You go, Tina...and WHY aren't more prominent women saying EXACTLY this...we're again letting the MSM (and yes, it is an amorphous blob) manipulate this campaign season from beginning to what will ultimately be the end that Rachel Maddow foreshadows - another REPUG VICTORY...now let's find someone to put a pin in Nader's huge ego...for GOD'S SAKE!!! Just when you thought it might be SAFE to go back "in the water"...HA!!!

Meh.

Word, Tina.

Maybe we don't give two shits about her personality or if she's a woman, but her beliefs and what she supports? I don't know... Maybe we think a fresh politician is what this country needs? Maybe Bill has become a huge duech bag on top of it?

Marcus Aurelius @ 5:

We shouldn't be electing anyone who hasn't introduced a Bill for Impeachment before their respective legislative body.

Senators can't do that. Articles of Impeachment are introduced in the House.

Chilling, ain't it?

Tina's was one of the voices silenced by the writers strike. Welcome back.

Let me just say this about Catholic schools and nuns: absolutely bang on.That story about the Catholic school that wouldn't let a woman referee have authority over male students in a basketball game surprised the hell out of me. They must be so far out of the mainstream they might as well be Baptists. I can assure you from personal experience that nuns, in particular Les Soeurs Grises, had absolutely no problem exercising authority over male students. Forty years later I still have lumps on my head that hurt in cold weather.

Rusty Shackleford @ 10:

Marcus Aurelius @ 5:

We shouldn't be electing anyone who hasn't introduced a Bill for Impeachment before their respective legislative body.

Senators can't do that. Articles of Impeachment are introduced in the House.

Okay, then: We shouldn't be nominating or electing anyone who hasn't called for impeachment at every - and I do mean every - opportunity. We’re in dire need of a leader here, and we can't afford to screw up.

Kucinich ’08!

Too bad.

That was a pretty decent SNL...except for the musical guest. It was great to see Tina Fey on it again...

by the way, outside of this... I HATE when women say they are proud to be a 'bitch', or I see girls with the word 'bitch' on the ass of those tight pants... to me the people who would glorify themselves like that, are usually pretty obnoxious people. Theres nothing empowering about that word to me, and when I see someone identify with that, I trust them just as much as I would some guy identifying himself as an asshole...

...and I say this as someone who regularly works for "Bitch Magazine". You have no idea the actual division about the branding of that magazine.

I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I loved it. LOVED it. (The fact that I'm in love with Tina Fey has nothing to do with it.) I thought it was a great riff, very funny, and honestly, the kind of thing (using different words, of course) Hillary should have been saying all along: Look, women in politics have to be tough. No apologies for it. And as President, I'll be absolutely as tough as I need to be to get things done for the American people.

Instead, we're getting cheap hit shots on Obama. That stuff ain't workin.

It's like this - do you want Omarosa running the country? Or Trace Adkins?

btw, since people are on this thread now - if you didnt just get the news (becuase its not on CNN or anything like that for good reason) - the Larry Sinclair Obama/coke polygraph results came in. Of course Larry failed it, so that regular here who keeps spamming it can stop now. Thanks :P

Yes, it's a shame how the press is manipulating this primary by making Obama the winner of the last 11 primaries and caucuses! How unfair the press was, for anointing Hillary the presumptive nominee for months and months and giving no attention whatsoever to Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel, etc!

But let's say it's true. So? What did you expect? The media corporations are just doing whatever makes it the most money. When Hillary made them money, they feted Hillary. Obama's making them money, so they go on about Obama. When did Tina Fey get so fucking naive about the mass media all of a sudden? She's been writing and making snide remarks about the superficiality, fickleness and rank stupidity of the news media for years -- even going so far as to HEAD A WEEKLY MOCK NEWSCAST -- yet now, because it's something that touches her personally, she expects the Fourth Estate to actually behave as if they deserved to be in the First Amendment?

Fey will get a couple of months worth of snide hate mail for her polemic, and she'll re-remember what she never should've forgotten -- the fact that you care doesn't change everything that's fucked up. More importantly, she'll snap out of it and remember this: the corporate media oligarchy being what it is, making a stink on TV -- especially when you're pleading for moderation or reason -- accomplishes nothing. Sad but true.

If articulate, intellectually-compelling and emotionally-resonant calls for reason and civic activism did anything anymore, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would be in prison and Keith Olbermann would be Advisor to the President.

What is it, are you weirded out that they’re married? Cause I can promise you that they are having exactly as much sex with each other as George Bush and Jeb Bush are.

Film at 11 ..

ewwwwww ..

Jason B @ 27:

Lollimom @ 21:

I think Tina is a very funny woman, and I watched this last night, however...

As somebody said, dignifying "bitch" as something to be proud of is offensive to me. I worked for a genuine "bitch", and my life was hell under her; she hurt me deeply.

"Bitch" is not a badge of honor.

"Bitch" is offensive.

"Bitch is good" is feeding the culture of badness in the United States.

Absolutely true. We've had a male version of a "Bitch" in the White House for the last 7 years - doesn't listen to anybody, does what he wants regardless of what people think and says screw anybody who doesn't like him - and look where that got us. Yeah, he got things done - spying on Americans, pointless wars, wasted trillions of our taxpayer dollars. Yeah, I don't think we need another "bitch" in the White House.

I like Maureen Dowd's column today - along similar lines, she claimed Hillary was trying to appeal to her Mars side, a "fighter," a "warrior," but after 16 years of political fighting, 16 years of 51%, 16 years of "don't listen to the other side, they're stupid," people are tired of it. They want someone who listens, who approaches a consensus and urges people to communicate and come together. THAT'S what people want.

You could call that the "feminine management style," (Maureen Dowd does), and it's somewhat ironic that the female candidate, the one who's gotten closer to the presidency than any other woman, walked away from that and let Obama claim it. But them's the breaks - America doesn't want a fight, it wants to solve its problems.

Bush's rotten attitude is what motivated people to the polls in 2004, almost giving it to Kerry even though we weren't that enthusiastic about him. Bush's attitude and unwillingness to address being wrong about anything made Iraq that much worse. Bush is an asshole and we hate him for it, why should we reward and praise being a "bitch"

i mean Tina's analogy is incorrect - those nuns in school didn't have to get elected, they didn't have to get reelected, and they didn't have to work with non-nuns to pass their agenda. they were essentially a team of dictators.

thats not how you sell a candidate. sorry.

Great bumper sticker. "Bitches get stuff done." I can live with that.

Clavis @ 30:

Yes, it's a shame how the press is manipulating this primary by making Obama the winner of the last 11 primaries and caucuses! How unfair the press was, for anointing Hillary the presumptive nominee for months and months and giving no attention whatsoever to Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel, etc!

