Newsflash: Hillary Clinton is progressive

[Unsane]

This Just In: Eric Holder wants to end torture and restore civil liberties

Breaking News: Janet Napolitano is center-left on board/security issues

Developing...having Bob Gates stay on for the next 12-16 mos. keeps the Iraq debacle a 'republican war'

[Buzz Clik]

1. WRONG!!!! Anyone to the right of Dennis Kucinich is a rightwing nutbag.

You really are losing touch...

[apnu]

10. LOL, you crack me up.

I love the smell of sarcasm at lunchtime.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

2. Ya know what?

When the majority of people here agree that Robert Gates is a progressive, that's when I leave for good.

Keeping a neocon supporter of PNAC on to head the Pentagon is not exactly "progressive."

[Moochy]

8. Don't let the revisionist spirit squad get you down!

War is progressive!

[mkultra]

11. can we get a poll started to facilitate this?

[Cults4Bush]

21. Honestly I cant believe how many now just seem fine with him.

Its all quite frankly surreal but as my sig says... its convenient and temporary and if it isnt and if no social justice comes from the new admin then quite frankly I shouldnt be in this party and should only deal with it as my sig indicates. I have quite the distinct feeling Im not the only one.

I will say though that Obama is smarter than me and earned some small amount of trust.

[Lerkfish]

3. I'm happy Obama is PE, and I trust his choices, but I"m under no illusions

I know this administration will only be partly progressive on some issues, more progressive on others, and not progressive at all on some.
But its a huge improvement and I won't dog them too much for it: I'm happy with improvement.

[endarkenment]

4. Well I completely agree with that.

I will however continue to speak out about what they are doing that I disagree with, which I think is also what you are saying. The stream of OP's here on DU telling us why we should shut up and sit down are repulsive.

[Lerkfish]

5. right. we're in agreement, I think.

I still reserve the right to speak up if I disagree, but I'm not going to run around in crazy circles shouting "oh noes!" at every little thing.

[vanderBeth]

12. +1

[ClarkUSA]

6. Saying so doesn't make it the truth. Bill headed the DLC at one point/Hillary is a longtime member

Google is your friend: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=hillary+clinton+bill+clinton+dlc&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[Armstead]

7. Um, I thought the idea was to get out of the Iraq War

>>>>"Developing...having Bob Gates stay on for the next 12-16 mos. keeps the Iraq debacle a 'republican war'"

Silly me. I'd rather not have a war going on than perpetuating a 'republican war.'

[Lucky 13]

9. Compared to WHO? Republicans?

Hillary is a major hawk which is why all these Republicans are delighted with her selection to SoS.

She voted for the war. She threatened to "obliterate" Iran. She backed an anti flag burning amendment. She was for NAFTA before she was against it.

I could go on and on...

How does any of that make her "progressive"? Can you provide ANY evidence that she is "progressive"? Or is it just because you proclaim it to be so?

[LisaM]

13. She did not threaten to obliterate Iran

That is total nonsense. I know the quote you are referring to and you are deliberately misinterpreting it. Saying we have the ability to do something is not the same as making a threat.

For what it's worth, Biden voted for the IWR too. I assume you had the same reaction once he was picked for Veep?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1104219

[Lucky 13]

14. She DID threaten to obliterate Iran...

... in response to a nuclear threat on Israel. This despite the fact that Iran does not actually have nukes. This despite the fact that "obliterating" Iran would also mean "obliterating" millions of innocent people and causing an ecological and health disaster for decades to come. It's NOT something you say. It's just not. It's fucked up and is nothing more than hawkish chest beating.

And yes, I'm aware Biden voted for the IWR. And no, he wasn't my first choice for VP.

But you are missing the entire point of the argument! You'll notice that no where in my post did I argue she shouldn't be SoS. Because that's not what the OP was about. It was about some idiot making an empty, vacuous, unsubstantiated claim that Hillary is a "progressive" when there is significant EVIDENCE to the contrary. THAT'S what I'm objecting to.

And, as usual, STILL no one has provided any EVIDENCE to support the claim. So I'm calling BULLSHIT and will continue to call BULLSHIT on idiotic posts that are so very obviously nothing more than BULLSHIT.

These people are NO EVIDENCE and all knee-jerk defensiveness and blind hero worship. It makes these posters look stupid, ignorant, ill-informed, and like little teenage girls with an unyielding crush on the benevolent Goddess of Peace. These idiots "win" arguments not by convincing people of their position with logic, but by getting people so exasperated with them they just walk away. It has become as bad as arguing with the Christian-right. And to someone with any reasonable amount of intelligence who likes to have logical discussions of issues based on FACTS, these posts are just tiresome.

[BzaDem]

15. You are comletely wrong.

For those who are actually interested in facts, here is what she said:

--snip--

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.

"That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said.

--snip--

For those that know anything about international relations, this statement is par for the course. She is not going to say "If Iran nukes Israel, we will step up diplomacy" or "If Iran nukes Israel, we will take extreme caution before using military action." She is correctly surmising that we would be ABLE to "totally obliterate them" to deter them from a future attack.

It doesn't matter that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons; such statements are meant to deter them from getting (or using) nuclear weapons. She isn't saying we will attack Iran reagardless. So if you don't believe in the premise of what she said, it doesn't matter, because her threat only applies should the premise become true.

This is similar to the deterrence used throughout the Cold War by Republicans and Democrats. John F Kennedy, on the night he made the Cuban Missile Crisis public:

"It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union."

[Lucky 13]

16. Interesting analysis, but again, you guys are missing the whole freakin point.

The whole argument in this thread is that someone made the claim that Hillary is "progressive". I take issue with that and cited several examples (the obliterate comment being only one) of why I believe she is most definitely NOT progressive.

