Yes, Hillary, We Do Need Moral Leadership

[cool user name]

Yes, Hillary, We Do Need Moral Leadership
by Anne Miller

(snipped)

Afterwards I joined the throng surrounding her – most were people who wanted books signed and pictures taken, for she really is like a rock star – to ask her about a statement she made last week about Iran in which she said “no options are off the table.” I asked her how she could threaten nuclear genocide on another nation’s children. She told me that we cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran, for it would be an “existential” threat to the U.S., and repeated that all options are on the table. When I tried to ask her about the very real role the U.S. is playing in spurring proliferation with our repeated threats and actual nuclear arsenals, she said she didn’t want to discuss it and turned away stiffly.

Now I’m really glad that I majored in philosophy at Wellesley, so I have at least a cursory grasp of concepts like “existential.” It’s interesting that Hillary used the word, because it’s not a term used much in American political vernacular. It’s much more common in Israel, where the term is used to describe possible, rather than actual, threats. For instance, from Israel’s perspective, the whole Middle East is an existential threat.

Yes, Hillary, we do need moral leadership. We need candidates from both sides of the political aisle who are staunchly and courageously committed to solutions for international challenges grounded in diplomacy, international law, and human rights, instead of military power and the threat and use of nuclear weapons. It’s not Hillary’s being a woman that is a problem - it’s her humanity. Never again can the U.S. use nuclear weapons on another nation’s children. And we, the good citizens of New Hampshire and of this nation, must not support any candidate who believes that the use of nuclear weapons can ever be an option.

(emphasis added)

More at CommonDreams

Comment: It seems that Clinton, once again, is trying to have it both ways. Instead of standing on principle, it seems she's comfortable in bellicose rhetoric and empty platitudes. Is this somone we want as a leader, especially after the nightmare we've endured for the past 7 years? Do we want a true progressive opposition candidate or just more of the same. Shame on Mrs. Clinton for not being able to look past her political aspirations and not seeing the bigger picture.

[Demeter]

1. I'm Afraid that It Isn't An Attutude or Affectation, But the REAL Hillary

and that is a truly frightening thought!

[cool user name]

6. It's revealing that she didn't want to "discuss" it further ...

... reminds me of someone occupying the White House. Is she going to be a "Decider" too?

[Tellurian]

39. How about an existential HIT JOB...a 2 in 1 for Common Nightmares!

pfffft! Common Dreams used to be a worthy source..
They've lost their way BIG TIME!

[cool user name]

44. That's not even clever.

Surely you have some kind of rebuttal, no?

[Tellurian]

55. Inconvenient Truths, seldom, are clever..

[cool user name]

57. You disparaged the source but ...

... still no rebuttal.

:shrug: C'est lavie!

[Tellurian]

60. It is my right to disparage a disreputable source..

as was validated by The Magistrate.

[cool user name]

62. It is your right but with respect to The Magistrate who was actually civil ...

... he didn't validate the source as disreputable.

We had a good civil debate in which he made some valid points as did I. We both came away still disagreeing but that is our right, respectively.

You, on the other hand, have offered nothing but cute little quips with no substance.

That's your dime.

[Zhade]

69. An Ad Populum/Appeal to Authority argument?

THAT'S the best you can do?

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. If by "existential threat" she means a nuclear arms Iran would

threaten the very existance of the US, she clearly (like many people) overestimates the potential for damage a nuclear weapon can do. Russia's nuclear arsenal, or ours, fit those terms for each other. None of the lesser nuclear powers have enough nuclear power to threaten our very existance. Even China, with a couple hundred nukes, though it could do massive damage, would not literally wipe out the country. If we lost half our population of 300 million, we would have 150 million left, leaving us in the top ten populations in the world.

OTOH, if Iran nuked us we would retaliate in a way they could, very literally, erase that country from existance. We could nuke every population center of 20,000 or higher and barely dent our nuclear arsenal. This isn't MAD. It's suicide.

They are NOT a nuclear threat to us.

And Iran knows it.

And if Hillary doesn't know that, she's not as smart as she porports to be.

[Zhade]

70. Great post.

NT!

