NEWS: Be A Good Idiot And Vote For Hillary

POLITICS: Be A Good Idiot And Vote For Hillary

It is fascinating to watch Democrats make such stupid decisions when picking presidential candidates. We can go back to the eighties and take a look at Michael Dukakis or Walter Mondale. What the fuck? Pathetic candidates. Then came Bill Clinton, the Godsend. Realistically, he squeaked through. Without Ross Perot taking votes from Bush senior, he probably would have lost. And he certainly came with a shit load of baggage. After Clinton, the Democrats picked the most boring man alive, Al Gore. They followed that lame pick with the extraordinarily weak John Kerry. You could offer Kerry $10,000 and he couldn’t say something in a sound bite.

Now the Democrats are in a fantastic situation. The Iraq occupation is still seen as a Republican creation and a Republican problem. The majority of Americans want the war to end. So, who is leading the primary polls? Hillary Clinton, one of the few people running who voted for the war. And she has not backed down from her vote. Now, of course, she says she wants to end the occupation, (because the polls have changed) but she is still a war mongering corporate tool. The one issue Democrats could knock out of the park and they will put forth a candidate that who barely differs from the Republican opponents. Amazing, but consistent.

Sure, we are a long way from Election Day, but right now Clinton is pulling away in primary state polls. As careful as she plays the game, I would not expect a crazy Howard Dean scream meltdown. She has a massive funding machine in place and a shitload of Clinton heads who will vote for anyone who was ever anywhere near Bill. It’s sad, because I don’t see a big difference between some of her policies and Bush’s policies. Take Iran. Here’s what she wrote in Foreign Affairs this month.

Okay, so what Hillary is talking about here is pre-emptive war. If they do what we want them to do, then all is well. But if Iran does what it wants to do, then “All options must remain on the table.” That is how Hillary has decided to treat a sovereign nation. Seems quite familiar to another president who is currently in office. Never mind that Iran would never attack the US in a million years with a nuclear weapon. Whoever thinks that is a possibility is complete and total moron. And we should not be bombing to protect Israel. They seem to be big boys and can take care of their own problems.

Hillary already has already given Bush the green light to attack Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.

Ignorance at its best, the same as we’ve gotten from Bush for all these years.

From the Iranian perspective the answer is obvious: Make as many nuclear weapons as fast as you can. We invaded Iraq, who didn’t have them and eventually talked to North Korea, who did have them. It’s pretty simple; a nuclear weapon is the only thing that will make the US back off.

The idea that Hillary actually used the line, “let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government” is fucking amazing. That’s a Bush line, straight out of the build up to the Iraq war. It also something the Iranian people won’t really go for when bombs are raining down on their country and killing them.

Only targeting the Revolutionary Guard is an idiotic idea. The Guard is not a separate entity from the Iranian population. They are not bred in warehouses on an island.

So, that should help with the “we only have a problem with your government” plan. We are killing your brothers and fathers because we don’t like your government. Cool? Bombing will only increase support for the Iranian government, rather than foster any roots of democracy.

But keep throwing your support behind Hillary, Democrats. Of all Democratic candidates, she is the only one I could see leading the US into another war.

ughghghg....

Yeah, but now HRC is trying to play it both ways by accepting that McGovern endorsement and trying to take the edge off the hawkishness. Bound to backfire, but worth noting, I guess.

And? What is your point? You don't like Bush (neither do I), you don't like the democrats, so, maybe you should bring Hugo Chavez in. C'mon!

Do you really believe Iran to be a pillar of restraint and peaceful intentions? I do believe the level of threat they pose has been taken a bit out of proportion, but they are a rogue nation nonetheless.

Is going to war with them a good idea? Of course not, unless they start posing a real, serious, threat to the status quo.

Now, they don't. The moment they do, they will get their arses kicked. No matter who the fuck wins the election. The Iranians are not idiots. They can talk all they want, but they'd never dare to pick a fight.

I never quite believe those polls that say who is leading whom. They check with such a small percentage of the actual populations as to be meaningless. That being said . . .

Please, Jebus, let Barak Obama be out canidate!!!

I hate, also, that people are going to vote for Hillary because she's a woman, because she's a fucking martyr (see: Bill cheating on her constantly), because she's got "more experience" because she was once First Lady (how's that political experience?!). Sorry, no, these are all bad reasons to vote for her. Vote for somebody else for valid reasons, god dammit!

Yeah, let's go to war with Iran. The rest of the world supports it, especially or good Russian friends: Putin Hates Iran too, let's invade
Seriously. We need to leave Iraq, but not to immediatley (or in a few months after) go to war in a DIFFERENT middle-eastern country. Since when is being anything other than reactionary a good idea? Does the NSA have a future-predicting machine? They must, because that sure is how our country has been acting. This is sure getting old.

Not that a lot of candidates flip flop but she is especially bad.

Also seems to be trying to use the "native of..." card where ever she goes.
During her senate run she moved to NY proclaimed herself to "fellow New Yorkers" now against Obama she's using the "I was born and raised here" after living for some period in suburban north Chicagoland Go Cubs, Go.

Such a shame the dems went with Kerry instead of Edwards in the last election, that guy has recently started looking like a pretty decent candidate. Here's hoping (against all odds) that either Obama or him might end up as the dem candidate, I reckon either one of them would make a pretty good president. And it could happen.

I mean, Hillary Clinton can spontaneously combust one day or something, right?

Check out Mike Gravel, a Ron Paul for the left.

Clinton is constantly flip-flopping, and says whatever she thinks will please the particular people she's addressing. Obama never knows what to say in any situation, and wouldn't know what the hell to do with a potential conflict in Iran.

So far I think Edwards is the only one that would do a decent job, and the most press he's gotten is when some idiots were bitching about the cost of his haircut.

We're in trouble, folks.

You could also write a piece entitled "Be a Good Idiot and Vote for Anyone Who Claims to Not Have Supported the War".

Sorry, but there's a wing of the democratic party that would vote for a drugged up hobo with a horse fetish and a 47 IQ if he had voted against the war and had a consistent anti-war, anti-Bush stance.

I'm not going to make a decision about who I vote for in the primary or in the general election based entirely on a singular issue. That would make me as bad as the fetus-obsessed pro-lifers or the rapture-believing religious right. This isn't about Hillary supporting the war. This is about a vote she made with information AT THE TIME.

I actually don't even have a problem with her initial vote. I have a problem with every single solitary thing the administration (and let's be frank, 90% of congress) did after that. But I'm not into doing a complete and total rewrite of what happened then.

If Hillary went back and admitted her intiial vote was wrong, she'd be called a flip-flopper. Now she's being a called a warmonger. Whatever. The vote was made based on false information, presented by the administration. It's all well and good to go back and claim that the democrats who voted against the war did so with purest of hearts and a prescient understanding of where the war would take us. Maybe some, but the rest were pandering cowards who were content to go move in a herd and therefore not be able to be singled out for anything (bad OR good).

Edited to add: I understand, FTR, that you are making a case outside of just her initial vote. But most Hillary-bashers aren't.

Dick Durbin, AT THE TIME, voted against the war. He's not exactly Dennis Kucinich. Why? He actually looked at the intelligence. Hillary's excuse of, "I voted with what info I had at the time" is a bullshit excuse, sorry. She actually didn't look into it, and like most Democrats voted out of ignorance.

Attacking Obama in an article about Hillary that doesn't even imply endorsement of him is a pretty huge red herring.

That means very little to me. I don't give a shit about whether they voted for the war, because so few of them didn't. I care currently about whether they still support it or not. Eventually there reaches a point where you stop getting pissed about something you can't help. It's that whole "flip-flop" nonsense that Republicans paraded around about John Kerry; it's bullshit. At least she shows the ability to recognize and admit a mistake.

The reason I'm not voting for Hillary is that it would mean potentially 28 consecutive years with only two families in the White House. I don't care about anything else she says.

I'm sorry, but there were pretty significant numbers of people both in the general public and in US politics to whom it was patently obvious that war with Iraq would be a monumental logistical disaster (especially with a peanut's gallery of people like Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld running the show), and that it was being pursued as a fatalism by the Bush administration. Whitewash that all you want, but the fact is you had to be neither fucking Nostrodamus nor Abbie Hoffman to believe those things in 2003.

Not really. The article ends with this:

"Of all Democratic candidates, she is the only one I could see leading the US into another war."

After all that happened with Iraq, would we even have the resources to war with Iran? I doubt it, and America needs to holster it's guns for a while and say, "Fuck this, I got enough stuff to worry about at home", only maintaining armed forces for defense.

Frankly, the Iraq situation is an act of Cowboy Diplomacy (I.E. Charge in with guns a blazing and expect to look like heroes), and we've been paying for it ever since.

Yeah, truely the work of a master strategist. (Rolls Eyes)

As for the upcoming election:

Frankly, I'm just sick of the American people's apparent inability to consider a third party, because I don't trust either the Republicans or Democrats side at this point.

Where on Earth did I say that only "fucking Nostrodamus" would have believed it would go poorly? Plenty of people believed it would go down like a nightmare, I never denied that. My point is that there were intelligent people on both sides who believed that it was possible that it would work, and in fact that it was the best option available. I'm not whitewashing anything. Kudos to the people who saw through the lies.

I'm glad I'm not the only person disturbed by that prospect. I mean, I'll vote for her if she's the Democratic candidate (there's not a single Republican contender I'd be comfortable seeing as President), but it'd bother me.

Because she voted for the Iranian resolution. No other candidates did, Not even Joe Biden, war monger.

Yup, this is a sucky situation. She's unelectable. We're screwed. Hopefully she doesn't lose too horribly, and the dems have a chance with Obama in 2012. At least he'd be able to pick up some Independent and Republican votes. Hillary will get absolutely none of those. I predict a massacre of Mondale-ian proportions.

Our only chance is if the Republican candidate is more unelectable.

Seriously, though, Clinton and Kennedy were the only half-assed electable candidates the Democrats have put forth since Franklin D. fucking Roosevelt (Peace Be Upon Him) himself. And both of them were elected by small margins. Carter slid in (arguably) only because of Watergate.

The Party has been moribund for decades, and I for one have litle faith in its prospects for recovery.