Clinton on Iraq (4.00 / 3)

2/19/05: "BAGHDAD (AP) - As 55 people died in Iraq on Saturday, the holiest day on the Shiite Muslim religious calendar, Sen. Hillary Clinton said that much of Iraq was "functioning quite well" and that the rash of suicide attacks was a sign that the insurgency was failing."

What she means is she was right to vote for the bloody war in the first place and believes in it 100% today. 'Al-Anbar' is code for progress in Iraq and HRC can't help but slip it into her remarks because at heart she is just like Michael O'Hanlon, more concerned with vindicating her original position with faith in a hail-mary play than doing what is prudent in Iraq which is get the hell out.

John McCain

---

by: joejoejoe @ Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 01:56:04 AM CDT

Clinton on Iraq (0.00 / 0)

She will not end the war with her plan which by most estimates would leave 70-80,000 residual troops in Iraq. American troops would be involved in combat and in the middle of the secterian war.

Why does the MSM give her such a free ride on this issue as well as having no healthcare plan?

---

by: BDM @ Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 07:56:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clinton's Stand on Iraq (0.00 / 0)

Has been ignored by the MSM and to some degree the left blogosphere.  Yes, here on Open Left and over at Kos we see discussions about it.  I'm so disappointed she is getting off scott free on this issue and I'm wondering whatelse we could do?  The MSM and a lot of the left blogosphere seems ready to concede this nomination is hers to lose. 

I'm still holding on to Edwards as hard as I can regarding this issue.  Gore would be ideal here as he has spoken out so eloquently against it on almost every level.  If Hillary finds her way to the nomination with these views intact I'm afraid we are in for some very hard and bad times regarding this issue.  It will take more than a decade to get out after our economy has been bankrupted.

http://trumansconsci...

---

by: Trumandem @ Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 11:05:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why I don't trust Obama on Iraq (0.00 / 0)

I don't trust Obama on Iraq.
His anti-war credentials stem from a speech made as a state legislator.
Once he has been under pressure as a Senator, he has voted to fund the war.

What really made my head spin was what he said about Lieberman in 2006 when he travelled to Connecticut to support Lieberman's re-election bid. After praising Lieberman's "heart" and "intellect", he went on to say that "I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf".
Note: He says Lieberman is serving on "our" behalf.

This angers me. Lamont needed support on the issue of ending the war in Iraq and Obama opposed him. For me, this is equivalent asking me to  "trust" Trent Lott on issues of racial equality after he made his little tribute to Strom Thurmond.

Obama still has not expressed anything passionate about ending the war.
He talks about ending it "responsibly" which can mean anything to anybody.
He talks about an open-ended partnership with Iraq - which can mean anything.
He talks about leaving a sizable force in the region.

Even when he had the chance to address the democratic convention in 2004
and I listened to his speech which has been characterized by some as "electrifying" - I heard nothing about the disaster that is the Iraq war.
After spending about a third of his speech talking about himself and the "American dream" - his only mention of Iraq was that there are patriotic people who oppose it and there are patriot people who support it. More pablum.

The only public figure that I know about to challenge Obama on the issue of his support for the war is Al Sharpton. Sharpton said "Senator Obama and I agree that the war is wrong, but then I want to know why he went to Connecticut and helped [Sen. Joseph] Lieberman, the biggest supporter of the war." "Progressives" were quick to condemn Sharpton - questioning his motives - but no one has confronted Obama about this and asked him what he was thinking when he supported "Joe" for re-election.

Of course none of this seems to matter to Obama's supporters.
They're not concerned with his votes to fund the war, his stand against impeachment, or his vote for the monstrous Orwellian Patriot Act.

But it is difficult for me to understand why formats such as OpenLeft also
take such a - shall we say - non-confrontational approach to Obama. It's like some strange psychic force that is seeming to prevent any objective analysis of the man's record, statements and actions.

