She's appealing to all (well, both of) the Democrats who want to stay in Iraq indefinitely.

I think her poll numbers are going to start dropping like a rock, and then she will try to explain away her comments.

She is obviously does not give a damn to the 'Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party'.

Forgot to mention that above.  75 THOUSAND troops.  She is totally out of touch with America, let alone the "democratic wing of the democratic party."  

She's toast. My god, it's anybody but Hillary now.

Well, if ever I needed a reason never to vote for The Borg Queen, I have it now.

is homosexuality immoral or not?  I don't understand what party's nomination she's running for.

Did you read the transcript of the interview?

I'm a bit crosseyed at the moment, but my impression from the transcript is that is that Clinton:

* * *

• supports complete withdrawal in 18 months,
  
• supports withdrawal only from Baghdad,
  
• opposes partitioning because we're dealing with a sovereign Iraqi government
  
• supports staying to protect American interest and oppose Iran and fight AQ,
  
• supports the 'we broke it, you bought it' theory, which claims the big problem is that the Shia and Sunni haven't claimed ownership of the civil war, or something,
  
• is afraid if we don't change course we'll be in this same position in six months or a year, and
  
• thinks we need intense diplomacy in addition to a strictly enforced phased withdrawal.

But maybe I didn't read that right.

Nobody wants to end the war more than Hillary does.

Read the transcript.  Her position is very very close to the Republicans':  We can't stay until Iraq is stable.

She wants the military to retreat to bases in the middle of Iraq, not engage in urban warfare, and yet somehow accomplish 4 missions: (1) patrol "failed provinces" to disrupt, capture, and kill extremists, insurgents, and Al-Qaeda; (2) (a) help the Kurds defend Kurdistan against the Sunnis and the Shi'a (or is that not the problem she sees?) and (b) use the military to keep the Turks happy wrt an autonomous Kurdistan (how?); (3) train the Iraqi army and be their air force; (4)(a) prevent Iran from crossing the border, and (b) militarily prevent Iran from having "too much influence in Iraq."

No one wants to bring the troops home more than Hillary Lieberman.

This is insane.

She has got to be hit on this, and hard.

Ultimately, Hillary doesn't think that the invasion of Iraq was the wrong thing to do.  She has already stated that with her belief that her vote wasn't wrong even though she wouldn't have voted that way knowing what she knows now.  The only thing about this war that was wrong for her was the execution.  She seems to believe that if she were put in charge she could turn the tide.  I guess she thinks that even though tens of thousands of American troops would be in Iraq they wouldn't be targets because she would be President.  As if having our troops stand aside while people are killed around them is going to endear us to the Iraqis.  Once a College Republican President always one?

Why the "wow"?

Hillary is addressing a problem here.  There's a real possibility that Anbar will be Talibanized after American troops leave and that the province will become a base for global terrorist operations.  Likewise, there's been talk about Turkish, Iranian, or even Saudi invasions to fill the vacuum left by our withdrawal.  Those are the kind of things that Hillary would try to prevent.

There isn't much question of actually bringing all 150,000 troops home.  So, Hillary's not as out to lunch as she's being betrayed here.  I agree with Murtha that American troops should be withdrawn to places outside Iraq like Kuwait.  But I'd be interested in seeing if other candidates would support withdrawing all the troops and where they would withdraw them to.

1. Invading Iraq was a really nifty idea, and I still think I made the right decision to vote for the AUMF.

2. The invasion and occupation have not been conducted as well as I would have liked.

3. Now that we're in Iraq, we really can't risk leaving abruptly.

4. Let's talk about setting a deadline for withdrawal so that my campaign can deflect attention from my consistent support for the Bush/Cheney/neocon line.

5. But when I'm President, I plan to stay there, anyway.

6. Why not do Iran, while we're at it? Perpetual war is a marvelous business opportunity for some of my favorite donors.

7. It's about Big Oil, Big Guns, and AIPAC, stupid. Who cares about al-Qaeda?

I've said this before, no matter who the Democratic nominee is, there will not be a total withdrawal of troops from Iraq.  They will do an initial draw down to take the pressure off the National Guard, and they can really fudge the number of troops withdrawn if Bush gets his surge, but too many other entities want us to stay.
Who wants us to stay:

1. Saudi Arabia
   
2. Jordan
   
3. Israel
   
4. Shia  Government of Iraq

#1,2 don't want a Shiite Crescent and are really concerned about Iran and its influence with Iraq and Hezbollah.  Israel is worried about all of them.  The Iraqi Government likes having us as extra security, while they do what the hell they want on our tax dollar.

Wants us to go: Iran and Al Sadr

Why do you think the candidates dance around the defunding issue so much.  It is much easier to change the mission and keep the money source than cancel the mission (which defunding would do) and have to come to Congress with new plans and authorization request.  Don't ALL these bills being floated by the candidates and the Congress contain provisions about maintaining sufficient troops for training the Iraqis and continuing counter-terrorism operations in the interest of National Security.  Notice they fail to mention the # of troops needed to conduct the above operations.  Methinks it would be along the lines of what Hillary has suggested.  Look for permanent bases in Iraq, Qatar and Kuwait.

just a few weeks ago, didnt she say would end this war for good  by the time she became president?

authorize this kinda use of the armed forces.

Regardless of which Democratic nominee is elected president there will still be some kind of U.S. military presence in Iraq and that appears to be what she is saying. There will not be an exit with people clinging to helicopters like the end of the Vietnam war.

Even Obama's legisltion is worded to say removal of "combat brigades" not all U.S. troops. Because of the mess Bush has made in the Middle East there will be tremendous pressure on the next president to keep the region stable. Otherwise we would be looking at $5, $10 a gallon gas at some point and the U.S. economy would be wrecked.  

Ouch.

Whatever her exact position is -- and it might change after the next round of polling and focus grouping -- it sounds like she wants us to be in Iraq until well after Chelsea is eligable for Social Security.

But...wait...with her plan we will spend so much money that Chelsea will never get Social Security, not that she will need it.  I might.  

This really is bad.  She is well on her way to proving she is as tough as, say, Margaret Thatcher and a lot tougher than Bill Clinton.  It's a good stance if she were running before the bridge was built to the 21st Century.  Her bridge is back to the 20th.  It's a hot & cold war against terrorism policy, but it is in the wrong place.  

Deep consideration? This should effectively end her front runner status.

She's preaching 'stay the course'!

Sorry, forgot to add this to the above comment:

While Mrs. Clinton declined to estimate the size of a residual American troop presence, she indicated that troops might be based north of Baghdad and in western Anbar Province.

"It would be far fewer troops," she said. "But what we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of -- between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region, the ones that are going to remain for our antiterrorism mission, for our northern support mission, for our ability to respond to the Iranians, and to continue to provide support, if called for, for the Iraqis."

I hope that you will read my rambling.  For once I think the subject deserves the lengthly attention.

Clinton defenders bother me on this one.  Actyally they bother me period  Not to mention how badly her nomination would damage the identity of the party, imagine how badly she will damage the down ticket candidates who would have to run as "Hillary Democrats".  She stands for absolutely nothing but her own ambitions.  And for those of you who are still "friends of Bill" who do you think told her that she had to vote for, and stick by her vote for, the war in Iraq?  You guessed it...Bubba.  

He did a lot of good things but also a lot of bad things.  He bowed to the right (gave us NAFTA and embraced the whole Dems love "big" government crap when really we want effective government) and they still tore him a new one.  We lost our majorites in congress and in the governors mansions 2 years into his first term.  If Hillary somehow uses the favorable political climate to win you can kiss a lot of good Dems goodbye.
Feingold is up for re-election in 2010.  What about Webb, Tester, and Brown in 2012?  All that for what, she can lose 44 states to Thune in 2012?  Remember folks, the electoral map will change in 2010 after the new census and the GOP will have an even bigger advantage.

I could bring up her sorry excuse for a health care plan (no details by the way) that waits forever and wouldn't pass with her behind it, her nonstop attempt to look like a "hawk" which just re-enforces the whole Dems = weak   GOP = strong
crap.  I would love to talk about how she recently said that SOME DEMOCRATS DON'T TAKE THE WAR ON TERROR SERIOUSLY, LIKE I DO (paraphrasing).  Of course she did not name names.  She will sell out any principle or do any amount of damage to the party to try to win.  She is a self ofbsessed, hyper-ambitious, calculating, moral free, war enabling, psycho BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTT...

okay I had to try to restrain myself.

Without even bringing up her answer about General HOMOPHOBE's comment or her ridiculous position on the war, I have one point to make to the Hillary defenders. When we each of us became Democrats (I'm speaking of the experiences I, and my Democratic friends have had) a lot of us assumed we had to defend the Clinton's because they were Democrats and the right wing was coming after them so we thought "hey, they are with us."  But just because Hillary slams Bush does not mean that she is in opposition to his policies.  Please get past the intiatlly understandable yet destructive urge to support her just because the right hates her.  They hate her for different reasons.  I dislike her because she is the definition of a sell-out.  The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.

