Rachel Maddow *Personally Offended!* by Hillary Clinton on Iraq

[jefferson_dem]

Run time: 05:59 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjUebX01pNY   Posted on YouTube: February 01, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: February 01, 2008 By DU Member: jefferson_dem Views on DU: 5860

 

[mod mom]

1. She was definitely seething on this point. I listen to her on AAR yesterday, and although

she attempted to be balanced, she spoke of the difference between motivating others to move to another direction and the status quo. She said Obama inspired others to get involved while she didn't feel the same from Hillary.

[snappyturtle]

2. I clicked on the link and got, "The link is no longer available." nt

[TacticalPeek]

3. Did she do this to Kerry? Or Edwards?

Sexist!

[calmblueocean]

4. Great clip! Love Maddow, and even Buchanan gets it.

Her IWR vote hangs in the air like a bloody sheet. She pretends she can't see it, which just makes the rest of us more uncomfortable. She's shown she won't show any contrition for it, and I think that's going to be what does her in.

[msongs]

5. who cares what rush limbaugh wannabees think? nt

[fenriswolf]

11. how can you even compare the two.

she is entitled to her opinion like anyone else and her opinion is reflected by a large amount of people. sit down and STFU if your gonna speak like that about a person who has always been for us progressives.

[maximusveritas]

58. rush limbaugh wannabee?! Do you even know anything about her?

Wow

[Clintonite]

6. Fuck Rachael Maddow! How does she even have a career!!?? She is a hack.

Personally offended? What a fucking joke.

[TornadoTN]

8. Another shining example of "if they don't like my candidate, I'll slander them!"

Now show us some examples to back up your claims, please.

[indimuse]

17. agreed!

...!!!

[WyLoochka]

21. She is a Rhodes Scholar

with a long track record of progressive advocacy and activism.

[ingac70]

51. A Rhodes scholar?

Bill was.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/firstladies/hc42.html

Where did you hear that? FAUX News?

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

[SeattleGirl]

22. Apparently your ears were plugged up when she criticized Obama

for voting for more war funding.

[Bretttido]

30. Ahhh, how criticism drives some to such anger.

Reminds me of a Republican's response when they hear criticism of America. Take a step back, and relax!

[roguevalley]

31. Rachel is one of the good guys. this is uncalled for.

[JAbuchan08]

34. Yeah, fuck that woman-hating.... woman

:sarcasm:

Now Rachel Maddow, that's a woman I could vote for - if she was old enough to run.

[rms013]

41. You personally offend me

If you are looking to elect your mother I could understand your virulent reaction to the clip. I can even appreciate your emotional outpouring in defense of your "team". I must however question your or anyone else's support of a candidate on purely an emotional level (are we so shallow and inundated with reality shows and sports we must treat our potential leaders like winners on American Idol or our favorite football team?). Rachael Maddow provided an opinion based on both fact and her reaction to that fact. You may not like it but there were a lot of legislators who were aware of the potential they were giving to GWB. If Mrs. Clinton would just admit she blew it than everything would be ok. Instead she plays like she was dumb at the time and I will attest to one thing that lady is anything but dumb. I might also add that Rachael Maddow also pointed out Mr. Obama's continuing support of the illegal invasion (STOP CALLING IT A WAR. THAT IS AN ORWELLIAN DECEPTION).

[Gonnuts]

45. I'm offended ..

I'm offended that the majority of people in this country are too stupid not to see what's if front of them.

We have corporate polls, with corporate networks, having corporate pundits telling us who is the "winners" and "losers" before we even cast a vote on a machine that may erase it anyway.

How did we wind up with two candidates that are the furthest away from the people on Iraq? Really? How in the hell is it that now everyone has been forced (and "forced" is the right word) into having to accept that this is who we really want to lead us? The answer is we didn't. We wanted Kucinich, Gravel, or Edwards, because truth be known all the candidates that are no longer there are the ones that resonated with us the most, you know it and I know it, but the corporations didn't want them so they were marginalized, ignored and ridiculed as we were brainwashed and brow-beaten into accepting whom they wanted us to talk about, "Oh, who's the most electable?"

The answer to that is neither. Clinton will drive every republican to the polls in droves and Obama every bigot, of which we have a lot of, and in another close election, brought to you by Diebold, whomever the Repugs nominate gets to be POTUS.

