Comments on: Clinton's Hawkish Stance Unwelcome

The Nation: Democrats Should Be Wary Of Their Front-Runner's Militarism

[j27play]

Do the math people! Idealism and integrity has its merits, if this country wasn''t so divided in so many ways, but it is. Anytime a few million dollars ads can sway votes, then triangulation is the way to go I say! As Jack Nicholson said in "A few good Men",
"You can''t handle the truth!" The American people can''t handle the truth!" They were dupe in voting for the last president, playing on their fears and their religious inclinations, rather than using their brains. So the way I see it, the public needs to be save from themselves. At least with Hillary, we know we will get some good and it wont be all bad. If the Clinton''s administration past record is any indication. I take my chances.

[formrusmcsgt]

People need to stop damning her for being successful in a political world created and dominated by men.
Posted by destardi1 at 01:07 PM : Aug 19, 2007

Frankly speaking, I don''t see anyone condemning her for being successful, but rather, for her methodology used in achieving success.

A person, man or woman, who merely tells people what they might wish to hear to get elected and then doing as they please is not worth electing.

Didn''t you manage to learn at least that much from the results of electing Bush?

[formrusmcsgt]

So formrusmcsgt, you think this is just a ploy by Clinton to get the hawks on her side. What does that say about her honesty and openness and how she was treat the office the presidency?


Posted by Vet_SK at 11:43 AM : Aug 19, 2007

I think it speaks for itself. Hillary will never receive my vote either, bro.

First of all, replacing one president who speaks out of both sides of his mouth for a female version of the same is no improvement, in my opinion.

Secondly, ending the twenty year dynasty between the Bush and Clinton families is a neccessity, in my view.

It''s past time for an end to a bought and paid for family in the White House.

[destardi]

1)Compare Hillary Clinton''s and Barack Obama''s voting records side by side; their votes are IDENTICAL aside from 4 minor votes.

2)This is politics; did anyone notice how the audience during the labor union''s debate went wild and crazy with talk of "protecting America" via violence? This is "liberal" voters? The author of this has taken issue with non-issues as far as I''m concerned; her answers are nuanced, but they make sense.

3)Obama is insulated because he was able to talk big at the local level during the Iraq resolution vote, but if anyone is going to try to tell me after examining the way he votes as identical to Hillary Clinton, that he wouldn''t have felt the same national pressure to appear solidified with the rest of the Country right afer 9/11 and vote for the resolution, I''m going to say you don''t understand politics at all.

I know what Hillary and Bill Clinton stand for; I''ve looked at their efforts all the way back to Clinton''s Arkansas days...Hillary Clinton will never start an illegitimate war, PERIOD.

People need to stop damning her for being successful in a political world created and dominated by men.

[vet_sk]

So formrusmcsgt, you think this is just a ploy by Clinton to get the hawks on her side. What does that say about her honesty and openness and how she was treat the office the presidency?

And are we supposed to believe that she will do this to just get elected and then become a reasonable person who does not use nukes looking for a single person.

You know we tried this last with Kerry - playing Bush-lite. If anything let''s change the debate.

Unless Hillary does a 180, she will never get my vote and I suspect large portions of the progressive vote.

[formrusmcsgt]

Shame on me for not including the support of principle federal contractors who will assured of continuing to feed like gluttons at the federal teat......

[formrusmcsgt]

Clinton''s hawkishness is due to the following factors in my view:

A pre-emptive positioning to diminish the effectiveness of neocon claims that she''s "soft" on terrorism;

To maintain support from her Jewish constituency;

To try to draw support from disenchanted Repubs;

To try to avoid the portrayal of her as being "weak" because she''s a female.

[cfin5]

processor2,.....Here is a good one that the Constitution Party sent me from a famous democrat....."They (who) seek to establish systems of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers call this a new (world) order. It is not new and it is not order".-----Franklin D. Roosevelt

[formrusmcsgt]

Sounds to me like the NeoCommies and MoveOn.org have hijacked a Democrat party that I once knew and respected.

Posted by processor2 at 08:30 AM : Aug 19, 2007

I know how you feel, processor2. I once respected the small government approach and fiscal discipline of the Repubs until that party was hijacked by the neocons.....

[processor2]

Since comparing Republicans vs. Democrats is an argument that never goes anywhere,
let%u2019s instead compare Democrat vs. Democrat,, let%u2019s say Clinton(s) vs. J.F. Kennedy.

The Clinton(s) and current Democrat philosophy on governing/government is:
%u201CBig Government will provide for you%u201D, &
%u201CFrom cradle to grave, Big Government will take care of you%u201D, &
%u201CIt takes a Village%u201D(Big Government)

Whereas J.F. Kennedy said :
%u201CAsk not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country%u201D

These two philosophies (both Democrat) are complete polar opposite of each other.

I would much rather be a J.F. Kennedy democrat than a Clinton democrat.

Sounds to me like the NeoCommies and MoveOn.org have hijacked a Democrat party that I once knew and respected.

...