She is effectively trying to run as her husband vs. Bush.  But she does not have her husbands skill or charisma and she was a drag on both Clinton/Gore tickets.

All Romney or whatever wackjob GOP nominee has to say is "you are not bill clinton and I am not George W. Bush" and it's done.  In fact there is a good chance the the GOP nomine will pick either Chuck hagel or Haley Barbour (because he handled Katrina better) to show distance from Bush if Bush's approval ratings are still this low (which they will be).  Kind of like how the DLC talked Gore into picking Lieberman over Edwards because Lieberman was DLC...

Side note: Edwards never joined the DLC, it's a common misconception. He was heavily recruited but said no.  Read Ezra Klein's article in TAP and the story about Bob Shrum and Clinton admin. foreign policy turds pushing Edwards into voting for the IWR (Edwards still made a huge mistake) to learn more about what Edwards was really like circa 2002.

WARNING - GRAPHIC CONTENT AHEAD - IF YOU GET OFFENDED DON'T READ.
______________ ___

GRAPHIC CONTENT OVER - JOE LIEBERMAN AND HOMOPHOBES PISS ME OFF THAT'S ALL
______________ ___

Imagine if Gore would have picked Edwards instead of Lieberman. Gore/Edwards. Now there is a winning ticket.

My point is that Hillary can't win because the GOP is smart enough to run away from Bush.  Yes it will be a favorable climate but here's the problem.

As much as I hate the GOP guys I would be in a moral dilemma if Hillary won the nomination.  With the war and the supreme court on the line can I risk her losing? well it looks like she sucks on the war and she'll probably through the wingnuts a bone on the court as well knowing how eager she is to look like a "centrist".

She is trying to bury the Hillary circa 1994 image of herself and that means that she is deathly afraid of being called a feminist and that means caving on abortion rights/judges.

Also, she would damage the party long term and hurt our majorities.  My values would be better surved by voting for a progressive independent and helping urge progressives to pour their money into good congressional candidates (to put a good check on McCain or whoever) rather than elect Hillary and lose ALL 4 (white house, house, Senate, governors) by 2012.  Because you know that we will if she wins.

I'm getting off track. My point is that even if Democrats, all of us, stayed with her she is a terrible campaigner.  She has such high negatives and...

She has released statements prepping us for the inevitable revelation that her and Bill are just good friends or whatever. She says that they started a conversation years ago and haven't stopped talking since.  Her staff says that Bill's personal life is none of the media's business. I agree with that.  So do most of you, probably.  But the American voter will not. Especiallt not the women.  She will go from a "wronged woman" on Monday to someone who is
"so power hungry that they stayed in a marriage of political convenience since god knows when" on Tuesday.  And this will happen.  If Democrats turn a blind eye and nominate her the GOP will reveal it.

Bill swore up and down that Gennifer Flowers was not his mistress. Same with Lewinsky.  Then he admitted he lied about Lewinsky.  Then his book he admitted he had lied about Flowers.  Some of his operatives from 88'(when he considered running) have said that Clinton confessed to numerous affairs, and that was 19 years ago.  He hoped they would stay quiet.  One of them will come forward.  You think they don't have a score to settle with him or Hillary?  And what about the ones since then?  Even if by some act of God they don't come forward the GOP will invent someone and who is going to believe Bill?

The media says that they will stay off of this unless there is something new?  Is that why the NYT alleged that Bill was bonin' (according to Ali G that is the techincal term) a world leader.  Sorry, I don't think politicians should be judged on their personal life but why should we risk the party having to deal with another "moral values problem" (which gave us Dubya, well that and the Supreme Court and Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush).  Come on, can we risk it all on Bill's "issues" again.

Even if by some miracle the 47% percent of Americans who hate her doesn't grow and Bill uses magic to erase the long history of his pecker then she will still lose.  Why?  Because progressive Democrats, who hate her in nomination mode, will hate her way more in general election mode.  You think that her twin panders of today, being cool with the gay hating general, and extending the war indefinitely if she wins, are bad.  Wait till she's losing to Romney by 8 points. God knows what she'll do. Get the 10 commandments tattooed on her massive calves.  She can clap along to Fleetwood Mac at her convention, lifting up her pantsuit to show how pious she is. She's a Goldwater Girl...whose just like JFK.  She wants to end the war...by keeping it going.  She gets endorsed by Emily List...but caves on abortion.  SHE'S EVERY WOMAN AND IT'S ALL IN HER!!!

