Democratic Base 'Ashamed' of Hillary Clinton

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."

What I do have disdain for is ANYONE putting his personal beliefs and wants ahead of the defense of this country and the safety of our children.

So do you really hold disdain for those who place the dictates and laws of God above secular ambitions? Millions of Christians are just supposed to throw up their arms and say, "God can wait, we have to defeat Hillary!"?
Let me ask you, when does this browbeating end of those who state they'll vote their conscience and stand by their principles? Tell me, what happens post-Hillary? Do you honestly believe a like-minded liberal won't replace her in 2012, 2016, 2020...? Are we just supposed to accept the status quo and fall in line every four years, abandon our deep-held beliefs, and vote for a non-conservative candidate solely on the premise to defeat the evil liberal?
You can call Christian conservatives 'foolish' and hold as much disdain for them as you wish, because they are in pretty good company when it comes to knowing what's not only truly important, but what this country is in dire need of.

“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible”

"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" --- George Washington

"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them" --- Jedediah Morse

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God” --- James Madison

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever” --- Thomas Jefferson

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers” --- John Jay

"Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged --- Ronald Reagan

( I believe your argument for doing so isn't even consistent with your stated values: voting for hillary is the ultimate act against life.)

"voting for Hillary"? I won't bother to rebut this ludicrous insult.

My feelings for the CC or anyone on the right who would place a de facto vote for hillary...

No, it is you, and all who will vote for a liberal-republican, who will be placing a de facto vote for HRC. As I said before, prepare to reap what you sow.

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.)

You're not being up front here. You have stated that you do not believe a conservative, a true conservative, (and by definition that would be one who is pro-life), can beat HRC. You said it regarding the senate race in NY and you said regarding a potential race for the presidency. You've stated that a pro-life candidate would surely lose vs. HRC. Of course, though, you are wrong.
I'd be interested to know though, do you, personally, believe abortion to be the killing of a human life? And the question's relevant, as it's answer will explain your mindset, hence some reasoning to your thought process.

What I am trying to say is that it would be the height of irresponsibility to place a de facto vote for hillary clinton.

I agree. So be responsible and vote for the conservative in the GOP primaries that will go on to defeat HRC in the general election. See, it really isn't as difficult as you seem to strive to make this out to be.

As for 1776 or 1812, total annihilation wasn't a possibility, so I put those eras aside.

And how exactly are we now in danger of "total annihilation? My examples of 1776 and 1812 are very germane, (I notice you passed over the Soviet threat in the 1980s. Perhaps the GOP should have elected Phil Crane or Howard Baker instead of that pesky, Bible believing, pro-life Reagan). The British, if they'd had been victorious, would have shot or hung a good percentage of Americans, especially males. Those left alive would have suffered a fate much akin to the Irish in the 17 c. under Cromwell.

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.

I apologize, but I don't the faintest clue what this means. (In other words, you're talking over my head.)

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.

1. This doesn't translate into "total annihilation"
2. Vote for the conservative candidate in the GOP primary and you won't have to worry if I'm wrong in number 1.

So, I don't agree with your premise that the era of terrorism has an analog in history.

OK.

I hope you can excuse my bluntness and somewhat aggitated state. I don't take too kindly to myself, and millions of others, being labled "foolish" because we've the audacity to think God's way just might be correct.
It seems we agree on the destination, but at odds on what roadmap to use in getting there.

I don't consider the defense of this country and the safety of our children "secular ambitions." it is you, and all who will vote for a liberal-republican, who will be placing a de facto vote for HRC This doesn't make any sense jla. I am talking general election. (The primary result will necessarily disappoint some faction of the GOP. I am starting from there, assuming the worst, from your perspective.) We will have a choice between hillary clinton (if she becomes the nominee) and the GOP candidate, who may be conservative or may be moderate. If the latter and you don't vote, or vote for a third party, it is you who is placing a de facto vote for hillary. I believe ideology alone--or the abortion issue, alone-- won't be the dispositive variable. Certain candidates on either side of the issue can win, in my view, and certain candidates on either side will likely lose. For example, I think either pro-choice Giuliani or pro-life Mitt Romney can win. What both men have in common are: a reputation for executive competence, (critical in this post-9/11, post-Katrina world), an articulateness (sorely missing today but critical for a president, especially now with the permanent 24/7 old media-Democrat anti-American agitprop), appeal across the political spectrum that derives primarily from an affect that exudes tolerance for views different from theirs. (Note that Ronald Reagan possessed all three of these qualities.) By my calculation, the cold war includes '80s. MAD (mutually assured destruction) worked in the cold war because we had two nuclear powers who were rational actors. Today, thanks in large part to the idiot clintons, (who, in a mindless, often corrupt, but always self-serving frenzy, shoveled our atomic secrets out the door for years), we have a threat that is virtually unlimited, is asymmetric (i.e., there is a huge power differential), and is not rationally based; hence, mutually assured destruction is no longer a deterrent. Finally, nowhere do I attack anyone as foolish because of his religious beliefs. You are creating straw men. MITT ROMNEY Why I vetoed contraception bill By Mitt Romney | July 26, 2005 YESTERDAY I vetoed a bill that the Legislature forwarded to my desk. Though described by its sponsors as a measure relating to contraception, there is more to it than that. The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception. Signing such a measure into law would violate the promise I made to the citizens of Massachusetts when I ran for governor. I pledged that I would not change our abortion laws either to restrict abortion or to facilitate it. What's more, this particular bill does not require parental consent even for young teenagers. It disregards not only the seriousness of abortion but the importance of parental involvement and so would weaken a protection I am committed to uphold. I have spoken with medical professionals to determine whether the drug contemplated under the bill would simply prevent conception or whether it would also terminate a living embryo after conception. Once it became clear that the latter was the case, my decision was straightforward. I will honor the commitment I made during my campaign: While I do not favor abortion, I will not change the state's abortion laws. I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth. I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate. Because Massachusetts is decidedly prochoice, I have respected the state's democratically held view. I have not attempted to impose my own views on the prochoice majority. For all the conflicting views on this issue, it speaks well of our country that we recognize abortion as a problem. The law may call it a right, but no one ever called it a good, and, in the quiet of conscience people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America. You can't be a prolife governor in a prochoice state without understanding that there are heartfelt and thoughtful arguments on both sides of the question. Many women considering abortions face terrible pressures, hurts, and fears; we should come to their aid with all the resourcefulness and empathy we can offer. At the same time, the starting point should be the innocence and vulnerability of the child waiting to be born. In some respects, these convictions have evolved and deepened during my time as governor. In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead -- to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or a commodity to be exploited. I have also observed the bitterness and fierce anger that still linger 32 years after Roe v. Wade. The majority in the US Supreme Court's Casey opinion assured us this would pass away as Americans learned to live with abortion on demand. But this has proved a false hope. There is much in the abortion controversy that America's founders would not recognize. Above all, those who wrote our Constitution would wonder why the federal courts had peremptorily removed the matter from the authority of the elected branches of government. The federal system left to us by the Constitution allows people of different states to make their own choices on matters of controversy, thus avoiding the bitter battles engendered by ''one size fits all" judicial pronouncements. A federalist approach would allow such disputes to be settled by the citizens and elected representatives of each state, and appropriately defer to democratic governance. Except on matters of the starkest clarity like the issue of banning partial-birth abortions, there is not now a decisive national consensus on abortion. Some parts of the country have prolife majorities, others have prochoice majorities. People of good faith on both sides of the issue should be able to make and advance their case in democratic forums -- with civility, mutual respect, and confidence that democratic majorities will prevail. We will never have peace on the abortion issue, much less a consensus of conscience, until democracy is allowed to work its way. Mitt Romney is governor of Massachusetts.

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.

Why I vetoed contraception bill