Current Article

Sen. Clinton Co-Sponsors Webb Legislation Prohibiting Use of Funds for Military Operations In Iran

By SusanUnPC on October 1, 2007 at 7:41 PM in Current Affairs, Iran

I’ve been asking everywhere about the status of legislation that Virginia freshman senator Jim Webb introduced several months ago that prohibited military attacks on Iran without full approval of Congress. Today I got word from Sen. Clinton’s Senate communications staff that she and Sen. Webb are reintroducing the legislation, posted at her Senate Web site:

October 1, 2007

Senator Clinton Announces Co-Sponsorship of Webb Legislation Prohibiting the Use of Funds for Military Operations In Iran

Reiterates that President Bush Needs Congressional Authorization Before Attacking Iran

Washington, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today announced that she is co-sponsoring legislation introduced by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) that prohibits the use of funds for military operations against Iran without explicit Congressional authorization (S. 759).

Senator Clinton – who has been at the forefront of calling on President Bush to seek authorization from Congress before taking military action against Iran (Read the Senator’s Speech on the Senate Floor from February) – said today, “In February, I took to the Senate floor to warn that President Bush needs Congressional Authorization before attacking Iran. Given recent reports about Administration military planning toward Iran and to ensure that Congress plays a proper role in the authorization of any potential military force, today I have added myself as a co-sponsor of a bill introduced by Senator Jim Webb which prohibits the use of funds for military action in Iran without authorization by Congress.”

Senator Clinton added, “Iran has gained expanded influence in Iraq and the region as a result of the Bush Administration’s polices which have also rejected diplomacy as a tool for addressing Iranian ambitions. I continue to support and advocate for a policy of entering into talks with Iran, because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims. I also support strong economic sanctions against Iran, including designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, to improve our leverage with the Iranian regime."
“Any military action against Iran will have an immediate impact on our troops serving in Iraq, our allies in the region as well as long term U.S. strategic interests. Senator’s Webb’s legislation insures that Congress will play its constitutional role of providing proper oversight over the Administration’s policy toward Iran. Congressional oversight and debate can help avoid the mistakes and blunders that have afflicted U.S. policy in Iraq. We cannot allow recent history to repeat itself.

ramasan

Right. That sure took the wind out of his sails, telling him “no”, even though you also told him “yes” by naming the Revolutionary Guards terrorists. That is outrageous and not a very friendly way to begin negotiations to avert a world war where we might all die.

Where have you been these last 7 years? The rest of us moved on a future of brotherhood among nations where war is obsolete and you’re still in the basement playing Risk. You missed the boat, lady.
http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

This legislation is vastly more important than last week’s in that it would prohibit Bush going to war without full approval of Congress.

Jim Webb’s legilslation was flagging. Her co-sponsorship gives it new life and a much larger spotlight.

(Realistically, it’ll probably not come to a vote because the Republicans and Lieberman will use cloture. But by all means, don’t be angry with the Republicans who will kill this legislation.)

John Witherspoon

“This legislation is vastly more important than last week’s in that it would prohibit Bush going to war without full approval of Congress.”

Without trying to sound outright contemptuous of your world view, what the hell are you talking about?
Obviously, as you’ve already stated, this bill will go nowhere. Given that fact, what on god’s (or whoever’s) green earth makes you think this is more important? This is a politically expedient non-action that makes die-hard supporters (people like you) think that she hasn’t already given the pres the green light to attack Iran (which she has). Obviously shes trying to avoid flak (which she rightly took in the debate from Edwards) for her pro war vote (like she does all the time with the ‘I’m against the war but I’ve voted for it 10 times’ routine) This is exactly the sort of behavior that makes me vow, right now, to never vote for her ever. Thats right, I’m going on record saying i will vote for Tancredo over Hillary. I’d rather vote for someone who says what they think than a empty suit pandering to whatever side they claim to be on at the moment. (granted, if McCain wins the nomination, I’ll have to vote for the socialist candidate, but that just wont happen.)
Additionally, this sort of apologetic nonsense makes me not want to read this blog anymore. I respect what you have to say and your opinion Larry, but the outright shilling for a specific candidate makes me physically ill.

Shirin

“I’d rather vote for someone who says what they think than a empty suit pandering to whatever side they claim to be on at the moment.”

Or in Hillary’s case, both sides at once.

Yogi-one

It’s just CYA folks.

Hillary knows the legislation won’t pass, that’s why she’s willing to sponsor it.

