Hillary Clinton on Iraq vote: ‘I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.’

[DonViejo]

Source: Washington Post

BY PHILIP RUCKER

Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her strongest language yet about her 2002 Senate vote to authorize military action in Iraq, writes in her forthcoming memoir that "I still got it wrong," CBS News reported Thursday afternoon.

In "Hard Choices," Clinton, a former secretary of state and former U.S. senator who is exploring a 2016 presidential campaign, writes: &quot M)any Senators came to wish they had voted against the resolution. I was one of them. As the war dragged on, with every letter I sent to a family in New York who had lost a son or daughter, a father or mother, my mistake become (sic) more painful."

Clinton continues, "I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple."

CBS News obtained an early copy of Clinton's book, not scheduled for release until next Tuesday, and published excerpts on its Web site Thursday afternoon. Clinton also writes about the Sept. 11, 2012, terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya, as well as the Obama administration's attempts to secure freedom for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the Arab Spring, the Osama bin Laden raid and U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, Russia and Syria, according to CBS News.


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/05/hillary-clinton-on-iraq-vote-i-still-got-it-wrong-plain-and-simple/

[uhnope]

1. too little way too late

Pres. H. Clinton would be bombing who-knows-where ASAP

[DonViejo]

4. Did you say the same thing when John Kerry ran for President? eom

[blm]

9. HRC would have helped herself and Kerry if she stood by him when he was the only Aye vote to stand

against Bush's DECISION to invade, and siding, instead, with the weapon inspectors who were reporting back that use of force was not needed as there were no WMDs found and no threat on national security. Kerry and the weapon inspectors were heavily maligned for that position, even as corpmedia ignored his actual position in favor of Rove's narrative.

If there had been 2 Aye votes to stand against the decision to invade it would have had a bigger impact and news media could not have ignored it as much as they did or misREPRESENTED it as much as they did when it was only Kerry.

[DonViejo]

10. I wasn't addressing you but, thanks for jumping in. eom

[blm]

11. any time....accuracy is my thing.......

; )

[merrily]

84. Happens all the time on message boards. PMs are the way to go if you want a private convo.

[DURHAM D]

17. Huh?

The funding bill was his famous Flip Flop. At least 10 other senators voted not to fund the war which was interesting given Kerry's prior comments and his vote for the IWR. I know you truly hate the Clintons but blaming Hillary for Kerry's vote is beyond

[blm]

26. Huh? The IWR vote is what is being discussed.

Hillary would have helped herself AND Kerry by standing AS aye votes against Bush's DECISION to invade after weapon inspectors reported back that there were no WMDS being found. Sorry you don't get that.

If you stayed on the topic you wouldn't be so easily confused.

[DURHAM D]

31. You are too funny.

About the IWR - why are trying to blame Hillary for Kerry's vote? If he needed a buddy 29 other Democrats voted against it so why did he need her approval? I guess you think Kerry lost his Presidential bid because of Hillary which sure makes her one powerful human being.

Flip Flop, Flip Flop

[karynnj]

40. She is NOT - what she is saying is that if more Democrats, who had voted "AYE"

would have spoken out when the inspectors found nothing, it could have helped.

This is a rare instance where I disagree with BLM, I think Bush was going to start the war - with or without a resolution, (or for that matter no matter how the resolution was worded.) That was the conclusion of most people who read the Downing Street memos - an excuse to start the war would be ginned up.

I also have a big problem with people who conflate the decision in March 2003 - after the inspectors and the IAEA had found nothing troubling AND the decision to back the resolution when Bush promised he would go to the UN (he did, then later when he knew they would not give an ok, he did not go back) and to use the leverage of the country behind him to demand inspections as invasive as needed.

I do think NO was the correct vote for any who did not think there was already sufficient reason to go to war -- and that included Kerry. (I think it may have included HRC as well) They should have pushed to have a resolution that did JUST what they wanted - to support Bush in going to the UN, but NOT giving authority. I know that they thought they had won some changes in language that made it better, but the problem was Bush was able to ignore everything he said he would do --- and though it did not make the war more likely, it did mean their names were listed under having approved it - and the Republicans made the most of it. (I know from MANY Kerry speeches - especially as he worked on things like Kerry/Feingold, that he very deeply regretted the vote.)

However, I believe just as strongly that the ONLY person, who started the war -- was Bush. In March, 2003, he made the decision to go - not because there was additional concern - but because protests were increasing - and the weather would soon make invasion harder as it was getting hotter.

[blm]

46. Actually - we BOTH agree Bush would've started the war without IWR.

Documents showed that he told Blair that his legal team believed he had legal cover to invade in language from the 1991 UN resolution authorizing use of force.

[karynnj]

48. True

Ironically, in summer 2002, Kerry was one of the people who argued that he needed to go back to Congress and that they needed to go to the UN. It would have been better for Kerry ,,, and Hillary, had Bush counted on his popularity being sufficient to ignore them.

[blm]

61. Yep - IWR was always meant to be a political tool for Bush WH more than an actual need.

They had already determined they had the legal cover.

[malokvale77]

64. I agree with what you say...

except for that last paragraph. Bush made the decision to go into Iraq long before March, 2003. It just took him that long to manufacture the evidence to justify it

[karynnj]

107. I agree with the first sentence; disagree on the second

I think it is clear he decided to attack Iraq even before 911. I think he waited until March to appear to be following a reasonable process. However, there was actually far less justification to even worry that Iraq COULD have weapons in March, than there had been in October.

Sadly, the Democrats who voted yes were co-opted to some real degree. The media has been happy to ignore any differences or nuance in their positions through that interval and minimize the blame that the Bush team should have. (This happened even to Kerry - even though his comments were NOT nuanced - "mislead us into war, without exhausting the diplomacy, with no plan and inadequate forces to win the peace .... wrong war, wrong place, wrong time .... "the US should only go to war as a last resort" - and they started BEFORE Bush invaded.

[billhicks76]

151. Yes Before 911

Bush, Cheney and the Neocons decided even before Bush got elected they were going to invade Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries. All they needed was a pretext and they even wrote it down in the PNAC papers calling for a new Pearl Harbor to trick people into accepting the Crime Of The Century. The Patriot Act was already written and oil fields were planned to be divied up. It's unbelievable more leaders didn't call them out but the ones who did died mysterious deaths from falling or suicide in the UK and here. I do fault people like Hillary because even though her one vote wouldn't change the tally it did have enormous influence and would've surely changed the momentum to war back to favoring the opposition. People fell in line with her which was predictable. Siding with Bush cannot be rationalized away.

[malokvale77]

179. That is exactly what I was saying

Maybe I wasn't clear. I believe he manufactured a reason to invade Iraq. Long before Congress gave the go ahead.

[karynnj]

180. Sorry - nt

[karynnj]

35. No - that's a Republican meme

Kerry's flip flop was not even a flip flop. He voted in committee for a version that would have rolled back the tax cuts for the top 1% to pay for the cost rather than adding it to the debt. That version also put in more oversight - needed as huge sums of money could not be accounted for. That version lost --- IN PROTEST snf explsining hid sction on the floor of the Senate, Kerry voted no on the version that Bush backed that added it to the debt.

He spoke out several times as the inspectors were in Iraq - for the first time since 1998 - the most easy to find links to is a Georgetown University speech on January 23, 2003 - before the war started where he said that 1) diplomacy had not been exhausted and 2) the inspectors were still working and 3) IF BUSH WENT TO WAR, IT WOULD NOT BE A WAR OF LAST RESORT. The last part is bolded because it is very important. Kerry was at a Jesuit University -- and in Catholic doctrine, if a war is not "a last resort", it is not a just war.

[joshcryer]

39. Why would she have done that?

She had her sights on the prize herself.

[rhett o rick]

65. We are talking about the terrible mistake H. Clinton made and you want us to "look over there

at John Kerry." How does what the poster said about John Kerry relate to what H. Clinton did? She ignored the millions of protestors around the world and bowed down to a Republican mad man. I would never trust her again.

[billhicks76]

147. Doesn't Cut It

Last edited Mon Jun 9, 2014, 12:56 AM - Edit history (1)

Sorry doesn't begin to mend the damage of voting to send those kids to war. It's pathetic, revolting and shallow to dismiss it all with "mistakes were made". Anyone who voted for that war should resign if they had any decency beyond their own selfish, egotistical goals.

[rhett o rick]

148. So you are agreeing with me? nm

[billhicks76]

149. Kerry + Clinton =

Of course yes...100%. Two real low points for me were #1 when Kerry was on the campaign trail and was taking questions from the audience and a college kid asked about him being in the elitist, Republican, Yale Hate Group Skull & Bones with George Bush. Security infamously tackled the poor kid as he yelled, "Don't taze me bro!" which became a household joke but Kerry ignoring the whole thing and sending his goons after him was more telling. #2 was when Hillary was giving a speech and exCIA agent and liberal democrat, Ray McGovern, stood up silently with his back turned to protest torture and her Iraq War vote. Security was unleashed on him and they beat him bloody as Hillary ignored the spectacle and pretended everything was fine like the fake that she is. This guy was the person who used to give the president his daily intelligence briefings and is one of the true heroes that didn't sell out at the expense of almost a million murdered civilians. His conscience is worth something. He doesn't do what he does to sell books or seek annoited promotions to satisfy his ego or get richer. I would vote for him for president any day. The Clinton's are so cozy with the Bushes they have been called honorary family members. Whoever can stomach that or imagine their policies will be different from the Bushes must be wanting to be reincarnated as an ostrich or a lemming. Burying ones head in the sand or following those in front off a cliff is no way to change things.

[karynnj]

169. Your memory of the Meyers tasering is extremely wrong

First of all, it was not while he was on the campaign trail. It was years later and he was giving a speech at a Florida State University on foreign policy. Second, Meyers had a temper tantrum when he was not close enough to Kerry in the line to ask the question while everyone was listening. The police then moved to remove him while he was loudly complaining. Kerry, to try to defuse the situation - asked him to wait until he finished the question he was answering and then he could ask a question.

When he was allowed to ask a question, he first started to filibuster on the 2004 election- including speaking of a book about being stolen - and as Kerry started to answer - saying he knew of the book, Meyers continued to shout at him about S&B etc rather than letting Kerry answer. At that point, the people running the event had him removed even when Kerry indicated to them it was not necessary to remove him as he continued to speak of teh 2004 election. The fact is if Meyers simply wanted to ask a question and then get an answer, he could have because Kerry had gone out of his way to let this obviously out of control person have his chance to speak. Meyers had a person with him filming this entire interactions. This was an ambush of Kerry, who was politely answering questions.

As he was taken down the aisle and into the area leading to the door - he was screaming all the way. Once he was far from the stage - where Kerry continued to speak to the students on the 2004 election - the police used the taser. Kerry later said he did not know anything about that until the event was over.

Now I saw the millions of threads here and saw the video filmed by Meyers' friend, who MOVED WITH MEYERS. Most people ignored the fact that the video showed 3 things -1) Meyers was intentionally trying to create an incident to embarrass the then Senator. 2) Kerry was using his skill to keep the entire crowd calm and to not have the event ruined. and 3) It is very likely that Kerry absolutely saw or heard nothing to suggest the man was tasered.

Let me explain the latter. On the tape, one can barely here Kerry speaking to the crowd - or as Meyers' fans said "droning away", but you here Meyers loud and clear. Think about that - Kerry has a strong voice AND he had a microphone. The person filming it is clearly close to Meyers. If Kerry's mic'ed voice is barely understood on the film, how distinct would Meyer's voice be as heard from where Kerry was onstage. (Throw in that the acoustics of an auditorium are designed to minimize noise from the periphery and facilitate the transmission of sound from the stage (where Kerry was) Add in that Meyers was resisting the officers and screaming even before they started to pull him out. A last clue is that the large group of students, facility and others at the event were all listening to Kerry and only a few at the back were even still watching Meyers.

A young Republican woman who attended the event gave her own account and pointed out that even though she was too far back to ask a question, she asked her question at the meet and greet after the event. She said she disagreed with his answer, but that he was very polite and gave a serious, thoughtful reply.

Meyers also had a past history of staging these types of things and posting you tubes. Think an Alex Jones/O'Keefe combo.

[billhicks76]

174. Ok Ok

You are right. All I saw was news clips. I agree with most of what you said. I still think the response was an overreaction. This kid seemed harmless and definitely not a conservative operative. So what he filmed a YouTube clip...that's ultra common for anyone under 40. I don't blame Kerry but I remember a time not so long ago when a police reaction like this would be scolded regardless. The question was extremely relevant anyway. Secret clubs in a representative government is oxymoronic.

[karynnj]

176. The University security clearly over reacted - giving Meyers what he wanted - a spectacle

As to a secret club he joined at Yale, his entire life since 1971 has been pretty public. He has - in spite of being a member of the elite by birth, as well as anything at Yale, but he has shown a genuine concern for others less privileged.

When he returned from Vietnam, his protests were not just to end the war and a call for a better foreign policy - he spoke from the heart that the government had to do right by the vets - both medically and to help many reintegrate into society. This was NOT for him, he returned as the well loved son of an upper class family and a member of a powerful extended family. His fiancee, from another elite family, was also there for him. In addition, he had a Yale education and the connections that came from it -- especially as he was the head of the student union for both his junior and senior years and the star of the debate team for all four years. The life he led before entering the service was still there for him.

(In fact, he spoke a bit of that early life in France last week. He was in the town where his grandparents had an estate that the Nazis destroyed after using it, but which was rebuilt by the family so Kerry and all his cousins (His mom was one of 11 kids) played there in summers. )

Your concern for S&B, ignores that there were many things he did that showed who he was and what he cared for. He values integrity and has lived a life that shows it. In his case, if he had no values, he had a much easier path to becoming President. It would have been easier if he simply declared he was a Republican. Imagine - an eloquent clean cut man, very diplomatic, a war hero - because he kept his men safe and showed bravery and intelligence, a pilot, a college athlete in 4 sports, and the best debater over all the colleges Yale debated with. Obviously with no values - no speaking out on Vietnam. Speaking GOP lines (I said no values) - tell me the Republicans would not have pushed him forward.

Instead, he was the man willing to risk his dream of running for office to speak out on Vietnam - and when there risked it again when he investigated the Contra gun and drug running at the height of Reagan's popularity, Then he challenged the powers that be in both parties investigating BCCI. Yet you are troubled that he joined a powerful group when asked in college.

[merrily]

83. Primary vs. General

Not comparable, and not even especially relevant, unless Kerry plans to run against Hillary. Also, how any poster feels is not relevant to much of anything, unless your goal is to try to show up the poster, rather than to discuss substantive issues.

[The Stranger]

96. I sure did. Kerry will never be forgiven for supporting the war.

He shouldn't even be Secretary of State, in my opinion.

How can Kerry and Hilary Clinton have gotten it so wrong, but a young Senator from Illinois still managed to get it right?

That is the stuff of Presidents.

[JDPriestly]

112. The young senator from Illinois was not in the Senate at the time. The political stakes

for him were different. He was not under the pressure of the national press to conform to the stupidity of the day.

Still, Hillary cannot get away from the fact that she fell for Bush's lies. Makes you wonder how carefully she looks at evidence in other situations. She certainly did not scrutinize the evidence presented by Bush before OKing his war in Iraq.

[The Stranger]

120. He wasn't in the Senate for the inital vote, but he opposed the war once he was in the Senate.

And I don't think she was falling for the "stupidity of the day." She was making a calculated, political decision, a decision that put a calculated assessment of her political future and the nation's ideological swoon over what is simply and inescapably a fundamental moral imperative.

And she fucking failed. Fucking failed.

Not only did she completely fail in that assessment, as most people woke up to what a few at the time already knew -- that it was a war crime -- but she showed that she would put her short-term political interest over hundreds of thousands of human lives.

And that's pretty fucking low.

That's pretty fucking low.

[JDPriestly]

122. She failed, and then Obama named her Secretary of State.

Failure has its own rewards.

Here is Dan Rather's interview of Saddam Hussein.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/iraq/interview.html

I remember how shocked I was to watch that in real time. I had believed all the pro-war news and propaganda, and I turned to my husband and said about Hussien, "He's telling the truth (about no WMDs other than in UN hands)."

It was a shock to me, but Hussein's body language and the translation of what he was saying told me he was telling the truth about the absence of WMDs.

I remembered after the Rather interview that I had known as soon as I saw video of Nixon lying about Watergate that he had lied. Hussein was not lying.

Of course, the interview took place long after the Iraq War Resolution was passed, but Hillary Clinton would have been a supporter of the IWR no matter what.

But the evidence presented to support the war was tired and old and not accurate. Hillary should have seen the problems and asked questions. I think Obama would have.

[billhicks76]

152. It Wasn't A Few

That already knew. It was millions of us but certain media would not allow those popular multitudes of voices be heard.

[billhicks76]

146. I Did

Last edited Mon Jun 9, 2014, 01:29 AM - Edit history (1)

The go to get along Kerry was a mistake too. He probably won Ohio but let the fraud of another stolen election stand because as liberal as he acted he goes along with the corporations and the perpetual War Machine. How could we have been so stupid to nominate a guy who was in Skull & Bones with Bush. People should read about Skull & Bones. There's a good book by Kris Milligan whose father was CIA Station Chief for SouthEast Asia in the late 60s.

[Orsino]

167. Kerry was a war whore, too. n/t

[olddad56]

27. you don't know that she would be bombing ASAP. Thoughtless thing to say.

[uhnope]

71. Hillary's been jonesing for a bombing of Iran for a long time

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/04/27/hillary_strangelove/?p1=email_to_a_friend

[L0oniX]

136. 100's of thousands died in the Iraq war and some are still dying from depleted uranium.

That one hell of a mistake.

[LoisB]

177. First thing that came to my mind also.

[wordpix]

181. when you are voting on a war resolution as a US senator,

you should do your homework, ESPECIALLY when Halliburton Cheney and BushCo are in charge.

She didn't. I will vote for her as pres if she's the candidate but am holding my nose.

Another thing is her ties to BIG MONEY/Wall St/CEOs making 10's of million$ annually, even hundreds of million$. NY Times last Sun had a list of what CEOs are making. Eye opening.

[Egnever]

2. Well she is definitely running.

This pretty much seals it.

[johnlucas]

23. She was ALWAYS running. That was part of the deal between her & Barack back in 2008

I laugh when people act surprised with Hillary running in 2016.
Everything in Hillary's political career has centered on becoming the First Female President.
She has wanted this to happen since she was a child.

And she would have had it if that upstart named Barack Obama didn't show up out of the blue.
After Obama got the nomination from Hillary, they made a deal for her to be placed in a high position under him (Secretary of State) to help her solidify her street cred.
Secretary of State was better than Vice President both because it was a more active position & it creates enough necessary separation between Obama & her (protects both of their images & political allegiances).

The deal they made said that after Obama gets his 2 terms then Hillary would run for her 2.
That's why she stepped down as Secretary of State in his 2nd term.
Can't realistically run for President while being a member of Obama's Cabinet.
Especially in a position like Secretary of State.

~She stepped down to spend more time with her family~
~She stepped down to take care of her health~

HA!

Who's gullible enough to believe this nonsense!
That woman is too ambitious to go home without the Presidency—ESPECIALLY after fighting for it all her life.

Hillary would have been the 44th President of the United States if not for Obama.
She most likely will be the 45th.

Fits the history of this country anyhow.
Blacks were freed from slavery before Women got the right to vote.
John Lucas

[DURHAM D]

32. Nice story bro.

[freshwest]

34. Glad you brought up the analogy in the last paragraph. It strikes me as that way, too.

[johnlucas]

51. It's funny how history has these kinds of parallels. Democratic Party will be seen as one in growth.

Sometimes seemingly disparate events end up being echoes of past historical sequences.
I saw that analogy as soon as Obama won the nomination in 2008.
He didn't win this easily & Hillary was HELLA formidable.
She WAS going to be the President.
But history intervened.

And it ends up echoing past breakthroughs this country had made with the rights of its citizens.

The abolitionist movement is directly tied to the worker's right movement & the women's rights movement.
After they freed the Blacks, they moved on to free other oppressed groups in the country.
It's easy to see that how the Labor Movement ties into Slavery Abolition since both cover unfair compensation & unfair treatment of humanity.
But the Women's Rights Movement is just as tied to it for the same reasons.
Black slaves had no voice in their government & Women had no voice in their government.
Blacks had little to no control over their lives. Women had little to no control over their lives.
There were differences in the details between these groups but the themes remained the same.

Even the historical schisms between Blacks' Rights & Women's Rights showed itself in 2008 during that run up to the Democratic National Convention.
Wasn't it Frederick Douglass who couldn't see the parallels between the injustice to Blacks & the injustice to Women?
Didn't this effectively separate the Blacks' Rights & Women's Rights movements?
Making women exclusively fight for women above all & making Blacks do the same?
The effect being that women didn't get the right to vote until decades later?

I see all of that when I look at Barack & Hillary in their runs for the Presidency.
To me it is no coincidence.
History is bleeding into the Present.

Either way the Democratic Party is GUARANTEED to be seen as the political party of growth.
The 1st Black/Multiethnic President followed by the 1st Female President.
If Hillary plays her cards right, she can speed up the extinction of the Republican Party on the national stage.
That will eventually kill the Republican Party on the regional stages since they will have no central platform to organize under.

After Hillary, the Democratic Party will be the place where many people of different groups can feel they have a chance in excelling within.

First Asian, First Latino, First Native American, First (openly) Gay.
It would cause a DEFINITE realignment of the political structure & the opposition will struggle to counter it.
Eventually the Democratic Party will get so big it will splinter & fracture creating a new realignment but by then the notion that every group can possibly become President won't be a fantasy anymore.
And that changes political participation when you feel you can have a stake in this game.

The root of it came from Obama breaking that barrier in 2008.
All Hillary has to do is follow the natural consequence of history.
John Lucas

[MyNameGoesHere]

60. Got to watch out for those ambitious women

they may act like a man that wanted to be president all their lives. Of course men are excluded from political ambitions right? because they have a penis.

[johnlucas]

70. Just looking to find an insult, ain'tcha? What will you say when I help her FULFILL her ambition?

This ultra-defensive thin-skinned brand of feminism you're putting up is counter-productive & limiting.
Reminds me of the women going around calling themselves "womyn" like the letter Y makes a difference.
Time-wasting nonsense that ain't solving a damn thing with women's issues.

You automatically see it as an insult when I use the word "ambitious" to describe Hillary.
Would you be as insulted if I referred to her as "blonde-haired" or "determined"?
It's just a simple matter-of-fact descriptive of who she is.
You wanna make a big production because a man DARED to call her "ambitious".
How dare he, the scoundrel!

Yeah, MyNameGoesHere, Hillary is AMBITIOUS. Deal with it.
You BETTER be ambitious to fight for that office.
Everybody who became President was ambitious.

And when Hillary makes her obvious run in 2016, I will help her FULFILL her ambition to become the First Female President of the United States.

Instead of wasting time trying to find secret meaning in the words I use, finding fault with language you don't think a man should say towards a woman...
...read what is said at face value & take it for its textbook meaning.

There's no secret subtext to find swerves in.
The woman is ambitious & has ALWAYS been preparing for the Presidency.
I will do MY best to make sure she succeeds breaking ANOTHER barrier to the gates of power.
John Lucas

[freshwest]

79. There is more than one kind of ambition, but some fall for the Gordon Gecko model every time.

Example of the textbook meaning; understanding such would improve DU:

Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. Because it's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential.

~ Barack Obama

People with leadership qualities realize working for the good (instead of pointing a finger of blame, which is a base emotion and a passive feeding off the energy of others) has an almost infinite energy that allows the person to be so much more than any individual. There is nothing venal or selfish in such ambition.

Thanks again for posting to me earlier on this thread and this one here. I've missed seeing your strength and vision. You are a source of inspiration and light, John Lucas.

[johnlucas]

82. Thank YOU freshwest. This means a lot coming from you

Ambition is Motivation.
Mobile-ation. Move-ation. Motor-vation.
The thing that causes us to move, to get up & go everyday.
That which makes us mobile.
That which gets the motor running.

It's not an insult to call someone ambitious.
It means they're motivated to make things happen.
They mobilized to see a plan come to action.
They're moved to make a movement.
Nothing will stop their motors once they're revved up.

That's what the word means.

Little Hillary Rodham had the ambition to become the President of the United States of America in a time when White Men and only White Men had ever been President.
It takes a HELL of a lot of ambition to aim for a lofty goal like that!

She was driven by this ambition in everything she has done in life.
This is why she was unlike most First Ladies in office.
This is why she didn't ride off quietly into the night when Bill's time as President was up.
Hell, she was U.S. Senator of New York before she even lost her status as First Lady!
Why did she pick New York when she didn't live there?
She was born in Illinois, lived in Arkansas, lived in D.C.
Why? Because it would take her one step closer to the Presidency, that's why.

She didn't do all this to go home without winning the big one.
She is GOING TO BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES & there's no obstacle that's going to stand in the way of her ambition.

What's so wrong with a little girl having an ambition like that AND FULFILLING IT as she grows up??
Yes, women can be Presidents too.

Hillary will be the one to make that breakthrough. She has prepared for this reality for a lifetime.
If women can run a household, why can't women run a nation?

There is no insult in saying that Hillary has ambition.

Thank YOU freshwest.
John Lucas

[riqster]

101. I would love to see her win.

If she is our candidate, I will bust ass for her. Thanks for your clear and concise posts on the positive aspect of ambition.

[johnlucas]

135. You're welcome

I don't know what MyNameGoesHere's beef is.
It's her hangup, she's welcome to it.
Waste of time in my opinion worrying about a man observing Hillary's obvious ambitiousness.
Is Hillary supposed to be PASSIVE in seeking the Presidency?

Anybody in public office is ambitious.
It's part of the job requirements.
And Hillary is one of the most ambitious people I have ever seen.
She is not content & willing to get the consolation prize.
She will stop at nothing to get what she seeks.
May be delayed. May be deterred. But she'll NEVER be stopped.

You thought Hillary was a force in 2008?
You ain't seen NOTHIN' yet! Hahahahaha!
She is going all out in 2016 just like she went all out in her 2006 reelection campaign as U.S. Senator in New York.
Check this out. Right from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Reelection_campaign_of_2006

She won the election on November 7, 2006, with 67 percent of the vote to Spencer's 31 percent,[226] carrying all but four of New York's sixty-two counties.[227] Clinton spent $36 million for her reelection, more than any other candidate for Senate in the 2006 elections did. Some Democrats criticized her for spending too much in a one-sided contest, while some supporters were concerned she did not leave more funds for a potential presidential bid in 2008.[228] In the following months, she transferred $10 million of her Senate funds toward her presidential campaign.[229]

This woman ain't no F'n slouch!
She's going for the jugular in 2016. That's the only way she knows how to do it.
There are those here who are sour about Hillary & the reason they're sour is because they know she has already won this.
Pushing up Elizabeth Warren who was a Republican up until 1995 when Hillary made the switch in her college years during the 1960s in the midst of the Civil Rights Movement.
It's just avoiding reality.

This time it IS the inevitable candidate.
Hillary is going to wipe out whoever runs against her in the primaries.
Once she has secured the nomination, she is going to wipe out whoever (Jeb) runs against her in the general election.
Nuclear annihilation! Vegeta's Final Flash!

This picture to me symbolizes Hillary's ambition:



The woman is FIERCE! She is STRONG! She will bite their freakin' heads off!
She is The Juggernaut & anybody who gets in Hillary's way in 2016 will get RUN THE F OVER!

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the 45th President of the United States of America.
It's all over but the countin'.
John Lucas

[billhicks76]

154. Sound Great If...

If we lived in a fantasy, storybook land like we all wish was true. But the reality is much more corrupt and dark. I can safely state that if it's predetermined to be Clinton vs Bush again all we are doing is turning off the next generation of voters. Fullfilling Hillary's ego with nepotism nightmares from the past is hardly worth it. We need something fresher and, besides, the Bushes have called the Clintons honorary family members for a reason. The Clinton's have essentially worked for Bush Sr in the past. Don't get me wrong I'm glad Hillary stopped being president of the Young Republicans in college but she became a democrat because she didn't like the way Nixon was treating her familys friend Rockefeller at the '68 convention. She is too cozy with the war machine establishment and would you trust her to not bomb Iran? I don't know either way and I truly wish we had a number of female presidents by now but Hillary is just to hawkish for me.

[johnlucas]

158. Well if you ain't figured it out by now you don't GET to that level without dealing with the machine

Fresher?
Who?
Who you got?

Better tell 'em to get their money up.
You ain't going but so far on good speeches.

I wouldn't waste your time worrying about getting the perfect person in the White House because it doesn't exist.
The government greenlights what the public shows it numbers on.
You want change you show your numbers & they will make concessions.
March on Washington was a show of numbers so not long later they passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
If they DIDN'T do right by those marchers, the disgruntled could link to other movements & potentially start a revolution.

All we're doing is picking someone who may be a little easier to bend to our concessions.
Hillary knows how to play the machine.
You ain't getting past the machine anymore.
I have already learned my lesson on that with Obama.

You get more direct representation on the local level, maybe the Representative level.
Higher up the food chain it's a different story.

If you don't want Jeb, either you find someone as strong as Hillary to counter him or you pick Hillary.
You got 2 years to get someone started.

As for me, Hillary is the only one that can hold together this coalition well enough to get past Jeb.
I am about destroying the Republican Party once & for all.
I'm looking to cause a realignment in the political structure.
Can't do that if the coalition is splintered.
John Lucas

[billhicks76]

161. I Know But

The scenario you just laid out is downright depressing. It's a reason many young voters (and old ones) are turned off which allows the political class to further exploit with ease. Zapping Hope means negating change. It's definitely an age old argument...work within a corrupted system to try and be effective but possibly becoming corrupt by doing so versus working outside the system to be true to ones principals but possibly be ineffective. Obviously a blend would be best as all things balanced are. I truly wish you were right and I admire your perspective. Mine is too tarnished after seeing Bill playing golf every weekend with Bush Sr after the 2000 election and being publicly referred to as his 5th son by Bush Sr. I have a hard time trusting people like that.

[johnlucas]

162. It is, isn't it? But I have already let that go.

Last edited Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:01 AM - Edit history (1)

Obama killed the last of that in me.
I'm more pragmatic about it now.

I got pissed about him not ending some of Bush's practices & didn't vote in 2010.
It was the first time I didn't vote.
I'm Black & my people died in the streets for the right to vote.
That was always in the back of my mind & I always voted because of this even if I didn't have much confidence in what I was voting for.
I had so much hope that Obama would make a break with many of the old colonial imperial policies that have defined this nation for centuries.
I knew he couldn't do everything overnight but I at least thought he would show that he would move in that direction.

When I didn't vote in 2010, the Republicans took over Congress & we got stuck with these Contrarians determined to negate everything Obama did.
It sort of worked out because letting the Republicans get in there allowed them to self-destruct.
It made it easy for 2012 because the "Tea Party" already spent their fuel trying to destroy Obama.
But I told myself I would NEVER do that again.
Even if I didn't believe in the process, I had to do it for my ancestors who died for this.

I see things change just by Obama being in office even if he's not pushing for anything.
I start looking at the circumstantial effects.
Marijuana was legalized just because he existed in office.
The national conversation on the matter simply changed.
Obama went on Good Morning America talked to gay Robin Roberts & said that gays should be able to marry.
His position had finished "evolving".
As soon as he said it, gay marriage opposition crumbled overnight.
Gay marriage bans are constantly being overturned.

So that's what I'm going for nowadays.
Hillary in office will change MANY things.
You see Vladmir Putin talk tough & you see Obama talk tough back.
That's that man stuff. Bowing up & puffing out your chest to look big.
You can't play that stuff with a woman. It just doesn't work.
Women can poke weak spots out of men & shame them.
He & any other male leader is gonna be thrown off of his game.

With Hillary as President, the Democratic Party gets to have its image as a party of growth.
First Black President, First Female President, what other firsts can we get?
The demographics will be on the Democrats' side & every group will flock to the party to gain representation.
It creates a critical mass that will force the Republican Party to change or double down.
Either way they will lose numbers.
If they change, they lose those bigots.
If they double down, they get stuck with a rapidly eroding base.
By losing numbers they lose strength in states on the Electoral College.
That means Texas goes Democrat.
When Texas goes Democrat, the Republican Party is dead on the national stage.
They lost the biggest California years ago, Texas is second biggest, New York & Florida tie for the third biggest.
The Republicans will never smell New York again. Florida tips to the Democrats thanks to the big cities.

With the Republican Party dead nationally, the regional parts of it will splinter without a central platform to hold them together.
That means the Confederates can no longer affect the political structure since the organizing body is gone.
That means the national conversation on issues will improve & we won't have to entertain Open Carry AK-47s, politicians saying rape is just another method of conception, & governors blocking Medicare expansions.

This is what I look at.
I'm no longer looking for the "outsider" who will fix Washington 'cause it don't exist on that level.
Anybody who gets to that office is an insider by default.
It's like pro wrestling (something I know a lot about).
In the ring & on stage, you see the heels & faces hate each other & try to destroy each other.
Offscreen they're all buddies working together for the show.

The truth is, billhicks76, is that these guys have more in common with each other than they do with you & me.
It's the common social circle thing.
Doctors understand doctors. Athletes understand athletes. Cancer patients understand cancer patients.
Mothers understand mothers. Married folks understand married folks. Addicts understand addicts.
Engineers understand engineers. Retirees understand retirees. Nightshift workers understand nightshift workers.
Why do you think they have to go out & ask people how they're living?
The picture with the hardhat when they visit the factories & stuff like that.
It's because it's not their reality & they really can't imagine.
Their daily reality is simply different & that changes you.

Think of Dragonball Z & the hero of the story Son Goku.
Son Goku was the good guy fighting world destroying monsters.
Goku had powers on a galactic level & the friends he grew up with couldn't keep up with his gains.
After awhile he had more in common those galactic-powerful enemies he fought than his friends.
Both Goku AND the villain were really monsters, the only difference is one monster fights for your side while the other monster fights for the other.
Goku spared many of his enemies simply because he wanted to fight them again.
He wanted the challenge & these powerful monsters were the only ones who allowed him to unleash his potential.

Soldiers at war have more in common with the opposing soldiers they fight than the civilians they are supposed to be fighting for.
That's why soldiers across enemy lines sometimes call truces & put down the guns & talk with each other.

Just look at the circumstantial effects & you'll feel much better.
It's what I had to do.
John Lucas

[billhicks76]

163. Despite

A lot of that change happened despite Obama who has aligned himself with law enforcement with the war in drugs regardless of the lip service maneuver Holder did by reducing mandatory minimums by 20%. I feel like the republican party did self-destruct by 2006/2007 but because Obama didn't finish them off by going after Bush they were able to regenerate. My disillusion came a couple months before the 2008 election when Obama not only didn't filibuster the Telecom Immunity Bill as promised but actually ended up voting for it which he had said he was totally against. I still think the only explanation is that NSA had something embarrassing on him from earlier wiretaps that enabled them to gain leverage as NSA whistleblower Russ Tice stated albeit without documented proof. But keep up the good fight. I really enjoy reading your posts.

[johnlucas]

172. Thanks billhicks76. I'll explain DEMOCRATIC vs. UNDERGROUND.

I always say it on this forum.
There is the DEMOCRATIC & there is the UNDERGROUND.
The DEMOCRATIC are the rah-rah party cheerleaders.
The UNDERGROUND are the contrary lone-wolf idealists.

The advantage of the DEMOCRATIC is the teamwork & the numbers.
The advantage of the UNDERGROUND is the vision & the ideas.

The disadvantage of the DEMOCRATIC is the conformity & how they tune out outside views.
The disadvantage of the UNDERGROUND is the disorganization & how they splinter on one viewpoint.

The DEMOCRATIC might not question the machine but because of that they make the machine work smoothly.
The UNDERGROUND might not be as coordinated but they are able to correct the machine when it gets off track.

I lean to the UNDERGROUND side of things myself but I have come to appreciate the DEMOCRATIC side over the years.
I don't call myself a Democrat anymore. I vote WITH the Democrats, that's how I see it.

The UNDERGROUND knows the answer & can spell out the whys & wherefores on what needs changing.
Problem is they ain't organized worth a damn. They'll end up splintering on every bit of minutia until you have a bunch of solos each with their own particular version of the same plan.
If they don't get exactly what they want, exactly HOW they want it, they'll throw the fight & make sure no one wins.

The DEMOCRATIC works together, has the strength of numbers, & make that political juggernaut run smoothly.
Problem is they end up more caught up in fawning over pictures & hero worship. They don't question anything the party does because they're starstruck & have turned their critical brains off.
And anytime you try to caution them on this behavior, they dismiss you & blow you off or worse marginalize you in a venomous fury.

The sad fact is that you need both.
A coalition ain't nothin' but a bunch of different groups somehow working together for similar goals.
All of those goals don't line up & it can be an uneasy alliance.
Sometimes what one group of the coalition fights for is directly opposed to what another group of the coalition fights for.
Conflict is inevitable.

It's hard to hold a coalition together because not only does every group have their own unique agenda but also each individual member within a group has his/her own personal agenda.
Two people are in favor of the legalization of weed but one of those two wants to do it for capitalist reasons while the other wants it for medicinal reasons.
Weed gets legalized & the capitalist guy wants all weed to be sold as a packaged product.
The other guy rejects this & wants all weed to be used for healing & therapeutic efforts.
And then they fight even though both of them wanted weed legalized.
Add a third guy to the mix who wants it legalized for business reasons but also that HE ALONE wants to monopolize the weed selling market.
Now he runs in conflict with the first weed businessman.
If the coalition splinters too much, then weed won't get legalized AT ALL because everybody is individualized & divided.

I recognize this flaw & will tell the UNDERGROUND that you can't work from ABOVEGROUND to make change.
You can't become an insider & be underground at the same time.
UNDERGROUND makes movements that sway the national consciousness.
That's where their power lies.

UNDERGROUNDS don't get elected to office. They are too contrary to work in such regimented rank-and-file hierarchical situations.
They need to Rage At The Machine & maybe they'll scare it into another direction.
The DEMOCRATICS are the ones who get elected to office. They are used to the orderly cog-in-the-wheel toy soldier type of life.
They get their Marching Orders & go to work in completing the task at hand just like any well-oiled machine.

If the UNDERGROUND on the outside sway the DEMOCRATIC on the inside, then change gets made.
Outsiders may sneak into local offices maybe even the House of Representatives.
No outsider gets to become President. You are inspected & checked long before you're allowed to get to that level.
But that doesn't mean the President will automatically ignore the outsiders.
If they rage loud enough, the President will make moves to keep the machine from being destroyed.
Some Presidents make moves faster than other Presidents & that's what we're selecting.

John Kennedy may not turn the National Guard on the March on Washington but maybe George Wallace would.
It DOES matter who's in that office.
But you're wasting your time expecting these guys to not be buddy-buddy with each other.
That social circle once again. Politicians understand politicians.

John Lucas

[billhicks76]

175. Great Post

Insightful. As usual.

[The Green Manalishi]

170. Great post.

Brilliant, heartfelt and true. Best post I've read on DU in '14

[freshwest]

123. :) Alhough she won't be the First Feminist President. Hope you enjoy this:

The First Feminist President, Barack Obama

by Mandy Van Deven

March 23, 2009



On January 20th the first self-identified feminist was named President of the United States of America. Just two days after taking office, Barack Obama performed his first presidential act of solidarity with women around the world by repealing the Global Gag Rule. Established in 1984 by President Reagan, the Global Gag Rule denies aid to international groups "which perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning." The Global Gag Rule has come to be seen as a litmus test of the current US President's stance on women's rights, though it is just one aspect of the complicated story of the impact of American reproductive rights policy in countries around the globe. [17]



After witnessing the impact of President Bush's reinstatement of the Global Gag Rule, Michelle Goldberg, journalist, author, and long-time critic of the Bush Administration's policies on sexual and reproductive health, decided that a book about the global battle for reproductive justice was long overdue. So she wrote The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power, and the Future of the World [17].

The cover art depicting a woman holding the Earth on her shoulders is more than appropriate for this deeply-researched, historically-informed examination: fifty years worth of research about four continents has convinced Goldberg that women's oppression is at the crux of many of the world's most intractable challenges. She illustrates how US policies act as a catalyst for or an impediment to women's rights worldwide, and puts forth a convincing argument that women's liberation worldwide is key to solving some of our most daunting problems. "Underlying diverse conflicts - demography, natural resources, human rights, and religious mores - is the question of who controls the means of reproduction," she writes. "Women's intimate lives have become inextricably tied to global forces."

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2009/03/23/controlling-means-reproduction-an-interview-with-michelle-goldberg/

The war on women is not just a war on women, but on men, too. Men who don't support women's rights are sealing their own fate. But that's what division always does.

Not just an American problem. It is about global control and reducing all of mankind to commodities.

Something you lay out well in your posts on this thread... We must hang together, no matter what the timeline looks like.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110212801

And here I go tooting the horn for Obama again:

Keeping His Promises to the Poor and Vulnerable: Thank You, President Obama!



HHS finalizes rule guaranteeing 100 percent funding for new Medicaid beneficiaries

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today announced a final rule with a request for comments that provides, effective January 1, 2014, the federal government will pay 100 percent of the cost of certain newly eligible adult Medicaid beneficiaries. These payments will be in effect through 2016, phasing down to a permanent 90 percent matching rate by 2020. The Affordable Care Act authorizes states to expand Medicaid to adult Americans under age 65 with income of up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level (approximately $15,000 for a single adult in 2012) and provides unprecedented federal funding for these states.

“This is a great deal for states and great news for Americans,” HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said. “Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, more Americans will have access to health coverage and the federal government will cover a vast majority of the cost. Treating people who don’t have insurance coverage raises health care costs for hospitals, people with insurance, and state budgets.”

Today’s final rule provides important information to states that expand Medicaid. It describes the simple and accurate method states will use to claim the matching rate that is available for Medicaid expenditures of individuals with incomes up to 133 percent of poverty and who are defined as “newly eligible” and are enrolled in the new eligibility group. The system is set up to make eligibility determinations as simple and accurate as possible for state programs.

Under the Affordable Care Act, states that cover the new adult group in Medicaid will have 100 percent of the costs of newly eligible Americans paid for by the federal government in 2014, 2015, and 2016. The federal government’s contribution is then phased-down gradually to 90 percent by 2020, and remains there permanently. For states that had coverage expansions in effect prior to enactment of the Affordable Care Act, the rule also provides information about the availability of an increased FMAP for certain adults who are not newly eligible.

The rule builds on several years of work that HHS has done to support and provide flexibility to states’ Medicaid programs ahead of the 2014 expansion, including:

* 90 percent matching rate for states to improve eligibility and enrollment systems;

* More resources and flexibility for states to test innovative ways of delivering care through Medicaid;

* More collaboration with states on audits that track down fraud; and

* Specifically outlining ways states can make Medicaid improvements without going through a waiver process.

For more information on the improvements made to Medicaid, please visit:

http://www.medicaid.gov/State-Resource-Center/Events-and-Announcements/Downloads/MMF_Jan-Dec-2012_FINAL.PDF

For the full text of today’s final rule, please go to:

http://www.ofr.gov/inspection.aspx

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2013pres/03/20130329a.html

This is a huge relief to those who would not be covered for conditions no one can afford. I will be passing this good news along to those who have loved ones dependent on Medicaid.

This is what the GOP wanted to slash and are doing in every state that they control. It will save the lives of many people we may never meet, but they are our fellow sojourners.

Thanks to ProSense for finding this story and letting me post it here. She posted it in GD, where you can see it here:

HHS finalizes rule guaranteeing 100 percent funding for new Medicaid beneficiaries

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2584523

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11028481

Another one, because I can't find the quote about his mom:

Some people have little imagination outside of what media manufactures for them. They don't see outside that narrow box, they don't acknowledge the lives of those who support this president and others like them. They have that luxury.

