HRC has just written a glowing review of Kissinger's new book. STILL think we should nominate her?

[Ken Burch]

(note: read this link first, THEN take the poll.)

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/hillary-clinton-henry-kissinger-world-order

Corollary question: if you supported her until you read the link, does this change anything for you? If so, why? If not, why not?

32 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, we should STILL nominate her. This totally doesn't matter.
	6 (19%)
	We should probably still nominate her, but this bothers me some.
	0 (0%)
	We probably shouldn't nominate her now, but she could still redeem herself somehow
	1 (3%)
	We absolutely shouldn't nominate her now.
	25 (78%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[DisgustipatedinCA]

1. I didn't support a Clinton candidacy until just a few minutes ago.

A few minutes ago, I read that Clinton praising Kissinger was bad, but we need to forget about that, because Chris Matthews (!!?!)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025494628#post13

[Politicalboi]

2. This and sniper fire

Get my goat. But compared to ANY GOP asshole, she has my vote.

[yeoman6987]

6. I read some of the comments

At the bottom of the article and if she is nominated SOME have said the would vote Green or some other party. And some even said they would vote for Rand Paul. Yieks! Either we need to ensure she doesn't get the nomination or if she does vote for her. The alternative might be worse.

[Metric System]

69. People on the internets said that? Oh noes! Good thing polls say otherwise...

[Baitball Blogger]

73. Yeah, because pollsters have really proven to be objective, accurate and reliable.

[Ken Burch]

18. This isn't about her vs. a Repug. It's about nominating her at all.

Do you still see her as an acceptable Democratic nominee after this?

[Arugula Latte]

3. Ugh. The Clintons never fail to piss me off.

[MelungeonWoman]

4. I honestly do not understand why everyone thinks she's a shoe-in.

She was the only viable choice the last time and instead we picked a black guy with a funny name. She hasn't gotten any fresher in the last eight years.

Don't get me wrong, I'd support her in the general if she got the nod. I just don't see it happening.

[XemaSab]

12. She's been in the public eye for 23 years

If people don't like her now, they're not going to start liking her in the next 2 years.

[VanillaRhapsody]

26. what gives you the idea that people in general don't like her?

the polls seem to indicate otherwise.....

[4b5f940728b232b034e4]

40. Maybe he hangs-out with Republicans?

That would certainly explain their biased view.

And about the book. Just because a person is bad doesn't mean that a book about them is bad. Inside Hitler's Bunker: The Last Days of the Third Reich was about Hitler, but it was still a great book.

[XemaSab]

42. HA

Most of my friends are WAAAAAAAAY to the left.

Like, socialists and vegans and gays and union organizers and whatnot.

WAAAAAAAAY to the left.

[MelungeonWoman]

35. Shoot, I voted for her in the '08 primaries.

I'm in Ohio and that was the first time I could recall my primary vote really mattering, even though the media and all my Obama voting friends were telling me it was pointless. Usually by the time it gets to Ohio it's locked up so it was nice to have a say for once, even though she lost.

Things have changed since '08.

[VanillaRhapsody]

44. You do realize ....Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat right?

You do still remember you are on Democratic Underground right? Do you think you can get away with promoting a Republican for President here too? Would it be okay to promote Jeb Bush on Democratic Underground? Or did Bernie renounce his Socialist party cred and become instead Democrat now?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

76. If you think there's something wrong with that comment, then alert on it. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

77. HA right.....it wasn't the statement

nice try Erich...

[Logical]

38. And a unknown in 2008 took a 30 point lead from her! nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

43. and who do YOU think is going to do that this time?

[Ken Burch]

61. Nobody knew THAT candidate would do it at this point in 2006.

Enough already with the smugness. The race isn't over...and hasn't even started.

You make it sound like it's disloyal to the entire party to not be pro-HRC.

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. So you want to put all your money on another dark horse rising up?

LONG SHOT!


My money is on a proven winner.....

Let me mention this one more time....HRC IS the Democratic frontrunner...IN FACT she has polling NO ONE has ever seen before. She ALSO has polls that show her beating ALL Republican contenders.....She also has the donations to support her race. She ALSO has Elizabeth Warren and all the Ladies of the Senate supporting her candidacy....

but YOU would rather take OUR chances and bet on a long shot...


and " I " shouldn't be so smug

BWHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA



By the way...do you happen to notice that the HRC supporters on DU do not find it necessary to trash any other Democratic potential candidate? Because THAT is how Democrats ACT!

[Logical]

87. LOL, who did YOU think might do it last time? You just....

Do not get that people really don't want her.

[VanillaRhapsody]

91. I think there was Presidential talk for him as soon as he gave that first speech...

want to try again?

As far as who doesn't get it? Don't YOU get that her polling numbers say much different than YOUR statement that nobody wants her....wouldn't you say?

OR are you saying that the polls showing her being ahead....are all Republicans?

[Logical]

93. I saying people like you were claiming she was unbeatable last time. And Obama destroyed her. You...

need to educate yourself. Look at fund raising totals from 2008. Obama DESTROYED her in raising funds also. Shit, she just paid off her campaign debt from 2008 last year. LOL.

Warren would overwhelm her in a debate. I hope she gets a chance to.

[VanillaRhapsody]

94. but YOU see....everything doesn't happen the same way it did last time now DOES IT?

for example...NO one has EVER polled this high this far out of the election.....HOW ABOUT that for different. So if you think a dark horse is going to come out of left field....sorry...that doesn't happen EVERY election.....

OH and Warren is NOT going to run against Hillary Clinton...WHEN are you going to get it through your head....she said she is NOT running.

[whatchamacallit]

83. Because judging by her rhetoric

she's right in line with the people who really run the show. She will be thrust onto us so this multi decade reforming of democracy can continue uninterrupted.

[edgineered]

5. Quelle surprise. nonbhn

[pipoman]

7. She will not get the nomination. ..she loses

Too many left of center and everyone right of center...imo

[VanillaRhapsody]

46. oh really? who?

[pipoman]

67. Anyone who wants change

Doesn't want more of the same corporatism, war, Israeli coddling, free trade, droning, etc.

[VanillaRhapsody]

79. comeon....name names....who has a better chance at winning than HRC?

until you come up with one.....SHE is the force to be reckoned with...

I rest MY case!

[cherokeeprogressive]

81. You rest your case? Thank goodness.

[pipoman]

82. Futility. .

I will vote for the most populist candidate. She has been one of the most divisive personalities in modern politics. Every president with few exceptions has required some support from traditional red states and/or purple states......that's a tough sale for her.

[Motown_Johnny]

8. Just one more brick in the wall for me.

Her impassioned plea for the Iraq war (not just her vote for it) along with Snipergate disqualify her for Commander in Chief (IMO).

Sec. of State doesn't help her either. We don't vote our top diplomats to be the head of our military in this country. I am not against it, but in the modern era it has never happened. I can't see HRC being the first.

I honestly hope she can see beyond the bubble of ass kissing underlings who must be encouraging her. She really is not a strong candidate, she just has a strong political machine. That is not the same thing.


If she wins the nomination she has my vote, but it is very unlikely that I will support her for the nomination.

[AnalystInParadise]

9. Yes better her than EW

I would like to win some states outside of New England and the Pacific Coast.

[Ken Burch]

10. Do you assume that every other state wants our nominee

to agree with Henry Kissinger on foreign policy?

Most Americans are AGAINST war crimes and war criminals.

[LeftyMom]

16. Wasting keystrokes on that one. nt

[AnalystInParadise]

25. Why would you say that?

Have something to say to me?

[LeftyMom]

27. Because I can read. And not really. nt

[AnalystInParadise]

41. Ahhh defamation

by obtuse declaration. Let me know how that works out for you.

