. Take a look at the HELL NO number, folks. Keep pounding those

people, they'll come around.

[aquart]

17. Hey, Mitt or Rudy will really do us proud. Or Fred.

Not a lot of thinking going on today.

[derby378]

20. See #18

[TornadoTN]

30. I can be pissed and vehemently disagree with her

But in the end, if she's our nominee, then she'll get my vote. But as I said in another thread, I won't feel good about it - I don't feel especially proud to have to vote for the lesser of the two evils.

[cali]

27. To what purpose?

What does it matter? DUers are a teeny eeny minority of a minority of dems. It proves nothing if a 100 DUers vote Hell No.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. As opposed to what?

A Republican that would've gone far further?

I know you trip over yourself at the opportunity to create discord within the party, but really, this is ludicrous.

[derby378]

18. Oh, please...

The Presidency isn't the only office that's up for grabs in 2008. There's a bunch of House and Senate seats we can help put real Democrats in, too, y'know.

Hillary is just like any other candidate in that she has to earn my vote. I am a Democrat, but now is the time for us to sit back and see who has the best plan for America, not the most elegantly wrapped package.

[aquart]

25. So who are you supporting in those challenge primaries?

Are there any challenge primaries? Or do you think they will appear out of the air with no fundraising? Like Lamont?

[derby378]

31. I'm leaning more towards Bill Richardson...

...but whomever I vote for, they'll have to earn my vote. Nobody gets a free pass.

[Marrah_G]

19. Since the other choice is another Repub disaster... Yes

Democratic nominee gets my support and my time.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

22. Give her time-She'll just lie and claim she didn't know it was a vote for war

like she did with IWR

[Virginia Dare]

23. Fuck no, I'm voting for Rudy or Mittsy!...n/t

[Emit]

24. Lol! n/t

[emilyg]

32. HeeHee good one

[TwilightZone]

26. All hail President Rudy!

Rah, rah.

[Old and In the Way]

28. Would any Democratic President use his office to get us into a war in Iran?

Pretty friggen' doubtful. And, really folks, while "Hell, No" might feel good, remember, there's the issue of the Supreme Court that ought to be factored into your thinking. The GE is going to be interesting...the Republican will be campaigning as a progressive liberal and the Democrat as a regressive conservative...why?...because the most votes win. It will be the Party that has the smartest voters who understand how the game is played that will deliver the White House in '08.

[reggie the dog]

29. you centrists

seem to think that the Democratic party only belongs to you. For the last 2 elections the centrists have lost or have won but did not fight against fraud. Why not let a progressive leftist try? Then the left wing/workers branch of the Democratic party could tell you, " what you won't vote Kucinich? You are going to elect a Republican?????" Hell if the Democrats look likely to win control of the Senate and Keep control of the House we could have a centrist goverment by having a Repub pres and a Democrat legislature. Why not go for it all? why not go for a Democratic legislature and a progressive leftist Democrat like Kucinich for president.

Why do you folks think that it is ALWAYS up to those of us on the left to vote Democrat by default because their centrist candidate is less to the right than the Republicans?

If you folks want the Democratic party to represent the people that vote Democrat and people that do not vote because centrist and right wing politics do nothing for them perhaps you should think of running different kinds of candidates. This is nothing like the situation in 1992. The Republicans are toast today.