Glenden BrownHillary
Back on election night 2006, I watched Hillary Clinton deliver a great speech. Last night at the convention, she delivered a great speech. Her references to American history - including Seneca Falls and Sojourner Truth - were pitch perfect. She did a great job of connecting the core values and goals of the Democratic party with the campaign for president. When she turned her fire on McSame, I was reminded why I’ve liked her in the past - she knows how to deliver a line criticizing her opponents without sounding apologetic.
Here’s the funny thing: This was the Hillary who could have won the nomination. This side of her personality got swamped in the primary. One commentator last night (I think it was Tweety on MSNBC) said she was trying to keep the Clinton wing of the party “relevant” so she can win in 2012 if Obama doesn’t win this year. Tweety is an idiot. Hillary Cilnton knows that if Obama loses, she’ll be blamed for it - her primary attacks on him are already being recycled by McCain. Party activists will not be forgiving. Hillary is a shrewd politician and a damned smart person and she knows we can’t afford four more years. She’s supporting Obama because it’s good for America.
August 27th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Glenden– Would you like a photo of Hillary from last night? I can add one for you.
August 27th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Hillary ROCKED last night!
Yes, Richard. Please put it up.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Thanks for the photo - I’m way too lazy to post photos and clips.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Yes, Hillary rocked! I was thrilled with her speech.
For laughs, you need to turn on Faux News for awhile just to see them falling all over themselves with praise for Hillary, and weeping that she’s not on the ticket. Such theatrics!
I managed to catch a bit of Karl Rove (why am I so lucky?), and he told the truth: it’s about TACTICS and manipulating an opportunity with so-called disenfranchised Hillary supporters. But then Karl Rove always was strong on tactics and short on serving the American people.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:38 am
I know I’m going to come across as mean, but Hillary was the one who said McCain was better qualified to be Commander in Chief than Obama.
Did she take that back last night? I didn’t hear it.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:02 am
No she didn’t but that’s a challenge. Psychologists have shown, for intance, that Nixon saying, “I am not a crook” cemented the perception that he was a crook. So if Hillary says, “I said Obama’s not ready to be commander in chief but he is,” people hear the first part, not the second.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Yeah, but the way to do it is to attack McCain’s alleged C-in-C credentials. I wouldn’t have asked Hillary to apologize for her votes for war with Iraq and Iran, or even admit she was wrong about McCain. Just attack!
Being the son and grandson of admirals, but finishing Annapolis with a class rank of 894 out of 899 doesn’t qualify you to be Commander in Chief. Getting shot down and held as a POW doesn’t qualify you to be Commander in Chief.
McCain has referred to the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia as if they still exist. He has said the way to solve the Darfur crisis is to go after the government of Somalia. He has accused Iran of harboring al-Qaeda, a radical Sunni organization. He has misinterpreted what happened during the so-called “surge” in Iraq, and when it happened. He has expressed concern about the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border.
When war erupted in the Caucasus recently, McCain grandly stated, “We are all Georgians now,” and was promptly ridiculed as a hypocrite by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, whose name McCain repeatedly mispronounced in press conferences. McCain’s top foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann was a paid employee of the Georgian government.
There’s more. All of McCain’s foreign policy advisors are neocon extremists. As Andrew Sullivan wrote today, the agenda of a McCain administration would consist of “war and the threat of war.”
August 27th, 2008 at 10:46 am
I would have liked to have seen more direct attacks on McSame’s supposedly ability to be C in C. Basically his entire campaign seems to consist of “I was a POW.” But considering the shitstorm stirred up by Wesley Clark’s comment that being a POW isn’t a qualification for C in C, I would guess most people have decided to avoid the topic.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:52 am
I had the same thought watching her speech - if this version of Hillary had been more visible during the primary, maybe she would be the one speaking Thursday night. Too bad - she is very inspirational in moments like this, but she let her advisers get the better of her when it mattered most.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:01 am
The Obama campaign ran away and left General Clark on the front line by himself. That was emblematic of their cowardice, and people notice such things.
The Republicans are already attacking Senator Biden’s reputation on foreign policy. He’s “Tehran’s favorite senator,” writes AEI’s Michael Rubin in the Washington Post.
We’re on Day 3 of the DNC and no sign of an all-out attack on McCain. He’s a really big, tempting target. What are they waiting for?
The message that McCain is “more of the same” is weak. McCain as Commander-in-Chief would be exponentially worse than Bush. Glenn Greenwald:
That’s what I want to hear from the podium at the DNC.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:58 am
My guess/hope is Bill Clinton will follow Hillary’s lead and deliver one of the best speeches of his life tonight and, in the process, rake McSame, Bush and all the other criminals over the coals.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
OK, according to an anonymous “Republican operative”:
Tonight is “national security night” at the DNC. Joe Biden and Bill Clinton will be addressing the convention. John McCain has a tough new ad up savaging Obama on foreign policy, deceptively using an out-of-context quote. It’s not really an ad, though, it’s a video press release that the networks are airing for free.
What’s that old saying about people who bring a knife to a gunfight?
August 27th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
McCain is the candidate that is going to get us all killed.
The Republicans are going to spend their entire convention saying that Obama is the candidate that is going to get us all killed.
In my world, black and white are almost always different shades of grey, but in Republiworld, up is down and Americans can’t lose even if they squander every once of moral high-ground.
I think the Democrats should quit being the nice guy who always tries to get along and realize what they’re up against for once. We have the damn truth on our side. Use it!
August 27th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Larry, we are 8 years into the longest lie I can remember. Do you think the “truth” matters?
Truth is subjective, and people believe what they want to believe. Politicians count on this.
As the psychologist Fromm stated, people don’t change much as they get older, nor do populations. It takes a tremendous effort to effect even small changes in the habits of most people. People have to want to change for there to be any chance. Sound like people you see around you?
Out of curiosity how is McCain going to get us all killed? You are beginning to sound hysterical. Does not Congress have to approve act of war? Does not congress have the power to control funding?
Do you lack so much confidence in your own party Larry that you would display such fear of one man?
August 27th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
How many more times do I have to say this. Most of the Democrats voted against giving monkey man the right to start his war.
McCain still wants to invade Vietnam to get back at them. Obama says he wants to talk to our enemies. That’s one of the reasons the Vietnam war ended.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:49 am
So what?
It could not have happened without Democrat party help. Your explanation for the constant approval of funding?
How does this war rest on one mans shoulders? This is a democracy after all. The money has to come from somewhere to prosecute war. The executive isn’t in charge of that.
Do you mean to vote Larry? Why bother? It is obvious that Bush and his people have magic powers that make democrats vote for Bush policy. They probably have magic powers to get McCain elected. When the war doesn’t end under democrat control, what then?
It is far too late to leave in a hurry.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:54 am
As monkey man has stated himself many times: “the buck stops here.”
Come on, Who, you’re not going to join Bob and jd and start apologizing for monkey man now, are you?
August 28th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Albert,
You are partially right or correct depending on how you parse the voting record
In the House, 39% of the Dems voted for the resolution
In the Senate, 58% of the Dems voted for the resolution
Less than most in the house, More then Most in the Senate…Splitting hairs on the issue.
As Who states, how about the continued funding? It’s not about 1 man, it’s about a system of government. I’m not defending Bush, I’m pointing out the irrational views expressed.
If the democrats wanted the war to stop, what actions should they take? How about a filibuster, tying up every piece of legislation, or as simple as being in the media every day trying to convince us that the war should stop?
How about voting for stopping the appropriations?
Simple fact is the Dems are playing politics instead of acting on principles - if they claim to want to stop the want but do nothing.
August 28th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Bob:
I agree with you on this point - the Dems are hamstrung, politically, when it comes to stopping the war through the power of the purse. Moreover, I don’t think simply yanking funds for the military operation in Iraq is a strategy based on principle, as such would cause more damage than good.
The Dems are absolutely between a rock and a hard place on this issue, and the rock and hard place were carefully put into place by monkey man and his criminal minions (most of whom have now abandoned the sinking ship). There is one way and one way only to stop this madness, and that is through dialogue and firm timetables.
The other option is to follow McCain’s lead and prepare to be in Iraq for the next 100 years - or until a Beirut barracks bombing-type incident such as occurred in 1983 refocuses America’s attention back to reality.
August 28th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
The Beirut barracks bombing incident started this whole mess. We were shown to be a paper tiger.
Now isn’t that funny - I’m not defending the Republican…hmmm. Funny that.
August 28th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Albert,
The point I’m trying to make is the only reason the Dems are hamstrung is because they choose to be.
They really don’t want to oppose the war nor endorse it; solely for political reasons of their own. Not because of what Bush or anyone else has done.
If they truly felt the war was wrong, is wrong; what are they doing about it?
Are they out speaking in front of everyone, trying to convince the public?
Are the passing legislation requiring action –doing their job?
Nope, it’s just grandstanding. Bush –the one you poke fun at– can’t be all that smart as to completely neutralize the entire Democrat Party, is he?
How are those Non-impeachment Impeachment hearing coming on the criminal charges?
You try to make this a political party issue; I simply see it as political grandstanding by people not doing their jobs.
August 28th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Bob S gives us the lowdown on the Democrats vote to give Bush his war:
What was the Republican percentage Bob. Oh, that’s right, 100% in both houses. Incestuous lockstep into the mire. No splitting hairs on that one.
Now let’s get back to how the Democrats messed up.
August 28th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
You’ve already established that the Republicans are evil, Larry. Why belabor the point?
What you haven’t done is acknowledge that your vaunted Democrats are just as complicit in taking this country to war.
For the most part, Republicans have stood by their decision to vote for the war. And they’ve paid a political price for it. Apparently they had the courage of their convictions.
The Dems, on the other hand, have repudiated their votes, making them appear to be craven opportunists.
Further, they regained the Majority in Congress by making a number of promises regarding the swift conclusion to the war, the removal of US troops and the impeachement of the current administration.
—none of which have been accomplished (or even actively pursued).
Again, they look like opportunists, don’t they?
August 28th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Larry:
Actually, I think there was one repug Senator who had the balls and the wisdom to vote nay for monkey man’s war: Chafee of RI. There may have been a handful of reps, too, that refused to be hoodwinked into supporting the fiasco.
All in all, 99% of the repugs voted to go along with monkey man, because their political careers would have ended otherwise.
August 28th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Yes, Albert - well almost.
Republicans voted for the war because their careers would have ended otherwise - their constituents would have voted them out.
Dems did the same.
When public opinion soured on the war, Republicans stood their ground and refused to repudiate their positions. They were tossed out of office.
Dems recanted and retained their positions.
August 28th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
And given what we came to learn about the lies and misrepresentations we were fed to go to war, they were rightfully tossed from office for refusing to repudiate their positions. And a whole lot more are fixing to be tossed from office because they still refuse to pony up the balls to admit their brains were highjacked by monkey man!
August 28th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Larry,
Wrong again.
In the House 6 Republicans voted against the resolution.
And as Albert said 1 Republican Senator voted against it.
August 28th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Albert I in no way apologize for Bush, but advocating for the Democrats is like congratulating your 15 year old after your 3 year burned down the house while babysitting. You would hardly proclaim “Good Job”!
Albert, we are not going to leave Iraq, no matter who is elected. We are going to be stationed there for quite a while yet.
Let’s be honest, without Democrat collusion there would have been no way to pay for this war. jd is right, they love their program funding more than they love stopping the war. It is to be expected, as well as it is to be expected that there won’t be much change when it comes to the war, and foreign policy.
Albert this absolute nonsense you wrote;
“The Dems are absolutely between a rock and a hard place on this issue, and the rock and hard place were carefully put into place by monkey man and his criminal minions (most of whom have now abandoned the sinking ship)”.
They (neo-cons) didn’t have that power, and it is ridiculous to blame it on Bush. I blame democrats because they never prosecuted the usurpation of Congressional power by this president. Almost to a person, democrats in Congress were ineffectual. Deer in the headlights. Bush the freight train ran them over, because they were stupid, selfish, and weak.
Go ahead and think that such weaklings can lead into this future we face. If how they stood up to bush is any indication, we are in for not much change.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Bob S does the research:
Now THAT’S what I call spitting hairs. Now that you have the facts I’m sure you can see I was right about who really got us into this nightmare.
jdberger:
When I think about this illegal war, the word conviction pops into my mind also, but I don’t think in the same sense.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:37 am
Larry,
Again, I’ll ask. Aren’t there, weren’t there proceedings to highlight any illegal activities going on?
What were the results? If it’s illegal, then let’s get it out in the open.
Problem is, that just because people disagree with how it’s managed or things are later determined to be false; that doesn’t mean an illegal activity took place.
How about dealing with the world as it is now, moving on to how we move forward and take back control of our country from the politicians in general?
August 29th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I see the lawyer in you is coming out again Bob. I truly have to apologize. I forgot that legality or illegality is subjective. When the New York Times FINALLY reported that Americans/terrorists were being wiretapped, too late to affect an important election, it became legal after the fact. The “liberal” New York Times hasn’t said much about the white phosphorus in Fallujah, but I’m sure that could be made legal too.
When Al Gore says we wouldn’t have invaded Iraq if he had been in the White House, I believe him. If you want to help our country, try not voting for Republicans.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Larry,
I seem to remember something like 23 charges in Kucinich’s impeachment document, right?
Are you saying that only the wiretapping is what could bring down the Bush admin?
Did you believe Bill Clinton when campaigning he said he wouldn’t raise taxes?
Did you believe George H.W. Bush when he said the same thing?
Politicians say many things on the campaign trail, how many keep those promises. This is what I’m talking about Larry, as long as we the people see the issues in party terms, we can’t take back control of our government.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
White phosophorus….say it isn’t so, Larry.
Those damn warmongers. I’ll bet they’re using metal jacketed bullets, too!
Why would you believe Al Gore? When he was vice president, we bombed the crap out of Serbia and Iraq. We invaded Kosovo. We invaded Haiti.