Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
04:18 PM on 04/17/2008
We will hear again those august and sapient comments such as “ clear exit strategy” and “overwhelming force” that Republicans were once so fond of. Tears of piety will run down the cheeks of conservatives as they oppose Clinton and lament the senseless waste of our American heroes in an endless Wilsonian adventure. We will be reminded of the long-standing Republican wisdom that warns us against the folly of nation building. The vast right-wing conspiracy that hates Clinton will now be in the service of peace. Good little Republican neo-cons being what they really are, neo-commies, could be counted on to follow the party line and vote a solid anti-Clinton line.

By 2008, that might be only forty-five Republican votes, but together with the original twenty or so Senators that opposed the war on principle, that should be enough to end the war.

Now I know that seems a sleazy approach to sanity, but what can you do? Would you rather wait until intelligence and reason rules? In an age when Christ’s teachings have been subsumed by crackpot Christians, whose “faith” resides in the Old Testament, can we rely on a religious intervention? No the preachers won’t do it. And the politicians?
What evidence is there that they will act on principle rather than poll-driven self-interest?
04:17 PM on 04/17/2008
That’s why it is such a shame that Hillary has found it convenient to change her position on the war. If she was still boosting the war she voted to start, all we would have to do to end the war is to get her elected. Convince her to keep acting tough and continue trying to prove she is as stupid as any man. This shouldn’t be too hard, certainly not as difficult as it would be to convince her, and her ilk, to subsume their ambitions to principle. After all, if partisanship is more powerful than ideology or reason, why shouldn’t we, the sane majority, use partisanship to end the war?

We must convince her to support keeping troops in Iraq. Talk it up about regional instability and such, and make it seem that she is too tough to back down to the dreaded Kuds force, and above all, make sure she doesn’t do anything that might seem too feminine. That ought to do it.





Once we get the ole girl in, and in favor of staying in Iraq, or triangulated against a precipitous withdrawal, the war will be as good as over. Within a very short time that minority of Democrats who are actually against the war, will be joined by the overwhelmingly majority of Republicans who will then oppose it, on partisan grounds.
BubbaC33
Jimmy Buffett is the greatest American
06:05 PM on 04/17/2008
Ms. Clinton did not vote to go to war, that is a misrepresentation of fact. And it ignores the comments made by Ms. Clinton at the time of the vote. It seems Obama folks pay attention to what Ms. Clinton says only when it is convenient and helps them to attack her.
Ms. CLinton has clearly stated her plan for taking our tropps out of Iraq, which you have also chosen to ignore. If Ms. Clinton points out the mistakes in the plans Obama offers that is her attempt to destroy the Democratic Party. But when Obama makes dishonest claims about Ms. Clinton no one seems to believe there might be damage done to the Democratic Party.
What all of this reveals is Obama supporters are very good at defending Obama, even if it takes a lie to do so.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mesuki
06:36 PM on 04/17/2008
Ms Clinton did not vote for the war......you must be high!,what planet are you comming back from. The woman voted for the war and refuses to apologize for it. I guess in your twisted mind you don't think we've lost any troops in Iraq either. This is the problem with you Hillary supporters,you're ignorant and out of touch!
07:13 PM on 04/17/2008
Not only did she vote Bush authorization to innvade Iraq, she then voted for Kyl-Lieberman and authorization to extend the war to Iran. And she hadn't opposed the war in any way in 2006.
http://www.cnn.com/2006//POLITICS/01/20/ivins.hillary/index.html
Please note the DLC gang with her.
04:16 PM on 04/17/2008
They were saying the liberals (Clinton) were overstretching an eviscerated military. They were railing about the misuse of the military. Bosnia and the larger situation with Serbia and the Balkans was not an appropriate use of American force. Yet, they have no problem with deploying that “eviscerated” military in Arabia. If it had been Clinton and the liberals that invaded Iraq, the very same conservatives who are supporting Bush today with pious visions of crusading against Islamo-Fascism, and scary talk of mushroom clouds, would be standing on their desks in the halls of Congress pounding away at wild Wilsonian adventures and profligate waste. Tearing their hair out! Many of the opponents of the war, Democrats, would be supporting Clinton. You know its true.

