The L.A. Times beautifully characterizes that malleable enigma we call "Hillary Clinton"

[PurityOfEssence]

This article truly points out the crux of the problem, as Bill Bradley so succinctly points out:

"We know what Edwards would do. We know a little bit about what Obama would do. We certainly know in foreign policy what Joe Biden would do. But we don't know what Hillary would do, because she hasn't gotten down to the three or four things that she'd do."

Who is this person, and what would she do other than say virtually anything, no matter how contradictory, to curry favor with the current listener? It's not only galling, it's downright scary. A bit of calculation is necessary when threading through the booby traps of politics, but expediency to the point of ridiculous megacontradictions is not only evidence of being ethically challenged, it's simply silly: these things will come back to haunt her, and if you think "flip-flopper" was deadly--which it was--imagine what they'll call her.

I'll bet she didn't inhale either.

This person is not morally fit to be president. Don't like those words? I don't like people who masquerade as precisely what they aren't: she's NOT a tireless fighter against privilege, she's NOT a champion of the worker and she's NOT against our warlike abuse of the rest of the world.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-clinton4oct04,0,4318909.story?coll=la-home-nation

[wyldwolf]

1. Bill Bradley always was a little slow

Since he's not here, I'll challenge anyone else who believes Bradley to defend this non-point of his:

"We know what Edwards would do. We know a little bit about what Obama would do. We certainly know in foreign policy what Joe Biden would do. But we don't know what Hillary would do, because she hasn't gotten down to the three or four things that she'd do."

Isssue by issue. Set them up and we'll compare stated goals of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. There is so much out there I just have to assume Bradley has been asleep.

[rinsd]

5. We know what Edwards would do? How? with him running as fast as he can from his Senate career?

He's even running away from his stances during the 2004 election.

So how do we have an idea how Edwards version 3.0 do?

[EVDebs]

8. You didn't see KO the other night. We'd be out of Iraq by now if Edwards was in office. HRC not.

[wyldwolf]

9. so did he flip flop from his last debate statements?

[EVDebs]

16. So you're still trying to decipher HRC's last debate statements ? eom

[PurityOfEssence]

30. Her statements were simple: I agree with every last one of you

Just pile all your ideas on my very empty table and I'll find a way to agree with them all and still revile the bad ones that I also support.

This isn't a president, it's someone who's presiding over a bunch of stuff that other people come up with; when we're looking for an artist, we get a critic who's greatest need is to be liked.

[wyldwolf]

32. do you recall the order they spoke in?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[PurityOfEssence]

34. That's ridiculous. Take the nuclear power question as an example.

She was for everyone and everything and left herself open to all. He said "no".

[wyldwolf]

35. Why take the nuclear power question as an example? We were discussing Iraq

:shrug:

Can you not stay on topic?

[unc70]

48. No change. Edwards at debate: All combat troops out in several months, 3-5k for embassy,etc.

Russerts question was:

"Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term more than five years from now, there will be no U.S.
troops in Iraq?"

The spin machine was already primed for this question and within minutes began reporting that none of the leading Dem candidates would pledge to have all COMBAT troops out of Iraq by 2013

Edwards did not promise to remove ALL (that would be 100%) troops from Iraq, he did promise to remove ALL COMBAT troops (including counter-terrorism forces) within months, leaving a small (maybe 3,500 to 5000) contingent to provide security and support for the embassy, aid and relief (e.g. USAID), and similar diplomatic, non-military missions. (I would expect this might also include the ground support personnel needed to continue various airlift operations.)

A host country with a functioning government is expected and obligated to provide security and protection for the diplomats and the embassy and consular buildings and facilities residing therein. Each country then has its own security within its respective sovereign territory, such as within an embassy. Even if a functioning Iraqi government emerges from this mess, it would be a long time before I can see the Iraqi's alone again being able to provide this security function.

Since Edwards has separately stated his opposition to continuing to use Blackwater et al for such security activities, I inferred that these military personnel would supplement Diplomatic Security Service and Marine Embassy Guard functions. I would expect their assignments might include "helping" local police/security with perimeter security of the embassy and other missions, most likely including a "mission" at the airports. If he were to become President with US troops in Iraq still at today's levels, he would immediately withdraw about 50,000, with all remaining combat forces out in about a year. No US troops guarding the Iraqi border or carrying out "war on terror" operations.


