for all here who continually whine about the clintons..you might want to remember the projected surplus when bill left office...might have fixed that bridge out in minneapolis..might have been a lot of money for education...might have been a lot of good things done for the people in this country...what we got instead was a war that didn't have to be and tax cuts for the super rich...the clintons are a pragmatic couple..you cannot do anything unless you win..and at times that means pandering to people..it is a reality....she is not my first choice but should she win the nomination i will support her strongly..i believe her to be a good and a liberal person...there is a very good reason the right hates the clintons so much..they fear them
Posted by dennis at August 3, 2007 03:26 AMHillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton. Hillary is in no hurry to bring the troops home from Iraq and even worse, she's fanning the flames of war against Pakistan, a nation of 170 million, with a highly developed military and a nuclear weapons arsenal. The woman is a Hawk who can't wait to expand the U.S. empire in the Middle East started by George W. Bush.
Posted by Christopher at August 3, 2007 04:53 AMi do not believe any of what you say about hillar's intentions in the middle east...as far as pakistan goes..they have allowed osama to hide there...they can go to hell
Posted by dennis at August 3, 2007 05:20 AMIf you want more of the same vote for Hillary. Just look at Bill and Daddy Bush all luvy duvy.
Posted by JohnT at August 3, 2007 05:54 AMPakistan Criticizes Obama for 'Irresponsible' Comments on Military Strikes
Pakistan criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country.
Apparently, Pakistan feels more threatened by Obama than Clinton. Christopher, have you applied for a job at Faux "News" yet? Your venomous hatred of all things Hillary (to the point of absurdity) and your penchant for bombast and misogyny would make you a shoo-in for a job as O'Reilly's intern. Could be a lucrative career move, princess. Think about it.
JohnT, Clinton and Bush Sr. did a project and a couple photo ops together a couple years ago and you're still pushing the "luvy-duvy" meme? They're both members of a highly exclusive club - ex-presidents - don't you think there should be a certain level of decorum and dialog between them, or should they duke it out in a cage match?
Posted by iamcoyote at August 3, 2007 06:01 AMpolitics is a pragmatic business with idealism as a fruit of victory...some people think it's the other way around..they usually lose the elections
Posted by dennis at August 3, 2007 06:03 AMDennis:
Your comment is just silly. The surplus under Clinton resulted from a variety of factors. Some were out of the control of Bill Clinton. But to the extent that Bill Clinton did contribute to the surplus it was by enacting policies that were, by and large, uncontroversial in the Democratic party. In other words, there is no special reason to credit Bill Clinton.
You say that the Clintons are pragmatic and cannot do anything unless they win. Well, in my mind, the both of them are Exhibit A of why the Democrats continually lose. Bill's inability to sell the American people on his policies cost the Democrats the House in 1994, with horrific consequences. He followed that up with an impeachment. And despite basically leaving the country with abundant prosperity in 2000, he cost Al Gore the election because the American people did not credit Democrats with that prosperity. Why? Because Bill Clinton actively encouraged the perception that his success was due to abandoning Democratic principles, not embracing them.
Similarly, Hillary's finger-in-the-wind, risk-averse, individual-before-party character would likely hand the reins of power back to the GOP far sooner than would be safe.
Christopher:
Yes, Hillary is a silly hawk with poor judgment. But how does that distinguish her from Bill, who also supported the war and has lead no effort to end it?
Posted by space at August 3, 2007 06:13 AMspace ..you must be a lawyer..you way you twist the truth..under clinton this country had the biggest projected surplus in history..fact...94 was lost because corporate america was afraid of the clinton health care plan and poured millions into scaring the american people about it...impeachment was nothing more than a political lynching b..because they could..he lied about something that wasn't a crime..al gore ran away from clinton..maybe that's why he won with such a small margin..so please spare me your birdseed bullshit..
Posted by dennis at August 3, 2007 06:24 AMChristopher, have you applied for a job at Faux "News" yet?
Princess Doppleganger, get with the program. No one uses the term "Faux News" today, it's referred to as Fox Noise. But you have always been years behind the curve.
Posted by Christopher at August 3, 2007 06:27 AMBut Coyote, AKA, Princess Doppleganger isn't the only one OD-ing on the neocon koolaid.
Here's what AIPAC's queen said before the U.S. invasion of Iraq:
"if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Word-for-word, a textbook regurgitation from Bush's neocon propaganda book. Hillary (and Princess Doppleganger) share that pathetic intellectual laziness that defines the far-right mindset.
Posted by Christopher at August 3, 2007 06:34 AMEvery Sperm is Sacred, every sperm is great . .
Why don't they just freaking install a ZIPPER??
Posted by idiosynchronic at August 3, 2007 07:01 AMyeah Christopher...she was in, hook,line and sinker....but Obama didn't vote for the Bush Authorization to Invade - proving even back then how naive he is.
Posted by T2 at August 3, 2007 07:26 AMbut Obama didn't vote for the Bush Authorization to Invade
But, T2 - Obama wasn't in the US Senate back in 2002 when the DINO Dems like AIPAC's queen marched along side Bush and Cheney as they invaded Iraq.
Posted by Christopher at August 3, 2007 07:34 AM"if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Actually, there's nothing untrue about that statement, is there? The problem of Iraq did need to be addressed, just not the way Bush and the neocons went about it. And though I believe the Dems who voted to give Bush authorization should have know he couldn't be trusted, I'm not basing my preference for the Dem candidate on whether they apologize or not, since that's the least of our worries.
As for the rest of your childish comments, Christopher; you prove my point that you'd be perfect as a Faux "News" reporter. You could really give BillO a run for his money in the lame namecalling department.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 3, 2007 07:37 AMChristopher....let's not get so picky. I said he didn't vote for it, and he didn't. Neither did I, by the way.
Posted by T2 at August 3, 2007 07:56 AM"The woman is a Hawk who can't wait to expand the U.S. empire in the Middle East started by George W. Bush."
That's ridiculous. Hillary has to sound hawkish in the campaign - she's a woman and a Democrat, and therefore considered weak. I do not believe for one second that she is an empire builder.
Heh, idio - don't knock 'em! They're singlehandedly preserving the master race from invading brown hordes massing on our southern border!
As for the miscommunication at YKos, that's pretty unfortunate. Someone dropped the ball, but it looks unclear who did it, so far. Some sort of accomodation should be made for the people who chose that meeting over others with actual candidates. It's only fair, I think.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 3, 2007 08:09 AM"...94 was lost because corporate america was afraid of the clinton health care plan and poured millions into scaring the american people about it..."
Dennis, the reason the American public didn't get behind the health care plan Hillary crafted was because it was such a complicated mess that few could understand it. It's a perfect example of Hillary's incompetence.
Anybody got a list of measures Hillary has voted for/against as a Senator? I'd bet that when she votes "out of character" there's some pandering of a lobby going on. Her votes in favor of the Iraq war were panderings to AIPAC, but I'm sure there are others.
Posted by Julie at August 3, 2007 08:21 AMa new poll has the top three Dems even in Iowa....what do you think an Edwards victory would do to the Hillary's Won camp? Tilt right or tilt left. McOld's made his move...Tilt Hard Right, flip-flopping on his own Immigration bill so as to cater to the "shoot them before they cross the river" wing of the Nut Right. This has got to be a last gasp try on McOld's part...when you start dissing your own ideas just for votes...uh, get out the jam, the toast is done.
Posted by T2 at August 3, 2007 09:01 AMId: I have always believed that some people should have a bunch of rugrats, and that most people are such rotten parents that they should not have any.
However, I would prefer that the master race donors did not have 2 first names and hold their copulation marathons in Arkansas.
Congrats on your 17th child, Jim Bob!
Posted by TIKI AL at August 3, 2007 09:08 AMHillary is another corporatist. She plays the political game well, but that also means she will make a lot of decisions for political not pragmatic reasons.
I fear that she will overreach when it comes to terrorist activity in an attempt to prove what a "strong woman" she is.
That's ridiculous. Hillary has to sound hawkish in the campaign - she's a woman and a Democrat, and therefore considered weak. I do not believe for one second that she is an empire builder.
I agree that she feels the need to take that tact, and don't believe that she is going to be an "empire builder" however, I'm not going to support her based on "this is how she has to sound to win the presidency... she certainly won't behave that way in the Whitehouse."
That's utter BS. Say what you mean, do what you say. At this point I don't see that from Hillary. You don't have to be apolitical to sound genuine. I don't trust her and yet if she wins the nomination I will support her.
Posted by Simp at August 3, 2007 09:11 AM
Dennis:
You seem to miss the point. The economy was successful because Clinton ran an uncontroversial, Democratic economic agenda that would have been largely the same with ANY DEMOCRATIC President. I don''t take issue with his policies. I take issue with his refusal to brand them as Democratic policies. Indeed, he ACTIVELY created the impression that they were NOT Democratic policies and that most Democrats would have been a cross between Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. Thanks, Big Dog.
There is no question that Bill and Hillary Clinton had their enemies during the 1990's. The question is how they dealt with it. IMHO, they did so poorly. Contrast the POLITICAL SKILLS of Bush and Cheney, who appear to be running out the clock on impeachment despite vastly worse poll numbers and clear evidence of criminality.
Yes, the impeachment was a political lynching, as you point out. But a competent President should not allow himself to be impeached on b.s. charges.
Posted by space at August 3, 2007 09:19 AMThat's utter BS. Say what you mean, do what you say. At this point I don't see that from Hillary. You don't have to be apolitical to sound genuine. I don't trust her and yet if she wins the nomination I will support her.
Simp, I agree! This need to play games to "appear" tough on ter'rists is silly. I'm not hot on the Clintons in the WH again, either - number one, time for new blood; and number two, after letting the Iran/Contra criminals get away which therefore set the stage for them to go even further this time with the same cronies, for fuck's sake, I'm not hopeful this crowd will suffer any retribution for what they've done to the US. I want justice (though I'm still not expecting whoever gets in to provide it, really). With the Clintons, I think the possibility of getting satisfaction is even less likely than with the others.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 3, 2007 09:49 AMCoyote
What do you consider playing golf together? I may be old school but I don't believe you should suck up to your enemies unless they're not really your enemies. Bill and Daddy Bush go back to the days when Bill was governor.
The woman is a Hawk who can't wait to expand the U.S. empire in the Middle East started by George W. Bush.
Christopher your comment is a bit much.
Simp very well put, I agree completely.
What do you consider playing golf together?
So, people who play golf together are "luvy duvy?" Had no idea such a boring, "good walk ruined," as Twain once said, was so sexually charged. Gotta try it sometime!
I don't believe you should suck up to your enemies
Uh, political rivals, maybe, but enemies? The US has gone downhill since these jokers took over, but we're not quite to the point where former presidents and political opponents are "enemies." Yes, yes, that's how the Freepers and LGFers view us, but really, do you want to emulate that kind of eliminationist mentality? Where do you think the political discourse might go from there if we adopt that philosophy?
Posted by iamcoyote at August 3, 2007 10:35 AMCouple of other quick points:
- I don't see Hillary working real hard to reverse the unconstitutional trend of expanding presidential powers.
Sure there will be some token gestures, but hers will be another secretive administration.
I'm probably being overly cynical and ignoring any official statements by the campaigns on the matter (as they are all politically calculated), I just don't see Hillary reversing the trend (nor do i see her advancing it).
Edwards, OTOH strikes me as genuinely pissed off and offended. Sure its easier for him.... he's not in currently in office.
- Hillary will do absolutely nothing to abate the corporate power grab and advancement of corporate personhood.
+ Hillary's big plus for me is of the 3 she will be the most effective at battling the RW noise machine.
I truly hope to be proven wrong about Hillary as she is, barring any real missteps, as good as in the WH.
Posted by Simp at August 3, 2007 11:03 AMlot of opinions here...hillary clinton is pretty far ahead in the polls at this point..i fully realize that could change...but right now she is headed for the nomination...dreaming about other candidates is all fine and dandy..but who the hell is it going to be????????????????..
Posted by dennis at August 3, 2007 11:06 AMThat's utter BS. Say what you mean, do what you say.
Politicians just don't do that.
Posted by ann at August 3, 2007 11:20 AMdennis, check todays polls out of Iowa. A couple losses in early primaries (very early nowdays) and Hillary will be tagged "poor campaigner". Her saving will be that both the Dems and the GOP want her to be the nominee. Will the public have a say?
Posted by T2 at August 3, 2007 11:25 AMI don't see Hillary working real hard to reverse the unconstitutional trend of expanding presidential powers.
Sure there will be some token gestures, but hers will be another secretive administration.
I think she will make the repukes "rue the day" that they gave bu$h all the powers they did. But that's all it will be, a lesson for the United States to learn about "checks and balances". This will finally make the complicit media hounds reveal it was bu$h who created this constitutional crisis. Besides, when there is a new Democratic pResident in '09', every repuke, trolls included, will be barking about the abuse of the "Executive Branch"!
I'm confident that Hillary (any Democrat) will be much more transparent than bu$h!
Hillary will do absolutely nothing to abate the corporate power grab and advancement of corporate personhood.
She will appeal for some sort of rational thought from them, she has to. I doubt it will be effective, especially with the MIC.
i live in vermont and like howard dean quite a bit..he is as honest a politician as there is..calls a spade a spade...look where it got him..he spoke from the heart with true emotion and the msm creamed him...say what you mean?..i agree with ann.. that's bullshit...the greatest politician i ever saw is bill clinton...could talk a cat out of a tree..he panders...he was a pragmatist..says what he needs to say when he has to say it...it's how this game is played..whether you like it or not
Posted by dennis at August 3, 2007 11:31 AMNew WaPo/ABC Iowa poll shows Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are pretty much in a tie. It's changing day to day, it seems.
And good for Hillary for agreeing to the breakaway when the misunderstanding was clearly on the YKos organizers side.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 3, 2007 11:35 AMt2...i hear ya..edwards is betting the farm on iowa..it's why he is ahead there ..he has spent an awful lot of time there..but i don't think it's going to be enough...btw..if i had to vote for someone today..it would be john edwards...
Posted by dennis at August 3, 2007 11:40 AMjulie
the health care plan in 94 was indeed complicated..to complicated to explain but to blame that on hillary is naive..and to call that woman incompetant is very naive..the american public at the time was very much in favor of national heathcare..according to the polls at the time..corporate money and certain lobby's killed it...
Posted by dennis at August 3, 2007 11:56 AMDennis:
The only thing that Hillary has going for her is an air of inevitability and her last name.
Obama has proven he can raise the money. Obama and Edwards are more charismatic. Edwards has more convictions. Al Gore is waiting in the wings with 100x better judgment and character.
Hillary's problem is that if she falls behind, there is almost no way she can come back because there is so little case for her as a President.
If you ask most Democrats about Hillary, you will get some variation of "Well, I'll vote for her in the general election if she is the nominee." While it does concern me that the party could nominate a candidate with so little ability to generate enthusiasm, more problematic for her is that statements like that do not indicate the kind of groundswell of support that could buoy her campaign if it hits rough waters in the next six months.
I often hear that I am "anti-Hillary" or "hate" her. That isn't the case. I don't work for another campaign. I don't get paid if she loses. Simply put, my only interest is in electing a great Democrat. If she hasn't convinced me that she fits the bill, it isn't my fault. I'm certainly willing to listen to the argument. So far, I've heard "She's smart" (Whoopee, is there a candidate who isn't?), "we get Bill as a package" (Excuse me, if I don't break out in goosebumps), and "the GOP won't dare take her on" (As if she had some fifteen-year track record of defeating GOP-spin and implementing progressive policies, rather than the opposite).
Posted by space at August 3, 2007 12:39 PMInteresting survey there, coyote.
Net results of first/second choice answers:
Barack Obama 51
Hillary Clinton 48
John Edwards 48
That's all within the error margin. This poll literally says that the top 3 are in a deadlock.
This question made me laugh - Which candidate has campaigned the hardest in Iowa? If we were to honestly evaluate the question, I think I'd have to say that Edwards and Richardson have been busting their butt in in a fashion never before seen. It's not unusual for candidates to almost qualify for residency during the caucuses, but Edwards and Richardson have put an exceptionally high amount of personal time in the state very early. As summer came on, Clinton and Obama have gotten on the normal summer appearance schedule, and have had more time and opportunities. So hat does the survey say?
Hillary Clinton 30
John Edwards 29
Barack Obama 22
Bill Richardson 3
And I want to bring up the last survey question:
Which of these is more important to you in a candidate for president: (strength and experience) or (a new direction and new ideas)?
Throughout the survey, respondents consistently rated Clinton as more experienced, the strongest leader, & has the best chance. If the interviewers asked about who understood the electorate's problems & wanted to change the system, Obama and Edwards were in a dead heat lead.
But 49-39, respondents ranked ideas and direction more important than strength and experience.
So, the question becomes this: can Hillary Clinton avoid a meltdown and be well-positioned for when Iowa voters, whom are a pragmatic sort, finalize their decision? And are they more likely go with strength and experience at the caucus rather than a survey 5 months before the vote?
Posted by idiosynchronic at August 3, 2007 12:47 PMi am not now... nor ever have been a hillary fanatic..and as i have said she is not my first choice..but i do think that she is very capable..extremely bright ..and thickskinned..has been a very good senator from ny..and i also believe that as the election draws near and people start to listen they will be impressed with her...i think she would make a good president..and the thought of bill clinto as sec of state give me a good feeling..
Posted by dennis at August 3, 2007 01:02 PMGotta love all the "no policy" listings in this story at Kos
Posted by Simp at August 3, 2007 03:38 PMMarkos Moulitsas, of DailyKos fame had the best line about Hillary and the Iraq war (cover your eyes, Princess Doppleganger): [Hillary's] “done a great job of blurring on the war.”
Maybe one day she will even give back the $25,000 campaign donation she received from News Corp?
Nah, not Hillary! LMAO!
Posted by Christopher at August 3, 2007 07:50 PMChristopher, do I have to remind you once again to leave Coyote alone? I do have a temper.
Posted by tempus at August 4, 2007 11:04 AM