Grrr Clinton just pisses me off

[Egnever]

So a month or two ago Obama was naive for saying he would meet with iranian leaders and now the hilinator is saying the same thing. She will say or do anything to get elected.

How in the world can I have any expectations of any sort of governance from hillary when she cant make up her own mind from one minute to the next.



Clinton yesterday said she would meet with Iran without preconditions. ``I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don't really understand how Iran works,'' she said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a6JZHKtWWgcQ&refer=politics



:eyes:

[yourout]

1. Weathervane

Which way is the wind blowing.

[liberalmuse]

2. At least she really wants the job.

Unlike Bush. And it's going to be an extremely tough job cleaning up after commander poopy pants.

[Egnever]

6. LOL well you got me there !

She will clearly do anything to get it.

[niceypoo]

78. All of them will

[dardango]

3. Meet Them

Maybe she meant "meet them" with a barrage of missiles.



DemocracyInteractive.com - A Real-Time Free Speech Zone for Progressives.

[ginchinchili]

13. Who knows. Maybe she meant "meat them" by serving them McDonalds hamburgers

That is if McDonalds promises to make a big corporate donation to her war chest. Shouldn't she be in the Guiness Book of World Records for being beholden to the greatest number of donating corporations?

[Clintonista2]

4. No, Obama was naive because he said he would invite the leaders to the white house

And speak to them personally and without condition, to which Clinton objected to because such a meeting could be used for propaganda purposes. Clinton wasn't against NEGOTIATING diplomatically with them, as she made quite clear.

[Egnever]

7. He never said anything like that

WTF?

[Clintonista2]

19. Yes he did, during the debate

He said he would speak to them without condition, in washington, or anywhere else. From the transcript:

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

===================================================================================================================================

Clinton didn't say she wouldnt speak to them. She said she wouldnt meet with them unconditionally.

[Egnever]

26. No he didnt!

Obama was naive because he said he would invite the leaders to the white house

Not even close to what he said!

and interesting that the question was framed with these exact words

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition,

and hillary's respnse then was

"Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year"

Now its

"I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions,"

[Clintonista2]

101. Without precondition "In washington or anywhere else"

Obama would meet personally with them, without condition. Hillary would test the waters via rigorous diplomacy, to ensure she was not being used before meeting personally with them.

[journalist3072]

8. Exactly. People seem to miss the point. She never said she was against negotiating with them

What she said was that she would not promise to hold high level meetings without first learning the way forward, so that the POTUS wouldn't be used for propoganda.

[Egnever]

12. So how does that square?

she would not promise to hold high level meetings

I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions


Huge freaking difference there in my book, maybe its just me.

[w4rma]

76. You need to be a lawyer to really understand Clintonian BS. I don't want her as president. (nt)

[oasis]

11. Thank you. Facts are a DUer's best friend.(eom)

[Egnever]

17. Not one fact in that post

Rah rah rah!

[DB1]

22. OH MY!!! MEET THEM IN THE W.H.??? How awful .

Sarcasm. But it is OK for a violator of human rights to currently LIVE in the White House? Give me a break. Hillary is more of the same despite the fact she is head and shoulders above Bush in any given category. She is towing the line on Iraq and will not put a quick end to it despite what we may wish. I long for Obama's charisma and promise to exit,, or Edwards common sense and promise to exit and Kucinich's from the start against and vow to exit and his true democratic non NAFTA philosophy., and I am starting to like Richardson in print, although watching him on c-span sometimes is a bit painful. I guess what I am saying in a nutshell, Hillary is a great person But, ANY DEM BESIDES HILLARY.

[flpoljunkie]

89. Obama said he'd be willing to speak w/o preconditions; he did not promise to speak with them, as Hil

insisted in the debate.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/12/408527.aspx

Here's the transcript of those exchanges...

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward....

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

OBAMA: They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.

COOPER: I just want to check in with Stephen if he believes he got an answer to his question.

QUESTION: ... Well, I'd be interested in knowing what Hillary has to say to that question.

COOPER: Senator Clinton?

CLINTON:Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration. And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.

[Clintonista2]

102. He promised to speak with them "In washington or anywhere else"

By Washington, it is assumed that means the White House. Where else are they going to meet? Starbucks?

[Fredda Weinberg]

5. You po'd yourself ... read again. She never changed her mind

about presidential meetings ... you're dragging in a dead caracass.

[Egnever]

9. What???

I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions

[SaveElmer]

16. So let me ask you this...

If Hillary were to say "I am going to rebuild the infrastructure of our cities" WOuld you expect she was going to go out personally and fix every bridge herself...

