Obama Attacks Hillary Over Iran Vote; Camp Hillary Hits Back

Comments (127)

js wrote on October 8, 2007 6:53 PM:

I am ok for attacking your opponent but Obama convienently slipped the kyl resolution debate/vote so now he can use it to attack her.

anonymouse wrote on October 8, 2007 7:03 PM:

All are liars and opportunists...
Vote for democracy...
Vote to keep all these clowns (both Reps and Dems) out of office!

Justin wrote on October 8, 2007 7:11 PM:

So let me get this straight. Hillary votes for a non-binding resolution that calls a branch of the Iranian military a "terrorist organization," is recalcitrant about owning up to her vote for Iraq, and recently praised the surge (even while she simultaneously denounced it), and her campaign has the gall to accuse Obama of resorting to the same old "attack politics" of old? She's taking a page right out of Rove's playbook. And I do mean "right."

notafinga wrote on October 8, 2007 7:16 PM:

This is Hillary. It will be a disaster if she gets the nomination.

della Rovere wrote on October 8, 2007 7:27 PM:

this is obviously very little and very late. But if Obama wishes to tap into a fairly large group who has not seen much difference between Obama and Clinton, I do hope he will go after Clinton's unbelievably shitty vote on Kyl-Lieberman...giving Bush the same green light on iran that she gave in 2002-2006 on Iraq. Clinton has a lot to answer for; but Obama has seemed content to play along with her.

ccpup wrote on October 8, 2007 7:27 PM:

So, Obama co-sponsors a bill designating the Iranian military a "terrorist organization" -- better for Bush to find a reason to attack, I guess -- and then misses the Kyl resolution debate/vote (as well as 25% of the other votes in the Senate ... and he hasn't even been there two years!) due to fundraising, but then attempts to slam Hillary for allegedly supporting the President's drive for war with Iran?

I mean, I think they're both about as useful as gum on a shoe when it comes to The Truth, but Obama -- with his obviously failed "Politics of Hope" and stunning displays of inexperience -- is just getting downright embarrassing with these half-hearted girlie slaps the further his poll numbers drop!

(nothing against girls and their "slaps" as some of them can hit damn hard)

NJ Lawyer wrote on October 8, 2007 7:29 PM:

I hated how Clinton's voted, but Obama didn't even show up to vote, which is worse.

P Smith wrote on October 8, 2007 7:29 PM:

She is a paranoid, manipulative, lying horror show. It will be awful if she gets the nomination, because the=at will mean that Giuliani will be our next President. If through some mischance she wins, we will no longer have a moron governing us, but will replace him with a screeching, cackling lunatic.

Anonymous wrote on October 8, 2007 7:39 PM:

Mr Singer, could you explain to me what Obama's "flagging campaign" has to do with Chewbacca?

keith wrote on October 8, 2007 7:44 PM:

Let's go over this again (and you can check the timeline on Thinkprogress): The vote was originally set for Tuesday, very late on Tuesday evening (near midnight ET) Reid tabled the vote for the foreseeabe future (i.e., no plan to bring the issue back up for a vote). Obama heads to NH to campaign for the day and prepare for the debate. At around noon ET, Reid suddenly says there will be a vote and there was a vote shortly thereafter (before 1 pm ET). As a result, both Obama and McCain missed the vote. Shit happens.

He said he wouldn't have voted for amwendment because of the language regarding our forces in Iraq were somehow related to the issues with Iraq and the unsubstantiated allegations regarding attacks by Iran (or supported by them on our troops).

Enough on the history lesson: Has anyone else noticed that when ever HRC is attacked substantively, she responds with an attack about the person's flagging poll numbers? I mean same thing with Edwards and Guiliani.... I'd be interested to see if the MSM tries to get her to respond to the SUBSTANCE of the allegation (that she's trusting the Bush Administration to do the right thing)

Lookingforhome wrote on October 8, 2007 7:44 PM:

Hey all you folks above who only seem to read all the bad stuff about Hillary in this post -- what about Obama's vote as mentioned?

Can you please explain how co-sponsoring something with much the same language doesn't make him just as much of an "Iran war monger" as you accuse HRC of being?

I just want to understand how you can support such hair splitting by Saint O while spitting such vitriol about her supposed intentions.

DonnaG wrote on October 8, 2007 7:57 PM:

Someone is very much mistaken:

"Hillary supporters will also note that Obama co-sponsored a bill designating the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization"

The link provided with that statement brings one to a bill introduced last spring entitled: "Amends the Iran Sanctions Act of '96". I just came from the Thomas gov't site after reading that bill, which had 68 sponsors, but which has NOTHING whatsoever to say about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. That senate bill, now held at the finance committee, is a bill to impose sanctions on Iran and other countries [read Russia] assisting Iran re: nuclear fuel. That bill is meant to assure supplies only for nuclear fuel used for peaceful purposes.

Perhaps the Hillary supporters are confusing the bill which Obama [and 67 other senators] co-sponsored with a different bill written in the house thereafter [and still in the house] which house bill does say something about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Either the link is wrong, or someone is very mistaken [and should apologize] or someone from Hillaryland is throwing sand in the umpire's eyes.

Daniel wrote on October 8, 2007 7:57 PM:

Another reason Obama is not credible on this: HE DID NOT VOTE AT ALL ON THIS BILL! He wasn't even in the Senate! (Notice that he also wasn't in the Senate for the vote on MoveOn...)

hwc wrote on October 8, 2007 7:59 PM:

Since Obama chose to not be in the Senate when the revised language of the resolution was introduced, he probably doesn't even know what is in the resolution that passed.

BTW, his Senate mentor, Dick Durbin, vote with Clinton, Levin, Reed, and others in support of the revised resolution after speaking against the original resolution the day before.

keith wrote on October 8, 2007 8:00 PM:

The bill he co-sponsored (along with 68 other senators) didn't link Iran to attacks in Iraq. The issue is that by designating the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and claiming that they are attacking our soliders, provides an opening for the administration to defend our troops. Theoretically speaking.

colonpowwow wrote on October 8, 2007 8:01 PM:

P Smith

Thank you for your thoughtful, reasoned comments. See you at her Presidential inauguration (uh, I mean at the disaster of her coronation - sorry.)

LOL

hwc wrote on October 8, 2007 8:03 PM:

Obama was in the Senate for the moveon.org vote. He voted on an admendment immediately before the moveon resolution and another amendment an hour after the moveon vote. He simply chose to duck the moveon vote. Must be some new kind of leadership instead of the "tired old ways of Washington" where Senators are actually expected to take a stand with their votes.

DonnaG wrote on October 8, 2007 8:05 PM:

Daniel:

Obama made a point of purposefully declining to vote on the Move-On issue, and stated why it was a stupid resolution.

Obama was not present for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment vote because Reid had said it would not come to the floor that day, then Reid changed that timing at the last minute, too late for Obama to get back for the vote.

Douglas wrote on October 8, 2007 8:06 PM:

I cannot understand this eat-your-own hatred for Hillary from within the left of the Democratic party (a location in which I am comfortably situated). Does anyone remember that this is the woman who did not have a chance running for Senate in New York according to many of these same folks, and ended up with strong support even in traditionally Republican upstate New York. Her health care plan in the 90's was wildly popular at the outset until the lobbyists geared up and ran millions of dollars worth of clever but vilely untruthful ads. Certainly she has learned lessons from her approach to that campaign, but fundamentally it was a good plan and a ridiculously conservative one when compared to most of western Europe.
Mrs. Clinton will win the nomination and she will win the presidency and, thank you Jesus, she will have Bill Clinton with her. I cannot wait.

DonnaG wrote on October 8, 2007 8:22 PM:

Douglas, look up and read the Vanity Fair article about Hillary's move to NY, which is within a article's theme context of a falling out between the Clintons and the Gores. Contrary to 'did not have a chance running in NY', that was the plum handed to Hillary and Bill way ahead of time, upon D. Moynihan's announcement. That article was enlightening when one remembers Gore's [and our] loss in 2000, especially if you care about the outcome.....because it is the first time I'd known just how much Bill Clinton used Hillary's senate run to 'redeem' himself after his Monica fall, as well as how he hurried to vacuum up democratic funds leaving the Gore campaign shorted. So, read the article and then see if perhaps the opposite has been true, Hillary and Bill 'eating their own' for personally selfish reasons.

sheisarepublican wrote on October 8, 2007 8:24 PM:

Douglas,

The reason so many people are opposed to Hillary is because she voted for the war and makes no apology--thinks it was the right thing to do, she voted for the "Let's attack Iran" Kyl-Lieberman amendment and makes no apology for it because she supports the Iraq war and is okay with a war on Iran too! In short, Hillary is a Republican. Who the hell cares if she has Bill by her side? You think he'll have any influrence on this power hungry ego she has? She's no more a Democrat than Mitt Romney is a Catholic. She has no problems sending our sons and daughters off to die for oil. Some of us have a teeny weeny legitimate beef with her on these issues.

kjoe wrote on October 8, 2007 8:27 PM:

I think Obama needs to challenge saint Bill Clinton on foreign poicy. Until he does, Bill's credibility is Hillary's credibility.

Here is something from Bill's 1998 sotu which might help explain Hillary's 2002 mindset:

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire gulf war. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world," and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.

Obama seems satisfied with the outcome of the bombing of Albania and Yugoslavia----but Clinton used a principle which the republicans have perfected---he greatly exaggerated what was going on in order to get the authority he wanted.

hwc wrote on October 8, 2007 8:28 PM:

Did Gore expect Democrats to sit out the 2000 Senate races so as to not distract attention from his less than impressive campaign?