Clinton, in particular, refuses to disavow any of these other uses of US forces, whether combat or Special Operations. Obama really isn't much different; he would still have ongoing "counter-terrorism" operations, which could include almost anything. During the debate, each of them gave answers with various distractions, hopes, and goals, but without anything specific beyond that they would start withdrawing and drastically reduce the troop levels.

Clinton probably would have totally misdirected most everyone if Edwards had not called her on the differences between her previously-stated position and the deliberately muddled one she had just given in the debate (even linking herself with DK!). Clinton then interrupted and clearly for everyone to see stated her position that could be continuing US combat operations in Iraq in 2013 but that the "vast majority of our combat troops should be out".

Edwards clearly stated, "I would have our combat troops out of Iraq over a period of several months, and I would not continue combat missions in Iraq."

With the debate barely begun, AP wire leads with the claim that the three frontrunners would not pledge to remove ALL COMBAT troops. Why was I not surprised. It appeared that all of this was nearly scripted, except that it totally misrepresented the Edwards position. If you doubt me, re-read the transcript and then the one for after-debate analysis on MSNBC.

The initial MSNBC analysis was that Edwards had bested Clinton and Obama and separated himself from them with regards to the troops and to combat operations in Iraq. This was their general concensus for quite a until Russert joins the discussion and immediately restates spin that the three leading ones were all the same:

RUSSERT: It is interesting as we sit here tonight, Chris, Democrats
all across the country, who watched this debate, reading the wires,
reading the blogs, reading the newspapers, watching HARDBALL
tomorrow will all hear that the three front-runners said we`re not
going to commit that all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq in January
of 2013. That`s five years from now. And I think a lot of
Democratic voters will find that very interesting.

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007220&docId=l:675836304&start=2

And sure enough, by the next morning nearly ever bit of coverage highlighted how none of the leading Dems would take the pledge on combat troops and how this was a rejection of the lunatic anti-war left, ... By the next morning, even most of the MSNBC pundits were mouthing the approved talking points and it was amplified nearly everywhere, including DU and nearly all sites on the left.

So the real question is, who benefits by this continuing misrepresentation of what the candidates have clearly said there and elsewhere? Certainly not Edwards. It might slightly benefit DK by making it appear that Edwards was less anti-war, but he certainly wasn't driving the spin. Obama's muddled answers should have raised serious concerns about how real his antiwar position is in practice and actions since that clear statement of general opposition five years. But his supporters didn't seem to notice this, and the pundits focused on how he failed to attack Clinton's position and to clarify the differences between them.

Maybe Karl Rove is still at work.

[wyldwolf]

53. Let's go to the debate transcript

RUSSERT: Good evening and welcome. We have some big issues to talk about tonight, so let’s start right now.

Senator Obama, I’d like to start with you. General Petraeus in his testimony before Congress, later echoed by President Bush, gave every indication that in January of 2009, when the next president takes office, there will be 100,000 troops in Iraq.

You’re the president. What do you do? You said you would end the war. How do you do it in January of 2009?

Obama... If there are still large troop presences in—when I take office... We would get combat troops out of Iraq. The only troops that would remain would be those that have to protect U.S. bases and U.S. civilians, as well as to engage in counterterrorism activities in Iraq.

RUSSERT: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?

OBAMA: I think it’s hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don’t know what contingency will be out there...

CLINTON: Well, Tim, it is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term. But I agree with Barack; it is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting...

RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, will you commit that at the end of your first term, in 2013, all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq?

EDWARDS: I cannot make that commitment. But I—well, I can tell you what i would do as president. When I’m sworn into office, come January of 2009, if there are, in fact, as General Petraeus suggests, 100,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, I will immediately draw down 40,000 to 50,000 troops; and over the course of the next several months, continue to bring our combat out of Iraq until all of our combat are, in fact, out of Iraq.

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

Obama, Clinton, and Obama won't commit to having all troops out by 2013. They all agree with keeping residual forces in.

[unc70]

60. Clever editing of transcript, but deliberately misleading again.

Glad for your response; it clearly illustrates and supports my claims in #48 and #49 (below with your identical reply). Your response also follows the pattern used in that initial AP wire story, although you are fairer to Edwards by quoting through his stating that he would withdraw all combat troops from Iraq over the "next several months" after taking office. I believe AP only quoted "I cannot make that commitment." (Edwards probably should have started with something like "While I cannot make that commitment, I can commit that I shall withdraw all combat troops within the first months of my administration." continuing with the details. That would have avoided giving his opponents the easy sound bite.)

Now to the what you failed to include from the continuing transcript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21013767/

EDWARDS: I think the problem is—and it’s what you just heard discussed—is we will maintain an embassy in Baghdad. That embassy has to be protected. We will probably have humanitarian workers in Iraq. Those humanitarian workers have to be protected.

I think somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops will be necessary to accomplish that, 3,500 to 5,000 troops.

But I do say, I want to add to things you just heard. I think it is true that everyone up here wants to take a responsible course to end the war in Iraq. There are, however, differences between us, and those differences need to be made aware. Good people have differences about this issue.

For example, I heard Senator Clinton say on Sunday that she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that’s a continuation of the war. I do not think we should continue combat missions in Iraq.

EDWARDS: And when I’m on a stage with the Republican nominee, come the fall of 2008, I’m going to make it clear that I’m for ending the war. And the debate will be between a Democrat who wants to bring the war to an end, get all American combat troops out of Iraq, and a Republican who wants to continue the war.

RUSSERT: Governor Richardson...

CLINTON: Well, Tim, could I just clarify that, you know, I said there may be a continuing counterterrorism mission, which, if it still exists, will be aimed at Al Qaida in Iraq. It may require combat, special operations forces or some other form of that. But the vast majority of our combat troops should be out.

EDWARDS: But, can I just say that my only point is—I don’t have any doubt that Senator Clinton wants to take a responsible course. There is a difference, however, in how we would go about this. And I think Democratic primary voters are entitled to know that difference.

And the difference is really very simple. I would have our combat troops out of Iraq over a period of several months, and I would not continue combat missions in Iraq.

Combat missions mean that the war is continuing.

EDWARDS: I believe this war needs to be brought to an end.


Now with a complete transcript, let's see how valid your numerous allegations really are:

You first wanted to compare the "stated goals" of the three. I might agree that their stated goals, at the most general level, appear similar. But in the details, were we have them, there are many obvious differences.

You next raised the level of discourse with:

#33: wyldwolf: Since Edwards said virtually the same thing as Clinton, I'll take your non-answer .. ...as meaning you're full of shit.

Even with a review of just this one transcript, it is patently obvious that Edwards did not say the same thing as Clinton, no matter your virtualization. By the end of 2009, Edwards would only have 3-5000 non-combat troops to provide security and support for the embassy and humanitarian workers and no combat operations.

Three years later in 2013, under Clinton there may still be continuing combat "counter-terrorism" missions, "But the vast majority of our combat troops should be out." So it would depend on her definition of "vast" -- just how much more than a majority/half is "vast majority". And they "should be out". Hell! They should be out now.

Clinton is also considerably more bellicose than any other Dem candidates wrt Iran, Syria, and most everywhere else. (Still not approaching the Repubs, sans Paul). While Clinton seems the worst to me, I hate that most of our candidates too often support the AIPAC positions on the Middle East, even positions that are opposed by a large majority of Israelis.)

Obama's expectations for 2013 for his administration appear similar to those for Clinton. In case there might be any doubt, he stated his position a second time following the excerpt you posted:

Obama:... —if there’s no timetable—then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians, and making sure that we’re carrying out counterterrorism activities there.


So where does this leave us?

Edwards: 2009 All Combat troops out, 3-5000 contingent supporting State Dept.
No combat operations.

Clinton: 2013 "vast" majority of Combat troops out, unspecified number of combat and
non-combat troops remaining. Possible continuing combat for "counter-terrorism".

Obama: 2013 drastically reduced presence, unspecified number of combat and non-combat
troops remaining. Combat troops limited to those engaged in counter-terrorism
activities in Iraq.

