NYT: Senator Clinton, in Arkansas, Says Democrats Are 'Wasting Time'

[DeepModem Mom]

Clinton, in Arkansas, Says Democrats Are 'Wasting Time'
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT
Published: July 16, 2006

ROGERS, Ark., July 15 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, returning to her red-state ties, chastised Democrats Saturday for taking on issues that arouse conservatives and turn out Republican voters rather than finding consensus on mainstream subjects.

Without mentioning specific subjects like gay marriage, Mrs. Clinton said: “We do things that are controversial. We do things that try to inflame their base.”

“We are wasting time,” the senator told a group of Democratic women here, on part of a two-day swing through a state that could provide an alternate hub to New York if she starts a national political campaign.

On recent weekends, Mrs. Clinton has been traveling the country and raising money at an extraordinary pace. But the trip to Arkansas this weekend had a more sentimental feel, reuniting Mrs. Clinton with her former political allies and giving her a platform to broadcast her more centrist background.

After speaking to the Arkansas Federation of Democratic Women, Mrs. Clinton was scheduled to visit the first home in Fayetteville that her husband bought for her, and where they were married....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/us/16hillary-web.html

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Thank you, Sen. Clinton.

After all, how dare we stand for anything of real substance, when there is triangulatin' to do.

Another chapter for my book "Profiles in self-Interest".

[MisterP]

2. this is moronic:

what's next? "gays stole my toenails!"?
"Drunken idiots, sacrifice yourselves and throw yourselves under your king!!!"--Homer Simpson

[OKthatsIT]

104. She is the enemy...Pro WTO, NAFTA, North America Aliance and Global Law

She is NEVER TO BE TRUSTED

[Tom Joad]

3. She was likely also alluding to the war in Iraq.

[me b zola]

87. Well if we send Chelsea to Iraq driving a fuel truck

We'd see how long it would take Hil to realize that the treasonous lie that is the war on Iraq is just that.

HRC :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:




on edit: I would like to say that I don't want to send Chelsea to Iraq, hell, I don't want to send anyone's children to Iraq.

[madrchsod]

4. once again she displays her utter contempt

for anyone who isn`t a neo-liberal. union democrats and progressives are not welcome in the house of hillary...jesus christ if she keeps this shit up she will prove rush right..

[BooScout]

37. Actually I think she's right....

Democrats spend way too much time chasing their tails with so called issues that the Republicans throw up to divide us all.

[rodeodance]

53. yes, she is right about this.

[Tesha]

81. Yes, if all Democrats simply stood up for what was right...

Yes, if all Democrats simply stood up for what was right
and didn't waste so much time arguing among themselves
and then apologizing afterwards FOR DOING WHAT WAS RIGHT,
there'd be far fewer "weak points" for the Republicans
to pry at. All women deserve rights. Gays deserve rights.
Killing people in foreign countries to steal their oil
is wrong. Etc....

'Shame Clinton is one of the folks constantly arguing
against true democratic (small D) values and providing
"pry points" for the Republicans.

Tesha

[ryanmuegge]

70. I believe it was Howard Dean

who advocated that the Democrats universally take the stance of keeping the government out of one's personal life when it comes to bullshit "social" issues that appeal to the Christo-Taliban demographic. To even discuss so-called social wedge issues is a losing proposition for Democrats, not to mention a waste of time; we're never going to win over the evangelical Christians. If America is indeed a conservative nation, like Karl Rove often likes to claim, we should beat them at their own game and let indvidual states take stands on gay rights, abortion, and gun control and advocate a more libertarian stance on these issues. We should show the Republican party to be the pro-big government, anti-personal choice and freedom party that they are.

[Peeves]

97. Hurray for Hillary!

She speaketh the TRUTH! :kick:

[benfranklin1776]

52. Quite true.

And what rankles me the most is that she blames Democrats for pushing these divisive issues when it is the Congressional Rethuglicans who are deliberately bringing up issues like flag burning and constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage in a desperate attempt to rally their flagging base. She is clearly blaming the wrong party and doing the Rethuglicans work for them by diverting blame from where it belongs. It is they who are so intellectually and politically bankrupt that they beat these tired old diversionary drums because their policies have been such miserable abject failures. Perhaps her flagellation of the Democratic Party is designed to curry more favor with her new friend Rupert Murdoch. Whatever the reason it is egregiously harmful and she will be soundly and rightly rejected for these antics should she have any further political ambitions.

