Hillary Clinton told a New York City fundraiser crowd Wednesday that “you can always tell when the Republicans are getting restless, because the vice president’s motorcade pulls into the Capitol, and Darth Vader emerges.”
Then during Thursday’s AARP forum in Iowa for Democratic candidates, Clinton referred to the “first Clinton administration.”
As MSNBC’s First Read blog noted of the last comment, “talk about growing confidence.” It will come in handy as she does interviews on all five news talk shows Sunday morning.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
38 Comments
Hillary has a long way to go, she has scored a few point in the early half….but can she finish? Then again…the GOP has proven to be as corrupt as any other party in history and down right wrong on this failed war effort, so how much will it take for any Democrat to win. Hillary with Barack Obama and or John Edwards can bet the smooth Mormon aka Mr. Plastic and even the Regan “wan na be”. We have to mention Sam Brownback who is actually Greg Brady’s twin…Sammy, Johnny Bravo you are not!
Good luck Hillary, it time for a women to fix what George and company screwed up!
Like I said- I do not like Hillary especially but if she is the nominee- which is looking inevitable- I will support her. Any Democrat is better than any Republican but some Democrats are better than other Democrats.
My guess is that Hillary will not pick Edwards or Obama to be her VP. Neither of them can bring a red state to her column. She will go with either somebody from Ohio, Evan Byah, Bill Richarson or another swing stater.
A lot will depend on whether the republicans can run the clock out on the war and the coming recession. Looks like Bush has a lock on the war. A recession, maybe not so much. If it hits before the election, republicans are toast. If not, republicans will blame it on the next administration. Never mind that it’ll be the Bush recession.
XXX – the continuing war will be hung around each and every Republic’s neck – from Senate to dog catcher. America does not want this endless war; hopefully they will make that clear at the polls.
America has apparently decided that we like royal families. Must be that groveling serfdom attitude.
What are the odds that the best qualified people to serve as president for the last 20 years coming from two families?
Great observation Outlander —
counting Hillary in 08 for 2 terms and it’s almost 3 decades —- the question then is are we any better off after the first 2 decades of monarchy? Not at all —- America has been raped and pillaged by the people we have elected —- TIME FOR A BIG CHANGE / OVERHAUL
XXX – the continuing war will be hung around each and every Republic’s neck – from Senate to dog catcher. America does not want this endless war; hopefully they will make that clear at the polls.
Posted by: Ben | September 22, 2007 at 09:15 AM
Hang around it my neck if you want to.
We always fight for those who don’t want to and or too scared to do so.
“We always fight for those who don’t want to and or too scared to do so.”
Speak for yourself, whatever. If for one minute I thought you understood the implications of what’s happeneing in the middle east, I might have some reason to hold conversation with you. But you are so far out in right field that home plate is on another planet; in your case, Uranus.
Both XXX and myself have personal knowledge of what war is, and what it does. WW1? had to; WW2; had to; Korea? not; Viet Nam? not; Afghanistan? had to; Iraq? not!!!
The last person I would want fighting for me is some cracker, such as youself. I can fight my own battles, and have done so since birth.
But if you wish to hang it all around your neck, please feel free to do so with a short rope and a long drop:-)
Hillary for president!!!!
I wonder … if Hillary gets elected will Econ get even more upset than he did with Raj Goyle thrashed Bonnie Huy?
The last person I would want fighting for me is some cracker, such as youself. I can fight my own battles, and have done so since birth.Posted by: stumper | September 22, 2007 at 01:33 PM
Ditto, Stumper.Kansas served during a war, but never really fought in a war. He was never in the face to face shooting part. He talks pretty tough considering he spent his time in the rear or way up above where the real fighting took place.
If there’s any question about Kansas’s bravery just ask him…he’s more than glad to tell you about it.
“We always fight for those who don’t want to and or too scared to do so.”
Posted by: Kansas | September 22, 2007 at 12:50 PM
And for those who are stupid, and/or ignorant.
If more Americans had known the facts, and the very likely consequences (the situation today, four years later) they might have prevented Bush’s invasion.
I thought Kansas said he was a vet.
Oh KANSAS…what’s the story man. Will the real JM/Republican please step forward.
P_Mom, Kansas may be a vet; he’s just not a combat vet. At any rate, it’s hard to tell what he is.
As you may have noticed, he has a penchant for lying.
Hillary…
I don’t know. I just don’t know.
28 years of two families controlling the White House….troubles me.
Also? The right is SO SEEMINGLY against her. It’s almost like a briar patch thing. “Please don’t give us Hillary!”
Yeah, but she still can’t give good head.
Yeah, but she still doesn’t give good head.
The continuing war will be hung around each and every democrat’s neck – from Senate to dog catcher. America does not want this endless war; hopefully they will make that clear at the polls.
On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )October 11, 2002, 12:50 AMA joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
The continuing war will be hung around each and every democrat’s neck – from Senate to dog catcher. America does not want this endless war; hopefully they will make that clear at the polls.
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[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.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
“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.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
“There is no doubt that . 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 redefine 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.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
“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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 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.”Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“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 . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
“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.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“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. 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.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 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. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
“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. 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.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Sigh…
Hey “YYY”?
Some dems were wrong.
At least THEY are trying to correct their mistakes and not voting for more of the same.
YYY – “the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein”
What part of IF NECESSARY can you not comprehend? The resolution led to Saddam allowing UN inspectors back in. They conformed that the “intelligence” being used by Bush was FALSE.
Therefore the use of force was NOT NECESSARY.
By the way – how is that WMD search going?
J R – the thing the Dems did that was wrong was to entrust BushDaBum with authority to use force without realizing that he did not comprehend the meaning of IF NECESSARY.