Besides, after Gore fired Mark Penn, Penn had to go work somewhere. So, he added Clinton's successful 2000 Senate race to his resume, along with Bill's 1996 re-election race.

ccpup wrote on October 8, 2007 8:30 PM:

Yes, Douglas, read the Vanity Fair article about the "truth" behind Hillary's NY Senate run and accept it as the Truth that it is because it's in a glossy magazine so, therefore, it must be true and written without bias or malice intent.

See how easy it is to hate?

john mccutchen wrote on October 8, 2007 8:31 PM:

Hillary's foreign policy adviser Madeline "Xena Warrior Princess" Albright speaking in Prague would not rule out war on Iran and supported Bush star wars defense in the Czech republic

You just can't trust her

hwc wrote on October 8, 2007 8:32 PM:

Are we talking about the same Kyl-Lieberman Amendment?

----------

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) General David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``[i]t is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Qods Force, seeks to turn the Shi'a militia extremists into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq''.

(2) Ambassador Ryan Crocker, United States Ambassador to Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq. While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state''.

(3) The most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, published in August 2007, states that ``Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants, particularly the JAM [Jays al-Mahdi], since at least the beginning of 2006. Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks have risen dramatically''.

(4) The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, released on September 6, 2007, states that ``[t]he Commission concludes that the evidence of Iran's increasing activism in the southeastern part of the country, including Basra and Diyala provinces, is compelling. . . It is an accepted fact that most of the sophisticated weapons being used to `defeat' our armor protection comes across the border from Iran with relative impunity''.

(5) General (Ret.) James Jones, chairman of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, stated in testimony before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate on September 6, 2007, that ``[w]e judge that the goings-on across the Iranian border in particular are of extreme severity and have the potential of at least delaying our efforts inside the country. Many of the arms and weapons that kill and maim our soldiers are coming from across the Iranian border''.

(6) General Petraeus said of Iranian support for extremist activity in Iraq on April 26, 2007, that ``[w]e know that it goes as high as [Brig. Gen. Qassem] Suleimani, who is the head of the Qods Force . . . We believe that he works directly for the supreme leader of the country''.

(7) Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the president of Iran, stated on August 28, 2007, with respect to the United States presence in Iraq, that ``[t]he political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly. Soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course we are prepared to fill the gap''.

(8) Ambassador Crocker testified to Congress, with respect to President Ahmedinejad's statement, on September 11, 2007, that ``[t]he Iranian involvement in Iraq--its support for extremist militias, training, connections to Lebanese Hezbollah, provision of munitions that are used against our force as well as the Iraqis--are all, in my view, a pretty clear demonstration that Ahmedinejad means what he says, and is already trying to implement it to the best of his ability''.

(9) General Petraeus stated on September 12, 2007, with respect to evidence of the complicity of Iran in the murder of members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq, that ``[t]e evidence is very, very clear. We captured it when we captured Qais Khazali, the Lebanese Hezbollah deputy commander, and others, and it's in black and white . . . We interrogated these individuals. We have on tape ..... Qais Khazali himself. When asked, could you have done what you have done without Iranian support, he literally throws up his hands and laughs and says, of course not . . . So they told us about the amounts of money that they have received. They told us about the training that they received. They told us about the ammunition and sophisticated weaponry and all of that that they received''.

(10) General Petraeus further stated on September 14, 2007, that ``[w]hat we have got is evidence. This is not intelligence. This is evidence, off computers that we captured, documents and so forth . . . In one case, a 22-page document that lays out the planning, reconnaissance, rehearsal, conduct, and aftermath of the operation conducted that resulted in the death of five of our soldiers in Karbala back in January''.

(11) The Department of Defense report to Congress entitled ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq'' and released on September 18, 2007, consistent with section 9010 of Public Law 109-289, states that ``[t]here has been no decrease in Iranian training and funding of illegal Shi'a militias in Iraq that attack Iraqi and Coalition forces and civilians . . . Tehran's support for these groups is one of the greatest impediments to progress on reconciliation''.

(12) The Department of Defense report further states, with respect to Iranian support for Shi'a extremist groups in Iraq, that ``[m]ost of the explosives and ammunition used by these groups are provided by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force . . . For the period of June through the end of August, [explosively formed penetrator] events are projected to rise by 39 percent over the period of March through May''.

(13) Since May 2007, Ambassador Crocker has held three rounds of talks in Baghdad on Iraq security with representatives of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

(14) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 10, 2007, with respect to these talks, stating that ``I laid out the concerns we had over Iranian activity that was damaging to Iraq's security, but found no readiness on Iranians' side at all to engage seriously on these issues. The impression I came with after a couple rounds is that the Iranians were interested simply in the appearance of discussions, of being seen to be at the table with the U.S. as an arbiter of Iraq's present and future, rather than actually doing serious business . . . Right now, I haven't seen any sign of earnest or seriousness on the Iranian side''.

(15) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, stating that ``[w]e have seen nothing on the ground that would suggest that the Iranians are altering what they're doing in support of extremist elements that are going after our forces as well as the Iraqis''.

(16) Ambassador Crocker further testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, with respect to talks with Iran, that ``I think that it's an option that we want to preserve. Our first couple of rounds did not produce anything. I don't think that we should either, therefore, be in a big hurry to have another round, nor do I think we should say we're not going to talk anymore . . . I do believe it's important to keep the option for further discussion on the table.''

(17) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated on September 16, 2007 that ``I think that the administration believes at this point that continuing to try and deal with the Iranian threat, the Iranian challenge, through diplomatic and economic means is by far the preferable approach. That's the one we are using . . . we always say all options are on the table, but clearly, the diplomatic and economic approach is the one that we are pursuing.''

(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a critical national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) that the United States should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and

(4) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.

Keith Smith wrote on October 8, 2007 8:36 PM:

"A flagging campaign is not an excuse to distort anyone’s record."
This is a cheap front runner jibe, the kind we'd like our future president's campaign to rise above. Was looking to make a very modest donation that I can't afford soon, but this comment set me back a week or two.

Of those of us who may lean toward Hillary, few of us, outside the trenches anyway, are thrilled about the prospect of Obama losing. Hillary's campaign needs to watch its tone.

john mccutchen wrote on October 8, 2007 8:36 PM:

"Attack politics" "Flagging poll numbers"

Sound familiar. Each and every time anyone dare point out that the Empress has no clothes, that's the "response"

"How dare you attack me!" How dare you speak the truth.

dcshungu wrote on October 8, 2007 8:53 PM:

Obama must have little respect for, not only your intelligence and that of those who support him and have made his candidacy credible, but also his own.

Reductio ad absurbum:
1.
He just criticized Clinton for her 'yea' on "saber-rattling" Kyl-Lieberman Iran Resolution, while knowing full well that he had co-sponsored a resolution on Iran that had contained the provision that most, including TPM and Sen. Webb, had found objectionable about that bill - designation of Iranian Republican Guards as a terrorist organiztion:

Some political observers pointed out that Obama in April of this year cosponsored a bill that would have designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

The "Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which Obama cosponsored on April 24, 2007, states clearly that:

"The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism)."

But Obama (and other Democrats) say they are not objecting, necessarily, to the labeling of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. They're looking at a different section of the amendment they say creates disconcerting linkage between Iran and Iraq.

Emphasis mine. Got that? To justify his attack on HRC, he is claiming that he does not object to the provision in th is bill that most -- including the lefties on this board, who constantly rant about it, calling it a back door way for Bush to justify an attack on Iran - find offensive and most objectionable! Why is that? Well, because he knew that he had sponsored such a bill himself, which also explains why he skipped town: He did not want to get caught voting against a bill similar to one that he had co-sponsored!

2. If obama had felt that strongly about Iran bill, he should have stuck around to cast his dissenting vote, rather to conveniently skip it and turn around to criticize those who had the guts to vote their conscience; that also suspiciously just like his skipped of the vote condemning Move.org's "General Betray Us" ad, only to show up a few hours later to claim how he'd skipped it to protest the frivolity of the resolution.

Profile in Courage? Hardly! Politics as usual that he purportedly deplores? Absolutely!

I never bought on the rationale for Obama's whole candidacy, but for him to think that those who support him are such dope heads that he could feed them this type of blatant political artifice, and they would not even realize it, is simply audacious... "Audacity of Dope", indeed.

joejoejoe wrote on October 8, 2007 8:59 PM:

Obama spokesman Bill Burton: "It appears to truly irritate the Clinton campaign to be forced to answer questions about her stance on tough issues."

This is so true. I was looking for some more information on Sen. Clinton's remarks about the Israeli strike on Syria and found this nugget from the Israeli press, via Ynetnews.com:

"I wished to present Hillary with several questions on Middle East issues, but her top aides explained that she is not ready for interviews at this stage of her campaign. Eventually, after I pleaded hard, she agreed to answer some questions in writing."

Not ready for interviews? Or not ready for follow-up questions from competent journalists?

dcshungu wrote on October 8, 2007 9:05 PM:

Sorry about the many errors in the preceding post, which I just wrote using a hand-held device... But I am sure that you see how outrageous Obama's attack on HRC over the Iran vote is!

Jeremy wrote on October 8, 2007 9:11 PM:

The provisions linking Iran and Iraq are the concern because they create space for interpretation of action against Iran under the IWR that Hillary and Edwards supported in 2002. There's really no deep puzzle here about why Obama could support S 970 and not this, just like Dodd, Kerry, Webb and a host of others. Just because some bloggers in the comments section of TPM took some inconsistent positions doesn't mean Obama has. Now, if any of the "Bama bashers" (anaolgue of "Hillary hater"???) want to spell out exactly what's wrong with Obama's position that's one thing. However, they're not doing that in this thread as far as I can see.

DonnaG wrote on October 8, 2007 9:16 PM:

dcshungu:

The bill, a part of which you cited, is not the bill which Obama cosponsored, according to my research at the Thomas site. Can you help clear this up by telling me whether you cited a senate bill or another house bill titled the same? According to Thomas, only the house bill contained that language. Thanks.

CalD wrote on October 8, 2007 9:32 PM:

Looks like S. 970 (110th Congress).

DonnaG wrote on October 8, 2007 9:45 PM:

Thanks, CalD, but that S.970 is the bill I have read which says nothing about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
I just got off the Thomas site after a search with the words 'Iranian Revolutionary Guard' and found only seven pieces of legislation containing that phrase.
S.970, [which Obama cosigned 4-24-07] is definitely not on that list. Only one senate amendment is on the list, and the rest are from the house of representatives. Then I scrolled through S.970 anyway and found nothing.

Next, I copied the entire paragraph from dcshungu's post and came up with S.Amdt 2166 to HR1585, which was introduced by Smith of OR, and not sponsored by anyone except the other OR senator.

So, I await help with my research methods or more information from dcshungu on the source of his citation, which I think may be from a very different piece of legislation.

CalD wrote on October 8, 2007 9:47 PM:

Hmmm. Looks like Thomas didn't like the way my link was formulated. But just search on "Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007" and s.970 should come up. The money clause is in section 3, Sense of Congress.

"(8) The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism)."

FMArouet wrote on October 8, 2007 9:49 PM:

Yo, Hillary:

"Non-binding," as with the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, means pretty much the same thing as "enabling." You can look it up.

You really don't think that BushCo would milk such language as authorization for launching attacks on IRGC forces? If W. the "Decider" does so, what could you possibly say in response? The same thing that you have been pitching to justify your vote for the AUMF in Iraq?

Sorry. Doesn't work any more. The public is catching on.

Er, I still have this bridge left in Brooklyn.... Like to make me an offer?

Anonymous wrote on October 8, 2007 9:51 PM:

Justin,
Hillary didn't praise the surge.
Stop lying.

VictorLaszlo wrote on October 8, 2007 9:56 PM:

[quote]I cannot understand this eat-your-own hatred for Hillary from within the left of the Democratic party (a location in which I am comfortably situated).[/quote]

That "D" doesn't make her one of "my own". Taking a strong stand against war in Iraq and Iran, THAT would make a candidate one of "my own".

"D" is not the same as "against silly wars fought for corporate profit."

They are two different things. That "D" after Senator Clinton's name doesn't impress me in the least.

CalD wrote on October 8, 2007 9:56 PM:

Ah, here's a link that does work:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.970:

Just click on "SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS." and scroll down to clause #8.

wiseass.org wrote on October 8, 2007 9:59 PM:

DonnaG wrote on October 8, 2007 9:16 PM:

"The bill, a part of which you cited, is not the bill which Obama cosponsored, according to my research at the Thomas site"

Yes it is. It is S. 970 which is an actual bill as opposed to a non-binding resolution.

CalD wrote on October 8, 2007 10:04 PM:

I just learned something new. When citing Thomas links, no URL with the word "temp" in it seems to work more than once. Probably a handy little thing for a political junkie to know.

DonnaG wrote on October 8, 2007 10:05 PM:

CalD, thanks...

While you were helping, I also found my error in using the Thomas search engine. When I added an 's' to the end of the word Guard, the search then included S970, and then I did find paragraph 8 of the Sense of Congress section.

So, mea culpa, I was wrong when I said that that legislation did not contain that language. My first erroneous posting was after I read the bill's summary which included nothing about naming some group a terrorist org. Sigh...

Anonymous wrote on October 8, 2007 10:11 PM:

Senator Clinton needs to be FORCED to answer questions such as the Iran vote and Iraq vote. She needs to be asked about her "experience" in the White House during the Clinton years. What was it - besides arranging State Parties and shaking hands?

She also needs to tell us how she will respond when somebody in the General election asks her, "Why should American's want to experience another 4-8 years of the right wing showing Bill's kissing Monica and pointing his finger at the camera denying having sex. Bills impeachment trial, etc.

Democrats need to know these answers BEFORE they vote for a nominee - not after it's too late.

Coonsey's View
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

CalD wrote on October 8, 2007 10:16 PM:

You're very welcome, DonnnaG.

lookout wrote on October 8, 2007 10:26 PM:

This campaign is so wrong. It is being waged by the media. The people have absolutely no say. I know of no one who wants Clinton. Why is she suddenly the 'favorite', getting all the coverage? Maybe you become the favorite when Murdoch says you're the favorite. BTW, he owns several polls.

Alain James wrote on October 8, 2007 10:44 PM:

Obama is pathetic.
He couldn't even show up to vote against Lieberman-Kyl - that's how strongly he felt about it.

His stupid and dangerous bill designating the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization is all the administration needs to start a war with Iraq.
Bush can claim he's just going after the terrorists when he bombs Iran with "surgical strikes' - also endorsed by Obama.

Hillary Clinton is what she is.
Who the hell knows what Obama is.

Daniel wrote on October 8, 2007 10:46 PM:

First poll of the NM Senate race is out, and it brings heartening news for Republicans!!!

truthmissile wrote on October 8, 2007 11:26 PM:

Does anyone know ANYONE who is PASSIONATE about a Hillary Clinton Presidency other than Bill?

Like would you go DOOR to DOOR for Hillary, tell people about her, etc?

NO WAY - and that's why OBAMA will win the nomination. Thinking people can see through Hillary for what she is.

Tried to look tough for 2008, so she supported the Iraq War. We don't need shameless opportunists for President - we need PEOPLE OF PRINCIPLE - like OBAMA!

And 25 years of the same two NAMES in the White House - then we might as well be a monarchy.

Maybe Chelsea could run in 2016?

Jeff Morgan wrote on October 8, 2007 11:30 PM:

Well I can see that S.970 does have the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and has Obama's and 60+ other Senators' sponsorship.

I'm just a layperson, but I think it's worth noting that this bill was brought to the floor for the purpose of sending it to committee. Majority of bills sent to committee never come out, but the Kyl-Lieberman amendment is a different story, that was called for or against.

Anyway, Obama's campaign says the criticism isn't on the labeling of the IRG, so it's really not that relevant, although it would help if the Obama camp could elaborate.

My main reaction to this:
It's one thing to criticize votes, but another thing to just put down someone's poll numbers. Hillary's campaign has responded the same way when criticized by Rudy Guiliani and John Edwards.

Anon Ymous wrote on October 8, 2007 11:34 PM:

War on Iraq = Disaster
War on Iran = Catastrophe

dcshungu wrote on October 8, 2007 11:41 PM:

Now, if any of the "Bama bashers" (anaolgue of "Hillary hater"???) want to spell out exactly what's wrong with Obama's position that's one thing. However, they're not doing that in this thread as far as I can see.

Have you noticed how there seems to be a pattern of Obama not casting, skipping or missing a vote and then turns around and pontificates on how he might have voted against or for a bill, AFTER he's had the opportunity to assess its popularity or unpopularity? The only vote that counts is the one that is cast, and not one that would have been cast. We're told here repeatedly how Obama 'leads' and HRC follows. This is NOT supported by the facts on anything related to hottest issues of the day. Obama reacts after having skipped a vote, Clinton votes regardless of how the MSM and bloggers view a bill. That is leadership. lorelynn wrote on October 8, 2007 11:47 PM:

An impotent attack from an impotent politician. Pathetic. I wonder if he'll have to apologize to her again.

Kenshin wrote on October 8, 2007 11:58 PM:

Obama doesn't strike me as geniune or experienced enought to lead a country in its time of need. Just want the debates his been on, he has nothing good to say. Also if you look at this voting record he miss almost 25% of all the votes. Do you really want someone that skips 25% of his work doing other things, and yes voting in the senate is his current job.

Further more I really don't understand all the Hillary bashers. I mean shes tought and knows how to debate and won't get beat down by republicans like 90% of the other democrats. Plus having Hillary as president would mean Bill will be back. And before you all start bashing him and calling him slick willy, I have to say that I'd give him 100 chubby interns if I would have to, to get him back in the white house. During Clinton presidency , people didn't actually hate the USA and alot of the world actually respected it. Which is not something i can say for now. Also you guys happened to have the highest surplus in your history and I would consider it quite a golden age for the US.

FreakyBeaky wrote on October 9, 2007 12:44 AM:

So HRC gets into a 'rough exchange' with a citizen in Iowa regarding Kyl-Lieberman the same day Obama attacks her over it. Coincidence? Perhaps not ... but then perhaps so.

Has Obama has decided to duck tough votes and then use them against other candidates? Senate votes are easy to spin. We'll see if it makes a dent ... I have to admit at this point I'm hoping it doesn't. This tactic will work against Senators running for president in 2008 - any of them. It's not a good sign.

CalD wrote on October 9, 2007 12:45 AM:

I'm a little surprised the Clinton campaign's initial response to Obama's attack seems to have missed the fact that Mr. Obama didn't actually show up to vote against a resolution that he's professing such strong objections for now. They don't seem to miss a lot of opportunities that size in general. Of course they could be saving that for round 2, I guess (or taping an ad as we speak).

amberglow wrote on October 9, 2007 1:18 AM:

Obama is just copying Edwards entirely--he's been doing that a lot. And not bothering to show up for that important vote is telling too--especially if he's going to try to make an issue out of it now.

FreakyBeaky wrote on October 9, 2007 1:29 AM:

Alright. So it wasn't the same day.

That'll teach me ...

Lord B wrote on October 9, 2007 2:05 AM:

Hillary must be stopped. She's such a war hawk.

Vote Kucinich!!!

Anonymous wrote on October 9, 2007 3:00 AM:

Most people I know want Kucinich. Are they all in the 2%? I think until the polls prove they are accurate, [no I don't know exactly how, that's their problem--at the moment, we have no idea or indication that they are] they should not be used as a way to pick candidates. The people should do that when they vote. I think the polls are faked to give the big-money candidates more coverage, and [self-fulfilling-profesy] more eventual votes. Nobody wants Clinton except the Republicans.

Joe wrote on October 9, 2007 4:20 AM:

Skipping a vote and missing a vote are two entirely different things. If you're running for president these days, you have to essentially drop everything you're doing and focus almost entirely on that one thing. The man can't be in two places at once, and especially if he has to try to overpower Clinton.

I personally do not see anything great about Clinton. I don't see anything that separates her or makes her special. Being First Lady does not mean you have the experience necessary to be president.

As for Obama, I wish he would/could make himself more distinct, more known to people--that's his biggest weakness right now. He talks a big game, but so far he hasn't really DONE anything to clearly separate himself from his opponents.

In the words of Han Solo: I've got a bad feeling about this.

dcshungu wrote on October 9, 2007 4:26 AM:

Most people I know want Kucinich.

This is hardly surprising is it? Most people, I am sure, hang out with those who share their views. So, I am sure that a large fraction of all of 2% (not many people) who support Kuccinich probably know each another.

I think until the polls prove they are accurate, [no I don't know exactly how, that's their problem--at the moment, we have no idea or indication that they are] they should not be used as a way to pick candidates. The people should do that when they vote. I think the polls are faked to give the big-money candidates more coverage, and [self-fulfilling-profesy] more eventual votes. Nobody wants Clinton except the Republicans.

State of Denial... and the usual canard about the Repubs' secret admiration for and love affair with HRC, while the whole world knows that they despise her and are absolutely mortified at the thought of facing her in GE.

dcshungu wrote on October 9, 2007 4:40 AM:

As for Obama, I wish he would/could make himself more distinct, more known to people--that's his biggest weakness right now. He talks a big game, but so far he hasn't really DONE anything to clearly separate himself from his opponents.

Your wish will granted 8 years from now. At the moment, the suit is empty. Obama Mania was just hype that has worn off. It is giving pause to many, as they now wonder if they really want to trust someone who was just a little known State Senator four years ago to become the leader of the free world. Also, Obama is a black man and I do not see how he can win in 2008 America, since he will not carry a single red or purple state, and might even lose a few blue states. He is the least electable Dem candidate...and that includes Kuccinich.

TheBus wrote on October 9, 2007 6:56 AM:

This further illustrates my reservations about Hills. She's following her husband's footsteps of "triangulation." She was afraid that if she voted against the Kyl admendment that she'd be labled as "soft" on national security. But what she ends up doing, in essence, is repeating the same mistake she made in 2002.

What a bore. This is why I can't vote Republican-Lite again in 2008. If Edwards, Biden or Obama can squeak through, then the Dems will have my vote. If it's Hills, then I'm sitting this one out.

Mark Billingsley wrote on October 9, 2007 8:15 AM:

Hillary did say the surge was working. From CNN: The remarks came during an address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention Monday, in which the New York Democrat said the president's Iraq policy was leading to success in "some areas."

"We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it's working," she said. "We're just years too late in changing our tactics."

"We can't ever let that happen again," Clinton added. "We can't be fighting the last war. We have to keep preparing to fight the new war."

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson quickly jumped at the chance to highlight Clinton's seeming praise of the president.

“The fact is the surge is not working," he said in a statement. "I do not give President Bush the same credit on Iraq that Hillary does."

Meanwhile, David Bonior, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards' campaign manager, called Clinton's comments "another instance of a Washington politician trying to have it both ways."

For the last time, Harry Reid, whose son is on Clinton's campaign staff in Nevada, f-ed Obama when he was out of town by calling for the vote all of a sudden. He told Obama that it wouldn't come up. And just how did the MoveOn.org BS bill ever make the senate floor? This is the kind of legislation that Bill Frist or any other Repugnantcan would never have allowed to reach the floor. All it did was embarrass Democrats and make the Repugnantcans stronger. Obama was right to not dignify that bill with a vote either way. Reid and Pelosi have to go. They absolutely suck as leaders.

stop the polls wrote on October 9, 2007 8:48 AM:

deshengu, in a democracy, the people are supposed to chose the president. Big media eliminating discussion of candidates using phony polls is a great way to end up with a dictatorship.
The election season is well underway, without elections. Why? Why does Murdoch and big media get to screen our candidates to make sure they will deliver for the globalists?
I have no reason to assume the polls are accurate, considering the current state of the corporate media, but even if they are, why not start voting now instead of letting the billionaires decide?

ccpup wrote on October 9, 2007 8:51 AM:

I found this interesting and hilarious, from up-thread:

"If you're running for president these days, you have to essentially drop everything you're doing and focus almost entirely on that one thing. The man can't be in two places at once, and especially if he has to try to overpower Clinton."

Okay, sounds fair enough. No, someone can't be in two places at once and running for President definitely can be all-consuming. But then the Poster goes on to write:

"I personally do not see anything great about Clinton. I don't see anything that separates her or makes her special."

Well, perhaps the fact that she, like Obama, is running for President -- which we agree can be all-consuming -- and yet still somehow can either be in two places at once (which Obama can't seem to do as he misses A LOT of votes ) or she just bothers to show up, despite campaigning, to do the job her Constituents re-elected her to do.

I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but her running for President AND voting on important legislation at the same time seems to make her pretty darn special.

Or maybe she CAN be in two places at once! :-)

Vermont mom wrote on October 9, 2007 9:05 AM:

Obama didn't even bother voting on Kyl-Lieberman. He skipped the vote. I called the campaign and asked them why. They said he had a big rally in NYC that day. The problem is, the vote was on Sept,26 and the big rally in NYC was on Sept 27, so why did Obama wimp out?

Steve Eshbaugh wrote on October 9, 2007 9:13 AM:

So yesterday, Hillary says she never pays attention to the polls. Today, her campaign says Obama is reacting like this because of falling poll numbers. A little consistency please!

ccpup wrote on October 9, 2007 9:24 AM:

You don't think every Candidate is aware of what the Polls say while insisting they don't pay attention to Polls? You got any room left over in that Wonderful World of Pretty Things and Happy People you apparently live in? :-)

dcshungu wrote on October 9, 2007 9:25 AM:

deshengu, in a democracy, the people are supposed to chose the president. Big media eliminating discussion of candidates using phony polls is a great way to end up with a dictatorship. The election season is well underway, without elections. Why? Why does Murdoch and big media get to screen our candidates to make sure they will deliver for the globalists? I have no reason to assume the polls are accurate, considering the current state of the corporate media, but even if they are, why not start voting now instead of letting the billionaires decide?

This is nonsense, as you know of many cases where the polls had shown a candidate leading in polls only to lose on election day. There is nothing you can do about the polls, and it is you who are giving polls their purported power to pick the winner, by thinking that the polls can pick a winner! Just go and vote for your preferred candidate, without regard to the polls, and democracy would be fine...

stop the polls wrote on October 9, 2007 9:26 AM:

meant to say: Polls can be a way to get around elections. Even if they are accurate, and I don't see any way they can be proven so, they greatly reduce the power of elections, and thus, could be unconstitutional.

stop the polls wrote on October 9, 2007 9:33 AM:

deshengu, you're making my argument. The polls can be wrong.
The problem is not polls per se. It's when big media and big money use them to narrow coverage to the corporate candidates. I truly believe that if Fox News Pollsters came back with results that showed Kucinich [the only candidate trying to bring the troops home] in the lead, they would be fired.

AJ wrote on October 9, 2007 9:42 AM:

Obama follows Edwards again. He'd fave more credibility if he'd spoken up, before the vote, or less than a week after Edwards.

DonnaG wrote on October 9, 2007 9:47 AM:

Looking beyond polls:

To the Clinton campers who frequently bring up Bill Clinton's presidency years, and even proclaim your eagerness to have Bill back in the White House .....are you willing to continue the sham of the Bush administration, in which the president is a puppet, whose strings are pulled by someone in the background? This is how I am interpreting your statements.

If you are willing to trade one puppet president for another, then say so directly. If you are not willing, then please focus upon Hillary Clinton herself and her own demonstrable leadership abilities or lack thereof.

So far, an in-depth discussion of Hillary's years as First Lady and Senator are being thwarted by secrecy and non-disclosure, are being hurriedly diverted by segues toward discussing Bill and the past, are being drowned in spun generalities, are being stalled by changing the topic to one about gender, or, finally, are no-brainer empty comparisons of her to Bush in lieu of comparing her to other primary candidates.

I have not found evidence of Hillary having leadership abilities to really take us out of the nose dive. I have a lot of concern that she has joined the power club in Washington. I have a lot of concern that she would use power to be carefully and delayedly nibbling edges, while, in effect, she would be mostly continuing the status quo policies we already see with respect to war, corporate controls [including lobbyist power in Congress], consolidated media, secrecy as policy, and the income-disparity economy.

