It's official - Hiliary Clinton is insane!

[debbierlus]

Bush has charm & charisma & is very good company!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/hillary_clinton_bush

Hiliary, go AWAY. You are SO part of the problem.

[Warren DeMontague]

1. The Hilarity never stops with Hillary.

Which is spelled "Hillary", BTW. ;)

[azndndude]

2. I will never support this woman

Hopefully she does get the 2008 Democratic nomination

[me b zola]

8. Why do you want someone to get the Dem nomination

...if you will never support them?

[buff2]

10. Does this mean if Hillary gets the nomination

you would vote for a repuke over HER? Gads.....that's scary. :scared:

[dysfunctional press]

25. not at all...there are always third party candidates...

or abstention.

i hope to be voting democratic in the next presidential election, as i have in all but my first time(john anderson in'80)...but if hillary is the candidate- she won't get my vote, either.

[Rosco T.]

3. Actually, It's a pretty good course of action...

She says nice things about shrub...
'thugs say nasty things about her...
The it becomes an issue "why are Republicans nasty when Dems are polite"

a true case of "please don't throw me in de briar patch"...

[Warren DeMontague]

4. Well, I'm in the mood for someone with more to offer than just political

gamesmanship, this time around.

[No New War]

37. I second that.

Besides, I don't think that gamesmanship is what's going to win this year.

[ixion]

5. yeah, that's been working out just swell so far

:eyes:

:sarcasm:

[BigBearJohn]

6. I'd vote for GORE/FEINGOLD for 2008

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Yep. Great minds think alike.

:hi:

[Fridays Child]

13. I'd vote for damn near Gore/anyone in 2008.

nt

[RadiDem]

7. * turns my stomach, every aspect of his phony, lying, pathological

personality. He's a spolied frat boy, a dry drunk, and a loose cannon.

If Hillary finds him charming, what does this say about her?

[pnwmom]

16. It says she's realistic. He put a spell on America and charmed half

the country into voting for him. That's what a charm is -- a spell.

She didn't volunteer the comment, by the way. She was asked to name something that was good about him and after saying they had "many, many" disagreements, she pointed out the obvious -- that he has some social skills.

Just because he makes me want to vomit doesn't mean he doesn't. He snows a lot of people.

[Jane Austin]

24. I know somebody who used to work for his campaign.

Said all he has is a little bullshit small talk, then . . . nothing.

Maybe Hillary kept the conversation going all by herself.

[Fleshdancer]

9. if she's running in '08 then this is not insane at all

My personal opinion aside, her statements make sense from a political perspective. She's trying to shed that weird "extreme leftist" stigma that faux news and the right wing radio nuts portray her as and appeal to those who once supported Bush but have now discovered how incompetent he truly is.

It's all a game to these people.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. Problem is, she's NEVER going to get those folks to like her.

The only way they like her is in that they think their nominee (John McCain?) will wallop her in the 2008 election. Rush Limbaugh and that gang would LOVE to have her run.

And everything she's done in the past five years- most notably Iraq, but this kind of thing doesn't help, either- has totally alienated the base of the party from her.

[Fleshdancer]

15. I agree with you....

This whole, "please like me, please like me!" routine from the Democrats over the past 6 years has really bugged the living crap out of me. Obviously I'm not talking about all Democrats but many of them seem more concerned about appearing moderate rather than saying something meaningful.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. There's a wonderful Jerry Garcia song called "Valerie"

Valerie, baby, what's the matter with you?
Come on, come on, baby, and tell me true
Hey, now, baby, what did I do?
I shot my dog 'cause he growled at you
Valerie, won't you be good to me?

Valerie, what's the matter with me?
I never, never done you no wrong
I sing the blues nearly all night long
Valerie, what's the matter with me?
You know I'd do anything you say
I can't understand why you tell me
"Please go away"

I'm afraid of the cold, cruel world outside
No Chicken Little running from a falling sky
The only thing troubles me is you
If you leave me, what can I do?
Valerie, won't you be true to me?

