Hillary Clinton says she'll vote against funding the Iraq war!
By John Amato Saturday Sep 22, 2007 2:05pmGood for her. This is the right vote and the Democratic Party should keep voting this way no matter how Bush responds.
RUSSERT: As you well know you voted to authorize this war, voted to fund this war at lest ten times. Are you now saying that you will not vote one more penny for the war in Iraq.
Clinton: And these extraordinary brave young men and women should begin to come home out of refereeing this sectarian civil war. I voted against funding last spring - I understand we are going to have vote shortly about funding and I will vote against it. Because I think it's the only way that we can demonstrate clearly that we have to change direction...(full transcript below the fold)
HRC: Tim I am saying that. You know I've been guided by what I believe is the principle that should govern any decisions that any member of the senate and any one in public life makes and that is I try to do what is best for my country and for the troops who serve it. And I have seen no evidence that this administration is willing to change course in any significant way. We're now nearly at 3800 dead, we have more than 30,000 injured, the Iraqi government has failed to fulfill its part of the bargain to deal with the political issues that all of us know have to be addressed. I don't think the Bush administration has pursued the diplomatic agenda the way that it needed to be pursued and there is no military solution.
And these extraordinary brave young men and women should begin to come home out of refereeing this sectarian civil war. I voted against funding last spring - I understand we are going to have vote shortly about funding and I will vote against it. Because I think it's the only way that we can demonstrate clearly that we have to change direction. The president has not been willing to do that and he still has enough support among the Republicans in the senate that he doesn't have to. And so on occasion after occasion I have made it clear that if the president does not begin to extricate us from Iraq before he leaves office - which apparently, based on what he himself has said, he will not - when I am president I will immediately ask my Secretary of Defense, the Join Chiefs of Staff, and my security advisors to tell me exactly what the state of play is. I don't think we even know everything we need to know about what the plans for withdrawal are, how best to implement that and I will. And our involvement at the level we've seen has not proven to be successful.
Login or Register to post comments.
Sigh of relief. Nice to hear a little common sense.
Hillary is pathetic. Why didn't she vote against it before? Because until now, it hasn't fit in with her election campaign, that's why.
I don't think I've ever been first before! Maybe once before. Bit of a thrill. Simple pleasures, blah blah blah.
The thing I don't trust about Hillary is she just seems to say what she thinks people want to hear. I didn't used to think she was like that - but now I fear she is owned by big money just like every other scum sucking politician. I wish Kucinich weren't so ignored, probably because he's not a scum sucker...
How soon before she parrots Sen. Warner "I endorsed it. I intend now to cast a vote against it"?
You don't need a weather vane when you've got Hillary.
Cameron @ 2:
Your Right, but at this point I'll accept whatever get's our soldiers out of Bush's bad business deal in Iraq. Our soldiers should be supported and I say better late then never, she can't erase her mistakes from the past but she can get on the right side of this issue now and that's just find with me. (still hope we have a better choice in 08, Richardson would be my candidate, but I'll take any Democrat over ANY Republican.
"The thing I don’t trust about Hillary is she just seems to say what she thinks people want to hear."
LOL!! All politicians do that. A front runner in a political race is attacked by any and all challengers from both sides as being a "flip-flopper" or pandering. Republicans ,of course, have polished this tactic to it's extreme and the "media" runs with it.
I'll believe it when I see it
Good for her, my ass!! Some time soon, I predict, we are going to stop acting and thinking like young children.
If Hillary and the other leaders of the Party wanted to stop the funding of the war, it wouldn't be an issue of one or two or 15 people not voting to fund it, they could simply filibuster any funding bill attempted to be brought to a vote.
The fact that Hillary is now saying that she will vote against funding means absolutely nothing. UNLESS, she does what she has the power to do which is orchestrate the voting so that enough Democrats vote against to stop all funding. UNLESS she does that, her vote against funding is simply a political ploy. We know she (and her ilk) have the power to orchestrate such a vote, so unless she does it, we should recognize this as simply her powerbroking for votes and nothing more.
However, I'm sure this comment line will be full of people that actually believe this silliness.
She correctly identifies her 2002 vote as giving Bush the authorization to use military force against Iraq IF it failed to co-operate with the U.S. and U.N. inspectors (it didn't fail to do so), if it failed those inspections (it didn't fail those inspections) or if those inspections showed Iraq was a threat to our national security (they didn't show that Iraq was a threat to our national security or anyone elses).
It was the right vote.