Party politics, partisanship, is what motivates these people, on both sides of the pond. Conservatives in England are really no more against war than Hillary Clinton, but they can make points, partisan points, by criticizing liberal wars. Senators here, like Biden, Dodd, Edwards and Clinton are no more against war, in principle, than English conservatives. They supported the war initially because it provided a partisan edge, and they oppose it now for the same reason. It has nothing to do with left or right, right or wrong, or moral and immoral. It is just politics.
04:15 PM on 04/17/2008
What we can be sure of though is that all politicians, from either end of the spectrum, are ambitious and will be constantly maneuvering to enhance their personal power and position. The two party system channels this vice into opposing camps. In the United States these camps are called the Democratic and Republican parties. In England, they are called Labour and Tory. The proof that the war is not conservative is that it is supported by the conservatives here, but opposed by the conservatives there. Opposition to war is not liberal. It is opposed by liberals here, but supported by liberals there.




Mr. Blair is a liberal, Mr. Bush is a conservative, but they agreed on the invasion of Iraq. Ignoring the various factors that led to this invasion, let us instead focus instead on the opposition to the war, which unlike the political roots of its proponents does offer a common hope. Partisanship.

Let us imagine then that rather than being lead into this war by a conservative Republican, it was, like England, a liberal Democrat that took us in. (see WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam) Let us say that it was the Clinton administration of the nineties. Can you remember what the conservative Republican talking points were then? Don’t panic, I do.
05:43 PM on 04/17/2008
It is backfiring on her. Take a look:
Victoria King, Johnstown:

You know, sometimes it’s not what you say; it’s how you say it. Barack Obama is focused on the issues that matter to people. Hillary Clinton just exploits them. Barack Obama is the right type of leader to bring our country together and that’s what we need right now.
Cindy Scales, Johnstown:

Hillary Clinton’s negative campaigning really turned me off. Her negativity is not doing anything but separating Democrats at a time when we need to come together. People don’t need that message. What they need is financial security, good jobs, faith in this country and a hopeful future.
Dar Thomas, Pittsburgh:

I really wanted to vote for a woman, but what really changed my mind is how divisive she is. The more I watched her, the more I saw how her campaign uses cheap shots to attack Barack Obama.
Dawn Moyer, Collegeville:

The negative campaigning had a lot to do with why I no longer support Hillary Clinton. She is the old Washington politics. We absolutely need a change. I believe in Barack Obama and I believe he is what our nation needs.
Elizabeth Harrison, Glenside:
June Esser, Creighton:

I was really confused about whether I wanted Hillary or Barack. But I have decided I am voting for Barack. Each time he is hit with mud he comes back with a sincere and reasonable response. Enough of these political games.
04:13 PM on 04/17/2008
For the moment, we will ignore the possibility that neo-cons are not really conservatives; after all, if they were, why call them Neo-Cons?

Two things were revealed in this particular episode of “Prime Minister”. First, Brown does not have the Blair gift of gab. Second, partisanship is an over-riding consideration in the two-party system. Ideology, such as it relates to foreign adventures, takes a back seat to party politics. Questions of left and right, being essentially ones of economic organization, are irrelevant in discussions of war and peace.

In the United States, we have fallen into the trap of ascribing a warlike predilection to parties ostensibly organized right and left based on a view of economics. On the “left”,
partisans view right-wingers as warmongers; and on the right, leftists are considered weak on defense. This is as absurd a waste of time as trying to convince a Crusader that Christ was against war.
04:11 PM on 04/17/2008
Towards a Partisan Peace(2)

When I am in the mood for information, after re- learning once again, like the dope that I am, that “news” channels are more about personality and opinion than news, my surfing usually leads to C-Span.

On one particular day, some months ago, I landed on a session of Prime Minister’s Questions, from England. In the realm of “once you’ve seen a ……, you’ve seen ‘em all”, Prime Minister’s Questions rank right up there near the top. I might have gone back to American news, but because it was a heavy Anna Nicole, Hollywood bimbo, criminal illegal, loose pedophile, murdered third wife kind of day; and because it was the new labor leader, Mr. Brown, who was fielding the questions, I stayed tuned in. I wanted to see how he compared to his predecessor Mr. Blair, a master of the form.

England is a good place to study for people who think war is right wing and peace is left wing. They are fighting the same war in Iraq that we are, that we classify as a right wing event, and deride as Mr. Bush’s war. If we are to judge by the degree of flak that was thrown at the Labour leader, Mr. Brown, by the conservative opposition, we are forced to conclude that opposition to the war is neither liberal nor left wing. (conservatives, the last time I checked, are from the right)
04:06 PM on 04/17/2008
Towards a Partisan Peace(1)

When I am in the mood for information, after re- learning once again, like the dope that I am, that “news” channels are more about personality and opinion than news, my surfing usually leads to C-Span.

On one particular day, some months ago, I landed on a session of Prime Minister’s Questions, from England. In the realm of “once you’ve seen a ……, you’ve seen ‘em all”, Prime Minister’s Questions rank right up there near the top. I might have gone back to American news, but because it was a heavy Anna Nicole, Hollywood bimbo, criminal illegal, loose pedophile, murdered third wife kind of day; and because it was the new labor leader, Mr. Brown, who was fielding the questions, I stayed tuned in. I wanted to see how he compared to his predecessor Mr. Blair, a master of the form.

England is a good place to study for people who think war is right wing and peace is left wing. They are fighting the same war in Iraq that we are, that we classify as a right wing event, and deride as Mr. Bush’s war. If we are to judge by the degree of flak that was thrown at the Labour leader, Mr. Brown, by the conservative opposition, we are forced to conclude that opposition to the war is neither liberal nor left wing. (conservatives, the last time I checked, are from the right)
03:47 PM on 04/17/2008
Ah come on Mona, you can't manage better sarcasm than that? You need a few more gay friends honey.

You have some decent points to make, it's just rather unfortunate that one has to get past your juvenile sense of wit to get to them. Really do yourself a favor: Go see a stylist and get laid. You'll feel better.
03:23 PM on 04/17/2008
I think that we need a clarification. When Hillary said "Screw 'em" in 1995 about Southern working claass Whites, was her contempt for them solely because they were Southern, or was it more general?
We should get an answer befrore the voting in Pennsylvania and Indiana. I don't think North Carolina, West Virginia and Kentucky will much care, so perhaps it's best to just keep it from them.
BubbaC33
Jimmy Buffett is the greatest American
06:11 PM on 04/17/2008
It was a comment focused on Reagan Democrats, mostly Southerners who vote based on race, a lack of intolerance for progressives and liberals. The folks who would never vote for Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton or Obama. And her comment is out of context, as the folks who revealed it know. And it is shameful HuffPo has chosen to focus on this comment as a way to take the heat off Obama for his statement about bitter white people.
When Obama made his comment he told a huge lie. He said the people in PA fell during the Clinton administration and that is false. Over 500,000 jobs were created in PA during the Clinton years, which caused a drop in the rate of unemployment from 7.3% to 4.1%.
03:10 PM on 04/17/2008
To analyse the candidacy of Hillary you have to look at all issues in perspective.. She grew up at a time when its was hip to act like a guy to get what you want and then when it feets act femine. There many women out there who are supporting her because they had to act the same. However, most of those women feel embarrassed by her but they dont have the guts to move on because they will feel like they have betrayed the womens cause. When she drops out and not to do a favor for Obama but for other women who have to work every day along side men. The women who have to take over from her.

Look for the Black people they had several candidates run. But they all tried to talk tough, use harsh words read Jesse Jackson and Sharp ton, they played race cards where they could. But they didnt get far or more than black and sympathizers.

Its the same with Hillary she is for womens movement what Jesse Jackson and Sharpton are for the Blacks. Women have to wait for a woman who come and says from the beging that she will not play the gender card. That she is a candidate running for president who happens to be female.
04:15 PM on 04/17/2008
Elegant argument. Blacks win by not being black...wouldn't that mean that Hillary would win by not being a woman?
04:54 PM on 04/17/2008
She is a woman, as far as I know. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
10:52 PM on 04/17/2008
this is one of the most asanine arguments I have ever heard! And please, don't insult me by insinuating that because Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are black I was immediately mesmerized by them... I do not like either!!

But, based on your argument, being a black person, if I see skin color that looks like mine, I automatically support them bc I don't have brain to help me formulate my decision... wow...

How INSULTING!
03:01 PM on 04/17/2008
If she can't have it (the presidency) then no one else in the party will either.

She appears to be on an all-out barrage to make sure she puts as much damage (whether or not her accusations are true or not) on Barack as they can think of.

My guess is she does have her eyes on 2012.
03:46 PM on 04/17/2008
You can bet on it...I bet Hillary truly believes that McCain will be an awful President, but better than Obama. In either case, she's counting on a one-termer. I think it's a great strategy and I agree with her.
03:53 PM on 04/17/2008
Too bad. I understand if you are a Hillary supporter and I respect that but...

It's short-sided thinking and terrible for the party. It could turn away millions of people from the party who could vote for years and years.

Then again, she has a history of doing things that benefit the Republican party...think back to her failed health care agenda that swept in the first Republican congress in 40 years.
BubbaC33
Jimmy Buffett is the greatest American
06:15 PM on 04/17/2008
You are such a hypocrite. If Ms. Clinton says something truthful about Obama she is destroying the Democratic Party. But when Obama lies about Ms. Clinton there is nothing said. It doesn;t work that way. If her honest comments about Obama are hurtful to the Party it only follows his dishonest comments must also be doing damage. And your failure to understand that and to attack only Ms. Clinton reveals you to be a hypocrite.
02:52 PM on 04/17/2008
Who is Hillary now? HILLARY HAS NOT CHANGED.
Hillary and Bill are the same people that the republicans tried to warn America about 16 years ago.
Now that the Clintons don't have a "vast right wing conspiracy" to invoke when they want to distract from their foibles Americans have finally able to see the Clintons as they really are.

Now more than ever RALPH NADER 2008 makes sense!
03:48 PM on 04/17/2008
Dude, I think someone spiked your toothpaste with LSD. Nader makes sense like Bush is good at foreign policy.
09:22 PM on 04/17/2008
Dude Ralph's much better than Hillary on any given Sunday.
02:52 PM on 04/17/2008
she is such a dirtbag....phony. liar, whiner, too bad we dont have a real woman with scruples running for president..not a clone of her dirtbag husband without whom she could not even run...she does give me a good laugh as she falls farther and farther down the slippery slope she and billy boy created
03:47 PM on 04/17/2008
It's worth a McCain presidency, just because we hate Hillary so much.
05:36 PM on 04/17/2008
No it isn't. No amount ofhate is worth a McCain Presidency. I am hoping that those who feel a McCain Presidency would be viable if Hillary doesn't get the nomination, will seriously think and have a change of heart. Don't toy with the future. You live on earth with the rest of us and will have to suffer the same plight.
10:58 PM on 04/17/2008
I'm sorry... my husband serving 3 damn terms in Iraq... his comrades blown up right infront of him, foreclosures everywhere you turn, $4 gas, terrible dollar, bad healthcare system, more wars... etc etc...

No exactly what I am hoping for!!! McCain offers us the same destruction that Shrub has put forth... its sad and utterly disgusting!!! Hillary is not nor will she ever be my favorite... but should she win the nomination, I will vote for her, and pray she keeps her word!!!

Anything is better than more GOP nonsense ruining our lives for the next 4 years!
BubbaC33
Jimmy Buffett is the greatest American
06:17 PM on 04/17/2008
One thing we can always expect from Obama supporters is this sort of highly intellectual posting. OK, this person is shameful and if Obama supporters were as good as they claim to be one of them would respond to this person. If his comments aren't hurtful to the Democractic Party then nothing said by Ms. Clinton is hurtful.
12:10 AM on 04/18/2008
Not much else that I agree with you about, but you're right this time. It's baffling how they think they're helping Sen. Obama when they talk like this.
02:47 PM on 04/17/2008
Isn't it common knowledge that Hillary is the greek world for Hydra? And, isn't it common knowledge that she still has a few heads to go? So she's a politician. Obama is a politician. McCain is a politician. What is news about them all being liars anyway, they're politicians. At this point this should just be a beauty contest, or flip a coin or whatever. This is just gotten so old.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CindyV
10:19 PM on 04/17/2008
I love the politics of change. Too bad Obama's so-called supporters don't practice what he preaches. Maybe they really don't like the kool-aide he's offering.
02:43 PM on 04/17/2008
Hillary is one of this country's finest Americans.
justobserve
Not left nor right or center. Just a free thinker!
02:56 PM on 04/17/2008
Oh yeh! In the banana republic.
03:03 PM on 04/17/2008
God help us then.