Hillary: Vote for Me, I was Duped

[Centexfarmer]

^^ I humbly submit, that I would like very much to take your word for it.

However, myself and many friends of mine don't see that. At least not yet. Perhaps many of us have been blinded by how she's been painted by the "vast right-wing conspiracy."

However, Hillary is going to have to shed that image. Her critics aren't going to do that for her.

I blame Kerry for losing in '04. Not because of the lies that were being told about him, not for being "Swift-Boated" but because he didn't fight back.

They pulled a knife, he should have pulled a gun. They put him in the hospital, he should have put them in the morgue. To borrow a line from Untouchables.

Hillary can't have it both ways, "a vision" because she's been there, and "a victim" because she's a woman.

She needs to be a LEADER, because this Democrat, and many that I know like me, want that! As a country we need that.

I'll bust my ass and work for a Democratic candidate for President that exhibits the qualities that I'm looking for.

Hillary will have to show me and the rest of us at the "grass roots" level that she's that candidate.

As a Democratic Precinct Chair, I'll just do what I can to get out the vote for the primaries if I'm given a choice that falls short of that.

As a delegate I'll wear my stickers on my shirt, and my credentials, and attend the conventions, and work on the committees, but I won't be excited about it, or "energized" as the Senator is found of saying.

 

[lancelva]

I blame Kerry for losing in '04. Not because of the lies that were being told about him, not for being "Swift-Boated" but because he didn't fight back.

I agree and so does Hillary. She knows that wehn you are attacked, as she said, you have to "deck your opponents."

Had she reacted like Kerry all the other times she's been vilified, she wouldn't be where she is today. And some may call me "defensive" or whatever, but I am simply responding to attacks--it's my job and it's what every campaign should do.

 

[Centexfarmer]

I agree and so does Hillary. She knows that wehn you are attacked, as she said, you have to "deck your opponents."

Had she reacted like Kerry all the other times she's been vilified, she wouldn't be where she is today. And some may call me "defensive" or whatever, but I am simply responding to attacks--it's my job and it's what every campaign should do.

Well my Congressman, and G.W. Bush's Congressman, the Honorable Democrat Chet Edwards, D-Waco, Texas, could teach Hillary a thing or two about being a Democrat in the most Republican voting Congressional district in the nation.

This was recorded during the Texas State Democratic Convention that I attended in Ft. Worth, Texas last year. I was there when he made this address:



^ Is it any wonder why Democrats, Republicans, and Independents keep reelecting him, term after term after term, despite the Bush Republicans best efforts to defeat him? He doesn't always vote with me on my issues, but when it comes his "base" his base are the people of his District. All of us! I've known him personally since he was a Congressional aid to Olin "Tiger" Teague, and he's considered a family friend.

I respectfully submit to you lancelva, that as a campaign worker, it's not your job or responsibility to "defend" your candidate against attacks from fellow Democrats, that's yesterday's politics. She's running for POTUS now. You should be selling her to the delegation of those of us who are going to be asked to canvass their precincts, cold call voters, put together campaign signs, distribute her campaign literature, etc., not to mention those who are actually being asked to vote for her! She's not running against a Republican, she running to be the LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD.

Otherwise we may as well turn the whole party system over to the party bosses, and hired guns.

This Texas Democrat is tired of the DNC running the fucking show, and I will fight against Hillary Clinton being our party's nominee if she turns out to be "Republican Lite," or John Kerry in a skirt.

 

[lancelva]

I respectfully submit to you lancelva, that as a campaign worker, it's not your job or responsibility to "defend" your candidate against attacks from fellow Democrats, that's yesterday's politics. She's running for POTUS now. You should be selling her to the delegation of those of us who are going to be asked to canvass their precincts, cold call voters, put together campaign signs, distribute her campaign literature, etc., not to mention those who are actually being asked to vote for her! She's not running against a Republican, she running to be the LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD.

You'll be happy to know that I do all of those things, and more. However, I'm not working for Hillary Clinton for the money--I'm working for her because I believe in her and her campaign.

