dugg

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_tells_us_why_she_shouldn_t_be_president

Jay -
Advise those reading this post to go check out the comments at that link. There's a real head-scratcher of a comment from someone named 'Lori', then they just take off from there. It's worth the trip over.

Okay, Jay, since you asked for it...

"Hillary is going to run a platform of how she is the smartest woman in the world and the only one competent to be President."

Just don't spew your morning beverage all over your monitor, please.

i'm voting for her solely on the fact she's a woman! it doesn't matter what she believes. it's time for a woman president.

Yes, Giacomo, worth the read.....for why Clinton won't make it without MSM whoring themselves into irrelevancy.
====================

The problem is that quite a few dimmers believe her. Says something about that party. ww

She can't be president...she has cankles. Big ones.

Of course her lame "I thought they were just weapons inspectors" excuse is completely blown out of the water if you simply read her Oct. 10, 2002 Senate floor speech explaining why she is voting for the resolution.

She is pathetic.

Jay, your list should also include "I want to take those [oil company] profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund."

I liked the comment about a 'critical mass' of Americans who are skeptical of Clinton's probity. Bill was a likeable liar; Hillary has only the lying part.
=======================

Wow Mike, that speech is so redolent with doublespeak it's diabolical. The title of the speech barely meets the text halfway. A classic Hillary obfuscation.

A nice little irony is that some of the disdain felt by leading Democrats for Bush is that he is not too clever by half, as so many of them are.
==============================

Like alot of liberals I really wish Hillary were a Republican. (is it not too late?). I feel almost as uncomfortable as if Winnie Mandela were running in place of Nelson Mandela for President.

What's down right hilarious (in an 'oh shit' kinda way) is that the same people who were in such a lather about about the wiretapping of foreign calls to the U.S. will cheerfully vote for someone like Hillary.

Yet, anyone capable of putting aside partisan politics will realize that Hillary's plans ("we've got what it takes to take what you've got") result in MUCH more intrusion of government in the lives of the average citizen.

The following quote from Justice Louic Brandeis summarizes the point well:

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

/grumble about proof reading.

..Justice Louis Brandeis...

Does anyone have the full context of those quotes? I don't have enough information in Jay's post to judge them one way or the other.

SC, that was masterful, the Mandela analogy.
======================

"We're not coming to you, many of whom are well enough off that actually the tax cuts may have helped you, and say 'we're going to give you more.' We're saying, 'you know what, for America to get back on track and be fiscally responsible, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

OK. The context of the first quote is with relation to tax cuts and fiscal responsibility.

In the second quote, exactly which kind of choices is she referring to? I know it has something to do with healthcare, but what specifically?

Any more info would be appreciated.

_Mike_

The Brandeis quote is one that comes to my mind when I think about the Patriot (sic) Act.

Pubicus..only a moonbat could connect Brandeis' quote with the patriot act. Maybe you could also apply it to traffic stops, or airport security, or gay marriage?

If Hillary was indead briefed on the contents of the act instead of reading it, then she needs to fire her staff for incompetence.

Publicus:
The Brandeis quote is one that comes to my mind when I think about the Patriot (sic) Act.

So you honestly think that people don't have a natural aversion to government intrusion into their privacy ? Wouldn't all of the loud objections against the Patriot Act serve as proof that there does exist a natural aversion ? And what is it the well-meaning fail to understand w.r.t to the Act ?

I believe that to which Justice Brandeis was referring were the more subtle intrusion of government where the intents were good but the results bad due to a failure to understand some basic concept.

For instance, min. wage laws, rent control laws, and various social programs. All are enacted with good intents and all produces results that are counter to the intent due to a failure of the advocates to understand the full economic implications of their actions.

_Mike_

Judge Brandeis was a liberal, so I'm not so sure you understand him better than I do. His original "Brandeis brief" was a study of work conditions presented as an argument for more liberal labor laws----opposed to long working hours for women. So he wasn't opposed to government regulation or acts of "social policy".

Of course, one of the problems with the Patriot Act is that it puts a great amount of unchecked power in the executive branch...with the benevolent intent of protecting us from terrorists.

metprof--

Aside from calling me a name, do you have an ARGUMENT for your position about the meaning of Judge Brandeis' quote?

Publicus:
Judge Brandeis was a liberal, so I'm not so sure you understand him better than I do.

Judge Bradeis was a liberal in the classical sense; he was most certainly NOT a Liberal in the modern, 'Hillary Clinton' sense. As to how that would affect either of our understandings of the dangers of well-meaning men, I can't see it.

His original "Brandeis brief" was a study of work conditions presented as an argument for more liberal labor laws----opposed to long working hours for women. So he wasn't opposed to government regulation or acts of "social policy".

You're confusing the man and the argument. Regardless of how well or not Brandeis may have adhered to the above stated belief, it doesn't change the merit of the argument.

As I said before, I believe the vocal protest against the Patriot Act serves as proof that it's less dangerous than many of the well-meaning government intrusions of which Hillary is an advocate which generate much less ire.

As I said before, I believe the vocal protest against the Patriot Act serves as proof that it's less dangerous than many of the well-meaning government intrusions of which Hillary is an advocate which generate much less ire.

When Hillary or someone else declares you an enemy combatant and makes you disappear, you'll get a different view of the executive powers provided by the "Patriot" Act.

Publicus:
When Hillary or someone else declares you an enemy combatant and makes you disappear, you'll get a different view of the executive powers provided by the "Patriot" Act.

How many people do you personally know, or even through acquaintance, have been made 'disappear' ?

The Patriot Act also has a sunset clause which none of the other more pervasive plans for which Hillary is an advocate have any such Sunset and as such become a permanent blight on the country for generations.

Pubicus, are admitting to being a moonbat???

Yes, we've had quite a problem with US citizens being declared enemy combatants and disappearing.....

And for the non-US citizens, they get sent to gitmo where they're treated better than any enemy combatants in the history of warfare. You might spend some time researching how Saddam treated his detainees. Just a tad worse than making them form a naked human pyramid. Regardless of what Saddam did to them, THANK GOD the poor Iraqi people weren't exposed to the dreaded patriot act.

btw, can you give us some examples of how the evil patriot act has infringed on your rights, (and please, no DU talking points or examples, only YOUR experiences).

Naw, didn't think so.

But I know, your compassion is showing

How many people do you personally know, or even through acquaintance, have been made 'disappear' ?

So, since I don't know anyone who's disappeared, then it's okay to give this power to the president?

btw, can you give us some examples of how the evil patriot act has infringed on your rights, (and please, no DU talking points or examples, only YOUR experiences).

I'm not Japanese and I wasn't interred during WWII, so I guess I've got to be in favor of that, too.

And for the non-US citizens, they get sent to gitmo where they're treated better than any enemy combatants in the history of warfare.

The alleged "dirty bomber" guy was a U.S. citizen. Besides, try getting a lawyer and a hearing to prove that you're a U.S. citizen once you've disappeared...

I wouldn't go so far as to defend Hillary, but Americans have shown with the last mid term, that they want something better than the current status quo. Although not Bush's doing, I see a lot of jobs leaving the US, and thats BAD for the economy. Not to mention unpatriotic. I don't see anyone in the Bush Administration giving any incentives for corporations to keep jobs here in the US. Bush does nothing. Capitalism is not necessarily a self correcting system, sometimes bad trends need to be halted for the good of the nation. Whats next? farming out military defense contracting to China? How about Iran? Whoever is cheapest.
As far as metprof's comment about the dreaded Patriot Act, I don't have any personal examples because I have not been arrested recently. When its Federal, its a whole new ballgame. The danger lies in handing the Fed that kind of power. Its wide open for abuse, it human nature. Many provisions violate the 4th Amendment.Its being used indiscriminately. We have our rights not only to protect us from false accusation, but it also is the best insurance we can come up with, that the guilty get a fair trial and receive what they deserve. Without probable cause, if we just rely on the government to determine whats reasonable, you really cannot be sure the guilty are being punished. This is basic stuff, why does it even need to be explained? If you don't appreciate the rights you have guarenteed in the Bill of Rights, I'm sure there is someone entrenched in government who would be more than happy to see you loose them.

Sal, you'll readily give up to your merchants who'd take your property, what you'd not allow your soldiers, who'd defend your life? You've already yielded far more privacy through datamining to corporations than you have to your government.
============================

Now you may argue that there is a difference between private entities and the government and you may argue that you are complicit and willing in one case and not in the other, and you'd have two points. But just how willing have you been in the datamining by your merchants, and just how invasive has the government been? And who's damaged you?
=================================

I've been a pretty loyal Democratic voter for about 28 years now but I'm sick and tired of the way the Democratic party machine people are trying to force Hillary Clinton down our throats. I didn't join the Dems b/c I wanted to glorify the political portfolios of handlers like James Carville or burnish the credentials of the Clintons-- I joined the Dems because the Dems, unlike the alternative, tended to be both more competent and more committed to progressive causes.

Instead, in Hillary Clinton, we have a committed friend of big business and a dangerous opponent of organized labor and workers' rights-- that's why she's Rupert Murdoch's best buddy in New York these days. She's even in favor of providing further incentives to help e.g. technology companies that are outsourcing jobs to India or killing the salaries of US tech workers with H1-B visas. Even John Edwards, who's also been a big Iraq War supporter, is much better on the domestic front and a more reliable friend of American workers. Hillary has also supported stupid conservative causes like a flag-burning amendment.

Hillary is also a committed warmonger who not only backed the war in Iraq in 2002 but has been a committed backer of that war in the years since, blocking even investigations of the awful fraud undertaken by American contractors there, while she also now pushes for war against Iran and yaps at European countries (like France, Germany and Austria) that oppose the participation of NATO in such US imperialistic gambits.

I don't vote for the Dems just to help their elites. If the Dems are dumb enough to nominate Hillary Clinton, I won't vote for her, period.

And I don't care whether they yap at me for "enabling Giuliani" or some crap like that. Giuliani may be annoying but he's tolerable, especially with a Democratic Congress to check him. What's intolerable is having a "Democrat" in office like Hillary who in fact is nothing more than a poser and a front for big business and the military-industrial complex-- and who would if anything continue to help suppress progressive causes in later elections as well.

We should probably nominate Barack Obama. He's not only charismatic but very, very smart. And even if the Rethuglicans try to Swift-Boat him and prevail in 2008, Obama is the type of guy who's tough enough that he'd be back 4 years later-- and prevail then.

Growler, you don't know from nuthin' about the Swiftboats, and your Obama is a callow, and hypocritical, youth. Why not Gephart? A Gephart/Kucinich ticket in '04 would have won Missouri and Ohio and not lost a blue state.

Dick would be in Moscow, sneering at Ahmadinejad, and Dennis would be in Paris, charming the French into liking Americans again. Who could ask for anything more?
===============================