[Nite Owl]

5. It would be nice if she worried about

the democratic base and not the right wing base! Should we have all shut up about civil right too? Or maybe women's rights? After all that upset the right wing too.

[Mad_Dem_X]

51. Exactly

I personally don't think we should worry about "inflaming" the RW's. It's about time we fought back against their poisonous viewpoints and utter contempt for humanity.

Sorry, Senator, I'm just not with you on this one.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Cut-and-Run Hillary

Hillary: Please, don't offend the misogynists and the homophobes

Please don't tell the Republicans they are wrong, it will piss them off!

We can manage the war better!

:puke:

And then we have Big Dog defending Lieberman's support of Bush's war.

We can do better than the Bushes and Clintons!

[truthisfreedom]

7. let us not eat our own.

she's not all bad. she's bad, though... but she would help the country a great deal if she was president (not that i believe it's possible.)

[IndianaGreen]

12. A President Hillary will continue with the war in Iraq

She would continue to blindly support Israel regardless of the human tragedies brought about Israeli aggression against her neighbors.

She would keep PATRIOT on the books, and she will not stop warrantless surveillance and eavesdropping on Americans.

We don't need the Presidency to be limited to the Bushes and the Clintons!

[WCGreen]

21. Bush Lite......

Less filing...

Less taste...

in other words...

Warm piss....

[bearfan454]

54. EXACTLY ! nt

[countmyvote4real]

23. Put down that kool-aid. Now. Spit it out.

You really can't want * in a skirt.

[rodeodance]

29. too many here will not give her a chance.

[truthisfreedom]

39. no kidding. it's like the DU community actually believes that her

political postures reflect the exact person she is, and the way she would lead. (once again, i don't believe for a second she could be elected president.)

[ixion]

45. nope I look at her support of the Illegal Invasion of Iraq, flag burning

amendments and the like, and I KNOW she is not to be trusted nor supported.

[Pirate Smile]

8. "We do ..." "We do ..." Silly me. I wasn't aware it was all OUR fault.

Now I know that we need to blame ourselves. Thanks, Hillary.


“We do things that are controversial. We do things that try to inflame their base... “We are wasting time,”



:wtf:

[still_one]

10. funny but the issues that are controversal our brought up by THEM

NOT US HILLARY

[Pirate Smile]

74. OK - I see the NYT reporter screwed it up. She was talking about the

Republican controlled Congress. Now that makes sense.

NYT - geez, you guys are really sucking bad.

Ignore my posts below from last night. It definitely seemed bizarre from the beginning.

[still_one]

9. I don't like Hillary but part of what she says is accurate

the issues like gay marriage and flag burning do bother the othersides base, but IT IS NOT BECAUSE WE ARE BRINGING IT UP, THEY ARE

what are we suppossed to do when they want to make an ammendment to the constitution banning gay marriage or making it illegal to burn the flag. Remember we don't control Congress, or set the agenda. So what would she have us do

The issues that should be discussed like Iraq, social security, medicare, are never allowed to be brought up on our terms

The issues that affect most people are never allowed to be brought up on our terms.

I am more convienced than ever that she is out of touch with the situation

[Pirate Smile]

15. That is what makes the statement so wacky. It just seems bizarre.

The Republicans bring the issues up or put them on state ballots or bring up votes in Congress, etc. to inflame their base, yet now it is "our" fault.

I'm actually not a Hillary basher but this just strikes me as really strange - it is just a very odd statement.

edit to add - It feels a little like the saying who are you going to trust? Me or your lying eyes. It feels like she is trying to say the reality I've watched and experienced re the Republicans manipulation of these issues to fire up their base is not true. We, the Democrats, somehow initiated the whole thing. I've had it with anyone distorting reality. It just pisses me off to no end.

As the classy saying goes - Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. :)

[IndianaGreen]

17. Is like blaming the victim for the rape

Hillary blames the Democratic base for being outraged at Republican law breaking and warmongering. Shit! What are we supposed to do, bow down to Bush and to Pat Robertson?

[still_one]

19. isn't that the truth

[zreosumgame]

103. dude, the times is fucking wit ya

They are SPINNING again, do try to get some facts first next time...