[AnalystInParadise]

24. I assume

most states want to win an election with the best candidate possible, not a repeat of McGovern.

[Ken Burch]

36. She has no claim to any inherent superiority over any other possible Dem candidate.

And McGovern wasn't a bad candidate...it was just that the party regulars stabbed him in the back for daring to win the nomination. The Muskie supporters should have been doubly committed to backing McGovern in the fall, for example...rather than sitting on the hands and rewarding the people who dirty-tricked Muskie out of the race. And Humphrey's supporters should have worked all out(as most Peace Dems did for Humphrey in the fall of '68)rather than passively assist the guy who sent emissaries to the Paris Peace talks to make sure the war didn't end before Election Day.

[VanillaRhapsody]

47. she does have the polling numbers to "claim" doesn't she?

[Ken Burch]

58. So did Ed Muskie, in September of 1970(and I point that out sadly, because I liked Muskie).

If you don't actually get out there and build the organization and actually make a case for WHY people should vote for you, polls aren't anything.

And good polls don't make endorsement of the words and deeds of a war criminal acceptable. If she praises Henry Kissinger, she's not on our side, Vanilla.

Doesn't what she did here bother you in the slightest?

Will you at least call on her to admit that praising Kissinger is inexcusable?

[VanillaRhapsody]

80. NOT HER numbers he didnt....SORRY epic fail!

NO ONE has EVER recorded polling numbers like she has...AND can beat all contenders...

Until YOU have someone who can MAKE THOSE claims.....SHE is our candidate!

I don't "pray" for ANY Democrat to fail......YOU however....

Nuff said!

[Ken Burch]

89. All of that means endorsing everything Kissinger ever did doesn't matter?

It doesn't bother you that that review means she's open to doing all the things that Dr. K did, and worse?

That she has now, clearly, renounced her opposition to the Vietnam War?

It's all about electing someone who calls themself a Dem?

Funny...we settled for that in 1992, and the result was eight years of worthlessness. Eight years in which workers got nothing and the poor actually ended up LOSING GROUND from where they were under Reagan and Bush(which Bill proved he was ok with by signing the hate-based welfare bill).

[Scootaloo]

56. Except all the states Clinton appeals to...

Are already going Republican. She can canoodle with Kissenger all she wants, she can scream for death to Arabs and compare Putin to Hitler al lshe wants, she can even stab Obama in the back like the entire roman senate all she wants. But unless she changes parties, she's not getting the states where that sort of thing holds appeal.

[Kalidurga]

11. Well this changes nothing for me

I never even considered voting for her in the primaries. I want her primaried out if she does run. I would really like to see some new people get involved that have more fire for the working class and who will speak out against the militarazation of LE and inequities that are institutionalized in this country.

[justiceischeap]

13. If it's between her and a repub, I'm voting for her

For all her faults, I can't see her putting another Scalia on the USSC.

[Ken Burch]

15. This was about the question of NOMINATING her, not about the fall.

Totally different discussions on totally different points.

Do you think we should still NOMINATE her after she did this?

It's not like this won't make her support drop in most of the polls.

[justiceischeap]

68. Well, it depends Ken Burch

Who is in the primary against her? This discussion puts the cart before the horse a bit, she still hasn't indicated whether she's going to run or not--the only two possibilities that we're aware of that could also primary are Sanders and Biden. That said, if it's a choice between her and Bernie Sanders, I'm voting to nominate her because Sanders, as much as I'd love to see him as President, hasn't a chance in hell winning. I think Biden has a better chance but I still can't see him winning if his past attempts are any indication.

As far as Kissinger goes... well, Mr. Kerry solicited his advice on Syria. Does that make John Kerry a bad man?

President Obama chose him as a diplomat to Russia as President-elect. We've reelected him.

