IAP Political Forum

Political Discussions => United States => Topic started by: Sledge on October 10, 2007, 05:54:12 PM



Title: Clinton's Conundrum
Post by: Sledge on October 10, 2007, 05:54:12 PM
Clinton's Iran Vote Prompts A Harsh Back-and-Forth (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/07/clintons_iran_vote_prompts_a_h.html)

Quote
Rolph asked Clinton to explain her Senate vote Wednesday for a resolution urging the Bush administration to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Rolph interpreted that measure as giving Bush authority to use military action against the Iranians.

"Well, let me thank you for the question, but let me tell you that the premise of the question is wrong and I'll be happy to explain that to you," Clinton began.

She offered a detailed description of the resolution, which she said stressed robust diplomacy that could lead to imposing sanctions against Iran, and then pointedly said to Rolph that her view wasn't in "what you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you."

"I take exception," Rolph interjected. "This is my own research."

"Well then, let me finish," Clinton responded.

Rolph, from nearby Nashua, fired back that no one had sent him the material.

"Well, then, I apologize. It's just that I've been asked the very same question in three other places," she said.

Clinton then explained that she had gone to the Senate floor in February to state that Bush does not have the authority to use military action against Iran and that she is working on legislation to put that into law. Rolph once again challenged her recent vote, suggesting that it amounted to giving Bush a free hand..

"I'm sorry, sir, it does not," she said, her voice showing her exasperation. "No, no, let me just say one other thing because I respect your research. There was an earlier version that I opposed. It was dramatically changed ... I would never have voted for the first version. The second version ripped out what was considered very bellicose and very threatening language."

It's going to be very interesting to see how Hillary deals with a complicated situation. She has to appear strong for people to have the confidence that she can be Commander in Chief, but on the other hand the hard-core anti-war left is eating her alive over ever attempt she makes at it. This most recent vote is a good example.

Recently Nanci Pelosi expressed a similar frustration with journalists over the inability of congressional Democrats to end, or even slow down, the War in Iraq.

Smile, Though Your Head Is Aching (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/09/AR2007100902006.html)

Quote
"Look," she said, the chicken breast on her plate untouched. "I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things -- Buddhas? I don't know what they were -- couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk."

Unsmilingly, she continued: "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment."

In 4 years, Republicans may sweep into power on an anti-war platform. Once Clinton and the Democratic Congress are fully in control, the reality of the consequences of a Iraqi withdrawal will set in. The war will go on. And MoveOn will be infuriated.


Title: Re: Clinton's Conundrum
Post by: Abraxas on October 10, 2007, 06:08:17 PM
She really has put herself between a rock and a hard place with this one, and you're right. It's between the ultra left that wants us out of Iraq as soon as humanly possible and the moderates who think Democrats are poor are on national defense.

However, like hiring Berger and keeping a closet full of documents under lock and key, she can shoot herself in the foot all she wants, but nothing seems to phase her.

And welcome to IAP ;D... even if you are promoting another politics forum ;)...


Title: Re: Clinton's Conundrum
Post by: Sledge on October 10, 2007, 06:55:17 PM
Quote
... even if you are promoting another politics forum

I'd never recruit on another forum. If the link is unwanted, let me know and it'll be gone.

Quote
However, like hiring Berger and keeping a closet full of documents under lock and key, she can shoot herself in the foot all she wants, but nothing seems to phase her.

Hillary is still bouncing off the walls of the Democratic nomination process. She hasn't run into the "Republican Machine" yet. Once campaigning gets underway, the skeletons in her closet are going to come flying out like a machine gun. She's got a lot of junk in that trunk. It's going to be an interesting election year, next year.


Title: Re: Clinton's Conundrum
Post by: Abraxas on October 10, 2007, 07:02:14 PM
Quote
... even if you are promoting another politics forum

I'd never recruit on another forum. If the link is unwanted, let me know and it'll be gone.

I kid, I kid... hence the wink.

Quote
However, like hiring Berger and keeping a closet full of documents under lock and key, she can shoot herself in the foot all she wants, but nothing seems to phase her.

Hillary is still bouncing off the walls of the Democratic nomination process. She hasn't run into the "Republican Machine" yet. Once campaigning gets underway, the skeletons in her closet are going to come flying out like a machine gun. She's got a lot of junk in that trunk. It's going to be an interesting election year, next year.

It's gonna be ugly... for everyone...


Title: Re: Clinton's Conundrum
Post by: jpn of Seattle on October 10, 2007, 07:09:18 PM
Quote from: Sledge
Once campaigning gets underway, the skeletons in her closet are going to come flying out like a machine gun. She's got a lot of junk in that trunk. It's going to be an interesting election year, next year.

That's what Republicans were saying in 1992. From then up through now, they have spent tens of millions of dollars investigating and sliming her. They have found exactly...nothing.

Right?

If there is any slime attached to Hillary Clinton, it's purely the slime tossed her way by the Republican slime machine.

Too bad when you say that it's going to be an interesting year, you don't mean that interesting policy proposals will be discussed. No, you mean it'll be interesting to see the level of hysteria that the GOP slime machine will rachet up, and how much of the slime they toss will be via the ever-helpful so-called "liberal media."

By the way, I think Clinton's vote in the Iran terrorist bill was pathetic. Stupid. Indefensible. The fact that it was sponsored by Mad-Joe Lieberman should have been warning enough. What was her excuse? That we can "trust" Dick Cheney and his happy band of war-mongerers? Jesus.

Obama and Edwars are right to trash her over the vote. Indefensible.


Title: Re: Clinton's Conundrum
Post by: Sledge on October 10, 2007, 07:30:48 PM
..er..you rail about the Republican "Slime Machine", then you turn around and...slime her?

The Republicans aren't going to be manufacturing slime. The slime you're referring to is the slime the Republicans are going to pick up from around her feet and show to the American people.

On the other hand, I'm sure the Democratic Slime Machine will be in full production. All the Republicans have some dirt on them as well. I'm man enough to admit it.

but not near as much as Hillary, heh.

Quote
I kid, I kid... hence the wink.

Lol, I know. I just forgot to insert my winky into my post...er..nevermind...


Title: Re: Clinton's Conundrum
Post by: jpn of Seattle on October 10, 2007, 07:32:53 PM
..er..you rail about the Republican "Slime Machine", then you turn around and...slime her?

Pointing out one's opposition to policy and to votes is not sliming. Calling her then 11-year old daughter a "dog" (as Rush Limbaugh did) is sliming.

Saying things like this:
Quote from: Sledge
The Republicans aren't going to be manufacturing slime. The slime you're referring to is the slime the Republicans are going to pick up from around her feet and show to the American people.

...with no substance to back it up is sliming.


Title: Re: Clinton's Conundrum
Post by: Sledge on October 10, 2007, 07:36:23 PM
He probably could have used a better term for "ugly", but the truth is painful any way you put it.

So, you're saying the Republicans are going to engage in juvenile insults and not say anything about her "policy and votes"? I'm curious.

Quote
...with no substance to back it up is sliming.

Just caught your edit. So saying anything without a photograph is sliming to you? Let me ask you this: did she just hire a convicted felon who stole state secrets for God knows what, to work on her campaign? Is that sliming to ask that?


Title: Re: Clinton's Conundrum
Post by: Abraxas on October 10, 2007, 07:39:34 PM
Too bad when you say that it's going to be an interesting year, you don't mean that interesting policy proposals will be discussed.

When has an election EVER been about who has the better policy and not the most dirt?


Title: Re: Clinton's Conundrum
Post by: jpn of Seattle on October 10, 2007, 07:41:08 PM
He probably could have used a better term for "ugly", but the truth is painful any way you put it.

So, you're saying the Republicans are going to engage in juvenile insults and not say anything about her "policy and votes"? I'm curious.

You just answered your own question with your juvinile insult against Clinton's daughter...who, by the way, grew up to become an honors student at Stanford. Not bad. I'd call that pretty successful parenting. Wouldn't you?


Title: Re: Clinton's Conundrum
Post by: jpn of Seattle on October 10, 2007, 07:41:57 PM
Too bad when you say that it's going to be an interesting year, you don't mean that interesting policy proposals will be discussed.

When has an election EVER been about who has the better policy and not the most dirt?

These things were a lot more civil not that long ago. It goes in waves.


Title: Re: Clinton's Conundrum
Post by: Sledge on October 10, 2007, 07:45:24 PM
What? I'm appalled! My own opinion that Chelsea is unattractive is bad? This site is an opinion site. It's not enough you guys are going after free speech on talk radio, now you want to go after opinion on opinion forums?


Title: Re: Clinton's Conundrum
Post by: illy on October 10, 2007, 08:25:51 PM
What? I'm appalled! My own opinion that Chelsea is unattractive is bad? This site is an opinion site. It's not enough you guys are going after free speech on talk radio, now you want to go after opinion on opinion forums?

I don't see how Chelsea Clinton's looks are relevant to US politics.


Title: Re: Clinton's Conundrum
Post by: Buzz on October 10, 2007, 09:07:00 PM
...did she just hire a convicted felon who stole state secrets for God knows what, to work on her campaign?

No... she did not hire a convicted felon. Is that what you think? :laugh:

Wow, Sledge, you are just plumb full of right wing talking points aren't you!  ::)


Title: Re: Clinton's Conundrum
Post by: Dog Face 11B on October 11, 2007, 01:49:55 AM
What? I'm appalled! My own opinion that Chelsea is unattractive is bad? This site is an opinion site. It's not enough you guys are going after free speech on talk radio, now you want to go after opinion on opinion forums?

Dude you're beating a dead horse with jnp.....he is the biggest slime here...other than maybe me on the other side......everyone is wrong and he is always right because he is too stupid to believe anything other than what he reads in some far far far far far left source.......he is thee true meaning of libtard....he is so liberal crazy it has made him retarded in his beliefs.


Title: Re: Clinton's Conundrum
Post by: freethinker on October 11, 2007, 02:11:55 AM
What? I'm appalled! My own opinion that Chelsea is unattractive is bad? This site is an opinion site. It's not enough you guys are going after free speech on talk radio, now you want to go after opinion on opinion forums?
Who are "you guys" and how is anyone going after free speech on talk radio??
 If I'm not mistaken this is NOT an opinion site. This is a political discusion site. If you wish to express your personal opinion about celebrities I suggest you go to My space or Mr poll. I hear the kids love to dis celebrities there. I'm sure you would be more at home.


Title: Re: Clinton's Conundrum
Post by: Opmod on October 11, 2007, 06:43:09 AM
Quote from: Sledge
Once campaigning gets underway, the skeletons in her closet are going to come flying out like a machine gun. She's got a lot of junk in that trunk. It's going to be an interesting election year, next year.

That's what Republicans were saying in 1992. From then up through now, they have spent tens of millions of dollars investigating and sliming her. They have found exactly...nothing.

Right?

If there is any slime attached to Hillary Clinton, it's purely the slime tossed her way by the Republican slime machine.

Too bad when you say that it's going to be an interesting year, you don't mean that interesting policy proposals will be discussed. No, you mean it'll be interesting to see the level of hysteria that the GOP slime machine will rachet up, and how much of the slime they toss will be via the ever-helpful so-called "liberal media."

By the way, I think Clinton's vote in the Iran terrorist bill was pathetic. Stupid. Indefensible. The fact that it was sponsored by Mad-Joe Lieberman should have been warning enough. What was her excuse? That we can "trust" Dick Cheney and his happy band of war-mongerers? Jesus.

Obama and Edwars are right to trash her over the vote. Indefensible.

Yes becuase we all know that the democraps would never resort to pulling skeletons out of the closet and displying them to the world. They are always upright, honourable beings with nothing but the good of the country at heart....right?

Or should I say "Ya right!"

Don't get pissed JPN, just beciuase the Repubes are better at slime than the Democraps, they no doubt are more jealous of the skill with which the slime is slung than that it is actually being slung.


Title: Re: Clinton's Conundrum
Post by: jpn of Seattle on October 11, 2007, 06:22:59 PM
Quote from: Dog Face 11B
Dude you're beating a dead horse with jnp.....he is the biggest slime here...other than maybe me on the other side......everyone is wrong and he is always right because he is too stupid to believe anything other than what he reads in some far far far far far left source.......he is thee true meaning of libtard....he is so liberal crazy it has made him retarded in his beliefs.

 ;D
It's so hard to remain humble...


Title: Re: Clinton's Conundrum
Post by: Patton on October 12, 2007, 05:56:48 AM
That's what Republicans were saying in 1992. From then up through now, they have spent tens of millions of dollars investigating and sliming her. They have found exactly...nothing.

Right?

Well, J...she wasn't running for President then. What issues were there with her then? As far as I know (and I have done no research on this) she had nothing controversial as First Lady of Arkansas...and she worked against Nixon during Watergate as a law student, but who is defending Nixon now?

I think we will see some things from her being First Lady of the US brought up Whitewater/Rose Law Firm/Travelgate/Healthcare...maybe something new from those, maybe not...but I think we will see a concerted effort to expose something IF it IS there...I don't think anyone ever questioned John Kerry's Vietnam service until he ran for President...and he had been in the Senate a long time before that...

Running for President brings out an entire new class of opposition, and this opposition exists on all sides.