"Why Hillary Isn't Qualified"

[TheWraith]

I ran into this elsewhere and thought that the DU crowd would flip for it, being a fairly damning indictment of Hillary that somebody wrote from an anti-war perspective. Represents my thinking fairly well, as I don't dislike her, but I'm not happy with her either.

***

"I am not anti-Hillary. I have even had the pleasure of voting for her once and sincerely respect her intelligence and abilities. But, with all due respect, if it is true that Senator Clinton was misled into voting for the war in Iraq by the Bush administration, she is much too gullible to be qualified to be the next President of the United States of America. If Hillary were truly qualified to be our new leader, where was the consciousness post 9/11 that allows a great leader to intuitively discern fact from fiction, and keep their heads while those about them are losing theirs? What good is her self-proclaimed experience and leadership abilities if she can't see her own hand in front of her face during such times?"

And later:

"Barack Obama may not have been standing in front of the tanks in order to halt them in their tracks, but at least he wasn't driving one of them"

http://brownbearpress.net/essays/hillary.html

[lancdem]

1. Don't buy it

She didn't vote for preemptive war. She warned it would be a mess. Go back and read her statements at the time.

[BL611]

3. Agreed

I happen to be an Obama supporter, but the anti-war hatred of Hillary is irrational. She did not vote for the war (as it was carried out), but to give Bush the authority so he could leverage Saddam to let the inspectors back in. This is supported by all of her public statements in the build up to the war including congressional testimony. Maybe in hindsight it is wrong, but it was certainly not an easy vote to cast one way or another. That she was in anyway a Lieberman type hawk is preposterous and has no basis except in the will of unreasonable people to demonize someone who reasons one can only speculate on.

[LiberalVoice]

8. "so he could leverage Saddam to let the inspectors back in."

But the inspectors were in Iraq damn near up until we invaded. Or am I missing something?

[BL611]

11. Yes you are missing something.

Saddam was limiting inspectors access and only let them back in after the war resolution and Un resolution 1441 had passed. At that point Saddam was more or less complying, but Bush used the authority granted to him to rush to war.Thats Bush's fault, not Hillary who I would challenge you to find one quote from endorsing Bush's rush to war.

[Cassandra]

12. He didn't let them back in until there were troops massed...

on the border. That was something I very reluctantly approved of because I knew Bush was champing at the bit to invade, whatever they found. Remember how "concerned" he was about the troops having to endure the summer temperatures, which was his excuse for the spring rush?

[cali]

9. Oh really? My Senator had no problem casting his vote AGAINST

the fool resolution. Senator Leahy certainly doesn't agree with your characterization of the Resolution and what authority it lent bush. No, she's not a Lieberman hawk, she's an opportunist of the first order, who cares more about getting elected than she does about sending her countrymen off to war.

"This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It tells the President "you decide." This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses, is nothing more than a blank check. The President can decide when to use military force, how to use it, and for how long.


We have heard a lot of bellicose rhetoric, but what are the facts? I am not asking for 100 percent proof. But the Administration is asking Congress to make a decision to go to war based on conflicting statements, angry assertions, and assumptions based on speculation

Proponents of this resolution argue that it does put diplomacy first. They point to section 3, which requires the President to determine that further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone will not adequately protect the national security, before he resorts to military force. They say that this ensures that we will act only in a deliberative way, in concert with our allies.

But they fail to point out that the resolution permits the President to use unilateral military force if he determines that reliance on diplomacy alone "is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq . . .."

And what of the critical issue of rebuilding a post-Saddam Iraq, about which the Administration has said virtually nothing? As I have said over and over again, it is one thing to topple a regime, but it is equally important, and sometimes far more difficult, to rebuild a country to prevent it from becoming engulfed by factional fighting
Unfortunately, we have learned that the phrase "not likely" can be used to justify just about anything. So let us not pretend we are doing something we are not. This resolution permits the President to take whatever military action he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants. It is a blank check."


Patrick Leahy.

October, 2002

[Cha]

13. Senator Patrick Leahy should

run for President based on his ability to "intuitively discern fact from fiction, and keep their heads while those about them are losing theirs?"

[cali]

16. He certainly makes it clear who turned bushc o into the Decider

Hard not to appreciate the irony of that.

[BL611]

17. Kudos to Leahy

Who I like very much and respect his opinion. All I'm saying is that it's not black and white, the other side of it is that Saddam was NOT complying with previous UN resolutions, and probably would have not complied had Bush not had the leverage that the resolution gave him, it was a hard decision,I'm not saying she was right, but if you did read Hillary's statement you know how disingenuous it is when people lump her in with Lieberman, as many do.

[cool user name]

23. Thank you, Cali!

I'm getting tired of the status-quo defenders jumping through hoops to defend their goddess, Hillary. She's a cult of personality, a war hawk (as demonstrated by the nuclear weapons are on the table with regard to Iran), an opportunist, a third wayist, a neo-liberal corporatist candidate.

I won't support such a person. If she wins the primary, I'm writing in a candidate.

Principle before party. Not party before principle.

[rebel with a cause]

Durbin of Illinois also voted against this resolution

and spoke out against others doing so. While others who voted for the resolution may not have voted for the war per se, they definitely voted to give this president power that he has used to go to a unnecessary war and opened the door for him getting more and more power that he has used to take this country down a road to destruction.

Durbin and Obama were mentored by our own Paul Simon, and it perhaps because of this that they are supported here in the southern part of the state.

[cali]

33. Durbin is a really good guy.

I would expect nothing less of him than to have voted against the resolution.

[dchill]

19. "to give Bush the authority..."

was never a good idea. He already had enough authority to engage in military action. The Iraq resolution was political cover, which he is now redeeming at the Democratic Bank. NO vote for the Iraq resolution was well or thoroughly reasoned. Many of us "regular folks" have known that all along. I have to seriously question the capabilities and qualifications of anyone who did so vote. No hindsight is necessary.

"to give Bush the authority" was the same as giving a teenage boy the keys to a car and "suggesting" that he not drive it.

[cali]

4. I've read her statement. She voted to give bush- I mean bush, of

all people, who she should have had more of a clue about than most- she voted to give him a blank check. And just in case you want to argue that it wasn't, read Senator Leahy's speech. And if she thought it was going to be such a mess, she has NO excuse. Not that she has one anyway.

[MonkeyFunk]

32. and if she'd voted no

in fact if ALL dems had voted no, the resolution still would've passed, and the war would've happened.

it's Bush's war.

[cali]

34. That, my friend, is just a pitiful excue for joining

a criminal endeavor.

[MonkeyFunk]

40. nope

your bashing is a pitiful excuse for refusing to put the blame where it properly belongs - on Bush.

[cali]

42. I have no problem blaming bush, but the people who

voted to give him a blank check are, to a lesser degree, culpable as well. Or was Senator Leahy just wrong about the responsibilites of the his fellow Senators? Now, why would I put my faith in him, rather than an anonymous poster on the internet? Hmm.

[TheWraith]

6. So she's just a complete political opportunist in your view? That's better? NT

[saltpoint]

2. Senator Clinton may or may not be our nominee in 08, but she is

Constitutionally qualified to serve in that office.

Anyone can find virtue in our candidates if they wish to, but many won't because it doesn't serve their limited purposes.

Whether they believe she is a first-choice favorite, I believe most Democrats would support HClinton if she becomes our nominee. If I'm more inspirationally drawn to other Democrats for the nomination, it isn't to say I'll stomp off and refuse to support HClinton if she wins in Denver.

And it also doesn't mean I can claim she isn't "qualified." She is.

[Lerkfish]

7. I agree. I say she's very qualified.

not that the current resident is any standard to go by, but she certainly meets the bare criteria and meets the test of intelligence and savvy.

But I don't think she's our *best* choice.


but going back to the OP, I am more concerned about her stance on the war NOW than the vote then. I think there was an unfortunate political reality after 9/11 and the thug tactics of the repubs to ramrod that through. Although I vehemently disagreed with congress abdicating their responsibility under ANY circumstances, I think that decision has to be viewed in political and chronistic context.

HOWEVER, and this is a big HOWEVER, there can be no disagreement that we now know with no uncertainty that the Iraq War was a falsely justified preemptive war of aggression to rape the country for oil and hegemony. NO ONE can claim it is just or that our continued presence there is required or just. and CERTAINLY no one should continue the imperial preemptive policy into Iran without just provocation.


It is her actions and attitudes NOW that to me are much more dangerous to the country than her attitudes then.

but is she qualified? sure.

[rodeodance]

25. of course she is qualified. simple as that.

[patrice]

5. I'm definitely not a supporter, but she absolutely MUST be treated fairly.

If she isn't WE will NOT learn from what happened and be able, therefore, to help ourselves the next time we are in a similar situation.

She may or may not have been mislead, but it isn't that simple:

I'm not a games theorist, so I'm not sure I have all of the possible combinations of possible factors below and I have no idea how to go about weighting them, but it goes something like this, doesn't it?:

One of the following sets of conditions describes any given individual making the decision about how to vote on the IWR:

They believed the lies.

They did not believe the lies, thought the UN gambit was legit, thought the UN gambit would work, and there would be no war.

They did not believe the lies, thought the UN gambit was legit, thought the UN gambit would not work, and there would be a war that would succeed in __________.

They did not believe the lies, thought the UN gambit was legit, thought the UN gambit would not work, there would be a war that would not succeed in __________, and that was okay because __________.

They did not believe the lies, thought the UN gambit was phony, thought the UN gambit might work anyway, and there would be no war.

They did not believe the lies, thought the UN gambit was phony, thought the UN gambit would not work, but there would be no war.

They did not believe the lies, thought the UN gambit was phony, thought the UN gambit would not work, and there would be a war that would succeed in _________________.

They did not believe the lies, thought the UN Gambit was phony, thought the UN gambit would not work, there would be a war that would not succeed in __________, and that was okay because ___________.

...................

If HC could help people sort through her thinking about the IWR, that would help.

[Cha]

10. bush wasn't "qualified",

either, but that didn't stop the Americanpresswhores from slam dunking him through, did it?

[dchill]

20. You must mean...

the same Americanpresswhores who are slam-dunking Hillary through as "our" nominee, right?
:)

[Cha]

28. The very same. They're still

here..and we haven't been able to do a damn thing about 'em.

[Alamom]

14. If this is the qualifier for a democratic or "other" candidate, we have

NO * potential nominees who would qualify.


(*those who look to make it to the primaries at this time)






edit for clarity

[PLF]

15. Millions protesting in the streets knew the Bush people were lying.

Why didn't she?

She needs to step aside.

[Strawman]

18. If qualified means skillful political operator, she is

If qualified means being right on the issues and having the courage of her convictions when something was at stake, I'm less sure she is.

But that goes for any of them not named Dennis Kucinich. Even Obama. When he had something at stake, he endorsed Joe Lieberman. I'm not convinced he is any better than Hillary.

[Beer Snob-50]

21. Come on people

MOst of the talk in this forum concerning Hillary Clinton is parroting the talk of the RW media machine. EVERY politican is a skillied political operator. Every politican will bend their convictions in order to appease the voting public. Every successful one.

[PLF]

22. Perhaps people are sick and tired of business as usual.

[Beer Snob-50]

24. Perhaps, but there is not a groundswell of support for that tact.

We all have our agenda we want to see followed. Lieberman is a man of his convictions. He knew he wasn't going to get the nomination with his view of the takeover of Iraq, but he believed it to be true.

[PLF]

27. The vast majority in this country are sick of the war.

[Strawman]

26. I actually thought I was giving her some measure of credit

She is what she is and that's no worse than most of the likely nominees. She and Kerry both voted to give Chimpy what they knew damn well was the green light to invade in order to not be on the wrong side of public opinion at that time, while giving speeches that "qualified" their support to give themselves an "out" later. I think she is no more hawkish than the others when it comes down to brass tacks. Edwards voted the same way when he was up against it, convenient apologies notwithstanding. And Obama, chose to endorse his new insider mentor over Ned Lamont in the primaries. They're politicians.

And she and Bill Clinton have been largely successful in terms of their careers and in making some modest incremental policy improvements. No doubt. She's not going to be the leader of any social movement to resolve some of our most vexing political problems, but she might get some more people health insurance coverage. That's worth something. I don't call her a skillful political operator as an insult.

I think that's a very clear eyed take on Hillary Clinton actually. I'm not going to kiss her ass and act like she is the second coming of Martin Luther King or that kind of real political leader, but I'm not going to act like she is no different than some Republican either. She'll get my vote if she's the nominee. Enthusiastically even.

Don't tell me I'm parrotting the RW media here just because my rhetoric doesn't comport with that at some phony staged campaign rally. That's total bullshit and I resent it.

[sandnsea]

29. But supported Lamont in the general

When it was pretty clear Lamont was going to lose.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/10/26/lamont_gets_lift_from_obama_lieberman_campaigns_with_landrieu/

[Strawman]

30. Most elected Dems did then

as did Clinton. It was riskier to endorse him in the primary.

[sandnsea]

31. She did next to nothing

She wrote a check after he won the primary, is all I can recall. I also recall that nobody cares about the very few people who stood beside Lamont all the way through anyway.

[Strawman]

35. Taking photo ops once he proved to have a national constituency

to Hillary's left? One that would be valuable in a primary campaign?

Not impressive to me.

[sandnsea]

36. Nothing impresses the anti-war left

Kerry was there all the way through Lamont's campaign and what did it do for him? Nothing. Obama chose Lieberman as a mentor for whatever reason, then stayed loyal to that choice. When he lost, Obama stood by the Democratic Party canidate. I'm not thrilled with the whole Lieberman thing, but I'm also not thrilled with the fickleness of the anti-war left. So it's all a wash to me.

[Jonathan50]

41. "The anti war left"?

As opposed to the pro war left no doubt.

[Forkboy]

46. Cha ching!

"pro war left" :thumbsup:

[sandnsea]

47. As opposed to plain old rational Dems

Who look at the whole of a situation before making a decision, including Barack Obama when he came out squarely against the war in a way very few leading politicians did. For the good it did him.

[Strawman]

44. I don't think I'm being fickle here

I'm just not going to give some politician credit for being a leader of a genuine social movement when they're not. They're all crafty pols looking for an edge. They're all bandwagon jumpers. I can accept the fact that they are not going to be on board the anti-war train until after it has arrived in the station. and for what it's worth, I'd vote for any of these Dems in the general election, and I think for the most part they all basically want the same things as I do provided they feel it is politically tenable.

I guess I don't understand why Hillary is uniquely demonized for being a typical, ordinary, risk-averse politician. People don't make the same excuses for her that they do for the others.

In fact, I made an argument upthread that there is indeed value to being a skillful political operator. If it's all a wash, why not pick the most skillful political operator, the one most likely to secure some benefits, albeit incremental? In short, if it's not Kucinich, why not Hillary then? If we're not going to get a paradigm shift, why not pick the one most likely to actually get some good things accomplished from among the rest of the ordinary pols? If I were at all concerned with my anti-war lefty, cred, I'd be inclined to take a more strident anti-Hillary position. I'm not.

And I actually do think there is a concomitant benefit to having a woman President. If I were to have a daughter sometime within the next few years, I think the possibility of her being born into a world with a female President is kind of awesome really.

[sandnsea]

48. Here

This is why. She is the orchestrater of the war hawk wing because she thinks it's the only way she can win. It isn't just that she's a skillful political operator, it's that she is so so so wrong when we've needed her to be right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x256143

[cooolandrew]

37. To me she feels like our version of McCain you don't know where you stand with her she makes me ...

nervous, Obama inspires my confidence and I am sure he will elaborate his plans with time. Why show all your cards early, to me he is showing his intelligance on this one.

[MGKrebs]

38. We're gonna need a new name for HC.

Bill is "The Clenis" because of his all powerful appendage, but HC seems to have her own omnipotent, er, anatomy? Cligina? She is responsible for everything and controls all! Even Bush ducks responsibility for the war because Hillary did it!

[TheWraith]

39. Did you even bother to read the article? For that matter, has anyone in this thread read it?

I just ask because it doesn't seem that anybody's acknowledging or discussing the premise, they're just repeating whatever their opinion already was.

[MGKrebs]

45. self delete.

[oasis]

43. Teddy Lee Brown's opinion and $2.75 gets you a cup of expresso at Starbucks.(eom)