Hillary Will Restore America's Reputation in the World

Thank you! (0.00 / 0)

Thank you, General Clark, and welcome back to NH! 

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 19:03:04 PM CDT

Uh huh (4.00 / 2)

I agree, we need a president who has given George Bush a blank check for war in Iraq and the ammunition for another war in Iran.  The debate last night proved that in Hillary's adminstration we would not get the clarity needed in trying to regain our reputation in the world and in in regaining the trust of the American people at home.  Kudos to Obama, Edwards and Dodd for pointing this out.

---

by: Northwoods @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 20:46:14 PM CDT

How about at home? (0.00 / 0)

Whether or not it's her fault, Hillary is an extremely divisive figure at home, and we desperately need a uniter.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 21:02:12 PM CDT

not accurate (0.00 / 0)

Hillary Clinton was elected twice in New York state, winning overwhelmingly the second time because of the support she had in Republican areas that went solidly for Bush in 2004. And before you say NY is a Democratic state, remember that state senate is Republican, and that before Spitzer, the governor was a long serving Republican. Also, it was just a few years ago that NY had a Republican United States Senator. She has a record of reaching across the aisle in the senate.  The more people see Hillary Clinton, the more they like her, which is why here in NH, her numbers are so strong. In addition, former President Clinton continues to have very high approval ratings. Of all the Democratic candidates, she is the one I am positive can be elected president.  If you want a Democratic president elected in 2008, support Hillary Clinton.

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 21:24:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

not particularly fair (4.00 / 1)

but, Hillary represents a continuation of the past and carries a lot of baggage. She is a brilliant woman and to be admired.  However, it is time for a real change and gender is superficial compared with the opportunity to bring new ideas and people into the mix. She might win the election but she won't have coat tails and she won't bring the much needed change.

standing on the sidelines looking for a reason to enter the fray.

---

by: smucci @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 21:39:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Put very nicely (0.00 / 0)

I'll be more blunt.

Senator Clinton's a pretender.  She's yesterday's paper.

She continues to "reach across the aisle" while my heating oil prices double and my taxes help to feed the guys who are responsible for the doubling. 

"Well, you know how hard it can be to post record profits month after month.  I'm glad to help where I can," he said sarcastically.

Senator Hillary Clinton never learned about bullies.  You can't reason with them.  You can't negotiate with them.

As the shortest kid in my high school class, I had to learn that the only way to deal with bullies is the stand up to them.  A bully's world view isn't based on reason.  It's based on power.

---

by: jlm @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 02:01:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, I think she learned (0.00 / 0)

After all, look at how she stood up on Tuesday night. 



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:01:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That wasn't standing up (0.00 / 0)

It was withdrawal.

Not once did she respond decisively to the criticism.  She'll see this again.  Perhaps she will learn, but she hasn't learned yet.

---

by: jlm @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 15:14:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Have you seen the latest videos (0.00 / 0)

See my diary  Edwards vs Clinton on the Politics of Parsing
It shows the video put out by the Clinton campaign
and the response by the Edwards campaign. 
As kos said it - Devastating.

---

by: pioneer @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 17:15:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The people of New York were (0.00 / 0)

rooked. 

---

by: hannah @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 04:57:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hillary the Carpetbagger (0.00 / 0)

Hillary never lived a day of her life in New York until a US Senate seat opened conveniently after Bill's terms were over.

I cringe whenever she speaks for the people of NY. She was born in Illinois and lived most of her adult life in Arkansas, so even her current representation is specious. I have friends in New York and some like her, but the ones who hate her will never vote for her, even if they're Dems. They just won't. That is an issue her supporters are in denial about. If she gets the nomination, the general election will be very close, especially if Giuliani runs. Then there will be room for the same monkey business we had in 2000 and 2004.

There was an interview on the news with a guy in Nashua at a Giuliani event. He said as much to the interviewer--he thinks Giuliani will get a lot of "crossover" votes if Clinton is the Democratic nominee.

Hillary has her supporters, yes, but everyone who supports anyone else--Dodd, Biden, Edwards, Obama, et. al are NOT supporting Hillary. There are more non Hillary supporters in the Democratic party than supporters. And some of those have told me they will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances.

She wants it so bad she can taste it, but it doesn't mean she should get it.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 06:37:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Voters of New York (4.00 / 1)

The people of New York would vote for her in overwhelming numbers over Rudy. The latest poll in New York has Senator Clinton at 64% to Rudy's 30%.