This looks like a clear difference to me, particularly given that Bush currently claims that much of what we are currently doing in Iraq is counter-terrorism.

While I fault Edwards for his IWR vote, he is now clearly in the "get out now" group. Clinton holds fast to the most belligerent position among the Dems, while spinning her opposition to the war (as mismanaged by Bush) to be "virtually" the same as the other Dem candidates.

I see little evidence that Obama differs much from Clinton on this issue. Yes, five years ago he strongly stated his opposition to dumb wars and to this one; but that alone does not justify the superior judgment claim he and his supporters assert -- nearly all the Dems who voted for the IWR made also made similar statements at the time, including Clinton and Edwards. In the Senate, Obama has voted the same as Clinton. While not tainted by an IWR vote, his actions in the Senate diminish his claims for any moral high ground with those like DK who deserve it.

We don't need to be reminded that Obama made a speech five years ago or that Edwards is the son of a mill worker.

[rinsd]

22. That's difference between a campaign and a voting record.

[PurityOfEssence]

11. AFL-CIO ratings of comparative legislative careers of the candidates:

Edwards and Kucinich are tied at 97
Obama gets a 96
Clinton gets a 93
Dodd is at 91
Richardson gets an 88
Biden comes in with an 85

Admittedly, Biden's career is much longer, but it's still rather illuminating that EDWARDS' VOTING AS A SENATOR rates as high as Kucinich's much longer career.

Workers' issues ARE supposed to be a lot of what we're about, right?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/afl-cio_democratic_forum.html

[EVDebs]

18. Thank you. Robert Service's line

From the poem 'The Ordinary Man'

http://oldpoetry.com/opoem/show/21351-Robert-W-Service-The-Ordinary-Man

...hat's off to that almighty force, the ordinary man !

Edwards should start reading this one at his campaign stops, btw. The cogniscenti would LOVE him for it !

Another good one is The Men That Don't Fit In

http://oldpoetry.com/opoem/9310-Robert-W-Service-The-Men-That-Don-t-Fit-In

but then they'd accuse him of being gay or something. Otherwise a great po-m.

[rinsd]

23. Why would Edwards be more impressive in a shorter time span?

That's like saying the Sept call up who hit .305 is better than the everyday player who hit .300 all year.

[PurityOfEssence]

27. Perhaps you're unaccustomed to an approach of fairness

By pointing out that Biden's career has been so very long, I'm giving the guy a break for having such a low rating. Your analogy is correct; even though I can't stand sports, math is an old friend: it's a much greater accomplishment to get thirty percent over many months than slightly better over a much shorter period.

As we stand right now, Senator Clinton has been in the Senate for less than a year longer than Edwards was; that's not too much difference. The ones who have the hardest row to hoe for the comparison are Biden and Dodd.

[rinsd]

37. Sorry. I misunderstood.

Yes, Biden's record should be viewed with the caveat that his long career made for many more chances to displease the unions and he still did very very well.

[PurityOfEssence]

41. No sweat

Nice of you to respond so pleasantly in the face of my snotty abrasiveness. I hang my head.

Sigh.

Tick, tick, tick...

That's enough.

Okay, off to more mischief!

[wyldwolf]

6. no takers?

[PurityOfEssence]

15. Seven minutes is not much of a lapse to "prove" the cowardice and deceit of your opponents

If nobody else steps forward with more details, I'll do so later.

[burythehatchet]

25. Replying to Ignored is not possible

[unc70]

49. A taker here on Irag (see #48), and you lost that round. Now where is the bbw cowering?

Having a job other than posting at DU, it took a little while amid life for me to finish, but I believe Edwards wins and you/Clinton have lost the Iraq issue. You must be working on a well-documented rebuttal. I'll wait a bit longer for your answer before formally requesting a Summary Judgment favoring Edwards and that opposing (you) be sanctioned under Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for making frivolous arguments, knowingly making false and misleading claims of fact, and failure to make even a minimal investigation.

I don't have time to be doing this, but I have reached my personal limit with these types of repeated attacks on Edwards or any of our other candidates which are in direct opposition to verifiable facts. I particularly resent those by posters who continue making the same claims (mirroring RW and MSM talking points) after those claims had been proven false in previous threads and often specifically as a reply to the very poster who now ignores the facts in order to stir the pot.

Better go take my meds!

[wyldwolf]

54. Let's go to the transcript

RUSSERT: Good evening and welcome. We have some big issues to talk about tonight, so let’s start right now.

Senator Obama, I’d like to start with you. General Petraeus in his testimony before Congress, later echoed by President Bush, gave every indication that in January of 2009, when the next president takes office, there will be 100,000 troops in Iraq.

You’re the president. What do you do? You said you would end the war. How do you do it in January of 2009?

Obama... If there are still large troop presences in—when I take office... We would get combat troops out of Iraq. The only troops that would remain would be those that have to protect U.S. bases and U.S. civilians, as well as to engage in counterterrorism activities in Iraq.

RUSSERT: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?

OBAMA: I think it’s hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don’t know what contingency will be out there...

CLINTON: Well, Tim, it is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term. But I agree with Barack; it is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting...

RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, will you commit that at the end of your first term, in 2013, all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq?

EDWARDS: I cannot make that commitment. But I—well, I can tell you what i would do as president. When I’m sworn into office, come January of 2009, if there are, in fact, as General Petraeus suggests, 100,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, I will immediately draw down 40,000 to 50,000 troops; and over the course of the next several months, continue to bring our combat out of Iraq until all of our combat are, in fact, out of Iraq.

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

Obama, Clinton, and Obama won't commit to having all troops out by 2013. They all agree with keeping residual forces in.

[unc70]

61. I went, and you are still wrong. See my post #60 to your dup post of this N/T

[wyldwolf]

63. so I didn't copy the right transcript?

[unc70]

66. Right transcript, just not enough. You left out the part that disproved your assertions.

"so I didn't copy the right transcript?"

Isn't that cute. Of course you know you posted the right transcript, just not enough of it. You should already know that since I had already replied to your identical post of the transcript fragment earlier in this very thread.

"60. Clever editing of transcript, but deliberately misleading again."

Were you hoping to distract others from your deliberate distortions?

At least we have another clear example of your posting "style".

[d_b]

69. I only bust this out for special occasions

http://wyldwolf.justgotowned.com/

[burythehatchet]

26. Bill Bradley, Rhodes Scholar, US Senator, presidential candidate

basketball player who spent the off seasons teaching kids in Hell's Kitchen to read.

But I'm feelin' lucky today, Bob, I'll go with Wyldwolf for $1,000.

[depakid]

28. Here's an issue

In 1997, the Clinton administration reversed the decades long rule that prevented the drug companies from advertising prescription medications on TV. No other Western country allows this sort of advertising, and physicians in America despise it too, because it opened the door to disease mongering and widespread patient manipulation.

Edwards mentioned in the 2004 Vice Presidential debate that a Kerry Edwards administration would re-establish the former rule.

Would Hillary reverse her husband and follow suit- or would she pander to the corporate media and the pharmaceutical industry?

[wyldwolf]

38. well, now there's a pressing issue if I ever heard one. Top 5 in the country's big issues

...and Kerry/Edwards would not have been able to wave a magic wand and reverse the rule.

but, since you asked...

May 24, 2007
Hillary Clinton Announces Agenda to Lower Health
Care Costs and Improve Value for All Americans

• Provide more oversight of drug advertising, marketing excesses and inappropriate
financial relationships with providers. Limit direct-to-consumer advertising, institute
reporting requirement for financial arrangements between providers and manufactures,
and protect physician prescribing data from being sold to pharmaceutical manufacturers.

[PurityOfEssence]

45. Wrong on all counts

As president, one can't force something like this through, but one can certainly put major pressure on your party's legislators to put it in bill form and pass the damned thing.

As for the claptrap you quote from her health plan, it promises NOTHING. It's so vague it literally saps the consciousness from one's brain; it typifies every shilly-shallying, deceptive, mealy-mouthed bit of posturing she does with every waking breath.

It will "limit" direct-to-consumer advertising. That's not "eliminate commercials", it could be simply to restrict the types of publications that could be used. This says nothing about broadcasting at all.

As for "provide more oversight", that's as enforceable as the "voluntary regulations" that Junior and the creeps love so much. If there are inappropriate financial relationships that are to be nipped at, well then hey, there must be appropriate ones, right? Who cares, anyway, since she wouldn't ban even the "inappropriate" ones, just give some undefined someones their quaint "oversight". It conjures an image of guys sitting on a cliff munching popcorn as they watch the corporateers pillage the sick and week below.

As for these "financial relationships", "none" wouldn't be an option, since there must be some appropriate ones, and thus this endorses the medical extortion that is for-profit health care. There's more wiggle room in this syrupy little blurb than in the average eel-pit, an.d triplespeak of this kind makes many people gag on the spot

She gives nothing here but the semblance that she'll attempt to seem to give a damn.

It's endemic of everything she does: misleading, unenforceable, plausibly deniable and highly flexible.

Just stop.

[depakid]

52. Another thing about this issue

is that all that was required was Presidential leadership- it was an administrative agency decision that could only be overruled by a veto proof majority in both houses.

Like so MANY other decisions and non-decisions throughout the agencies, it exemplified a process of enabling and legitimizing the far rights' agenda (even as they all tried to tear the Clintons down) Wow.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

65. Will she support overturning the Taft-Hartley act? n/t

[ShortnFiery]

2. Spot On!

HRC is an adept "con artist" ... a political chameleon who stands for TOTAL Corporate Power of our Government (Fascism) and the continuing control of The Democratic Party (and our entire Country) by the DLC. :thumbsdown:

A wolf in sheep's clothing. :scared:

[JDPriestly]

7. Hillary is a product, a commodity. She is being set up to be pulled down.

The problem for the corporate MSM is that none of the Republican candidates are attractive. Romney is flighty. Giuliani is a jerk. Thompson looks like Nixon's older brother. Huckabee seems naive and overly religious. The rest are wannabes with no broad appeal. So the only way a Republican has a chance is if the MSM hawks a Democrat they can destroy at the right moment. And that is precisely what Hillary is. She gets five TV shows on one Sunday and abacadabera her poll number go up. Wonder why. Let's challenge the MSM to give Edwards and Obama each five TV shows on one Sunday followed up by a Sunday of appearances by their spouses and watch their numbers rise. A lot of the rise is due to name recognition and the fact that after the TV appearances the newspapers report (as the Times is doing here) on the candidate. It is an advertising campaign except it isn't being paid for by Hillary, it is being sponsored by the media.

Edwards has a far more interesting story to tell. I believe he was the first in his family to go to college, but he became a successful lawyer. He has not forgotten his roots. That is an amazing story.

Even though I am an Edwards fan, I will credit Obama for having a great story as well. Both Edwards and Obama are far more interesting and have more challenging ideas and campaigns than Hillary. Why is the press giving so much attention to Hillary? Because the people who own the MSM are Republicans and they are setting her up so their guys can win.

[JDPriestly]

3. Hillary is being sold by the same people who sold us Bush and the Iraq War.

Will the American people buy yet another of their products? Thus far, everything they have sold us is lies. No more need be said.

[mike_c]

10. exactly so....

eom

[EVDebs]

21. Murdoch et al just love to toot HRC's horn. eom

[CoffeeCat]

56. Yes, and did you hear Gingrich...

...on "This Week" last Sunday?

His glowing, sugary love fest for Hillary was truly revolting--and revealing.

He couldn't say enough about how wonderful, intelligent and what a great politician she was.

I wish the hell that those who support her would wake the hell up. The neocons love her
for God's sake. She's beating the Iran war drum and her comments rival Lieberman's and
aren't that far off from Bush's Iran-war propaganda.

Please people...why do you support this woman?

Our country is in a crisis. You would think that Democrats would want a Dem candidate
who will end the war and not start another one with Iran. You would think that the Dems
would want a Dem candidate who has something to say about our eroding civil rights and
the fact that our Constitution is in peril.

She's silent on our country sliding into Fascism. Why in the hell would anyone want
to sign up for her, is truly beyond me.

[truedelphi]

62. Because a lot of Democrats are so far from Democratic values that

They have no desire to gauge her gestalt even if they wnted to.