And even if they claim to have gained knowledge from CTers, youtube, and the many voices that fire them up, all they end up doing is to direct their hatred outside themselves. One has to wonder why all the disdain, vitriol and accusations which they are very practiced at, are so precious to them.

A past member of a Nazi group made an analogy between men who blame women for what's making them unhappy, under the guise of their rights being taken away. That is a deflection from taking responsibility, saying that if women changed, shut up or went away, they would be free. We see this played out again and again. But it doesn't work that way, and you and I both know that.

He said that the sign of a hate group is that instead of advocating positively for their rights and seeking solutions, they blame others. That is where their energy goes and is his defintion of a hate group. He ought to know what one is, I think.

I've quoted from a U2 song they sang to Obama in this first inauguration:

'And I miss you when you're not around...'

He won't always be around.

So enjoy the grace that he has afforded us with his intellect, his heart and his determination. I began to miss him already when he won re-election, and still appreciate your words in 2012.

HRC will be somewhat like him, but there will never be another Obama. The stars were for us, I guess. Anyway, hope you enjoy all of that.

[johnlucas]

134. Hey I told you he was gonna win, didn't I? Hahahaha

I had fun with that post.
ELECTION SPOILER: Obama wins in a LANDSLIDE

Yeah it's no wonder Hillary lost to him in 2008.
Obama was destined. Can't beat that.

He IS the transformative President.
You read this 2008 article from Salon & it becomes clearer to you.
Obama and the dawn of the Fourth Republic

After his Presidency, the way the political structure in this country works will be realigned & redesigned.
Even when he's not pushing for anything, just him being in office is causing things to change before your eyes.
Do you REALLY think we would see marijuana decriminalized without him being in office?
As soon as Obama said that gays should have the right to marry, opposition to gay marriage collapsed.
That's why you're seeing all of these gay marriage bans overturned by higher courts.
He got in a national health care plan when nobody else could do it.
He destroyed the image of Democratic Presidents being weak on defense when he got Bin Laden & when he arranged the Somalian pirates takedown.
No more Dukakis caricatures you'll see from Republicans on this issue.
Yet he also doesn't lead with the sword pumping up new wars instead pushing diplomacy first.

My beef with Obama is that he doesn't do enough with the obvious power he possesses.
He can transform the nation ENTIRELY on every level & I know he has the power to do it.
All he has to do is say it & it will come into action.
That bullshit about 'my position is evolving' on the gay issue.
I knew he was bullshitting from day one on that.
He was playing political games sort of like Lincoln on the slavery issue before he got into office.
As soon as he said it—right in front of gay Robin Roberts no less—the gay marriage debate crumbled overnight.
He can do this with so many other issues just lightly using that bully pulpit of his.

Why won't he change the narrative on the tax issue by putting the burden of taxes back on the rich where it belongs?
They have been passing off their responsibility to the so-called Middle Class for over 30 years now.
Even world's richest man Warren Buffett came out & said the tax rates are unfair for the non-rich.
The lowest you should go should be 50%.
Why won't he speak up for net neutrality?
He spoke up for equal pay for women instantly & got the Lilly Ledbetter act passed.
Obama speaks with the necessary moral edge that can transform how the entire country operates.
America can be an example to be proud of instead of a place where the people have to distance themselves from their government.

I hope in the last 2 years of his Presidency after we run these Republicans out of the House in 2014, he will lay the groundwork for the Progressive arc that will sustain for the next 4 decades.
Hillary will follow right behind him & extend that further.
These measures from Barack & Hillary will absolutely DESTROY the Republican Party.
And folks here who lament over the Democratic Party being pulled to the so-called "Right" need to understand that if you destroy that Republican magnet, then the pull will be over.
It ain't gonna get any better until that organizing body known as the Republican Party is destroyed.
That scatters the coalition & weakens their ability to influence policy.
With them gone, the national discussion can become reasonable again.

We'll see how Hillary acts once she gets in office.
Obama set the tone & transformed the country.
Hillary's job is to extend the effects of this transformation.
By 2024, we won't be humoring gun nuts bringing AK-47s to public places & idiotic governors denying their own citizens Medicare expansions.
The one thing I can say about either of them is I don't have to be embarrassed when my President is on the world stage.
Bush Jr. was embarrassing in everything he did.

John Lucas

[MyNameGoesHere]

88. I was looking for your post calling out the ambitiousness of Obama, Clinton, probably a few repubs

in there, but the DU search has failed me. Maybe you could lend a evenhand?

[johnlucas]

132. Some required reading for you

Like I thought, you're caught up in some clownish scorekeeping instead of talking about what matters.
~Ooh ooh a man DARED to call a woman ambitious!~
~A MAAAAN?!?! How DAAAARE he!!~
~Hang 'im from a tree! Hang 'im high!~

Silliness.

A link that puts it all in perspective.
Remember now, it was written by a man.
But don't let that discourage you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014819860#post82

John Lucas

[joshcryer]

66. +1, people are so out of touch with American politics.

Oh and Julian Castro was hit up for HUD because Clinton needs a running mate and he needs executive experience.

[johnlucas]

73. Oh yeeeaah, they're definitely priming the Castros for the Presidency

By the 2020s or 2030s, the Castros will be ready.
Ain't no coincidences in that politic game.
John Lucas

[joshcryer]

75. Yup.

Castro 2024. By then Latin Americans will make up almost a majority of Americans. It's a shoe in.

And the Party can move to the left (the platform itself is already quite progressive but most DUers don't even know what's in it).

It's House of Cards level stuff. Hell, Bill's 2012 keynote at the DNC was said to be in exchange for Obama's direct endorsement (the 2008 SoS pick wasn't contingent on an endorsement). Obama got pissed at Bill for "stealing the show" but he won the election handily and he doesn't hold a grudge.

[merrily]

86. Deal or no deal, she was always running.

[johnlucas]

133. You're EXACTLY right

It's so obvious just from a simple glance of her Wikipedia entry.
Hillary has been preparing for this ALL OF HER LIFE.
I KNOW she was pissed when Obama interrupted her rise in 2008.
That's why I said the deal was made.

It was a highly competitive race.
That's why Hillary lost her cool when seeing the historic candidacy of Obama she talked about a President passing the Civil Rights measures the activists were fighting for.
Both Hillary & Barack are pretty much on the same side BUT they BOTH want that Presidential prize.
And they want it BAD!

Even Bill chirped in rooting for his wife getting snared up in contesting Obama's historic candidacy.
They were NOT happy about this upstart coming out of nowhere & taking over.
It took a LOT of time for her to cool down after losing the nomination.
Why? Because she was competitive & wanted that spot.

You think the great Patrick Ewing was happy having his team lose to Michael Jordan's in the 90s never getting a ring?
He respected Jordan's skills, that goes without saying, but he wanted to be champion.
Jordan shut him out each time. Patrick Ewing was one of the greatest in the game to never have a championship ring.
He just had the bad luck of running against the dominant Chicago Bulls of Jordan's era.
It's not a mark against him. It was just the timing of everything.

Hillary ran into the same thing.
Without Obama in the race, she was the clear contender & would have won the Presidency.
With Obama in the race, she ended up running a strong second.
History intervened & she lost her spot.

Instead of having her just disappear for the next 4 years, Barack & Hillary made a deal that would ensure she makes out good coming second after Obama.
She will be the SECOND historical President for 2016 after Obama's historical Presidency.
Second ain't so bad when it can lead to the Presidency.

Now her approval ratings are high after her work as Secretary of State.
She has more street cred than she had before.
With the Republicans degenerating further & further, the Democrat voters will want to continue the legacy of Obama's presidency by putting Hillary into office.
Even though some people here can't stand her, she is the only way to guarantee the Democratic Party dominance that will send the Republican Party into extinction.
Warren ain't running & if she somehow does she will end up being Hillary's Vice President.

Yep, whether people like it or not, it's Hillary's turn.
And in 2016 she will not be denied.
She has been running for this all of her life.
And now the time is right.
It's 2016 or nothing.

She'll be 68 & will not be able to wait for another 8 years to run again.
Yeah women live longer than men, it's true, but I don't think people would trust putting a 76 year old in that position.
Now is her time. And there ain't no time for dilly-dallying.
When she finally makes that OBVIOUS SO OBVIOUS declaration that she's in the race, we'll end up getting some interesting stats.
First Woman President. First First Lady to become President. First Husband? First former President to become First Husband.

Just look at her Wikipedia entry for God's sake!
You know it's leading up to this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

It ain't no accident with all those firsts she has already accomplished.
This ain't no ordinary chick. She came here to become the MF'n President.
And that's why she's gonna win in it in 2016.
John Lucas

[billhicks76]

153. Exactly

Her and Obama disappeared from the media spotlight around the time of the Bilderberger Meeting that featured all the familiar, usual suspects from Kissinger (who Bush wanted to run the 911 Commission) to Rockefeller. Interesting side note...after being a rabid Republican for years Hillary decided to back out during Nixon's election. Why? She didn't like the way Nixon treated her friend Rockefeller during the Republican convention in 1968. Not because of a senseless war with poor kids dying or Vietnamese kids murdered by the hundreds of thousands. It was because of in fighting amongst the ultra-wealthy power brokers.

[Timez Squarez]

36. I guarantee you this...

Hillary is not running... and wouldn't be surprised if she announces that right after the midterms that she is NOT running and to stop speculating.

[WhiteTara]

49. I know a member of her team here in AR who

quit his political job so he could work for her election.

[Timez Squarez]

59. A mistake.

Trust me.

[johnlucas]

77. If I was a gambling man, I would bet against that guarantee of yours

But I don't believe in leaving my money to the chance of the dice roll.

Hillary ain't going home without the Presidency.
She done worked too much for too long to just walk out with the Secretary of State card.
Presidency is all that's on that woman's mind right now.

I need to become a gambler 'cause I could make a coupla grand off you...
...Nah, not in my blood. Damn!

Still I greatly dispute your guarantee.
John Lucas

[billhicks76]

155. No Way

Respectfully, you must be out of your mind. It was decided 6 years ago it would be Clinton vs Bush again in 2016. Wall St has already announced their approval and I'm curious what the Vegas odds are. I wouldn't bet any money if I were you...lol. My own personal opinion? We would be electing Paul Wellstone or JFK Jr right now if they hadn't died in plane crashes. I truly miss Russ Feingold right now. He was squeezed out and I'm sure cynicism regarding our "choices" spoiled him.

[heaven05]

3. well, at least she admits it,

a wrong vote "on the information provided". that's good, isn't it?

[JackRiddler]

19. No, it's not good.

"The information provided" by the Bush regime at the time was obviously a pack of lies, and was exposed as such prior to the vote. 23 senators understood this. You could read it all about it in the foreign press. The weapons inspectors said so. Scott Ritter, who personally oversaw the destruction of the Iraqi WMD infrastructure, left no doubt. If anyone with an Internet connection could inform themselves properly about the reality that there were no WMDs in Iraq, then obviously Sen. Clinton could have as well. But more than this: since when is possession of a WMD stockpile a legitimate reason to invade a country and murder hundreds of thousands of people? Iraq posed and made no threat to the U.S.

