Are liberals finally getting through to Clinton?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

I think the best that can (and it looks like will) happen in Connecticut (besides throwing Lieberman out) is that the conservative dems who've been bending over backwards for Bush will finally wake up and smell the coffee.

I'm asking because Hilary just asked Donald Rumsfeld in the Senate hearing, "...because you've lost all credibility, why should we believe anything you say?" (paraphrasing, still looking for the transcript)

Now I'm a bit happy because I've been waiting about five years for some public official to ask Rumsfeld that very question.

I'm hoping this is a sign of things to come, and not just a flash in a pan.

[Armstead]

1. Just Hillary trying to have it both ways again

Justify the basis of the war, while criticize the "handling" of it.

When Hillary comes out and actually says she made a mistrake by supporting the basic pretext for the iunvasion, she might be worth taking seriously.

[Warpy]

6. There is a very large gap between her rhetoric

and her voting history. The latter is nearly 90% liberal.

I don't deny she is a fine Senator. I just hope she keeps being just that, especially if she steps up to Reid's post.

If that happens, maybe her rhetoric will start to match her record.

[elehhhhna]

7. Yep. 4 fingers pointing back at her & etc. She's Lieberman in a dress.

[jobycom]

2. Hillary's a liberal. Accept it, live with it, make it your own.

All these NewsMax attempts to make her a conservative are failing, finally. She's been trying to bring down Rumsfield from the beginning. Glad some of the liberals are finally refusing the kool-aid and starting to see her for who she is.

[liberalhistorian]

4. If she's truly a liberal, she's been

doing a damn good job of hiding it these past few years, especially since 9/11. A true liberal would have fought tooth and nail against the bankruptcy bill. A true liberal, an attorney no less, would be standing up against all of our precious rights and freedoms being stripped away right before our eyes. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

[jobycom]

5. She fights the fights she has a chance to win

Good liberal doesn't HAVE to mean stupid politician, it just seems that way around here.

On the bankruptcy bill, she would have made no difference. As for our rights and freedoms, she's done a good job. She opposed Roberts and Alito, supported filibusters of both, opposed the flag burning amendment and even tried to diffuse the amendment by offering a compromise bill to shut the Republicans up and give them nothing. THe ACLU rated only seven senators higher than her last year, and interestingly, two of them were Biden and Lieberman. She's tied with most other liberal Dems.

She's a liberal. Her ratings on every major liberal issue are almost perfect by every major liberal group out there. Her voting record is similar to Kennedy and Kerry. For a junior first-term Senator in the minority party, she's had a major impact on the Senate. There are things (many) I don't agree with her on, but there isn't anyone I agree with all the time, and only, maybe, two or three I agree with more often. She gets smeared for a lot of things that make no sense. I heard someone recently claiming she should introduce more progressive legislation--she has no power to release ANY legislation, much less symbolic stuff with no chance to pass.

As for hiding her liberalism, it's more like NewsMax and some DU dupes have been misrepresting it since 9-11, from her IWR stance (the same one Kerry and Edwards took, and the same one Clarke called for) to her video game issue to her "flag burning" bill.

[elehhhhna]

10. Talk is cheap. Filibusters, not so much. She's doubletalking. ALWAYS.

"On the bankruptcy bill, she would have made no difference" So why try, huh? WHAT ARE WE PAYING HER FOR, then?

[jobycom]

14. She's not double-talking.

She's been consistently liberal, as I said. Look at her ratings from every major liberal action group out there. 100% on labor from most unions. 100% on abortion, women's issues, civil rights, peace, animal rights. Her voting record speaks for itself. There's no double-talking on it. She's a politician, she spins like anyone does. But she's been very consistent.

Check out her record on the war. Like many, she criticized Bush for not sending enough troops to be effective. So Newsmax reports "Hillary wants more troops in Iraq," and liberals, sadly, start calling her a warmonger. She then defends her IWR vote, saying, as she said at the time, that it was not a vote for war, but a vote to avoid war. (again, naive). NewsMax reports that Hillary has flip-flopped on the war. "First she supports it, then she calls for more troops, now she says she never supported it." Finally she admits that, knowing what she knows now, she wouldn't have voted for the IWR, but reiterates that her intention was to avoid war (as she's said from day one until now), NewsMax reports "Hillary changes opinion on IWR, says she should have voted against it."

This has been going on along. The Republicans know liberals better than liberals do. They know liberals eat their own. So they pour the salt on and slide the plate in front of us. And we never fail. They did that to Ann Richards in Texas, to Gore, to Kerry. Now to Hillary. Hopefully it will fail this time. Some have wised up. Just not enough.

[elehhhhna]

8. Sure. "Love tha War, Hate the DOD guy". Right.

[jobycom]

13. She's never "loved the war."

Even her IWR speech was against a war, unlike Kerry, Edwards, and Clark's speech to the House on the issue. In fact, her speech was so close in theme to Clark's that I suspect she was following his advice. She later said the IWR vote was a mistake, even before it was cool to do so. She has criticized Bush's handling of the war at every stage, criticising him for not sending in enough troops, then for underfunding the troops, and for giving Halliburton the sweatheart deals. She called for a timetable for redeployment before Murtha did, and set a timetable for the following year (which would be this one).

Research the issue, you'll find you've been as misled on her as people were on Gore and Kerry.

[elehhhhna]

15. Talk is cheap...

& perhaps I HAVE been mislead.

But I fervently reject the formation of any more familial political dynasties in this country, ever.

[jobycom]

17. I'm not saying anyone has to vote for her as president--

although she is Rodham, not a Clinton-- and I'm not even saying I'll vote for her, if she even runs. There's at least one candidate I like better, and a couple I like as much. I'm just sick of seeing her lied about. She's been an excellent Dem senator, and a liberal, and if we don't get better at identifying our friends, we are going to keep earning enemies like Bush.

[elehhhhna]

20. She has too much baggage and not enough of a cv for me. Sorry.

[jobycom]

18. As for talk being cheap, it is also the only power Dems have now

at the federal level.

[elehhhhna]

21. Until she admits the Iraq Invasion was a fat fucking MISTAKE and

says "I WAS LIED TO", I have NO use for the woman. NONE.

Sorry.

[elehhhhna]

16. del

[rodeodance]

24. to say she loves war is just plain nonsense. Let the Repugs do the bash

ing.

[Connie_Corleone]

3. She's always been critical of how the war was fought and...

the administration's rosy talking points about it.

Nothing's changed.

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. That's like being critical of a how a child is being molested..... It was

a bad war and never should have happened.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. The "Vast Left Wing Conspiracy" is out get poor wittle Hillary.

So, now she's trying a little CYA.

[MamaBear]

12. Can you say "election year" boys and girls?

Sure you can!

[oc2002]

19. the Clintons can go to hell. and take the DLC with them

the Clintons have been a complete disaster for the democratic party. the whole centrist bullshit and moderate bullshit, while the republicans steamroll over thier asses.

I say the sooner we rid ourselves of thier self imposed importance, the better the democrats will be.

[jonnyblitz]

22. great post!!!

:applause: :thumbsup:

[cynatnite]

23. Midterms will tell if they will change their positions...

If we see a dem takeover of the senate and/or house, the tunes of those democrats will change. I believe that if Hillary does run in 2008, she will need to modify her position...most especially on the Iraq war if she's to have a snowball's chance in hell in getting the nomination.

I honestly don't believe she can win a nomination with a pro-Iraq war stance and I think she's smart enough to know that. Personally, if she ever runs, I hope she waits and not do it in 2008.

I'd still vote for her if she got the nomination.