BLOG VIEW | HEADLINE VIEW

ALL

GEEK

Be A Good Idiot And Vote For Hillary

TUESDAY OCTOBER 16 2007 9:00 AM

Submitted by FearTheReaper. Edited By erin_broadley.

TAGS: HIllary Clinton, Iran, Iraq,

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.

Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies, and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The Bush administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it. Meanwhile, Iran has enhanced its nuclear-enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah, and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to hurt its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.

As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.

On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives. This will let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government and show the world that the United States is prepared to pursue every diplomatic option.

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.

And Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton? She voted in favor of the measure in question, which asked the Bush administration to declare Iran�s 125,000-member Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization. Such a move � more hawkish than even most of the Bush administration has been willing to venture so far � would intensify America�s continuing confrontation with Iran, many foreign policy experts say.

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.

�They�re not a group of voluntary jihadists signing up to fight the United States. Many are conscripts taken from the regular army,� said Karim Sadjapour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

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.

207 Comments

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

... 14

SirPsychoSexy

Ridgewood, NJ

January 2004

OCT 16, 2007 12:56 PM

Saraah said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Rafi said:
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.

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.

Kudos my ass, anyone who bothered to look saw through it. The point is, only the ones who did not do their duty to observe all the options thought invasion was the best one. If you voted for the war you were either incompetent or not paying attention.
It was patently obvious to a five year old, that even if invasion was ultimately necessary, there was NO REASON IT HAD TO BE DONE THAT EXACT SECOND. Bush pulled the inspectors (that were in the country) out, said Saddam would not let them in, then invaded.

Pip

Framingham, MA

OLD SKOOL

OCT 16, 2007 01:01 PM

Ask yourself a question, as a liberal, as a democrat, as some one that leans hard to the left:

Was Bill Clinton a very good president? VERY GOOD, not good, not ok, was he at least very good? I say great personally, but was he at least very good?

If yes, then will Hillary be much worse? MUCH WORSE. Will she be less than a good president? I doubt it. Will she be the perfect wet dream president that you want? No, because that person cannot get elected in America in 2008. Is she the best candidate out there? Probably not, but even Kucinich has a shady past. Look at his election as mayor of cleveland, and look at how that turned out. Yeah it was 30 years ago, but so was a certain DUI, and a certain air national guard "service" that still bother the fuck out of me.

Obama is still to green for me. I like him and he'll make a good president, but I think right now Hillary will be better. Hating Hillary is what THEY want us on the left to do. No republican can beat Hillary, they will beat Obama. There are way too many people that hate/fear black people and they are alreayd voting republican. Given the chance to come out in force it is a large enough number to swing the election to the republicans. Forgive my pessimism but I am right and you know it.

We need Hillary, then we need Obama. This is our best chance to take back our country on a long term basis. Het her if you want, but know that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'rielly, and the rest of the right-wing bobble heads are all laughing at your stupidity. They fear her, and I like that. And yes honestly I think she will make a very good president, that is why I am supporting her. She can handle the disaster that is America and clean things up, straighten things out and get us back on track. No one is can handle the current train-wreck.

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY

May 2003

OCT 16, 2007 01:07 PM

ckdexterhaven said:
Personally, I think Hillary is failing to find any sort of niche to guarantee her any significant amount of votes. The far left dislikes her, the far right dislikes her. Independents dislike her. I don't see where she picks up votes. And those who are foolish enough to vote for her simply because she's a women, simply cannot be counted on to turn out to vote in significant numbers. Maybe I'm underestimating the support she would get from moderates, but I think she's far too polarizing a figure to get much from them.

And as far as the GOP, I think they'll come out if they are given a decent candidate (in their eyes) to vote for. A pro-lifer, who talks a big game about illegal immigration would work just fine. We'll see if one of their current candidates can be manufactured and crafted to at least somewhat resemble that image.

The "unelectable" Hillary Clinton outpolls all GOP candidates in three swing states.

Again, I think the idea that Clinton won't appeal to voters is overblown. Not that I'm rooting for her, but that I don't think she's Mondale 2.0.

CaffeineMonkey

Redondo Beach, CA

June 2004

OCT 16, 2007 01:15 PM

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

fountainofdreams

Mokena, IL

January 2005

OCT 16, 2007 01:30 PM

Zarth said:
I can't remember an election I wasn't pessimistic about. That's just democracy. You get used to it. Or . . .

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Come on, we've gotta stop this uncontrolled summoning of He Who Shall Not Be Named. We have to hear about him enough from His own Acolytes.

blackerdays

I'm lost

January 2004

OCT 16, 2007 01:34 PM

Vote for Ron Paul!

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

Most of all, he's against America being the world police!

http://www.youtube.com/v/8_BjK1QqDOo

HarManic

Decatur, IL

March 2005

OCT 16, 2007 01:34 PM

Pip said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Obama is still to green for me. I like him and he'll make a good president, but I think right now Hillary will be better. Hating Hillary is what THEY want us on the left to do. No republican can beat Hillary, they will beat Obama. There are way too many people that hate/fear black people and they are alreayd voting republican. Given the chance to come out in force it is a large enough number to swing the election to the republicans. Forgive my pessimism but I am right and you know it.

We need Hillary, then we need Obama. This is our best chance to take back our country on a long term basis. Het her if you want, but know that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'rielly, and the rest of the right-wing bobble heads are all laughing at your stupidity. They fear her, and I like that. And yes honestly I think she will make a very good president, that is why I am supporting her. She can handle the disaster that is America and clean things up, straighten things out and get us back on track. No one is can handle the current train-wreck.

Hm? I don't understand why Obama is considered to be more "green" than Clinton. A second term senator vs. a first-term? Really?

I don't hate her because right-wing douchebags tell me to. I don't even hate her. I find her candidacy troubling, because her career (on her own) has been focused not on public service, but corporate service. I find her foreign policy statements troubling. I don't feel she will turn the country in a direction I can support at all.

I agree far more with Obama's foreign policy stances, and find him to be a more inspiring personage than Senator Clinton. I think there's at least an outside chance (and, let's face it, that's the most you can hope for these days) that an Obama presidency might actually make me proud of my country again for a while.

chikinhammr

Orlando, FL

April 2006

OCT 16, 2007 01:39 PM

You stupid commies are fucked. Oh wait...we're all fucked.

ckdexterhaven

Redding, CA

December 2005

OCT 16, 2007 01:42 PM

Uncognitive said:

Yeah, I think it's a tad early for those polls to matter. I do find it interesting that Thompson has only been in the race (officially) for about a month, and he's only behind Clinton by about 10 points in those polls. Clinton's been running for what, like 5 years now? I think once voters are forced to sit through a couple of her horrible speeches (can't wait for the big one in Denver), those numbers will tighten significantly.

It's the same deal as it was with Kerry, Gore, Mondale, etc, she's just not a likable candidate. She never seems comfortable. Even with Bush back in 2000, he would give a terrible speech, but when he was just being himself, the general public kind of liked him. With Hillary, that barrier never seems to fall. She's always this robotic, calculating person. She can't even fake it.

But yeah, the match-up will be important. If Giuliani is the guy she faces, she might have a shot. But I will still be surprised if she wins.

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY

May 2003

OCT 16, 2007 01:49 PM

ckdexterhaven said:
Yeah, I think it's a tad early for those polls to matter. I do find it interesting that Thompson has only been in the race (officially) for about a month, and he's only behind Clinton by about 10 points in those polls. Clinton's been running for what, like 5 years now? I think once voters are forced to sit through a couple of her horrible speeches (can't wait for the big one in Denver), those numbers will tighten significantly.

It's the same deal as it was with Kerry, Gore, Mondale, etc, she's just not a likable candidate. But yeah, the match-up will be important. If Giuliani is the guy she faces, she might have a shot. But I will still be surprised.

Gore did win the popular vote.

While any and all polls, national or state-by-state, are premature, they're to my mind a bit more accurate than the assumption that there's some seething hatred for Hillary Clinton that renders her nigh-unelectable.

ckdexterhaven

Redding, CA

December 2005

OCT 16, 2007 02:08 PM

Uncognitive said:

Gore did win the popular vote.

True, but that shit shouldn't have even been close. Gore was the VP throughout an immensely popular administration (especially at the end), and he loses to a two-term Texas Governor with the intelligence and experience of George W. Bush? Bill Clinton had some gigantic coattails, but Gore's likability (or lack thereof) prevented him from cashing in. But this a discussion for a different thread, I suppose.

GonzoChaote

Vancouver, BC

March 2007

OCT 16, 2007 02:10 PM

coyotemike said:

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

Zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

OCT 16, 2007 02:25 PM

blackerdays said:
Vote for Ron Paul!

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

Most of all, he's against America being the world police!

http://www.youtube.com/v/8_BjK1QqDOo

And, he's a racist, too! What's not to like?

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

shacolwal

Waite Park, MN

February 2004

OCT 16, 2007 02:54 PM

I predict Hillary will not win Iowa.

oonagimaki

Rego Park, NY

December 2003

OCT 16, 2007 03:20 PM

I am a registered republican male. Thank you for this article. Knowing that Hillary won't be nice to Iran has convinced me to vote for her. Hi Cli 2008.

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

... 14