ummm, the pledge is to restore aspects of the constitution which have been destroyed...

what is to stop every attention seeking media type from coming up with a pledge and asking everyone to sign it.  This all seems rather meaningless to me. Now if one of the candidates has said "I pledge to give back all the powers that bush has grabbed for himself while in office" and then listed them, I would be impressed.  In fact I have written to Gore and asked that he do that should he decide to run.  But I am completely unimpressed by this latest Publicity stunt by Miss Wolf.

no candidate with any sense is going to sign this.  It is too vague. These powers have to be specified and deliberately written out. Clinton and Edwards are good lawyers and apparently have better sense than Obama.  They are not going to sign this when they know it can be thrown in their face a million times in the GE.

If she signs the pledge I will not hesistate to criticize her , I do not believe any serious presidential candidate should be signing pledges from any group.

The only pledge you should take is to your oath of office and to the constitution not to any group.

I do not want think its appropriate for a presidential candidate to be beholden to a group because they have signed their pledge , period.

There is nothing entirely wrong with the wording of the pledge but it is what you pledge to when you are taking your oath of office .

So if I take the pledge and I break it , what the hell are they going to do about that ?

Off topic.  

I think she has made statements to that effect.  I wish I could remember where.  Wasn't that something she said in the debate?  Didn't she make it clear that she did not believe that torture what useful and that it put our own service people in danger and besides it was not who we were?  I seem to remember words to that effect when Timmy was trying to catch her in disagreement with her husband.

Where are you reading the endorsement of Bush administration Iran policy in Clinton's statement:

September 26, 2007

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment

Washington, DC - "Earlier today, I voted for a non-binding resolution that designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. The Revolutionary Guards are deeply involved in Iran's nuclear program and  have substantial links with Hezbollah.

"I voted for this resolution in order to apply greater diplomatic pressure on Iran. This resolution in no way authorizes or sanctions military action against Iran and instead seeks to end the Bush Administration's diplomatic inaction in the region.

"Iran has gained expanded influence in Iraq and the region as a result of the Bush Administration's polices which have also rejected diplomacy as a tool for addressing Iranian ambitions.  While the United States has spurned talks, Iran has enhanced its nuclear enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to damage its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.

"I continue to support and advocate for a policy of entering into talks with Iran, because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims.

"This legislation reaffirms my policy of engagement and refers specifically to the statement of Defense Secretary Gates who said that "diplomatic and economic means" are "by far the preferable approach" for dealing with the threat posed by Iran.

"In February, after troubling reports about the possibility of military action against Iran, I took to the Senate Floor to warn that President Bush needs Congressional Authorization before attacking Iran. Specifically, I said it would be a mistake of historical proportion if the Administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further and explicit Congressional authorization. Nor should the President think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the Administration believes that any use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.

"Nothing in this resolution changes that."

I can not believe all these candidates support wife beating.  Shame on them.

A pledge that all the candidates agree to but one is entirely different from a ridiculous pledge that not a single candidate would ever consider signing.  Give me a break already.

go to hell both of you. you really don't care about the unitary executive do you? or is that term to complicated?

Yeah, Naomi Wolf, from Al Gore's 2000 campaign, must be a big-time Naderite.  Here's what their October 1 press release said:

The Campaign also sent letters in August to the announced Republican presidential candidates. None of the Republican candidates have provided AFC with a response. Earlier this year, however, Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) signed a similar pledge circulated by the American Freedom Agenda, an organization formed by conservative leaders, including former Reagan official Bruce Fein and former congressman Bob Barr.

Are you now adopting areyouready's schtick that anyone who says anything unfavorable about Hillary in contrast to the other Democratic candidates is a "Naderite"?  Some of your comments are getting to be as obnoxious as his these days.

say naderites again. do it. i can track your ip.

Sending a letter of agreement is appropriate because there is nothing wrong with the wording of the pledge but signing a pledge is something I would not want any presidential candidate to do.

my faith is restored.  There are still a few leaders left who know enough not to be bullied in to acting like sheep.

No, I hadn't read your profile, just picked up on the comment you made.  I'm not trying to have a go at you, I respect your posts, it just seems like a bit of an ideological stretch in a few spots.  Like what's your position on government regulation of business for example?  Or privatisation of government services and assets?

You must be reading a different diary than I am.  I'd ask you to read it again, and show me where the diarist is accusing Hillary of being a torture lover, or any of the other inflammatory phrases you put in quotes.

To my eye, the diary simply explains what the pledge is, and says that Hillary is the last remaining Democrat not to sign or endorse it.  That's all.  Maybe you're finding this other stuff elsewhere.

Let me explain to you why the issue troubles me, although it's a moot point now.  I think we've all been disappointed to some extent by the Democrats' fecklessness on civil liberties issues over the past several years.  Whether it's the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, habeas corpus, or what have you, the Democrats seem to get bullied by Republican demagoguery every time.  The vote on the Military Commissions Act right before the 2006 election was a classic example.  The Dems had the election in the bag, they didn't want to give the GOP a free attack ad, so they gave Bush what he wanted.

I don't blame Hillary for this stuff any more than I blame anyone else.  I think she was on the right side on the Military Commissions Act.  I think in her heart she believes the right thing on all these issues.

But that's the thing.  I think most Democrats believe the right thing.  But the question is, when you know every pro-civil liberties stance is going to get demagogued in a Republican attack ad, who is actually going to make a priority out of reversing these Bush-era abuses?  I want to see evidence that our candidates don't just have the right position, but that they're willing to spend a little political capital on setting things right, even after getting elected.

I didn't take Hillary's failure to sign as a statement that she endorsed torture, or anything stupid like that.  I simply took it as a disappointing signal that maybe all this wasn't as big a priority for her as I'd hoped, or at least that she wasn't showing interest in demonstrating that it's a priority.  Now that's all been settled and it's not an issue.

You'll note that in one of my comments above, I expressly said that it could easily be just a case of her not getting around to it yet, and sure enough I was right about that.  I'll note, for the record, that while the ABC News reporting chose to spin this as an "anti-torture" pledge, it's obviously about a lot more than just torture.  Hillary was, of course, loud and clear on the subject of torture at the last debate and I doubt anyone will forget that moment soon.

Have a good evening.  Rest assured I'm still the same old reasonable guy.