Hillary played the fear card in the debate. She bears some blame for the state we're in though

[bigtree]

Sen. Clinton wanted to emphasize her national security creds at the end of the debate. She did this by reminding viewers of the prevalence of terror around the world: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/politics/15demdebate-transcript.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=politics&adxnnlx=1200514252-Q3NfZ1OvYkhdknAg7V34iw&pagewanted=print


CLINTON: ". . . the highest and greatest duty of the president of the United States is to protect and defend our country. And at the end of the day, voters have to make that decision, among all of us, Democrats and Republicans, who are vying for the votes.

Because it is a critical question. It always is. There are, you know, reasons going back in our history why that is so.

But in this time, in this period, where we're going to have to repair a lot of the frayed relationships coming out of the Bush administration, where we're going to have to summon the world to a concerted effort to quell the threat of terrorism, to root them out wherever they are, it's going to be one of the biggest jobs facing our next president.

And I feel prepared and ready to take on what is a daunting but necessary responsibility."


But, it struck me that, if she was touting her own role and responsibility over the years since 9-11 in keeping the lid on terror, she needs to answer for hers, and the Democratic majority's failure to restrain Bush as he made things worse with his attack on Iraq and his diversion from the pursuit of the original terror suspects. She was on the Armed Services Committee.

But despite Sen. Clinton's (admittedly Minority) efforts, the Pentagon ravaged the landscape with their anti-constitutional abuses, their unbridled aggression abroad, their hijacking of our nation's defenses for their political self-interest, and the rape of our treasury. Many of those administration abuses were carried out with the aid of funding which Sen. Clinton voted for. If she's relying on her position as senator to illustrate her effectiveness, I think she fails the mark.

The most pernicious influence perpetuating violent attacks against the U.S., our interests and our allies since the small band of thugs attacked us on 9-11 has been Bush's unrestrained military expansionism in Iraq, as well as his diversion from the pursuit of the suspects in the attacks. To the extent that our elected Democrats have failed to restrain or direct Bush, or his republican enablers in Congress, there can be no legitimate claim of any superiority from them in keeping our country safe.

This administration could not have gotten as far along in their tyranny and reckless belligerence without Democrats like Hillary Clinton regularly advancing the funds for their militarism or voting to advance the architects and orchestrators of that militarism, like Rice, and the rest of the White House minions. There should have been zero cooperation with the agenda of this president, but there seemed to be no limit to the 'cooperation' of Democrats in the tyrant's steady construction of his 'terror war' and his destruction of the Constitution in his domestic assault on privacy and other rights. Hillary Clinton was part and parcel of many of those.

She says, "we're going to have to summon the world to a concerted effort to quell the threat of terrorism, to root them out wherever they are . . .

Sounds like a continuation of Bush's terror war, to me. At best, it's not a progressive stance which should be received with open arms by our Democratic constituency. It's an appeal to those who believe that the solution to addressing those individuals or groups around the world who feel compelled to violently resist our imperialistic, nation-building advance on their territory is even more imperialistic military meddling. It smells like the same old militarism, to me, that we've endured for most of Bush's term.

I'm just not impressed by this hard-line posturing our candidates feel compelled to perform to prove they'll exercise our nation's defenses if necessary. I'm more interested in the 'repairing' Clinton spoke of. But, she can't have, both, heightened U.S. military aggression abroad, and the healing she's giving lip service to. I can imagine those desires falling by the wayside if some continued militarism by her administration just serves to feed the resistant fires abroad.

She just doesn't make me feel any safer when she postures like this. If that aggressive stance -- or her 'experience' -- is the basis of her claim to superiority over the others, I'm not buying.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[polichick]

1. Yeah, this came close to playing for fear...

'Course she was thinking of the general election more than once last night.

[Lucinda]

2. Any voter that doesn't look at the candidates based upon how they would lead in emergencies

and with national security issues is a fool.

[bigtree]

3. or, WHERE they'll lead us

fool me once . . .

[MyNameGoesHere]

4. yes she is just like shrub

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton_SenateMatch.htm


Please do not let facts get in your way.

[bigtree]

6. posting her campaign crap to me as an argument? It's incomplete.

Her Way: Hillary's Iraq Problem and Why It's Not Going Away
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/her-way-hillary_b_49733.html

I don't remember ANY vote by her against Iraq funding after she voted for the IWR, before we got the majority. I do remember a vote for the Patriot Act, before she was against it.

