I want to thank my polling staff for their quick analysis, which confirmed that a larger share of the angry white male torture demographic will not be forthcoming as a result of my vote to confirm the nominee.

Her majesty just jumped on the band wagon. Lucky for her it hadn't left already. What leadership!! What insight!! Wow, I am sooo impressed. I guess colon and dc didn't get the memo before they started posting their reasons why she shouldn't take a position until she actually votes. All hail, the queen. She is the decider.

If this were behavior therapy, the technique that worked would be called "shaping."

Where's the "Day Late and...?" headline?

Translated from Hillary-speak:

Trianglization leads me to believe that I can do the right thing here while not pissing off my corporate overlords and still claim the same executive powers that Bush43 claims once I become Queen.

I want to thank my polling staff for their quick analysis, which confirmed that a larger share of the angry white male torture demographic will not be forthcoming as a result of my vote to confirm the nominee.

LOL. I guess she should have fired that pollster for suggesting that she vote "yea" on K-L.

That loud hissing sound that you hear out there is the deflation of the "Natives" because Hillary's deliberate pace in assessing the suitability of AG "Muk" has led to oppose him, depriving them on issue to bitch about...

Next.

why is the most insightful commentary in the comments section?

does greg sargent just parrot hillary hub or does he not see how calculated Hillary's release was?

She made the right decision. She is learning.

She has come a long way from the night on 60 minutes when she and Bill were explaining about Gennifer, while back in Arkansas a black convict with one third of his brain missing was executed--Bill was tough--and so is Hillary. But not tough enough to countenance making torture legal.

Good call, don't care if it is late.

Too funny, dc, too funny. Deliberate pace? I hope when she's queen, she doesn't have to make a quick decision not based on polling analysis or we will all be doomed, doomed I tell you.

When's the cooronation? Will peasants be invited or is it only for a select few of the corporate elite donors, like the health care industry, big pharma, telecom industry, etc.?

". . . we cannot send a signal that the next Attorney General in any way condones torture or believes that the President is unconstrained by law."

That one will come back to haunt her -- maybe we will get to witness yet another impeachment of a President Clinton!!!

A nice statement on an important issue.

And yes, this presents another clear example of the different standards that TPM has adopted for Senator Clinton as opposed to her rivals. But in this case, I think TPM happens to be right insofar as they are not criticizing her for not following some arbitrary schedule. I just wish TPM followed that approach with all the other candidates as well.

"She made the right decision. She is learning."

""""""""Wait a minute!!! She's STILL learning??? I thought she was the most prepared, most experienced candidate? What's left to learn? """"""""""""""""""""""""""

So, you are saying Romney is wrong when he refers to her as an "intern"?

staying on the "she is learning" meme...

I suspect that what she is learning is that her political instincts are not automatically wrong or politically costly. I'm not a big Hillary fan, but if she is learning to follow her liberal instincts, it puts her in the top 10% of Democrats in Congress. They all apparently think it is still 9/12/01.

It's not that she's "learning" how to play politics or "learning" the details associated with complex issues. She's "learning" what the vast majority of this country already knows on a level of basic national identity - we want a president who will adhere to the rule of law and not take us further down the road of secret prisons, renditions, torture, and unchecked executive power. Beltway politicians have been trained for 6 years to cower at the very notion of challenging the authoritarians. Hillary is now "learning" that the public would rather hang the Bush Crime Family than worship them.

As far as *let me get back to you* answers go, she came back with the right one relatively quickly on this issue. She's "learning" that Americans have rejected the GOP, its policies, and its rhetoric. She just has to act like it without consulting her handlers every few minutes.

Sorry, 30 minutes of debate and then voting, does not make the public informed. If you recalled, the revised bill was posted on TPM and Think Progress AFTER the vote was over.

"When she has to do something as President arguably against the law, we will use this to impeach her."

who's 'we'? you're in congress now?