My point is this, politicians interact with other politicians, whether those politicians are evil (or not) or we agree with them (or not)--it's the nature of the beast. Find me one politician that hasn't said something we disagree with or has praised someone we don't agree with and I'll vote for him or her. There is no politician with clean hands at the national level of politics. I'm going to vote for/nominate the Democratic candidate I think has the best chance of winning the White House--if that's Clinton, I'll hold my nose and do it because the United States Supreme Court is my one issue I'm voting for next time around.

[Rex]

14. People been kissing his ass for decades.

Fools that believe he is a man of the people, kinda like idiots call Reagan the Great Communicator.

Times never change.

[Ken Burch]

17. True...that doesn't mean it doesn't matter, though.

It's impossible to praise Henry Kissinger's foreign policy legacy and have any positive or progressive ideas on foreign policy yourself, if you're a presidential candidate.

At this point, most of the country doesn't even remember the guy...so it's not as if he has any large blocs of potential votes to deliver to anyone-especially to any Dem. Even HRC.

[Rex]

21. I think she thinks she has the oval office in the bag.

As scared as I've seen the GOP this far out and losing big in Congress, they seem more concerned about her and that tells me volumes.

[still_one]

30. You see the GOP scared of losing Congress? Really? where did you see that?

[Rex]

84. Not what I said, reading comprehension skills are in dire need I see.

Read it again, thanks.

[still_one]

85. so educate me, here is your direct quote in the body

"As scared as I've seen the GOP this far out and losing big in Congress, they seem more concerned about her and that tells me volumes."

Perhaps when I work on my compression skills you should work on your writing skills

[libdem4life]

19. I was up for voting against her in the Primaries. Now...well, it has made a difference as to my

thinking about my GE vote. If only someone would stand up, put it out there, take a risk. I knew Warren doesn't have the cravenness one needs to bulldoze in the GE. Bernie is too old and doesn't have it either. If our own party won't take her on...well then, seems we're stuck.

And I'll be G#D#ed if I'll do one thing to let another Bush in the White House. So I guess I'd better pray a lot...but it's getting down to the wire. Not voting, Voting Green or Independent is a vote for Bush or whoever. I may be down, way down, on HC, but not as much as stacking the Supreme Court with Bushites for the rest of my life.

Truth be told, I think she's courting the moderate Republicans. Who knows?

[XemaSab]

20. Yesterday I saw a play about LBJ, "The Great Society"

It was a portrait of a man who had good intentions, but who nevertheless valued political expediency over doing the right thing WAAAAY too often.

We're already sucked into a war in the Middle East; the question is how many troops are we going to throw at it before we decide it's futile?

Hillary seems like she'd be the kind of president who would throw ALL the troops at it.

[still_one]

31. Maybe, but if she did as you say "throw all the troops at it", it would have to be with Congress

[Ken Burch]

62. Not really. She can send 'em in for sixty days without Congressional approval

under the War Powers Act.

Do you honestly think any Congress would dare to not fund the war after she did that?

[still_one]

72. yes

[winter is coming]

22. I voted "pass" because I didn't think we should nominate her before the Kissinger stuff. n/t

[davidpdx]

23. It doesn't change my mind as I was already not going to vote for her in the primary

[still_one]

28. I suspect a lot of folks on DU will have a problem if she becomes the nominee

[LiberalArkie]

70. No, we will hold our nose, eat light and take some pepto before casting out ballot for the Dem.

But I think most of us Liberals are about out of all the hope & change stuff. I used to think that the Republicans would out, but there are enough hateful people to fill those ranks. But I don't think there are enough liberal minded people to keep the Democratic party going.

[MohRokTah]

29. Don't like any of the choices.

This certainly drags her down in my mind, and I've been a Hillary supporter for some time now.

[BlueCaliDem]

32. PASS ~ We should let the primaries nominate or not nominate her. Fair is fair.

Until such time, or until a stronger contender appears on the horizon, I still believe Hillary is our strongest candidate to win the White House from any Republican.

[Ken Burch]

34. By "we", I meant the party in the primaries, not DU alone.

And you knew that.

Stop acting like I was assigning powers to DU or myself that neither deserves.

[BlueCaliDem]

45. Since we're on DU...

... no, I didn't know you meant the Democratic Party as a whole, exclusively, because we don't nominate anyone. Any candidate wishing to become the Democratic president can enter. We separate the wheat from the chaff in the primaries.

And don't get testy. You were the one who misunderstood/misread my post.

[Ken Burch]

59. Obviously, I was referring to the primary process

(and the anti-democratic aspect of the nominating process, in which contests of the popular vote don't decide the race anymore, but the contest is placed in the hands of the hacks...sorry, the "elected officials", who have done just as badly at picking winners as voters in the primaries ever did).

It would probably be better to have a national cyber-primary, held all on the same day.

[VanillaRhapsody]

49. AGREED!

Until the Hillary "dislikers" all come up with a stronger contender.....I don't know about them...but I vote to WIN Democrats.....

[VanillaRhapsody]

50. Um this is Democratic Underground you are at.....WTF does what Bill Clinton is going to do...

have anything to do with this important issue....please explain yourself?

[Major Hogwash]

37. Oh, hell no!

There is little doubt that she doesn't even intend to run now.
She stopped pretending she cares a long time ago.

[ZombieHorde]

39. I don't want to vote for anyone who voted for the Iraq war. nt

[sabrina 1]

48. No, absolutely not. She lives in a different world, she obviously wants to be one of them, the

warmongers, the rulers of the universe. Don't know what happened to her, but she is the last person we need running this country.

[zappaman]

53. "she is the last person we need running this country."

Seriously?
I can think of dozens, perhaps hundreds that would be worse.
The fact you think she is the worst choice to run this country is...fascinating.

[sabrina 1]

54. What a fascinating comment..

I can't think of another Dem we Dems could nominate who would be worse than her.

I CAN think of plenty of Dems we Dems could choose who would be better.

Lol, firing duds again. Read more carefully if you want to hit the mark is my advice.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. Maybe Henry will vote for her. I won't.

[Zorra]

52. Kissinger. Former Secretary of Hate. Eeeeewww! nt

[elleng]

55. I suspect that much of what she does

from now on will be fishing for support, broadening her 'base.' Dems should take it for what its worth, and deal with it in the General election in '16.

[BainsBane]

57. I thought the revolution was coming

Why do we need a nominee?

[Ken Burch]

60. You're just baiting here.

Bringing stuff in from another thread that has nothing to do with this one.

Stop already.

[BainsBane]

63. I considered it more of a friendly jab

certainly not baiting. I think it's reasonable to think and ask about how people's ideas fit together. I myself have no problem answering such questions. I can't help but remember being told I was engaging in right-wing "tropes" for not believing the revolution was right around the corner. Now I'm hearing about presidential candidates.

[Ken Burch]

64. The other thread didn't CLAIM that "the revolution was just around the corner" and you know it.

Don't distort my intentions and don't drag things from other threads into this thread.

You're just mad because I pointed out that the person you cited to make an irrelevant point was a defender of "Southern Agrarianism&quot I.E., Jim Crow) at the end of his days...and that I pointed out that nobody was doing what that person accused people of doing.

And you're engaging in right-wing tropes right here, by claiming that I'm trying to incite revolution(I couldn't incite it by myself if I tried...NO one person can). I'm simply one person discussing ideas.

[BainsBane]

65. I'm actually not mad at all

Though I do get tired of political discussion that doesn't get beyond "he's right wing so I won't think about the point." particularly when you are talking about Marxist analysis. It's nothing but an excuse to avoid engaging on substance.

I didn't accuse you of trying to incite revolution. I accused you of wishful thinking, that and making a series of absurd comments about slave revolts and the historiography of slavery. Oh, and talking about the Democratic Party supporting revolution. That was pretty funny.

Anyway, I'll leave you to play fantasy presidential politics. Not really my thing.

[Ken Burch]

66. The person you quoted HAD no valid point, because nobody was doing what he accused people of there.

You are still trying to make this about me, and it isn't about me.

It's just about the discussion of ideas.

[99Forever]

71. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton, for anything. Ever.

This is just another example of why.

[whistler162]

74. the HORROR!!!!!!!

let us go to the review.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-reviews-henry-kissingers-world-order/2014/09/04/b280c654-31ea-11e4-8f02-03c644b2d7d0_story.html

instead of some "writers" analysis of what they "think" it says and means.

Remember thinking for ones self is bad so don't do it!

[justabob]

86. having read the whole thing all the way through

makes it worse, not better. I do not want Henry effing Kissinger any where near our government, or having unrestricted access to people making decisions. His calls should go unanswered. He should be locked up somewhere, not being praised for his acuity and keen insights. To read just how involved he continues to be is not in the least bit comforting and it does not show Hillary in a very good light that she relied on him for valuable counsel.... whatever disclaimer she says about disagreements in the past and present. He is a monster in any time, and associating with him at all WILL turn off a great number of people.... whether they read it in her own words or through commentary.

[Ken Burch]

90. There is nothing in the review that makes what she wrote inoffensive(I read the review).

Nothing Henry Kissinger did was EVER about a "liberal world order".

People who want a liberal world order don't cause the overthrow of elected governments just because those elected governments have socialist economic policies.

Nor do they keep unwinnable wars going for an entire additional presidential term.

Besides which, it's the the U.S. STOPPED trying to be the "world leader". There's no way to "lead the world" without leading it in a right-wing and imperialist direction. There is no way to "lead the world" that is good for workers(including the 50% of workers who are women), the poor(or the "want-to-be-but-not-allowed-to-be-workers&quot the dispossessed, and the children.

Leading the world is just another term for trying to conquer the world.

Let the world lead ITSELF, from below.

[LWolf]

75. I never thought we should nominate her. nt

[hifiguy]

88. Kissinger is a fucking monster

and should have been hanged or jailed for life as a war criminal 40 years ago. Anyone who praises a man whose policies killed millions of innocent people is worthy of no respect whatsoever.

I never supported her nomination and this gives me every reason to double down on my opposition.

[bigwillq]

92. We should not nominate Hillary.

I will not be voting for, but not for the reason stated by the OP.

[joshcryer]

95. DU was going to nominate her before?

[Ken Burch]

97. I meant the party, not DU.

Never had delusions of DU's grandeur, or my own.

[joshcryer]

98. The poll was on DU.

It is for DUers.

It has no representation of reality in any way, shape, or form. Most people don't even know who the fuck Kissinger is or give two shits about him. In the real world. He hasn't been SoS since fucking Ford. No one gives a shit about his rambling nonsense. Again, in the real world.

As far as anyone promoting Kissinger, he is against Ukraine joining NATO. A view shared by many DUers. At what point and by what metric should one promote or not promote his views and has Hillary Clinton gone beyond the promotion of his views that many DUers have done?

I frankly think it's mostly nonsense. He's a niche player and has been for decades. Though Democrats like him for his Paris Peace accords, and Republicans like him because he doesn't stand for anything in general. Either way, he's a nobody.

Therefore anyone sending him praise is playing the game, no? Or should we ban all DUers who agree with him on Ukraine? If Clinton can't even run for Presidency because of this, should DUers who agree with him be banned? I mean one is someone who has a free agency to do what the want, the other is someone who explicitly supports him...

Strange times we live in.

[nomorenomore08]

96. She was never even close to my first choice, to begin with. This just further disappoints me.

If she's nominated, I'll perform the proverbial nose-holding because the GOP is absolutely insane and detached from reality. But please, let's at least try for a somewhat diverse field of candidates! Didn't especially hurt the Dems in '08.