---

by: lentinel @ Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 08:15:38 AM CDT

i hear you (0.00 / 0)

and that is certainly why I am supporting edwards over obama. obama has a lot of the right stuff but, after taking such a strong anti-war stance during his senate campaign and prior to that, i was really let down by his actions in the senate. the guy was the most popular democrat in congress from the moment he was elected after his DNC speech. from day one, he was a leader people could rally around. just think if he had taken some of the actions that others did....

in his defense, he has been solid since his presidential campaign began and i think he is getting better.

the one thing i will say about hillary is this: last night, after the obama-dodd exchange over pakistan, she showed us and the world just how bush/cheney/lieberman light she is when she actually suggested that presidential candidates should not say everything that they will do when it comes to dealing with terrorism. so what hasnt hillary been saying? is SHE going to bomb pakistan? iran? iraq? north korea?

---

by: scanman1722 @ Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 08:55:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

secrecy (0.00 / 0)

Hillary's desire for secrecy scares me the most.

This whole Washington-insider notion that candidates shouldn't talk about intended actions involving nukes and terrorists scares me the most.  Even if it involves a statement about not using them to thwart terrorists.

Clinton will only continue this lack of diplomacy and discussion that continues to get us in trouble.

---

by: enarjay @ Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 09:11:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Reply to "I hear you". (0.00 / 0)

Scanman:
You said, "from day one, he (Obama) was a leader people could rally around. just think if he had taken some of the actions that others did...."

Yes - but he did NOT take meaningful actions. A leader is supposed to lead. Why should we support him if he will not champion progressive ideals? We were all let down - but why were we led to expect more from him in the first place?

I also don't think he has been "solid" since his campaign began. In fact, I believe he is pandering with increasing tempo to the right-wings of both parties. He has even begun to invoke Ronald Reagan - who I feel was a disaster for the labor movement in our country and was a disaster generally for most Americans.

His health plan does not cover everyone and leaves the for-profit system in place.

He accepts funding from Wall Street. Do you think there is no "quid pro quo"?
Nobody gives Clinton the benefit of the doubt on this issue.

As a Senator (2007!) he also sponsored the "Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act". This little bill is a gift to the coal industry in his home state. According to the Sierra Club, " A liquid coal (coal-to-liquids) transportation fuels industry would double the global warming emissions of regular gasoline..."

But my main concern with him is his lack of passion with respect to ending the war in Iraq as I stated in my post above. We deserve better.

---

by: lentinel @ Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 09:59:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Deep down (0.00 / 0)

I think Obama is a very progressive guy. His record in the Illinois Senate is very good and he ran a strong campaign for the US Senate in 2004. With that said, I think he certainly shifted to the center once he arrived because he knew he was an African American strongly considering running for the Presidency. He has a lot of tough talk lately and, believe it or not, I don't blame him for it - it is what he has to do to win over voters like, sorry to say, my dad who still believe its 1965 in this country.

Also, don't get me wrong - Obama is not my first choice. But do I think he is doing a good job? After the last debate before this one, yes. If he wins I will gladly support him. If Hillary wins, thats another story.

---

by: scanman1722 @ Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:04:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Deep down.... (0.00 / 0)

You said that:
"I think he (Obama) certainly shifted to the center once he arrived because he knew he was an African American strongly considering running for the Presidency."

Pandering is pandering. Everybody who does it has a reason.
If I read you correctly, you are inclined to forgive pandering on the part of Obama because he is an "African-American". That just sounds racist to me.

I think African-Americans in the political arena have been among the most honest and straight talkers: Martin Luther King and Malcolm X to mention but two. They spoke their minds and let the chips fall where they may.

---

by: lentinel @ Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 14:28:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama Healthcare plan (4.00 / 1)

At least he has a health care plan to evaluate.

Where is Hillary's plan?

---

by: BDM @ Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 11:03:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Some information (0.00 / 0)

Here is a link to some information on Clinton's health plan.

http://www.watchblog...

I'm not endorsing Hillary Clinton.
But I distrust pieces that attack her on issues such as the war, health plan, accepting money from lobbyists etc. if they don't hold other candidates such as Obama to the same standard.

---

by: lentinel @ Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 13:23:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hillary's plan (0.00 / 0)

I can't see from reading it  whether or not it is universal or not? I don't see any estimates for what it would cost? It is one of three parts. So we will have to see what the other parts are to her plan.