And, again, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that Hillary Clinton is "John Kerry in a skirt." Other than the fact that Hillary wears pant-suits, we are prepared and willing to respond when attacked--you have to. If you ignored political attacks, then that would weaken your ability to execute the other duties of a campaign, some of which you cite.

If you want it simply, my job, more accurately, is to help elect Hillary as the "LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD."

 

[lancelva]

Are we still harping on this "vote shit," as you termed it? You clearly haven't read my posts, or are blinded by Clinton. Perhaps both. I'll try one last time:

How is it that twenty-three senators got the vote right, and she got it wrong? What did they know that she didn't? What does that say about her judgement? And don't you see how a reasonable person would see the similarity in her excuse -- that it wasn't her vote, her "matches" that caused the war to happen, it was George's gasoline? And to take a page from your script, you claim she's all-wizened by her experience with the right wing over the course of fifteen or twenty years. How is it she didn't see Bush for what he is, or his ploys for what they were?

It is obvious that you refuse to understand the actual content of the resolution authorizing the use of force and the vote that was cast in the Senate. So I will show my answer again, maybe this time you will read it:

The question is not that anyone got it "right" or "wrong" over the issue of WMD or war. Most of the 23 (and, by the way, 21 of those were Democrats--not all 23, as you suggest) Senators believed Saddam had WMD because of the hyped intelligence they were given. The fundamental political question on the table was should an executive--an executive in general, not just Bush--be given such authority when such a threat exists. Just because they disagreed with this assumption for their own reasons doesn't mean they were right or wrong about the war itself, so their is simply no point or relevance to the question that you have been throwing around.

Really? She didn't learn how the extremists operate -- after all, they sure did a number on her? How is it millions of people marched against the war because the war was based on lies -- she didn't hear those voices? Then who is she listening to, aside from the CEOs of multinational banks and brokers?

Again, you are confusing the authorization for the use of force after all diplomatic alternatives had been exhausted with the actual military action and the failures of the Bush Administration in the military planning of the war. Again, you cite no evidence for your claim that she is allied with "multinational banks and brokers" because no such evidence exists. George Bush made the mistake--it's that simple. It's a point that I've been making throughout this thread.

It is obvious that I am discussing complex issues with someone who refuses to listen to reason and with their head buried in the sands of 2002. Let's try this, since you seem so fond of this type of questions: "How is it that seventy-seven senators reached the same conclusion as Senator Clinton? If she really is as calculating and conviving as you insist, how is it that a vast majority casted the same vote? And why did John Edwards--a man you seem to hold in high regard--vote for the resolution? How were his "matches" any different than Hillary's, if your analogy is correct?

 

[lancelva]

Oh, we're talking apples and oranges, here. John Edwards' integrity needs no vouching. John Edwards made a bad move, but he's not being a prig, he's not calling in teams of lawyers to parse his statements, he's not calling Dick Morris, or Gallup, to figure out what to say, or what story to stick to. He's not doing a "Well, depends on the meaning of "fuck up," as Hillary-Rumsfeld Bush Kerry Clinton does.

Not only has he admitted he made a bad choice, he's apologized -- A-P-O-L-O-G-I-Z-E-D -- for his error. Has Hillary "Had I Known I'd Make Another Excuse" Clinton? Has Hillary "Let's Take Another Poll -- Just To Be Sure" Clinton admitted poor judgement?

So your rules apply only to Hillary but not to Mr. Sunshine Boy? The flip side of your argument is that he "apologized" because he has teams of lawyers to parse his statements and analysts reviewing poll numbers. He voted for the resolution for political reasons (remember how he said his advisors told him to vote that way?) and he's "apologizing" for political reasons. How is that a sign of strength? And, as I've said before, George Bush is the one who you should be demanding an apology from. And trying to link Hillary to Rumsfeld isn't even worthy of a response, although I will remind you that she was one of the first Senators to call for his resignation. When it comes to your views of Hillary, as a matter of fact, you share a lot in common with Rumsfeld yourself. You're so far to the left that you're sitting on the right.

