Joe Wilson and Hillary’s Vote on Kyl-Lieberman

-

joe valerie wilson.jpg
Joe Wilson is off in Nevada campaigning for Hillary Clinton. Joe and I think similarly on many national security issues — and we have like-minded disdain for what Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, John Bolton and others have done to America’s global position.
But I hope someone in Nevada will ask Joe Wilson how he squares Hillary’s vote in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman Iran resolution yesterday. Hagel and Lugar voted against the resolution. Jim Web did too. But Hillary helped give the White House (which she may very well occupy) implicit authority to trip into war with Iran.
The Joe Wilson I know wouldn’t be too pleased with Hillary’s vote — but I imagine he’s forgiving the vote on the grounds that if that is what she has to do to get into the White House, do it — and then change course later.
But we really need to see some evidence that Hillary Clinton is not going to tilt at conflicts and rapidly deploy hard military force the first chance she gets as a way to define her presidency.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

35 comments on “Joe Wilson and Hillary’s Vote on Kyl-Lieberman

  1. Kathleen says:

    The message I get from Demz is that it’s not worth it, to use Pelosi’s words, to defend the Constitution. Just trust them, it’ll all be different when they sweep Congress.
    John Dean recently complained about the refusal of candidates to discuss “process”. A pity because that is where the rubber meets the road when it comes to preserving the Constitution.
    Soon, it won’t be “worth it” to have elections.
    Think of the money we’ll save.

    Reply

  2. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Astounding. These pieces of shit Democrats will let a President lie us into a war, let Rice ignore a Congressional Subpoena, will condone and laud Israel’s illegal breaches of international law and its horrendous human rights abuses, will stand idly by while Cheney has our soldiers shoving chemical light sticks up the asses of captive Muslims….
    but….
    …let some fat oxycontin addict make a stupid statement, and they’re all over him like flies on shit.
    This IS the Twilight Zone.
    Exclusive: Dem Rep To Introduce House Resolution Condemning Rush Limbaugh On Monday
    By Greg Sargent – September 28, 2007, 5:59PM
    I’ve just learned that Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) will be introducing a resolution in the House of Representatives on Monday condemning Rush Limbaugh for his “phony soldiers” remark.
    This is significant because it..blablahblah…”
    continues at….
    http://tinyurl.com/2vw89f

    Reply

  3. Carroll says:

    Wes Clark is much more of a barometer for me- He has been sounding the alarm bell about a war with Iran for many months- He’s one of Hillary Clinton’s biggest supporters- Trust me-he knows more than we do about all of this-he’s the canary in the coal mine.- If he’s okay with Hillary’s vote-it’s good enough for me.
    Posted by bberger at September 29, 2007 02:39 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That endorsement says one of three things:
    1) Hillary told Clark she is play acting on her Iran tough guy act and Israeli alliegence.
    or
    2) Clark has lost his mind.
    or
    3) Clark hopes by endorsing her he can have some influence on her ME attitude. Personally I think that hope is a long shot.

    Reply

  4. b berger says:

    Wes Clark is much more of a barometer for me- He has been sounding the alarm bell about a war with Iran for many months- He’s one of Hillary Clinton’s biggest supporters- Trust me-he knows more than we do about all of this-he’s the canary in the coal mine.- If he’s okay with Hillary’s vote-it’s good enough for me.

    Reply

  5. bberger says:

    Wes Clark is much more of a barometer for me- He has been sounding the alarm bell about a war with Iran for many months- He’s one of Hillary Clinton’s biggest supporters- Trust me-he knows more than we do about all of this-he’s the canary in the coal mine.- If he’s okay with Hillary’s vote-it’s good enough for me.

