Hillary Hates You

She thinks you're weak. She has no respect for you, and her lack of respect amounts to loathing--the kind of loathing that the powerful feel for the powerless. She's confident that progressives are too impotent, divided, and disorganized to deny her the nomination.

How else to explain her vote for the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment, which designates "Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization"? Do the math, people: the Revolution Guards are terrorists + Bush launched a global war on terror = _____. Jim Webb called the bill "Cheney's fondest pipe dream." Recall that "real men want to go to Tehran."

Her vote tells you that she's cocikly crusing toward the nomination that the press has already awarded her. Her chief advisor, Mark "union buster" Penn has crunched the numbers and told her that she can defy the core beliefs of the party's core with impunity. She can prepare for the general election and focus on money and do AIPAC's bidding and still win the nomination.

John Edwards is betting she's wrong. Edwards is running a more progressive and populist campaign than Hillary, but the Clinton Machine, ever savvy, has convinced the MSM and even a few progressive bloggers that the differences between the two candidates are negligible. But Hillary's prowar vote on Thursday opened the door for Edwards and that night, at the debate in New Hampshire, he surged through.

I voted for this war in Iraq, and I was wrong to vote for this war. And I accept responsibility for that. Senator Clinton also voted for this war.

We learned a very different lesson from that. I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran.

And I think that vote today, which Senator Biden and Senator Dodd voted against, and they were correct to vote against it, is a clear indication of the approach that all of us would take with the situation in Iran because what I learned in my vote on Iraq was you cannot give this president the authority and you can't even give him the first step in that authority because he cannot be trusted.

In a better, more logical world--one in which the war in Iraq had transformed the politics of national security--Edwards would have said that the lesson he learned from his vote on Iraq is not just that you can't trust George Bush but also that warmongering leads to war, which leads to occupation, which leads to disaster, or that change must come from within countries, that it cannot be imposed.

Nonetheless, the point was made. Edwards articulated an important difference between him and Clinton, and it's a difference that all Democrats, not just progressives, will grasp. With his commanding debate performance and that answer in particular, Edwards solidified his status as Clinton's main challenger.

We can argue till the troops come home about who, Obama or Edwards, is the superior progressive--indeed, in a subsequent post, I'll make the case for Edwards--but one thing is clear: only Edwards has been willing to challenge Clinton on ideological grounds. He has blasted her relentless corporatism and now, with this statement, her militarism as well.

This is not the first instance in the race that Edwards has carved out an important difference on national security. Unlike Clinton, he opposes the very concept of a global war against terrorism. And unlike Clinton, he backed the Webb Amendment, which would have made it a crime for Bush to attack Iran without Congressional authorization--a position that won Edwards no friends at AIPAC, which killed a similar measure in the House. And unlike Clinton, who would give Bush the 92,000 new troops he wants, Edwards isn't committed to making our monstrous military more monstrous. Huge issues, real differences.

Hillary thinks you won't pay attention to the differences, just as she thinks she can get away with casting a prowar vote in the middle of the race for the Democratic nominaton. John Edwards hope she's wrong.

So do I.

Comments

[AlteredEgo]

from a voter in NH:
But listening to Edwards actually express his views might (and should) change some people's minds. They might understand that Edwards' policy proposals have been driving the platforms of all the top Democratic contenders for months. Edwards leads, the others cautiously follow, cribbing off of Edwards' policy plans while trying not to alienate big donors, backers or focus groups. If voters are looking for a real change candidate in 2008, Edwards, not Obama, is the guy.

[AlteredEgo]

operating like GOP lite is what candidates' consultants and the DLC are pushing. does not mean america wants to elect GOP lite.

and unless we get paper trails for voting machines, a real election in '08 is not assured.

if you want to vent, vent to congress about the voting machines.

[AlteredEgo]

Please people here who think Edwards said he would not end the war by 2013. Replay transcript of debate and listen to what he really said. All combat troops out in 2009 within months of his election, leaving only 3,500 - 5000 troops behind for embassy and humanitarian aid security.

And if you can refrain for a moment from bashing lawyers and READ EDWARD's RECORD, you'll see he's no "ambulance chaser."

Lastly, if you think Edwards is a phony because he's changed certain positions over time and become in your labeling more "leftist," as if caring about things like poverty, health care, erosion of production and jobs and pre-emptive strikes on Iran are not concerns of MOST AMERICANS, then maybe you'd be more comfortable keeping a DEAD CERTAIN ideologue in the White House instead of voting for someone like Edwards who is capable of evolving his policies and has the honesty, courage and humility to admit past errors in his thinking.

Don't buy into the demonization of Edwards as "too progessive/too leftist." If Clinton is as "centrist" as she claims, she would not NEED the MSM to marginalize Edwards as they do.

[Stevelagain]

Edwards moved so far left his own state rejected him. He has only won one political office in his life and presently couldn't make dog catcher in his home state. Please run Edwards.

[zjr909]

Earth to Capt Jubal: you've turned too far to the right! The planet's over here! That is, the real planet. The one where the "Left" never in their wildest imagination saw the '06 election as a "mandate" for their "program." They did, however, see the '06 election as a rejection of Bush's strategy of endless war - as did a lot of mainstream commentators. You're absolutely correct, though, that most Americans are moderate to conservative. So for them to turn against the conservative (i.e., neocon) agenda tells you just how unpalatable that agenda must be. And for Senator Clinton to have suddenly discovered merit in that same agenda tells you just how unpalatable a Hillary Clinton presidency would be to these moderate to conservative Americans.

[Qbear]

I added this to a thread of anti-Hillary Republicans with a $600K ad campaign to swift boat Clinton

a WHOLE 600 Thousand ad buy...ooooh scarey

I was suprised it was Republicans attacking Hillary, I thought it's STILL the Progressives turn.

My anti Hillary ad would show Kristol, Cheney, and Lieberman speaking their mantras to go to war with Iran, then Hillary's photo morphs to LIEBERMAN...the sound tract becomes Hillary's fake LAUGH.

[speakeasy]

At the end of Bush's term, it will be two solid decades of Bush's and Clintons. Enough said... No mas!!! Anyone but those families....

[joselopez]

Hillary Clinton just proposed a 5000.00$ bond for all babies born in USA.

Only problem, TIME Magazine proposed a 5000.00 bond for all babies a month ago.

She is stealing Edwards Health Care Plan, is stealing this idea from TIME, she claims not to be for toture but is, she says Bush misused Iraq War authorization, but votes for another resolution that may allow Bush to go to War against Iran.

NO TRUE LEADERSHIP, JUST DO OR SAY WHATEVER GETS HER AHEAD.

AMERICA DOES NOT NEED THAT TYPE OF PERSON DURING THIS TIME OF CRISIS.

[nowaterboardUSA]

Well I'm of the opinion after watching politics over the past 25 years that almost any democrat is better than any republican if you're a middle class or working class American. If you're rich, by all means go with greed and the GOP - you always have! Of course in a REAL democracy, we'd have more than 2 viable choices, but the corporations don't want that so we don't have that. Good night and good luck!

[tbone99]

Write into Hilary's blog -let them know what the Kyl -Lieberman amendment is and exactly what it means when their candidate supports it.http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=13780#view_comments

[dijo]

Hillary screens the entries on her web site, so....good luck getting anything posted that opposes Hillary's view. I haven't been to Edwards' web site, but I know the Obama site does not screen anything.
So much for free speech Hill!!!

[tbone99]

How many months will it be before Hilary denies her vote to support the Kyl -Lieberman amendment as another misunderstanding.If she had bothered to read the security paper put out before the Iraq war perhaps she wouldn't be backtracking now.It now seems voting for Hilary is exactly the same as voting for a Republican candidate- one who seeks to label countries "terrorists" so they can attack them .Forget diplomacy, talks ,collaboration..I wrote to her to express my disgust with this vote and ended up on her blog where the people there were congratulating themselves for her front runner status seem puzzled by what the Kyl-Lieberman amendment is even about.
I urge others to write on her blog because folks,if she ends up as the Democratic nominee we have no anti- war candidate.Oh, and all those pleas from the Democratic party for $ are going in the trash til I find out if the nominee will represent a way out of Iraq and signal diplomacy with Iran.Edwards just got my support!He's the only viable candidate representing working class people.

[joselopez]

The Clinton machine believes most Americans have short attention spans. That can be te only explanation for her voting for the Iraq War, voting for this latest resolution, saying she would not condone torture when she is on record stating we should torture (Daily News), she went after Barack for him saying Nuclear Weapons were off the table against Afghanistan forgetting she had said the exact same thing.

If she is ou best candidate, I feel sorry for our Country.

[zjr909]

SensibleAmerican demands proof for everything everyone says. Now show me the proof that Iran's military is providing IED's etc. That is to say, proof OTHER than what right-wing pundits claim. Once you've done that, show me one other thing: show me why Iran has no right to supply weaponry to Shia militias. It's a free civil war, isn't it? Are we the only ones allowed to provide weapons to any of the participants? Show me the international agreement that says so. Has Iraq already become "our" country, that only we can do anything or say anything or give anything? Gee, how would Hillary Clinton, that great exalted leader, answer such a question? First, of course, she'd have to have her consultants poll to see if enough people would like to ask such a question; then she could come up with just the perfect slick answer. You know, that her base of one (SensibleAmerican) can get behind.

[Boadicea]

Isn't Saudi Arabia, our buddy oil empire, providing funds to the Sunni insurgency? Why don't we label their militia a terrorist organization?

[backhandpath]

Because our President's family is embedded (impregnated, ingratiated, infiltrated, insubordinated, impoverished, inbred) with the Saudi Royal Family?

[Boadicea]

Edwards "solidified himself as HIllary's main challenger." ??! Sorry, but no, not even close.

Edwards attempted to paint himself as Hillary's political enemy in the NH debate, to further pander to the netroots. There's a big, big difference. He's been on the attack throughout this campaign, attacking everyone from the ridiculous and irrelevant Ann Coulter to the future congress, should it not do his bidding on health care. Two Americas, Right Wing on the Attack, etc etc etc. Edwards is against. Being against does not win over moderates or Independents or those on the other side who are disillusioned with the Republican Party. And that's who Hillary's challenger must win over.

To be Hillary's main challenger, Edwards would need to have a lot more support, and last I checked, he'd completely lost his Iowa lead, the one he spent years building, even after his two national campaigns had already given him encumbent status there. And that's just among card carrying Democrats.


Trial lawyers, especially wildly successful ones, are by definition very "sincere" sounding. They're absolutely convincing with their rhetoric.

Edwards is a slick politician who says what he knows his target audience wants to hear. This election, it's a populist theme with lots of sidelines finger-pointing at those trying to clean up the mess he helped to make with his Senate speech imploring other Dems to support his Iraq Resolution.

It all plays well with the netroots, it's true.

[gwr72]

Your right about one thing, I do have to vote. I once had professor who had a sign above his office door,"vote no." The next election would seem to be that way. I could never vote for one of the present republican candidates. As I see it the main purpose will be to rid our country Bush/Cheney, and to make sure that this country returns to the rule of law.It would seem that only a democrat in the WH offers that possibility. But god help us if HRC, Obama etc leads us in the continued policies of the present administration.

[Boadicea]

HIllary may exhibit a slight attitude of "so what" with regard to the netroots, it's true. And your guy - Edwards - has based his whole campaign on a new rhetoric that panders to the netroots and obscures his whole previous political career. That's the main contrast, and I can see why it might be a glaring difference to you, since you spend so much time on dailyKos. If there is an "empty suit" in this race, it's John Edwards.

Hillary is who she is, but at least we know who that is.

If one looks as what actions a candidate has taken in his/her political career, Edwards, frankly, can't hold a candle to any of the other candidates, perhaps least of all, Hillary.

No, while Hillary's foreign policy rhetoric is distressing, she'd be far and away a better president than Edwards, whose political history shows him to be a chameleon at best.

[whoknows]

I love your logic. Since we know that HC is a warmonger and she has been vocal about that, we should vote for her, we might as well vote for Rudy according to you. Edward exhibited leadership and a well informed candidate, he has my support now and I feel stupid that I wasn't paying attention to him before. I use to be an Obama fan.

[vicissitude]

I agree with you whoknows.
What we know about Hillary is that she is dishonest, controlled by corporate lobbyists, a warmonger, salivating to be a unitary executive, bitter for partisan revenge, lacks good judgment as well as lacks any real qualifications to be the surrogate for Bill's 3rd term and is her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment assures us that she is indeed Bush Cheney Lite.

So, we should all just vote for Hillary? Seems to me that with what we know it is a reason to vote for anyone BUT Hillary

[Countess]

Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is much worse than depressing. She is flat out as bad as Cheney and will lead the united states into another christian crusade against Iran and people like you will be crying and wondering how this could have happened. She is telling you now so please listen.

[Boadicea]

I guess the large numbers of Democrats who support Hillary don't know that she is "as bad as Cheney." You must feel very superior to them, what with your extra-sensory perception and all, because on the facts, Hillary is a progressive. She's just not stupid, and she's not pandering to the netroots. Good for her, though I vehemently disagree with her on this issue.

All of the Rabid Rhetoratistas who support Edwards in his latest incarnation ignore the fact that his record in the Senate on foreign policy is less "progressive" than Hillary's. He skipped some votes, after all, even when he was in DC.... which ones? Bet you don't want to know, do you?

Hillary says what she means. Yes, she can be evasive if the situation warrants, but she's not going to say one thing and do another, as Edwards' record shows that he does. Any psychologist will tell you that if someone has said one thing and done another in the past, they'll likely say one thing and do another in the future.

[IntegrityIntact]

Truth is no one knows what the hell is really behind Hillary's motivations. Obviously, I'm inclined to think based on her history that she has extraordinary ambition, and now she's poised on becoming the first female president in our nation's history. It's apparent she'll stop at nothing, including alienating and pissing off the progressive or "far left" base as conservatives like to call it, because as David Mizner said, to her campaign and electability, we are expendable.

As for her vote of the kyl-Lieberman amendment, I don't buy her justification given in the NH debates that this Iranian army has american troop blood on their hands. Sounds like textbook neocon hawk propaganda. I'm assuming Sen. Hillary was privvy to some kind of substantive "evidence" supporting her statement , however, she didn't mention this.

As for me, I'm very impressed by both Sen. Biden and Sen. Dodd and I'm hoping that support and funds for these 2nd tier candidates surge in the next year. If not, John Edwards is my fallback.