(Hillary) Clinton's Speech Seems Presidential To Some

[Omaha Steve]

Full story: http://cbs2chicago.com/local/local_story_220190418.html

Clinton's Speech Seems Presidential To Some
New York Senator Blasts Republicans, Oil Company In Speech To Union Delegates

Mike Parker

(CBS) CHICAGO A fiery address by Hillary Clinton has people saying that she seems ready to run for president.

U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) seemed to bask in the cheers from some 6,000 delegates to a national government workers union convention at McCormick Place. It was a Democratic working-class crowd, and Clinton played to their anger.

“How many of you get so upset and frustrated you find yourself yelling at your TV set?” she asked. “Now that Bill and I have TiVo, sometimes we rewind it and yell all over again.”

Clinton blamed just about everything on Republican rule in Washington for what she called a lack of affordable health care, a stagnant minimum wage and a growing deficit. And she railed about that corroded oil pipeline that threatens to raise gasoline prices.

“I think BP should use some of the billions of dollars in excess windfall profits to fix that pipeline without passing on the cost to the rest of us,” Clinton said.

It sounded like a White House campaign speech to many who heard it.

[FrenchieCat]

1. I'm sure that it does.......

sound like a Presidential "I'm running" speech!

and?

Did you have an opinion on it?

[Omaha Steve]

2. I'm not at the chicago convention, but

One of the DU regulars can talk about it when she gets back.

[FrenchieCat]

3. So why post an OP if you have no OP(inion)?

Just askin'? :shrug:

[Omaha Steve]

4. I'm sure she is running, but...

Her war stance, the fact she is a woman, and a lot of Republican spin will go against her. I'm for Gore, but think Edwards will win the nomination. I met John Edwards twice in the fall of 2004. Wonderful choice. I voted for him in the Nebraska primary in june of 2004. By that time it was over. I was voting for him to be picked as VP.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Me, I don't care for Edwards for Prez, even if the CW is against me....

I didn't like his co-sponsorship on the Lieberman Iraq War Resolution, nor can I accept his attrition three years (once the polls turned) too late on his stance on that vote.

I don't wish to reward such lack of judgment on our Foreign policy during critical crunch time on an issue as important as War and Peace, by thinking he should now be President......in particular how messed up our International affairs are and will be.

Sure, Edwards may "talk" about poverty, but ironically enough, the Iraq War Resolution he voted for allowed Bush to easily invade Iraq......which in turn did more to make Americans poorer than anything I can remember (billions and billions spent needlessly, programs being cut all over the place).

It is my opinion that although Edwards is a Nice Guy.....what we need to lead us into the right direction is a "leader".

Gore would be great! Edwards, I would prefer he stick to what he's doing now.

[venable]

6. Edwards devotion to the poor is real

and he was adamant in tying it in to the denial of funds (the 87B) for the continuation of the war. (H

you might recall that in a primary debate he and Kucinich were the only two to answer directly: would they vote for the 87B. "Until Bush rolls back the tax cuts for the rich: No".

His recanting ("I was wrong") showed the courage of leadership that you say he lacks.

He would make a spectacular candidate, and a truly great president. And, should he get the nomination, he would win.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Sorry, but you are wrong......

Edwards Did not answer about the 87 billion dollars directly.....Kucinich and sharpton did!
In addition, his "Poor" concern started after his speech "two Americas" starting getting some traction....no before.

Further, stating one is sorry three years after the fact, and after the polls show that a majority finally turned against the polls is not Courage or leadership. I'm not sure how you could say that....and in fact, please tell me how it is.

These are just the facts, and I back my facts up! :hi:

so here's the transcript! Check it yourself!

So let me start with you, Senator Edwards. How would you vote on the $87 billion?

EDWARDS: Well, what’s happening, Gloria, is we have young men and women in a shooting gallery over there right now. It would be enormously irresponsible for any of us not to do what’s necessary to support them.

The second thing is, when we went into Iraq, we, the United States of America, assumed a responsibility to share-and I emphasize share-with our allies and friends the effort to reconstruct.

That does not mean George Bush should get a blank check. He certainly shouldn’t get a blank check under these circumstances.

So the answer to your question is, we will vote for, I will vote for, what’s necessary to support the troops.
--------------

Would you vote-will you vote yes or no on the $87 billion? And if the answer is no, what’s the message you would send to the troops who are there today?

KUCINICH: The message is now I will not vote for the $87 billion. I think we should support the troops and I think we best support them by bringing them home.

-------------
SHARPTON: In terms of your question, I would unequivocally vote no, because I think to continue to invest in a flawed and failed policy is not wise or prudent. It is really to try and chase bad investment with bad investment.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3088203/

[venable]

8. well, I won't argue with your transcript,

that would be silly. I can't produce transcribed evidence of what I recall, but I do recall it very clearly (as an Edwards supporter who was against the war from the beginning, was pained by his vote, and was hoping that he'd draw the line - however late - at the $87B)...He said, if not verbatim, just about exactly this: "I would ask the President to roll back the tax cuts before there is any discussion about additional spending for Iraq. Short of that, I will vote against the request."

I would also add that as one who voted for the resolution, a resolution that resulted in troops being sendt, he was in a position that was tremendously vulnerable, politically. Courageously, he disregarded that, and voted against the funding request.

Now, I understand if you are underwhelmed by this, being simply my recollection. But if you have the transcripts of all the debates available, I am sure you will find what I refer to.

As to whether it is courageous or not for Edwards to recant late, when polls are turning against the war: I would just remind you, one that he did it before just about anyone else who had voted for the war. And more importantly, he admitted HE was wrong. Not that he was wronged (which is the tack most take in recanting). The entire first paragraph of his op-ed: "I was wrong."

Listen, I am a disappointed in his vote for the war resolution as you are (most likely). However, I'm looking for a leader who will move beyond one moment ("I was wrong") and do the right thing.

As to your argument that he didn't care about the poor until his Two Americas speech got traction - I would ask where you thought the inspiration for that speech came from: His concern for the poverty issue.

Peace.

[FrenchieCat]

10. So, since Edwards said "sorry" first, that makes him courageous?

and a leader? He wasn't first....I don't know where you got that from!

Edwards took the responsibility, but couched it with the reason that he was misled....meaning "he was wronged"...exactly what you said he didn't do....but if you read his "I was wrong" editorial, he says exactly that...."Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.
Snip
The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html

21 other senators "Knew" better! John Edwards essentially is saying that he was misled (since he is saying that if he had different information, he would not have voted for the War)...and in fact, He even co-sponsored the IWR! Look here at the list of who co-sponsored Lieberman's Blank check resolution! http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Iraq_War_Resolution

I don't want a President that is that easily misled at crunch time! I'm sorry, but that the truth. That was a dire issue.....that is costing lives, billions and irrepairable damage to our own country!
---------------------
Here's a KOS editorial on Edward's admission after three years, and billions spent!
Edwards: Iraq vote "a mistake"
by kos
Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 02:50:59 PM PDT

Another Democrat, John Edwards, admits error in voting for Iraq resolution.

In an interview after the UNC speech, Edwards finally utters the words he'd assiduously avoided during the last campaign: "I voted for the resolution," he says. "It was a mistake."

Of course, finding a solution is still the biggest problem.

"The hard question is, What do you do now? Looking back, it's easy to say that it was wrong and based on false information. Anybody who doesn't admit that isn't honest, and that's the truth." So what now? "I myself feel conflicted about it," Edwards replies. "But we have to find ways--and I don't mean just yanking all the troops tomorrow--but we have to find ways to start bringing our troops home. Our presence there is clearly contributing to the problem." So does he agree with Senator Russ Feingold that Washington should set a withdrawal deadline? "No. Even if we're going to say that internally, that we're gonna have our troops out by X date, there's no reason to announce that to the world. I think that's probably a mistake." He doesn't agree, either, with Senator Clinton's call for more US troops to finish the job? "No sir!" Edwards says, sitting straight up in his chair. "Did she really say that?"

Edwards had always been a firm supporter of the war. I was at the fateful California Democratic Party convention in early 2003 in which Dean exploded onto the political scene. Forgotten from that convention, Edwards was booed for announcing his support for the war just a couple days before bombs started dropping.

But then Edwards spoke in support of the Iraq war and all hell broke loose. The entire convention hall resonated in boos, the crowd chanting "no war! No war!" It was an amazing sight, and Edwards seemed a bit taken aback. Jerome thought it looked like '68. Edwards recovered with a line about Ashcroft, but the damage was done. The 20 or so brave souls waving Edwards signs were suddenly radioactive.

It's good to see more and more Democrats coming around on their mistake. Now, if we could only arrive at some concensus for the solution we could be in business.

But baby steps. And the first step is admitting the mistake. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/10/165059/30

------------

Here's what Edwards had to say one year into the War in a televised intervew....by then, we all knew that the war was based on lies (just read my quote in my signature!)

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295

Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they're doing the occupation.

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren't with us and the Germans and the Russians weren't with us, was he right to say, "We're going anyway"?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein's potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn't get misled.

MATTHEWS: Did you get an honest reading on the intelligence?

EDWARDS: But now we're getting to the second part of your question.

I think we have to get to the bottom of this. I think there's clear inconsistency between what's been found in Iraq and what we were told.

And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn't just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.

MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn't change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.

MATTHEWS: Do you feel now that you have evidence in your hands that he was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons?

EDWARDS: No, I wouldn't go that far.

MATTHES: What would you say?

EDWARDS: What I would say is there's a decade long pattern of an effort to get nuclear capability, from the former Soviet Union, trying to get access to scientists...

MATTHEWS: What about Africa?

EDWARDS: ... trying to get-No. I don't think so. At least not from the evidence.

MATTHEWS: Were you misled by the president in the State of the Union address on the argument that Saddam Hussein was trying get uranium from Niger?

EDWARDS: I guess the answer to that is no.

I did not put a lot of stock in that.

MATTHEWS: But you didn't believe-But you weren't misled?

EDWARDS: No, I was not misled because I didn't put a lot of stock in to it begin with.

As I said before, I think what happened here is, for over a decade, there is strong, powerful evidence, which I still believe is true, that Saddam Hussein had been trying to get nuclear capability. Either from North Korea, from the former Soviet Union, getting access to scientists, trying to get access to raw fissile material. I don't-that I don't have any question about.

MATTHEWS: The United States has had a long history of nonintervention, of basically taking the "don't tread on me and if you don't we'll leave you alone." We broke with that tradition for Iraq. What is your standard for breaking with tradition of nonintervention?

EDWARDS: When somebody like Saddam Hussein presents a direct threat to the security of the American people and, in this case, the security of a region of the world that I think is critical.

MATTHEWS: A direct threat to us. What was it? Just to get that down. What is it? Knowing everything you know now, what was the direct threat this guy posed to us here in America?

EDWARDS: You didn't get let me finish. There were two pieces to that. I said both a direct threat to us and a direct threat to a region of the world that is incredibly dangerous.

And I think that with Saddam Hussein, they've got nuclear capability, it would have changed the dynamic in that part of the world entirely. And as a result, would have created a threat to the American people. So that's what I think the threat was.

MATTHEWS: Do you think he ever posed a direct threat...

EDWARDS: Can I say something? You sort of-implicit in that question was that the assumption that I believe that the Bush policy on preemptive strike is correct. I don't.

I don't think we need a new doctrine. I think that we can always act to protect the safety and security of the American people. And I have said repeatedly that Bush-President Bush's approach to foreign policy in general is extraordinarily bad. Dangerous for the American people. He doesn't work with others. He doesn't build coalitions. We were promised...

MATTHEWS: Wait, wait.

EDWARDS: Let me finish. We were promised a coalition on the ground right now. And we were promised a plan for what would occur at this point in this campaign in Iraq. Well, neither of those things have occurred. And as a result, we're seeing what's happening to our young men and women.

MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how you would have been different in president if you had been in office the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq. I don't think I would have approached it the way this president did. I don't think-See I think what happened, if you remember back historically, remember I had an up or down vote. I stand behind it. Don't misunderstand me.

MATTHEWS: Right.

I'm sorry, but Edwards is not my guy, and I don't consider him a leader!

[venable]

11. I respect your opinion

and you present compelling evidence. However, I do look at the same things, and read them slightly differently, and while I do wish that Edwards took an earlier and stronger position against the war, I can't help but admire him and find his more recent positions to be particularly powerful. Maybe my generosity on this is based uponn the fact that I deem him to be extremely electable, and a good man. Lord knows we need that

You seem open, not governed by some preconception, and that is commendable. Maybe over time Edwards will appeal to you in the way he does to me. Maybe he won't, but I hope he does.

Peace.

[snowbear]

9. Hillary ain't runnin'....

But why turn off the endless flow of Republican money now?

We're gonna need every penny of it!