[heaven05]

42. ok

to the point. Yet she is still,so far, all we have. I would happily vote for Dr. E. Warren and Bernie Sanders. But the PTB want none of their kind of integrity and truth seeking/telling in the white house. That's just my opinion on this 2016 race right over the horizon.

[Le Taz Hot]

87. She voted to send thousands of troops

to war for POLITICAL REASONS. That's how callous this woman is. As you say, anyone with an internet connection knew the truth and it wasn't hard to find. But she ignored all of that because she didn't want to be viewed as soft on terrarists and she feared it would damage her chances when she ran in 2008. The woman is insulated from real-life people and real-life situations. Everything is about "is it good for my political ambitions" and the fact that she misjudged one of the most important votes in her tenure in the Senate makes me wonder what other things she'll "misjudge."

[cprise]

142. Indeed. Anyone with access to European news sites had a clue

We knew the yellowcake docs and satellite photos were forgeries; similar story with the aluminum tubes and 'bioweapons' equipment. It was only within the bubble of US political culture (esp. the corporate infotainment that picked which themes would make it into the broadcast-repetition cycle) that this knowledge did not penetrate.

And that was due to a determined, wilful ignorance.

That is what Hillary represents to me: The kind of person who covets Bush-ism in her staff and cabinet, operating out of the spotlight.

[VanillaRhapsody]

5. She IS running and Elizabeth Warren is not going to run against her...

simple as that.

Those that are so hateful towards Hillary but favorable to Elizabeth Warren should just start asking her to select Warren as her VP!

[JackRiddler]

20. These are not the only choices in the universe.

Clinton is running, and losing to whichever contender arises as the strongest alternative. Just like the last time when she was also seen as inevitable.

[VanillaRhapsody]

22. WHO can run against ANY Republican and win hands down?

its about winning...AND even Bernie Sanders said we MUST defend the progress we have made...

[JackRiddler]

25. I'm sorry, you are mistaken.

It's more than 2 years to go, a million twists happen in these stories, and Clinton is hardly the invincible candidate you imagine. Plenty of baggage there. Anyway, plus or minus 2% growth tends to determine these things.

[VanillaRhapsody]

38. Oh no I am not!

Hillary wins ANY poll against ANY Republican (no one has ever recorded this much support for any candidate this far out)....FACT!

According to the poll, Clinton is holding her own, and then some, edging out New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

Clinton leads Christie 45 percent to 41 percent. Among women she leads Christie 51 percent to 37 percent, while Christie leads among men 45 percent to 38 percent.
Hillary also leads other top Republicans.

51 percent to 37 percent over U.S. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.
51 percent to 36 percent over Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.
51 percent to 35 percent over former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.
50 percent to 38 percent over U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/06/05/poll-hillary-clinton-leading-all-republican-contenders-in-2016-presidential-race/

[jeff47]

44. Just like in 2006. How'd that turn out again? (nt)

[VanillaRhapsody]

45. That was how many years ago? Had she been Sec. of State yet?

I believe she has even MORE support now....but thanks for playing.....and NO ONE has ever had these numbers before...not even her....I mentioned that in the earlier post.

[jeff47]

52. The point, which you are desperately trying to avoid, is that

the "inevitable" candidate is not always inevitable.

[VanillaRhapsody]

54. Not desperate at all that would be the Hillary haters....just stating the stone cold facts....

NO one has EVER polled so well against all comers....EVER!

And thats a fact jack! Take it to the bank....and she IS running...

[jeff47]

55. People who aren't desperate do not constantly attempt

to shut down any discussion. With nearly instantaneous replies to threads. About events that won't even happen for 2 years. And they also are not the first to bring up "desperate".

In other words, your actions demonstrate your claims are bullshit.

[VanillaRhapsody]

56. stating the facts is shutting down discussion?

ridic....

Nobody stopped you from doing anything did they?

[jeff47]

114. Stating "facts" once is not.

Stating them over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over is.

Also, ignoring the history is not a good way to "state facts". For example, it was a fact that 2006 polling showed the 2008 election would be Clinton vs. Giuliani. Didn't turn out that way. You are insisting we ignore that. Over and over again. Further, when people point out those facts, you get rather insistent that no further discussion take place.

Lastly, there's a more important election going on this fucking year. Yet you seem to want to only discuss Clinton winning 2016.

[VanillaRhapsody]

128. so what you still haven't been stopped from doing anything...

I am discussing it because this is DEMOCRATIC Underground AND she IS the Democrat that is polling waaaay ahead of ALL Republicans...

It seems someone doesn't want to be reminded of that fact...


It seems it is YOU that really wants to shut someone up now doesn't it?

[VanillaRhapsody]

129. It was also once a fact that women were not seen as viable candidates.....

but you also want to ignore that one!

[billhicks76]

159. That's Uncalled For

They never suggested they were ignoring or scoffing at the enormous changes women have made. I know we would be way better off with a 1000% increase in the number of women in high office. I admire Clinton's abilities as a fighter but I do not think shes on our side though. I see her as craven and there is no excuse for supporting sending kids to war for personal ambition or allowing oil and war profiteers to exploit us. They said Obama couldn't win as a Black man, we weren't ready, he wasn't experienced enough...all hot air. Anything could happen and sometimes does which means a real progressive could actually win. Imagine that. How many people here would be disappointed if that happened? Hopefully not many.

[LanternWaste]

108. Or project the Inevitability Meme onto others.

"People who aren't desperate do not constantly attempt to shut down any discussion.."

Or project the Inevitability Meme onto others. Six of one, half a dozen of the other...

[jeff47]

113. It's projection when it's the core of their argument?

You have an odd definition of projection. When they explicitly state inevitability arguments, it's not projection.

[Reter]

110. No one? Michael Dukakis has a 17 point lead over Poppy Bush in the same year as the election

So how did you like President Dukakis?

[VanillaRhapsody]

126. Keep telling yourselves that!

we are talking over EVERY Republican....ALL comers!

Name another Democrat that can do that! You can't.

[billhicks76]

156. Hey Wait

Cmon. A ham sandwich could've beaten the republican in 2008 after how bad Bush tarnished that brand. Even many conservatives couldn't stomach the fallout from Bush. Unfortunately, the opportunity to finish the Bushes of forever was squandered in order to look forward which allowed that family name and republicans in general to have their name rehabilitated. The same thing happened in '93 when Bill Clinton didn't pursue Bush Sr crimes so as to not look backward. I wish I could use that as a defense in court. And what happened? We got most of the Bush cronies from the past back...in 2000. You think it can happen again? Clinton vs Bush reruns sounds nauseating to me.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

63. Don't know why so many are dead set on Warren, when Sherrod Brown is also a possibility

If Ms. Warren chooses not to run, and she's given every indication, that will be the case, then maybe it's time to look at Ohio's senior senator - a likable, down-to-earth guy with a great liberal record, from a swing state and a proven election winner.

For some reason, I never hear anyone mention him as a person to draft.

[winter is coming]

105. People are dead set on Warren because of her "fighting chance" message.

I expect that any candidate who can credibly say similar things would be equally popular. Note the use of the word "credibly". Lip service unsupported by past action isn't likely to get it done.

[azurnoir]

6. nothing like that 20/20 hindsight

comes in quite handy at times

[freshwest]

7. Hope to see more excerpts. Life is often lived between a rock and hard place. With no mercy afforded

The choices of a POTUS are always a two edged sword that points back at them. But choose they must.

[DonViejo]

8. Follow the link to CBS News in the OP...

more stuff there.

[freshwest]

13. Thanks, DV.

[DonViejo]

14. You're very welcome. eom

[blkmusclmachine]

12. A grave error in judgment. I just don't trust her to do the right thing.

[Faygo Kid]

15. I trust Rick Perry or Ted Cruz even less.

We are at war here, and the Kochs. Rove and Fox News are going to throw everything they have at us, including flagrant cheating.

If she's our strongest chance, I say Go Hillary.

[JackRiddler]

21. False dichotomy much?

[VanillaRhapsody]

24. No it is NOT a false dichotomy....

its false to think that anyone can win in the current environment. AND the ONLY way to change the dynamic is to give WHOEVER becomes President....a Democratic House. You won't see systemic change in the atmosphere UNTIL we own all three branches of government. THAT is the reality.

[DeSwiss]

90. ''The lesser of two evils is still evil.'' n/t

[The Stranger]

97. I don't either. That is way too big of a character fuck up than I'm comfortable with.

But the sad fact is that there is no alternative.

[ucrdem]

16. Holy cow what are gonna we complain about now?

Quite a story. Thanks DV!

[OKNancy]

43. Two/Three years from now

There is going to be so much weeping and gnashing of teeth around here. It will be delicious.

[ucrdem]

53. Things are moving in that direction.

Fasten your seatbelts everyone . . .

[joshcryer]

67. It's the only thing making me excited about the run.

The purist left, the far right, they will lose their collective shit. And I bet Clinton does stuff that will blow minds.

[freshwest]

72. And won't appreciate a damn thing she gets done for all, either. Sounds familiar...

[Beacool]

76. Hear, hear!!!

[L0oniX]

18. Good thing she didn't have a finger on the nuke button ...huh.

oooops sorry ...my bad

[DeSwiss]

91. !

[on point]

28. Craven, Conned, Corrupt - Anyone of them disqualifies her for any further office

It was obvious the Iraq war was based on lies before she took the vote

[DeSwiss]

92. Bingo!

[Beacool]

102. Bull.........

[freshwest]

109. Gee, where did we hear those terms before? So many gates: Trooper, Travel office, Foster, Whitewater

All grist for the CT mill, Newt, Starr, etc. RW hate tailored to fit any group, but it always gets back to those old memes. They worked to destroy her husband's progressive agenda, just like they have Obama's. The spite will have the same taste, no matter how it's dressed up.

And she called them out correctly, yet some will keep on playing that tune for the RW and claim it's not what it clearly is. For some, yelling about the 'cause' means more than getting anything done.

Rush's slander of HRC with the Death Panels got Newt's majority in and a rollback of programs that liberals worked hard for. Going with the sentiment that she really is what Rush and the GOP and Teabaggers say she is does not help further liberal and progressive goals, all it does is help the right wing cabal that hurt us. Ugh...

[Beacool]

111. The Left slanders her just as much as the Right.

That's why I've always said that they are a mirror image of each other. Everything to them is black or white, while life is mostly shades of gray.

Hillary was a senator from NY and most of her constituents (over 70% of them) approved of this vote. 9/11/01 had occurred less than a year prior to the IWR, emotions in this part of the country were still very raw.

Although the vote did give the president the power to initiate war with Iraq, the understanding was that it was going to be a measure of last resort. More UN inspections were urged. Instead, Bush launched the war five months later. I have never blamed any Democrat who voted for it. I was underneath the North Tower that morning, coming out of the PATH train, when the first plane hit the bldg. I saw people die in front of my eyes and the devastation in the aftermath of the collapse of the towers. Hillary was here, going through the site and consoling people, the day after. She and Schumer fought very hard to get billions of dollars for NY. BTW, she also warned about the air quality at Ground Zero, but was mostly ignored.