Growing up, my parents were Republicans. Super honest and thrifty people though.

Our closest family friends were Democrats. I learned to understand certain political issues because of them - segregation, the war in Vietnam, etc.

But while I have remained progressive, the children of that Democratic couple were totally willing to put the company that they inherited into bankruptcy, award themselves "Golden
parachutes" and too bad if the "Golden parachutes" stripped the workers' pension funds.

And while they eschewed the Cadillacs driven by the ostentatious back in the late 1960's, as soccer moms they needed the SUV's and what not.

They grew up thinking they were Democrats - and being "born" to it, don't understand that being a Democrat should involve a certain awareness

[babylonsister]

4. "she avoids specifics, leaving her options open"

That she does, and I'm glad it's getting noticed.

[EVDebs]

13. Like how many MORE years she'd leave US troops in occupation of Iraq. Sorry, not buyin it

[LeftCoast]

12. Ah, more Clinton Triumphalism I see

LOL

[EVDebs]

14. The M$M's "fait accompli" ain't working out so good

And her theme music should be It's Money That Matters by Randy Newman (snicker !)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXtHJDxbEOw

[LeftCoast]

19. I do find it a wee bit ironic, that the one Democrat we have who can actually handle

the media is accused of being a tool of the same media.

I don't have a candidate yet, and as a Californian, my voice isn't counted anyway but - I think it's important that whoever we do pick is able to handle the shitstorm the RW is going to kick up through it's MSM outlet.

Kerry was totally outmatched by it. Gore didn't fare much better. Dukakis -remember Willie Horton? We know it's coming. Who can handle the storm the best?

[FiveGoodMen]

29. She isn't handling the media. They're being nice to her ... for now.

[PurityOfEssence]

31. From a purely show-biz approach, she could be the greatest story ever told

Think about it: the comeback kid who defies all odds to dazzle everyone and be their darling, just to be beset by thousands upon thousands of nicks and scrapes that underline the fact that she's got problems from all sides of endless issues that she's on every side of while firmly pronouncing her unwavering clarity.

Icarus flies so high and her plumage slowly melts off in unsightly tufts and clumps as the merciless rays of light drive her back to the earth from whence she came. The nine months from Super-duper Tuesday coronation to the final election will be fraught with endless perils, and anyone would reel under the blows, but there are some very special slings and arrows readied for her.

It's a story everyone can understand. It's a story so many are primed to enjoy. It's folly and fiction, grounded in well-known characters loved or hated by virtually everyone.

Never forget: it's show biz.

[Laurab]

17. Check out the poll on the same page about Clinton's "Inevitablity"

So far, it's not matching her high polling numbers in the least...

[EVDebs]

20. How many months away is the election (Nov '08), 13 ?

I'll bet she didn't inhale either (Alice B. Toklas brownies are why Bill had the munchies and didn't either).

[ChairmanAgnostic]

24. naomi klein wrote a great book - No More Logos

she described how brands were becoming useless, worthless, and ignored, and then NIKE and others started Branding Wars.

Hillary is a brand about as substantial as Nike. There is no guarantee of quality, performance, good worker policies, good investment policies or good trading policies. Because, just like Nike, Hillary has none of those. She is just a brand. Just a name. Just a campaign.

[killbotfactory]

39. Yep

The Clinton's have also been quite reliant on marketing and advertising strategies back while campaigning.

[zulchzulu]

36. If you have opposing opinions on both sides of issues, nobody can call you a flip-flopper

See how that works...

:crazy:

[PurityOfEssence]

42. By George, I think she's got it!

She's the wet paper bag of politics: draped heavily over everything and impossible to shake off or break through.

There's no contradiction at all, is there? In fact, it's truly consistent: she's for and against everything! (Well, except for cute little kittens, she's DEFINITELY FOR them.) Unless...

It's upbeat! It's life-affirming! It's the third AND the fourth way! It's the politics of Hope! (Unfortunately, that's Hope, Arkansas, y'all...)

The Illinois-Arkansas-Washingtonian Senator from New York is for everything! Why would the good lord have given her two hands anyway if it wasn't to wave pennants for each team in question?

