Another Reason I am voting Hillary

Those who have read my previous posts know my son and daughter-in-law are active duty military. I also have a nephew who is in the rserves and a sister who is a veteran. (Uncles who served in WWII- long history of service to America in our family as in many households in this great land.) Hillary has great plans for honoring our committment to those who have valiantly served our country. I post here just a part of her plans for our service men and women.

"Enact a GI Bill of Rights for the Twenty-First Century. Hillary will enact a GI Bill of Rights for the 21st century that will resurrect the spirit of the original 1944 GI Bill and offer service members, veterans and their families with expanded education, housing and entrepreneurial benefits. Her plan will guarantee equal access for all components of the Armed Forces - Active, Guard and Reserve - that have deployed overseas in support of a combat operation since September 11 or served two years of active duty since September 11. She will fund undergraduate education for service members, as well as education for specialized trade or technical training, and certification and licensing programs. She will expand the VA Home Loan Guaranty program to allow veterans to use low-interest, no-fee loans to purchase, build or improve a home valued up to $625,000. She will establish a Veterans Microloan Program to provide veterans with no-collateral, low-interest microloans of up to $100,000 for entrepreneurial ventures."

To see the entire plan and access Hillary's other proposals vist her page- http://hillaryclinton.com



Display:


My father-in-law funded his college education (2.00 / 11)

on the GI bill. Glad to see a poltician talking about bringing it back.


by grannyhelen on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:15:05 AM EST

Nice to see Granny Helen again! (2.00 / 2)

One of the people I've missed since leaving dKos.


by internetstar on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:50:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I hang over at eenrblog... (none / 0)

...if folks want to check it out: http://www.eenrblog.com/

We're trying to make it a place to discuss all of the stuff you've missed while the candidate wars are waging...


by grannyhelen on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:20:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

college education (2.00 / 5)

On issues Hillary is clearly the best. She's the only one who plans to cancel Bush's no bid contracts and to make mercenary armies illegal.  It's no wonder she has more military endorsements than McCain and Obama combined, and far more retired military who are ready to join her administration. Her exit Iraq plan is complete, all the way out, removing troops, private contractors and Iraqi's who've helped us. Somehow the press pretends she hasn't called for a full withdrawal, thinking her unwillingness to take troops away from borders before UN involvement means she's like Obama and McCain, who can see the occupation going for a century, according to Obama's advisors, or a hundred years, according to McCain. Well, they're guys, they maybe don't want to be seen as losers. Hillary doesn't care, she'll take whatever bad PR is thrown to get us all the way out of there.  


just say it: Medicare for All
by anna shane on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:17:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: college education (2.00 / 2)

You had a pretty nice comment there going for a bit, until you decided to smear Obama with some pretty ridiculous comments. I should also note that Obama has considerably more contributors from the active-duty military (as opposed to high-ranking retired-military supporters) than do McCain or Clinton.

Obama introduced a phased-withdrawal plan in the Senate, unlike Clinton. Obama has called for a full withdrawal; so has Clinton. They both have indicated that they wouldn't blindly propose a timetable in March 2008 for implementation in January 2009, but would determine things based on the situation at the time.

Obama has at no time proposed that we stay in Iraq any longer than Clinton has. And at least he's authored legislation to that effect, unlike Clinton (which has at least voted for some similar legislation offered by other Senators).


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:46:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Reason I am voting Hillary (none / 0)

This proposal is from DLC. Floated by the enduring Harold Ford.
Be careful what you wish for.
McCain: The Past, Obama: The Future
by KathyM on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:24:34 AM EST

Oh wow... (2.00 / 11)

So now caring for our troops is "DLC" and "corporatist"? Jeez, how low can Obamaniacs go?


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:45:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ah, yes, because if the DLC supports (2.00 / 2)

something it MUST be 100% pure Eeevil with extra Evil.

Why don't you tell me what's wrong about the proposal...I'm no fan of the DLC, but that doesn't mean that I therefore must oppose every single thing they are in favor of.


by grannyhelen on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:23:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So does Obama, and he didn't send troops to harm (2.00 / 3)

Obama also supports the new GI Bill as as well as other support for our veterans, and has sponsored a Senate bill to improve veterans benefits. The difference of course is that Sen. Clinton was willing to send our military to fight and die because it would have been politically inexpedient to vote against the war before it started. This would seem to indicate to me that, as President, she would be likely to put politics ahead of military lives again.
Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:34:21 AM EST

Re: So does Obama, and he didn't send troops to ha (2.00 / 2)

Agreed.  There is no substantive difference on this issue other then the fact that Clinton is a little more cavalier with the lives of soldiers then Obama is.


by Cycloptichorn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:37:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, stop pulling crap out of... (2.00 / 13)

Wherever it's coming from. Obviously, proudmilitarymom has done her homework and recognizes how much Hillary has done to help our men and women in uniform. But now, all of you have to come in and trash her with total nonsense? Obama wasn't in the Senate in 2002, so no one knows how he would have voted on authorization. Oh yes, and even Obama supporters like Ted Kennedy have acknowledged that the 2002 vote wasn't exactly "a vote for war". Oh wait, and what is Obama doing to end the war? Anything besides flowery speeches? Hillary has the legislation to prove her commitment to bringing our troops home.

So unless you want to be revealed for the complete fools that you are, I suggest you stop hijacking this thread.


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:42:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, stop pulling crap out of... (2.00 / 1)

Even if Obama didn't exist, Hillary's war vote would be a triangulation that voting against the war would be bad for her upcoming Presidential run. She put her political interests above the lives of our brave men and women in uniform. We already have a President in the White House who does that. I hardly think we need another one.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:51:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, stop pulling crap out of... (2.00 / 8)

Then why did Chuck Schumer, the other New York senator, vote for AUMF? He clearly had no presidential ambitions and was quite happy where he was in the Senate. Did it ever occur to you that, for better or worse, these and other senators were spooked by 9/11 and wanted the UN inspection team to return to Iraq and finish the job -- and also believed that if we ended up having to remove Sadam Hussein from power, that wouldn't be such a bad thing either.

It was a stupid, stupid, stupid vote, but as someone living in New York City, I had many stupid, stupid liberal friends who were fully behind that vote, friends who believed that this vote was actually in the best interest of the Iraqi people because it would bring about the end of crippling economic sanctions on Iraq.

If you watch episodes of the The Daily Show from back then, you'll see that even John Stewart expressed more sympathy towards the pro-AUMF side than to the anti-AUMF side (I know this because I remember sending him several angry emails at the time).

Meanwhile, back in Chicago, in Obama's district, public sentiment was running heavily against the AUMF and any possible invasion of Iraq. So if you are going to call Hillary's vote a cold and calculated political move, you could probably say the same thing about Obama's "anti-dumb wars" speech.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:14:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, stop pulling crap out of... (2.00 / 1)

Chuck Schumer is not running for President. If he was, you bet I'd be holding his vote against him. He's also, I believe, said that his vote was a mistake.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:59:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting read reagrding this (2.00 / 1)

Posted October 16, 2007 - an interesting take on the vote - it's not what you thought it was.

http://realdemmoderate.wordpress.com/200 7/10/16/a-liberal-blog-misses-the-point- on-the-2002-aumfagain/


by cmugirl90 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:11:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

HRC & Schumer were spooked into (2.00 / 1)

voting for AUMF?

Does that reflect negatively on their judgment? Their courage?


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:13:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC & Schumer were spooked into (2.00 / 1)

Courage? No

Judgment? Yes

One shouldn't be "spooked" into voting for military action against a country which did not attack us, did not harbor or abet those who attacked us, and did not propose any direct threat to us, especially when we were already actively engaged in military action against those who did attack us, in a country which had harbored them.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:50:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC & Schumer were spooked into (2.00 / 2)

Hillary's judgment about the ability of AUMF to get inspectors back into Iraq to finish the search for WMD was not off the mark. Her judgment that Bush would be able to resist starting a second war should Hussein choose to cooperate with, rather than stonewall, the UN inspections team was, tragically, way off the mark. But given Bush's father's ability to work with the international community in Gulf War I (which I also opposed fwiw), perhaps one can't call those who thought that W. would approach the situation as his dad would have stupid -- merely tragically wrong.

At the time, I was incredibly angry with Hillary, as well as Schumer, as well as everyone else in congress who ceded the authority to go to war to Bush, as well as the MSM and many quarters of the liberal "blogosphere" that supported invading Iraq.

But none of us will ever know how Obama would have voted if he had been a Senator from New York at the time. I've seen very little in the way of political courage from him since he entered the Senate, or leadership to try to get us out of Iraq. Since both candidates, from my viewpoint, have similarly flawed foreign policy positions, I judge them on the basis of their domestic/economic positions. And there I see Hillary as being actually more progressive the Obama.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:41:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC & Schumer were spooked into (none / 0)

And I see Obama as being more progressive where it matters, and also of having a better likelihood of getting some or all of his agenda passed, both due to personal factors and because I think his campaign will probably make some difference in the margin in the Senate and more of a difference in the margin in the House.

My concern with Clinton on the AUMF is not solely (or even predominately) that she voted for it, though that's a definite issue, but that her decision-making process seems to have been very flawed, and that she hasn't actually said that it was a mistake, unless most of the other Democrats who voted for it.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:12:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC & Schumer were spooked into (2.00 / 1)

In 2004 I had no choice I had to forgive Kerry and Edwards for their votes or I would not have been able to vote for them. I found that when I forgave them I had to forgive all the Democrats who voted as they did. See I really can't let myself be hypocritical about it that would make too much like a Republican.


"Do you know the difference between a War Story and a Fairy Tale?"
by RedstateLib on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:50:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, stop pulling crap out of... (none / 0)

What does NY have to do with Iraq?

Why would you insist on hinting that Saddam had something to do with 9-11?


--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--
by 1jpb on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:41:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, stop pulling crap out of... (none / 0)

Why would you insist on hinting that Saddam had something to do with 9-11?

What are you talking about? I didn't hint any such thing, and I opposed the war and participated in many more anti-war rallies than Sen. Obama ever did. I'm simply telling you what I witnessed then. It's not that people here believed that Iraq was linked to 9/11. But many New Yorkers did buy into the idea that making sure that there were no WMD in Iraq and possibly ridding the world of one more evil dictator would make the world a safer place.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:02:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, stop pulling crap out of... (none / 0)

You brought up NY, not me.  Why are you channeling Bush and Cheney.  I've got news for you, the WMD stuff was BS.

And there were other options to deal with the threat of Saddam.

Ask Graham.
Ask Levin.
Ask BHO.

At some point you HRC types will realize that HRC can't win.  When that happens you'll be happier, no more being an apologist for pro-war HRC.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinio n/01chafee.html?_r=1&oref=login

And read this, it'll make you feel better about supporting the inevitable Dem candidate:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Oba ma's_Iraq_Speech

Judgment matters.


--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--
by 1jpb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:12:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stop hijacking this thread (2.00 / 3)

I didn't know this belonged to you. I thought this was an open comments site and anyone can give their point of view?? Very democratic of you. And please stop with your crap about how Hillary didn't know it was a vote for war. If she didn't know then she is an idiot and if she did know, well then she is a liar.


by munodi on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:28:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop hijacking this thread (2.00 / 1)

Let's also not forget that Hillary never bothered to show her outrage if she really didnt think her vote for the war wasnt really a vote for the war when Bush did decide to go to war.


by Pravin on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:36:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop hijacking this thread (2.00 / 1)

I love that this argument is not working for Obama.

Keep talking about it please.