Honestly, even if you are fine with her lack of backbone and her terrible stances on the issues and her allegiance to the K street lobbyists (go to Patrick Ruffini's political wire and read the story about her accepting money from K street donors that other Dems shun) and the DLC then at least you should oppose her because SHE MOST LIKELY CANNOT WIN!!! And if you are alright with the above mentioned then why the hell are you on a progressive blog?

So Clinton/Bayh (yes he is "trying out" for the veep slot) will drive progressives nuts.  In a recent poll she loses 6% to the worst of all progressive options - Ralph Nader.  Imagine if someone good runs.  At least we could communicate our values and send a real and impactful message to the DLC consultants who tell candidates not to worry about us because we "have no where to go".  And even if I am the only one on this thread that would vote for a progessive independent (i doubt after you all see general election hillary in action I will be) the probelm is that when Nader is taken out of the poll
(the Clinon/Giuliani/Nader poll) the 6 percent of Nader voters does transfer to one candidate.  One major problem.  THE 6% transfers to RUDY GIULIANI.  I am not the only Anybody but Hillary person out there.  And a major motivation is the well being of our party.  Call me a concern troll.  I am one.  I live under a damn progressive bridge in a progressive village and I have damn progressive panic attacks and take troll strength valium because I want the Democratic Party to represent progressive values.  Not only is it the moral, but it's the politically advantagious thing to do.

So who should we nominate?  Which candidate was the first candidate....

- to answer DFA's call for a plan to get out of Iraq and stop the surge

• to answer the all (along with his wife) to do a union job for a day
  
• to have a Universal Health Care plan (it includes a single-payer option and the ability for the country to switch to single-payer if it chooses)
  
• (and only of the "big 3") to support not only the Reed-Levin Iraq ammendment (all three did that) but he was the only one who supported the Feingold / Kerry ammendment
  
• (only one of the "big 3", Obama and Clinton both stopped short) to demand that congress cut off funding for the escalation
  
• On Meet the Press (weeks ago) he praised Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold's plan to use congress's funding authority to force Bush to end the war.  Today he officially endorsed it.  On the same Meet the Press he also gave a simple answer to the question "IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN?"
  

• only candiate of the "big 3" not to endorse Lieberman and the first and only candidate of the big 3 to not only campaign for Lamone (I think he might have been the first major Dem period to do so) but to also (along with his wife)call for Lieberman drop out of the general election race.
  
• to publicly support Jim Webb's legislation regarding Iran
  
• (and only candidate) to go head to head with Russert for an hour straight as part of the Meet the Candidate series.

That candidate is John Edwards. Recently he announced that his would be the first major presidential campaign to go carbon neutral.  He also formally endorsed the Kennedy / Feingold plan he had already praised.  Compare that to Obama who used right wing talking points to say that cutting funds for the war would leave troops ill equiped.  That of course is B.S.  And then there is Clinton who would not say that being gay is not immoral.  She also unleashed her inner neocon on Iraq.

How is this complicated?

The candidate who best represents our values is also the best candidate to win the general (look at the totality of 2008 polling.  Go to Polling Report and look at the last few months (although he has done better than other Dems since the inception of 2008 pollin in late 2004).  Then see if you can access the comprehensive Survey USA state by state (mock elections) polling.  It used to free but now it's not.  results might be listed somewhere for free.  

I hope fellow grassroots Democrats who were thinkig about supporting Clinton (I know there aren't many) would join me in supporting John Edwards.  Same for Obama supporters. Hope is nothing without action, remember that.  And Edwards is far more willing to take action.  True hope is knowing that change is on the way.

It's time to stand up for the candidate who stands up for our values.

John Edwards in 2008

The entire transcript has been posted online.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/washin gton/15clintontext.html?pagewanted=print

It's Vietnam in reverse. We'll retreat to our own Dien Bien Phoo's. From here we can can win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis.

I wasn't going to vote for her but this is a suprise. I had no idea she was this messed up. I don't see even see conservative Dems liking this.

Um, I generally can't stand Hillary for her endless pandering and triangulating and unwillingness to take a pricipled stand on anything that matters, but in this matter I find her to be in general agreement with the party's platform on Iraq.

From S. J. RES. 9, the Iraq war bill now before the senate:

SEC. 2. PROMPT COMMENCEMENT OF PHASED REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES FORCES FROM IRAQ.

(a) Transition of Mission- The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (b).

(b) Commencement of Phased Redeployment From Iraq- The President shall commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all United States combat forces from Iraq except for a limited number that are essential for the following purposes:

(1) Protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure.

(2) Training and equipping Iraqi forces.

(3) Conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.

And from everyone's (including my own) favorite progressive Russ Feingold, from his speech on the floor of the Senate on Wednesday on this resolution:

This resolution recognizes, and acts on, that reality. It would effectively terminate the misguided resolution authorizing force in Iraq, while allowing a minimal number of troops to remain to perform very limited functions: protecting personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces and conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations. The latter provision is a particular priority of mine, which is why my legislation includes the exact same language. Clearly, the U.S. has an ongoing role to play in addressing the terrorist threat in Iraq. While Iraq was not a hot-bed of terrorism before the President led us to war in that country, al Qaeda and its allies are trying to use the anger and frustrations unleashed by that war to their advantage. Like Afghanistan and Somalia, Iraq will need to be closely monitored to ensure that it does not become a failed state and breeding ground for terrorism. And we must be prepared to pursue targeted missions to take out terrorists. But maintaining 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq is not the way to defeat al Qaeda. And military operations of any size will only succeed if they are combined with other measures - including diplomatic, economic and intelligence measures - as part of a comprehensive strategy for defeating the terrorists who threaten our country. Al Qaeda is not a one-country franchise - it is a global threat that requires a global response.

The Reid resolution would require the President to begin redeploying combat forces not essential to the three limited functions within 120 days, with a goal of finishing redeployment by the end of March 2008. While I support a faster redeployment with a firm deadline, these provisions are binding and would make clear that the President's commitment to an open-ended, massive military mission in Iraq is over. That is what the American people want, and that is what this Congress should ensure.

I'm not defending Hillary as a candidate, as she is just about the last person among the leading candidates that I want as our nominee or running the country (as far as Dems are concerned, at least), but given that her position essentially appears to map the one that the party and at least one of its most progressive members have presented, I'm not sure what all this "Wow" is all about.

Am I missing something here, or have the netroots decided that the only acceptable policy in Iraq is to remove every last soldier, adviser and non-civilian personnel from Iraq ASAP--even the ones who would be fighting actual Al Qaida terrorists in Anbar (as opposed to the insurgents and rival militias that the GOP keeps pretending are terrorists)? And if so, doesn't that mean that we would have to get out of Afghanistan ASAP too? Not to mention the DMZ in North Korea and Bosnia.

Again, what am I missing here? Flame me if you want but I'm really not sure what all the hubub's all about in THIS instance.

For the record, I don't support the war and I don't support Hillary, but I think this is a wise idea, and to be honest, I assumed this is what most people had in mind when talking about withdrawing our combat forces.

Isn't this basically Patrick Murphy's plan as well?

Getting our men and women out from the middle of a civil war doesn't mean abandoning the entire country altogether, especially the Iraqis who threw in with us. I think we should stay in at least some kind of capacity to help salvage whatever we can.

to me.

really, really angry. Why should I support a person who is going to maintain the status quo in Iraq (albeit in a scaled-down fashion) just because they have a D after their name?

This confirms for me that Hillary has never had a problem with the whole concept of pre-emptive war, merely the execution of it, and makes me seriously question her basic judgment and understanding of forces at play in the Middle East.

If HRC does secure the nomination, she is not getting a cent of money from me for her candidacy. It would be throwing good money after bad anyway, since her numbers with independents are abysmal, and her polling among Republicans is, needless to say, worse than that. How she comes up with a general election strategy that would actually result in victory is something that I don't understand and that the Hillary supporters on this site haven't made a convincing case for. As we've learned with Bush, hope is not a plan.

Barack Obama has said the same thing, ie: If he is President, he will keep a number of troops in Iraq.

Atleast Hillary has given this a great deal of thought and is taking Iran, Turkey and each of the various regions in Iraq into consideration.

Before jumping all over her, ask yourself, how possible it really is to just quickly remove American troops, in one fell-swoop from Iraq. John Edwards thinks it's going to be easy?  He's wrong.    

Do you know what surprises me?  That Matt Stoller is such a freakin' reactionary.  May be time for Matt to think before he jumps to the worst of all possible conclusions.  

It might be worthwhile for some people to read about Hillary's proposed Iraq Oil Trust, as well. She's been pushing it for a very long time.  Try google!

Bush dropped the egg. It's splatterd all over the ground. There is no putting the egg back together. Without US combat troops Iraq is going to hell in a hand basket until they sort things out on their own.

If you want a Ranger/Recon/Rambo force around to placate our scared citizens they can just as easily be based offshore.

I personally would rather see a reduced force stationed in Kurdistan, but not the rest of the country. I don't think we should just abandon them, and that region is not that bad off.  I don't like the this artificial binary choice between "Stay the course" or "Cut and Run." A vastly reduced force, with no roll in day to day piece keeping would not cause the same problems as the current mess.

I've been saying Hillary will finish fourth in Iowa. With Vilsack out, it's possible she will finish third, but no better than that.

I think it's quite possible she will finish third in NV and NH as well.

What most all of you are missing here is what the American people think.

Remember...the voters.

Yeah, those folks.

I'll take a wild-ass guess and say that they will not care for this position.

Not.One.Fucking.Bit.

Stick a fork in this clueless bitch's Armani-suited ass 'cause if she stays with this position her campaign is...

Over.

Remember Matt, you read it here first.
.

"Stick a fork in this clueless bitch's Armani-suited ass 'cause if she stays with this position her campaign is..." (Pericles)

And you know what the above comment says about you?  No, I didn't think so.  You're too clueless.

BTW, according to all the polls conducted over the past three months, the majority of people polled do not want troops out with no contingency plan to prevent invasion by the Taliban or other terrorist organizations.  I would say the netroots so-called progressives, need to pay attention.  Hillary and Clark are paying attention. Barack is too busy counting the numbers of people who come to his rallies and John Edwards never had a clue to begin with.

Wow.  

Removing every single soul from the region is what we are supposed to be supporting "or else"?   That is an unreasonable and unrealistic position.

Many believe that we need to redeploy but keep some troops in Iraq to provide some stability to allow and help the Iraqis "help themselves," to build their infrastructure, security and reach self-reliance.   It is rather cynical and cold to demand that every soldier be removed from Iraq immediately.   Bush created a gigantic mess and threw us into a massive war with the wrong country, but now it has been de-stabilized and we can't just say "Oops, guys.  Our leader was an ass.  We replaced him, so, even though we barged in on your party here and messed you guys up somewhat fierce, never mind, we're outta here. Again, oops, have fun bashing each other's heads in."   I rather see us keep some troops there (out of harms way, but as an overseeing force) than risk having the deaths of Millions on our hands in a genocidal free-for-all because we just "go away" completely.  

Obama is not calling for complete withdrawal, Feingold is not calling for complete withdrawal, the Democratic party does not call for complete withdrawal.   Why this "mock outrage" when Clinton makes a corresponding statement?  

I am impressed. Hillary has brought all the wallflowers out on MYDD. My bet she backdrafts but could this be planned anyway? Said it ... Oh I didn't mean that.

If you've got a statement from the other candidates saying they're going to redeploy every last troop out of Iraq, great, nut up big boy, lets see it!!!!!

Otherwise, you're being a retard.

All of them agree some troops will remain to conduct ad hoc missions to capture real terrorists.

Lying about hillary only makes you look foolish.

This is what you sound like:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/15/ 1715/13986

LOL.  

I will so not vote for her.  She is a worthless politician who plays both sides of the fence and had, in my eyes, demonstrated that she will do/say ANYTHING to get elected.   Last one that got elected that was like that was Bush II.

If Clinton becomes the nominee, this is the kind of position that can get a Republican elected next year. I still think the election is going to turn on the economy, but other things being equal, the media and the voters are going to see virtually no difference between Hillary's view and the Republicans' view on Iraq. It would be another case of the Democrats once again shooting themselves in the foot -- much as Kerry essentially took the war issue off the table in 2004.

Edwards and Obama really need to jump on this, right now!

You guys are so up in arms about Hillary wanting to keep troops in Iraq, yet has anyone asked what the other candidates mean when they say they are for withdrawal, but...

Edwards:
"After withdrawal, Edwards believes that sufficient forces should remain in the region to contain the conflict and ensure that instability in Iraq does not spillover and create a regional war, a terrorist haven, or spark a genocide."

How many troops does he believe is sufficient to contain the spillover and genocide?  Where is he planning on keeping these troops in the region?  For how long?

Feingold:
Feingold's legislation allows for specific operations to continue in Iraq beyond six months, including counter-terrorism efforts, protection of U.S. personnel and infrastructure, and training of Iraqi security forces.

Again how many troops will it take to conduct these counter-terrorism efforts and conduct training and protect the personnel doing those things?  How long?

Obama the same thing.

Hillary has basically said, here is my plan as it relates to this whole keeping a force in the region portion that I laid out.  The other candidates will now have to put up or shut up as far as what they think the force structure should look like after withdrawal of combat troops.