    Reply

  6. Kathleen says:

    Here’s Mike Gravel on the Iran resolution and Hillary’s support for it.
    http://commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/4175/
    Here’s an Iranian scholar’s piece on Bollinger/Ahmadinejad
    NEWS YOU WON’T FIND ON CNN
    Lost In Translation: Ahmadinejad And The Media
    By Ali Quli Qarai
    09/28/07 “ICH” — – First I want to make some remarks about that now world-famous statement of President Ahmadinejad at Columbia: “We do not have homosexuals in Iran of the kind you have in your country.” The American media conveniently ignored the second, and crucial, part of his sentence as something redundant.
    Obviously he was not saying, We don’t have any homosexuals whatsoever in Iran—something nobody in the world would believe, not even in Iran. And by implication, he was not telling his audience, I am a plain liar! —something which his audience at Columbia and the American media construed him to be saying.
    What he was saying is that homosexuality in the US and homosexuality in Iran are issues which are as far apart from one another as two cultural universes possibly can be. They are so dissimilar that any attempt to relate them and bring them under a common caption would be misleading. “Homosexuality is not an issue in Iran as it is in present-day American society.” This was, apparently what was saying in polite terms.
    Homosexuality in the US is a omnipresent social and political issue which crops up in almost every discourse and debate pertaining to American society and politics. So much so that I think it was a major issue, if not the deciding factor, in the last two presidential elections which paved BushÂ’s way to the White House and saddled the Democrats with defeat, because a large so-called conservative section of the American public (the red states) felt wary of the pro-gay liberalism of the Democratic Party.
    By contrast, homosexuality is a non-issue in Iran and is considered an uncommon perversion (except as an occasional topic of jokes about a certain town). Prom the viewpoint of penal law, too, it is does not receive much attention as the requirements for a sentence (four eye-witnesses, who have actually seen the details of the act) are so astringent as to make punishment almost impossible. (It would be interesting to know how many have been accused of it during the last two decades)
    By contrast adultery and homosexuality are legalized forms of behaviour in most of Europe and America, and regarded not as criminal acts but as perfectly acceptable forms of sexual behaviour and as legitimate natural human rights which need to be taught even to all Asian and African societies as well.
    There was also a subtle hint in his remark that he wanted to move on from this topic to more serious and relevant matters, a point which would be obvious to anyone conversant with Persian language and culture (like his another hint concerning the disgraceful conduct of Columbia president, when, while formally inviting Columbia academics to Iran, he added that “You can rest assured that we will treat you in Iran with hundred percent respect.”
    Iranians, being linguistically a very sophisticated people, speak a lot in hints which are invisible to outsiders. Americans in comparison tend to be straightforward and often as primitive.
    (In general the Persians, like other civilized societies, have developed the art of making and responding to harsh remarks in soft and friendly words. Americans, as Prof. Bollinger proved, have still much to learn from civilized nations concerning the civilities of civilized hostility.)
    Mr Bollinger’s hostility towards President Ahmadinejad had obviously been fed by devious translations and interpretations of his earlier—also world-famous—remarks about Israel and the Holocaust. As if, as one commentator has remarked, the professor had been watching only CNN and Fox News.
    · Unfortunately for more than an year these remarks have given a ready-made excuse to his critics to demonize him and attack Iran’s foreign policies. Although he has made some attempts (unjustifiably belated, I think, and not quite adequate) to clarify himself, we who hear these remarks have also an intellectual duty to ourselves and others to see exactly what he exactly meant.
    It is a basic linguistic principle of civilized discourse that so long as there is an acceptable and upright interpretation for someoneÂ’s remark, it should not be given a devious meaning. Moreover, as one of my teachers often says, it is easy to reject and denounce the statements of others, but the worthy task of every intelligent seeker is to try to understand people who hold different opinions. This is particular necessary when such statements originate in a different linguistic and cultural domain.
    When Ahmadinejad repeated Ayatullah Khomeini’s words that “Israel baayad az bayn beravad,” (which literally means that Israel should cease to exist), what is critically important for understanding is to see how Iranian people understand these words of their president. I don’t think any mature Iranian with some awareness of regional politics has ever thought that the late Leader of Iran, or the present president of the country, were advocating some kind of military objectives against Israel. By citing the example of the Soviet Union and the Apartheid regime in South Africa Ahmadinejad, too, has clarified what he meant by ‘Israel ceasing to exist.’ By the rules of civilized discourse, every speaker’s clarification concerning what he means is authoritative as he is entitled, before all others, to state and clarify what he means by his statements. In this case, Ahmadinejad has also clarified as to how he thinks that my happen: a general referendum in undivided Palestine with the participation of its Arab, Jewish and Christian population.
    As for his statement that the Holocaust in a myth, we all know that the word “myth” has several meanings in the dictionary. One of its meanings is “A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology” (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). Thus a myth is not something necessarily untrue and Ahmadinejad has not denied outright that the Holocaust did occur, although he seems to have—what he considers to be legitimate—doubts about its exact extent, doubts which are prone to be strengthened, rightly or otherwise, by attempts to persecute or prosecute scholars whose research leads them to conclusions different from main-current historiography. What he basically appears to question is that the Holocaust should be made an ideological tool for the pursuit of unfair and inhuman objectives—something which most of us acknowledge has happened in the case of Palestine. Why should the people of Palestine be made to pay the price for the guilt and failings of Europe? He asks. I think that is a legitimate question.
    The savants of the media are free to interpret AhmadinejadÂ’s statement with the purpose of demonizing him and excoriating Iran, but there are better and alternate paths for those who strive for understanding and peace between nations, and to an objective like this should institutions like universities, including Columbia, contribute.
    I hope that Mr Bollinger will advance a courageous apology to Mr Ahmadinejad and take advantage of his standing invitation for continuing the exchange of ideas with academic circles in Iran. Iranians generally are a large hearted people, like most Americans, and I hope the bitterness which has arisen from the unfortunate event of the past week will soon be forgotten with the sincere efforts of well-meaning intellectuals and officials on both sides. I cannot think of any other way in which good will between these nations as well as the good repute of an outstanding institution of higher learning such as Columbia can be salvaged.
    Ali Quli Qarai is an Iranian scholar. He has published several books, including a translation of the Quran. He can be reached at altwhid@gmail.com