You got me down on the knees of my shakin' feet
Can't play the blues, 'cause of you I drop the beat
Valerie, what's your complaint?
I try to be everything I ain't
Valerie, won't you be good to me?
Valerie, won't you be good to me?



Sums it up nicely.

[Tactical Progressive]

35. That's the base's fault

When the base grows up, the problem is solved.

[Warren DeMontague]

43. Oh, yeah. "Grownups" support the war in Iraq.

Brilliant. And clearly that's where the majority of the American people sit, too. Mmm Hmmm. I guess the only problem is that we haven't run anyone in recent years who has tried hard enough to ape Republican positions, while at the same time spewing DLC-approved pablum out of both sides of their mouths designed to convince the voters that we don't stand for ANYTHING.

Yeah, you know, we've been following your playbook-- and LOSING-- but obviously if we just did it again, it would be the magic ticket to "Grown Up" electoral victory land.

I guess "grown ups" have never heard that old 12 step line about the definition of insanity being doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.

That's pretty funny that you talk about when the base "grows up". When Team Bush came into power, we heard about how "The Grownups are back in charge". Whoop-de-fucking do. Apparently, "Grownups" start wars based on lies, and are profligate wasters of the environment and other people's lives, health and money. I guess it kind of makes sense, since "grownups" won't be around in fifty years, so who gives a shit if their kids have to, say, pay off the deficit and deal with melted polar caps?

Except from where I sit, being "grown up" means not being so piss-in-one's-pants afraid of what the corporate media peddles as "conventional political wisdom" that the ONLY thing one is not afraid to stand up for is the principle that all principles are for sale to an electoral logic which -News Flash- hasn't been winning us elections, anyway.

I call bullshit. I've been grown up for a very long time, TYVM, and I am convinced that more than anything else, what we NEED to do this time around is run someone who is NOT afraid to take bold, even potentially unpopular stands on key issues, someone with brains AND guts, and most importantly, someone who has called it like it is on Iraq and this disaster of an Administration from the beginning.

I think that person's name is Al Gore, or, short of him running, Russ Feingold.

Actually, when certain factions of our party stop lording it over the rest of us, and allow us to run some REAL progressives, so that we can see if their blather about where the votes are is true, or if its the pack of shoddy lies that we know it is...

...that's when the problem will be "solved".

[Tactical Progressive]

54. Oh, not quite

We lost this country to fascists because progressive greens stabbed us all in the back in 2000 to 'teach us a lesson'. Everything that has happened since rests on their heads, including all of the blood spilled in Iraq.

Now those same angry, dishonest progressives have the gall to tell us we brought this mess on ourselves. What disgusting tripe.

Greens have negative credibility when it comes to understanding Democratic politics in this country, along with their negative integrity and trustworthiness.

Kerry, Clark, Clinton and all the rest have had to deal with these Republican fascists in the best way they could after greenies threw us all into this viper's nest.

These past two Presidential elections have proven merely that the angry, backstabbing wing of the Democratic party deserves no credibility in their opinions on elections, no respect for their dishonest, morally bankrupt actions, and certainly no trust.

You can try to spin that any way you want, but it wasn't the DLC, who I have no love for, that put us here.

[Warren DeMontague]

55. Who is talking about the Greens?

The "Angry, Backstabbing Wing of the Democratic Party", as you put it, and the GREEN party, are NOT one and the same. But go ahead and conflate 'em, like You're George Bush talking about Saddam and Osama.

See, that's a cheap, Ad Hominem shot. Does the style sound familiar?

Unless you're claiming that anyone who isn't rolling over for the premature coronation of HRC as our 2008 nominee isn't a real Democrat?

Because if that's the case, I suggest you start a thread with that as the premise. See how popular it makes you around here.

As it is, I nearly lost about half my friends over the 2000 election- the half that insisted on voting for Ralph Fucking Nader. No one- NO ONE- argued more vehemently against that piece of scorched Earth Stupidity than me.


