Hillary’s ‘American Dream’: Stuck in the Middle With You

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

You were yanking my chain - I thought you were just babbling incoherently

hmmm time to get yer ears cleaned out my dear! you apparently have WAXY YELLOW BUILDUP!

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

What I said was, if you read it instead of disecting it, is Clinton gave W almost all of the info W used to justify the war. I mean Clinton advocated W's actions and still does. Clinton just now says he would have waited for the inspections to run their course. Clinton still stands behind the WMD info. So, he most certainly is just as guilty. But, you will never admit that.

I mean what happened to make W know, as you assert he did, that that same information was false. And - if W knew it, why didn't Clinton when Clinton is the one who gave it to W and the one who to this day stands behind it?

Bush didnt know it when Clinton first gave him the info, (as in when he took office) but he sure as hell knew better before he invaded Iraq. so, NO Clinton ISNT as guilty. He didnt know any better, Bush (by the time he invaded) DID.
Give it up Jason, your horse aint running....

[irishgrl]

Oh, dear. You know I love you, but I'm so sick of that "scared-of-strong-women" line of talking that I could ralph.

Then I suggest you hie yerself over to yer local public library and check out
The Republican War Against Women, by Tanya Meilich AND
Backlash by Susan Faludi

better yet: buy yer own copy.

Its NO accident that the entrenched WHITE MALE w/PROPERTY ethic is doing everything they can to limit women's opportunities. NOSIR. The Good Old Boys know in their shriveled up hearts that Women are fast filling up the power slots and one of the best ways to prevent that is to 1) keep them barefoot and pregnant and 2) keep them out of the classrooms and boardrooms by keeping them barefoot and pregnant. When the playing field is EVEN, women surge ahead. If you dont believe me, you need to look at educational studies that show girls are surging ahead in the classrooms and boys are falling behind.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Bush didnt know it when Clinton first gave him the info, (as in when he took office) but he sure as hell knew better before he invaded Iraq. so, NO Clinton ISNT as guilty. He didnt know any better, Bush (by the time he invaded) DID.
Give it up Jason, your horse aint running....

Well, how did Bush know it. Where and when was his epiphany? You have yet to explain that and instead illogically rely on incorrect blanket statements.

Also and for the last time, please explain why Clinton, his wife, Kerry, and the majority of the D Party still stand behind this evidence not only as factual, but as a justification for W to do what he did, which brings me back to Hillary's 2004 quote in the original post of this thread in which she praised W for getting rid of SH. Why would she praise W for that if she thought he went into Iraq on a ruse. I mean if they all now know that the info. was bogus and that W was so horrible in the way he used it after he somehow found out it was false after the altruistic Clinton gave it to him, then why are the D's still defending its use and truth. Once again, you have no answer for that and instead allude to W somehow finding out it was patently false and then you have no comment on why the Clintons and the majority of the D party stand by its veracity. That you do not concede you are wrong here is astonishing but par for the course.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Then I suggest you hie yerself over to yer local public library and check out
The Republican War Against Women, by Tanya Meilich AND
Backlash by Susan Faludi

better yet: buy yer own copy.

Its NO accident that the entrenched WHITE MALE w/PROPERTY ethic is doing everything they can to limit women's opportunities. NOSIR. The Good Old Boys know in their shriveled up hearts that Women are fast filling up the power slots and one of the best ways to prevent that is to 1) keep them barefoot and pregnant and 2) keep them out of the classrooms and boardrooms by keeping them barefoot and pregnant. When the playing field is EVEN, women surge ahead. If you dont believe me, you need to look at educational studies that show girls are surging ahead in the classrooms and boys are falling behind.