Mr. I was against the war before I voted to founded it.


by c4every on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:12:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop hijacking this thread (2.00 / 2)

Ya. Most delegates, votes, states. Definitely not working for him. People hate the truth.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:10:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, stop pulling crap out of... (2.00 / 2)

Yeah, she was just getting he GIs some experience that they could put on their resumes.  The ones that survive should send her a thank you note for really jump starting their careers for them provided they still have the arm that they write with and they don't have any traumatic brain injuries that make communication difficult.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:17:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I didn't know sending troops to die (2.00 / 1)

in the sands of Iraq was supporting them.


by Builderman on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:49:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, stop pulling crap out of... (2.00 / 6)

Wherever it's coming from. Obviously, proudmilitarymom has done her homework and recognizes how much Hillary has done to help our men and women in uniform. But now, all of you have to come in and trash her with total nonsense? Obama wasn't in the Senate in 2002, so no one knows how he would have voted on authorization. Oh yes, and even Obama supporters like Ted Kennedy have acknowledged that the 2002 vote wasn't exactly "a vote for war". Oh wait, and what is Obama doing to end the war? Anything besides flowery speeches? Hillary has the legislation to prove her commitment to bringing our troops home.

So unless you want to be revealed for the complete fools that you are, I suggest you stop hijacking this thread.


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:44:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, stop pulling crap out of... (2.00 / 6)

They BOTH have an excellent record on Veteran Affairs, according to the Library of Congress.

Clinton introduced three bills for veterans in 2007:
S.1065, for improved diagnosis and treatment of traumatic brain injuries;
S.1409, which is discussed above, and
S. 1480 which would provide a stipend for parents whose children are killed while in active combat.

Obama sits on the Senate Committee for Veteran Affairs and introduced five bills for veterans in 2007.
S.117 would improve benefits and services for veterans.
S.692 to improve the quality of health care in VA hospitals. S.1068 to provide housing assistance to low-income veterans. S.1271 to provide for the physical and mental health and other readjustment needs of the members of the Armed Forces and veterans of the Iraq war and their families.  
S.2330 to prevent at-risk veterans and veteran families from becoming homeless.

On the other hand, in 2007, John McCain introduced no legislation for veterans. None.


by Grassroots Mom on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:07:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, stop pulling crap out of... (2.00 / 1)

Thank you for this comment, and I really hope both candidates supporters here read it.


by Brillobreaks on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:15:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, stop pulling crap out of... (none / 0)

Exactly. Thank you. See my original comment. There is very little difference between the two candidates on veterans affairs, but Hillary voted to start the war. All things being equal, I think that is a significant plus for Sen. Obama. Others here give Sen. Clinton a pass on that. I can see that. It's an area of judgement.
Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:02:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, stop pulling crap out of... (2.00 / 3)

Hillary is on the Armed Services Committee, obviously, she has a lot more experience with the military and as a result has a lot of military support.

This notion that she voted for the war is just pure baloney.  She voted for the same thing John Kerry and John Edwards voted for -- an authorization for the president but IF and ONLY if they could not get what Bush said he wanted through the UN. It was a vote for diplomacy, like she has said many times. and it literally was.  She gave a speech warning against war in the senate. And don't forget Bush lied to the Senate over 250 times about the war.  That vote wasn't even informed consent!

Meanwhile, Obama was giving a speech at an anti-war rally during a time when anti-war sentiment was sky high. That took absolutely no guts.  And since then from him -- what?  He won't even co-sponsor the Feingold bill to withdraw the troops because it doesn't contain a withdrawal date.  Give me a break!  CLINTON has co-sponsored it.

Clinton has real bona fides on military issues and Obama has nothing but 3 years voting to give them money. That take zero guts.  He just went along with everyone else. He has no judgment at all.  Look at his pastor.


by shellius on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:39:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, stop pulling crap out of... (none / 0)

I would agree with your whole point, except when Obama gave the speech, more than 70% of the country was FOR the "war". Obama gave a speech at an anti-war rally (friendly-crowd), so you correct, it wasn't he took a controversial position.


by cmugirl90 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:15:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, stop pulling crap out of... (none / 0)

Wow - sorry for the bad grammar-  wasn't paying attention!


by cmugirl90 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:17:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, stop pulling crap out of... (2.00 / 1)

Wow...NONE from McCain?  In how many years?  That's surprising.

Thanks for doing a little homework for us ;)


Torture me once, shame on you; torture me and get away with it, shame on us all.
by freedom78 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:09:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, stop pulling crap out of... (2.00 / 1)

No just in 2007. McCain introduced 37 bills, to Clinton's 159 and Obama's 120 bills.

Among the issues John McCain felt strongly enough to sit down, draft legislation, put his name on and introduce in the senate in 2007 are:
S.RES.70 : A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the Commander of Multinational Forces-Iraq and all United States personnel under his command should receive from Congress the full support necessary to carry out the United States mission in Iraq.
S. 84 A bill to establish a United States Boxing Commission to administer the Act, and for other purposes.
S.83 : A bill to provide increased rail transportation security.
S.1304 : A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Arizona National Scenic Trail.
 S.1900 : A bill to authorize appropriations for the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution.
S.478 : A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to replace the Federal Election Commission with Federal Election Administration

Actually looking over McCain's record in 2007, even though he didn't do much, his record is a mixed bag. Consider these:
 S.519 : A bill to modernize and expand the reporting requirements relating to child pornography, to expand cooperation in combating child pornography
S.192 : A bill providing greater transparency with respect to lobbying activities
S.327 : A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of sites associated with the life of Cesar Estrada Chavez and the farm labor movement.
 S.86 : A bill to designate segments of Fossil Creek, a tributary to the Verde River in the State of Arizona, as wild and scenic rivers.


by Grassroots Mom on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:35:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, stop pulling crap out of... (2.00 / 2)

Actually, it's Obama that has the legislation to prove his commitment.

Clinton has not authored or submitted a bill to withdraw troops from Iraq. Obama has.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:51:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, stop pulling crap out of... (none / 0)

Senator Clinton has sponsored more bills for helping Soldiers than ANY OTHER SENATOR----mostly for equipment, medical care and help for military families.

She's brought more than 2600 bills to the Senate floor--mainly for education, children, and the economy. I found it interesting she never puts her own name on the title of the bill. Rather than call it Clinton- __, like others do, she names them "Provide for the Common Defense" which provided $7 Billion to protect US cities and potential targets from Terrorists, or "National Sex Offender Database" also known as Dru's Law that lets parents know if a sexual predator has just become your neighbor.

But you never hear about her work. Are we so anti-Clinton that we won't give her credit? Would we choose a general or a surgeon because of their charm? I doubt it. Don't choose a President for theirs either.

Here's her Military/foreign affairs history sourced from the encyclopedia, government docs and old press releases. Like her or hate her, here are the facts.

Hillary Clinton----military and foreign affairs

1997 Pushed to investigate reports of an illness affecting veterans of the Gulf War, later known as the Gulf War Syndrome.

1992 - 2000 ---Traveled to 80 countries, solidifying alliances with Foreign Leaders and fulfilling President Clinton's orders. She has stayed friends with many of them, specifically Former Prime Minister Tony and Cherie Blair of Great Britain, Prime Minister Ian Paisley and Alec McGuinnes (Sinn Fein) of Ireland, The Royal Family of Jordan especially Queen Nor, Israel, The Arab League. This is an important asset considering the deteriorating reputation of the US abroad. The Clinton Roladex is famous for its World Leaders who respect the Clintons and could be relied on to help in negotiations with Palestine - Israel and other hotspots.

Spoke out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Taliban that had seized control of Afghanistan when few did.

Along with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, she helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes in all countries. As General Mac Arthur said, when women vote, there is less chance that country will engage in war.

Clinton traveled to Ireland on 7 official trips, giving speeches and meeting with leaders, including Nobel Prize winner for the negotiations John Hume, Alec McGuinness (Sinn Fein), Prime Minister Ian Paisley of N. Ireland, PM Tony Blair of England and their wives, (all of whom confirm Clinton's claims of helping with the Irish Peace Process), pushing women to stand for peace in Northern Ireland and get involved in the political process, who, prior to Hillary, had been more passive in the political system. Some proponents claim it was that new women's movement that enabled Northern Ireland to become more receptive to the acceptance of the Good Friday Agreement which ended up passing with 52% of the vote. Each year, Hillary Clinton meets with the Taoiseach and other party leaders from Ireland and continues to take calls from all parties to provide help behind the scenes and to keep the process moving forward. She has held meetings in her office at the request of Northern Irish officials on job creation, trade, agriculture, autism, policing, and economic development.

Hillary Clinton arrived in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia during the war over Kosova and traveled near the war zone to visit refugees. She met separately with Prime Minister Georgievski and President Gligorov, accompanied by U.S. Ambassador to Macedonia Christopher Hill, emphasized America's support for the stability and security of Macedonia and discussed refugee policy. Before her arrival, the Macedonian government had an inconsistent border policy that frequently severely restricted the flow of refugees trying to escape the war zone. After talks between Hillary Clinton and the Macedonian leadership, including two million dollars in US aid, the government kept its borders open and saving lives. As a Senator, Hillary Clinton championed recognition of Kosovo's independence in the context of full protection of minority rights, especially for Serbs and supported full integration of the Western Balkans into Europe and the transatlantic community. (Time Magazine and Christopher Hill confirmed Clinton relayed messages from the President and brought a promise of jobs to sweeten the deal which she herself orchestrated. e.g. Liz Clairborne.)

Hillary welcomed hundreds of foreign dignitaries and World Leaders to the White House, many with whom she established long-term relationships. This detail should not be under-rated as the United States was well respected in the 1990's and that aided our foreign policy.

Hillary Clinton is the only member of the Senate to serve on U.S. Joint Forces Command's (USJFCOM) Transformation Advisory Group (TAG). A division of the Department of Defense, the TAG force provides the USJFCOM independent advice and recommendations on strategic, scientific, technical, intelligence and policy-related issues, with emphasis on how these issues relate to the command's efforts to develop battle and disaster ready, multi-national joint-force capabilities to combat global terrorism, urban warfare and multi-national operations today and in the future. USJFCOM holds large scale terrorist-disaster joint-training missions of 10,000 soldiers, police and firemen and assesses tactics and response. Hillary Clinton is the only Senator the Pentagon asked to serve on the TAG force. 2004 - Present.

2001 - Present Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe also known as the Helsinki Commission, which monitors compliance with the 1975 Helsinki Accords of national sovereignty. The Helsinki Accords include 10 points: I. Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty, II. Refraining from the threat or use of force, III. Inviolability of frontiers, IV. Territorial integrity of States , V. Peaceful settlement of disputes, VI. Non-intervention in internal affairs , VII. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief , VIII. Equal rights and self determination of peoples, IX. Co-operation among States, X. Fulfillment in good faith of obligations under international law

2001 - Present Committee on Environment and Public Works oversees environment and infrastructure issues including Nuclear Safety and Infrastructure Security.

2001 - Present Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Monitors measures relating to education, labor, health, and public welfare. These include Aging, Agricultural colleges, the Red Cross, Biomedical research and development, , Individuals with disabilities, Labor standards and labor statistics, Mediation and arbitration of labor disputes, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Mine Safety and Health Administration, Private pension plans, Public health, Railway labor and retirement, Regulation of foreign laborers, Student loans, Wages and hours of labor, including the federal minimum wage

2003 - Present Committee on Armed Services is empowered with legislative oversight of the nation's military, including the Department of Defense, military research and development, nuclear energy (as pertaining to national security), benefits for members of the military, the Selective Service System and other military matters. Chairman of the Committee, Sen. Carl Levin noted Hillary Clinton introduced more legislation to address problems facing wounded service members than any other Senator

2001 Clinton was Senator from NY during September 11, 2001 bombing of World Trade Center and was involved in recovery issues for years following the national disaster that devastated New York, especially in helping 1st Responders, including the National Guard, get the help they needed.

2001 Sought and obtained funding for the recovery efforts in New York City and security improvements in her state. Working with New York's senior Senator, Charles Schumer, she was instrumental in securing $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center's redevelopment.

2001 Leading role in investigating the health issues faced by 9/11 first responders, including National Guard, and was instrumental in getting them healthcare benefits after the government refused to honor their coverage

2002 Petitioned the US postal service to create a commemorative stamp to pay tribute to the "Order of the Purple Heart for Military Merit". The proceeds provide funding for the Veterans' Health Care Administration.

2002 Co-sponsored, with Senator Chuck Hagel (NE), "National Purple Heart Recognition Day", honoring all soldiers who were severely injured while serving their country and who were awarded a Purple Heart

2002 Co-sponsored the Chemical Security Act S.1602 which regulates manufacturing plants and distribution centers that handle particular chemicals that could be used in manufacturing explosives. Co-sponsored with Senators Jeffords, Corzine and Boxer

2003 With Senator Carl Levin, Clinton called on the Bush Administration to propose a U.N. Security Council resolution which would formally reject Iraq's conditions on U-2 flights over Iraq, demand that Iraq not endanger or impede the operation of the U-2, and put Iraq on notice that any action by Iraq that is intended to harm or interfere with the operation of the U-2 would be considered a material breach of U.N. Security Council resolution 1441 and would be considered an act of war against the United Nations

2003 Unveiled bipartisan bill, the Sunshine in Iraq Reconstruction Contracting Act, to explain any decision by federal agencies to award Iraqi reconstruction contracts without a fully open, competitive bidding process. Co-sponsored by Senators Ron Wyden, Susan Collins, Robert Byrd and Joe Lieberman

2003 Introduced "Provide for the Common Defense Act" , a domestic defense fund to provide $7 billion to support homeland security for cities including $5 billion to communities with base level funding for first responders for equipment, training and infrastructure, $1 billion in an emergency Reserve Fund for cities and states during a high profile terrorist trial, or similar emergency situations, $1 billion for "High Threat Areas" areas considered potential terrorist targets such as ports and tunnels

2003 Introduced amendment and co-sponsored another to enforce fiscal accountability to the Iraq and Afghanistan Supplemental Appropriations bill which provides the General Accounting Office with the ability to conduct a detailed review of how American taxpayer money is spent in Iraq and Afghanistan

2003 Traveled to Ireland, then Pakistan where Clinton and Sen. Harry Reed were briefed by U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan, Nancy Powell, and the embassy staff

2003 Spent Thanksgiving in Afghanistan with U.S. troops. In Bagram, briefed by Ambassador Khalilzad and his team, met with a group of Afghan women leaders to learn about challenges they face. Met with U.S. Marines then met with President Karzai in Kabul and were briefed on the current situation in Afghanistan from General Austin and his team

2003 Traveled with Reed and Kandahar to Islamabad meeting with President Musharaff of Pakistan

2003 Traveled to Iraq and was briefed by Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, the head of the CPA, and Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. Later met with Brigade commander, Colonel Fuller, and discussed with U.S. troops challenges they face. Met with representatives of international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), who provide assistance to Iraqis and discussed challenges they face. Visited Iraqi women leaders to discuss greater protections for women's rights in Iraq. Met with General John Abizaid, commander of Central Command and discussed both Afghanistan and Iraq. In Kirkuk, in Northern Iraq was briefed by Major General Raymond Odierno of the 4th Infantry Division and then went to downtown Kirkuk and met with a group of local Iraqi leaders including the provisional Governor

2003 Announced a spending bill of approximately $1 billion in direct aid to the City and State to cover costs related to September 11 and within that, $90 million for baseline screenings and long term health monitoring of thousands of Ground Zero workers and volunteers.

2004 Chairwoman for TAPS (Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors) which helps military widows receive grief counseling and assistance for their children after the death of a soldier

2004 Awarded the Intrepid Freedom Award for distinguished action in promoting and defending the values of freedom and democracy which are the core beliefs of our nation. The only other women to receive this award are Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

2004 Co-sponsored the DREAM Act which fast tracks immigrants honorably serving in the U.S. military towards citizenship. Co-sponsored with Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

2004 Traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan to visit American troop and meet with military and government leaders.

2004 Secured, with Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), expansion of Department of Defense Authorization bill to provide one additional year of TRICARE eligibility to National Guard and Reserve Members for every 90 days of active duty.

2004 Co-sponsored an amendment to the Dept. of Defense Appropriations Act of 2005, increasing funding for humanitarian operations in Sudan and Chad.

2004 Visited Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh, NY with Brig. Gen. Dana Demand

2005 Co-introduced legislation to increase the size of the regular United States Army by 80,000 soldiers to ease the strain on soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan forced to do multiple tours of duty

2005 Visited Jordan, met with her friend Queen Nor and King Hussein and discussed issues facing the middle east and the situation in Jordan and Iraq.

2005 Visited Israel and discussed the shared security challenges that Israel and the US face, visited the fence, held a series of meetings with Israeli officials and discussed challenges and shared interests. Met with Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom about threat posed by potential of a nuclear Iran - not only to Israel, but to Palestine, Europe and Russia. Met privately with Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz then both of them attended panel discussion hosted by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, answered questions from the audience and discussed strategic challenges and opportunities facing Israel and the US.

2005 Offered amendment to the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act (S.852) which protects workers, National Guard and residents of New York that were exposed to more than 2,000 tons of asbestos on September 11th and in the days and weeks after the collapse of the World Trade Center.

2005 Visited Israel again in November to attend memorial ceremonies for Yitzhak Rabin. Met with several Israeli leaders and participated in a conference on Middle East policy issues and discussed security challenges for both Israel and the US. Had meeting with Prime Minister Sharon and continued discussion when Sderot was attacked.

2005 Spoke at NATO centered meetings at Munich Conference on Security with United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and other World Leaders, suggested an expansion of NATO, assistance to the African Union Mission in Darfur and a restructuring of the United Nations and their role in world conflict.

2005 Awarded, along with Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), The Military Coalition's Award of Merit in recognition of tireless bipartisan work to expand access to TRICARE military health care for all drilling members of the National Guard and Reserve and their families regardless of activation status. The award is the Military Coalition's highest honor. The Military Coalition is comprised of 36 military and veterans organizations representing more than six million members around the world, including active duty, National Guard and Reserve, retired members and veterans, as well as their families and survivors.

2005 Visited New Orleans, Louisiana and Mississippi Katrina victims and met with local leaders, residents and rescue workers

2005 Visited Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) facility in Rome, and the Stratton Air National Guard Station in Scotia, NY.

2005 Pushed for retaining and improving health benefits for veterans, and lobbied against the closure of several military bases, including Fort Drum, Fort Hamilton, West Point and Watervliet Arsenal; Air National Guard installations such as Hancock Field Air National Guard Base in Syracuse, the Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) in Rome, Stratton Air National Guard base in Scotia, Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh, and Gabreski Air National Guard base in Westhampton.

2005 Introduced the Military Personnel Financial Services Education Act against predatory lending practices which instruct military members on financial information they and their families need to make informed decisions about their future. Requires the Department of Defense to provide consumer education, a trained counselor in financial issues, and make counseling services available, not only to service members, but also to their spouses in order to allow decisions to be made as a family and to ensure spouses have access when a service member is deployed.

2005 Helped pass the Military Death Benefit Improvement Act which raises the military survivor benefit, or "death gratuity," paid to the families of military personnel killed in the line of duty.

2005 Awarded National President's Award from Reserve Officers Association

2005 Secured $200 million to secure Northern Border with Canada for the Northern Border Air Wing for five new installations to provide critical surveillance, interdiction and investigative capability along the Northern Border.

2005 Met with Israeli Prime Minister Sharon at American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference

2005 Joined Sen. Diane Feinstein at conference with Women Leaders from Iraq and Afghanistan to discuss the status of women in both countries.

2005 Fought for military widows over the age of 57 to retain their survivor benefits even if they remarry

2005 Fought for healthcare benefits for families of the National Guard and Reserve, for which she was given the Military Coalition Award of Merit, their highest civilian honor.

2005 Introduced legislation to ensure the National Guard, who responded to New York's security needs following the 9/11 attacks, receive military retirement credit for that service regardless if they were serving under federal or state active duty.

2005 Joined with other Senators to push Secretary Rice to aggressively address Darfur by pushing to strengthen the African Union, give force to existing U.N. resolutions, ensure proper care for affected women and children, hold accountable human rights violators, and appoint a new envoy to Sudan.

2006 Visited Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station with General T. Michael Moseley, the Air Force Chief of Staff, and met with troops and Air Reserve Leaders

2006 Called on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to testify in public at open hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He declined.

2006 Questioned Sec. Rumsfeld in closed session of Senate Armed Services Committee on the Bush Administration's handling of the war in Iraq. Emphasized common sense overwhelmingly does not either understand or approve of the way Secretary Rumsfeld and the Administration are handling Iraq and underscored the Administration's errors in judgment, strategic blunders and record of incompetence that have led to the current situation in Iraq.

2006 Public hearings of Senate Armed Services Committee received testimony on Iraq, Afghanistan and the global war on terrorism. General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and General John Abizaid, the Commander of Central Command, testified.

2006 Authored legislation to support Zimbabwe in their efforts to promote democracy and human rights in their country, despite years of repression and violence under the government of Robert Mugabe

2006 Honored with National Appreciation Award by the Gold Star Wives of America for outstanding leadership and tireless efforts to secure legislation that would allow widowed military spouses who chose to remarry after age 57 to continue receiving survivor benefits.

2006 Co-sponsored with Senators Durbin and Salazar the Federal Interoperable Communication and Safety Act S.3172 to establish a federal Office of Emergency Communications to develop, manage, operate and coordinate an interoperable public alert and warning system

2006 Requested with other Senators that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examine Pentagon hiring practices following reports that partisan affiliations shaped the personnel decisions for reconstruction effort in Iraq and investigate reports that qualified applicants with language skills and experience in post-conflict reconstruction were rejected in favor of unqualified Republican Party loyalists. Individuals with political connections and little or no professional experience were placed in key positions to rebuild Iraq, including a 24-yr-old with no financial experience who was charged with opening the stock exchange.

2006 Announced the SAFE Port Act with Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford), which includes a provision to protect the health and safety of rescue workers, residents, and volunteers that may be negatively impacted in the aftermath of a disaster

2006 Awarded the Inspirational Leadership Award from the Military Order of the Purple Heart, "In recognition of her inspirational leadership and dedicated service to America's military service members and America's veterans. Senator Clinton was an early advocate and co-sponsor of legislation to provide guaranteed funding for the VA health care administration." One Member of Congress is chosen for this award each year. Senator Clinton is the first woman to receive this honor.

2006 Outlined three national security principles that should underlie American foreign policy in a major policy address at the Council on Foreign Relations, calling for increased diplomacy, balancing our idealism with realism to reduce American isolation and succeed in the war on terror

2006 Met privately with Tzipi Livni, Israel's Foreign Minister where they discussed Israel's security and the status of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers

2007 Original Sponsor of the Nuclear Terrorism Prevention Act which seeks to prevent nuclear terrorism by eliminating and securing nuclear material around the world. Increases funding to convert research reactors around the world from highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium and remove highly enriched uranium from such facilities; invests in forensic measures to advance capability to identify the origins of a nuclear weapon in event of a nuclear terrorist attack; creates international guidelines to raise security standards at nuclear sites worldwide. Requires the President to develop a comprehensive plan with the international community to secure nuclear weapons and materials all around the world and to create a new post of Senior Advisor to the President for Preventing Nuclear Terrorism to prioritize and coordinate these efforts and report back to Congress. Elements of the Nuclear Terrorism Prevention Act were approved by both houses of Congress as part of the FY 2008 Defense Authorization Act in December 2007

2007 Joined Sen. Christopher Dodd and a bipartisan coalition of Senators to introduce amendment to extend Family and Medical Leave Act to family members of wounded soldiers to six months as part of the CHIP bill

2007 Co-Sponsored Legislation with Sen. Webb Prohibiting the Use of Funds for Military Operations in Iran that prohibits the use of funds for military operations against Iran without explicit Congressional authorization (S. 759).

2007 Visited troops and meet with military leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan

2007 Co-sponsored, with Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), a bill to help soldiers with Traumatic Brain Injury to improve detection, assessment and treatment of traumatic brain injury and expand support systems to former members of the Armed Services with traumatic brain injury and their families, and to ensure they receive the proper disability benefits

2007 Co-sponsored the Aviation Security Act S.1447 which increases monitoring and security of civil aviation and railways

2007 Co-sponsored legislation to improve protection at U.S. Embassies

2007 Co-sponsored legislation to improve bomb scanning technology

2007 Co-sponsored legislation to identify potential terror sites and targets in the US and conduct annual inspections for security vulnerabilities

2007 Released Plan to Start Phased Redeployment and Involving Other Countries in the Region in the Future of Iraq. These are the basic points of the plan which require the U.S. military begin transitioning to a phased redeployment of U.S. troops in 90 days or the authority of the Use of Force in Iraq would cease. Phased redeployment would concentrate on:

  • Training Iraqi security forces to take over protecting Iraq
  • Providing logistic support and guidance of Iraqi security forces but reduce the number of US troops in combat situations
  • Protecting United States personnel and infrastructure
  • Participating in targeted counter-terrorism activities.

The legislation also requires the United States convene an International Conference to:

* Actively involve the international community and Iraq's neighbors in improving Iraq's situation

  • Promote a durable political settlement among Iraqis
  • Reduce regional interference in the internal affairs of Iraq
  • Encourage more countries to contribute to the extensive needs in Iraq
  • Ensure that funds pledged for Iraq are forthcoming.

2007 Released legislation for Protecting Troops Sent into Iraq which prohibits funds from being spent to send troops to Iraq unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the troops are adequately equipped and trained for their mission prior to departure

2007 Co-sponsored, with Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Protecting Military Family Financial Benefits Act, the Restoring Guaranteed Bonuses for Wounded Veterans Act and the Military Personnel Financial Services Education Act to ensure that service members and their families receive financial support and benefits they have earned, especially bonuses owed to soldiers who are medically retired or discharged due to combat-related injuries and to require financial audit to determine how many service members were affected by the practice of not paying out, and recouping bonus payments.

2007 Introduced the 21st Century GI Bill of Rights Act to reward the veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by providing them with education, housing and entrepreneurial benefits commensurate with their needs. Veterans serving at least two years on active-duty since September 11, 2001, or deployed overseas in support of a combat operation since September 11, would be eligible for 8 college semesters of tuition, fees, books, room and board and other related education costs. Active Duty service members, National Guard, and Reservists would have equal footing and access to benefits. Education assistance would be on a level consistent with undergraduate education costs paid by non-veterans, and assistance could be used for specialized trade or technical training, and certification and licensing programs. Unlike under the current Montgomery GI Bill, promotes new entrepreneurial opportunities for veterans by establishing a low-interest, no collateral Veterans' Micro-loan Program.

2007 Called, with Sen. Jim Webb, for Investigation into the Effectiveness of Body Armor Issued to Our Troops, to research which particular body armor system offers the best protection for effectiveness and reliability against the threats facing different troops in combat with specific needs.

2007 Sponsored legislation to provide vouchers for families of service members deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan to cover the cost of shipping a package of up to 10 pounds or a letter up to 13 ounces. Funds for vouchers would be provided every two months and transferred from the Department of Defense. Legislation was originally introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Vito Fossella.

2007 Called on Pentagon to brief Congress on any existing plans for withdrawal from Iraq, or provide explanation as to why such plans have not been properly created, both a letter to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and in a private meeting with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace.

2007 Co-introduced legislation with John Kerry (Mass) requiring the Pentagon to prepare a report and briefing for Iraq Redeployment to be given to the appropriate oversight committees on current contingency plans or explain why they decided not to engage in such planning.

2007 Called for Armed Services Hearing to Focus on Redeployment of U.S. Forces from Iraq with Senators Jim Webb (D-VA), Robert Byrd (D-WV), and Evan Bayh (D-IN) who, along with Hillary Clinton (D-NY), are on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Possible closed door session would allow Administration to testify on status of withdrawal planning, but also could solicit the views of outside experts experienced in redeployment of large numbers of troops. If necessary, portions of the hearing could be held in closed session

2007 Helped to pass a resolution condemning Hamas and Hezbollah for kidnapping three Israeli soldiers and demands their unconditional and immediate release

2007 Called on President Bush & Defense Secretary Gates to Clarify Administration Policy on Resuming the Military Draft, and Affirm Their Commitment to an All-volunteer Force in light of White House Deputy National Security Adviser, Lt. General Douglas Lute, saying the draft "has always been an option on the table" - which contradicts Administration statements

2007 Sponsored Amendment to Increase Temporary Lodging Expenses for Service members from 20 days to 60 days for service members moving to a military base and experiencing a housing shortage as part of the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization

2007 Co-sponsored with Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) the Support for Injured Service members Act which allows the family of wounded military personnel to take up to 6 months of unpaid leave. The legislation expands the benefits provided under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which currently allows 12 weeks of unpaid leave.

2007 Joined bipartisan group of Senators to introduce bill to Require Report on Iraq Redeployment Planning from Administration from the Department of Defense within 60 days to congressional defense committees, with updated reports every 90 days thereafter. Co-sponsored by Senators Ken Salazar (D-CO), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Susan Collins (R-ME) George Voinovich (R-OH), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) and Jim Webb (D-VA)

2007 Co-introduced Legislation to Require Congressional Approval for Extending U.S. military commitment to Iraq. Also sent letter warning the President against rushing the United States into long-term security commitments to the Iraqi government and urging him to seek Congressional consent. This was in response to President Bush's signing a Declaration of Principles for a Long-term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship with Iraq. Co-sponsored by Senators Bob Casey (D-PA), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Carl Levin (D-MI), and Jim Webb (D-VA).

2007 Called for Investigation of Reported Rape and Detention of American Contractor in Iraq after allegations by Jamie Leigh Jones that she was brutally raped and forcibly detained while serving as a contractor in Iraq. According to news reports, more than two years later, no United States government agency or department has undertaken a proper investigation of the incident. In a letter, Senator Clinton urged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Attorney General Michael Mukasey to take swift and immediate action to investigate rape charges.

2007 Introduced amendments to the National Security Strategy, a National Defense Strategy and Quadrennial Defense Review, key documents that guide national security policy, to consider strategies regarding Natural Disasters and Mass Migration issues that could be caused by Global Warming and Climate Change and how they would impact National Security, add to global tensions, and increase conflict over resources.

2007 Joined colleagues in calling for pay raise for wartime troops to 3.5 percent and to ask Bush not to cut a proposed benefit for grieving spouses, which would provide $40 a month to help these military families cover expenses when a loved one is killed in action. Co-sponsored by Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) and House members Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill. 5th District), Tim Walz (D-Minn. 1st District) and Patrick Murphy (D-Penn. 8th District)

2007 Fought to include a provision requiring the Army audit the pay accounts of 1,216 wounded soldiers in the FY 2007 Defense Authorization bill. The audit, which the Army completed in 2007, found 24% of the wounded soldiers had underpayment issues totaling nearly $400,000.

2007 Introduced the Protecting Military Family Financial Benefits Act to close gaps in the death gratuity and other survivor benefits intended for family members of active-duty military personnel and protecting children of single parents by allowing guardians of the surviving minor children to access the benefits.

2007 Introduced the Restoring Disability Benefits for Injured and Wounded Warriors to fix the flawed disability benefits evaluation process to be more efficient and make sure wounded service members are treated fairly including an independent review of disability benefit ratings below 20 percent and an increase in disability benefits when warranted.

2008 Co-sponsored with Senator Dodd the Family and Medical Leave Act which was incorporated into the Defense Authorization Act, extending to the loved ones of wounded service members the right to take time extra time off to care for an injured spouse or child.

2008 Joined colleagues to introduce the Civil Rights Act of 2008 which strengthens accountability when civil rights and workers' rights are violated. Legislation ensures accountability for violations of our civil rights and fair labor laws, gives individuals the right to challenge practices that have unjustified discriminatory effect based on race, color, national origin, disability, age or gender. Gives students the same protection from harassment in school that workers have on the job, and holds employers fully accountable for age discrimination and discrimination against our men and women in the armed services. Co-sponsored by Congressman Lewis, Senators Kennedy, Leahy, Dodd, Lautenberg, Bingaman, Kerry, Harkin, Mikulski, Akaka, Boxer, Feingold, Murray, Durbin, Schumer, Cantwell, Obama, Menendez, Cardin and Brown.

2008 Introduced with bi-partisan group Casey, Sessions, an Amendment to Protect Bonuses for Wounded Veterans that would create a reserve fund to guarantee that veterans who are wounded in combat are able to receive full payment of bonuses and incentives so that Medically-Discharged troops are not penalized

2008 Sponsored Bridging the Gap bill to ensure that active duty and veterans' health care services are available to all current and former service members injured after October 7, 2001, and another amendment to require that the development of a DOD-VA electronic medical records system is compatible with efforts to develop a nationwide health IT infrastructure. Senate Armed Services Committee and both houses of Congress adopted these measures of bill

2008 Called for needed focus and funds to the BioWatch program, to develop bio-weapons sensors to detect the early stages of a biological attack

2008 Met with Irish Peace Agreement architects, Ian Paisley and Sinn Fein, who only requested meetings with two Americans when they visited from Ireland: One with President Bush and the other with Senator Hillary Clinton.

2008 Met with British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Shaun Woodward, during his visit to Washington, DC

2008 Called on Senate Armed Services Committee to hold oversight hearings on circumstances surrounding resignation of Admiral William Fallon as Commander, U.S. Central Command, voicing concern that Admiral Fallon may have been coerced to resign because of his willingness to offer unfiltered, independent advice

2008 Defense Authorization Act included additional amendment from Clinton to expand burial travel allowances for military families to minor, dependent siblings of deceased service members who currently have to pay out of pocket to travel to their brother's or sister's funeral services.

2008 Called on the Pentagon to implement an aggressive suicide prevention program for military, including a targeted outreach for soldiers at risk of harming themselves. According to recent news reports, more active duty soldiers committed suicide in 2007 than in any other year on record.

Here's some info about Generals supporting Hillary. Maybe you'll find someone you know.
General Henry Hugh Shelton has endorsed her to be the Nation's next Commander-in- Chief. One of our nation's top military figures, General Shelton served two terms as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. In announcing his endorsement, General Shelton said, "I've been with Senator Clinton when she has been with our military men and women. I know from those experiences that she understands the demands and sacrifice of military life. I am confident she will always put the readiness and well being of our troops first. She is ready to be Commander-in- Chief."

General Shelton joins General John Shalikashvili as the second former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to have endorsed Senator Clinton. General Shelton is the fourth flag officer to endorse Senator Clinton this week.

The first Green Beret to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton served our Nation with distinction over a career that spanned 38 years. General Shelton served two tours of duty in Vietnam , and was awarded a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. He was assistant commander of the 101st Airborne Division during Operation Desert Storm in Iraq , and later commanded the 82nd Airborne Division. Prior to serving as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Shelton commanded U.S. Special Operations Forces. He served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation's highest ranking military office, from 1997-2001.

General Shelton joins a distinguished group of 28 retired flag officers who have endorsed Senator Clinton to be our nation's next Commander-in- Chief. In addition, more than 2,000 veterans and military retirees are members of Senator Clinton's national and state veterans' steering committees.

"I am so proud to have the endorsement of General Shelton. He has spent his career commanding our country's elite military units. He commanded at the highest level of our nation's armed forces, while always remaining dedicated to the effectiveness of their combat capabilities and the well-being of their families."

Generals Endorsing Hillary Clinton for President and Commander-in- Chief

1. General Wesley Clark

  1. General John M. Shalikashvili
  2. General Henry Hugh Shelton
  3. General Johnnie E. Wilson
  4. Admiral William Owens
  5. Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
  6. Lt. Gen. Robert Gard
  7. Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy
  8. Lt. Gen. Donald L. Kerrick
  9. Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath
  10. Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak
  11. Major General Roger R. Blunt
  12. Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.
  13. Major General Edward L. Correa, Jr.
  14. Major General Paul D. Eaton
  15. Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr.
  16. Major General Antonio M. Taguba
  17. Rear Admiral Connie Mariano
  18. Rear Admiral Alan M. Steinman
  19. Rear Admiral David Stone
  20. Brigadier General Michael Dunn
  21. Brigadier General Belisario Flores
  22. Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote
  23. Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr
  24. Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard
  25. Brigadier General Preston Taylor
  26. Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
  27. Brigadier General Jack Yeager

compiled by Cartwright @ CCN


by jen on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:48:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dead wrong on "cavalier" attitude (2.00 / 1)

Have you ever read Clinton's AUMF voting statement?  I have a son in Baghdad right now, we discussed this at much length and her reasoning is sound -- a bi-partisan authorization sent a different message to the troops than one strictly down party lines.  Hers was not a deciding vote by far.  One significant part of her decision was troop morale, that they would not feel their country was divided going into the conflict.

I realize this is the sort of nuanced thinking on the military most progressives aren't familiar with.  Suffice it to say, hers was a vote respectful of the troops, not dismissive of them.

You know, there are enough pros and cons about both candidates to make a rational informed choice for either without injecting smears in either direction.  And one can defend and support their candidate without constantly ragging on the other.

I doubt there is anyone her, least of all me or the diarist, who supported the war in 2002 or isn't deeply concerned for the welfare of military persons and there families.  Frankly, to suggest Clinton was "cavalier" about the lives of military personel, when her voting statement clearly demonstrates to me just the opposite is simplistic at best and ugly at worst.  

It is an insult to someone like myself, or the diarist, that we would be support someone who has been cavalier about troop loss or that we would be so ignorant as to have not considered the AUMF vote in our decision to support her.

Not that it will go further than my writing this, but I think you owe the diarist an apology.  


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:52:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton's vote - expedient?? (2.00 / 4)

Has Hillary SAID or written anywhere that she "was willing to send our military to fight and die because it would have been politically inexpedient to vote against the war before it started"?

Or is that your opinion based on the evidence that you've come up with?


by Southern Mouth on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:47:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (2.00 / 1)

The information was right in front of her, and yet she still voted for the war, even though the majority of Democrats in Congress did not. Not only that but she spoke out forcefully for the war, even having not read the NIE. Has she come out and said she did this for political gain? No. However, I prefer that reasoning over the conclusion she's just incompetent.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:57:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (2.00 / 6)

No she voted for the resolution, but obfuscate, all O supporters do on this subject anyway.

The actual vote on the resolution was 77 senators.

That is considered by those who actually know something about the senate to be a bi-partisan majority and not a dem majority of anything.

Remember those senators who are so proudly supporting O are the senators who did vote, like Daschle and Kerry for the resolution as well.  But go ahead and hold only one person accountable with your comments.  Sure only one person deserves your scorn and that is Clinton.  No consideration for the reality of the time, or the fact that she was a sitting senator for NY, that her constituents were at the time for the resolution.  She was supporting the president.  Later we found out that the man couldn't actually be trusted, but at the time, everyone was supporting the president, so to blame only Clinton is so small minded of the O supporters.


democrat voter
by democrat voter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:12:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (2.00 / 1)

Sure it was a majority if you count the Republicans. Is Hillary a Republican? I remember reading somewhere she was not.

I don't care if every person in New York was for going to war. They would have been wrong, as she was wrong. Obama was not wrong. In the midst of his Senate campaign, when it would have been easy to put a finger to the wind and speak in favor of the war, as Hillary did, he did just the opposite, speaking forcefully against the war, as Al Gore did as well, and they were both right. That's judgment over politics. That's Presidential.

And to get back to the topic, what legislation has Hillary put forward in her extensive Senate career to help veterans?


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:20:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (none / 0)

No - he got lucky.  Had the war been managed better, he would still be sitting in the Illinois Senate.


by cmugirl90 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:18:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (none / 0)

I'm pretty sure everyone was aware it was going to be Bush managing it.  How could he not fark it up, it's Bush.


by furiousxgeorge on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:37:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (2.00 / 1)

Everyone was not supporting the president. And we blame Clinton because she is running for president. What does that make Hillary if she supported an idiot like Bush?


by munodi on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:37:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (2.00 / 1)

She didn't support Bush, puh-leese. She supported the right of a president to decide if war was necessary after being required to go to the UN. He was going to go anyway and they Senate required him to go to the UN FIRST with their vote.
Please, read the authorization.  I don't think anyone here has read it.

And.... Remember back in 2002 we didn't all  know for sure YET  that Bush was batpoop crazy.  We only found that out after he went to war with Iraq.


by shellius on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:41:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (2.00 / 1)

Who says Obama supporters blame only Clinton?  I think all who voted for it share equally in the "blame," and moreso those who are killing efforts to get us out.  Bush, of course, and his administration receive the lion's share of blame.  But we don't "blame only Clinton."  And, for most of us, we don't seek to hurt the electoral chances of those Democrats who voted for it.  Maybe some do, but the vast majority would believe any Democrat who voted for this action is still better than the Republican who'd take his/her place.  

But Hillary's the only war voter left in the campaign.  And this is a real issue, despite all the wishful thinking that the public will see her vote as well reasoned rather than poor judgment, at best, or political maneuvering, at worst.  We don't "blame only Clinton," but for those who consider the war their #1 issue, it's pretty easy to see why they'd support Obama over Clinton.  


Torture me once, shame on you; torture me and get away with it, shame on us all.
by freedom78 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:16:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (2.00 / 5)

(a) she did not "vote for the war", she voted for the AUMF...Authorization to Use Military Force.  In case you didn't know, this was a redundant bill..the President does not need "authorization" to use military force.

(b) the majority of the Democrats in congress voted the same way as did Clinton.  Those who voted against it (such as Barbara Lee) were a small minority

(c) If she did speak out forcefull for the way, I must have missed it.  Do you have a link to support this assertion of yours ?  Because...you know...most people who voted for AUMF actually spoke out AGAINST the war.  The AUMF was supposed to PREVENT war !!

(d) She did not "read" the NIE.  Most members of congress did not "read" the NIE... they were given a briefing on the NIE, wherein nearly the entire NIE was read for them.  They were then given the opportunity to ask questioons of the briefers.


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:15:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (2.00 / 1)

Yes but most democrats are not running for president. You people are living in some kind of my pretty pony world where decisions to put Americans in harms way are suddendly considered patriotic and supporting of the president.


by munodi on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:40:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (2.00 / 0)

Most democrats supporting either candidate were also  supporting the President back in 2002/2003.  That is the tragedy that we (those of us who were marching agaisnt the war back in 2002/2003) will never forget.  I distinctly remember what we were called... and patriotic was not one of them !!

And as to what kind of world we live in, please refrain from commenting on my world..and I will refrain from commenting on yours.

In any case, commenting on worlds that we do not inhabit, and have never seen, is a fools domain.


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:51:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (none / 0)

The majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the war. Stop repeating the Republican talking point that it was otherwise.
Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:03:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (2.00 / 1)

Not every sentence is about your little factoid, Travis...

Here, I was referring to the opinion polls that said that by a large margin (80% for, as I recall), Americans were supporting Pres. Bush on the pending war with Iraq.  

This large majority also included a majority of all Democrats, as I recall!!


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:48:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So wrong. (2.00 / 1)

(a) she did not "vote for the war", she voted for the AUMF...Authorization to Use Military Force. In case you didn't know, this was a redundant bill..the President does not need "authorization" to use military force.
;

The President put forward this bill to provide cover for the upcoming invasion, and he has used it as such ever since. This was obvious at the time and to argue Sen. Clinton didn't know that is to argue she was incompetent, which I'm not doing.

(b) the majority of the Democrats in congress voted the same way as did Clinton. Those who voted against it (such as Barbara Lee) were a small minority

While this has been spouted by numerous Republicans, it's not true. A majority of Democrats in the House and Senate (i.e. Congress), joined by a Republican and Independent, voted against the resolution. (link)

(c) If she did speak out forcefull for the way, I must have missed it. Do you have a link to supportthis assertion of yours ? Because...you know...most people who voted for AUMF actually spoke out AGAINST the war. The AUMF was supposed to PREVENT war !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0t R0

(d) She did not "read" the NIE. Most members of congress did not "read" the NIE... they were given a briefing on the NIE, wherein nearly the entire NIE was read for them. They were then given the opportunity to ask questioons of the briefers.

You are correct that very few read the NIE. Some, like Pat Leahy, did however, and voted against the war. The fact that very few senators read the NIE is irrelevent. They're not running for President. She is. She made a terrible decision, and 4000 of our soldiers died.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:47:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So wrong. (2.00 / 1)

Maybe I'm alone (or with you...a pair with unique foresight), but there wasn't a moment back then when I thought that this would end with anything less than military action.  

Bush was intent on war.  It was pretty clear, to me.


Torture me once, shame on you; torture me and get away with it, shame on us all.
by freedom78 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:20:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So wrong. (2.00 / 2)

We were not alone.

There were 50,000 people at the march in Hollywood, as I recall.

Nationwide, the numbers added upto 2 million (again, these numbers are just from memory).

I remember remarking to my wife that if we could get 50 million people to march against the war, the war would be averted.  (Because Bush had gotten 50 million votes in 2000)

We were 48 million short !!

I bet most of those who now excoriate Clinton for "voting for the war" did not show up when it counted most.


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:54:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So wrong. (none / 0)

Okay, you are right in one point.. the majority of democrats in congress did vote against the war!

You are wrong about everyting else, however!!


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:40:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (2.00 / 1)

ALL extremely valid points, SevenStrings, that it seems too many Obama supporters continue to conveniently disregard.  I highly doubt many have taken the opportunity to actually read (or view) Clinton's speech that she made on the Senate floor accompanying her vote--much as I try to direct them to it.  Of course, it's much more convenient to simply repeat Obama's repeated misrepresentation that he was the ONLY candidate opposed to the war and tout his speech, while oompletely disregarding her much more knowledgable speech on the situation that shows what a clear grasp she had on the many issues involved and clearly and firmly warned the President about taking it to the step of going to war.  

So I'll try again, for all Obama supporters who believe this, please go read or view Clinton's speech.  The transcript for this speech can be found here:  http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/re marks_of_illinois_state_sen.php .  And Hillary did in fact give a vote that is being represented as having supported the war when she was forced to make a decision as U.S. Senator--something he was not forced to do because he was not yet present in the U.S. Senate.  Or you can watch video coverage of her speech at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wyCBF5Cs CA&feature=PlayList&p=1D57FBDEB2 9740AF&index=6 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8fknhbB- Xo&feature=PlayList&p=1D57FBDEB2 9740AF&index=5.  

I challenge anybody to read or view that and still believe she supported going to war.  Just a few relevant statements:  "If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.  So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is NOT a good option.  I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. Resolution and will seek to avoid war if at all possible.  My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.  A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war--it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President, and we say to him 'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.'  ... Thank you, Mr. President."


HRC: "...not a vote to rush to war--it...puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President, we say to him 'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.'"
by ChargedFan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:06:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (2.00 / 1)

First, I defy you to find one Obama supporter who has ever said she was the ONLY one to support going to war. She, however happens to be running for President. Second, we all knew what that resolution was. I remember thinking at the time, "Well that's it. They've given him the cover he wanted. War is around the corner." Your argument that she didn't is to say she was stupid. I don't believe that. Did you believe at the time that that resolution was not sending us to war?
Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:16:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (2.00 / 1)

That's not at all what I said Obama supporters were saying.  If you reread my statement, I said too many supporters mirror Obama's repreated misrepresentation that he was the ONLY candidate to oppose the war (from the start).  Just listen to any of his stump speeches and you're sure to hear that statement--which he further uses for his entire basis of being the one with sound judgment!  

And I'd argue that if you listen to the words of her speech or what many other voting Senators were saying, they were not votes for preemptive war--she even clarified that in her speech.  But this authorization was the only way to get the weapons inspections agreements back into place in sufficient manner...although as SevenSprings pointed out originally, this vote was redundant as an authorization to go to war--which Hillary also pointed out within her speech, the President could have and I believe would have gone to war with or without this particular vote.  In no way am I calling Hillary's speech or her actions stupid--again, she forewarned the President as strongly as I believe anybody could have.  I remember thinking that I hoped the President was trustworthy and smart enough to comprehend what he was being told.  Obviously we now know he was not.


HRC: "...not a vote to rush to war--it...puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President, we say to him 'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.'"
by ChargedFan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:27:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (2.00 / 1)

>ONLY candidate to oppose the war He didn't say that either. Ever. And I defy you to find it. Any idiot who's been paying attention knows that Al Gore, for one, was extremely vocally against the war at the time. His point is that he is the only presidential candidate that was, and that's true.
Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:30:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (none / 0)

Sorry--but you're wrong about that.  Take your choice, I've cited both a speech of his (that echoes many I've heard) and an ad he's run:

From His remarks accompanying his 3/12/08 speech, accompanied by some US Admirals and Generals (source, Barack's own website: http://www.barackobama.com/2008/03/12/re marks_of_senator_barack_obam_52.php ):  "On the most important national security question since the Cold War, I am the only candidate who opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning."

Hmmm, he never said that, ever, huh?  

From his "Ringing Phone" response ad (source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BvyF351R S8 ):  Announcer:  "Shouldn't the President be the one, the only one, who had judgment and courage to oppose the Iraq war from the start?"  

Also, source http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbO-kgB-Z I4  Barack getting called on the fact that he's previously stated: "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. ... What would I have done?  I don't know."  And Barack going on to essentially defend that statement then by saying it was politically safer and more correct ( i.e., "probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case...") for him to NOT oppose the war on Iraq "at that time" since he was endorsing and supporting two candidates who also voted for the same resolution Hillary did.  Convenient isn't it?

And by the way, Al Gore isn't running for office currently--so of course when he says "he's the only one," he's only referring, and I'm only talking about his referral to, the current candidates.  


HRC: "...not a vote to rush to war--it...puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President, we say to him 'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.'"
by ChargedFan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:04:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's what I just said! (none / 0)

He said he was the only "candidate", not the only person. He is the only candidate now running who opposed the war from the beginning. That's simply true.
Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:25:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's what I just said! (none / 0)

Well, considering you exactly quote my initial statement (I didn't say he said he was only the "person"), yes, you're correct.  Although you previously stated that he never said that either.  I've disproved that, he did say that, and now you're trying to make another argument against something I never said.  You have a rather funky truth.  

You've obviously not heard/read what Hillary said about the war "back then" [see my first post] or you choose not to see what she said.  But since you keep changing the words to change the argument, I'm sorry to say I can't continue taking time to prove your attempts wrong.  You'll obviously "believe" what you want to believe.


HRC: "...not a vote to rush to war--it...puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President, we say to him 'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.'"
by ChargedFan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:09:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's what I just said! (none / 0)

As will you, and hear what you want to hear, and support your arguments without facts. So be it.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:00:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (none / 0)

The way to tell the president he shouldn't be going to war was to tell him the Senate didn't support it. Anyway, I'm done on this topic for now. I think I've made my points.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:32:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (none / 0)


Here is her speech and a link to a log discussing it. You can also find the speech in the Senate Record so you must not have looked to hard.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/0 11884.php

"Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

[...]

Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

[...]

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."


"Do you know the difference between a War Story and a Fairy Tale?"
by RedstateLib on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:10:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (2.00 / 0)

The Washington Post also reported this back in 2004: "In the fall of 2002, as Congress debated waging war in Iraq, copies of a 92-page assessment of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction sat in two vaults on Capitol Hill, each protected by armed security guards and available to any member who showed up in person, without staff. But only a few ever did. No more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page National Intelligence Estimate executive summary, according to several congressional aides responsible for safeguarding the classified material."

According to Clinton, she was briefed by many people - from different sides.  As a person who worked on staff in a large organization, it's your staff that gets the info, digests it, calls on people to brief leaders.

Frankly, I don't KNOW WHY she voted for the damn thing.  I was against it, but then I had NO inside information.

I wish she would explain her reason for her vote.  If it was just a political expediency, then she can offer NO reason - it's kinda like a person refusing to testify.  Jurors are not supposed to take that into consideration, but they probably do!


by Southern Mouth on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:44:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (none / 0)

She can't explain it, because to do so would be to lose. My view is that she voted for the war for the reason she has done a lot of things, because her advisers told her that, as a woman, she needed to appear tough on defense. The bought that this would be a short war, with only a limited number of deaths, and it would be long over by the election, so she would appear to be tough by voting for a victorious war. Personally, I think that the absolute highest responsibility our President has is in his use of our armed forces. They pledge their lives in blind obedience to him, and in return his promise is that he will only use that power for a very very good reason. George W. Bush has totally failed that test, and so, in voting to aid him, did Hillary Clinton.
Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:08:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (2.00 / 2)

"My view is that she voted for the war for the reason she has done a lot of things, because her advisers told her that, as a woman, she needed to appear tough on defense."

Why are you making things up when you haven't researched what the candidate has said?

In total opposition to your fantasy about Clinton's vote, she has spoken at length about what she sees as one of the major, catastrophic mistakes a newly minted president makes when he enters office, of having to prove he is "tough" and cannot be pushed around, so he overreacts to any perceived challenge with military force, bypassing the tools of diplomacy and negotiation, economic sanctions, etc. She is well aware of the dangers of that pitfall, and the disastrous implications it can have for the nation, and has promised that she would avoid that kind of immature overreaction. She has always favored diplomacy over military force, except where all diplomatic channels have been exhausted and untenable threat and attack is still made. Self awareness is a terrific tool.

Making up fantasies about candidates and then attacking them for it is misleading.


by 07rescue on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:27:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (2.00 / 1)

Thought you were done on the subject Travis.


by fredster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:59:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (2.00 / 2)

"I wish she would explain her reason for her vote.  If it was just a political expediency, then she can offer NO reason - it's kinda like a person refusing to testify"

She has explained it countless times already, including at the nationally televised debates, I'm sorry you have missed it. Perhaps someone can find a debate transcript - I believe she most recently talked about it in Ohio, but I could be wrong.

The gist of it was that the Bush Administration told her definitively in private session that they would not use the AUMF to go to war. They said their intention was to try to force Iraq to accept a return of the UN weapons inspectors. Hans Blix himself was asking for this resolution to be passed, to try to intimidate Saddam Hussein into accepting the inspectors he had thrown out. The threat of military force was solely to be used as a diplomatic tactic, and in the past the use of the UN inspectors had successfully averted war with Iraq. Hillary and other Democratic Senators were convinced by the security briefing (NIE) that Iraq did indeed still have WMD, and were invested in the idea of having the inspectors reinstated to avert their use. The Clinton Administration had also used the threat of military intervention in the past to insert weapons inspectors, and that averted war for many years, so there was very good precedent for the tactic of using that type of threat.

Obviously in hindsight the Bush Administration was lying about their intention and had successfully trapped the Democrats into supporting their travesty of an invasion of Iraq. Hillary Clinton has stated that she regrets her vote, but she did everything she could to publicly inform the Bush Administration that she did not intend her vote for the authorization to be construed as a vote for war, it wasn't.

Her explanation is good enough for me, but clearly it is not good enough for everyone, who cannot forgive that one vote. I think it is sad to throw away such an extraordinary candidate for one single vote.

Barack Obama hedged after his little speech against going to war as an Illinois state senator from an ultra liberal district where such an opinion was no risk, that he had not been privy to the WMD security briefing that all the Senators had been exposed to, so he did not know how he would have voted had he been given the responsibility to vote on AUMF. I do not give him credit for any special insight or judgement under that circumstance. His opinion was based on ignorance of the security briefing, not on wisdom or foresight, and he backed away from his anti war stance.

Since he became a Senator his votes on funding the war have been identical to Senator Clinton's.

I hope my rendition helps a little, and that you double check for more information from other sources for confirmation.


by 07rescue on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:09:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you (none / 0)

I know that the Prez didn't need the AUMF to go into Iraq, but he and others have used that vote in many unseemly ways.

I wish she could explain - in a form that would show her true thinking - AND get some coverage of that explanation.


by Southern Mouth on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:50:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (none / 0)

"I wish she could explain - in a form that would show her true thinking - AND get some coverage of that explanation."

The media doesn't like to use anything beyond a quick sound bite, so an elaborate explanation doesn't ever seem to make onto the evening news. I found Hillary's explanation very credible and sad, but other people simply do not believe her. I don't know why.

Perhaps it is just that she has been painted as someone she is not, as untrustworthy and dishonest, for so many years by the right wing smear machine.

I am sure it pains her that her vote was misused to cause so much death and destruction, when her intention was to avert war with it. I am sure George Bush would have gone to war without the AUMF, but he preferred having the "support" he lied to get.


by 07rescue on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:15:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bush lied (none / 0)

Yes, he and Cheney cared nothing about what Congress wanted.  Cheney was in that group for years, with Rummy, that was for invading Iraq.

And now ...Cheney's answer to "You know that the American public disapproves of the war in Iraq." ..... "So".  Arrogance personified.


by Southern Mouth on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:05:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush lied (none / 0)

"And now ...Cheney's answer to "You know that the American public disapproves of the war in Iraq." ..... "So".  Arrogance personified."

Wow, I saw him say that, too. I was blown away that he would be so publicly dismissive. Of course, what does he care, he won't be running for office again, no reason to care what anyone thinks, or who he hurts. Unbelievable.

We have officers in our precinct rotating in and out of Iraq, no one killed yet, but injuries galore. The administration couldn't care less about their lives.


by 07rescue on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:40:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (2.00 / 1)

The gist of it was that the Bush Administration told her definitively in private session that they would not use the AUMF to go to war.

She has never said that because it didn't happen. I defy you to find where she said that, or anyone for that matter. I believe that's what you heard, but she never said it.

Her excuses for the vote have evolved over time so that he most recent words almost amount to her saying she's sorry for it, a far distance from where she was a year ago. Her argument is that she was mislead on the intelligence about WMDs, not that Bush EVER told her he wouldn't use the vote to go to war. That was, after all, the purpose.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:15:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (none / 0)

Here is one of the times she said it that I could find easily. The discussion of the war vote is extended, so there is much more context to her explanation than what I have copied, but here is where she talks specifically about the intent of the resolution. Another time she did say specifically that in private session the administration presented the authorization to her with the assurance they would not use it to go to war, maybe I can find it after work.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/31/d em.debate.transcript/

"I believe that it is abundantly clear that the case that was outlined on behalf of going to the resolution -- not going to war, but going to the resolution -- was a credible case. I was told personally by the White House that they would use the resolution to put the inspectors in. I worked with Senator Levin to make sure we gave them all the intelligence so we would know what's there.

Some people now think that this was a very clear open and shut case. We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors. We had evidence that they had a lot of bad stuff for a very long time which we discovered after the first Gulf War.

Knowing that he was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do. So, I think I made a reasoned judgment. Unfortunately, the person who actually got to execute the policy did not."

                        -Sen. Hillary Clinton, CNN debate, Jan 21,2008, LA


by 07rescue on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:33:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (none / 0)

It's the one you can't find that you never will. She never said it. I think you midheard.
Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:19:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (none / 0)

meant mis-heard
Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:20:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (none / 0)

 At one point that fall, Clinton visited the White House, along with several other senators, to hear National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice make her case for the Iraq resolution. Once again, Hillary kept her views largely to herself, leading Rice to call her personally afterward. Did the senator have any questions she might answer, Rice asked? Clinton asked Rice for assurance that Bush really intended to push diplomacy to the limit, that the resolution was not a de facto vote for war. On the contrary, Rice said, it was the best hope for peace: Only the clear threat of force could compel Saddam to accept the intrusive weapons inspections that might avert war.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?i d=b4af4e6f-c079-427e-947f-fdd05d066524


by monstergrrl on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:56:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Read her voting statement (none / 0)

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_ 101002.html


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:58:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's vote - expedient?? (none / 0)

That charge on the NIE just shows your ignorance about how briefings are done and information is passed on to members of Congress. (link) And the rest of your attack contradicts what other Obama supporters, high profile ones no less said publicly before they started supporting Obama and hoping people would not remember what they said previous to that decision. (link)


by Mike Pridmore on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:36:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

even if the Bush administration's bogus (2.00 / 1)

allegations about Iraq were true, it didn't add up to a case for war.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:15:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

God bless you, Proudmilitarymom! (2.00 / 8)

and may your children come home safely!
Let's bring all these kids home now!
by internetstar on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:43:14 AM EST

And Hillary Clinton is the Real Deal (2.00 / 4)


by internetstar on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:45:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary is the real deal (none / 0)

for the insurance companies from whom she has taken several millions of dollars.  The same people who trashed her 15 years ago are now her biggest supporters - I wonder why?


Listening comes first
by Moonwood on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:28:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It looks to me like General Electric (2.00 / 1)

Tweety Matthew's employer, and plenty of other corporate interests are heavily influencing the media toward Obama.  I wonder why.


by internetstar on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:52:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is the real deal (2.00 / 2)

First of all, I'd like to know where you are getting these contribution figures. Are these actual insurance companies or are they employees of these companies? Because Obama, himself, tries to make a distinction between the two when he claims not to take corporate money or money from lobbyists.  

Secondly, if Hillary becomes President, health care reform will be one of the first things she begins working on. We all know that. Universal health care is her signature issue, so of course the insurance companies want a seat at the negotiating table. They will be the ones providing the service to the public and will want a say as how that service will be provided.

Thirdly, anyone attempting to reform health care will be lobbyed by the insurance industry, health care industry, the AMA, the nurses association, AARP, and any other group with health/insurance interests. Anyone who tackles health care reform will have to negotiate with these interests, including Obama.

I trust that Hillary will fight for universal health care, be able to strike the best balance with these interest groups, and close the deal for the American people.  


by grlpatriot on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:01:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: God bless you, Proudmilitarymom! (2.00 / 3)

Something we can agree upon. Proudmilitarymom, I pray for your family, and for you. As a parent, I cannot imagine what it must be like for one's children to be in harm's way. I also have very close friends whose son came home last year, and I have seen first hand how hard that was on their family. God bless you all.
Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:54:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: God bless you, Proudmilitarymom! (none / 0)

Yes, let's not forget that, no matter which candidate we support, getting these brave soldiers home SAFELY is our true priority.

Yet another reason why, NO MATTER WHO WINS, I'll be voting Democrat for the Presidency of the United States.


Torture me once, shame on you; torture me and get away with it, shame on us all.
by freedom78 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:22:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Reason I am voting Hillary (2.00 / 5)

Thanks for all the prayers for the safe return of all our troops.
As my son and daughter-in-law and my sister all say- "It is our duty and we are proud to serve. We knew going in we might have to fight, we might even have to die, but our country and our fellow citizens are worth it."

I believe Hillary has the more substantive policy and position on veteran's issues, with numbers.


by ProudMilitaryMom on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:52:40 AM EST

Substantive Policies and Positions? (2.00 / 2)

Most of her plans have been floating around various think tanks and Democratic groups for ages.  Same with Obama's.  Same with Edward's.  Same with all the other candidates.  I know everyone wants to think their girl or their guy is a brilliant wonky thinker deep down inside, and that their plans are totally new and unique, but this stuff is all old recycled and generally agreed upon liberal policy and plans.  Our candidates are both good, center-liberal Democrats.  Their plans aren't very different and neither are their voting records.  In fact, they've repeatedly co-sponsored bills together, and written articles in support of them.

However substantive (or not) you think a candidate's proposals are, they'll be written and re-written countless times, first by the people that wrote them in the first place (and just to be clear, it wasn't the candidate that wrote them), and then by congress in the end.

Moreover, campaign pledges, plans, and policies are totally meaningless unless you can a)get elected and b)get enough allies in congress elected to get your stuff past the Republicans.  


by Brillobreaks on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:13:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Substantive Policies and Positions? (2.00 / 0)

So actions do matter?  Yes they actually do.  We have seen Clinton in action, not just words, but actually working on behalf of veterans.  That does make a difference.  It is O who is talking about plans, it is Clinton that has taken action.  Trying to diminish her by this "all candidates talk plans" is not really a winning strategy for O anyway.  It is a weakness for O that points to his lack of actual doing.


democrat voter
by democrat voter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:49:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Substantive Policies and Positions? (none / 0)

They have both worked for veterans. Pay attention. Some people have posted really good links above.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:18:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Reason I am voting Hillary (2.00 / 1)

I think Hillary has showed her concern for veteran and back it up with her action.  

She made sure that the National Guard and Reserve members received the healthcare coverage.

She authored the Heroes at Home Act that will begin to help service members struggling with post traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury.

She worked with others in the Senate to pass legislation to increase the military survivor benefit from $12,000 to $100,000.


by JoeySky18 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:15:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Reason I am voting Hillary (1.75 / 4)

Once again the O maniacs are out trying to pretend that O is somehow better for the military.  What a laugh that is.  O knows absolutely nothing about the military.

Clinton is more prepared to actually be president, but O is the show horse, that's for sure.

But first you actually have to win the presidency.  This O cannot do, so I guess the dems go down to defeat again if they put O at the top of the ticket.  

It is a shame really when we would have had a great chance to enact all these policies.  O will not do that, he is a go along to get along kind of guy.  Compromise is in his genes.  All you have to do is actually listen to him to realize that.

His foreign policy statements alone will make him unelectable anyway.  What a damned shame for our military.  Thank you for your service and your son's service.  I am a veteran, and I went to college on the G.I. bill.  My father did too.  We lived in our first house because of that bill.  

It would be great if our country actually begins to support our veterans like Hillary wants it to.  Bush has almost destroyed it, it will take many years to recover from what Bush has done, but to blame Hillary is so misguided and wrong,.  These O supporters are so misinformed.  What has O ever actually done for our military?  Nothing.  He is full of hot air.  His foreign policy is a joke.  Red blooded Americans will never put a man in the WH who basically says that America is wrong.  It just won't happen. His line that he repeats ad nausiem is "The biggest foreign policy blunder...."  This is not a winning platform.  Ask McGovern.  The anti-war movement and their take no middle ground mentality is the exact thing that derailed them then and is threatening the same thing now.  A vote for the resolution did not take this country into war.  GWB did that.  The republican party did that, and then they abdicated their oversight responsibility and allowed the rape of our treasury to supply the private contractors that had ties to Bush.  It is the corruption of our government and the lack of any responsibility by the congress as well.  To blame all that on Hillary is so misguided and wrong.  O supporters do themselves no favors with that tactic.  They will lose the WH because of it.


democrat voter
by democrat voter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:02:58 PM EST

Re: Another Reason I am voting Hillary (none / 0)

O knows absolutely nothing about the military.

Clinton is more prepared to actually be president


What is the evidence Obama is ignorant of the military? What does Clinton know that Obama doesn't?

How is Clinton more prepared to be POTUS?


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:39:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Reason I am voting Hillary (2.00 / 1)

Obama has considerably more donors among active-duty military than do McCain or Clinton. I would assume they have some opinion as to which candidate better supports the military.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:57:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lets be honest here (none / 0)

Neither candidate has any actual, on-the-ground military experience.  Clinton has more time in the Senate, so she's been around it longer, but that doesn't necessarily mean she has more military experience.  Her record on Iraq is certainly less then steller, no matter how you look at her AUMF vote.  As to electability, I honestly don't understand what is supposed to make Clinton more electable.  I'm not being snarky here, I really don't get it.  Her unfavorable's are huge, she represents an old name in an election largely about change, and the head-to-head polls have Obama winning by larger margins against McCain then what Clinton gets.  Obviously, those polls aren't all that useful this far before the election, but they give a decent measure of where the country is at right now.  


by Nameless Soldier on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:10:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmm. (2.00 / 1)

They do make a good point, mom. Obama's supporting the same bill with the same numbers, I don't see how you can figure Hillary'd be any better based off that fact alone.

But my question is, if Obama wins the nomination... what are you going to do?


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:07:52 PM EST

Re: Hmm. (2.00 / 2)

Very true - Obama can't rely on Hillary supporters after he purposely used race to divide the party and smear the Clintons as racists.

So - what will Obama do?


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:30:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm. (2.00 / 1)

Obama did no such thing.  


by Brillobreaks on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:49:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm. (none / 0)

Oh yes he did, he did exactly that.  Look at the support O has gotten from the AA community.  Why did those voters throw Clinton under the bus?  Because of racial voting, because O  and the pundits successfully painted Clinton as a racist.  Those voters deserted her in droves, why?  Race plain and simple.  Their support is only skin deep you might say.


democrat voter
by democrat voter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:55:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm. (none / 0)

Transparent troll.  Not that the name wasn't a give away...


by Brillobreaks on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:59:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm. (none / 0)

Why did those voters throw Clinton under the bus?

Because the Clintons threw them under the bus, first?


Torture me once, shame on you; torture me and get away with it, shame on us all.
by freedom78 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:25:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm. (2.00 / 1)

In my opinion if O win the nomination, the dems lose the WH.  Obama cannot hold the base of the democratic party, therefore he will lose this fall.  It is already in the numbers, why is to O campaign now pushing this 'get out now' meme on Clinton? The fact is that he doesn't want the democratic SDs to see the truth by seeing the votes in places like Penn where the base will not be voting for Obama.

If O cannot secure the base of our party, he cannot win the WH.  So far he has not been able to get these down scale voters to vote for him.  He basically misreads them.  He thinks it is because of race but it is not, it is because he is not really ready, he doesn't have the necessary experience, his plans are a weak copy of Clinton's without the real battle tested heart that Clinton has.  Without that, O has no chance to enact any of these plans anyway.  

It would take someone with an iron will to get these plans enacted by congress.  Obama does not have that, he is a go along to get along guy.  He is not willing to take the hard stand that will be necessary to get the policies in place.  He has merely copied from Clinton so far, but he is not really committed to these democratic principles anyway.  All you have to do is look at his lack of support for universal health care for everyone to see that he is already compromising, he is compromising with himself, with democratic basics.  He is offering a plan there that is in name only, he calls his plan universal health care, but it is not.  Reminds me of the Patriot Act, as if that is for patriots, what a laugh that is.  Just because you name something does not make that something what it is called.  See no child left behind?  That leaves all children behind.


democrat voter
by democrat voter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:33:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So we should give Hillary another chance (2.00 / 1)

to fix the health care industry after she masterly failed the first time???
Sorry no do overs.
by munodi on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:43:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No Do-Overs? (none / 0)

that doesn't seem very "progressive" - don't suppose she might have learned a thing or two that our gilded boy has to learn the first time?


by pan230 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:55:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So we should give Hillary another chance (none / 0)

Wow. Guess nobody ever gave you a second chance.
In Hillary's case she didn't even have to take it on the first time - no good deed goes unpunished.
by ellend818 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:58:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm. (2.00 / 1)

How many times does it need to be said... one's performance with a particular demographic or area in the primary doesn't translate over into the general.  

Hillary has won 50% of Democrats and 50% of the vote in the primaries.  She's lost  85% of Blacks.  She's lost 60% of Democratic men...  Will none of those people vote for her in the Fall?  Of course they will.  Just as Obama isn't suddenly going to loose 60% of Democratic women in the Fall just because they voted for Hillary in the primary.

All this hand wringing around division in the party is just stupid.  It's a primary.  A tough one.  A long one.  Of course there's division, we have candidates that are pretty closely tied.  If there wasn't 'division', the nominee would have been decided months ago.  Suggesting that this 'division' represents some sort of long lasting thing that will be going on all the way through to the Fall is quite simply stupid.


by Brillobreaks on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:56:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm. (2.00 / 1)

You're right mostly.

The one demographic I do worry about is the youth vote, particularly the scads of new activists that Obama has energized.  

If the supers end up tunring the nom over to HRC despite an Obama lead in pledged delegates and popular vote, I can't help but think that the party will be seriously damaged.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:07:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm. (none / 0)

Maybe.  But even then I don't believe for one second that Obama wouldn't do everything he could to keep those people working to elect Hillary, and other Democrats in general.  

It's really interesting to see what's happened to these two campaigns organization in the states that have already voted.  Hillary's organizations in these states have essentially been abandoned, even in places she won.  Volunteers never really got much direction in the first place (and I think that's why she's losing), and now they've been ditched.  Staff let go.  Offices closed.  Obama's are up and running and being actively used by his campaign to help campaign for Obama in neighboring states and more importantly helping out the local Dems.


by Brillobreaks on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:45:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm. (none / 0)

True enough.  My local HQ for Obama in California is very active.  Last meeting was standing room only, with folks flowing out into the street.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:03:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm. (2.00 / 1)

The last time Hillary Clinton tried to shove a good idea down the throats of Americans- and it WAS a good idea- she almost ended her chance at a political career permanently, and lost a Democratic congress for 12 years. What makes you think her ramming it through again will be any better?


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:02:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Reason I am voting Hillary (2.00 / 2)

Me, too, Mom. Thank you for the commitment and sacrifice that you and your family are making to our country. I, too agree, that Hillary has the most extensive plans to care for our troops, veterans, and their families. Obama has plans too, but Hillary has done more in the Senate and goes a few steps further in her plans to support our troops. We, as a country, cannot repeat what happened to our troops after Vietnam. Whether you agree with the war in Iraq or not, we, as a country, have a duty to our fellow Americans who serve our country and sacrifice their lives.  


by grlpatriot on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:14:56 PM EST

Re: Another Reason I am voting Hillary (2.00 / 3)

Hillary Clinton has done a lot for veterans.  I have seen her working and advocating for them on many occassions.  Not so much with Obama, from what I have seen.  Thank you for telling of your support for her, and showing that she is really on the side of soldiers and veterans, and it is not all words and a past speech that puts her there.


by Scotch on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:16:34 PM EST

Re: Another Reason I am voting Hillary (2.00 / 0)

I agree with you on this topic, as well as so many others.  Hillary has actually done something, O only talks about doing something, but his actions bely what is really true, he talks a good game, but actions do matter.  Hillary has taken the hard work on this issue.  She is the only senator to be asked to sit on the pentagon reform committee, that in itself says a great deal about this woman.


democrat voter
by democrat voter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:42:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Both have helped vets (2.00 / 1)

As is apparent by the Iraq/Afgan Vets Association ratings...both of these candidates have done much work on behalf of vets.

Obama is rated higher than HRC based on work done for vets by this organization but HRC is also pretty high.

Obama has focused on Vets from the day he entered politics..working in Illinois also.

I empathize with you proudmom, as my son is currently stationed in Bagdad for the next 12 months and doing daily missions into the city.

I pray for your family and all the families and their loved ones in the service. Every day there is an IED that hurts our guys in bagdad, it seems, and we hold our breath until we hear from our son. Iraq is a disaster...anyone denying that is not patriotic..just delusional.


by hawkjt on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:02:42 PM EST

My thoughts and prayers... (none / 0)

for your son and your family. I hope this is over soon, and I'm sorry our country is in such a state that puts your son in this position in the first place. Thanks to him for his great service, and apologies for a country that has betrayed his trust.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:25:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no blank check (2.00 / 1)

Obama and his people keep repeating the lie that Hillary Clinton gave Bush a blank check to invade Iraq.  There was no blank check.  Even Sandra Day O'Conner said there was no blank check.  Stop your lies.  There was no blank check. period.  And Obama should be ashamed of himself for repeating this lie.


by moevaughn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:06:24 PM EST

Re: no blank check (none / 0)

Who said it was a blank check? What it was was authorization to start the war. Now if you want to argue that we should have stopped funding it by now, I'm with you, but then both candidates are equally at fault on that.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:22:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no blank check (none / 0)

Obama speaking in Pennsylvania last week:

"The truth is, the judgment of Hillary Clinton and John McCain gave President Bush a blank check for war," he told reporters while campaigning yesterday in Pennsylvania.


by moevaughn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:48:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no blank check (none / 0)

Wow!  That's either a lie from Obama, or an inability to understand simple concepts like what the authorization actually was about.  

He's obviously a smart guy, so I guess he's lying.


by shellius on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:45:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no blank check (2.00 / 1)

He means a blank check to GO to war. What AUMF did was to give Bush a "Go to War Free" card. They wouldn't stand in his way.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:18:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no blank check (2.00 / 1)

Do you mean "blank check" literally or figuratively?

If I say you have your head in the sand shoud you worry about suffocating?


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:09:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Reason I am voting Hillary (none / 0)

I support Obama, though I do applaud you for writing what seems to be the first positive recc'd diary in ages.


by rfahey22 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:22:15 PM EST

Re: Another Reason I am voting Hillary (none / 0)

Indeed.  Nice to see a positive diary.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:10:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Reason I am voting Hillary (2.00 / 1)

What is stopping Hillary from proposing such a thing as a senator and getting President Obama's approval? I doubt Obama would refrain from backing such a policy.


by Pravin on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:37:35 PM EST

Re: Another Reason I am voting Hillary (none / 0)

And why hasn't she passed this bill yet? Is Reid or Pelosi opposed to it?


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:20:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Reason I am voting Hillary (none / 0)

I applaud the fact that both candidates will improve the situation of my soldiers. I benefited greatly from the improvement of the quality of life during Bill's administration . . . and have noticed pay raises dropping during Bush's time.

My only concern has come after South Carolina, and that is that Bill dug HRC's campaign into a hole (with the help of Mark Penn), and I don't see a savory way out of it.

I just want what is best for our country: Democrats returning to the White House, keeping Congress, and not allowing the GOP to own the Supreme Court. I hope that the 2nd place candidate uses their political capital to get things done in the Senate. I will back the nominee either way!


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:50:20 PM EST

Re: Another Reason I am voting Hillary (2.00 / 2)

Good post, but lets make sure we are crediting the proper folks.  This is NOT her bill, but Jim Webb's and both Clinton and Obama have signed on as sponsors.  McCain has not.  It seems she is borrowing heavily from his bill he has worked on vigorously for over a year.  I cant help but admire the Clinton's triangulation on any/all bills that are attractive nationally.  Borrow and state as your own.  Shameless.


'The only people for me are the mad ones, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing ...'
by stryan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:52:53 PM EST

Re: Another Reason I am voting democratic (none / 0)

thanks to travis stark for his support for my son and others in Bagdad.

Lets remember that when the Vets groups rated the senate for supporting the vets that virtually every dem rated ahead of every GOP senator...think about it.. the party that spouts all the patriotic screeds about supporting the troops and loving their vets are undercutting the vets when it is time to take care of them.

Vote for the democratic nominee in november if you actually love our troops and support our vets.


by hawkjt on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:09:23 PM EST

Re: Another Reason I am voting Hillary (1.00 / 1)

Very nice diary. Good to see a positive one.


by SocialDem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:13:55 PM EST

no amount of veterans programs (none / 0)

atones for sending GIs to die in an unwise, unnecessary war.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:18:33 PM EST

Recommended, from an Obama supporter (2.00 / 1)

It's nice to actually see a diary from a Clinton supporter that actually supports Clinton versus bashes Obama. Pity some of the respondents couldn't do the same.

Obama does support the same legislation as Clinton is supporting, here, so in either case our veterans will, hopefully, finally get the support and rewards they deserve.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:01:56 PM EST

Chris Bower on Hillary on Iraq (none / 0)

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId =4745
("Clinton Still Believes in Iraq Mission")

The war in Iraq, it's now patently obvious, is being fought to benefit corporations. We keep talking about the trillion dollar "cost" of the war. Wait a second. Where is that money going? To the corporations that are executing the incompetent, corrupt, fundamentally flawed strategy and providing the price-gouged equipment. The money isn't going up in smoke - it's just changing hands - from the US Treasury to the bottom line of the corporations.

The Clinton campaign, I continue to maintain, is also being waged for the benefit of corporations.

Today's statement strongly reinforces that argument.


McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.
by obsessed on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:15:46 PM EST

Re: Chris Bower on Hillary on Iraq (none / 0)

Just to clarify - that's not a quote from the Bowers article. It's my commentary after becoming enraged by reading the Bowers article, which has a completely different premise.


McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.
by obsessed on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:18:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Reason I am voting Hillary (none / 0)

hillary has always been there for our service men and women when others have done nothing more than wear american flag pins on their lapels.


Fight for Democrats in Congress.
by owl06 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:22:00 PM EST

Re: Another Reason I am voting Hillary (2.00 / 1)

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/0 11884.php

The speech is part of the Senate Record I believe she explains her vote very well.

"Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

[...]

Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

[...]

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."


"Do you know the difference between a War Story and a Fairy Tale?"
by RedstateLib on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:15:10 PM EST

Re: Another Reason I am voting Hillary (none / 0)

Please, read this post from Cartwright at CCN (Clark Community Network)

It's too long to post here, but is a list of her Military/foreign affairs history sourced from the encyclopedia, government docs and old press releases.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/1509 4#comment-293159


by jen on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:40:11 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.