Hillary has Balls
By Larry Johnson on September 21, 2007 at 3:50 PM in Current Affairs
If you are looking for a President with a pair of balls then Hillary may be your man. Yesterday’s Senate vote to condemn MoveOn.org, which was joined by 25 Democrats, was a litmus test for political courage. Democrats like Barak Obama and Joe Biden who caved to the political pressure and sided with the Republicans, failed the test. They provided but another example of why many Americans don’t trust Democrats to protect America. Instead of standing strong against bullies, instead of confronting fear mongering head on, instead of calling out the Republicans on their hypocrisy, Democrats like Biden and Obama surrendered to fear and intimidation.
They may be decent and honorable men, but they don’t know how to win a bar fight. And they are part of a long list of Democrats who don’t know how to fight and win. How is it that a combat veteran like George McGovern, who flew bombers in Europe during World War II, could be painted as a wimp by a pathetic non-combat vet like Richard Nixon? And when Governor Michael Dukakis was asked by CNN anchor Bernard Shaw:
“Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?” Dukakis replied coolly, “No, I don’t, and I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life,” and explained his stance.
Dukakis wimped out. Most Americans would prefer to hear, “I’d kill the fucker”.
Americans do not want a man in charge of protecting the United States who does not have the emotional sense fight for his own wife. Then there is John Kerry. The Swift Boat attack against him was cowardly and dirty. But he failed to respond forcefully. He did not fight back. Which raised the appropriate question: If he can’t defend himself against a bunch of American thugs how in the hell is he going to protect America from the likes of Iran, Russia and China.
Which brings me to Senator Clinton. Hillary apparently is not afraid of being labeled as someone who hates the troops. In fact, she’s already been accused of that. But she showed me something important yesterday. She is not about to let her desire to become Commander in Chief compel her to join the popular crowd and play pander politics. There was some principle on display yesterday. While she is a woman and has ovaries, she shamed the likes of Biden and Obama. She showed some major league balls. She’s someone I am ready to support for President.
on sale for only $16.95.
also comes with a special spatula.)
(List Price: $27.95 - Your Price: $15.47)
“The story of poker is that of risk-loving America ... a crazy ride in unparalleled detail, driven by wit, wisdom, true love, and sizzling style. As analyst, historian, devotee, and no mean player, James McManus is poker’s most eloquent advocate.”
By Sarah Palin (Release date: November 17. 2009)
I wouldn’t go so far as to say Obama sided with the Republicans. He voted for the Boxer resolution, then left before the Cornyn resolution came to a vote. Because he said he wanted to protest the triviality of Cornyn’s resolution.
I don’t quite buy it. But it’s not the same thing as siding with the GOP either.
Where was Biden though? Why didn’t any of the other Democratic candidates speak out? They could’ve used this opportunity to slam the GOP for trivializing the war by focusing on an advertisement, instead of supporting the troops. They could’ve slammed Bush’s comments yesterday, the way Keith Olbermann did.
At least Hillary said no to Cornyn.
Leslie, Obama didn’t want to go on record voting either way on Cornball’s amendment. That is pathetic. Larry’s right — he doesn’t have the balls. ‘course, it has escaped me entirely why Obama appeals to anyone. Aside from that one ‘04 speech, when he talks, he puts me to sleep.
Sen. Clinton’s instincts on that vote were on mark. She wasn’t afraid to stand up to the GOP’s trying to shift the focus from how horribly they’re over-stressing the troops.
Her new surrogate, Wesley Clark, was good on both the stress on the troops and on the ill-advised MoveOn ad about Patraeus. And I’m guessing that, personally, she didn’t like that particular ad, but she also saw the larger free-speech issue and that the Republicans were blatantly using the controversy to take the spotlight off their own callous attitude towards the troops.
Did anyone else watch last night’s debate on PBS, from Davenport, Iowa? On economics? It was superb. Aside from Edwards, the candidates were terrific and constructive. (Edwards is getting nasty and hard-edged, and it’s not appealing.)
When she was introduced, Hillary got a huge ovation from the crowd. She was sharp and sensical in her answers. And, repeatedly, while Edwards was busy attacking her and other candidates (and, in one strange exchange, Biden attacked Richardson), she properly focused on the damage that the Bush administration and Republican-led Congress have done to this country, and what it will take to undo the damage.
She refuses to belittle the other candidates like Edwards does (boy, does he get snippy). She focuses on the real crisis we have in this country, and worldwide, from seven years of Bush — the huge deficit, the strain on the Social Security trust fund, Bush’s threat to veto SCHIP, and on and on.
OF NOTE: Judy Woodruff said that only candidates who have an office and at least one paid staffer in Iowa were invited by PBS. (Thank god! That narrows the field to six candidates who could participate.) CURIOUSLY, Woodruff said that they invited Obama but he refused their invitation. Not that he had another commitment, etc. That he flat out refused.
EERRRGHHHH, OK, Obama lacks balls [for lack of a better euphemism]! If he was going to vote for the Boxer resolution, he should’ve stuck around and voted against the Cornyn one as well. If he wanted to make a statement about how ridiculous Cornyn’s resolution was, the hypocrisy of it, and how it would set yet another precedent to silence half of America for partisan gain…then Obama should’ve made a statement on the Senate floor to that effect, as Dodd did.
Obama hasn’t been forceful enough on the Jena 6 either. Hillary was though. She demanded Bush’s Civil Rights division of the DOJ investigate the case. [Wonder how that investigation, if there even is one, will turn out? But at least Hillary is calling for an investigation.]
It was great how Hillary called Cheney Darth Vader too.
So what do we do: Start giving Democrats self-defense lessons?
P.S. Obama also gave the Levin-Reed amendment more credit than it was due, as a bill that would stop the war. It won’t. Because the bill doesn’t use the power of the purse, so the withdrawal date is meaningless.
Senator Dodd was correct when he said:
Senator Dodd has balls too! Oh, and regarding former Senator Edwards: He could take Ohio right now, but Hillary would have a tough time.
I like Dodd too. A lot. If he were in the White House, I’d feel alright. Wish he were younger or he’d make a fine VP candidate.
Obama simply isn’t ready. Based on one speech in ‘04, too many people got too excited about him too quickly. He needs a lot of seasoning. He’s probably teachable. But, so far, a lot of his instincts are way off. (I also don’t like his main adviser — whose name escapes me at the moment — next to Howard Wolf, he comes off as unkempt, disorganized, rambling, and not focused enough.)
Edwards I don’t get. He’s very smart and knows the issues. But all he has is 6 years in the Senate, and ZERO other political/public office experience. And just because he CLAIMS he’ll go after all the big corporations does not at all mean he is able to. (It really worries me when people take candidates at their word about whey they claim they’ll do, since that is a zero indicator that they’ll be able to carry through. Especially when they’re bragging, like Edwards does, that he’ll rein in all the big pharmaceutical and insurance companies, which — as Biden said in the debate last night — will fight with everything they’ve got, and spend an estimated 1/2 trillion dollars, Biden predicts, to destroy anyone like Edwards. [They spent hundreds of millions in the 90s with their Harry & Louise commercials, but they'll spend far more now.] It’s smarter ultimately to get along with these corporations, bring them on board, but also demand concessions from them — which is what Hillary Clinton said she’d do in last night’s debate. She expects to win concessions from them on drug pricing and on allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices.)
Hillary’s experience is similar to Obama’s and Edwards’. All she has are 8 years as First Lady and then a few years as a Senator.