“At least THEY are trying”
How are they trying? Doesn’t cut it. They voted to go to war. They are no different than repukes. Any one of them who voted for this damn war needs to be thrown OUT of office. Stop the bullshit tap-dancing, trying to deflect blame away from themselves. They voted, they know it – and we the voter knows it.
Throw all the rascals out!!!
Alot of them also voted this week “YYY”
It takes 60 votes.
They voted to allow the troops leave time equal to deployed time.
The Republicans blocked that.
They voted to begin removing troops.
Republicans blocked that too.
I wonder how much longer Republicans will try and convince people they are the party that supports the military. Clearly, they are not.
I didn’t hear any squeals coming from ANY congress person when we invaded. They were for it 100%.
Necessary is just a word. They KNEW when the voted what Bushy wanted to do. They K-N-E-W that Bush would lead us to war.
They even made political statement in SUPPORT of the war.
You can’t lie your way out of that.
They ALL took America’s finest men and women and placed them in harms way.
They ALL read the same intelligence. You can play that card over and over again (ho-hum), but it doesn’t come out clean for ANY of them.
They are guilty and America NEEDS to remember ALL OF THEM.
Why is this so important? Because the message we will send is:
WE DON’T CARE WHAT YOUR PARTY, IF YOU VOTE FOR WAR WITHOUT ALL THE DETAILS, IF YOU AUTHORIZE USE OF FORCE AND AMERICAN LIVES WITHOUT FULLY COMPRENDING THE CONSEQUENCES – YOU WILL NOT BE REELECTED.
This is the ONLY way we can keep it from happening again.
Open your eyes. The two big parties are playing the citizens like two football teams. They NEED us to oppose each other, and caste blame. It covers their own guilt.
But it is all wrong. An Aye vote for war – is a NO BALLOT for me.
“They voted to allow the troops leave time equal to deployed time.”
That doesn’t do SQUAT. It does NOT end the war – one little bit.It does not stop the killing. It is what is commonly called, “fluff”.
It is only micro-managing the professional military leaders use of force. Nothing more.
Your party threw you a tidbit, in hopes of garnering your support. Had they won, it would not have moved us one bit closer to final withdrawal.
“They voted to allow the troops leave time equal to deployed time.”
That doesn’t do SQUAT. It does NOT end the war – one little bit.Posted by: YYY | September 22, 2007 at 06:07 PM
Well, actually it does do “squat”. It gives troops equal time back in the states and hopefully keeps them from going nuts.
Why do you hate our troops, YYY?
P_Mom, Kansas may be a vet; he’s just not a combat vet. At any rate, it’s hard to tell what he is.
As you may have noticed, he has a penchant for lying.
Posted by: XXX | September 22, 2007 at 04:47 PM
No, wasn’t a ground pounder like XXX, I was in the Air Force as a crew member. I was in the first Gulf War and was in part of several missions over and around Iraq. That’s where I was injured and got a purple heart awarded.
Grunts like XXX never give the Air Force any credit for combat unless they are needing some ordinance dropped on their location to save their dirt eating asses from overwhelming enemy. :)
“”"”A lot will depend on whether the republicans can run the clock out on the war and the coming recession. Looks like Bush has a lock on the war. A recession, maybe not so much. If it hits before the election, republicans are toast. If not, republicans will blame it on the next administration. Never mind that it’ll be the Bush recession.”"”
I doubt we will see a recession anytime in the next several years and, if we do, it will be shallow and short. The American economy is simply too diversified to cycle like it did in the industrial era and trouble in one sector does less damage to the economy than it used to. Back in the 70s, $3 gasoline and a housing slump would have been bad news for the economy as the effects spread throughout the economy but now most of us just shrug it off and go to work. I do however think that next year will be much slower than this year and we may see GNP fall to 2 or 3% increases next year. But that is still an increase. The bigger threat on the horizon is inflation. If the Fed keeps devaluing the US dollar you will see imports get more expensive and since much of what we buy comes from other nations, we may see a return to inflation next year or year after.
Grunts like XXX never give the Air Force any credit for combat unless they are needing some ordinance dropped on their location to save their dirt eating asses from overwhelming enemy. :)
Posted by: Kansas | September 22, 2007 at 08:42 PM
That’s because we knew better than to call the Air Farce when we needed close support. We had Marine and Navy pilots who could hit something besides us.
My step-brother (Cam Ranh Bay) told me the AF did mainly ’strategic’ (high-altitude) bombing and the Marines and Navy did the tactical support.
While stationed at Danang in ‘65, I was well aware of the fact we, the Air Force, used to fly cover for the Marine and Navy pilots!
Damn, first XXX, then the troll-tagalong, YYY. What next, ZZZ? Which reminds me . . . nap time.
Zzzzz eyes of Texas are upon you!
Well, actually it does do “squat”. Posted by: XXX
Stay with the subject matter triple X. I know that is difficult for an 0311, but please try your best. Unlike you, I had to spell my first and LAST name correctly to pass enlistment.
The public needs to know if Hillary is 100% with us. Why did Bill resort to sex (oops sorry/not sex) with Monica? Was Hillary not putting out? Did she refuse oral sex and Bill craved it? Normally, a husband does not have to seek satisfaction outside a loving relationship with his wife. What is wrong with Hillary?
This could affect her ability to serve. She will have the black box for goodness sake. We cannot have her firing up a vibrator and messing with the signals.
Staying with the subject seems to be subjective when responding to trolls, such as: YYY, whatever, ZZZ, Max, and the latest moron, Right question. But then again, why answer back at them, they’re neo-cons, ergo, worthless, useless, and stupid.