Agreed, but the question is, what about Secretary Clinton’s actions and statements leads you to believe that she is a devotee of “projecting American power?”
Did the press and other commentators lay off Kerry and Biden because it was thought they couldn’t lay out their arguments as cogently as she was expected to do? And then when she did every word within every sentence was parsed. She’s a realist about this country’s military power, but to go from that realism to her being a warmonger, because that’s what I’m inferring in some of the comments, is a stretch
2 Likes
Jon, I agree about the man-baby certainly. But it’s the stubby fingers actually that go with Vulgarian citizenship. This makes me think of Men in Black… the insect in man-skin. That critter couldn’t brook any kidding at all. The same ill temper I see in trump.
But the hands, the hands
{{snicker}}
edit
Given a choice between Trump and Hillary … well, there isn’t a choice really. I frankly have run out of socially acceptably nasty things I could say about trump. Even my nastiest vocabulary comes up short. I hit a kind of …ahem … wall… when thinking of how to deal with trump’s take on the national debt and by extension our economy. His solution? Print money and use it to buy back debt. And negotiate with the debt holders to get them to accept less in payment,
The Constitution has somewhat to say about this. Trump should read the document sometime. And sit thru a civics 101 class, if his OCD will let him.
I would say mostly because they are not HRC, who has had a target on her back forever for everything , and some sexism. Men know about the warring right? I know for myself, I gave her more grief about it than I did those two because I expected more from her and we knew she would be running for president. I expected her to be smarter then me and most everyone else, she’s certainly capable of it. I think there was definitely an element of calculation in the vote, but I’ve long gotten over it. She wouldn’t do it again, that’s good enough for me.
1 Like
That was a fantastic interview. I miss Stewart!!
Seems like a lot of Americans made the mistake of taking bush at his lying word…
From a Gallup poll (Mar 17, 2003): "As has been the case throughout recent months, support for military action against Iraq is contingent on what happens in the United Nations, as evidenced by the following results from the weekend poll:
Seventy-eight percent of Americans say they would favor invading Iraq if the United Nations passes a new resolution that sets specific conditions for Iraq to disarm, and just 19% would be opposed under these circumstances.
Actually my husband and I made the mistake of believing Colin Powell, although with great reluctance and extreme concern.
2 Likes
I think Stewart is a little lazy in her criticism of Clinton, but the unwillingness of many of her supporters to broach any criticism is nothing short of frightening.
Respectfully, I took it as a commentary on her inability to sell/frame her message. Also, her lack of connecting to many voters, myself included, although I don’t, personally, really need my candidate to connect with me. I think he was also speaking to her disingenuous-ness as a candidate. She even admits to not being a good candidate. I didn’t take it as bile towards her. He even said that he believes her pauses between answering questions as her fighting her “authentic-ness” succumbing to the trained candidate she is (paraphrasing). It was constructive criticism done through the filter of a natural Jersey wise-ass…We come out of the womb smart-asses, in this state. It’s our natural state. None of it was vitriolic. It’s okay to admit that Hillary is flawed. It’s cool, guys. Deep breaths. She’s still going to be president.
As a current Philadelphian and former New Yorker, I am more than familiar with Jersey types, both of the North and South variety. I don’t think I’m being too hard on Stewart or the political hack on NPR, and I think it’s rather silly to miscast and belittle my criticism as defensive partisan panicking.
This just gets back to my core complaint: that Clinton supporters are expected to “reveal” their doubts about her and make ourselves appear vulnerable in order to garner the ostensible respect of people who dislike our candidate. Are there things I dislike about Clinton? Could be. I’m not willing to play this weird coquettish game to justify my support.
4 Likes
Biden ran to be President in 2008.
So did Edwards (who Sanders surrogate Sarandon endorsed and stumped for) as did Chris Dodd, both of whom ran for POTUS in 2008 as well and all of whom voted for the AUMF.
But somehow Clinton is gets tagged as the “warmonger”.
2 Likes
You misunderstood. I’m not accusing you of panicking. I’m simply stating my opinion on Stewart’s critique of her. I don’t think it came from a bad place, or was meant to belittle her in any way. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so. Also, admitting here that Hillary is flawed, among friends, and by friends I mean like minded people, isn’t admitting it to the world or presenting an opening in the door for the Trump campaign (Or the Sanders camp, for that matter) to kick in. This is a safe place. If there is any place to discuss her flaws, this is it.
stewart sometime suffers from the pathological urge to be equally nasty to both sides.
2 Likes
I understand your perspective, and don’t want to attack you for it. I guess my feeling is that there is a decades-old cottage industry in pathologizing Clinton and enumerating her flaws (why else would Maureen Dowd still have a job?), and I’m feeling disinclined to wallow in Clinton’s negatives (real or perceived) at a time when many others are more than eager to make that case.
4 Likes
I’m not sure what your point is there Les.
Fair enough. Understood. Admittedly, I’m not her biggest fan, but as Stewart said, I’d vote for Mr. T over Trump at this point. So, I’ll wear my “Hillary for President!” T-shirt with pride. 
2 Likes
I followed the back-channel commentary at the time mostly from UN Inspector Scott Ritter-- and to a degree that from Hans Blix as well. And while I distrusted everything about the Bush administration-- I still felt that from the dispatches that Scott Ritter was able to leak out of Iraq in the time just prior to the invasion-- that he felt that he would be allowed to complete his mission, his inspections, and be able to report publicly that Iraq, to his knowledge, had no WMD.
I feel strongly that others, on the basis of these reports-- felt the same right up and until the US invasion.
I would have to believe that these reports allowed those in Congress to feel their will and wishes were still intact-- up and until the invasion.
Gut feelings aside? There is far more depth to that situation than almost any of us can fathom as civilians or non-pols.
jw1
2 Likes
The Vince Foster paper weights never really caught on…
1 Like
Blue, you are one of my favorite people on here, truly. However, we have never disagreed more vehemently than we do right now. However, I completely respect your opinion.
It’s tempting to view the past through the prism of “now.” Colin Powell was viewed at the time (and still is) as a reasonable, moderate voice. We didn’t know that he (and Americans in general) was being played for a sap. Should Hillary have known? I’m doubtful that she could necessarily see through the miasma of lies generated by the Sith Lord Darth Cheney and his clueless apprentice, Bush the Lesser. Why? A couple of reasons:
- Only a year after 9/11, Dubya still enjoyed a hefty rally-around-the-flag effect. RATF can cause a general suspension of disbelief. Dubya and Cheney got the benefit of the doubt from most Americans. HRC was not completely immune to that effect because
- HRC was a Senator from New York state. They directly suffered from the pain and loss of 9/11 and understandably had some particularly powerful emotions about the tragedy.
A very important point? HRC knew she made a mistake. She acknowledged it. I appreciate the Mea Culpa and feel that she learned from the mistake. Many GOPers feel acknowledging mistakes is a weakness, therefore they double-down on the stupid. I want someone as POTUS who isn’t afraid to change course if the circumstances warrant. That’s just smart.
4 Likes
I didn’t believe any of them at all… and found myself under powerful social pressures for that reason, called names by people I’d long respected and who I thought respected me. I couldn’t believe the naivete of those Bush & Co. had deceived, nor the complete illogic of going into an incompletely vetted Iraq at all, let alone to retaliate for something they’d palpably had nothing to do with, and to ignore those who actually had perpetrated it.
THAT SAID… I was not living in the crucible where the lawmakers were, a bubble engineered and pressurized without letup by a conniving administration dedicated to starting that awful war, and aided by bought and paid for media, energized by the constant drumbeat of fear-fear-fear-9/11-9/11-9/11. I lived outside that bubble and could think without being suffocated in that unbreathable medium, so my mind didn’t cave. I’ve experienced in small ways how such pressures can turn one’s mind inside out, have found myself temporarily fully believing in things I knew were impossible. So I have some empathy for that 78%.
Hillary believed her President, and he (whatever was messing up his mind) betrayed that trust. Yes, I wish she (and many others) had not voted that way, but I’ve made harmful mistakes in my life too, and can accept her error and acknowledgement.
2 Likes