It was NOT a vote "for the war". Everyone who has read the authorization knows this. Moreover, IF it was a vote "for the war", why in the world did we wait amost six months to make our move into the country? So Hussein would have time to gear up his supposed WMD for the big game? Of course not. It was an authorization to use force IF Iraq failed the inspection process. It did not. And the inspectors were TELLING us Iraq was not failing that inspection process weeks before Bush invaded anyway.
Again, as Hillary correctly identified her vote, it was a vote that might lead to war IF the insepections revealed the above qualfiers (they didn't). However, Bush abused the authorization she voted for by taking America to war with Iraq despite the fact that none of the stipulations for invasion in that authorization had been met.
Like John Kerry before her, she is the ONE candidate from both sides of the aisle who best understands the reality of the issues and has the smartest, best answers for how to address them to AMERICA'S benefit.
Whether or not enough of the American electorate will fail to recognize and appreciate that about Hillary Clinton this time as badly as they failed to recognize and appreciate it about John Kerry in 2004 in order to avoid another 4 years of disaster remains to be seen.
As the saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."
It seems like this should be a no brainer for every presidential candiate regardless of party. Bush is going to hand a mess to whoever tales office but at least get the bum to START cleaning up.
Other than stop funding the war, she also said she would support public funding of elections. If we could get there, that would take the war profiteers out of the election process. It would take the corporate lobbyists out of our elections. It could gives us back our democracy.
I like Hillary because of Bill, not because of Hillary. I believe the BigDog being back in Wash. could really help this Country when we need it most. It also doesn't hurt that the Repubes will take a shot or two in the mouth from it as well. I think the LAST person they want to see anywhere close to the most powerful person on the planet is Bill Clinton, and that's enough reason for me to vote for her, if she gets the nod.
Hell, at least someone is recognizing that it's politically smart to vote against the war.
My bile curdles every time one of these politicians says the phrase "Brave young men and woman" or "Our Heros"
Shut the fuck up you empty jackasses... You sound like Repiglicans...
Especially when you are simply looking for more percentage points...
Oh... thats right you are.
Now excuse me as I go have an enema.
She'll vote to defund Iraq while she stokes the flames of conflict with Iran.
Come on people, this is a politician talking out of both sides of her mouth.
They really should be asking her whether she'll fund the Iran war.
Ron @ 13:
It would... but then she would never get elected in the first place, After all where has she gotten her massive stack from??????? --which is why we hear about her being a goddamn front runner to begin with, is not because she has the best ideas, heart, conviction, ethics, and so on... IT is because she has the MOST MONEY, that she is the front runner...and because Obama has raised the second most.. he is in second place..
It is so disgusting...
It is because of that garbage ponzi scheme, that the best candidates cannot get elected...or even barely heard... and certainly never seriously considered by the largely sleepwalking populace.
Hilary joined in the hysteria saying Adiminejad should be allowed no where near ground zero.
the only way you can take this position is if you share the perception that Iran had something to do with 911.
If you feel it is because of Iran's link to terrorism, can't deny there is some of that. But Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Isreal all commit acts of terrorism. None of them should be allowed near ground zero either.
More election year bullshit.
Sorry. I can't believe a word either party says anymore.
So she is saying that she has assurances from the majority of democrats that they will vote for it and let her get by not voting for it like they have many votes over the past several months?
"The anti-christ will promise you many things during the tribulations." Hebrews, 4:20
Saying what the people want to hear.
Then having the guts to vote wrong anyway.
A true leader in reverse.
Kucinich
It's easy to trash Hillary Clinton - the right and the media have been doing it for years so there's no shortage of negative perspectives. Clinton may change to voters' needs and desires but don't we need a leader who listens to voters and changes to reflect thoses voters? Our current leaderers ignore polls and do exactly what THEY want.
We have George Bush who epitomizes this country's view of maleness: war games, bull headedness, arrogance, one upmanship, control, abuse of power... Isn't it time to try a leader that will take a different approach to solving this nations problems?
Can this country survive another male president?
A bunch of people have figured out its politically smart to be against Operation Neo-con FuckUp, from Powell to Greenspan to Hagel to Tweety (tweety, of all people, now if someone That dumb figures it out, woo boy) it was only a matter of time before one of the spinelesscrats caught on.
But does Hillary have what it takes to stick the bill and the blame for this mess where it belongs? Or will she go the way of many spinelesscrats and take it from the rethugs? Will she be able to do what previous great presidents have done - be honest with America about what our problems and challenges are, and have the leadership to rally our collective efforts around solving those problems?