And coming from her, saying that Bush needs explicit Congressional authorization is a sham, because of of course she has voted yes to give it to the President every time so far.

The reason she even wants to be President is to feel how it feels to have that kind of power herself.

Now she can go back to the Dems and say “Look I sponsored that failed legislation, so I wash my hands of the whole dirty mess.”

Not so fast. If she and Nancy P were really against another war, they would be tying Dick and George down with impeachment proceedings, so they wouldn’t have time to GET OUR KIDS KILLED DAILY in yet another blasphemous war.

But Americans will glance at the headlines, not read the articles, and say “that’s why I’m voting for her”. Ugh.

Now we know what the Clintons mean by claiming political experience. They mean decades of practice at baiting-and-switching the public.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

I’m glad she’ll co-sponsor this. Hopefully she and Webb will rally the rest of the Dems to back it.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

Left Coaster has this to say about Hillary’s co-sponsorship of Webb’s bill and her vote on Kyl-Lieberman:

As I said earlier, I question the wisdom of Hillary’s vote last week in favor of the Lieberman/Kyl nonbinding “sense of the Senate” resolution that designated Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist outfit. Given the resolutions still on the books from 2001 and 2002, doing this was risky for any Democrat who wants to avoid a replay of how the Senate allowed Bush to launch the Iraq war. It now seems that in the aftermath of that vote and the release of Seymour Hersh’s latest update about the White House war plans against Iran, Hillary has clarified her position on Iran.

Taylor Marsh tells us that Hillary will announce shortly that she will be a cosponsor of Jim Webb’s soon-to-be-reintroduced amendment on Iran, which specifically requires Bush to obtain congressional approval prior to any broad military action against Iran, albeit with exceptions. These exceptions would allow the military to repel an attack from within Iran, to prevent an imminent attack from Iran, and to continue hot pursuit of forces from Iran back into that country. Some of those exceptions are large enough for Cheney and his minions to drive trucks through, but they also allow our military a critical self-defense and response capability as well. And the first two exceptions are likely to never come to pass, given the nature of Iran’s alleged activities within Iraq against our forces.
GR3

What a coincidence! In reply to my email, my Congressional Representative today said they are a cosponsor of Peter DeFazio’s bill:
(quote)
introduced by Congressman Peter DeFazio (OR-04), H.Con.Res. 33, which expresses the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military actions against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress. This resolution maintains the role of Congress in determining when and against whom this Nation goes to war and that the President must first come to Congress before any military action is taken against Iran. It is currently awaiting action by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
(unquote)
Of course, not a word about my repeated request for impeachment. I guess that’s not in the ‘prepared answers’ to constituents.
Bill Keyes

Quote from Hillary….

“Any military action against Iran will have an immediate impact on our troops serving in Iraq, our allies in the region as well as long term U.S. strategic interests.”

What do the words “long term US strategic interests” mean?

We know what the Bush/Cheney/neocon cabal “long term strategic interests” are.

What are Hillary’s?

Do we have to wait until Jan 2009 to find out?

Will she try to bring peace to the ME?

How would she deal with Hamas, and Hezbollah, would she put them on the same list as the Iranian Revolutionary Guards?

Will she kowtow to the Israeli lobby like all the past presidents including Big
Bill?

Will she keep a permanent presence in Iraq?

A lot of questions…few answers and I am supposed to give her my unconditional vote?

John Witherspoon

“How would she deal with Hamas, and Hezbollah, would she put them on the same list as the Iranian Revolutionary Guards?”

Hamas and Hezbollah are already on the list.
“Big Bill” came as close as anyone has to not caving, but i wouldn’t put that same faith in his wife…

“What do the words “long term US strategic interests” mean?”

Probably whatever is politically expedient right now.
Shirin

“Will she kowtow to the Israeli lobby like all the past presidents including Big Bill?”

Do you even need to ask? During her campaign for Senate she had quite a bit of Muslim support, and a number of Muslim individuals and groups contributed to her campaign. She gave them a very public slap in the face, though, after ADL, AIPAC, and some other Israel right or wrongers “expressed concern” about her support from Muslim groups, and she made a P.R. event out of returning the Muslims’ contributions.

http://robinstorm.blogspot.com Rob

In the words of Ronald Reagan… “There you go again”….

“returning the Muslims’ contributions.”