[MyNameGoesHere]

7. That isn't campaign Crap

It is a historical <Not hysterical> record of votes and quotes and position on the record. Please it is only facts, do not let them scare you. i go there often to compare the candidates. You might want to try it seeing how you got all the rhetoric correct.

[bigtree]

8. It's recent and incomplete

I'm surprised you'd post this as an argument.

[MyNameGoesHere]

9. It's dated 2007

are you a little insane? This is not a campaign site it is a independent site. You are a little touched i am afraid.

[bigtree]

10. good sign of a weak argument, the name calling . . .

the votes listed in the synopsis provided on the page you linked to did not include her earlier votes*. It contained a selection which was recent and limited to their interest. It did not include, for instance, her vote in favor of the original Patriot Act, nor does it include her succession of votes for Iraq funding (after her vote for the IWR) when republicans were in control of Congress.

[MyNameGoesHere]

11. Ummm if you are as smart as you pretend to be

you can find an archived quotes and votes. Really is your hatred that blinding?

[bigtree]

12. not only can I find the votes, I've summarized them correctly in the OP

you've failed to dispute ANY of the assertions I've made in the OP.

I do find it interesting that you've assumed that I have some 'hatred' for Hillary Clinton because I've questioned the record she's touting as the proof we need of her ability to 'manage' our country through a national security emergency. I simply find no basis at all in her record or experience to suggest she'd be any more effective or responsible in those affairs than the other candidates, as she implies.

Again, from the OP, she says, "we're going to have to summon the world to a concerted effort to quell the threat of terrorism, to root them out wherever they are . . .

That sounds a lot like the mess we're in today. Too much military meddling around the globe, too much heavy handed imperialism. Try and accept that there are folks with radically different notions of what 'defending our nation' may be. I'm just not comfortable with all of Sen. Clinton's record or posture since 9-11. Neither are myriads of other voters satisfied with her positions and record. That's not hatred, it's our reasoned opinion.

Try and understand. YOU provided the link as an argument. It wasn't much of one, is all.

[MyNameGoesHere]

13. I like back pedaling

What i tried to show YOU is that there is more than just a black and white "she is just like Bush" argument. I used that link because it compares ALL candidates and their rhetoric, and votes. If you are offended that i sent a link that made you "think" my humble apologies.

[bigtree]

14. this is where actually reading what's written matters

NOWHERE do I say that "she is just like Bush."

"This administration could not have gotten as far along in their tyranny and reckless belligerence without Democrats like Hillary Clinton regularly advancing the funds for their militarism or voting to advance the architects and orchestrators of that militarism, like Rice, and the rest of the White House minions."

[MyNameGoesHere]

15. Yes interesting

you only condemn/point out ONE candidate for voting for funds, supporting the perpetuity of war. An inconvenient omission? I went to the site i linked because it has info on a lot of voting/policy stands. Trust me HRC is not the only devil in congress or the only devil running. So read all the candidates votes and stop the delusions. they all really suck bad.

[bigtree]

17. delusions? again, you're misrepresenting what I wrote

"This administration could not have gotten as far along in their tyranny and reckless belligerence without Democrats like Hillary Clinton."

SHE'S the one who stepped up and tried to distinguish her 'experience' from the others. And, as far as I'M concerned, she has nothing more in her past than the others which would convince me that she is more capable of 'defending' the nation. In fact, as I point out, she has made statements and taken positions in that past which would make me question her intention to break clean from the type of reflexive militarism Bush has exercised with hers, and other Democrats' 'cooperation.

[leftchick]

24. naw, more like dick cheney....

Now, make no mistake, Iran poses a threat to our allies and our interests in the region and beyond, including the United States. The Iranian president has held a conference denying the Holocaust and has issued bellicose statement after bellicose statement calling for Israel and the United States to be wiped off the map. His statements are even more disturbing and urgent when viewed in the context of the regime's request to acquire nuclear weapons. The regime also uses its influence and resources in the region to support terrorist elements that attack Israel. Hezbollah's attack on Israel this summer, using Iranian weapons, clearly demonstrates Iran's malevolent influence even beyond its borders. We also have evidence, although it is by no means conclusive, of attacks using Iranian-supplied or manufactured weaponry against our own American soldiers. As I have long said and will continue to say, U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat, as I've also said for a long time, no option can be taken off the table.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=1328

[Echo In Light]

26. According to that nonsense we're to believe they want immediate self/global destruction..?!

Doubtful. It's an easy sell on TV though...

[leftchick]

32. she panders to AIPAC

and the pro war crowd. Just like a Neocon.

[Echo In Light]

34. Understood...and as you've discerned I was agreeing w/your above post

Although this fact is a tough pill to swallow for those mired in the prevailing "spectator democracy" mode.

[MyNameGoesHere]

36. iran poses no threat to me and i could care

less what their views on israel are. I am not the worlds policeman nor do i give a crap abut other nations petty squabbles. unfortunately this iran thing has permeated through the USA like a bad disease BECAUSE of darth and *. Once a myth gets started it's hard to stop.

[MyNameGoesHere]

37. On the debate everyone of those idiots parroted

the "iran is a threat" garbage. What threat? To me? No to the 51st state. I could give a rats ass about either of them and their petty squabbles.

[Cha]

5. hillary's polls are

taking lessons from the rove book even though..they're nothing like them, right?

Fearmongering. I'd much rather have Edwards or Obama as my president then the inevitable one who's all about fear. If she's not fearmongering about terrorists she smearing and jeering Obama whom she's afraid of.

[Echo In Light]

16. "quell the threat of terrorism?" Citizens of the U.S. will need to create a new govt

No more U.S. corporate mafia, no more phony "terrorism" here, and much, much less real state sponsored terror/aggression around the world. You folks up to the challange?

[KharmaTrain]

18. It's A Catch-22 Argument...

As long as our military remains in Iraq and Afghanistan and we stand against many issues of importance in the Arab world there will be those who want to strike back at us...anyone who thinks that a future attack isn't possible or is some "conspiracy" is sticking their head in the sand. I'm not saying Al Queda...there are many other groups in the Middle East and with proxies here that could unleash an attack to gain their own noteriety. Until we get our asses out of the politics of that region, we will be hated by one group or another and be a target for their wrath.

We still have never had a serious national discussion of why 9/11 happened. Many people still think the attack came out of the blue and that it could happen again. These people aren't blood-thirsty repugnicans...but moderate Democrats...many who favor getting out of Iraq and see that as the root of the next attack.

So so you avoid talking about this possibility? Or consider mentioning it as being the "fear card"? How do you address a real fear of many people who will be voting?

[LostinVA]

19. Thoughtful post

We don't see many of these around here lately.

[bigtree]

20. well, candidates may well be compelled to demonstrate their resolve against terrorism

But, the manner in which Clinton has done this suggests, to me, that she isn't really serious about making a clean break from the military meddling which has fostered and fueled a great deal of the animosity toward the U.S.. I cite her recent statement about 'rooting them out wherever they are' as an indication (to me) that she intends to continue, at least a part of, Bush's military imperialism. I feel that, too often, our Democrats feel the need to posture as warriors with their finger on the trigger, and I'm looking for a more responsible approach to those who feel compelled enough to violently resist U.S. expansionism into their region to take their own lives and others' which emphasizes diplomacy without the militaristic qualifiers.

[KharmaTrain]

23. Dancing On A Pinhead Here...

As always, I put my caveat here that I support no candidate in the primary and am trying to be as objective in my observations as I can.

The problem with what is said now is that it can come back later...and have a totally different meaning in a different context. Kerry's "I voted no after I voted yes" game is something the repugnicans are good at playing and the candidates here have been real careful not to jump into that quicksand. It's this avoidance that I see being criticized by both Clinton and Obama supporters. And both candidates have danced on pinheads here...but they have to.

On one hand, you have many of us who want the military out of Iraq and want it yesterday without realizing this withdrawl isn't going to be easy or quick. The only way our troops get out of Iraq quick will be if we're forced out. I don't think any of us want that to happen. Thus a withdrawl is going to require a new diplomatic effort...starting from scratch and having to rebuild credibility with almost every major country that can help cover our ass while the troops are withdrawn. No candidate can say when this can happen, this isn't a mess of their design...but they'll be in charge of starting the clean up. Our decision here is how best this can be done...peacefully.

Be assured that Democrats are going to be portrayed as weak on defense by the repugnicans and the coporate media. It's a stigma that remains heavy on the party since the booosh regime and its repugnican enablers continue to ramrod both this occupation and fear on the American people. The first step in breaking this grip will happen in 1-20-09...and this is the worldview to take into consideration.

Cheers...

[bigtree]

27. I, personally, don't see the value in playing into the republicans' attacks

by trying to out-swagger them. The ability to defend our nation can be demonstrated by emphasizing, as Richardson did, the need for diplomacy and a commitment to pull back from the military expansionism of this administration. I accept that the candidates may be drawn into these debates, but I don't accept that they have to posture like they're more likely to blow something up to demonstrate their commitment and ability to keep us safe. That resolve can be demonstrated by convincing voters that the present course of confrontation and aggression abroad is counterproductive and inciting.

[Echo In Light]

29. Candidates, no matter good intentions, are playing to a densely propagandized social climate

The ones who don't play well with others are naturally trivialized, marginalized, criticized, etc. The trick the corporate mafia's media megaphone uses is to convince you that one of their own is actually one of those crazy "lefties," even though nothing could be further from the truth.

[KharmaTrain]

30. Exactly...We're Not Playing By Our Rules Here...

This is the corporate media meme at work here. They have long echoed the right wing meme of Democrats being weak on defense and "terror"...and the candidates see this as a bigger threat than pissing off those to their left...and in the long run that may be the winning strategy.

Cheers...

[bigtree]

31. What happens, as a result, though

is, that we get locked into this corruptive dynamic of promoting military aggression as the beat-all without any rational break from what is, arguably, a wrong and counterproductive tactic. We need someone who will lead us in a different direction.

[KharmaTrain]

33. No Matter Who Wins, It's Gonna Be A Different Direction

The situation on the ground calls for it. The other day there was a report about how top military planners are very concerned about how over+stretched Iraq has caused for overall military preparedness. Whomever takes over on 1-20-09 will inherit a military badly compromised and politicized...it'll be one of the first areas where change will take place...troops will have to be re-deployed...virtually every military planner has said the current effort is unsustainable without an increase in troops and the only people I'm hearing calling for that are on the other side of the fence.

Talk about how one would react to a terroist attack is not the same the pre-emptive invasion of Iran. But polls do show many people favoring a strike at a terrorist camp in Pakistan or some other place...special forces type...if it means going after the "real" terrorists. Now we can discuss if these people are a threat or not, but this is the issue being questioned.

[Echo In Light]

21. "Terrorists" don't wipe their ass with the Constitution: the U.S. govt does

If there were a group beholden to the military-industrial complex, and they drew up plans for invading/dominating resources in the mid east and elsewhere, and then went on to suggest that since the American people wouldn't go along with it unless there was a "new Pearl Harbor" style attack on American soil...and then a VERY short time later, just after the "right" people were placed into power, they got their wish, which is exactly what they REQUIRED to JUSTIFY the war plans...um, wouldn't it be just a tad ridiculous to suggest that group shouldn't be INVESTIGATED since they obviously had the primary motive? Why don't the candidates talk about that? Why not talk about the PNAC?

[KharmaTrain]

25. This Is Now A World Court Matter

The attrocities that have happened in Iraq are beyond just the Constitution now...it's violated every major International law. We have yet to even begin the investigation and subsequent soul-searching about the past 7 years...it's been all but impossible with this regime's stonewalling and on-going criminality. It's also now beyond our partisan country where a real and objective investigation is tainted with bias and political pressures. The entire foreign policy of this regime needs to be a matter of International concern and charges brought up in the Hague. This is where I've long felt the ultimate truth and justice will come out...and with it the indictments and convictions of ALL the criminals involved, just not the figureheads.

Cheers...

[Echo In Light]

28. Agreed. Take your pick of U.S. led terror/aggression atrocities of the past several decades

[codeindigo]

22. Obama: It Took Men to Give Women the Vote( 2008-01-14) is this sexist??

Obama: It Took Men to Give Women the Vote
by Scott Ott for ScrappleFace · 36 Comments
(2008-01-14) — Democrat Sen. Barack Obama today seemed to indirectly respond to presidential rival Sen. Hillary Clinton’s suggestion that Martin Luther King’s dream would have gone unfulfilled if not for President Lyndon B. Johnson who signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Sen. Clinton’s comment was meant to contrast her vast record of accomplishment and political prowess, with Sen. Obama’s mere rhetorical skills and inspirational persona, but the rookie Senator offered an analogy of his own.

“The 19th Amendment to the Constitution grants women the right to vote,” said Sen. Obama, “and while women, like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, marched, and spoke and held inspirational rallies, ultimately it took men in 36 state legislatures to fulfill that dream.”

“Now, I would not suggest,” the former Illinois state legislator added, “that it takes a man to really make change in this country, nor even that it takes someone with experience in a state legislature. I’m just sayin’.”

well i'm just askin...are you a sexist obama?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Hillary will lead us to safety and protect us from the bogeyman.

And, make the Pentagon and "defense" industry happy.