My bet is she will do what all DC slugs do best, take care of #1 first.
You know what was missing on today's appearances was that little message at the end that says "My name is Hillary Clinton and I approve of this message."
Without it, she may be able to claim she wasn't representing herself.
Who Profits from this mess?
War and Terror Inc.
By Douglas Farah
Sunday, September 23, 2007; Page B01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR200709...
Wow. Brilliant move- I'd forgotten how crafty these Clintons are.
Here we go again, the weapons inspectors were NOT " kicked out " in 1998 , repeating the same BS the right wing , Butler pulled them out , as a matter a fact the inspectors were contaminated with spies , gathering info for a future attack . Clinton knows damn well , they were not "kicked out" .
Google - Iraq, inspectors, 1998. It's appalling how even the msm, first reported they were "pulled out by Butler " then reported several years later , they were kicked out . FAIR.ORG has many statements in 1998 and later , on how the media changed the story, into a lie .
Also little Timmy , you would THINK the accusation from Greenspan that the war was about OIL , the reason hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were butchered , and something bush has always lied about , you would think that would be the FIRST and most important question , requiring some time to discuss , nawww, he diverted to the old gotcha , making an issue of Greenspan liking bill clinton .
After 10 questions or so , FINALLY Timmy decided it was time to bring up OIL , allowing Greenspan to give some ludicrous answer , that Saddam want to block the Straights of Hormuz, after he got nuclear weapons . We'll that was an impossibility , he was under heavy sanctions , didn't have a nuclear program and besides , Saddam wanted to sell as much oil as he could to survive , so Greenspan was correct it was about OIL, but for different reasons , control of Iraq's oil , he was right , for the wrong reasons .
Greenspan is filth and I don't trust Hillary Clinton .
Eva Lawler @ 25:
Not a republican, but I don't think they want to win in 2008. I think they want to leave this mess in the hands of the democrats. I will try to explain my opinions later.
She also said today (on ABC), in response to a MoveOn.org question:
"I don't condone attacks on any American who has served our country honorably and with dedication the way General Petraeus has."
This, after the much ballyhooed Senate vote the other day. Imagine, Petraeus is an honorable man.
I believe nothing she says.
Eva Lawler @ 25:
Right, because the only thing wrong with Bush is his gender...
Yes, Feinstein, Boxer, Clinton, Pelosi... all women, all have done diddly squat to end the ward or change the satus quo. Thinking that a female president will be better just because of her gender is naive, if not idiotic.
She could dump palladium coins and platinum bullion, into my basment untill my house was on top of a giant mountain of precious metals..
And she still does not have my vote...
Why would I give her my vote when she is giving us all nothing but BAT SQUEEZE?
Come on, folks. You have to give Hillary credit that she bothered to learn the game. She's been fighting people like this her whole life, and if being a pandering ass is what gets her ahead and wins elections, then so be it. I have no problem with that. But by God, if you do that, you better damn well be the best president who ever ran this country.
My deepest disgust is that in spite of all the dirty tricks, lies and evil manipulation the Bush administration has pulled, they've still managed to do a horrible piss-poor job at runnung this country.
I have no problem with putting a coniving weasel in the White House as long as he/she does the job well.
How very principal'd of her!
Good gawd, have I fallen into the Little Green Footballs forum?
By all means, Ms. Clinton, say what the people DON'T want to hear, so they'll have a better reason for hating you. Don't EVER say what they want to hear, because then they're not going to believe you anyway. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's the Clinton Curse. No matter how good Bill was to the Repub party agenda, they hated him anyway and will hate him for eternity.
The so-called liberal media's hatchet job on Ms. Clinton is almost complete, with the icing on the cake being the vitriol posted on blogs. What a pile-on.
I don't give a crap. If she's the nominee, I'll vote for her. They all change once they preside in the Oval Office. Every last one of them. Even the anti-christ, as one poster so fondly referred to her, is better than the anti-christ to the nth power, Ghouliana.
Wait a goddamned minute. I'm not buyin' this shit just yet. All these politicians are all talk and no action. Now if she actually votes against it, then yeah, I'll believe her, obviously. Until then, not a chance in hell.
The Champ is out.
Eva Lawler @ 25:
Woah...
How did I miss this pile?
Well all I can say to this is...
If you really believe what you wrote... Good luck to you on election day.. I am predicting you are going to be very alone... as most people can see through her BULLSHIT, years of media spin on her or not (not that they have been very negative of her... even David Brooks is nesting in her lower intestine---and the rest are enamored and honored to call her a front runner)..
