Posted on 12/08/2005 7:28:03 AM PST by Carl/NewsMax
Liberal Democrats are so upset with Hillary Clinton's waffling on the Iraq war that some are now saying they're "ashamed" of her.
The Daily Kos - the political web site widely read by the party's base - is urging Democrats to move beyond Mrs. Clinton and her husband, declaring: "Shame on the Democratic Party if they ever nominate her" for president.
The scathing editorial, written by Kos contributor "Trifecta," states outright: "More than anything else, I am ashamed of Hillary Clinton."
"When you look dispassionately at some of the things [Bill and Hillary] are capable of, it should leave one very skeptical and concerned about a 'third term' for this pair."
The Kos writer compares Hillary - unfavorably - to President Bush, saying she's an unprincipled opportunist when it comes to key issues while Bush shows leadership in the face of adversity.
"When faced with low poll numbers on his crappy ideas, Bush plods on," the Kos pundit says. "And [he] still gets them passed, pushing his agenda forward."
Meanwhile, Trifecta complains the Clintons "put their fingers to the wind" and run away from the fight.
The left-wing blast at Hillary also compares her unfavorably to Sen. Joe Lieberman, whose defense of the war last week contrasted sharply with Mrs. Clinton's weaselly claim that she was tricked into voting to give Bush the authority to attack Iraq.
"Holy Joe Lieberman is a true believer in this war," says Trifecta. "He may be scorned, but as idiotic as his views are, I genuinely believe these are his views.
"Hillary on the other hand is simply unbelievable. She protested Vietnam, knows this war was a stupid mistake, but is so damned cynical that she is engaging in this twisted posturing, all to serve her personal interests. . .
The Kos Hillary slam concludes: "Shame on her. Shame on the Democratic Party if they ever nominate her."
thanx. ;)
They're on her payroll.
Nah. They're joking right?
/sarcasm
tee hee
This guy thionks of things the Clintons are capable of: From what I have seen they are capable of most anything from murder to rape.. They have no qualms about firing 50 or so people because they want to replace them with their own, Bill fired every republican in the attorney generals office, might I mention Vince Foster ,stolen FBI papers.
Isn't it funny how so many of Lieberman's "core" values changed so drastically when he became Gore's running mate.
Politicians can and will pander to any group at any time if it benefits them.
The short memories of the American voter is what keeps our politicians in office. Will Rogers.
Damn, I was afraid of this. Are the 'regular' democrats finally waking up to the fact that the far left has taken over their party? Sure hope not.
And isn't it funny how so many Freepers forgot that point and praised Lieberman for his recent statements...
We sure have short memories. Damn, I forgot what I was going to say next...
It's the Reagan Dems who won't touch Hillie with a ten foot pole.
Well then they should follow her around and tell her
Sing it loud ... sing it proud
All the better for the FReeps that will be plaguing her as well :-).
Watch out on this ... . . Dems will use this to create the illusion of Hillary being a moderate....but for now, it is sweet!
Hillary's ACU rating the last few years is 0.
Hillary votes with Barbara Boxer 99 percent of the time.
Hillary didn't even vote for Roberts.
Hillary will never be able to run from her senate voting record. She is a militant leftist moonbat.
If you look at Hillary's voting record the last 5 years it screams out raging liberal.
"The Daily Kos - the political web site widely read by the party's base - is urging Democrats to move beyond Mrs. Clinton and her husband, declaring: "Shame on the Democratic Party if they ever nominate her" for president."
Well 15 of the least 15 Democrats targeted for support by KOS lost. That's probably not the wing of the Democratic party Hillary wants most behind her.
The sad thing is that what she perceives as "running to the right" has a lot to do with censorship rather than truly being more conservative.
bump
jla, when push comes to shove, I don't believe you will place that de facto vote for these two dangerous creatures. I understand how badly you want a conservative president, but you know that we don't have the luxury in this critical, post-9/11 election to address the chronic problems. We must address the acute ones. Or the patient will die.
1776, 1812 and the latter half of the 20 c. were equally perilous times. (Did you know that a few Russian generals lobbied for a nuclear first strike against the U.S. in the 80s?). Surprisingly, Washington, Madison, and Reagan were also Christians and managed to lead the nation onto a victorious, and virtuous, pathway despite some sounding the clarion call of expediency and insisting that we 'temporarily' abandon our nation's idealism in order to subdue a threatening menace.
The aforementioned gentlemen chose the right course of action, as they very well knew that morality and Judeo-Christian ethos were/are not incompatible with the security of this country.
In my opinion, if HRC wins in '08 it will be on account of the GOP nominating a Giuliani-type candidate. Don't wish to see HRC sitting in the oval office? Then the conservative, true conservative, candidate should get your vote.
Reap what you sow.
I have to also say that you don't mask your disdain and contempt for Christian conservatives all that well. Some may even take it as a very personal, and undeserving, insult.
I do believe you are correct and you bear repeating. When did we ever trust what the left is saying....SheBeast is trying to pick up the moderate demos while the left is playing their little game to help her.
I'm surprised that you would say this, jla. I don't have distain for Christian Conservatives. You are missing my point.
What I do have distain for is ANYONE putting his personal beliefs and wants ahead of the defense of this country and the safety of our children. ( I believe your argument for doing so isn't even consistent with your stated values: voting for hillary is the ultimate act against life.)
My feelings for the CC or anyone on the right who would place a de facto vote for hillary is no different from my feelings for my jewish brethren who vote for her. Is there any reason I should give the former a pass? If anything, the CC deserves more scorn because, UNLIKE UNINFORMED AND DISINFORMED LEFTIST JEWS, THE CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES UNDERSTAND WELL THE DANGER OF THE CLINTONS.
NOTE: I am not arguing for Giuliani here. I am not arguing for a secularist. What I am arguing for is VOTING FOR HILLARY'S OPPONENT, WHOEVER THAT PERSON MAY BE. (It may be a conservative or moderate, it may be a Christian, it may be an Italian or a Jew. It may be pro-life or it may be pro-choice. I don't care which.)
What I am trying to say is that it would be the height of irresponsibility to place a de facto vote for hillary clinton.
As for 1776 or 1812, total annihilation wasn't a possibility, so I put those eras aside. In the cold war, MAD and a nuclear bipolar world maintained rational actors and limited threat.Today's post-9/11 world, OTOH, is asymmetric, not rationally based and the threat is unlimited.
Post-clinton, post-Watson and Crick, anyone can put together an A-bomb or a dirty bomb or a biological WMD. And with global travel, anyone can place it anywhere. And the islamofascist terrorists want to do all of it.
So, I don't agree with your premise that the era of terrorism has an analog in history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.