---

by: gradysdad @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 07:11:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Poll Troll n/t (0.00 / 0)

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:22:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

New York (4.00 / 1)

New York has elected her - twice. 

Robert Kennedy faced some of the same criticism when he ran for US Senate in New York, and he also was elected to the senate.



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:04:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

NY State: RINO to Republican Ratio (0.00 / 0)

How many "REAL" republicans does New York have?

You have been battling RINOs in NH all these years, Kathy. Don't fluff up Hil 'cause she can make nice with supporters of Javits and D'Amato. Hmmm.

Sen. Jacob_K._Javits (1957-1981)
Senator Javits sponsored (1) the first African-American Senate page in 1965 and (2) the first female page in 1971. His background, coupled with his liberal stands, enabled him to win the votes of many historically Democratic voters. He was highly successful in all elections in which he was a candidate from 1946 to 1974.
Javits played a major role in legislation protecting pensioners, as well as in the passage of the War Powers Act; he led the effort to get the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act passed. He reached the position of Ranking Minority Member on the Committee on Foreign Relations while accruing greater seniority than any New York Senator before or since (as of 2007).

Sen. Alfonse Marcello D'Amato (1981-1999)
While he was in office, he was chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, and was a member of the Senate Finance Committee. As a member of the former, he became a leading critic of the Clinton administration regarding the Whitewater scandal, and during 1995 and 1996 chaired the hearings-heavy Senate Special Whitewater Committee. As a member of the latter, he championed the cause of Holocaust survivors trying to recover relatives' funds from accounts in Swiss banks.
D'Amato was known for being fairly conservative, a reflection of then conservative-leaning Nassau County, yet very popular among New York's liberal voters. He strongly supported the conservative positions of his party on "law and order" issues such as capital punishment and harsh penalties for drug offenses. On some issues he agreed with the opposition: in 1993 D'Amato was one of only three Republicans to vote in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the U.S. military. In 1996 he was among the minority of Republicans to vote to extend federal protections against discrimination in hiring to homosexuals. On labor issues too he frequently sided with Democrats. His 1998 loss was attributed to a lack of support among moderate voters in New York City, where opponent Charles Schumer was a Representative. Another factor contributing to his loss was his labeling of Rep. Schumer as a "putz-head," which means "fool" or "penis-head" in Yiddish. This was ironic on several levels: first, D'Amato had previously enjoyed considerable Jewish support because of his strong pro-Israel stance, as well as his efforts to help Holocaust survivors. Second, D'Amato won in 1992 for the same reason he lost in 1998; his 1992 opponent, then-attorney general Robert Abrams, called D'Amato a "fascist," which people (including D'Amato himself) interpreted as an ethnic slur because D'Amato is Italian. After his defeat, he became a correspondent for George Magazine until it ceased publication in 2001, and was also a commentator on Fox News. He is now managing director of Computer Associates and also serves as Chairman of the Board of the Poker Players Alliance.
D'Amato's decline may also have mirrored that of Nassau County's Republicans. In 2001, after years of alleged scandal and financial mismanagement, Republicans lost control of the county legislature for the first time in 40 years, and Democrat Thomas Suozzi was elected County Executive.

Let's see Hillary win the vote of Jerry Falwell's and Tom Tancredo's "love child"?

Only if Jesus was Hillary's VP, then MAYBE!

Your rhetoric is predicated on "facadism", just like Hillary's campaign.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gotta simmer down. I saw a Tancredo bumper sticker on a car. I started eyeballing the guy. Political road rage is sooo General Election, but Tommy is crazy with a capital K.


SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:17:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sir, I would follow you anywhere (0.00 / 0)

except in your support for Hillary Clinton.

Ne Desit Virtus

Sgt.John M. Mitchell
C Company, 2/187th Infantry Regiment (Rakkasans),
101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)
XVIII Airborne Corps
1990-1991

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 21:16:59 PM CDT

I appreciate (4.00 / 2)

your explaination of why you support her. You give specifics and don't reley on the tired "it's time for a woman" or "in a crisis..."  If she is nominated and elected I am sure you will be an important asset in her administration.  However, I think we need a real change and to me, Hillary represents the status quo -

standing on the sidelines looking for a reason to enter the fray.

---

by: smucci @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 21:42:22 PM CDT

Clinton-Clark, 2008 (0.00 / 0)

A Hillary Clinton and Wesley Clark team would be fantastic, and is one of several excellent possibilities.  I was much impressed with Wesley Clark the very first time I met him in late October, 2001, when he was a panelist in former Executive Councilor Jim Normand's Security Summit in Manchester, a few weeks after 9/11.  This is a good man who can offer much balance and competence to make a terrific ticket!

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 22:32:09 PM CDT

"balance and competence" (0.00 / 0)

If that's what the General is supposed to bring to the ticket, does that mean the head is lacking in balance and incompetent?

Also, do we really want a "fantastic" team in the White House?

---

by: hannah @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:14:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There is no sense. (0.00 / 0)

There is no sense in the General's post that he's aware that the U.S. has become its own worst enemy.  Sad.

---

by: hannah @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 05:00:34 AM CDT

Don't Stop Thinking 'Bout Yesterday... (4.00 / 1)

or it'll soon be here.(apologies to Lindsey Buckingham) The divisiveness, the questionable ethics, the missteps, and the triangulation...you have to ask your self after 8 years of a Clinton White House what were the lasting accomplishments ? The good achieved was blown away like smoke, in the constant bickering, endless investigations, and moral terpitude of that crowd. We lost on Universal Health Care, lost the Congress, and have been saddled in reaction with the worst Republican Administration of all time. Granted there are a number of good loyal Democrats who served the Clintons, like Madeleine Albright, who want back in to the power structure. Do they have no shame ? Being a shill for Bill's proclivities, and going out saying it was all a lie, while they were being used by a President who knew what he had done, and planned to lie about it all the way to the bank. No thank you. I am moving on. And what ever the consequences, to my good 'friends' in politics, I hope your conscience is working. We'll know each other a long time.

Next time, there may be no next time.

---

by: Jon Bresler @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 06:23:01 AM CDT

Clinton Accomplishments (0.00 / 0)

Here is a good summary of the Clinton/Gore Administrations' accomplishments. The good far outweighed the bad.

I am looking forward to change and moving forward no matter who is the Democratic standard bearer . . .

And what ever the consequences, to my good 'friends' in politics, I hope your conscience is working. We'll know each other a long time.

and perhaps an end to this "holier than thou" attitude (to quote Governor Richardson).

---

by: gradysdad @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 07:31:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A little help from my friends (0.00 / 0)

Having been an avid fan of politics and a bit of a news junkie, this election cycle marks my first big foray into the public square.

Yes I did the 2004 "obligatory" work that came more as a anti-Bush/Cheney effort then a pro-Kerry one. I had no passion for that race. Had Wes Clark, no shit, I was for Clark, been the nominee; I like to think things would have been different. Bygones.

This time, I have a fire in my belly.

So, having studied national politics,casually, since I was in grade school; I have developed a few opinions.

First, that "The Clinton Ideals" are sound. On paper, the notion that "To the truly enlightened, altruism is the purest form of self-preservation" could be the political mantra that drives the majority of American policy for the next 200 years, IMO. BUT, the "reality" is that, to Hillary/Bill/Wolfson/Penn, altruism is the SHEEPS CLOTHING that the WOLF cloaks herself with.

What I am proposing is that the message is valid to the high heavens, but that we need to KILL THE MESSENGER. Symbolically, of course. I don't want the Secret Service knocking at my door. ;v)

So now, as a party and a nation, we have a mission statement based on altruism and stewardship. Now we need a TEAM.

Second, We need to create a national leadership coalition from "progressives" from both sides of the aisle. A "coalition of the many", but for REAL this tme. As a nation we must cull out the Clintons, the Bushs, the Powers that prosper under the current system of elites that promote American civic philosophy as one of "fat, dumb and happy". In a representative government, the hole created by the absence of citizens is filled by special interests.

Finally, on special interest and lobbyists. They are powerful due to massive civic indifference on the part of the majority of the American public. How this all came to be is to lengthy to discuss, but the BIGGEST concern that I have is the they are now RABIDLY self-sustaining.

Politicians, for the most part, are beholden to them. If the strangle hold that K Street is to be broken, we the people must stand up and do it.

The sleeping giant must be awakened to confront the challenges that beset America on all sides.

I just happen to think that only three candidates are aware of the true remedy to our nation's chronic ailment of civic apathy.  Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama and John Edwards are awake. Of the three, Kucinich is out for a few good reasons, mostly superficial but palatible to the electorate.

That leaves us with Obama and Edwards, the dynamic duo. I don't personally connect to Edwards. Using Edwards meme, my father was a Teamster, his was a mill worker. I can't see a speck of "blue collar" on the guy. Maybe if I was hanging out with him at the local watering hole, it would click. At this point, sorry.

I am going with Obama, he is my man and I got his back. Having been in self-preservation mode for the last 27 years, 17 of them under Bush-Clinton-Bush/Cheney, I am looking forward to working hard towards making my kids life better.

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:04:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your kids lives (0.00 / 0)

First of all they would be better with any one of our candidates, than the bozos who have been in charge. That said there is a heap o' difference between the bunch. I've said before in these pages that if it were a perfect world unidentified flying Denis would be King. It's not. Obama is great and seen as visionary by many. America doesn't elect visionary types, at least not since JFK. They shoot 'em. Edwards has the numbers to beat any of our potential nominees generally in Red States, particularly in the South:October voting patterns/general election polls by Rasmussen. Edwards is the strongest Democrat and would win the general, if nominated.I am positive of that. He follows the 50 State strategy started by Dean at the DNC. We need more than just Ohio or Florida to win back the White House. Bottom line.We will do it with John Edwards. A year from now I'll remind you of this post. Loser buys.
:)

Next time, there may be no next time.

---

by: Jon Bresler @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 10:02:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That would be Kathy buying n/t (0.00 / 0)

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 10:06:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bill Clinton is the Democrats' Ronald Reagan (0.00 / 0)

---

by: jlm @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 15:19:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Apt (4.00 / 1)

In either case it did not really matter what they said to the people. When Reagan or Clinton spoke, Americans believed them. That basic faith and trust was the secret to their ability to govern. The agendas weren't that far apart. For starters Clinton basically got Reagan's Welfare Reform agenda passed.
http://www.mediamous...

While able to win two presidential elections by appealing to the center-right, Clinton's "New Democrats" led what was essentially an attack on the working class with a "softer" face than that of the Republicans. Clinton's welfare reform, the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and promotion of a neoliberal economic agenda all had their most direct impact on working class Americans. Similarly, Clinton's charisma and his repeated promises to the left silenced many critics, while he advocated policies that preempted Republican positions on a variety of issues.

Clinton echoed Reagan's 'Welfare Queens' theme, inveighing against a culture to blame for its' lassitude. One fails to understand the outcome of these reforms, if they fail to ask the more important question; on the path from Welfare to Workfare, how did people fair once they were off welfare. In his autobiography My Life, Clinton gave the topic minimal coverage, a paragraph in its hundreds of pages.

Next time, there may be no next time.

---

by: Jon Bresler @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 11:58:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Clintons have too much baggage; it's a waste of time in power and political capital (0.00 / 0)

imagine what more could have been done in Bill Clinton's second term had it not been overshadowed by his personal indiscretions--whether or not it's legitimate for public discussion, it takes away from the real debate.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 16:29:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Veterans' Healthcare (0.00 / 0)

As we learned earlier this year with the Walter Reed scandal, as a nation, we do not always take care of our injured veterans as we should.  Hillary Clinton has been a tireless activist for veterans during her time as a public figure, but especially now that she serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Her interest in this area started early. As First Lady, Mrs. Clinton in May 1995 convinced her husband to appoint the 12-member Presidential advisory committee on Gulf war illnesses. And when the panel supported the military's dubious findings that the illnesses were stress related, she successfully lobbied her spouse to extend the investigation. Ultimately, a Government Accounting Office Report determined that the illnesses were linked to nerve gas and exposure to other chemical weapons.

When Hillary Clinton became a senator, she introduced the Restoring Disability Benefits for Injured and Wounded Warriors Act of 2007, to restore disability benefits for wounded and injured members of the Armed Forces. Specifically, the legislation would direct reviews of disability claims, traumatic injury claims and the Physical Evaluation Board process, and re-open cases that warrant an increased disability benefit rating or traumatic injury payment. 

Senator Clinton has also supported expanding medical benefits for National Guard members and reservists and providing aid to those with traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder.  In September 2005, the Military Coalition, a collection of 36 organizations representing six million service families and veterans, awarded her its highest honor for her efforts in improving accessibility to health care for guard and reserve families. 

One thing I'm really proud of is working in a bipartisan way to get the health care for the Guard and the Reserves," she says. "I was shocked. When I got on the armed-services committee, and here we are sending these kids, these young men and women, off to Afghanistan and Iraq, and they don't have any insurance. Their families don't have any insurance. And it just seemed to me that it was just such an obvious problem that needed to be righted."

---

by: gradysdad @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 07:37:41 AM CDT

Well, if the health care debacle had been corrected (0.00 / 0)

in the years between 1993 and 2007, we wouldn't have a need for special coverage for special groups.  Why should veterans and their dependents be segregated in a separate and inferior health care system? 
It's been well covered that the Veterans Administration is not prepared to deal with brain injuries, neurological damage from  exposure to chemical and biological agents, damage to their DNA that causes an increase in birth-defects in the children of veterans, etc.
The only difference between the traditional Democratic elite and the Republican elite is that while the latter relied on threats of even worse to keep their people in line, Democrats relied on handing out goodies to targeted interest groups in an elimosinary gesture.  You know, the stick and carrot shtick.
None of the elite are keen on doing the bidding of the great unwashed electorate.  But, it scares them. 

When Rumsfeld mused whether "terrorists" ought to be re-categorized as "insurgents" what he was seeing in his mind's eye was people rising up and resisting their leaders--like they did in the 'sixties after their peaceful leaders were killed off. 

Surely, the DoJ conflation of "law enforcement and the war on terror" isn't an innocent mistake.

---

by: hannah @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:36:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Restoring our reputation (0.00 / 0)

not so sure that when the rest of the world looks at Clintons own rubber stamping the rest of the world will tell us all is forgiven... especially if she has already committed to endorsing the Bush administrations approach to Iran and the middle east in general...

sending over diplomats to talk first and then send in the bombers isn't going to restore our reputation with too many people

---

by: teoc @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 11:23:11 AM CDT

Hillary Clinton is the most prepared and qualified candidate for President... (0.00 / 0)

to run in my life time.  General Clark is correct.  She shall restore America's reputation around the world.  And she will hit the ground running like no other candidate can.  Goodness we need that restoration as quickly as possible.

---

by: nhpoliticscom @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 11:26:20 AM CDT

you must be very young n/t (0.00 / 0)

standing on the sidelines looking for a reason to enter the fray.

---

by: smucci @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 16:11:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wish... (0.00 / 0)

---

by: nhpoliticscom @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 17:24:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

in my lifetime (0.00 / 0)

John Anderson, John Kennedy Bobby Kennedy(my favorite), Dwight Eisenhower, Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Al Gore, just off the top of my head

standing on the sidelines looking for a reason to enter the fray.

---

by: smucci @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:13:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's simply not true (0.00 / 0)

Bill Richardson, John Kerry, Al Gore, Dick Gephardt...surely you're at least seven?

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 16:18:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

None of those are even in the same league.... (0.00 / 0)

---

by: nhpoliticscom @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 17:24:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are you refering (0.00 / 0)

to insider connections then - I know she is the status quo but to me that's not a good thing.

standing on the sidelines looking for a reason to enter the fray.

---

by: smucci @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:14:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're right, they all have far more experience and don't owe their careers to more successful and better-liked spouses. (0.00 / 0)

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 18:33:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bourbon (0.00 / 0)

Restoration ? Not.

Next time, there may be no next time.

---

by: Jon Bresler @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:00:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clinton's chickens coming home to roost (0.00 / 0)

John Edwards has pointed to a legacy of corruption over the past twenty years  that we are now reaping the results of. Eight of those tewnty years were the Clinton's co-presidency.

Nice thought restoring our reputation with the rest of the world. I have a thought, "How about restoring our reputation with our own first?" You can't expect others to love you if you don't love yourself first.

The "C" word has been dropped and "corruption" used in any context qualifies as fighting words.

Not wanting to put meaning to Edwards words that he didn't intend I've been wondering if anyone would move to the topic of the Clintons' Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.

Hillary has taken some much deserved scrutiny on health care due to having botched it once already as co-president.

Perhaps some scrutiny will come her way now on decisions made and actions taken during her 8 year co-presidency that set in motion the deindustrialization of the United States.

Manufacturing jobs didn't disappear because of market forces.

The mercurial disappearance of manufacturing jobs was set in motion by decisions made and actions taken by the Clinton's in the first two terms of their co-presidency.

I'm not sure we can survive another two terms.

I know I don't want to spend the coming months leading up to the convention trolling through the many skeletons on this issue buried in Hillary's closet.

Lord knows Republicans have been busy polishing them waiting for the day they can kick the closet door open

---

by: teoc @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 12:10:10 PM CDT

Didn't I just read this? (0.00 / 0)

It looks awfully familiar

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 13:40:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The General has spoken (4.00 / 1)

and he's given me the information I need to make an informed choice.

Prior to these words from the General, I didn't know that the other candidates don't give a damn about veterans.

I didn't know that Senator Clinton "is best prepared to pursue our nation's interests using all the tools and means available -- diplomatic, legal, economic, financial, and, as a last resort, military -- in a way that is true to America's enduring values and principles."

The military is a controlled environment for many good reasons. The civilian world is very different, for many good reasons.

I think most would agree that a lifetime in government doesn't offer much insight into military mechanisms. Conversely, I don't think that a lifetime in the military offers a lot of insight into the workings of a civilian government.

With all due respect General Clark, I am more worried about my country than your career path.

---

by: jlm @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 15:38:10 PM CDT

? (0.00 / 0)

That was way out of line. Can't you support a candidate without personally attacking either the other candidates or their supporters?  Good people of good will support different candidates. 



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 16:16:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Shouted down (0.00 / 0)

Sometimes Kathy, you need to be prepared to be shouted at. People are passionate and if candies and surries come sniffing around Blue Hampshire, thinking that they will get the kit gloves, then what is the point?

Ya know, we ain't journalist and IF we were, wouldn't your suggestion equate to the equivalent of "softball?"

Christ, Kath. This ain't FEMA. Do you want to set up a live blog with Hill and have you, Judy, gradysdad, nhpoliticscom.... do all the blogging?

May as well give away the NH primary, if you want to turn it into a cakewalk.

Note: I said my piece to General Clark, who I supported in 2004. Can't say as I expect every swinging Richard that blogs to give an iota about military customs.
Besides, if Clark can survive what he has been through, he can handle a post on BH.

And if he can't, then he ain't the troop I think he is. Huah?

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 22:11:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sad commentary (0.00 / 0)

No, I have no problem with people disagreeing on the issues.  My problem is with the personal insults and low road taken. This guy basically said General Clark supports Hillary Clinton out of personal ambition, while he, on the other hand, is driven by love of country.  What is with the air of smug moral superiority, while engaging in ad hominem attack on a good person with a different opinion? It is poisonous.

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:11:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The General speaks well. (0.00 / 0)

I have heard him in person.

However, it is a fact that the financial interests that bank-rolled GHWB, the Stephens Group, employed Hillary Clinton while she was still a lawyer, pulled Bill Clinton's chestnuts out of the fire after the NH primary by securing him a line of credit, went back to supporting Bushes when Bush Two ran and hired the General when he retired from the military.

Which, at a minimum, suggests that a signal private financial group considers there to be a shared perspective in this cast of political players.

The principals of the Stephens Group also engage in an array of elimosinary endeavors.  That's what elitists do.  I only mention that in the interest of balance.

---

by: hannah @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:53:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This ain't The Manchurian Candidate, Hannah (4.00 / 2)

We could identify former pro-Bush "private financial groups" aligned with every candidate.  That's the nature of privately funded campaigns -- special interests "bet" with the smart money, and the smart money is on Democrats in 2008.  Not the best system, to be sure, but it's the only playing field out there.

There are legitimate reasons to oppose Hillary -- my concern, for example, is her ~50% personal unpopularity rating nationwide, which has remained relatively constant for the past decade.  (Kathy - Unfortunately, NY is not an accurate political focus group for America.)

People don't vote for candidates that dislike, regardless of whether that dislike is founded on rational or irrational grounds.  (See: Dukakis, Kerry, Dewey, etc.) If this continues to hold, Hillary only wins if the GOP implodes.  And that's not a risk that I'm prepared to take right now.

But let me be clear:  Hillary is NOT a closet Republican.  She is NOT a supporter of the Iraq War.  She is NOT corrupt.  She is NOT a shill for health insurance companies.  And she certainly is NOT the creation of Hannah's mysterious financial conspiracy to subvert our democracy. . . . Let's keep our eyes on the prize, people. 

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 07:41:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dictionary (0.00 / 0)

Hannah, I think that is eleemosynary, but I could be wrong.



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 08:21:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Poor form, not cricket (0.00 / 0)

Although I do believe that there would be a place in a Clinton WH for Gen. Clark and that his endorsement was brokered, I would not say as much the WAY it was said.

Conventional politics require such things and it is likely that every candie has brokered such deals. Common, let's not try to blow smoke up each others keasters.

Funny to me, is that I didn't see you chime in when Steve Marchand was treated in very much the same way. Of course, the offensive remarks were deleted, so I am out on the limb of plausible deniabilty.

The establishment, being disciplined and organized can make the phone call to reign in the bad actors and to make everything cricket on the surface. We all know the casual participants will miss the minor gaffes, as their eye is not fixed on the prize.

This is the "game" of politics as you know it. We see it all around us. Like we watched Bush shove us into Iraq bullying a weak, complicit Congress. We know it is wrong, but we are the disorganized many, victim to the rehearsed, disciplined few.

Conventional politics. It works......
for the few.

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:20:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're spot on with respect to Marchand, but for Clark... (0.00 / 0)

Let's not forget, he's not eligible to be, for example, Secretary of Defense in 2009.  Nobody can have that job until they've been out of the military for ten years.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:39:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

not sure what you are talking about (0.00 / 0)

I defended Steve when a political gossip columnist insinuated that Steve had been a stand in for Jeanne Shaheen, so I am not sure what you are talking about?



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 13:21:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There was (0.00 / 0)

a weird attack on Marchand in another thread. It was so wierd, it has since been deleted. You probably didn't get a chance to see it. (You're not missing anything).

I think that's what SGS is referring to.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 19:45:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

sooo (0.00 / 0)

I'm being accused of not responding and defending someone, with respect to something that I didn't see, when I did respond and defend the person whom I am accused of not defending? 

Kafka rules!

 

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 19:53:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Spoken like a true co-chair (0.00 / 0)

What you said.

The farce is strong with you.

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 20:33:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think they refer to nhpolitics.com (0.00 / 0)

who followed you onto BH when you started Draft movement. He slimed Marchand and then partially retracted. I appreciate  when our hosts, Dean, Mike, and Laura, help us keep the community a pleasant enough place. We've all blogged BS once or thrice, so we all have to keep our eyes on the prize. If you send a nice note on and they are understanding a post may be a disapperado soon.

Next time, there may be no next time.

---

by: Jon Bresler @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 22:02:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hillary debacle and the tuesday debate (0.00 / 0)

I am a former New Yorker who moved to New England and have been following the campaign closely.  I decided that I liked Hillary most over the other democrates and so I decided to volunteer. Her organization is great.  Top rate.  However, I must say I am now questioning my decision to support her.

First, I would like to point out that I do NOT THINK DEMOCRATES SHOULD GET PERSONAL.  Questioning her honesty is not right for the ultimate goal of electing a democratic president.  All people on Tuesday nights stage would be a million times better than any of the republican candidates. You can point out distinctions without getting personal.

I must point out, though I now see what people say about Hillary wanting to take all sides of an issue. I watched, in horror how she handled two important questions which will haunt her if she is the democratic nominee.

Releashing of presidential records.  She can not allow that because every piece of paper will be combed through to find something to blow out of proportion.  This has the potential of being her swift boat.  How can she say she is the candidate with the most experience, citing her work while first lady and then not allow the records to be released.  She has the power to ask her husband to release the records. He can't but how does she explain that to the American people who are tired with secrecy.

The other problem was how she wiggled about the driver's license issue.  This did not have to be a problem. Yet she went back and forth.  It seemed she was afraid to say something definitive because, you could actually see her struggle with the primary versus the general election.  This is what bothered me the most.  Tell us where you stand. You can not take a position just because you think it is a winning position.  Take it on what you believe.  Now I am not sure if she has core beliefs.  This is going to hurt her.  Ronald Reagan took many stands that were unpopular but people liked him and did not hold it against him because they believed this was what he believed.  People do not like George Bush because he is stubborn and a liar.  Hillary, if she wants to be elected, can not always look at the political nature of a problem, she must take a stand.  Governor Spitzer is trying to deal with a very tuff issue.  Illegal immigrants are here and we must know that.  Hillary could have stated her position more clearly instead she tried to take both sides.

I truly want a Democratic candidate who is going to win and I do not appreciate the other candidates piling on her with personal attacks.  My questioning of Hillary does not make we want to suppport any of them, it makes me think we are going to lose the National campaign which would be  terrible.  Now where is Al Gore......

Imagine

---

by: BryanF @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 09:52:37 AM CDT

My biggest problem with Hillary's debacle on Tuesday (0.00 / 0)

is that it proved, definitively, that she's afraid to say what she really thinks, and to me, that is absolutely unacceptable.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:41:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hillary and the Tuesday debate (4.00 / 1)

I think Hillary has stated very clearly in two debates now, that it is not her call whether her correspondence with her husband during Bill Clinton's Presidency is released. The papers dealing with Health Care have been released along with hundreds of thousands of other documents.  Bill Clinton's letter asking that personal correspondence between him and his wife be held for 12 years is what the National Archives recommends.  If you are genuinely concerned about records being released, you might want to ask why the current President Bush has locked up all the papers from the Reagan and Bush I years.

As far as the driver's license issue, it was interesting to me that the live blogs during the debate across the blogosphere didn't show any probem understanding what she said.  For clarification, I think you should read today's Des Moines Register.

From the Des Moines Register:

Let's discuss immigration, but leave emotions at curb
Quick takes

November 2, 2007

Hillary Clinton may get hammered by the American public for her comments during Tuesday's debate about New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's move to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

Other Democratic candidates for the White House certainly tore into her.

Here's what she said, in part: "Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He's making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform."

That will lead some voters - as former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina did - to accuse her of speaking out of both sides of her mouth.

She's not, though. Instead, Clinton perfectly mirrored the dilemma facing the country: It's deeply troubling that millions of people have entered the United States illegally. At the same time, that reality has to be dealt with. Refusing to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses makes it harder for police to handle traffic accidents, among a host of other problems that lack of identification creates. Indeed, that's why retired Des Moines Police Chief William McCarthy favored the change.

No license usually means no insurance. If there's a crash, licensed drivers suffer if the other driver takes off or can't pay for damages. It's a matter of being practical about public safety in the day-to-day scheme of things.

Clinton also is right about the big picture. Congress should have passed immigration reform last summer. It was gutless to duck this national crisis because it's so emotionally charged.

Yet emotions tend to get the better of people when the topic is immigration. Clinton's response simply acknowledged this issue has many facets.

No one should exploit that.

-Linda Lantor Fandel

---

by: calvin @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 18:38:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Reconsidering support (0.00 / 0)

You certainly have a right to reconsider your support. But I want to remind you about something.  You were the guy at the Clinton Keene High Rally in February who asked the first question about negative campaigning. Has Senator Clinton kept her promise?

You watched the debate the other night and saw how the other candidates questioned her honesty and integrity.  It got so bad that Governor Richardson and Senator Dodd felt the need to defend her from the others' personal attacks.

Remember John Edwards in 2004 decrying negative campaigning?  This will remind you.

What about Senator Obama's "politics of hope?" This will remind you.

Now who is talking out of both sides of their mouth?  Enough said.

---

by: gradysdad @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 05:35:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

both sides of their mouth (0.00 / 0)

I do appreciate your comments about Hillary keeping her promise not to go negative.  I am happy about this, however, as I said, piling on Hillary does not make we want to vote for Edwards or Obama it just makes me upset that, it will hurt our chances to win the Presidency.

I do not make decisions based on one issue, but Hillary must show she has core beliefs.  That is what upset me most.  Yes they all went after her, but this is nothing compared to what the Republicans are going to do.  Tell us what you think Hillary and stick with it.  It is ok not to always be on the politically correct side of an issue as long as it is what you believe.

Imagine

---

by: BryanF @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:59:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think it's no good (4.00 / 1)

for them to go after her like that, either. They need to show that they're all viable choices as opposed to setting up a "Hillary Clinton or one of us; which of us?" dynamic, which isn't going to get anywhere. I think it's bad strategy on their part.

I think polling, at least in NH, overestimates Clinton's strength. Almost all the people I know that support Clinton are political people. Most of the people I've talked to about the election that aren't political people -- friends, family, neighbors -- seem more likely to vote for anybody but Clinton in the primary. Some will vote for anybody but Clinton in the general -- which, given some of the Republicans, kind of scares me. I know people who really like her, but don't plan to vote for her because they think she'll put the general at risk.

That's all anecdotal. The people I talk to are probably not a statistically representative sample of the whole state or the country by any means, but I don't see her anywhere near 30% or even 20% among the voters that I know.

At the same time, more and more people seem to feel like Clinton's already got this thing locked-up. Probably because of the polls and the media, where it's been Obama versus Clinton since day one.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 11:57:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Polls are BS, even the state-level ones (0.00 / 0)

And so are the talking heads/talking hacks who think it's okay for the media to decide which candidates are and are not worth considering and discussing.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 16:34:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And for the record (0.00 / 0)

I go to school in New York City (I'm a native of Manchester and vote at home), and I've seen a good number of Obama bumper stickers, but none for anybody else--not Rudy, not Hillary--not a single one for anybody other than Obama.  The polls mean nothing.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 16:36:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Correction (0.00 / 0)

Apparently I was wrong about the personal correspondence between Bill and Hillary Clinton.  Although Bill Clinton originally asked for the usual 12-year moratorium, in 2002 he decided to release ALL his papers.  The National Archives are working their way through them. He said, today in Seattle that his wife wouldn't have known that when she was asked the question on Tuesday night.

---

by: calvin @ Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 20:32:10 PM CDT