Instead of logically addressing the main argument, you guys pick one small facet that you can argue into the ground. Eventually, as expected, I tire of the bullshit and walkaway, never actually getting to have a real-live grown-up discussion on whether Hillary is a progressive or not.

It's like debating with Palin. You can pose a legitimate question, but she's just gonna talk about whatever the fuck she wants to anyway.

With regards to the "obliterate" argument, I do appreciate your analysis of the situation. But the "obliterate" comment is really not the point here. We debated it to death months ago. We basically decided to agree to disagree on that one. You think it was perfectly appropriate. Fine. I respect your opinion (especially since you used a logical argument with FACTS - THANK YOU). However, I personally don't believe the use of the word "obliterate" is appropriate. I find it completely rash and insensitive - especially in a HYPOTHETICAL scenario - especially when millions of innocent people could be slaughtered needlessly. But mostly with regards to this OP, it's not what I would label as "progressive" thinking. It's caveman thinking. Would you label it as "progressive"?

Now, dammit, can I get ONE of you to move beyond the minutia and give me ONE logical argument as to how Hillary is "progressive"?

[BzaDem]

25. I agree with you that the word "obliterate" could have been avoided

partly because such a statement can be misunderstood. I'm just sick of some people (not you) using the "obliterate" remark to paint Clinton as relishing the murder of innocents. I don't think her use of the word "obliterate" has much to do with whether she is progressive; bad word choice aside, the concept of deterrence to avoid war has more to do with international relations theory than political ideology. Even the word choice 'obliterate' was made in a way to strike fear into the Iranian leadership, not in a way that signaled that Clinton wanted or even would attack in a way that would cause significant innocent casualties (moreso than anyone else would if the hypothetical attack became reality).

As to whether or not she is a progressive, I think one argument is that her health care plan is a step closer to universal health care than Obama's was. Obama has a pretty good plan, but it ultimately won't do much to lower costs if healthy people decline to buy health insurance.

Maybe her vote for the Iraq war is an argument against her being progressive. But there were many other people (Biden, Kerry) who voted for the war as well. The only real distinction is that others apologized for it. But Hillary's decision not to apologize for it probably has more to do with political argument than it has to do with her actual ideology. Kerry apologized, Biden apologized, Edwards apologized, and none of them got anywhere in the elections.

I personally believe that Clinton is much more liberal than she lets on. I think few people here would contest the idea that Gore is a progressive. Yet back in 2000, there were many people who believed there was little difference between Bush and Gore. While this was ridiculous, it was partly due to the fact that Gore was running with more centrist positions than he currently has. For example, when he was running against Bill Bradley, Bradley was the one for universal healthcare, and Gore had a more moderate approach. This wasn't because Gore didn't actually want universal healthcare, he just realized (like both Clintons, Kerry, and Obama) that to win a general election you must go to the middle in your campaign.

[Sebastian Doyle]

19. Comparing Hillary's statement to JFK's is ridiculous.

The Soviet Union had actual nuclear weapons, and were attempting to base some of them in Cuba, which is 90 miles from the US.

Iran has no nuclear weapons, and no capability of having them in the next 10 years, and the only people saying otherwise are a handful of paranoid Likud assholes in Tel Aviv. Who, by the way, are ILLEGALLY in possession of nuclear weapons themselves. Hillary knew this to be the case when she made her "obliteration" statement, as the Bush Crime Family's own reports several months previously had admitted there was absolutely no nuclear threat from Iran.

[BzaDem]

22. Do you know what the definition of a premise is?

Hillary was not saying anyting about attacking Iran if they didn't have nuclear weapons. She was saying IF they obtained nuclear weapons and attacked Israel, then we would attack Iran.

So if you are correct that Iran poses no nuclear threat, then there is no problem, because Hillary's statement doesn't apply to the situation that you assert is true.

[atimetocome]

26. Anyone who continues to make the silly mantra obliterate Iran is stupid and

shows it to the world.

[LisaM]

17. None of them are progressives, IMHO

and I stand by what I said. She said that Iran would be stupid to aggravate our ally, based on the fact that we COULD obliterate them. Stating that we have the capacity to obliterate another country (and, by the way, true fact) does not constitute a threat. It was deliberately mischaracterized, like much of what she said during the campaign.

[Lucky 13]

20. You know, there is a difference between "deliberately mischaracterizing" and disagreeing with you.

I am not "deliberately mischaracterizing" it. It is MY interpretation and impression of what was said. I honestly thought it came off as inappropriate - even in context. Even rereading it months later. Maybe I'm naive. Maybe I'm too much of an idealist or a peacenik. I can accept an accusation like that. But it's my OPINION that we need to shift the global discourse away from statements like this and show a bit more restraint, especially if you want to be called "progressive".

I think that's a lot of my frustration with discussing things with Hillary supporters. If I have a problem with something she says or does and I dare say something about it, I'm accused of "deliberately mischaracterizing" or "Clinton hating". That's not it at all! I just happen disagree with you on this particular issue!

And to my utter astonishment, in this instance, you and I APPARENTLY agree!! We both say Hillary is not a progressive. You and I clearly have differences in WHY we think that, but we agree nonetheless! A point of agreement! Eureka! There IS hope afterall!

:hi:

[DevonRex]

27. Compared to whoM. whoM. Heh heh. Just had to do that.

Sorry. Couldn't resist. Don't be mad. :)

[TK421]

18. Off topic, what is that graphic in your sigline area?

I've seen it elsewhere, I'm not sure what it is?

[Unsane]

23. Anton Chigurh from the film 'No Country For Old Men'

The text references a quote from the film.

[TK421]

24. Got it..thanks! I've never seen that movie, I heard it was good

:-)