I think that it was a tough vote and I don't condemn those who voted for it. I lay the blame on Bush, Cheney, et al. for rushing the US into an un-winnable war that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

[freshwest]

116. Agreed, and thanks for your insight. I said something similar elsewhere on this thread.

I had the mitigation of not experiencing the events upclose as NYC did. The rescue scenes were hard, hoping for survivors that did not come out of the building. Hope you are doing well in all of this.

[Beacool]

117. Thank you, I'm fine.

Although I can't stand to see a high rise bldg. on fire. I change the channel. I'm always afraid that someone might jump out of a window. I'm in NJ on the waterfront looking at Manhattan, seeing the empty hole where the Towers should have been was an open wound for years.

[RufusTFirefly]

29. Perhaps she could've dismissed her atrocious vote as "a youthful indiscretion"

The "If I only knew then what I know now" excuse is just so trite and disingenuous, especially given the fact that many of her colleagues presumably had the same information and yet still had the courage to vote the other way.

Although she has disturbing saber-rattling tendencies, I suspect her vote was the result of cold political calculation. Unable to recognize what a fiasco the illegal, immoral, inhumane invasion of Iraq would turn out to be, she probably felt that supporting a "cakewalk" would help her chances in 2008 and that opposing it would brand her unpatriotic or "soft on defense."

Oops. Sorry about the dead people.

[Whisp]

47. She simply misspoke.

[RufusTFirefly]

57. Good one. That works. Yes. "Mistakes were made."

[DeSwiss]

93. From your mouth to G-d's ear.

[OKNancy]

30. This is not really new

She has said it was a mistake many times before.

[freshwest]

50. I think being Senator from the state that suffered the damage NYC did influenced her vote and not

for the Machiavellian reasons subscribed to her. Many who witnessed the WTC coming down as the end of their world were pro-war, not all, but the war voices were the loudest. Those were her constituents in an office she had held less than a year.

The fury over 9/11 was reflected before the vote took place and she was negotiating for funds for recovery and care for first responders around that time. She must have seen a lot and her reaction matched that of others.

I'll never be satisfied with the procession of events, or the analysis thereof, but there was virulent public opinion in favor of war, which did not include me, and the media stoked it for all it was worth. For me, it was like watching another train wreck like the first Gulf War. I was appalled that it would not be handled as a police matter as Bill Clinton had done before.

I already knew Bush was a bad actor and have my own opinions as to why it went as it did, and none of them pleasant reading and I'd be beating a dead horse if I went into them. There was a mood in the nation that has still not died a dozen years later, it has only gotten worse.

The Bush years were when the ugliest parts of the American electorate finally got its revenge on everyone it wanted. Now that Obama resisted the Neo-cons and is steering this country, which is like a huge vessel in the ocean in danger of foundering, to a safer place, the right have gone into overdrive with the hatred. The right does not want the nation safe in port because they want to salvage the wreck.

One of the lies told about Clinton is she supported free trade agreements as much as Bill ended up doing. First, it's not logical to jump to the conclusion that she is his surrogate, that she has no mind of her own. Or perhaps it's just plain sexism at work to assume she will do as he did in all matters, such as CAFTA. He went across the USA to promote it, but she voted against CAFTA due to insufficient worker and environmental protections.

The GOP controlled all three branches of government at that time. She tried repeatedly to stop Roberts and Alito from getting on the Supreme Court as she knew what they'd do. She either made compromises or got nothing done, such as her bill to cover the care of first responders in NYC required the help of *ugh* Lindsey Graham.

Yet the free trade blame is repeatedly laid at her door along with other things by low-information voters. There were many things that went into all of her votes and actions. Some want to believe that she and Barack hate each other and that Hillary and Michelle hate each other. And that Warren doesn't support her for POTUS. It's a denial of proven facts that these Democrats get good things done and they agree on the basics. As they should.

[Thinkingabout]

33. Aw, yes, the Hillary haters must be trying to elect Billy Cucumber-Libertarian.

[Timez Squarez]

37. Ah, but I'm not a hater.

I just don't think Clinton has enough energy to go on with politics. She has been involved with it for over 40 years, since her Goldwater Girl days.

We will have some fresh blood eager and hungry to take the side of the progressives. I, for one, am tired of the same old shit, and want a fresh perspective.

Obama wasn't it, because I discovered he is a Third Wayer. I don't like Third Wayers, they compromise too much. Republicans needs to be sitting in the corner with a dunce hat on.

No, I don't think it's gonna be Ms. Clinton, unfortunately.

[billhicks76]

157. Nice Try

Some establishment promoters think a good deflection/distraction tactic is bringing up Libertarians out of no where. I'm assuming you don't think sticking up for our rights and privacy makes us Libertarians because that's antithetical to what democrats used to be about. I think you need a new technique because Libertarianism isn't something many people follow or listen to and doesn't make a good Bogeyman. How about if you don't support the Orwellian nightmare of all your papers and communications being monitored then you hate America. I've heard that one resonate more with the gullible crowd.

[OKNancy]

41. She said the same thing 7 years ago

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2006/12/hillary_clinton-2/

[freshwest]

106. Yeah, but peeps can still keep on hating her the way the RW hated her as FLOTUS, right?

Her bonafides are shown by her enemies. If she gets the nomination I'll support her as the baggers of all types rant and rave. She is the next Obama in terms of hate. She preceded him, she's always had 'incoming' from all sides.

[OKNancy]

118. She is much more adept at soothing the feelings of

her enemies though. I've never felt that being good at politics is a bad thing. She was well-liked in the Senate by Democrats and Republicans alike. It will be tougher with the tea-party people, but hopefully she will talk nice and then stab them in the back! LOL

[hrmjustin]

58. I can forgive her for her vote and I do.

[CountAllVotes]

62. Ah bullsh*t Hillary, BULLSH*T

You voted for the war.

Suck it up and admit it! It is what you wanted and what YOU believed in!

No vote from me Hillary! That is my personal guarantee!

WE WILL NOT FORGET!!!

[DeSwiss]

94. Nope.

That's what this is all about. They'll be measuring the responses, regurgitating and then triangulating all the data -- so that they find something that's right down the middle of whatever the extremes turn out to be. Her husband's whole presidency was based on this credo. Lot of money in focus-grouping with this crowd.

- Besides, the old cons are the best cons......

[Beacool]

103. So?

Keep your vote, no one will beg for it.

[CountAllVotes]

119. Dislike for liars

That is one thing that bothers me about politicians. Most if not all of them are liars and that is what they do, LIE!

[phleshdef]

68. Good for her. I respect when people admit they were wrong.

[antiGOPin294]

69. Well, it's too late now, Mrs. Clinton. You should have known better.

Your vote on the Iraq War helped contribute to the disarray that we are still struggling to clean up today. I just hope that when you're elected president, that you will do your best to not make a similar mistake in the future.

[DeSwiss]

95. We're sick and tired of hearing your song.....

...telling us how you are gonna change right from wrong.

- Cause if you really want to hear our view, you haven't done nothing!

[center]

"You Haven't Done Nothing"

We are amazed but not amused
By all the things you say that you'll do
Though much concerned but not involved
With decisions that are made by you

But we are sick and tired of hearing your song
Telling how you are gonna change right from wrong
'Cause if you really want to hear our views
"You haven't done nothing"!

It's not too cool to be ridiculed
But you brought this upon yourself
The world is tired of pacifiers
We want the truth and nothing else

And we are sick and tired of hearing your song
Telling how you are gonna change right from wrong
'Cause if you really want to hear our views
"You haven't done nothing"!

Jackson 5 join along with me say
Doo doo wop - hey hey hey
Doo doo wop - wow wow wow
Doo doo wop - co co co
Doo doo wop - naw naw naw
Doo doo wop - bum bum bum
Doo doo wop

We would not care to wake up to the nightmare
That's becoming real life
But when mislead who knows a person's mind
Can turn as cold as ice un hum

Why do you keep on making us hear your song
Telling us how you are changing right from wrong
'Cause if you really want to hear our views
"You haven't done nothing"!
Yeah

Jackson 5 sing along again say
Doo doo wop
Doo doo wop - oh
Doo doo wop - co co co
Doo doo wop - sing it baby
Doo doo wop - bum bum bum
Doo doo wop - um
Sing it loud for your people say
Doo doo wop - um um um

Doo doo wop - stand up be counted, say
Doo doo wop - co co co
Doo doo wop - ow
Doo doo wop - bum bum bum
Doo doo wop - ah hum
[/center]

[Ash_F]

74. Oh she is so running. /nt

[DonCoquixote]

78. Many places in the world are leaving us behind

Europe and Asia do not look to America for new ideas, which was her greatest strength. Nothing will cement this decay more than the fact a nation that despises Kings will run Clinton vs Bush for 2016.

[BlueStater]

80. Just go away, for the love of God. N/T

[davidpdx]

81. I'll reserve judgement what is written until the book comes out and I have a chance to read it

That maybe awhile since I'm overseas. It is very unlikely to change my mind about voting for her in the primary. I did not vote for her in 2008.

[merrily]

85. So, when she said that she had simply taken the word of Bushco (including Hagel, btw)

about the war, instead of bothering to read the CIA National Intelligence Estimate, was that the truth or not?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/13/hillary-clinton-defends-2_n_81261.html
d
Boy, is "I took Bushco's word for it instead of bothering to read" one shitty excuse for a Democratic vote committing blood and treasure, or isn't it? I think the folly of that excuse became clear to her in 2008.

But, it was also clear in 2008, though, that Hillary and Bubba thought that the main reason that Obama pulled ahead of 2008 Inevitable Hillary in the primary was that he had made a speech opposing the Iraq War, while she had voted for it. And she is trying to avoid the mistakes she perceives she made in 2008. Trouble is, this is a huge mistake she made in 2002 and changing the excuse she gave in 2008 doesn't change 2002.

Sounds to me as though she will say just about anything to be the first woman in the Oval Office, though.

Not going down that road again as long as I live.

[DeSwiss]

89. So does this mean the stigma of un-Presidentiality.....

...Clinton hoped to avoid by voting for the war, may now been seen as flip-flopping instead?

- Mea culpa's can be so tricky to pull off.....

[LiberalLovinLug]

98. Hillary Hillary Hillary

Why didn't you just call me? (and a large contingent of DUers)

Why is it that the "fucking retards" of the "professional left" had enough information already to see it was wrong to pull out Hans Blix early and start "shock n awe" on a country where no proof of any complicity had ever been produced?

[mike_c]

99. that's a start....

Now she should resign from public office, permanently. The war against Iraq wasn't just a "mistake." It was a crime against humanity, a war of aggression, the worst international crime of them all. Clinton abetted that crime. She should retire gracefully, and be glad she lives in a country that protects its war criminals from justice.

[yurbud]

100. Don't apologize with a lie.

Anyone old enough to remember the Cold War should have known that Iraq was no threat to us even if they had "WMD" (the most embarrassing fucking propaganda term invented in a while).

The leader of every country in the world knows that if they nuke us or give nukes to terrorists who nuke us, we will nuke them off the map.