Rah rah rah, sis-boom-bah, peace through war and blah blah blah!

[bvar22]

40. Peter Nicholas, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

NAILS IT!!!

[Steve_in_California]

43. Absolutely Brilliant! My hat is off to you.

[MasonJar]

44. I do not believe anything Bill Bradley says after his misleading

and self-serving comments about Gore in the 2000 race. Stop bashing our candidates, pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Perry Logan]

46. Thanks for posting this. It really boosts morale and fosters party unity.

Funny how the article says she's an "enigma," then immediately declares she's not morally fit to be President.

It's obvious by now that what Hillary's critics say about her doesn't even have to make sense. It just has to be snarky.

[CoffeeCat]

57. I'm snarky about Hillary and I won't apologize...

How in the hell can you not be "snarky" about a Democratic candidate who
is fuzzy on how or when she'll end the Iraq war---when the vast majority
of the Dem party thinks that Iraq was a mistake and wants us out now?

I don't get it! Are we not supposed to be outraged and sickened when Hillary
pounds the IRAN war drum--seeming to following the neocons down a rat hole?

Explain to me why I should accept this with a smile on my face?

She deserves snarky---and also a mountain of outrage and disgust. Our nation
is sliding into Fascism and she's got next-to-nothing to say about it.

I'm constantly beside myself--wondering how anyone could support her.

But hey--if you like war, her silence on illegal wiretapping, her silence on
torture and her bystander status when it comes to watching our civil rights go bye bye--then I guess
Hillary is your cup of tea (and your problem).

Damn right we're snarky. We're entitled a bit of snark when a Democratic candidate
stands by--like a disengaged bystander as our Constitution and our civil rights
are destroyed---and our country engages in torture and endless warmongering. So far,
Hillary is not outraged by any of this. In fact, she barely says two words about
all of this combined!

Damn straight we're snarky...and sickened...and disgusted and AFRAID of someone like
her being our nominee.

You criticize the tone of the messenger, but yet you have no feelings about Hillary
being a corporatist, warmongering, spineless, voiceless candidate during a time when
our country is falling like Rome. Unbelievable.

[David Zephyr]

47. I read the article. I'm glad you posted it here.

And the article essentially attributes her vagueness to her continued increasing lead.

It's why I said her campaign was "flawless" early this year: when you don't stand, you never fall.

She's not my candidate and I don't have one (hoping against all hope for Al Gore), but she's almost got the whole thing wrapped up.

And, as I've said, when the NEA endorses her, it's all over.

In any event, your candidate was sterling last night on MSNBC's Countdown.

David

[EVDebs]

50. Edwards is the strongest Dem candidate per Rasmussen Report

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3580534

[Mythsaje]

51. This thread perfectly compliments my thread on the media...

K&R

[The Backlash Cometh]

55. Bill was called a waffler.

[EVDebs]

58. ...and a Triangulator. Robt. Perry wants to know why he didn't investigate IranContra, let it die

So he and HRC could become 'adopted' members of the BFEE ?

[The Backlash Cometh]

59. Hmmm....

[question everything]

64. Do we want her to be like Bush

who, as Steven Colbert characterized, sticks by his opinions no matter what happen?

We don't need a candidate who would be dogmatic and then would be afraid to change course.

[hedgehog]

67. We need a President who will be flexible as new information

comes in, hence Edwards and Obama did not engrave their Iraq policy in stone. That is different from phrasing everything you say to be all things to all people. Try this thought experiment: a CIA undersecretary comes into the Oval Office and hints that important information may be gained if a certain person accidentally was pushed on to a flight to Cairo. I trust Obama and Edwards to put a stop to renditions. I would expect Hillary to give a wink and a nod. Plausible tenability, right? It's not like she really sanctioned torture. Besides, if the torturers are from another country, it doesn't count.

[question everything]

70. I thought that that famous reply to Russert

showing that she, not Bill, were on the podium, was about not sanctioning torture.

[hedgehog]

72. Depends on the situation, apparently

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/200601017_hillary_equivocates_on_torture/

[Froward69]

68. What are her positions???

besides the ones Bill Knows... um her political positions.

[PurityOfEssence]

71. She's for them

All of them.

Do not resist.