The Hillary Clinton Complex Candidacy

Hillary Clinton (4.00 / 1)

IMHO, she's a self-centered, insecure person.  Her apparent complexity stems from the fact that she's been led by different persons and interests.

Since the acquisition of territory for bases in Iraq was a long standing goal, going back to the Reagan era, and the actual number of bases was fixed on during the Clinton administration, the only thing that can be laid at the feet of Bush Two is the determination to put an end to the shilly-shallying and just go ahead and take what was wanted instead of continuing to bargain and apply pressure.
The Bush/Rice definition of negotiation is apparently defined as "give us what we want, or we'll take it."  Clinton Two seems to have been convinced that Bill's vacillations had not been productive.

And then there's the problem that, if she comes out against the occupation and the grand scheme of dominion in the region, she'll leave herself open to accusations that she's breaking with Clinton One.

They're all still enmeshed in the same web of guilt--guilt for having supported a project that's killed over a million innocent people and dislocated four million more.

If they were good business people, they'd recognize a sunk cost and write it off.  Since they're not, they're still trying to salvage SOMETHING to make it look like it was worth while.

---

by: hannah @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 10:12:36 AM CST

"give us what we want, or we'll take it." (0.00 / 0)

I thought for a moment of the Panama Canal when I read your remarks above. We stole it fair and square.
As trumped up as could be.
Carter gave it back.  

6 days till election day
Have you knocked on doors today? Have you made calls ? Have you talked to your neighbors ?  

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 12:01:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Neither Clinton nor Edwards read the NIE, which said in the footnotes there was no WMD in Iraq (4.00 / 1)

Then they took us to a war for oil based on lies because they both wanted to appear hawkish when they ran for President.

Hundreds of thousands died, and Clinton listened to Condiliar instead of reading the NIE.

Clinton (D-HMOs) would make a terrible Commander in Chief because of this record, and besides she sold out to the corporations, including Murdoch's News Corp some time ago and is now not to be trusted on ANYTHING.

---

by: Regenman12 @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 09:47:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Clinton (D-HMOs) :v) 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 @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:43:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama most electable; Clinton least. (4.00 / 1)

According to Zogby:
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/...

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 13:42:31 PM CST

differing polls (4.00 / 1)

There have been varioius polls with various results on that; based on my experience, I belive Hillary is the most electable, as do others; here are snippets from a piece by John Sasso in the Globe today:

Despite the Barack Obama zeal, I believe Clinton will prevail. And if she is the nominee, I believe she is the most electable and least vulnerable Democratic candidate to face the Republicans.

Today Clinton has forged herself into a formidable political leader. She has undergone a remarkable journey. In the face of unending autopsies on her personal and political past, unrelieved targeting at both Democratic and Republican debates, the punishing demands imposed on a woman candidate, she is still standing unflinchingly in place.

This is the mark of thoroughbred candidates. They take the fire. They survive the wounds. And while voters relish the spectacle of office-seekers squirming under adversity, something else happens at the same moment. If candidates demonstrate they can bear that kind of public barrage with conviction and ready composure -- and Clinton has done that -- they cross a crucial threshold in the public mind. They are viewed as able to compete and win a national election and able thereafter to govern in perilous times.

Why the most electable Democrat? Because after a year of being tightly measured, Clinton has won a public acceptance that she has the intellect and inner confidence to do the job. She has reached beyond her political inheritance and shaped a political presence all her own.    

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 19:27:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I have to agree; (4.00 / 2)

I don't understand her, either. The earlier Hillary, the one with the big glasses and hairbands, seemed to the left of her husband. Senator Hillary seems to the right. She has a record, such as her time with the Children's Defense Fund, of advocating for low income people, trying to re-form health-care (a failure, btw), and other good things. But she voted to authorize the war, and that ruled her out as a candidate for me.

I'm also uncomfortable with Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. It isn't healthy for a democracy to be in effect ruled by two families for two decades (even more if Hillary gets elected).

I have a few friends who are Hillary supporters, and they cannot explain the war vote adequately.

I also really think a Clinton 2 presidency will bring back the follies of Clinton 1, especially if there isn't a clear mandate through a landslide general election victory and a supermajority in both House and Senate. She'll have to spend so much time dealing with distractions, like Bill did, that she won't be able to use the abilities she has. Do people have amnesia about the Scaife/Olin stuff that was constantly churning in the 90s? How do we know it won't return with the Clintons?

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 13:53:07 PM CST

Mellon Scaife won't be problem anymore.. (0.00 / 0)

..for the Clintons, at least..

The two men chatted amiably over lunch for more than two hours, and the visitor pledged to write Clinton's foundation a generous check. But there was something unusual, if not plain weird, about the meeting.

NEWSWEEK has learned that the billionaire so eager to endear himself to the former president was Richard Mellon Scaife-once the Clintons' archenemy and best-known as the man behind a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" that Hillary Clinton said was out to destroy them.

Whatever the reasons for Scaife's change of heart, it's not hard to figure out why the Clintons would embrace a former nemesis. As they prepared for Hillary's presidential run, the Clintons made quiet attempts to disarm, or at least neutralize, some of their most vocal opponents. Last year Hillary accepted an offer from Rupert Murdoch (who always hedges his bets) to host a fund-raiser for her Senate campaign. The New York Times reported that the Clinton camp has also made efforts to open a line of communication to blogger Matt Drudge, who has served as a conduit for anti-Clinton GOP leaks.

It appears Clinton has been preempting many of the Clinton haters from the 90's in preparation for a Hillary presidency.  Not sure how I feel about him cuddling up to some of these folks - if they become too friendly we'd have a whole different set of problems to worry about.


It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 17:30:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Scaife's in a messy divorce (4.00 / 1)

I was hoping for a more permanent "not a problem anymore."

---

by: elwood @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 17:43:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Couple of points (0.00 / 0)

1. I would prefer a president who is complex, rather than one who is not.
2. jbd echoed a comment someone else made to me last week - that her answer on the Iraq vote was not "adequate". My response was that it is not that her answer is not adequate; you aren't happy because you want an apology. There is a big difference. I would suggest that you go to the blog that Dean links to; it is a very thorough discussion of her vote on Iraq. You can agree, or you can disagree, but it is more than adequate. I say that as someone who was opposed to the Iraq vote, and the Iraq war.  
3.  Every candidate has positions with which we disagree, or past positions held that we disagree with. For example, I have a problem with Obama's several "present" votes on choice while in the state senate. I can't figure out why he would have voted present, instead of taking a position.
4. I do not understand this notion that Obama is more "progressive" than Hillary.  Paul Krugman has written a couple of times about how Obama is running to the right of both Edwards and Hillary. On a number of issues - health care, choice, social security - Obama is not the most progressive candidate.    
5. She will be a great commander in chief! And a great president!  



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

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 14:24:16 PM CST

A noun, a verb and Paul Krugman (4.00 / 2)

Not very complex!

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

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 16:32:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The JFK comparison (4.00 / 2)

A lot of people - including Ted Sorenson - are comparing Obama to JFK. And there certainly is a sense of "pass the torch to a new generation" in his campaign.

But I've never considered JFK especially progressive or liberal among Democratic icons. Teddy, absolutely. Bobby, in his Presidential run, absolutely. But Jack wasn't. He might have become that (sigh). But LBJ has a far longer list of progressive accomplishments.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 16:41:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thank you for the info (0.00 / 0)

On #1, I'd like someone who is more readable and straightforward.

#2. The war vote is really it, for me. No apology will do because I saw all this coming and find it impossible to believe elected officials in Washington, DC couldn't see what I could see in the hinterlands of NH. In the blog Dean linked to, Hillary said Condoleeza Rice convinced her. She believed anything out of that woman's mouth? All of Bush's appointments were made based on sycophancy, not expertise or qualification. Hillary is intelligent, how could I and many others see this and she couldn't? And then she voted for Kyl-Lieberman, naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, paving the way for more military escapades. Also, I don't like Madeline Allbright. She's a hawk. This war in Iraq is a horrible, horrible thing. We can sit here in the comfort of our homes blogging while Iraqis and American servicepeople are dying and mercenary companies like Blackwater run rampant with our tax dollars.

#3 I agree with this in principle.

#4. Obama represents change. Change in generation, change in approach. Hillary represents business as usual.

#5. I have my doubts. Her "experience" comes on her husband's back. She never held elective office before becoming US Senator from a state she never lived in before seeking that position.

Believe it or not, I want to like her, I really do, but I just don't. I don't want to go back to the 90s, but move forward into the future where we can change what needs to be changed (which seems to be just about everything).

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:35:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Highly political, not complex (4.00 / 2)

It seems to be that the most important difference between Hillary Clinton and both Barack Obama and John Edwards is that Obama and Edward stand on principle.  We understand what they care about and why.  We see where they came from and how they formed their values and how consistent they have been in supporting and pursuing their goals all their lives.

It seems to me that the only thing that Hillary Clinton has consistently pursued over her life is power.  She is not so much complex, but so hungry for political gain, that she shifts with the political winds, with the polls, and with her advisers.  She is an opportunist who will change on a dime if she thinks it will benefit her.  

She was spouting "experience" for a long time, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what that is.  She worked for a private law firm, was first lady of Arkansas and of the US.  She completely blew health care reform and you can bet she won't TOUCH this issue in her first term if she is elected.  In fact, in the last debate, when asked what she would do in her first year, she didn't even mention comprehensive health care reform.  Edwards and Obama did.  All she committed to was signing the Children's Health Insurance Bill.  That is hardly leadership on health care!

And last week I felt I was in The Land  of Oz.  She kept changing colors every other day.

She went from being the candidate of experience to the candidate of change; trying to catch some of Obama's wind.

She suddenly was talking about the poor and how much she cares about them; trying to catch some of Edward's wind.

She trotted out her Mom and daughter and found 6 people willing to testify to how she helped them to make her look more warm and cuddly.  And at the same time her campaign and her surrogates turned vicious and launched the nastiest attack sights and slinging mud at Obama like there is no tomorrow.

And maybe there is no tomorrow for them.  Obama continues to rise above it and deliver the same message he has been delivering since his days of community organizing in Chicago.

David Brooks in his analysis last week in the NYT pointed out the Obama is absolutely consistent.  He makes the right call at the right time, and he makes decisions on the same set of principles he derived as a very young man.

I think we want a President whose principles are clear and who consistently makes decisions based on those principles;not someone we can't even begin to figure out.  Barack Obama best personifies what it is we need and want.

---

by: Helenann @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 14:55:24 PM CST

Hillary's Consistency in her Voting Record and Actions (0.00 / 0)

You have not done very much research if you think that Hillary Clinton is all about "pursuing power"and an "opportunist who will change on a dime, if it will benefit her."  Here is a historical outline of Hillary Clinton's consistently progressive life experience and voting record which I used earlier this year on this blog. It is a good reminder of some of the reasons why she should be President of the United States.

In the 70s, Hillary Clinton was a Democratic staffer on the House Judiciary Committee for impeachment and campaigning for the election of George McGovern as President, while Wesley Clark was voting for Richard Nixon.  

In the 80s, Hillary Clinton was doing child advocacy cases pro bono and serving on the national board of directors for the Legal Services Corporation which provides legal services to poor people when John Edwards was making his millions as a personal injury lawyer.  

In the 90s, Hillary Clinton was championing human rights in China and universal health care in the US while Chris Dodd was championing "reform" legislation as a tool of the securities, investment, and accounting industries which strongly favored and financially benefited from the legislation.

In the early 2000s, while Barak Obama was voting "present" (rather than "no" or "yes") on significant pro choice legislation in the Illinois Senate, Hillary Clinton was establishing herself as the national leader in abortion rights advocacy and a defender of a woman's right to choose. You can read about the NOW endorsement of Hillary Clinton here.

In 2004, Hillary Clinton was voting against legislation that would prohibit lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence, while, in his race for governor, Bill Richardson was touting his endorsement by the NRA and marketing himself as "the choice for New Mexico gun owners and sportsmen."  

In 2005, Hillary Clinton was speaking out strongly against the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act that hugely favors big financial institutions and credit card companies over the little guy while Joe Biden was voting for the bill and reaping the benefits of his vote in campaign contributions.  

Also in late 2005, Hillary Clinton voted against the nomination of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (while Barack Obama voted for it) and in 2006 against the nomination of Samuel Alito as Associate Justice.

Earlier this year, in a triumph for the pharmaceutical industry, the Senate killed a drive to allow consumers, including many seniors with fixed income, to buy prescription drugs from abroad at a significant savings over domestic prices.  Hillary Clinton was the only Democratic presidential candidate to take time out from her campaigning to vote for an amendment which was strongly opposed by the powerful drug company lobby.

These are just a few of the examples of Hillary Clinton consistently acting and voting progressively over the years.  I would be happy to debate with you the consistencies or inconsistencies of the behavior and voting records all the candidates, especially those in the top tier.

---

by: gradysdad @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 22:29:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good luck with that rationalization (0.00 / 0)

For covering 35 years - this reads a little thin.  She has also had some VERY bad votes.  But I guess you can ignore those.   I can't.  

---

by: Helenann @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 14:04:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Overall Progressive Voting Record (0.00 / 0)

I did say that those were just a few examples.

Progressive Punch has given Senator Clinton the highest lifetime progressive rating of all the Democratic senators running for President, although to be fair to Senator Obama he has not been in the Senate that long.

Just for the record, Hillary Clinton has a 95.8 lifetime rating from the progressive ADA, and a 9.0 lifetime rating from the conservative ACU (average of 6 separate years).  

John Edwards had a 77.5 lifetime rating from the progressive ADA, and a 10.0 lifetime rating from the conservative ACU when he left the Senate (average of 6 separate years).  

So that we are not comparing apples to oranges, when looking at only the years in which Clinton and Edwards served together in the U.S. Senate -- 2001 through 2004 --Senator Clinton's ADA rating average was 95.0, while Senator Edwards' was 72.5 (to be fair to Edwards, he did miss a good number of votes in 2003 and 2004, and the way the ADA scores, those missed votes bring down his score for those years; nevertheless, in 2002, a year in which both Clinton and Edwards did not miss a single vote, her score was 95, while Edwards scored only a 70).

The ACU (American Conservative Union) rating average for the years in which they served together in the U.S. Senate -- 2001 through 2004 -- was 9.3 for Clinton and 16.5 for Edwards.

In 2005, both Senator Clinton and Obama received a perfect 100% score from the progressive ADA, and in 2006 they both received 95%.  In 2005, Senator Obama received an 8% from the ACU, while Hillary received a 12%.  In 2006, both Clinton and Obama received an 8% from the ACU.  (Looking at it another way -- over these two years, Senator Clinton voted more conservatively than Obama by just 1 vote out of the 90 included in the analysis.)

---

by: gradysdad @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 14:36:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think you just made my point! (0.00 / 0)

Thanks.  Obama and Clinton, since 2005, have had nearly identically perfect records jugged by their progressive votes.  In fact, Clinton comes off a bit more conservative.  And her operatives have tried to claim Obama is attacking her from the right?  Give me a break!

Given that they are equally progressive, why are you still supporting her?  

---

by: Helenann @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 15:51:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry, (0.00 / 0)

but I did not make your point.  Those organizations only count certain limited votes.  I can think of at least two votes on which Senator Clinton voted more progressively than Senator Obama, including the vote on the Bush Energy Bill in 2005 which Senator Obama voted for and Senator Clinton voted against and the vote for the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court which Senator Obama voted for and Senator Clinton voted against. Senator Obama has missed so many votes lately so it is hard sometimes to go by voting records. I will let you do your own research.

In this campaign, Senator Obama is certainly coming from the right of all the Democratic candidates on the issues of social security and healthcare.

As to why I am supporting her, if you are really interested, you can read my comments below and my many diaries on my Blue Hampshire page.  There are many, many good reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton.

---

by: gradysdad @ Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 11:45:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And I can think of two votes which disqualify her for president (0.00 / 0)

Her vote to give Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq

And her vote to name the Iranian Guard a terrorist organization, opening the door to another Bush war, in Iran.

Her judgement on foreign policy in the middle east is TERRIBLE.  For years she marched in lockstep with the Bush administration, giving them anything they wanted.

When she realized that all of her opponents, the majority of the American people and the vast majority of Democrats opposed the war, she suddenly opposed it too.

But she would not and still has not admitted her vote was a mistake.  It was a enormous mistake -- perhaps the biggest political blunder of her career.  We have a commander in chief right now who will not admit mistakes. This kind of stubborn hardheadedness is not what we want in a President.  

We need a President who is right the first time.

We need a President who is reflective and can learn from their mistakes.

We do not want a President who is quick to jump on the war bandwagon without hesitation for the wrong reasons.

We do not need someone like Hillary Clinton.  We need someone like Barack Obama.  

---

by: Helenann @ Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 12:58:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Two Votes (0.00 / 0)

Unfortunately, we don't have Barack Obama's votes either time because with the first he was not in the Senate and for the second vote he neglected to take a break from campaigning to record his vote.  

You obviously have not read Senator Clinton's floor remarks at the time of the first vote and her subsequent comments before Bush invaded Iraq in which she indicated that she first supported further inspections by the United Nations with military action as the last resort and you don't want to understand that the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was not a vote to go to war with Iran. If it was, someone like Senator Durbin, who voted against the 2002 authorization, would not have voted for it.  Senator Obama cosponsored almost identical language earlier this year.

You also might want to read Senator Obama's speech to the Council on Foreign Relations earier this year in which promises to increase the size of the military and to use unilateral military action against countries that harbor terrorists. At the time, Senators Biden and Dodd, and Governor Richardson strongly criticized his tough talk language. I am not sure that he is who you think he is.

You don't give any links to your other conclusions about Senator Clinton. It is hard to respond to hyperbole.

---

by: gradysdad @ Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 13:55:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

what do you want links to? (0.00 / 0)

Hyperbole is a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. I can get you a dictionary link for that if you like.  It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, and is not meant to be taken literally.   I also don't think I use hyperbole much.  In fact, I don't think there is any hyperbole in most of my posts.  

Just to help you out with this, here are some examples of hyperbole:

"He has a brain the size of a pea."
"I could eat a horse."
"I've heard that a million times."
"I nearly died laughing."

Surely, I do express my opinions strongly.  However, since I am so new here, and most people in their comments do not provide links, I did not realize that this was an expectation.  I will do my best in the future.

As far as Hillary's vote on Iraq, she gave the President permission to go to war if diplomacy failed and we all know how effective Bush diplomacy is.  I can't believe you are still suggesting that Hillary's vote on Iraq did not authorize him to go to war.

As for K-L, no it did not authorize war.  But it labeled the military of another country a terrorist organization, which in effect gives the President the authorization to go to war because, or have you forgotten, we are in the middle of the "War on Terror."

And I have no problems with Obama's speech before the Council on Foreign Relations.  I agree we were correct to go to war with Afghanistan as they were harboring Al Quaeda.  And I would support going into Pakistan to get Osama Bin Laden and his gang of terrorists, with or without the permission of Pakistan.  The point is that Iraq was not harboring terrorists to any significant degree before we went in there.  IT WAS A MISTAKE.  Not to mention that there were no weapons of mass destruction.  And Obama was clear about his position in 2002 as an Illinois State Senator.

And Obama is right that we need to increase the size of the military. My Lord, who would disagree with that? The use of the National Guard and the hiring of private armies have also been HUGE mistakes.  We need the National Guard here at home.  And we should NEVER hire private mercenaries to carry out our foreign policy.  And in fact, if we re-instituted the draft, the war would be over before I could say "Jimmany Cricket!"

And Obama did not have to show up to vote on K-L because he was not going to vote yes.

So actually, I do know what Obama said in his speech and why he said it and I couldn't agree more. Let's focus on getting the terrorists in their nests and stop invading countries that pose no immediate threat to us.  And let's build our military so it can protect us abroad and restore the National Guard to protect us at home.  Amen.

---

by: Helenann @ Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 18:12:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hyperbole (0.00 / 0)

This is one of the remarks that I considered "hyperbole" in your previous comment:

Her judgement on foreign policy in the middle east is TERRIBLE.  For years she marched in lockstep with the Bush administration, giving them anything they wanted.

about which you provided no support for your statement.  

---

by: gradysdad @ Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 13:53:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Roberts nomination (0.00 / 0)

Gradysdad reminded me of something I forgot - the differing votes on the Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court.  The long time ramifications of that appointment are very troubling.  

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 14:03:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sen. Obama voted Nay on Roberts (0.00 / 0)

Hello all and Merry Christmas,

Please refer to the roll call for the confirmation vote on Sept. 29, 2005:

http://www.senate.gov/legislat...

Sen. Obama voted nay, as did Sens. Clinton and Biden.

Tim Foley
Proud to be a NH Staff Member for Barack Obama's movement for change.

---

by: cmdrfoley @ Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 14:10:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry! (0.00 / 0)

That explains why I forgot about it!!!  My apologies!

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 14:35:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

absolute consistency (0.00 / 0)

 http://ap.google.com/article/A...



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

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 14:56:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Me thinks you protest too much (0.00 / 0)

In the article you linked it says:

"In 1996, when he was running for a seat in the Illinois Senate, Obama's campaign filled out a questionnaire flatly stating that he did not support capital punishment. By 2004, his position was that he supported the death penalty "in theory" but felt the system was so flawed that a national moratorium on executions was required. Today, he doesn't talk about a moratorium and says the death penalty is appropriate for "some crimes - mass murder, the rape and murder of a child - so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage."

I don't find this to be anything close to a flip-flop and if this is the best example they can find to use to lead off this article, it is pathetic.

What this "change" in position reflects is not a flip-flop at all but an evolving position that comes with experience.  I am in principle against the death penalty.  But sometimes I think that certain crimes are so  horrendous and such crimes against humanity that I wonder why we would want to keep the person alive with the possibility they could ever return to society.  So I find that even I am not consistent on my thinking on this.  Part of me believes that the state does not have the right to decide who lives and dies.  And part of me feels that in some cases, the only justice that makes sense is the death penalty, for example in cases of mass murder or serial killers.

What is so interesting about the death penalty is that even those who call themselves pro-life, are for the death penalty. How can you call yourself pro-life and be FOR the death penalty?  This has never made sense to me. And those that are pro-choice are often strongly for the death penalty.  It is hard to hold two such disparate thoughts in ones mind at the same time.  But I think there are many issues for which we fight in our own heads about what is the right course to take.

I think what Obama reflects is the real struggle and uncertainty many Americans feel when it come to the death penalty.  And yes, his reframing may be largely for political purposes.

But I think when he says he supports the death penalty for some heinous crimes, this is still coming from his original position, which is that he does not support it, except in extreme cases.  The issue of whether the methods used to execute the death penalty are constitutional is in the courts.  And until they decide, I think supporting a moratorium is the right thing.  And just because he is not talking about the moratorium, does not mean he does not still support it until the courts decide.

However, the evidence is clear. The death penalty does not deter crime and it costs us more than putting a person in prison for life due to all the legal costs of pursuing appeals.  But Obama's position is more nuanced than simply being for it or against it.  He is not an idealogue.  He thinks and reflects and exposes his inner struggle, which I think we all experience when trying to decide what is fair and just and right.

I applaud him for this evolution in his thinking.  He is clearly he not FOR the death penalty but believes in certain special cases it may be the only course of justice.  

I see this distinction as a strength, not a weakness.

---

by: Helenann @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 15:27:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I know I am, so...you are too! (0.00 / 0)

I love this Clinton tactic.

Get caught, so brand everyone guilty of that charge.

Being accountable for ones action or lack of action doesn't lead to the White House in the Clinton/Penn playbook.

Since Clinton can't make up her mind on things e.g., when is it appropriate to use tortue; brand her opponents flip floppers.

She takes a hit for her votes on Iraq and K-L, she stands her wrong ground, then instigates praise for her ability to make a firm, wrong decision. After the faux applause dies down, point to anything that will drum up negative press, like the "present" votes.


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

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 17:49:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Hillary I Know (4.00 / 1)

I have read almost every book written about her and I have followed her closely for the past sixteen years.  I don't profess to have an understanding of the complexity of Hillary Clinton.  Like Kathy Sullivan, I would rather have a complex President, than one who is not.  I lived through Ronald Reagan and I don't want to go through that again.

From my relatively limited personal interaction with her over the years, I have found her smart, knowledgeable, warm and funny, always prepared and inquisitive.  I believe she has an incredible inner strength. I know her voting record is consistently progressive.  She sets a high standard and expects excellence from those who work for her.  

Senator Clinton also exudes a mastery of the issues and presidential authority which I believe she has demonstrated in the debates. I have made it a point to meet face to face with all the candidates, with some of them multiple times.  IMHO, she is head and shoulders above the other candidates.

One of my favorite stories about Hillary Clinton is the second time I met her when I acted as her volunteer driver when she came to my area to campaign for her husband in late 1991.  I drove her to a local service organization noon-time meeting to give a speech.  At that time, the service organization did not admit women as members. I was a little apprehensive at what kind of welcome she would receive as a wife of a presidential candidate from a room full of professional men.  

When it came time for her to speak, she gave a very detailed talk without notes for about a half of an hour about the problems of healthcare. At the end of her talk, she took questions from the audience.  Questioner after questioner attempted to stump her or challenge her about the issue and they failed. It was a virtuoso performance. I said to myself - maybe, the wrong person is running for President! I promised that if she ever ran for President she would have my support and vote.  I still have men from that audience come up to me and tell me that they remember that day.

In the week leading up to the Primary, it is my understanding that hundreds of people from Arkansas who are her friends and colleagues are coming to New Hampshire at their own expense to tell voters about the Hillary they know.  They did the same for her husband and they are doing the same for her. In my mind, that also reflects well on her.

You can also learn more about Hillary Clinton at this website at which people, who have had contact with her in different capacities, tell about the Hillary they know.

---

by: gradysdad @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 21:22:01 PM CST

I always enjoy your posts (4.00 / 1)

Even though I don't support your candidate and don't see in her what you do ... It is so obvious that you are FOR your candidate more than against any others, and that is what I also love about how I feel about Barack.  I will always read your posts, because they are personal, well thought out and reasonable.  You are neither a parrot or a puppet.  She is lucky to have you.  Unlike NewHampster, hopefully you will be able to host a volunteer in your house!

Feeling hopeful since 2004...now "Secretary" of the New Boston Democratic Caucus

---

by: Kelly Nordstrom @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 21:36:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That is nice of you to say (0.00 / 0)

and I feel the same way about your posts.  Senator Obama is lucky to have you as a supporter.

I am not sure about your reference to NewHampster but rest assured that I have Clinton volunteer(s) staying at my house.

---

by: gradysdad @ Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 22:37:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Read Newhampster's diary here... very funny! (0.00 / 0)

Yard sign wars

Feeling hopeful since 2004...now "Secretary" of the New Boston Democratic Caucus

---

by: Kelly Nordstrom @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 06:43:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The Hillary Clinton I Know. Is not very nice, or at least thats how she portrays herself to the googling public. (0.00 / 0)

 She is a complex candidate.... A bit too much for my blood.    

If only we had run Ann Richardson from Texas against GHW Bush, We would of whooped his @$$ !  

 If we don't do it who will?
Teach a mind, change a nation!

---

by: Granitdamit @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 12:48:33 PM CST

Maureen Dowd (4.00 / 1)

had an interesting op-ed  in the New York Times.

Just when I thought I was out, the Clintons pull me back into their conjugal psychodrama.

Inside the Bill gang and the Hillary gang, there is panic and perplexity. Is Bill a loyal spouse or a subconscious saboteur?

This is what causes part of her "complexity", imho. Dowd goes on to say

 Certainly Bill wants to repay Hill for those traumatic times when he had to hide behind her skirt. And certainly he feels that his legacy is tied to her. He suggests to Matt Bai in today's Times Magazine that she can be F.D.R. to his Teddy Roosevelt, getting through the ideas that fell flat the first time.

It's hard to feel sorry for Hillary because the very logic of her campaign leads right to Bill. When she speaks of her "experience," she is referring not to the Senate but to the White House, thereby making her campaign a plebiscite on the '90s.

Running this way, she is essentially asking people to like her if they liked him. Whether she knows it or not, this is a coattails strategy. It's almost as if she's offering herself to Clinton supporters as the solution to the problem of the 22nd Amendment.

She ends by saying that voting for "Billary" will lead to a continuation of their soap opera.

 

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 15:58:26 PM CST

Obama's 72 Hour Consistency (0.00 / 0)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Sunday stepped back from a pledge to halt U.S. imports of Chinese-made toys because of safety concerns.

Instead, the Illinois senator, who is in a tight race with Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York to win the Democratic presidential nomination, reiterated his longstanding call for barring toys with more than a trace amount of lead.

"Now, don't get me wrong: As president, I'll work with China to keep harmful toys off our shelves," he said in Greenfield, Iowa, according to a statement from his campaign for the November 2008 election, .

On Wednesday, Obama had told voters in New Hampshire: "I would stop the import of all toys from China," which supplies about 80 percent of U.S. toys.

A spokesman for Obama, Josh Earnest, said the candidate had been referring in New Hampshire to banning "toys that contain more than a trace level of lead, coming from China or anywhere else."

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 21:35:21 PM CST

Forgive me, but what is the problem? (0.00 / 0)

Obama first said he would ban all toys from China when the news broke that many toys from China were full of lead or had lead paint on them.  Now he says he will not allow any toys with any trace of lead into the US regardless of where they are made.  These are not contradictory statements.  The purpose of both of them is to eliminate exposure of American children to toys with lead.

I suppose there are toys that are made in China that do not have lead in them.  If that is the case, should we ban those as well?    And there may be other countries that are sending toys here that are full of lead.  I think Obama's position of banning toys with any lead regardless of the country of origin is actually a more developed and appropriate response to the problem.

What I don't understand is why you raise this as being inconsistent? The point of both positions is not to allow toys with lead in them into the US.  China is the first country of which we became aware that imports lead-ridden toys.  So naturally everyone's reaction was to ban those toys. But the problem may not be limited to China and maybe not all toys from China have lead in them.  So while one's first reaction is to ban toys from China, upon further reflection, that stance, while being appropriate, may not be sufficient to protect American children.

It seems to me that you just don't like the guy to think about anything too much at all and if develops his stance over time you label it inconsistent or flip-flop.  How sad. It seems you would like him to be just like Hillary.  To take a position that maybe was not fully informed in the first place but stick with it by golly whether you get more information and understanding about the situation or not.  Thank God we have the choice of a candidate who is not so stubborn and stuck.

I want to elect someone who can and will think about problems and who can and will adjust their position as new information and insight becomes available, and who actually shares their thought process with the American people.  It is so welcome and refreshing. That is Obama's strength and Hillary's weakness.

---

by: Helenann @ Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 17:42:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No worries! (n/t) (0.00 / 0)

---

by: cmdrfoley @ Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 15:01:56 PM CST

Thanks! (0.00 / 0)

And Merry Christmas!

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 16:48:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Strange (0.00 / 0)

My last comment was supposed to follow up Kathy Sullivan's comment entitled "Sorry."  Not sure why it went to the end of the thread instead.  Apologies for the confusion.  And again, Happy Holidays!

Tim Foley
Proud to be a NH Staff Member for Barack Obama's movement for change.

---

by: cmdrfoley @ Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 15:04:51 PM CST