    Reply

  7. Kathleen says:

    Party “leaders” are indeed deaf to the public and apparently are assuming that we’ll all just mindlessly go to the polls and vote for Column A or B, like ordering Chinese food. They make the mistake of thinking that those of us who opposed the war and want impeachment are the Looney left, meaning, I guess, a bunch of hippies on drugs, who don’t read.
    Big miscalculation. I regularly warn one Dem consultant, a friend of Steve’s and mine, that we are actually much better informed than the DLC and they ignore us at their peril. While Hillary is ahead in the polls, with a little boost from calling Darth, Darth, there is still a majority of Demz who have not chosen a candidate yet. That is the 50% who want impeachment. This is a bunch ready to bolt the party.
    Yes, Dennis Kucinich has taken that position, but most people don’t think he has a chance and are waiting for someone the MSM considers a front runner to decide. If you add the percentage that does support Kucinich with those who have not yet decided, you can see where the majority of Demz really are. Turning people off and cultivating apathy is one bad result. Getting people furious and working against the major parties to support an Independant ticket could be the death blow to the two parties. It’s past due.
    I’m wondering what the figures are on how indepedant voters are leaning… is there a candidate that is appealing to them? I think not.
    I’m sending Mike Gravel a contribution too. He’s the only one who actually did acheive something of significance for peace, ending the draft and releasing the Pentagon Papers. No one else can claim such an achievment. If he were Senate Majority Leader, we’d end that GD war. As he said, you go get those votes by the scruff of the neck.
    You’d think Hillary would have picked up something about all the mileage she got from calling Darth, Darth. Does she go with it? No, she supports another carte blanche to go to another war. Either she’s a slow learner or fence straddling is her forte.
    I say send all those aging draft dodgers first and then their kids. Bye, bye, Bill. Bye, bye, Dopey and Darth. And don’t expect to come home when your tour is over, it’s going to get extended, over and over. But you’re tough guys right?
    Here’s an interesting link to a site that matches you to a candidate based on your answers to questions on the issues. Surprise, surpise, mine came up Kucinich, but the highest percentage of matches went to Gravel. Verry interesting.
    Check it out.
    http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html

    Reply

  8. Chuck Dupree says:

    I generally agree with DonS about perceptions of Hillary, except that my bottom line is opposite: I believe she benefits greatly from public misperception. If rank-and-file Democrats really paid attention to her policies, they would be much less interested in her. IMO.
    I’m definitely disappointed that Joe Wilson, an average writer but apparently a class act and a great citizen, will settle for Hillary. But he’s basically been a middle-of-the-road Democrat all along; and the stress of the past few years has got to lead that family to the theory that some quiet time would be nice.

    Reply

  9. Carroll says:

    I don’t know how much of the public the callers to c-span represent but I have made it a point to try and listen to the call ins most mornings.
    What I hear constantly is that everyone, dems and repubs alike, are disgusted. They see no difference between the parties any longer. This morning they were brutal on the dems performance at the debate. “No difference, no difference, no one to vote for, they are all alike.” Most of this of course was aimed at the Iraq and Iran issue.
    Now maybe these people are more involved and informed than the average, but you can hear that they are from all ages, walks of life and levels of education. And they do, no doubt, talk about their views to other people in their lives and communities.
    One gentleman this morning said what I (most of us here) have said..that these politicans have no idea of the very real anger building up out here in the public toward everything about Washington. A lot of the callers said they just wern’t going to vote at all because it made no difference.
    I guess all this actually means it that people are getting madder and madder and madder. What will come of it or when something will come from it I don’t know. But I think eventually something will overturn this whole corrupt political system because it couldn’t be any more obvious than it is right now on Iraq and Iran that they just plain “don’t care” what ordinary Americans want or have to say. They just plain don’t give a damn. They all think they are rulers, not representives of the people.

    Reply

  10. DonS says:

    I think Hillary suffers from a public perception — readily stoked by the right — that she is the liberal from hell.
    Anything she tries to do to change that perception, and she’s trying about everything, will have only marginal effect, IMO, because of the efficacy of the branding that’s been done and how that’s been cemented by the emotional polarization she generates.
    So, yes, I think both: she is a neo hawk, and that nothing she can do will change the public perception that’s she a liberal. Ergo, I expect increasingly belligerant foreign policy statements and votes out of her. And, yes, if/when she is elected I expect the like in action because at that point she will still be trying to hone her fides, especially as the first woman pres.