But that was, and is, not a "wing" of the Democratic Party. The folks in the "base", who ARE Democrats, and who thankyouverymuch always have been and always will be Democrats, have every single right to help determine the direction of our party. And we have been ignored. Consistently. We were ignored in 2000, and that helped Nader's campaign. Al Gore himself admits that he listened to the wrong people and played it too "safe". He should have let himself loose, instead he had these David Gergen and Dick Morris style goobers telling him which shade of khaki to wear.

(and, yes, he should have relied on Bill Clinton more, too. That was a big mistake. But back then, like now, there was a group of self-important would-be strategy people in our party floating nonsense about the all-powerful "heartland values voter" who we needed to not offend. It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now.)

You're gonna have to stretch it, numerically, if you think you can blame 2004 on Nader-- or the base, for that matter. Although, again, the think thank bigwigs felt it was smarter to play it "safe", not stand up for anything that might offend Ma and Pa Kettle, not rock the boat that was quickly being swifted. I'm sure lots of people found it less than inspiring. Didn't stop me from swing state canvassing for Kerry with my then-pregnant wife, but probably some other folks didn't feel like going out in the October cold.


Didn't work out so well. If you want to blame me and my fellow credibility-deficient, backstabbing members of the base for that, be my guest.

But you do a huge disservice to all of us when you make noises like we've all been traipsing around with that asshat Nader all these years. Many of us here, that's for sure, put aside serious reservations about Kerry's Iraq vote and worked our butts off for him anyway.

I will say, as much as I think the people who voted for Nader (not Democrats, by. the. way.) certainly helped put us in the mess we're in, I vehemently disagree with you that the solution is more DLC "inspired" more-of-the-same. We should be figuring out how to appeal to those folks, or at least energize the base, instead of frothing at the mouth and swearing at them. What's "morally bankrupt" is pontificating about Video Games, or ladleing cheap Jesus references into speeches while subtly trying to elbow gays, pro-choicers and supporters of Church-State separation out of the public view, in a misguided attempt to woo these same mythical "Values Voters"... of whom there are a helluva lot fewer in play than there are Greens who voted for Nader.

Lastly. The people with blood on their hands vis a vis Iraq are the people who initiated the war, and the folks in congress who didn't stop them. And the way to FIX that situation is to run someone -like Al Gore- who has been clear and consistent on it from the beginning.

[pnwmom]

39. She'll never get the fundies to like her but why should she insult

the more moderate Republicans? A lot of them are sick to death of Bush and looking for an alternative. But not someone who says they were idiots for voting for him twice.

Even if that's true.

[Warren DeMontague]

44. Funny, I think the American People need straight talk right now.

Not happy talk.

[napi21]

14. Absolutely! The other thing you need to think about is....

what would the media response have been if Murdock had extended this offer to Hillary and she would have turned it down!

I can hear it NOW!
This woman wants to be president of ALL the people, but she's refusing Mr. Murdock...just beccause he's a Pub!

or

Mean, nasty north eastern LIBERAL Hillary refuses kind offer from FOX new mogul Rupert Murdock!

Folks, realistically, she had no choice!

[Warren DeMontague]

45. Yep. Fortunately, we DO have a choice.

I choose Al. Or Russ. Or Wes. Or Barbara. Or a hundred other names before her.

[pnwmom]

41. Yes, it's a game, but if you don't play you can't win.

[pnwmom]

17. What? Is she supposed to say "he's the devil incarnate" and alienate the

half of the country that twice voted for him? She was asked to name something that was good about him -- and merely acknowledged that he has an ability to make a lot of people like him. He is "affable." Talk about damning with faint praise. . .

[ruggerson]

34. Stop making sense pnwmom

you're throwing water on the torches and rusting the pitchforks.

[pnwmom]

40. Thanks, ruggerson. It's nice, every once in a while,

when someone here thinks I'm making sense.

And may I compliment you on your sense of humor?

[The Jacobin]

18. Sure he is - he likes to party

Partying is what he's GOOD at. That's all he's done his all life. It wouldn't surprise me if he puts on a hell of a party and would be a terrific host. He has enough experience at that, at least.

[WI_DEM]

19. Count Bill in too--he is her "unofficial advisor" and he has been

advising her to warm up to the Bush's to help make her seem more "middle of the road"

[a kennedy]

20. "middle of the road"......that's a good one, she and her husband

took us way to far to the right, and it's gonna be hell getting back to even being the "middle of the road". Nope, I have never been a middle of the road kinda girl......and will have a really hard time pulling her presidential lever, just like Bill's. Come to think of it, I didn't vote for Bill.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Worse than insane. She's a pandering pol.

With all the ethics that that indicates.

[helderheid]

22. The same was said about Ted Bundy n/t

[Acadia Blue]

23. Bill Clinton lobbied and pushed through NAFTA.....DLC for both

of these Dems. Hillary and Bill don't support core values. Bill is really smart and he knew what outsourcing would to the middle and working class. Hillary is just like him. DLC...I wish she would just stay a senator and get out of the way for Al Gore.

[Cookie wookie]

26. We have to take her at her word.

She has a good relationship with *.

Anyone with a good relationship with him is an enemy of this country and is collaborating with an alleged traitor, someone who approves of torturing people, someone who thinks he has the right to put people in prison without due process, and on and on.

This is the person she has a good relationship with and thinks is charming.

That says it all. There is no excuse for that. This isn't about getting along in Congress and collaborating, setting aside differences. The differences are between democracy and a fascist dictatorship. What if one of our senators during WWII had said he had a good relationship with Hitler and though he was charming? There's no difference here. Just because the coup is bloodless and silent for the most part doesn't mean it isn't real.

[debbierlus]

33. Amen

I am so unimpressed with this woman.

And, I am sick to DEATH of this catering to the suppossed middle.

WE ARE NOT EXTREMISTS. If you explained to people our IDEAS without attaching party, the MAJORITY (polls support it), AGREE WITH US.

The only divide is the one created by the right. It is ALL they have to run on. Because, hardly anyone agrees with them.

But, Hiliary is cater to the middle all the way. Instead of exposing this myth & lie of the mainstream media, she tries to appease the mythological middle.

Flag burning amendments.

We had to FORCE her to filibuster the Alito nomination. I, personally, spoke with her staff in the early days of DU's filibuster Alito campaign. He told me SPECIFICALLY that Hilary did not support the filibuster. I expressed my anger at this position very clearly. And, so did a HUGE portion of her constituents. THAT is the ONLY reason she was for the filibuster. A politically calculated move that had nothing to do with stopping a extremist freak on the bench. But, if it could interfere with her 08 chances....

VERY UNIMPRESSIVE

Give me Feingold

Give me Gore

[MellowOne]

38. Those were my thoughts as well

But I couldn't have said it better.

[AJH032]

28. Well, if you guys would actually read the article

It says she was asked to say something nice about him. Come on, even Kerry and Bush did this to each other in the debates when asked to. It would look heartless, cold, and uncompassionate not to comply with such a question. On the flip side, let's take a look at what else she's said about Bush, when asked her real opinion or not asked at all:

"I am resolved to keep speaking out about my disagreements with this administration and their congressional allies," Clinton told her supporters, listing among her complaints: "A secret program that spies on Americans!"

"I sometimes feel that Alfred E. Neuman (search) is in charge in Washington," Clinton said referring to the freckle-faced Mad magazine character.

Sen. Hillary Clinton on Monday blasted the Bush administration as "one of the worst" in U.S. history and compared the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to a plantation where dissenting voices are squelched.

"We have a culture of corruption, we have cronyism, we have incompetence," she said. "I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country."

"There has never been an administration, I don't believe in our history, more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda," Mrs. Clinton told the audience at a "Women for Hillary" gathering in Midtown Manhattan this morning.

"We can't ever, ever give in to the Republican agenda," declared. "It isn't good for New York and it isn't good for America."

"They want to undo and turn the clock back on the progress of the 20th century, whether it's the right to organize, whether it's the right to be able to have a choice when it comes to the most private and intimate decisions that a woman has to make, whether it is to protect the environment"

"If you read about her, try not to get upset - I had to read about her and it kept me upset for months," Mrs. Clinton said of Judge Brown. "This is a woman who truly sees the world in 19th century terms. You know, during the Clinton administration, we used to talk about building a bridge to the 21st century. This administration wants to build a bridge to the 19th century."