Here is the transcript from the debate...

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat travelled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.

COOPER: I just want to check in with Stephen if he believes he got an answer to his question.

QUESTION: I seem to have a microphone in my hand. Well, I'd be interested in knowing what Hillary has to say to that question.

COOPER: Senator Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.

And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.

And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.

(APPLAUSE)

Exactly what she said yesterday...I swear some people contract their vocabulary on purpose to find a way to attack Hillary...

[Egnever]

21. I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions

Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year.

Doesn't sound remotely the same to me.

Thank you for the transcript though it makes the Hillary bot above that said Obama would invite Iranians to the white house look like a complete idiot.

I am not trying to go out of my way to bash her but that statement coming from someone that was beating the naive drum against obama a month or so ago just makes me livid.

[SaveElmer]

32. The characterization of Obamas statement is exactly correct...

It was a dumb answer...whether he meant it or not...

"And I will pursue very vigorous diplomacy." One sentence after the one you quoted that I also highlighted

It is exactly the same as even AP acknowledged by rewriting the story...as the New York Times pointed out and TPM pointed out among many others...

Nowhere in her statementt yesterday did she say she would personally meet with Ahmedinijad as Obama said he would...and she has been consistent before, during and after the debate that she would enter into negotiations with Iran...

Lazy reporting followed by the predictable piling on...

[Egnever]

33. No it was pure spin

one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.



I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions

How is one dumb and the other is not?

[SaveElmer]

37. Gawd...this is like hitting my head on a brick wall...

Again..,one more time

From the debate

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat travelled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

Ok so he was asked if he would meet with the leaders of these countries...as Sadat did when he went to Israel...ok..

To which he replied

I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

Whether he was being glib, didn't understand the question, or was naive...he says that he, the President of the United States would meet with these leaders, without precondition...

Hillary correctly pointed out...and Edwards agreed with her, that such a promise at the Presidential level was a bad idea without laying groundwork first...

But she went on to say she would enter into negotiations with Iran, Syria etc...she did not say she would do it personally, and she did not say she would meet separately with the leaders of Iran, Cuba etc...Obama did...

Obama...and even more disingenuously Edwards who agreed with Hillary in the debate, is now trying to convince people we didn't hear what was said and that Hillary said she would not negotiate with these countries...which she clearly said she would...

[Egnever]

42. I hope it hurts

Cause your spinning is killing me.

How is meeting with other world leaders be they enemies or friends a bad thing?

It is not, unless you are george bush.

She went on to say.... she would enter into negotiations with all of these requirements and preconditions and yet now there would be none. She is clearly feeling the heat from her recent Lieberman vote and swinging left.

And thats what pisses me off. She has no strength of conviction, unless you consider a desire to win the white house a conviction.

[SaveElmer]

52. Fine...

I give up...

You either so blinded by your wish to criticize Hillary that you are willing to ignore constructs of the English language..

or you are yanking people into believing you actually are this obtuse..

[Egnever]

58. LOL am I the pot or the kettle?

See ya!

[Tellurian]

83. Obama has the same problem...

[zulchzulu]

25. Ah...but the next day...

"In a telephone interview today, the New York senator went further. Of Obama’s comment, she said: “I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive.”

Her campaign later circulated a memo to reporters saying it was a “mistake” to commit to presidential-level meetings without precondition "with some of the world's worst dictators" and portrayed her remarks as showing her depth of experience."

http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/07/24/news/local/doc46a635f210af5541045687.txt

Liars don't remember what they said from one day to the next.

[SaveElmer]

34. You keep trying...

She was right...you don't commit to Presidential meetings right away...

The only liars are ones that are contracting their vocabulary to make it fit some preconceived attack that emanates from a badly written AP story..that has since been rewritten...

Is it your position a President can't enter into negotiations without them being Presidential level?

Why I guess we can just eliminate the diplomatic corps and the Secretary of State eh?

Day be day...the attacks get lamer and lamer...

[Clintonista2]

20. By "I" she means her administration, Obama said he would PERSONALLY meet with them, unconditionally

The problem with that idea, is that he could easily be used for propaganda purposes.

[Egnever]

27. ROFL now thats funny

Yea the iranian leaders could say hey we are great cause we met with the American president.

WTF ever.

Or maybe She could use her meeting with them as propaganda to encourage the Iranian people to reject the current leaderships policies.

[Usrename]

86. rofl

:rofl:

[Fredda Weinberg]

106. Negotiations are not meetings between heads of state

Please remember the difference and the controversy disappears.

[SaveElmer]

10. Debunked...the netroots is like Whack-a-Mole...

No matter how many times something has been debunked it just keeps going around and pops up somewhere else

This was based on a lazily written AP report that has since been rewritten to reflect the truth...

[Egnever]

14. Please point me to it

Cause this makes me want to puke in her general direction.

[illinoisprogressive]

15. No one can expect sound or honest government from Hillary.

[SaveElmer]

18. Sure we can...and we will get it...nt

eom

[superkia]

79. More war is what you can expect from her!

When there was no evidence to go to war, she stood and spoke sounding like Bush himself and voted yes. I would like to no what it was that made her want to vote yes to killing innocent people, was it that she made a terrible decision or that she had an agenda like Bush did? I am amazed that so many proudly support her after what she took place in, does human life not mean anything to Americans anymore? Its amazing the whole world doesn't hate us if this is the type of person we want to elect.

As she voted yes to war, this was part of her speech:


Clinton in 2002, before thousands of lives were lost and Iraq was completely destroyed.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President(That would be Evil Bush), or any future President, TO BE IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE POSITION TO LEAD OUR COUNTRY in the United Nations OR IN WAR. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.

[Evergreen Emerald]

23. It is amazing how quickly people jump to the wrong conclusions

It is almost as if they are looking for more reasons to hate Clinton.

There is a difference between her to CONSISTENT statements. And Obama was wrong.

[Egnever]

28. Yes it is.

How was Obama wrong? And how is hillary right ?

Please lay out that pretzel logic for me.

[Cameron27]

29. Yep

"It is almost as if they are looking for more reasons to hate Clinton." And if they can't find any, they make them up.

[Egnever]

31. LOL

Make them up?

[emilyg]

49. Yes. Make them up.

[Cameron27]

55. I'll give you one example.

I've asked in several "Hillary's Michigan pledge threads", how Clinton's position in Michigan is any different from the one that Obama's taken in FL, and I've never gotten an answer. From everything I've read, there's no difference, but there seems to be a lot of made up outrage over Clinton, and not a peep about Obama.

One more example. When some heavy hitters like RFK, George McGovern or even Wes Clark endorsed Clinton every one of them was insulted in one form or another; senile, a sellout, you name it. Now I've just seen a post in which Dick Durbin has endorsed Obama and said he was likely to win. This is the same Dick Durbin who also voted yes on Kyl-Lieberman and yet not a peep, everything was peaches and cream until a Clinton supporter showed up and mentioned that particular fact.

And the last, the smear. The thread in which someone tried to connect the Clinton campaign to the Edwards' affair story.

[Egnever]

59. Sorry I dont have a clue what you are talking about

I will look for those threads though to try and figure it out.

[Cameron27]

68. Here's the first one I found:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3600945#top

The threads about the endorsements were all over GD-P, and the last smear with no evidence, I'd rather not link to.

[Egnever]

74. Well to be honest after reading that thread

It seems to be a hit piece against Obama. I am not sure how this is turned into fake outrage at hillary but...

I am pissed she called the guy naive when the point he was making was perfectly sound to begin with and since that time has done everything but say he was right to begin with. To the point that she now says she will have no conditions.

Theres certainly lots of garbage posted on DU but My outrage was posted based on my outrage not to score some political touch down. I read the article linked in my OP and said in MY head WTF? didn't she call Obama Naive for saying the exact same thing? What in the world is wrong with her? Is it all just pure political calculation with no real addressing of the issues?

[Cameron27]

75. I wasn't talking about the OP

which as I said in the thread, was a debatable premise. I'm specifically questioning the outrage that exists over Clinton's stance in Michigan when Obama's taken the very same position in FL.

[Egnever]

77. Sorry I just cant comment on it

I don't feel the outrage over the whole who's first thing. In fact I find it kinda silly that anyone should be trying to tell states when they can have their caucuses.

Its just not my issue.

Sure people make up a lot of feigned outrage here. I assure you mine in this case is not feigned.

It pissed me off when I read it and it pisses me off more when people try to excuse it.

[Cameron27]

100. So you're equally outraged with Obama

for taking the same position in FL?

[Egnever]

107. I am not outraged about either of them

and I have never said I was in fact I really just think the whole issue is silly.

[gaspee]

82. I've noticed

That it's mostly Obama supporters doing the attacking as well. I'm not a Clinton supporter (in the primaries.) I'm still deciding between Edwards (most likely) and Kucinich (maybe - but I need to lear how to spell it first!)