[jwirr]

3. This attitude would turn me off immediately. One of the reasons

I have trouble with her is the way she turns around on issues when it is not in her best interest to do what she has said. The bankruptcy bill that as it first came out is an example. ("The Two-Income Trap" by Elizabeth Warren & Amelia Warren Tyagi)

[The Magistrate]

4. A Poor Effort By Ms. Miller, Sir

Nuclear weapons in the hands of the mullah's government in Iran would indeed consititute a very serious threat to the United States, and a very reasonable case can be made for dealing with that threat by military measures, should the diplomatic and economic means fail. Since it is a possibility looming some years in the future, there is no pressing need for a decision on whether to do this now, but there may well come a time when it is adviseable. Sen. Clinton has made quite clear any attack on Iran now will require a Congressional authorization, and done so in such a way as to make clear she would not assent to it. There is no reason to think such an authorization will be forthcoming from the current Congress, and any military action by the administration against Iran absent such an authorization would provoke a tremendous Constitutional crisis.

[cool user name]

7. How would Iran possessing nuclear weapons be a threat to the US?

Though I don't wish them to have it, it seems somewhat hyperbolic to say they could even threaten us with nuclear weapons.

1) We don't even know if they have a nuclear weapons program. In all likelyhood, they probably do but then we had a part to play in that, wouldn't you say? By using military means, any nation would be silly not to constitute a program that would be capable of defense. If someone were to say, hey, we wish to resolve this diplomatically, perhaps with incentives, wouldn't that be the way to go?

2) Even if Iran became a nuclear power, how would they have the means of delivering their payload? We have bases across the world. If one of their (supposed) delivery vehicles became airborne, it would be vaporized within minutes of launch. Not very threatening in the least.

3) Why do we tolerate Pakistan, Israel and India (three of the most unstable areas in the region) having nuclear weapons? Why the double standard? It stands to reason that Pakistan has her deterrence against India and vice versa. Israel and Iran have no love affair and Israel continuously talks about attacking Iran. Why is Iran not allowed to have this deterrence that the more powerful (and usually bellicose) nations seem to enjoy?

4) If we want to be a moral authority on telling others not to build a nuclear weapons program, how can we honestly use nuclear weapons against a country and still be a credible nation. It seems we'd become a instant pariah and that other nations would hasten their program capability. It's not outside the realm of reason to even think they would unite in eliminating what they think is a threat to them. China, Russia and whoever else may not take too kindly to the US using nuclear weapons in such a cavalier manner. At this point, our existence would be threatened.

To sum up, these bellicose statements, whether emanating from Bush or Clinton are counterproductive to fostering a peaceful and stable environment.

Perhaps, we should have accepted Iran's peace initiative back in 2003, eh?

[The Magistrate]

9. Because They Cannot Be Trusted Not To Use Them Against Us, Sir

When you mobilize crowds chanting "Death to America!" as a routine political exercise, you run the risk of being taken at your word, as an unremittingly hostile body who will do what harm is in its power to do to the object of its hatred. Whether there are good grounds for that hatred or not is immaterial to calculating the sincerity with which it is held, and the likelihood of its being given concrete expression. None of the three powers you name is currently in hands hostile to the United States, though there is certainly some danger the Pakistani weapons could come under hostile control.

There are a number of creative possibilities for delivery, that there is little point to going into here, beyond pointig out that a missile lifting off from Iran itself is hardly the only or most likely means, should there be a resolve among the mullahs to do the thing. While such an act would indeed result in the utter ruin of Iran, where persons are moved by acult of martyrdom, it is not easy to gauge how much of a check on their behavior such an extinction constistutes.

Entering into negotiations with Iran in 2003, and indeed at any number of earlier points, would certainly have been a wise course.

[cool user name]

10. Works both ways, Magistrate.

When you mobilize crowds chanting "Death to America!" as a routine political exercise, you run the risk of being taken at your word, as an unremittingly hostile body who will do what harm is in its power to do to the object of its hatred. Whether there are good grounds for that hatred or not is immaterial to calculating the sincerity with which it is held, and the likelihood of its being given concrete expression. None of the three powers you name is currently in hands hostile to the United States, though there is certainly some danger the Pakistani weapons could come under hostile control.

They also have a young population ready for reform. They also held candle lit vigils in the wake of 9/11.

If another country, say Iran, had meddled into our affairs the way the US and UK have done with Iran's, you don't think we'd be shouting from the rooftops, "Death to Iran?" Scratch that, our leaders are actually engaged in somewhat sweeter rhetoric by saying that the nuclear weapon will remain an option. By their rights, don't they have every reason to believe us? We've invaded a country to their left and right. We've used nuclear weapons before. We've engaged in hostile acts worldwide. It seems, to me, that they have more reason to believe us than we do them, no?

There are a number of creative possibilities for delivery, that there is little point to going into here, beyond pointig out that a missile lifting off from Iran itself is hardly the only or most likely means, should there be a resolve among the mullahs to do the thing. While such an act would indeed result in the utter ruin of Iran, where persons are moved by acult of martyrdom, it is not easy to gauge how much of a check on their behavior such an extinction constistutes.

Isn't this true of Russia's nuclear arms? Pakistan's? India's? Indeed, any nation with nuclear weapons stands the chance that they fall into the wrong hands (or governments). Why the double standard with Iran? If we want to live in peace without that threat, why not disarm the whole regioin? Why stop there? Why not engage in a worldwide disarmament treaty?

Entering into negotiations with Iran in 2003, and indeed at any number of earlier points, would certainly have been a wise course.

Indeed, we are in agreement.

[The Magistrate]

12. Of Course It Does, Sir

The mullah's regime is widely unpopular, and if there were truely open and free elections there, they would be out on their backsides quick enough to bounce. Belligerence from the United States is their one political trump card, as people do tend to rally to their government when they poerceive their country under threat, whatever their views of their leadership. Detailing the various grounds the Iranians may have to be hostile to the United States hardly operates, though, Sir, to undercut the proposition that they are hostile to the United States, and that any government of the United States would be foolish to assume their hostility will not be translated into action in future.

For the rest, Sir, there is no double standard, because when it comes to minor nuclear powers today the real standard is can the government be trusted not to use them against the United States. The governments you name can be so trusted; there is some question in this regard concerning Iran.

[cool user name]

13. I'm not sure why Iran can't be trusted.

Israel has invaded nations before. Pakistan and India have threatened to annihilate each other; each having attacked the other.

Who has Iran attacked? Where is their history of belligerence? Sure, they support Hizbollah, however, taken into context with regard to (rightly or wrongly) resisting Israeli aggression in terms of Lebanon, this is surely but a minor blotch on an otherwise non-hostile nation, no? Do I cringe at Iran having nuclear weapons?* Yes, of course. I recognize, however, that their willingness to implement a weapons program does not exist in a vacuum. It exists within a larger geo-political arena, one with which the US has had a great role to play.

*Again, we don't even know if they have a nuclear weapons program.

So, let's get back on point. Why would Clinton keep the nuclear option on the table? Does this not convince the "Mullahs" to react in a manner that is best suited to the defense of their nation? Why does she not wish to "discuss" it? Are we not a democracy? Is she not a candidate for the office of President of the United States? Should a question of this import be dismissed so readily? What is her reasoning for not even discussing the issue even assuming that her stance is correct, as you and I are now?

[The Magistrate]

14. All Such Judgements Are Subjective, Sir

And the standard operative here remains "use against the United States". If India and Pakistan wish to incinerate their major cities by way of settling their quarrel over Kashmir, and capping the centuries long roll-back of Islamic conquest in that region, that is their busines and does not involve an attack on my country.

Again, whether the Iranian government has good reason from its own point of view for desiring nuclear weapons is quite beside the point of whether their possessing same is in the interests of, or a threat to, the United States. Indeed, that argument tends rather to highlight the probability that it is not in the interests of, and is a threat to, the United States. Political leaders here can be expected to make that their paramount concern; the people of the country certainly will do so in viewing the question.

Threats are a traditional means of influencing the behavior of others; they will remain part of any program aimed at doing so in international affairs. Sen. Clinton's desire to cut short an interactiin with one obviously hostile person in a public gathering is hardly a policy statement on this important question.

[cool user name]

19. But I'm still at a loss to see how or why Iran is a threat to the US.

As is currently with no proof that they are implementing a nuclear weapons program or even if they currently have nuclear weapons, it still a mystery why we picked this country, of all countries in the world to be an "existential" threat to the United States.

It seems, to me, that there are far better ways to ensure that they aren't a threat. Like perhaps working with them diplomatically. Engaging in meaningful and constructive dialogue instead of these proxy bellicose statements.

:shrug:

[The Magistrate]

24. The Government Of Iran, Sir

Maintains a policy of hostility to the United States, some of it based on their leadership's own conception of their religion. Hostility becomes of greater concern as its armament improves.

[cool user name]

28. Contradiction.

How does the Government of Iran "maintain a policy of hostility to the United States" when:

1) The US is openly stating that nuclear attack is not off the table, and
2) The US rejected any peace overtures made by the Government of Iran?

[The Magistrate]

30. That Is Not A Contradiction, Sir

That government commenced its hostile orientation at its commencement in 1979: no current U.S. policy or action has anything particular to do with it. It was baked in the cake decades ago, and simply continues.

[cool user name]

32. In 1979? What about 1956? Who supported the Shah?

Seems like we created the monster, no?

[The Magistrate]

40. Doubtless We Did, Sir

But that does help argue a case that Iran is not really hostile to the United States today, and that the United States should view with insousiance the prospect of the present government of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons in the future.

[Zhade]

71. That didn't happen in a vacuum. We kinda fucked over the Iranians for decades first.

You know, what with toppling their democratically-elected government and all.

[cool user name]

21. Addendum:

Sen. Clinton's desire to cut short an interactiin with one obviously hostile person in a public gathering is hardly a policy statement on this important question.

Of course, it's not a policy statement as she doesn't set policy by herself. She is, however, a United States Senator with considerable clout and influence. She is also a candidate for the highest office in the land, that of the presidency. It is not unreasonable for her to respond and engage with her "potential" constituency regarding this very grave issue. If she doesn't wish to discuss something as important as the use of nuclear weapons, then why should we elect her? We have a right to know what she would do in certain circumstances and why she would do it. She has every right not to discuss it, but then she's having it both ways and it is her responsibility should the people not wish to elect her.

That is the whole point of campaigning, is it not? I thought she wanted to have a "chat." How can one have a chat if one party doesn't wish to talk about very important issues?

[The Magistrate]

22. In Campaigning, Sir

You do not waste time engaging an obvious foe in a public space. The old proverb concerning wrestling pigs applies....

[cool user name]

26. She's not engaged in ... reciting addages.

She's in a campaign to become the United States President. She needs to engage the public if she wishes to win.

What's so obvious about Miller being a foe? Did she ask Mrs. Clinton a question she didn't like? Does that make her a foe? Are the electorate only to ask questions to which Mrs. Clinton finds pleasing and/or easy?

[The Magistrate]

31. You Know Perfect;y Well, Sir

That the author of that piece is a foe of Sen. Clinton. Do you imagine the lady so poor in people skills as to not realize this in the initial instants of the interaction?

[cool user name]

33. The author admitted to liking Hillary and was thinking about voting for her.

So how is she a foe for asking a very important question?

[The Magistrate]

42. Dishonesty Becomes Her, Sir

Things like that are easily said: she got what she wanted out of the encounter, and was as likely to support Sen. Clinton as McCain is to propose a Department of Peace at Cabinet level in his next campaign speech....

[cool user name]

52. Who's being dishonest, Magistrate?

[Demeter]

16. If There Were Truly Open and Free Elections HERE, BushCo Would Have Ended in 2004

If wishes were horses, etc.

And there's considerable doubt that the US can be trusted not to bomb Iran with nukes, after poisoning Iraq with depleted uranium already (not to mention parts of this country and its people).

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. You neglect to mention, however, that the leaders who call for

martyrdom from their followers NEVER martyr themselves. For that reason alone, we know that Iran would not use a nuclear weapon against the US because our response would be to glassify their entire country, including their leadership.

We are in far greater danger from some little terror group coming up with a few million dollars to purchase a black-market Russian warhead, and detonating it in NY harbor. And the chances of that happening are infinitesimal. The idea that Iran could produce an easily transportable nuke which they give to a terrorist group which intends it for an attack on the US without us finding out about it is, frankly, ludicrous. With IAEA monitoring, with spies and paid informants, with tracking of precursor materials, they'd never get away with it.

If Iran wanted to attack us with nukes, they'd be better off providing the cash to the terrorists to buy the Russian warhead, in which case they don't need a nuclear bomb project themselves at all, and all the monitoring of their nuclear program won't stop them giving money to terrorists, if that's what they intend, so all the hysteria about them producing a bomb is just that - hysteria.

[The Magistrate]

18. That, Sir, Is Not So Reliable As To Base Policy On

There have been instances where leadership has gotten caught up in the consequences.

Certainly any such attack is a very low probabilty event. But you are likely over-rating Western intelligence penetration of Iran at present. The belief that people simply cannot do something has proven a poor one through history: people can do damned near anything if they put their minds to it.

[sendero]

51. Iran.

.... would not launch a missile, that WOULD invite instant retaliation.

But Iran sponsors (gives money to) a lot of terror organizations and that is the issue, might they decide to arm someone with the ultimate weapon.

I'm not particularly interested in a military solution, but folks who see no threat in a nuclear-armed Iran aren't looking.

[Zhade]

72. Nice to hear a voice of reason.

This idea of supporting preventative (NOT preemptive) strikes against Iran for "existential" threats is disturbing.

[Clark2008]

5. How come no one ever explains WHY Iran having a nuclear

weapon would be a threat to the United States.

If some diplomacy were extended, Iran probably wouldn't WANT to use a weapon on the US and vice versa.

[cool user name]

8. They already tried floating a peace initiative back in 2003.

It seems we are the ones that are a threat by consistently choosing war instead of peace.

:shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

11. And how 'bout that GOP line-up?

A quick mental perusal of their presidential candidates puts a smile - actually more of a smirk - on my face. Any one of our candidates should make short work of any of them.

[mtnsnake]

15. "Any one of our candidates should make short work of any of them"

Yes, that's safe to say, now that Kerry isn't in the running.

[Blue_In_AK]

25. Just can't help yourself, can you? n/t

[Zhade]

73. Yeah, but Clinton is.

NT!

[welshTerrier2]

20. lots of interesting replies at the link below:

http://www.newscenter.org/2007/02/14/anne-miller-yes-hillary-we-do-need-moral-leadership/#respond

[RiverStone]

23. NEVER again.....kick that!

Never again can the U.S. use nuclear weapons on another nation’s children. And we, the good citizens of New Hampshire and of this nation, must not support any candidate who believes that the use of nuclear weapons can ever be an option.

Yes - kick, kick, kick that!

:kick: :kick:

Oh, and Hillary was unable or unwilling to look beyond her political aspirations when she voted for the IWR in Oct of 02---while 23 other Senators, 133 other House reps, and millions around the world in protest could see that authorizing Shrub to pull the trigger on an immoral war was totally wrong.

I have yet to see her consistently put personal conviction ahead of political expediency.

[Morgana LaFey]

27. You didn't hve to dredge this up for me to know Hillary isn't a good

choice. She's not even a neutral choice-- she's a BAD choice.

Tho I'm glad you did "dredge it up" -- interesting read. I was particularly taken with the notion that: It’s interesting that Hillary used the word, because it’s not a term used much in American political vernacular. It’s much more common in Israel, where the term is used to describe possible, rather than actual, threats. For instance, from Israel’s perspective, the whole Middle East is an existential threat.

Yes, very interesting.

[cool user name]

29. Who's interests does she serve?

American popular, progressive interests or corporate and Israeli interests? It's an important question to ask.

[Tellurian]

34. Well, certainly not yours- you have your own agenda! nm

[cool user name]

35. And that's supposed to mean what exactly?

[Tellurian]

36. a question without punctuation..

so what IS your agenda? Hillary is the front runner.

[cool user name]

43. Punctuation?

Huh?

What does punctuation or Hillary being the front runner have to do with moral issues regarding preemptive nuclear strikes?

[Tellurian]

45. You tell me! nm

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cool user name]

63. You're the one who brought it up!

So, the onus is on you telling me!

[netpaul]

37. Here's how to derail the Hillary freight train

Hillary's got the big dog dem money - and the CA primary has been moved up to help lock her in for the nomination.

And there are oodles of independents and progressive dems who just WON'T vote for her - no matter what.

The only way to get above the noise level on this one is to show strength in NUMBERS.

So I started an online petition, "I WON'T VOTE FOR HILLARY". If we get a half million sigs, it will be all over CNN and MSNBC - and it will effectively derail her because the big money will start to think she smells like a LOSER.

Here's the link:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/iwontvoteforhillary/

Please pass this link around to your friends who feel the same way. We need this thing to go VIRAL in order to rack up big numbers - and hopefully have someone else at the top of the ticket in '08.

GO NETROOTS!

[Tellurian]

38. Bullshit! Just vote for Mitt Romney in the General..coward! nm

[bonito]

41. There are oodles of Democrats that won't either

Its well known She will run with the aipac neocon adjenda.

[Tellurian]

46. neocon agenda...

:rofl:

[bonito]

48. Thanks for the correction

But I knew you'd get it right, check this out..http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=10372



The senator's comments seem as if they were taken word-for-word from an AIPAC position paper. They may well have been, as the lobby packs her coffers full of cash. In May 2005, Clinton spoke at an AIPAC conference where she praised the bonds between Israel and the United States:

"ur future here in this country is intertwined with the future of Israel and the Middle East. Now there is a lot that we could talk about, and obviously much has been discussed. But in the short period that I have been given the honor of addressing you, I want to start by focusing on our deep and lasting bonds between the United States and Israel."

Clinton went on to address the importance of disarming Iran and Syria, as well as keeping troops in Iraq for as long as "it" takes. It was textbook warmongering, and surprise, surprise – Hillary got a standing ovation for her repertoire.

[cool user name]

50. Oh, but why would you bash Clinton?

I heard she's the only "frontrunner!"

:sarcasm:


Surely, you'll be attacked about "punctuation" too!

Edit: Punctuation. :rofl:

[Tellurian]

54. Review the definition of the word frontrunner..

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

"front runner"

–noun

1. a person who leads in any competition.
2. an entrant in a race who breaks to the front immediately and establishes the pace for the field.
3. an entrant in a race who performs well only when ahead of the field.

Also, front-runner, frontrunner.



Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source

front-run·ner also front·run·ner (frŭnt'rŭn'ər)

n.

1. One that is in a leading position in a race or other competition: the front-runner for the presidential nomination.
2. A competitor who performs best when in the lead.


Read it and weep. A word that will never be associated with your endeavors.

[cool user name]

58. So now you insult me?

That's rich.

Look. You brought up punctuation and front runners. How does this have to do with the moral question of the use of nuclear weapons on another nation?

You would like to divert attention with your cute (and I use that liberally) posts that are, well, rather vacuous and juvenile.

:shrug:

[paulk]

64. yeah, and that Joshua Frank article

got locked the last time somebody posted it.

[cool user name]

66. fuckin' kick.

[paulk]

67. yeah, and I thought anarchy was pretty "cool", too

back when I was in highschool....

[cool user name]

74. Has nothing to do with being "cool" ...

... but nice jab there, pal.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Alamom]

53. A lot of people

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2007-02-13-2008-poll.htm

like her & will vote for her.



USA TODAY/Gallup


Feb 9-11/2007

Hillary Rodham Clinton 40 %

Barack Obama 21 %

Al Gore 14 %

John Edwards 13 %

Bill Richardson 4 %

Wesley Clark 1 %

Christopher Dodd 1 %

Joe Biden 1 %

Dennis Kucinich * * *


BTW, her numbers in popularity go up almost daily.....could be a fluke. :shrug:
Looking more like a trend, for now anyway.

[RaleighNCDUer]

56. You trust USA Today/Gallup?

Can you tell me what their polling methodology is? Who and where they polled? A thousand people polled in the midwest will respond differently from a thousand in the deep south, or the northeast. Randsom dialing across the country during work hours? You get the stay-at-homes and the unemployed -- think that might skew the results? Using USA/Gallup as a reference doesn't fly with me - it's been a biased poll for years.

Did you note that every poll had a Repub winning over a Dem?

You might also note that while Hillary has the currently highest approval of the dems, she also has the highest disapproval by a huge margin - only 5% undecided. That's not a lot of room for growing. Attitudes about her are set, even as she triangulates and attempts to be all things for all persons.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot that I like about Hillary; I'd vote for her, but not enthusiastically. We don't need another 8 years of DLC "leadership" -- that's what put us where we are today.

[Alamom]

61. There are many more...

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/


I'm sure something can be found wrong with any or all polls posted, however there does seem to be a trend of HRC leading among Democratic voters. Not here, of course, but out in the real world.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrSlayer]

65. "bellicose rhetoric and empty platitudes"

Right on. That's her all over. She plays right into the same neo-con bullshit the Republicans do. Being socially liberal (although she hedges her bets on these issues too) doesn't mean much with someone like this. I'm not surprised she wouldn't answer the follow up question.

[cool user name]

75. Thank you and I agree.

[Zhade]

68. So she supports preventative war.

Why pretend her IWR vote wasn't a vote for military action against Iraq (as the damn TITLE of the resolution shows)?