She will not be a progressive leader. I recommend everyone dig up Stephanopoulos' 1997 Memoir "All Too Human," which is still in print in paperback. He recounts the chilling story of how Hillary encouraged Bill to bring Dick Morris into the White House to manage a lurch to the right, and he details Morris' "60% philosophy," which is that you can take a position that more than 60% of the voters disagree with.

Actually, if you read Stephanopolous' book, you will learn that he viewed Hillary as one of his strongest allies in pushing for a progressive agenda in the Clinton White House. They communicated routinely.

"You are already sure that she is going to break the law, and we would use her own statement to impeach her with."

'they' don't even need her to break the law [see Arkansas Project].

dcshungu

I think you forgot the most important qualifier: if they vote was held the day of the poll. What happens more than a year from now is, well, unknowable at this point.

Keith wrote on October 30, 2007 3:16 PM:
dcshungu

I think you forgot the most important qualifier: if they vote was held the day of the poll. What happens more than a year from now is, well, unknowable at this point.

Keith---I think you know---they can read this story, and instead of recognizing the point you made---they will say "Hillary is doing way better than Bill did in 1992---she is a shoo in!"

Poll finds Perot tops Bush, Clinton
From: Chicago Sun-Times Date: May 17, 1992

WASHINGTON A national poll released Saturday showed undeclared independent presidential candidate Ross Perot leading President Bush and Democratic front-runner Bill Clinton.

It is the first opinion poll to put Perot in the lead, but the margin of error was put at 3.2 percent, indicating a nip-and-tuck battle in a three-way race.

The poll for Time Magazine and CNN showed 33 percent of registered voters favoring Texas billionare Perot, compared with 28 percent for Bush and 24 percent for Clinton.

Hillary "changes" her mind and TMP, whose was snide that Obama was waiting for Mukasey on waterboard but then treats Hillary all nice when she flip-flops.

At least Obama was saying NO, Hillary was saying maybe - that is until nobody else in Dem Party wanted to vote for Mukasey.

Can you really trust Hillary?

NO, you can't. She just another Bush in dress. Bill Clinton was in lock-step with Cheney's war and he still is, so is Hillary.

There should have be NO doubt, but for Hillary, there was doubt and this is NOT a appeal to conservatives - so who is getting waterboarded? Mideasterners who bomb pipelines. I mean, what would Marc Rich say?

Bill is in lockstep with Bush, in lockstep with BUSH. Hillary is NOT going to end the war in Iraq.

Loki, Rell is doing okay, so far as I know. I don't hear a lot of people complaining about her.

According to 10/06 state statistics, among registered voters there are 400k republicans, 700k democrats, and 900k "unaffiliated." Democrats are about 35% of the electorate, and all those independents are well within reach of a moderate republican. Lieberman was able to win re-election despite widespread anger over his running against Lamont in democratic cirles. Independent voters have a very powerful voice here come the general election.

Clinton could well win the state, but it's too early to consider the state a lock.

dcshungu (and Anonymous)

"We" as in the GOP, Blue Dog Democrats, and Independents -- we won't forget Hillary's pledge to roll back the Executive's powers either -- we can do all that while not feeling feverish just thinking about Hillary ; )

LJ:

But, you will vote for her on November 4, 2008 anyways, right? That's exactly why she's playing you guys like this.

LJ wrote on October 30, 2007 4:29 PM:

Hillary Clinton has been given ample opportunity to clarify her answers and categorically admit her vote for the Iraq War was a mistake. Her failure to do so leaves me no choice but to oppose her nomination.

You are free to pick your candidate based upon whichever issue that you deem is important or moves you. This just ain't one of them and it really getting tiresome to keep making this point simple point. You are a far lefty so I know that you cannot help it, however you should know that it is really not too bright to keep repeating line in a public forum. Allow me to prove this to you by a simple
Reductio ad Absurbum reasoning:

You are frustrated because it obvious to you that her vote for the Iraq War was a mistake. It was a mistake, but you can say that now because the perfect 20/20 vision of hindsight! Remember that when Hillary had cast that vote in 2002, more than 50% of the country was just itching to strike back at someone, anyone, for 9/11 (HRC: Junior Senator from NY, one the hardest hit sites).