But, as Obama told Jon Stewart one night, “We try to remind people, nobody had a longer résumé than Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, and that hasn’t worked out so well.”
8 years as a policy-involved First Lady who traveled the world and who knew the issues as well as her husband + 7 years as a U.S. Senator are nothing to sneeze at. In the White House, she was a “policy wonk” who studied everything as much as any one of Bill Clinton’s paid staffers. That’s incalculable experience. Then there were her years as First Lady of Arkansas during which she was also a “policy wonk” who was an active contributor to her husband’s administration.
Obama’s use of that line is fine, and a bit clever, but it in no way demonstrates that HE has the experience or instincts to be president. Which he doesn’t, for now.
So your point is that when Edwards vows to fight big pharma he’s worrisome but when Hillary works with them it’s just fine and dandy? And that benefits the people of this country in what way? I don’t get arguments like this. If anyone should know that you can’t negotiate with sharks it should be Hillary.
“Dukakis wimped out. Most Americans would prefer to hear, “I’d kill the fucker”.”
So - ummmmmmmmmm - holding to one’s principles instead of saying what most Americans would prefer to hear is wimping out in your world, Larry?
How terribly disappointing!
shirin: most people.. including muslims would want the death penalty for someone that raped and killed thier wife. Most people didn’t understand his ‘principles’. it’s not a matter of wimping out
but a somewhat normal human reaction to murder of a loved one..I’m just saying..
Hoopster, I think you have missed my point.
PS In case I did not make myself clear:
Larry, not I is the one who said he wimped out by not saying what most Americans would prefer to hear - i.e. that he would kill the effer.
My point is that abandoning his principles and saying what most Americans would prefer to hear would have been wimping out.
What is or is not a “somewhat normal reaction” to the murder of a loved one is not the subject here. The subject here is having the courage of one’s convictions strongly enough to go against popular sentiment. Dukakis did so. So did Hillar, in voting against the Cronyn amendment.
He could also have replied by turning his wrath on the question itself. “You know I oppose the death penalty, but I have to wonder what you’re thinking by bringing my wife into this, you sick motherfucker — as if imagining her being raped and killed would change my opinion.”
I think Larry’s point isn’t to disagree, necessarily, with Dukakis’ policy stance — that’s a separate issue — but to point out that the question was a form of bullying, and voters don’t respond positively to people who can’t stick up for themselves.
Let’s hope he’s right about Hillary!
My point exactly dude. Thanks;
I always thought Dukakis should have turned it back on Shaw, although it might have been risky. He should have said that it was a hypothetical question, so he was going to answer it with a hypothetical situation: He comes in the room where his wife has just been raped and murdered, and he catches a glimpse of the criminal jumping out the window; a black man in a blue track suit. He chases the man several blocks, fully intent on killing him when he catches him, losing sight of him only once. When he finally nabs the man who raped and killed his wife, he beats him to death with a baseball bat he just happened to have handy. When he’s finished, he rolls over the lifeless body and who should it be but Bernie Shaw of CNN out for a jog! He had killed the wrong man in his rage! He could have finished by saying that’s what’s wrong with the death penalty — innocent people are sometimes accidentally put to death by the state.
He also could have challenged Bernie to ask his opponent what he would do if he discovered he had executed an innocent man — would he still believe in the death penalty?
I’m with Shirin on this one, Hoosier, it’s no good having principles if they don’t hold when it gets personal. So yeah, if it was my wife, I’d first scream for the perp’s head on a post, then after the testosterone subsided, I’d agree that trial and incarceration were the thing.
Just as Dukakis said, Larry. You want a hothead for President? We got one. Look how swell that turned out.
Shirin,
Larry wasn’t being literal.
Okay, then what did he mean when he said that Dukakis wimped out when he did not say what most Americans would want to hear? That seemed like a pretty simple, straightforward statement to me.
Dukakis’ first instinct was to let Bernie know he felt he was being trapped by a question designed to do just that. “You KNOW (already) that I don’t support the death penalty….” People were just DISAPPOINTED that he didn’t begin by saying anything about his wife and how angered he’d be by such a crime against her. As if that meant he didn’t really love or care about her! How dumb! How facile. GOTCHA POLITICS. In league with REPUBLICAN DIRTY TRICKS. Deliberate efforts to get someone to say the wrong thing. And then go out and spin it against them. It worked, together with some other reasons agains Dukakis.
I’m still not sold on Hillary….but I am glad she had the courage not to be sucked into this shocking display….still one more…of Democrats so weak-willed they just automatically CAVE to any threat. They seem to have so little awareness of how they and these actions are being perceived.
Read this morning that Congress’ approval rating is now ELEVEN percent. Far below Bush and Cheney. That’s because they constantly CAVE and are so TRANSPARENT about doing ANYTHING…ANYTHING….to get to the election and hope people think the GOP are the bad guys. Instead they just TURN PEOPLE OFF. Who wants to vote for these pathetic losers?
And….if I hear one more time….”But they don’t have the votes….”
Bull shit! For their own self-serving purposes they took impeachment off the table soon after the 2006 election.
THAT’S what they could do. TODAY! The only drawback is there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence by now against W and Darth…..so, where to begin.
Truly pathetic bunch. As someone says, burn Washington to the ground and just start over. These people are unsalvagable!
Good post Sandy
What amazes me is how the Democratic leadership whoever they are thinks they are going to win in 2008.
First of all lets assume that it would be a fair fight which of course is a joke but just for the sake of argument.
I believe the optimum words of choice are “playing to your base”.
The Repugs are masters at this and even though they lost control of Congress it hasn’t hurt their or the Presnut’s agenda. (I would really wonder what the Dem congressional leadership would say they have accomplished with their “majority”)
The problem with the Dems is that they don’t have a clue who their base is. However they are making a fatal mistake if they believe the base that gave them control of Congress is still there and would give them a majority to win the WH next year. The antiwar base put them where they are, but by not standing up to Bush/Cheney they have effectively told us to go fuck ourselves. Well “vengance may be mine saith the lord”, but they will feel the wrath of us next fall when their candidates show up to garner the votes they got in 2006.
I hope I speak for many millions when I say I would not vote for any of the traitors next year.
I will not vote for a party that “took impeachment off the table.”
I will not vote for a party that continues to fund an illegal and immoral war in Iraq.
I could go on but you all know the rest of the reasons which are too numerous to mention here.
So do the math, in the last election in 2004 Bush and the Repugs got more votes than in 2000, so if the Dems are going to win the WH in 2008 where are the votes going to come from? Are a lot of moderate Repugs going to vote Democratic? Of course not because the masters of “of playing to your base” will make sure they don’t. Also is there any indication that even is Congress the more moderate Republicans are moving toward breaking with the party? In your dreams. In fact the ludicrousness of the whole thing is on the moveon issue some 23 fucking Democrats voted with the Repugs!!
So where else are the extra votes votes coming from? Out their asses? Out of a hat?
And if you count all of us who will NOT just for the sake of the party vote for Hillary Obama then they won’t even get as many votes as they did in 2006. So not only will they lose the WH to President Guilliani but they will probably lose control of Congress and then the takeover will be complete.
No need to steal the election or have another 9/11 event or suspend the elections, just sit around and watch the Dems fuck up their last chance.
The problem with the Democratic party which really has had little power for many years is that they only win when then Repugs fuckup and if anybody has their shit together in todays political climate, its the Republicans.
And as it goes in life people with their shit together usually always win in the end.
Yeah, maybe Hillary will surprise us all.
22 Senate Dems voting to appease the Repug base was a surprise.
Will a reinstatement of the fairness doctrine reduce the wingnut influence upon American media? It might save moderate Republicans from extinction. (They would be the ‘alternative’ voice allowed.)
I keep hoping Hillary will be brave enough to make a difference.
From an AP story, another good retort to the cheap move by the GOP:
It baffles me why Harry Reid let this thing come to a floor vote — he could have easily blocked it, just as the GOP, when they were in the majority, blocked censure resolutions proposed by Finegold and others. What was he thinking — trying to give some kind of cover to conservative Dems like Ben Nelson and Max Baucus?
Good point. Nancy Pelosi has blocked it from coming to a vote in the House. It sounds like there was a major screw-up in the Dem leadership that allowed the stupid amendment to come to a vote. Booman wrote a post last night explaining how the Senate works. One section:
That is pretty much the problem in a nutshell. Reid either doesn’t know how, or is too much a coward to put up a fight and so he gets owned at every turn. It seems the main difference between him and Hastert is that Hastert was somewhat effective in advancing a policy he believed in. Whether Reid believes in stopping the war or advancing it is unclear to me at this point but that he is wholly ineffective is clear.
The Dem leadership screw up! What a shock!
If these idiots ever got it together we might actually have an opposition party in this country, but first they’d have to kick the GOP-Lite DLC Dems out.
Well I pretty much think every one of Hillary’s policies from her pro-war stance to her crappy health care plan just suck.
But I have to give her credit for being the only one of the bunch with “balls.”
Though to be fair, I’m sure Dennis Kucinich hasn’t turned on MoveOn.org, I just wish the media would give him a fair shake.
When will Democrats in Washington finally realize that even if the public is with you on the issues, they don’t have any respect for sniveling cowards?
Lizard writes: Well I pretty much think every one of Hillary’s policies from her pro-war stance to her crappy health care plan just suck.
Excuse me? Pro-war stance? Care to flesh this wildly inaccurate accusation out?
Right, why’d I ask.
The Republicans are still winning no matter what Hillary did.
What about the other was it 23 Democrats who voted for the resolution?
Where are their balls? Right in the Republican vise where the Republicans want them. As the old saying goes “if you have somebody by the balls you pretty much can make them do what ever you want.”
For the Senate of the US to publicly condemn an organization that simply expressed its right of “freedom of expression” speaks volumes on how far the suppression of free speech has come. I am surprised by now that Killer McCain (I am so embarrassed he is my Senator) has tried to get Moveon’s tax exempt status revoked.
I applaud what Moveon did because, there are very few with the balls to stand up publicly to these assholes and be counted, Moveon and Keith Olbermann are two that come to mind. Keith has always been one of my heros though any day I expect him to be demoted to doing a live update of the depth of pigeon shit in New York city parks or worse. While Moveon has been somewhat tame in their public stands up to now hopefully they will become more aggressive and start running ads for impeachment.
If there is no impeachment there is no hope.
This is exactly what the Dems should have countered with: We have people dying in a war overseas, the housing market’s going down the drain, Americans need jobs and health care, and the GOP has its undies in a knot over a newspaper ad — where in the hell are their priorities?!
I have to agree with you Larry. I am afraid that anyone that voted to condemn free speech is not worthy of representing anyone in this country. Petraeus is a complete disgrace. MoveOn was kind in their portrayal. He is a traitor for taking orders he knows to be criminal. It is far worse that he would do the political show and lie for someone to congress because they are no longer believed.
Obama is now a complete coward and has proven he doesn’t even belong in the senate. Biden you expect this type of thing, he blows like the wind.
72 traitors to this nation voted against our right for free speech. Tickets will be sold for the fall of rome. You will be able to purchase them at all the local outlets, and view it on tv. you are seeing it now
I heard Barack Obama speak a noon today on my campus (Iowa State)and he did spoke strongly against the condemnation of MoveOn.org and strongly against racial injustice in Jena, Louisiana. I am not an Obama partisan (yet) and I don’t know why he chose not to vote on the resoultion (does one have to be present to vote?), but he his position on both matters seemed straightforward to me.
What is it with turncoat democrats?
“Americans do not want a man in charge of protecting the United States who does not have the emotional sense fight for his own wife.”
How does murdering the rapist after the fact constitute defending one’s wife? Answer: It doesn’t. It is an act of revenge, not defence. I, for one, do not want a president who will commit violence based on an emotional - or testosterone-driven - impulse for revenge.
Further, your criticism of Dukakis contradicts your argument that Hillary has “balls” because “She is not about to let her desire to become Commander in Chief compel her to join the popular crowd and play pander politics.”
First you call Dukakis a wimp for refusing to say what most Americans would prefer - i.e. refusing to pander - then you call Hillary “ballsy” and someone whom you can support for president because she refuses to join the popular crowd and play pander politics. Very inconsistent, Larry!
Well said Larry.
A cheerleader (Bush)was portrayed as more manly than a hockey player (John Kerry)
How hard can it be for a man to say, “I’d tear that son of a bitch from limb to limb or die tryin’?”
That sure is how I would feel about it.
And if it offends someone, tough shit.
Taters, first of all, Dukakis was not asked about what he would feel like doing to the guy himself, was he? He was asked a very specific question intended to get him to show inconsistency in his anti-death-Penalty stance. He stood his ground. And there is something WRONG with that?
For what it is worth, I am categorically opposed to the death penalty myself, and I have had the same tactic used on me. I have been asked whether I would want to death penalty for someone who killed my child. I can honestly answer that I would not. I can honestly answer that as enraged as I would be, and as much as I might feel the very human impulse to extract some revenge by hurting that person myself, I would not make an exception in that case in my position on the death penalty. Revenge would not bring my child back, nor would it ease my loss one iota. Nothing whatsoever would be gained by murdering another person.
So, I can very well understand Dukakis’ position, and respect him for sticking with it.
The key to the “correct answer” is how he would “feel”. Had he said something along the lines:
“Emotionally my first reaction would be to break every bone in his body with a ballpeen hammer and watch him gag on his severed testicles, but legally, spending the rest of his life in a 6×8 cell would be fine, and I believe the question has no right answer”
A newspaper ad is “disgusting” but racial injustice makes me “sad” - GWB 21 Sep 2007
Those bastards oughta be ashamed. That did it for me, I was keeping my powder dry, I’m voting for HRC.
Taters, if you believe the stories about Hillary’s ‘triangulation,’ she probably did it to gin up support from the Dem base — still, it was the right position to take and she also didn’t apologize to Rudy for making the suspension of disbelief remark regarding Petraeus’ testimony before Congress.
Personally, I might vote for her just to watch the right-wingers’ heads explode if she wins.
The big ass mistake staring us all in the face is the straw man that’s mostly being ignored in reporting. Even twenty some odd Dem senators, including one of my own, Feinstein, ignored it; empowering the bullies they claim to oppose, instead of pacify. Yesterday I commented something similar at FDL as chmoore.
Let’s play Where’s Waldo (the straw man)
Quoting the actual text:
“To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn[s] personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.”
Where’s Waldo? Can you find the straw man?
answer: “…and all members of the United States Armed Forces”
In other words, it implies that criticism of Petraeus is the same as criticism of ALL members of the armed forces. Bush himself, in his speech made the exact same claim, except he specifically stated it was the same, instead of implying.
What a crock of stinking straw man BULLSHIT! The moveOn ad did no such thing as criticise ALL members of the armed forces. What moveOn did do was explain with clear reasoning why distorting evidence amounts to a betrayal of the public trust.