[SensibleAmerican]

38. Let's set the record straight, Gavin Newsom brought up gay marriage

He wanted to make a show, even though he knew his effort was futile, and through that he got Bush reelected.

[IndianaGreen]

47. Marriage rights for gays has been an issue long before Gavin Newsom

took a public stand on it. Perhaps if we forced LGBTs back into their closets at gun point and made abortion illegal, we could pacify the rightwing as Hillary wants us to do, but if we did that we would no longer be Democrats but some branch of the Republican Party.

[beltanefauve]

84. Uh, no

Vote tampering in Ohio is what got * "re-elected." Gavin Newsome and his ego are a completely separate matter.

[Miss Chybil]

11. I agree with her. Stirring up "fear voting" Repubs is not a good

stradegy. You have to win first to get what you want. Unless, of course, you want eight more years of what we've got now. I have my doubts about Hillary. At one time, she was a shoe-in for my vote. I do have questions, now, but as I said, I agree with her on this issue.

[IndianaGreen]

16. Well, let's endorse the GOP agenda of banning abortion and persecuting

gays, and then Hillary will find out that no matter what Democrats do, the Republicans will never be happy.

Hillary was an enabler of Bill Clinton's sexual escapades, and she is an enabler of Republican extremist agenda. Hillary is a professional enabler!

[Chomskyite]

28. Could you tell us who is actually doing this "stirring up"?

To me it's only Republicans lying about Democrats doing the stirring up. So I want to hear from you examples of leading Democrats leading the charge FOR gay marriages, FOR flag burning, FOR abortion-on-demand, FOR soaking the rich. I missed all that.

[LibDemAlways]

13. "We do things that are controversial. We do things that

try to inflame their base."

Why does Hillary give a flying fuck about the moronic repuke "base"? They'd never vote for her anyway. Not in a million years.

She ought to be a little worried about the Democratic base, because those are the people she's inflamming with rhetoric like that.

Hillary, if you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing.

[bluestateguy]

14. There is something the Clintons don't understand

As much as I like them and think Clinton did a good job, they often try too hard to build consensus when sometimes there is no consensus to be built. Sometimes you just have to draw lines in the sand, pick your teams and fight. I think the Clintons are suffering from these delusions that they can make the Freepers and fundies like them. They can't and they won't. No matter how many elections they win, the Jerry Falwells and Freepers of the world will never like the Clintons.

[6000eliot]

31. I agree

You would have to assume the republicans are on the up and up to want to build a consensus with them. But they are a bunch of lying, cheating scumbags, so they would only take advantage of any overture our side makes.

[theHandpuppet]

41. Eleanor Roosevelt she ain't

Nor FDR.

[NoodleyAppendage]

18. It's called having a SPINE and standing up for your ideals.

The Repukes don't have a problem standing up for their idiotic beliefs and they aren't doing badly. Why is it that liberals/progressives feel that we can't do the same thing? No one sitting on the fence will vote for a spineless, wishy-washy candidate vs. one who clearly articulates his/her beliefs and stands behind them.

So, FUCK YOU...Hillary. Here's one liberal/progressive who will not waste my vote on your spineless hide.

J

[Le Taz Hot]

88. Liberals/Progressives

DO feel we can do the same thing -- it's why the vast majority of us don't support her. Hillary, nor Bill for that matter, is not nor ever has been a liberal/progressive.

[Jim Sagle]

20. DLC = Dems Love Clinton. Yeah, surrrrre we do.

[Skip Intro]

22. Oh Please! I won't paper over the Iraq attack/invasion/occupation.

I won't pretend all these people are dead for a noble cause. I wont 'just not say anything' in order for the seemingly ordained to just step into office.

It was fucking lies, and if she wants to twist words to paint a glowing picture where none exists, then forget her.

This is reality, not some little world of clay where the people - the people THEY SERVE - are molded and remolded to suit the fundraising and bs-mongering of the day.

Maybe we should ask the repukes what they'd like to talk about?

I don't think I like Hillary.

[wellst0nev0ter]

24. I Agree: We Are Wasting Time

by entertaining these triangulating, equivocating, apologizing fuckwits who can't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written ont he heels.

