Posted By James, Phoenix AZ : September 29, 2007 9:55 am "

- – - – - -

"James in Pheonix" – she can flip-flop all day long. Most of us expect that from her (voted for the war – against it now, calls for troop withdrawals but can't answer a direct question when SHE would have them out, says no to torture – except if/when SHE thinks it's ok, etc etc).

At LEAST with Bush – you know where this guy stands. You may not like it but he has been consistent in his pursuit of terrorists and regimes that openly support them.

from the book by Joseph J. Ellis called "Founding Brothers, The Revolutionary Generation

If you're trying to make the case that Clinton is moving to the political middle, the evidence is contradictory at best. Indeed, for all of her career as an elected official, she's been in the middle on military issues.

You wrote,
"JAMES FROM AZ…No wonder your thinking is so screwed up. Fox is for the Republicans. They fill your head with all kinds of nonsense and then you go away thinking that you you are on to something. I can't stand O'Reilly, he is a scatter brain. Most people can not make heads or tails about what he is talking about. If I were you, I would stick with CNN and be well informed."

Um Laurinda – Chris Matthews is on MSNBC not Fox. Perhaps IF you had watched the debate and analysis – you would have known this.

She is saying that she is not taking torture off the table. She is keeping it an option. Dems freaked on Bush when he said this. Why aren't you all freaking on Hillary.

Several Hillary fans are saying "ya she is right, torture shouldn't be an option"

That is in direct contrast to what she is saying here!!!!!!!

Thats False.

Just ask our prisoners of war what information they revealed when being tortured. Or CNN could simply ask John McCain what he spilled while being tortured. Everything was his last response..

Its a well known fact that most people can not withstand these torture techniques. We fool ourselves to think otherwise.

So....as a Democrat I was proud that we took control of Congress in November but disappointed in the waivering back and forth of the candidates...take a stand and stick with it!!! Hillary seems to be doing a lot of pandering and we're smart enough to see through that.

To recap for all of you Republicans:
Democrats do not hate America nor do we wish to see us fail in Iraq. We're not socialist or communist and we don't believe that government is responsible for solving all of our problems. Remember that there are extreme nut jobs on both sides of the aisle, most of us live somewhere comfortably in the middle.

You mean, like Gonzales, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld already have?

Steve, correct me if I am wrong, you didn't like it when Bush et al did it, why would it be OK for your candidate to do it?????

I think everyone can agree that the past 8 years have not been great years.

I think we can also agree that we all want change. When we all use the excuse "but (insert career political person here) did it". . . it truthfully gets us no where.

We all need to start putting our feet down and saying no more. We are not going to put up with you telling us one thing during the elections, in order to get elected, and doing another when in office. And if something upsets us if our rival (if you have a rival party) party does it, we should not be open to our party doing the same thing.

Recently Bill CLinton accused the Republican party of being hypocrites. The truth is, both parties are hypocrites and only the voter can make it stop. Call out your party when they are doing things you don't like or being hypocritical.

But this childish you did it first thing has GOT TO STOP.

JB stepping off his soap boax. . . . .

I've looked at both of your posts and am in complete agreement with you. Sen. Clinton is a very good politician. But is that what we need?

Your first post on this blog used one of my favorite phrases, "process information." I haven't seen her ability to do that. I know a lot of people will try and jump on this, but she doesn't do it. She memorizes talking points and stances on things that have happened, and can regurgitate the "team's" version/recollection of the issue very well. But, when it comes to thinking on her feet, she doesn't do it.

After Gravel blind-sided her in the debate the other night, she started her reply with "I don't know where to start..."
That's because a new situation arose that hadn't been 'in the script'. What was her final response to that? I'm still waiting.

When Tim Russert dropped the bomb (no pun intended) on her with the revelation that her husband provided the answer he quoted on the torture question, she got that deer in the headlights look, then tried to make a funny, "Well, he's not standing here, is he" yeah, too bad to because that's why probably 40% of the folks that support her are doing so, to get Bill back. (You know 2-for-1). Then she tried to follow it up with another funny, I'll talk to him about that tonight. Yeah, I'd really have liked to been a fly on the wall for that conversation.

Have a good Friday,

Read the article. She is saying that torture is an option.

She also said that we are going to be in Iraq for a long long time. But even though those were two major hot buttons for Dems, and, Hill originally said what you dems wanted to hear, she has brainwashed you now. Now you all are on board, and can't get off. WHERE IS YOUR POLITICAL FORTITUDE? It is actually kinda amusing!!! And sad on some level!

1) SHE JUST VOTED TO NAME THE IRANIAN NATIONAL GUARD, A TERORIST GROUP TOMMOROW WHEN HER CLIQUE OF BUSH AND NEOCONS DECISE TO ATTACK IRAN, SHE WILL CLAIM HER VOTE WAS TO GIVE THIS SAME PRESIDENT ENOUGH ROOM FOR DIPLOMACY.

2) VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR WHICH IS PRESENTLY THE WORST FOREIGN POLICY DISASATER IN THIS COUNTRY- VEHEMENTLY AND ARROGANTLY REFUSE TO APPOLOGIZE FOR HER ERRORS, WITHOUT EVEN READIND THE REPORT
.3) PANDERING TO BLACK VOTERS BUT REFUSED FUNDING AND EXTENSION OF MORE HIV FUNDS FOR BLACKS IN SOUTH CAROLINA 2006 IN THE SENATE

4) LIKES TO RUN ON HER HUSBAND POSITIVE LEGACY BUT REFUSE TO INHERIT THE BAD ONES, NAFTA (1993) NO PROTECTION OF AMERICAN WORKERS. HUSBAND WAS CALL THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT IRONICALLY HIGHEST BLACKS INCARCERATION RATE DURING HIS REGIME.

5) THE MOST DEVISIVE OF ALL CANDIDATES BUSH TRIED SO HARD TO PASS AN IMMIGRATION BILL UNDER A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS WHICH WAS PRO IMMIGRATION BUT DID NOT SUCCEED DESPITE NUMEROUS TRIPS TO THE CAPITOL SIMPLY BECAUSE HE IS JUST AS POLARIZED LIKE HER.

6) ARROGANT AND DICTATORIAL- REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTION SHE FELT WILL EXPOSE HER< DEEPLY EMBEDED WITH COPERATE INTEREST AND LOBBYIST- JUST A CONTINUATION OF GREED AND SELF AGGRANDISEMENT< FAVOR OUTSOURCING USA JOBS TO INDIA, REFUSING TO NAME DONNORS TO THE CLINTON'S PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY BECAUSE OF A CONTINUATION OF THE NORMAN HSU DONATIONS SCANDALS.
SHE CAN'T EXPLAIN HER STANDS ON ANY MAJOR ISSUE.
I WILL VOTE FOR CANDIDATES WHO WILL BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER AND GET THE JOB DONE.
OBAMA-BIDEN 2008 OR VICE VERSA, CANDIDATES WITH INTERGRITY AND CANDOR.
" A WORD TO A WISE IS SUFFICIENT" JUST DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE VOTING NOT SIMPLY FANATISM.

She just magically changed her mind over the course of a few months? That's what she -DOES-! She says what the audience wants to hear even if she doesn't believe it! The problem with that is that we don't know if she would or would not torture somebody now. Deep down inside, you HRC supporters KNOW there's something messed up with what she jsut did. And you KNOW that there's something messed up about a presidential candidate who REFUSES to answer a question! Your job is the ANSWER the people's questions so we KNOW what your positions are!

"call General Petreaus a liar"
Are you inferring that Hillary called him a liar by not voting for the moveon.org ad condemnation or did she actually say this?

Please site your source
Thanks

Well, there's nothing less Christ-like than torture. If we are an honorable nation, we would pursue benevolent means to gain information, and we would treat our enemies with respect and dignity as international law dictates.

You said, "clinton's position on torture is turning MORE liberal, not less"

Uh huh... so you anti-war folks then are quite happy Hillary voted to deem Iran's military as a "terrorist" organization – essentially giving President Bush a green light on Iran?

1. Getting out of Iraq (She won't commit but will grand stand in public and call General Petreaus a liar).

2. Whining about "special interests" money and how it has bought-and-paid for our politicians (Hillary supports special interest donations).

3. Whining about Gay marriage (Hillary is against gay marriage).

4. Candidates that flip-flop (Hillary voted FOR the war, now is against it, this article talks of her shifting policies on torture, etc)

5. Needing a fresh start (Bush – Clinton – Bush – now Clinton??)

If ever there has been a corination of a candidate – Hillary was it! Aparently the only RACE going on with the Democrat party is for the VP job.

Oh and by the way... Bush, Rove, and the conservatives thank you. They could not have ochestrated this arrangement any better. Had the democrat candidates been more direct with Hillary, she could have built a degree of immunity from the forth coming attacks from the right. However, since no candidate DARE say anything to seriously challenge her, the public will get the rude awakening of who Hillary really is.

Hillary completely contradicted herself and then just tried to giggle her way through an incomprehensible retort?

Couldn't be true!

On my college essay exams, the good Dr. Woodruff would draw a huge red spiral over any of my answers that read like virtually all of Hillary's.

His point? It's not too hard to tell when someone is winging it, hoping that if they just put enough words out there, their audience will think they've answered the question.

"The most intelligent woman in America"? Maybe just the most verbose. Or is that the same nowadays? It seems to be working for her.

Hey, Hypocrite: is this like sending Iran ARMS FOR HOSTAGES? You Republican liar. Blow it out your ear.

"What a crock. This woman is an idiot..."

Oh, Hillary is smarter than most people, obviously including you.

"...who will either lie to us and tell us she is against torture but do it anyway."

You mean, like Gonzales, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld already have?

"...Or, not torture, give the guy a few million and a ticket to paradise."

Your mom's calling. Get off her computer, and wipe that spittle off her keyboard, sonny boy.

clinton's position on torture is turning MORE liberal, not less. earlier she wanted to leave room for exceptional cases. now, she's saying there is no need for that exception because torture isn't even effective anyway, according to military top brass.

it's distressing to see people just spew their opinions without even understanding the arguments.

and jeff, what makes you think torture is so effective? just a hunch?

did you read the article? military experts suggest bribing family members and others nearby, not the actual criminals themselves. there's a huge difference. the interrogation strategies that are most effect for criminals most certainly do not involve tickets to paradise, but they do involve making them feel like they have a confidant. The New Yorker had a great article about this issue, recently.

And Jeff in Rochester:

I understand that some people hate Sen. Clinton, but I always assumed that there was SOME rational basis for this. I begin to doubt.
You state that she's an "idiot" who would lie and torture anyway. Why is that idiotic? It seems more Machiavellian to me.
More important, even if I assume that she'd actually follow through on her "offer" to move the terrorist to the retirement villa of his dreams, i.e., that she isn't just lying to HIM, what's your basis for thinking that she'd arbitrarily follow that option rather than the first one? In other words, what is there about her character or goals that make you think she's just as likely to do one OR the other?
You may, of course, dislike Sen. Clinton for any reason whatsoever, but spewing baseless and frankly incomprehensible denunciations is unlikely to convince others that your disaffection is rooted in reality.

Well, there's one big thing Hillary has going for her in my view.

You can apothecate, guessulate, speculate and pontifficate with all the Chris Matthews of the world on what Hillary is going, or is not ging to do. Or on whether Hillary is a hypocrit, a flip flopper or down right truthful.

But the biggest thing Hillary has going for her is – that WE ALL KNOW what George Bush and his Republicans are and are not. And we all know that nothing Hillary will do or will not do will ever come close to George's level of failure.

And all Republican Candidates are Bush Clones so I'd say she has it in the bag.