Now the anti-thesis: The only reason Hillary's AUMF vote is considered a "mistake" ex post facto is because Bush used to take the country and made a mess of things. That is only reason why that vote is considered a "mistake". Here's why: Suppose Bush had gone to war and had waged it brilliantly, turning the middle east into a model for peaceful co-existence, would you be characterizing Hillary's vote as a "mistake"? I think not. Bush would be taking the credit for everything, and Hillary's "yea" vote on the AUMF bill would be just a footnote in the voluminous pages of history...some "mistake", ey?... In fact, you would not even be banging on the White House door demanding that Hillary be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her mistaken "yea" vote on the AUMF bill that changed the world for the better.

Do you see? One changes just a small element and your rabid animosity toward HRC has no legs to stand on. But, if you wish to show some moral and intellectual integrity, you would be putting the blame where the blame for the Iraq fiasco belongs: squarely at the feet of GWB, the Village Idiot. He would have claimed all the credit if his war of choice had gone well, so why not blame him when it proves disastrous?

Hillary is but one of many Senators who had voted for the AUMF bill. She could have voted the other way and the AUMF bill would still have passed overwhelmingly: so, why does this single vote that would have passed the senate regardless of how Hillary voted, disqualify her from being POTUS? Do you think that this is a smart way to choose the next leader of the free world?

It may be worth remembering that the 2004 vote was quite close in a lot of states that ultimately went for Kerry, including PA, MI, MN, and WI. I don't think it is at all a given that anyone the Democrats nominate will manage to hold those states against someone like Rudy, Romney (whose father was Governor of Michigan, by the way), or McCain.

Jake D.,

Waterboarding is a very old and common torture technique. I've never gone through it myself, so I can't say from personal experience what it feels like. But according to reports from people who have gone through it, it is absolutely awful.

And of course the logic of torture requires that it be awful, because if it was not awful, it would not be able to coerce the person being tortured into doing what the interrogator wants. That is the underlying problem with the argument of people who want to say just a little torture (or "coercive interrogation") should be OK. Just a little torture is pointless: it has to be enough to break the person's will, and that is a tough thing to do.

Jake D. asks "Do you really think that 10 seconds under cellophane, with no water going into your mouth or nose, is torture?"

No, but that isn't how it works. It is repeated until you are ready to pass out and your senses tell you that you are drowning. Perfected by the Inquisition, it is considered torture by international law and by people who have undergone it, such as John McCain and lawyers such as Lindsay Graham.

It is illegal, immoral and doesn't work. If you believe in torture, move to a country that condones it. I like to think that in spite of the Bush Administration promotion of torture, the people of the United States find it repugnant.

/s/Retired Intelligence Officer

Jake D.,

Again, I don't know how waterboarding feels, so I am in no position to assess how quickly it gets to the point of being awful. But I do know that anyone serious about using the technique during a "coercive interrogation" (AKA torture session) will keep doing it until it does get awful, whether that takes only ten seconds or longer. Again, if you didn't keep it up until it was awful, the whole exercise would be pointless.

In general, once again you seem to be focusing on your contrived hypotheticals, and not dealing with how these techniques are used in the real world. But we need laws to deal with the real world, not your hypothetical version of the world.

Okay, to all you fun-loving "progressives" who want Hillary to rush out comments to the press to make Republican sound bites: sure, go vote for Nader, enjoy life under Giuliani. (No, Obama won't cut it - he self-destructed this week even without Republican pressure. Happy for Chris Dodd's move last week, but will he win the the Presidency?)

