RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Anti-War House Coalition Leader Endorses Hillary

lynn_woolsey.jpgIt’s meaningful that a leading opponent of the Iraq War believes that Sen. Clinton is most able to end the war, and bring our troops home in a sensible, responsible way: Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey has joined Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and other U.S. House leaders — as well as Georgia state Rep. Calvin Smyre, head of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators — in endorsing Sen. Clinton’s presidential candidacy. From The Hill:

Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) got a potential boost to her anti-war credentials this week when she won the endorsement of Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), a co-founder of the Out-of-Iraq caucus and one of the vehement anti-war voices in Congress. [...]

Woolsey told the Marin Independent Journal Wednesday that Clinton “is the one who can take what she says and turn it into reality once she’s elected president.”

Of note: Today’s Des Moines Register has a story on Sen. Clinton’s vow to “tear up” the “blank check” for Iraq, and that “she would ask her security advisers on day one for a plan for the safe and orderly withdrawal of the troops in Iraq.”

Here’s some interesting background on the efforts of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, the first Representative to call for a troop withdrawal from Iraq and a prominent member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus:

Woolsey is an outspoken opponent of the War in Iraq. On October 10, 2002, she was among the 133 members of the House who voted against authorizing the invasion of Iraq. She has taken an active role in calling for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq. She led 15 Members of Congress in writing a letter to President Bush on January 12, 2005, calling for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq. She also was the first Member of Congress to call for a troop withdrawal, when she introduced H.Con. Res. 35 on January 26, 2005. Congresswoman Woolsey gave Cindy Sheehan the guest pass to attend the 2006 State of the Union speech by George W. Bush. Sheehan’s attendance at the speech became infamous when she was arrested for wearing a T-shirt with a political message.

And here’s more from today’s Des Moines Register article on Sen. Clinton’s campaign stump speech:

I love it when the Republicans get in power because they spend all their time talking down government, she said. You know: Government cant do anything right, governments this, governments that. Well, thats part of our birthright. Were Americans. We are congenitally skeptical about government, and thats probably a good thing.

She continued: But I always am just amazed that when the Republicans get back into power they cant take advantage of the privileges and prerequisites fast enough. They hand out all of these building contracts to their friends. They employ all their cronies whether or not they know how to do the job. They are willing to take everything government has to give while they are not giving government the kind of effectiveness it deserves to take care of everybody else whos outside that small circle.

Its not going to be any longer the government of the few, by the few and for the few. Its going to be for everybody.

Health care was another talking point today for Clinton, who said one choice Americans would have would be the congressional health care plan, which has 250 options, is less expensive on average than what people can buy through the marketplace, and taxpayers already cover 75 percent of the cost of insuring federal employees.

This is not government-run health care, she said. Anybody you hear say, There she goes again, she wants government health care, why dont you say, Well, thats interesting. You think Congress has government-run health care? Ask your member of Congress if hes got anybody in the government telling him what doctor to go to, what hospital to go to. This is private. This is accessible.

“It’s not going to be any longer the government of the few, by the few and for the few. It’s going to be for everybody.” You go, girl.

:::::::::::::

See also: This recommended diary at MyDD.com: “Congresswoman Woolsey Backs Hillary.”

  • Michael Lafferty

    Methinks she needs more rest. That attribution in the Des Moines Register makes Senator Clinton look and sound rather like a blithering idiot, which I know is not the case. But, her poorly formed expressions—and, the obvious tendency to gloss over anything of substance as she rambles—does not inspire confidence. Not at all. Who writes this obviously shoddy material?

    Talk about stumbling around her ‘talking points…’

    “Surely,” in the words of Governor Dean, “…we can do better than this.”

  • CK

    YES yes I believe I believe.
    I believe that Hillary will reverse her position on the wars, abjure her committments to AIPAC, repudiate her largest contributors, flip off Rupert Murdoch, return the Gollum-Sacks contributions and adopt the Ron Paul position on Iraq. I believe that this is what is called being a “flip=flopper” if you don’t believe and a “serious student of reality” if you do believe. Talks CHEAP, even cheaper in an inflationary economy.
    I do have one question I would like to see placed to Sen. Clinton. Senator, If you are elected would you instruct, or request, or demand the Federal Reserve to publish the M3 numbers again? ( Hint for some: M3 is the true measure of inflationary monetary growth )

  • TeakWoodKite

    even cheaper in an inflationary economy

    Can anyone explain why CITI would be able to charge off 19 billion dollars? M3 anyone? And we think China is manipulating currency? What does a week dollar do for the US? I would like to see the numbers they DO put out reflect reality.

    Politico is reporting Bush will veto the Defense bill because of a provision to allow damages to be sought against Saddams tenure. Sen Lautenberg NJ provision.
    Bush is said to be reacting to a request from the current “Iraqi government”.

  • CK

    Well Bhutto and her family only managed to steal 1.5 billion from Pakistan, there are $25 billion of frozen Iraqi assets in the USA waiting to be plucked.
    Chalabi didn’t quite get his hands on them but Maliki and crew are more persistent.
    Every charge off lowers CITI’s net worth, enough charge offs and CITI is history.
    What does a weak $ do for the USA.
    Theory: makes the exports cheaper and the imports cost more.
    Secondary theory: A declining dollar means that the $3 Trillion held by China and Japan and other players are depreciating assets. Of course these are static analysis theories, in a dynamic world, other players pre-act based on their POLITICAL strategies as well as their rational economic expectations. Some nations move away from selling things to the USA and sell them instead to other more worthy countries, some nations move away from any $ denominated trading and require payment for their exports in stable or rising currencies.
    Actuality: a declining $ is a way to rip off folks who don’t react or who can’t react. American citizens can’t react by buying and selling their daily needs in Euros or yen or yuan so as always a decling dollar just screws the citizenry.

  • TeakWoodKite

    I’ll take door number 2. and retro-active immunity with that 25 billion, please. 1.5 billion ain’t what it used to be, is it.?

  • http://www.deadtide.com Kyle

    Hilary is pretty good at changing her mind once the polls tip past 51 percent the other way.

  • Taters

    Welldone Susan. This is good endorsement for Hillary.

  • Retired

    Actually, she probably wouldn’t do any of these things. The LA Times is reporting that Sen. Clinton is no longer taking any questions from citizens as she completes her pre-caucus helicopter tour of Iowa. And why should she take questions? What do the questions, or the questioners, for that matter, mean to her? She’s comfortably ahead in the polls. As long as that is the case, she doesn’t need to talk.

  • lester

    I’m waiting for the punchline with these hillary topics.

  • Nathan

    I can’t see how this well help her campaign. People will just dismiss it.

  • Nathan

    Damn it. I didn’t mean my original post to reply to the comment above. My mistake.

blog comments powered by Disqus