Due to a large portion of who I am seeing on the internet totally unmoved by her and the other front runners superficial, and plastic statements and actions. If it was not such a critical period in time, there would probably be a few million that vote period...
Sure plenty will hold their nose and vote for Hillary...
I however will not.. and I know there are at least 5 people out there that will join me in that refusal...
It is not because of her gender...
As Maxine Waters would get my vote in a second... but then again she is a bit to real to run.
Hillary kicked butt this morning on MTP and Timmy attacked her at all ends. Yes Timmy forgot about how his buddies in the White House lied on him in the Libby case. Timmy was scared and looking for support during his hour of need. Once cleared he's back to sucking up to the GOP. Hillary explained that on one has to support a comment but they do have to respect a point of view as he asked about the Swift Boat attack on John Kerry. There were no media out cry nor did the White House say it was wrong but supported it. It's really isn't MoveOn.org's fault because the White House announced they would give the report but released no one believes the Liar-in-Chief so they sent Petraeus to do it. Question to the media what would have been said different?
Hillary:
Timmeh:
This sums up Hillary for me.
I no longer care what a politician says. I care what they do, and what they have done.
That's funny -- on the exact same show (or was it one of the other three I saw her on this morning) she claimed that she was against a timeline for withdrawal, because it "emboldens terrorists" or something to that effect.
She's a big phony.
By the way, Straight Shooter, saying you'll vote for her is like saying you'll vote for Kodos. We need a real progressive in there, not a wolf in sheep's clothing. But I'll grant you that she's still better than Guiliani.
And of course it's "when I am president I will do (such and such)". She won't do anything now but make excuses, but when she is president, watch out! How many times have we heard this?
It seems HRC has backed off the 'I will end war' position.
She also said today (on ABC), in response to a MoveOn.org question:
“I don’t condone attacks on any American who has served our country honorably and with dedication the way General Petraeus has.”
This, after the much ballyhooed Senate vote the other day. Imagine, Petraeus is an honorable man.
I believe nothing she says.
Translation from politico-speech, for your benefit. "I voted against that stupid motion, I am not about to get sucked into a debate on Petraeus's credibility as a distraction from the important issues, I am not going to give you a dramatic sound bite, and that's the last ten seconds of valuable air time I am wasting on this topic."
Very smart, very aware that she is appearing on a hostile television show, not a neutral debate club meeting. Made me more likely to vote for her, but everything depends on who gets on board to fight the Iran war funding in the senate.
Yes, the Iran war, the one that is going to start the Neocon's World War IV. We are going to be extremely lucky if any restraints are made on Iraq funding, but if nothing at all happens, Cheney has picked Iran as the next battleground. He doesn't need Lieberman's amendment, he just has to know that no one will complain until after the first round of bombs hit. Watch the military grapevine for signs that Admiral Fallon is being bypassed by air force generals.
Yes..
This is the Freerepublic & Little Green Football blog...
Because we are sick of being lied to... sick of voting for ineffectual parasites... and even sicker of letting them slide because they wear a D near their name...
But no where near as sick of we are of YOU... who continue to enable the same slide that will occur no matter which GHOUL is in office.
BOTH CLINTONS IN THE WHITE HOUSE IN '08 EQUATES TO MORE OF THE SAME OLD SHIT...DIFERENT DAY , DIFERENT LABLES.
Eva Lawler @ 25:
That sounds more like a list of complaints from someone who just broke up with a dude, and don't necessarily represent male traits in general. To give an example on how absurd it is to generalize candidates based off of being male or female, consider who represents those traits you mentioned more, Margaret Thatcher or Mahatma Gandhi?
Seriously, using the sex of the candidate is probably one of the worst criteria you can use to judge weather to vote for that person. I'll grant you to point that both sexes tend to statistically gravitate to displaying certain traits both positive and negative, and sometimes a culture can push those traits even farther out. However, averages don't represent individuals and any person can display nearly any combinations of traits.
Furthermore, if woman were actually better at ruling the world (or a country), we'd mostly be living under matriarchies by now. Any look at the historical record will reveal that women as rulers have been a mixed bag and not something that has been inherently better or worse then their male contemporaries.
Finally, even if you take the list seriously, consider what the weakness of Democrats have been. Namely they have been unwilling or unable to stand up for themselves. So I think a bull headed Democrat for example, may not be such a bad thing. We already have Nancy Pelosi as house speaker, and she has refused to even consider impeaching the criminals in the white house, and hasn't passed substantial legislation yet (Reid of course is also at fault). Not that it matters either way, none of the other Democratic candidates actually seem to be any more or less aggressive then Hillary Clinton (except maybe the peace monger Dennis Kucinich).