Here's the scenario: Hillary says she will never ever ever do waterboarding. 2008 debates, Tim Russert asks Hillary, "You said you're against waterboarding, but assume Al Qaeda will blow up a pre-school full of disabled orphans in New York, and you have a terrorist in cell #9 who knows the secret - would you waterboard?"

Republicans are still making hay over Cubs-Yankees ambiguity - hopefully somebody in the progress-o-sphere is worried about something more important than whether Hillary released her press comments first. Certainly she is - it's called avoiding the sand traps and snake pits. 12 months to go, losers - you want to be out of power another 4 years? Get real.

Jake D.,

I am not sure why you are refusing to acknowledge this pretty basic concept: people will use whatever torture technique we are talking about until it gets really awful. They have to, because otherwise it stands no chance of breaking the person's will. Indeed, I am really not sure what you are imagining. Do you think "interrogators" (aka torturers) in the real world are waterboarding people only to some point before it gets awful? What exactly would be the point?

By the way, as you requested, many torturers have indeed made something of an objective science out of torture, trying to figure out what works best, how long it takes, and so on. Again, among such professional torturers, waterboarding is a highly favored technique, in part because apparently it does get awful pretty darn fast. The standard psychological explanation is that humans have a very deep-seated and powerful fear of drowning, and when that fear is triggered by waterboarding, it causes immediate and extreme distress.

But I cannot emphasize enough that is all besides the point. However long it takes for waterboarding to work is how long they will use it, or they won't use it at all. That should be pretty darn obvious, and I don't get why you are denying it.

Jake D.,

If true, all that tells you is that waterboarding is a very effective torture technique. But the torture starts when then waterboarding starts, and continues until it works, however long that takes.

Consider an analogy: I have no idea how long people typically have withstood having hot needles shoved under their fingernails. But the torture starts when the needle goes in. It doesn't start when the person finally breaks. So, imagine if you were asking whether 10 seconds of hot needles under the fingernails is torture. Of course it is. The same analysis applies to waterboarding.

More broadly, the fundamental point is that once you have decided you are going to "coerce" a person into telling you what you want to hear with any of these means--waterboarding, sleep deprivation, hypothermia, etc.--you have committed to torturing them. It isn't a matter of degree, but a matter of kind: the whole point is to cause them enough physical and/or psychological distress to break their will and make them say what you want. That just is torture, and the fact that it may take longer or shorter times for any given technique to work is not relevant to the fundamental moral and legal questions surrounding what you have decided to do to another human being.

Me_again wrote on October 30, 2007 3:37 PM: Hillary "changes" her mind and TMP, whose was snide that Obama was waiting for Mukasey on waterboard but then treats Hillary all nice when she flip-flops.

At least Obama was saying NO, Hillary was saying maybe - that is until nobody else in Dem Party wanted to vote for Mukasey.

This is a completely valid criticism. It's a shame that no one from TPM will ever acknowledge it.

You are correct that Hillary was only one of many Senators who voted for the AUMF bill -- being from NEW YORK, however, would have carried extra weight had she (and perhaps her husband) used everything at their disposal to publically denounce Bush as not finishing the job in Afghanistan first -- just like a certain state Senator named Barack Obama did. Had they done that, maybe the AUMF bill would NOT have passed at all, let alone overwhelmingly.

Hindsight has perfect 20/20 vision... and it seems that it was a lot easier for a certain state Senator Barack Obama to pontificate from the sidelines and "oppose" the Iraq war, as when he became a U.S. Senator with the power to substantively express his purported "opposition" to the war, he flipped and voted, not just once or twice, but repeatedly to give Bush "blank checks" to perpetuate his war. In 2002-2003, the general mood was to hit someone, anyone, very hard to teach world a lesson that no one fucks with America and get away with it; unfortunately, we had a whole bunch of weird folks at PNAC who had been itching to do just that for years. Given these circumstances, and with the Village Idiot as POTUS, the Iraq war was a forgone conclusion, the AUMF bill notwithstanding.