    Reply

  11. DonS says:

    David Brooks, that ever helpful shill, continues to provide timely advice to democrats for not losing the election. He’s remarkably in tune with the notion that Hillary has it in the bag and that she needs to stay the course as a conservative on foreign matters. Only he thinks Hillary is for real, not pretending to be a hawk:
    http://www.tiny.cc/WGdFI
    There you have it. The putative shoe-in for Pres is either a for real hawk, or a hawk in hypocrites clothing. Ain’t we lucky.
    To me, it is the slimmest of hopes, that a politician will conclusively reject a position and a bent that is established during a campaign once they are in office. I understand that politicians frequently change direction, though seldom totally reverse course. But to premise one’s forgiveness on just such a hopeful turnabout is a position of utter weakness and lack of honesty.
    IF Hillary could read the scene, AND summon the courage to be forthright and honest, she would recognize the vast opposition to more belligerency in the Middle East. Americans have tired of the enterprise.
    It is a nasty trap to appear, genuinely or not, to hew the neo line while campaigning, the corollary of which is that the US stays in Iraq and environs for the foreseeable future, while seeking to distance oneself from Bush on technical grounds.
    Iraq is a not primarily a disaster on technical grounds. It is a strategic and moral failure.
    Hillary can’t credibly hope to criticize the policy and decisions that got us here while adopting the scenario that the architects project into the future.
    I say she can’t., but I recognize that hypocrisy can twist itself into all sorts of ways.

    Reply

  12. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Debunking the Neocons’ Iran War Measure
    By Gareth Porter, HuffingtonPost.com. Posted September 27, 2007.
    The Lieberman-Kyl Amendment is aluminum tubes all over again.
    The Lieberman-Kyle amendment has just passed the Senate overwhelmingly after two sections were removed to satisfy Democrats that it will not serve as a backdoor authorization for war against Iran, using U.S. forces operating in Iran. Even after that compromise, it remains a poison chalice, because it endorses a set of “findings” that are fundamentally false and which are being used by the administration to lay the groundwork for a more aggressive policy toward Iran.
    The amendment is based on the Bush administration’s proxy war narrative which has been filling the news media for the past nine months. It cites General Petraeus’s classic statement of the proxy war argument of September 12: “[I]t is increasingly apparent…that Iran through the use of the Iranian Republican [sic] Guard Corps Quds Force, seeks to turn the Sh’ia militia extremists into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.”
    It is not unreasonable to view the proxy war narrative as the equivalent for Iran of the infamous White House Iraq Group’s carefully contrived — and stunningly successful — fall campaign in 2002 to prepare public opinion to support an invasion of Iraq.
    The following six points summarize some — but certainly not all — of the evidence contradicting the line on which the poisonous Liberman-Kyl amendment is based.
    1. The administration has not come forward with a single piece of concrete evidence to support the claim that the Iranian government has been involved in the training, arming or advising of Iraqi Shiite militias.
    At the February 11, 2007 briefing, officials displayed one EFP and some fragments but did not claim that there was any forensic evidence linking that or any other AFP to Iran.
    One of the briefers admitted that it was only Iraqi smugglers who brought weapons into Iraq, explaining why no direct Iranian involvement could be documented.
    The official briefer who was a specialist on explosives, Maj. Marty Weber, claimed in a later interview that the use of “passive infrared sensors” in the deployment of EFPs in Iraq was “one of the strongest markers of Iranian involvement” in the traffic. But he admitted in the same interview that the electronic components needed to make the sensors found in Iraq were “easily available off the shelf at places like RadioShack.”
    Another official who participated in the briefing, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, denied that the military was claiming that Iran was behind the traffic in arms to Iraq. He said in a follow-up press briefing on February 14, “What we are saying is that within Iran, that these EFP component parts are being manufactured. Within Iran weapons and munitions are being manufactured that are ending up in Iraq. And we are asking the Iranian government to assist in stopping that from happening. There’s no intent to do anything other than that.”
    Although one of the official briefers said shipments of EFPs had been intercepted at the border in 2005, only one press report about such a border interceptions has appeared, and there was no indication that such interceptions had produced any evidence of Iranian involvement. On the contrary, it quoted “coalition officials” as saying there was “no evidence to suggest that the government in Tehran is facilitating the smuggling of shape charges into Iraq.” Despite that alleged interception, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita and Brig Gen. Carter Ham, deputy director for regional operations for the Joint Staff, continued to deny any knowledge of official Iranian complicity in EFP or any other arm supplies.
    Despite interrogations since last spring of a top official of an alleged Iraqi EFP network and the Hezbollah operative who was a liaison with the organization, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the U.S. Commander for southern Iraq, where most of the Shiite militias operate, admitted in a July 6 briefing that his troops had not captured “anybody that we can tie to Iran.”
    On September 8, the commander for the northern region of Iraq, Maj. Gen. Thomas Turner II, admitted in a press briefing, “I don’t think we have any specific proof of Iranians in our area other than reports. We have discovered caches….It has not been a lot. We have seen some evidence of some weapons that were employed against coalition forces that were made in…Iran, where they are coming from across the border, we’re not sure.”
    continues at….
    http://www.alternet.org/audits/63740/

    Reply

  13. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Interesting, but not baffling, that Steve is willing to give Hillary mention on her vote, but completely avoids mentioning or debating how Kucinich, Ron Paul, or Gravel stand on any of these issues. I still find it amazing that Steve lauds the long held positions of these three candidates, but refuses to recognize them for holding these positions.
    One thing for sure, these mainstream mass marketed frauds like Hillary sure as hell ain’t getting my vote, or my money. And I talk to many Dems that feel that way, particularly those that are more than lightly informed. It would not suprise me to see a very low Dem turnout, resulting in a Republican victory. But it really doesn’t matter, because if Hillary or Obama are any indication, this nation is fucked no matter which party wins.
    September 28, 2007
    No Hope in the Democrats
    Democrats signal capitulation on Iraq – and Iran
    by Justin Raimondo
    As the cool undercurrents of Indian summer hint at winter frosts to come, the rhetoric of the Democrats’ at their most recent presidential debate foreshadows their capitulation to the War Party on the two vital issues of the day: Iraq and Iran. The first fifteen minutes of the debate were devoted entirely to these issues, and, to anyone who wants to find hope in the prospect of a Democrat in the White House, watching the performance of the Seven Dwarves & Gravel (I’ll resist the temptation to dub him the Troll) was a depressing experience.
    “Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?” – moderator Tim Russert’s question was posed to one and all, and the Clinton-Obama-Edwards axis of frontrunners all refused to take the pledge, albeit each in their own way.
    Obama: “I think it’s hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don’t know what contingency will be out there.
    Hillary: “I agree with Barack. It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting.”
    Edwards: “I cannot make that commitment.”
    If your illusions in the Democrats as the “peace party” aren’t shattered, then your capacity for self-delusion is limitless.
    We’re going to be in Iraq for at least through the first term of the next President, and likely far beyond that – and it doesn’t matter what the voters voted for, or think they voted for. That’s American “democracy” for you, a system that George W. Bush wants to export at gunpoint to the rest of the world. No wonder the rest of the world is saying “No thanks.”
    It was Gravel who raised the real issue coming to the fore in this campaign, and that is the looming confrontation with Iran:
    “There was a vote in the Senate today – Joe Lieberman, who authored the Iraq resolution, has offered another resolution, and it essentially a fig leaf to let George Bush go to war with Iran. And I want to congratulate Biden for voting against it, Dodd for voting against, and I’m ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it. You’re not going to get another shot at this, because what’s happened if this war ensues – we invade and they’re looking for an excuse to do it.
    “And Obama was not even there to vote.”
    How that last barb must have stung the self-righteous Obama, whose self-backslapping – “I was against this war [in Iraq] from the beginning” – was an embarrassment. Hillary’s sinister laugh, when given the opportunity by Russert to answer Gravel, ought to have curdled the blood of even the hardest of the antiwar movement’s hardcore Democratic partisans. What followed was a pretty faithful recitation of the War Party’s talking points regarding Iran and the resolution passed by the Senate:
    “My understanding of the revolutionary guard in Iran is that it is promoting terrorism. It is manufacturing weapons that are used against our troops in Iraq. It is certainly the main agent of support for Hezbollah, Hamas and others, and in what we voted for today, we will have an opportunity to designate it as a terrorist organization, which gives us the options to be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders to try to begin to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with Iran.”
    The resolution [.pdf], sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyle, designates the Quds force, as the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are known, as an official “terrorist” organization. Besides placing sanctions on individual Iranian officials, as Hillary points out, it would also give the President extraordinary leeway in going after the Quds guards militarily – giving him, in effect, the power to unilaterally go to war with Iran, without coming to Congress for any further authorization. There would doubtless be howls of outrage from some Democrats, and even a few Republicans, but the administration would justify its actions – and quite credibly – on the grounds that the authority to go after “terrorists” had already been granted. Of the Democratic “majors,” only Edwards seems to realize the import of this.
    That Senator Gravel, alone, had the courage to raise the alarm, and confront Hillary on this issue, speaks volumes about the state of the Democratic party – and the political impotence of the antiwar majority in this country. Those who want us out of Iraq, and, furthermore, are bitterly opposed to the prospect of yet another war in that neck of the woods, are the new silent majority. Silent because we don’t hear this view reflected in the media – where pro-war commentary and “centrist” of-course-we-can’t-withdraw-until-2012 punditry prevails – and also politically impotent: with the Democratic frontrunners basically taking a Bush-lite approach.
    http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11680

