It's Hillary's answers that I have a problem with such as her not saying she would start immediately withdrawing troops from Iraq. Nothing she says changes the fact that she has supported Bush and his war and occupation.
Posted by JohnT at October 11, 2007 07:28 AMI knew it! Ms. Clinton is mixed up in getting Iraq some uranium from Africa. Or in trying to make it look like Iraq was getting uranium from Africa.
I look forward to the continuing saga.
Posted by kaleidescope at October 11, 2007 07:50 AMI was there in the breakout session at Yearly Kos. I even remember his question though can't particularly remember her answer.
What I do remember .... is that in spite of the fact I didn't want to be, I came away impressed with Hillary. The croud in that room had a lot of skeptics. She answered all of the questions, many of them tough... She addressed head on the mess up with the scheduling of her breakout. She had a sense of humor that you don't see on the television. Most of all, she had an awesome grasp of the details regarding the questions she answered.
Hillary is still not my first choice. She doesn't get my donations. I don't vote for her in the Kos polls. But after seeing her at YKos, I will be able to support her if she gets the nomination. There is no question in my mind at all that she would be a competent president.
Posted by JWC at October 11, 2007 08:04 AMMs. Clinton is mixed up in getting Iraq some uranium from Africa.
Wha?? Where'd this come from?
If it weren't so serious, it'd be kinda funny. Watching the visceral haters react to each new bit of evidence that what they believe is not exactly the truth is like watching a kid ask "why?" as a parent keeps answering questions one by one. Eventually, I guess, when someone asks "why do you hate Hillary?" the answer will be "just because..."
Posted by iamcoyote at October 11, 2007 08:39 AMCoyote you need to get your head out of your ass and look at the facts on Hillary and stop calling us Hillary haters. If you call me a Bush hater you would be correct.
Posted by JohnT at October 11, 2007 09:46 AMBut, will she tie her shoes?
Posted by peter at October 11, 2007 09:51 AMYou did not post H Clinton's answers/non-answers/prevarications so that we might make up our minds, so your whole piece borders on the straw man principle.
Clinton is just too compromised by her following the wishes of her corporate and NY money to be trusted by real Democrats and there is no way the tiny number of people who switch their votes will vote for her.
If she is the candidate, Good Morning President Romney or Giuliani. Wake up, Democratic Party!
Posted by maunga at October 11, 2007 10:01 AMCoyote you need to get your head out of your ass
Why?
and look at the facts on Hillary
Why?
and stop calling us Hillary haters.
Why?
If you call me a Bush hater you would be correct.
See, there's the thing. We have good reason to hate Bush; but it's becoming clear that the reasons given for hating Hillary aren't quite as solid as the haters would have us believe. But go on saying "just because..." Or better yet, keep attacking me as a way of avoiding eriposte's points. It gives me no end of amusement!
Posted by iamcoyote at October 11, 2007 10:19 AMI think Coyote may have a future as the Left's new version of Hannity, Rush, Savage, Coulter, Malkin, et al. These right wing crap heads have been using the tactic of calling those that dare to disagree with them "haters" for some time now. It would appear Coyote has adopted that strategy for the Left (or at least in the case of Hillary).
Posted by Cosrai at October 11, 2007 10:37 AMI haven't been a Clinton supporter. But I have to tell you, that the dimwitted and ignorant diatribes I have seen against her on the blogs have made me think maybe she's got something going for her. So many self-deluded and hate-consumed people who call themselves progressive have got it in for her and are so willing to be utterly irrational in the language and content of their criticisms. If they thought they were making their case, in actual fact they were making it for her rather than against her.
Posted by Bill R. at October 11, 2007 10:54 AMI think Coyote may have a future as the Left's new version of Hannity, Rush, Savage, Coulter, Malkin, et al.
Cosrai,
If you think iamcoyote is the bad actor here you haven't been hanging around here frequently enough. There's a little clique of commenters (recently absent oddly enough) who've taken to making up disparaging names for the leading Democrats in Congress and anyone who makes a comment that can in anyway be construed as expressing support for them. Iamcoyote has bore the brunt of a lot of it. Rational arguments are responded to with insults and personal attacks. Hillary's Harpies sound familiar? So spare us.
Posted by snark at October 11, 2007 11:02 AMI think Coyote may have a future as the Left's new version of Hannity, Rush, Savage, Coulter, Malkin, et al.
Apparently you've missed some of the vitriol spewed towards Hillary lately - irrational, hate-filled spew with apparently little basis in fact. What else to call people like that? They hate her, therefore, they're haters. Trying to compare me to the most hated haters on the right is pretty funny, if you think about it. I've discovered, though, that the only thing more hated than the haters and Hillary is the person laughing at the haters. Hate is supposed to be taken seriously, I guess.
But really, if your dislike of Hillary is based on her voting record or the things she does or says, don't wag your finger at me and call names. Put together an argument, and debate with eriposte. He's inviting you to do so; giving an opening. I'd definitely love to see an answer a little more substantial than "you're wrong! my gut tells me so."
Posted by iamcoyote at October 11, 2007 11:02 AMWell, at least you used the word "vitriol." That was all that was missing to complete the picture.
I may not be a "regular," but I know enough that for snark to say "spare me" is irony at its finest.
And coyote once again disparages the value of instinct in the decision making process. Analyze away, it worked so well for Bush in his run-up to Iraq.
And should I debate eriposte on the latest two posts- those that mock Hogarth? Where's the value in that?
I've stated I do not see Hillary as an instrument of change. I do not view her as having the ability to inspire people to change. And unlike her role in the Senate, this is the most necessary ability of the President at this time in our history. I have not seen evidence, from the proposals she has made and the answers she has given, that she has intentions of challenging much of the status quo when taking the office of President. Of course, what level of challenge is necessary may be a matter of opinion, and I have seen posts by Steve Soto that address this. But in my opinion, I still don't see the level of change I would want in a candidate, and I only have my vote to cast.
What I want to know, is why so much time and effort devoted to defending Hillary? It would seem to me that such devotion invites the "hate-filled" comments you talk about. It gets tiring when we haven't even had a primary yet and a certain candidate is repeatedly shoved down your throat as the only logical choice.
Posted by Cosrai at October 11, 2007 11:33 AMI may not be a "regular," but I know enough that for snark to say "spare me" is irony at its finest.
I never used the term "regular" Cosrai. That term, with all the exclusivity it implies, is usually used by those spewing their personal insults at anyone foolish enough to state that there is a difference between the Dems and the Reps.
What I want to know, is why so much time and effort devoted to defending Hillary?
Steve Soto endorsed her. And it's his site. But he's repeatedly asked anyone interested in covering the other candidates to contact him and come aboard. Why not take him up on the offer?
It would seem to me that such devotion invites the "hate-filled" comments you talk about.
Why? Isn't a reasoned factual response more useful? Oh, but that requires thought.
It gets tiring when we haven't even had a primary yet and a certain candidate is repeatedly shoved down your throat as the only logical choice.
So talk up one of the other candidates. Again, why not take Steve up on his offer? If there's someone else you think deserves attention there's a forum here for you to take advantage of.
Posted by snark at October 11, 2007 11:53 AMWhere have all those other fine folks gone? This place is becoming one big happy family for HC. Have they decided y'all are phony Democrats now, buying into DLC ideas?
Posted by peter at October 11, 2007 12:17 PMAnd coyote once again disparages the value of instinct in the decision making process.
I didn't disparage instinct, I laughed at your insistance that your gut feelings trumped the evidence. To me, that makes it not so much instinct as stubborn and willful blindness.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 11, 2007 12:43 PMSemantics, snark, semantics. "Regular" is, in my opinion, someone whose "been hanging around here frequently enough."
But more to the point, there have been posts on other candidates here, but not (again my opinion) with the same level of both apology and absolute certainty. That's devotion. It seems, and it may be just the sheer number of posts or that Steve Soto endorsed her, that in the eyes of the Hillary supporters for anyone to support another, or just question Hillary's qualifications, is the ultimate stupidity. And if you can't provide a 30 page analysis and Power Point presentation on why you feel this way, you're just plain ignorant, uninformed, and not worthy of an opinion. Given this, I'm not surprised by the comments you see about Hillary.
And of course, we have the challenge. The put up or shut up challenge. So far, if the election was tomorrow I'd vote for Edwards. He expresses the level of change that I think is important and motivates me to want to follow him. I know there are others, like Kucinich, that echo similar or maybe even better sentiments. But I don't beleive they can inspire the country the way Edwards could.
Do I need to get with Steve and create a post about Edwards because I commented on the excessive Hillaryism here? I don't think so. That wouldn't make my point any more or less valid.
Posted by Cosrai at October 11, 2007 01:06 PM
That's devotion.
I'd call it determination to present the most accurate picture possible of the person the creator of this site thinks has the best shot of putting the White House back in the hands of the Democrats next term. If you're implying some sort of personal devotion to Clinton I think you're mistaken.
...in the eyes of the Hillary supporters for anyone to support another, or just question Hillary's qualifications, is the ultimate stupidity.
On the contrary. It is those who dislike Clinton who come here and call people stupid because they can't see that she is just a shill for corporate America.
And of course, we have the challenge. The put up or shut up challenge.
Excuse me. I didn't challange you. You complained about having Clinton stuffed down your throat. I just pointed out that Steve has given every opportunity for people who support other candidates to do so. Right here on this blog. Far from telling you to put up or shut up I recommended that you take the opportunity to air your support for another candidate.
Do I need to get with Steve and create a post about Edwards because I commented on the excessive Hillaryism here? I don't think so. That wouldn't make my point any more or less valid.
No it certainly wouldn't make your point more valid. But your hesitance to post on Edwards, given the forum, also doesn't invalidate the opinions of those who choose to take the initiative and vocally support the candidate of their choice. You know, the one's who are shoving her down your throat. Too much Hillary but you don't want to be bothered to support Edwards? It seems you are the one who wants people to shut up.
Posted by snark at October 11, 2007 01:35 PMLook how easily Democrats can be led to destroy their own candidates. Who benefits from the Destruction of the Democratic front runner? OH my goodness..that would be the GOP front runner..Nov of 2008!
Posted by Richard at October 11, 2007 02:40 PMFraming people who are critical of Hillary Clinton as "haters" is a blunt rhetorical instrument, which rings false. It is a way to deflect criticism by bypassing the thought process.
Posted by Copeland at October 11, 2007 11:14 PM