You fools. You listened to the corporate pundits tell you who you should vote for. Now were left with Tweedledee and Tweedledum. And neither one is going to end this war if they should get (s)elected and you're going to feel like fools again just like you did after 06', and the corporations don't care - they win either way.

[RagingInMiami]

46. You nailed it

[Catsbrains]

61. Well stated...That's exactly how I feel. nt

[gmudem]

48. Perfect example of a Clintonite

Some Clinton supporters are incredibly immature and small-minded. Don't we criticize Bushies for their cognitive dissonance? People are allowed to criticize and disagree with Clinton without being traitors the Democratic Party.

It's disgusting and shameless how perfectly willing Clinton supporters are to discount people like Ted Kennedy and Keith Olbermann just because they are not in lockstep with her.

The whole point of having a democracy is the ability to disagree.

[Yurovsky]

53. Nail, meet head ...

there is a total "with us or against us" vein of Clinton politics that Obama has tapped into. So no matter how many times the Clintons contradict themselves on Iraq, if you point it out, you're suddenly one of the "bad guys". No, the "bad guys" are the ones who gave Chimpy the green light on Iraq and subsequently gave him the green light on Iran.

Follow the money. The corporate interests that control Chimpy have a pretty good toehold on the Clinton camp as well.

[J R]

54. Rachel's leagues smarter than "Clintonite"...

...and given her extreme intelligence, I don't think the word "hack" can be used accurately to describe her. She has tons of style and poise, not to mention common sense, and SHE TELLS THE TRUTH, unlike most MSM pundits. Funny that "Clintonite" is calling Rachel names on a thread that criticizes Hillary Clinton...

[libbygurl]

7. So? Although that is a weakness in HRC's campaign even for me, what really matters...

...perhaps more to others now is what one plans to do about the Iraq situation going forward.

This can still stick in the craw of many of the anti-Clinton crowd, and HRC has already explained a few times why she made that decision then.

What I learned from this is that it can really be a lot easier for us to make decisions about such an important matter when one doesn't have a lot in the balance, when one isn't put in that same spot as so many in Congress were. I don't know if put in the exact same situation, I would've voted one way or the other, although I truly was against it from my cushy, comfy position at home away from all that fuss in DC.

[CarbonDate]

42. As someone who served in Iraq....

...I don't see Sen. Clinton as someone who had a lot in the balance. She hedged her bets, making what she perceived to be a safe vote, since the anti-war crowd wouldn't possibly vote for a Republican. That's the real reason she voted as she did, her feigned claims of ignorance not with standing. It's biting her in the primaries, as it should, but she didn't have nearly as much in the balance as the people who are actually over there.

I hope you can understand why my perspective on this is a bit different than most Americans'.

[fascisthunter]

9. Spot On, Rachel (nt)

[butterfly77]

10. She hates Hillary ...

you can tell no matter what the issue she will turn it around to favor Obama or anyone else. A lot of the leftwing talkshow hosts hate Hillary and now some have finally came out and admitted it.

[fenriswolf]

12. how in the hell can you call racheal right wing?

what is wrong with you people?

[butterfly77]

15. What are you reading ...

where did you see right wing...

[libbygurl]

20. self-delete - misunderstood thread!

deleted

[mod mom]

13. Could it be they are against her pro-corporate, pro-powerful agenda?

[butterfly77]

16. No...

It could be a lot of things...it doesn't matter none of them tell me who to vote for...

[libbygurl]

19. Alas, that's obvious with Maddow, who's otherwise better than the average talking head. nt

[Az_lefty]

14. Good call Rachl...

Hillary's a liar! She makes a mistake, gets called on it and rather that be honest she tries to lie her way out of it and tells everyone to just move on. Bill was good at getting away with this shit but Hillary isn't and shouldn't. I don't understand how anyone can support her when we have a viable alternative in Obama.

[rusty quoin]

18. I agree with Rachel. I want honesty, not manipulation as Pat suggested. nt

[DemCam]

23. The left goes insane again...sigh

[JAbuchan08]

36. I thought they were freepers?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

24. me too and probably about a million Iraqi civilians

:cry:

[nursenwhite]

25. Personally, I am offended by her

This lady is nothing but a loud mouth pundit, she should shut
up and run for public office where a lot of us would find
her...OFFENSIVE,  so let her run her ugly mouth, because some
of us found Hillary INTELLIGENT AND ABOVE THE IGNORANCE OF
PEOPLE LIKE MADDOW.  

[JTFrog]

26. Ugly loud mouth. Right, I'll be sure to listen to anything you have to say in the future. NOT. n/t

[montanaliberaldem]

28. Maybe the words she uses are too difficult for you to understand.

She is thoughtful, articulate and liberal. Some people - you - just can't handle the truth - hearing it or telling it.

[Cardboardurinal]

29. um...

I am sure you don't know this, living in the comfort of your dream world, but there isn't a chance that Rachel Maddow could ever get elected in the United States. She is an openly gay woman...how many gays are there in congress??? 1, openly gay congressman...in case you don't know who that is, it is Barney Frank.

Your criticism comes in like this even though you support Hillary Clinton, a person who would probably sell her soul to get elected? At least Rachel is consistent and can criticize Democrats who are messing up. She isn't one of these lock-step Democrats who couldn't think critically if it meant challenging the Democratic Party, which I must add is full of cowards.

If you listen to her show, and from your statement, you probably never have, she brings up pertinent issues of Veterans, Iraq, voting rights and every other important issue and with the exception of Thom Hartmann, she is the most thoughtful and intelligent talk show host right now.

[Dr.Phool]

49. You overlooked Tammy Baldwin, (D) Wisconsin.

A great congresswoman.

[Bretttido]

32. Your comments are childish in nature

All you seem to have heard is "ATTACKING HILLARY, ATTACKING HILLARY" and your critical thinking quietly took a backseat to anger.

[KatyaR]

56. Had you ever even HEARD of Rachel Maddow before you saw this clip?

Obviously not.

Sorry you're so easily offended.

[AlaskaMaddie2008]

59. Who is that woman?Snap ! She hates Hillary~duh !

Agrees !~Right On ! All you right wing nutballs and Hillary haters exit to the left ! lolS !:hi:

[ryanmuegge]

27. What Hillary says about Obama is quite legitimate

I know he has supported legislation some of the recent weak Democratic legislation that would put timetables and such, but he should be a LEADER and speak out aggressively against the war when it counts (when he's in the Senate).

But this still does NOT excuse her vote, as Rachel points out, FOR the war. Most of us knew that Bush was on a path to war. I'm sure they voted for it to make him look like an idiot (everybody knew there were no nuclear weapons or serious biological weaponry, so when the inspectors found nothing, he'd look like a fool), but it was still a bad move.

[Apollo11]

33. I think some of us are being unfair to Hillary

Back in 2002, the Bush Administration in general, and Colin Powell and Condi Rice in particular, were telling us that the whole idea of threatening to attack Iraq was to ratchet up the pressure on Saddam Hussein so that he would be obliged to cooperate fully with the UN inspectors.

Now with hindsight we can say that they were lying, but at the time it was a judgement call that was not so easy to make. Let's not forget that the Clintons' old friend Tony Blair was also one of the people saying that the only way to make Saddam cooperate with the UN inspectors was to make it clear that if he did not cooperate then he would face the strong possibility of a military attack - supposedly to disarm Iraq (based on the belief that they had WMD).

Of course now we all know that Iraq probably did not have and significant amounts of usable WMD. But back in 2002 we were being asked to base our opinions on the (misleading and misrepresented) so-called "intelligence" about Saddam's "intentions" and secret plans to develop WMD. But it was not just US intelligence, but also British intelligence that considered Iraq to be a potential threat.

I think it is unfair to pretend that Hillary and Edwards and others were "voting for war" back in 2002. They thought that they were voting to put pressure on Saddam Hussein to allow the UN inspectors to do their job in Iraq.

BLITZER: I'm going to let Senator Clinton respond. Senator Clinton, you always say, if you knew then what you know now, you wouldn't have voted like that. But why can't you just say right now that that vote was a mistake?

CLINTON: Well, Wolf, I think that if you look at what was going on at the time -- and certainly, I did an enormous amount of investigation and due diligence to try to determine what if any threat could flow from the history of Saddam Hussein being both an owner of and a seeker of weapons of mass destruction.

The idea of putting inspectors back in -- that was a credible idea. I believe in coercive diplomacy. I think that you try to figure out how to move bad actors in a direction that you prefer in order to avoid more dire consequences.

And if you took it on the face of it and if you took it on the basis of what we hoped would happen with the inspectors going in, that in and of itself was a policy that we've used before. We have used the threat of force to try to make somebody change their behavior.

I think what no one could have fully appreciated is how obsessed this president was with this particular mission. And unfortunately, I and others who warned at the time, who said, let the inspectors finish their work, you know, do not wage a preemptive war, use diplomacy, were just talking to a brick wall.

www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/31/dem.debate.transcript/index.html

[provis99]

35. we all remember 2002, we're not children

And what I remember is thinking that Bush and his cronies were all damn liars, that Colin Powell lied his ass off at the UN, that the congressional authorization was an authorization for war, not some nuanced "wait until the inspectors finish". Me and the millions of others who marched against starting a war in 2003 all knew this, and we are expected to believe Clinton was just fooled while millions of us ordinary peasants weren't, or that she was so weak she just had to go along with what King Georgie said?

[Pastiche423]

37. No hindsight is needed

On October 10/11, I listened to every speech before the vote. I new her vote was wrong, the large majority of Duers at the time knew her vote was wrong and millions of people across the globe knew her vote was wrong.

In my small rural town, we protested every Saturday from October 2002 through March 2003. We actually had a west coast wave going on up and down our coast, where we protested enmasse in one town, then the next week it would be another. The finale came on March 15, 2003 in Portland, Oregon where 30,000 people march through the streets of Portland protesting *'s war.

WE KNEW!

If you did not, you were not paying attention.

[arewenotdemo]

38. thank you for your efforts and for the truth

To me, her IWR vote was indefensible.

But her support of the ongoing war and occupation (which until very recently has mirrored that of John McCain) has also been indefensible.

And her castigation of the Iraqi people for not "taking responsibility for their nation" under the continuing American occupation is both reprehensible and indefensible.

500,000 or more dead Iraqis, 4000 dead Americans. A nation destroyed. How can any Democrat, in good conscience, vote for that?

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

39. Hillary is more a freeper than Rachel is. Some people here are fucked in the head...

...to think Maddow is a repuke. New low for DU.

[flordehinojos]

40. o, my! rachel maddow is offended, personally offended by hillary clinton on iraq!

why the hell isn't she offended at the bushes on iraq!

[iantepoot]

44. Do you even listen to her show or know her?

I'm sorry, but this post is just incredibly stupid. Rachel Maddow is one of the most constant voices reminding us about "life in Iraq" and has never, in one of her shows, failed to advocate for withdraw and take Bushco to task. Your posting this just demonstrates the need of some partisans to talk out of anger instead of knowledge.

In fact, she hasn't honestly, even been particularly pro-Obama. I think she actually kind of leaned away from him for most of her shows.

[flordehinojos]

57. yes, i do.

[Andromeda]

43. Here's something about Rachel Maddow

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

[RagingInMiami]

47. Rachel Maddow is just another talking head

Who gives a shit what she thinks?

People should learn to think for themselves.

[golddigger]

50. Best line of this thread...

"People should learn to THINK for themselves.":kick:

[From The Left]

52. Rachel Is Correct

The Borg Queen lied her way through the last 5 years, spinning her "YEA" vote on going to war.

Even today, the Borg Queen has lied about what her 2002 vote so often that she's managed to convince herself that her vote wasn't about going to war (it was) but, was a carrot and stick vote.

In Lost Angeles Thursday night, the Borg Queen said things that were so insane, that the 10 people assembled in our home to watch the event, started laughing out loud at her.

"We know Saddam had some really bad stuff," said the Borg Queen. Naturally, Wolf Blitzer, who isn't a reporter, never challenged her on her bullshit.

People keep asking why the Borg Queen refuses to apologize for her vote. Feminists say the Borg Queen can't appear "weak." Others say she's triangulating. I say baloney. The reason the Borg Queen refuses to apologize for her pro-Iraq war vote is, she really doesn't believe it was wrong.

Vote, Obama!

[golddigger]

55. From The Right? n/t

[mucifer]

60. Rachel starts EVERY radio show with :"Life during wartime"

where she discusses what is going on in the Iraq and Afghan wars. She feels the public needs to know more about how people, Iraqis and Americans are dying there. Rachel has a history of activism for women in prison who have HIV. Rachel is amazing. You don't have to agree with her on everything. I understand that. But, to compare her to chris mattews is unwarranted and a bit silly in my book.