Excellent point yb!
For what it is worth, Feinstein is nothing more than Lieberman Lite. I will not vote for her.
If you have a vote for Feinstein to withhold, either you are Californian, Shirin, or Feinstein has declared a run for the Presidency.
Which is it?
And you’re right about Feinstein. Boxer’s vote surprised me though; I thought better of her.
Check that; thought I saw Boxer’s name on a list of Senators voting for this resolution, but I am relieved to discover on a subsequent look at the list that her name isn’t on it. Huh, musta been trippin’…
Crooks & Liars pointed out that if Petraeus, aka Bushie, is going to get this upset about a newspaper ad, how’s he going to handle al Qaeda? Bush and Petraeus come out looking like the biggest wimps of all in this. Bush more so because he’s hiding behind Petraeus, and using him for political cover.
Here’s a list of the Dems who voted for Cornyn’s resolution, from The Huffington Post:
The name’s that surprised me were Leahy, Mikulski, Tester and Webb; all of them are smart enough to know this was bullshit, so I can only imagine they somehow thought it would help them politically — but not with the Dem base.
Unfortunately, a lot of Americans have no clue of what a straw man argument means and have a maximum attention span of two minutes.
I’m sorry, Blue, did you say something? I guess I was distracted for a minute there.
Shirin, I’m extremely disappointed in Feinstein on this one. As a lawyer herself, from the most blue area of a blue state, she should have seen this coming.
Maybe Larry’s right; maybe it’s at least as much about balls than brains. At present, it would appear Hillary has bigger balls than 3/4 of the Senate. Anyone catch her comment about when Cheney goes to the Senate, the Repubs get all restless like the arrival of Darth Vader?
Balls or not (I still have questions about her), she’s at least starting to sow her oats.
Hillary knows the right-wing attack machine cannot be appeased because she was THERE as it attacked her and her husband for Whitewater, murdering Vince Foster, using Arkansas state troopers as procurers, drug running from an airstrip in rural Arkansas… apparently the other Democrats have yet to learn this lesson.
Leslie, notice how Bush started to claim Mandela is dead? Then after a while emerged from the stupor of whatever he’s on to say there’s no Mandelas in Iraq. The weed in Texas must have some serious resin content.
So does 100-proof Rebel Yell.
As long as Hillary’s comparing Cheney to Darth Vader, maybe she could quote Yoda (inspired by Joseph Campbell):
“Fear leads to hate, hate leads to anger, anger leads to suffering”.
Shirin,
Good for you. There is nothing wrong with that, just don’t expect to be elected. I’m tired of getting our asses pounded.
C’mon, he was a terrible candidate. Lee Atwater tossed every single dirty trick in the book at him, sometimes you gotta hit back. I can’t and won’t apologize for being a man and having testosterone and a desire to protect my wife. I spend alot of time arguing with some really nasty right wingers at various sites and forums - its not a lovefest. Please don’t tell me I’m wrong to feel the way I do, I would NEVER do that to you.
Hell, I was proud of my fellow lib Phil Donahue for clocking the SOB that called his wife a bitch.
I have a profound respect for those of the angelic realm, no bs Shirin, I know a few and I know it’s heartwrenching to be here on earth where things are far from perfect.
And the God I worship is loving and I do my best everyday to adhere to what I believe is right. Is it not also my duty to protect those that are weaker if they are preyed upon?
I consider you a friend and I respect you and you certainly are under no obligation to feel the same - that’s just how it is with me.
god bless you.
Taters, I wasn’t evaluating Dukakis as a candidate.
How does murdering your wife’s attacker after the attack has taken place protect her? Answer: It doesn’t protect her at all. It is about revenge, not protection.
Where did I tell you you are wrong to feel the way you do, or even imply that? Hitting back at someone who has harmed you or someone else is a natural, human thing to do. I feel sorry for anyone who harmed or - heaven forbid - killed my child if I ever got my hands on them. It’s not completely out of the question that I might even kill them - you don’t know what you will do in a moment like that until it happens. But let’s not confuse that with defending someone after the crime against them has been completed.
And let’s not confuse any of that with murder performed in a cold, calculated, systematic - and carefully “humane” - manner by the state. And let us also acknowledge that this type of official state murder has taken and will continue to take numerous innocent victims who did not commit the crime they are being murdered in revenge for. That alone is ample reason for opposing the death penalty.
Shirin,
Hmmm, taters the killer. I might have to get another handle for myself for it to have the proper ring. I know I’ve murdered more than a sentence or two in the English Language.
I don’t live in a state w/the death penalty. And that’s fine with me. Actually, I’ve never been that keen on the death penalty.
It was a hypothetical question that was offensive. Now we know Dukakis wasn’t a bad guy and if I recall he actually did a good job as gov as Mass. And obviously when you’re running for POTUS it is important to convey that no one is above the law. And yes, I wasn’t very eloquent and wasn’t being literal. I just think there are times to show what you are made of and with Dukakis that was one of them. If only he would have said something like what you stated and not have seemed so removed emotionally.
That is what needed to be said.
Now you articulated about how you would feel in a terrible, tragic situation that people can identify with. And you did it better than I did. And then you were able to explain a position about how you are opposed to the death penalty.
Well done. I’mnotattempting to flatter you here.
But I believe Larry is absolutely right about the perceived wimp/wuss factor. And how liberals have been successfully tarred with that brush.
George McGovern, a good decent man, won the Distinguished Flying Cross - that’s right next to the Congressional Medal of Honor. Yet Nixon and Kissinger were perceived as being able to protect America better.
Do you recall the parody/cartoon of Jesus as a presidential candidate and how he would be attacked by rightwing ads?
If I recall the imaginary attack ad went something like this..
Jesus said “Blessed are the poor.”
Jesus said “Turn the other cheek.”
Jesus, big on entitlements and soft on crime.
Yeah,it was a cartoon but it illustrates all too well the dynamics of the type of attacks from the right that even someone who may be considered perfect and above reproach by many is not impervious to this kinda stuff.
Ha, ha, Taters — What Would Jesus Do? Well, he wouldn’t be a GOP candidate for president.
BTW - Gore also had a balls issue in the 2000 debate (his present commendable career notwithstanding) when he stood like a wimp and let Bush rudely interrupt and walk all over him with some nonsense about fuzzy math. I’ve always suspected that may have been the beginning of losing Florida.
For the love of God. Clinton voted in favor of this war and supported Bush down the line until the polls went south on her presidential ambitions. You must have the memory of a hamster.
I have to agree with you. Not only that, but she is anything but a peace candidate.
As I have said before, until and unless she starts singing a different song when it comes to foreign policy, I will not support her. Her willingness to even think about using nuclear weapons (on “terrorist” targets in Afghanistan, for heaven’s sake - talk about using an elephant gun to swat a fly!), let alone talk about it in a campaign speech is more than enough for me.
And I will never forget her shameless pandering when she responded to “expressions of concern” from ADL etc. by delivering a very public slap in the face to her Muslim campaign donors.
Speaking of women with balls; Jane Hamsher at FDL gave what for me was yesterday’s quote of the day:
Is it the Quentin Tarantino effect?
That’s a great quote about Craig..
Note to self:
Never wear an IPod in a bathroom stall..
Never ever tap those feet..
Note to Football players..
Never take a wide stance in stall
Note to Basketball players…
Never reach on the floor for tissue
The dispensor is easier to reach
Note to the GOP…
Never play the roll of a hypocritical hollier than thou Senator..
Disagree about Hillary’s balls/ovaries. I doubt that she has any core beliefs beyond political expediency. Unlike Dodd, who actually “gets” the lawlessness issue, Hillary has done nothing significant to restore habeas, etc.
What HAS happened is that Hillary is one of the few Democrats out there whose pollsters have finally figured out how deeply pissed off the Democratic base is, and how close we are to giving up on the party altogether. So now she is, rightly in my opinion, more scared of us than she is of the republicans. So she panders to us, particularly on these bullshit symbolic issues, and she makes Darth Vader jokes. But I will be interested in seeing if this recent acquisition of balls lasts a day beyond primary season. A lot of corporate money is financing her campaign, and they will expect their due.
Maybe I’ll be proven wrong. Gore ultimately proved me wrong (I hated him so, though I didn’t vote for Nader). But then again, Lieberman proved me right about how bad Gore the Candidate was. I was only wrong about Gore the Person. There’s always hope…..
Exile, I agree with your analysis of Hillary’s probable motives, but at least she’s gotten off her rightie streak — for now. I have never understood why Dems, and particularly Hillary with her BS ‘flag protection act,’ try to wring votes out of people who will never vote for them and at the same time piss off their base. Maybe she’s finally figured out thatshe’s going to need the majority who are against the Iraq war and other GOP nonsense to get elected and that neocon Christopublicans wouldn’t vote for her if she sprouted a halo and wings.
“how in the hell is he going to protect America from the likes of Iran, Russia and China.”
Last time I checked, USA was threatening Iran, China and Russia, not the other way around. After all, war spending of USA is bigger than Iran, Russia and China combined.
I sent an email today to Dianne Feinstein after I learned she voted to condemn MoveOn.org for the General Betray Us ad. He let himself be put out there by Bush Co. to take the flak and so too bad, not sorry! He could have reminded Bush that it’s Bush’s policy and he’s just a military man that performs his job as a soldier, not a mouthpiece for Bush. I was suprised to see Webb and Tester voted yes. I am very disappointed in them. Where was the Senate’s outrage in 2004 when they trashed John Kerry’s military service, and when they put out ads showing a war veteran, three amputee, Senator Max Cleland morfing into Bin Laden. WHAT THE HELL’S WRONG WITH THESE DEMOCRATS?
I am a lifelong Democrat and I am very unhappy with some of my representatives in the government, and some of our leaders. I was sinking into despair sometime in 2003 when I knew that Bush et al were lying about Iraq, and I found all the people that think like me and provided me with petitions to sign, ads to support in MoveOn.org. They gave me hope that we can change this downward spiral in America.
Where is all the “breaking news” storiesabout how the Republicans voted no to allow our troops they love so much, to come home to rest for equal amount of time that they serve in battle. Who really loves the troops? Who’s trying to make it better for them and provide some accountability? Some of the Democrats, but not all. We need all the Democrats. Let’s stop twirling around like a bunch of clumsy ballerinas! Get it together Democrats!
Petraeus was not merely acting as Bush’s stooge. He has political ambitions of his own. He was not acting as a military man, but out of what he saw as his own best interest. He did it to further his own ambitions.
According to a CBS poll released this week, Bush’s
The Surge Is Working™ P.R. blitz may have backfired. Some of the numbers are even worse than they were before the blitz. It may have had the same effect on Petraeus too.
Yet another abject failure for the wannabe world emperor. Too bad, soooooooo sad!
Good God, one little meaningless vote like this, and you’re ready to crown her president of the United States?
You set a low bar, Larry. I’m thinking twice about your guidance.
I guess it is pointless to ask how you feel about candidates who aren’t in Congress (or the Senate, for that matter). Kucinich comes to mind…
Hopefully you noticed I confined my remarks to those running for President who are in the Senate. I am appalled that Biden and Obama took a pass. Hillary and Dodd stood tall. Says something to me. I have no power to crown anyone. Thanks for speaking your piece.
LJ
Yes she has balls. The question is who paid for the transplant. I welcomed her vote yesterday but I’m a long ways from being convinced. I’ve been fooled in the past by Dems who sound really good until they are elected. In hindsight how do Bill’s achievements look now? NAFTA? The long embargo against Iraq that hurt the common people not Saddam? I realize that the most important issues are ending the current war, preventing any future conflicts, returning the rule of law, repairing the Constitution. After those are handled, move on to health care, the looming economic crisis….etc I am far from convinced that Hill will work against the large corp. interests on behalf of “We the People.” Sorry Larry, I’m not there by a long shot.
Do you recall Michael Moore’s dead-on remark that Bill Clinton was one of the best Republican presidents we’ve ever had? I think Hillary will rule in that mode, but it’s better than having Bush, and his corps of wannabes Rudy, Fred and Mitt.
At least Hillary will be competent for the job, but she’s definitely not my first choice.
Ditto. But competent would still be a vast improvement. Plus, Hillary is more likely to listen and remember she represents all the people. She’s a lot less likely to take us into wars of choice too, or attempt to remake the ME in our image. But getting out of Iraq, restoring habeas, doing away with the unitary executive theory, the whole idea of preemption and Bush’s abandonment of nuclear non-proliferation diplomacy are something we’d still have to work hard to change under Hillary. [That's probably true for most of the Dems. But, even so, that would still be a vast improvement over any of the GOP candidates.]
Plus, it would be really great to have the first woman president.
Leslie, it would be great to have a woman as president and break that barrier, and I agree that to get Hillary to give up the executive branch power would be the first priority.
Then there’s this potential irony, which I have brought up in arguments about presidential power with neocons: How would the tighty-righties feel if President Hillary declared all of those who opposed her ‘enemy combatants’ and tossed them into Gitmo without due process, including John ‘Hindrocket,’ Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, Terry Jeffrey and all of the other prominent fringe-right Hillary-haters?
Of course, a double irony, I’ve had a neocon say that would never happen because liberals don’t do those kind of things, completely unaware of what he was saying about BushCo.
Wells said RS. The entire dynamic has shifted dramatically to the right. Neither Ike nor Jerry Ford could run as a modern day Republican. There is no way anyone who was as strongly in favor of Affirmative Action as Ford was - be considered as anything but a fringer in today’s GOP.
Do you remember Ford’s piece in the NYT on Affirmative Action? It still stands as the best piece I recall on the subject.
August 8, 1999
Inclusive America, Under Attack
By GERALD R. FORD
Of all the triumphs that have marked this as America’s century — breathtaking advances in science and technology, the democratization of wealth and dispersal of political power in ways hardly imaginable in 1899 — none is more inspiring, if incomplete, than our pursuit of racial justice. The milestones include Theodore Roosevelt’s inviting Booker T. Washington to dine at the White House, Harry Truman’s desegregating the armed forces, Dwight Eisenhower’s using Federal troops to integrate Little Rock’s Central High School and Lyndon Johnson’s electrifying the nation by standing before Congress in 1965 and declaring, ”We shall overcome.”
I came by my support of that year’s Voting Rights Act naturally. Thirty years before Selma, I was a University of Michigan senior, preparing with my Wolverine teammates for a football game against visiting Georgia Tech. Among the best players on that year’s Michigan squad was Willis Ward, a close friend of mine whom the Southern school reputedly wanted dropped from our roster because he was black. My classmates were just as adamant that he should take the field. In the end, Willis decided on his own not to play.
His sacrifice led me to question how educational administrators could capitulate to raw prejudice. A university, after all, is both a preserver of tradition and a hotbed of innovation. So long as books are kept open, we tell ourselves, minds can never be closed.
But doors, too, must be kept open. Tolerance, breadth of mind and appreciation for the world beyond our neighborhoods: these can be learned on the football field and in the science lab as well as in the lecture hall. But only if students are exposed to America in all her variety.
For the class of ‘35, such educational opportunities were diminished by the relative scarcity of African-Americans, women and various ethnic groups on campus. I have often wondered how different the world might have been in the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s — how much more humane and just — if my generation had experienced a more representative sampling of the American family. That the indignities visited on Willis Ward would be unimaginable in today’s Ann Arbor is a measure of how far we have come toward realizing, however belatedly, the promises we made to each other in declaring our nationhood and professing our love of liberty.
And yet. In the last speech of his life, Lyndon Johnson reminded us of how much unfinished work remained. ”To be black in a white society is not to stand on level and equal ground,” he said. ”While the races may stand side by side, whites stand on history’s mountain and blacks stand in history’s hollow. Until we overcome unequal history, we cannot overcome unequal opportunity.”
cont’d
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9505EFD61230F93BA3575BC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
Small wonder Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford remained close, lifelong friends. And the irony of GWB commenting on the U of Michigan case - a public university where he would have not been accepted. He was denied admission to U of T’s law school.
Good post, Taters. It’s true — a moderate Republican like Ford would be drummed out of the GOP these days; even the founder of modern conservatism, Barry Goldwater, would have had no place in the Bush Rove neocon GOP. (Can you imagine what Goldwater would have said about the White House leaking a CIA agent’s name for political reasons?)
To give you an idea of how far this country has drifted into the nutball fringe-right ‘red zone,’ Justice John Paul Stevens was appointed to the Supreme Court by Ford as a conservative Republican — today he is considered one of the most liberal justices on the court.
And you’re right about Barry Goldwater RS.
Apparently Hillary suffered from a severe case of Cryptorchidism until this weeks MoveOn vote. Perhaps now that she has been cured of her affliction, Hillary will start showing some real leadership instead of wanting to have a “conversation” with America? Joking aside, I think that the only thing holding Hillary back now is the perception that she isn’t perceived as a real leader. Many Democrats are looking for someone to fight the Republicans “tooth and nail” and not cave in - otherwise known as having a pair as Larry pointed out. It will be interesting to see if Hillary’s advisors finally figure this simple concept out and we see a new Hillary “coming out swinging” in the fall presidential campaign. Sort of a Huey Long - in a dress.
It seems to me the Senator Oboma’s response was right on the money. Why respond to a ridiculous game the republicans are playing? Maybe if more of the opposition tried this less BS would be happening in Congress.
Turn the other cheek???? Obama showed nothing . . . in a junkyard fight you don’t take your lunch and go home . . . be on the Floor speaking out for what those soldiers were fighting for FREEDOM, freedom to express any opinion anywhere in OUR AMERICA. It is time to take the helm of the Swift Boat and ram it up their asses full speed guns blazin’ . . . damn I sound so, so . . . “Republican”!!!
Each of you take five dollars out of moms purse and send it to Move-On . . . better on your heart than a Happy Meal . . .
sorry Larry, yes most americans would have preferred Dukakis to support the death penalty under the conditions given by Shaw … the fact Dukakis refused to alter his belief system demonstrated a remarkable amount of courage in my mind. Dukakis was no fool, he knew the answer would cost him but he had the balls and the convictions to stand by his beliefs. Too bad we don’t have more politicans like him today.
as for obama, he responded exactly like i thought he would … he talks a good game but he is just a bit light in the ass to go the distance. now that being said, i’m still not convinced Hillary is much better. what i do know is this … it will be a long and difficult fight to finally wrest control from the neocons … they have it and they won’t give it up easily. no battle is too small to fight with these arseholes … whoever is going to lead the democrats will have to be ready for the long term. finally, if we expect our politicans to fight this battle, we have to be ready to cover their backs … we also must be willing to bring “street heat” into this election. are we ready to go to jail yet … i have made the decision … when the time comes, i will be there!
Randi Rhodes (Air America) had an interesting take on this vote - it was meaningless. Being a ’sense of the Senate’ resolution, it didn’t mean squat. It also did not specifically mention MoveOn, and had nothing pertaining to free speech or a free press.
It certainly seemed like another dumb game by the Repugs. Block any vote that will have an effect upon the war (how many this week?) and then get your opponents riled with a meaningless resolution.
Will Hillary face attack ads next year because of her vote? That is the purpose of this resolution, right?
Sure, she’ll face attack ads from the right, which is the main reason why it was gutsy of her to vote as she did, and explains why Obama ducked (coward).
Probably the good news is that the vast majority of Americans don’t know what Moveon.org is or could care less. I hope.
(Repetition here: MoveOn’s ad against Patraeus was dumb. And Eli Pariser’s appearances on Hardball, etc. haven’t helped — he’s not a particularly good spokesman for the defensive posture he’s put himself in. MoveOn’s TV ad that uses the troop #s is very good — and it catches my attention every time it airs (I usually have the TV on but am not watching, but there’s something about the voiceover that makes me LOOK at the TV — wtg, MoveOn.) They need to stick to ads like that. They don’t need to attack specific people, particularly the military. All that said, Hillary’s vote was important because she stood up for free speech and against the pettiness/diversionary tactics of the GOP (although it must be acknowledged that MoveOn gave the GOP a big gift this week with that ill-considered Patraeus ad).
It’s really quite simple. Point out the facts. Keep in mind that the vast majority of Americans don’t believe the B.S. from the White House, so you don’t have to take a chance of alienating people by attacking the military. And, for god’s sake, focus on the Republicans in the Senate who talk-the-talk when they’re at home in their own states, but who cave in to the White House every time there’s an Iraq vote.
And what about the Democrats in the Congress who talk the talk and then cave? People need to hold them accountable too. I don’t buy this notion that Democrats should be given a free pass just because they are not Republicans.
Amen Susan, well said.
“Probably the good news is that the vast majority of Americans don’t know what Moveon.org is or could care less. I hope.”
Well, more of them do now, and I bet MoveOn took in a carload on donations over this flap.
You’re right, Susan, but, as the polls show, Bush and Petraeus’ dumb show, and the fevered media coverage of it, made no difference; Bush even went down in the polls slightly. The majority of the country cotinue to think, rightly, that Bush and his generals are full of crap, and I don’t see that impression being changed before the 2008 election.
In a little neighborhood bar I visit occasionally, the WWII, Korea and Vietnam vets who used to support Bush’s wars now curse his name when he comes on TV and tell the bartender to change the channel.
IMHO, MoveOn could have sent Petraeus flowers and candy, and the WH (er, it’s ’standins’) would have gone ‘ballistic’ — if the WH hadn’t pounced on the MoveOn ad, they’d have invented some other distraction in order to obscure the shameful and embarressing spectacle of a US General shilling for BushCheney LLC.
It’s a ‘Kerry Redux,’ in the sense that the the Dems are still playing by Gentleman’s Rules and getting punk’d by Boosh droogs, who care more about ‘winning’ newz cycles than winning real wars.
Heres’s hoping that Harry Reid has some Fabian tactics up his sleeve.
None of us — including this blog — should allow ourselves to be distracted. It’s the Rethugs forte — CHANGING THE SUBJECT. Hold up a bright, shiny object….and watch the Dems’ fascination….and endless talk about it.
And, everyone bites! A lot of time is wasted…and passes….and THE REAL ISSUES are not addressed. JUST THE WAY THEY WANT IT.
Karl Rove is laughing his ass off. Probably has bets on how long he can keep the MoveOn ad brouhaha going.
We all — me included — need to wise up! They’re pathetic, lying assholes. Why do we CARE what they say? About anything!
You’re absolutely right, Sandy, but us discussing it is not the same as the MSM obsession with, and distortion of, the story. Not one of the various cable news shows that I’ve seen, at least a half-dozen, that have talked about the MoveOn.org ad at length have bothered to discuss its content — just the headline, often with the question mark left off the end of the headline. The media performance in this Rovian distraction is as shameful as the Republicans.
Forget about Blackwater…an ad! OMG! An ad with a pun!
Joe Biden will be the next Secretary of State. And I like his Delaware accent. It sounds just like mine — unique!
Why does Hillary’s standing up against the Cronyn ammendment matter?
I know this is a longer comment; please have patience, I can trust that you won’t regret it.
Let’s see if we can apply reason to Hillary’s reaction to the moveOn ad vs Cronyn ammendment controversy. After all, one aspect of it is about reason vs emotional reaction.
MoveOn paid for an ad in the constitutionaly free speech protected media alleging that Petraeus over-stepped his role as a military commander by engaging in a partisan political promotion of Bush’s Iraq policy. Their web page on the same subject contained numerous references to back it up, although the NYT ad did less so. They alleged that this was betraying the public trust. They acknowledged that the name “betrayus” was a characterization, but argued that it was justified in context. Regardless of how right or wrong they were, it still qualifies as valid legitimate public discourse, in the context of how it was presented.
So far so good. Even so, many (no surprise) objected. POTUS Bush specifically said it was an attack on all members of the armed forces; an obvious straw man argument, appealing to the irrational in others who objected. The emotional thrust of the objection was that it’s wrong to dis’ the soldiers, even though the moveOn ad said no such thing about the soldiers, except for the one particular soldier named Petraeus, who willingly over-stepped into the additional role of political advocate. I’d like to point out that there’s nothing wrong with an emotion based statement that’s backed up by rational reasoning, but there is something wrong with one that’s backed up by mr. straw man. Consider this:
All fish live in water
Sharks live in water
Therefore, sharks are fish
Is this a conclusion arrived at by reason? Obviously no; even though the conclusion is true, it is not validated by the reasoning. Reasoning matters. If we get in the habit of accepting faulty reasoning, then we can easily come up with:
All fish live in water
Whales live in water
Therefore, whales are fish
The biggest things wrong with the Senate passing the Cronyn ammendment are:
- it assumes the same non-reasoned illogic as the POTUS statement
- it defies the Senate’s role as the “cooling saucer” of considered debate on issues of importance
- while not exactly un-constitutional, it goes against the spirit of free speech in public discourse by using the weight of the Senate as a bully authoritarian tool to impose an opinion on the nation
In this context, it is significant who goes along and who stands up. Hillary stood up, in the context of a Senate minority. While this alone would not qualify her to lead the world or be crowned or whatever, it does serve as an honorable example for others, who would so easily not stand, or worse, walk away. Personally, she’s still not my first choice, although she is definitely even further from being my last choice either. The significance is that she demonstrated a level of honor, and the willingness to stand up for it, which going forward will be a challenge for others running against her. Can they meet that challenge?
“she demonstrated a level of honor, and the willingness to stand up for it”
Unfortunately, this demonstration of honour on a not-terribly-significant - even silly - issue is overshadowed by a history of pandering. I want to see her and other Democrats start standing up with honour consistently on issues that really matter. That will go much farther to convince me that they are worth bothering with than anything I have seen so far.
It seems that the rightwing attack machine unleashed against Hillary Clinton has done its job, to the extent that people claim she hasn’t a bit of authenticity about her.
I surely was once affected by the barrage of “I hate Hillary”-speak generated by the rightwing. It’s one reason I initially supported Bill Richardson. But, one day, I asked myself, “Why do I say I hate Hillary?” And it began to dawn on me that there weren’t many, if any, rational reasons for such an opinion, but that it was surely a popular thing to say. And, among the left, it’s a very popular position: To hate her, and hate her candidacy. It’s very risky, I find, to say I support her candidacy. The reactions I get are full of hostility.
It was hard for me to admit to myself that I’d been affected, quite unconsciously, by the rightwing attacks. But I was.
RE HER HEALTH PLAN: It is a very good plan. Paul Krugman says so, noting that it compares very well to John Edwards’ plan, while, Krugman notes, Obama’s plan is weaker. Krugman also notes that Clinton/Edwards’ plans have a good shot at getting through Congress, whereas a more radical plan would have no chance.
I don’t understand why people would condemn her plan while they adore Edwards’ plan, which is very similar, or prefer Obama, whose plan isn’t as good. (Yes, Edwards came out with his plan early on — and Krugman gives him a lot of credit for this — but it isn’t the timing of the announcements that matters as much as the ability, once in office, for either to get the plan through Congress.)
Those who, like me, are utterly dependent on such plans are praying that the left’s demand for a perfect plan doesn’t ruin the chance for a plan that would help us enormously, and without which we couldn’t go on living. Something always beats nothing. And it’s even better when that “something” also happens to be a pretty darn good plan.
Under Clinton’s (et al) plan, there doesn’t appear to be a fix for a fatal flaw in this insurance scheme:
By law, health-insurance corporations are required to make a profit. Nothing trumps profit to shareholders.
The health and well-being of US Americans will continue to be secondary to profit.
If she fixes that flaw, she might earn my vote AND my respect. Did I miss news of this on her site?
Hi Susan,
Did you see the Joe Conason piece?
Hillary Clinton’s skillful introduction of her new health care plan demonstrated why she is the most formidable Democrat running for president. It also suggested that if victorious, she will not be defeated so easily by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries as she and her husband were the last time they tried to reform the dysfunctional American medical system.
http://www.observer.com/2007/dominant-hillary-scares-enemies
….First you call Dukakis a wimp….
Dukakis was a wimp because he had an alcoholic wife who drank nail polish remover and bragged about it. What kind of leader would be living with a piece of baggage like that while he was running for president?
Let me answer. George W. Bush. His wife killed a man and he still ran for president. Do you see what kind of “leader” he turned out to be? And just like Dukakis, Bush didn’t win either.
A few months from now, when Petraeus’ surge is revealed to be another ’smoke and mirrors’ failure and the death count continues to rise — unless the Pentagon redefines all combat deaths in Iraq as ‘accidents’: “My commanders on the ground have told me there hasn’t been a US casualty in Iraq this whole month.” – then the White house is going to have to cook up a whole new set of excuses to cover this latest screw-up, and yet another new ’strategery’ for ‘victory,’ just as they have to cover all of the ‘turning the corner’ moments in the past. That is unless the Mahdi Army or some collection of insurgents hasn’t overrun the Green Zone by then and massacred a substantial number of Americans. That might wake up the GOP, and even John McCain.
Just like Colin Powell, Gen. David Petraeus will have a lot of red-faced explaining to do come this time next year and the MoveOn.org ad, if it’s remembered at all, will be seen as a warning.
Bush lost Iraq years ago; now it’s just an exercise to see how long until our exhausted military falls apart. If Hillary wants to win, she should start pointing that out repeatedly — and she’d have the majority of Americans on her side, disgusted with the lies and diversions of the Bush Regime.
The 25 percent who would never vote for her if she were running against Satan himself — and she will be if it’s Rudy — can stew in their own rancid juices.
Susan,
Please update your Bushie dictionary. They’re no longer using the “v” word, and substitute it with the “success” word.
Sadly, I do think Hillary is going to win the nomination. Sadly, because she is basically a Republican. As Alan Greenspan said of her husband (who had essentially the same policies), “best Republican President of the past 20 years”.
Take her health plan. Please. The real solution is to cut out the 1/3rd of health care spending currently going to health insurance company profits and administrative overhead by expanding Medicare eligibility to all Americans, not just those 65 years of age or older. Medicare spends 3% of its funds on administration, or roughly 1/10th of what it costs to run the health insurance industry in America. Old people loves them their Medicare. If it’s good for old farts, why isn’t it good for the rest of us? But Hillary’s plan is to force the American people at gunpoint to support the health insurance industry by forcing them, at gunpoint, to buy health insurance. WTF? How is that a plan for achieving universal coverage of all Americans?!
Still, Hillary isn’t the only candidate without the guts to take on the health insurance mafia. Of the Democrats, only Dennis Kucinich, who has about as much chance of winning as Fred Flintstone, has come out for Medicare For All. And as Larry has pointed out, she appears to be the only candidate with the guts and experience to take on the VRWC, she’s been doing it for the past 15 years and has gotten good at it. There is literally nothing that the VRWC says about Hillary Clinton anymore that will change anybody’s mind in any way. The VRWC could publish photos of her dining upon dead kittens and people would just shake their heads and say “there they go again.” For better or for worse, everybody already has their opinion of Hillary, and it isn’t going to be easily changed by Swift Boating or other such tactics, especially since Hillary isn’t one to back down from that ilk.
So I am slowly resigning myself to the thought of saying “President Hillary Clinton”. Okay, so she’s a Republican. But she’s a *smart* Republican. Which is why she’s a Democrat, I guess.
You find her health plan wanting, but it’s very similar to Edwards’ plan and I doubt you condemn his, and that’s only because he’s not her.
One reason that Edwards and Clinton have set up their plans as they have is because they have a shot at getting through Congress which can’t be said for a single-payer or all-Medicare plan. In the Thurs. night PBS debate, not one of the Democratic candidates said they support a single-payer insurance plan, and I’d guess the biggest reason is it has no prayer of passing Congress. We have to get REAL here … would you rather people have NOTHING until you get your ideal plan?
And did you know that Medicare is far from an easy-street plan and that, while seniors love it, it also costs them a pretty penny?
Take one person I know who just signed up. He gets Medicare A free, but it’s extremely limited to hospitalizations and only for a short time. He has to pay $95/month for Medicare B, which helps to cover doctors’ visits, and all laboratory and other tests, as well as physical therapy, walkers, etc. and many other costs. That’s right: Basic Medicare doesn’t cover a PENNY of doctors’ visits, tests, etc. To make up for the huge gap in Medicare A and B coverage, he bought an AARP plan for $146/month.
How does the AARP plan help? If he has an operation, under Medicare A/B, he’d have to fork over $995 before the hospital would admit him. That’s right, under Medicare A, the first $1,000 for hospitalization is up to each senior.
Do you still think Medicare, as it exists, is the simple answer to everyone’s health care coverage?
Then, to get drug coverage, he had to sign up for a Medicare D plan for about $46/month + steep co-pays, and some drugs are not covered at all (on any of the plans). Then there are the donut-hole exemptions in all of the drug plans — and which Hillary Clinton addressed in the PBS debate last Thursday night.
That comes to about $350+/month to get decent coverage under the current system of Medicare.
Imagine that you’re living off Social Security and modest savings, and you have to pay out $350/month to get decent Medicare coverage … or risk having a heart attack or broken hip or something, and having to pay out $1,000 to the hospital off the top.
If you’re hospitalized over 30 days, you have to pay — I forget exactly — about $250/300 PER DAY because Medicare A only covers you for 30 days. And it goes on and on. Medicare is wonderful, but it is extremely LIMITED unless one gets the necessary add-ons.
And do you think a plan that covers all of those necessary add-ons would have a prayer of passing Congress? Think again.
Hillary Clinton, ABC News This Week, September 23, 2007:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3639624
at around the 18.30 mark:
George Stephanopoulos: Mayor Giuliani also hit you pretty hard for failing early on to condemn that Move-on.org ad which called General Petraeus General Betrayus. Why not speak out earlier?
Hillary Clinton: I don’t condone attacks on any American who has served our country honorably and with dedication the way General Petraeus has. I’ve said over many years how much I admire him, respect him he’s been dealt a difficult hand and you know he’s doing the best job he can under the circumstances. I also don’t condone attacks on great Americans like Max Cleland and John Kerry who’ve also served our country. But this is not a debate about an ad, this is a debate about ending the war in Iraq.
Larry Johnson, September 10: Then we have the fact that Petraeus and company are cherry picking the data and deliberately painting a false, rosy picture that security in Iraq is better and the violence is abating. Dave and his boys achieved this result by excluding car bombs and other sectarian casualties from the calculation.
Me: An honorable man does not cherry-pick data to distort the true picture when our young soldiers are being slaughtered.
Yet Hillary Clinton said it herself today: It’s not about the Move-on ad; Petraeus is an honorable man.
Clinton fails the smell test. She indulges in pander politics.
I doubt I will ever convince the creators of this blog that Senator Clinton is just more of the same old crap the United States has had to endure for the past 20 or 30 years. I trust her as far as I can throw her…and my back would give out before I could even lift her.
So slandering a 4-star in time of war and supporting a patently treasonous organization is a set of balls?
Pretty typical of the no-balls crowd of ex-government pencil-necks who are still whining because Bush didn’t listen to them. Aaaaaaawwwwwww………
Graywolf, here’s some raw meat, fresh from the Rove butcher shop — fetch, boy, fetch…
Since when is every four-star general an ‘honorable man’ just because he’s a four-star general, in or out of war; and since when does a political organization expressing its opinion constitute ‘treason’? What the hell do you think the military is supposed to fight for if not our rights? Read the Constitution and the military oath of enlistment, Graywolf, if you can get the blinders off your eyes.
Great article and unfortunately you are totally correct about Clinton having balls. Maybe that’s why the neocon right wing is scared shitless of her. If she gets the nomination I’m gonna stock up on alot of popcorn and soda because NEXT year will be quite a show!
r.
Ran, you would do well not to trust anyone as far as you can throw them, and that includes yourself.
Greywolf, where was your outrage when they wore purple ribbons on the floor of the republican convention in a low life effort to smear war hero John Kerry? Where was your outrage at the smear on Max Cleeland? Where is your outrage at the fact that Bush has fired, what now? Nine Generals? Where is your outrage at “Swiftboating” in general? Where was your outrage when the Bushies in the south called McCain crazy since he had suffered torture? Where was your outrage then? How can you expect anyone in their right mind to take you seriously?
From the party who brought you Willie Horton and 9/11, folks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6vlPTfssEY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress%2Eorg%2F
Last spring I read several articles by ‘Republicans strategists’ and neocon bloggers who were slaivating to run against Hillary. You know the old saying about being careful of what you wish for… I can’t wait for them to nominate Rudy and have him take a call in the middle of a debate with Hill: “Yes, dear — yes, I’m in a debate with Hillary Clinton — you want to say hello to her?”
It ought to be an entertaining election, if nothing else.