Update on Clinton

Yup, the quote was accurate, about 40 minutes into this clip. It's hard to see how she's referencing anyone other than a fellow Democrat.  I would encourage you, if you haven't, to watch this speech or read the comments in Hillary's blog. She is very strong and has a lot of diehard support.

I can't quite get my head around the attraction, but it seems that there's something tribal at work.  A lot of Democrats just want to be able to touch someone they believe in, and they haven't really believed in anyone since Bill Clinton.

It's amazing.  Some of them love her, yet there she is, implying that other Democrats that are running won't protect you from terrorism.  

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Iraq (all tags)

Comments

93 Comments

Maybe worth emphasizing

Some of them love her, yet there she is, implying that other Democrats that are running won't protect you from terrorism.

And assuming this is indeed what she meant, remember: Those "other Democrats" that are running include several of her fellow Senators. You know, the same Senate currently (and for the next year and a half before the election) charged with among other things protecting Americans from terrorism...

It's not possible to so disparage the entire field of nominee candidates right now without simultaneously disparaging the Democratic congressional majority that so much work last year went into making possible. And heck, I'm pretty sure I heard those exact words being used by Republicans last year to discourage voters from letting a Democratic congressional majority happen in the first place.

by Silent sound 2007-02-19 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

My wife and I have been regular and generous donors to the Democratic Party and select candidates.  We have been telling solicitors of NY's junior Senator to take a hike, and will do so until she leaves politics.

by wphurley 2007-02-19 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

How often do you get calls from her crew?  I have contributed to Tester and the PAC's of both Feingold and Webb.  Hillary doesn't need or want any money from the "little people".

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-19 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

I forgot to add ...  it's interesting to see how much scratch is being raised on Actblue right now .. Hillary has all of $41.  Dodd, Vilsack, Gravel and Biden all have $0.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-19 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

My Spidey sense tells me Dodd would be a pretty good president. If I had bucks to spare, I would perhaps send him some. $41.00 for Clinton??? I wonder how that happened!

by blues 2007-02-19 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

$41? Maybe it came from Bush pere.

by BlueinColorado 2007-02-19 04:36PM | 0 recs
Is it bad that

I mailed back an empty envelope to HRC?

by TarHeel 2007-02-20 04:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

Funny, I never get phone calls asking for candidate money, or the party. Maybe they have me pegged as one of those foul-mouthed, vituperative netroots types. They're right.

there she is, implying that other Democrats that are running won't protect you from terrorism.  

What's really troubling to me is the way she says it. It's straight outa the Bush/FoxNews playbook, all the "some people say...." It's a nasty, and even cowardly, bit of demagoguery.
Also, all candidates say that they're better than the other candidates, but this plays into the whole "Democrats aren't serious/smart/grown up about defense policy" meme.
This statement just blew me out of the water. She should be ashamed of herself.

by BlueinColorado 2007-02-19 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

Electing Hillary will be electing Ronald Reagan for the 3rd damned time.  #1 was Ronnie, #2 Bill and #3, Hillary.  If the field is set, I am afraid we are stuck with Hillary.  If this is the case, I think we should not give a dime to the presidential primary candidates.  I think we should focus on the House and Senate candidates and do everything we can to assure that Hillary has as many populist as we can put into to office to reckon with.  She is going to triangulate us out of our jobs, mortgages, internets, and more.  The people in this country so suck.

by dkmich 2007-02-20 01:03AM | 0 recs
We can't let this pass

We can't let this pass. The other candidates have to call her on it, right now! If she is going to adopt W's line in conflating Iraq with Al Qaeda and targetting Dems who oppose her as less protective of their country she has no business being in the leadership of this party.

by cmpnwtr 2007-02-19 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

The netroots need to exercise our Veto on Hillary.

by Bob Brigham 2007-02-19 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

We don't have a veto.

by Matt Stoller 2007-02-19 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

I think that the netroots aren't strong enough to select the nominee, but I think there is a veto that can be exercised. You can do more on this than I can, but my gut tells me the potential exists.

by Bob Brigham 2007-02-19 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

Isn't there already a defacto netroots veto of Hillary in place?

by Kingstongirl 2007-02-19 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

That certainly appears to be the case. Unfortunately.

by carrieboberry 2007-02-20 02:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

If she wins the nomination everyone will rally behind her, but not until then.

by aiko 2007-02-20 03:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

Well, then, with any luck we'll never know.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-20 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

Are you sure?

I have no doubt the netroots will rally behind Hillary Clinton if she wins. But I also can't help but suspect that at the same time the netroots will decrease significantly in size.

I just can't stop thinking about how hard it was to get anybody, even people who cared quite deeply about politics, to care about the 2004 elections. I also notice I saw a lot of these same people get excited about the 2006 elections. I think the difference was 2006 gave a lot of people something to be excited about, and 2004 didn't-- people could readily be excited about or proud of Jim Webb or Nancy Pelosi, but the same was not true of John Kerry.

What happens if 2008 brings a presidential candidate that doesn't excite people? The diehard Democrat party-builders will go ahead and support Clinton anyway if she wins, but the netroots can't survive on these people alone. If the people who right now are "vetoing" Clinton find out that their veto as part of the netroots doesn't count for anything, will they really want to continue to associate themselves with the netroots?