Larry Geater wrote on October 9, 2007 9:48 AM:

In what way is it bad for him to have been a no show for this vote? Was it a close vote? Would his vote have made a difference? The answer is no twice.

dcshungu wrote on October 9, 2007 9:58 AM:

deshengu, you're making my argument. The polls can be wrong. The problem is not polls per se. It's when big media and big money use them to narrow coverage to the corporate candidates. I truly believe that if Fox News Pollsters came back with results that showed Kucinich [the only candidate trying to bring the troops home] in the lead, they would be fired.

No, I did no such thing. You are making contradictory claims. On one hand, you say that the "polls can be wrong" and, on the other, you say that the polls promote or pick 'corporate candidate.' Hillary edged ahead in the polls in spite of the polls, since all we were told was that she was 'polarizing', had 'high negatives' and 'her vote for the war would hurt her'; hardly flattering stuff. Then after she ran a wonderful campaign and people got know and like her, and began to express their support for her in the polls, the media jumped in her bandwagon. Now you are claiming that it is the polls that are making Hillary a winner! That is, well, putting the cart or 'bandwagon' before the horse!

Your vote for your preferred candidate will be the only poll that will count in the end, so stop barking up the wrong tree...polls will always be conducted, like it or not.

Liberal Larry wrote on October 9, 2007 10:02 AM:

Bush-Lite and Hussein Osama both admire Joe Lieberman.

keith wrote on October 9, 2007 10:09 AM:

It's nice to see so many people willing to misconstrue the facts to deflect what is a valid criticism of HRC's position. Obama missed the vote because it was tabled late Tuesday night and was supposedly tables for the foreseeable future (Reid brought it up at noon the next day). Obama and McCain missed the vote. Obama originally backed a measure designating the IRG as a terrorist organization, which was sent to committee. The difference between this bill and the Kyl-Lieberman amendment is the latter links the IRG to attacks on our troops in Iraq. Clinton has tried to head-off criticism of her vote by cosponsoring Webb's amendment (similar to the Levin amendment relating to the 2002 AUMF).

Those are the FACTS. Interestingly enough Webb doesn't think his amendment will pass, but is hoping that Clonton will work to bring other senators on board. Any word on how many new cosponsors he's secured since she joined the amendment?

biff diggerence wrote on October 9, 2007 10:19 AM:

I'd actually prefer a return to the traditional, Democratic, smoke-filled room method.

This is mere sniping by two, unelectable, novelty candidates.

But, I side with Obama on this one.

james phillips wrote on October 9, 2007 10:33 AM:

After reading Obama's book I decided he was not the candidate for me. It is a discussion of issues without a commitment, just like his recent non-voting record. Hilary is a disaster for Democrats and the country.

The media should stop obsessing with "Obamaton" and look at the serious candidacies of Edwards and Richardson.

keith wrote on October 9, 2007 10:42 AM:

I will say this: HRC's response, while evasive onthe substantive point, was VERY effective. Just look at where this conversation has gone. Her supporters aren't arguing that the criticism is invalid or off point. They are either attacking Obama for (1) not voting on the measure or (2) sponsoring a similar bill. No one is saying that she was right to vote Yea on the amendment. And her post-vote decision to co-sponsor Webbs's amendment was political CYA at its finest. Nope, it's just sour grapes on Edwards and Obama's part. Nothing substantive here, just move on.

Anonymous wrote on October 9, 2007 10:56 AM:

No deshengu, I'm saying that candidates who get less coverage get fewer votes. By conducting unaudited polls, FOX and the other big media is free to cover whom they prefer just by calling them 'front runners'. These are the big money candidates. Deshengu, you ignore the tremendous motive for falsifying the results. Polls are fine for some things, but presidential elections where there are trillions involved, no. Not until they prove themselves above that kind of money and influence. You are naive if you think they are.

stop the polls wrote on October 9, 2007 10:58 AM:

forgot to sign the above

Anonymous wrote on October 9, 2007 11:12 AM:

Please don't waste a vote on Kucinich, please. (I'm from Cleveland) If you care enough - use your vote. There is a very clear difference between Clinton & Obama. You can argue about him missing the vote, but I think that was explained well by other posters. But there is a pattern here. It's not just that Obama spoke out against the Iraq war - it's that be predicted exactly what would happen. He is smart, has very good judgment, and is inspirational. I think Josh made some good points in his post about the campaign and I do hope they step it up. But looking for ruthless & tough got us an ignorant, stubborn bully for president. WE don't need that to be safe.

keith wrote on October 9, 2007 11:20 AM:

More fuel for the rumor mill. Apparently Harry Reid is working with the Clinton campaign. According to an article on Marc Ambinder's(sp) site at the Atlantic Monthly (regarding the SEIU endorsement), she (HRC) sent Harry's son to lobby the SEIU local there. Maybe there's something to Harry's decision to bring the vote up unexpectedly....

"As proxies, Clinton sent Rory Reid, son of Harry Reid...."

Liberal Larry wrote on October 9, 2007 11:24 AM:

"Hillary supporters will also note that Obama co-sponsored a bill designating the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, though the Obama campaign has said that their objection to Kyl wasn't to that facet of it but to the fact that it blamed Iran for problems in Iraq."

Can you say triangulation?

IWW wrote on October 9, 2007 11:35 AM:

Wow. I really don't get how Obama could support designating a part of the Iranian military (which I'm assuming that the National Guard is) a terrorist organization. I think Edwards is on the mark here: you don't even open the door a crack for this President.

I've been underwhelmed by Obama before, but this really looks like putting his foot in it. Is there any plausible explanation for why you'd support the designation?

keith wrote on October 9, 2007 11:43 AM:

Apparently the idea is that by designating the IRG as a terrorist organization, it opens up a handful of tools to apply pressure on Iran (i.e., freezing their (IRG's) funds in Western banks they are using to fund Hezbollah and Shia militias) without sanctioning the Iranian people. Without that designation, we would have to go through the UN to impose sanctions on Iran, which would mean we are also sanctioning the Iranian people. So it's blunt tool (UN Sanctions) vs. surgical tool (sanctions against IRG). At least that's my understanding.

Michael wrote on October 9, 2007 11:43 AM:

If I were Obama, at this point I would fire my handlers and just be me. He is cutting and weaving and trying to be "political" all over the place. It really does not do him justice. Take a position, make a stand, and let people know where you stand. I am still not "on fire" about him, but I do trust him to make the right decision. Also, I am one of those anybody but mrs. bill crowd. I don't trust her at all.

How anyone can say mrs. bill is qualified or has the judgment to be president is really out to lunch. Her claim to fame is that she is mrs. bill. She has done nothing in the senate or elsewhere to warrant any consideration for president. She is beholden to special interests and will further hurt our country. I would have a much different opinion of her if she took a leadership position in the senate and read the stupid NIE. All she was doing the last 6 1/2 years is practicing how to campaign to be president. Anybody but mrs. bill.

Douglas wrote on October 9, 2007 11:57 AM:

Donna G: the office of senator from N.Y was "the plum handed to Hillary and Bill..."

Surely you jest. Mrs. Clinton had an uphill climb with the scandal baggage and cries of carpetbagger (just like Bobby). She worked incredibly hard getting her message across, meeting people across the State, and as I said, ended up doing astoundingly well in conservative Republican upstate New York. Exactly the kind of work and success a successful Democratic presidential candidate will require.

And again Donna G.: "...continue the sham of the Bush administration, in which the president is a puppet, whose strings are pulled by someone in the background..."

Respectfully, you know nothing about Hillary Clinton if you think she would let anyone pull her strings as President. Yes, Bill Clinton will be a tremendous asset, one I am delighted our country will have again, but he will be operating on her terms. This is one of the most brilliant political strategists in the history of our country. When Hillary becomes President, won't you join me in my delight that she will have such wise counsel?

sheisarepublican: "...Who the hell cares if she has Bill by her side? You think he'll have any influence on this power hungry ego [Hillary] has?

You and DonnaG need to talk and get your stories straight.

Anonymous: "[Hillary] needs to be asked about her "experience" in the White House...What was it - besides aranging State Parties and shaking hands."

Sir or madam, were you in this country during the first Clinton Presidency? The right wing began attacking Hillary in the primaries for wielding too much influence, and they never stopped. Her health care campaign was flawed in execution, and right-wing business interests spent millions on ads to defeat it, but it nonetheless was a huge and daunting task which she took on. State parties indeed!

Truthmissile: "Does anyone know anyone who is passionate about [Hillary}...would you go door to door for her?"

In a heartbeat. Do yourself the favor of reading some of the biographies of this brilliant, strong, and yes ambitious woman. Its all about what is good for our country and I think she will make a fantastic President, without even contrasting her to the lying, warmongering idiot we now call President.

thebus: "If it's [Hillary], then I'm sitting this one out."

You do that, sit back and watch one of the really second-rate Republicans win. You liked the Bush years? You will love the reign of Romney or Guiliani or McCain. I won't include Thompson in that speculation because his baloon is rapidly losing helium.

That's all folks. Have at me. Douglas.

joan wrote on October 9, 2007 12:01 PM:

As long as we are (rightly) obsessing on timing by Obama and Clinton in pursuit of their true motives....I distinctly remember Hillary taking to the floor of the Senate way back in March and then again in June '07 in strong support of a resolution to force the President to come to the Congress on any military action against Iran. So all of you researchers out there, google that and get back to us.

I recently saw videos of at least one of these floor appearances by Hillary on a recent Sunday C-Span segment. She may or may not be triangulating now but she was not triangulating then.

IWW wrote on October 9, 2007 12:01 PM:

Keith -- thanks very much for the info. I'm still a bit puzzled, though. Why entertain the risk of use of the designation as a pretext in order to cut off additional financial channels to organizations that we've already sanctioned and frozen assets for (Hezbollah and militias). The risk seems huge and the benefit relatively small. Especially when you're talking about an arm of the Iranian government. One could equally plausibly designate parts of the Afghani or Pakistani governments terrorist orgs, but who'd think that was a good idea?

frank wrote on October 9, 2007 12:06 PM:

While I disagreed with her vote, at least she didn't weasel out of voting like Ombama did.

Keith wrote on October 9, 2007 12:06 PM:

Douglas:

Since you are obviously a HRC supporter, who knows his candidate well, maybe you can pickup her defense on the question at hand: What do you think about HRC's vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment? Is Obama's comment substantively correct, especially in light of HRC's subsequent support of the Webb Amendment? Inquiring minds what to know....

Michael wrote on October 9, 2007 12:11 PM:

Douglas, paid campaign staffer, "brilliant." Surely you jest. She can't read a gd NIE and get the most important vote of her short time in the senate right. Brilliant, I think not. Mrs. bill she is and that's about it. No experience, zippo. The king had more experience when he was running in 2000, which wasn't much, than she has and look where that got us. Anybody but mrs. bill in 08.

keith wrote on October 9, 2007 12:16 PM:

IWW:

The real issue is our inability to apply pressure on the Shia militia operating in and around Baghdad and Basra. Hezobollah and others are already under sanctions, but they are still able to move funds through alternate means. With the Shia militias, I suspect, it's a much more nebulous situation to control (there are so many of them), that it makes more sense to go to the source (alleged). This also benefits our efforts to cut-off funds to Hezobollah.

As for terrorists and the Taliban operating in and around Pakistan and Afghanistan, there supporters are largely SUNNI countries like Saudi Arabia. I'll let you figure out why we aren't proposing designating any parts of the KSA as a terrrorist organization. ; )

keith wrote on October 9, 2007 12:18 PM:

Frank:

No weaseling on his part, he missed the vote because it was unexpectedly brought back for a vote. He and McCain missed the vote.

stop the polls wrote on October 9, 2007 12:43 PM:

The sanctions on the IRG are one of many efforts to start another profitable war.

IWW wrote on October 9, 2007 12:47 PM:

Keith,

Thanks again. Much appreciated.

I don't doubt that there is *some* rationale for the designation.

That said, supporting it is a questionable judgment call imo. Given the proximity of Iran to Iraq and the ties of shared religion with many of the militia, do we really think we'll cripple the Iraqi militias with this move?

If not, why take the *substantial* risk involved in calling part of the Iranian government a terrorist organization?

The argument that somehow this is kinder to the Iranian people strikes me as pretty darn condescending: Iranians are literate and perfectly able to follow US actions, even if those actions don't make them hungry or deny their kids vaccines.

Here's an interesting piece on how the designation strengthens the hard-right in Iran and causes even reformers to rally behind the IRG:

http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/08/potential-designation-of-sepah-e.html

One of the appeals of Obama's initial anti-war stance was that he managed to resist getting caught up in the stampede to action against anyone deemed a terrorist. Here, I fear that quality of judgment is eluding him. It doesn't make me any more favorably disposed to Hillary, nor do I buy this "evading" the K-L amendment vote criticism. But I do think that the designation itself is problematic.

DonnaG wrote on October 9, 2007 12:55 PM:

I have been looking at differences in the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and the other senate bill which also includes naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, a bill cosponsored last spring by Obama and 67 other senators, including Clinton.

The Kyl-Lieberman bill lays out 17 specific 'findings' from testimonies of Petraeus, Crocker, Gates, and Jones as well as parts of reports from the DOD and the Independent Commission on Security Forces in Iraq. These 17 findings build the 'case' that Iran is threatening or harming the USA's involvement in Iraq [notwithstanding Clinton's now famous statement of Petraeus' testimony requiring a willingness to suspend disbelief]. Then the Kyl-Lieberman amendment makes four points of the sense of the senate regarding the issue of our military being vital to Iraq and the region, the need to prevent Iran from creating a Hezbollah-like force in Iran and the need to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a foreign terrorist organization...and to follow that naming up quickly.
So, very directly this legislation ties that designation to our actions and 'success' in our Iraq War.

Here is the heart [the summary] of the earlier legislation, for anyone who wishes to compare the two:

*S.970
Title: A bill to impose sanctions on Iran and on other countries for assisting Iran in developing a nuclear program, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR] (introduced 3/22/2007) Cosponsors (68)
Related Bills: H.R.3390
Latest Major Action: 3/22/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

SUMMARY AS OF:
3/22/2007--Introduced.

Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 - Amends the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to expand the definitions of "petroleum resources" and "person."

Expresses the sense of Congress concerning: (1) a variety of existing and proposed sanctions against Iran; and (2) mechanisms to assure a supply of nuclear fuel for peaceful means.

Subjects Russia to specified nuclear energy cooperation prohibitions unless the President certifies to Congress that: (1) Russia has suspended all nuclear assistance and transfers of advanced conventional weapons and missiles to Iran; or (2) Iran has verifiably dismantled all nuclear enrichment-related and reprocessing-related programs.

Subjects Iran to specified economic sanctions unless the President certifies to Congress that Iran has verifiably dismantled all nuclear enrichment-related and reprocessing-related programs.

Subjects, with respect to prohibited transactions with Iran, a parent company to penalties for violations committed by certain subsidiaries outside the United States that would be subject to prohibitions if committed inside the United States or by a U.S. person.

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to eliminate specified geological and geophysical expense amortization benefits if petroleum-related sanctions are imposed under the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 on any member of an expanded affiliated group whose common parent is a foreign corporation. Revises the definition of "affiliated group."

Directs the President to reduce annual U.S. contributions to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank) based upon Bank amounts provided to entities and projects in Iran.

Authorizes appropriations for the Department of the Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.

Requires the Director of National Intelligence to submit to Congress an updated National Intelligence Estimate on Iran.

Authorizes the President to: (1) carry out exchange programs with the people of Iran; and (2) make voluntary grant-based contributions to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for the establishment of an international nuclear fuel bank to maintain a reserve of low-enriched uranium in case of a disruption in the supply of reactor fuel by normal market mechanisms.

Sets forth specified Iran investment-related reporting requirements.*

Tucked within this much larger bill [as one statement among eight statements re: sense of the Senate] is the statement about naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization and therefore applyiing whatever further sanctions would pertain. This bill focuses upon and addresses a much wider concern about the nuclear program in Iran. This bill does not tie the Iran concerns into the narrower on-going concerns of the Iraq War.

The question then becomes [for the war-weary and Bush leery]: which of these pieces of legislation provides Bush with the most expedient excuse to attack Iran?

dcshungu wrote on October 9, 2007 12:55 PM:

No deshengu, I'm saying that candidates who get less coverage get fewer votes. By conducting unaudited polls, FOX and the other big media is free to cover whom they prefer just by calling them 'front runners'.

There is "coverage" and "coverage". Getting "coverage" when most of it is negative won't do anything to help a candidate...au contraire, it would almost definitely hurt.

In Hillary's case, the so-called coverage was a constant drumbeat of negatives: "polarizing", "high negatives", "hurt by AUMF vote", "Lewinsky scandal", "document-gate", "Vince Foster"....

Ironically, in this case, the negative coverage was actually positive! The MSM had created such an ugly caricature of Hillary that had no resemblance whatsoever to the real Hillary, that when people got to see and hear her in debates and in person, they were shocked, shocked!, at how ordinary and charming and smart she is! She is no witch, imagine that! As a result, most people have chosen to believe their own lying eyes and put their support behind HRC...That is why she out-polling everybody. It is not because of polls or positive coverage or exposure... It is was in spite of it.

stop the polls wrote on October 9, 2007 1:07 PM:

It's pretty clear Clinton is the favorite of Republicans. She's beatable. Obama's beatable too. Edwards is unbeatable. The others, including Kucinich would probably win, too. Most of the wealth of this country is Republican, and they run things like big media and polls. Hence, Clinon and Obama are 'front runners' before a vote has been cast.

keith wrote on October 9, 2007 1:12 PM:

IWW:

My point about the Iranian people wasn't meant to suggest that they couldn't appreciate the rationale behind the sanctions, but that we didn't want to harm them directly when are beef is with the Iranian government. The big knock on the Oil For Food Program was that it visited a great deal of hardship on the Iraqi people, who were not supposed to be harmed by the program.

As for the rallying of support behind the hard right, that's to be expected on some levels.

As for Obama's judgment in backing the designation, I'm of two minds about it. Obviously, I don't like the notion of designating part of the standing army of a nation-state a terrorist organization. At the same time, I appreciate WHY they are taking this approach, versus other alternatives. It's a tough situation, no doubt and reasonable people can and will disagree.

stlounick wrote on October 9, 2007 1:20 PM:

Actually, I thought about a lot of responses to this thread. But, really, I want Hillary and her campaign staff to continue with these kinds of responses.

I intend to collect all of Hillary's arrogant replies to questions from potential voters--starting with her early direct response to a question along the lines of, if you don't like my position, find another candidate. I intend to add to that with more examples like this one and the one she got from a regular guy on the Kyl amendment.

American citizens and voters can have legitimate questions that Hillary should be willing to answer without all of the accusatory language attached. I do believe my fellow citizens and voters will agree with me and not with the position of Hillary and her campaign.

Keep it up, Hillary. I need more ammo.

oleeb wrote on October 9, 2007 1:28 PM:

Stop the Polls is right.

The only one of the three leading Democrats for the Presidential nomination that is unbeatable by the Reupblicans is John Edwards.

IWW wrote on October 9, 2007 1:30 PM:

Keith,

Agreed that we agree to disagree...and thanks again for your comment.

My point about the Iranian reaction -- to be clear -- is that we're mainly conning ourselves if we think that a designation is a "surgical" intervention or that it doesn't "harm" the Iranian people. It's pretty reductive to say that you are only harming the group of people if you're actually physically injuring them (depriving them of food or whatnot). We discount other nations' national pride at our own risk. We may very well choose to go ahead with the verbal attack (which is what the designation amounts to), but we need to be clear that we can't pursue both the war of words AND think that our actions are "helping" Iran towards more democratic government. I think it's more accurate to think that we are probably strengthening Iranian reactionary forces to gain a small advantage in Iraq.

And that's a judgment call...

Keith wrote on October 9, 2007 1:44 PM:

IWW:

I don't think anyone who supports designating the IRG a terrorist group thinks it will somehow encourage Iran to adopt a more democratic government. I think this is tied to minimizing their intrusions into Iraq and weaken the Shia militas and, in no small part, trying to limit their power in the Middle East. The unspoken player/benefactor in all of this is Israel. Rather rightly or wrongly, we are committed to their protection and I think this (and similar) measures are an attempt to slow-down the hawks in the Knesset. At least that's my read of the situation from my office in California. I could definitely be wrong....

ccpup wrote on October 9, 2007 1:49 PM:

stlounick,

But isn't that the heart and soul of Democracy? If you don't like what I'm offering, then find a Candidate you do like? I don't see the arrogance in that statement at all. It seems to me that Hillary is well aware she's not one-size-fits-all -- despite what her detractors say -- and is not into changing her positions to suit everybody. In anyone else it'd be considered honest and brave; in Hillary Clinton, there are those who consider that arrogant.

As for ammo, I'd make sure you're pointing in the right direction. You may end up shooting yourself in the foot one of these days.

Anonymous wrote on October 9, 2007 1:52 PM:

Agree with Stop The Polls here, except for his observation of Kucinich's and other "second tier" candidates' chances in the General:

stop the polls wrote on October 9, 2007 1:07 PM:
It's pretty clear Clinton is the favorite of Republicans. She's beatable. Obama's beatable too. Edwards is unbeatable. The others, including Kucinich would probably win, too. Most of the wealth of this country is Republican, and they run things like big media and polls. Hence, Clinon and Obama are 'front runners' before a vote has been cast.

Edwards, in my mind, is the candidate most feared by GOP/Dem political establishments and therefore the intended victim of the Clinton-Obama inevitability machine. Edwards is brilliant at arguements, has specific plans, is a tough fighter and impossible to assail on personal character. He's a reformer/outsider candidate at a time when most Americans want one.

More than Obama or Edwards, Hillary banks on votes in the general from those Dems who don't support her in the primaries. And she will get them, as Dems will not sit it out, by and large, or vote for the GOP candidate.

But Hillary AIN'T inevitable in the primaries, and she knows this. Expect more attacks on Obama and marginalization of Edwards by her.

Don't expect Edwards to roll over and play dead for Clinton. Or Obama, for that matter.

IWW wrote on October 9, 2007 1:59 PM:

Except Bush and his administration (enabled by the Senate)...

Quote from wire service story (gotta figure out how to do block quotes, sorry):

In taking aim at the guard, the administration is also trying to divide Iran's population. During his news conference on Thursday, Bush addressed the Iranian people directly. "My message to the Iranian people is, 'You can do better than this current government,' " Bush said. " 'You don't have to be isolated. You don't have to be in a position where you can't realize your full economic potential.' "

Anonymous wrote on October 9, 2007 2:00 PM:

Edwards defeats GOP candidates by larger margin than Clinton consistently in polling. An example from Rasmussen Oct 7:

Pres '08
Oct 7 RasmussenEdwards (D) 47%, McCain (R) 40%Pres '08
Oct 7 RasmussenEdwards (D) 52%, Romney (R) 35%

In my guesstimation, Edwards could also beat Clinton in the primaries as Obama draws most of the youth/black voters, and Edwards/Clinton split the others. Looks to me like a toss up between Edwards and Obama from there.

I'd say the splitting of Dem primary voters is more of a problem for Hillary than the other 2 front runners...

Anonymous wrote on October 9, 2007 2:14 PM:

I wish he had been there for the vote.

And I was gonna say Hillary sounds like a republican, but stlounick said it pretty good already.

slb wrote on October 9, 2007 2:44 PM:

She has done nothing in the senate or elsewhere to warrant any consideration for president.

It's not that I don't have misgivings about Hillary Clinton as president (I actually have misgivings of one sort or another about every one of the candidates), but to say that she has done nothing at all to even warrant consideration is patently ridiculous.

She has shown in the Senate that she is very capable of working with people on both sides of the aisle, and early on won praise from both sides for her diligence and personal warmth, much to the surprise of her many detractors in 2000. She has worked hard for the state of New York, and has won firm support even in the Republican strongholds upstate.

To judge by its results so far, she has run a near-flawless presidential campaign. She knows the political game, and she plays it extremely well. That is nothing to be sneezed at. However great a president's policies may be, a president must first be a master politician if those policies are to be successfully implemented. This is what Obama has not yet demonstrated he has mastered.

Criticize Sen. Clinton on the positions she has taken if you will, but do not say she has "done nothing" that merits her consideration as president, because in fact she has done more than most.

norrismorris wrote on October 9, 2007 2:58 PM:

Obama never voted. Why? His campaign is quite flawed with many worded and hard to understand statements that are not clear.

He appears ambivalent about seizing power for himself as a leader. Unless he can be convincing in this area [so far not] he could never win the Election in the climate we are in now.

He must make voters feel he's the ONE because..........

slb wrote on October 9, 2007 3:04 PM:

Her health care campaign was flawed in execution, and right-wing business interests spent millions on ads to defeat it, but it nonetheless was a huge and daunting task which she took on.

Douglas:

If you haven't seen it, you will want to read Paul Starr's article in the current issue of The American Prospect about what really happened to the Clinton health care plan. Starr worked with Mrs. Clinton on that campaign as a White House senior health care advisor.

Now that Hillary Clinton is a candidate for president, the health-reform debacle is again receiving attention, this time as a basis for judging what kind of a president she might be in her own right. The trouble with such judgments, however, is that they are usually rooted in a series of misunderstandings about the Clinton health plan, Hillary's role in the reform effort, and the reasons for its failure. The mythology of "Hillarycare," as the Republicans like to call it, is only partly the result of right-wing misrepresentations of the plan as a "government takeover" and malicious personal attacks on Hillary. The press never got the story right in the first place, and recent biographies and articles about Sen. Clinton have added to the misconceptions.

To cut to the chase: Many of the problematic aspects of that plan for which Hillary Clinton has been blamed were actually directives from Bill Clinton himself.

dcshungu wrote on October 9, 2007 3:10 PM:

It's pretty clear Clinton is the favorite of Republicans. She's beatable

Got any data in support of how this might be the case? Despite having been in this race since day-1 after losing the last one as Kerry's running mate, Edwards has been on a downward slide. Why is that?

Listen: Obama cannot win this election because he is too "green" and he is black. The only one of the top-tier that would lose this thing for sure for the Dems is Obama. Name a single Red or Purple state that you think Obama is likely to carry. If Giuliani is the Repub nominee, Obama would lose NJ, NY, CT, CA. With the two electoral vote-rich and Dem bastions of NY and CA gone, it would be a landslide unlike any we've ever seen. Edwards might do a bit better in GE, but he too would lose pretty badly. The only Dem candidate who would trounce the Repub nominee is HRC, regardless of who he turns out to be (I hope it is Rudy). That is why the Repubs are terrified of her and have been embracing the socially-liberal Rudy because they view him as the only candidate who can compete against Clinton. These arguments are internally self-consistent and backed by tons of poll data....

dcshungu wrote on October 9, 2007 3:21 PM:

Edwards defeats GOP candidates by larger margin than Clinton consistently in polling. An example from Rasmussen Oct 7:

So that people do not keep peddling this mindless canard all over the place, I will tell you why it appears that Edwards margin is larger (although it is never statistically larger than HRC's): Whenever Clinton is one of the candidates in most, but not all, polls the number of undecided voters goes way down! There is usually little wiggle room. This is seldom the case with Obama or Edwards, whose support is still quite soft...

Got it now?

Dave wrote on October 9, 2007 3:34 PM:

NJ Lawyer said it best about the Kyl amendment. Not showing up was worse and extremely convenient as he now slams her on it. If he felt so strongly, he should have voted. As far as I am concerned, he should keep his mouth shut. Too cowardly to vote = no right to comment on the matter.

I'll continue with Obama's constant "I was against the war from the beginning" when he wasn't there to vote for it, another easy out.

He's voted plenty to fund it for purely political reasons, if I had a crystal ball I suspect I would see him voting the same way she did on the war had he been in office for the same political reasons she did.

This makes them both wrong and he has no ground on which to make these statements.

If he had voted against the war and against the Kyl amendment he would have some credibility.

When I read this title I thought Hillary had actually said something about the him wearing the flag pin thing. Then she would be in the biggest foot in the mouth position, but she didn't.

And while I alone seem to have this opinion, I did hear the President say with my own 2 ears on live TV that vote on the authorization for the war was to PREVENT the war, not to go to war, he was going to use it for leverage. But leverage for what, he just said Saddam wasn't complying when he was. So I don't think anyone voted for the war, that doesn't excuse them for falling for Bush's trick. Of course they would never had been re-elected in the atmosphere at the time if they had done the right thing and the balance of power would have been even worse.

Dieter Heymann wrote on October 9, 2007 3:49 PM:

Here is what Senator Obama has stated about Iran.

We would make clear in such a scenario
that the United States would not be maintaining permanent military bases in Iraq, but would do what was necessary to help prevent a total collapse of the Iraqi state and further polarization of Iraqi society. Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in
this region.
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama, “A Way Forward in Iraq”
The Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Monday, November 20th, 2006
Chicago, Illinois

"the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs."
He stresses that military action is a "last resort," and that we ought to squeeze them with sanctions first:
"But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.
"'The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?' Obama asked.
"Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world. 'On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.'"
Chicago Tribune, 2004.

We must also persuade other nations such as Saudi Arabia to recognize common interests with Israel in dealing with Iran. We should stress to the Egyptians that they help the Iranians and do themselves no favors by failing to adequately prevent the smuggling of weapons and cash by Iran into Gaza.
Obama said the world — not just the United States — must stop Iran's uranium enrichment program.
"While we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons," Obama said.
Obama said Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race."Iran continues to be a major threat," he told me Wednesday morning, "both the U.S. and to some of our allies." And he calls for an urgent enhancement of "the economic pressure." He calls for it, and he acts on it with the introduction of a new bill: the 'Iran Sanctions Enabling Act.'
March 2007. Adress at Aipac Meeting.

"Iran continues to be a major threat," he told me Wednesday morning, "both the U.S. and to some of our allies." And he calls for an urgent enhancement of "the economic pressure." He calls for it, and he acts on it with the introduction of a new bill: the 'Iran Sanctions Enabling Act.'
Haaretz, May 2000

Want to hear more on this imperialist-light? He is infinitely more dangerous than Hillary Clinton.

Michael wrote on October 9, 2007 4:01 PM:

slb, huh? I agree criticize her on positions. Other than generalities and endless war, what positions has she taken??????? How can you criticize her positions, when she doesn't have any????She is warm and fuzzy?????? That's experience???? What has she demonstrated leadership in the senate on?????? NOTHING. The reason is she didn't want to demonstrate leadership on an issue or take a solid position on anything, because she has been too busy running for president. Soo, let me see, she was first lady and then she began running for president. Soooo, she is running and has been running for president based on being mrs. bill. Something is dramatically wrong with this picture.

DonnaG wrote on October 9, 2007 4:48 PM:

Earlier in this thread I said:

So far, an in-depth discussion of Hillary's years as First Lady and Senator are being .......... drowned in spun generalities.......

Thanks to slb posting at 2:44pm for the perfect example to underscore my point:

""She has shown in the Senate that she is very capable of working with people on both sides of the aisle, and early on won praise from both sides for her diligence and personal warmth, much to the surprise of her many detractors in 2000. She has worked hard for the state of New York, and has won firm support even in the Republican strongholds upstate."

Oookaay, she has won praise for diligence and personal warmth, she is capable of working both sides of the aisle, she works hard for her state, she gets support from opposite party strongholds. Very nice, but I believe that these words could be applied to 90% of all congresscritters. Now, please tell us a few s-p-e-c-i-f-i-c-s of her leadership
s-u-c-c-e-s-s-e-s on matters of national concern. Thanks.

stop the polls wrote on October 9, 2007 7:43 PM:

There goes deshengu citing polls as evidence. Say it with me. Polls lie. They are owned by big corporations, and they get the results their owners want. What kind of evidence do you want that Clinton is beatable? Polls? How about the 15 years of hate speech directed against her by her new best friends the NY Post [Murdoch]?

keith wrote on October 9, 2007 7:53 PM:

dcshungu:

If prejudice blocks Obama from the nomination, then it knocks HRC as a viable candidate as well--I mean given that we are a nation of bigots. Basically it's Biden, Dodd or Edwards or we are shit out of luck.

Deft analysis their Archie!

Listen: Obama cannot win this election because he is too "green" and he is black.

Anonymous wrote on October 10, 2007 3:52 PM:

For Hillary Clinton to have demanded that President Bush seek Congressional authorization before taking any military action against Iran is downright hypocritical in light of her recent vote for the Kyl-Lieberman bill that essentially empowers Bush to attack Iran, contrary to what Hillary herself had asked of President.

While the United States bombing of Iran would be foolhardy for countless reasons, not least from the standpoint of strategic prudence, its imminence seems beyond question, viewed from the plausibility of its orchestration and justification, as subordinated to a political calculation dominated by irrationality and absence of strategic clarity. And, while the surge-suppressed violence in Iraq has essentially receded to a considerable degree, the prospect of a renewed deterioration as well as the resumption carnage and its intensification should be a matter of concern. Moreover, the situation seems certain to get worse before it gets better, considering the absence of any effort inside Iraq to bring about political reconciliation rather than the piece-meal---albeit positive---short-term tactical accomodation between the U.S. military and the Sunni insurgents in Anbar province, which is currently being peddled by the administration to convey a false sense optimism that, indeed, a political settlement in Iraq is at hand. Even though this accomodation seems unamenable as a model for transplantation elsewhere in Irag due dissimilarity of social conditions that brought about intra-Sunni conflict and the attendant fall-out in the first place

Given the volatility of the Iraqi situation as compounded by the absence of inter-ethnic reconciliation, the social regression with escalating violence has never been as imminent, even in the face of the much-touted surge. In view of the inevitability of deterioration and concomittant violence underpinning the deepening quagmire, fundamental questions of consequential significance have not been adequadely addressed so as to understand the dynamics of the political situation that will ultimately determine the course of events in Iraq, instead the Administration has scapegoated of others and assigned blame without concrete evidence to substantiate its assertion against those whom it accused of stoking violence in Irag and killing American servicemen. Hence the vote by Hillary Clinton and her Democratic counterparts for a Republican bill declaring Iranian Revolutionary Guards terrorists has far reaching implications viewed within the context of its indisputable potential to authorize the unfettered Bush Administration's aggression against Iran. The wisdom of such an aggression is questionable at best, since any attack on Iran would undoubtedly yield undesirable consequences, as it has a good chance of leading to the inflamation of the situation that might stimulate a further deterioration, plunging American troops into a protracted quagmire that has the potential to generate into regional instability.

In view of the foregoing, then, it is difficult to find why the likes of Hillary voted for the bill if not for sheer opportunism on her part. Driven by political expediency, Hillary seems convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that the primary election is hers to lose, if only she could go beyond primary electoral politicking and straddle to the political center of American politics. And it does not matter how she gets there because for her the end justifies the means.

SonwaboThabo Mda wrote on October 10, 2007 3:57 PM:

For Hillary Clinton to have demanded that President Bush seek Congressional authorization before taking any military action against Iran is downright hypocritical in light of her recent vote for the Kyl-Lieberman bill that essentially empowers Bush to attack Iran, contrary to what Hillary herself had asked of President.

While the United States bombing of Iran would be foolhardy for countless reasons, not least from the standpoint of strategic prudence, its imminence seems beyond question, viewed from the plausibility of its orchestration and justification, as subordinated to a political calculation dominated by irrationality and absence of strategic clarity. And, while the surge-suppressed violence in Iraq has essentially receded to a considerable degree, the prospect of a renewed deterioration as well as the resumption carnage and its intensification should be a matter of concern. Moreover, the situation seems certain to get worse before it gets better, considering the absence of any effort inside Iraq to bring about political reconciliation rather than the piece-meal---albeit positive---short-term tactical accomodation between the U.S. military and the Sunni insurgents in Anbar province, which is currently being peddled by the administration to convey a false sense optimism that, indeed, a political settlement in Iraq is at hand. Even though this accomodation seems unamenable as a model for transplantation elsewhere in Irag due dissimilarity of social conditions that brought about intra-Sunni conflict and the attendant fall-out in the first place

Given the volatility of the Iraqi situation as compounded by the absence of inter-ethnic reconciliation, the social regression with escalating violence has never been as imminent, even in the face of the much-touted surge. In view of the inevitability of deterioration and concomittant violence underpinning the deepening quagmire, fundamental questions of consequential significance have not been adequadely addressed so as to understand the dynamics of the political situation that will ultimately determine the course of events in Iraq, instead the Administration has scapegoated of others and assigned blame without concrete evidence to substantiate its assertion against those whom it accused of stoking violence in Irag and killing American servicemen. Hence the vote by Hillary Clinton and her Democratic counterparts for a Republican bill declaring Iranian Revolutionary Guards terrorists has far reaching implications viewed within the context of its indisputable potential to authorize the unfettered Bush Administration's aggression against Iran. The wisdom of such an aggression is questionable at best, since any attack on Iran would undoubtedly yield undesirable consequences, as it has a good chance of leading to the inflamation of the situation that might stimulate a further deterioration, plunging American troops into a protracted quagmire that has the potential to generate into regional instability.

In view of the foregoing, then, it is difficult to find why the likes of Hillary voted for the bill if not for sheer opportunism on her part. Driven by political expediency, Hillary seems convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that the primary election is hers to lose, if only she could go beyond primary electoral politicking and straddle to the political center of American politics. And it does not matter how she gets there because for her the end justifies the means.

Hux wrote on October 15, 2007 9:57 PM:

SAD!SAD!SAD! The democrats are going to self destruct once again. All these blogs, knocking each candidate. The republicans, who shouldn't have a ghost of a chance to win, in 08, will stand behind one candidate. Our country will still be run by the military, industrial complex. Democrats, please , for your grandkids sake, build up your candidate of choice, not tear down the others.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)