24 Comments so far

1. Rebel Farmer February 22nd, 2007 3:00 pm

   Way to go Amy! Thanks for pulling this info together. We have a long way to go before the Democrats nominate a candidate. If Hillary continues to shoot herself in the foot in the upcoming months, maybe you can revisit this topic again in the future and remind us all AGAIN of the history of this candidate’s stand on Iraq, Iran, and war as a solution to problems that only have a diplomatic solution.

2. clyde paige February 22nd, 2007 4:45 pm

   Hillary is starting to look as hardheaded as Bush which is a disaster. I hope Al Gore run’s, he is the most qualified man on earth to save this country from the Bush/Cheney nightmare and get our allies back.

3. blessthebeasts February 22nd, 2007 5:33 pm

   Let’s pray that Hillary will be weeded out in
   the primary process. She has no business being the standard-bearer for the Democratic
   Party. Kucinich is the clear anti-war candidate. He isn’t worried about the corporate media calling him unpatriotic, he just tell the truth and always has. Please,
   progressives, hop on the bandwagon!

4. ezeflyer February 22nd, 2007 6:03 pm

   Go Ralphie Boy!

5. Gail February 22nd, 2007 6:47 pm

   “She is open to a military strike on Iran. Her latest message to voters: “There are others to choose from.” Anti-war voters already know that, and are lining up behind candidates Barack Obama, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich and, perhaps before long, Ralph Nader.”

   As an anti-war, anti-empire builder, I will vote for one of the other candidates.

6. fedupwithpolitics February 22nd, 2007 7:02 pm

   Yes, Hillary is a disaster, but Edwards and Obama also sabre-rattled against Iran. AIPAC has gotten to all of them!

7. fpal February 22nd, 2007 7:12 pm

   A president needs to have a back bone and must sabre-rattle when needed and ,if necessary, go to war.

   The Iraq war was never about terrorism and until the debate swings over to the reasons and rationale for starting this war we will never have closure.

   A president, who is anti-war, of a country that has the greatest military power on the globe is an oxymoron.

8. rkymtnwest99 February 22nd, 2007 7:32 pm

   I will not vote for any candidate who is a murderer. It is simply not an option anymore for this voter. Nader ‘08!

9. jp February 22nd, 2007 8:20 pm

   I saw “Democracy Now” when Amy interviewed Roger Tilton. Although I am glad that he challenged Clinton, I am disappointed that no-one is challenging the candidates on the underlying issues of “preemptive war” and American imperialism with respect to oil. Narrowing the question to Iraq, which everyone agrees is a disaster, doesn’t help votes gauge where candidate stand on these fundamental issues.

10. Guillermo February 22nd, 2007 8:36 pm

    Hillary is Pro-War. I’m leaning towards Obama, however, if Ralph Nader decided to run I will support him.

    Long live Democracy Now(My favorite TV Show) and long live Commondreams.org

11. Poet February 22nd, 2007 8:46 pm

    Hillary is yesterday’s news, Barack Obama is yesterday’s news, the same with Biden, Dodd, and Edwards. Feingold, Kucinich, Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, and Mike Gravel I respect but they are either not running or have the proverbial snowball’s chance in hell of being on the ballot.

    Yep–Nader is so far the only one worth listening to.

12. Shane February 22nd, 2007 9:50 pm

    Am I the only one who digs Gov. Bill Richardson? The man believes in diplomacy, and is a true statesman. If anyone is to restore America’s international reputation, it is he.

    Anti-war, anti-nuke, pro-environment, alternative energy geek. And he is Hispanic, so he has the minority base covered as well.

    It is a pity the US white middle-class and corporate culture is so racist, because Bill is sorely under-funded.

13. kitty_tc February 23rd, 2007 2:21 am

    Oh, yeah, Nader… like that’s the answer. Keep patting yourself on the back for your purity, while conveniently ignoring the fact that without a candidate Nader in 2000 there would never have been Iraq War to vote on in the first place, and probably not a 9/11 either.

    How in the hell can you look at everything Bush has done and not feel like you made the wrong call when you failed to prevent his presidency? And how can you possibly think of doing it again?

    What more will it take to convince you that the Republicans have to be stopped?

14. longing4peace February 23rd, 2007 5:54 am

    Hilary …what she now knows which she didn’t know then..WOW….millions who protested against the war knew it then…and Hilary only now finds out that Bush was lying…..do we want another liar in the white house? Bill said ” I did not have…with that woman” and Hilary says she” did not know then what she now knows “.And Bush lied and lied and millions died.Three lying prez in a row? Lord. have mercy on us.

15. Essie February 23rd, 2007 7:34 am

    I have lost my confidence in the American regime.With the exception of a very few that you can count on the fingers of one hand, all the U.S. politicians in the House, Senate, White House, Pentagon, etc are crooks, liars, and are bought by AIPAC, lock, stock, and barrel,and Hilary is no different. Why is it that any politician who wants to be elected has to first pledge allegiance to the security of Israel? Why then don’t they go and run for office in Israel? It is because they want the financial support of the powerful Jewish lobby, AIPAC. No wonder the U.S. Middle East policy has been hijacked by Israel. The U.S. pays $3 billion annually of taxpayers’ money to Israel, Half in arms and munitions, another half in hard chsh. The cash is routed to AIPAC to chose, elect, and buy representatives for the American public. How can anyone expect a sane person to vote under such circumstances?

16. Rick February 23rd, 2007 8:20 am

    Seems Clinton as drawn a line in the sand.. Well I say, lets bury her presidential aspirations with it.
    She is nothing more then another Minion of APAC.
    Kucinich in 2008!

17. walt February 23rd, 2007 9:38 am

    Nader or Kucinich vs. Guiliani or McCain? What a plan! Here’s to the Republicans in ‘08 … and 2012. I’m sure they will get us out of Iraq and Iran real fast!

18. walt February 23rd, 2007 9:42 am

    BTW Amy I have a question. What about this statement doesn’t track for you?

    Clinton: “Well, I have said, and I will repeat it, that knowing what I know now, I never would have voted for it. … The mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress into a war that should not have been waged.”

    That’s not enough? She has to admit she knew beter and still voted for the war? Hope all you guys like this view toward past mistakes because the future belongs to the Republicans.

19. Michael Boyter February 23rd, 2007 10:45 am

    Clinton is a Hawk, I would not vote for her under any circumstances, Period,

    My choices would be
    Edwards
    Barak

    or
    Gore
    Barak

20. Richard valentine February 23rd, 2007 1:52 pm

    I found an interview on the PBS News Hour last month to be quite revealing about Hillary Clinton’s view on U.S. Foreign Policy:

    “GWEN IFILL: You and the president don’t agree on much when it comes to the war in Iraq, but you both do seem to agree that there should not be a deadline, a timetable set. Why not?

    SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I think the timetable still remains problematic. You know, make no mistake about it: I’m for getting our forces home as soon as possible.

    But I do believe we have vital national security interests in Iraq. You know, al-Anbar province is the hotbed for the Sunni insurgency and for al-Qaida in Iraq. They weren’t there before; they’re there now. And we do have an interest in preventing them from basically having a foothold, similar to what the al-Qaida and Taliban forces had under Taliban protection in Afghanistan.”

    From her perch in elite circles she can’t seem to accept the fact that it is BECAUSE of the U.S. Occupation of Iraq that there is a violent Sunni insurgency. Before the illegal 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq there had never been a suicide bombing in that country. Since the invasion there have been hundreds.

    Here is another Hillary quote where she straddles the fence, saying she is for a draw down while implying she is for permanent bases in Iraq and the ability to strike against Iran:

    “ If last December’s elections lead to a successful Iraqi government, that should allow us to start drawing down our troops during this year while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safe areas with greater intelligence and quick-strike capabilities. This will help us stabilize that new Iraqi government. It will send a message to Iran that they do not have a free hand in Iraq despite their considerable influence and personal and religious connections there.”

    I look forward to the Democrat debates and expect, if given the opportunity, Dennis Kucinich to be the only candidate to actually give voice to the view of the majority of Americans that they are growing tired of Imperial dominance and would rather see domestic needs met such as healthcare, education and jobs.

21. expatincebu February 23rd, 2007 7:47 pm

    I would rather have four more years of Bush than Hillary. Yes that is right, this progressive (socialist) Democrat feels that way. Why? Better to have a wolf you know is a wolf than a wolf in sheep’s clothing. We all know what Republicans are about, but Hillary and the other DLC members are all Republicans in Democrat clothing. The only thing progressive they stand for is women’s choice.

22. iammyself February 23rd, 2007 9:13 pm

    kitty_tc,

    Of all the posters here, I agree with your position the least. Why? Because you support the Law of Jante. You believe that those who really try to change things bring worse things upon all of us. You are wrong. Worse, your cynical thinking prevents others from trying to courageously change things.

    Republicans have to be stopped? Yes, but you can’t stop a negative with a negative, and you can’t go forward by looking backward.

    My hat is off to anyone who feels the right thing to do is support Nader, Kucinich, or Pat Paulsen, as long as you do it honestly and with the best intention in mind. As Eugene V. Debbs once wrote, “I’d rather vote for the man I believe in and not get him, than vote for the man I don’t believe in and get him.”

    I’ll bring that quote into modernity and say the same about Hillary Clinton. I don’t want her as my president, so will support someone I believe in.

23. walt February 26th, 2007 9:00 am

    As a lifelong Democrat I often feel a emptiness in the pit of my stomach when I read these “Progressive” blogs. Wheteher it’s Nora Ephron dumping on Hillary courtesy of Maureen Dowd sucking up to David Geffen, or feminists like Linda Mallazo railing against her for being too outside her version of the feminist stereotype, or just the samplings from the endless litany of commentators who weigh in with the reasons they “won’t vote for Hillary under any circumstances” I stop to wonder just what it means to be a liberal today.

    Did we learn nothing about how the neo-conservatives took over the Republican party and then our governement? Do you really think they were united in their belief that GW Bush was their best candidate? He was the best they could come up with to win. They created a consensus of support, ushered him in and dismantled our democracy.

    We have the chance to win, but will be, as we were in the past, the chief reason for our defeat. It is all summed up in the comments by iammyself appearing above. Maybe it’s all summed up in his / her screen name.

    This election is not about you or your ego. It’s about the weakest among us. If you don’t play to win, you fail them and by historic definitions the Democratic party. I know you don’t want a two party system either. Why not form your own and call it the Narcissist Party?

24. bnxyhetakozi December 12th, 2007 10:31 am

    titwoxuruvutu…

    excuzexihina…

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)