A Hillary nomination is not the problem, a Hillary Administration is!

[IndianaGreen]

Let's assume that we find ourselves with the Clintons back in the White House, and it is November 2010, two years after the Presidential Elections.

The Hillary Administration would have had two years of uninterrupted war in Iraq under its belt, and two years of antiwar marches against its war policies (assuming that we are not at war with Iran). The Hillary Administration would also be facing opposition from the Left on its corporate-friendly health care proposal and neoliberal trade policies, as well as mass resistance to its unwillingness to rollback the abuses of power of the Bush regime by restoring the Constitution to its pre-9/11 eminence, and dismantling the police state apparatus established by PATRIOT and subsequent repressive legislation and executive orders.

"How dare you oppose our Democratic President?" will become a rallying cry for the partisan defenders of President Hillary's unchanged policy goals in the Middle East, her pro-Big Pharma health care proposals, her use of PATRIOT to stifle dissent at home, and her use of the military to reestablish American hegemony in Latin America.

How fractured will the Democratic Party become when it finds itself as the war party?

[muntrv]

1. Hillary would be bush lite.

[Captain Hilts]

4. Or not. nt

[msongs]

2. or not nt

[aquart]

3. So you assume a different Democrat will do everything we want?

That's an amazingly ... innocent ... assumption. I mean apart from the glaringly inaccurate speculation.

Come back when you have a better grip on the problems we're facing. And trash those rose-colored glasses.

Your Fascist Hillary nightmare is a pile of crap. As is your tinted belief that none of these problems will arise with the magnificent, brilliant, saintly, incorruptible candidate of YOUR choice.

How often do I wish the jackass was not the emblem of my party, but then how often do I have to admit the percipience of its choice.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Hillary said on one of the TV debates that US troops & bases would still be in Iraq by end of 2012

The question from moderator was if there would still be US troops and bases in Iraq by the end of the first term, and Hillary replied "Yes" and raised her hand.

Hillary also gave the NY Times a neocon/neolib rationale for continuing the occupation of Iraq:

"The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda. It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests."

-- Hillary Clinton
Thursday, March 15, 2007
as told to the New York Times

This is what the Hillary Administration will be facing during its first term:

March 2009 - National antiwar marches on the 6th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War.

October 2009 - National antiwar marches on the 7th anniversary of Iraq War Resolution.

March 2010 - National antiwar marches on the 7th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War.

October 2010 - National antiwar marches on the 8th anniversary of Iraq War Resolution.

March 2011 - National antiwar marches on the 8th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War.

October 2011 - National antiwar marches on the 9th anniversary of Iraq War Resolution.

March 2012 - National antiwar marches on the 9th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War.

October 2012 - National antiwar marches on the 10th anniversary of Iraq War Resolution.

The rest of you will be reduced to the pathetic role of defenders of an unpopular war(s) abroad and repressive policies at home. I have no doubt that Hillary will not hesitate to use the powers that Bush has amassed to spy on, and persecute the antiwar movement.

[ShaneGR]

5. I'm not even a Hillary supporter, but I think the argument is garbage

To say that a Clinton Administration would be close to a Bush Administration is complete crap. It's the same Naderite crap that we heard in 2000.

NOTE: I'm supporting Edwards.

[lvx35]

12. I'm not a supporter either, but there is a lot of garbage thrown at her.

We have no real reason to think her policies differ that much from Bill Clinton's. And where was Bill Clinton's patriot act? His trillion dollar war? Nowhere. It didn't happen.

[IndianaGreen]

19. Bill Clinton began renditions in 1994, and kept the School of Americas open

Clinton also started the George Soros instigated intervention in the Balkans, a war in which he used Chechen Al-Qaeda sympathizers to prop up the Kosovo Liberation Army.

Bill Clinton also started Plan Colombia, a program of counterinsurgency using the War on Drugs as a cover. Thousands of civilians have been tortured and murdered thanks to Bill Clinton.

[lvx35]

23. Oh yes, Soros and Clinton giving money to Al Qaeda.

Gee, I wonder where you're getting your information from.

[eridani]

26. Bosnia and Chechnya were and are well-known jihadi tour stops

--at least as much as Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[Perry Logan]

29. Bill Clinton also signed "The Torture Victims Relief Act"

[wyldwolf]

6. a silly piece of fiction

[cali]

7. hate is like a worm in your brain.

Of course by the time it reaches the final stages, the afflicted are completely unable to recognize that they're diseased.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Wanna place a bet?

This is what the Hillary Administration will be facing during its first term:

March 2009 - National antiwar marches on the 6th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War.

October 2009 - National antiwar marches on the 7th anniversary of Iraq War Resolution.

March 2010 - National antiwar marches on the 7th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War.

October 2010 - National antiwar marches on the 8th anniversary of Iraq War Resolution.

March 2011 - National antiwar marches on the 8th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War.

October 2011 - National antiwar marches on the 9th anniversary of Iraq War Resolution.

March 2012 - National antiwar marches on the 9th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War.

October 2012 - National antiwar marches on the 10th anniversary of Iraq War Resolution.

[TheWatcher]

25. Legitimate scutiny and questioning of one's record is not hate.

The disease is those who use ridiculous and childish logic such as yours in order to stifle it.

It's getting old.

REALLY old.

[cali]

45. Sorry. There are a couple of posters who have let hate infect them

The OP is reknowned for being one of them. Furthermore, what is childish is simply making stuff up that is not grounded in fact and portentuously consulting some faux crystal ball- announcing that this, this and this WILL happen. Actually, that's not childish; it's simply delusional. And it's old.

REALLY OLD.

[unkachuck]

10. excellent predictions....

"How dare you oppose our Democratic President?"....can't you hear it?

[IndianaGreen]

11. I remember hearing those words during the Lyndon Johnson Administration

which had death squads running amok in Vietnam, had forcibly resettled peasants into armed enclaves, used poisonous defoliants on vast tracts of land, killed over a million civilians, and spied on antiwar Americans at home.

[bvar22]

13. I'll give you a K&R.

I also take Hillary at her word that she has no intention of ending the Iraq War.
She'll try to downsize it a little, move some small pieces around, and give it another name, but the killing will continue for YEARS.
ALL the $BIG MONEY$ Defense Contractors are investing in Hillary.

I disagree that her nomination is NOT a problem.
She'll never be elected.
ALL the polls showing her beating Republicans are totally BOGUS because NONE of them consider the inevitability of an AntiWAR/Pro-LABOR 3rd Party Populist challenge.

Nader has already promised to run if Hillary is the Democratic nominee.
There will be others, AND they will peel off several million AntiWAR Democrats and most of the Independents.

Hillary is counting MILLIONS of votes she won't be getting in the GE.

At any rate, I give you the recommend for looking past the election.
More people should spend some time in serious contemplation.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Yuugal]

27. totally agree

"The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR."

Amen.

[bvar22]

37. Thank You.

Feel free to use it.
:hi:

[mmonk]

14. What I worry about is it might mean the DLC further concentrates

its power. Current strategy (which I view as failure) will continue for who knows how long and I predict further alienation of the progressives in lieu of the third way.

[Donna Zen]

18. That is a biggie

The days of Dr. Dean at the DNC are numbered and DLC with their corporate base intend to end all of this attention to the base. Now that isn't speculation...that's a fact.

Also, on a different board I was reading one of "...here's why I'm supporting Hillary.." posts. It was very nicely written by a very nice person, unfortunately, it just made me cringe. In essence the person said that Hillary could hit the ground running because she had the old Clinton Team. Nope. During her senate years, Clinton has gathered the Democratic hawks to her side...hell, some aren't even Democrats. Feinstein, O'Hanlon, Keane. It is a dreadful thought. The more reasonable Clinton hands can be found at Obama's camp.

We really don't know what the next emergency will be, but we do know how Senator Clinton will respond...whatever works best for her political fortunes.

The current war will never really end...it will just fade from the page. BTW, I don't trust any of them on this issue.

Honestly, what I've learned since 2001: Washington Democrats can't hear us nor do they have to...they know that we have no place to go.

[bvar22]

39. ..."...

[paulk]

15. is that you, Ralph?

:eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

20. Your side always resorts to ad hominen attacks when the facts run counter to your propaganda

and frankly, I am getting tired of the subliminal racism that is coming out of the Clinton campaign. You guys are using the same coded language that Jesse Helms used to use to frighten white voters of the "colored" masses.

[TheWatcher]

24. The reason they resort to such attacks Mrs. Green

Is because it's all they have to respond with.

You see, it's quite difficult to debate her words, her record, etc.

This is what you get from them when you start a discussion like this:

http://uk.gizmodo.com/baby,crying,tantrum-thumb.jpg

Now, notice that when you, or anyone else for that matter, bothers to bring up such things, as her words, her record, etc, for legitimate scrutiny in discussion, you get this:

[paulk]

32. I don't see any of her "words or actions" in Mrs. Green's OP

It's an assumption based on a worldview so skewed as to be beyond absurd and how anyone with half a brain could take this dribble seriously is beyond me.

[paulk]

31. you wouldn't know a "fact" if clocked you right upside the head.

and the rest of your post is the usual shit you smear on the walls around here.

[TheWatcher]

33. Wow, someone needs a nap and a juice box.

While I will give you fairness in the assessment of the assumptions made in the OP, it is kind of neat how you parse and deflect, bob and weave, and misdirect in an attempt to justify your childish response.

You see, those were indeed assumptions Mrs. Green Made, but they were made BASED upon things that she has gleaned from Mrs. Clinton's own record, her own words, and things that are pretty much publicly verifiable. Your spin on those things that WERE mentioned not in the OP, but later in the thread by her, and some by other posters, may vary, but it still doesn't legitimize your sandbox tantrum.

So instead of making another childish attack about her skewed worldview, why not attempt to refute and give us your own take on those words and actions from her record, her speeches, whatever, that caused the assumptions that were fomented by Mrs. Green in the first place.

Oh, THAT'S right, you CAN'T.

Which is probably why you made an even more immature response, right after.

What will be next. "Your Mother Dresses you Funny?"

Like it or not, Mrs. Clinton is under this much scrutiny for good reason. And to be fair, all of the other candidates should be as well.

But I think the reason the Hillary Lock-Steppers get the most heat on this board, is because they seem to screech and attack the loudest. And offer the least substance.

And hey, I feel for you. Your girl seems to go out of her way to give you guys nothing to back her up with.

Good Day. :hi:

[paulk]

41. What are you, her net nanny?

I have a history with this poster, and you don't need to stick your nose in it. In other words, try minding your own business.

I don't try to refute assumptions made from a pov that's based in fantasy. It's pointless. You can call that childish if it pleases you. Frankly I've given up caring what the hillary haters think about me.

[IndianaGreen]

46. This is a public discussion board, not your own private domain

but thank you for showing that authoritarian streak that is so common among the Clintonistas.

[barack4prez]

16. Yeah, and just wait until we see the

enormous financial system collapse which will inevitably happen during the next presidential term. Whoever the president is will get blamed for it. That's the main reason I'm not running.

[Rydz777]

17. I have a feeling that the next President. of either party, will leave

office after four years in the same condition as Herbert Hoover. The mountain of problems left behind by Bush (and his predecessors but compounded by Bush) will bury the next President.

[niceypoo]

21. Hypothetical speculation sucks

[IndianaGreen]

22. Predictions are based on Hillary's record and words

The war will still be going on 4 years from now!

I will also say, that if Bush does not bomb Iran before he leaves office, Hillary certainly will.

She is a chicken hawk after all!

[Yuugal]

28. that garden path sure is well-worn

If she wins the GE I predict she will be every bit as bad as you describe. Perhaps worse because the hatred on the left will probably be louder than the Clinton-haters on the right. Pelosi, Reid, and Clinton. A trifecta of sellout, that will absolutely boggle our minds with their ability to get every corporate wish granted while throwing up their hands and crying about the minority whenever they need to fail us on every issue to make their corporate owners happy.

Nafta Cafta and visas for any foreigner who wants an American job will be the order of the day.

She wants to keep troops in Iraq.....or so she told the NYT:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

Uh yeah, except thats all the same things the govt is saying we are trying to do now. She really has some gall voting for the war, then lying and saying it was only because she was misled and "If we only knew then what we know now", then voting to fund it over and over again, and then saying she wants to keep it going with basically the same mission we have now......even though shes "against the war". :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

"How fractured will the Democratic Party become when it finds itself as the war party?"

I'm sure we will continue to dry our powder and bury them in blank checks. :banghead:


I predict zero coattails in 2008 and should your scenario play out the 2010 elections will be even worse.

[Perry Logan]

30. And the Anti-Hillarites change their story AGAIN. They'll obviously say anything to scare people.

It's disturbing how the behavior of anti-Hillary people precisely mimics that of Republicans--say anything to scare people; change the story when it stops fooling them.

[TheWatcher]

35. What's disturbing is how you guys seem to Goose-Step Blindly for her

And anytime someone even questions her record, calls her on anything, or scrutinizes her words, actions or deeds, no matter how legitimate or reasonable it is, like crazed cult members, you spew forth these attacks.

This isn't the Packers-Bears rivalry, or an NBA grudge match between Shaq and Kobe. It's the future of your country and who is going to be running it.

Hillary could do plenty on her own to sway the nay-sayers and the doubters.

She has not done so.

[Armstead]

36. It's disturbing how the pro-Hillary people precisely mimics....etc.

If you want to criticize the OP, how about doing that it on its' own terms, instead of yet again trotting out the "just like Republicans" meme yet again.

[IndianaGreen]

44. Why did Hillary oppose John Kerry's filibuster of Alito?

Hillary says she has been standing up to the rightwing for x-number of years. Let's examine that claim in one small issue, the nomination of anti-abortion rights Alito to SCOTUS.

Democrats did not have enough votes to stop Alito's nomination, but they had enough votes to block his nomination with a filibuster. John Kerry took the lead and announced that he was going to filibuster the Alito nomination. Russ Feingold joined Kerry in this effort. Hillary joined Harry Reid in opposing the filibuster. In fact, Hillary was one of the leaders on the Democratic "side" in opposition to John Kerry.

Once Kerry's filibuster was defeated, Hillary did the pro forma casting of her vote against the Alito nomination. A meaningless vote!

When Hillary says she has been standing up to the rightwing, she really has been standing in formation with them when it came to filibusters, impeachment, and neocon wars.

[Armstead]

34. But it's 2010 -- We have to keep our powder dry

Democrats have to unite behind President Clinton, or the GOP will take back their power.

[David Zephyr]

38. She's probably the one who would keep us in Iraq the longest of all the candidates.

I imagine that the majority here at the DU --- in a moment of candor --- would say that of all the Democratic candidates running that it would be Hillary who would pull us out of Iraq the slowest of all. That's something people should consider.

[Kolesar]

42. All the Republican voters will again be *for* the war when Hillary tries to de-escalate the war

Even if she had a well conceived plan to withdraw, Clinton will not be able to craft the message to get us out of the war. That's where her lack of authenticity is going to bite her badly.

[BenDavid]

40. Gee, you sound just like the right did in 92-96...Give me the 8

years of bill clinton against anyone even the saint reagan and I would rather have an HRC administration with all the attributes of knowing what to do then Barry looking around and trying to figure "what do I do now".

[Carrieyazel]

43. Of course a Hillary nomination is a problem as well: paves the way for another Repube