Senator Clinton Comes to Boston

About Hillary ending the war... (0.00 / 0)

Matt Yglesias and John Judis point out that Hillary Clinton's plan calls for keeping 75,000 troops in Iraq in permanent bases.

I've got some doubts about her commitment there.

---

by: joeltpatterson @ Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:01:07 AM CDT

75,000? (0.00 / 0)

How mant troops are there now?

---

by: howardjp @ Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:21:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I know, it's a reduction by half (0.00 / 0)

which is an improvement.

But what I'm getting at is when she says, "End the war in Iraq," does she mean what voters want her to mean? 

And most voters want us out of there.  Not halfway out.

---

by: joeltpatterson @ Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 08:54:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good article (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for posting this.  Good to know, though I usually make my choices primarily on domestic issues, Iraq can't be ignored.

---

by: howardjp @ Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:26:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Didn't Flynn endorse Bush? (0.00 / 0)

Didn't Flynn endorse Bush last time around in 2004? Also Hillary will NOT end the war, but just as importantly could never win the White House either.

---

by: jconway @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 00:59:02 AM CDT

Probably did, so welcome home! (0.00 / 0)

Ray went to 20 states to campaign for Bill Clinton, did some campaigning with Hillary in "Reagan Democrat" areas as Pat Halley's book well documented, New Orleans and Scranton in particular.

---

by: howardjp @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 14:22:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is funny as heck... (0.00 / 0)

...another comment thread started by me taken off by a bunch of children who, together, determined that they didn't want to look at it.

I'm sorry, but if this place is nothing more than an "I don't want to see what I don't want to see" place, it is next to worthless.

Use your scrool bars, dears.  That's what they're there for.

---

by: raj @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 01:02:35 AM CDT

It is troubling (0.00 / 0)

Raj,

It is troubling that messages get deleted by groupthink here. While you and I don't agree on a lot of things, I think we both agree on that.

That is why over at RMG, Patrick has decided to disable that feature.  People need to own what they say, not have others remove it.

---

by: EaBoClipper @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 07:11:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

1st Amendment (0.00 / 0)

It's a beautiful thing when the folks who make the most noise about freedom of speech are the first to violate it!

Hillary Clinton is unelectable for many reasons. Barack is unelectable, resume is less than paper thin. Edwards:same drill. Richardson may have a shot if you're just looking at credentials. He puts me to sleep listening to him, but he has done more in his time on earth thatn all of the other candidates combimed. 

---

by: MCRD @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 10:43:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nice tangent! (0.00 / 0)

But I argue that there is no logical connection between the politics of the left as a whole and the action of over-emotional 'liberals' bent on 'community standards' (a nice Orwellian term for enforcing group-think, which they justify as a response from using identity-derogatory language like 'bitch')

To insist there is a connection is just another form of ad-hominem logical fallacy.

But there is something to be said about identity politics, and I'd like to take your comment as a hypothetical.

As a Republican and a male, you may feel and express that Hillary Clinton is unelectable because she is a bitch.  As a Democrat and a female, someone else may feel and express that Hillary Clinton is unelectable because she is a bitch.  (Anyone who believes that females do NOT consider or express other females to be'a bitch' is deceiving themself).

If the response to these comments is different because of identity, the double standard is worth noting.  Besides this
, the word bitch is interesting because it is a slur, but also implies an attitude or action.  It's similar to the words 'gay' and 'queer' (as opposed to say, 'faggot').  A better response to the usage is counter the perception and to bring up the obvious challenges to assumption; ie. aren't female politicians allowed to be assertive, is Hillary more self-serving than Obama, etc, etc. The 'blind left' will not counter the perception that Hillary is self-serving, etc, but attack and police the usage of the word itself.  The blind left is doing as much harm as any anti-feminist right, because it allows facile ad-hominem rhetoric as a response.

Some on the left has become so enamored with identity politics in general that they have put aside their real goals: we should be working to put more women in office, not for a world in which the word 'bitch' is verboten.

---

by: raweel @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:27:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

IF YOU HAD MORE WOMEN LIKE (0.00 / 0)

Margaret Thatcher then you would have more women in office.

I am of the opinion that most people can see through the Clinton facade and do not like what they see. Ms. Clinton brings pandering to new heights. She is one of the people who will do and say anything, which I find very troubling.
Most men and women that I've know in politics, no matter how contenptable,  drew a line that they would not cross. I'm afraid Ms. Clinton has not found that line to date.

---

by: MCRD @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 12:48:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Whatever... (0.00 / 0)

...I've been banned from right-wing sites such as FreeRepublic.com, including right-wing gay sites such as indegayforum.org, by the management for refusing to toe the corporate line.  Now, my opinions here on a lefty site are being banned because I refused to toe the lefty groupthink line.

Whatever.  The internet has pretty much lost its value as a discussion forum.  The righty sites want to kowtow to their corporate sponsors, and the lefty sites want to give in to the groupthink of the children who lack the eye-hand ability to use the scroll bar that has expressly been given them to navigate past material that they don't want to read.

The internet has become pretty much worthless, in regards sites like this.

---

by: raj @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:21:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm with you Raj. (0.00 / 0)

Wikipedia has features that allows editorial decisions to be made transparent, and debate can move to this when needed.

Blogging software used on political sites need a similar feature.

I've disagreed with you on a number of things (ie the ultimate intentions of so-called 'process liberals') but your use of the word 'bitch' was NOT gratuituous (though I do not share your view of Clinton) and really shouldn't have been cause for deletion.

---

by: raweel @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:30:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Raj (0.00 / 0)

Being a tad less flammable may help. I think many people don't quite grasp your nuanced writing style.

The difference between you and I is that some folks may dislike you a good measure more than I because you are able to prosecute your arguement with more passion and erudition that others may find threatening. I'm just an old hay seed that people can laugh at and move on.

Whatever the issue, there are many folks who have convinced themselves that their belief system is inviolate, and if you disturb it or god forbid, render inoperatibe a tenet of that belief system, then you cannot be tolerated and you gotta go, for the benefit of all like minded people.

The 1st amendment is only tolerated when it benefits certain people, everything else is hate speech or some "ism".

---

by: MCRD @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 13:04:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Leider, nein. Die Kinder muessen lernen darauf verzichten.... (0.00 / 0)

...  In other words, I'm not going to change my writing style for the children.  They have to learn to avoid it.

---

by: raj @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 22:46:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I like Hillary (0.00 / 0)

She's probably my choice so far, though it is early.

That might just be residual longing for Bill, whom I wish could run again.  And again. And again. Heck, the best thing about HRC is that the Big Guy may wind up back in action again.  I could live with that.  In addition, the "ambassador to the world" thing may be a very good thing for undoing the vast damage inflicted upon our foreign policy by the buffoons presently occupying the White House.

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 18:42:31 PM CDT