So she's going with fear? Well, it worked for Bush. Personally, I'm not very comfortable with a candidate that proposes half-baked plans to send Bush 41 and her husband on a world tour because she's afraid of being used for propaganda if she engages in direct diplomacy herself. Then there's that whole voting for Bush's blank check without reading the NIE. . . I guess she thought she was already "up to speed" because of all those formal dinners she hosted and attended, or something.

All this proves is that Hillary is a NEO-CON who will continue the occupation of Iraq and then invade Iran.

"tight embrace" of her husband's legacy

part of the bill clinton's legacy includes the use of extraordinary rendition and the handing off suspects to regimes known to torture.

Actually, the "Time to Pick a President" theme speaks more to the most fundamental question voters must always decide before voting: does this candidate have the gravitas to be commander-in-chief?

This always must be the first question that pundits consider when analyzing a Presidential race. Which candidates have crossed, or are plausibly expected to cross, the Commander-in-Chief threshold? For example, Dean collapsed in 2004 because he had failed to cross the threshold. The voters could not picture him with his finger on the nuclear button, figuratively and metaphorically.

Dukakis was finished the day of the tank-riding photos because he would never be accepted as having crossed the Commander-in-Chief threshold.

This whole idea about going back to the 90's is disturbing to me. The clinton presidency gave us NAFTA, the WTO, PNTR w/ china and the whole rapid expansion of globalization. The economic problems in this country have to do with the clinton 90's and the republicans that sold it in the house and senate. Campaigns are about the future and what we can collectivly do to make it better for all of us. Once again Hill has chosen the republican idea of going back in time to a more blessed day in her laissez-faire ecomomic policies. Its about the future stupid.

Mrs. Bill Mrs. Bill Mrs. Bill Mrs. Bill

Anyone care to call me out for "sexism" now?

At bottom this has always been what her campaign was about, invoking the relative nostalgia of the 1990s, generally, and embracing the Democratic's base's love fond memories of Bill Clinton. Now she's just turning up the fear factor--she's been running on fear the entire time, invoking 9-11 puts her over the top.

She's not the only one making a closing argument, so we'll see how much this changes the game in the last week.

Mrs. Bill's just returning to the theme Hubby had concocted back in 2000, sealed with her four years of unwavering support for the Greatest Strategic Disaster in US History...

It has always been about Bill nostalgia and showing how tough his wife is..THat's why the two of them aided and abetted the criminal war in Iraq

That's her experience and our's in a nutshell

Mama Warbucks: Hillary Clinton's Illiberal Belligerence

by Stephen Zunes, USF

http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=12051

Given Senator Clinton's militaristic foreign policy, why are so many of her supporters apparently in denial of this unfortunate reality?
Part of the problem is that most of the public criticism of the former first lady has been based on false and exaggerated charges from the far right, often infused with a fair dose of sexism. As a result, many liberals become defensive and reluctant to criticize her. Many also ironically start believing some of the lies of the far right when they claim she is some kind of left-winger. There is also an understandable nostalgia for the eight years of relative peace and prosperity under her husband's administration after the horrors of nearly seven years under President George W. Bush, which have made it easy to forget the lesser but very real failings of President Bill Clinton.
There is also the fact that after 43 male presidents, the prospect of finally having a woman as chief executive is understandably appealing. Yet, what's the advantage of a female president if her foreign policies are still centered on patriarchal notions of militarism and conquest? What would it mean to the women of Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Lebanon and other countries who would suffer as a result of her policies? Did the position of British women improve as a result of the militaristic policies of their first female prime minister, Margaret Thatcher?
These are the kinds of questions, along with a critical examination of her overall foreign policy record, that need to be considered by Democrats before making Hillary Clinton their nominee for president.

I don't get it! How can she say she's experienced to handle another 9/11 when she had the follow-up wrong and Barack had it right?

Boy...I never thought of it in these terms. A great article on alternet. BushCo has all of the secret service records on the Clintons. So Bill has been playing nice. Check out this excerpt. Link to full article follows. It is really information that makes you go hmmmmm.

"However, if Clinton thought that his collaboration in keeping the Reagan-Bush secrets from the American people would earn him some bipartisan help from the Republicans, he was mistaken.

Clinton saw his prized domestic agenda, including Hillary Clinton's health care reform, defeated; his party lose control of Congress in 1994; the House vote to impeach him in 1998 for lying about an extramarital sexual relationship; and George H.W. Bush's oldest son steal the 2000 election from Clinton's Vice President, Al Gore.

Now, as Campaign 2008 begins to unfold, a similar dynamic is in place.

George W. Bush has engaged in a variety of acts that appear to be illegal, extra-legal or unconstitutional, while the Clintons are again signaling that they have no intention of holding the Bush family accountable.

If Bill Clinton is right - that his wife's first act as President would be to ask him and George H.W. Bush to go on an around-the-world goodwill mission - Hillary Clinton is making it clear that she has no intention of holding George W. Bush accountable for any wrongdoing.

There is no way that George H.W. Bush would help the Clintons on the diplomatic front if they were taking action against his eldest son."

http://www.alternet.org/story/71266/

In sum, remember the 90's, remember the 90's, remember the 90's, remember the 90's, remember the 90's, over and over and over and over and over again.

Who does that sound like? Mr. 9/11 of course. She one ups him though by throwing a little 9/11 in for a dash of spice.

Is that the way they do politics in NY. Live in the past? Totally pathetic.

I bet she is struggling to come in 3rd in iowa based on internals. Way too funny. Quick, rearrange the furniture on the deck, she is going down fast.

i almost wanna see a clinton vs rudy race ust for the trainwreck factor alone. it would be a "weren't the 90's and 9-11 great!!" battle royale of sorts.

that said, don't think it's gonna happen...is there anywhere one can bet money that it'll be obama vs. huckabee, with obama as the next president?

I think TPM is subtly trying to ignore Edwards. They cannot criticize his policies or his commitment to social justice, but they just ignore him. It is amazing how similar that is to the MSM.

The question is why? Maybe it is the different backgrounds, with Obama more similar to Marshall than Edwards. Wealthy privileged upbringing, and then Ivy league grad school. That is my current theory. Why do you think? Why does TPM dislike Edwards?

To Anonymous wrote on December 22, 2007 2:57 PM

I think TPM is avoiding Edwards because he's unelectable in the general election. This is a guy who couldn't even help win his own state in '04. (Actually, he and kerry didn't even win john edwards' own precinct in NC.) Being Mr. Poverty/Two Americas just ain't gonna cut in a national election. It's NOT where the country IS right now, and he just doesn't seem to understand that.

In addition, there are just too many bits of Edwardian poor judgement for the GOP to attack. The 26,000 sq ft house, the haircuts, working for the NYC hedge fund, his politically motivated votes. (Yes, he voted for the iraq war in 02 because he knew he was running for president in 04 and could NOT afford to look like some flaming anti-war liberal since everyone back then except Obama thought the war was gonna go great.)

In short, John's heart is in the right place (helping poor people, going after bad corporations, etc), but that is simply not a viable pathway to be elected president at this juncture in history.

My final comment is that if Edwards were to somehow win the nomination, it practically guarantees that Bloomberg is going to jump into the race with a billion dollars and win it. So a vote for Edwards now, is essentially a vote for Bloomberg/Hagel, or Bloomberg/Nunn, or Bloomberg/some conservative democrat. that's why "Edwards progressives" need to shift to Obama quickly, who's just as liberal/progressive as edwards, but can win a ton of the Independents and will keep bloomberg out of the race.

And by the way, I cannot believe that you would write about triple-H at this point. No one cares!

Well, they won't be able to ignore him if he wins Iowa. Just wait for the real smearing to begin...

And, oh, by the way, Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorr... er, Yesterday.

BluePuppy, do you like Hillary, or do you like the fact that she is might win? All I ever hear from Clinton supporters is that she is going to win, and then something negative about the other candidates. I never hear that she would support the best policies, for example. Makes you wonder...

I like the fact that she will and I think her health care plan set her apart.

Time to pick a president - pretty similar to the line in Biden's ad that started earlier this week - time to choose a president.

http://www.youtube.com/joebiden

Nothing original from the Clinton campaign.

BluePuppy,

Regarding the "present" votes, I am confused. Do you consider that the votes are actually a serious matter or are you simply advancing it as an argument that helps Clinton?

If you do consider the votes important, would you be surprised to know that Planned Parenthood and gun control groups often specifically backed the "present" votes on the bills important to them (because otherwise some less-safe Democrats may have voted the "wrong way" to protect their seats)?

Here are some more or less objective treatises:

Erich Zorn's column
Carpetbagger

Obama has also provided specific explanations of the votes. If you have an open mind as we all hope to,

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/

If you do in fact understand the rationale for the votes but want to continue to "slam" Obama with it, I suppose there is not much I can say to sway you.

I was honestly worried there for a while because Hillary couldn't seem to get her act together...

That is interesting, because you have never expressed that point of view. That is to say, you evidently mean us to understand that your "rah, rah, go Hillary" posts in the past were just empty bluster, which makes me to wonder why I ought to suppose that the present ones are any different.

Watch for a 3 state win by Hillary: Iowa, New Hampshire, and SC.

Interesting. I doubt that the Clinton campaign will thank you for getting so off-message.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7518.html

I'm not going to read all of the other posts, so no one has to read this one.

re: "Obama's counterargument has been that whatever the successes of the 1990s, it has also saddled Hillary with a kind of political baggage that will make her less effective as a President than his "new politics" will."

Hillary is not saddled with the baggage. The Clinton Haters would LOVE to saddle the Clintons with baggage they TRIED to saddle them with in the 1990's.

psst! It didn't work, Democrats!!
70% of the nation thought Clinton took America in the right direction.

The Clinton Haters are only about 20% of the entire nation (and are about 85% Republican, who aren't ever going to be voting for BHO or ANY Democrat).
Hillary Clinton is NOT saddled with that "baggage" unless her own DEMOCRATS saddle her with it.

If it's worth wiping out eight years of the only Democratic President the Democrats have had re-elected in the last half a century, in order to tell the nation that President Clinton was a failure so Barack Obama will win the primary, go for it.

But when Democrats start disparaging their most popular President so that another Democrat can win their primary, you will see what the rest of us mean when we say that Democrats eat their own.

Yes, I'm a Hillary supporter.
No, I never voted for Bill because I was a REPUBLICAN. I've moved over to Hillary's camp.
Do you want others to respect the accomplishments of your Party? Then allow them to support DEMOCRAT Hillary Clinton, and don't label the scandals that Republicans TRIED to create as "Clinton baggage."
It is actually "Republican Party baggage." The Republicans LOST seats over the impeachment, and Clinton's numbers soared.

Those are Rightwing Slime Machine Talking Points.
They FAILED to do their damage to Bill Clinton.
Now, are the Democrats going to HELP the GOP Slime Machine succeed at damaging the 1992-2000 Democratic Presidency, just because they support another Democrat in the 2008 primaries???
I really hope not, but I honestly don't have a lot of hope anymore that Democrats are capable of working as a team.

re (to me, Jan, from Michael A):
"You were allegedly a republican until clinton II started to run and you were a republican and voted against clinton I in the 90's. Soooooo, you want to vote for clinton II to bring back the 90's, but you were against clinton I's "policies." "

No, Michael A.
Why don't you let ME sum it up for YOU.

I voted for Richard Nixon - 1972. I still believe he was a MUCH better President than George W. Bush.
Then I voted for John Anderson - 1976.
Then I voted for Jimmy Carter - 1980.
Then I didn't vote - 1984.
Then I voted for GHWB - 1988, because the Democrats were completely corrupt.
Then I voted for Ross Perot, because both parties were completely corrupt - 1992.
Then I planned on voting for Bob Dole until Bob Dole from NC told America that cigarettes didn't cause cancer - 1996.
Then I worked on my very first political campaign -- Al Gore's -- and therefore I was obviously FOR Clinton I's policies - 2000.
Oh, and as a person newly voting for Democrats, I watched in horror as Democrats ate Democrat Al Gore alive in 2000.

Then I worked for (1) Bob Graham, then (2) Howard Dean, and (3) then John Kerry - 2004.
And then I REALLY watched in horror as Democrats ate John Kerry alive.

And now I'm watching Democrats say that the Clinton's have bad baggage from the 1990's Clinton Presidency.
Welcome to "Restaurant Democrats."

In 1998, I took a second look at Bill Clinton while he was being impeached, and realized that, under the circumstances, Bill Clinton was probably the greatest President of my lifetime (58 years.)

I hope that clears it up for you, Michael A.

I NEVER ONCE disparaged Democrat Bill Clinton while voting for Ross Perot. Like Ross Perot, I only disparaged my fellow Republicans, Bush and Reagan.
I volunteered to work for Al Gore. And THAT is a vote for Bill Clinton's policies.

I did not appreciate Bill Clinton for what he was either accomplishing or trying to accomplish until after I could no longer vote for him.

imo, a more disciplined Bill Clinton would be as good as it gets.
Just my opinion. You're welcomed to your own.