But let's say it's true. So? What did you expect? The media corporations are just doing whatever makes it the most money. When Hillary made them money, they feted Hillary. Obama's making them money, so they go on about Obama. When did Tina Fey get so fucking naive about the mass media all of a sudden? She's been writing and making snide remarks about the superficiality, fickleness and rank stupidity of the news media for years -- even going so far as to HEAD A WEEKLY MOCK NEWSCAST -- yet now, because it's something that touches her personally, she expects the Fourth Estate to actually behave as if they deserved to be in the First Amendment?

Fey will get a couple of months worth of snide hate mail for her polemic, and she'll re-remember what she never should've forgotten -- the fact that you care doesn't change everything that's fucked up. More importantly, she'll snap out of it and remember this: the corporate media oligarchy being what it is, making a stink on TV -- especially when you're pleading for moderation or reason -- accomplishes nothing. Sad but true.

If articulate, intellectually-compelling and emotionally-resonant calls for reason and civic activism did anything anymore, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would be in prison and Keith Olbermann would be Advisor to the President.

It amazes me sometimes the number of people who say "the media hates Hillary!" as a good reason to vote for her. excuse me? the media is not our friend - i'm not saying we avoid someone who the media hates and let them pick our candidates, but you certainly should not point out their disadvantage as a positive, and you certainly shouldnt point out any bias to some other candidate as a negative.

Goon @ 34:

Bush's rotten attitude is what motivated people to the polls in 2004, almost giving it to Kerry even though we weren't that enthusiastic about him. Bush's attitude and unwillingness to address being wrong about anything made Iraq that much worse. Bush is an asshole and we hate him for it, why should we reward and praise being a "bitch"

i mean Tina's analogy is incorrect - those nuns in school didn't have to get elected, they didn't have to get reelected, and they didn't have to work with non-nuns to pass their agenda. they were essentially a team of dictators.

thats not how you sell a candidate. sorry.

That and, it's not like people look back fondly on getting rapped by the nuns. For some, the spots still hurt. And it's not like catholicism is taking off in popularity.

I knew a guy who was very similar in his approach, and whenever we went to a drive through he'd ask for "fresh fries," (ie just out of the fryer) and then return them if they weren't fresh enough. Sure, the guys at the fast food joint would pull out some fries, fresh out of the fryer, but A) that was to make him go away and B) who knows how many times they spat in his milkshake to get back at him for making them do something.

People should work for you because they WANT to work for you, because you INSPIRE them, because they share your vision. If you get somebody to do something for you because they want you to go away, it guarantees a job done without passion, without inspiration, probably done half-assed if it's done at all.

That's not who i want leading my country.

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/24/14438/5462/534/463220

in the spirit of this thread only, "what a bitch"

She's pissed me off more in this one weekend than I've been the entire campaign of hypocritical dirty tricks.

Oh, please, lighten up about the word "bitch", people. What are you afraid of?

As near as I can surmise, when women refer to themselves as a bitch or wear a shirt the word "bitch" on it in some context, usually, what they mean is "I can be tough and brutal and hell on Earth when I need to be".

I mean, come on, you hypersensitive nitwits. Obviously, say, if you're camping out with old friends for a long weekend, and one of them wears a "Bitch on Wheels" t-shirt, you don't suddenly throw your hands up and start running around the campsite, going "Oh no! That friend whom I've known for years must actually be a terrible person to be around who I wouldn't like! This is terrible!" You take it in the spirit it's meant, as a coarse way to express a positive sentiment. Coarseness is part of our spectrum of cultural expression! If we didn't have rough language, how would we ever know when we were being polite?

Nobody would bat an eye if they saw a guy wearing a shirt that said "Ass-Kicker" or "Mean Motherfucker" or "Toughest SOB in NYC". They'd take it as a sign of the man's belief or confidence in his ability to defend himself and the people and things that were important to him -- or maybe simply that he was simply a mean motherfucker! So what's the difference? To me, a woman who can refer to herself as a "bitch" is simply a woman who is capable of being both feminine *and* tough!

Oh, wait: that must be the problem. If your idea of a perfect woman is a combination of Laura Bush, Elizabeth Hasselbach from "The View" and Miss Teen "The Iraq, Everywhere, Such As" South Carolina, then I guess the idea of a "bitch" really *would* scare and repulse you, since "bitch" and "uneducated, permanently pregnant cook/dishwasher who don't give no back-talk" are kind of antithetical.

To each his own, I guess. (Or her own, of course.)

Jason B @ 15:

Maybe the difference between Obama and Hillary is that Obama thinks that you don't NEED to be a "bitch" to get things done?

In fact, I know several people that act in the "bitch" way, they think it gets things done. But you know what it accomplishes? People do things for them to MAKE THEM GO AWAY. Trust me, that won't be an effective presidency when a majority of people make it their goal just to oppose you.

If she was truly interested in working for the American people, "bitch" wouldn't be the right approach, because all it guarantees is opposition.

Women are only allowed certain roles and the role a woman in charge has is called bitch - not that they do anything more or less than a man in charge would do - people just don't understand when women don't do everything in a soft, gentle way - and, yes, some people resent it but - when you don't do that, people just stop listening.

I am not voting for Hillary because I don't think she can beat McCain but this was great to hear. She is a very smart, very valid candidate and should be treated as that and just that.

Clavis @ 44:

Oh, please, lighten up about the word "bitch", people. What are you afraid of?

As near as I can surmise, when women refer to themselves as a bitch or wear a shirt the word "bitch" on it in some context, usually, what they mean is "I can be tough and brutal and hell on Earth when I need to be".

I mean, come on, you hypersensitive nitwits. Obviously, say, if you're camping out with old friends for a long weekend, and one of them wears a "Bitch on Wheels" t-shirt, you don't suddenly throw your hands up and start running around the campsite, going "Oh no! That friend whom I've known for years must actually be a terrible person to be around who I wouldn't like! This is terrible!" You take it in the spirit it's meant, as a coarse way to express a positive sentiment. Coarseness is part of our spectrum of cultural expression! If we didn't have rough language, how would we ever know when we were being polite?

Nobody would bat an eye if they saw a guy wearing a shirt that said "Ass-Kicker" or "Mean Motherfucker" or "Toughest SOB in NYC". They'd take it as a sign of the man's belief or confidence in his ability to defend himself and the people and things that were important to him -- or maybe simply that he was simply a mean motherfucker! So what's the difference? To me, a woman who can refer to herself as a "bitch" is simply a woman who is capable of being both feminine *and* tough!

Oh, wait: that must be the problem. If your idea of a perfect woman is a combination of Laura Bush, Elizabeth Hasselbach from "The View" and Miss Teen "The Iraq, Everywhere, Such As" South Carolina, then I guess the idea of a "bitch" really *would* scare and repulse you, since "bitch" and "uneducated, permanently pregnant cook/dishwasher who don't give no back-talk" are kind of antithetical.

To each his own, I guess. (Or her own, of course.)

sorry, but the only people i see with 'bitch' shirts are the Bitch Magazine staffers I work with....

...and teen girls trying to be cool. Women who fit that description know better.

Good stuff. Hillary would get more done than Ralph but not as much as Barack.

Jill Bryant @ 46:

Women are only allowed certain roles and the role a woman in charge has is called bitch - not that they do anything more or less than a man in charge would do - people just don't understand when women don't do everything in a soft, gentle way - and, yes, some people resent it but - when you don't do that, people just stop listening.

I am not voting for Hillary because I don't think she can beat McCain but this was great to hear. She is a very smart, very valid candidate and should be treated as that and just that.

More sexist bullshit. Listen, a woman can be just as successful without resorting to "bitch" mode. Madeleine Albright was not a bitch, nor was Janet Reno. No one called Margaret Thatcher a bitch - she was a tough woman, but she was no "bitch."

She is a very smart, very valid candidate, who chose to throw her lot in with chest-thumping, "take no prisoners," hyper-macho idiots and then got surprised when America didn't want another President like that.

It has nothing to do with man or woman, it has ever thing to do with attitude.

Jason B @ 52:

Jill Bryant @ 46:

Women are only allowed certain roles and the role a woman in charge has is called bitch - not that they do anything more or less than a man in charge would do - people just don't understand when women don't do everything in a soft, gentle way - and, yes, some people resent it but - when you don't do that, people just stop listening.

I am not voting for Hillary because I don't think she can beat McCain but this was great to hear. She is a very smart, very valid candidate and should be treated as that and just that.

More sexist bullshit. Listen, a woman can be just as successful without resorting to "bitch" mode. Madeleine Albright was not a bitch, nor was Janet Reno. No one called Margaret Thatcher a bitch - she was a tough woman, but she was no "bitch."

She is a very smart, very valid candidate, who chose to throw her lot in with chest-thumping, "take no prisoners," hyper-macho idiots and then got surprised when America didn't want another President like that.

It has nothing to do with man or woman, it has ever thing to do with attitude.

Battlestar Galactica's President Laura Roslin is anything but a bitch :P - and she's as tough as they come. Molly Ivins was not a bitch. Ann Richards was not a bitch. Barbara Gordon was not a bitch.

I sure wish people would stop saying that the people that voted for the "Iraq Resolution" voted for the Iraq war. You know that it's purpose was to force Iraq to let UN inspectors in and give them free reign. It was Bush that broke the law by bombing and invading Iraq. I think everyone know this but to claim that Iraq is Hillary's fault is a stupid talking point that sounds so good if you hate her. For all of those who say that they know that she knew all along what Bush was going to do, you must be good mind readers so I bet you can guess what I am thinking now.

Clavis @ 44:

Oh, please, lighten up about the word "bitch", people. What are you afraid of?

As near as I can surmise, when women refer to themselves as a bitch or wear a shirt the word "bitch" on it in some context, usually, what they mean is "I can be tough and brutal and hell on Earth when I need to be".

I mean, come on, you hypersensitive nitwits. Obviously, say, if you're camping out with old friends for a long weekend, and one of them wears a "Bitch on Wheels" t-shirt, you don't suddenly throw your hands up and start running around the campsite, going "Oh no! That friend whom I've known for years must actually be a terrible person to be around who I wouldn't like! This is terrible!" You take it in the spirit it's meant, as a coarse way to express a positive sentiment. Coarseness is part of our spectrum of cultural expression! If we didn't have rough language, how would we ever know when we were being polite?

Nobody would bat an eye if they saw a guy wearing a shirt that said "Ass-Kicker" or "Mean Motherfucker" or "Toughest SOB in NYC". They'd take it as a sign of the man's belief or confidence in his ability to defend himself and the people and things that were important to him -- or maybe simply that he was simply a mean motherfucker! So what's the difference? To me, a woman who can refer to herself as a "bitch" is simply a woman who is capable of being both feminine *and* tough!

Oh, wait: that must be the problem. If your idea of a perfect woman is a combination of Laura Bush, Elizabeth Hasselbach from "The View" and Miss Teen "The Iraq, Everywhere, Such As" South Carolina, then I guess the idea of a "bitch" really *would* scare and repulse you, since "bitch" and "uneducated, permanently pregnant cook/dishwasher who don't give no back-talk" are kind of antithetical.

To each his own, I guess. (Or her own, of course.)

Lighten up?

Are you an African American? Is it ok if I label you a nigger?

Are you a white woman? Is it ok if I label you a whore (or ho)?

Are you gay? Is it ok if I label you a faggot?

Are you Mexican? Is it ok if I label you a bean?

This isn't a matter of lightening up.

We are spiraling, seemingly out-of-control, into a culture that defines itself by how bad, how fucking degraded it can be.

RayC @ 56:

I sure wish people would stop saying that the people that voted for the "Iraq Resolution" voted for the Iraq war. You know that it's purpose was to force Iraq to let UN inspectors in and give them free reign. It was Bush that broke the law by bombing and invading Iraq. I think everyone know this but to claim that Iraq is Hillary's fault is a stupid talking point that sounds so good if you hate her. For all of those who say that they know that she knew all along what Bush was going to do, you must be good mind readers so I bet you can guess what I am thinking now.

Sorry, the resolution granted him the right to use any force necessary. I wouldn't sign a resolution to grant that idiot to use any force necessary to open a jar of peanut butter.

By the way, the name of the resolution was: .J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Kerry Reid @ 60:

But I don't see Hillary as a bitch -- I see her as someone who makes excuses for why she makes bad choices, and those excuses usually involve some mean man or male-dominated industry doing her wrong. So healthcare reform failed because of the Democratic congress and the health insurance companies (the ones she hoovers up money from now, of course). George Bush misled her on the war, so that vote wasn't her fault, either! And the fact that her campaign fell apart? Well, that's either Patty Solis Doyle's fault, or Mark Penn's. Or the sexist media. It couldn't possibly be anything for which Hillary would assume personal responsibility as the person at the head of the campaign (why didn't she run in all states? What happened to all that money she raised early on?)

There are many areas where she is chillingly close to Bush in demeanor and character, despite her attempts to paint Obama as a Bush clone. Consider her obsession with secrecy and lack of transparency (won't show us the White House records on the 1990s healthcare debacle, won't release her tax returns). Her chronic inability to admit mistakes (others, like John Edwards, at least had enough character to admit that the war vote was wrong in retrospect). Her supreme hubris, which meant she assumed the nomination would be hers on February 5th, which also shows a tremendous sense of entitlement. (That whole "some of us are right and some of us are wrong" speech in New Hampshire may as well have been a kinder, gentler version of Dubya's "You're with us or you're against us" rhetoric -- for all that people accuse Obama of empty rhetoric, Hillary's tendency to talk down to voters really grates on my nerves.)

Consider also tendency to get nasty and bitter when she doesn't get exactly what she wants, when she wants it, so we have her "butter wouldn't melt in my mouth" ending speech in the debate this week, followed by the ballistic attack on Obama this weekend. (If she thinks he's misrepresenting her healthcare plan, that's fair game, but saying he has "no right" to criticize her is beyond the pale when it comes to revealing how spoiled and entitled she is.) Then there's the way she erases anything that doesn't suit her purposes from the discussion, so states she didn't win don't count. Caucuses don't count (unless it's Nevada). States that will go red in November don't count (unless it's Texas). Only big states count -- unless they're Illinois or Virginia or Maryland. Hell, she didn't even thank those who voted for her in Wisconsin in her speech -- they didn't win it for her, so screw them, right? So ungracious not to thank the voters and the people who worked on your campaign, even in states where you lost. (And YOU lost it, Hillary -- they didn't lose it for you, you're the one in charge, remember?)

So while I'm not opposed to "bitches," if by the term we mean tough, uncompromising women who stand up on their own feet and take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, I am opposed to HRC, because she's not a bitch. She's a whiner.

But I would totally vote for Tina Fey as president, because at least the press conferences would be a hoot!

Over the years at least in my opinion I associate "bitching" more and more with whining and complaining and less and less with scolding.

RayC @ 56:

I sure wish people would stop saying that the people that voted for the "Iraq Resolution" voted for the Iraq war. You know that it's purpose was to force Iraq to let UN inspectors in and give them free reign. It was Bush that broke the law by bombing and invading Iraq. I think everyone know this but to claim that Iraq is Hillary's fault is a stupid talking point that sounds so good if you hate her. For all of those who say that they know that she knew all along what Bush was going to do, you must be good mind readers so I bet you can guess what I am thinking now.

Nope. Hillary voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

According to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, international treaties signed by the president and ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate are to be treated as supreme law of the United States. Among these is the United Nations Charter, long recognized as the most important single document regulating the use of military force in the post-World War II era.

Senator Clinton has defended her vote on the grounds of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions being violated by Iraq. However, in articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter, the nations of the world agreed that no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all non-military means of enforcement have been exhausted, and specifically authorizes the use of military force. This is what the Security Council did in November 1990 with Resolution 678 in response to Iraq’s ongoing occupation of Kuwait in violation of a series of resolutions demanding withdrawal. When Iraq finally complied through its forced evacuation from Kuwait in February of 1991, this resolution became moot.

Legally, the conflict regarding access for UN inspectors and possible Iraqi procurement of “weapons of mass destruction” (WMDs) had always been between Iraq and the United Nations, not between Iraq and the United States. The United States therefore had no legal right to act on the dispute unilaterally. Although UN Security Council Resolution 687, which demands Iraqi disarmament, was the most detailed in the world body’s history, no military enforcement mechanisms were included. Nor did the Security Council specify any military enforcement mechanisms in subsequent resolutions. As is normally the case when it is determined that governments are violating all or part of UN resolutions, any decision about enforcement is a matter for the Security Council as a whole - not for any one member of the council.

While UN Security Council resolution 1441, passed in November 2002, warned of unspecified “serious consequences” if Iraq failed to comply with the UN disarmament and inspections regime, the resolution also made clear that only the weapons inspectors - not UN member states - had the authority to report Iraqi violations. In the lead-up to the March 2003 U.S. invasion, the inspectors did not report any Iraqi violations of serious consequence. Furthermore, the resolution stated that the Security Council “remains seized of the matter,” reiterating the fact that only the council itself had the authority to approve the use of force

It is noteworthy, then, that Senator Clinton voted against an amendment sponsored by Senator Carl Levin that would have authorized U.S. military action against Iraq if the UN Security Council approved the use of force and instead voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing.

If Senator Clinton believes the United States can unilaterally claim the right to invade Iraq because of that country’s violation of Security Council resolutions, other Council members could logically also claim the right to invade other states that are in material breach of UN Security Council resolutions, such as Israel, Morocco, Turkey, Armenia, Pakistan and India . Her insistence on the right of the United States to unilaterally invade foreign countries because of alleged violations of UN Security Council resolutions seriously undermines the principle of collective security and the authority of the United Nations and thereby opens the door to international anarchy.

International law is quite clear about when military force is allowed. In addition to the aforementioned case of UN Security Council authorization, the only other time the UN Charter allows a member state to use armed force is described in Article 51, which states that it is permissible for “individual or collective self-defense” against “armed attack…until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” Since none of these criteria were met, the U.S. invasion was clearly a violation of the UN Charter, as acknowledged by the UN Secretary General and the majority of member states. Clinton’s support for the war, therefore, demonstrates her belief that the United States should not be bound by its international legal obligations.

There is a tradition in customary international law that does allow for a pre-emptive strike for self-defense, but this is only in an indisputable case of a clear and present danger, such as troops massing along a border poised for invasion or missiles being loaded onto launchers in preparation for an attack. It does not, as Senator Clinton claims, give the United States the right to invade a country on the far side of the world based upon unsubstantiated allegations that that country might be developing weapons that might be passed on to terrorists that might then some day be used against us.

The October 2002 war resolution essentially constituted a renunciation of the UN Charter’s prohibition against such wars of aggression and effectively constituted a repudiation of the post-WWII international legal order. Hillary Clinton’s vote to authorize this illegal invasion, therefore, demonstrates her contempt for international law and is indicative that, as president, she will not hesitate to violate international legal norms in order to advance American hegemony.

Contempt for the Truth

In the months leading up to the Iraq war vote, Senator Clinton was briefed by a number of arms control specialists, former arms inspectors, strategic analysts, and others who informed her that the Bush administration’s WMD claims were not to be taken seriously and that Iraq had achieved at least qualitative disarmament.

Despite this, in an apparent effort to discredit those questioning the administration’s hyperbolic statements about Iraq’s supposed military threat and to justify her vote to authorize the invasion, Senator Clinton insisted that Iraq’s possession of chemical and biological weapons was “not in doubt” and was “undisputed.” In reality, she knew there were serious doubts about Iraq’s purported possession of such weapons at that time and, indeed, no such weapons were ever found.

Similarly, even after the International Atomic Energy Agency issued a report prior to the war vote that Iraq no longer had a nuclear program and despite the 2001 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that confirmed there was no evidence that such work on Iraq’s nuclear program had resumed, Senator Clinton also defended her vote by claiming that, “If left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will . . . keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” In reality, Iraq had completely eliminated its nuclear program a full decade earlier.

Although top strategic analysts also correctly informed her that there were no apparent links between Saddam Hussein’s secular nationalist regime and the radical Islamist al-Qaeda, Senator Clinton insisted that Saddam “has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.” This came despite a subsequent definitive report by the Department of Defense which noted that not only did no such link exist, but that no such link could have even been reasonably suggested based upon the evidence available at that time.

Clinton’s supporters have defended her false pre-invasion allegations by citing the public summary of the 2002 NIE which appeared to confirm some of the Bush administration’s claims. However, there were a number of reasons to have been skeptical of this summary: this NIE was compiled in a much shorter time frame than is normally provided for such documents and the report expressed far more certainty regarding Iraq’s WMD capabilities than all the reports from the previous five years, despite the lack of additional data to justify such a shift. When the report was released, there was much stronger dissent within the intelligence community than about any other NIE in history and the longer classified version, which was available to every member of Congress, included these dissenting voices from within the intelligence community. It was also well-known through media reports at that time that the administration was applying enormous pressure on the intelligence agencies to put together a report emphasizing the alleged Iraqi threat.

Despite this, the NIE also challenged the notion of any operational ties between the Iraqi government and Al-Qaeda and questioned some of the more categorical claims by President Bush about Iraq’s WMDs. However, Senator Clinton didn’t even bother to read it. She now claims that it wasn’t necessary for her to have actually looked at the 92-page document herself because she was briefed on the contents of the report. However, since no one on her staff was authorized to read it, it’s unclear who could have actually briefed her.

Whether Senator Clinton lied in order to frighten the American people into accepting a costly U.S. takeover of that oil-rich country or whether she was simply naïve and ignorant, her false statements regarding Iraq’s WMD capabilities - given that this was her central argument in justifying the invasion - raises serious questions regarding her fitness to become president of the United States. There is little reason to doubt, therefore, that she would again be willing to either lie or to blindly accept transparently inaccurate and alarmist intelligence data in order to lead America into another tragic war.

Indeed, Senator Clinton later admitted that she supported the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq regardless of the fact that Iraq did not really threaten U.S. national security. Many months after the U.S. invasion and the formal acknowledgement that Iraq neither had any WMDs or WMD programs nor any ties to Al-Qaeda, Senator Clinton declared, “I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote” and was one that “I stand by.”

Why Hillary Clinton’s Iraq Vote Does Matter

Tell it to Nancy P, she can't get shit done...

Jason B @ 49:

wow what a completely sexist crock of shit.

A response to Jason B: Bitch, Please!

at work i always considered being called a bitch the highest form of flattery. any woman in our workplace who stood her own, did her job and refused to be intimidated by guys a foot taller, that's who that type called a bitch.
ich bin ein bitch
forgive my poor deutsch sprachen.
but i'm no jelly donut, i'm a bitch so there.

That’s ridiculous - she’s no war monger.

Yeah, she's a war enabler.

Who in the world told Tina Fey and Brook Shields they were funny?

thank you for posting this nicole. i've long been dismayed by dems' own guilt-ridden betrayal of hillary. i hope this is a sign that the country is finally regaining its consciousness and its conscience.

I don't know about all women, but I know that the bitchy side of me is something I'm not fond of nor proud of either. Do guys brag about being bastards?

pissed off patricia @ 77:

I don't know about all women, but I know that the bitchy side of me is something I'm not fond of nor proud of either. Do guys brag about being bastards?

Oh yes. And girls seem to like it too.

nancy @ 75:

thank you for posting this nicole. i've long been dismayed by dems' own guilt-ridden betrayal of hillary. i hope this is a sign that the country is finally regaining its consciousness and its conscience.

Nancy, I have seen your blog before. Hillary supporters like yourself do not do your candidate any justice whatsoever, calling Hillary "the REAL Democrat" is just plain insulting.

Snowball @ 63:

Uh, it's you who bought into the Bush regime's historical revisionism. The Resolution for the Use of Force was not a "vote to go to war." It was intended by those in Congress who voted for it to be a diplomatic tool only to force Hussein to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors. The fact is, much to the chagrin of the Bush regime, Hussein complied. Bush, wanting to invade anyway, claimed he needed no further authorization, despite Democrats call for him to return to Congress for an actual declaration of war. Knowing that he would lose that vote, Bush refused to seek a declaration of war.

That so many do not recall how the events leading to the invasion of Iraq unfolded, has allowed the Bush regime to rewrite history and spread the blame. History has been rewritten before our very eyes by the Bush regime and its lapdog Corporate Media.

Go back and read Democratic floor speeches when the Resolution for the Use of Force was passed, you'll find that Democrats, and Chuck Hagel, did not intend it to be a blank check and that the Bush regime promised that they would not use it as such. Sure, the Bush regime lied and Democrats were suckered, but you can't legitimately make the argument that they "voted to go to war."

It is a RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FORCE.

if she did not want to authorize the President to use force, then she should not have voted for the bill. She did, and she stands by her vote today, so she clearly voted to use force.

You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the bill you want enforced. Either you vote for it or you don't. She voted for it - if she didn't feel the president should have had the authorization to go to war, she should not have voted for this bill.

And she didn't learn anything from it, either - she STILL voted for the Kyl-Liebermann amendment! She is a WARHAWK and she is a WARMONGER. There is no getting around that.

p.s. tina fey is brilliant. everyone who's been ragging on bill clinton needs to shut the hell up; he's the best damn president i've ever had in my lifetime. barry is an an ass and a traitor to dems.

I really can't stand her dealing with issus on an emotional level. Obama has a cool head. Hillary lashes out at whatever pisses her off, THIS TIME.

Filthy Harry @ 79:

pissed off patricia @ 77:

I don't know about all women, but I know that the bitchy side of me is something I'm not fond of nor proud of either. Do guys brag about being bastards?

Oh yes. And girls seem to like it too.

Good point. When someone in polite society claims to be dangerous or feisty or crazy or whatever (and they aren't behaving like they're off their meds or anything), we normally accept it as an exaggerated way of expressing confidence. And confidence is sexy. A person who states, essentially out loud, that they are a "bitch" or a "bastard" is expressing powerful sentiments, and we tend to interpret the words, not as a matter-of-fact suggestion that they are unpleasant or hateful or dysfunctional, but as an expression of positive traits and confidence in themselves. They are inviting scorn or condemnation with those words, and the "come on, who's next?" demeanor of inviting criticism is an additional layer of confidence, which, again, is attractive and compelling.

Context may not be everything, but it certainly is something. Catch it!

nancy @ 85:

p.s. tina fey is brilliant. everyone who's been ragging on bill clinton needs to shut the hell up; he's the best damn president i've ever had in my lifetime. barry is an an ass and a traitor to dems.

I agree he was a great president. That however doesn't change the fact that he sullied himself campaigning for his wife.
Perhaps there was no way to avoid it? You know ex-presidents are normally kinda quiet.

Clavis @ 44:

Oh, please, lighten up about the word "bitch", people. What are you afraid of?

As near as I can surmise, when women refer to themselves as a bitch or wear a shirt the word "bitch" on it in some context, usually, what they mean is "I can be tough and brutal and hell on Earth when I need to be".

I mean, come on, you hypersensitive nitwits. Obviously, say, if you're camping out with old friends for a long weekend, and one of them wears a "Bitch on Wheels" t-shirt, you don't suddenly throw your hands up and start running around the campsite, going "Oh no! That friend whom I've known for years must actually be a terrible person to be around who I wouldn't like! This is terrible!" You take it in the spirit it's meant, as a coarse way to express a positive sentiment. Coarseness is part of our spectrum of cultural expression! If we didn't have rough language, how would we ever know when we were being polite?

Nobody would bat an eye if they saw a guy wearing a shirt that said "Ass-Kicker" or "Mean Motherfucker" or "Toughest SOB in NYC". They'd take it as a sign of the man's belief or confidence in his ability to defend himself and the people and things that were important to him -- or maybe simply that he was simply a mean motherfucker! So what's the difference? To me, a woman who can refer to herself as a "bitch" is simply a woman who is capable of being both feminine *and* tough!

Oh, wait: that must be the problem. If your idea of a perfect woman is a combination of Laura Bush, Elizabeth Hasselbach from "The View" and Miss Teen "The Iraq, Everywhere, Such As" South Carolina, then I guess the idea of a "bitch" really *would* scare and repulse you, since "bitch" and "uneducated, permanently pregnant cook/dishwasher who don't give no back-talk" are kind of antithetical.

To each his own, I guess. (Or her own, of course.)

Thanks for the sanity. Like it or not, this thread is full of hysterical Hillary haters.

Attn: Tina Fey

No one likes your candidate because she authorized war in Iraq, she supported the psychotic Kyl-Lieberman amendment in 2007 (showing she learned nothing in 5 years), her marriage is transparently phony, her "experience" amounts to 8 yrs. of covering Bill's @$$, her cackle is so blood-curdling it shatters bullet-proof glass and sends sewer rats scurrying for their lives, and whenever she's at a rally she has that same Martin Short batshit-crazy power-monger grin plastered all over her face.

Also, her campaign manager, Marcus Penn, is a scummy douche bag who's very existence offers the most compelling argument against human-animal hybrid cloning known to man.

Does any of that help?

nancy @ 85:

p.s. tina fey is brilliant. everyone who's been ragging on bill clinton needs to shut the hell up; he's the best damn president i've ever had in my lifetime. barry is an an ass and a traitor to dems.

you shut the hell up. What has Barack done to be a traitor to Dems? Run against your favored candidate? You have a lot of nerve saying Hillary is the "REAL" Democrat and smearing like that. I am sure if Edwards or Dodd or even Kucinich had a chance to eclipse Hillary you'd say the same damn things. Pardon us for getting in the way of Hillary's inevitablility.

you do your candidate a major disservice. Excuse me Nancy, it is YOUR favorite candidate who is now behind and has to win people like me back, and you're doing a really shitty job of it.

garbotty @ 88:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfa9XIJxdAg&eurl=http://dailykos.com/story/2008/2/24/14438/5462/534/463220

Get ready to cringe...

its so had she had to FORCE her chant upon the crowd, and they still weren't that excited with it.

Meat @ 13:

anney @ 3:

But why would we want a bitch who firmly and confidently supported an illegal war in Iraq, who approves of cluster bombs, and is quite willing to support an illegal use of force against Iran?

Don't dignify her with the title, "bitch". She's a warmonger.

What title do we use for those who repeat the same false talking-points in hopes that they'll become reality? Hillary Clinton never supported the invasion of Iraq. It's ironic that you use the term "illegal" without considering why it's illegal. It's because the bill itself, the resolution, never gave Bush the power to unilaterally invade Iraq. Conditions had to be met, and many of them weren't. Ergo, Bush broke the law. As I've said before, however - blaming Bush for things Bush does is so 2006.

This is the BS talking point. Everyone who voted against the AUMF knew exactly what it was, which is why they voted against it. Lincoln Chafee called out Hillary specifically because he knew exactly what she did, that this was an authorization to go kill Iraqis. Except he (a Repub no less) voted against it. What she did was wrong, and if she had apologized for it, people might be willing to let it go. But it's too late for all that now. Maybe next week SNL can have Pappas on their show to describe Kennedy's ULTIMATE betrayal (Hitlerian, if you ask me) of women.

anyone else notice that tina fey ceased being funny a long time ago? and ergo - so did SNL?

gene214 @ 84:

Women today feel perfectly free to make whatever choice Oprah tells them to.

Oh yeah, right Tina. It couldn't be that, maybe, women have brains and follow politics just like the men do and, consequently, decided that a warmongering GOP-lite golden girl isn't what this country needs. Naw, can't be that.

Go to Taylor Marsh's website and read the "intelligent" posts on there from supposed women. It is similar to every male on here saying VOTE FOR OBAMA CUZ HE'S A REAL MAN......it boggles the mind

Goon @ 25:

Lollimom @ 21:

I think Tina is a very funny woman, and I watched this last night, however...

As somebody said, dignifying "bitch" as something to be proud of is offensive to me. I worked for a genuine "bitch", and my life was hell under her; she hurt me deeply.

"Bitch" is not a badge of honor.

"Bitch" is offensive.

"Bitch is good" is feeding the culture of badness in the United States.

Yes. It seems sometimes that in order to be equal, some women get the idea it means they need to be more masculine and aggressive. This disappoints me - you can be strong and empowered without playing that game. If you are naturally assertive and aggressive like that? Fine, be yourself - but the ones who throw on this phony personality becuase they think it will move them up the ladder. Ugh.

-----------------------------------
there's a difference between actually being a bitch and having the badge stuck on you unjustly.
when they stuck their insults on me i smiled, waved and knew that what THEY think is a bitch is ten times the person their low brow redneck selves are...so i myself don't mind a bit.
but lollimom you point is taken, i had a grade school teacher who was the devil.

ConcernedCanuck @ 105:

gene214 @ 84:

Women today feel perfectly free to make whatever choice Oprah tells them to.

Oh yeah, right Tina. It couldn't be that, maybe, women have brains and follow politics just like the men do and, consequently, decided that a warmongering GOP-lite golden girl isn't what this country needs. Naw, can't be that.

Go to Taylor Marsh's website and read the "intelligent" posts on there from supposed women. It is similar to every male on here saying VOTE FOR OBAMA CUZ HE'S A REAL MAN......it boggles the mind

Show me, in my post, where I said "vote for obama cuz he's a real man". Shit, show me any of my posts where I made such a lame, dumbass comment.

Oh, and I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I do believe that the historical record needs to be set straight. A Resolution for the Use of Force is a diplomatic tool, not a declaration of war as required by the Constitution.

Goon @ 90:

strawberrybitch @ 82:

pissed off patricia @ 77:

I don't know about all women, but I know that the bitchy side of me is something I'm not fond of nor proud of either. Do guys brag about being bastards?

Yes, they do. Remember Wedding Crashers? Men secretly admire bastards. You know the dickheads who voted for Bush. They actually admire his douchebaggery.

This man doesn't. And even though there are many dickheads in the Bush camp, I even think its unfair saying that we admire people for asshole-ish behavior. Undeniably I'd throw my gender under the bus and say we're a bunch of assholes, but I certainly don't believe we admire it in one another.

I have learned I can accomplish more by being calm than I can by being a bitch. Bitchiness is a quick way to turn people off in everyday life. I still lose it once in a while but I'm prouder of myself when I don't. There is a difference in being legitimately angry and allowing that anger to direct your self control.

I have no admiration for any man who is pleased to be called a bastard. In my opinion, any guy who feels good about being called a bastard, probably indeed is one.

I don't know. I mean it was funny, I'll give Tina her props, but every time I hear that "Women should vote for HRC cause they're women" it just gets under my skin and pisses me off cause it SO anti-feminist. You might even call it 'paternalistic' as in 'i know better than you whats good for you, so do what I say'.

pissed off patricia @ 113:

Goon @ 90:

strawberrybitch @ 82:

pissed off patricia @ 77:
Yes, they do. Remember Wedding Crashers? Men secretly admire bastards. You know the dickheads who voted for Bush. They actually admire his douchebaggery.

This man doesn't. And even though there are many dickheads in the Bush camp, I even think its unfair saying that we admire people for asshole-ish behavior. Undeniably I'd throw my gender under the bus and say we're a bunch of assholes, but I certainly don't believe we admire it in one another.

I have learned I can accomplish more by being calm than I can by being a bitch. Bitchiness is a quick way to turn people off in everyday life. I still lose it once in a while but I'm prouder of myself when I don't. There is a difference in being legitimately angry and allowing that anger to direct your self control.

I have no admiration for any man who is pleased to be called a bastard. In my opinion, any guy who feels good about being called a bastard, probably indeed is one.

How very insightful, although "bastard" is still not gender-related. I'll go so far as to say that any woman who feels good about being called a bastard probably is one. Circular logic wins again!

gene214 @ 109:

ConcernedCanuck @ 105:

gene214 @ 84:

Women today feel perfectly free to make whatever choice Oprah tells them to.

Oh yeah, right Tina. It couldn't be that, maybe, women have brains and follow politics just like the men do and, consequently, decided that a warmongering GOP-lite golden girl isn't what this country needs. Naw, can't be that.

Go to Taylor Marsh's website and read the "intelligent" posts on there from supposed women. It is similar to every male on here saying VOTE FOR OBAMA CUZ HE'S A REAL MAN......it boggles the mind

Show me, in my post, where I said "vote for obama cuz he's a real man". Shit, show me any of my posts where I made such a lame, dumbass comment.

Stand up..my point went over your head. I said go to Taylor Marsh's website to read the "intelligent" posts from supposed women. You said women had brains and followed politics, or might. I was saying, not according to how "some" post online.

Greg.."Tina was joking and it was funny..?

I'll say what nobody in the entertainment industry has the guts to say:

When in the last twenty years has Saturday Night Live been funny?

I'm not talking so-called "ironic" mental laughs, but genuine, deep belly laughs. The kind of funny where you have to pause your Tivo to recover. The kind of comedy that Belushi, Akyroyd, Radner and Curtin did with ease in the seventies.

Mad TV has today's SNL beat by hundreds of miles and is good satire without the cruelty element. So was In Living Color.

Secondly, I have resented how manipulative political messages that are based on slander get inserted on SNL. Celebrity roasts where the subject can interact are ok and nobody should be off limits. But to hit and run with falsehoods that actually hurt the candidate without an accurately sourced story is using the platform to put forth a political agenda.

Richard Ray Harris @ 122:

Greg.."Tina was joking and it was funny..?

I'll say what nobody in the entertainment industry has the guts to say:

When in the last twenty years has Saturday Night Live been funny?

I'm not talking so-called "ironic" mental laughs, but genuine, deep belly laughs. The kind of funny where you have to pause your Tivo to recover. The kind of comedy that Belushi, Akyroyd, Radner and Curtin did with ease in the seventies.

Mad TV has today's SNL beat by hundreds of miles and is good satire without the cruelty element. So was In Living Color.

Secondly, I have resented how manipulative political messages that are based on slander get inserted on SNL. Celebrity roasts where the subject can interact are ok and nobody should be off limits. But to hit and run with falsehoods that actually hurt the candidate without an accurately sourced story is using the platform to put forth a political agenda.

My two cents regarding SNL: It's been on life support for the last 25 years.

nancy @ 121:

Filthy Harry @ 91:

nancy @ 85:

p.s. tina fey is brilliant. everyone who's been ragging on bill clinton needs to shut the hell up; he's the best damn president i've ever had in my lifetime. barry is an an ass and a traitor to dems.

I agree he was a great president. That however doesn't change the fact that he sullied himself campaigning for his wife.
Perhaps there was no way to avoid it? You know ex-presidents are normally kinda quiet.

sullied himself? i've written about what i surmise you're talking about here. i think you've been played, my friend. played for a sucker.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/24/hillary-clinton-mocks-bar_n_881...

do you believe this was a brilliant campaign move Nancy? making faces and mocking candidates in a condescending tone, mocking the voters behind them you have to win back? how does this attitude win elections? how does this attitude get things done? i'm dying to know what i'm missing with this brilliant move.

gene214 @ 124:

Richard Ray Harris @ 122:

Greg.."Tina was joking and it was funny..?

I'll say what nobody in the entertainment industry has the guts to say:

When in the last twenty years has Saturday Night Live been funny?

I'm not talking so-called "ironic" mental laughs, but genuine, deep belly laughs. The kind of funny where you have to pause your Tivo to recover. The kind of comedy that Belushi, Akyroyd, Radner and Curtin did with ease in the seventies.

Mad TV has today's SNL beat by hundreds of miles and is good satire without the cruelty element. So was In Living Color.

Secondly, I have resented how manipulative political messages that are based on slander get inserted on SNL. Celebrity roasts where the subject can interact are ok and nobody should be off limits. But to hit and run with falsehoods that actually hurt the candidate without an accurately sourced story is using the platform to put forth a political agenda.

My two cents regarding SNL: It's been on life support for the last 25 years.

I agree. There was a time when everyone and their dog HAD to watch SNL. Now, nobody does at all. The show has sucked for years.

pissed off patricia @ 114:

Goon @ 90:

strawberrybitch @ 82:

pissed off patricia @ 77:
Yes, they do. Remember Wedding Crashers? Men secretly admire bastards. You know the dickheads who voted for Bush. They actually admire his douchebaggery.

This man doesn't. And even though there are many dickheads in the Bush camp, I even think its unfair saying that we admire people for asshole-ish behavior. Undeniably I'd throw my gender under the bus and say we're a bunch of assholes, but I certainly don't believe we admire it in one another.

I have learned I can accomplish more by being calm than I can by being a bitch. Bitchiness is a quick way to turn people off in everyday life. I still lose it once in a while but I'm prouder of myself when I don't. There is a difference in being legitimately angry and allowing that anger to direct your self control.

I have no admiration for any man who is pleased to be called a bastard. In my opinion, any guy who feels good about being called a bastard, probably indeed is one.

POP. That's my point. I never act like a bitch...(in person)....but you have to admit, the calmer and more respectful you are to dickheads, the more unhinged they become....it's priceless.

Tommy Gunn @ 127:

Not to interrupt this Hillary debate, but I must get something off my chest:

I HATE Tina Fey and SNL together.

30 Rock is cool, but the season SNL officially went down the drain was when she became head writer and weekend update host in 2000.

The originals were the best, Eddie Murphy was great in the 80s, then the 90s were cool for my younger generation (Will Ferrell running the show and Norm as the most acidic WU anchor of them all)...

Then, she started writing, and it all went downhill from there.

SNL has sucked since the start of this Presidency, which is most unfortunate. If ANY presidency needed a good mocking on SNL, it was this one.

Yeah, it's true. Tina Fey's humor just isn't that funny compared to what pre-2000 SNL used to be like.

ConcernedCanuck @ 128:

gene214 @ 124:

Richard Ray Harris @ 122:

Greg.."Tina was joking and it was funny..?

I'll say what nobody in the entertainment industry has the guts to say:

When in the last twenty years has Saturday Night Live been funny?

I'm not talking so-called "ironic" mental laughs, but genuine, deep belly laughs. The kind of funny where you have to pause your Tivo to recover. The kind of comedy that Belushi, Akyroyd, Radner and Curtin did with ease in the seventies.

Mad TV has today's SNL beat by hundreds of miles and is good satire without the cruelty element. So was In Living Color.

Secondly, I have resented how manipulative political messages that are based on slander get inserted on SNL. Celebrity roasts where the subject can interact are ok and nobody should be off limits. But to hit and run with falsehoods that actually hurt the candidate without an accurately sourced story is using the platform to put forth a political agenda.

My two cents regarding SNL: It's been on life support for the last 25 years.

I agree. There was a time when everyone and their dog HAD to watch SNL. Now, nobody does at all. The show has sucked for years.

SNL at its absolute lowest point (in my opinion, 2002-2003) is light years ahead of MAD TV.

now the greatest sketch show of all time though is Mr. Show :P or Kids in the Hall, or Monty Python of course..

Filthy Harry@125

I'll agree that the Democrats who voted for the resolution got suckered big time. They should be held accountable for that. But let's never forget the Bush regime's manipulation and lies to get us into Iraq.

SNL is so obnoxious. Soooo obnoxious. Used to be good.

Snowball @ 135:

Filthy Harry@125

I'll agree that the Democrats who voted for the resolution got suckered big time. They should be held accountable for that. But let's never forget the Bush regime's manipulation and lies to get us into Iraq.

I don't forget it at all. And being suckered is not a real good excuse for being absolved of responsibility. ESPECIALLY if you're running on 'experience'. Whatever they thought it was, or whatever they were intending their vote to mean, they gave bush the authorization to use the military in iraq.
If their intent was diplomatic they could have passed a resolution saying that the WOULD authorize force if saddam, blah blah blah. But they didn't.

The ‘First Woman,’ Once Again

I was surprised to read in The New York Times that Sen. Hillary Clinton was the “first woman with a real shot at the presidency.” I thought that honor had gone to Sen. Elizabeth Dole in 2000.

In that year, the Times described Mrs. Dole as “the first woman to become a really serious candidate for president of the United States.” Of course, back in 1972, the Seattle Times penned, “Representative Shirley Chisholm today became the first black woman to begin a serious bid for the presidency of the United States.”

Then again, a commentator in 1964 said of Sen. Margaret Chase Smith’s presidential campaign that “she had the distinction of having been the first woman in the country to bid for that office.”

Each woman who has run for the presidency has been framed as though her campaign was a first.

I am worried that persistently framing women as “firsts” and novelties may abet our collective amnesia about the long and deep history of women’s political involvement throughout U.S. and world history. Women have led nations such as Canada, France and the United Kingdom, not to mention Turkey, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and many others.

Since 1872, at least eight American women who have run for president have done well enough to get substantial press coverage. Several have also had enough money to qualify for federal primary matching funds. Most of the female candidates for president have been serious women who have run serious campaigns.
...

Thanks Tina ... yeah we really need someone to tell us "Women should vote for the woman; blacks should vote for the black."

So enlightened of you Tina. Especially after the woman-bashing stories right before it.

Stick to 30 Rock. You're not very good at the "feminist" stuff.

Hillary's sewn up the wealthy female Manhattanite vote.

MountainMan23 @ 141:

The ‘First Woman,’ Once Again

I was surprised to read in The New York Times that Sen. Hillary Clinton was the “first woman with a real shot at the presidency.” I thought that honor had gone to Sen. Elizabeth Dole in 2000.

In that year, the Times described Mrs. Dole as “the first woman to become a really serious candidate for president of the United States.” Of course, back in 1972, the Seattle Times penned, “Representative Shirley Chisholm today became the first black woman to begin a serious bid for the presidency of the United States.”

Then again, a commentator in 1964 said of Sen. Margaret Chase Smith’s presidential campaign that “she had the distinction of having been the first woman in the country to bid for that office.”

Each woman who has run for the presidency has been framed as though her campaign was a first.

I am worried that persistently framing women as “firsts” and novelties may abet our collective amnesia about the long and deep history of women’s political involvement throughout U.S. and world history. Women have led nations such as Canada, France and the United Kingdom, not to mention Turkey, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and many others.

Since 1872, at least eight American women who have run for president have done well enough to get substantial press coverage. Several have also had enough money to qualify for federal primary matching funds. Most of the female candidates for president have been serious women who have run serious campaigns.
...

Only problem with that is it looks at women in American politics through the lens of the MSM narrative. Not exactly a level honest medium if you know what I mean. Doesn't matter what it is, the MSM will find a narrative (the simplest one) and run with it. The second woman to run for pres after the first woman has been pres will be labeled as the first woman with a real chance to become president, since [first fem pres].

This is from John Kerry's floor speech on the Resolution for the Use of Force. It seems to me pretty clear what he intended: It was not a blank check to go to war

As the President made clear earlier this week, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' It means ``America speaks with one voice.''

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq , it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize ``imminent''--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.