If Obama HAD WAITED THIS LONG TO PRODUCE A PLAN EVERYBODY WOULD BE ALL OVER HIM

Clinton has got a free pass on this. The MSM continues to give nher the most favorable press and will not dig down on the issues with her but skip over them very lightly.

A study by one of the media organizations on favorable press from Jan-July by the NY TIMES IS AS FOLLOWS:

HILLARY 755 FAVORABLE ARTICLES 25% UN-FAVOERABLE ARTICLES

Obama 40% favorable 60% un-favorable

Edwards 25% favorable 75% UN-FAVORABLE

sHE IS BEING HELD TO THE LOWEST STANDARDS COMPARED TO THE OTHER 3 CANDIDATES.

---

by: BDM @ Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 14:08:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

More than a "free pass" (0.00 / 0)

Health Care is Clinton's baby - it is her main claim to fame - its how she emerged from her husband's shadow.

For Hilary Clinton, of all candidates, NOT to have a defined health plan than has more detail than any other plan  - all with proper caveats about the negotiating needed in DC to get things passed - is a serious problem for her.

One cannot actually hold the other candidates to this standard, because they aren't using their background as an architect of the national health care plan as an indication of their experience.

The point is: she's not meeting the standard that her own political history indicates that she should.

Has any one in the MSM made this point?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 08:08:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Essential anti-democratic elitism (4.00 / 1)

Clinton, like most of our rulers, is deeply confident that she knows best and the people are simply too stupid to have an  opinion that matters.

Sometimes I think the difference between Dems and Reps is Reps work to induce the popular stupidity by fear-mongering and lies whiles Dem elites simply bask in the confidence that their supporters are a bunch of rubes who are too otherwise occupied to pay attention and will follow their leaders yet again.

On Anbar -- just heard some Democratic Senatorial critter deliver something similar on NPR -- seems to be a talking point. You see "it's the Iraqis fault." Yeah, right. Invade their country, tear up their society, then blame them for the subsequent violent chaos. Shameless, all of them, Dems and Reps.

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 09:37:59 AM CDT

It seems pretty clear (0.00 / 0)

she's concerned w. the oil reserves, even if she's not going to be saying so anytime soon.

---

by: sb @ Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 14:36:17 PM CDT

Trusting Clinton (4.00 / 1)

Its obvious that she is trying to have it both ways: being against the war while supporting the "sucessful" parts. The same old triangulating that was happening in the 90's. She has to know that NAFTA was a knife in the ribs of labor unions and the working middle class but she has the nerve to show up at the AFL-CIO debates to get either cheers for her hawkish war views or show how leftie she is isn't (for the Repugs lite tired of bu$hco)if they boo her for NAFTA. The same thing happened at YearlyKos, she arrived there looking to be booed so that she could come out as a "moderate" in front of the MSM. Triangulation all over again. When will progressives finally start to see through her?? She has an awful lot of baggage and no coattails. We'll be back to being a minority in both houses again. Bush lite indeed.

Why yes, I'm a liberal. Thank you very much!

---

by: billinfl @ Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 19:10:46 PM CDT

Where do we go? (0.00 / 0)

I agree with your comments about Clinton.
I also do not see Obama as an alternative for the reasons I stated above.
The only candidate that I can identify with to some degree is Kucinich - and he is given almost no press in either the mainstream or alternative media.
Everyone accepts Clinton v/s Obama as the only game in town.
It's a self-fullfilling prophecy. I fear that progressives are comatose.

---

by: lentinel @ Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 08:12:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

obama (0.00 / 0)

You're quite right, Obama is starting to play the same game also. When he was a recent arrival to congress there was fire in his belly...I fear that the swamps of D.C. or the DLC put it out. The candidates should realize that they can't be everything to everyone and just be themselves. Trying to be more hawkish than HRC or more pro labor than JRE with his lack of time to have formed a track record is absurd and simply comes across as lack of substance and pandering. Just run on your REAL accomplishments, don't invent. Its unseemly. Just my opinion as an old boomer.

Why yes, I'm a liberal. Thank you very much!

---

by: billinfl @ Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 11:54:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]