[w4rma]

25. There she goes again: Running *against* the Democratic Party.

And her own speech appears to be nothing but things to inflame the Repugs also from the look of this article. So it's pot calling kettle black, also. Why doesn't she lead by example?

[Jim Sagle]

26. Maybe the RNC pays her to do what she does, whatever that is.

[w4rma]

78. The New York Times is TRICKY. I was wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2726737&mesg_id=2726892

[Laotra]

27. DINO n/t

[nealmhughes]

30. Dear Senator Clinton:

There is a class war afoot and you and your husband are prime instigators on the corporate side.
Enjoy your stay in the Senate, people are getting fed up with you. You tucked your tail and dropped universal health care like it was a hot potato. You are a backbencher. You are only popular amongst your fundraisers whom you coddle and the MSM who would love to see you run so the Republicans could stay in power.
Why are you even a Democrat? Lincoln Chaffee is a Republican...and so was Jeffords...and so is Susan Collins and Olympia Snow -- do you see yourself in opposition to them???
So what you are saying is that offshoring our jobs (thanks for NAFTA, Bill) and a quarter of the country still lacking health insurance, and a stupid war still waging in Iraq, with whom the US has never had a quarrel before now, and Osama still out there somewhere (try a palace in Mecca or Karachi) and no opposition that can surmount the Republican hegemony that we need to "play nice?"
No, go fundraise with Rupert Murdoch or whomever it is you hobnot with these days. Chuck Shumer is the senator from New York.

[Nite Owl]

32. Donb't count on Chuckie

either, we're not even sure he will back Lamont if he wins the primary. Nomojoe is his guy and he doesn't care who wins a pesky little thing like a primary, voters are of no consequence after all it is the base that votes in those things anyway and they are all lefty nuts to him.

[saigon68]

33. Idiots like Schumer helped Gore lose Arkansas and Tennessee in 2000

[Nite Owl]

34. He's a money collecting

machine that's how he has this position and it's pretty obvious that he answers to those corporate donors and not the people who elected him.

[saigon68]

40. Give the Devil his due

he's very good at shilling for $$$$$$$

In fact he is a master at the trough

[brentspeak]

58. Agree on that

Hillary Clinton is correct that Democrats are wasting their time squabbling over the GOP's manufactured social controversies, but if she doesn't support things like fair trade, universal health care, etc., then she is also wasting our time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

92. Hillary doesn't support universal health care?

Where do you get that info?

[zonkers]

35. Ironically, nothing would inflame the conservative base more than Hillary

running as the Democratic noominee. And frankly, her gillion dollar campaign war chest terrifies me more than snakes on a plane.

[chill_wind]

71. Well, when you put it like that.....:-)

more terrifying than a "snake on a plane"---- LOL. That was good. :-)

I don't think I like Senator Clinton very much, either.

[EFerrari]

36. Would those be her anti-choice, homophobic warmongering allies?

I couldn't vote for this person if my face were on fire.

[xchrom]

43. save your face -- don't piss on her if she's on fire.

i will not vote for hillary.

that would be a choice for president that is not better.

[Cobalt-60]

42. We must choose the ground

Gay Marriage, Adoption, or Vanity Plates?
The GOPS have learned to ban something "gay" every election in an effort to get their religious fanatics out.
These pigtard strong points need to be bypassed.
The place to hit GOPs with both barrels is collaboration with disloyal business.
When someone has to put the grocery money into the gas tank, they need to remember that the oil catastrophe is an entirely GOP production.
When their credit card payments suddenly double, they need to remember that GOPS that did it.
Ans so on.
Only the thickest pigtard will continue to vote GOP in the face of starvation.

[earth mom]

44. Shut the f up and go away Hillary! You are nothin but a DINO!

:puke:

[Hosnon]

46. I agree with her. When gay marriage or the flag are brought up, we should

not engage Republicans/Conservatives. Dems should just go out on t.v. chastising the ridiculousness of the discussion.

They use it as a political football...why should we pick it up to our detriment and fight "on principle?" B.S.

[Rose Siding]

48. Is it Go To The South And Smack The Dems Around week again?

Already? Ooooo, how shall I celebrate?

Now hardly any repubs will notice she isn't one of them. Ingenious! :eyes:

Just LEAD damn it! If you have a better method to do that, DO IT -and maybe you could TRY to do it without beating down those who've stood up for their convictions.

[Rose Siding]

66. I would delete this (my post) if I could- that article has bum info

read post 59.

Or this-

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_07_16_atrios_archive.html#115306675335323628

[mitchum]

49. The DLClintons may call it triangulation, but I call it collaboration...

because that is what it is

[Solly Mack]

50. My belief in and support of human rights isn't some mere tactic to

to be "controversial" or to "inflame their base."

~“We do things that are controversial. We do things that try to inflame their base.” ~

My full support of the separation of church and state is not some mere tactic to be "controversial" or to "inflame their base."

The attempt to mischaracterize, and thereby marginalize, valid opposition to right wing thinking as some sort of intentional provocation meant to "inflame" the right wing base is very disrespectful to those of us who strongly support and strongly believe in things like equal protection under the law.

If support of "gay marriage" ...just for example(you know, human rights) inflames people, then maybe it's time to ask why some people are so afraid of treating humans fairly instead of appeasing those who would discriminate by saying human rights supporters intentionally engage in activities to inflame others.

This only serves to swing the debate so far to the right that rabid right wingers appear moderate. It's buying into the right wing spin that "gay marriage"...just for example (you know, equal protection under the law - the, uh, you know.. Constitution)is somehow a a "fringe" way of thinking that is against American values. When, gee, golly whiz and goshly bum...I thought, silly me, that equality under the law was part of the foundation of America.

If a belief in equality under the law is fringe thinking...is "controversial"...is meant to "inflame their base"...then there's something seriously wrong with America.

[IndianaGreen]

55. Hillary would have supported segregation had she run in 1950s

She would have blasted liberals for offending Southern sensibilities and traditions and supporting radical boycotts such as in Montgomery.

Hillary has no core values. She believes in nothing and she stands for nothing except her own ambition.

[ShortnFiery]

60. Agreed, I wish Hillary would just kindly STFU about national issues

... remain NY State JUNIOR Senator and just *zip it* until after 2008. :(

[erikvegas]

108. Gay Marriage is not a human right.

Ok here it goes....This is my first posting and I am going to put it out there.... Gay "marriage" is not a human right. "Marriage" is an institution created by a society for the sole purpose of the stabalization of that society. The society sets the rules under which the "marriage" can exist. Now if you chose to engage in a lifestyle that is outside the conventions set by that society you should not be allowed to participate in the institutions of that society. While I do not believe in gay marrage, or gay adoption for that matter, I do believe that there should be some sort of civil partnership available that provides all the same legal protections that married couples are afforded under marriage. You will find that most people are very much for this. It's specificially calling gay "marriage" Marriage that most people find offensive or improper. Its all well and good to cry equil protection under the law but no matter how you slice it homosexuality is a "fringe" lifestyle. Once you change an institution to allow for a specific fringe group you must then, by precident, allow that same institution to all fringe groups. If you can come up with a cogent argument for why gay marriage should be allowed but plural marriage (polygamy) should not I would like to hear it.

Erik

[LibDemAlways]

56. At a book signing a couple of years ago

I witnessed firsthand Hillary's contempt for the ordinary person. Perhaps 500 people showed up. They waited many hours. I had driven 60 miles to be there and waited from 8AM to 1 PM. Finally, Hillary arrived and an announcement was made that she would only be signing 300 books. The kicker was that the first 150 people would each be permitted to buy two books - thereby minimizing Hillary's contact with the public. If you didn't make the cut of the first 150, you were told unapologetically to "go home."

By the way there was a small contingent of repuke protestors there - that repuke "base" she's so concerned about. They had Hillary and Bill masks on and were holding signs with stuff on them that I wouldn't repeat on this board.

[brentspeak]

57. Hillary has it half-correct

Yeah, Democrats shouldn't be piddling around with the GOP's manufactured social controversies; but it's not the Democrats who have forced those issues onto the political scence, it's the Republicans. I hope she's not too clueless to understand that.

Its sound bread-and-butter issues and sound foreign policy that have always been the Democratic party's metier. Just make sure you're on the correct side of those bread-and-butter issues and foreign policy (ie. fair trade, not "free" trade", universal health care, getting out of Iraq, rebuilding our international standing, rebuilding our military, etc.)

[oasis]

59. Hillary and staff aren't guessing where the votes are. They'll mobilize

more than enough help to go out pull them in. Issues that are near and dear to progressives and so-called "traditional Democrats" can, and will be addressed once a Democrat is safely within the walls of the White House.

[onehandle]

61. EVERYONE read Atrios's observations before you comment on this.

Bad, bad reporting as usual from the Dumb Ass Times.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_07_16_atrios_archive.html#115306675335323628

[IndianaGreen]

62. We can ill afford a Presidential candidate that has to be "explained"

every time she opens her big mouth!

[onehandle]

63. Not my point. nt

[IndianaGreen]

64. It is a valid point! Hillary will have to be "explained" everytime she

opens her mouth and everytime she panders at some of the NY religious extremists that support her. Much precious time will be wasted defending her from her own words than it will be spend in giving people a vision for the future. Then we have Big Bill to deal with, and his own unique baggage that he will bring to the campaign.

[Rose Siding]

65. SHE doesn't have to be explained (this time). The LAME reporter does.

This is unreal. Look at what she said. She wasn't talking about Democrats, but about CONGRESS. CONGRESS wastes time on other things, not Democrats.

From a transcript of her remarks-

snip>
And so we were talking one day and saying, you know, we as individuals, we have all of this legislation, we can't get it on the floor of the Senate. We can't get a vote on it because the Republican majority wants to vote on other things......

...But with the Republican majority, that's not their priority. So we do other things, we do things that are controversial, we do things that try to inflame their base so that they can turn people out and vote for their candidates. I think we are wasting time, we are wasting lives, we need to get back to making America work again, in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way."

The "we" is the Senate!

[IndianaGreen]

75. She should have been specific: "the Republican Congress"

The voters won't pay attention to the "explanation"! It is the first impression that counts!

[Rose Siding]

82. A few more highly paid DC consultants could break her of that

but I'd rather she just say what she means rather than relinquishing pronouns from her vocabulary for the benefit of malicious reporters and harsh critics.

It's easy to understand why pols are so guarded in everything they say, being desperate to protect that first impression.

[DeepModem Mom]

98. You're right, Rose. Thanks. (Wish I hadn't posted this article.) nt

[redqueen]

95. Thanks for posting this! Time for another angry letter to the whore times!

:hi:

[bilgewaterbill]

67. Let's see who stands up to her first...Kerry, Gore, Edwards?

Which will have the balls to put themselves as polar opposite to the "heiress to the throne"?

[Rose Siding]

68. This reporter screwed up

And not for the first time-

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/7/16/14732/3082

Clinton was talking about the Republican majority in the Senate, not Democrats.

[bilgewaterbill]

72. Thanks for that link. No bias there.

[goforit]

69. Dear Hillary, looked in the mirror lately?

[AusTexDem]

73. Don't get played. This headline is just wrong!

"We do things that are controversial. We do things that try to inflame their base.We are wasting time,”

She is talking about the Senate as it is controlled by Republicans not Democrats in The Senate or Democrats as a whole.

[msmcghee]

77. They're not getting played.

They are believing what they want to believe and using that as an excuse to trash Hillary. They are believing a Repuke partisan reporter who is trying to discredit Hillary - because that gives them an excuse to pile on. Pathetic.

[EFerrari]

83. You're right . We should never trust these headlines.

On the other hand, I don't see Senator Clinton charging out to clear the record.

[BigDDem]

91. and where

should she go "charging out?"

[EFerrari]

93. She has a staff whose job it is to mind her image in the press.

Maybe they should, um, do their jobs?

[msmcghee]

76. As a precious few have noted above, she was talking about . .

. . the Republican Senate. The article was bogus. But, I know that trashing Hillary is more fun than reading her words and deciding for yourself. Remember this next time you accuse Freepers of only believing what they want to believe.

[tabasco]

79. Not a good leader.

H. Clinton is seriously lacking in the leadership department.

I'm confident she will not get the nomination.

If she does, it will be the end of the Democratic party for many years.

[OneMultnomahDem]

80. She is misquoted - that "we do" part is about the Republican Senate

DailyKos has a couple of front-pagers on it

[oasis]

86. Please don't throw cold water on the Hillarybash by introducing the facts.

:scared: party pooper.:-( :spank:

[jsamuel]

85. MISQUOTE!!!!

She was saying that the REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE are wasting time with their political stunts over the past few weeks.

[newblewtoo]

89. Misquoted or not

From reading some of the comments on this thread Hillary would have a tough time running for dog catcher. Regardless, the point made is valid about wasting time on wedge issues. Hanging the party out to dry one section at a time it all it seems to do. Principle is nice but winning is necessary and history proves that out the third party trolls need to get a new home!

[BigDDem]

90. Earth to Hillary Haters....

"Clinton was chastising Washington Republicans, not the Democratic base as the Times stated."

Dont let facts get in the way of your rants....

[Xenotime]

94. Oh...and let me see...

The July 2005 investigation of sex scenes in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was a great fucking use of your time?!? What ever came of that?

[redqueen]

96. Wow... the NYT doesn't have to do much to get us to turn on each other.

*sigh*

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_07_16_atrios_archive.html#115306675335323628

[BigDDem]

99. NY Times: Hillary hates puppies and kitties

DU: Rants, raves, bitches!!!
Hillary is the source of all evil!!!

NY Times: Woops, we meant Hillary LOVES puppies and kitties
DU: Well, misquote or not....
Hillary hates puppies!!!
We cant have someone running for president who is misquoted!!!!

[november3rd]

100. Kornblut misquoted

Actually, this piece is distorted. Even though I'm a Tasini supporter, I don't like seeing anyone getting misquoted and misrepresented in the press.

Hillary was referring to the Congress, not the Democrats. Kornblut is a liar. Here's the real quotation:

You have to ask yourself, we have all these problems, and we have solutions sitting out there, why can't we move in the right direction? And it really comes down to a difference in values and philosophy. . . . And so we were talking one day and saying, you know, we as individuals, we have all of this legislation, we can't get it on the floor of the Senate. We can't get a vote on it because the Republican majority wants to vote on other things. . . . You know, Blanche Lincoln has a bill to make healthcare affordable for small business, I have a bill I was talking to you about with respect to energy independence, we have legislation sitting in the Senate to address these problems. But with the Republican majority, that's not their priority. So we do other things, we do things that are controversial, we do things that try to inflame their base so that they can turn people out and vote for their candidates. I think we are wasting time, we are wasting lives, we need to get back to making America work again, in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way."

The story is at Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/16/14732/3082

[chapel hill dem]

101. My Cong. staffer friends say Gore will run only if Hillary is leading in

the polls come primary season. FWIW n/t

[Egalitariat]

102. Drudge has linked to this post. First time I've seen him do that***

nm

[bookman]

105. Hey Drudge!

Don't let the facts confuse you!

How do you know a Republican is lying? Their lips are moving.

Here Matt:

In a July 16 Web-only article, New York Times reporter Anne E. Kornblut falsely reported that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) criticized her fellow congressional Democrats "for taking on issues that arouse conservatives and turn out Republican voters rather than finding consensus on mainstream subjects." Kornblut quoted Clinton as saying in a July 15 speech, "We do things that are controversial. We do things that try to inflame their base. ... We are wasting time." But while Kornblut construed the "we" in these statements as a reference to Democrats, as is clear from an audio recording of the speech, Clinton was actually referring to the Republican-led Congress. Despite the attention the falsehood drew on several blogs (Eschaton, Americablog, Daily Kos), the Times has yet to run a correction.

Notwithstanding the clear falsehood, Internet gossip Matt Drudge trumpeted the article and the purported angry response by Democratic activists, using the headline ACTIVISTS RAGE: Hillary Says Democrats Are 'Wasting Time'... to link to democraticunderground.com.

[RSchewe]

106. From what I see in this thread, Kornblut can say: "Mission Accomplished"

It is obvious that Clinton was misquoted. She was talking about the Senate which is controlled by Republicans as the "we", not Democrats.

I think Kornblut is using one of those old techniques when you throw red meat to the opposition instead of your base. Make no mistake, this was no accident. This pretty much shows her point of view.

I am no big fan of Clinton and especially not the DLC, but this article is basically a hit piece.

[Dr Fate]

107. She should be saying "they" instead of "we." n/t

n/t

[Moderator]

109. Lock

Please see here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2726737