The Democrats are going to consult the military about what the appropriate troop level should be.  I hardly think the military is going to say, well we need just a few troops here and there.  There are going to be 10s of Thousands of troops remaining in and around Iraq.  The Democrats are not going to do a Paul Wolfowitz and dismiss the opinions of the Generals as far as maintaining a sufficient force for protection and training.

I would like to see further clarification of Edwards and Obama's and any of the other candidates position on the # of troops, if any, that they think need to remain in Iraq.  If Feingold, in carving out that exception gave a troop #, I would like to see it.

Dear Lord, here we go again with the poisonous anti-Senator Clinton mantra of so many bloggers.

She has not in this interview stated otherwise than what the great majority of Democratic candidates have either already indicated or nuanced.  And, as ever, one of any number of the militantly anti-Clinton reporters has deliberately tried to fuel the flames of that longstanding group, which picks up more terribly misdirected and easily gullible would-be voters in the path of its squall.

As I posted on Dailykos, which entirely misrepresented her views on gay issues, so too does this now apply to MyDD:

Once again, DailyKos like so many other seemingly progressive blogging sites, immerses itself in intense anti-Clinton rhetoric.  Senator John Edwards, with his six years on a national stage, and Senator Barack Obama, with his far briefer period, are the darlings.  

Whereas the Clintons have been progressive figures with brilliant civil rights track records from their days at Yale.  Their track record indeed goes back decades.  

I would submit that both Clintons have done more to advance the cause of not only gay men and women, but African-Americans, Hispanics, and indeed all long discriminated against minorities than any other candidate for the United States presidency in 2008 could possibly fathom, much less demonstrate.

Cease and desist.  Like Senator Joe McCarthy reprimanded by Joseph Welch, you at long last have left no sense of decency.

It is not Senator Clinton who coldly parses her words.  It is you who in a paranoid fashion parse everything she says or does.

No, her speaking in Selma with a slight Southern accent as an affectation was not inappropriate.  She spoke very well, not in the high oratory of Senator Obama, but as any witness of this by way of C-Span can attest, quite effectively nevertheless.

No, there were not great dissenting voices to her address at the recent New Hampshire 100 function.  Again, as any witness by way of what was then a live C-Span telecast can attest, Senator Clinton spoke most persuasively, and the audience there clearly responded enthusiastically.

And no, she was not insulting gay men and women, whom she and her husband have long championed second to none (the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was the very best at the time the virulently anti-Clinton military and established press would allow).  She was simply pointing out the obvious: morality is whatever one chooses to define it.  She then elucidated her belief that foremost gay men and women ought to have the equality of civil rights.

Senator Edwards is most passionate and caring.  Senator Obama is gifted with both passion and fine oratory.  Senators Biden and Dodd have also fine progressive track records.  Governor Richardson has a superb resume extending to international affairs.  Representative Kucinich is indeed a brave and unrelenting liberal figure.  And General Clark has the wisdom of fully comprehending the military, both its capability and limits.

But none are any greater than Senator Clinton.

I suppose that you believe that if you follow many on the intractable Right-Wing, who have for a quarter century now made all things Clinton all things terrible, that somehow this will advance any of her Democratic candidate rivals.

It will not.  If her negatives are high it is because the "white noise" of the venom and vitriol of the Clinton opposition have been attempting far too long to drown out the rest of us who believe that the Clinton tandem has been, and will continue to be, among the most accomplished this country has ever offered.

I have vivid memories of presidential administrations dating back to Eisenhower's and would submit that the record of the Clinton years in terms of fiscal solvency, lasting peace accords, stronger world alliances, and steadfast commitment to civil liberties, surpasses them all.  It was indeed a "Golden Era," even if that "white noise" can never admit it.

If elected, Senator Clinton will make a superb president, like her husband before her, notwithstanding the tangible hate of the opposition from both sides of the political spectrum.

It's extremely disingenous to portray Hillary's position as "continuing the occupation" - and she's saying teh same thing that all the other major Dem candidates are saying, including Obama, Edwards, and Richardson. Here's my evidence for my assertion.

1) There are not enough votes in Congress to cut off funding, bring the troops home, or end the war

2) Bush is still the President

3) We will need some troops in Iraq for a long time.

I want to clarify #3:

We don't need to be acting as cops, or kicking in doors and we don't need our guys getting killed or blown up.  But like Bosnia or Korea, we will have troops on the ground for several reasons.

Blaming Hillary or anyone else is not going to change the 3 points above for the time being.  Promoting unrealistic goals and attacking Democrats who don't promise to deliver on those unrealistic goals (cut off funding, bring troops home in 6 mos, etc.) just helps Republicans.

First, as a direct response, I think, Matt, you overstate what Hillary actually said.  I do not see this as "deeply conservative", so much as the realistic statement of a potential President of the world's last remaining superpower, who doesn't want (legitimate) US options circumscribed by campaign rhetoric.  Students of history will remember the box that candidate John F. Kennedy put himself in by his rhetoric on the campaign trail.  

Second, more of a process-and-dialogue point: So Hillary allows that, under her Presidency, the U.S. could continue to have some troops in the Middle East, even in Iraq (subject, of course, to the invitation of the local government).  The instant negative reaction to that statement among the on-line progressive, out-of-Iraq community is, IMHO, unwarranted and overblown.  I know this is going to piss off some of my friends, and a lot of strangers, but the bumper-sticker simplicity of the reception to Hillary's positions and positioning is getting tiresome.  Agree or disagree, she's not the great Satan, she's a serious player, and we should start listening with some sensitivity instead of knee-jerking like the mirror-image of Faux News yahoos.  We've got to get past assuming that everyone who is not purely all-the-way-and-completely-out-now is Bush redux, and start asking better questions and listening to the answers.  Or we're going to end up just hearing what we want, and getting pandered to by sloganistas.

Look, I'm not carrying any water for Hillary - I'm still waiting for someone in this cycle to earn my support for the Democratic nomination; I haven't completely ruled out any of the grown-ups. But the giant gotcha-gasp every time Hillary takes a position that can't be fairly reduced to an isolationist slogan only makes those doing the gasping sound simpleminded, and trivializes the debate.  I was a Dean supporter early, and was not thrilled with the Kerry candidacy, but I thought one of Kerry's(potential) strengths as a possible President, if not as a candidate, was the ability to entertain nuance, the ability to have and develop positions that had more depth than the first bullet point.  That contrasted nicely with the Holy Simplism of GWBush.  Now if only Kerry had been able to communicate that nuance without reminding me of Treebeard.

Whatever else one might think of Hillary, you have to admit that she takes seriously the possibility that she might actually become President, and therefore that she has complex (even "nuanced")policy positions; she has depth, and (except for some truly memorable lapses on largely symbolic issues that still leave a really bad taste), she seems unwilling, on serious, Presidential stuff, to pander with shallow slogans.  That's a good thing.  

On refusing to give THE APOLOGY, she says you don't get do-overs, she wouldn't have voted as she did if the information had been presented correctly, and that if the correct information had been presented a war authorization would never even have come to a vote.  She's plainly right about that.  She says she gave deference at the time to the President which, in light of hindsight, was unwarranted. I take that as polite speak for "few of us at that time truly understood how irresponsible and corrupt this guy really is."  

Just for the moment, let's look past the Bush presidency.  Unless you're going to take the position that the U.S. has no strategic interests in the region - and even the UPJ crowd don't take that line - the notion of the world's one remaining superpower not having any meaningful presence in the Middle East is silly.  As to whether that presence should include some personnel within Iraq, say to protect the Kurdish region, or to inhibit Iranian incursion, that's something we ought to talk about.  I don't think we should be engaged in policing an Iraqi civil war (although many who say that would say the opposite if the civil war were in, say, Africa), and I think we shouldn't have been engaged in instigating one (which, in effect, is what we did by toppling a tyrant and then immediately dismantling his army, creating a vacuum). But I'm not running for President, and I'd really like to hear from those who are what their serious thinking is on that kind of stuff, if only to show that they are thinking about it.  

index1 index2 index3 index4 index5 index6 index7 index8 index9 index10 index11 index12 index13 index14 index15 index16 index17 index18 index19 index20 index21 index22 index23 index24 index25 index26 index27 index28 index29 index30 index31 index32 index33 index34 index35 index36 index37 index38 index39 index40 index41 index42 index43 index44 index45 index46 index47 index48 index49 index50 index51 index52 index53 index54 index55 index56 index57 index58 index59 index60 index61 index62 index63 index64 index65 index66 index67 index68 index69 index70 index71 index72 index73 index74 index75 index76 index77 index78 index79 index80 index81 index82 index83 index84 index85 index86 index87 index88 index89 index90 index91 index92 index93 index94 index95

Hillary Clinton for president?! Is she out of her mind ? She should go to drug rehab !! A woman for president? I don't think that's gonna be possible.. But it's good she has hope! Starting with the war.. probably she won't be elected... who knows..