Yeah she returned checks from the American Muslim Alliance… and this group supports Hammas and lets not talk about the fact that the AMA President has made public statements supporting a United Nations resolution that would allowed for the use of armed force by Palestinians against Israel…. Its not like she returned all Muslim donations…. One group that has sent money to Hammas….

I have my problems with Israel and our policy in the ME….but fair is fair…

Man can you Shirin be anymore one sided?

Shirin

Rob, whom do you think you are fooling? If AMA supported Hamas they would have been shut down, and their members, or at least their leaders arrested and detained “indefinitely” as terrorists or “terrorist supporters”. Instead, they are a live and well and more active than ever.

Where do you get all the BS you spread on these pages, Rob?

http://robinstorm.blogspot.com Rob

Give me a break…. Please …. They only had their funds frozzen because they were NOT asssociated with Hamas….

Give it a rest….. They were one of the groups that protested in front of the WH in 2000 screaming they were “HAMAS”…..

Gosh do you have to be partisan on this issue. No not all Muslim are bad but many of these organizations have their own agendas.

I suppose the Holy Land Foundation was mistreated as well….

Shirin

Where do you get your information, Rob? Steven “Muslims did the Oklahoma Center bombing” Emerson? Or maybe from Daniel “if it’s bad, the Muslims did it” Pipes?

Shirin

Oh wait! I know! You are a WorldNetDaily subscriber, aren’t you? Why, I’ll bet you think Saddam had his WMD’s transported across Syria and all this time they have been buried in the Baq`a valley!

lidia

“supporting a United Nations resolution that would allowed for the use of armed force by Palestinians against Israel”

Palestinans DO NOT need such resolution. They already are ALLOWED by international law (and UN) to use armed force against Zionist occupation (just like ANY people under foreign occupation)

rjj

We know what the Bush/Cheney/neocon cabal “long term strategic interests” are.

Do we have to wait until Jan 2009 to find out?

Will she try to bring peace to the ME?

The quote in Hersh’s article may contain a clue: “They don’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican Party” or the elections.

Why do folks assume there will be elections in 2008?
Chris Vosburg

SusanUnPC writes: Today I got word from Sen. Clinton’s Senate communications staff that she and Sen. Webb are reintroducing the legislation,

There’s the other shoe Steve Clemons was talking about. I hope this works, and Hillary’s clearly got a lot riding on it.

http://robinstorm.blogspot.com Rob

This is all smoke and mirrors… As long as the Republicans can tie the legislation down and the American public be more concerned with the kids soccer games than the war, it is just playing to the base…. As if that really matters….

Independent

Hillary sure knows how to cover all the bases. First she gives Bush the authority to attack Iran thus proving her butchness then brings legislation not to fund that military operation.

Anyone wonder why the Dems. in congress have a 15% approval rating.

Approved more invasion of privacy

Approved 190 billion in more funding for Iraq.

Gives Bush authority to attack Iran after his lying debacle in Iraq.

Democrats are a joke. Even in the majority they bend over for Bush.
anon

she’ll have to more than any empty posturing photo op next to Jim Webb.

let’s see her actually FIGHT for this legislation.

it’s probably just a fig leaf, because she knows the primary voters will hate for for voting for kyl-lieberman

50 bucks says this thing will never even reach a vote, or if it does, it will go down in flames in part because hillary will use ZERO of her political capital to back it up

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

If it goes down in flames, it will more likely be because the GOP filibustered it.

anon

let’s see if it actually even shows up in the mass media after this week before we go blaming the eeevvvil GOP for filibustering it

i believe that hillary just did this because she needed a photo-op next to jim webb after everyone noticed that she voted for kyl lieberman. the best she can pull out of it now is a “i voted for it before i voted against it” take on iran.

the reality is, though, that as soon as kyl-lieberman is down the memory hole, we’ll not here much of her great amendment to stop the eeeeevvvvil george bush from starting a war on iran

the truth is she hasn’t met a war she doesn’t like, so long as she thinks it will get her elected.
anon

i really have to remember that arguing with democrats about their candidates is a lot like arguing with republicans about their candidates
anon

we need a real outsider candidacy or we need a third-party or independent candidacy. hillary is not an agent of change. hillary is an agent of continuation.

i’d even say she is a vanity candidate. there is no real reason for her to run beyond her own ambitions. she’s completely interchangeable with other figures and her potential offerings amount to more of the same. well, ok, she’s the lobbyists’ candidate. those who want business-as-usual will get their money’s worth from her if she is elected -

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

Yeah, a 3rd party will do it…for about 1% worth of the vote.

Shirin

You have to start somewhere if you want to ever change anything.

anon

it’s true, ain’t it? the two-party system is basically a mafia that runs the election system for the political class and plutocracy. there’s lots of real reasons why, pragmatically – money talks, mainly – but the elections at this point are rigged whenever it comes to any possible candidacy that might tend to threaten the interests of the power elite. that’s what election 2008 is going to be about – the DC power and money establishment, the plutocracy, the special interests – all working overtime to protect their interests with status quo candidates, because the government and both parties have totally lost all credibility with the public, and there is some remote chance of change taking place, if they are not capable.
Chris Vosburg

Shirin writes: You have to start somewhere if you want to ever change anything.

If you were serious about this, you would have concluded long ago that the place to start is in working to change the fundamental way we vote.

Third party candidates would fare better and there’d be less inintended damage to “second choice” candidate from such a vote, if the “one person – one vote” voting model were exchanged for one in which voters indicated, in order, their preference, and the votes were weighted accordingly.

For example, in the 2000 election in which those who cast votes for Ralph Nader threw the election to George W Bush (probably not their second choice), first choice would be three points, second choice two, third choice one (there are many other variations, but you get the idea). Most points would win all the elctoral votes for the state, and more accurately reflect voters wishes (which they tell me, is the whole point of voting).

Again, there’s a lot of different models, and I’ll be with you all the way on third party voting (which otherwise splits the vote between the two favorite candidates, handing it to the third) as soon as this happens.

’til then, it’s simply self-indulgent.

So get to work.

anon

i don’t normally talk american politics with democrats or republicans at this point – the system lacks any credibility whatsoever. its one of these things where you can participate if it makes you feel good to do so, but it doesn’t really matter.

hillary clinton is the same as whoever the republican will be. they will use large amounts of money donated to their campaigns by special interests (such as the parties that want a war on Iran, or guarantees that the health care system will remain focused primarily on corporate insurance profits) and they will use this money to buy large blocs of votes through the mass media PR apparatus. then, once elected, they will proceed to reward their sponsors with what the sponsors originally expected in return for their payoffs to the campaign, which is the sponsors’ agenda.

participate in it, if that makes you feel good. just don’t pretend it has any legitimacy any longer as an actual representative democracy – for my part, i’ll vote for whichever third-party or indepedent candidate makes it on to my ballot – the Democratic and Republican parties in Washington State, where I live, have together conspired to game the ballot system such that only Republicans or Democrats will appear on the ballot for POTUS campaigns, it seems – or I won’t bother voting. it doesn’t make feel good to vote for the status quo. besides, i am supposed to vote for candidates who represent me, and the demopublican or republocrat or whoever really wont -

Chris Vosburg

anon writes: i don’t normally talk american politics with democrats or republicans at this point – the system lacks any credibility whatsoever.

Which begs the question, obviously, of why you are reading and posting comments here.

anon

Golly, Chris, you’re so clever -
Shirin

If you were half as smart as you pretend to be you would know what begging the question means, which you clearly do not.

Chris Vosburg

Shirin writes: If you were half as smart as you pretend to be you would know what begging the question means, which you clearly do not.

Sure I do.

MW-10 has the following usage notes under “beg”:

— beg the question
1 : to pass over or ignore a question by assuming it to be established or settled
2 : to elicit a question logically as a reaction or response (the quarterback’s injury begs the question of who will start in his place)

You’ve erroneously assumed the only correct sense is the first and I, quite correctly, have used the second sense.

The question still stands, incidentally.
Chris Vosburg

And I’ll tell ya something else for nothin’, sister: You’ve chosen to cattily snipe away at my grammar, instead of addressing the topic I’ve raised, that of weighted voting, a solution to what you obviously feel is a broken system. O, what a noble mind is here o’erthrown.

You’re better than this. Much better.

Shirin

Chris, did it occur to you at all that I am sufficiently tired of your constant catty, sniping, snotty, deeply condescending manner of addressing me that I am just not interested in engaging with you any further? Just the way you introduced the topic of weighted voting was snotty, condescending and demeaning. What makes you think anyone would be interested in continuing a conversation when you adddress them in that way?

I have plenty of interesting people to interchange ideas with without having to wade through a swamp of insulting, demeaning comments throughout the process. You are not sufficiently more interesting than any of them to make it worth the slog.

PS I was not commenting on your grammar, but on your usage. Begging the question is a common logical fallacy. The expression is often incorrectly used when one should say “prompts the question” or “invites the question”. Sorry to see that MW has decided to endorse this misuse.

Chris Vosburg

I think I got it– to sum up, in a fit of pique and stuck for a retort, you hurled a “grammar gotcha” brickbat, childish last refuge of the commenter without a comment. It blew up in your face, so I’m the jerk. Merriam-Webster supported my usage and not your proscription of it, so they’re the jerk. You, who you’ve told us does not mind having errors pointed out, are presumably not the jerk.

That about cover it?

You really gotta loosen up and stop taking yourself so seriously, Shirin. Keep it up, and you’re gonna burn out a bearing, kid.

Shirin

Chris, I would not conclude based on our interchange here that you are a jerk. However, in your interactions with me you have certainly exhibited pretty jerk-like behaviour quite consistently for some time now.

Do you really think that introducing a topic with “If you were serious about this, you would have concluded long ago that [blahblahblah]…” is a good way to invite someone to think about, let alone consider and discuss with you the ideas you are presenting? Do you think making insulting and demeaning remarks, or addressing someone in a condescending manner is an effective way to foster communication? Or is it your intention to bring an immediate halt to any further thought or discussion? If the latter was your goal, you succeeded brilliantly.

Chris, I am a normal human being with normal, human being feelings. Normal human beings do not respond well to being consistently insulted, called names, demeaned, condescended to. I took it for awhile, and now have had enough of that from you.

Chris Vosburg

Shirin writes: Do you really think that introducing a topic with “If you were serious about this, you would have concluded long ago that [blahblahblah]…” is a good way to invite someone to think about, let alone consider and discuss with you the ideas you are presenting?

Yes, as they say, you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Hey waitaminute [laughing], where have we heard that recently?

As the deja vu washes over you, as well it should, please accept my apologies for my “New York manners”, which I have adopted since arguing more politely against this sort of destructive voting behavior in the 2000 election (and look how that turned out!). I’ve been flogging myself ever since with the lash: “maybe you should have said it a bit louder, with more bite.”

I think this approach is more effective, and you, my dear, are the unfortunate proof, like it or not. Try to remember that you are not really the target audience of my remarks– they are rebuttal of your advocacy of third party voting and directed to anyone reading your advocacy of such.

Difficult to believe, I know, but some times, it’s not about you.

Shirin

“I think this approach is more effective, and you, my dear, are the unfortunate proof…”

1. I am not your dear, so please refrain from trying to subordinate me by addressing me as such.

2. By what measure is “this approach” supposedly more effective? Do you suppose you have even captured my ear, let alone convinced me of anything with “this approach”? And how many other people do you suppose you have convinced with “this approach”? By what means are you counting the people who have rethought their views as a result of your incessant condescension and personal attacks?

Interestingly, I have found quite the contrary to be the case. When, out of frustration, I address people in a negative personal, or overly aggressive or condescending manner, not only are they unable to hear my message, so are a whole lot of other people who are listening in.

“some times, it’s not about you.”

Why do you consistently make it so very personal, then? If it is not about me, why the need to constantly put me in a subordinate status by demeaning and condescending to me, and addressing me as “your dear”? Why the need to personally impugn my integrity, my intellect, my thought process, and my honesty when you disagree with me? Why not simply argue your case based on its merits without the personal invective?

And now you tell us that this is not something you are doing in the heat of frustration, but rather a “technique” you are using because you actually think it is more effective? Wow.

But, in reality, you are correct. It is not about me. It is really about you.

Chris Vosburg

Shirin writes: I am not your dear, so please refrain from trying to subordinate me by addressing me as such.

[shaking head] Honey, darlin’, sugar, this kind of talk just encourages those who already are poised to post the lyrics of the schoolyard taunt which goes like this:

Chris and Shirin
Sittin’ in a tree,
K-I-S-S-I-N-G…

Don’t give them fodder, please.

Shirin writes: By what measure is “this approach” supposedly more effective?

Former polite entreaties were brushed aside. This time, a two-by-four upside the head has produced a reaction. Despite your insistence that this is the wrong aproach, you will carry my words into the voting booth. You will hesitate, and ask yourself, with finger paused over over the third party candidate: Am I doing this out of spite in reaction to what that asshole ChrisV on the NoQuarter blog said about me? Logic will win out and you will not vote for such. That is my hope, anyway.

And to clarify, a couple notes about “proof” from MW-10, which I intended in its original sense, that of “test”:

1 archaic : to learn or find out by experience
2 a : to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of [the exception proves the rule] [prove a will at probate] b : to test the worth or quality of; specifically : to compare against a standard — sometimes used with up or out c : to check the correctness of (as an arithmetic result)

We’ll know if it had any effect when you tell us, in November of next year, who you voted for.

Shirin writes: But, in reality, you are correct. It is not about me. It is really about you.

All comments serve the interest, and usually the vanity, of the commenter, yes. Have you only just noticed?

As the guest entertainer of our show, please welcome Ian Anderson, in songful response to critics accusing him of self-indulgence:

Brain-storming,
habit-forming,
battle-warning weary winsome
actor spewing spineless chilling lines–
The critics falling over
to tell themselves he’s boring
And really not an awful lot of fun.

Well who the hell can he be
when he’s never had V.D.,
And he doesn’t even sit
on toilet seats?

Court-jesting,
never-resting–
he must be very cunning
To assume an air of dignity
And bless us all
With his oratory prowess,
His lame-brained antics
and his jumping in the air.

And every night his act’s the same
And so it must be all a game
of chess he’s playing–

[spoken]But you’re wrong, Steve.
You see, it’s only solitaire.

–Solitaire, Ian Anderson
Shirin

“you will carry my words into the voting booth. You will hesitate, and ask yourself, with finger paused over over the third party candidate”

No, I will not. Don’t flatter yourself. I will do as I have always done my entire life, which is to take the actions I have decided are the right ones.

And by the way, you also consistently flatter yourself by believing that you understand, without really being told, what and how and why I am thinking, how I view things, and what has gone into forming those views.
Chris Vosburg

Shirin writes: No, I will not.

[laughing] Will too.
Shirin

Keep flattering yourself, Chris, if it makes you feel good. }
Chris Vosburg

Will not.
Chris Vosburg

Will too times a thousand.
Chris Vosburg

Doh!

anon

or maybe people who dare to suggest that instead of pretending hillary clinton is little alternative to george bush’s heir, we should simply vote for someone else, should not be sanctioned by the same old lesser-evil bullshit

the two party system is a mafia, an electoral mafia. all the lesser-evilism in the world will not change that -

Chris Vosburg

The more time that passes since the 2000 election, the more obvious it becomes that Al Gore was not “Bush lite”, a glib claim that helped Bush into the Presidency by blurring the many real distinctions between the candidates, and diverting votes into Ralph Nader’s column.

You were played then, and you’re being played now, sucker; quit being such a rube.

lidia

Al Gore ONLY ceded his presidency to Bush, nothing more. Sure, such person was worth voting for him (to give him votes to give over to Bush). Suckers, indeed.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

You’ve got to be kidding. How is Hillary the same as Giuliani or Romney or Thompson? If Giuliani is elected [he's current the GOP frontrunner], John Dean says he’d be a lot worse than our worst Bushie nightmare. Thompson is an idiot, and Romney….?

Hillary isn’t perfect, she wasn’t my first choice…but she’s better than any of the Republicans running.

Chris Vosburg

Leslie wites: Thompson is an idiot,…

Yeah, but he smells good.
John Witherspoon

You’ve got to be kidding. How is Hillary the same as Giuliani or Romney or Thompson? If Giuliani is elected [he’s current the GOP frontrunner], John Dean says he’d be a lot worse than our worst Bushie nightmare. Thompson is an idiot, and Romney….?

Hillary isn’t perfect, she wasn’t my first choice…but she’s better than any of the Republicans running.

You’re missing the point. Why not just put all of our efforts into defeating her in the primary? Also, you are assuming that we take the same stance as you on domestic issues. For instance, with regards to Universal Healthcare, HRC is the worst of the Dems, as she is a proven failure in this regard, and there is still a ton of bitterness in the health community about her previous plan. Why don’t we stop falling for the media sponsorship of our least viable and most divisive candidate (excepting Gravel and Kucinich), and nominate someone electable, with a great voting record, like Dodd? (besides Dodd is J Stewart’s favorite, so that alone should be enough).

mudkitty

I would like to ask Shirin when she thinks the 2nd wave of the student revolution in Iran is supposed to start, and what’s taking them so long?
mudkitty

Eh?
Pingback: TGIF Must-Reads (Add Your Own) : NO QUARTER