I think if nothing else it has to be very much the case that 2008 needs to have a bunch of visible Jim Webb-style Democratic pickup campaigns running at the same time, so that if Clinton gets the nomination, people who aren't interested in whether she wins can still have a reason to get involved in the election...

by Silent sound 2007-02-20 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

The prospect of a woman president will be exciting enough to generate lots of netroots support--if in fact we get to that point.  

by aiko 2007-02-20 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton
It's strange to me that so many candidates are challenging Hillary.  When Gore ran in 2000, only Bradley challenged, and it seemed for a short while (in Fall 1999) that he had a v. good shot at winning the NH primary and making a real race out of it, despite his deficiencies as a campaigner.
Might it be necessary for the netroots to try to coalesce behind an anti-Hillary candidate this summer?  Is it possible?  Would it do any good?
by McFrederick 2007-02-19 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

I think it makes more sense to just be anti-Hillary.

by Bob Brigham 2007-02-19 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

Gore was the sitting VP, and it's unusual to see a serious primary challenge to anyone with incumbent rights.  Hillary is just another senator, and giving her a pass in the primary would make as much sense as clearing the Veep slot for Tipper Gore.

by spatne 2007-02-19 04:43PM | 0 recs
we need Obama and Edwards
to combine on a ticket together now..
flip a coin for PRes and VP
by TarHeel 2007-02-20 04:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

I do wonder ... what happens if the primaries don't settle the nomination ... is there anyway that any of the other contenders would pledge their delegates to her?  If she is gonna run a scorched earth campaign .. I don't see how they would .. unless they are as craven as she is

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-19 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

Can primary caucus's be bought?  How does it work?  Who are the people that will be voting for our nominee in each of these states -- Iowo, N. Hampshire... I mean, what are we up against?

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-02-19 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

I wish I knew.  I am not up on that type of thing.  Maybe Chris Bowers can tell us.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-19 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

My understanding is that money/organization is most important in Iowa, because of the nature caucuses as opposed to primaries.

by BlueinColorado 2007-02-19 04:46PM | 0 recs
money, no--organization, yes

A good organization costs money, but often the candidate with the most money does not put together the best organization in Iowa.

You need to have volunteers for it to work. Trucking people in from out of state is not going to cut it. People need to hear from their friends and neighbors that there is a reason to support the candidate.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Clinton will finish no better than fourth in Iowa.

by desmoinesdem 2007-02-19 05:54PM | 0 recs
Jerome has a lot on this

Back in the day, nominees were decided at the convention. For the last couple of decades, the press has decided the nominees based on early support, but that is the exception.

If there isn't a clear first ballot winner, things get really, really interesting. Threats, blackmail, defaming and/or favors, appointments, handouts, and unmarked cash should all be expected to come into play.

by Bob Brigham 2007-02-19 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome has a lot on this

We can ask Gov. Dean about that.  Boss Clinton don't like no steenkin outsiders on his turf.

by dkmich 2007-02-20 01:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

Maybe a special call-out for a Renta-Crowd, especially those interested in a pro-war Hillary?

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-02-19 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

I would much prefer Al Gore or Wes Clark.

Hillary is a total enigma. She has the deepest roots in average America, yet she is probably the Democratic contender who is the most radically disconnected from it. But average America doesn't seem to know that! I don't think she's neocon, or even a typical paleo. Simply disconnected. Of course, the master neocons understand this, and will attempt to exploit it maximally.

by blues 2007-02-19 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

I have no problem with this tactic.  

Hillary is the one Dem candidate who has been absolutely crucified in the netroots for not much reason.

She has been crucified for voting yes on the resolution to use military force in Iraq, even though her statement on the floor of COngress should be required reading for all who criticize her, and she has been crucified for not being the Dennis Kucinich of the Senate in the years following.

But please remember this:  She has been VERY consistent in her politics:  She is NOT a Liberal Candidate, no matter how much we want her to be!

She is a Clintonian-middle candidate, and we better get used to it.  She is convinced we are in a GWOT, she is convinced she will not back down and say she is mistaken about this, and she  speaks and understands Conservative.

This is the main reason why she scares the bejeezus out of low-life right-wingnut scum like Gingrich and Hannity:  She simply "gets it" to Conservatives.

She connects with Middle America's fears and foibles, and she speaks and listens to and understands their language.

She KNOWS she is not going to get all our Dem votes.  There are many true-blue netroot Libs here, like Matt and others, who will simply not vote for her no matter what.

And she knows what to do about that.

Me, I WILL vote for her.  

I believe her core of decency, like Bill's, is exactly what we need to stand for.  I know she is nowhere near perfect, nowhere near where she should be in Liberal Progressive terms.

But let's not let the perfect get in the way of helping her, and us, achieve clear and lasting Progress.

by dembluestates 2007-02-19 04:32PM | 0 recs
get in the way of helping her,

Uh...er...so "shut up and donate us some money and vote for us".

Bite me.

by ElitistJohn 2007-02-19 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

I've read her floor statement - so?

Hillary might have found it 'extremely' useful, if she actually read the statements of her fellow, experienced 'senior' senators who knew exactly what the resolution would lead to, and were right.  Also, she voted AGAINST their amendments.  She's a disaster.

And, no she's not consistent in her politics, hence the association with Clinton 'triangulating'
or being 'untrustworthy' depending which crowd she is speaking to.

Also, Hillary is NOT Bill, there's no Clinton gene in there.  If she divorced him we wouldn't be getting all this two for the price of one crap.

Why vote for her, what do you THINK she will bring you, when she never really defined herself because of her triangulation?

Let's have a fresh non-dynastic, non-corporate whore - let's have some authentitity, someone who is not so self-interested in single-issue interests $$$, that is experienced, doesn't have to rely on advisors to chart her every move.  Someone who's judgement will not lead us into WWIII.
 

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-02-19 04:51PM | 0 recs
I have no problem with this tactic.

You have no problem with lying? Or do you know which 'other candidates' she was referring to who don't think terrorism is a problem?

by BlueinColorado 2007-02-19 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

She gets "Conservative"? So why doesn't she just switch parties?  Why is it that the defined front runner revels in ignoring her supposed base?  I am not saying that she has to kiss our asses.  A little respect would be nice.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-19 05:23PM | 0 recs
Read it and Weep

In spite of your generous, but unconciliatory, tone on her behalf that has to be one of the most insultingly dismissive comments on the subject of a candidacy I have ever read here.  So that's it then, eh?  Read it and weep.  The Republican and the Democratic parties are committed to policies that run counter to the wishes of the electorate and that is just to bad for us?  Is it now?

And said with all the brazen arrogance of a PanzerFuehrer of Leibstandarte Hillary Clinton setting off for Stalingrad.  Good luck to the lot of you: hope you have a happy Christmas.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-19 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

"She has been crucified for voting yes on the resolution to use military force in Iraq, even though her statement on the floor of COngress should be required reading for all who criticize her, and she has been crucified for not being the Dennis Kucinich of the Senate in the years following. "

Look, this is such a disingenuous statement. You perfectly know that part of the anger is her conduct at forums and press interviews where she pandered to the 9-11 fear and she actually did stump for the war at meets like the CodePink gathering. She claims she was misled, yet why didn't she say this on Tim Russert as late as 2004? If she was misled, how come we have not heard from her until she decided to campaign for President?
The Iraq war issue is indicative of how she will behave.

It is not a small issue that when she gets back into power, the same old gang will get power again shutting off new energy into the Democratic Party. The only way I would vote for an immediate relative with the same circle of advisers if they are exceptional. It is obvious she is not exceptionally qualified compared to other Dems.

THe other candidates give you the same progressive policies as Hillary without her Iraq war baggage.

The single reason Bush's numbers are so low is the Iraq war(Even if to some of us, he is terrible on many others). Yet the same issue many ofyou will gladly tar Bush with is all of a sudden just a small issue for you now, just because Hillary will not gain from this issue?

by Pravin 2007-02-19 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

 No reason?   Core decency like Bill?   Yeah decent Bill sure put those welfare babies in their places while never touching a dime of corporate welfare.  Yeah, decent Bill pushed NAFTA and gave away the middle class.  Yeah, decent Bill wasted two years of his presidency over a bimbo. Decent Hillary voted for the war; is in no hurry to end the war until her managers tell her to;  took money from Rupert, the man who persecuted her and her family; pandered to wingers on flag burning legislation; supported her crony Lieberman over the real democratic winner; and tells her base to kiss her ass. The Clintons are not only not decent, the Clintons aren't middle.  The only middle they know is where their triangulation meets to close the deal and where they wear their belts.  They are Ronald Reagan reincarnate and 16 years of Reagan was way too much.  Too bad Guiliani isn't running as a liberal.  I would love to hand the Clintons and Carville thier ass.

by dkmich 2007-02-20 01:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

>>She is convinced we are in a GWOT, she is convinced she will not back down and say she is mistaken about this, and she  speaks and understands Conservative.

So am I, and practically everyone in the netroots, presidential candidates, and rank and file dems.  That's why we want to ask her, who said that we aren't?  
Exception:  Some say that we aren't in the middle of a struggle on global terrorism because you can't fight a political tactic, but those same people do believe that we're fighting Violent fundamentalist Islam.

by maddogg 2007-02-20 05:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

I think it's quite different to say that terrorism is an everpresent threat as to to "we are in a Global War on Terror".  We are not in a "War on Terror".  We're not even in a "War" with "Terrorism", even though that would be a better way to say it.  

What we are involved in is a war in Iraq which doesn't seem to be doing anything about terrorism.  Indeed, as recent news reports suggest, the overcommitment of military force to nebulous goals in Iraq has hurt the military's ability to stop the resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afganistan and Pakistan.

And so what does Clinton do?  She joins in with the chorus of voices wringing their hands about Iran.  It's all just so much theater, and it grows tiresome.

by RickD 2007-02-20 05:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

So you're saying you fall in my "exception" category?

by maddogg 2007-02-20 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

Have a read :)

Neocons in the Democratic Party
Like Kennedy and Truman, Democratic neocons want to beef up the military and won't run from a fight.
By Jacob Heilbrunn, Jacob Heilbrunn, a former Times editorial writer, is writing a book on neoconservatism.
May 28, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/comm entary/la-op-heilbrunn28may28,0,6411415. story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-02-19 04:38PM | 0 recs
Just say NO to Liebermanesque tactics

I will never support a candidate who pulls a Lieberman: selling out his/her entire party as "soft on terrorism" for personal gain.  

The primaries are going to be rough and tumble, and all of the candidates are going to have to fight hard to win the nomination, but I think we have to draw the line and NOT reward any candidate who is going to adopt Liebermanesque talking points.

by Maura in CT 2007-02-19 04:41PM | 0 recs
Totally

No Democrat should stoop to use these tactics. If she has a specific Dem in mind and a good argument--then make it. Otherwise take the high road and get out of the GOP gutter.

I doubt that she will. How's that flag burning legislation coming?

by anothergreenbus 2007-02-19 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Just say NO to Liebermanesque tactics

It's the same point I was making above ... why does she call herself a Democrat if she is so uncomfortable in the party?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-19 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Just say NO to Liebermanesque tactics

The Clintons' approach to Lieberman-Lamont was emblematic of their approach to Iraq which emblematic of their politics in general.

by BlueinColorado 2007-02-19 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

The irony here is that Clinton gets crap for triangulating, and the one thing she's taken a clear position on, Iraq, is what is getting her in trouble.

But irony aside, Clinton, like most of D.C. finds herself far to the right of the American people.  60% of the American people think the War in Iraq was wrong, and want our troops out of there today.  But the "conventional wisdom" of D.C. says that the War wasn't a mistake, and that everything will work out soon.  Of course, that's completely wrong.  But that's the "wisdom" of D.C.

Strategy-wise, this is the wrong way for Clinton to go.  Anyone who would agree with her on Iraq will never, ever, vote for her..  In fact, that's part of Clinton's problem in the first place.  40-45-50% of the electorate hate her.  So for her to attempt to bring those voters around by moving to the right is a fool's errand. The only thing that this strategy does is alienate the base that Clinton needs to overcome the hate gap.

by Jim Treglio 2007-02-19 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

Actually the only thing she is firm on is that her vote wasa not a mistake. SHe has changed the tone and language used from meeting to meeting just subtle enough to have it every way. She said she only voted for authorisation at the time, but CodePink clips show that she was for the war itself. She refused to even consider that her vote was a mistake when Russert interviewed her prior to the 2004 election, and she did not use that as an opportunity to say Bush misled her. But now, that she is running, she has started to use the "misled" excuse.

When Lamont won, all of a sudden , she feels the need to question Rumsfeld in a passionate tone. Then Lamont fades, and she is back to minding other business and not speaking out against Bush's betrayal of her vote with teh same attention she gave some video game press meet.

by Pravin 2007-02-19 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

I would have actually respected her if she laid out why Bush went wrong in the implementation as it was happening, and how she should have paid heed to certain signs better, which would make me respect her just a tad more(not enough to vote for her in the primary, but enough for me not to feel sick at the thought of her becoming President).

FOr a lady who spent so many years in DC compared to the other main contenders, she sure lacks any kind of intelligent analysis on how things went wrong. She just gives a vague blanket statement on how she was misled. I just see political calculation more than true hawkishness in her vote for the war.

by Pravin 2007-02-19 05:09PM | 0 recs
She doesn't know when to take a stand

She knows vague, and she knows compromise.  These are important skills for a politician, and it's good that she can do them.  But, sometimes, politicians need to take a stand. Since getting burnt in 1994 with Hillarycare, she absolutely won't. That's why I think she's one of the inferior candidates - 2008 will be an election about principles and we need someone bold and inspiring.

Her handling of Iraq is exhibit A. All this dancing around looks weak. Most people in the Dem party are now firmly against the war and ever having given Bush authority. Hillary's position (that the authority should have been granted but not used) is defensable but presently undefended. If she doesn't bother to present a clear position and stand up for it people will assume she's just going with the wind (probably correctly.) She just doesn't see this is a time to take a stand, and it's really hurting her. This killer gaffe (and that's what this is) isn't going to help.

by curtadams 2007-02-19 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

"The irony here is that Clinton gets crap for triangulating, and the one thing she's taken a clear position on, Iraq, is what is getting her in trouble."

Wrong, she triangulated herself into the yes vote.  She was pandering to the neocons and war mongers in anticipation of this run.  Run right and triangulate is the Clinton motto.  

by dkmich 2007-02-20 01:20AM | 0 recs
Reagan Resurrected

The Republicans are bankrupt and then Hillary's selfish triangulation gig resurrects them.  She is perpetuating and legitimizing their frames at the expense of the Democratic party and the progressive movement.

There is a place for triangulation but you have to do it with your own frames rather than validating your discredited opponent.  This is not 1992.  The Republican ideas are bankrupt and everyone knows it.  Now Hillary is giving them life support.

If we elect Hillary then we might as well turn Congress back over to the Republicans.  The Clintons are too selfish to play for the team.  

The next president has to be a leader who defines America's agenda for twenty years.

by Hellmut 2007-02-19 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Reagan Resurrected

It's been obvious since the mid 90's that the Clinton care only about themselves

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-19 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Reagan Resurrected

Whoa!

The truth emerges.

I will never support or vote for this bitch. As a matter of fact I will do whatever I can to oppose this arrogant creature who is clearly of The Money Party.

The only difference between her attitude and Barbara Bush' about 'the little people' is that Clinton lies about it.
.

by Pericles 2007-02-19 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Reagan Resurrected

Well .. if you remember .. for as popular as Clinton was .. did that translate to any increased power in the House or Senate?  .. Bush was able to keep Congress in Repub hands for 6 .. Clinton only did for 2

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-19 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Reagan Resurrected

Criticize her all you want, but don't call her a bitch.

by jallen 2007-02-20 10:47AM | 0 recs
I just watched the video

She was actually quite good. Very eloquent on issues and has a fairly good sense of humor. The style is very different from Obama's, which is more colloquial. It's more polished and prepared, but you still feel like she is talking to you and addressing your issues. I've watched her speeches in Iowa and New Hampshire and she is definitely getting better each time.

by PhillyGuy 2007-02-19 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I just watched the video

Terrific.  Pity about the content, eh?  Sense of humour?  It's a wonder she can keep a straight face.  Do you really admire the positioning she has taken on this?  Really?  I wonder which party's candidate I am watching sometimes.  Tough on terror... You have gotta' be kidding.  Where did she get that from, eh?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-19 05:38PM | 0 recs
this is a more extreme case

of what I was telling you about on the Obama thread.

It is wrong for Clinton to puff herself up as better than those other Democrats who won't protect you against terrorists.

And it is wrong for Obama to puff himself up as better than those other Democrats who won't let you talk about religion in public.

by desmoinesdem 2007-02-19 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: this is a more extreme case

Well, I guess the difference for me is that I am not so sure Obama is wrong, and I think his motives are about encouraging debate rather than stifling it.  I can't see the discussion of faith as anything but risky for him, as your responses illustrate.  

Whereas what Hillary is doing here, it seems to me, is cosying up the most damaging frame that has been perpetrated on the US public by the extremists of the Right at a time when, more than anything, we need leadership away from the abyss.  It seems like she is using whatever frame she likes to operate in at the expense of integrity and the wishes of the electorate.

It is not her dark hints about the other candidates which gives me the shivers, although that is vintage Hillary, it is the very idea that she believes that there should be a war on terror.  Terrorism is stateless and a war on terror is an oxymoron.  She is convincing me she believes the public are stupid.  

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-19 06:10PM | 0 recs
Terrorism is a strategy

How do you fight a strategy?

Read Lakoff's take on this "framing";Democrats should have rejected thisframing a long time ago.

by merbex 2007-02-20 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrorism is a strategy

Sorry, not quite sure what you are asking.  The War on Terror framing as a political strategy?  Tell the people the truth.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-20 10:53AM | 0 recs
The Democratic Party, and by that I mean those

who speak as leaders in the Democratic Party should never have adopted the frame "War on Terror" - it is a Republican frame, and as such it "fits" their arguments.

Lakoff has written extensively about this; he calls it a "powerful surface frame, with a wide reaching set of implications."  As we have all seen, the Republicans trot out this phrasing "War on Terror" to enable whatever new scheme -escalation, widening the war with possibly Iran as the next target as their excuse for this "war on terror".

He writes that

"War implies the necessity of military action. When we're in a war, all other concerns are secondary.

When terror is added to war a metaphor is produced in which "terror" becomes the oposing army. As in any war the enemy must be defeated. But terror is not actually an army - it is a state of mind. As such, it cannot be defeated on a field of battle. It is an emotion. Moreover, The war on terror frame is self- perpetuating;merely being in a war scares citizens, and reiteration of the frame creates more fear. So there is no end to the war on terror because you cannot permantly capture and defeat an emotion.

The above quote is from pages 29-30 from his new book "Communicating Our American Values and Vision" by Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute

I misquoted when I said it was a strategy. However, we play into Bush's and the neo-cons hands every time we use the same phrase.

by merbex 2007-02-20 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democratic Party, and by that I mean those

I totally agree, thanks for the citation.  What the heck is with Hillary on this?  I fear the party is being taken over in a way that undermines the whole progressive movement.  Do we have to start from scratch, again?

I had no real beef with Hillary until these themes started emerging in her campaign.  Is she just doing this to get elected?  I hope she doesn't really believe some of the things she is saying but just saying them is damaging enough, isn't it?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-20 02:41PM | 0 recs
I have come to believe that Hillary Clinton

is not really interested in the progressive movement - she is late to the game on nearly all the issues that progressives care about - there is too much "me too -ism " lately with her pronouncements as opposed to the reality of her longer record/votes.

I believe she and her advisors have bought into the notion that for an American woman to be elected President of the US she has to "appear strong" a la Margaret Thatcher. My personal belief is that they are wrong - maybe at one time that may have been correct but this particular war of choice showed how her error in judgement have made the US weaker.

23 US Senators made the correct decision when they voted against authorization - ipso facto that means the 77 others were wrong. I don't understand why she can't make and see this obvious conclusion. It is also insulting to the 23 who "saw the same intell" she did and came to a different conclusion -a different judgement. The correct conclusion. The correct judgement.

Maybe that is the question one should ask : "Senator, were the 23 Senators who voted against the Iraq authorization correct?"

Edwards is absolutely spot on when he says flatly that he was wrong in regard to this vote.

I really don't think this is something one can be equivocal about.

by merbex 2007-02-20 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

She's a loser with this. This makes the other candidates initial campaign problems trivial.

I understand that The Money Party candidates, Clinton, Obama, McCain and Gingrich are following their marching orders from their handlers but all this shows is that the 'invisible conspiracy' oligarchy which has been running the coungry since RayGun is now populated and directed by morons.

How will any of these candidates extricate themselves from their 'I support the war' meme when The MeatGrinder really goes to shit later this year?

Once the insurgency leaders on the Sunni side see that America, hamstrung by the Money Party Senators refusal to face reality, is never gonna leave Iraq then alliances will be formed across the current sectarian divide.

And then we will see if Brit Hume can pronounce Khartoum properly.

It will be an awful price to pay for this country's stupidity and arrogance. But as someone once said:

'Poleeetics has conseeeequences...'
.

by Pericles 2007-02-19 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

I will not vote for hillary clinton.  I'll vote for Nader or write in Gore; but a panderer like clinton will never get my vote.

by AnthonyMason 2007-02-19 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

Don't vote for Nader unless you feel strongly about him not because I hate nAder. But because his name has become an easy scapegoat for Democrats when they lose elections. Writing in Gore will probably be better. How ironic would that be? Gore's writein votes making the difference in a state like OH or FL after Gore lost an election because of lessons not learned by his advisers.  Now the same lack of lessons learned could give power to a 3rd party voting base.

by Pravin 2007-02-19 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

Youre an idiot if you dont think that Nader carries the blame for 2000.  He knew what he was doing and apologists like you, trying to murk up the water with reviosinistic b crap just make it more likely that it will happen again.

btw, the GOP may be my enemy (lifelong trench fighting Dem here) but I truly d-espise people like you....phony faux upper middle class pretend eventual yuppie lefties...

by timlhowe 2007-02-20 05:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

If you have been a regular reader, you would hve known where I am coming from. I do not have the same priorities as you.

Answer this.
Can you guarantee that GOP will never take back the Presidency?

Of course not.

So what do you do when that inevitability happens?

DO you just give up and blame the people who did not show up in large enough numbers to vote because a NO VOTE is the same as a THIRD PARTY VOTE. Get that in your idiotic skull(like I said , i will never attack another MYDD reader unless he attacks me first. And who the fuck are you, again? ).

What you would do is function as an effective opposition party and try to recapture the Presidency in the next elections by trying to learn why people didn't vote your way in the last elections. What happened in 2004? You had the DLC typers try to shut up and marginalize the Deans of the party giving strength to the Bush narratives increasing his lead in 2004. That is what happens when idiots like you call other people idiots instead of looking at your own party;'s faults.

I was a registered  independent in 2000. And I did not vote for NAder in 2000. ANd I voted Kerry in 2004. SInce then I have registered Democrat because of people like Webb, Dean and Lamont. And I will write in a third party candidate other than Nader in 2008 if Hillary is the candidate. Who are you to tell me Hillary's values are mine. I have my own priorities of what is important to me in 2008. The war is a big issue and she has failed spectacularly in this area when it comes to exhibiting integrity in the aftermath and sound judgement prior. Will you still blame Nader or the random third party guy I will vote for if you continue to not learn from the mistakes of the past and go with the same old candidate from the group that has lost us many senate and congress elections in the last 15 years?

I am not a pretend yuppie. My values are not the same as yours. If you were an actual MYDD reader, you would know what my values are. So shut the fuck up if you judge me without even doing a cursory amount of research.

It's funny. All i see from my naysayers is the tired old refrain "4 more years of republican rule" despite the fact that I debunked that reasoning. But you ignore the logic I put out because you have no answer. You may not like it, but it is not illogical and it is a personal choice for me. You make the stupid assumption that I share the same exact values you do. If this was the 70s, people like Robert Casey in PA would have gotten the Hillary treatment because choice was such a crucial issue back then.

Why should I vote for Hillary if her elction only serves to undo the gains by the non DLCers who will only grow in arrogance. If they can be so arrogant even when they hurt the party in local elections, imagine how arrogant they will be now.

by Pravin 2007-02-20 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton
Good luck with 4 more years of a Republican president.
by PhillyGuy 2007-02-19 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

I'm one of the people who is usually seen giving Hillary the benefit of the doubt, but this is absolutely unacceptable.

While I, unlike some (heh), have no problem with the idea of Hillary as President, it absolutely can't be allowed to happen at the expense of Brand Democrat.  Dozens upon dozens of candidates proved last November that you can win as a Democrat without trashing the party or boasting how you're not like those "other" Democrats.

It's our duty to complain loud and long about this sort of self-defeating tactic until the message gets across.

by Steve M 2007-02-19 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

So much ridiculous garbage in one thread.  Some here are no better than the freepers with their mock outrage over a botched joke.  

Let me see:  Is Hillary a neo-con?  Nope.  But there it is, from the hysteria of the "netroots,"  is she "Bush."  Nope, but don't let that stop anyone here.  Did she "sell out her entire party as soft on terrorism?"  Of course not.  Utter crap.  But why should reality stop anyone here from making ridiculous claims?

Kind of sad.  I suppose everybody here will just become a little Naderite, selling out the Democratic party, when the Democratic primary voters decide, in the most democratic fashion known to man, that on balance they like HRC the best of all candidates.  And, lest I forget, the Democratic primary voters will be derided as "dumb" and "blind" and "uninformed" by the intelligentsia on this site (or should I say arrogantsia) because they voted for the "wrong" person.  

Blech.  

by georgep 2007-02-19 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

The most democratic fashion, powered by name recognition from banging a popular former president, funded by the connection of said former preseident, implying a restoration of the former presidency.

Yep, that's almost as Democratic as how you become the Duke of Wales.

by ElitistJohn 2007-02-19 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

How did the voters decide democratically that Clinton is "the best of all candidates?"  The "most democratic fashion" of expressing preference is to vote in, you know, an election.  Proclaiming that we should support her because she is the front runner is not only circular, but exceptionally undemocratic.

If she wins a majority of delegates, we can talk.  Until then, however, please leave the coronations to the GOP.  We're Democrats.

by LPMandrake 2007-02-19 11:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

Did she "sell out her entire party as soft on terrorism?"

Her actions since 2003 have left people who were opposed to the war (like Dean Feingold) hung out to dry.

When she makes a statement like this, she is selling out the party when she makes vague references to unnamed rivals. Voter A could think of one rival, while another voter could be thinking she means another rival and so on. She is reinforcing the right wing frame. Spare me the fake outrage and address her statement word by word and try to justify that. You have no logical rebuttal, so you feign outrage.

by Pravin 2007-02-20 12:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

The quote comes right at 31:00 on the clip, but you can go to about 28:30 for the question and context of her answer.

I'm not a fan of Hillary's and fwiw I did't find this quote as troubling as her remarks about her Iraq vote.  That's where she has a real problem.

by JJF 2007-02-19 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

Thanks for the tip.  The "40 minutes" advice was not very helpful.

by RickD 2007-02-20 05:53AM | 0 recs
Hillary Lieberman-Cheney...

makes George W. Bush proud! I am now officially in the anyone but W, oops, I mean Hillary camp.

by jncamane 2007-02-19 08:37PM | 0 recs
Hell no, I won't go.

If Hillary is the nominee, I will not vote for her.  I will vote a straight Democratic ticket and omit the #1 spot.  I would rather have a Republican President and a Democratically controlled House and Senate and be in a perpetual state of stalemate (do no harm) then to have Hillary compromising with Dems and Pubs on whatever she needs to make herself look good.  Screw Hillary and the DC beltway.  I will not be a party to their game.

by dkmich 2007-02-20 01:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

Is it fair to say that we do not really know Hillary Clinton at all? She got elected on her husbands coattails, so she has never really been forced to define herself.

by pwax 2007-02-20 01:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

Is it fair to say we don't know Hillary Clinton at all?

Did the last fifteen years not happen?  Hillary Clinton hasn't had a private life since 1991.  I think we know her better than any candidate for the Presidency, ever (incumbents excluded).

by RickD 2007-02-20 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

Who are you fools that keep saying that Hillary is no Democrat?  Youre driving me nuts!  The one person (in my opinion) who has the best chance to beat the GOP is being attacked personally and viscously by a slew of posters - attacks that the republicans love btw - and they are claiming that she is not a Dem.  Screw that - having worked in Dem politics all my life - I think that those people are the ones that have done little for my party, whilst Hillary has been fighting the good fight for thirty years.

Heck.  I agree with Hillary - if you demand her apolgy (you should read www.dailyhowler.com to really understand how silly this is as an issue) then fine - voter for someone else, Ive met and like all the candidates...and if you wanna threaten to vote for nader or whoever - go ahead - you silly faux lefty hypocrites will have your chance cause Ralphie will run for the fifth straight consecutive time - no doubt - and you can just pretend just how pure and smart you are...we all now how well that worked out for everybody else in 2000.  (Remember all that Gore=Bush BS?)

by timlhowe 2007-02-20 05:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

I noticed you (just) skipped the Goldwater part of her life - eh!  Totally reformed now has she... yeah right!  Would republican-lite suit better. She's no democrat, she's been in politics for six years, in the minority, I've seen absolutely not defining Democrat qualities, in fact exactly the opposite (flag burning, her thugs holding back Feingold, waving on John Bolton, waving on filibusting Alito)?  Every step of the way she has watched and belittled any Democrat that wanted to speak out against the status quo.  Democrat my backside..!

The women might even be a Thatcher-clone, but she's the deluded Thatcher at the end of her 'prime' that HAD to be ousted at the end... that's what the gender-centric ra ra crowd don't seem to get...

Plus, do you really think, now that's she finally showing her true self with regard to how hawkish and unitary executive she is, that you are going to get any middle-class social programs out of her - Dream on!  We are grossly in debt and the Pentagon and military spending will be first in line, plus she will need to pay back her AIPAC friends == continued blood-shed and no honest broker in the ME.  

Also, I've seen a shift in the pro-Hillary posters, they are now admitting she is an uber-hawk, so now we have come to the next stage - Will the rest of the Democratic Party that doesn't follow the nuances and 'get-it' like we do, agree with her that the WHOLE of the ME are our boogeyman and so we need to continue and escalate war, or will they grasp the fact that the rest of the world has, that compromise and backing off the saber-rattling is a rational, and less expensive thing to do?

That's the next stage, will the joe-six pack get it...?

Plus, Nader has nothing to do with this.  It's the Democratic Party at stake this time, not just the Presidency.  With her viciousness the progressive wing will be totally monied out... I would rather save the Democratic Party, than vote for a calculating thirty year positioning republican(lite) warmonger.  If other Democrats are foolish enough to vote for her so be it.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-02-20 06:35AM | 0 recs
Take it easy, buddy

The issue is that Hillary is joining Cheney calling Dems soft on terrorism.  What do you want us to do?  Allow Hillary to promote herself at the expense of the party?

Validating Rush Limbaugh is not cool.  Hillary is out of line.  Democrats who promote themselves by damaging the Democratic party need to be held accountable.

by Hellmut 2007-02-20 09:27AM | 0 recs
ok, some context

some quotes:

"You can't just do something and not think about the consequences...One of the problems with our current President, is that, with respect to going into Iraq, he did it in a very reckless pre-emptive way, and that wasn't the smart way to go about the problem."

"...I've been out in the field, looking at our troops trying to track down Bin Laden, who by the way is still a direct threat to America.  We took our eye off Bin Laden in order for the President to pursue his interest in Iraq, and that in my view was a mistake."

"...Some people may be running who will tell you that we don't face a real threat from terrorism.  I'm not one of those. I think we do.  I think we have serious enemies who wish to do us serious harm.  I object to the way we have gone after them.  I believe that we need to have a much broader, world-wide effort to isolate, deter and defeat the terrorists than what this President has led.  At that's what I will do."

I think it's clear from the part "some people may be running..." that this is just a rhetorical flourish.  It's bizarre because we don't have any actual candidates who would say something as ridiculous as what Clinton says here.  But I think it's a distance from smearing Obama or Edwards or any of the other major candidates.  It certainly isn't the centerpiece of what she's saying, and I wouldn't have picked it out for notice had I not been pointed to it.

In my mind, the direct, forceful criticism of President Bush redeems this bit.  And yeah, the Post is taking her out of context again (suprise, surprise!)  Indeed, Cilizza's article is an out-and-out lie.  He is the one who suggests that she is comparing herself to "other Democrats", a phrase that is notably absent in the context of her comment.

by RickD 2007-02-20 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: ok, some context

If it's just a rhetorical flourish, it's a flourish she needs to lose.  It's right out of the Bush playbook: "Some people say we should have left Saddam in power... some people say Arabs aren't capable of having a democracy..."

And in this case, she's deploying the strawman argument in a way that enables a right-wing theme: the idea that Democrats are soft on terrorism.  Your argument that maybe she meant Republican candidates would be saying terrorism isn't a real threat is hard to take seriously, I'm afraid.

Think of the flap over these comments as a shot across Hillary's bow.  I want to hear the Democratic candidates talk about why the Republican agenda is toxic and how they intend to oppose it.  I definitely do not want to hear about how they are the only Democrat who is capable of prosecuting the war on terror; that's the stuff of cheap smears.

by Steve M 2007-02-20 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton
Hillary's just released her 50th policy position regarding Iraq, now it's we stay 90 more days, and that's it....talk about consistency!! Please see the short video here:
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2007/02 /hillary-on-iraq-from-this-weekend.html
by MinorRipper 2007-02-20 08:39AM | 0 recs
Tough on Crime, Terrorism, etc

Clinton's pitch is a defensive strategy. She has to separate herself from Republicans and she has to distinguish herself, especially as a female, as tough on crime, terrorism, etc.

Let's look at some basics:
1)Republicans are given higher ratings over democrats on national security

2)Men pick male candidates over female candidates on national security

3)Apologizing for the vote on Iraq comes off as a sign of weakness in some circles.
.
.

Apologizing is labeled as weak and groveling, and would open Clinton up to flip-flop attacks according to Clinton's train.

The tough, unapologetic American with a can do -come hell or high water- attitude will get'er done (stereotype). Hell bent to protect its investments from the competition, the American cowboy strings up the barbed wire and polishes the ranch gun. (Enter Wyatt Earp, stage left).

This type of toughness (regardless of what Clinton's train says about being forward looking) is actually a complex defensive strategy. Who knows if it will pay off.

In the end, the entire pitch about weak on national security is a fallacy intended on ensnaring the democratic candidate. Clinton thinks a tough, unapologetic characterization of her defense will shore up her win. Well, if she's going to run with it she might as well embrace it fully and announce Lieberman as her VP.

by Rob Price 2007-02-20 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

well posted the quote and a link to the Wash post blog article on Hillary's blog.

Or at least tried to. Everything is screened there before a post is allowed so see if they even allowed it.

I havent see any discussion at all over there on this subject yet though.

By the way, I'm an Edwards supporter and I'm amazed at how different her blog style is. On the Edwards site, the members themselves vote on blogs and diaries that are posted. And replys are not screened by anyone. Criticism isn't squelched. In fact I just voted for a post that criticizes his health care plan.

by okamichan13 2007-02-21 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Update on Clinton

well they put my post up:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/ ?id=547

2/21/07 5:06 pm

wonder if there will be a response.

by okamichan13 2007-02-21 01:29PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads