Establishment Left still not on Board with Hillary:

RMNIXON · 02-02-2007, 03:58 PM

Maureen Dowd, Queeen of the Bush Haters at the New York Times, concludes her recent column:

"Hillary didn't have the nerve to oppose a popular president on a national security issue after 9/11, and she feared being cast as an anti-war hippie when she ran. Now she can't simply say she made a bad decision. And that makes her seem conniving - not a good mix with nurturing."

So today what does Hillary say?

"If I had been president in October 2002, I would not have started this war."

Uh Huh!

She said if Congress doesn't end the conflict before January 2009, she will if she's the next president.

Ending the war was the Nixon line in 1968!

Oh yeah!

kinggovernor · 02-02-2007, 04:09 PM

unless the popular opinion polls sway back, then she will be for the war again

JSmythe · 02-02-2007, 04:10 PM

That's because Hillary is a whore.

RMNIXON · 02-02-2007, 05:38 PM

"I voted for the war before I would have been President and would have prevented it."

Is that about right?

JaJae · 02-02-2007, 05:42 PM

Her views sway with the polls. She's worse than any other politician in recent memory in terms of that.

If she gets the Democratic nod we'll have the 04 election all over again. The GOP won't even have to come up with a new strategy.

Donkey® · 02-02-2007, 06:09 PM

I am trying to figure out why you don't think the politicians the PEOPLE ELECT shouldn't sway their opinions to be in line with the PEOPLE THAT ELECTED THEM? I personally could care less what they feel about a certain subject as long as they agree with me.

JaJae · 02-02-2007, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I am trying to figure out why you don't think the politicians the PEOPLE ELECT shouldn't sway their opinions to be in line with the PEOPLE THAT ELECTED THEM? I personally could care less what they feel about a certain subject as long as they agree with me.

Because they got popular by running on X stance. The people who supported them wanted them to do X. Now that public opinion has changed, that's fine. Change your stance. But don't lie and say you've been for the new stance all along. They need to show integrity, they are representatives of the United States and their respected communities.

Politicians are not supposed to be ventriloquists of the polls. They're supposed to have some core values and ethics. That's why people voted for them for representation... even when their view is unpopular with the overall opinion of the nation. When they change their opinions like a piss in the wind and lie to the public for no reason other than their personal growth as a politician, it's disingenuous and an insult to the people who voted for you.

Donkey® · 02-02-2007, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Because they got popular by running on X stance. The people who supported them wanted them to do X. Now that public opinion has changed, that's fine. Change your stance. But don't lie and say you've been for the new stance all along. They need to show integrity, they are representatives of the United States and their respected communities.

Politicians are not supposed to be ventriloquists of the polls. They're supposed to have some core values and ethics. That's why people voted for them for representation... even when their view is unpopular with the overall opinion of the nation. When they change their opinions like a piss in the wind and lie to the public for no reason other than their personal growth as a politician, it's disingenuous and an insult to the people who voted for you.

If we're talking about abortion or death penalty...fine...you're either one side or another. This war is a totally different story. So she voted for it? So did 99% of congress. MANY people, not only her, had "reservations" about the war but voted for it anyway. It was the "popular" pick. I can't say what was in her mind nor can I say what she was presented with and knew at the time she voted for the war. All I see now is that she's against it and will stop it. Sounds like a good decision to me.

JaJae · 02-02-2007, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

If we're talking about abortion or death penalty...fine...you're either one side or another. This war is a totally different story. So she voted for it? So did 99% of congress. MANY people, not only her, had "reservations" about the war but voted for it anyway. It was the "popular" pick. I can't say what was in her mind nor can I say what she was presented with and knew at the time she voted for the war. All I see now is that she's against it and will stop it. Sounds like a good decision to me.

Yes, but she was for up all up until she woke up one morning and read on the front page of the New York Post that Obama was in the lead with his anti-Iraq stance. Then that same day, BAM she's on TV against it. No gradual change, just complete 180 turn against the war and only after the polls started linking Iraq war support with presidential nomination. And she didn't stop there, she went on to pretend and lie to the public that she's been against the war from the start. She's a complete hack.

6SpeedTA95 · 02-02-2007, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yes, but she was for up all up until she woke up one morning and read on the front page of the New York Post that Obama was in the lead with his anti-Iraq stance. Then that same day, BAM she's on TV against it. No gradual change, just complete 180 turn against the war and only after the polls started linking Iraq war support with presidential nomination. And she didn't stop there, she went on to pretend and lie to the public that she's been against the war from the start. She's a complete hack.

You find this surprising?

Donkey® · 02-02-2007, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yes, but she was for up all up until she woke up one morning and read on the front page of the New York Post that Obama was in the lead with his anti-Iraq stance. Then that same day, BAM she's on TV against it. No gradual change, just complete 180 turn against the war and only after the polls started linking Iraq war support with presidential nomination. And she didn't stop there, she went on to pretend and lie to the public that she's been against the war from the start. She's a complete hack.

I don't understand how you can make those inferences. Do you have this particular day in mind? A date? At least I can go back and see if it's true based on her comments.

JaJae · 02-02-2007, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

You find this surprising?

Not surprising at all coming from Hillary. If a politician happens to start beating her based on a pro-Iraq war stance she'll about face again. When she was moderately for the war and leading in all the polls she didn't want to change her stance. As soon as Obama took the lead with his anti-war stance she flipped. At least Obama's always been against the war and isn't lying to the public.

JaJae · 02-02-2007, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I don't understand how you can make those inferences. Do you have this particular day in mind? A date? At least I can go back and see if it's true based on her comments.

Yea it was about two weeks ago. Look for the day with Obama's face on the cover of the New York Post. That was the day she changed her stance. The late night talk show hosts were making fun of it dubbing covers of the newspaper with her speech changing her stance.

Donkey® · 02-02-2007, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yea it was about two weeks ago. Look for the day with Obama's face on the cover of the New York Post. That was the day she changed her stance. The late night talk show hosts were making fun of it dubbing covers of the newspaper with her speech changing her stance.

So up until that day there will be NO instances of her disagreeing with the war? That's your contention?

JaJae · 02-02-2007, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

So up until that day there will be NO instances of her disagreeing with the war? That's your contention?

Disagreeing with Bush and the policies of the war, of course. But she was still saying we should have been there in the first place.

CODEPINK : Search

Look at the code pink people complaining left and right about Hillary's support.

When Murtha wanted to withdraw she said it was a "big mistake."

Written January 27, 2002 from CodePink:

Her long support for the war and past reluctance to break more significantly with the administration have left her at odds with many liberal activists,

I'm sure you'll be able to find a quote here or there that force your argument. But her official stance on the war was not what it was when she woke up and saw Obama's face on the New York Post instead of hers. That's the reality. It was well understood that she was the leading liberal who hadn't fallen in line with the Democrats.

YouTube Video

Donkey® · 02-02-2007, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Disagreeing with Bush and the policies of the war, of course. But she was still saying we should have been there in the first place.

CODEPINK : Search

Look at the code pink people complaining left and right about Hillary's support.

When Murtha wanted to withdraw she said it was a "big mistake."

Written January 27, 2002 from CodePink:

I just think you hate her so much you'll make up anything. Most people with half a brain, and a LOT of people that are against the war realize that withdrawing now would be a huge mistake. Also...if you could care less what those code pink people say about Bush, why do you care what they say about Clinton?

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'm sure you'll be able to find a quote here or there that force your argument. But her official stance on the war was not what it was when she woke up and saw Obama's face on the New York Post instead of hers. That's the reality. It was well understood that she was the leading liberal who hadn't fallen in line with the Democrats.

I just don't think any of that is true. There are plenty of examples of her saying otherwise as well.

JaJae · 02-02-2007, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I just think you hate her so much you'll make up anything. Most people with half a brain, and a LOT of people that are against the war realize that withdrawing now would be a huge mistake. Also...if you could care less what those code pink people say about Bush, why do you care what they say about Clinton?

Yes, I and the liberal anti-war crew hate her so much we're making this all up. Not just about withdrawing, Hillary has not fallen in toe on Iraq with the Democrats. This isn't top secret information, her opinions of the war were well known. We've had numerous threads about it on this forum. She hasn't been a cheerleader for the war, but she has taken a very moderate approach and hadn't claimed a stance against it until it she felt it was politically savvy to do so.