“Senator Clinton,” I said. “My name is Paul Hogarth, and I am from Beyond Chron in San Francisco. First, I’d like to thank you for having gone on the record saying that you would repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell – which passed during your husband’s administration. I want to ask you about four other pieces of legislation that happened in the Clinton years, and whether you would be willing to advocate their repeal – the Defense of Marriage Act, the Telecommunications Act, NAFTA, and the Welfare Bill.”

Her answer to my question was absolutely awful. Like her statements in the Debate, it exposed her as an anti-progressive triangulator – and was the tensest moment of the break-out session. If Democrats wake up and realize that the Bill Clinton years (although far better than the Bush years) had some serious issues and we cannot trust Hillary to be a progressive leader to get us out of the wilderness, she can be defeated.

Here’s what each of the laws did and what Hillary’s answer was to my question:

Defense of Marriage: DOMA, passed in 1996 when Bill Clinton wanted to deprive Bob Dole of a campaign issue, allows states not to recognize an out-of-state gay marriage. “DOMA served a very important purpose,” she said. “I was one of the architects in the strategy of fighting the 2004 Marriage Amendment, and DOMA gave us a bright line to be able to pull back the votes.”

Telecommunications Act of 1996: The Telecommunications Act is one of the main reasons why Clear Channel and Hillary’s new friend, Rupert Murdoch, today own most of the airwaves. “I don’t know,” she said, “ask Al Gore.”

NAFTA: The 1993 trade agreement has been absolutely devastating to labor and environmental standards. “NAFTA did not realize what was promised for a number of reasons,” she said. “We need to have an ongoing evaluation.”

Welfare Repeal: Also passed in 1996 when Bill Clinton wanted to deny Bob Dole a campaign issue, the Welfare Bill denied legal immigrants the right to get Food Stamps and SSI. It was an awful piece of legislation, and her response was that “the positive consequences outweighed the negative.”

I could have been far more confrontational in asking my question, but that would have played right into her hands because I would have sounded shrill and mean-spirited. Which is why I made a point to thank her for agreeing to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

... will not be coming back, ever. I don't believe any of the Dems candidates would bring them all home, most especially Hillary.

leave it to the Republicans to bring the troops home, and then give them all the health care they need. So much better than the Dems . . .

... and not something I would ever suggest.

"right sizing"?

...as an alternative term for "downsizing"?

By nature politicians have to be ambitious and posses an ego. Its expected. We have real examples provided by our current administration defining very well what constitutes a ruthless and power hungry approach to politics.

I am curious. What actions by Hillary do you see as putting her in that category?

Is it only gut feeling?

Please accept my interest as an attempt to assist you in your recovery.

Has Hillary ever publicly repudiated any of Bush's power grabs? I know she's said at least once she believes in a strong executive and in "executive priviledge", the latter of which seems to be something invoked more frequently to hide evidence of impeachable offense than for real national security necessity.

It's positions like that, combined with her lack of repudiating any of the civil rights and Constitutional violations of the Bush administration that suggest she will be just as power hungry and abusive as Bush is, as the op suggests.

Admittedly she may have repudiated certain things and I missed it, I'm not a huge Hillary tracker. I would frankly like to be proven wrong on her, as it would behoove us all for the Dem frontrunner to be a true opposition candidate...

Republican plant job. Or at least play of the tape the Rove attack machine fed you. Elect Hillary and the nightmare of the Clinton Peace and Prosperity could hit us again. My God! No!! Not balanced budgets and an effective government! No torture, a return to human rights, a foreign policy that is internationally respected, a FEMA that worked. A return to Kyoto, maybe even universal Healthcare and expanded educational opportunities. Anything but that!!!

To compare and equate the worst President in US history with Hillary is ... ok, I'll play nice. Obviously you are a Very Serious Person.

Are the product of Sixteen years of smears by the Republican attack machine that has been perfectly crafted and honed by Rove. To the extent it can get any but the die hard republican christianists to hate . . . it has been very successful. We have George Bush and possibly another eight years of a George Bush clone, precisely because the right wing attack machine can make people think that compassionate, smart, effective, and caring people are evil, stupid and crazy (Gore, Kerry, Hillary). Believe me these folks are out there planting fake stories and fake comments in blogs like this one, and making up news pieces, hiring fake journalists (remember Gannon), with the sole purpose of dividing and destroying Democrats.

Rove himself organized fake gay rights parades in the weeks before the 2004 election in Ohio to energize votes for George Bush. The Republican attack machinery stationed police cars at the polling stations with blue lights flashing to keep minorities from voting in Florida in 2000. Don't kid yourself. One more election that lets a George Bush clone in, and we are without Democracy all together.

with the caveat that we would get a good 'conservative' universal health care plan out of the deal, and some basic restorations of basic Democratic ideals(like a human rights policy, return of habeus corpus, the end of renditions, end of torture), a FEMA that works, protection of birth control and abortion, some decent Supreme Court justices. I'm afraid we are in a triage and recertification mode right now, and I for one will rally around whoever wins Dem nomination 100%.

You don't know the history of Cheney. Cheney was bar none one of the most conservative representatives during his time in Congress. He was viewed as 'dangerous' by Kissinger in the 1970's.

The argument is not 'experience' by itself. Can you not see the basic basic policy differences between Hillary and Dick Cheney. Give me a break. And if another person throws up a 2003 Iraq war vote I'm going to puke. You think that vote even mattered?? The die was cast, President is Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces, Congress acquiesces to the President on matters of foreign policy. Obama was not even in Congress in 2003 to vote for the war (which he would have done as Senator had he BEEN there). Edwards voted in 2003. It is simply the way it works. She made the first attempts at universal health care in 1993. She brings Bill back into the mix. She is on her second stint as a Senator.

Cheney's history is jinxed:
Appointed in 1969 by Nixon - who is forced to resign. By the way it was Cheney who wrote the first memos on how to use Government Departments to exact retribution against political enemies. (unearthed by Hersh). Next he was appointed by Ford in 1975, as Chief of Staff. Ford lost the 1976 election. Reagan did not ever hire Cheney. George H.W. Bush brought Cheney back in 1989 and suffered defeat in 1992. Cheney brings to Bush Jr. the likely dubius status of worst President in History.

Congress is given the power to declare war by the Constitution. Go back and listen to what Senator Byrd said on the floor of the Senate at the time of the vote on the Iraq Resolution. He knew the dangers of that vote, and he spoke about his mistake of voting for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that started the Vietnam war. To say that Clinton had to make that vote is to bury your head in the sand. Barbara Boxer voted against it.

I detect a little Exploding Head Syndrome. All the talking heads seem to suffer from it of late. Especially to have it be a woman. Especially the old guys and I think Zbigniew Brzezinski. We have a candidate that could bring real change, and who could do it with real power.

I'm also tired of all the PINO's out there. (Look it up).

DINO

http://www.firebox.com/index.html?dir=firebox&action=product&pid=429

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

:)

...you shouldn't be posting about the idiots who allowed themselves to be sold ARMs, or the idiots who take shopping carts out of the lot.

Yeah, yeah, HRC is better than anything the Repub's have to offer. She's also worse than anything else the Dems have to offer. More electable? No. More progressive? Definitely not. More willing to screw someone who backed her? Definitely yes - but will it be Murdoch or you? Hmmm. If I had any money to bet, I'd bet on the money.

Iagreewitchu.

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

Never have gone for pop creds, leave that to Britney. But never thought Progressive meant rooting for bank failures and a stock market crash. In my world keeping your own financial house in order wasn't the Governments responsibility. I do understand regulatory oversight, but to this day can't imagine someone walking in with a $60k salary and hithching themself to a $300 k house. I am utterly mystified. Sort of like the signs they put on lawn mowers these days I guess, where they write that they are not to be used for hedge trimmers. Do people really try to do that?? But in the absence of any personal common sense and utter lack of responsibility, I guess protecting people from themselves has extended to their own budgets.

The housing market boomed for a considerable length of time, and money was and still is cheap.

Buy a house you can barely afford, sleep on a mattress on the floor of your empty abode and go to work. In three years sell at enough profit to do it again. Do that three times and you have amassed a pile of dough. (moving is a snap)

In theory, of course. For many it hasn't worked out so guut. But the point is that it can be an investment strat. Its not just about the so called 'American dream' of owning a home.

I am supposed to feel some sort of sympathy for a housing day trader??

crossposted

http://agonist.org/20070819/clinton_says_negatives_wont_keep_her_from_winning

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter" - Martin Luther King Jr.

... respectfully, how you felt about it wasn't something I ever considered.

It's a valid and sometimes very rewarding, if unconventional, form of financial investment.

...the RE agents and mortgage brokers make it very clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. They tell you that "conventional wisdom" says it's just dandy, in fact a no-brainer, to buy a $300k house on a $60k salary. In fact, that's understated.

In the 1840s there was a Rhode Island bank that issued something like $800,000 worth of loans based on $48 in deposits. Think they told the depositor that it might not be such a good idea to open an account? Then how would he know not to?

Pete Domenici is a die-hard conservative Republican on all issues but one. He thinks mental illness should be covered. Why? One of his daughters has a mental illness. That's not at all untypical. Conservatives usually have no empathy unless it's one of their own that gets hurt.

her because she's a woman?

myself. :) As long as we are going to have to listen to the never ending
presidential campaign we might as well have fun with it.

since she started running for President? :-)

_{"George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," Shmuley Boteach}

Ron Paul won't be elected. Neither will Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel. The reasons don't matter. Fact remains, they can't win.

So what are we left with?

I don't like Edwards. He talks one way, lives another. Says he doesn't like off-shore tax shelters while hiding wealth in the Cayman Islands. Lawyer. Made tons of money in the hedge fund business. Wife will soon die of cancer.

Hillary is smart. A centrist. Right where she belongs. In the senate.

Here's the ticket that wins. Obama. Al Gore as vice president with powers along the lines Cheney now enjoys.

Not saying it's good or right or what I want, just that it will most likely be that way.

Obama is the inexperienced communicator while Gore makes policy in the background. Same formula used to win with Bush and Cheney.

ps. I will continue to support Ron Paul and Mike Gravel as voices against imperial agression. The validitiy of their cause is greater than their chance of winning an election.

I did inhale.

on subjects like abortion and immigration? if so this statement makes no sense:

ps. I will continue to support Ron Paul and Mike Gravel as voices against imperial agression.

i don't much about MG, but i recently have posted quite a bit about paul, and while he doesn't like much rovian/bushie governing philosophy, he's a long way from beomg a champion of the oppressed. i say this as someone who likes paul better than most of the rest of his party. which is another way of saying, "fascism lite" is hardly better than the full blown thing.

are just assuming its a given regardless of the who becomes the party candidate?

and maybe even Mitt Romney will do well against the Democratic candidate if they can win the Republican nomination. People point to bush's low popularity ratings without paying attention to the fact that a Democratically controlled congress has equally poor favorability ratings.

Then there's the real possibility of a false flag event to galvanize support around a Republican candidate. To those that say such a thing can't happen in this country, I say you view the world with selective vision.

US history is full of similar events, albeit most of them perpetrated against foreign interests.

There's a class of people that think the average citizen is unaware of their own best interests and right now they're running the show. It's all too convenient to assume that these types operate only in the Republican party.

There are plenty of wolves wearing wool.

I did inhale.

not carpet wool.

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

thanks.

"Hillary haters" marshall forces for campaign

By Jill Zuckman
Chicago Tribune
August 26

DALLAS — Richard Collins, a wealthy Texas philanthropist, businessman and political aficionado, heaps praise on the woman he has set out to destroy, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

"She looks like a winner," said Collins. "She's run a good campaign, very consistent, no mistakes."

But make no mistake: Collins is just one in a vast army of professional "Hillary haters" banking on Clinton becoming the Democratic nominee. Like the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" in the 2004 election who denigrated John Kerry's military service in Vietnam, Collins and others are searching for the thing that will crystallize the way voters think and feel about her.

And not in a good way.

Armed with new technologies and fueled by animus, they are bent on preventing "four more years" of Clintonism. Every old charge, it seems, is being repackaged and sold as new. Every rumor is given a new, blog-stoked currency.

The rise of the Internet has meant that more people are getting their message out without the expense of paper, postage or staffing. Anyone with a laptop can weigh in on the political debate and alter a candidate's course, and Clinton opponents have started early.

Collins, 60, is the force behind StopHerNow.com, a snarky Web site, and a group dedicated to stopping Clinton's march to the White House. His efforts have included flying a banner over the site of the South Carolina Democratic debate and an animated cartoon, "The Hillary Show," a "Jetsons"-like satire.

"This is not personal," said Collins, a Republican who has donated money to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. "It's about her policies. We think they would be wrong for the country."

Not every Democratic presidential candidate, however, draws such venomous opposition. Ever since she uttered those famous words about staying home, baking cookies and holding teas rather than fulfilling her professional goals, Clinton has been a magnet for passionate criticism.
More
______________________________________________________________________

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter" - Martin Luther King Jr.

I remember how Howard Dean led in just about every poll at this stage of the game in the '04 election. And how all that turned around with the Iowa caucuses.

Truth is, I don't know.

Just making a guess, like the rest.

Concerning Ron Paul's platform, if we don't get foreiegn interventions and money matters right, none of the social issues Democrats discuss will matter. There will be no money left for those programs.

I think we stand on the edge of a financial collapse like none in our generation has known.

Just my opinion.

I did inhale.

Huh? All the polls show that Edwards can win the election. For that matter they show Hilary and Obama can't too. All 3 beat any of the major Republican candidates by significant margins.

The question isn't "who can win the election", the question is "who'd be the best president".

And if that's the question, the answer isn't Hilary, in my opinion.

is asking who can win the election, and if the answer is not the candidate we favor, seeing why that is the case and trying to remedy it.

(ps did you make a Freudian slip saying 'can't' for Obama and Hillary above in your response:-))

In this country we only get one practical choice, if that, for both questions, unless we had more money and energy than any of us on this site had to put behind the person we felt was "the best choice" as soon as the last election was over.

The "Dean scream" was propagated not only by Republicans but by other Democrats, and that seemed to me just crappy politics completely taken out of context.

If we think someone would be the 'best' president, than we need to spend more time pressuring those in power in the Democratic party to choose that person. Do you really feel the DNC wants to nominate another Kerry, every one's safe second choice? or is really certain the left would feel thay had to vote for Clinton on election day? Their support for her is really very shallow.

I don't see pointing out the many negatives in Hillary's record as a way to get Edwards the nomination, if that is who you believe would make the best president: lots of money, better coaching on TV appearances, badly timed or executed cheap shots by Republicans, some really good and well covered Q%A;s and speeches, a huge swell of ground support (by which I do not mean MoveOn), plus of course some not very predictable changes in world events: the worsening of the US economic mess might do that, provided Edwards is prepared for that.A major terrorist attack on the US would still trump all of it for the Republicans.

I still am convinced that having a shadow cabinet with a designated expert for each post has not been given a thorough tryout and that it creates the executive reality around a candidacy that people who are afraid of the future need. I don't think the candidate has to show that on their own they know more about everything than the other candidates. Somehow the candidate has to appear trustworthy.

I have never however, participated in anything but the "get out the vote" parts of campaigns. I did learn in 2004 how many ordinary older people really liked Dean better, because he got them charged up, but just resigned themselved to Kerry(and were embarrassed at the nationally televaised Kerry the hunter photos)

. Most of these people were going to vote for Kerry but didn't think he could win. The vote was closer than I expected.

Meanwhile, pictures like these below make me crazyon using the term "no difference Hillary", though they do not make me trust Hillary any more than before. Edwards is being portrayed as effeminate
by some, but it hasn't gotten near the gender flame that Hillary causes.

_{"George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," Shmuley Boteach}

propagate in her shirt?

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

iirc, there are actually more females in our population than males.

jes sayin.

but they lack power making them a minority group as are blacks who are less numerous, lacking even less influence in having their voices heard and heeded.

Not only are there more women than men, but they are also more likely to vote. Women live longer than men, and the demographic that is most likely to vote, those over 55 are overwhelmingly female. On top of that, the issues that are most important to this group of women are related to healthcare issues and end of life issues, an area Hillary polls especially well.

In the real world, the favorability of Hillary among women is overwhelming. The latest polling consistently places it above 60%. Among Democrats, her positives are closer to 70%.

In state by state polling among those most likely to vote, Hillary polls ahead of all Republican candidates in key states like Virginia, Missouri and Ohio. Real bellweather states. She is also polling ahead in Illinois and even in Massachusetts and New York, state that Gilliani and Romney should be doing well in.

That said, Obama is also polling ahead in these key states, with Edwards generally not doing quite as well. The positive negative scoring among all the democrats are gradually attaining almost an equal status. Edwards and Obama keep getting higher negatives as folks get to know them, and hillary keeps doing better. In fact she has polled alomost even in the PEW results, with Obama and Edwards running +2.

It's a race. Whoever wins the Dem nod will have an unprecedented shot at being president. I find it most interesting that among the Republican candidates, every single one of them have had heads of their campaign staffs have to resign in gay sex scandals. What is that all about?? Most recently Craig propositioning a man in a bathroom. He happens to be the head of the Romney campaign. I saw the headline this morning 'Brokeback Bathroom' gave me a laugh.

I foresee either a Hillary-Obama ticket or a Hillary-Webb Ticket. Webb is the Senator who beat out Senator Allen in Virginia. Both bring excellent credentials to the ticket.

I believe when the dust settles this will be called the year Women took Power.

is simply not typical at all of the electorate at large at this time. Both Obama and Hillary in state by state contests are polling the electoral lock, or very near it. The real problems are not with Dems but republicans. They have this way of destroying themselves over the past several years. In fact, the polling today indicates that ten Senate seats could shift to Democrats this election cycle. Unbelievable. I do not know a single issue they poll well on - not one. The Dems have candidates with real stature, though Edwards - the darling of this group for some reason - remains mired in single digits. It is a race between Obama and Hillary. Ultimately a ticket that could be combined. The anit-Hillary folk - if they aren't actually ripublican plants fanned out on blogs - well, I just don't know what you are smoking. The theme of this site was little differences among the dems, and that on a policy standpoint is true.

Anti-Hilary folks are Republican plants?

Oooooooh.

I thought the Hillary lovers were the republican plants......

The article below makes my point. The danger is Hillary. Obama is an outstanding individual, with real potential. But he is two years into a Senate office. That is the extent of his national position. A State Legislator before that. He is not tested in a repeat election as Senator. The experience issue is very real, and if one looks at the Presidents who are elected, they have histories on the national stage. The closets in Obamas closet have not even begun to come out. The nature of his home purchase from a supporter with organized crime connections (whose trial is in February 2008). His cocaine use, how extensive was that? His inability to stay on message, and penchant for saying things that he later needs to clarify (part of his charm, but also inexperience). He has great promise/potential. But it simply takes time.

Edwards. This is my opinion, but he is the one who comes across as fake. And the things he says from the standpoint of being a national figure just strikes me as wacky. Just today he said Americans must be willing to sacrifice their SUVs. Not any kind of policy discussion, not we should increase CAFE standards, etc. etc. It is meaningless bloviating. That is what he does. He has fake nonprofits that funnel money, questionable money all over the place. But . . . hey, everyone on this site loves the guy.

AP, By BRENDAN FARRINGTON, August 28

LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a labor group Tuesday that he would ask Americans to make a big sacrifice: their sport utility vehicles.

"I think Americans are actually willing to sacrifice," Edwards said during a forum held by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. "One of the things they should be asked to do is drive more fuel efficient vehicles."

The former North Carolina senator was asked specifically if he would tell them to give up their SUVS, he said, "Yes."

Let me guess, and you were for Kerry last time, because he seemed real whereas Edwards seemed fake and Dean nuts, right? How did that go, nominating our 3rd, strongest choice (oxymoron there)? How well will it go this time? I'm calling political expert over you, and yeah, you bet others here will have my back on this - Edwards is our strongest choice against Republicans. Obama is our second .. and then Hillary ..... is this opinion or does the analysis match this? See what Rasmussen has been reporting for months, or Zogby, or anyone else who has a proven track record of being correct.