Obama supporters attack everyone. Maybe that's how he thinks he'll stay above the fray.

Like I've said elsewhere, I was ready to support Obama until I met him. Edwards is the most progressive of the ones who can actually win.

He loses me on equal marriage, but I think his wife and daughter will change his mind - or at least realize because his religion is against it doesn't mean we should all have to live by his religion.

Anyway, Obama supporters are everywhere, attacking, attacking, attacking!

[killbotfactory]

48. That's funny. Her campaign attacked Obama for being willing to talk to an "anti-semite"

but that was back when diplomacy was naive and irresponsible, I guess.

[calteacherguy]

24. She is not saying the same thing as Obama.

She's not saying she would begin by going there personally; she would have a diplomatic team. That's been her position.

[Egnever]

30. She is saying she would negotiate without any preconditions

where a month or so ago when she thought it was cool to call Obama Naive for saying he would engage them in his first year she now says she would do the same without condition.

Hey I am glad she came around but where will she be tomorrow?

[calteacherguy]

35. He said he would go personally.

And he mentioned serveral dictators he would personally visit in his first year, as I recall. The discussion was not limited to Iran.

[Egnever]

38. Heres a quote of the transcript

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

He Did say he was willing to meet with them personaly according to the framing of the question.

I personaly think thats a good thing. Please explain to me why it would be bad.

[calteacherguy]

41. Read Hillary's response. nt

[Egnever]

44. I did and she had all kinds of preconditions then

Now amazingly they are all gone.....

Could it be the recent Iran vote doing the talking now ?

[calteacherguy]

51. Please provide a link to the "all kinds." nt

[Egnever]

53. From the transcript

And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.

and now its

I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions

[killbotfactory]

56. Oh, but don't you see?

She will negotiate without condition but she won't be willing to meet with them face to face personally... within the first year. It's totally different. :eyes:

[calteacherguy]

69. It is totally different.

What are you rolling your eyes about? You see clearly the difference yourself, obviously.

[killbotfactory]

70. Yeah, she's too chicken shit to personally meet with our adversaries

That's the difference.

[calteacherguy]

71. That's not even worthy of a response. nt

[killbotfactory]

73. Then why did she rule out meeting with our adversaries?

She's afraid of losing a propaganda war if she meets with Ahmadinejad, Chavez, or Castro. That was her official excuse when she called Obama naive. Why shouldn't I consider that cowardice?

[calteacherguy]

61. There is absolutely no contradiction, then!

She will engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, and will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, feel the way.

Time for you to start antother thread...nice try, though.

[Egnever]

63. Head in the sand comes to mind

Thanks for the mindless cheerleading though.

[calteacherguy]

65. I don't understand the point you are trying to make, if you have one. nt

[Egnever]

66. That doesn't surprise me

[calteacherguy]

67. Simply be snarky towards one another really isn't going to lead anywhere.

I don't see any contradiction in what Clinton has said, and I'm not clear where you are seeing a contradiction.

[Egnever]

72. I would agree with you there

However I don't see any chance of you seeing any divergence from Clinton's attack on Obama for being naive to her current no conditions negotiation.

So I am going to have to just accept the fact that we disagree on this one.

I personally think Obama had the better answer the first go around and found it almost humorous when Hillary called him naive in the first place. The fact that since that time she has done damn near everything but say Obama is right we should engage our enemies in negotiations just makes me all the more furious with her for her fake outrage in the first place.

The time for trying to put our enemies in the corner and ignoring them is over and never should have been. I am glad she is aware of it and pissed that she played the word game in the first place to try and invalidate a perfectly valid point in order to gain political standing.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with talking to someone face to face be the friend enemy or indifferent. The idea that it is naive to do so is ludicrous.

[SaveElmer]

54. Or you havn't got a clue in the world what you are talking about...

Which is the best bet of all...

[Egnever]

60. Or you just rah rah for hillary no matter what she says!

Take your pick!

[killbotfactory]

47. As if Obama wouldn't have low level diplomatic discussions

He would just hop on air force one and go tour the "axis of evil". Why would Clinton, or her supporters, assume that? It's absurd.

If Obama said he was going to drive to the store to buy milk, would Clinton call him "naive and irresponsible" for not saying he would make sure he has enough gas to get there and back?

[valerief]

36. Yes, politicians are whores. That is a reality. What matters is--Will that politician make

the world better? That's all that counts, unless you're TMZed into insanity.

[Egnever]

40. And therein lies the problem

Will She?

Who the hell knows, theres no way to get a reasonable feeling of where she will head as far as I am concerned. She might make the world a whole lot better or she might make it a whole lot worse. There is just no way of knowing. I do know theres a lot of stuff she is conected to that I very much dislike. I can hope that it wont dominate her presidency should she get the nod but that may just be wishful thinking.

She is a great politician though there is no denying that. Does that make her a great hooker?

[valerief]

43. What are our choices? Can you control the men with guns that Bush controls?

Wouldn't you rather see Hillary (or any of the Dem candidates) control the men with guns? It's the men with guns that control public dissent. Public dissent can influence policy.

If Hillary can't help (and we know they'll only allow Hillary for the job), then no one can help. No one can convince those dumb ducks who point guns at us to repoint them to the right enemies except the prez/king/dictator/big biz whore.

[Egnever]

45. Maybe thats what makes me so mad

We have quite a few choices of people this time around that are clearly willing to stick their neck out and say something with conviction. Biden comes to mind as does Obama and certainly the Kooch and even Edwards to a point though perhaps in Edwards case its merely a mater of him taking a longer time to morph than most.

Why would we lay down and let them pick one of what appears to be the biggest whores of the field to be our next candidate.

I am sick to death of whores and people that will say anything to get elected and do just the opposite once in office. I know its a pipe dream to want a more discerning electorate but for the love of god please give me someone with integrity!

[valerief]

46. We're totally at the mercy of the men with the anthrax. And we want

someone who can appease the men with the anthrax. Maybe Hillary is the best bet.

I dunno. She'll ship off more jobs to other parts of the world. I really don't know what that will mean long term. I just want to survive the short term.

[babylonsister]

39. Damn! We know she sways with the wind. Either sway with it or don't. nt

[karynnj]

50. She needs to be careful - the two sound bites together

would be devasting.

self edited for excess snark

[emilyg]

57. Good post on Huff - maybe will clear it up for you.

[Egnever]

62. no link?

I will look.

[Egnever]

64. Couldnt find it

Would love to read it though if you would link it.

[2rth2pwr]

80. This is how it's played in the big leagues

and Obama is getting "skooled". Just a tiny piece of bait and Obama and supporters are all over it.

As each day goes by the nomination slips further and further away from him.

[Tellurian]

87. I agree...

Obama supporters can't defend his BS because it's a LIE!

The best they can do is... perpetuate it!

[ShortnFiery]

81. Well as long as the media whores like Timmy Russert and Howie Kurtz KISS HER ASS,

then HRC will be artificially SHOVED down us little people's throat ad infinitum. :crazy: :(

[Perry Logan]

84. The anti-Hillarites are inexorably converting me to Hillary. Keep it up, guys.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

90. With me she disappoints, not angers.

Seven years ago I would have voted for her easily.Now I can't bring myself to do it at all.

[Tellurian]

96. Fulla Crap, as usual...

[Forkboy]

97. Don't be so hard on yourself.

There was one time you were right.Sometime around age seven, I think it was.

[jmp]

91. It's a woman's prerogative to change her mind ...

It's a Clinton's prerogative to change it over and over and over again ... depending on the audience. ;)

[Cameron27]

104. Did you drag that gem

out of an 'archaic wisdom about women' book?

[MLFerrell]

92. She just keeps twirling, twirling, twirling toward victory!

All hail me, President Clin-Ton!

:)

[Botany]

93. But her latest poll had her @ 950% of the vote .....

... so now she must figure out what to do once she gets crowned
in 2008.

[babylonsister]

99. Gawd, I'm so glad I missed THAT poll.

:eyes: :P

[ginchinchili]

103. She's got the important part of all that figured out...

she gets to be famous, have her picture everywhere, and have the world bow down to her wherever she goes.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

105. It is understandable to be pissed off at her, but why pick a facially false story as a catalyst?

why are lies preferred to truths that serve the same purpose?

I see the admiration of lies as organizing principle of all totalitarian movements.

There are a zillion legitimate complaints about Hillary, but she is routinely attacked here with lies... as if there is a magic power to lies. As if embracing lies is a ritual of empowerment, akin to Siegfried bathing in the blood of the dragon.

The assertion-of-reality that has you so Grrred out is unambiguously false.

Hillary did not say she would meet with Iranian leaders. The article's lead is a lie, and the author of the article surely knew that. The section in quotes suggests the author had access to a transcript, yet the un-quoted characterization of her remarks is a creation.