Election Central | Talking Points Memo | Hillary Joining Webb For Measure Opposing War With Iran

Hillary Joining Webb For Measure Opposing War With Iran

By Eric Kleefeld - October 1, 2007, 5:08PM

Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat from liberals last week over her vote for the non-binding Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, which declared Iran's military to be a terrorist organization. Now she seems to be working to make up that gap by working with Jim Webb on a binding measure to stop a war against Iran.

Taylor Marsh reports that Hillary will be joining Webb as a co-sponsor of his amendment, first introduced in March, which would require Congressional authorization before the president could launch a large-scale operation against Iran.

So will this amendment pass against a likely Republican filibuster? And either way, will Hillary's signing on as a co-sponsor help to assuage liberal doubts about her positions on the Middle East?

Comments (419)

dan wrote on October 1, 2007 5:39 PM:

my liberal doubt might be more assuaged if she hadn't simply laughed off mike gravel's legitimate rebuke of her yes vote on kyl-lieberman. even if gravel has his quirks, if hillary actually has a forceful defense of her position on kyl-lieberman she should have explained it to the voters on tv instead of issuing a paltry statement to the press

Tross wrote on October 1, 2007 5:44 PM:

Personally, I prefer a candidate that is pro-active vs. reactive.

It's easy to cast your vote, then read the tea leaves, then correct your vote.

It's a sign of leadership to vote correctly the first time.

dcshungu wrote on October 1, 2007 5:44 PM:

This a real resolution that has a chance to hold Bush's feet the fire if he dares to attack Iran, and not week's ceremonial, non-binding, and "saber rattling" measure that the netroots went wild over and that TPM spent a lot of time denouncing as Authorization to Attack Iran. Bush could have attacked Iran regardless of that ceremonial resolution. Most Dems, including Levin and Durbin, had voted for that resolution mainly for its "scare-crow" value. This Webb/Clinton resolution, on the other hand, would be an impeachable offense if Bush breaks it. Would the Repub Senators go along? I doubt it but the Dems have to push for it. A new WaPo/ABC poll shows that the public is with them on Iraq (including cutting funding), so what they need to do is to keep pushing such legislations again and again, and force the Repubs to filibuster or push Bush to use his veto power. Shelving resolutions for fear of veto or filibuster is not why the people had voted for the change in Congress!!

dcshungu wrote on October 1, 2007 5:49 PM:

Correction:

This a real resolution that has a chance to hold Bush's feet to the fire if he dares to attack Iran, as opposed to last week's ceremonial, non-binding, and "saber-rattling" measure that the netroots went wild over and that TPM spent a lot of time denouncing as Authorization to Attack Iran. Bush could have attacked Iran regardless of that ceremonial resolution. Most Dems, including Levin and Durbin, had voted for that resolution mainly for its "scare-crow" value. This Webb/Clinton resolution, on the other hand, would be an impeachable offense if Bush breaks it. Would the Repub Senators go along? I doubt it but the Dems have to push for it. A new WaPo/ABC poll shows that the public is with them on Iraq (including cutting funding), so what they need to do is to keep pushing such legislations again and again, and force the Repubs to filibuster or push Bush to use his veto power. Shelving resolutions for fear of veto or filibuster is not why the people had voted for the change in Congress!!

benjoya wrote on October 1, 2007 5:50 PM:

will Hillary's signing on as a co-sponsor help to assuage liberal doubts about her positions on the Middle East?

it wouldn't hurt. good luck getting past a filibuster, though.

slcathena wrote on October 1, 2007 5:52 PM:

dan wrote on October 1, 2007 5:39 PM: my liberal doubt might be more assuaged if she hadn't simply laughed off mike gravel's legitimate rebuke of her yes vote on kyl-lieberman. even if gravel has his quirks, if hillary actually has a forceful defense of her position on kyl-lieberman she should have explained it to the voters on tv instead of issuing a paltry statement to the press

Agreed. Her vote on Kyl Lieberman was inexcusable, and for her to laugh in the face of voters when faced with the question was nauseating. I hope this measure passes, but it does nothing to change how I feel about HRC.

colonpowwow wrote on October 1, 2007 5:55 PM:

What dcshungu said.

She's actually signing on as a co-sponsor of a binding resolution that opposes a presidential military strike on Iran?

What a (rhymes with "buppity itch")!

IWW wrote on October 1, 2007 6:00 PM:

dcshungu & colonpowwow & assorted hillaristas--

Save your hillary-worship for when this thing actually passes! Until then, voting for an opposition resolution that seems highly unlikely to pass just doesn't ameliorate the bad odor caused by voting for a bad resolution that DID pass.

Barndoors and horses and all that.

rssrai wrote on October 1, 2007 6:05 PM:

Webb's bill will never pass and I am sure Hillary Clinton knows this. The repugs got what they wanted with the Lieberban ammendment. It is too late for Hillary to fix her vote. I think this is just to try to pretend that she did not vote for the ammendment that is the first step of going to war with Iran. Hillary did not learn anything with her vote to give Bush the authorization to go to war with Iran. I think Hillary is a manipulative, cold person who is trying to have her cake and eat it too. Hillary Clinton has no hope for Webb's bill to pass because as president she would veto Webb's bill.

Unmitigated Audacity wrote on October 1, 2007 6:06 PM:

I will change my mind about Hillary being a neocon fox in hen's clothing if she really works hard to get this bill passed. It is important to attack this flank to prevent an even more insane widening of the war(s) in process. The other flank is impeaching Cheney. I'll know Dems are serious about defending the constitution and the General Welfare when I see them taking on, as a party, Cheney - the axis of evil in this administration.

gqmartinez wrote on October 1, 2007 6:11 PM:

I seem to remember that Hillary had been talking about this for some time now. I believe it was a deauthorization of the 2002 AUMF. This is not something new at all for her. I also think Biden may have mentioned it.

Mark C wrote on October 1, 2007 6:14 PM:

Hillary votes to close the barn door!

YEEAAHHHH!!!!!

Sure it's a vote she knows will never amount to anything, but hey, it's enough for enough of 'em....

Look, I have some more shiny beads right over here........

reason 59736 why I will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton

dcshungu wrote on October 1, 2007 6:15 PM:

slcathena wrote on October 1, 2007 5:52 PM: Agreed. Her vote on Kyl Lieberman was inexcusable, and for her to laugh in the face of voters when faced with the question was nauseating. I hope this measure passes, but it does nothing to change how I feel about HRC.Agreed. Her vote on Kyl Lieberman was inexcusable, and for her to laugh in the face of voters when faced with the question was nauseating. I hope this measure passes, but it does nothing to change how I feel about HRC.