Only Russia might be able to inflict equal damage to what we could dish out in retaliation.

Maybe if someone was a crazed ideologue, they might commit national suicide with zero chance of a positive outcome, but Saddam Hussain was no ideologue.

He was a kleptocratic thug, which is why our government backed his rise to power. Such people tend to like to stay alive and hold onto power rather than commit auto-genocide with their own death absolutely guaranteed.

Every member of Congress knew this, so if they voted for the Iraq War Resolution, they were either cowards who thought a "wrong" vote would make them vulnerable to Republican challenge in the upcoming election, or agreed with the real motives, which have yet to be investigated in Congress.

Hillary could gain some trust and respect from progressives by going out on a limb here and telling the truth.

If she did so, a side effect would be making the GOP look like the reckless sociopaths they are--instead of looking like a reckless sociopath wannabee.

[HooptieWagon]

104. Sen Bob Graham was begging....

the other Senators to read the unredacted classified intelligence report. Most, inc HRC, failed to do so. The report's tone was FAR different than the WH's public spin. In a matter of such extreme importance as the IWR, how can HRC claim to have put a lot of thought into it, if she didn't read the classified report? She called the WH, and asked them how to vote! Thats either laziness, or political posturing. HRC and the other Dems who voted for the IWR simply were supporting a war they thought would be popular, and a quick and total victory. Inexcusable.

[JDPriestly]

115. I recall seeing a YouTube video that was made before the Iraq War when

Code Pink was trying to persuade Hillary Clinton against voting for war.

I have not been able to find a copy of that video on the internet and would like to know from Code Pink whether they still have one and why it is not on the internet.

Hillary Clinton was positively insulting to the Code Pink women who had visited Iraq and were telling her that the Bush administration was lying and that the Iraqi people including children were suffering from the sanctions the US had imposed on them (possibly during the Clinton presidency).

Hillary Clinton made a huge mistake. The worst of it was that she did not carefully consider all the evidence that was presented to her. In addition, she did not have the moral strength to stand up for what was right in a situation in which evidence that pointed her to make the right direction was presented to her. She demonstrated a closed mind. And a president with a closed mind is a problem in a country like ours. It will not be good for us.

Hillary is trying to whitewash her record. I wonder what happened to that YouTube video. I posted it years ago on the old DU site, but I cannot find it now.

[LiberalLovinLug]

131. Is this the footage?

Its heartbreaking. Watching her, after being elegantly implored to stand up for the women and children about to be slaughtered in iraq, spout out a pre-written politico response.

I hope she is traumatized by nightmares about this "mistake"

[Jamastiene]

121. Credit for seeing it was wrong in hindsight.

At least she finally admits she was wrong on that vote. I have to give her credit for that much.

[sulphurdunn]

124. To her credit,

no Republican would ever admit to having made a mistake. It would be political suicide. In their cult ideology, critical thinking and reflection are proof of weakness and weakness attracts party predators.

[Hoppy]

125. Plain and Simple --- that's why you shouldn't be president.

If you fell for the Bush bullshit or voted for war for political expedience, you are either too stupid or too feckless to be president. Open up a charity and run that instead.

[Fearless]

127. Ohhh I'm soooo sorry you feel guilty.

How many years as SOS? As Senator? And what have you really done to end the war quicker? Words don't bring people back from the dead. Words don't repair broken hearts. Give me a break. You want to run for president again and are siding on the popular side of the issue.

[RufusTFirefly]

130. Their candidates are even more disingenuous than our candidates.

Besides, everyone agrees you absolutely, positively have to vote for war. We've got no choice. Hey, this is America, Dude!

Therefore, we win! Woo hoo!

&feature=kp

[NorthCarolina]

137. Yep...got it wrong all right. Maybe that's why we should be looking

to someone who got it RIGHT to lead us. Bernie Sanders comes to mind.

[pnwmom]

138. All the Hillary hate. I appear to have wandered onto Freeperville. n/t

[Beacool]

140. Yep, that's exactly what I have been saying from the day I came here.

DU is a mirror image of Free Republic. Just as intransigent and blind to any shadings of gray. When it comes to the Clintons it's a hate fest 24/7. They are never given the benefit of the doubt and their every action is viewed in a negative light.

Luckily, both sites do not reflect the views of the majority of Americans. I don't know who is more pissed off by Hillary's popularity, if the Right or the Left. Either way, it makes me laugh.

[cprise]

143. It would be fitting if Cindy Sheehan used her CA campaign to denounce Hillary

Cuz, ya know, Sheehan is such a 'hater'.

FWIW, in context of the Iraq War, it is *you* who sound more like a Bush-ite bemoaning Bush's unpopularity on many web sites.

[Beacool]

144. Oh, please.

Some of you keep beating that drum to death. Take it up with Bush, Cheney, etc.

[cprise]

145. A bovinity and dismissive attitude that is flattering only

when worn by a "New Democrat" in the Right kind of light.

Its always a pleasure to see it unskillfully demonstrated.

[Reter]

139. Unfortunately, she won't say the same about her Patriot Act vote

She still supports that assault on liberty bill masquerading as protection against terrorism.

[Helen Borg]

141. Sure, sure; and banks are bad...

[on point]

150. I sold out plain and simple

I was more interested in my future political ambitions than doing right by the country and the service members

That's what she means to say

[David_ness]

160. Aren't people other than in politics, punished for their mistakes?

Hillary has admitted that she as well as the then Govt, got it all wrong and in the process, caused hundreds of precious lives to be lost. Why is it that no one in political power who makes grave mistakes, are not punished?

[Bickle]

164. No

You were told, and should be breaking rocks alongside every other yes vote

[cali]

165. Baloney. Pure 100% CYA craven baloney.

[Orsino]

166. "Plain and simple" = nothing to see; move along.

Clinton is not dumb enough to have believed the lies that led us into war, but she is dishonest enough to pretend she is.

It wasn't a mistake. It was policy that Clinton helped shape, deliberately and for profit.

[lululu]

168. has Hillary ever gotten anything right in government?

One mess after another, from healthcare to foreign policy.

Kind of amazing that her record is so consistent.

[karynnj]

171. Only if seen from the far right

Hillary's goals on healthcare in 1993 were good, but neither she nor Bill Clinton had much experience with the US Congress. In the case of healthcare, this became a problem when she and Ira Magaziner, a brilliant Rhodes Scholar and former antiwar activist who had been a business consultant, but also had little real personal experience with Congress. The funny thing is, if it were now 1993 and DU exists as it does now - the team of Hillary Clinton and Magaziner would be favored by DU over the various committees in the Senate and the House.

I suspect that had Bill Clinton waited 2 years, they might have been more successful. However, it is more likely that 1994 would still have had the loses in Congress as they were likely more related to the budget than to the failed healthcare plan. Then people would have contrasted Bill Clinton with Obama who started healthcare as soon as he was in and when he had both Houses of Congress.

Not to mention, a case can be made that they learned from that experience. In 1996, Kerry and Kennedy wrote a bill (based on a MA program that already existed) that paid a tapered amount of the cost for children's health insurance for families with incomes above Medicaid level and below a threshold (where it tapered to zero). It was paid for by a new tax on tobacco. The next year, Kennedy worked with Hatch, changing the plan from a national one to one where each state created its own version. Hillary Clinton was one of the people who lobbied Congress to pass it -- and lobbied her husband to include it in his proposed budget. This is SCHIP, the biggest increase in public insurance since Medicare. This is clearly not a failure. (I know I am on record with having said she claimed too much credit for this in 2008 - something I still think true. She was important as an advocate, but the design of the bill and the impetuous to create it are better credited to Kennedy - and secondarily to Kerry and Hatch. However, it is normal for a President to take credit for anything he signed into law. -- thus W does get credit for the AIDS in Africa part of Pepfar - which was written by Kerry and sponsored originally by Kerry and Frist. )

As to foreign policy, I don't think it fair to say that Obama's foreign policy was a failure in the first term. It is clear that a lot of remedial work was needed to reestablish relations that had soured in the 8 years of Bush. It is also clear that the way Obama defined the job, Clinton did a lot of work improving how the State Department runs and visiting a huge number of countries including many that were not major countries to improve relationships. She articulated that the world needed to allow women rights.

Hillary had a good analogy that the job of Secretary of State often is one of passing the baton. There is no question that there is a far better chance that a collision with Iran will be avoided than it seemed in 2009. While Obama and Kerry - not to mention Roulani and his FM do as well, deserve a lot of credit for the fact we are negotiating and much more if a final agreement is reached, some of this was set into motion when Clinton was SoS. (Here, Clinton is doing what is the most reasonable political thing to do - she is setting herself up to get major credit if Obama/Kerry pull it off and distancing herself enough in case it fails. Either way she wins - as the person who set the tough sanctions and started the process.)

As to some of the "failures" - the middle east was a powder keg for decades and a fuse was lit with the 2 wars that Bush started. On many things that went wrong, we can't see what the other alternative would have been. (For instance, Clinton likely would have backed Mubarak when Obama dropped support. However, there were millions of people in the street and squares and those people included a huge portion of the elite, educated youth. Had there been a President Hillary Clinton and had she backed Mubarak, the likelihood is that he still would have fallen out of power. It is not clear anything would have been different now -- except the US would have been seen more clearly as for the authoritarian tyrant.)

As to Russia, Putin and Lavrov have had a terrible relationship with every President/ Secretary of State from Colin Powell, to Condi Rice (Russian scholar that she was), to Hillary Clinton. The problem is not just the US -- Putin, ex KGB nationalist is very much a problem. The fact that Lavrov has a decent working relationship with Kerry - that helped on the Syrian chemical weapons and Iran - was not sufficient to avoid the problems in Ukraine where the Russian interests were involved. (It did lead to the Lavrov/Kerry link being the sole Russia/US communication link briefly.) Here, the problem was not ALL the former Secretaries of State. I think Kerry is exceptional, but the fact is that of all of them he is the only white male. In addition, most accounts speak of Lavrov sharing his interests in hockey and soccer - which is rings more truthful than comments that he appreciates Kerry's "professionalism" - with an obvious negative inference to the others - likely rooted in racism or sexism.

[Splinter Cell]

173. She sure did.

She voted for it because she believed in it, and was wrong. Now she's sorry for political reasons. Don't be fooled folks. She's not really sorry for voting for the Iraq war, she's just sorry it's a political problem for her.

[rosesaylavee]

178. Glad she admits it.

I am grateful for that. It takes some courage to admit a mistake in this political climate.

[clg311]

182. She was singing a different tune in 2008.

Five years after the invasion:

"It has been five years this week since our president took us to war in Iraq. In that time, our brave men and women in uniform have done everything we ask of them and more. They were asked to remove Saddam Hussein from power and bring him to justice and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi people the opportunity for free and fair elections and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi government the space and time for political reconciliation, and they did. So for every American soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice for this mission, we should imagine carved in stone "they gave their life for the greatest gift one can give to a fellow human being, the gift of freedom." And to our veterans and all those serving in Iraq today, I want to send a strong and clear message - your extraordinary devotion to our country and to your service makes us proud and profoundly grateful every single day."

March 17, 2008