Midland @ 45:
Better not read this then: http://www.antiwar.com/solomon/?articleid=10808
that's funny...b/c in her interview on fox noise w/ chris wallace, she assured his viewers that the troops would stay in irak. she also assured them that health care would not change.
i don't believe a word that comes outta ms. bushlite. she will say anything to get elected, to pump the base up.
i'm ready for a woman president, but i'm MORE ready for a president who cares more about america and freedom and justice and THE PEOPLE and human life than war profiteers. corporatist. hack.
thank you for that link marbotty. just what i was looking for. sending to my mom, a hillary fan.
straight shooter-
no, not LGF, just people who have eyes and ears and are reading, listening, watching.
she contradicted herself AT LEAST three times in one day in 3 different interviews with regards to iraq. she voted ten times to continue the war, and what, now that primaries are around the corner, she's going to try and start appealing to people who want to believe her? too little too late babe. and i'll wager that she'll be right on top of iran.
i'm supporting kucinich who is the only candidate, aside from gravel, who is serious about ending american empirical aggression.
if you vote for hillary, you're not paying attention.
It's about time. Our "front runner" is finally catching up to us.
don't put her down when she's doing the right thing.
Can someone point me to a blog that is pro-democrat? All I can find are these venemously hateful, anti-democrat, anti-Clinton sites. Thanks in advance for your help.
PurplePatriot @ 55:
Wow, that's like saying if you don't support Bush you're anti-American.
oldgringo @ 47:
Rest easy. I'm sure you'll have nothing to worry about. You'll all do quite well, I'm sure, in giving the white house to the republicans again.
More of the same, my ass. Have you been living in a cave for the last 6 years?
marbotty @ 56:
Yeah, exactly. That's exactly like saying that. Exactly. Thank you, Einstein. Go back to writing for Bill'O.
[Are we starting to fight here? Sitemonitor]
14All @ 15:
That's my feelings exactly. Politicians will always be politicians. But it really is the politically popular thing to do now..The Dems should start to realize it, and grow some balls!
If she become president she will look at the intelligence before she decide what to do?
Are you all happy with that answer?
kind of vague to me, and also allow a loophole for her to continue the war.
paranoia @ 60:
Well, she promises to do more than Bush ever did.
PurplePatriot @ 55:
So with your obvious mental dominance with your ability to find glorious things about Hillary that at the same time is totally unable to find places on the internet that reflect your brilliance...
It has never occurred to you that there may be a reason ..a valid reason for our severe disapproval???
Or is there a paycheck in there that blinds you to that hyper obvious point?
Just remember who it is we're talking about here.
I too will believe it when I see it. And after I hear all the qualifiying remarks she'll make to go along with that vote.
You don’t need a weather vane when you’ve got Hillary.
YUP.
PurplePatriot @ 57:
Have you been in a time capsule for the last 20?
Repig... Demo ... The difference over the last few decades is one pushes us down the stairs... and the other one shoves us.
Doctor Who @ 33:
Well said, Doctor Who. Sexism comes in many forms, and it appalls me every time I hear somebody say something like this.
rduke @ 62:
I can find a gazillion reasons to disapprove of anyone who has ever warmed a seat in congress. But I can find four gazillion reasons that the democrats need to beat the republicans. There is nothing glorious about her, or any of the others. Please point out where I said that, and I'll retract.
I just reserve my most venemous hatred for those who most deserve it.
This is the same old crap. She can say anything she wants now, knowing full-well that the Dem's don't have the votes needed in the Senate to do anything. Hell, she could introduce a bill tomorrow to require every Republican in Washington D.C. to jump on a bicycle with the seat missing, and it doesn't matter because they don't have the votes.
Here's what I'm looking for in a candidate:
anti-war
anti-imperialist
pro-environment
pro-universal healthcare
pro-education
not a corporate schill
I believe these are very much Democratic values. I believe that only a pair of possible candidates fit the bill, one of which is Kucinich, and the other is not running currently (Gore). Kucinich is also the only one that has left no doubt that he'll pursue peace, has created a plan to make healthcare available to americans, and has actually shown courage (not triangulation) when it comes to dealing w/ the current President. Hell, he's even drawn up plans for impeachment.
I am lukewarm on Edwards and Obama. Hillary, through her actions and words, has proven to me to be the closest candidate in philosophy to the field of Republicans. Even some of her talking points mirror some of the talking points of the Bush/1Cheney administration.
How is it being anti-Democratic by rejecting the candidate furthest away from what are supposed to be some of the core values of liberalism?
Mods: feel free to delete this if you think I am engaging in a flame war --- just felt the need to cast off the "Bill-O" tag attributed to me.
After reading most of these comments, it's clear that the republican party all think alike and have the same agenda and the democratic party is made of liberals, moderates, progressives, etc. that all can't seem to agree on the same issues; and that's what gets us fucked every time. Meanwhile the repugs just laugh at us as they pass us by...
rduke @ 64:
Back away from the bong for a minute. Compare 1930's Germany to the Bush administration. Then compare it to the Clinton administration. My guess is you'll find that one adminstrations actions will remind you over and over of the things that went on back then. There is a difference. Just like there is a difference between Hitler, and those who could have stopped him had they really known what was going to happen.
If you can credibly argue that the neocon, socially totalitarian republican party is no different than the democratic party, then you need to write a book. I'll buy it ... if you adequately endnote it.
Of course Hillary wants to cut funding for Iraq. How else will she be able to afford a war with Iran when she takes office.
She also voted to support the Republican BS condemnation of Moveon.org like a good little sheeple. she is a liar, pure and simple.
Bingo!
"It would… but then she would never get elected in the first place, After all where has she gotten her massive stack from??????? –which is why we hear about her being a goddamn front runner to begin with, is not because she has the best ideas, heart, conviction, ethics, and so on… IT is because she has the MOST MONEY, that she is the front runner…and because Obama has raised the second most.. he is in second place..
It is so disgusting…
It is because of that garbage ponzi scheme, that the best candidates cannot get elected…or even barely heard… and certainly never seriously considered by the largely sleepwalking populace."
And over the past 6 years of Republican rule the money power has grown and grown and grown and I wonder if we'll ever get our country back. It's very sad and very frustrating.
RuckQ @ 67:
Thank You!
She the leader and heir apparent of the DLC == knows full well how her DLC minions will be voting. That is, voting to make sure her Nay vote will mean squat.
People are so gullible sometimes.
And about her 2002 vote -- the vote to authorize war -- she gave Bush the GO AHEAD to attack with her vote and rhetoric. Why -- because she voted against Levins Amendment that would have made Bush come back to the UN and congress...
People are so cultish sometimes.
Have to give her credit, she is good at the double talk. Didn't anyone notice she didn't say we would get out of Iraq if she is president, but that we will not be there at our present levels. Same old same old. They are all making so much money they don't give a crap. I am not interested in this BS, I want us OUT OF IRAQ, NOT JUST AT THE CURRENT LEVELS!!!! Kucinich says we will get out of Iraq and we should be out now. The more the rest of them open their mouths the better and better he looks!
marbotty @ 68:
I respect your every notion ... and don't even disagree (except I might think you a little naive if you think Gore is some sort of Capra-esque politician of the people). It's only anti-democratic indirectly. Your hatred may not lead you to vote against the democrats in the general, but many of the haters here have stated that is exactly what they'll do. That will only help the republicans. Therefore, it is effectually anti-democratic.
Eva Lawler @ 25:
Isn't it better to look at the qualifications and ignore the sex? If you want examples of bad women leaders and politicians, look at the women Democrats who supported the FISA piece of garbage: Dianne Feinstein, Amy Klobuchar, Claire McCaskill, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Barbara Mikulski.
That's 6 ouf of 11 female Democratic congresscritters who voted yes on this crap. More than 50% .
10 out of 38 male Democratic congresscritters voted for it. Around 25%.
Do you still want to make the case that women are automatically better than men?
tas @ 72:
Can you provide a link to document that?
It's Me @ 11:
So ignoring completely the fact that Iraq didn't attack us in 2001, that the attackers weren't from, near, or next to Iraq? That they were in fact 15 Saudi Arabians and four other NON-IRAQI persons? That bin Laden was in Afghanistan at the time? That Saddam had never been credibly proven to have posed a threat to the United States, either then or at any time before?
No, it was the fucking wrong vote. All the time. The thing for her to do is fucking admit it and get over it. Edwards did. I'm not happy about it but I can respect it.
tas @ 72:
She voted Nay actually (no surprises there -- the vote still was AGREED to with DLC help of course)... However, the best thing she could have done is what Obama did, that is, not even giving the republicans the time of day with that bogus, pathetic, distraction of a vote.
Ali @ 73: