Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by mikey, Mar 14, 2007.
Is she committing hari-kiri?
Maybe she read the reports out of Iraq about the early phases of the troops surge?
What part of New Jersey are you from?
Its actually taking a page from Bill's campaign of 1992. Unlike Dukakis, Mondale, and Kerry, she realizes just winning the nomination is meaningless.
With her money and organization and standing in the Democratic Party, she has to almost set up her general election campaign now, run to the center, and assume she'll still be able to win the nomination. It is what Bill did in 1992 when, like Tsongas, he ran in the center, and even took on Jesse Jackson, banking on his being the best candidate who had the money and organization to defeat the wannabes like Tsongas and Brown.
The Clintons are politically brilliant, they understand the triangle of running from the center, and if you read the article her stances are way to the left of what we have now.
MCain is the one committing suicide with his embracing of Bush. Guiliani will unravel when his views are out there. Obama too, although he will make strong primary showings. Edwards may be the underated one.
But its clearly the Democrats year in 2008. And the way shes running to the center, im more and more convinced Hillary Clinton will be our next President.
45% of the country may hate her. They hated Bill too.
North NJ ten char
I agree with keeping the troops in Iraq and SLOWLY pulling them out. I don't get anyone who say's we should immediatly pull them all out... think there are problems now? Just wait if Iraq collapses without our help. Saddam was a good guy compaired to some of these other radicals.
She's the first candidate to a position other than "I back Bush" or "Get the troops home now." As fleabassist pointed out, we can't just pull out of Iraq without creating a mess, but it seems to me Hillary is assuming the Iraqis will want us there if our troops are no longer acting as a police force.
From the article:
WASHINGTON, March 14 â€” Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a â€śremaining military as well as political missionâ€ť in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced but significant military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.....In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain in Iraq after taking office would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence â€” even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.
In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more-nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of â€śbringing the troops home.â€ť ............She said in the interview that there were â€śremaining vital national security interests in Iraqâ€ť that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.
............â€śIt is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israelâ€™s interests.â€ť........â€śSo I think it will be up to me to try to figure out how to protect those national security interests and continue to take our troops out of this urban warfare, which I think is a loser,â€ť Mrs. Clinton added. She declined to estimate the number of American troops she would keep in Iraq, saying she would draw on the advice of the military officers who would have to carry out the strategy.
Mrs. Clintonâ€™s plans carry some political risk. Although she has been extremely critical of the Bush administrationâ€™s handling of the war, some liberal Democrats are deeply suspicious of her intentions on Iraq, given that she voted in 2002 to authorize the use of force there and, unlike some of her rivals for the Democratic nomination, has not apologized for having done so. Senator Clintonâ€™s proposal is also likely to stir up debate among military specialists. Some counterinsurgency experts say the plan is unrealistic because Iraqis are unlikely to provide useful tips about Al Qaeda operatives if American troops curtail their interaction with the Iraqi public and end their efforts to protect Iraqi neighborhoods. But a former Pentagon official argued that such an approach would minimize American casualties and thus make it easier politically to sustain a long-term military presence that might prevent the fighting from spreading throughout the region..........Mrs. Clinton has said she would vote for a proposed Democratic resolution on Iraq now being debated on the floor of the Senate, which sets a goal of redeploying all combat forces by March 31, 2008. Asked if her Iraq plan was consistent with the resolution, Mrs. Clinton and her advisers said it was, noting that the resolution also called for â€śa limited numberâ€ť of troops to stay in Iraq to protect the American Embassy and other personnel, train and equip Iraqi forces, and conduct â€śtargeted counter-terrorism operation.â€ť.............With many Democratic primary voters favoring a total withdrawal from Iraq. Senator Clinton appears to trying to balance her own short-term political interests with the need to retain some flexibility to deal with the complexities of Middle East. Like other Democratic candidates, she has called for engaging Iran and Syria in discussions and called on President Bush to reverse his troop buildup.......But while Mrs. Clinton has criticized Mr. Bushâ€™s troop reinforcements as an escalation of war, she said in the interview, â€śWeâ€™re doing it and itâ€™s unlikely we can stop it.â€ť ....
The Dems make me sick. When Pelosi was talking about the "actions" they're going to take (By July 2007 if nothing happens, we'll begin the 180 day countdown. Then if nothing happens by October, we'll begin a second countdown. Then if the first countdown runs out, we'll look into what we should do). The Democrats were elected to stop this war, period! This is why people hate them so much, no spine.
She feels very strongly both ways
She's a fraud fony POS. First she was a staunch supporter, then a criticizing supporter, then a defender of her vote, then a "if I only knew what I know now" person, which moved to a "if you elect me I'll bring all the troops home" presidential candidate, to now being an I'll keep the troops there girl.
What a fraud she is. No wonder Patters loves her.
Well a "reputable" source (sarcasm) said she goes both ways too.
Plus, my barber calls her the First Lesbian so it must be true.
You liberals don't have to worry about Hillary she is still one of you, when she speaks nothing comes out but bullsh!t.
Can you imagine this wretched awful creepy women being the Commander In Chief Of America's Armed Services, muslims would be dancing in the streets again all over the world.
Bill and Hillary hurt the Democratic Party by pushing centrist views. Although they are bright and competent, what we need are leaders, like Edwards, Obama, and possibly Richardson, who can make the case for Democratic values, rather than spending their time trying to poison the Democratic party with traditional Republican values. That said, if she is the nominee, I would likely hold my nose and vote for her, just as conservatives would likely do the same and vote for Giuliani.
Yeah, centrist views are so evil. Finding common ground on issues is reprehensible. It's far better for neo-conservatives to spew their agenda, or for loonies liberals to force theirs.
Common ground is fine. I think liberals can do it by talking about family values, such as helping the poor, providing health insurance to all, using our foreign aid to help developing nations rather than wage war, and so on. Other issues where there is common ground is global warming, taking care of our environment, developing alternative energy, protecting Social Security, and so on. You just look at things from a narrow right-wing perspective. Liberals might not be able to find common ground with members of the radical right fringe, but they certainly can find common ground with most Americans. The key for liberals is to find ways to improve this country without raising taxes on the middle class.
So was SS a problem when GW brought it up and tried to get reforms passed? Were you saying that then? I'd say it was as much a problem as when Clinton tried to do the same with it in the 90's. I guess that means it's being a problem would come down to partisans like you, who think it is when your man says so, and it isn't when he tells you otherwise. You talk about the middle class, yet you support it's destruction via Amnesty and illegal immigration. You're such a hypypocrite. Save the children but hope they're molested for political benefit. Talk about tolerance, yet call the pope a Nazi. You're funny. Most sensible people think that the whacky portions of both parties, of which you are a part of, are the real problem in this country, and I agree. Not surprisingly, you feel like your extremist views are right, and moderate, and opposite extremist views are wrong. You need a healthy dose of reality.
Neither Clinton nor Bush had a liberal solution to Social Security. At least part of the liberal solution would be to have higher wage earners pay SS on all their income, not just the first $90,000 (I think that's the cutoff).
We have a problem and it has to be dealt with sensibly. The right-wing has an all or nothing approach and what will end up happening is nothing. One job of a politician is to figure out a doable solution. While it might be a nice idea to remove the 11 million illegals, the fact is it's not possible. In addition, since people can still get into our country, as tourists for instance, we will still have to address the problem. I want to treat the illegals humanely, get rid of any who commit crimes or simply leach off the system, and give those who can contribute to our country a roadmap by which they can attain citizenship, e.g., don't do anything illegal, learn English hold a full-time job, learn about our history, etc. Your solution is simply not going to happen. It's a pipe dream.
There you go defending Foley and the coverup-Republicans again. As far as calling the Pope a Nazi, he was one. Sorry if the facts disappoint you, but think of it this way, my calling the Pope a Nazi is like your calling Byrd a racist.
I think you are the one living in fantasy world: pretending we're winning the Iraq war when most of America thinks otherwise; pretending the Hillary is inconsistent, yet providing no evidence; opposing an amnesty for immigrants when no other solution has a viable chance of getting support. You should stop spouting the political line and think a little more practically. You're living in a right-wing fantasy world, and are incapable of compromise. I have my views, but I'm realistic in terms of what is doable. You need to be a little more pragmatic in your thinking.
More drivel and idiotocy from Frauders. I'll answer this very simply:
#1 - Liberal solution = tax anyone who is accountable and successful and ignore the real problems SS has, which is that it's outdated, and a very broken system that has been raped and pilleged to pay for non-contributors, and that more taxation alone is not a long term answer. i.e. Your liberal solution sucks.
#2 - JUST LIKE I SAID 1,000 TIMES ALREADY, YOU AND YOUR COHORT, AGENDA BOY, DO NOT READ ANYTHING PROVIDED TO YOU. i.e. You have no idea what my plan is, and you sound like George Bush.
#3 - I never defended Foley, and never will. Your need to attempt to assert that I am is clearly a means to deflect attention to your disgusting, and revealing admission where you hoped a child was molested so as to exploit it for political gain.
#4 - Did I say we were winning? I don't think so. I think the war is ongoing and it's result is yet to be determined. You on the other hand, have decided from day 1 that we lost, and therefore, like the molestation of children, are politically attached to failure. I hope freedom succeeds, while you hope for whatever result best suits your extremist agenda.
Hillary Clinton is as much a traitor as Bush ever was. Advocating the continuation of involvement of US troops in foreign lands for no purpose - putting American lives at risk, not to mention perpetuating the horrible conditions for Iraqis, is a crime against the Constitution. This douchebag needs to STFU permanently. I'm sick and tired of her finger-in-the-wind politics and her pandering to a broader group of voters so she can expand what very little appeal she still has. Her party needs to smack her around or better yet, turn their back on her.
Separate names with a comma.