    Reply

  14. Kathleen says:

    Well I certainly did not understand Wilson’s endorsement of Hillary, given her Iraq vote, but especially with Bill Clinton saying on Larry King Live, that she will use “this president” if she is elected. What’s up with that? How could Wilson support someone who is planning to use the person who outed his wife? Is the name of the game get on board with a “winner”, regardless?
    As for Hillary using Dopey, looks like they got a jump start on that gig, with Dopey giving her “tips”. For all we know, she’s been invited to join the WHIG and can play footsie with Carville’s wife.
    Now we have Hillary’s vote on another carte blanche for war, pretty soon we’ll all be wanting to fit Chelsea with combat boots, too.
    I think it’s extremely optimistic to think a Democrat is going to win the next election because I don’t think we’re going to have another election. This B.S. about giving Hillary tips is just a ruse to get people to believe Busholini is actually going to leave office.
    We are in dire legal peril. The republic is dead.

    Reply

  15. Marcia says:

    Perhaps this election will unfold as many others.
    The one with the big wad of cash wins.

    Reply

  16. Arun says:

    Foreign policy as a (pseudo) public good:
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff173.html
    Also attempts to explain the constant stream of foreign policy debacles (debacles from the point of view of the General Populace).

    Reply

  17. Chuck Dupree says:

    It seems to me that Clinton is the only leading Democrat with a realistic chance of losing in 2008.
    I recognize her crossover appeal; many Republicans, especially Wall Street-style Republicans, will feel comfortable with her policies. Existing power structures seem to have made it clear they don’t fear her intent or ability to change things.
    But there’s her high negatives, indicating that she’ll draw a large contingent simply to deny her office, threatening the Democrats’ chance at the real prize of 2008, sixty Senate seats.
    There’s the mutual antipathy with the base of the party, which is strongly anti-war and mostly for single-payer, no-insurance-company health care. Polls seem to indicate that Hillary’s leading in Democratic primary states because Democrats believe her positions are well to the left of what her campaign’s website proclaims. In a word, she will not energize the base.
    Then there’s the lack of clear alternative she presents. Suppose Rove did not choose her to attack on his way out the door by chance, but because he considers her, like Kerry in 2004, to be beatable, while people like Edwards, Kucinich, and Gravel run on issues Rove prefers not to talk about. I think of Kathleen Brown running against Pete Wilson, Brown known to oppose capital punishment but claiming while campaigning that she would execute just as many people as Wilson would. As a result she lost my vote. I don’t want someone one inch to the left of Pete Wilson.
    Senator Clinton brings unique negatives to the party; her unique positives are largely her gender and her husband, and her adherence to the DLC line.
    This is why for some months I’ve been predicting an eventual Democratic compromise, with the Clinton and Edwards wings each settling for Obama.

    Reply

  18. John Bowlus says:

    Hillary won’t win the general. It’s very simple in my dilletantish understanding of politics. Romney or Obama, that is the choice.

    Reply

  19. Carroll says:

    I should qualify my Edwards remarks by saying I see Dennis as the most “pure” on the issues…but I give Edwards the second slot in being the less corruptible of the lineup.

    Reply

  20. Russell Totten says:

    designating the IRG a terrorist organization says nothing about her theoretical military plans. it’s calling a spade a spade, and taking nothing off the table. nothing more, nothing less — and exactly what the country should be looking for in a LIBERAL, PROGRESSIVE leader.

    Reply

  21. Carroll says:

    Posted by MarkL at September 28, 2007 01:58 AM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That’s odd, I gone full circle on Edwards, seeing him now as the more sincere in his passions about poverty and health care and the corruption in DC.
    I voted for him as senator, then was not thrilled with his attention to his constituents. I think now that it was his staff’s lack of experience that might have been the cause of that.
    I have had the “phony” thought also but not so much any more. What Edwards has said is true, they have spent millions of their own money on schools for disavantaged children in this state…long before he ever got into politics…long before it could have been politically useful to him…so I give him cedit for that.
    I hate to admit that one of my cousins is one of those slimy corporate lawyers of the kind I hate. But he went up against Edwards many years ago before Edwards made a name for himself and said even back then Edwards was the most formidable legal opponent he had ever encountered at trial. So boyish charm and haircuts aside the guy is no lightweight. Behind the cute exterior beats the heart of a prizefighter.

    Reply

  22. MarkL says:

    Well, I’m not going to forgive Hillary any time soon.
    I have been rather positive about her campaign, but playing politics with the potential Iran war shows contempt for the public and their desire to get us OUT of the ME.
    In addition, Hillary’s repetition of the lie that President A. wants to “wipe Israel off the map” is nearly as egregious as the linkage of Saddam with 9/11 before the Iraq war.
    I think Edwards is a phony— at best he’s a mediocre candidate with good values. Obama clearly doesn’t have the heart, or doesn’t understand how to campaign to win. I think he would be a reasonable Prresident. That leaves Dodd, Biden, Kucinich and Richardson.
    Of those, Dodd and Richardson look best to me.

    Reply

  23. Sandy says:

    Interesting. As I read Steve’s post, my first thought was “he’s Swift-boating her.” And, you’ve managed to get everyone worked up and angry at her, etc…..which seems to confirm my instinct. Karl Rove would be proud of you. It’s just what they’ve hoped for. It’s why they want her to be the candidate.
    I think I know now where you’re coming from….

    Reply

  24. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Actually Steve, if you stand back and look at your comment, you made an active effort to provide a rationale for Wilson’s continued support for Hillary. It implies, at the very least, a tacit willingness to support Wilson’s defense of the indefensible. For, make no mistake, if he continues to support Hillary, (PARTICULARLY if he uses the rationale you just provided him), then he is in fact defending the indefensible.
    As you know, I already have considerable rancor when it comes to Hillary. I defy you to provide us with one single incident of her doing anything substantive to oppose Bush, or to hold him accountable for UNQUESTIONABLY IMPEACHABLE acts of abuse of power. But even if we ignore her non-participation in any efforts to enforce the rule of law as it applies to our President and the Constitution, as she is sworn to do, this one vote is plenty enough reason to deem her unsuited, unqualified, and undesirable as a candidate for the Presidency. The time for mamby pamby dissembling and excuses for the the abuses of our Washington “representatives” has long since passed. Dreaming up fantastic slimey scenarios to justify Wilson’s support for this Hillary fraud does not serve you well if it is your intent to decry Hillary’s vote. If you feel as strongly about this as you profess to, why not just question Wilson’s reasoning, and demand an explanation? But in any case, the fact that you, as a close insider, consider Hillary slimey enough that you think she would cast such a vote just so she could worm her way into the Oval Office speaks volumes about how you feel about her character and morality. The next time you laud the fraudulent shrew you can rest assured I will remind you how you REALLY feel about her.

    Reply

  25. Dan Kervick says:

    Politicians achieve power by building coalitions of powerful groups and interests. The coalition they build to achieve power is the same coalition they have to please in order to wield and retain power. So it’s just foolish to think that, once elected, Clinton is going to throw out the groups and policies that are central to her political strategy. These foreign policy positions she takes are not small trinkets and prizes she throws out quietly on the side to marginal interest groups on marginal issues. Foreign policy, and Middle East foreign policy particularly, are at the very core of her campaign, and the key to her backing among the powerful. She has staked out her position quite clearly. We know where she stands, and we can safely expect that is where she will continue to stand once elected.

    Reply

  26. PissedOffAmerican says:

    ROFLMAO!!!!!
    Washington Star Society Columnist Betty Beale
    Betty Beale, 94, a society writer for four decades whose syndicated column gave readers a close-up, largely sympathetic nibble of Washington’s upper crust, …
    http://tinyurl.com/36vhrd

    Reply

  27. Steve Clemons says:

    POA — come on. You’ve seen other posts that disappointed you more than this one. Clearly you have.
    I get what you are saying — but when I write that Joe Wilson is in Nevada campaigning for HRC and that I suggest someone ask him how he squares her vote — that should say “Steve Clemons must not have liked her vote.” That’s the way it would seem to me.
    One might stop at that point and say, “Hey, POA didn’t like her vote either. Perhaps Steve and POA are on the same page on this one.” That would be logical.
    Then Steve suggests what “Joe might be thinking” — not what Steve thinks — in writing that he may be forgiving her for the vote because she’s competent in his view and that she must compromise here and there to get to the White House.
    I don’t endorse that view. In fact, in my last line I intimate a serious concern that Hillary seems way too eager to define her presidency around upcoming wars….
    Wait, that sounds like POA too….
    I’m being a bit facetious here — and don’t mean to be offensive in any way, but some of you really need to step back and consider respecting my ability to write about what “others” are doing, and what others “might think” in the punditry and analysis I am offering. When I have a view, I usually never hesitate to share it — as you well know.
    But in this case, you both seem to be arguing that I believe that Hillary should be forgiven for the vote and that the ends justifies the means in this case.
    No I don’t.
    Sooooo…..after that considerable note, I hope you will reconsider your statement POA — and think that you have probably been more disappointed with other things I have written. And in this case, you may actually find that we have similar positions, though mine are clearly more subtly offered than yours (but that’s in our respective DNA I think).
    best to you — and I mean it…..
    steve

    Reply

  28. Carroll says:

    All of us wonder the same thing, will she or won’t she carry thru with her new found neoism foreign policy?
    Here’s the thing…if she gets into the WH based on her tough talk. Why would she have any reason to change course if she thinks that is approved of and voted for?
    Becuase she knows our current course in foreign policy is stupid? But she doesn’t want to say so because she will lose the stupids among the teeny tiny right wing lunatics?
    What about this doesn’t make sense? Polls keep showing that more than 70% of the public is against more “robust” foreign intervention. Yet despite that very clear public expression Hillary keeps implying that in effect she will be just as hard ass shit headed as Bush about extensions of American power.
    I can’t figure out this dissconnect. Is it she thinks the public is stupid? Or she thinks dems voters will have no choice except her so she in the meanwhile says anything she wants to pander to the fringes?
    And she will reverse course once she is in the WH because she knows this foreign policy is FUBAR?
    And voters are suppose to vote for her on the bet that she won’t do what she is saying she will do but will do the opposite of what she is saying?
    See, I told you it makes no sense. We voters can’t be both stupid and psychic enough to read their minds at the same time.

    Reply

  29. Carroll says:

    All of us wonder the same thing, will she or won’t she carry thru with her new found neoism foreign policy?
    Here’s the thing…if she gets into the WH based on her tough talk. Why would she have any reason to change course if she thinks that is approved of and voted for?
    Becuase she knows our current course in foreign policy is stupid? But she doesn’t want to say so because she will lose the stupids among the teeny tiny right wing lunatics?
    What about this doesn’t make sense? Polls keep showing that more than 70% of the public is against more “robust” foreign intervention. Yet despite that very clear public expression Hillary keeps implying that in effect she will be just as hard ass shit headed as Bush about extensions of American power.
    I can’t figure out this dissconnect. Is it she thinks the public is stupid? Or she thinks dems voters will have no choice except her so she in the meanwhile says anything she wants to pander to the fringes?
    And she will reverse course once she is in the WH because she knows this foreign policy is FUBAR?
    And voters are suppose to vote for her on the bet that she won’t do what she is saying she will do but will do the opposite of what she is saying?
    See, I told you it makes no sense. We voters can’t be both stupid and psychic enough to read their minds at the same time.

    Reply

  30. Dan Kervick says:

    Steve, you are the Betty Beale of your generation.

    Reply

  31. PissedOffAmerican says:

    I don’t think I’ve seen a post from Steve Clemons that dissappoints me and angers me as much as this one.

    Reply

  32. FaceOnMars says:

    Steve, I’m afraid this is one I’ll remember if Hilary moves past the primaries. I realize you’re giving her the benefit of the doubt in so far as possibly reversing course after appeasing the chunk middle to get to the top. Nonetheless, it’s very difficult to overlook an “end justifying the means” perspective when she’s currently occupying a position which most call “the top floor” in politics. I guess some say it’s necessary to “play the game” until power is transferred; however, in this situation, the vote really seems to empower the notion of unitary executive and minimizes the role of the legislative branch in so far as it’s oversight role of the executive branch. OK, this doesn’t authorize force, but it sure spells out to the population the Senate was on board to some exent. Dodd put it extremely well in so far as potentially “enabling” the President to take military action. This is all aside from the nebulous task of defining a state (or component thereof) to be a “terrorist” organization in the context of our national security and in light fair play within the international community.

    Reply

  33. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “The Joe Wilson I know wouldn’t be too pleased with Hillary’s vote — but I imagine he’s forgiving the vote on the grounds that if that is what she has to do to get into the White House, do it — and then change course later.”
    Oh yeah, gee, what the hell, why not? Lets just vote us into a war with Iran if thats what it takes to get into the Oval Office. Heck, after she’s in, she can just undo it, and restore all them lost lives.
    You must be posting from The Twilight Zo….er…I mean, Washington.

    Reply

  34. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Meanwhile, the traitorous shrew is lauding Israel’s criminal attack on Syria, citing dubious claims and intelligence as the rationale.
    Hell, why doesn’t she just move into the White House now, and she and this monster Bush can pair up and REALLY get into murdering Muslims. Shit, with just a little applied deception and a few more Israeli goosings these two monsters should be able to take out a couple million evil doers by Christmas.

    Reply

  35. Thom says:

    So you’e in the gave “the White House implicit authority to trip into war with Iran” caucus? Kind of surprised. With paragraphs 3 and 4 taken out, and the fact that Congress can’t designate anybody a terrorist oraganization, which you of course know – how did that amedment do anything?
    Here’s a post about it (and this person seems to think, like so many did, that the amendment designated the IRG a terrorist org.) I’d love to hear your thoughts.
    http://www.docudharma.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=846

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *