Comments on: Clinton’s Achilles Heel

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:40:18 +0000

Hillary speaks with her Senate votes.

one vote for the war, zero against.

Correct.

And the writer OW links is willing to forget all about it, but only if Clinton will speak the M-word.

It’s beyond silly.

By: mdhåtter

mdhåtter — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:08:07 +0000

boilerman, i agree with you. I’m from Mass, and I couldn’t be more glad my Senator Kerry recognizes that he has a very safe Senate seat – and he is actually busy, sitting in it that seat, working.

By: boilerman10

boilerman10 — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:40:35 +0000

Oliver, Please note that in New York State, we consider Senator Clinton to be an excellent Senator.

However, I don’t think she is a good Presidential candidate, and I don’t think she will be the nominee of the Democratic party without some serious repositioning on the issues of war, the reworking of the domestic economy, and returning to Constitutional government.

As a Senator, she has a tremendous future. As a Presidential contender, she is not going to win, and if by chance she is nominated, The Democrats will lose the rqace, and lose the Senate too, a prediction I hope does not happen.

By: Dugger

Dugger — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:40:19 +0000

Nevertheless. Edwards, from a Democratic Party perspective, has been smarter and is out ahead of CLinton on this one. Early he acknowledged his vote was a war vote and that it was (IHO) flat wrong. Now he’s to the left of Hillary on the war. This is an awkward time for Hillsy. She’s the frontrunner, but she could get eclipsed and if she doesn’t placate the left on the war, I could see a third party – and I don’t mean Special K (Kucci Koo).

By: mdhåtter

mdhåtter — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 10:46:39 +0000

We’re going to let the hysteric branch of the party make or break the frontrunners based on whether or not they’ll utter the word “mistake”?

Hillary speaks with her Senate votes.

one vote for the war, zero against.

bullshit walks – she’s practical and great, but call me for a donation or a doorknocking campaign when Hillary has done something either productive or inspiring to change the course of things.

By: vwcat

vwcat — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 09:34:17 +0000

I have a theory. It goes like this. DLC equals Iraq war mongers. I believe those truly involved with the DLC are the ones who voted for war.
This is why some voted no and some voted yes.
Sen. Durbin voted no and is not DLC/ He is my senator who was there then.
Kerry and Edwards both belong (ed) to the DLC.
And we all know the DLC is all about corporate and being republican lite. They embrace many of the positions and ideas of the republicans.
Both sides had the same intellegence and reports.

By: Joshua Gaines

Joshua Gaines — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 08:07:01 +0000

I don’t think she should apologize. I think it’s a case of “fool me once.” I guess we all had some inkling that Bush was a lying sack of shit from the start, but I doubt that, in March 2003, any of us conclusively knew exactly how big of one he would turn out to be.

I was against the war from the start. Not because of the issue of WMDs, but rather because I didn’t think there was a way in hell of replacing Saddam with anything better.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:33:41 +0000

Naw, the Denocratic Party is more pragmatic and less ideological than that. Despite his vote, Kerry won his primaries against the anti-war Dean because he looked like a winner.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:29:46 +0000

That’s great.

We’re going to let the hysteric branch of the party make or break the frontrunners based on whether or not they’ll utter the word “mistake”?

Hillary has been exactly forthright on this issue: you don’t get a do over. She voted the way she voted. She wasn’t alone either.

By: cadmium

cadmium — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:38:54 +0000

There is a big difference betw Kerry 04 and Clinton 07. In 04 Iraq was already in vaded — too late to oppose but recent enough so that a case could be made that speaking out vociferously against the war could be construed as undermining the troops in theater. Now the invasion/occupation is so clearly wrong. The WMD justification has been disproven. The occupation has gone on longer than anyone but war profiteers expected. Kerry points out frequently that half the Americans that died in Vietnam died after the administration knew that it was a mistake. She is only recently acknowledging what has been obvious for too long to accept now.

By: duder

duder — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:13:00 +0000

Yes, you’re essentially correct here about Hillary and Kerry, but Kerry’s speech when he cast his vote was actually pretty good. (pretty easy to Google, one presumes.) Kerry really shot himself in the foot at that Grannd Canyon press conference when he
1. bothered answereing Bunnypants’ question about whether he’d vote the same way
2. saying he’d vote the same way “knowing what I know now”

It was about over for him then.

It’s also worth noting yet agian that the resolution AS WRITTEN was almost impossible to vote against: we should invade Iraq if they’re involved with 9-11 or an imminent threat. Anyone against that? The stickler was the third part: if Saddam defies the UN. D’oh. By that standard, we should have invaded Jesse Helms a long time ago (anyone against that?).

By: Diamond LeGrande

Diamond LeGrande — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:33:40 +0000

Wasn’t it Harry Truman who said that when you give the voters a choice between a Republican and a Republican, they will choose a Republican every time.