Countdown Interview: Up Close & Clinton
By Logan Murphy Thursday Oct 11, 2007 12:00pm
On Thursday's Countdown Keith Olbermann interviewed Sen. Hillary Clinton, covering a wide number of issues including the swift boating of Graeme Frost and SCHIP, Iran, the pending FISA legislation and even the movement to draft Al Gore. Clinton calls out the right for stalking and smearing a 12 year old boy -- and we now know that the lies behind this hate-fest from the right came in the form of an e-mail to reporters from Republican Senator Mitch McConnell's Communications Director, Don Stewart. Stewart should be condemned and fired for putting the Frost family in such danger.
Download | play 
Download | play (clip is 14:26)
Senator Clinton defended her vote on the Lieberman/Kyl amendment, saying it was misunderstood by some and misrepresented by others, and that it in no way gives the president authorization to invade Iran. Hillary also touts the Iran amendment she co-sponsored with Senator Jim Webb and sees it as an opportunity to use diplomatic means to deal with Iran instead of President Bush's cowboy diplomacy. As for a possible Nobel Prize and White House run by Al Gore? You'll have to watch the clip...
Login or Register to post comments.
Yes. Some consequences deserved here. I hope McConnell is dressed down publicly on the floor of the Senate too...
regardless of the rationale behind the vote for the lieberman amendment i don' now nor will i ever trust anyone who sides with elmer fudd on anything.
She also vowed a complete withdrawal from Iraq by end of first term ... CHELSEA'S!
no longer a proud american @ 2:
Or for the Webb amendment either. She is the one who is misleading.
"Misunderstood by some and misrepresented by others"
...Welcome to the Clinton "44" Adminstration.
Edwards...Please.
with regard to the swiftboating of a 12 year old, ""Have You No Sense of Decency" never more apropos.
Johnny2Bad @ 5:
OH PLEASE..................
so hillary thinks im an idiot
the soviet union also funded and trained terrorist orgs, yet we never labled their military a terrorist org
she is bush lite, with the ability to string full sentences together
What did Mrs. Clinton mean when she said something about Keith at the very beginning of the interview? Something along the lines of "I hear you're doing well"
Was that a ratings allusion?
The authorization to use force (Iraq) five years ago gave the President the authority to pursue terrorist targets world-wide.
The Lieberman-Kyl ammendment labeled the Iranian military as a terrorist organization.
YOU DO THE MATH!!!
Jebus, I am so sick of politicians who think we're all too damned stupid to see what's going on.
I can't support Hillary because I'm going to vote for a Democrat.
uncle joe mccarthy @ 8:
Well, then we'll have a Republican as President again....
Hillary can beat the Repugs.....
Again.... Hillary can win.
Winning is the only game right now.
We need to win first and then start changing the game.
John Tully @ 9:
Didn't he have his appendix removed recently?
Regardless of how you feel about Hillary - and I think she's too conservative - she did well again.
Personally, I like Kucinich.
Practically, I'd love to see Gore.
I WILL vote for whichever Democrat is nominated.
And if Ralph Nader's ego runs again to draw off the left wing ideologue vote that could put Rudy in office. The purists can smiugly say they vote their conscience, but in my opinion, they'll just guarantee a Rudy win and then shriek for 4 years about a President worse than Dubya.
Will 2008 be the year the American people finally resort to choosing a president who gives thoughtful, intelligent, coherent responses to the questions and hails from the Party that has produced presidents who manage, time after time, to preside over more positive times than its obvious competitor regardless of how hard the MSM and the competitor tries to spin us away from her and her Party?
If so, then Hillary Clinton wins.
RandyBastard @ 10:
Jeebus, I'm so sick of Democrats not being able to see the forest for the trees.....
I'll take a Clinton back in the White House any day...
John Tully @ 11:
Spoken like a true DLCer.
anonymous @ 12:
I figgered it was something else but I think that must be it....
YAK YAK YAK! Never vote for that opportunist. She's a smart Bush which makes her twice as dangerous.
I think that she had some very good points in this interview, and Keith also didn't softball her at all. I'm glad he asked about the Kyl amendment and talking about the rejection of "cowboy diplomacy" gave me hope for america's future.
I hear some of the crap she does, and I hate her for it, but then when she actually talks about the reasoning, she starts making sense again. Her health care proposition is broken, but it's a **** of a lot better than the current system or anything the Repugs are proposing. She's better than Kerry ever was, and as far as democratic nominees, we could definately do worse.
The question you have to ask yourself, is why Faux news has an entire show to stopping her election (the Sean Hannity show). Why is she so frightening to the repugs?
John Tully @ 11:
other than nominating normal judges, wanna explain to me how the country will be better off with hillary?
she is in the pocket of big pharma and the corporatists
she will propose and sign a bill allowing for a guest worker program that will spell the demise of unions
she will not end the occupation in iraq, and may indeed expand it into iran
i lay odds that her presidency, just like her husbands will cause the loss of both the senate and te house
the idea that she is the best choice out of all the dems, just because she can speak out of both sides of her mouth, is pure lunacy
At the risk of being ripped to shreds by my own kind.....she seems very presidential, and she's a tough old battle ax. Like her or hate her, she's the only one that has the balls and brains to fend off the right wing smear machine. Christ, I'm still praying Gore jumps in. Clark is out... Dennis is sweet but he'd get eaten alive by the right wing. And I read somewhere his gorgeous wife has a pierced tongue, it was in Time or Newsweek or Charmine (yeah, that'll play well in middle America. Hey, I've had ...piercings...in ...places). Look, vote for your dream canidate but for God's sake back whoever is outr nomination.
uncle joe mccarthy @ 20:
Clinton is a member of the CFR and she profited from the war she not only voted for but also parroted the administration lies about on the floor of the Senate, while owning stocks in major military contractors.
Her husbands NAFTA has done more harm to the american working and middle class than anything else could have, while making the family that owns Walmart the richest in the country. The same Walmart Hillary had a seat on the board of Directors.
The corporatist media is pushing her as the only viable candidate for a reason; she is in their pockets and she will continue this globalization, through-out her presidency.
Please read "The Obvious Connections..." at http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/the-obvious-connections-are-t... !
This corporatist campaign has got to come to an end, so we must expose where it all started.
xxx @ 19:
B/c in the republic world, she's uppity. Think of "The Breakfast Club" - "shut up bitch, and make me a turkey pot pie"
While Hillary does indeed have weak points, she is the only one with "balls" to face the right wingers and take them to task. Plus she has a masterful PR person behind her (Bill). So I will feel good even if she were nominated. Edwards sounds good, but it is difficult to gauge his electability in the general election.
Bottomline...I will vote for whoever is nominated for the Democratic ticket. Even the most right wing democrat is an extreme leftist when compared to the righties.
uncle joe mccarthy @ 20:
SHE'S THE BEST CHOICE BECAUSE SHE'S THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN BEAT THE REPUBLICANS AND THAT'S THE GAME!
(excuse the shouting)
yellow dog @ 13:
I must agree that she is far too conservative, but did well here. However, I'll vote for her in the general election if she is on the ticket. The time to vote your conscience is in the primary - in the general election, those of good conscience vote for the Democratic candidate.
John Tully @ 11:
Not so fast. According to an NPR poll, Hillary barley beats Giuliani by three percentage points. In most polls, that's within a margin of error. Contrast that to a generic contest between the two parties and the Democrats win over the Republicans by over thirteen percentage points. What this could be showing is that we need to fins a candidate who can beat the Republicans as handily as the generic poll suggests is possible. Neither Hillary nor Obama seem to able to do this, he was in a dead heat with Giuliani.
Who is this candidate? I don't know. I doubt highly it will be Gore. He has stated strongly enough to convince me that he has no intention of entering the race. We need a candidate who will bring those numbers to fruition.
For reference go to the Morning Edition page at http://www.npr.org/ to see the poll results.
clinton doesn't have to apologize for anything, maybe at most just explain why she voted a certain way, and she's done that. it's BUSH who made the decision to invade Iraq without planning it fully and it'll also be BUSH who decides if action is needed against Iran militarily. he's the decider. it's BUSH, so aim your correct vitriol at him not her. BUSH's fault, say it over and over again and it's very clear.
I can't help but think that a certain amount of misogyny, even now, is informing many opinions regarding Clinton. When she is serious and confident, voters are intimidated; when she's warm and humorous, she is accused of being too 'motherly' or 'coddling' the nation with phony gestures. It's not as though the men who are running are facing such harsh, unforgiving criticisms when they illustrate zest or confidence. In fact, Hillary is one of the more soft-spoken and pedantic Presidential candidates!
Don't get me wrong; there are certain policies of hers that I disagree with. Her voting record has its own share of hiccups as well, to be sure (although there is a lot of misrepresentation regarding the bill to authorise the war in Iraq, for example). Nonetheless, she is hardly "Bush lite." She is simply a little more experienced, realistic, and moderate than many of the idealistic bleeding hearts gunning for the office. We may love men like Kucinich or Gravel, but their naivety sometimes horrifies me. They would get into the White House only to discover how complicated running the world's foremost superpower truly is. It is a similar situation with Barack, who seems to think that one can stomp into office and turn the nation on its head. What about the nation's interests? What about the Republican voters, who also need to be represented by the President?
Finally, I felt that Clinton handled herself well in this interview. She understands the game perfectly and even then she has some very liberal ideas that she plans on grinding into the system. For example, her plan to send envoys to all corners of the world to explain that "the days of cowboy diplomacy are over" is brilliant and ballsy, but also necessary. She knows that there will be a lot of work ahead in rebuilding the U.S. in terms of its reputation as well as its relationships with other countries. And she's the only person who doesn't seem entirely green about what is necessary.
Not to mention that having Bill about for moral and intellectual support is never a bad thing.
I don't dislike Ms Clinton and I agree that she is a brilliant person and that she is probably "playing the game". That being said, she voted to allow the chimpster to kill a million Iraqis and for that she will never receive my support. I have always voted Democratic but am going to vote in the GOP primary for Ron Paul.
Barrack's wife works for the CFR. They are all CFR candidates except for Paul, Kucinich and Ravel.
We need a peaceful revolution!
Chuck Hagel is a Republican. Read "Invasion of the Party Snatchers".
We are not up against "Republicans" we are up againsts "corporatists". Hillary is a "corporatists". That is what they have done to this system, they have doubled down, or split the Aces, so to speak.
They own a faction in both parties and are trying to fool us into thinking they are different.
and if you think she has the "balls" to "beat the republicans", think about how much courage it takes to give in and suck-up to the corporatists and lobbiests.
She has no courage, not like Kucinich has. She is a coward and a sell-out. Just like bush.
John Tully @ 7:
Strawberry @ 21:
You and I made similar posts at the same time, so we can go down in flames together. :)
Seriously though, it seems that we're thinking along similar lines: she is cut out for the job. She understands the job. She knows that reconciling a divided nation, let alone a divided planet, is going to be an incredibly difficult endeavour. Throwing a radically left, economically inexperienced fellow in the White House is as unfair as it was for Bush to become President.
Johnny2Bad @ 32:
Yes...Purdy please. With sugar on top.
She definitly looks presidential now. Obama always looks like he isn't ready. Hillary scares me though - when she looks straight in the camera - aaaagghh!!! the abysss!!!!
She says she voted for the Kyle Amendment to call them terrorist and so that Bush can't attack them!?? What?
I love politics. They tell you want you want to hear and they DO something else.
I know where the back door is. Bush gives her advice through the corporations that he has made richer and that she will help make richer.
I'm sorry that i don't have a time machine for those who want to go back to the 90s. It's over. Join us in the future, are you guys still wearing MC hammer pants?
Dennis Kucinich 2008!!
Only three possibilities (IMO) for her vote on Lieberman/Kyl:
- she's too stupid to recognize that it's the proverbial camel's nose under the tent; or
- she supports an expansion into Iran; or
- she wants to look tough, but doesn't see the long-term implications
Either way, she's unfit for the nomination.
Shawnmeat @ 33:
Come on, I mean really. Shes going to be an F-ing lightning rod for the right wing. You want to activate the nutbag base??? Nominate Hillary.
yeah, here she is "playing the game" selling out to insurance companies because she takes so much from them and doesn't want the money to dry up.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/hillarys-health-care-plan-unv...
It's Me @ 14:
======================
Oh puh-LEEZE, that woman is freakishly intelligent, very calculating (not necessarily a bad thing) and is used to getting what she wants (again, not necessarily a bad thing...) BUT let's not assign qualities to her that aren't there, like compassion or honor. Like any good politician, she'll take action and paint it a certain way, but underneath it there will always be a strong vein of self-interest and -service. She and her husband owe a lot of favors to get where they are now, so don't think she's not beholden to all kinds of unsavory interests. She'll win, and she'll only give back JUST enough of our original rights to keep the American people complacent. She'll continue to feed our god-awful military industrial complex, our civil rights will continue to be eroded and corporations will continue to tighten their grip on the American people. Environmental responsibility will get LOTS of lip service by the new Clinton Administration but nothing will be done to stop global warming, pollution or famine. She won't force Big Pharma to do the humane thing and make their life-saving medicines affordable. She won't force Big Energy to make critical changes in their infrastructure. She will strangely "fail" at making government-funded medical care a reality. Main-stream media won't make a miraculous return to integrity and credibility under Hhillary's presidency, American news will just get more and more propagandized. Lobbying reform laws will NEVER happen, they're her meat and potatoes. Just wait and see, she's bought and paid for, and the way things are going will just get worse.
Shawnmeat @ 33:
I agree, I like Dennis...a lot. But he'll get drilled by the right and the middle. If Hillary does get the nomination and the White House...IT WILL BE OUR JOB AS CITIZENS TO KEEP HER DOING WHAT IS IN OUR BEST INTEREST. We can't just get folks elected and walk away. I doubt Hillary will be as tone deaf to the American people as bushy.
and here is information on her "blind trust" that put 25 million in her pocket from the Iraq war....
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2007/06/26/blind-trust-in-hillary/
Yeah, she is just "playing the game" alright. and doing well for herself at it too.
Crap like this drives me over the edge about Hillary. (Hell, calling her "Hillary" bugs me too.)
xxx @ 19:
No wonder those republicans win. They got people like you they can outsmart. They are not afraid of her, they are calling her out because they want her to get the nomination. She'd be the easiest to rip apart. They got enough dirt on her, it'll be an easy battle for them. When people are truly afraid of someone they don't talk about it. Bush has been quite for awhile..
Shawnmeat @ 29:
I would prefer a woman candidate . . . just not this one. Too much payola under the bridge.
Conan @ 44:
Conan, both of my Republican sisters in law who voted for Bush...twice...are voting for Hillary.
and what do you people base the opinion that Kucinich will be beaten by the right on? The fact that he was the youngest mayor in clevelands history, or the fact that he runs clean campaigns without accepting money from lobbiests or special interest groups and keeps winning his seat in the House?
Maybe the fact that he had the real courage to stand up for what he believed in in 2002 and called for a no vote to go to war?
While Guiliani wears a dress and charges 9.11 for tickets, this man is trying to impeach Cheney. Yeah, that isn't presidential or anything.
Just give up on dennis without any reason, that's what the media who is trying to Hillary wants you to do.
do you think that her "blind trust" isn't going to come out in the general elections? How about her Walmart stock skyrocketing right after Bill signed NAFTA into law?
Leaders are people who get others to follow them. Bush didn't need to lead....the ultra-right wing and evangelicals pretty much pushed him into the White House.
I expect more from a Clinton. Hillary hasn't expalined why I need to follow her.
I think I'm voting Green if she gets the nomination. I can't vote for any Clinton ever again. We need to move on. We need new blood. For all their flaws, I'd take Edwards or Obama over Hillary any day.
Now if Al Gore ran, I would cream my pants.
E Ryno @ 45:
I should note that I appreciate that there are also many who aren't a little sexist in their views of Hillary. Nonetheless, I don't 'prefer' either gender simply because it does little to nothing in terms of suggesting whether or not they will be competent or not as the Commander in Chief.
Also, a lot of the 'Hillary is a corporate schill!' talk frustrates me because it's a talking-point and easily-digestible soundbyte, the same way that 'Barack is green!' or 'Barack is not patriotic!' or 'Gravel is a crazy hobo!' are all instances of conjecture that, through repeation, have become fact. Many of those who discuss Hillary as a stone-cold, heartless opportunist (again, this is where I believe a lot of misogyny enters the picture) can't back that up. They heard it from someone who read something that someone else suggested, perhaps using circumstantial evidence at most.
I'm not saying that she doesn't have skeletons, because she surely does if she's in the political ballpark at all. Nonetheless, I think that people are regurgitating the same squaw like the annoying seagull-sheep that they are. (Yes, the imagery there can be fun!)
That woman must think we're all mentally retarded. She says she voted to label the Iranian military as a "terrorist organization" so that GW Bush would have "leverage" in pursuing diplomacy with Iran.
That's the same thing she said about Iraq when she voted to authorize *that* invasion. She's basically GW Bush in a skirt. Similar foreign policy, and a complete disregard for the publics' intelligence-- not to mention it's will.
willyloman @ 47:
=========
I agree, Dennis Kucinich has impressed me the most. I feel that if he were elected our country would have a much greater chance of fixing this terrible mess we're in. Has anyone here listened to him? He's amazing in that he speaks about things logically, using COMMON SENSE! I love it! Notice how just about every other presidential candidate is way behind the curve on everything? And that the opinion of the American majority is a mystery to them? Well, when I hear Kucinich speak I hear someone who gets it. He seems to be the only one, though Gore gets it too.
Johnny2Bad @ 38:
You are suggesting going against your natural instincts in favour of outright fear of the Dreaded Right. I say we let them have their lightning rod, because both Clintons have been taking their shit for a decade and a half and have always emerged as more intelligent and reasonable. And I will always oppose the idea that people should vote based on concern for what the Right might do in retribution. Fuck them. Stop giving them that power.
Proving again that Keith is only good at taking on the Republicans.
There's just something about Hillary that I mistrust - I do think she IS a ruthlessly ambitious, amoral opportunist who has made countless Deals With Devils, over time. (Which, come to think of it, also describes Lincoln and F.D.R.) Is there any center of idealism left at all in HRC 2007? Your guess is as good as mine. I still wish that she could be stopped in the primaries, but I'm afraid I'll end up holding my nose and voting for her next year...
What most unsettled me this week, actually, was her reply to Keith Olbermann when he asked her why she voted for Kyl-Lieberman. It does NOT mean an authorization to go to war with Iran, Hillary claimed; surely the President wouldn't take advantage of Congress just naming the Iranian government as active terrorists? Her vote was just a way of assuring continued diplomacy, she swore.
I guess that's like when she and Congress told the same White House that war with Saddam was absolutely, POSITIVELY the last resort...
She is looking more Presidential every day.
Come on people. She is obviously the best candidate at this point.
Strawberry @ 46:
They got good judgement. Vote Hillary cause' I voted for Bush.
I try to listen to Ms. Clinton as if I were an average citizen, not too involved in politics, not too aware of behind-the-scenes maneuvers and deals.
With that perspective, she comes across very well, despite her evasive response to the MoveOn brouhaha. I'm glad she used the words "appalled" and "mean-spirited" in reference to the attacks on Frost. Personally, even knowing all I know, I am willing to support her as our next duly-elected president. I feel the same way about Edwards, Obama, Kucinich, et al.
Uncle Joe, saving the Supreme Court is a critical issue, one which will affect generations beyond us, particularly women and minorities. Look at their recent rulings, and consider what we've lost already with these strident reactionary right-wingers that bush appointed. My gawd, try to imagine another Scalia or Alito on the court. *shudder*
to the person that says calling Hillary a corporate shill is just a republoican "talking point" I would seriously ask that person to
look into her blind trust...
look at her lobbiest "bundling"...
and look at what she is planning with health care...
Please do not just assume that the candidate we really want, the one who accepts no corporate money and will remove our troops (before the election) the day he takes office, and the one who tried like hell to keep them from going there in the first place...
please don't buy the "talking point" that he can't win. because that is saying "we can't have what we want"!
when in all honesty, we can! The media wants you to think he can't win, because he supports Campaign Finance Reform!
please, if you want the man and think he would make a great president, don't give up while he is still trying. he can win the nomination, and in thus doing so, we can tell these corporatist bastards that this is still our country.
>Only three possibilities (IMO) for her vote on Lieberman/Kyl:
>- she’s too stupid to recognize that it’s the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent; or
>- she supports an expansion into Iran; or
>- she wants to look tough, but doesn’t see the long-term implications
4. AIPAC.
I voted for Bill Clinton twice. That is enough as far as I am concerned. I believe in term limits. The notion of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, is unacceptable to me. In a country of over 300 million people, surely we can drawn on the talent of more than two families. I had a hard time typing talent in reference to the bush's, but I am not creative enough to use another word.
My God, The Republican sinks to the lowest low yet. That's pretty bad when you start throwing little kids under the bus. They were caught in one of their biggest lies, the economy. It's only more proof that the economy is in shambles. They REALLY don't care about their reputations and record occupying the deepest depths of the sewer. Kind of makes you wonder why?
Gore/Kucinich '08!
Shawnmeat @ 54:
We can't nominate Ronald Reagan for the 1980 Republican convention because the liberal media will be making fun of that Chimp movie that he made for his whole term.
psa23dg @ 62:
During one or two elections?
win first change later isnt that what put the current crop of spineless dinos in office.i ajust can't trust who would give bush the power for another possiable war,especially after what happened the first time around. and if barack is so inexperienced why does she keep changing her mind to follow his lead. and as one who has yet to make up her mind i am very tired of these so called front runners{both parties}being shoved down my throat. frankly i wish we could get a whole new crop.
willyloman @ 60:
I am not saying that there aren't elements of truth to whatever accusations come up; I am saying that many individuals dislike her and therefore hop on the spread-the-word bandwagon because now they have a morcel with which to discredit the woman.
And so many of these blogs have bits and pieces of information, usually quoted from other blogs. Not everything you read is true. There are two sides to every story, and all that jazz.
Also, I was not suggesting for a second that people should vote for Hillary Clinton because she is the only viable option in terms of odds. I am suggesting that she is the most professional, well-spoken, diplomatic, and goal-oriented. She is a realist who does have what it takes to win and also represent America well. She is not a wingnut supporting idealistic, fringe theories.
When she was talking about Iran she used the phrase, "...there can be no doubt..." which was just a little too reminiscent of assertions made about Iraq by the likes of Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, etc. That causes a bit of worry.
Shawnmeat @ 54:
No. My natural instincts are not to vote for her. She's a corporatist with bad judgment and a chip on her shoulder. I'm not going to vote for her just so she can get back at the right for Monica. F*ck her. Stop enabling her revenge motives.
"i lay odds that her presidency, just like her husbands will cause the loss of both the senate and the house"
What an idiotic statement....Bill Clinton didn't cause the loss of both houses of congress....GOP propoganda did.
Newt's Contract ON America + RightWingNut Radio = Republican congress.
Oh, and I don't give a good God damn how much "shit" the Clinton's have been taking. I'm not here to fight their battles. Its time to move on. (no pun intended) The ice caps are melting, there's a phony "war on terror" to deal with...Energy, Health care...On and on. I think we can all muddle through without Bill and Hill. In fact, I'm positive we'll much, much be better off if both the Bushs and the Clintons just f-ing all go away.
Turkmeister wrote....
"When she was talking about Iran she used the phrase, “…there can be no doubt…” which was just a little too reminiscent of assertions made about Iraq by the likes of Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, etc. That causes a bit of worry."
You're so right.
Also..when one of them says "Let me be clear..." I wanna throw something.
I personally was hoping Keith would come back with something like this:
"Mrs. Clinton, to point out and offer up that there is a nail in Iran, to an administration whose only known tool is a hammer, may be a problem. They are not likely to talk to the nail."
Cheers,
yellow dog @ 13:
Here here! Hear here! Here, hear!
Every time I watch Hillary on TV now, I try to see what the right sees. She just keeps getting better all the time--very calm and conservative-acting.
it in no way gives the president authorization to invade Iran.
It also in no way was based on ANY factual provable evidence!!
It aslo in no way helps ANY diplomatic efforts anywhere in the world!!
Shawnmeat @ 55:
No, the problem is that she's also DLC. If the prospective candidate were an actual populist of some sort, I'd say pissing off the Republican base would be something to ignore. But Hillary Clinton is a pro-corporate DINO. Why energize the Republican base without benefit?
Hillary was actually un-annoying and occasionally charming in this clip. Whatever they've got her hopped on, or if she's just worn out from campaigning, they should keep giving her.
Also, Hillary's shuck-and-jive about the Kyl-Liebermann resolution aside, it's a enormous breath of fresh air to hear articulate responses laid out by a candidate who actually knows about them and doesn't merely spew talking points.
As to the Kyl-Liebermann resolution: It was blindingly stupid, and no amount of excuse making can obscure that. Bush and the neocons have exhibited time and again they'll cherry pick info and stretch the truth beyond the breaking point to justify advancing their delusional agenda. Giving them political cover for attacking Iran was so stupid as to almost defy description.
Incredibly irresponsible and careless of every single Senator who voted for it. It could well lead to Bush and the neocons launching strikes against Iran before his term is up. If that happens, the responsiblity sits squarely in the lap of every Senator that voted for Kyl-Liebermann.
If Bush launches strikes before the election and uses as rationale the "terrorist designation" that Hillary voted to approve, there is simply no way I could ever vote for Hillary.
Keith did a good job with the interview
I'd vote for Ron Paul over Hillary Clinton. Otherwise, I'm voting for whoever the Democrats nominate.
I wish I trusted her.
I will keep it simple:
Isn't it past time that Senator Clinton learned that you should never cast votes in favor of actions and positions that you claim you oppose?
She has developed a pattern of doing so. It is starting to appear that she will mostly do the exact opposite of what she tells us she stands for. Haven't we had enough of that type of false positioning from the White House since Jan 2007.
I like to believe that the person I vote for means what they say. Her vote on Iraq War authorization and her recent vote on the Kyle/Lieberman Iran War mongering is starting to really bother me.
I would love to vote for the first woman president. I hope that she cleans up her act, and starts to level with us. I will not vote for anyone who talks one way and votes the other, regardless of gender.
HRC, can go to hell. There was no misunderstadning of her vote. She sold us out on that, and that just one of the reason I don't trust her.
Johnny2Bad @ 71:
Well, you seem to have switched arguments entirely. You're also making a lot of assumptions about a person whom you've never met. Where did you discover that her entire, sinister plot is to "get back" for Monicagate? I mean, really. This is not exactly intelligent or credible dialogue on your part.
One of the things I notice about candidates in the DLC/AIPAC/Likud camp is how very carefully they exclude mentioning what percentage of involvement Iran has in the killing of American soldiers. They also are careful to omit the percentage of al Qaida fighters operating in the area.
They omit these percentages because they are so small. Iran's involvement in providing equipment for the "insurgents" is minuscule. Al Qaida's number of fighters is minuscule. Both parties are being artificially pumped up, while completely ignoring that the vast majority of the "insurgents" are local Iraqis, the vast majority of the IED's are being produced locally, and by far the heaviest flows of weapons are coming from Saudi Arabia and Syria.
But that news doesn't fit the syndicate's plans to attack Iran.
Don't you GET IT?
The Republicans are TERRIFIED of the prospect of seeing the Clintons in the White House again. THEY WILL DO ANYTHING to stop Hillary. THEY manufactured this whole "conventional wisdom" thing about her being shrill, course, and witchy years ago... something that she disproves EVERY DAY at campaign events. She is personable, warm, and smart as a whip!
And now it's her "catering to the center" and "bush-lite." WHAT BULLSHIT! Do you think for one second that Hillary Clinton is going to continue George W. Bush's domestic agenda or foreigh policies when she gets into office?? HOW MUCH OXYCONTIN ARE YOU TAKING?
Don't get STUPID! Vote Democrat... and get rid of Republican Party control over our government!
87 Cowboy Bob in Austin
You convinced me at that whip part.
Shawnmeat @ 85:
Never said that. "sinister plot"? But if you don't think she's at least partially (duh) motivated by a need to put it to the "vast rightwing conspiracy" you're fooling yourself. And look...you're the one who said "let them have their lightning rod because both Clintons have been taking their shit for a decade and a half and have always emerged as more intelligent and reasonable." As if its an f-ing pissing match that you want to win. (I say again ...Who cares?)
So if you're interested in seeing endless BS fly back and forth between Billary and RightWingWorld for four years...Have at it. Vote Hillary. Then again we could have a low key, get it done ANYONE else that would actually get something done. Hey. What a concept. Issues instead of personality. Huh.
Strawberry @ 21:
That's my point...screw my "fellow" "liberal" Hillary haters.
If we do NOT become unified, instead of living in a damn dream, we'll lose. The country will lose.
Stop feeding in to the anti-Hillary aura that pervades people...and STOP APOLOGIZING FOR LIKING HER!!
Sickening.
Hillary 08
Cowboy Bob in Austin @ 87:
"She is personable, warm..." Waaaaah? You gotta be f-ing kidding? Sounds like you've been drinking the Koolaid with your Oxycotin. "Warm." That's classic.
"Progressives" who insist on shredding a possible democratic contender deserve another eight years of Republican misrule, and handing the entire Supreme Court over to the radical right.
Strawberry @ 21:
I'm with you Straw. I think Hillary is the only one in the current field ready to punch these rightwingers in the neck when they come after her and they will. I really got into it with a couple of people on another site because they spewed the same Hillary is same as Bush nonsense. And when you press them on what their alternative is if Hillary is the nominee, they say they'll write in Kucinich or Optimus Prime. Good for them if they think they have that luxury. I don't.
And yes, Gore is my first choice. A Gore/Edwards, Gore/Clark or Gore/Webb ticket gets 400 electoral votes and then we can put the repugs to bed for a good 5 decades.
Josh @ 90:
ysbaddaden @ 92:
Shorter Josh/ysbadden:
"Oh no. Hillary our savior. Nobody can win but Hillary. If we don't all line up behind her, the sky will fall and it'll be President Romney or President Rudy. Ahhhhhhhh! Hellllllllllllp!!!!"
Ahem. The polls show something interesting, people. Every one of the top Dems murder Rudy/Romney/Fred T. in every national poll. So, I have a novel idea...lets continue to have a spirited conversation about who we want to govern us for the next four years. Fair enough? I think so.
Shawnmeat @ 30:
Speaking of misogyny, on CSPAN2 before their coverage of Sen. Clinton's NH rally yesterday, it was mentioned that there was an Iowa poll of male voters asking if they could ever vote for a woman to be POTUS. Yes, it's the 1900's all over again! Could someone let me know where the Iowa poll results are of the white voters who were asked if they could ever vote for a black to be POTUS?
BTW, how did Sen. Obama vote on Kyl-Lieberman? For some reason, that hasn't been mentioned much by the MSM that I've seen. Did he vote for or against it?
Cowboy Bob in Austin @ 87:
Essentially, yes.
There will be minor cosmetic changes, but the Democran party will remain dedicated to its constant purpose of making sure the wealthy are protected, while trying to keep the sheeple just content enough to prevent a total rebellion.
94 Johnny2Bad
You don't line up behind a candidate until there is one.
When there is one you have to exert yourself like Sisyphus to make sure our guy (gal?) wins.
And suggesting third parties or Ron Paul as other commenters have done is what I was referring to.
i'm for dennis... but, no matter who becomes president; the presidency itself must be weakened... its become much to powerful. we must fight the corporate scumbags who own them all also...
Yup. Hillary Clinton. The Rich Dem who thinks that the solution to America's health-care crisis is to FORCE EVERYBODY to BUY health insurance whether they have the money or not (and enrich the insurance companies even more), and thinks all of us oughtta have 401k's, even tho we havent any extra money to buy them with. What planet does SHE live on? Is this idiot out of touch or WHAT?
As usual, the American Voters get their choice of Garbage or Trash.
Cythraul @ 96:
If that's what you believe the Democratic party is, then you're obviously not voting for any candidate are you?
You misunderstand me.
I believe that is what THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS.
The "democratic party" (read: one side of the same coin) is just part of it.
Cythraul @ 101:
Yes, I perfectly understand the intent of your Democran line. What are you going to do on election day next year?
I'm sorry to see Olbermann on the Hillary bandwagon.
I think Hillary is aiming some of her programs at the middle-class, they can't all be designed for the very poor.
The minimum wage increase will help some, but that depends on the inflation rate.
And if we can roll back the tax breaks for the wealthiest, to either put into social spending or more tax breaks for the lower and middle classes that could make a difference.
Some of the money could go to regulatory agencies that have been short changed for the last six years that regulate the pharmaceutical and medical interests. Everyone getting some kind of insurance would work to possibly get rid of pre-existing medical condition preclusions in insurance contracts. They could also regulate the extension of medical patents for minor changes, and open us up to imports of Canadian medicine. All of these the reichwing oppose.
Hopefully by increasing medical coverage the companies would be happy with the quantity of business making up for the loss of per person payments. If people get more medical prevention that would help negate the high cost of medical cure.
Cythraul @ 101:
That's just another variation of Nader's not a dime's worth of difference.
But then we look at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, the whole Iraq mess, the pending Iranian, lost civil rights, we're being spied on and monitored with our phone calls, emails, spending and reading habits.
Nader's not to blame for this entirely since he probably couldn't have predicted confusion over butterfly ballots, over-zealous officials, and Supreme Court intrusion. Those who voted for him may not have been transferable, but he's certainly a fly in the ointment that doesn't bear repeating.
Bryan @ 81:
Yes Sir. Vote Ron Paul in the primaries, get him nominated. Then let them duke it out. It would be a very very interesting fight.
But then again a Kucinich/Ron Paul or Ron Paul/Kucinich ticket would be lovely...
BaScOmBe @ 103:
I am writing him and will express why... That was ridiculous. She's a smart Bushie. Scary! Watch the video again. It is seriously time to take in and digest voting records. Hers is scary and when questioned... frightening. KO, shame on you!
Good grief...
nonbeliever @ 108:
Lucy pulled the football from you again?
willyloman @ 32:
She isn't like Bush. Bush was born a scumbag and a sell-out. He has NEVER been honorable.
xxx @ 19:
Reverse psychology?
Almost everyone hates Bush, and the Bush loyalist wants to remind us that Hillary is their biggest threat, Hint Hint!
Why would you tell your enemy what you fear the most? unless you wanted to rope a dope them.
ysbaddaden @ 97:
Fair enuff.
ecotopian @ 28:
The very first primary election will put Shillary into clearer public perspective. People say crap in polls for inducement as trite as free umbrellas on sunny days. Adn, these fixed debates wherein her "people" have picked the audience that will be cheering her on and the questions she is to be asked are not at all reflective of voters true concerns. This corporate dog and pony show simply demonstrates how well Shillary's wealthy handlers control her. They also control competitive invisibilty, demonstrated by how little America is permitted to see and hear Dennis Kucinich, Governor Richardson, Senator Dodd, and Mike Gravel. Shillary's "people" have decided that she is polling twice as well as Barak Obama and John Edwards, with no one else seriously contending for the Ofiice of President - period! The reality is these polls are all biased. The ones that say anything else aren't even reported, like the one that noted 41% of Democratic voters polled said they would never support Shillary. Lately, even positive polls for Shillary are trending skeptically, all from the chatter of Al Gore's becoming a Nobel Laureate. In the end, the primary elections are the only polls that will really matter.
Democrats, independents, progressives, and liberals don't really need Shillary to win, hoping she'll become something more than a wishy-washy ass in an elephant suit. She's already had six years in the Senate to stand and deliver the goods, and won't even attempt the feat. She spends more time pandering to and mollycoddling Repugs than the average perv spends surfing porn.
I live with the blessed assurance I know for what Kucinich firmly stands. Right now, Kucinich has a bill on the floor to impeach Cheney first. I can rest assured that if Dennis had his way, America never would have considered going to Iraq, let alone occupying it. He has a plan ready to implement consistent redeployment of all troops until we're out of Iraq good to go within his first 100 days in Office. If Dennis has his way, we'll perp-walk Dumya, Dick Vader, Condi, Dumsfailed, and long list of other Administration43 war criminals. Sure, Dennis is far from the politically correct center. But, he guarantees no continuation of this ridiculous business as usual.
With Shillary, we'll be in Iraq until she's either impeached or run out of Washington DC in a 2012 landside that will make the Mondale loss to Reagan look small. Shillary is more likely to spend her first 100 days as President setting up some ridiculously high 7-figure lobbyist gig for the moment she returns to private corporate life. I only say that because it's very much in keeping with her opportunistic pattern of booking ahead. She spent the Nation's empathy over the Lewinsky scandal plotting to get into the Senate from New York over Al Gore's Presidential run. And, she's spent most of her Senate tenure posturing for the Presidency. We need not overlook that her campaign has more corporate sponsorship than a Chevy in NASCAR, ironically peppered with many of the same profiteers who sponsor the American occupation of Iraq. This is no mere coinkydink. There really is no profit in peace.
Kucinich in 2008!
Questions we would love to hear:
"Keith, what kinda racial stereotype were you alluding to with your "Roscoe's chicken and waffles" reference?" _ hillary clinton
Hillary says we may have to keep troops in Iraq to protect the largest US embassy (that should tell us everything) in the world in a small country of app 26 million, 4+ million of said residents who have fled or are internally displaced.
I propose that the embassy be completed and then turned over to the Iraqi people to be turned into a secure hospital and convalescent center/recovery residence for injured Iraqis. Then we can either leave the country entirely, or have a sane sized embassy, one that is appropriate for diplomatic relations, not complete dominance, of small country.
John Tully @ 26:
SHE'S THE BEST CHOICE BECAUSE SHE'S THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN BEAT THE REPUBLICANS AND THAT'S THE GAME!
(excuse the shouting)
Honestly, there's nothing to shout about. A frozen turkey in a Christmas stocking could beat any of the Repugs currently running. Hillary is a sharp, smart, well spoken lady. However, she is not part of the solution. She has supported the problems in this country for her entire term. If she can't lead Dems. in the Senate now to set things right, why do you think she will be any better when she's pres? Why do you think she would do anything differently?
We have all suffered 6 long years of the worst retarded joke of a president this country has ever seen. Don't let that lowered bar fool you into voting for someone who has been supporting that administration, just because she seems better. A greasy dog turd stuck to your shoe is better chimpy/dick, but you wouldn't want to vote that into the white house either.
I know she's going to win, but at least think twice before supporting someone who is basically going to continue the war and the heavy handed tactics we've seen for the last 6 years.
uncle joe mccarthy @ 8:
seriously, she thinks she deserves to win because, pretty much in her own words, she plans to be just to the left of Bush/Cheney, the most far right batshit crazy people every allowed in the White House. she will be just to their left. she's doing the same "up is down, black is white" etc etc LYING that Bush and Cheney have been doing these past 7 years and will continue to do. and she is asking us all "Hey, how do you like being lied to by your President??? Do you want some more? Cause I've got more for you."
What the HELL is wrong with any Democrat who wants to vote for her?
Hillary is also simply the worst Dem candidate in terms of the general election. The media have already got material that they're waiting on to use against her, and it will be much worse than what was done to John Kerry, believe me. Dear God its so depressing, there are people who think she's actually our best candidate to win in 08? What planet are you people on? You think the American public is going to go for her after the Cons are done trashing her in every imaginable way? She's trying so hard to play the fear card, but she's not quite scary enough to do it Rudy style. She tries to talk diplomacy, by labeling an official part of Iran's govt. as terrorists. She votes to support Bush in his march to war against Iran. She is repeating the lies of Bush and Cheney that Iran's government works with Al Qaeda, that they're arming the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. All of this is horse shit and she damn well knows it. She just thinks you and I are THAT STUPID. God I can't stand her smug face. I'll vote for her if she's the nominee, but we all who warned you about her are going to be saying "I told you so" just like we did about "liberals" and "democracts" who voted for either Nader or Bush in 2000.
nonbeliever @ 102:
I'll be honest with you, I'm still asking myself that same question.
PS: Somebody ask Hilary what happened to East Timor under her husband's watch.
Until Hillary removes insurance companies from her healtrh care plan, I am going to hope she loses the primary.
I think she is very impressive - but I also think that her rationalization about Kyl-Lieberman was pure bullshit.
What investments does she think the Iranian Republican Guard has that can be frozen?
Pure and simple it gives Bush the green light to invade Iran on the premise that he's pursuing "terrists".
I would also like to know what evidence she has to support her claim - unchallenged by Keith - that we "know" that the Iranians (specifically the Iranian Republican Guard) are providing arms to terrorists.
She starts to sound lucid - then she drifts into a comatose-like recitation of bullshit.
PixieTJ @ 106:
Ron Paul sucks.
John Tully @ 9:
It's Senator Clinton. I know it kills you guys a woman is
a senator & running for president but tough shit.
I have to be honest...she scored a few points with me.While I will still keep her at arms length........I thought she did very well in that interview. She didn't answer all my questions....but theres time and she did do ok....I particularly liked "when you get to my age and you still have men obsessing with you.....that's ok" As for the Lieberman/Kyl reso......I don't know....maybe I'm missing something.I do believe Iran has been contributing to Iraq.....in one way or another.....She seems tough enough...even hawkish.....I don't know....we'll see what happens in the next few months.
Daisy Zimmerly @ 123:
yes indeedeedoo......anyone who thinks Ron Paul ......is out of their mind
Andy K...your experiment.....well...it happened.
Strawberry @ 21:
agreed.......................have you been checkin out all the subversive trolls(they really hate her)..............................".piercings"...?damn.
Johnny2Bad @ 89:
Regardless of who is elected, sparks will fly. Smear campaigns will be out in full force. Did you think the Republicans are just going to fire members of their PR department simply because Clinton wasn't elected?
no matter how you slice it....she would be better than any repug.
Daisy Zimmerly @ 123:
Hillary has not been nominated. They are all viable candidates and anything can tip the cow at midnight between now and February. I too will vote for whichever democratic candidate is nominated.
I wish to be fair but I'll tell 'ya Ron Paul has views you're not gonna like. He's not a threat anyway since he hasn't a flaming fart's chance in a stiff wind. He has that typical strange unnatural countenance so common to repugs that you can't help but have an instinctive crawling to your skin.
Perhaps I concentrated too hard on her speech, but did I just hear Hillary speak much, but say nothing?
OK Logan...
To tease us with a cutline that includes a well...a tease about a comment from Sen. Clinton regarding Al Gore's possible run and have it end up being a Clinton side-step...that was so unfair.
"Dennis is sweet but he’d get eaten alive by the right wing"
Last time I checked Kucinich was the only guy standing up to them repeatedly.
He grilled Rumsfeld and Gonzo while the other dems trembled.
Kucinich speaks the trut hin debate unlike the others who ARE TOO SCARED.
So wrong...
Where is all the difference in Hillary's policies and that of Bush & Cheney. She believe in given illegal powers to the president (which if she gets elected would be hers) of spying on Americans , staying with the war in Iraq, and now the invasion of Iran & Syria and who knows how far she would go.
I don't know why people don't like Kucinich or Edwards they seem to be for the objectives of what the American citizens want. To me Hillary and Obama have been corrected to corporate funds and are falling under their political will.
Maybe the polls and statistics that are taken and posted, are slanted or the people they contact are bias. To me it looks as if we have a political party machine in the democrat party that is reaching the same degree of power over who will be elected by the democratic party...
Yea we are all to stupid to see what's on her agenda right. We understood very well what she did when you got behind Bush and supported this illegal war.
Even with all of her so called experience, she did it anyhow. None of them knew as much as she and her husband new about this shit, but still she went along with it anyhow. I know because I personally made phone call after phone call and countless emails just , begging her not to support it. I was hung up on and talked crazy too for not understanding the good Senator knew best.
Everywhere she turns up. She should be blasted about the biggest error in her career, that cost this country so much in the lives of our kids and the shit we now have to endure for NOTHING
Dame you Senator Clinton
This is bull shit. [Deleted. Don't make blanket statements about "you people." It's offensive. None of the people I know visiting this site don't fall into your little category-Sitemonitor]
paranoia @ 111:
Bravo! Paranoia....you got it~ unfortunately a pathetic few do, and the ones you would think are smart enough to see how easily manipulated they are hit a wall. Kinda makes me think the avg u.s. voter deserves the swift kick in the ass that's a dot on the horizon right about now.
If H. Clinton is the one picked by the DEMS. I shall wright in Al Gore, H. Clinton is just a sock-puppet for LIE-berman and friends.
blackjack @ 139:
Is that the same LIE-berman AL picked for his vice-president?
Well now that Hillary has pretty much won the nomination, the Repubs are starting to carry out their plan to rile up the base against her - Hillary is the one Dem candidate the Repubs can re-energize their base against and perhaps even win...with Ghouliani.
I hope we Dems are proud of ourselves if we get Ghouliani for 4 or more years. /horrible thought
StCyrlyMe @ 137:
I do.
[Uh-No. You don't-Sitemonitor]
Indigowatcher @ 41:
Who said anything about Hillary Clinton exuding "compassion or honor"? I don't go to politicians looking for "compassion or honor". In fact, any politician or Party that plays heavily on my expectation of "compassion or honor" to win my vote is suspect. That's the GOP approach. Why? Because their record on the economy, foreign and domestic affairs is so much worse than the Democrats' and it's a lot easier (and obviously possible) for an incompetent fool to run on a campaign of bringing "compassion or honor" back to government. We've seen the GOP pull that stunt over and over again.
I'm not interested in voting for anyone for that reason. And anyone who IS interested in that is fair game for the worst of the worst charlitains in the business.
I only care that Clinton is of the Party whose leadership has presided over much better times and much better results over the broadest possible aspects of American life...EVEN THOUGH that may come bundled with the list of grievances you cited. That would be Hillary Clinton, Democrat, in this upcoming election.
Don't mistake the word "better" for "GREAT!" A Republican winner will carry a boxcar load of downside grievances, too. But I'm not willing to go along with the downsides they have so clearly shown me is their habit. And it ain't gonna' be some third Party surprise, either. It's going to be either a Democrat or a Republican. Period.
America is going to choose either a Democrat or a Republican for president this next election, the one after that, the one after that, the one after that and probably the one after that...by our choice. And that is OUR fault. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for "compassion or honor".
Login or Register to post comments.