It's REAL SIMPLE. . .IF Hillary "WERE" in favor of our troops coming home, she would NOT have voted to give Bush more money !! She continues to extend the war. . .ENOUGH SAID !!

"Clinton promises she will bring the war to a conclusion."

That sounds like a quest for victory - not all that different from the current maladministration.

It is more than fair to see some of her support for the war and her obvious support for corporations as GOP lite.

I hope Edwards, Obama and the others do all they can - the future of the free world is at stake and HRC is the spawn of the DLC - that is the GOP arm of the democratic party.

Why she can't admit she was wrong about her vote on Iraq is EXACTLY the same as Bunnypants inability to admit error.

She should show she is strong enough to admit an error in judgement and smart enough to change course - THAT would sell to the heartland.

Her problem and appearance of GOP-liteness is her own fault or the fault of those she listens too (as she can’t admit her errors).

Thanks

Edwards has a plan that specifies how many troops will be withdrawn immediately (50 - 60,000); how long the redployment will take (10-18 months) and what will remain in Iraq at the end (only troops to guard the Embassy, with anti-terrorist forces stationed outside Iraq.) That means, very clearly, no permanent bases.

Clinton says only that she'd begin redployment immediately (no numbers, no timeline) and says she would appoint a commission to determine how many troops stay in Iraq.

Most alarmingly, she won't say no permanent bases. IF she won't say it now, when do you expect her to say it?

There is a major, significant difference here. Its the difference between ending the war and saying we're ending the war.

["Edwards said that Clinton's unwillingness to announce a timetable for removing troops from Iraq is tantamount to "continuing the war."

That's not so.]

Mr. Corn, if Edwards had made that exact same comment about, oh..., let's say, Dick Cheney, would you have disputed it's accuracy?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't The Dick and his so-called boss ALSO pledged to bring the war to a conclusion?

["Edwards and others may have good reason to doubt she is sincere or committed to this position.."]

I'll say the do! Particularly given her recent support for a resolution suggesting that Bush declare a branch of Iran's military "a foreign terrorist organization", which, as anyone who's paid the slightest bit of attention for the last 7 years knows, Bush is all to likely to take as Carte Blanche regarding Iran.

Is she REALLY against continuing the war?
Opposed to spreading it farther afield?
Where's The Beef?

If HRC is really a progressive and really a Democrat - I still wonder:

What did she do for six years on the board of directors at Walmart. What did she do to fight for the little people? Did she ever speak to or about healthcare for Walmart employees? Did she ever propose good wages? Did she approach other board members with ANY reservations about the way that Walmart treats employees?

Is she bona fide pro-labor or does her political power just buy labor union endorsements.

Enquiring minds want to know and NOBODY not MoJo or the MSM are asking these simple but revealing questions.

Bring me back to why?

Diamonds or pearls - indeed.

from

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0207-34.htm

So, the question still remains: what did Hillary Clinton do—or, not do—when she served on the board of Wal-Mart? Maybe, if her memory was refreshed, she could tell us how she protested the company’s relentless union-busting, expressed feminist outrage at the widespread discrimination against women and was horrified that the mushrooming wealth of the Wal-Mart family was made possible on the backs of slave labor around the world.

Her behavior then, when the spotlight was not on and her record did not matter to voters, should tell voters a lot more about her principles and values than the carefully orchestrated image New Yorkers try to figure out now. The voters deserve to know.

*****

And yet HRC can claim a little memory loss? THAT gets a pass from the media?

It is a scandal.

Both Edwards and Clinton have got some explaining to do, as both of them voted for this war in the teeth of strong evidence and widespread (amongst intelligent circles, at least) opinion that the casus belli was fraudulent, the mission fraught with danger, and the benefits illusory.

David corn ought to have read the magazine he occasional writes for- the Nation.. It has had at least two stories in the last 3 months exposing Sen. Clinton's dubious backers... Ex honchos for right wing tankers and corporate money for her run.. While this may be too glib, in an era where money now clearly buys elections, the source of the money is more than "relevant" And the right echo chamber has begun to annoint her as Dem candidate. why? either they think old anti- Clinton attacks can undo her or worst case scenario, she is their lady anyway...the friend of my enemy....and her votes in the senate have been , as others point out, less than reassuring

I think if I vote at all, it'll either be Kucinich or Paul. We need reform, fresh start and whatnot, not more plame-games and 3-card-monte
in place of responsible
stewardship of things like
our various national policies
as WELL as the federal budget.
SOMEbody needs to stand up,
and say, 'if elected, I'm ending this war, I'm bringing
the troops home, and then Congress is going to find out
what's what, here'. Words
to that general effect. Imagine a new Roosevelt:
Speak clearly, and carry a new
broom.

Bert, pick your preferred guy, and get out and vote in the appropriate primary.

Don't let those scant few precent of party activists who have been choosing the "lesser of two losers" we're going to get in recent years Go On choosing Losers for us!

Let's just get busy and Monkey-Wrench their plans this year.
Let's put a Dennis Kucinich vs. Ron Paul race on the ballot.
Party LeaderSheep from both the bigs won't know whether to shit or explode.

Had Hillary not voted in favor of the Iraq war she would not have lost.