Just to name a few. The Hillary hate on this website is really quite baffling.

[debbierlus]

29. The guy is a liar, a mass murderer, and a violator of human & civil rights

Can you tell me something good about Hitler?

HE FRIGGIN LAUNCHED A WAR THAT MURDERED OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND INNOCENT PEOPLE -

HE LIED TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TO DO IT

HE BREAKS THE LAW (WIRE-TAPPING), SIGNING STATEMENTS, ETC EVERY SINGLE DAY....

But, hey. Great company, and very affable.

Fuck her.

[Tiggeroshii]

30. Hitler was also a vegetarian

...and a decorated war veteran!

:eyes:

[Tactical Progressive]

32. 'Baffling' is a pretty generous characterization

Pathetic, glib, whiny, politically infantile, pissy etc come alot closer.

[Clarkie1]

31. She's been bought. n/t

[PaDUer]

53. Ding, ding, ding..

we have a winnder..Remember MaKettle calls Bill "son", and it has hit the media yet re Hillary, she's "daughter"..They've made the deal so they cover each others ass. Looks like each other had a wad on the other, so they got it together for a piece of the action on both sides..how interesting.

[rucky]

57. No doubt.

apparently, almost everyone inside the beltway is for sale.

Time for a nominee from the outside. Or at least from the House of Commons.

[w4rma]

36. It's downright stupid to go on Lou Dobbs's show and antagonize his fans.nt

[pnwmom]

42. And what about her responsibility to New York? We saw how Bush

treated NOLA. Should she, as the Senator from NY, be trying to make an enemy of the President? When NYC could be attacked again at any time? Would that be a prudent course of action on her part?

[Warren DeMontague]

46. So the responsibility of a Senator is to not offend the Emperor?

Er, Sorry, "President".

[pnwmom]

50. The idea is to choose your battles wisely, not throw unnecessary

insults. She was asked to say something good about him, so she came up with something. Not much, actually, but something -- while at the same time she mentioned the "many many" points of disagreement.

[Cookie wookie]

47. Prudent? Just where do you think the line should be drawn?

If people commit crimes and others help them it's called aiding and abetting. That's exactly what Dems like Clinton have been doing and why the American voter doesn't see much clear choice between the two parties, even with some great patriots working their hearts out for the Democratic Party and not getting support from people like Clinton.

Remember when Russ Feingold repeated Patrick Henry's words, "Give me liberty or give me death"? That's what resistance and opposition to criminals and criminal behavior sound like.

So we're going to be "prudent" because the man in the White House has the power to hurt us, so we'll buddy up with him? Hey Vito, who's da man? Have most Americans gotten so completely out of touch that they don't know what it means to take a moral stand? To stand up for what's right, without equivocation? When Bill Clinton worked with the Republicans and spoke well of them, it was a whole different world ago. I admired it then. But times and crimes have changed. Now it's aiding and abetting an extremely dangerous and successful enemy of everything we hold dear, everything our forefathers and our soldiers have fought and died for, of everything our country has stood for.

Think of what history said of the French when they allowed Hitler to march into their country during WWII. They had their reasons, I'm not judging it because I wasn't there. But at least people knew the difference between those who "cooperated" and those who resisted. Now we have this morally numb society that can't even tell the difference, and justifies collaboration in their political leaders.

And why is this any different from France then -- because these people are not driving around our cities in armed tanks? Well, I'm seeing them more and more aka the inauguration (armed tanks), New Orleans (armed tanks), for god's sake, Negroponte is head of a whole new intelligence agency.

This Negroponte: "Conspicuously absent from the cable traffic, however, is reporting on human rights atrocities that were committed by the Honduran military and its secret police unit known as Battalion 316, between 1982 and 1984, under the military leadership of General Gustavo Alvarez, Negroponte's main liaison with the Honduran government. " http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB151/

You think Clinton doesn't know all this. Still, she thinks * is "charming."

[pnwmom]

51. I don't think it's aiding and abetting to acknowledge that * charmed half

of the country -- and more, for a period of time after 9/11. He had a great many people under his spell.

[mtnsnake]

48. Read the article. She was asked to say one thing nice about him

Granted, it's sickening hearing anything good said about Bush by a Democrat, but for chrise sakes, what's she supposed to do when asked a question like that? It's not like she said the guy was competent or anything. The reason she was asked if she could say one nice thing about Bush is because she's one of the few Democrats who's had the guts to say that his administration will go down in history as one of the most corrupt administrations ever.

[Cookie wookie]

49. She could have said "NO". n/t

[pnwmom]

52. thank you for your voice of reason

[deacon]

56. She should be prosecuting him for crimes- she's pathetic n/t

[Cookie wookie]

58. I apologize for my over-the-top response to this (and another related

thread.)

After thinking about it instead of just putting down my gut reaction, I realize that there has to be a better way to articulate what is wrong with Senator Clinton's response.

Every opportunity that any of our Democratic leaders in Washington have to educate the public about what * and his administration are doing that poses a threat to our democracy, that appears to violate the law and needs to be officially investigated, that has potential or real harm to our citizens or others around the world needs to be taken and utilized to the fullest extent possible. Every opportunity to differentiate Democrats from Republicans should be seized on. There was a powerful article on this in the Nation March 10, "Democrats: Still Ducking" by Ari Berman (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0310-30.htm).

It is a mistake to use even one of these opportunities to "advertise" some "positive" quality about the president. Howard Dean has said that we need to set the agenda and not let the media do that. When any Democrat is asked a question by the media, they need to respond in a way that either hits on the failures of * and the republicans or that advertises the strength of ideas, strategies, and moral values of the Democrats.

This question was a perfect time to turn it around and say, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the president. As much as I'd like to talk about his positive qualities, I think many in the country are more concerned about:

Revelations that he may have revealed the identity of a covert CIA operative working on Iran's weapons of mass destruction and how that has harmed our national defense capabilities. These are serious concerns that should be investigated.

Revelations that he authorized the NSA to illegally listen in on phone conversations of Americans without adequate FISA approval
And etc.

There are literally hundreds of other similar things she could have said, including turning it around and talking about some Democratic strategy to get the country out of Iraq or out of the financial hole we're in, etc. etc.

If she is afraid that the corporate media won't interview her anymore unless she says something positive about *, then that's another matter. I would think that's a plausible concern. After all, how often do we see Russ Feingold or John Conyers on CNN as a talking head or being quoted in the corporate media (or any of the other brave and patriotic Democrats in Congress, and we do have many) ? Poor Conyers is laboring away in the basement with his "un-hearings". Other once prominent Democrats get little or no press coverage for their good works.

I don't have an answer for that except to say that the media is going to interview Democrats; they have to give some appearance of being unbiased. If the Democrats all stuck together and supported each other, then the corporate media wouldn't have these few they could target to promote their agenda. Instead the Democrats would be promoting theirs (and ours). Dems like Clinton and Biden seem opportunistic, and the price we all pay because of this kind of behavior is high.

Would I want Clinton to lose in New York. Absolutely not, unless it was to a Democrat with the courage and character of Feingold, Murtha, Conyers, Boxer, Holt, McKinney, Wexler, others and most especially Howard Dean.

From the Nation article at the link above:

"Democratic officials' decision to listen to the political elites is proving costly. This past September a Pew Research poll found that while only 30 percent of voters thought Bush had a "clear plan" on Iraq, a mere 18 percent believed that Democrats in Congress promised a "clear alternative." <snip>

"Democrats are so obsessed with not looking 'weak' on defense that they end up making themselves look weak, period, by the way they respond to Republican attacks on their alleged weakness," Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne noted in mid-December."

I assert that they also hurt themselves and other Democrats any time they speak publicly in a positive way about * or the republican agenda and don't use that opportunity to forward an opposing agenda.