Such mindless posts are beginning to drive me up the wall... Hey, listen: you may have your negative feelings about HRC, that is your privilege, but that vote last week was not at all what you think it was. It was a ceremonial, non-binding resolution that allowed congress to express displeasure with Iran. It was almost meaningless. Ok? Do you remember that Sens. Durbin and Levin had voted against the original AUMF? Well, they voted last week for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution. Why is that? If you do not know why, please go and carefully read the final version that passed with overwhelming Dem support... or if you wish, I will be happy to give you the nickel version here. Bush could have attacked Iran regardless of that resolution because he had already called them terrorists and a prior resolution had already given him the power to go after terrorists organization!! That vote last week was a ceremonial vote, a "scare-crow" vote, which is why anti-AUMF folks like Levin voted for it. They were commanded for showing good judgment on AUMF, and all of a sudden they turn into hawkish fools who would authorize Bush to invade Iran? THINK ABOUT THAT and keep disparaging HRC since you must, but do not keep using canards that you know so little about about as a justification.

DonnaG wrote on October 1, 2007 6:32 PM:

Even though I think this move is cya, I applaud Hillary's action to co-sponsor this binding legislation of Webb's, and I expect her to expend some of her political capital to get it past committee and up for a vote, asap to head the neocons off at the pass. By the way, the bill is S759, which Webb introduced back in May.

The deauthorization of the 2002 AUMF is a different bill that involves Byrd of WV.

gypsy howell wrote on October 1, 2007 6:32 PM:

...which would require Congressional authorization before the president could launch a large-scale operation against Iran.

So, a small-scale operation, in which we just drop a few bombs here and there, would be OK, right? And then, if the Iranians retaliate against this... well, we'd just have to respond with more firepower and an escalation, right?

Screw her. She's looking forward to being a War President. She's just hoping that Bush is stupid enough to start the war and take the blame for it before the election.

VictorLaszlo wrote on October 1, 2007 6:56 PM:

dcshungu:
"This a real resolution that has a chance to hold Bush's feet to the fire if he dares to attack Iran..."

If this resolution passes, and Bush attacks Iran anyway, what consequences do you imagine Bush would have to face?

I say 'nada'.

Not only that, the Dems would vote to condemn anyone who disagrees with any of his war-mongering sycophants.

I wish I was exaggerating.

VictorLaszlo wrote on October 1, 2007 7:01 PM:

...and what gypsy howell said.

"She's looking forward to being a War President."

Yup. I'd scientifically estimate she's about 20% less of a war-mongering imperialist than Bush.

She's certainly better if the choice is between the two of them, but that's about the strongest endorsement I can muster.

dcshungu wrote on October 1, 2007 7:14 PM:

If this resolution passes, and Bush attacks Iran anyway, what consequences do you imagine Bush would have to face?

He broke the law and would be impeached since the conditions would be just right:
(1) He got us into a war of choice in Iraq and has no clue on how to get us out of it, (2)including our just commitment in Afghanistan, the military has been stretched to the braking point, (3)our allies won't support this invasion, (4) the people won't support this invasion, (4) heck, the military won't condone this invasion, (5) he is a lame-duck POTUS with an approval rating approaching Nixonian levels... And what does he do: He launches a war of choice against a country the size of Iran! Even members of his own party (unless they wish to be extinct as party) would vote "yea" on the articles of impeachment. It would simply outrageous for Bush to launch an attack while we are still mired in Iraq!

I do not think that Bush would dare to attack anyone any time soon. He has emasculated himself along with the US military. He is done and will fade into oblivion in 16 months, and go to where mediocre presidents go when they leave the country in a mess...It is called Crawford, TX.

party-of-one wrote on October 1, 2007 7:15 PM:

Hillary Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is on all sides of every issue. She is particularly duplicitous on national defense issues including Iraq and now Iran.

SeeDee wrote on October 1, 2007 7:16 PM:

All the faltering, paltering and useless procrastinating by Hillary and her ilk have worked to delay any effective Democratic-backed change in the Iraq War, and, by extension, the reining-in of Cheney plans against Iran.

With today's reported declines in U.S. troop fatalities and some diminution in the Iraq sectarian killings, the GOP (from the White House to the most crimson little redneck county in the U.S.) will begin to gleefully shout, "See there, we told you so."

Everyone is, of course, gratified that deaths in Iraq, especially our own troops, may be on a downward trend...but, we can expect the neocons and their MSM spokespersons to blare this bit of 'questionable' news 24-7 at full volume.

Certainly, regardless of casualty 'figures' there is no indication that a 'solution' to our (and the hapless Iraqi factions') problems is near.

Had our Democrats (including, especially, Hillary) worked with and forced Reid to pass a 'no-funding without withdrawal scheduling' back in early summer, we might see a different, and better, scene in the Middle-East today.

Alas! Too little, Too late.

Sy Hersh's predicted scenario will probably develope SOON.

VictorLaszlo wrote on October 1, 2007 7:22 PM:

dcshungu: "He broke the law and would be impeached since the conditions would be just right:"

With all respect, most of your five bullet points have been operative for months or even years, and just last week Our Heroes passed a resolution condemning one of the strongest entities opposing the war, essentially [i]for opposing the war[/i].

VictorLaszlo wrote on October 1, 2007 7:24 PM:

oh, do I use this kind of tags here?

SocraticGadfly wrote on October 1, 2007 7:30 PM:

It won't assuage my doubts about Clinton. Her vote for Lieberman-Kyl showed her to either be way too hawkish or way too naive. Neither is good, and it will take more than one follow-up vote to erase that.

Duckman GR wrote on October 1, 2007 7:34 PM:

No, and no, to anwer the questions.

Yes, it's worth it to propose and debate the issue and take a vote of some sort, whine and complain for an "up or down" vote like the gop does, but it doesn't make her previous vote better.

It doesn't make it worse either, so that's something.

SocraticGadfly wrote on October 1, 2007 7:36 PM:

Ohh, the Webb Amendment looks pretty toothless. The approximate, if not exact, language in it has plenty of BushCo loopholes, like the "attack is OK in response to an Iranian attack." Well, BushCo has been repeatedly blathering about various Iranian provocations in Iraq, many of which don't pan out. But, if that's post-US counterresponse water under the bridge, who in Congress will immediately cut off funding for such US action, after calling out BushCo on an Iranian false alarm?

dcshungu wrote on October 1, 2007 7:36 PM:

Screw her. She's looking forward to being a War President. She's just hoping that Bush is stupid enough to start the war and take the blame for it before the election.

This is another comment that makes little sense. Why would HRC, if she is elected the first ever POTUS in American history, choose waste this historic honor and responsibility waging endless wars like Bush, the Village Idiot? Would it not be better for her to instead implement policies at home and abroad that would do justice to her and to all women who would follow her footsteps? Doesn't the weight of such a responsibility alone suggest to you that cheap wars of choice would do little for her legacy? THINK ABOUT THAT! HRC sounds hawkish because as a female she must to prove that she has cojones big enough for what has been heretofore a white male-only job. She is no more hawkish than her husband was. I had a long essay-post yesterday in another thread where I had elaborated on this... If I can find it I will post it here. But HRC is not as stupid as Bush, who was used by the neo-cons to wage a senseless war of choice thus squandering an opportunity to be one of the truly great POTUSes following the support and bipartisan goodwill that he had enjoyed after 9/11.... but I guess you know that already.

anns wrote on October 1, 2007 7:36 PM:

Does this Senator have a single position that is not poll tested? How much money did she spend finding out how much the naughty Democratic base didn't like her fronting for George Bush. Nauseating...
Please, at least the courage of your convictions.

VictorLaszlo wrote on October 1, 2007 7:40 PM:

Why would HRC, if she is elected the first ever POTUS in American history, choose waste this historic honor and responsibility waging endless wars like Bush, the Village Idiot? Would it not be better for her to instead implement policies at home and abroad that would do justice to her and to all women who would follow her footsteps?

Sure, that would be better. It would be better for Bush to act like that, too. Yet he doesn't.

Legalize wrote on October 1, 2007 7:42 PM:

Hmm, my liberal doubt is out smoking a cigarette. I'll get back to you.

Anonymous wrote on October 1, 2007 7:43 PM:

Edit: MAKE them filibuster.

dcshungu wrote on October 1, 2007 7:47 PM:

With all respect, most of your five bullet points have been operative for months or even years, and just last week Our Heroes passed a resolution condemning one of the strongest entities opposing the war, essentially [i]for opposing the war[/i].

I beg to disagree. That is cynical political theater, like the joke that is the resolution introduced today to laud Rush for his support of the military. Starting another war of choice , without congressional approval (if the Webb resolution passes), after we have lost more than 3000 men and women in Iraq and the military is stretched to the breaking point without end in sight, would be a horse of a different color... He would be impeached, I guarantee it. At some point, genug gets to be genug! Enough is enough!

dcshungu wrote on October 1, 2007 7:48 PM:

I find it laughable that you call my posts mindless.

HRC Inc. voted to confirm that the army of a sovereign nation was a terrorist group. In other words, they voted to confirm Dubya's insanity. Again. After standing up and swearing they were misled.

It's criminal.

What Levin and Durbin did doesn't concern me, Feingold et. al. are the only ones who seem to get it.

anon wrote on October 1, 2007 7:48 PM:

When the Webb amendment fails, Bush will use it as proof that Congress refused to say he couldn't bomb Iran. It's just more cover for Bush.

dcshungu wrote on October 1, 2007 7:54 PM:

dcshungu wrote on October 1, 2007 7:48 PM:
I find it laughable that you call my posts mindless.

They are even more mindless when you are even posting under someone else's my moniker...mine

...and that is no laughing matter. I assume that it was inadvertent, but please do not post comments under someone else's name.

Thank you.

anonynon wrote on October 1, 2007 7:58 PM:

Hillary is only trying to assuage those who noticed her warmongering vote for Kyl-Lieberman. Hillary could impress the nation if she actually took a leadership role in ending this horrendous and criminal war in Iraq. She's bears as much responsibility for getting us into that mess as anyone including Bush. She ought to be working hard to stop it and long before my 12 year old son graduates from High School in 2013! I will not allow her or anyone else to endanger the life of my son for this bullshit criminal enterprise. Neither will I stand silently by and allow anyone else's child to be sent off to die to protect Exxon's profits. Fuck that!

colonpowwow wrote on October 1, 2007 8:06 PM:

"nauseating'
"manipulative"
"cold"
"War President" wannabe
"Screw her."
"20% less of a war-mongering imperialist than Bush"
"way too naive"
"particularly duplicitous"

Just a few of the thoughtful, reasoned, issue-focused comments on the 3,497th consecutive thread containing a positive message re HRC that was hijacked by the usual Hillogynists.

I see why dcshungu is a bit discouraged by the caliber of argument here.

benjoya wrote on October 1, 2007 8:09 PM:

if this amendment were to pass, i would reconsider my opinion that hillary is pro-iran war. otherwise it's so much chin music.

dcshungu wrote on October 1, 2007 8:13 PM:

It won't assuage my doubts about Clinton. Her vote for Lieberman-Kyl showed her to either be way too hawkish or way too naive.

Reflections on Clinton the "Hawk":
Is America ready to elect a female or a black POTUS? We'll see come November because it seems that the Dem will nominate either a black man or a white woman. But I think part of HRC's so-called hawkishness is to counter the perception that a woman would be too weak to be POTUS. To elaborate...

I am not privy to the internal deliberations or strategies of the Clinton campaign so that we I am about to say below is pure conjecture.

Mindful that HRC's 'weaker' gender might be a net negative for her in this macho world, I suspect that her campaign decided early on that her chances to be elected POTUS in a male-dominated world would be for her to show that she can be tough as nail. The "hawkishness" about her that many here have commented about would seems to me to be an attempt to counter the (wrong) perception that a female would not have the cojones big enough to deal with the likes of Mahmoud in Tehran, Kim in Pyongyang or Hugo in Caracas. This makes sense to me because HRC's top political strategist and adviser, Bill Clinton, was no hawk. He was a cerebral POTUS, whose response to rogue nations was always calm, measured and proportionate to the perceived offense. Little mentioned fact is that the same folks at PNAC (led by Bill Kristol), who ultimately convinced the current village idiot, GWB, to invade Iraq in a war of choice that's proved to be disastrous for US foreign policy, had actually tried to get Bill Clinton to invade Iraq, but he ignored them (see: Letter to President Clinton on Iraq, January 26, 1998). Please read the whole thing and look at who signed the letter and you will see that the Iraq invasion was a foregone conclusion waiting for its village idiot to be implemented. Here's an excerpt:

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

With a top political adviser, Bill, who successfully shunned the neo-cons, I believe that HRC's so-called hawkishness is a deliberate compensation for the fact that she might not get credibility as a POTUS because she is a woman. She needs to beef up her cojones! I am not concerned about HRC as POTUS invading Iran in a war of choice. She'll be too busy crafting a record of positive achievements as the first ever female POTUS to get marred in endless wars. For the same reason, I believe that she will try to get us out of Iraq as quickly and as responsibly as possible. The world might be willing to help that happen if there is a change in top leadership in the US... I can see Bill Clinton being the US Ambassador to the UN and successfully undoing some or most of the damage that the current administration has done with our long time allies.

To many on this board, unless you are a Wellstone or a Feingold, you are hawk! Bill was no hawk and I do not expect his life-long partner to be either. It would make no sense...

dcshungu wrote on October 1, 2007 8:28 PM:

Just in case I mangled the HTML version of the link for the neo-cons' letter to Bill Clinton on invading Iraq, here's the explicit link:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Please navigate the site and fear for what might happen if we elect yet another Republican, who might be influenced by the folks at PNAC. It is scary stuff...

You want to sit this one out if HRC is the Dem nominee? The PNAC site would make you think twice...

"All that is necessary for the triumph of 'evil' is for good men to do noting." -Edmund Burke, British Statesman.

Gotta go...

fuzz wrote on October 1, 2007 8:28 PM:

Watson,

I have listened and I have read. Twice, just to make sure. If you would like to post the relevant bits of the transcript that prove your point, or a link to such or a link to the audio that would prove your point, please do so. The transcripts and audio I have read and listened to provide absolutely no context for "phony soldiers" except for a comment referring to a single soldier well after he made the comment. And "soldiers" is plural, not singular, so it's difficult to understand how he was just referring to one person.

"LIMBAUGH: Another Mike, this one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER 2: Hi Rush, thanks for taking my call.

LIMBAUGH: You bet.

CALLER 2: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am a serving American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly.

LIMBAUGH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER 2: And, you know, I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, if we pull -- what these people don't understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that's over there, it'd take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse, and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so. And --

LIMBAUGH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. They can't even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I'm gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."

CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --

LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --

CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.

CALLER 2: Exactly, sir."

jane wrote on October 1, 2007 8:36 PM:

Bush bombs Iran, much to everyone's displeasure. But the Iranians launch a terrorist attack within the US as retaliation. (Bush certainly hasn't done much to prevent one.)

This muddies the waters enormously. Suddenly, the Republicans have an immediate and compelling issue to run on, from Pres candidates on down, and the Democrats become even more craven and enabling than before (hard to believe that could happen, eh? -- but in those circumstances....)

And a Republican keeps the White House.

Why wouldn't Bush bomb Iran?

colonpowwow wrote on October 1, 2007 8:37 PM:

benjoya et al

Yes, I'm sure you would. It's not enough for her to sign on as a sponsor of an anti-Iran war resolution proposed by one of this site's heroes. It's only deemed meaningful at all now if it passes.

Of course, if Hillary had NOT signed on saying that it had no chance to pass, these same purist posters would have been skewing her for that. "Cold, calculating, cynical, polarizing warmongerer!", they would all puff while stamping their little feet."

You blindered Hillary-haters all remind me of Mary Matalin saying that Hillary's last Senate victory was "meaningless unless she got over 65% of the vote."

VictorLaszlo wrote on October 1, 2007 8:48 PM:

colonpowwow:

"20% less of a war-mongering imperialist than Bush"
...
Just a few of the thoughtful, reasoned, issue-focused comments on the 3,497th consecutive thread containing a positive message re HRC that was hijacked by the usual Hillogynists.

I see why dcshungu is a bit discouraged by the caliber of argument here.

The one quoted above is mine, and I didn't say that out of some kind of irrational hatred.

It's based on her votes and her stated positions.

VictorLaszlo wrote on October 1, 2007 8:51 PM:

Error in my previous post. To clarify, the line:
I see why dcshungu is a bit discouraged by the caliber of argument here.
should have also been italicized as part of the quote.

colonpowwow wrote on October 1, 2007 8:56 PM:

VictorLaszlo

"It's based on her votes and her stated positions."

Of course it is. That's how you came out with that precise 20%-less number.

Yeah, when I see a Democratic leader, the frontrunner for the party nomination with a 90% + lifetime liberal voting record, I say to myself, "That's 80% George Bush you got yourself there."

I stand corrected. Forgive me.

anonymouse wrote on October 1, 2007 9:08 PM:

I for one will still not vote for any person in this entire country who was willing to sign on to have other folks children attack Iraq while not even bothering to read all the literature. these are other peoples entire lives she and others used to further their own political goals.

Anybody in this forum for one moment believe that these same clowns missed a fundraiser or party during this same time?

Of course not! These people are not even worthy of being in the same state as the soldiers who have given their arms, legs, and lives because they were not important enough for their representatives to fully examine the data before deciding to send other folks off to war!

Enoch Root wrote on October 1, 2007 9:19 PM:

I want to make a point I don't think has been made yet.

The office of the President is charged with commanding the military. That is, the President is responsible for knowing when to go to war and when not to go to war. The President has the ability to wage war with Congress or without Congress (extra-Constitutionally). The office of the President is one of great responsibility, for this reason alone, with all the other reasons piled up on top of it.

So in voting to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq, and in voting for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, thus enabling Bush to behave irresponsibly in his capacity as President, Sen. Clinton has displayed that she is unable to carry that responsibility herself.

And that's all there is to it.

Now whether that's a reason to keep her out of office or not is another thing entirely.

colonpowwow wrote on October 1, 2007 9:29 PM:

anonymouse

I understand your passion and anger. I feel that way too and I strongly disagree, and disagreed at the time, with Hillary's vote on authorizing the war. It's important, it was wrong (in my opinion), and I don't minimize it.

That said, I'll vote for her if she wins the nomination, and I support her now as the best bet to beat the Republicans and bring a socially progressive agenda back to Americans. I like Obama and Kucinich especially and would happily vote for them (or any of the Democrats, even (ugh) Edwards), if most of my Democrat brothers and sisters nominate them.

I don't think it's in the interest of our country to sit out this election based on one vote (no matter how odious - see also, Patriot Act), and allow the Republicans to continue to flush our world down the drain. I'll bet if you look hard enough, even Russ Feingold has cast a stinker or two in his career that you would disagree with.

Thanks.

anonymously wrote on October 1, 2007 9:37 PM:

The Hillary people fail to realize that their girl is disliked, not just by the right or by Hillary haters. There is a huge cross section of the Democratic Party that does not trust or believe in her and for good reasons that aren't petty or personal peeves. The Hillary cheerleaders keep their blinders in place at all times and reject any criticism no matter how valid or invalid as Hillary bashing. Well, they can taunt the rest of the world all they want, and I hope they enjoy seeing her nominated because that's as far as she'll ever get because many people who normally vote Democratic will not vote for someone who is so obviously lusting for power, whose public principles are fluid and malleable with shifting political tides but whose agenda is and always has been simply to gain power for the sake of it.

Her willingness to play politics even with the life and death issue of war is enough for me never to cast a vote for her. How can one be so cynical and calculating and make any claim whatsoever to understand the common person in this country or to care about what happens to them? Sending young men and women off to their deaths or to be maimed or severely traumatized is where political calculation must end and doing whatever is right must rule. She couldn't care less about the lives of our young men and women because if she did she would have a plan for getting the US out of Iraq quickly and she never would have cast a vote like she did for the Attack Iran resolution co-sponosored by the mos untrustworthy phsychotic Senator ever to serve.

Hillary may win the nomination, but she will never be elected President. So enjoy it while lasts cheerleaders because when the drugs wear off you'll find that you have foolishly done all that was needed to make sure the Democrats lose what should have been a cake walk into the White House by nominating the most divisive and untrustworthy political schemer to come down the pike in many a year.

colonpowwow wrote on October 1, 2007 9:50 PM:

anonymously

I respectfully disagree. See my post right above yours for an example of my blinders.

In my opinion, once she wins the nomination and (especially) women, the largest and most active single voting bloc, start working and getting excited about electing the first woman president in our glorious history, I believe she will set the record for most people to ever vote for a presidential candidate.

Now for you more cynical and twisted Dems who grossly overstate your numbers, consider the sheer joy of sticking another Clinton in the eye of your real tormentors over the last sixteen years (That's the Republicans, not Hillary LOL).

I'll enjoy it while it lasts for eight years, thank you. Don't let the saloon door hit you in the elephant on your way out of the party.

anonymously wrote on October 1, 2007 10:02 PM:

What joy will any of us take when, in the unlikely event of her election as President, she fails to end the war as we know she will? She won't even commit to ending the crime spree by 2013 for God's sake! How can anyone support that madness?

What joy will there be in facing the fact that she is entirely willing to let the young soldiers die for oil in the sands of a foreign country that never harmed our nation? What possible joy could anyone take in electing someone who cannot, even to this day, admit that voting for the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq was wrong or a mistake?

I will take no joy whatsoever in the election of anyone who continues the criminal war for even one hour longer than absolutely necessary to safely get our young soldiers the hell out of there and to end the murder of innocent Iraqis by our armed forces. There is no excuse whatsoever for Hillary's continuing support for the war and her refusal to do anything meaningful to bring it to a close. None. How can the election of anyone with a record like hers regarding this war be joyful in any respect?

In my opinion, Bush/Cheney are war criminals and those who support their crimes are accessories. Hillary is but one of them.

dcshungu wrote on October 1, 2007 10:04 PM:

The Hillary people fail to realize that their girl is disliked, not just by the right or by Hillary haters. There is a huge cross section of the Democratic Party that does not trust or believe in her and for good reasons that aren't petty or personal peeves.

Got any proof for that oft heard canard that is not supported by a single opinion poll that has been taken thus far. HRC is hauling in between an astonishing 60 and 70% of the vote in NY and CA, and beating her rivals (Dem and Repub) in almost every blue statee. So where are these Dems who despise HRC? I will tell you: there is a VERY small minority of Americans who are very passianate and loud, and do truly despise, not just Hilary, but also Bill. Fortunately, those folks live at the extreme fringes (left and right) of American politics and are, again, a very small minority. They won't affect any election unless the outcome is very close (viz. 2000 and the Naderites) and would never vote of HRC under any circumstance. So, we really won't miss them... yourself included.

benjoya wrote on October 1, 2007 10:07 PM:

look, i'm not happy that obama couldn't be bothered to vote on lieberman-kyl. that's marginally better than hillary's yes vote. but obama hasn't made this mistake before like hillary did. at least biden and dodd had the sense to vote no.

colonpowwow wrote on October 1, 2007 10:18 PM:

anonymously

Again, I don't minimize your passion on the issue or the wrongness (in my opinion) of Hillary's vote on authorization of the war. But to call her a "war criminal" based on that is, well, I hope you have a "froth-guard" on your keyboard.

Also, John Kerry (JOHN KERRY!) has the record for most voters ever for a Democratic candidate. You really don't think Hillary will outpoll Mister Excitement himself!? What state that Kerry/Edwards took will Clinton not take by a bigger margin? You add Ohio and some of the other "purple" states in this here 2007 political climate that Bush scraped through with in 2004, and we're talking landslide, baby.

Come on, even you can find joy if you look beyond your dour cynicism and blind Hillary-hate for a moment. Go to a Democratic Party office. Talk to people. We love parties. We hug trees and bunnies. And we love Hillary. Get into it.

DC wrote on October 1, 2007 10:31 PM:

It's interesting that this conversation has degenerated into accusing non-hillary fans as "hillary haters." Sounds like a gosh-darn old-fashioned high-school cheerleading match. In truth, we need less of the cheerleading and more rational decision-making in the democratic party, with respect to whom we support. This tribalistic way of thinking has been driving all of us, including the entire country, apart for too long. So, instead, why not just debate the merit of Senator Clinton's positions, since that's what we're supposed to be doing in the primaries.

VictorLaszlo wrote on October 1, 2007 10:44 PM:

colonpowwow: Of course it is. That's how you came out with that precise 20%-less number.

If you'll read the original post... well, here:

Yup. I'd scientifically estimate she's about 20% less of a war-mongering imperialist than Bush.

...you can see that I myself was having a bit of fun with the 20% figure.

It is honestly how I feel about her, and I stand behind it on that level.

But I know I pulled the 20% figure out of my ass, and I said it half in jest, and I thought I had signaled that quite clearly.

Gopher Interloper wrote on October 1, 2007 10:53 PM:

Let's see: HillBillary says we will continue to fight the war on terror; she votes to declare Iran's military a terrorist organization; and now she's going to single out some terrorists that we will not engage in battle? No matter your political persuasion the math doesn't add up on this one. ... Unless you look at it like a vote, in which case it's two-to-one in favor of taking out terrorists before they do something really bad to more innocents.

colonpowwow wrote on October 1, 2007 10:53 PM:

Just let me respond by re-posting some of the comments made about Hillary on a thread that follows her signing onto an anti-Iran War binding resolution (what a bitch, eh?):

"nauseating'
"manipulative"
"cold"
"War President" wannabe
"Screw her."
"20% less of a war-mongering imperialist than Bush"
"way too naive"
"particularly duplicitous"

Now, can you show me any such characterizations made of Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden? Okay, what word or phrase would you use instead of "Hilary-hate?"

People get excited all the time on here about Obama, Edwards, etc. Great. They're excellent candidates. Do you hear any of us Hillary supporters call them "blind," "idiots," "led by the nose by the corporate capitalist media." I've been called all these things and worse (think "azzhole on the take from the Clinton campaign."

I'll cheerlead for my candidate if I damn well please, thank you for your advice. If you want to know her positions on issues - read her website, or read about such things as her signing on to the Webb amendment and all-things-Hillary right here at TPM Election Central. Then after a post pointing out a positive Clinton position is written, don't let young children read the vituperative nonsense that always follows from the (whatever word you chose as more accurate).

We're basically laughing about it anymore.

dcshungu wrote on October 1, 2007 10:55 PM:

look, i'm not happy that obama couldn't be bothered to vote on lieberman-kyl. that's marginally better than hillary's yes vote. but obama hasn't made this mistake before like hillary did. at least biden and dodd had the sense to vote no.

You probably aren't easily confused but I am sure that I am going confuse you:
Obama was never in position to vote for or against the Iraq war resolution, despite his expressed opposition to it. Therefore, that vote is immaterial as far as Obama is concerned. He did not cast it and you have no idea how he would have voted. Now fast-forward, Obama goes to Congress and is now in a position where he can substantively register his purported opposition to the war by voting to cut off funding, and how did he vote? Flop, and he repeatedly voted for funding, thereby perpetuating the war. Biden and Dodd voted for the initial Iraq war resolution, but turned around and voted "no" on the largely ceremonial resolution do declare Iran's Republican Guards as a terrorist orgnization. Durbin and Levin voted against the Iraq war resolution but voted "yea" on the Iran Republican Guards resolution. Edwards co-sponsored and voted for the initial Iraq war resolution, but then when things soured and the netroots and far left activists were agitating, he flopped and became a serial apologer for his 'yea' vote on his resolution to preserve his 'viability' as a presidential candidate.

May the supporter of a candidate who is without a blemish on America's war policies under Bush cast the first stone...

As before I has stated before, this is not a very smart issue to waste time on. Most people out there do not care about it and it won't determine the outcome of this campaign. So far it has not made a dent. Despite his serial apologies on the vote and being the darling of the netroots, Edwards' campaign is going to fold after the first 3 early states unless he miraculously wins IA.

This is the end for me on this war vote issue. I will not apply a bitwise binary operation ( if (candidate & AUFM) == 1) then you qualify to be POTUS) in choosing the next leader of the free world. If I did, I would sit this one out because none of the current candidates ate withut a blemish. But this election is too important to be reduced to 0's and 1's. Two-bit thinking is very dangerous amnd it is the stuff of the fringe elements in any human endeavor. If this vote means that much to you, chances are that you are a far lefty...

dcshungu wrote on October 1, 2007 11:01 PM:

ouch! so many typos in the preceding post!!! Hope you can decipher it...

DC wrote on October 1, 2007 11:02 PM:

Colonpowow, the proper word for your last post is "trolling." Others may troll, as well, but that doesn't mean you should join.

phil james wrote on October 1, 2007 11:05 PM:

This situation is prima facia evidence of why I will not vote for Hillary. To wit:
1) Webb is a leader because this is his proposed measure to reign in Bush's current unitary executive prerogatives and forstall the Iran war
2) Webb voted against the Kyl-Leiberkreig amendment for precisely the reason stated above, which is the designation of the Iran Army as a terrorist organization which flashed a big green go light on what Cheney has in the works
3) Hillary is now testing the waters as to whether to sign on as a co-sponsor, presumably because her focus group therapists drew a bad reaction from her yes vote on Kyl-Leiberman.
4) Hillary has shown NO leadership whatsoever in the Senate in terms of curtailing the Bush War Machine and in fact has been every bit as much a Bush enabler as the thug party because of her equivocal stances on just about everything related to foreign policy
5) I for one would rather vote for a leader than a focus-group-driven equivocator

db wrote on October 1, 2007 11:08 PM:

Yes, be stupid and support someone who voted to send thousands off to die so morons like you could vote for her.

I'll stay home and grieve over all the death and destruction she facilitated in pursuit of personal ambition before i'll ever vote for her. N E V E R.

mkolb wrote on October 1, 2007 11:16 PM:

Good grief, I thought I walked into a conversation among Republicans until I ran into DCD, colonpowpow and dcshunga.

From those of you who dislike Sen. Clinton so much, whom do you plan to vote for in the primaries and why?

I can't vote in the Democratic primaries and earlier today I wandered over to visit redstate to get my blood pressure up and, I've got to tell you, the tenor of the conversation also carries about a gallon of vitriol, but there it's aimed at Ron Paul.

My other question is this, if Sen. Clinton wins the nomination, will you who seem to consider her on par with Medea vote for her or the Republican or sit it out?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Teaeopy wrote on October 1, 2007 11:19 PM:

Why should anyone who believes that Article I of the Constitution has not been superceded not be uncomfortable with Members of Congress who try to grant the President an option to commit the country to war? Some in Congress, including Senator Hillary Clinton, have tried to grant the option twice. The Constitution does not allow Congress to tranfer its power to declare war to the executive branch, or even to offer it in “nonbinding” legislation.

The Constitution notwithstanding, it can be hard to assert an express power that has been abandoned. President Bush must be glad to have been given political and historical cover by Congress, especially by the majorities in the Democratic Party. The effort by Senator Clinton to not look so acquiescent is understandable; after all, many of those who were critical of her Kyl-Lieberman vote are Democratic voters. The harm that has been done, however, is unlikely to be easily undone.

hadenough wrote on October 1, 2007 11:22 PM:

Yeah, kleefeld is a hack. Everything that moron posts could and should end up on Sargent's Horse's Mouth. Of course tpm and marshall went of the rails months ago so so maybe Sargent is out of place.

Anyway the hacktacularness of kleefeld:
February 14, 2007
IRAN: No Military Action On Iran Without Congressional Authority
Mr. President, at this moment of challenge for our nation, the vantage point of this august chamber, we look onto a world filled with danger, deeply complex threats against our troops and our national interests abroad, and genuine risks to our security here at home. Keeping our nation strong and our people safe requires that we employ the best and smartest strategies available.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=1328

For the "liberals/progressives/etc" who agree with whatever they are told as long as it bashes a potential dem nom for pres:

kleefeld:
"Now she seems to be working to make up that gap by working with Jim Webb on a binding measure to stop a war against Iran.
...
And either way, will Hillary's signing on as a co-sponsor help to assuage liberal doubts about her positions on the Middle East?"

Could morons like kleefled be the reason some aren't sure of Hillary's position on the ME? Yes. Morons like kleefeld put a repub in the white house twice. Now they are working on a hat trick.

Now its possible kleefeld is not lying in this case and just has no idea what Hillary's position on war with Iran is. Its possible he was just typing away without a clue. Do ya think maybe he should have spent a second finding out what Hillary's position on the ME might be? Hmmm... maybe. I do. But only if he was serious. A brainless hack would just type away. So while its possible kleefeld is not lying in this one particular case the alternative is not so pretty either. I ask again why is this moron allowed to post here or anyway?

VictorLaszlo wrote on October 1, 2007 11:35 PM:

mkold:My other question is this, if Sen. Clinton wins the nomination, will you who seem to consider her on par with Medea vote for her or the Republican or sit it out?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Yes, as much as I dislike her, I'll vote for her with a clothespin on my nose should she get the nomination.

Heck, I think I'd vote for Bush if it was either him or Giuliani, Romney, or Thompson.

To answer the other part of your question, I like Dodd and Edwards. Obama's OK.

colonpowwow wrote on October 1, 2007 11:47 PM:

Why, thanks, mkolb, for the kind words - especially after enduring the usual Hillogynists on this board calling me an "idiot" and a "troll" for supporting my candidate with joy (and encouraging others to do the same for their preferred candidates). What a bunch of sourpusses the Hillary-haters are, eh?

I don't think they're going to vote for anybody (or is that for anybody-but-Hillary? - Their blind vituperousness positively gives me the vapours and makes me dizzy sometimes).

In 2000, I asked the progressiver-than-thous to please, PuhLEASE vote for Al Gore. It's very important I told them as I pleaded with tears in my heart.

This time around however, I am asking that they take care that the saloon door does not hit them in their elephant on their way out of the party.

Good Jah, that's liberating! And that's how I really feel about their self-important azzes and their dire warnings to us Hillary supporters based on nothing but Chertoff-like gut feelings about blowing the election (although nobody can point to any poll data showing how this will happen). Oh well, what does one expect from the self-proclaimed reality-based posters here.

capitalistimperialistpig wrote on October 1, 2007 11:47 PM:

One way to give the amendment teeth, is to have it include explicit language declaring that a unilateral attack on Iran, by the President is illegal, and that an order to attack without Congressional authorization is an illegal usurpation of the Constitutional powers of the Congress, and must not be obeyed. Remind officers that they took an oath to the constitution, not to George Bush.

colonpowwow wrote on October 1, 2007 11:56 PM:

VictorLaszlo

I just wanted to acknowledge that I misread your post and didn't catch your joke re the 20% thing.

My apologies, although I still disagree on your contention that Hillary is like George W. Bush in any meaningful way whatsoever re the war in Iraq.

DC wrote on October 2, 2007 12:32 AM:

OK, colonpowow, how about debating the utility of some of Senator Clinton's positions (rather than throwing insults to those who disagree with you):

1. It isn't prudent to name the iranian republican guard a "terrorist organization" when Bush's record is to take congress's belligerent resolutions as political encouragement for warfare. Also, it doesn't make rational sense to declare one portion of a sovereign's armed forces a terrorist organization without naming the entire military terrorist. In reality, the only thing that resolution will accomplish is to be used as Bush's bootstrap.

2. Clinton's refusal to acknowledge that she didn't make a mistake in October 2002 will come back to haunt her. If you're asking an undecided voter in the national election to choose between two pro-war candidates, why not choose the republican one?

3. Why in the world offer five grand to every new baby born in the US. That looks like an attempt to buy votes from the socialist/liberal wing of the party. There are much better ways to support our kids' welfare than free handouts, such as: expand the availability of federal education grants to those who need it; expand availability of low-interest school loans, which have been cut drastically; take that money and hire more teachers instead, and so on...

There are many more. What else have you guys got?

Michael Caine wrote on October 2, 2007 1:47 AM:

Hillary has had months to sign on as a co-sponsor of Webb's bill. Now, just after ignoring Webb's plea to not vote for the Kyl-Lieberman bill, Hillary offers to co-sponsor the bill? Sounds more likely that this is another Clinton dodge.

She is getting roasted over voting for the Kyl-Lieberman bill. Her internal polls are probably showing it eating her very soft lead in the poll and so suddenly she leaps to sign onto a bill that gives her a soundbite on opposing Bush attacking Iran. Only the bill has no chance of passing and does nothing to prevent Bush from attacking Terrorist Organizations in Iran.

Shills for Hillary like dschunga and colonpowwow (pretty much the only two defending her, though they post so often its like they are trying to give the illusion of greater support) are in a fucked (the word is too perfect for the situation) situation of trying to pump up her completely inadequate gesture to appease Democrats and convince them again that she actually learned something from AUMF. Again, just like the man currently in the WH, she refuses to apologize for her vote. She, and her shills, are either lying about what the Kyl-Lieberman bill actually does or are completely clueless. I don't know which is worse.

Hillary is a fine Senator. She would be an excellent one if she would actually use her extraordinary mind to craft and improve legislation rather than trying to perpetually use it to position herself for a White House run. Her votes for AUMF and Kyl-Lieberman were abysmal attempts to appear strong. Instead they made her look more concerned with focus groups and polls than with principles and understanding the possible ramifications of her votes.

It is my hope that she will end her perpetual positioning for the White House after losing the Democratic nomination in 2008 and focus on being the excellent Senator she has the capability of being. She might find that come 2016, being an excellent Senator with an extraordinary mind is exactly the best positioning she can do to have people trust her enough to nominate her as the Democratic Presidential Candidate.

At this point, with all her non-answer answers. BS slander attacks of inexperience when she has less time in public office than any of the candidates running other than Edwards. Irresponsible votes in the Senate in ill advised attempts to position herself as Presidential. And her misguided assertion that the way to beat the Republican Attack Machine is to become just like it. Hillary has proven over and over again that she is the wrong choice to be the Democratic Presidential Candidate for 2008.

Cugel wrote on October 2, 2007 2:23 AM:

Anyone who doubts Bush will attack Iran hasn't been paying attention to Sy Hersh's articles. Why do you think the military brass is leaking this stuff? They are scared stiff because Bush is ordering them to prepare for an attack.

And of course, he has no idea what the Iranians will do in retaliation. But, he knows that if he gets his wider war, then suddenly there's NO WAY for anybody to pressure him to withdraw from Iraq. He's locked the U.S. in, or to use Bush's own terms "I'll fix it so that they [his successor] won't be able to walk away from America's destiny in Iraq."

truman wrote on October 2, 2007 2:31 AM:

There's no getting around the fact that Hillary is a supporter of the war. Her ONLY opposition is to how it has been handled--not that it was immoral, wrong, illegal, or even just plain stupid. She is covered in the blood not only of our young Americans, but in the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who have been murdered, maimed and wounded in our name because Hillary Clinton and the rest of them abdicated their responsibilities and allowed an illegitimate tyrant to invade Iraq.

That's not hating her and it is far from irrational, it is recognizing who she is and what she stands for: bloodshed, chaos, destruction, mass murder--anything that furthers her ambition. Her vote enabled this ongoing criminal war. She has literally done nothing to bring the war to a halt. Nothing. Instead of demonstrating any leadership on this issue and helping to bring the war to a speedy conclusion she has been plotting how best to position herself for getting elected. A true leader would do what she knows is right regardless of the impact on her aspiration to become President. Ironically, it would be precisely that sort of thing that would catapult her into office, but she would never think that way. How disgusting and repulsive to think someone of her intelligence and ability would be willing to have others die as long as it was politically expedient for themselves. Trying to flip flop this week by supporting Webb's amendment after her enthusiastic vote for attacking Iran last week is grotesque and insulting to the intelligence of the American people.

colonpowow wrote on October 2, 2007 7:19 AM:

What's the point of my "debating" my candidates' positions with someone with a closed mind about my preferred candidate? Although I continually give praise and credit to the other excellent Democratic candidates in this year's field, perhaps I just missed you saying something (anything) here remotely supportive or positive about the Democratic frontrunner with a 90%-plus voting record (the 12th most liberal in the Senate).

As I said, the common theme with some here seems to be: She's supporting Webb's binding anti-Iran military strike amendment? What a duplicitous bitch! How does one have any response but anger to this if you're a supporter of her candidacy.

I'm not insulting you if you're not one of the regular and predictable group of progressiver-than-thou Hillary haters who can be counted on to swarm and "comment" on any headline talking about something positive she has done, by insulting her and her supporters' motives and brain capacities. Case in point, in your very first post to me you insulted me personally, you didn't discuss the topic of the post or Hillary's position, or say something positive about her. If you're not one of the kneejerk Hillogynists I'm talking about, then I'm not insulting you.

colonpowwow wrote on October 2, 2007 7:28 AM:

The TPM World According To Michael Caine:

Prefer Obama, Edwards, Kucinich et al for the Democratic nomination = SUPPORTER

Prefer Hillary Clinton for same = SHILL

Got it. Thanks, as always, for your profound insight in explaining it all so clearly. And I know there's only just a few of us (called "Democratic voters" by some). Look at how all the polls support your piercing logic!

Oh, ouch!

Michael Caine wrote on October 2, 2007 8:03 AM:

Considering the number of times you post on this thread alone, saying the same thing over and over again. Shill is putting it politely.

Michael Caine wrote on October 2, 2007 8:05 AM:

Oh and you complaining about others being close minded is a riot, colonpowwow.

colonpowwow wrote on October 2, 2007 8:08 AM:

Michael Caine

Well since it's well-established in your mind that anyone connected with Hillary is either ignorant and/or lying, so why don't you just call me an ignorant liar?

Oh, that's right, you did.

Have a joyful campaign. I will (am).

slcathena wrote on October 2, 2007 8:27 AM:

colonpowwow

Okay, you previous post is one option. I have another.

Polls at this point are measuring the chattering class, and that is all (check out recent analysis by Cost to back me up on this). Think about it for a second. Think of people you know who do not check multiple political blogs a day. Are they still persuadable? Do they know the difference between Guiliani and Thompson...Obama and Edwards?

If you're being honest your answer is yes.

Which means that polls are a silly thing to back your entire argument on at this point in time.

I don't like Hillary. I didn't like how she botched health care (granted, I was like 14) I didn't like her vote on the AUMF, and I see her vote on Kyl-Lieberman as backing me up. The fact that she moved towards Webb after the heat hit is ridiculous to me, she only did it for polls.

Her voting record is abyssmal, not because of the votes she cast the right way, but because of those she cast the WRONG way. Additionally, I want one, just one, issue she has EVER led on as a Senator.

Just one.

colonpowwow wrote on October 2, 2007 8:40 AM:

slcathena

"I don't like Hillary." You see, that colors everything else you say. For example, one could look at her signing on to the Webb amendment in this way:

I don't like Hillary. But if she is responding to the barrage of criticism from her vote on the Kyl Lieberman amendment by realizing that she needs to be more forceful in her opposition to a Iran military strike, then good for her. I still don't like her though.

That would not only satisfy my incessant whine, you would be actually taking a bit of credit for influencing the front-runner to do good.

BTW - Hillary, as FIrst Lady, spoke before the House and Senate on behalf of S-CHIP which, of course, became law. Also, her first speech as a Senator on the floor was to emphasize the need for national healthcare and she outlined five scenarios she could support. Like it or not, she's always been a leader in this fight and most everyone knows it.

Nell wrote on October 2, 2007 10:17 AM:

Both Josh Marshall's post pointing to this article and the first paragraph mischaracterize Webb's bill.

It does not oppose war with Iran; it forbids the administration to attack Iran without an explicit authorization from Congress, and has several exceptions that this administration will use if they need to to avoid seeking authorization (hot pursuit across border, etc.).

Furthermore, I believe that this Congress would probably give Bush the authorization to attack if he sought it.

Still, it's important for Congress to assert its war powers, and it's a positive step for Sen. Clinton to support it.

But in no way is it "binding legislation to oppose war with Iran".

(Just as the Kyl/Lieberman resolution did not "designate the IRGC a terrorist organization", something only the executive branch, specifically the State Department, can do. Josh, Sen. Clinton, Pat Lang, and others have all used this careless shorthand, which misleads readers unfamiliar with the process.)

dcshungu wrote on October 2, 2007 10:58 AM:

It does not oppose war with Iran; it forbids the administration to attack Iran without an explicit authorization from Congress

I might be wrong but I believe that most here understood that this is not a bill to forbids the administration from attacking Iran. That would be a nonsensical bill. The bill was understood to require the administration to request Congress authorization before attacking Iran.

dcshungu wrote on October 2, 2007 11:00 AM:

oops! "to forbid"...

phil james wrote on October 2, 2007 11:45 AM:

The problem with voting for Kyl-Leiberman first then for Webb is that the two votes directly conflict. If you label the Iran army a terrorist organization you are basically saying they are a group that now requires a military response (which is the only way Bush responds to terrorists/terrorism) and because he has the AUMF he already has what he will claim is Congress' OK to do just that because of the alleged role of the Iran Army role in Iraq. To come back now and say, No, No, No, you can't declare war on Iran, you need Congress' written permission flies in the face of that previous authorization and the link Congress just made to Iran's Army. Plus the thugs will filibuster it so you have to have a serious backbone to get it thru which is something in short supply on the Dem side.

phil james wrote on October 2, 2007 11:48 AM:

Plus Bush could drive a truck thru the hole left by the "large-scale" language. Of course he's not going to invade Iran in force like Iraq, he will use what is euphemistically called surgical air strikes.

Coonsey wrote on October 2, 2007 1:39 PM:

The Congress shall

Have Power To Declare War.

Raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

Provide and maintain a navy;

Make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

Provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It’s time for Democrats and Republicans in Congress to stand up and be ‘counted’. It’s time for them to do what our 'founding fathers' set out for them to do; represent the People of these United States of America.

Read More...Coonsey's View
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

Malfeasancio wrote on October 3, 2007 2:21 PM:

Hillary is the favored candidate of the "investor-democrat": safe, as like, Starbucks. She more or less votes about the same as the neo-cons (excepting the pseudo-issue of abortion). She herself admits she did not even bother to read the intelligence reports provided to Senators pre-Iraqi war resolution.

Let's put it this way: if you consider Bush/Cheney war criminals, Hillary's a war criminal. She should be testifying about what she knew--or didn't know--in regards to the WMDs in Iraq. (on the other hand, a recanting ala Edwards doesn't really excuse anything, if the data was misrepresented, or invented).

Alas, most "conservative pacifists" (like the faux-leftist clowns at this site) can't quite figure out the little "consistency algorithm" in regards to the pro-war Demos..........

Trondafrodo wrote on October 23, 2007 4:50 PM:

Save money! No Prescription Required. Worldwide Shipping.
We supply the pharmacy medicines below, plus many more products at highly competitive prices: cialis online, cheap cialis soft tab, buy viagra, order viagra soft tab, buy levitra. From sexual health to a woman's health, sleeping aids to weight
loss pills, our online pharmacy offers convenient customer access to various health medicines, including an array of health product and medicare prescription drug. Looking for a convenient but reliable access to medicine shops? Our drug store pharmacy is the answer. You can now buy Soma, Herbal Phentermine and SleepWell (Herbal XANAX) among others online. And like real-life discount pharmacies, we are also a discount drug store.
Cialis Online, Order Cialis Soft Tab, Cheap Viagra, Buy Viagra Soft Tab Online, Cheap Levitra.

GabrielLawana wrote on November 8, 2007 8:41 PM:

what is freaking blog about http://facebook-proxy-vpn.blogspot.com
i understand that is for anonymous surfing people use it for http://facebook.com http://myspace.com other social networking sites
like http://360.yahoo.com how can i use it for torrent or eDonkey.

neidscarapaps wrote on November 13, 2007 1:52 PM:

neidscarapaps wrote on November 16, 2007 6:28 PM: