Your column distorts the meaning of her statements.

I don’t think Ms Clinton’s statements are in any way similar to President bush’s statement, “Bring em On.”
I think she is simply asserting that voters have a choice. She has made her statement regarding her vote and voters will have an opportunity to choose the candidate they prefer.

Bush’s statement was directed towards militants attacking our troops in Iraq.

I’m not sure how the statements are related.

I also don’t think its fair to compare Clinton to Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, and Robert Byrd since they aren’t running for president. Would any of them be able to to launch an effective campaign against the Republican party backed by the military industry and the related corporations?

I don’t support Clinton but feel that we, those that oppose the war, should articulate our goals without using Fox-like journalistic tactics.

Comment #58248 by Vita Shapiro on 3/12 at 11:59 pm says:

”.....never dreaming she would betray the will of her constituency as she publicly stated she understood it”

The first time I saw this done so blatently Olympia Snow (my Senator) did it in the mid 1980’s.  She said “I know my constituantcy disagrees, but I’m voting for their good, and hopefully they’ll understand this” then she voted against the special prosecutor to examine the violation of the Boland Ammendment by the Reagan Administration. 

She ran for her seat the next year and was reelected by a resounding 60+ percent of Maine voters… I was not one of them.

The night of the vote to empower Bush to wage war on Iraq, I stayed awake awaiting to see Clinton’s true colors.  When she acknowledged her constituency’s deep-seated opposition I felt relieved—she would blame us for her anti-war vote. Fed up with political rhetoric, I turned off her speech never dreaming she would betray the will of her constituency as she publicly stated she understood it. In effect Clinton’s abuse of her constitutional power/responsibility is in the same family as Bush’s. Also before the primaries we should know who will be negotiating peace to make sure s(he) has demonstrated diplomatic skill and understanding.

In March 2003, before the Iraq war began, I marched in the streets of Portland Oregon with my sign in my hand along with 20,000 other people and who knows how many million around the world.  The story about WMDs in Iraq had a bad smell.  The reports that these weapons no longer existed seemed credible. There was no reason to suspect that Iraq wanted to attck us.  Bush’s disrespect for the UN was suspicious and unacceptable.  The inspectors had not been allowed to finish their work.  Having found no WMDs so far, it was beginning to look like none would be found.  Better to pull out the inspectors than discover, once and for all, that the WMD story was phony. 

With all of us shouting “No Blood for Oil” how did so many members of Congress happen to be fooled?

I have not and will not support Hillary for President. I would love to see a woman make it to the White House, but not at the cost she represents. Based on the comments I have read here, the majority of you understand what I mean. War should never be an option for a proactive response to a potential, repeat potential threat. If you are forced to fight, then fight, but aggression begets aggression. Hillary’s words about Iran are proof enough to me that she is not a choice. As far as I am concerned, the only candidates acceptable are those who opposed the Iraq war from the onset. Bush claims to be a decider. Hillary claims to be a fence-sitter. Of the two, only Hillary is on the right track, but that only proves that she isn’t even a poor choice for the presidency. I would vote for Nader before I would vote for her and I know that choosing Nader is self-defeating. We all know Nader doesn’t stand a chance, but I won’t stand at the polls and cast my ballot for a Democrat simply to keep another Republican from sitting in the White House, not if Hillary is that choice. I did it for Kerry, but I won’t do it again. What we need is a candidate who doesn’t think along party lines. What we need is a two-term limit for Congressional seat-holders. Down with career politicians, down with voting for the lesser of two evils, down with corporate gifting on any level to persuade votes. We have to stand up and make our government accountable and stop our own complacency and apathy.

I believe the term “mistake” used to characterize the vote to authorize the war in Iraq is a term that has been used intentionally to lessen the devastating irresponsibility of the folks who were in positions of leadership. 

I truly believe that the vote to authorize the war was no “mistake”; it was a collosal LACK of COURAGE by our political representives who are supposed to be leaders.  At one of the most crucial moments in our history, they FAILED as leaders—- they didn’t make a mistake.  It was their job, THEIR JOB, to ask questions.  They didn’t and they failed, dammit!  And hundreds of thousands of people are now DEAD, and countless others have been injured, tortured, or lost any semblance of a secure and happy life.

There are just some failures that don’t deserve a second chance. Do you trust in their ability to muster their courage at future crucial moments?  I wouldn’t bet the ranch, or I should say, the future of the human family, on it.

No to Edwards, and the others, especially Clinton, who lacked the courage to lead when we needed them.

The reason why Hillary and Barak Obama currently have probably 80% of the Democratic vote right now is because they both get 95% of the press.  When was the last time anyone saw any significant press coverage of John Edwards or any other democratic candidate?  We continue to let the mainstream press dictate our news to us and we let that coverage limit our choices. 

While the Bush/Cheney administration is an abomination, what is even worse is the role the media and the press has played in providing information to the American public over the last 6 years. The media will make or break our democracy and right now, they are breaking it.

I AGREE WITH ALL THE blogs,I knew muself for a couple of years that i would’nt vote for Hillary.There are a couple that i would vote for,Dennis Kucinich,Richardson,there are more but i have to pay attention before the Primaries to pick someone who realizes the condition in which Bush is leaving this mess,and who knows that this so called war on terror is nothing more than scare tactic to get what the richer wants,mainly OIL but Busch is too stupid for lots of smart things,he wants an legancy for himself but little does he know he’s gonna be known as the worst president there ever was or will ever be,if we can get the facist religious right out of our government.Do not vote for Hillary

The following is what I would say to Hillary Clinton`s “Bring it on,“attitude toward peace activists:
Hillary,with all due respect,you are a great politician.I have great respect for you,but we do not need another president that persists in denying that he/she has made a mistake.You will not get my vote until I see a more peaceful attitude.
So it looks like I`ll be working for Dennis Kucinich again in 2008.

Tell Bill to go away now. He can’t make things run any smoother now,not right now, but he can jack in the cash…..quietly.Shotgun Dick and Elliot Abrams are getting ready to bomb and maybe, invade Iran right now. Put the kibosh on that bullshit and I’ll vote for you

Regardless of our justifiable misgivings about Ms. Clinton, you really cannot equate what she said to Tex’s “bring it on,” which was an invitation to more killing.  President Clinton lied and President Tex lied, but not all lies are equally consequential.  Not all middle-of-the-road politicians are equally as evil as one who wouldn’t recognize the truth if it wore a name tag.  Bush and his minions know no shame.  Anyone who doesn’t see a difference between them and the Clintons is too pure to live in this world.

Go ahead Amy!!!  You are number one!  Keep on keepin’ on.

There are very few occasions when I can take exception to something said by Amy Goodman, but I simply do not understand how she can include Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards in a listing of anti-war candidates.  Like Clinton, Edwards voted to authorize this illegal war of aggression.  Obama was not in the Senate in 2002, but since being elected, Mr. Obama has voted to fund this illegal adventure on six separate occasions.  Mr. Obama, like Ms. Clinton, is one of those “appearance Democrats.”  He does not want risk “appearing” as if he is not supporting the troops, so he votes to fund the folly.  You do not “support the troops” by enabling the Bush administration to keep them in harm’s way.  You betray them!

There is only one Democratic candidate for President who had both the wisdom and courage to oppose this imperial adventure from the start, who has consistently refused to fund it, and who has developed a well thought out plan to both end the occupation and restore stability.  His name is Dennis Kucinich.  I would encourage all Truthdig readers to go to Kucinich.us to see and hear what this brilliant Congressman has to say on this and a host of other topics of manifest importance to the future of this country and the world.

Sue cites some truth about selective quoting by journalists, but Amy hit the nail on the head with Hillary.  Sue’s clearly a Hillary fan or better, and isn’t currently able or willing to acknowledge that she doesn’t have the essential leadership qualities or progressive values to be a good president.

We need real, responsible leaders with excellent values and the cojones to call the Iraq War, the so-called “War on Terror,” and other follies of the Bush administration exactly what they are:  some of the most collosal and costly (in all senses of that word) mistakes in the history of our country.

With that in mind, the only candidates I see who are deserving are John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich. Perhaps Sue and like-minded folk will decry the media’s fascination with horse races (e.g., Clinton vs. Obama is the only show going) and its dismissal and non-coverage of substantive candidates such as Kucinich (“he’s too short; his voice is funny; he’s a vegan”)

As a New Yorker, I had high hopes for Hillary in 2000 and voted for her.  I’ve gotten to see her operate over the past 6+ years, and have been disappointed repeatedly by her constant maneuvering, posturing, and disingenuousness.  Soon, most Dems will get to see the real Hillary, too.  I hope it happens sooner than later, so that there can be a real alternative to McCain/Guiliani/Romney/?

Sue,

Let me explain, Amy was not dissecting the AIPAC speech. And if she had it would pretty much boil down to the fact - as HC continues to press - that Hillary is a hawk - however she comes by it.

Hillary sees war as a viable way of solving problems - problems that are all too frequently of our own creation. She has bought hook line and sinker the idea from Bush that Iran is an enemy of the United States. War and it’s unintended consequences can assure horrid death and destruction where the vast majority of those killed and maimed are civilians.

We’ve had 6 to be 8 years (unless impeachment emerges from the ground swell of state resolutions) and I for one don’t want another!

Let’s get off the Bush/Clinton Scerry-go-round.

This is in reference to Sue’s comment.

Hillary may use all the words in the English language but she does not fool me. Her stance is obvious. She knows two things:

1. She is a woman and has to appear hawkish to appeal to the mass electorate.
2. She is a NY Senator and with the strong pro-Israel contingency in NY, she will not survive one day without appealing to them.

She also knows that, the statement quoted by Amy will be the one that will be oft repeated. The rest will be lost and is mere rhetoric anyway. Everyone, including the current President and VP say that we need to negotiate.

If Hillary is so committed to negotiations, why did she vote for the war in Iraq. As Amy points out, Hillary had the same information the Senator Byrd and others who voted against the war had. Hillary’s motives (as were Kerry’s) are obvious. She could not vote against the resolution authorizing war because it was right after 9/11 and America was hungry for blood.

I am sorry, your criticism of Amy’s column does not wash!!

In response to Sue’s defense of Hillary/criticism of Amy:

Your expanded quotation and attack on Amy Goodman does nothing to defend Hillary or make any legitimate criticism of Amy.  You say:

  “I wish when reporters are going to quote other
  people, they do so without using what I call
  ‘selective journalism’ in trying to get their
  message across without telling the whole
  story. In this case, there wouldn’t be a story
  if whole truth be known now would there?”

The implication of this is that Amy Goodman deliberately left out statements that would contradict her assertions about Clinton.  Let’s consider this.  The main points Amy makes about Hillary are that: 1) she made a mistake supporting the Iraq war resolution and the subsequent invasion by Bush, even though many others exercised better judgment, and she refuses to admit this, and 2) she is using belligerent rhetoric about and threats toward Iran in line with the hard-line AIPAC/neocon/hawk position.  In Amy’s words:

  “Sen. Clinton has drawn the line in the sand
  over Iraq. She will not admit that her vote to
  authorize Bush to use military force in a
  unilateral, unprovoked war based on lies was a
  mistake. She is open to a military strike on
  Iran.”

In the rest of Clinton’s comments that you posted, the Senator offers her critique of Iraq, that there was not enough congressional oversight, its execution and planning were poor, and that it was done hurriedly and that this criminal, unnecessary, and unjust imperialist war wasn’t multilateral enough for her tastes.  She also says that if Iran isn’t obedient to our demands, Congress should be more involved in launching a murderous attack on them.  Almost as an afterthought, she mentions that diplomacy should also be considered, saying that “when I say no option should be taken off the table, I include diplomacy.”  Goodman argues that antiwar voters, now the majority of the electorate and overwhelming majority of Democratic primary voters, realize that diplomacy must be vigorously pursued and is in fact the only reasonable solution to our problems in the region.  None of this, which Amy Goodman did not include in the article, contradicts the comments she does include or her characterization of Hillary Clinton in general. 

So your claim that Goodman is using “‘selective journalism’ in trying to get [her] message across without telling the whole story” is a very unfair and inaccurate assessment.  Whether your attack of Amy was done out of a knee-jerk, emotional defense of Hillary, an honest misunderstanding, or deliberate intellectual dishonesty, I will reserve judgment.  I will just say that you should be more thoughtful and careful in future posts, just as Hillary should have been before jumping on the pro-war bandwagon. 

Thanks.

The U.S. has been the Empire, with it’s military expansion leading our foreign policy since the Pilgrim’s conquered the original people on the eastern seaboard.
The U.S. has over 300 military bases on foreign soil around the globe.
The subtle differences between the two ruling U.S. political parties is lost in matters of war, whichever party starts the war from Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Nicaragua, Panama, ad naseum, neither has been able to advocate for quitting before the congressional military industrial complex lobby reports back with huge war profits.
Illustrative of the similarity are the blog discussions on the Democratic party’s premier web/blog du. It is dominated by pro-imperialists who call themselves Democrats and support Democratic candidates as the final solution, failing to comprehend the view from the victims of the U.S. military aggression from FDR to Nixon to Clinton.  The CIA remains the tool of any parties president, and assination is used by all, in secret and budjeted with U.S. tax dollars. imo

This is what i hear from my senator:

“If the most important thing to you is choosing someone who had the good judgment to not cast that vote, but rather said this war would a mistake—a dumb war, then there are others to choose from. But for me, for the moment, the most important thing now is saying i’m trying to end this war.”

visit barackobama.com and read his speech from Oct. 2002!!!  Some candidates have shown good JUDGMENT from the beginning!!!

Let’s start a “take the pledge” movement: I, for one, pledge NOT to vote for Hillary under any circumstances. I won’t sit out an election, I’ll vote for Nader if he runs, or write in my real choice, Dennis Kucinich.

She said it herself: “There are other candidates.” Yes, Hillary, there are, and one of them, at least, is honest, knows what it means to be a hard-working citizen, and isn’t paid for by corporate interests. I want an unfettered, unbought, untainted president, with the wits to recognize a lie or a bad idea when s/he hears it.

As Pamela Churchill Harriman she became a United States citizen in 1971 and became involved in the Democratic Party, creating a fund-raising system, - a political action committee - , named “Democrats for the 80’s”, later “Democrats for the 90’s”, and nicknamed “PamPAC”, that helped return that party to the White House. In 1980, the National Women’s Democratic Club named her the Woman of the Year. U.S. President Bill Clinton appointed her United States Ambassador to France in 1993. The Dayton Agreement was signed in Paris in 1995 while she was the US ambassador.
She died in Paris, aged 76, after suffering a massive stroke while taking her customary morning swim in the pool of the Paris Ritz.
The morning after her death in Paris, President Jacques Chirac of France placed the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honor on Mrs. Harriman’s flag-draped coffin. She was the first female foreign diplomat to receive this honor. President Clinton, in further recognition of her qualities and significance (she had been one of the first Democrats to nurture the potential of the then-Governor of Arkansas in the 1980s), spoke movingly at her state funeral in Washington DC.

The Democratic Leadership Council is a non-profit corporation[1] that argues that the United States Democratic Party should shift away from traditionally populist positions. Moderate and conservative Democratic party leaders founded the DLC in response to the landslide victory of Republican candidate Ronald Reagan over Democratic candidate Walter Mondale during the 1984 Presidential election. The founders believed the United States Democratic Party needed to shift to the right of center to remain viable during the Reagan era. The DLC hails President Clinton as proof of the viability of third way politicians and as a DLC success story. Critics contend that the DLC is effectively a powerful, corporate-financed mouthpiece within the Democratic party that acts to keep Democratic Party candidates and platforms sympathetic to corporate interests and the interests of the wealthy.
The DLC’s affiliated think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute. Democrats who adhere to the DLC’s philosophy often call themselves New Democrats.
The DLC’s current chairman is former Representative Harold Ford, Jr. of Tennessee, and its vice chair is Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware. Its CEO is Al From and its president is Bruce Reed.

The DLC gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prior to the war, Will Marshall co-signed a letter to President Bush from the Project for the New American Century endorsing military action against Saddam Hussein. During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal because of Dean’s position of only pursuing Osama Bin Laden instead of invading Iraq. The DLC dismissed other critics of the Iraq invasion such as filmmaker Michael Moore as “Anti-American” and members of the “loony left” [7]. Even as domestic support for the Iraq War plummeted in 2004 and 2005, Marshall called upon Democrats to balance their criticism of Bush’s handling of the Iraq War with praise for the President’s achievements and cautioned “Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe.”

Should Hillary win the Democratic nomination it would be the BEST thing the Republicans could hope for. It’ll split the Dems every which way and the Repubicans will waltz in again.

This is a great article, but I wish Amy would acknowledge that Ralph Nader isn’t the only antiwar voice considering a run on alternative party tickets.  The Green Party in particular already has three announced candidates for the Green presidential nomination.

Amy quotes Hillary…
    “We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat, no option can be taken off the table.”

She did not continue on to quote the REST OF THE STORY from that same speech of Hillary’s.
Please read on…
“No Military Action on Iran without Congressional Authority.”

Continuing on from that above paragraph:

“But America must proceed deliberately and wisely, and we must proceed as a unified nation. The smartest and strongest policy will be one forged through the institutions of our democracy. That is the genius of or American system and our constitutional duty. We have witnessed these past six years—-until the most recent election of a new Congress by the American people—- the cost of congressiional derliction of its oversight duty, a vital role entrusted to Congress by our constituents, enshrined in, and even required by our Constitution. So we are here today because the price that has been paid in blood and treassure; through the rush to war in Iraq and the incompetence of its execution and managing the aftermath; in the excesses of military contracting abuses and the inadequate supply of body armor and armored vehicles on the ground have led to a loss of confidence among our allies and the American people in this Administration. Therfor, Mr. President, we cannot and we must not allow recent history to repeat itself.”

“President Bush must not be allowed to act without the authority and oversight of Congress. It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the Administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further Congressional authorization. Nor should the President think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the Administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.”

“I am deeply concerned by the recent statements coming out of the Bush Administration. The Administration has asserted evidence that the Iranian regime’s complicity, at the highest levels, for attacks within Iraq. Yet at the same time, General Peter Pace, Chariman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, questions these assertions , in particular, the capability and intentions of the Iranian government. In this delicate situation, while making disturbing comments,[there are reports that the Administration] is sending a third aircraft carrier to the Gulf.’
“I believe we can better understand how to deal with an adversary such as Iran if we have some direct contact with them. And if we ever must, with Congressiional agreement, take drastic action, we should make clear to the world that we have exhausted every other possiblity.”

“As we discuss potential evidence of Iranian complicity in supplying arms to insurgents, along with the refusal to suspend their nuclear ambitiions, we need to deliver a strong message to Iran that we will not stand by and tolerate this behavior. However, we need to deliver that message forcefully through direct talks. The lives of American soldiers are at risk and we should not outsource our discussions with the Iranians on this and other issues. When I say no option should be taken off the table, I include diplomacy.”

I wish when reporters are going to quote other people, they do so without using what I call “selective journalism” in trying to get their message across without telling the whole story. In this case, there wouldn’t be a story if whole truth be known now would there?

Hillary can raise all the corporate money she can and buy all the ads that money will buy, but when the voters step into the booth at primary time, she will not get the votes. We know her. We have seen the calculation, the straddling, the pandering and the poor diplomatic skills. She is SOOOOO GOP in so many ways, and not principaled in the least. We will take her up on her suggestion and look elsewhere for our nominee.

We need truth, honor, integrity and committment to justice in the coming years. The abject mess that we have created in the world carries physic scars and offends the universe. We must make amends and clean it up. This cannot be accomplished without PEACE. The Iraqis need peace, WE need peace, the World needs peace! We need Barack Obama! We need someone who thinks outside the box. Someone who understands that the lives that we are wagering everyday are not casino chips to be played with. We have a small window of opportunity to get it right America! I pray that we do.

Hillary is a dweeb.

I think she is counting on the same thing Bush used to get into office.  Money…money…money.

Will it be enough this time around. Perhaps, since it is said the one who has the biggest fund at the end of the race wins.

That is what our democracy has become, a casino owned by corporations and lobbies…The house always wins.

This so called war smelled like another Vietnam before it ever started. If Hillary was as stupid as she claims she was then I don’t think she has a chance at becoming President. I don’t regard an apology as enough to forgive the casualties and deaths that this military engagement has cost the Iraqis or our men and women who have fought in this limited military action. So, an apology, such as Edwards made, doesn’t make me feel any better either. Bush is a corrupt person and he was just as corrupt when he declared his war. And it was just as apparent to thinking people then as it is now. This isn’t war. If this had been a war the Iraqi’s wouldn’t have been driving around in their vehicles and shooting their weapons in the air. Their travel would have limited to either walking or riding a bicycle. Holding a gun would gotten an immediate shot through the head by our invading army.  Whole sections of Baghdad would have been bulldozed and any religious responses would have left those responsible without Mosques for their groups to plan the next attack. That sounds more like war. Putting our brave men and women somewhere in the middle of the Shiites and Sunnis sounds like lunacy, not war.

At one time I respected Hillary for her attempt to bring America in line with other developed countries in health care.

Now I see a different Hillary. She is not yet president but has already adopted the hubris of the current administration. If president, she would continue the foreign policy disaster that is Iraq and has told AIPAC that she would go to any lengths to stop Iran from aquiring a nuclear weapon.

IMHO, she is no more the stuff that presidents are made of than our current cowboy.

Lets elect someone that realizes Americas true role in the world. No matter how many lives and how much money we loose in pursuit of control of mid east oil we will not succeed. Hillary can only make matters worse.

Hillary is too busy catering to the 20% of those voters who are for a neverending war in the middle east, and not the majority of Americans who want us out of there, putting our money back into where it is needed, the USA.  It is shameful that she has to cater to the military industrial contractors, whose stock goes up as long as long as there is war, and she must pander to AIPAC and their media organs as 2008 is a long way away, In other words the Israel first crowd who would rather have the US waste our blood and treasure than theirs.

Although I admire her stand on universal healthcare, I deplore her position on continuing the folly in the mideast supported by a minority of Americans, most of whom have a monetary interest.

Thank you, Amy, for writing so poignantly about what I’ve already expressed in other columns regarding Hillary’s culpability in the US led invasion of Iraq. Voting to support Bush’s “war resolution” was a defining vote for all members of Congress. Defining votes come at various points in public official’s career and they truly do define who you are as a public servant. Hillary failed that test. She is complicit in Bush’s war upon Iraq and should drop out of the Presidential race. The Democrats must nominate a candidate who steadfastly stood in opposition to George W. Bush, in particular, in opposition to the use of military force against Iraq. If the Democrats fail to nominate a candidate who opposed Bush’s “war power” measure, then they are as guilty as the Republicans and can’t contrast themselves against the Republican party.

Thank you, Amy for writing so poignantly about what I’ve already expressed in other columns regarding Hillary’s culpability in the US led invasion of Iraq. Voting to support Bush’s “war resolution” was a defining vote for all members of Congress. Defining votes come at various points in public official’s career and they truly do define who you are as a public servant. Hillary failed that test. She is complicit in Bush’s war upon Iraq and should drop out of the Presidential race. The Democrats must nominate a candidate who steadfastly stood in opposition to George W. Bush, in particular, in opposition to the use of military force against Iraq. If the Democrats fail to nominate a candidate who opposed Bush’s “war power” measure, then they are as guilty as the Republicans and can’t contrast themselves against the Republican party.

“There are others to choose from.” reminds me of Gary Hart’s challenge to reporters that if they followed him around, they’d get bored.

It’s too late for her to change her stance now because like being afraid to oppose the war, she’s afraid of being called a flip-flopper.  I always get the feeling she’s afraid to do anything.

Did/does she really believe we need a law against flag burning?

I can’t see her staying in the race past August.

Barack Obama has voted to fund this war each time a vote for a supplemental appropriations bill, and has made no clear position that he will change his pace in approving additional funding. If you fund the war you are for the war. He is not a anti-war candidate.

I believe comparing Hil-the-shill to President Bush plays to her (limited” strengths.  One might better compare her to Lyndon Johnson who, while a concerned president, allowed the Vietnam War ot dominate, and ultimately sink his time in office.

We need a president who can end this thing in a hurry, but then return to issues helpful to US citizens. 

Maybe it is time we handed off the “world police” thing to some other entity….. We obviously don’t do it well.

I’m for that, it’s been 4 years, Iraq’s still a mess, get our troops out of there, let/make the people there fix their own damn problems, whatever turns out, that’s fine, it’s their choice, their future, if they care to wreck it, that’s their decision, too. I have a feeling that the Cheney loyalists will fight to protect their enterprise both tooth and nail, but if the majority votes against continuing the war, then they’re finished…

Hillary is history. If she were to change her tune to appease the masses she would be lying. No vote here lady. MY first choice is Dennis Kucinich followed by Robert Byrd.

Clinton needs to go the way of her husband: into relative obscurity…

Hilary sets the stage for war on Iran. Voters have to take this issue into consideration and be prepared to bear all the consequences. There are so many issues to talk about but she’s into Iraq and now Iran. Somehow I have the feeling that Hilary is the real threat to US and peace.

>>>>>>>>New Hampshire Peace Action Director Anne Miller asked Clinton about her recent comments to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Clinton had told the AIPAC: “We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table.”

Miller, who has visited Iran, expressed “deep concern ... that we have a Democratic presidential candidate who is a militarist of this nature and that she isn’t coming out and saying we need strong diplomatic action with Iran, which is really the only answer.” <<<<<<

Hillary Clinton seems to be spinning the same kind of dishonest and deceptive messages that the Bush administration has done so shamelessly over the past several years.

No forthright speaking of the truth, no moral stand.

If our nation is to pull out of the severe downward spiral we have taken under the Bush administration and its neocon and war profiteer associates, we need something more.

How about truth and honesty.

For more on this, the article below might be of interest:

“U.S. public relations on Iraq, Iran need truth and honesty”

By Steve Hammons
Columnist, PopulistAmerica.com
Populist Party of America
February 21, 2007

http://www.populistamerica.com/us_public_relations_ on_iraq_iran_need_truth_and_honesty

We already have been saddled with one President with overwhelming arrogance in Bush we don’t need a power thirsty egomaniac from the ranks of the Democrats.Let her live out the rest of her life with that useless twit of a husband who could have done so much for the welfare of the citizens of this nation and wasted 8 years and did nothing but feather his own nest.

SHILLary Clinton’s “if I knew then what I know now” nonsense just doesn’t wash. Aside from those members of congress named there were millions of us around the world who KNEW and marched against the war.

She didn’t know, huh!?

It was all political calculus, but the price paid in blood by American soldiers and Iraqi civilians gives her a failing grade. not only in political math, but any sort of principle needed now in a Democratic presidential candidate, or indeed in any public official.

The smell of burning flesh was came from the smokestacks of the Nazi concentration camps and permeated the air, but those around, those in various ways complicit, claimed not to know what was going on.

Hillary a “once and future warrior” - Hill f**kin larious. Amy, who’s your editor?

Listen up - before you use a word like “warrior” at least look it up in the dictionary. She’s as much a warrior as Bu$h is. Willing to send others to die for corporate profits and cloaking it as patriotism makes her nothing more than a “murderer”.

Okay then, Thanks Hillary- I will vote for someone else…Dennis Kucinich, a true leader who had the ability to see through Bush’s lies from the beginning.

Site for Kucinich Volunteers
http://dk2008.us/

With all the high profile reporting going on around the Clinton and Obama campaigns, it might be worthwhile for Democrats to dig a little deeper and really look at some of the other candidates.  Notably, John Edwards and Bill Richardson offer innovative ideas, genuine concern for middle and lower class Americans, a real sense of ethics, as well as personalities and experience (especially in the case of Richardson) that can get America back on track with the rest of the world.

Thank you,Amy-very enlightening article-I am convinced that Hillary is out of touch and not a viable representative of myself. I listen to you each evening on Democracy Now.                    Peace-out

I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!!!!  She is a political manipulator, scheemer, and power monger, and she doesn’t have a progressive bone in her body. In college, she was a REPUBLICAN! She would attack Iran at the drop of the hat, and is totally in the pocket of AIPAC and Big Oil.  Sge is the “tails side” of George Bush’s imperialistic/uber-corporatist coin.  I have voted Dem in every presidential election my entire life, but if HRC is the Dem’s candidate in ‘08, I WILL sit this one out!  For sure….