Ah here is the male bashing again. The poor females, they are meant always to following six feet behind the males and there have been no positive steps to correct that in the last 2000 years Those bad males


Hmmm - who is the Sec. of State - hmmmmm

[strandinthewind]

LOL - I found this article and while the author is an a$$ - the quotes are accurate - so, I'll post it:

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People -- Version 3.0
by John Hawkins
Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

__________________________________________________________

Boy, those D's sure were not in the same boat as W in the war in Iraq - should make for an easy impeachment

Also, I bolded B. Boxer's comments just for grins

[strandinthewind]

and here are some more from Pres. Clinton:

Clinton defends successor's push for war

Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs

(CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.

Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would not have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix "finished his job."

Weapons inspectors led by Blix scoured Iraq for three and a half months before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 but left after President Bush issued an ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to leave the country.

"I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't agree with the timing of the attack," Clinton said.

Clinton blamed the Abu Ghraib prison abuses on poorly trained National Guard personnel and higher-ups in the Bush administration.

The former president said he was not surprised by the abuses committed by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib but that he was surprised by their extent.

"There is no excuse for that," Clinton said.

Clinton blamed the abuses on the higher echelons of the Bush administration.

"The more we learn about it, the more it seems that some people fairly high up, at least, thought that this was the way it ought to be done," he said.

Implying that the United States should lead by example, Clinton said of the abuses, "No. 1, we can't pull stunts like that, and No. 2, when we do, whoever is responsible has to pay."

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq

____________________________________________________________

Boy that Clinton sure is chomping at the bit to impeach W.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Then I suggest you hie yerself over to yer local public library and check out
The Republican War Against Women, by Tanya Meilich AND
Backlash by Susan Faludi

better yet: buy yer own copy.

I suggest everyone goes to the library and gets out a copy of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank. Might give some of you guys an idea as to why Democrats will never reach those voters, not even by playing to the middle like the whores that they are.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I suggest everyone goes to the library and gets out a copy of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank. Might give some of you guys an idea as to why Democrats will never reach those voters, not even by playing to the middle like the whores that they are.

I often think playing it to the middle would be okay if they licked on thing asnd stuck to it. I mean the cast majority of the far left voted for Kerry despite his moderate nature. So, he lost no votes there. The problem was the middle, which by definition is far larger than the extremes, didn't buy into what they perceived as his wishy washy nature. They figured sort of and incorrectly IMO "why vote for Bush light when comparatively Bush will do a better job." I think Clinton was a MASTER at playing to the middle and still maintaining integrity with your average voter. The 2006 elections will, though, IMO be the same ole same ole in that Rove will define the issues and the D's will be lead around by the nose. IMO, what the D's need to do is go on the attack with issues like abortion and gay rights, which oddly enough and though mostly irrelevant in the big scheme of things like hunger, health care, education, etc. They need to start with commercials explaining in five words or less that though you as a Christian or whatever may be against gay people and abortions, the US is not run by canon. There is a way to do this and win.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I often think playing it to the middle would be okay if they licked on thing asnd stuck to it. I mean the cast majority of the far left voted for Kerry despite his moderate nature. So, he lost no votes there. The problem was the middle, which by definition is far larger than the extremes, didn't buy into what they perceived as his wishy washy nature. They figured sort of and incorrectly IMO "why vote for Bush light when comparatively Bush will do a better job." I think Clinton was a MASTER at playing to the middle and still maintaining integrity with your average voter. The 2006 elections will, though, IMO be the same ole same ole in that Rove will define the issues and the D's will be lead around by the nose. IMO, what the D's need to do is go on the attack with issues like abortion and gay rights, which oddly enough and though mostly irrelevant in the big scheme of things like hunger, health care, education, etc. They need to start with commercials explaining in five words or less that though you as a Christian or whatever may be against gay people and abortions, the US is not run by canon. There is a way to do this and win.

Nope, playing to the middle will never work. They end up looking like Republican-lite, which makes people look at them and figure that if it's between those two sides, they might as well go with the actual Republican instead of someone that's as transparent as crystal. The Democrats' run to the middle is seen as desperate and phoney, like they're trying to pull one over on everyone and it creates resentment.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Nope, playing to the middle will never work. They end up looking like Republican-lite, which makes people look at them and figure that if it's between those two sides, they might as well go with the actual Republican instead of someone that's as transparent as crystal. The Democrats' run to the middle is seen as desperate and phoney, like they're trying to pull one over on everyone and it creates resentment.

Well, they have been in the middle ever since Carter Maybe I am confused by what you mean by the left. If you mean completely denounce the war in Iraq and withdraw all troops now, abortion on demand at any mother's age and at anytime, no religion ever at all in politics, etc. - no candidate will ever win on that - moreover, no candidate has ever run on that. Again, the middle is where the votes are - Clinton knew this and won on it twice by sep. himself enough from the conservatives to show he was different.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, they have been in the middle ever since Carter

And that was 25+ years ago. We're not in the age of Carter anymore, Jason. After Clinton, that was it. Say goodbye to any attempts of reaching out to those "moderate" voters or getting any real conservatives to look at the Democrats will anything but disgust. The Democrats are a ****ing joke in every sense of the word and every move they make towards the middle (which has been more extreme in recent years, no matter what you or anyone says to the contrary) is viewed as nothing but pandering and acts of desperation to somehow keep their dying party afloat.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Maybe I am confused by what you mean by the left. If you mean completely denounce the war in Iraq and withdraw all troops now, abortion on demand at any mother's age and at anytime, no religion ever at all in politics, etc. - no candidate will ever win on that - moreover, no candidate has ever run on that. Again, the middle is where the votes are - Clinton knew this and won on it twice by sep. himself enough from the conservatives to show he was different.

Yup, Clinton knew it and the times have changed greatly since then.

What do I mean by left? Let's see...not cheerleading every move Bush makes. Not denouncing things Bush has done and then continuing to support them completely. Not promoting yourself as a candidate that is Republican-lite, because by doing that, you give no real distinction to the public between yourself and the Republican candidate. Not jumping on the religious bandwagon to reach out to the people who will never, ever vote for you and in turn alienate your liberal base. Not saying how terrible Iraq was and then two seconds later calling for more troops. Not saying that even after all this stuff about trumped-up intelligence came out, you would still authorize the use of force in Iraq.

I mean, let's be serious for a minute. You can say that "Kerry almost one by playing ot the middle," but the fact is that he didn't. Whether that was by election fraud or the general public just not liking his sorry candidacy, we'll never know. But the man was a joke and even with Bush's steadily declinging popularity, Kerry is still seen as a joke. Most honest liberals and far-left liberals curse the day they supported him and his lousy campaign has alienated a LOT of his base. Couple that will Hillary Clinton's shenanigans in terms of kissing DLC ass and the grassroots base of liberals, not Democrats, that worked so tirelessly for them and other Dems is dwindling. Once that group of people is alienated, don't expect the casual Democrats that vote straight Democrat on each ballot to work their asses off to promote any upcoming candidates. If the Democrats keep jumping further and further to the middle, which they really can't do because the embracing of the DLC completed the transformation into Republican Party #2, they'll lose the moderates that they're trying to snatch votes from due to their transparency and the far-left base that is beginning to view them as insufficient, spineless, and incapable of promoting truly liberal policies and beliefs. The ENTIRE base came out in full-force on Election Day and Kerry still lost. If they keep this bull**** up, they won't draw new voters, the base will be the only ones supporting them, and they'll continue to get crushed by the incredibly powerful party that is the Republican party.

The unfortunate thing is that, to the Democrats, everything has to be a game plan. They think too much and they analyze too much, which weakens everything that they do by making it come across as calculating and unnatural. That will not win votes from the people they need votes from. Find me someone who didn't laugh when they saw Hillary Clinton praising faith-based initiatives so ferociously following the last election. It's all so phoney and people can see it. It doesn't bode well, especially if they nominate someone as lousy as her in '08. That'll be a serious loser ticket right there.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

And that was 25+ years ago. We're not in the age of Carter anymore, Jason. After Clinton, that was it. Say goodbye to any attempts of reaching out to those "moderate" voters or getting any real conservatives to look at the Democrats will anything but disgust. The Democrats are a ****ing joke in every sense of the word and every move they make towards the middle (which has been more extreme in recent years, no matter what you or anyone says to the contrary) is viewed as nothing but pandering and acts of desperation to somehow keep their dying party afloat.



Yup, Clinton knew it and the times have changed greatly since then.

What do I mean by left? Let's see...not cheerleading every move Bush makes. Not denouncing things Bush has done and then continuing to support them completely. Not promoting yourself as a candidate that is Republican-lite, because by doing that, you give no real distinction to the public between yourself and the Republican candidate. Not jumping on the religious bandwagon to reach out to the people who will never, ever vote for you and in turn alienate your liberal base. Not saying how terrible Iraq was and then two seconds later calling for more troops. Not saying that even after all this stuff about trumped-up intelligence came out, you would still authorize the use of force in Iraq.

I mean, let's be serious for a minute. You can say that "Kerry almost one by playing ot the middle," but the fact is that he didn't. Whether that was by election fraud or the general public just not liking his sorry candidacy, we'll never know. But the man was a joke and even with Bush's steadily declinging popularity, Kerry is still seen as a joke. Most honest liberals and far-left liberals curse the day they supported him and his lousy campaign has alienated a LOT of his base. Couple that will Hillary Clinton's shenanigans in terms of kissing DLC ass and the grassroots base of liberals, not Democrats, that worked so tirelessly for them and other Dems is dwindling. Once that group of people is alienated, don't expect the casual Democrats that vote straight Democrat on each ballot to work their asses off to promote any upcoming candidates. If the Democrats keep jumping further and further to the middle, which they really can't do because the embracing of the DLC completed the transformation into Republican Party #2, they'll lose the moderates that they're trying to snatch votes from due to their transparency and the far-left base that is beginning to view them as insufficient, spineless, and incapable of promoting truly liberal policies and beliefs. The ENTIRE base came out in full-force on Election Day and Kerry still lost. If they keep this bull**** up, they won't draw new voters, the base will be the only ones supporting them, and they'll continue to get crushed by the incredibly powerful party that is the Republican party.

The unfortunate thing is that, to the Democrats, everything has to be a game plan. They think too much and they analyze too much, which weakens everything that they do by making it come across as calculating and unnatural. That will not win votes from the people they need votes from. Find me someone who didn't laugh when they saw Hillary Clinton praising faith-based initiatives so ferociously following the last election. It's all so phoney and people can see it. It doesn't bode well, especially if they nominate someone as lousy as her in '08. That'll be a serious loser ticket right there.

I think we are talking about the same thing only phrasing it differently. I, too, think that the D nominee must stand on their own two feet, something Kerry inexplicably refused to do and something Clinton was a master at. So, we agree - BTW, this does not mean I'm going to bed with you. You get only a

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think we are talking about the same thing only phrasing it differently.

Could be, but you seem to believe that a run-to-the-middle strategy could be a winning one. I beg to differ.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I, too, think that the D nominee must stand on their own two feet, something Kerry inexplicably refused to do and something Clinton was a master at.

Kerry was a nasty piece of work. They sure had him pegged when they called him a flip flopper. They should play "Making Flippy Floppy" by the Talking Heads every time he enters a room.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

So, we agree - BTW, this does not mean I'm going to bed with you. You get only a

Since you just admitted to walking with a limp after last weekend, I suppose that's for the best.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Could be, but you seem to believe that a run-to-the-middle strategy could be a winning one. I beg to differ.

Not really the run to the middle, but they cannot alienate it

Originally Posted by dissention

. . . Since you just admitted to walking with a limp after last weekend, I suppose that's for the best.

Hey now - I was referring to the fact that I did squats