I suggest that, if you are really concerned about this war, that you spend all this hate energy you have against Hillary Clinton on lobbying Congress to support her and Senator Byrd's legislation to revoke the Iraq war authorization (Remember Robert Byrd? The one who was vehemently opposed to the resolution? He doesn't hold any grudges against Clinton because he realizes that our focus should be on the future, not the past). Instead of asking why Hillary voted for the authorization, why not demand answers from Republicans who vote against the Iraq Accountability Act and the Bush Administration who vetoes it?

I hate the war in Iraq--I want it to end too. And that is one of the many reasons I am doing what I'm doing and trying to get Hillary Clinton elected. If you don't respect that, that is your right. And I will say that I do respect your opinions and your right to express those opinions, even though I think they are wrong.

 

[Centexfarmer]

<snip>
You know, you exemplify everything that rankles me about Hillary-Rumsfeld Bush Kerry Clinton -- the know-it-all attitude, the "We Know Best" condescension, the same crap attitude that sunk her misbegotten health care plan, the same smarmy, "STFU and Listen To Me" mentality that causes people to think, "Why would I vote for Ms. "Knows Everything and the Price of It, Too?" I think the spoofed "1984" ad really captures this attitude nicely:


<snip>

Is this the Ad that you're referring to?





It just proves that Hillary R. Clinton IS NOT the Democratic Nominee for POTUS yet.

 

[lancelva]

It just proves that Hillary R. Clinton IS NOT the Democratic Nominee for POTUS yet.

No one said she was...but she will be. And I can only hope that you will suport the nominee.

By the way, the great irony of that ad is that it more accurately portrays Obama--I mean, he is the one who has lemming-like following of a bunch of political novices based on his "high-minded" rhetoric, despite his havig little experience.

 

[Centexfarmer]

No one said she was...but she will be. And I can only hope that you will suport the nominee.

By the way, the great irony of that ad is that it more accurately portrays Obama--I mean, he is the one who has lemming-like following of a bunch of political novices based on his "high-minded" rhetoric, despite his havig little experience.

Fair Enough.

I'll probably have my mind made up as to which nominee that I'm going to support no later than this fall.

Right now I'm not supporting anyone, but I'm currently leaning heavily toward Governor Bill Richards of New Mexico.

 

[lancelva]

You didn't answer my query -- will you support Obama if he is the nominee?

As I've said before, I will support the nominee of the Democratic Party--whoever it is. Are you willing to make that same commitment?

 

[springboksfan]

I completely agree with you, Ramindra. Despite protestations by President Bush and the Sec. of Shopping, Condi Rice, despite their "everyone said Saddam had WMD" routine, fact is, plenty of people either doubted the existence of WMD, or did not believe the WMD that Saddam may have possessed presented any threat to the US, its allies or Iraq's neighbors.

Yes, most thinking Americans who were outside the Beltway and had gotten over the driving need for revenge for 9/11 understood that the Iraq thing had much more to do with revenge for daddy than it ever did with WMDs--which we also knew were nonexistent.

I have asked this question of lancelva in one of his paeans to Clinton: how is it that the twenty-three US Senators that voted against the war got it right, and Clinton et al got it so wrong? To date, I've not seen any effort to answer my query. I believe the answer is quite apparent: Clinton thought voting for the war would insulate her from attacks in her quest for the presidency.

Oh, Jesus, GA. Do you ever listen to yourself. You're as bad as Bill O'Reilly sometimes, I swear. This is total bullshit and we both know it.

While I'm certain that Clinton's new-found wisdom is welcomed by the Democratic leadership, one has to wonder if the prevailing political winds didn't drive this decision, too. And as welcome as her help may be, no one is going to forget how she voted, nor will it stop the speculation as to why she voted that way.

Why are you so dead-set against someone changing course when new information has come available? What you're condemning Hillary for is exactly what Dumbya refuses to do--face a changed reality. Whatever they may have thought at the time (and I do use that verb with some sense of irony), the facts have proven that picture wrong. There were no WMDs. The Iraq debacle is an absolute disaster. Yet Hillary sees it and is doing her part to put a stop to it, ,while Dumbya just sends more troops and stays the course. Shouldn't we all be willing to learn from and admit our mistakes so that we may do better next time?

The resolution authorizing the use of force as a last resort in Iraq was not a question as to whether Iraq had WMD. In other words, I "nay" vote didn't mean that a Senator thought Saddam didn't have WMD. Indeed, even Robert Byrd--who vehemently opposed the resolution--admitted that he could indeed have WMD. The central question centering around the resolution dealt with executive authority. How much authority should a president be given to handle a threat? Those who opposed the resolution at the time didn't want to yield that much authority to the executive.

And hasn't this administration proven time and again that those who questioned them were right in doing so? I believe it has.

Hillary believes that such power--when used responsibly--is important to maintain national security. However, the administration did not use that power responsibly. And, as you may recall, Senator Clinton stressed the importance using the authority granted by Congress rationally. We have seen that the administration misused that authority, which is why Senator Clinton is calling for a repeal of the original authorization. She isn't changing her position: she has believed from day one that such authority is important but should only be used responsibly. When it isn't used responsibly, it shouldn't be granted.

Well said, lance. Thanks.

I'll make the pledge that I won't support the Democratic nominee, whoever it is. I can't imagine which combination of nominees would cause me to vote for a Democrat, but I suppose it's a remote possibility.

So, lance, since you help bring all of the followers to the Alter of Rodham, are you a lemmingaide? Oh, I crack myself up...and probably nobody else

Not your best work, mo. But you still made me smile.

 

[texpatriot]

I'll make the pledge that I won't support the Democratic nominee, whoever it is. I can't imagine which combination of nominees would cause me to vote for a Democrat, but I suppose it's a remote possibility.

So, lance, since you help bring all of the followers to the Alter of Rodham, are you a lemmingaide? Oh, I crack myself up...and probably nobody else

It's your vote do with it want you want. If you want to throw it away on some angry flip flopping white stiff that's your business, and I respect you for it.






pffft...

WHATEVER!

The important thing here, is that you're amused, and that's what really matters!

 

[NickCole]

I'll make the pledge that I won't support the Democratic nominee, whoever it is. I can't imagine which combination of nominees would cause me to vote for a Democrat, but I suppose it's a remote possibility.

There's mowrest-style logic and integrity.

You pledge that you won't support the Democratic nominee and then admit there's a "remote possibility" that a combination of nominees would cause you to vote Democratic.

 

[Chalchalero]

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/05/hbi-90000033

Hillary has always been and continues to be an opportunistic slag. She is now going where the political winds are blowing her (he-he-he...) the same as she did when she voted for the war. There is only one word to explain the reason for what she supposedly believes now, and others in this thread have already used it: expediency. She is a coward and a fraud and I am convinced that because Americans are idiots, they will more than likely vote for her. Good for you! You got what you deserved with Bush and you will get what you deserve with Hillary too.

I am so sick of democracy. What we really need is a good old fashioned Latin American military junta. Maybe a dirty war or two...

This is all ironic sarcasm, so please - attack at will....

 

[unclaimedblessing]

What is the criteria that makes a politician a good or great politician or president.
Is it making important decisions based on what they think is the right thing; or voting for what they beleive the majority of their constituency want?
I have read arguments supporting each approach from both sides of th aisle.

 

[unclaimedblessing]

Sorry, I had to exit and answer the doorbell before completing my post.
We all know that 9/11 left physical casualties in a couple of locations and emotionally scarred people everywhere. However, no one can debate that NYC was the biggest victim. First responders to the WTC are still coming down with dangerous respiratory diseases and dying.
Hillary is a senator from NY and represents all New Yorkers at the federal level.
Perhaps Hillary's decisions were based on what she felt the majority of her people wanted.
I'm not an ardent supporter of Hillary, I plan to reserve my vote until I know more about all the candidates.

 

[NickCole]

Thanks Nicole, for repeating exactly what I said. Good ananysis

I see you missed my point.

I'll give you a hint.

You wrote:

I'll make the pledge that I won't support the Democratic nominee, whoever it is. I can't imagine which combination of nominees would cause me to vote for a Democrat, but I suppose it's a remote possibility.

pledge /plɛdʒ/[plej] noun, verb, pledged, pledg·ing.
–noun 1.a solemn promise or agreement to do or refrain from doing something: