I saw on Charlie Rose's program, two nights ago, an interview of the two authors of "Her Way", about Hillary Clinton. I am frightened that she is on top of the list of Democratic candidate in spite of the distortions of her record on the war resolution she has attempted. She is already so feared, I believe, that reporters and other Democrats are not williing to expose her, to question her on why she did not support the Levin amendment to the war powers resolution of 10/2002. She now claims that she never intended that the president use military force as a first option. Yet, she voted against Democratic Sen Levin's effort in 2002 to require UN approval for any US invasion of Iraq! Also, she stated that Saddam Hussein had himself assisted al-Quaida agents in Iraq. There is not basis for that claim. I don't think anyone but Dick Cheney has put out such garbage. I fear we may be about to elect a liar on the order of LBJ, RMN and GWB in 2008. Sen Clinton's husband may have lied, too, but at least his lies were only about sex, not about war and peace!

I find the silence especially of the other Democratic candidates and of the media on Sen Clinton's attempts to conceal her misjudgments, her failure to read the intelligence reports before her October 2002 vote for war powers, her bizarre claim that Saddam himself aided al-Quaida agents in Iraq - I find the silence threatening. We do not want another liar in the White House!

Hi goedel,

Welcome to the forum. I agree with your sentiments about Hillary. I'm also a Democrat. I don't really want to see Hillary win the party's nomination, however I am also a bit discouraged by our other candidates. Honestly, I don't think this country is ready for a black liberal president. A black conservative has a chance, but not a black liberal. That sort of works to exacerbate the racism factor for people who do not agree with his liberalism.

I supported Edwards, but he seems to not be getting any traction among the base with his campaign. I don't know if it's conservative pundits who keep the focus on his hair cut, or his inability to take command of his own image, or what. I'm currently looking towards Obama as someone who I guess I like the best. I am bothered by his stance on Iraq and I question his ability to be strong enough on US foreign policy. We'll have to see.


WEB

__________________
Formerly W.E.B. Du Bois (you can still call me "WEB")

Current Diplomacy thread
WEB Music Playlist
Protest Animal Cruelty

I am disappointed that they don't challenge each other. They have an unpublished, perhaps unspoken agreement not to confront one another, it seems. Negative campaigning is not what I want to see, but someone among them ought to be asking Sen Clinton how she can deny reading the intelligence estimates before her vote in October, 2002: the estimates that found no evidence of WMDs, no impending threat.

[Of course, she read them, but she did not want to vote against the use of force. Why? We know why! She had her eye on the coming presidential election, and - as a woman - she feared appearing weak. What did she do? She put her presidential ambitions before the national interest and voted to give to President Bush the authority that Congress was given by the Constitution: to declare war. She uses the deniability - not having read the estimates - to cover her hard ambition.]

Not even Senator Levin, whose amendment to require UN approval for US military action Clinton voted against, is willing to speak up and ask her on the Senate floor: "Why did Senator Clinton vote against my amendment, if as she now claims, she wanted the use of military force by us to be a last resort?"

The Democrats are known to be wimps. It is no surprise that they do not wish to confront the person who may very well be the next president, a person with the ambition of a Lady MacBeth, a person who voted war powers but did not mean to. Hah!

I think that everyone really did believe that Saddam had WMD. I was opposed to the war at the time (not anymore though) and I STILL thought Saddam had WMD. I think that Hillary is just following the polls. I believe Hillary had a "stay the course" policy while the war was still not so unpopular, but then once the polls really showed people against it, then she of course changed her tune.

I don't think there is any unspoken agreement not to jump each other. Look at the Reps. They all went after each other (i.e. going after Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Giuliani). Why would it be different with the Dems? I think it's just that the base likes all the candidates and going after one would be viewed poorly by the Democratic base, and the rest of the nation. There's too much overlap among them to make aggression effective.


WEB

__________________
Formerly W.E.B. Du Bois (you can still call me "WEB")

Current Diplomacy thread
WEB Music Playlist
Protest Animal Cruelty

At one point, I was going to vote for Hilary but then I looked at her voting record and was completely put off by it.

That said, another Clinton won't take the white House I hope.

Whaaatttttt - you think the lib media is going to hurt Hillary's chances?

and so do I,,,shes such a pig faced liar,,,,jist like the other klinton

She already lost my vote when I found out she voted for the Iraq invasion, this is just making it worse for her.

There's no doubt Hillary is getting the kid gloves treatment, probably for fear that attacking her will cost the candidate popularity, especially for attacking a woman. There even seems to be a notion about that she's owed the presidency for all that she went through during her husband's term. The fact is she lied for her husband and rationalized his questionable actions, but people buy into some myth that she stands for high-minded values and compassion. All the while she's playing to every constituency that she needs to win the nomination, and blind as voters are, it's working.

__________________


Both stupidity and the greatest genius equally guide the destiny of humankind. (Dostoyevsky, "The Possessed")

I think Republican candidates are a significantly more adversarial lot.

I often say:
Republicans want to get rich
Democrats want to get laid