Here's the thing - don't expect me to be enthused about someone who cozys up to a mass murderer.

[scarletwoman]

Yeah, I'll accept the inevitable "real politik" of HRC being the Dem presidential nominee. And, yeah, I'll vote for her if she's the only choice against the Republican candidate in the General Election.

But please stop trying to convince me to be happy about it.

[enough]

1. Exactly. (nt)

[yeoman6987]

34. So far she's your only choice unless you skip voting

We are guessing others may announce but only Webb and O'Malley show interest. Sanders too but hasn't really made major attempts to run yet. We may end up with only 3 or 4 candidates total.

[sabrina 1]

84. What a sad thing that is for a country that claims to be a democracy.

Powerful people select our candidates for us and a country that is supposed to by the people, of the people and for the people, is far, far from being what it claims to be.

I wish we'd stop the pretense. I could accept being told the truth, but it's the deception and hypocrisy that gets to people.

WHY is she likely to be the only candidate? How is she better than any other Democrat?

Who made this decision?

And what input did the people have?

[marym625]

107. Larry Summers

[irisblue]

128. and to hell with Larry Summers

[marym625]

136. He's HC's number one adviser. pos that he is

[merrily]

282. Don't forget Third Way, Progressive Policy Institute, etc.

[marym625]

300. more importantly

He is the author of The End Game Memo. The catalyst to the collapse of the world economy. It is for that reason, Hillary Clinton has lost all credibility for me. And it should be for everyone. This is not 2002 and a vote she can backtrack about her reasoning. This is today. There is no excuse. There is zero justification. It is, at the absolute very least, abhorrent.

[merrily]

307. I meant only that those next generation of DLC thinks tanks are also her advisors.

Thanks for that reference, though.

As far as the 2002 Iraq War vote (and her speech urging the invasion), she can't backtrack. No one gets a Mulligan for a fucking war vote, especially not that one.

The intel was obviously bad. Democrats who bothered to look into it. even a little, ALL knew it and we had no special inside information, no NIE to skip reading. Susan Sarandon, an actress, also lacking any special info, made a commercial saying she wanted to know why before we went to war. But, Hillary was there selling it.

We didn't let Bush/Cheney blame that mess on bad intel, but we'll allow Hillary to do that? How? Why?

Disgraceful.

Our troops dead and injured, physically and/or emotionally.

Maybe a million Iraqis displaced, who knows how many dead or maimed.

Al Qaeeda Iraq. ISIL. One mess after the other. Al Qaeeda Iraq. ISIL. One mess after the other. The ramifications are incalculable and continuing.

And why, so Bush could look as though he was doing something about 911, even though everyone knew Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other. A shot at Iraqi oil? Bush's re-election, since the US has never voted out an incumbent during a war? Why?



No, no mulligan on a war vote, not for someone asking to be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America. No claiming all those deaths and maimings were so long ago. No claiming any of it was too long ago to matter.

[marym625]

311. absolutely!

I made a bet with a colleague the day we started the war that they would not find any WMD. I won, obviously. And as I have said repeatedly since then, if I knew this was complete bullshit, they certainly knew.

I posted a recent Greg Palast article about the real reason for the war. It's actually mind boggling we did this and got away with it. Bush and Cheney should be in jail. And frankly, so should all those that made it happen.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026398349

For different reasons, I was just reading about Robert Byrd. Saw these quotes:

If the United States leads the charge to war in the Persian Gulf, we may get lucky and achieve a rapid victory. But then we will face a second war: a war to win the peace in Iraq. This war will last many years and will surely cost hundreds of billions of dollars. In light of this enormous task, it would be a great mistake to expect that this will be a replay of the 1991 war. The stakes are much higher in this conflict.

Today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned. Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination.

He was in the same Senate as Hillary Clinton.

[merrily]

318. Yes, but, at that point, he probably did not aspire to be President or worry a lot about re-election

A very close relative and I were discussing this very thing the other day. Let me be very clear: Everyone in my family is Democratic and will never vote Republican, esp. this woman and literally would stake my life on that. So, I could be as candid as I wished.

When she referred acidly to Bush's War, I asked her if she'd ever seen the actual vote. Her reply? "They had to or they would have been considered traitors."

My reply. What about educating the public instead? And what makes it all right to spend unimaginable blood and treasure, none of which belongs to you, for the sake of preserving your short term image? Because that vote sure didn't worked out well for anyone's image for very long.

[Agschmid]

321. Biden and Kerry seem to be doing just fine...

so what's the difference?

[merrily]

333. If either of them asked for my vote for Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces now, he would not get

it. If you don't know how to vote on a war as a member of Congress, you just might not know how to ask Congress for that vote when you are POTUS, either.

So, no difference whatever on that score.

The question would only be relevant to me if they were running against Hillary in the primary and I cited the vote as a reason to vote for one of them over Hillary.

Then, sure, I'd be inconsistent.

But, I don't recall either Biden or Kerry giving a long speech urging support of Bush request for that vote on the Senate floor, televised, as did Hillary.

So I guess there is a degree of difference.



"Johnny did it, too" is not my idea of justifying that horrific vote, anyway.

[Agschmid]

338. It wasn't just "Johnny" it was 58% of democrats at the time...

And if this really is such a divisive issue it seems we put Biden one heartbeat away from the presidency? What is the difference? Why is it okay for him, but not for her?

Because of a speech?

One speech?

In which she actually talked about how war should be avoided?

Sometimes I wonder if I live in the same dimension as some of you, or if DU is actually a portal to another world... (I'm sure you feel the same way, the thing about opinions is that they are strong).

[merrily]

343. Okay, "Johnny and a lot of others took that horrific vote too," also doesn't cut it for me.

Because of a speech?

One speech?

That is not what my post said. Not even close.

Moreover, look at the consequences of that war. Please don't minimize them as one speech.

In which she actually talked about how war should be avoided?

Typical of Hillary. Lip service to avoiding war while helping Bush sell a entirely avoidable war and then voting for it.

That's supposed to be a point in her favor? Seriously? Ask someone with a dead loved one how much Hillary's attempt to have it both ways matters. (With regard to trying to have it both ways, I can't say she is unique among politicians, but geez, this is about a fucking war.

Sometimes I wonder if I live in the same detention as some of you...

Dunno. I know I can't be the least bit casual or disingenuous about that neocon move after attacking Bush and Republican neocons for the same thing for 12 years.

[rhett o rick]

418. It doesn't matter if 90% of Democrats supported the war it was the wrong decision.

I hope you agree that is was a horrible decision. How can we forget the hundreds of thousands of innocent children that we killed? Those responsible need to be held accountable.

Her support of Bush and Cheney was bad enough but her speech actually echoed the lies. She knew better.

We need change desperately.

[sabrina 1]

456. It's not okay for Biden. Or anyone who made that terrible error of judgement. So many lives lost, so

many more destroyed, torture, shame on our country, not to mention the damage to the troops, the daily suicides of those who survived. No it is NOT okay for Biden. I supported Obama but was deeply disappointed when he chose Biden for VP.

Then again, I'm not sure presidents even choose their own VPs anymore, or are allowed to make any decisions that might be against the forever war policies now in place. Which is why the powerful choose the candidates for us very carefully.

Not one speech from Hillary, enthusiastic support all along the way for neocon Foreign Policies. I heard her talk about how great our 'proxy wars' are. While she was SOS.

But if you're okay with neocon wars, then you have every reason to support her.

I do not and never did and never will support those vile policies.

The most important vote an elected official will ever have to make is whether or not to start a war. Well, that is for those who actually care about human lives.

To dismiss that awful decision by so many of our party, well as you said, it makes me wonder if I'm in the same dimension as some of the people I watch simply ignore the horror they started with those votes. How does someone do that?

My choice for President is Barbara Lee. How was it that she knew how wrong that war was? THAT is a leader, someone who knows, doesn't BELIEVE someone like Bush who even teenagers I knew at the time, KNEW was a liar. Cheney?? Who in their right mind believed a word out of the war criminal's mouth? 58% of our party? Or were they too afraid to say 'no', as Barbara Lee did, and Kucinich and others.

THAT is who I want to lead this country, people with the guts to say 'no' when they should and who KNOW when 'no' is the right answer. I can't think of a worse 'mistake' to make than to vote for a war even we knew they were lying about.

[bvar22]

410. MOST Democrats voted againstr the INvasion/Occupation of Iraq.

[font size=4]The Democratic Party Honor Roll[/font]
These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand against the WAR Machine.


IWR
or
The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq

United States Senate

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)


United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu


(apologies for the loss of info in the above).

[merrily]

451. Yes, thank you! Even Stupak voted against the Iraq War? I never noticed that before!

I thought Bushco was lying with lots of help from media. So did every Democrat I know.

[bvar22]

469. Enough Democrats "crossed over" so that whenever Bush was questioned...

...about going into Iraq, his first smirking response was,
"The Democrats voted for it too!!!!"

I HATED having to hear that for 6 years.

That is what the Hillary Campaign means when they say she can work with the other side to get things done.".

[merrily]

470. So did every Republcan on the mixed political board I posted on at the time.

When I first started posting there, circa 2004, I had almost little knowledge of politics and 100% faith in Democrats. I thought the (R) posters were flat out lying. Then, I googled and my head started swimming. I should have started to figure out things right there, but I did not.

That is what the Hillary Campaign means when they say she can work with the other side to get things done."

I must demur on that. The DLC and at least one of its offshoots, the head of the Progressive Policy Institute, supported that war before her vote. The founder (and still head) of PPI, Will Marshall, even signed the PNAC letter. When Hillary advocated for that war, Hillary was not working with the other side. She was working for her own side.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

110. Aparently some here are cozy with Clinton being the only choice.

Know them by their works.

[MADem]

191. Yes, let's "know them by their works," indeed. Tell us what you've done to support an alternative

candidate who is interested in running? Hmmmm? How many fundraisers have you hosted? How many rallies have you organized? Have you written any checks? Offered to volunteer for your favorite? If we're to "know them by their works" why don't you post all of YOUR WORKS towards getting the money and publicity out there for an alternative?

You're awfully skilled at nay-saying, but that's about all I've seen, here.

I'm entirely "cozy" with MY choice of HRC as a candidate. If you have a different choice, stop crying, start "working," get off your ass and work FOR that candidate, instead of trying to denigrate the choice of some DUers in such a childish fashion.

No one is stopping you or anyone else from backing another candidate, despite your plaintively suggestive tone.

Spend a little more time working FOR your choice, instead of trying to tear down the choice of others. Then we'll know you by YOUR works instead of your "sour grapes" complaints.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

196. Why would I wan to do any of those things since Hillary has already been annointed?

And since you are so cozy with your choice you really shouldn't care what anybody else believes. Right?

[MADem]

209. If you're content to lay down and die, I think

everyone reading your remarks should give the "works" that we know YOU by all the consideration that they deserve. "Waaah, she's already been anointed" is not "works." That's crying and whining.

I don't have a problem with others having a different choice. I've said as much. OFTEN. May the best candidate win. If you believe in someone, get out there and donate, volunteer, fundraise, organize rallies.

You sure do, though, and to make matters even more interesting, you're ADMITTING that your haughty "know them by their works" meme is total bullshit when it comes to you--because you've just acknowledged that you HAVEN'T DONE any of those "works!"

"Sour grapes" is never a good look.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

221. ...

I would say that I am sorry if you feel hurt, but I'm not really. Deal with it if you don't like my opinion, and don't expect me to fall over for yours.

There's been plenty of "Hillary is the candiate" bullshit for as far back as I care to remember, and plenty of chest thumping bravado from her fan club as well.

If she's the "only" candidate then god help us.

[MADem]

224. You're the one sawing plaintively at that violin to accompany your own sad script.

I don't feel "hurt" at all, but by your whining and griping, it sure sounds like you are!

This isn't about "opinions" after all--weren't you the one that quite portentously demanded that we "know them by their works?"

And you, as you've admitted, have none of those "works" -- at least none you're willing to report. What you do have is a bad case of sour grapes.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

232. "I don't feel "hurt" at all..."

Apparently it seems that way from your running back and forth to terms like "whining and griping."

But you're in the tank for Hillary or so I understand. Good luck.

[MADem]

243. You're the one spouting all the "hurt" and "temper" comments--and most people can read, and see what

you've written, here. You keep bringing up personal/emo themes, as if I care (pro tip: I don't).

This isn't a private conversation. You want a different candidate? Get up off your ass and work for one. That's my point, and it's a simple one.

I never said I wasn't a Hillary Clinton supporter-I've always supported her. Not sure what your use of "in the tank" is supposed to convey (and do click on the embedded link)--if you're hoping for a nefarious association, it's lost on me.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

312. Whatever you say. Good luck.

[bvar22]

472. I AM hurt by where the Democratic Party is today,

and the direction it is headed.
The Working Class and Poor don't stand a chance anymore.
When is the last time you heard a celebrity Democrat praise FDR and the New Deal,
or LBJ and the Great Society, War on Poverty and Civil Rights.
Obama has praised Reagan more than FDR.
(in fact, I can't remember Obama ever mentioning FDR, the FATHER of the modern Democratic Party.)

That our new Party Leadership has chosen to abandon those values I worked for most of my life,

---the Values that made the Democratic Party GREAT ,.

----the economic/trade policies that protected the American Working Class

----The Economic Policies (Trickle UP) that built the largest, wealthiest, and most upwardly mobile Working Class the World has ever seen.



YES.
To see that thrown down the Memory Hole by our "Centrists" does HURT ME....very deeply.

To the Democratic Party:
I no longer know or trust you.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

473. The old democratic party is gone, but look what we have now. In addition we have their fawning

supporters breathlessly trading beach pics of the POTUS.

I detest the celebrity cults and their deification of our politicians when what they should be doing is keeping them fearful of the electorate.

I don't really expect that from this double cheeseburger with a dose of insulin crowd.

[treestar]

255. you poor powerless victims

you can't do a thing to support another candidate? You are forced to sit on your hands the next 18 months?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

317. Y'all are certainly clairvoyants of such merit

to tell me what I have and haven't done.

But now getting back to a reality-based world...

Regardless of which candidate(s) I have supported, with time, treasure and tears, or will *support is irrelevant to the discussion at hand; where the HRC adoring fanclub can't take any criticism of their 3rd way candidate, her positions, her lackluster entrance into the Presidential field...etc.

Regardless of how tirelessly Hillary Clinton's supporters make off target proclamations to what I do with my spare time only reinforces how we do need a better candidate to run against her; otherwise what we will have is 3rd way gibberish, TPP, a warm business partner with apartheid Israel and the sense that she is inevitable so we should just sit down, shut up and vote Hillary.

If she wants to earn my vote she better do more than just show up and spout tired platitudes.

[treestar]

329. Those candidates will not be given

You will have to go out and find them and support them. Of course, whoever that is, you will be considered part of their adoring fan club and likely won't want to hear a lot of criticism of them and will defend them from that.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

344. Again, your clairvoyance now seems little more

than projection on your part.

I'm not one to fawn over any candidate since that is what I would expect from children or the easily led.

I do expect any candidate I support to be an adult, act like an adult and actually deserve the office they seek. It's not enough to be starry-eyed and post beach pics of my candidate. I want to make sure that they will lead the country in a progressive way. What I see in Hillary is center right, and that scares me for good reason.

[treestar]

351. so it is possible Hillary supporters aren't fawning over her

I do think Hillary acts like an adult.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

374. Realism. I don't see a lot if it here.

It is just my opinion, mind you, as are all of our posts...opinions.

When some get so worked up about that bells start to go off as to their motives.

I do not trust Hillary. Trust us earned. But the bigger point for me is that I do not subscribe to the dynastic political climate ir that she is inevitable. She was supposed to have been inevitable the last time as well or so we were told by the same type of characters.

[treestar]

401. There's no dynasty

She can't have the office unless she gets elected.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

414. Did you read what I wrote?

I mean the whole process, especially with her fans believing is that she is the only real choice, which is just sad IMHO, when she was supposed to be the only real choice last time shows two-dimensional thinking and a myopic worldview.

The whole point about political dynasty was meant to point out that Clintons and Bushs' are running, and again that is a sad commentary that there is not enough fresh ideas within either party.

Stale ideas, stale candidates, stale Presidency.

[treestar]

432. Her supporters may be encouraging themselves she can win this time

They surely realize people have other choices.

[sabrina 1]

215. Why are you suggesting that people are NOT doing 'something', not finding and supporting candidates

they prefer. Are you not aware of all the Liberal Organizations that are helping fund and support Liberal Candidates? Not aware of how many they GOT ELECTED in the mid terms, both local AND National? Not aware that without all those Liberal Organizations, not only would Dems have lost the Third Way candidates they lost, they would have lost the Progressives? Instead, with very hard work, fundraisers, rallies and more, these Liberal Organizations and there are quite a few, began the process over the past few years, of building a Progressive Wing of their party by actually DOING THE WORK.

And guess what, the did all that WITHOUT taking Billions of dollars from Wall St or Corporations. In fact they don't WANT their mone.

Because that money has strings attached, and voters are becoming more and more concerned about one Billion Dollars is going to buy.

So you can refrain from using that old meme, considering you have no idea obviously of what people are doing.

Anytime you want to learn what voters are doing, let me know. There were dozens of reports written after the mid terms assessing the successes and the few failures of organizations regarding candidates they supported and getting Progressive Issues on Local Ballots. Which was a HUGE success. Since DC doesn't listen to the people, the people ARE taking matters into their own hands and it is exciting especially considering the results so far.

[MADem]

226. Try reading in context for once. I'm having a conversation with a PERSON, not "people"

about his specific "works." And he, apparently, doesn't have any he wants to share with us. He has gripes, whines and complaints, but he hasn't given me a single example of anything he's done to get his favored, unnamed candidate to the fore.

So, you can "refrain" from getting general when I was being entirely specific. Mmm-kay?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

236. Temper temper.

[MADem]

239. I'm entirely delighted--you apparently don't "read" people well, I'm afraid.

FYI: If you ask someone to do a flanking movement on your behalf, it's a good idea to ensure they understand the context. Otherwise, they write essays apropos of nothing under discussion.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

242. Right back at ya...

This is fun, but I haven't asked anybody to do anything for me.

I'm entirely delighted--you apparently don't "read" people well, I'm afraid.

Right back at ya...

[Scuba]

296. You're getting crushed here and apparently don't even know it. Sad.

[MADem]

349. I rather doubt that. nt

[bvar22]

477. You doubt it...... I don't

That you are getting crushed is obvious to the most casual of readers.
Smart people know when to quit.

[MADem]

481. Popped in to give me that opinion, did you?

You have a real nice day, now!

[bvar22]

488. Oooooooo!

Your Cartoon smiley sure shammed me.....not.


The (ROFL) smiley is employed by one who knows he has lost,
but believes he is so smart than no one at DU can see through his clever diversion
away from NOT being able to provide a legitimate rebuttal.

Cheers!

[sabrina 1]

241. He isn't asking people to put him in the WH. Afaik, he is not an elected politician. When a

politician asks us to hire them to do the work of representing us, and the fail to do that, but talk a good talk, the saying 'know them by their WORKS' applies.

It sure doesn't apply to ordinary voters except in the context it was used, that they look at the RECORD of those asking for votes, not listen to their words.

And if the Dem Party wants to stop losing elections, maybe they should show some more respect to the voters and their concerns, instead of snidely responding to them every time they raise a question, or show disappointment in some of those who represent them.

Eg, what would be wrong with simply asking that poster, a voter, 'do you have any preferences, who would you choose if you could'

Snark and snide remarks are not going to help win elections. See what happened after Rahm told the Left that their 'ideas were retarded'. We lost the House, the Left decided not to reelect Rahm's Third Way candidates. Not that that was the ONLY reason, but it made it easier for them to just say no.

Now imagine if he had treated them with respect, THEN he could have asked them to help him keep a majority and they might have listened.

Put it this way, the Left is getting pretty tired of being dismissed, insulted and having no say in who runs for office and that's not good for the Dem Party. They can't win without the Left they so despise.

[MADem]

244. Who is "he?"

It's obvious you aren't reading this conversation--you're giving me "your interpretation" of a conversation that isn't taking place.

I am telling this poster that if he wants a different candidate he should go out and work for the candidate he favors. It sure beats shitting on/putting down another candidate as a "tactic." That's all.

[Agschmid]

320. Yup.

And I hate to tell that poster but I self identify as the "left" much like they do and guess what right now I'm for Hillary.

I'm from one of the most liberal states in the union and in willing to be I know we'd vote blue if Hillary was the nominee.

[bvar22]

407. Did you make up that new rule?

...that when you demand to know what anonymous posters of DU are doing with their time
they have to tell you?


I checked the ToS. That Rule is not there.

Its a matter of Healthy Boundaries.
I wouldn't trust you with very much information.
People on DU can choose how much to disclose about their personal lives.
You have NO RIGHT to demand this information,
or to draw conclusions because a member decides to withhold personal information from you.

The fact that you feel entitled to this information,, and then jump to conclusions if they say "NO" says way more about YOU than it says about someone who is careful what they share on the internet.

[merrily]

360. + As for me, I dispatched my search committee years ago to canvass the nation for candidates.

[MADem]

238. I'll stand with Obama and Mandela and Kerry and Colbert and Carter, and all of the people who are

smart enough to understand that context counts. I like that company.

And I'll pity those who are so bitter and angry and small that they'll embarrass themselves with spurious and nonsensical accusations based on a photograph at an official event. When have you scheduled the crucifixion of FDR's ghost, pray tell?

[Cha]

271. "..Supporting a human being that supports a mass murderer!!!!".. Give me a break.

Las Vegas

I rest my fucking case.

[MADem]

278. This is probably the oddest thread I've seen on DU in a while.

And I don't mean "oddest" in a particularly good way, though some of the responses to the initial premise are gems!

[Cha]

280. But, it was suppose to be soooo clever.. as usual it says more about those taking cheap pot shots

than their targets.

[peequod]

286. You have not rested your case, Cha

...with this picture. Both Hillary and Mandela should not have embraced this murderer, who was probably very happy to see Mandela in jail for decades for potentially disrupting his Cold War Realpolitik. In my book, forgiveness is for those who ask for it--I've never heard Herr Dr. Kissinger admit he ever did anything wrong.

[Cha]

287. Yes, I have.

[peequod]

415. I can post pictures too!

Last edited Tue Apr 14, 2015, 07:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Sorry for the glee. I literally just learned how to post a pic here.

[MADem]

293. Stop badgering Cha while embarrassing yourself--Mandela and Kissinger were very close.

They had a friendship that went back decades and lasted until Mandela's death.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026502333#post290

They, unlike some people here, were adults who could find points of agreement rather than focusing on points of disagreement.

[leveymg]

409. "Kissinger is a friend" - HRC's review of HKs book. Mandela also became close to Pik Botha. But,

Nelson could forgive almost anyone, almost anything, and did. Hillary, however, has no claims to modern sainthood.

In 2013, Hillary Clinton wrote a review of Henry Kissinger's book World Order for the Washington Post. There are a few interesting lines:

Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state. He checked in with me regularly, sharing astute observations about foreign leaders and sending me written reports on his travels. Though we have often seen the world and some of our challenges quite differently, and advocated different responses now and in the past, what comes through clearly in this new book is a conviction that we, and President Obama, share: a belief in the indispensability of continued American leadership in service of a just and liberal order.

[BeanMusical]

425. What the...

"...a belief in the indispensability of continued American leadership in service of a just and liberal order. "

So Kissinger is a Liberal now? Wow.

[peequod]

434. Ha ha!

I know, huh? I'm thinking he meant small "l" liberal, as in classical liberalism: freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets.

[blackspade]

444. especially markets.....

[leveymg]

435. Only in the sense that Prince Metternich was to the "liberal" era that dawned in the early 1800s

Henry the K wrote his doctoral dissertation at Harvard on Metternich, the arch conservative who restored the Old Order in the Old World after Napolean was put down. He means liberal in an entirely different sense from most Americans today do.

His dissertation was published as "A World Restored" in 1954. Wiki:

explains the complex chain of Congresses, which started before the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1814 with the Congress of Vienna and extended into the 1820s, as a system expected to give Europe peace and a new order after the violent struggles of the previous quarter century.

At the same time, the book introduces the reader to the political biographies of two important characters of the time. The first and main character is Klemens von Metternich, the Austrian Chancellor at that time. As the statesman of an old and fragile multilingual empire, Metternich had to deal with the task of organizing the alliance against Napoleon, while at the same time being a forced ally of France. After Napoleon was defeated, Metternich became the organizer of the Congress system, through which he would seek the survival and advancement of Austria.

[Agschmid]

436. Selective reading, try again.

[cheapdate]

437. The word "liberal" has different meanings in different contexts.

In the context of political science if refers to how power is shared. In economics, it refers to the degree to which markets are free and open. In religion, it refers to how teachings are interpreted. In traditional use in American politics, it referred to the position that government should not be in the business of dictating morality, among other things. In contemporary popular usage, it means whatever you want it to mean.

I think in the earlier passage it was used in the political science sense, as in a "liberal democracy" -- or a democracy in which power is widely shared.

[peequod]

449. well said, cheapdate.

[MADem]

460. Yes, that quote is key:

Though we have often seen the world and some of our challenges quite differently, and advocated different responses now and in the past,

means "I didn't agree with his shit, and would not have done things the way he did them or the way he recommends they be done now."

I mean, come on--reading is fundamental. Or is diplomatic language that hard to decode, here, these days?

Do you only associate with people with whom you agree, 100 percent? If you do, you're not learning. The mind is enriched through debate and discussion.

[peequod]

423. I am not "badgering" Cha...

...just pointing out that in my view, the unrepentant murderer, Henry Kissinger, is not someone your beloved HRC should be embracing publicly or physically, despite that the magnanimous Nelson Mandela also did so.

And it is you, Madem, who is "badgering" posters by implying that if we dare disagree with you or your comrades, we are "embarrassing" ourselves and not being "adults." What a scold you are.

[leveymg]

424. Well said, and welcome to DU!

This is a great place to observe a wide wide spectrum of debating strategies. I think you hit that one dead center, peequod.

[peequod]

439. Thank you, leveymg!

I'm glad to be here in this hothouse of political debate, especially as the presidential campaigns gear up. I've come here to share ideas and opinions, become more educated about issues and with people's differing points of view, to find common ground, and not make enemies. But I will point out partisan bullying and snide comments when I see them.

[MADem]

459. The poster you are addressing has been here for TEN years.

Just OVER ten years, in fact.....

[treestar]

431. Well I don't know how many votes she would lose because of it

I really doubt people voting today care about Kissinger. As I recall during the Nixon administration, it was Nixon who was most hated.

And say Elizabeth Warren, I doubt she would get up and yell to everyone there "I will NOT associate with a mass murdering war criminal!"

IOW though the guy who wrote the book about his "trial" got some devoted followers, the public in general is not enraged at Kissinger, considers him the new Hitler and unworthy of being spoken to.

[peequod]

438. I agree, treestar, HRC won't lose many votes

...but it just makes me physically ill, as one other poster put it, that almost everyone in our political and entertainment establishment (even Stephen Colbert? really?) has forgotten or doesn't know about or just doesn't give a hoot about the role he played in such vast murder sprees in South America, Vietnam, East Timor, Greece, Biafra, and elsewhere when he had the power to stop them or allay them.

Re Liz Warren, it remains to be seen. She'd certainly be condemned if she did so by a lot of the same people who's opinion I don't give a damn about. I think she'd welcome their hate.

Re Christopher Hitchens' book, thank you, treestar, for reminding me to give it a glowing review on Amazon and a few other review sites.

[merrily]

284. Not sure what ignoring practical reality does for people repeating that meme.

[busterbrown]

357. You’re getting boring.. It’s over..

Pick the Republican Idiot you desire to be POTUS and leave at that!!

[MissDeeds]

112. Well said

I could not agree more.

[7962]

139. When she puts out word that she's going to raise 2.5 billion,

she's telling everyone else "stay out, you cant beat me"

There have been many times a lesser funded candidate has won so I dont see why this couldnt be another one

[sabrina 1]

165. Are you serious? 2.2 BILLION DOLLARS?? I thought 1 Billion was bad enough.

Actually I think that would be a great campaign issue for anyone who wants to run in the Primaries. The public is far more aware now of the corrupting influence of money in politics.

Thanks to OWS there are ready made slogans to use to make this a huge issue.

The problem is the media, they are owned too, so won't be covering anyone who has a chance to get the votes to win.

But where there is a will there is a way.

I do hope others, a lot of them, will run, and all of them should run on Campaign Finance Reform.

This is obscene. If you have to buy your way into public office, that used to be called 'bribes'.

No one is handing over money without expecting something in return.

Unbelievable. And all the MORE reason for other candidates to run.

[Marr]

249. +1, couldn't agree more.

That insurmountable advantage could be turned into a pair of cement shoes with one soundbite. People would not appreciate the idea of a politician taking a mountain of Wall Street money to purchase the election. Every new expensive ad would be another condemnation.

[7962]

297. This from the NYT article announcing her candidacy:

"This campaign will begin on a small scale and build up to an effort likely to cost more than any presidential bid waged before, with Mrs. Clinton’s supporters and outside “super PACs” looking to raise as much as $2.5 billion in a blitz of donations from Democrats who overwhelmingly support her candidacy."

[sabrina 1]

348. I know some of those Democrats who 'overwhelmingly support her candidacy'. I worked for them, they

are very, very wealthy people. They run private fundraisers attended only by other very, very wealthy people at their private homes.

No working class people there in the nine years I worked for them. Except for the staff who were not asked for their opinions.

Citizen's United makes it possible now for those with obscene amounts of money to donate anonymously through pacs etc.

Imagine how many struggling people could benefit from 2 billion dollars.

It is obscene to put that amount of money into an election.

The little people don't stand a chance against that in terms of being heard.

We'll get crumbs, but the big prizes like the TPP eg, will go those who paid for them.

[Historic NY]

306. Duh..............look what the last election cost.

"The cost of the presidential election alone remains at roughly the figure we calculated in late October, about $2.6 billion."

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/03/the-2012-election-our-price-tag-fin/

Do the freaking math.....the GOP is.

[7962]

452. I wasnt doubting the figures, just quoting the story

At least its all spent here in the US economy!

[demosincebirth]

201. Sad to say, there never is a perfect democracy. I'm sure you've been told that.

You ask questions that you can answer.

[treestar]

253. Maybe you should ask other Democrats?

They are the ones that put her in this position.

[sabrina 1]

364. When did that happen? No one asked me who I might want to represent me. Did someone contact you?

And I have asked other Democrats, not one of them was contacted to ask for their input regarding who might be their choice for a Presidential candidate.

Just fyi, I know who chooses our candidates, and it sure isn't the average citizen. I worked for some of those who choose our candidates, and I know that they are extremely wealthy people.

I never saw a working class person attending those private fundraisers, all were obscenely wealthy people.

So either you are a very wealthy person who WAS contacted and asked for your opinion along with a very big donation, we are still a democracy, no, or you don't mind decisions being made for you by the 1%.

[treestar]

368. Well they are not going to run someone without having some idea

perhaps it was the number of Democrats willing to work for her campaign that made them think this is going to work. They don't do a poll before the primaries to determine who can run. Anyone can run. But they won't get attention until they look like they have a lot of supporters. Nobody asked me if Elizabeth Warren should run and I don't have a problem with her running if she wants toI would wonder what procedure you believe will determine who should even run in the primary?

[sabrina 1]

377. The extremely wealthy control our electoral system. They don't 'support' candidates, they 'push'

those who will act in THEIR best interests. Since they control the media and have oodles of money to spend doing that, PUSHING who they want, anyone who doesn't have that kind of money, will not be heard by the people.

Hillary is a favorite of these wealthy power brokers, I met her at one of those 'fundraisers' only for the very, very wealthy. They PUSH their candidates.

Elizabeth Warren is not their kind of candidate, in fact they fear Democrats like Warren. And they have the money and the motives to start smear campaigns against anyone who threatens their comfortable world.

The good news is that more and more people have found out how these things work, and more and more people are refusing to go along with it.

THAT is why we see the push back of anyone who thinks we should have a choice, that money should not be a part of our electoral system, who has the NERVE to say "I cannot support this candidate you chose for me because .... ' 'HATER' they are called, intimidation tactics are deployed against them.

Very wealthy people are generally not very patient people. When they spend money they want results. And those who are not buying what they are selling, tend to get them very upset. They are USED to getting what they want.

You need not worry about supporting Warren, she is not on the list of candidates those in power would ever allow to run for the WH without her reputation and life as she knew it, being destroyed. I have a feeling she knows this.

[treestar]

397. So we have no control and no say?

We are helpless in the face of the rich; we can't do anything from a grass roots movement. We don't even control who we pull the lever for.

[sabrina 1]

454. No, we don't. That is WHY there are now so many organizations working to try to retrieve that power

the people are supposed to have.

Before fixing something, you have to know it needs to be fixed. OWS was the first salvo from the people to let them know WE now KNOW that, as Elizabeth Warren has said, 'the game is rigged'.

I have two Senators. If I call their office I get the same response every time 'yes, I will pass your message along to Mr. Schumer'. If I email him, I do not even get a computer generated response.

I know from my job that if I were to call him and say I was calling for the people I work for, which I have with other politicians as part of my job, HE would pick up the phone right away. Why? Because that is how he stays in office, they help him raise the funds he needs and if he doesn't jump when they call, there would be consequences. Iow, his constituents are not important to him, no need to talk to them, they will vote for him IF those with the money want them to.

I was pretty surprised to learn that people we put in powerful positions are more afraid of one wealthy person than they are of the people who elected them.

I read an article in a NY Magazine about these powerful fundraisers, one of them I knew as I said. They called them the King Makers. Having caught a glimpse of that world, I have to agree. We have King Makers and it isn't the people.

So now that many people have accepted this, they are organizing and having success and building on those successes to try to end the influence of money in our system and to give power to the people.

Grass roots is the ONLY way to do it. And it started already.

[merrily]

362. exactly.

[jobycom]

420. The problem with a democracy is that you only get two viable choices, no matter what.

And those two choices will be trying to appeal to the people in the middle, because those votes count twice--once for the candidate, once against the opponent. The edges only count once, because the far left and the far right either vote for the mainstream candidate, or they stay home or vote for a radical candidate (those last two are the same thing for the mainstream candidates). So, we get compromise candidates who work the middle, because they are the only ones who can win. There are always other candidates in the primaries, and even in the general, but people don't vote for them, even though people are always saying they want more candidates.

Parliamentary systems are probably a little better. You vote for your party, and they get into Parliament, and then they have to work out a compromise to see which of the two main parties will get to control things. At first, that turns out better, since each of the two mainstream parties has to pander to the fringes to get their support, which is the one time fringe voting helps. But, once the quorum is formed, they go back to the middle. So it's not much better. Basically, it's the same as our system, except we work out the finer points in the primaries, and they work them out after the election.

It's still all about the middle, because whichever candidate captures the middle gets over half the votes (picture a number line). Simple math.

So, democracy means you get a choice between two compromise candidates, as opposed to tyranny, where you get a choice between one uncompromising candidate and revolution--which either results in another uncompromising leader, or a democracy, which has two... you get the picture.

So, for me, I wind up voting for the most liberal option in the primary, and then voting for the winner--not usually the one I voted for--in the general. Sucks, but it sucks even worse when someone like Bush or Reagan wins. There really is a difference, and it's never more obvious than when the Republicans take over.

[wildbilln864]

447. ha!

it is now a country by for and of the corporations! Romney: "Corporations are people my friend."

[Scootaloo]

256. Heard that in 2008, too.

History has many lessons to teach.

[aikoaiko]

2. So noted. Don't be happy.

[William769]

3. So nice of you to post this with out the back story.

But then it wouldn't be as juicy now would it?

[Agschmid]

5. So sick of this trolling meme.

[William769]

7. Agreed.

But when all you have is desperation...

[SidDithers]

64. Yup...

Me too.

Sid

[leveymg]

102. Everyone on this subthread needs to be aware that it's a TOS violation to call out a long-time

DU member as a troll. Sorry if criticism of Hillary annoys you, but she isn't even the candidate yet.

You're getting well ahead of the game, and the decision as to what is "troll" memes is not yours. Hopefully, it never will be.

In the meantime, don't use the term "troll" or "troll meme" with regard to other DU members.

[Agschmid]

119. Posting a picture of her and Kissinger with barely a scratch of text isn't criticism, it's a MEME.

Nothing more...

I'd love to have a debate about her foreign policy, but that's not even close to what this long term DU'er is trying to do here in this OP.

As you state your self politics without principle and knowledge without character is dangerous.

[7962]

144. I cant believe the term "troll" could be deemed SUCH a terrible insult

I tell you the skin sure is thin around here a lot of the time.

[Agschmid]

147. It is technically a TOS violation...

So I understand the comment, but I call it like I see it.

[sabrina 1]

169. Why would someone call another DUer a troll for telling the truth?

Unless the word has a new meaning, to call someone a 'troll' generally means they don't belong here and are here only to disrupt.

Since Scarletwoman is a longtime, well known member of this forum the furthest thing from being a 'disrupter', it is definitely meant as an insult. And that is against the rules here.

[Agschmid]

173. What is the truth?

That she is in a photo with Henry Kissinger?

What exactly is the takeaway from that?

This post was meant to do nothing but divide based on an image... let's do this, let's have a debate on the issues but let's not base our discussion a one sided meme from the internet. We (including all long-term DU'ers) should be better than that.

[sabrina 1]

179. This post was meant to express an opinion on how someone feels about a candidate who is asking

for LIBERAL votes being so close to a wanted War Criminal. Are you saying that we should LIE about how we feel?

Well, I am not in the habit of lying, and Henry Kissinger makes me physically ill. I would not accept an invitation to speak to that war criminal unless I was on a jury in a trial in which he was held accountable for his crimes.

That should tell you how I feel about finding out recently, that Hillary Clinton was getting advice from this man on Foreign Policy. Of course that did explain a lot when I learned that.

I have no intention of lying about how I feel about Republican War Criminals.

And THAT is the truth.

[Agschmid]

182. No don't lie, why the heck would you do that?

All I'm asking is for people to have the debate, not just post a meme and run. That's exactly what happened here.

[sabrina 1]

189. I read the OP but had not seen the other OP. It seems to me that the OP

(and I have not read all the comments in the other thread) feels as I do and I used to think, most Democrats, about War Criminals like Henry Kissenger, and is now being asked to support someone who is very close to Kissenger and she is upset about that. I am too. I would like a candidate that I didn't have to abandon my conscience in order to vote for.

So I'm hoping we will soon have other candidates free of associations like that, where I don't have to consider voting for someone who clearly doesn't represent my values.

Kissinger is a Republican, a crime in itself these days, can't Dems find any Democrats who can advise them?

If I support a Democrat, I want to be sure that Democrat will appoint a DEMOCRATIC CABINET. That their advisers will be Democrats for the most part.

I do not want to support Republicans, by proxy or any other way.

So I fully understand the OP's feelings on this.

[Agschmid]

193. Thanks for the tempered response.

I agree I'd love to have the perfect candidate, I just don't think that person exists in our political system today.

[sabrina 1]

199. No problem. I'm not looking for a perfect candidate, but I do have one in mind who is as close

as we will ever get to that.

See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026498755

[treestar]

261. A wanted war criminal?

Is there an international body with some kind of warrant out?

[7962]

295. Nope

[Agschmid]

322. Nope.

But I didn't even go there...

[treestar]

331. All for questioning, not for war crimes, though not sure of the last one:

Henry Kissinger[edit]
Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State in the Nixon and Ford administrations, was closely involved diplomatically with the Southern Cone governments at the time and well aware of the Condor plan. According to the French newspaper L'Humanité, the first cooperation agreements were signed between the CIA and anti-Castro groups, and the right-wing death squad Triple A, set up in Argentina by Juan Perón and Isabel Martínez de Perón's "personal secretary" José López Rega, and Rodolfo Almirón (arrested in Spain in 2006).[68]

On 31 May 2001, French judge Roger Le Loire requested that a summons be served on Henry Kissinger while he was staying at the Hôtel Ritz in Paris. Le Loire wanted to question the statesman as a witness regarding alleged U.S. involvement in Operation Condor and for possible US knowledge concerning the "disappearances" of five French nationals in Chile during military rule. Kissinger left Paris that evening, and Loire's inquiries were directed to the U.S. State Department.[69]

In July 2001, the Chilean high court granted investigating judge Juan Guzmán the right to question Kissinger about the 1973 killing of American journalist Charles Horman. (His execution by the Chilean military after the coup was dramatized in the 1982 Costa-Gavras film, Missing.) The judge's questions were relayed to Kissinger via diplomatic routes but were not answered.[70]

In August 2001, Argentine Judge Rodolfo Canicoba sent a letter rogatory to the US State Department, in accordance with the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), requesting a deposition by Kissinger to aid the judge's investigation of Operation Condor.[71] On 10 September 2001, a civil suit was filed in a Washington, D.C., federal court by the family of Gen. René Schneider, murdered former Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean Army, asserting that Kissinger ordered Schneider's murder because he refused to endorse plans for a military coup. Schneider was killed by coup-plotters loyal to General Roberto Viaux in a botched kidnapping attempt. As part of the suit, Schneider's two sons filed for civil damages against Kissinger and then-CIA director Richard Helms for $3 million.[72][73][74]

On 16 February 2007, a request for the extradition of Kissinger was filed at the Supreme Court of Uruguay on behalf of Bernardo Arnone, a political activist who was kidnapped, tortured and disappeared by the dictatorial regime in 1976.[75]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor#Henry_Kissinger

[leveymg]

341. Kissinger ducked int'l subpoenas for questioning about his role in and knowledge of crimes against

humanity resulting in extrajudicial executions of nationals of multiple countries.

"Not for war crimes." You're splitting hairs, and unartfully.

[treestar]

352. Well it's OK for Julian and Eddie to do it

Henry probably believes he was doing what was best at the time.

And I see he's guilty until prove innocent.

The US was not party to any "wars" in these scenarios. So US officials committing "war crimes" in those wars is a big stretch. And as you can see, not accepted by society in general, or he wouldn't be invited to these events.

[leveymg]

379. Neither Julian nor Snowden are accused of crimes against humanity. Kissinger is

and there's plenty of evidence that he was actively involved in planning and aiding the coup. You should read Christopher Hitchens on this and HK's other crimes.

[treestar]

396. accused by who?

any tribunal?

[BeanMusical]

403. OFFS.

Is what you're posting simply ignorance or bad faith? Your good buddy "Henry" have so much blood on his hands that oceans of water would not wash them clean. He is responsible for extending the Vietnam War for his own political benefit. He did all the dirty work for Nixon to sabotage the 1968 Vietnam Peace Talks so he could switch team because LBJ was finished. How many people died because of this megalomaniac?

[treestar]

433. Accused by who?

a tribunal?

If the guy is the new Hitler, how come it hasn't come out more generally?

Your statements are all opinion. Is Nixon innocent now?

He's not my buddy and I don't like him, I'm only discussing whether other people really think THAT badly of him. Why are people on DU so immature? We are not even talking about agreeing with anything he did. Just whether or not he is such a pariah that being seen liking him means people will turn from Hillary and droves because she did not reject the idea of even speaking to him.

[BeanMusical]

453. "how come it hasn't come out more generally?"

Wut? You don't even know about that either? Gee, it's worse than I thought. You shouldn't stay in echo chambers for so long, it's not very healthy.

[leveymg]

337. Kissinger was subpoenaed by courts in Chile, Arg. & France for his role in the Pinochet Coup

and the extrajudicial killings that resulted. He ignored these judicial orders to appear. Google it. See,

Search Results

Kissinger Ignores Subpoena from Chilean Court concerning ...
radgeek.com/gt/2001/07/30/kissinger_ignores/

Jul 30, 2001 - The ongoing international investigation of Henry Kissinger's role in the Pinochet's regime has now led to a Chilean court drawing up a list of ...

The world reaches out for justice - tribunedigital ...
articles.chicagotribune.com/.../0108120261_1_chilean-s...
Chicago Tribune
Aug 12, 2001 - To read Henry Kissinger's scholarly critique of universal jurisdiction in the current ... Le Loire subpoenaed him about five French citizens who ...

Neither Kissinger's essay nor Foreign Affairs mentions Judges Robert Le Loire of France, Rodolfo Canicoba Corral of Argentina, and Juan Guzman Tapia of Chile.

In late May and early June, all three declared their intent to question Kissinger.

Le Loire subpoenaed him about five French citizens who "disappeared" in Chile in the 1970s; Canicoba wants to ask him about Operation Condor, a conspiracy to murder dissidents for which former Argentine strongman Jorge Videla has been indicted; and Guzman has questions about the 1973 assassination of American journalist Charles Horman in Chile (dramatized by the Hollywood film "Missing&quot .

To date, Kissinger has ducked the three inquiries. But perhaps not for long: The Chilean Supreme Court recently authorized sending 17 questions from Guzman to the U.S. through diplomatic channels.

[treestar]

400. Having questions is not the same as being indicted as a "war criminal."

or saying this is man all polite society should ignore. Hillary disagrees with you at least as far as she is willing to speak to him and be seen with him in public. Should all US presidential candidates refuse to speak to anyone that another country's court wants to question? And a Chilean Court is not an international tribunal.

[leveymg]

406. Courts in 3 countries subpoenaed HK re his role in crimes against humanity. He refuses to comply.

Any decent person should refuse to be seen in public with someone who is accused by several national courts of such crimes, and who has refused to respond or to clear his name. The evidence against Kissinger is convincing. Kissinger is no prisoner of conscience, and Hillary's role in embracing him - she has had an ongoing relationship with Kissinger for many years -- is unconscienable.

Read Christopher Hitchens, "The Case Against Henry Kissinger", and come back and we'll talk about it: http://harpers.org/archive/2001/02/the-case-against-henry-kissinger-2/

[treestar]

412. Well if that is the way you feel about it

Who can you support? And if they've never met Kissinger, how can you be sure they will shun him if they get the opportunity?

[sabrina 1]

373. Kissinger is wanted for questioning on war crimes, in Chile. He is also accused of crimes in

Argentina's Dirty War. There are places he cannot go without the risk of being detained.

Just a while ago, eg, Irish activists were ready to arrest him and take him to Chile.

His buddy, Pinochet was also protected by the Western Powers from having to answer for his war crimes.

Kissinger doesn't worry too much about the people who were murdered, tortured and disappeared by his dictator friends. But victims have long, long memories and many of his buddies have already been tried and convicted for their war crimes.

So some of us who do care about the victims of these horrible policies, are not in line with the elite in our society who view War Crimes as 'necessary' to achieve their goals.

[treestar]

413. Why do you have so much trust in the Chilean justice system?

I know ours is totally corporate and corrupt and Eddie should not have to face charges against it. Why are you so sure Chile is going to be fair to one of our nationals, if indeed they are fair to their own? Is their system much better than ours, very transparent and not corrupted by corporatists?

[peequod]

430. Then it shouldn't matter, right?

If our legal system is "totally corporate and corrupt" and so, possibly, is the Chilean legal system--who actually had the respect for legal acumen and the temerity to even proceed with the case--then the outcome should be the roughly same, right?

I take that your position is that only if OUR totally corporate and corrupt legal system should initiate a prosecution that results in a conviction, should politicians publicly avoid HK? (which our legal system will never do if everybody is so busy looking the other way and compromised with photos of birthday parties, warm hugs, and wet kisses).

Honestly, my legalistic treestar (and others reading this), the only thing I'm probably going to do about this picture is e-mail the HRC campaign and advise her not to be seen kissing and hugging Kissinger in public.

[heaven05]

378. I agree

I will be holding much reservation while 'pulling the lever', touching the screen but hopefully marking in on paper my vote for her. But I feel, still, that having the right to vote is important, however meaningless as many on here claim including me sometimes, given the RW attempt(s) at voter suppression. I want to really throw up at the thought of a rubio, cruz, paul or any of those other clowns as POTUS.......

[1939]

347. Internet Speak

Troll = Anyone who doesn't agree with me.

[Agschmid]

354. Re-read what I said and then try again...

[sabrina 1]

138. Thank you. n/t

[zeemike]

237. Your post was alerted on.

Everyone on this subthread needs to be aware that it's a TOS violation to call out a long-time
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6502933

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Direct call out of another DU'er. Please vote to hide this post as this poster has no right to make the judgment call as to what is or isn't trolling. Apparently this poster has elected himself Skinner now.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Apr 14, 2015, 01:21 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I agree with this. So why hide it?
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Fuck the trolls.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: WTF?...I can't believe this shit...complaining about being called a troll is making a judgment about what a troll is?
This is as stupid as it comes.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[MADem]

248. There's nothing about calling people trolls in the TOS. Those "old DU2" rules are long gone.

In fact, the ADMINS and MIRT use the "troll" word when they ban people. The TOS certainly talks about trolls, and how they are constantly making trouble here. Further, I would submit that a "trolling meme" (which is something designed to get a rise out of people) is a very different thing from calling someone a troll.

As Skinner says, you take your chances.

If someone hits the button and decides to send the comment to a jury, then people will have to decide if the comment rises to the level of a hideable remark (e.g. hurtful, disruptive, rude, or whatever). One could argue that the OP in and of itself is broad brushed hate speech, if they wanted to--calling someone a war criminal because they show up at an official function and have a picture taken, with hundreds of other people also present and being photographed, is a pretty low comment, and it could also be construed as disruptive to the board.

Terms of Service
By registering a Democratic Underground account, you agree to abide by these terms. A single violation of any of these terms could result in your posting privileges being revoked without warning.

The Democratic Underground Administrators have a great deal of confidence in our system of citizen jurors and software tools, but we are well aware that trolls are constantly on the lookout for new ways to cause trouble and therefore on rare occasions it may necessary for us to revoke a member's posting privileges for reasons that are not covered by these Terms of Service. Because of this necessity, we retain the right to revoke any member's posting privileges at any time for any reason.

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).
Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

No bigoted hate speech.
Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, disability, or other comparable personal characteristic. To be clear: This includes any post which states opposition to full equal rights for gays and lesbians; it also includes any post asserting disloyalty by Jewish Americans, claiming nefarious influence by Jews/Zionists/Israel, advocating the destruction of the state of Israel, or arguing that Holocaust deniers are just misunderstood. In determining what constitutes bigotry, please be aware that we cannot know what is in anyone's heart, and we will give members the benefit of the doubt, when — and only when — such doubt exists.

Don't go overboard with the crazy talk.
Democratic Underground is not intended to be a platform for kooks and crackpots peddling paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact. To accommodate our more imaginative members we tolerate some limited discussion of so-called "conspiracy theories" under the following circumstances: First, those discussions are not permitted in our heavily-trafficked Main forums; and second, those discussions cannot stray too far into Crazyland (eg: chemtrails, black helicopters, 9/11 death rays or holograms, the "New World Order," the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, alien abduction, Bigfoot, and the like). In addition, please be aware that many conspiracy theories have roots in racism and anti-semitism, and Democratic Underground has zero tolerance for bigoted hate speech. In short, you take your chances.

Don't willfully and habitually infringe on others' copyrights.
To simplify compliance and enforcement of copyrights here on Democratic Underground, we ask that excerpts from other sources posted on Democratic Underground be limited to a maximum of four paragraphs, and we ask that the source of the content be clearly identified. Those who make a good-faith effort to respect the rights of copyright holders are unlikely to have any problems. But individuals who willfully and habitually infringe on others' copyrights risk being in violation of our Terms of Service.

Don't threaten anyone (including yourself).
Do not post anything which could be construed as a threat toward any person, on DU or elsewhere. Do not post messages threatening to harm yourself. (If you are having a personal crisis, call a crisis hotline for help. DU members are not qualified to give you the help you need.)

Respect people's privacy.
Do not post or link to any private/personal information about any person, even if it is publicly available elsewhere on the Internet.

Don't post "shock content" or porn.
Do not post or link to extreme images of violence, gore, bodily functions, pain, or human suffering for no purpose other than to shock and disgust. Do not post or link to pornography.

No spammers.
Do not spam Democratic Underground with commercial advertising or promotions.

Don't do anything illegal.
Do not post messages which violate any U.S. laws (eg. linking to illegally-shared files, attempting to organize hacking or DOS attacks, libel/slander, etc.). Organizing civil disobedience with a legitimate political purpose is permitted.

Don't post malicious code or mess with the software.
Do not attempt to intentionally interfere with or exploit the operation of the Democratic Underground website or discussion forums (eg. by "post bombing" or using any other flooding techniques, by attempting to circumvent any restrictions placed on your account by the forum software, etc.) Do not post messages that contain software viruses, Trojan horses, worms, or any malware or computer code designed to disrupt, damage, or limit the functioning of any software or hardware.

Don't do anything else which is similarly disruptive.
Just because it isn't listed here, doesn't mean it's ok. If you post anything which is obviously disruptive, malicious, or repugnant to this community, its members, or its values, you risk being in violation of these Terms of Service.

One more thing: Don't push your luck.
The DU Community Standards state: "It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints." Members who demonstrate a pattern of disruptive behavior over time and end up getting too many of their posts hidden by the jury (measured by raw number or percentage) may be found to be in violation of our Terms of Service. If you seem to be ruining this website for a large proportion of our visitors, if we think the community as a whole would be better off without you here, if you are constantly wasting the DU Administrators' time, if you seem to oppose the mission of DU, or if the DU Administrators just don't like you, we will revoke your posting privileges. Remember: DU is supposed to be fun — don't make it suck.

[treestar]

257. so every one who has ever spoken to Kissinger

needs to be called out too then.

and you need to prove Warren or others would refuse to greet him or speak to him given the same chance to be at whatever function it was.

[tularetom]

8. There's a back story?

Has she got hold of his testicles with her right hand and saying "Keep your mouth shut about all those times I asked you for advice on making Obama look bad, or else I'm gonna squeeze real hard".

[LovingA2andMI]

49. THIS....

^^^^^ LOL. But we know this "Backstory" is not true. So instead Hill wanted to stand "thisclose" to Henry and everyone knows it (no matter how some try not to admit it).

[scarletwoman]

11. Here's a little backstory for you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4843927

[William769]

13. That picture is not from that party.

[William769]

26. So gonna stay quiet now?

[scarletwoman]

37. Huh? I think Kissinger is a war criminal and a disgusting excuse for a human.

If I somehow found myself in the same room with him, I would happily say that to his face.

Obviously, others' mileage may vary.

[William769]

42. You are trying to tie an article with a picture that is false.

And refuse to give the back story of where the picture in the OP really came from.

If that's all you got, you might as well pack it up and call it a night if you can't even be truthful in you OP.

So I will bid you farewell since the truth is nowhere to be found here.

[dflprincess]

53. She's snuggling up to Kissinger - what difference does it make where the picture was taken?

Kissinger is a war criminal and it apparently doesn't bother Clinton.

[MADem]

61. See post 51--are you prepared to throw all those "snugglers" under the bus? Now THAT would be some

"mass murder." A lot of people have posed for pics with that guy. It doesn't mean what you WANT it to mean.

[Agschmid]

80. Yup...

[sabrina 1]

231. He was an adviser to Hillary when she was SOS. With his war criminal record (he was wanted for

questioning on War Crimes, but did not have the guts to go answer any questions) he is hardly a person to turn to for advice on war or any other kind of FP. That's more than 'snugglin' that is very disturbing.

.

[MADem]

283. He had no titled or salaried role in Clinton's State Department. He did what most SoS's have done

down the years.

A few phone calls, where HE called her ("checked in regularly), with conversations that were likely on the lines of "How did you handle so-and-so?" or "What did (insert country) tell you about (insert issue) when you visited back in 72?" and a few travel reports are not what you're trying desperately to make them out to be. Clinton's precise words, quoted elsewhere in this thread:

Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state. He checked in with me regularly, sharing astute observations about foreign leaders and sending me written reports on his travels. Though we have often seen the world and some of our challenges quite differently, and advocated different responses now and in the past...

That bit -- often seen the world and some of our challenges quite differently, and advocated different responses now and in the past bears REPEATING. More than once because it's not sinking in, apparently.

They see the world differently. They advocated different responses now and in the past. That's diplomatic language for "We didn't see eye to eye."

Madeleine Albright, Condi Rice and Colin Powell no doubt "advise" Kerry when they run into one another, too. or when one of them travels to a foreign country and meets with a government official--it's what senior government leaders DO, you see.

There aren't that many living SECSTATES, just like there aren't that many POTUS's. These are small clubs, and the people in them are what's called grown-ups. They speak to one another civilly, even if they have disagreements over policy issues or world view.

[Agschmid]

323. Yup.

[William769]

63. It makes a big difference.

And of course she is staying away from it like the plague.

It's one thing to have a legitimate gripe, it's another to post for nefarious reasons.

[Scootaloo]

148. Rather less "nefarious' than dropping napalm on Cambodia or installing Suharto and Pinochet...

[Art_from_Ark]

161. Not to mention sabotaging Vietnam War peace talks

"But at the last minute, the South Vietnamese pulled out. LBJ suspected Nixon had intervened to stop them from signing a peace treaty.

"In the Price of Power (1983), Seymour Hersh revealed Henry Kissinger---then Johnson’s advisor on Vietnam peace talks---secretly alerted Nixon’s staff that a truce was imminent.

"According to Hersh, Nixon “was able to get a series of messages to the Thieu government [of South Vietnam] making it clear that a Nixon presidency would have different views on peace negotiations.”

http://freepress.org/article/george-will-confirms-nixons-vietnam-treason

[DeSwiss]

233. She was there with her arms wrapped around a murderer.

So how the hell can the picture be FALSE!?!?!? Geeze, some people's denial is absolutely ridiculous. She hugging a warmongering mass-murderer and smiling with him.

- Which does not surprise me in the slightest, since that's what she is.

The world is to be inherited by the meek, not the blind........

[7962]

154. So I guess you're not a fan of the President either....

[Art_from_Ark]

164. Obama is not schmoozing with Kissinger

He's not laughing, giggling, or leading the crowd in a rousing version of "Happy Birthday" for Kissinger.
And Kissinger doesn't seem to be enjoying his time with Obama.

[7962]

294. See post 51

[Agschmid]

324. You should be a fiction author, you seem to have illustrative adjective usage down...

[bunnies]

14. Please post "the back story"

that illustrates why anyone with a soul would support Henry Kissinger.

[William769]

15. Not my OP.

But the disingenuous of the OP say's a lot!

[bunnies]

20. Here I thought you were agreeing with the OP.

Goddamn written word!

[MADem]

54. Yes--it's about as "valid" as the pics posted downthread in post 51. nt

[Scootaloo]

89. Here's some backstory: Henry Kissinger is a fucking war criminal

Storytime over.

[William769]

92. Well that's true.

But being disingenuous as the OP has been doesn't help her cause.

Either people are not as astute as they think they are about politics or are and hoping the rest of us aren't about that picture.

Either way it's a lose lose for your side.

[Scootaloo]

103. Is that not clinton? Is that not Kissinger? Are we looking at body doubles?

Was she whispering promises that he'd be at the end of a noose to the sound of drumrolls if she became president? if so I'll vote for her in a split fucking second, show me where to sign.

[William769]

111. Follow the links.

I know this is a tactic many use to hide the truth from coming out, but it's all there.

Story being told does not match the picture period.

[Scootaloo]

142. Would these be the links you refuse to provide since it's not your OP?

Story is, Kissinger is a war criminal.

Story is, he's not exactly someone that you usually want to see a democratic candidate cozying up to.

[William769]

153. Let's see she was S.O.S. at the time

And it goes on from there as in her official duties.

This whole thread has been a major fail and apparently people are not even astute as to political events.

Have a nice day.

[Scootaloo]

156. Oh, so it's like Kerry shaking hands with el Sisi

Or Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam?

What nation's government is Kissinger part of that photo ops were required as part of sec. Clinton's job?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

115. I love how that red arrow of Hillary's points to the right. Very fitting. Wouldn't you agree?

[William769]

117. Yes since it means "moving forward".

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

122. Moving...to the right.

[William769]

129. I can't help it if you are not well versed in meanings.

But there is help out there. I am sure you can find some.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

135. Actually it's my business: branding. So fail on your part.

It is a horrible message only embraced by the willfully blind.

[William769]

146. No fail on my part.

Just ask all the people using it.

So that says something about your business.

I know the haters are gonna hate so I will leave you be.

P.S if it's good enough for this man, it's good enough for me. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=100801

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

170. Well that was a tell if ever there was one.

Somebody else approves of it so I will too goshdernit. Can't you make up your own mind?

I know the haters are gonna hate...

No, really the logo just sucks. I don't hate Hillary, but I do hate bad design I also hate excuses that are used to tell me that dogshit is chocolate ice cream.

If David Allen told me that he was about to jump off a bridge I would advise him not to, but I would not follow him if he took the high dive.


Let me put it to you this way, in all candor, in a perspective that you can hopefully understand.

Message is everything. The NIKE swoosh, Dominos Pizza, the Mercedes icon, the Golden Arches all have their brand pros or cons; depending on the people that you ask.

If this is Hillary's brand roll out then it is weak at best. I shudder to think of how much they payed for this branding.

Here's some thoughts for you to dismiss.

The Obama logo has a lot of gestalt going on...all positive. It has charm, symmetry, balance, and a sense of American heartland with the flag portion resembling fields of plenty.

Rand Paul's logo looks like a flaming dagger: separating or cutting through his name. What he wants to cut I don't know, but I don't want to find out.

Rubio's logo is just bland and sits there without any dynamism.

Clinton's logo looks like a moving company. It is impersonal, lacks enthusiasm, and generally looks out of date.

No kidding.

[Marr]

251. It does look dated.

I'm a graphic designer myself, and I've honestly seen more developed logos on a first round exploration with 25 options on it. It looks like something that would've been tossed out of the first round of a meeting in 1995. It's angular, unfriendly, and static. Even the colors are weirdly stale. It's just flat and boring and predictable and... weak.

And that's not even mentioning the whole deal with the red arrow pointing to the right, and how some will interpret that. Even a huge Hillary Clinton fan who doesn't agree with that reading should be able to recognize that many will, so it wasn't a wise choice. I mean there's no reason to piss anyone off with a logo.

It really does make me wonder how much of a bubble Hillary and her campaign crew lives in. They clearly aren't even slightly concerned about being perceived as too far to the right, if they could look at a logo with a red, right-facing arrow and give it a thumbs up.

[dreamnightwind]

275. They probably intended that impression

with the right-facing red arrow. They think (and so far are correct) that the left has nowhere else to go, and are working behind the scenes to make sure it stays that way. This is how our current Democratic Party deals with the left, we are left out.

They are much more concerned with courting the so-called center, and conservative women, some of which they believe can be separated from whichever anti-woman RW male the GOP nominates. So in my eyes it's more of the triangulation we have seen so much of, and which leaves the left without any representation whatsoever.

I think this campaign could be where the Democratic Party finally jumps the shark, it will stand for little more than being the more efficient managers of a corrupt industrial empire.

She did pay us some lip-service in her candidacy announcement yesterday, which to me only means it is primary season rather than the general election.

[KoKo]

386. ...!

[BrotherIvan]

390. Yes!!

It shows to me a few things:

1) Whomever approved it has absolutely no esthetics, instinct, or experience and should be immediately fired. Everything you said about it is absolutely true. Unless they wanted to use it for an app, I have no idea how they felt this flat, static logo would translate across all media.

2) They thought they were too clever by half, mixing red and blue to appeal to both sides, but oops, the big red arrow is the thing that stands out. Moving to the right, and in no real proportion to the H. A copy of the Fed Ex logo? Perhaps, but without any of the subtle wit of that logo. (Also a right wing company that wants the USPS gutted and charges insane prices).

3) They didn't focus group the thing with Democrats. On the very first thread, people were pointing out the red arrow going to the right. One focus group of some left-leaning folks would have alrerted them. So I guess they don't want to hear from those people.

4) They have not learned from 2008. The Obama campaigned crushed them on graphics. It won the award for marketing of the year! To think that they once again don't value nor see the power in good graphics means they are woefully out of touch.

5) The fact that a two billion dollar campaign doesn't build into their early budget for good graphics means they don't think talent is worth anything. That is a huge problem and unfortunately will cost them exponentially.

Here's what people wanted on their cars in 2008





^^THAT is good graphics.^^

[MADem]

461. "HOPE" was not commissioned by the O campaign. That was a private artist who was SUED by AP for

stealing the picture and modifying it.

And I seem to recall the right wing b-wording that the Obama colors were too muted, too "pink," too girly-man, etc. They certainly had a field day mocking the thing--I won't reproduce those here but Google will show you plenty.

I love the way narratives are re-invented through the mists of time!


I like HRC's logo just fine--it's SIMPLE. Doesn't look like someone either overthought it or spent a fortune on it. And people who are so stupid that they are swayed by a logo probably can't find their way to the polling booths, anyway...I've never heard anyone say "I like the candidate, but oh, that LOGO!!! I just can't cast my vote because of THAT thing...."




Here--some history.

Shephard Fairy and the HOPE poster--not his finest hour: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster

The design was created in one day and printed first as a poster. Fairey sold 350 of the posters on the street immediately after printing them. It was then more widely distributed—both as a digital image and other paraphernalia—during the 2008 election season, initially independently but with the approval of the official Obama campaign. The image became one of the most widely recognized symbols of Obama's campaign message, spawning many variations and imitations, including some commissioned by the Obama campaign. This led The Guardian's Laura Barton to proclaim that the image "acquired the kind of instant recognition of Jim Fitzpatrick's Che Guevara poster, and is surely set to grace T-shirts, coffee mugs and the walls of student bedrooms in the years to come."[3]
In January 2009, after Obama had won the election, Fairey's mixed-media stenciled portrait version of the image was acquired by the Smithsonian Institution for its National Portrait Gallery. Later in January 2009, the photograph on which Fairey based the poster was revealed: an April 2006 shot by former Associated Press freelance photographer Mannie Garcia. In response to claims by the Associated Press for compensation, Fairey sued for a declaratory judgment that his poster was a fair use of the original photograph. The parties settled out of court in January 2011, with details of the settlement remaining confidential.
On February 24, 2012, Fairey pleaded guilty in a New York federal court to destroying and fabricating documents during his legal battle with the Associated Press. Fairey had sued the news service in 2009 after it claimed that the famous poster was based on one of its photos. Fairey claimed that he used a different photograph for the poster. But he admitted that, in fact, he was wrong and tried to hide the error by destroying documents and manufacturing others, which is the source of the one count of criminal contempt to which he pleaded guilty.[4] In September, Fairey was sentenced to two years of probation, 300 hours of community service, and a fine of $25,000.[5]

The OBAMA campaign logo--bottom line, if you like the guy, you love the logo. Don't like the guy...well, read on...~! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_logo

Reception[edit]

The logo in use during the 2008 presidential campaign
The reception of Obama's logo was generally positive, and in some circles, highly praised. The Boston Globe beamed that "the ever-present rising sun logo has the feeling of a hot new Internet company."[7] "It begins to break with tradition while also rooting itself in tradition," said Peter Krivkovich, CEO of Cramer-Krasselt advertising agency in Chicago.[2] "Patriotism is the foundation, but above that is hope, opportunity, newness." David Morrison, president of Philadelphia-based market research firm Twentysomething Inc., said the logo has "a nice, contemporary, dynamic, youthful vibe about it."[2] Designer Michael Bierut called Obama's branding "just as good or better" as the best commercial brand designs. "Every time you look, all those signs are perfect," Beirut said. "Graphic designers like me don't understand how it's happening. It's unprecedented and inconceivable to us. The people in the know are flabbergasted."[8]

On the other hand, cartoonist Ward Sutton asked, "is it a zero and a sunset over a deserted highway?" "Too many type styles and colors. The look is left undefined. The designer may have been too inexperienced," he added.[9]
Some[who?] have noted the similarity of Obama's campaign logo to others, namely those of Vietin Bank, The Sidney Hillman Foundation, City of Chandler, Arizona, the Taiwan Solidarity Union, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.[10] There is also some similarity to the European Union's Protected Designation of Origin and Protected Geographical Indication logos and the logo of Germany's Agenda-Glas AG. The official logo of the Democratic Alliance party of South Africa bears a striking resemblance to Obama's campaign logo.

Obama's campaign was test driven in MA by gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick. Many of the ideas and themes that went national with POTUS's first campaign had been well received in MA and gave DP the corner office on Beacon Hill.


Together We Can/Yes We Can...it's all good:

The "Big O" didn't persuade me to vote for Obama--I voted for him because I liked his views on the issues. I'll vote for HRC for the same reason.

[BrotherIvan]

389. Oh man, do I agree

I am extremely disappointed in the use of bad design. To me it means they didn't want to pay for good design. For a campaign that is going to raise two billion dollars, they have already shown that the uber-talented American designers, which are legion, can go pound sand. It also follows the trend of big companies farming out design to secretaries using MS Word (I am not kidding). I have not really jumped into the Clinton debate here, but I will damn well point at that logo and say it is bad bad bad.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

394. Just an FYI...

I found out that Michael Bierut from Pentagram designed it.

[BrotherIvan]

417. You mean the agency that did the Citi logo?

Fan-fucking-tastic.

[BeanMusical]

465. I'm not too bad with photoshop and know a thing or two about logos so

I made a small modification and look at that symmetry:

[Scootaloo]

149. There is no "forward" in regards to two dimensions.

There's layers to that statement.

And that one too.

[emulatorloo]

315. Look at the top of your web browser: < back forward>

[Agschmid]

123. Sure is going to look great as an app on my phone, wouldn't you agree?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

131. Does the app come with rose tinted glasses?

[Agschmid]

133. No my vision is 20/20... unlike some others here.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

137. The irony of that statement is astounding. But go on. Do tell.

[Agschmid]

140. Please proceed.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

145. Actually I just asked you to go first.

Once you put the app with the horrible messaging onto your iPhone then what?

[Agschmid]

150. .

What William said upthread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6503048

Haters are just gonna hate, have at it.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

171. Well, there's two Clinton fans that aren't able to put things into words or defend bad branding.

"What he said" is a poor substitute for rational thought.

[Agschmid]

177. No it's not.

It's my vote, and it's your vote and we get to do what we want to do with it. That's the rational thought. I don't feel the need to force my viewpoint down your throat...

What else is there to say?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

184. My viewpoints were/are based on visual communications. Her branding sends a horrible message, and in

all the partisan kickback that has been lost.

You can vote for her on your app all you want, and I hope that really makes you happy.


The takeaway is this. Her branding and message is weak, and I would have hoped that any candidate, who has been getting ready to run for so long, would have put more thought and experienced people in place to succeed.


I don't see that happening, and I don't do fanboy political crushes.

[Agschmid]

195. Me either.

I don't do fanboy political crushes.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

200. If you say so...

Sure is going to look great as an app on my phone, wouldn't you agree?

[Agschmid]

202. If I'm going to support a politician its likely I'll download their app.

It is 2015, and technology and campaigns are evolving to use social media and branded platforms. As you know due to your little Google Android man Avatar, and your extensive experience with brand management.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

206. So you're locked in for Hill? Is that right?

[Agschmid]

207. No...

But I'm sick of the bullshit on here, so as of right now I am signed up to volunteer. Getting out an actually doing something constructive with my time.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

211. "But I'm sick of the bullshit on here..."

So am I. Just from a different angle.

[Agschmid]

212. Well then let's get to work and see what happens in a year.

I'll catch you on the flip side.

[William769]

155. Yes indeed.

[frylock]

421. Soul Crush Saga?

[rpannier]

186. I don't support her and I'm with you on this

I can't figure out where the picture was taken
They could have been at the same dinner for all we know.
But, we heard the same rubbish when Obama was in a picture with George Bush shortly before inauguration after he got the tour of the White House that incoming presidents get from outgoing ones

I said it then, I'll say it now, "Would you be happier if she pushed him to the ground and started kicking him?"
She'll meet with a lot of people she might personally find offensive, like John Boehner. As Secretary of State she met with, and will meet with some pretty awful people, like Raul Castro, Vladimir Putin, she might even meet the President of Kazakhstan (who is a butcher and should be jailed) Nursultan Nazarbayev.
What would you have her do?

[ghostsinthemachine]

4. ding a freaking ling

The Clinton/Bush chumminess makes me sick as well.

[Art_from_Ark]

46. It is disgusting

As was Bill Clinton's campaigning against the more liberal US Senate candidate in the 2010 Arkansas Democratic primary.

[Agschmid]

6. ERMAGGERD!!!!

A photo! I am outraged by what I see!

[MisterP]

77. fine, we'll talk about her record: should we start with Syria or Honduras first?

[Agschmid]

81. You pick...

Glad someone is willing to talk facts rather than post memes.

[Agschmid]

187. I don't see it...

Leaked State Department Cables show no connection to the orchestration of the coup, but rather point out the illegality of the action https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09TEGUCIGALPA645_a.html

Sure the situation is worse than before but Honduras has never really had a stable government and in some way operated from coup to coup. Even as you state in your post:

and this is just in the past 6 years: in the 80s Washington knew they'd slaughtered 200 men and women, helped the Salvadorans kill nearly 600 on the rivers, and took advantage of the Honduran mafia to use cocaine profits to fund the Contras (think ISIS, without the ability to build any legitimacy whatsoever): 2000-3 they shot almost a hundred teens and kids every month, as bad as Brazil, but that was a mostly-Honduran initiative,

I don't see how this was caused by Hillary, if your point is she was unable to resolve it then I agree but the U.N., Secretary Kerry, and E.U. have also been completely helpless in resolving this issue.

If your point was that she didn't work to re-instate Zelaya... as Secretary of State she had a boss so I'd hazard a guess they were on the same page?

On 28 June 2009, the Honduran military grabbed their nation's popular democratically elected progressive President, Manuel Zelaya, and flew him into exile.

The AP headlined from Tegucigalpa the next day, "World Leaders Pressure Honduras to Reverse Coup," and reported: "Leaders from Hugo Chavez to Barack Obama called for reinstatement of Manuel Zelaya, who was arrested in his pajamas Sunday morning by soldiers who stormed his residence and flew him into exile."

Secretary Clinton, in the press conference the day after the coup, "Remarks at the Top of the Daily Press Briefing", refused to commit the United States to restoration of the democratically elected President of Honduras. She refused even to commit the U.S. to using the enormous leverage it had over the Honduran Government to bring that about.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/hillary-clintons-two-fore_1_b_3714765.html?

[LexVegas]

9. You must hate this guy too...

[Buzz Clik]

30. +1

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Ceremonial niceties.

And Mandela could be gracious; he won...

[MADem]

462. No, when Mandela was released from prison, he went to the USA and sought out Kissinger.

Kissinger taught him everything he knew about shuttle diplomacy, a concept he invented. Mandela was grateful for Kissinger's help and guidance, and used that knowledge with FW De Klerk to end apartheid in his country.

That encounter with HK started a friendship which, despite political differences, lasted until Mandela's death. They had enormous regard for one another. That hug is REAL. It's not "ceremonial."

But see...there ya go. Two people with differering views, finding a way to some points of agreement. It's how adults behave.

[ThoughtCriminal]

43. +2

The OP is unworthy.

[Starry Messenger]

47. Shit, I was gonna guess Stephen Colbert.

I got out-Mandela'd. Good find!

[Skittles]

120. hypocrisy is on high display on DU

Last edited Tue Apr 14, 2015, 12:08 AM - Edit history (1)

seriously, the way they trip all over themselves regarding who hates Hillary the most

[Agschmid]

126. Yup.

[DeSwiss]

240. Mandela was in prison when Kissinger was doing most of his murdering.

- Hillary was not. But I suppose this was a barely adequate attempt though. Keep trying, maybe there's one or two pics with Kissinger and Mother Teresa out there somewhere.

You know, from the Peace Prize recipient's reunion.

[MADem]

290. Mandela learned "shuttle diplomacy" from Kissinger and used it to end apartheid in S. Africa.

Buried deep in an old World Cup article (Kissinger was a bigwig on some 'football' governing body)...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/opinion/15iht-edcohen.html

Kissinger told me, rather to my surprise given their political views, that he and Nelson Mandela were close, that Mandela had studied his shuttle diplomacy in prison and became fascinated by it to the point that, when he visited the United States after his release from prison in 1990, he requested a meeting with Kissinger.

“Mandela’s conduct has been extraordinarily wise,” Kissinger, who will attend the final rounds of the World Cup, told me. “He is one of the great men I have met.”

DeKlerk, Mandela, Kissinger...



I guess we need to dig up Mandela and throw him under the bus, too...?

[BeanMusical]

466. So Mandela saved many many lives and his country with the knowledge acquired from

someone who could have also done some good with that knowledge but instead choose to do the exact opposite. Fascinating. And quite sad...

[shirleyplz]

408. good response

haven't we all held our nose & done things like that because decorum. in fact you could say it speaks well of someone who finds another person odious to behave in a civil manner.

[leftofcool]

10. Nobody asked you to be happy and you can vote for who ever you like.

[NET]

12. My friend told me yesterday to come here and join this site

I was happy to join a progressive democratic site to be able to chat with other
democrats .

I don't understand all this hate right now

She's going to make us a great president

[bunnies]

17. frowny face. lol.

Some of us are liberals. Youll find the majority here are centrists like you. Please stop calling yourselves progressive.

[KittyWampus]

38. please stop calling yourself a progressive. IDEALOUGE is the correct term.

[bunnies]

45. Bullshit.

Im at least a PURITAN by now. PURGE!!!

[NanceGreggs]

274. I am astonished by your ability ...

... to determine that someone is a "centrist" - or anything else - by reading one reply they've posted. That is an amazing gift!

BTW, said poster did not call himself - or anyone else - a "progressive". He/she said, "I was happy to join a progressive democratic site to be able to chat with other democrats."

"Please stop calling yourselves progressive."

The use of "yourselves", plural, denotes a group. Can you identify who that group is, and why they should - per your pronouncement - stop calling themselves "progressive"?

I haven't been in the DU loop of late, so I must have missed the anointing of your own fine self as the final arbiter of who is a progressive and who has the right to call themselves one, all based no doubt on your amazing talent for "knowing" who's a centrist and who's a progressive on the basis of a single post.

[bunnies]

310. right. nt

[NCTraveler]

342. Dr. Frist. Paging Dr. Frist. nt.

[scarletwoman]

18. My apologies then. I'm an old woman who was in college during the Vietnam War.

A certain amount of cynicism sets in after so many decades of witnessing the triumph of American Imperialism. At least among us old Leftists. We can be easily ignored with no consequence - ask anyone.

[Blue_In_AK]

25. "Easily ignored with no consequence."

Yup.

[NET]

33. I can understand us not having a perfect candidate

No matter who runs we can always find fault with someone but
she has been a Democrat her whole adult life.
She's tried to get some kind of progressive healthcare system out in the forefront
when she was first lady even though back then it was a taboo topic for a any first lady to take on.

She's strong , smart

I think she will make us a great president

[blue neen]

50. .

A sincere welcome to DU.

You're absolutely right about the progressive healthcare system...Hillary was years ahead of everyone else on that issue, and basically got crucified by the Republicans because of it.

[dflprincess]

57. No one has said she isn't smart

and she'll make a great president for Wall Street.

[DeSwiss]

250. ''She's strong , smart''

- And? That's it? You picked two good ones and left off everything else?

Doesn't sound progressive.......

[Art_from_Ark]

66. Today's Democratic Party seems to bear less and less resemblence

to the party that I joined back in the '70s.

[appalachiablue]

219. The God's truth. This might be a 5th cousin, twice removed!

[RiffRandell]

245. Jesus, you do have the choice to leave the party.

I'm sure Nader will crawl out from his cave soon.

Have you ever heard of primaries?

Hillary may have some opponents.

It's so comical to read on here that one Dem announced they are running and people are freaking out.

[Art_from_Ark]

246. Cut the Nader crap

And yes, I've freakin' heard of primaries. And in fact, I have a bad taste in my mouth from a couple of primaries that were obviously tilted toward the party's preferred candidate. In one instance the party even forced out a more liberal candidate before he even had a chance to start his primary campaign. In another instance, both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama campaigned against that same person, even though he was essentially a young Bill Clinton. And in both cases, the party's preferred candidate got their ass handed to them on the proverbial platter, in a state that had been heavily Democratic.

So don't lecture me about primaries.

[JI7]

279. you do realize that primaries are usually based on the party ? and that whoever the democratic

party favors in a democratic primary is usually going to win it ?

[Art_from_Ark]

304. Why not just let the people vote, then

and save the endorsements until a primary winner emerges?

Bill Clinton had no damn business getting involved in the primary-- and neither did Barack Obama. Obama's endorsement was the kiss of death in a state where his popularity was less than 40%.

[JI7]

332. they are allowed to vote for anyone they want

An endorsement doesn't mean people have to vote for the one that was endorsed.

In los Angeles the candidate for mayor who was endorsed by clinton lost.

[Art_from_Ark]

334. We weren't allowed to vote in last year's gubernatorial primary

The state's Democratic establishment made sure of that. And their hand-picked candidate got his ass handed to him on a platter.

Say hello to Governor Hutchinson.

[JI7]

336. Can you give info on that ?

Did they cancel the primary ?

[Art_from_Ark]

340. Why cancel the primary when there is only one candidate?

It's documented in the Arkansas forum. Former lieutenant governor Bill Halter announced his candidacy for governor, then suddenly bowed out of the race to make room for the state party's establishment candidate Mike Ross, who ended up running unopposed in the primary. Fellow Arkansan Sinkingfeeling actually met Halter during his preliminary campaign. The man was obviously forced out, since he had the drive, ambition and experience to run for governor.

[JI7]

345. How was he forced out ?

Was he banned from running ?

[Art_from_Ark]

346. If the state party says you won't get any support if you do win

that's incentive enough to bow out.

Perhaps Halter didn't want a repeat of the New Jersey debacle, when the Democratic candidate for governor was all but abandoned by her own party (ask sabrina1 for details).

And that wasn't the first time that Halter had been dissed by fellow Democrats-- Bill Clinton and Barack Obama actually campaigned against him in the 2010 primary for US Senate. And their gal ended up losing the general election by an embarrassingly wide margin.

[JI7]

382. so why be part of such a party ?

I'm supposed to believe this person could have won in a ge in a red state but didn't run because of certain names not backing them ?

[Art_from_Ark]

463. What other choices are there?

In modern times, the only 3rd party candidate to take Arkansas "by storm" was George Wallace in 1968.

Since then, the best that a 3rd party candidate has been able to do in a state election was the 13% that Green Party candidate Rebekah Kennedy* mustered against Steve Womack in the 2012 Congressional election for the 3rd District.


*Apparently, this is the best showing of any Green Party candidate in any election at the national level.

[Art_from_Ark]

464. I will also add

If you considered yourself a Democrat, would you go 3rd Party to essentially siphon off votes from another Democrat?

[frylock]

422. lol @ primaries..

as a Californian, the next primary I vote in that has any meaning will be my first.

[Enthusiast]

402. Pfft!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Adrahil]

19. Don't sweat it. Really.

I was just like you. I came here to be surrounded by Democrats and was shocked at all the folks bad mouthing Obama and Clinton.

I'm convinced half of them are Freepers stirring the pot.

But don't let it get to you!

Welcome to DU and GO HILLARY!!!

[Agschmid]

21. Yup.

[eridani]

27. Why? Because freepers hate TPP, Keystone XL and endless war in the ME??

Lots of us think that Democratic values are more important than particular politicians.

[Adrahil]

41. Just look how the RWers are reacting to her announcement. They are going fucking insane.

I have no doubt some of them are here egging on those genuine leftists who are critical of her. Anything to kill her momentum.

But she WILL be Madame President!

[eridani]

130. Better her than a Republican. But better a Democrat with Democratic values than Clinton. n/t

[MADem]

113. Fortunately, once election season begins in earnest, they'll be forced to hold their water.

That's in the TOS, and good thing, too.

[sheshe2]

185. Hold their water~

Now that is going to hurt!

[MADem]

214. We'll see a lot of this once general election season kicks in!!

[sheshe2]

218. Stop Stop~

[Cha]

62. Welcome to DU, NET.. there's plenty of progressives to talk to. President Obama has made tons

of Progress! And, I just hope whomever the Dem nom is will Win and build on that!

[Lochloosa]

78. Welcome to DU NET.

[calimary]

162. Welcome to DU NET!

Glad you're here! Part of what you get here is us in all our cantankerousness! Yay!!!! I'm a Hillary supporter. I KNOW she isn't perfect. But I try to be practical and remember that I'm actually voting for Supreme Court pickers. And the very thought of coloring in the little circle for anybody in the clown car (which I said in another thread had become a veritable banana boat) is just really not an option. It is rather unthinkable. And yeah, I do think it's gonna be Hillary Clinton. I think she's brilliant and capable and shrewd and intelligent and reasoning and discerning. And yes - NOT perfect. But at her worst, she's LIGHTYEARS better than anything they've got, on the other side.

There really isn't an option. But there IS a very clear choice. I spend a lot of time here trying to bat down the notion that both parties are the same. Like a brick is the same as a grain of aquarium gravel, just because they're both hard.

[treestar]

263. Welcome to DU!

You'll be surprised how many are anti this or that Democrat!

[guillaumeb]

16. also at the party were:

Condoleeza Rice, a war criminal who helped lie the country into war,
David Petraeus, a self promoting adulterer who violated and compromised national security for sex,
Colin Powell, another lying war criminal who also covered up My Lai,
and Donald Rumsfeld, yet another war criminal who used his government connections for fiduciary gain.

If we are known by the company we keep, what are we to make of this assemblage?

Too bad Medea Benjamin had not been at the party. She knows how to greet Kissinger.

[Agschmid]

22. I don't know but you spend a whole lot of time on DU...

With lots of "centrists" and "third-wayers" should I judge you based on that? It is the company you choose to keep...

[guillaumeb]

28. and your "proof" for your comment

and how it relates to what I said here?

[Agschmid]

31. I don't need proof, here you are.

It relates perfectly you'd like to make a brash generalization based on a photo and it seems that I should feel free to be able to do the same thing?

[guillaumeb]

367. Correction, here "we' are. All 229 thousand of us.

I never make brash generalizations. All my comments are well reasoned and thoughtful, except for the occasional brash generalization.

[MADem]

197. Oh, SNAP!

I think your excellent point sailed high overhead--but that was priceless!

[24601]

172. Even if Petraeus is a slime, did he ever use the powers of his office to smear the "other woman",

or did his resign?

Was his wife ever complicit in covering up any/all of his infidelities? I don't believe so, but if she ever did, she's unfit for office, too.

[guillaumeb]

372. Petraeus might be a slime, but he is a free slime.

Unlike Chelsea Manning, who is serving a prison term for treason, and Edward Snowden, who would be in prison if he were in US custody.

[24601]

448. Private Manning never even faced charges for treason, the only crime defined in the

Constitution. The charges for which Manning was convicted include espionage, theft and fraud. The charge of aiding the enemy did not result in conviction.

As a civilian, Mr. Snowden is not subject to Court Martial and the forum would be federal court. Which district would be an interesting question. Hawaii perhaps?

[guillaumeb]

467. it is an interesting question

but the larger point of Petraeus' gross violation of the law and his oath as a Federal employee, and the lightness of his sentence, highlights that there are two justice systems in this country.

[realFedUp]

23. Yeah, someone who "colors" upto a foreign leader

For no good reason is just awful.

[JEB]

24. Fuck Henry Kissinger

and anybody able to tolerate the presence of that vile excuse for a human.

[Buzz Clik]

29. Geez. An ancient Nobel Peace Prize winner and fellow ex-Secy of State.

I am not a fan of Hillary, but if she had snubbed Henry the K, I would have despised her.

We really need to quit drawing the line in the sand and learn to talk with our political opponents.

[Art_from_Ark]

79. That Nobel Peace Prize winner was instrumental in the overthrow of the Salvador Allende government

which ushered in nearly 2 decades of despotic rule by Augusto Pinochet in Chile. And look up "Operation Condor". The Kissinger era was a dangerous time to be on the left side of the political fence in South America.

[Buzz Clik]

105. I know his history.

I stand by my comment with no additions and no desire to debate my position.

[Art_from_Ark]

109. You know his history, but you're still fine with it

despite all of the pain and suffering it caused in Latin America and elsewhere.

OK. Whatever.

[Buzz Clik]

132. Read it again. Carefully this time.

[Art_from_Ark]

167. Yeah, I read it again

And you still seem to be comfortable with the horrible things that man was responsible for.

Tell me something, would you schmooze with him? Would you lead the crowd in a rousing rendition of "Happy Birthday" for him? Of for Dubya or Cheney, for that matter?

[totodeinhere]

229. If Hillary Clinton can be such good friends with him why can't the rest of us?

See post #223.

After all, she is the prohibitive favorite to be our nominee.

[Buzz Clik]

298. We'll attribute your lack of understanding to my bad writing skills.

[lastlib]

163. The only thing I would have to say to that particular political opponent is:

"Burn in the fires of Hell, you filthy, lying, murdering sonofabitch!!"

Or words to that effect.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Please post a warning next time

That zombie scared the shit out of my dog.

[KittyWampus]

36. In politics you "cozy up" when necessary. Your sentiment is facile.

Thank heavens many DU'ers are so busy typing on DU and not actually involved in politics on ANY level. Not even a local garden club.

Cause it's obvious that a lot of DU'ers simply melt down when they have to deal with people they don't like or disagree with.

[scarletwoman]

44. Yes, that's what so lovely about politics.

If only I could so blithely cozy up to mass murderers - I might be able to get into politics, too!

Alas, my gag reflex won't let me.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. If you're waiting for a national politician who's willing to kick Kissinger in the nuts onstage

you're gonna be waiting a long time.

[LovingA2andMI]

65. Thank You!!!

[KittyWampus]

83. you've already had several DU'ers post similar photos of any number of Democrats w/ Kissinger

including Jimmy Carter.

And yet you still blather on?

[treestar]

266. yeah it's hard to imagine how these geniuses could be President

and the things they expect the POTUS to do are hilarious. And they really think hero Elizabeth Warren would do that. "I refuse to enter this room because war criminal Henry Kissinger is here."

[Warren DeMontague]

39. Washington DC is a small place and a small club.

Like how some here act shocked - shocked! - that the Clintons associate with the Bushes, when they should presumably be loudly denouncing them at every charity gala they happen to all attend together.

It doesnt work that way.

To Hillary's credit, she was part of the legal process that got Nixon out of the White House. I think that is at least as relevant as this picture.

[JaneyVee]

40. Who is trying to convince you to be happy about it?

[Thinkingabout]

48. As SOS Hillary met with many people, part of her job, to judge Hillary by interacting with

Kissinger of whom also served as SOS making them in an elite group.

Perhaps trying to convince others this is bad does not make the rest happy.

[scarletwoman]

58. Does that include going to a war criminal's birthday party?

No, wait, don't tell me. It's just part of the deal. The Elites stick together. I know this. Doesn't mean I have to like it. Is it in poor taste to point it out?

I don't know why anyone should complain, I already said I'd vote for her in the General Election if she's the Dem candidate.

[Thinkingabout]

100. Are you trying to get others to dislike Hillary because of Kissinger? Won't happen, I doubt you

would change your mind either. Would posting about Kissinger make you connected to him?

[MADem]

51. Because when people have their picture taken with someone at an official event, that AUTOMATICALLY

means they think alike? What a lame thesis, to put it kindly. Don't expect me to be enthused by it....







https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=

[William769]

55. BINGO!

[MADem]

70. Threads like this are just ... embarrassing.

To the site as a whole, and to those who think they are being clever when they create them.

Pictures are certainly worth a thousand words, but in those thousand words there are as many lies as truths. To draw any conclusions based on photographs taken at official events is, well, lacking in nuance, to put it as politely as I can muster.

[William769]

73. This thread is not one of DU's finest moments.

As you saw I asked up thread & got the runaround. What's even more sad are the recommendations.

Hope all is well with you.

[MADem]

98. All you can do is consider the source.

I'm hanging in there, as I always do!

[William769]

99. Good to hear! Me too.

[dflprincess]

69. Gee Mom all the cool kids are hanging with war criminals, why can't I?

Years ago my friend's dad nearly ruined his career with one of the large companies in Minnesota. Werner Von Braun was touring the facility and friend's dad was high enough up the food chain that he was expected to attend a reception for Von Braun. He went to the reception but, while there, made it clear in loud and no uncertain terms that he had "spent nearly 4 years fighting the Goddamn Nazis and there was no way he'd shake hands with one now."

He had more integrity than anyone in the photos you posted.

[KittyWampus]

86. including Nelson Mandela and Jimmy Carter. LOL

[MADem]

93. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

The documentarian who produced "Ghosts of Abu Ghraib" posed with Kissinger in a photo that looks like an engagement picture. Does she lack integrity, too, along with Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden, etc?


Mature people--as we see in the pictures that I have posted here--can disagree without being

1. Childish

2. Disagreeable

3. Stupid

If your "friend's dad" wanted to "ruin his career" by bellowing at a company event that he was PAID to attend that he didn't want his picture taken, I doubt that being forced to pose for a snapshot was his problem. He was probably close to getting fired anyway because he lacked judgment--behaving in that manner was a huge clue (if he even said or did those things, which I frankly doubt). When the cameras come out, the way to handle this is to excuse yourself with a bit of a stomach problem and head for the bathroom. Or better still, "get the flu" and stay home.

You don't announce in "loud and no uncertain terms" that you're intent on being an asshole and ruining the event that the people who GIVE YOU YOUR PAYCHECK have put together. That is what childish, disagreeable, stupid assholes do (or they claim they do).

In sum, that's not "bravery," and that's not "integrity," that is asinine, childish, stupidity. It's probably also a bullshit war story.

If he had REAL "integrity," as he supposedly claimed, he wouldn't EVEN WORK for people who consort with those he says he despises. Their "blood money" was apparently good enough for him, wasn't it? He moved "up in the food chain" and enjoyed the benefits of his employment, after all.

Basically, all we're quibbling about with that guy and his stupid little Tough Guy story is his PRICE. He'll take their money, he just won't pose for pictures. Lots of people who take money for services rendered have a similar scruple.

So, whatever...

[dflprincess]

125. Actually, he did move to a small engineering firm that did not deal with these types

A few of the men (all engineers were men back then) in his group left as well as they were not comfortable with the direction the company was going.

Didn't make as much money but he was happier.

BTW - no one gave him a paycheck, he earned it. Yes, he could have crept silently away and not said anything about Von Braun being a Nazi - God knows that was not a popular thing to remind America about in those days. Just as it is not popular now to remind people that Kissinger, and more recently, the Bush Cabal are war criminals. Americans just don't like to discuss that sort of thing - unless we're referring to the foreign enemy du jour.

[MADem]

175. Sorry, and nothing against you-I still think your tale told to you by your friend is a war story.

He probably left because they allowed him to quit before he was fired, and that was a fine excuse for him to use as a reason for leaving. The story does NOT ring true. He could have gotten the flu or a flat tire and kept that "integrity" of his. His "integrity" didn't get in the way of taking the job or the pay that put him at that reception in the first place. Anyone who "loudly announces" anything at a workplace reception is begging for a pink slip, or a "pack your things and quit before you're shitcanned" talk. He's certainly not angling for a good recommendation from his bosses, is he? It's not quite peeing in the punchbowl, but it's being disruptive to no real benefit. That leads me to believe he was about to get fired, if that isn't how he departed the company.

It's not that "America doesn't like to discuss that sort of thing" -- it's that most of America understands that time and place are important in the context of having these sorts of discussions. Workplace receptions and official functions are just NOT an effective time or place.

But in any event, he wasn't a secretary of state attending a function populated by secretaries of state, was he? He was a worker at a firm who apparently didn't have any loyalty to his company, had no respect for the people who hired him, and didn't have any expectation of getting a good reference, assuming his tale was true (and I don't think it was, as I said).

When I see a thread excoriating John Kerry, Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden, Nelson Mandela and Stephen Colbert for posing in a chummy way with "that war criminal," (and gee, they did that posing years ago--so many opportunities for people to post such a thread, and yet, no one did it? How ... ODD!!!! But AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN, I see this same old meme, this same old picture, of a female Secretary of State with another Secretary of State at an official function for .. SECRETARIES of STATE, and I'm supposed to put on my Poutrage Face? Unnnh, unnnh--not happening!) I will believe that this kind of criticism is something other than the usual "higher standard" and excessive criticism that is ROUTINELY heaped upon women in public life.

As I have noted, and am sad to say, in my experience some of the most offensive perpetrators of this kind of "shit on women/excuse men for the same behavior" thing are women. You'd think people who ostensibly wear the "liberal/progressive" label would walk the walk...

[dflprincess]

428. My friend didn't tell me the story, her mother told it to us.

Said friend's mom was English and had been in London during the Blitz (they had met when he was stationed in England). This was an event that wives were also expected at, suffice to say Mrs. X did not attend as she wasn't going to be in the same room with Von Braun. This was a household that had no love for Von Braun or any other Nazi and wasn't willing to fake it.

[MADem]

458. That guy was out the door regardless of Von Braun, I suspect. I know you think otherwise, but

my sense is that he either quit or was pink slipped. Despite expectations, he could have avoided the encounter easily, with a plausible excuse, too. Households can and do get the flu--it's an easy excuse. Flat tires in the days before cell phones and AAA worked well, too. And of course, there's always the ill auntie or other obscure relative who has gotten sick or died.

Anyone who falls on their sword in that fashion isn't operating with good judgment, that's why it just doesn't ring true with me. "Hey, look at me, i have no sense of loyalty to my bosses OR a notion of propriety! AND I am so exorcised that I'm willing to lose my job, take one with LESS pay, all for the sole goal of making a brief and rude remark to a guy who won't care or remember it, and who knows full well what he was, what he did, and for whom he worked! Yeah...that'll 'show' him!"

I get the sense you were told a bit of family fiction by those folks. But hey, who knows? Like Judy Tenuda used to say "It coulda happened!"

I mean, really--no one had "love" for Von Braun. What we sought was his brain and his rocketeering skills. And we knew if we didn't snatch him up, the Russians would have so done without compunction. People forget the days of Duck and Cover and Mutually Assured Destruction. That shit, and the sense of fear it engendered, made Nahn Wun Wun look like a playground.

[scarletwoman]

101. That's the thing, isn't it? You have to go along to get along.

At what point does a genuine human being stop and say, "No! I'm NOT going to go along with this shit!"? And I wonder what kind of world we could create if people in positions of power DID say that?

Oh, never mind the bombing of Cambodia. Oh, never mind the coup in Chile. Oh, never mind the genocide in East Timor. Those were all just little people, we're part of the Elite, we understand the necessity of these things in the big picture of American Imperialism.

Why should I, just another "little people" be okay with that? Why should I not object?

Thank you for speaking about your friend's dad. Yes, he indeed had integrity. Would that more people had such.

[treestar]

268. I just looked at his wikipedia article

on what do you base his being a "war criminal" that is something society in general should agree with?

[Scootaloo]

95. Albright and Powel aren't great examples, if you're trying to whitewash war crimes n/t

[MADem]

97. I'm trying to demonstrate that only people without nuance or much in the way of depth look at a

photograph, a single moment in time at an official function, and draw a conclusion that is not in evidence anywhere IN the photograph.

I've succeeded, too.

But do double down, if you'd like!

[Scootaloo]

108. Not a lot of nuance to be had on the issue of war crimes, MADem

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

[H2O Man]

114. I was hoping

that one of them might respond.

Very interesting, what you linked to there.

[MADem]

116. You're the one looking at people dressed up in their Sunday best and making a "war crime" out of it.

And you're crying about nuance?

I knew you could be relied upon to double down, though. You are certainly predictable.

[Scootaloo]

127. Your defense of Kissinger is "he was dressed nice"?

I've got not time for you tonight, MADem.

[MADem]

151. Of course you've "got no time."

You're still smarting from the last encounter.

You mistake my ridiculing you for a shitty, stupid argument based on a photograph at an official function for a "defense of Kissinger." No one here is "defending Kissinger." That's an invention of your mind. that you're using to goad and bait.

That's your characteristic approach to discussion on this board, and why I cannot take you seriously--you can't debate without playing those immature games.

I see you. I'm not the only one, either.

[Scootaloo]

158. "I see you. I'm not the only one, either. "

You're only making me laugh harder, chief.

[MADem]

176. You are indeed easily amused, I see! nt

[Scootaloo]

180. You reminded me of a movie

[MADem]

220. For someone who didn't "have time" for me (your words) you sure have carved out a lot of it.

And you just can't resist the personal, appearance-based insult as a mode of "argument' yet again! It's a pattern with you.

And speaking of "always watching"--YOU sought ME out in this subthread (as you've done before)--not the other way around. You might want to do some serious looking in the mirror and then check your little gif for similarities.

So predictable, you are.

[Scootaloo]

230. What? n/t

[Skittles]

159. it's what non-critical thinkers believe

usually found on shit sites like the Freak Republic

[MADem]

160. Precisely. nt

[sheshe2]

190. Boom!

I so love you MADem!

[MADem]

192. Right back atcha! nt

[treestar]

267. Exactly, it's so insulting

Like where Obama once served on a board with Saul Alinsky, therefore he must think exactly like Alinsky does.

[MADem]

270. Indeed. You expect that kind of stuff from GOP sources.

You don't expect such a poor "argument" from within your own team's ranks, though.

I'm using the word "argument" because I don't want to say what I really think of the OP.

[1000words]

56. Bookmarking

Good to know what moral ground certain "progressives" occupy.

[asiliveandbreathe]

59. What is your agenda? - I remember this as a republican

tactic against President Obama and the Rev. Wright...what up? - you might as well sit this one out..because Hillary will be the DEMOCRATIC candidate.

Congratulations Mrs. President

[dflprincess]

87. Sit this one out?

So you're encouraging the left wing of the party not to vote?

Probably not helpful.

(BTW Rev. Wright is not a war criminal, he just said things the right wing didn't like. Big difference.)

[asiliveandbreathe]

365. No - I encourage everyone to vote - I take exception to those

who can't see beyond their own agenda or nose for that matter...

BTW - thanks for the info re Rev. Wright - you so smart....

Sometimes you don't get what you want, you get what you need, and we need a candidate who can win - the SCOTUS depends on it!

[procon]

60. Politicians "cozy" up to all sorts of disreputable characters all the time.

Unless you're a political neophyte, you must know this is a common, everyday occasion for American politicians who have pretended to be chummy with every sort of scoundrel and miscreant. The higher they are, the more egregious the WH guest list becomes as they jockey for power and diplomatic victories.

To imagine that Clinton is called to a different standard than anyone else, is naive at best.

[MADem]

141. Women in politics are often judged more harshly than men. Not sure why this is.

And women observing women in politics are sometimes the harshest critics with some of the lamest objections. That Maureen Dowd of the NYT is a prime example. It's like she regards them as sexual competition, or something--it's creepy.

I've never seen a post like this calling out Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Jimmy Carter, Nelson Mandela or Stephen Colbert for taking a chummy picture with Kissinger. Would that be that thing called "male privilege" or just that women get bullied for absolutely no good reason, even on Democratic boards, like in this thread?

[cascadiance]

313. Libertarian goddess Ayn Rand also admired serial killer Bill Hickman heavily too...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/how-ayn-rand-became-a-big-admirer-of-serial-killer-william-hickman/

This shouldn't excuse her or Hillary for minimizing the behavior of who they associate with/admire.

It is a sign that we need to start looking more for leadership that reflect values that we can respect, and who hopefully align themselves with others that are respectable too.

[procon]

350. Why should I care who a sci-fi author -- especially that one -- admires?

In politics, recall that the Bush Administration practiced the same foreign policy you're suggesting, of never speaking with the disreputable leaders of countries he opposed. Amongst the problems that fiasco created, his recalcitrance allowed Iran and N Korea to proliferate their nuclear programs with scant opposition.

It is unrealistic to think that any nation, let alone a superpower like the US, can exert influence or demand concessions from other countries if our leaders are acting like disgruntled teenagers and refusing to talk with anyone they dislike. I expect that our political statesmen will have the self confidence and sophistication necessary to rise above their personal animus and diligently negotiate through diplomatic channels with friend and foe alike to achieve successful agreements that benefit our country, rather than flounce off in high dudgeon.

[cascadiance]

359. Ayn Rand's Libertarian followers don't think of themselves as just "sci fi" fans!

I'm a sci fi fan, and I'm certainly no fan of "Atlas Shrugged" to the degree that Paul Ryan was when he made it required reading for those in his office.

Yes, politicians in the course of doing their WORK on negotiating treaties, etc. will work with those that they and many other Americans may despise, but when you talk about casual meetings like what Hillary has had with Kissinger, and the worship that Rand accorded to Bill Hickman, those that follow them are being pushed to just accept the criminality of these associates when those two individuals did have the options of avoiding such contact or public display of support of them, without adversely affecting their lives or work.

[procon]

363. I do not see the validity of your comparison.

I want to see adults behave like adults, not react like self-centered, snotty brats. I don't want my country's leaders alarmed by "casual meetings", or concerned that someone will conflate a civil encounter as "worshiping".

I just can't make the spectacular leap of logic that equates merely being present in the same assemblage as an implicit acceptance or support of anyone's questionable past.

[KMOD]

67. scarletwoman

Last edited Mon Apr 13, 2015, 11:41 PM - Edit history (1)

there is a huge difference between liberals like yourself, you aren't happy with a Clinton candidacy because she doesn't match your values, and the posters who are clearly using right wing tactics to slam her here.

Please don't take the disgust aimed at those posters to be against you.

You, along with many others have my utmost respect. But clearly you must even see the pot stirrers among us.

[dflprincess]

71. Over 27,000 post and suddenly a troll?

Please.

You're not doing Clinton any favors pushing the left away with this crap.

[scarletwoman]

75. No biggie. This is why I rarely post.

If I say what I really think it's a disaster. It's just that, every once in awhile, I get this urge to post what I really think.

[Adrahil]

90. I know, right?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

118. Too bad that more of that isn't allowed.

[scarletwoman]

72. Thank you for the biggest laugh of this thread!

[leveymg]

94. That sounds like a TOS violation - calling out a long-time DU member as a "troll". Two actually.

You are actually the one who may be violating the DU rules.

Hillary isn't even the candidate yet.

It's not your say who goes bye, bye, chillfactor. Chill or go bye-bye.

[blue neen]

74. Politics can bring about the strangest of associations, can't it?

You know, like the Jane Hamsher/Grover Norquist partnership.

Whooda thunk it?

[Beacool]

208. In this case it wasn't even politics per se.

It was their jobs as SOS that brought them together. She even had to give him an award at one of these events when she was SOS. That's life, you do what you got to do.

[H2O Man]

76. Recommended.

Thank you for sharing your views with the DU community. I notice that a few folks were unhappy with you for posting this; indeed, one person "titled" a response with, "So gonna stay quiet now?" I am happy that you refuse to stay quiet. Thank you for that.

I would hope that, no matter who the Democratic Party's nominee is, that one thing we can agree on is that no "old woman who was in college during the Vietnam War" (See post #18, for readers unfamiliar with this description), should ever be asked to be quiet -- for expressing her opinion on an internet political discussion site. In fact, that general type of concept might be one of the more attractive promises associated with Hillary Clinton. Sad it's not found in all of her supporters.

Again, thank you.

[scarletwoman]

85. Thanks, H2O Man - your post means a lot to me.

I take full responsibily that posting such an OP was pretty much "asking for it". And I'm not the least bit sorry.

[H2O Man]

91. Oh, yes.

I think that I know you well enough that I knew you'd take full responsibility -- but I'm going to guess that there might have been a slight tug of a grin on your face when you read some of the responses! But that's not the only reason I responded as I did. I don't want anyone to be told to sit down and shut up, anymore, in our society .....except possibly some republicans in Congress.

[KittyWampus]

88. So you appreciate someone using guilt by association.

[H2O Man]

96. Why did you vote for Elmer Fudd?

Come on. Be serious. Did you read what I wrote?

[Cha]

288. Yes, everyone should be able to express their feelings on an internet political site..

As for Hillary's supporters.. So far from what I've seen.. Hillary has wonderful supporters on DU. I'm not there yet(I want to see who else has the fire in their belly).. but there are so many here who support her that have been cyber friends over the years. And, I'm really impressed with their energy and passion for their candidate.

[H2O Man]

319. The author of the OP

is a lady that I have gotten to know fairly well over the years. And someone that I have great respect for -- in my experience on DU, she ranks at the very top level of people that I consider Good Friends. Indeed, we are such Good Friends that, even if we may disagree on a specific issue, or in our views of a specific individual, it in no way reduces that mutual respect. For me, that is the best thing about this forum -- finding people like that who, because of physical distances, we would not otherwise encounter in life.

I'm "undecided" about Hillary Clinton. I have supported her in two US Senate races. And I've never failed to vote for the Democratic Party's candidate in a presidential election. Indeed, I have invested money, time, and energy in campaigning for almost all of them, as well as voting for them.

A fairly high percentage of people I like, and consider friends here on DU, are among the energetic and passionate Hillary Clinton supporters you spoke of. Likewise, a fairly high percentage of those that I am not fond of are, as well. But I do not question their motivation: they are Good Democrats, who honestly and sincerely believe that Ms. Clinton offers the nation the best opportunity for progress.

I do question some of the tactics that I see here on the forum. I always view election contests as including three groups: [a] those who will definitely vote for you; those who will definitely vote against you; and [c] the undecideds, who frequently decide elections. It is difficult for me to believe that the pro-Clinton folks on DU will be able to appeal to Group C in either the primary contest, or general election.

Still, I do not question their right to post whatever OPs they want, or to respond to other OPs -- including those they disagree with -- in whatever manner they want. I think it is a shame that they are too busy with swarming tactics to take note of the many lone responses by Clinton supporters that actually do appeal to Group C voters -- and, for that matter, have the potential to win over some here who currently are opposed to Hillary Clinton.

Indeed, at this point, both on DU and in real life, I find the "worst" thing about the Clinton campaign is not the candidate, but is the level of toxicity among many of her supporters.+

[stonecutter357]

381. .

[Beacool]

82. Meh, two SOS meeting at some official event.

Oh, the horror.....

[Art_from_Ark]

124. A birthday party is an official event?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/wp/2013/05/02/henry-kissinger-to-hillary-clinton-at-least-four-secretaries-of-state-became-president/

[Agschmid]

134. Yup.

[Beacool]

183. That pic was taken at the Atlantic Council’s Leadership Awards.

[Art_from_Ark]

194. Seems like it was also an unofficial birthday party for Kissinger

And Hillary led the crowd in singing "Happy Birthday" to him.

[Agschmid]

198. Singing happy birthday is a pretty typical thing to do when it's someones birthday...

Just saying.

[Art_from_Ark]

203. Would you lead the crowd in singing a rousing rendition of "Happy Birthday" to George Bush?

Or Dick Cheney? Or Donald Rumsfeld?

[Agschmid]

205. Yup.

Hell I'd even sing it to you if it was your birthday. Would you rather I just kick them in the balls and run? We all have to deal with people in a professional capacity that we may not want to hang out with in our personal life.

You should probably bookmark this, you'll want to link to it later I am sure.

[LordGlenconner]

370. +1

[Beacool]

204. Oh, the horror.

Should she have spit on him?

Come on, let's use common sense. We all have to deal with people in a professional capacity that we may not want to hang out with in our personal life.

[Art_from_Ark]

210. Oh for crying out loud!

Do you not understand the difference between keeping your distance from someone who is a reprehensible person, and acting like they're your bestest buddy?

Tell me-- were you even around when Kissinger was Secretary of State?

[Beacool]

217. I was too young for Kissinger.

Still, I think that her serving as SOS and being at the same events as Kissinger means squat. They both held the same job and were bound to cross paths at some of these affairs.

[Art_from_Ark]

277. They weren't merely at the same event

Did you not read the link I posted? They were schmoozing, palling around, being best buds. I could never do that with someone like Kissinger-- or Bush, or Cheney, or Rumsfeld, for that matter.

And I was around during the Kissinger years. At first I had some respect for him, because the Paris Peace Talks ended my chances of getting drafted. But then what happened after that, in Chile and Timor, caused me to re-examine the man. And then I learned about him helping to sabotage Johnson's peace negotiations in 1968. And his part in the bombing of Cambodia. And his promotion of Operation Condor. All those revelations destroyed whatever respect I still held for the man.

[Tanuki]

213. Did you even read your own link? It wasn't a birthday party.

According to your link, it was an annual event hosted by the Atlantic Council, at which HRC was being introduced and presented with a leadership award by Kissinger. "More than 700 guests — political, military, diplomats— from 33 countries attended the international security organization’s annual dinner, which officially launched the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center. The group always attracts big names: This year’s awardees were Clinton, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Chevron CEO John Watson, [Tony] Bennett, and Colombian singer and peace activist Juanes." Yeah, the article says that the evening ended with "Happy Birthday" being sung to Kissinger (whom I also despise and consider a war criminal many times over), who was turning 90 years old later that month, but to characterize this as a birthday party is misleading.

[marym625]

104. K&R

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

106. ...

You were saying?

[morningfog]

121. Worse is her IWR vote and "we came, we saw he died" Libya quip.

And in the 2008 campaign she suggested bombing Iran was on the table. She's a hawk.

The people on this thread bemoaning the use of "a single picture at a function" gloss over her support for acts of war of choice. She had a history, like most presidents, using and supporting war as an instrument of policy. It's sick and it should soon a Democratic candidate.

[Beacool]

188. That "quip" was taken out of context.

Hillary was being sarcastic. She had agreed to be interviewed by CBS when she was informed by her one of her aides (Huma handed her a BlackBerry) that Qaddafi had been captured. The CBS reporter then asked her if Qaddafi's capture was related to her visit to Libya a few days prior to that event. CBS only released her response, which BTW, was supposed to be off the record as the official interview hadn't even started yet. It was one of those "gotcha" moments that the media so loves to instigate.

[fizzgig]

143. that's something that's been gnawing at me

i'll vote for her if she's the candidate, but this makes me more than a bit ill.

[scarletwoman]

152. Dear fellow DUers - lest you think I've posted and run, I really have to go to bed

because I have to go to work in the morning.

Let me just leave you with a link to a few Kissinger quotes, which I'm sure you'll all find most edifying: http://www.alternet.org/world/top-10-most-inhuman-henry-kissinger-quotes

Thank you all for the lively responses to this thread.

[Major Hogwash]

265. Great thread. Really got the juices flowing today.

[lastlib]

157. (Maybe she's got hold of his nuts......)

Crushing that fucker's bling would sure put a big smile on my face. But I wouldn't want to stop there. War criminals deserve SO MUCH worse.

[Art_from_Ark]

166. Was that before or after she led the crowd

in a rousing rendition of "Happy Birthday" for Kissinger?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/wp/2013/05/02/henry-kissinger-to-hillary-clinton-at-least-four-secretaries-of-state-became-president/

[951-Riverside]

168. Aaah! That is one disturbing mental image.

Make it go away! Make it go awaaay!

[geek tragedy]

174. Almost as outrageous as this:

[MADem]

178. OMG--that's some SERIOUS "cozying up" to "a mass murderer!!" Where are the outraged threads?

It's OK if you're not Hillary, I guess...!



Game, set, match on that post! VERY well done, you!

[ronnie624]

235. They were world leaders and allies in a global war.

They had no choice but to meet and plan the geopolitical outcome. Hillary Clinton is under no such pressure to schmooze with Kissinger. The dynamic is not the same at all.

To me, her coziness with Kissinger simply symbolizes the continuation of the US foreign policy status quo, which shouldn't surprise anyone. She clearly agrees with it. Otherwise, she would have no hope of being president. Unfortunately, this also means the possibility of any desperately needed reform under her administration, is very slim.

[MADem]

254. Clinton never worked with or for Henry Kissinger. The dynamic most certainly is NOT the same

at all, but let's not let the "Guilt by Attendance at an Awards Event" and "Guilt by Holding the Same Job, Even Though DECADES Apart" brigades feel unloved here at DU...


Since you're so exorcised about Clinton's attendance at an event where Kissinger attended, you'll of COURSE be equally angry at Mandela, Biden, Obama, Colbert, etc. for their associations too--we don't want to be hypocritical, now, do we? Oh, and let's throw Diana's ghost under that bus, too, while we're at it?





DU can be a great site, but this thread is not DU's finest hour.

[ronnie624]

269. I'm "exorcised" about status quo politicians?

Hardly. Or at least I don't think so, anyway, as I'm not really sure about your intended use of that word. Observing partisan politics doesn't make me angry, however. I'm under no illusions about it.

[MADem]

276. "She certainly agrees with it," you say--as if you know this.

She certainly does nothing of the sort--as a quote elsewhere in this thread, from her own lips, makes clear. You can retain a professional regard for a person while disagreeing, even vehemently, with them--something that most of the people pictured in this thread, posing with Kissinger, are also able to do. Yet they avoid excoriation by the membership here--and that is rather curious.

[ronnie624]

281. I can't wait

to see her usher in, an era of reform to US foreign policy. An end to the GWOT™ and the ME policies of resource dominance, will be particularly welcomed.

[Major Hogwash]

262. We all know you hate FDR.

Without FDR, you'd be speaking German, Italian, or Japanese by now, depending on how they would have divvied up America.

[ronnie624]

272. Neither of those countries could have ever invaded the US.

Both ventures were doomed to failure from the very beginning.

[geek tragedy]

316. Excuse me? You kind of missed the point nt

[Rex]

216. What did Henry do that ever made his so popular with the elected types anyway?

Just out of curiosity? I already know what he did wrong.

[Art_from_Ark]

258. Good question

Darned if I know the answer, though.

[MADem]

285. It's possible to learn from people's successes AND their fuck-ups.

He was in the cabinet for a long time, as SECSTATE and as National Security Advisor. He has a lot of institutional knowledge about how nations operate, particularly those with entrenched leaderships, even as he participated in decision-making processes that more recent SECSTATEs don't agree with, and even if they don't advocate the same methodologies of response that he advocated.

Also, during his terms as SECSTATE/NSA, he made connections, as people do. It is not uncommon for governments to use backchannels to gain information unofficially. All countries do this. They on occasion use government service "retirees" to get the lay of the land in an informal way. These people don't get paid for these little assistances but it's a way to acquire information in a plausibly deniable fashion. Finally, he owns, with Brent Scowcroft (think about that for a bit), an "international consulting firm" that is very secretive in how they do business. They don't reveal their client list publicly, but I wouldn't be surprised if they let the US government know a thing or two every now and then.

[G_j]

222. Thank you

maybe it's just our age, but...

how soon people forget..

[totodeinhere]

223. Hillary Clinton Calls Henry Kissinger a Friend, Praises His Commitment to Democracy

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/09/05/hillary_clinton_henry_kissinger_pals.html

Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state. He checked in with me regularly, sharing astute observations about foreign leaders and sending me written reports on his travels. Though we have often seen the world and some of our challenges quite differently, and advocated different responses now and in the past, what comes through clearly in this new book is a conviction that we, and President Obama, share: a belief in the indispensability of continued American leadership in service of a just and liberal order.

There you have it folks.

[Agschmid]

228. You realize you quote a paragraph where it says they don't agree all that often?

Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state. He checked in with me regularly, sharing astute observations about foreign leaders and sending me written reports on his travels. Though we have often seen the world and some of our challenges quite differently, and advocated different responses now and in the past, what comes through clearly in this new book is a conviction that we, and President Obama, share: a belief in the indispensability of continued American leadership in service of a just and liberal order.

Does no one read what they post anymore?

[totodeinhere]

234. I read the entire article. The operative phrase is "Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his

counsel when I served as secretary of state." Of course they don't always agree. After all he is a Republican and she is a Democrat. But that doesn't change the fact that she is friends with a war criminal.

[MADem]

260. I'm afraid you're correct.

Not only is there a shortage of reading of links or excerpts, there's also a fervent hope that you won't read, either!

The links are often VERY telling-as you just demonstrated!

[totodeinhere]

308. As I told the other poster, I read the entire article. The article says that she called Kissinger

a friend and she praised his commitment to democracy. Yes they disagree on issues but why is she praising him and friends with a war criminal?

[MADem]

358. He's been convicted of nothing. When you fling that "war criminal" rubric around when there's been

no trial, no conviction, just a few half-assed subpoenas for questioning that expired without fanfare, and nothing more, you sound like one of those wild-eyed "To the Hague!" types. Kissinger still travels freely all around the globe, and does not fear arrest. You may not like this, or agree with it, but labeling him as a "war criminal" without any convictions for any crimes is just hyperbole. America IS a nation of laws--you can't suspend the process of administering justice just because you dislike someone. Further, our system of laws bends towards the presumption of innocence. If Kissinger hasn't been convicted of anything, it's because no one was able to mount a convincing case against him. You will just have to deal with that.

Nelson Mandela was his dear friend, too...how does one "explain" that? People who have different points of view can establish friendships. I realize that people who are intransigent, who are linear, who lack nuance in their daily thinking, might have problems with these kinds of complex associations, but people who operate on a higher intellectual level can reconcile these challenges with ease.

You obviously didn't do a very good job of reading that article. Hillary made it VERY clear that she disagrees with him on both policies and execution of same. Yet that's not enough for you. Would you have her run him through with a ceremonial sword? I mean, really--get real. It's not for her to administer justice--she's not the Attorney General, who apparently has no portfolio against the man, either. She did a very diplomatic job of disagreeing with his world view without being personally disagreeable. Would that people here would try that sometime...

It's comments in threads like these that are so asinine, that eschew basic diplomatic protocols and expect politicians and statespersons to behave like muggers and brawlers and street fighters in support of partisan notions, that bring the reputation of this site down. You will not see Kissinger indicted for anything. He will die in his warm bed of old age, most likely.

[ronnie624]

387. The case against Kissinger is airtight.

He would be convicted by his own words, if the power establishment was truly motivated by a sense of justice. He will die in his warm bed of old age, simply because the elites at the pinnacle of power live by a completely different standard of justice than the common citizen, and that has been true throughout history, in all human societies. It is the commission of crimes that makes one a criminal, not prosecution. We don't really need lawyers to tell us when someone has committed mass murder.

Your entire post, is a massive logical failure, and I wish I had more time to address it, but I have to go to work now. Your intellectual and mental contortions over these issues, are a result of your inability to accept certain facts about the system in which you have invested so much emotionalism. Questioning any part of it, would cause you some serious cognitive dissonance.

[MADem]

391. "Intellectual and mental contortions?" You should know.

You engage in the very behavior you attempt to ascribe to me.

He would be convicted? If what? If pigs fly? It hasn't happened, and it's unlikely to happen. So much for your "airtight" case--it's so airtight it hasn't been brought.

It's the PROVING that a crime has been committed that makes one a criminal--a suspect, no matter how much we may "suspect" them, is not a convict. A criminal is not a criminal because "ronnie624" or anyone else says so. That's not how it works. There's a little something called rule of law that has to kick in first, and the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of that rule of law.

I find it really disturbing that anyone who isn't an authoritarian or worse would advocate skipping the whole pesky "trial" bit and going straight to conviction and sentencing via Torch and Pitchfork method. That's hardly progressive, and it puts the pitchfork crew in the same category as the individual being excoriated.

NO ONE is above the law--not even those who are passing judgment.

As for a post that is a "massive logical failure" I think you need to have a hard look at your own little opus, there. The one getting emotional, wanting to skip the legal processes that are the foundation of our nation, and go directly to Frog March mode, isn't me--it's you. People who "really don't need lawyers" are also called DICTATORS, FWIW.

"Let the wheel of justice spin, bring the guilty bastard in" is not a good look. I'd advise you to eschew it. Kissinger may not be a nice guy in the slightest, but he's not a criminal until a judge and jury so declare him.

That's how it works, deal with it.

[ronnie624]

468. The concept of a fair trial belongs in a courtroom,

not necessarily on an internet discussion board. I'm free to have an opinion about Kissinger's guilt as a war criminal, and there is plenty of evidence to support that conclusion.

http://www.icai-online.org/xp_resources/barrett.pdf

[MADem]

471. You got that right...and it's in a courtroom where "criminality" is decided.

You're certainly free to opine all you'd like, but your opinion matters as to the justice system here or anywhere in the world about as much as mine does--that is to say, not at all.

I'm a fan of the presumption of innocence, and I think the more odious the charges, the more important it is to cross every T and dot every i. There have been too many people (mostly POC) who have been railroaded on trumped up charges and plenty of 'em end up on death row. For this reason, I don't care for frog marching, shortcuts, and trials by whisper campaigns.

I'm pretty confident that Kissinger will never be tried for any reason. He doesn't restrict his travel, he doesn't fear arrest. I don't think any country is going to nab him and force him to the bar of justice. It's just not going to happen, any more than, say, Raul Castro will be charged for all the people he murdered and ordered killed.

[ronnie624]

479. I don't believe he will ever be charged either.

But according to the evidence, including his own words, captured in recordings, he is guilty of ordering the deaths of many people, all over the world.

There is WAY too much straw in your posts. You should stick to addressing the words of the post to which you are replying.

[MADem]

480. No straw at all--I believe in rule of law, you--by your own comments--don't.

It's not like a coat you can take off, you know. You've got to stick with it even when the results don't go your way.

[ronnie624]

482. *

[MADem]

483. Asterisk and emoticon aside, I stand by my remarks--you either believe in rule of law, or you don't.

[ronnie624]

485. My remarks actually make it clear that I believe in the rule of law.

I never said that Kissinger should not receive a fair trial, but I have looked at the evidence, and in my opinion, which does not carry the weight of a court judgment, he is guilty as sin. Every prosecutor that files charges is calling someone guilty, before they have been convicted.

Your comments are simply illogical.

[MADem]

486. Well, I could say the same about your comments.

They're most certainly illogical--sort of a "cake and eat it too" approach to the "rule of law."

Have a nice day, now. *

[ronnie624]

487. That doesn't even make any sense. n/t

[treestar]

264. though we have often seen the world and our challenges quite differently

and he does have experience that could be useful

[totodeinhere]

309. And of course he is also a war criminal which is apparently fine with Clinton. Otherwise

she would not be praising him and calling him a friend. You know the old saying "you're only as good as the company you keep?"

Look, I will vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination, but this Kissinger thing is sickening.

[treestar]

328. No that's Saul Alinsky type stuff

It's not like she's with him every day.

And he's not accepted as "war criminal" by most of society, obviously.

[Art_from_Ark]

225. Sometimes,

I think I've stumbled onto a real-life version of Animal Farm.

"Two legs ba-a-a-a-a-d! Four legs go-o-o-o-od!"
And yet, when we peek into the farmhouse, and see the "two legs" cavorting and having a great old time with the "four legs", it's still "Two legs ba-a-a-a-a-d! Four legs go-o-o-o-od!"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

247. All you have to do is hold your nose and forget the dead, the tortured, and the homeless.

I won't.

[Major Hogwash]

259. And stock your bunker with a 20-year supply of canned goods in preperation for the coming wars.

If anyone here thinks that Hillary will not go out of her way to make her mark on history and become the first woman President to start a war, they are delusional.

[treestar]

252. So dumb

How is he a "mass murderer?" By any normal definition of the word?

Second, do you really expect people to shun him? Did you expect her to refuse to speak to him or be seen with him and say it's because he is a "mass murderer?"

Is there any politician who would do that? Be at the same function, wherever she is, and leave informing the media they will not be there in the room with him because he is a "mass murderer?" Do you think there is any politician who would do that? Do you think Liz Warren or Bernie Sanders would do that?

[Art_from_Ark]

273. Ever hear of Operation Condor?

Ever hear of the 1973 Chilean coup? The 1975 invasion of East Timor? The illegal bombing campaigns in Indochina? They have Kissinger's fingerprints all over them.

[treestar]

325. You blame him for those things?

Nobody in Chile / East Timor had anything to do with it.

[peequod]

291. How quickly people forget the murdered...and their murderers

Forget all about that boring history stuff, eh Treestar? Read up indeed, if you dare, on Operation Condor and Herr Dr. Kissinger's part in it, and let's see if you change your views of huggable old Uncle Henry. There you shall find many, many murders of Liberals like you and me, sickening cruelty, torture, rapes, and also child theft, and tons of silence about it afterwards, which I would hope would meet the definition of the words "mass murderer" to you, as it applies to Henry Kissinger and his documented knowledge, support, and implementation of Operation Condor.

Secondly, yes: if you claim to be a student of politics/history, and you call yourself a follower of Jesus, the Buddha, human rights, what have you, and you have even a tattered shred of decency, you should indeed publicly shun an unrepentant mass murderer...EVEN if you were a slimy, glad-handing politician.

I do believe Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders would openly shun or not invite the man to their functions.

[treestar]

326. Really then how come no one else blames him for it

Perhaps people do not share your interpretation, or he would not be invited to these events

Operation Condor (Spanish: Operación Cóndor, also known as Plan Cóndor, Portuguese: Operação Condor) was a campaign of political repression and state terror involving intelligence operations and assassination of opponents, officially implemented in 1975 by the right-wing dictatorships of the Southern Cone of South America. The program was intended to eradicate communist or Soviet influence and ideas, and to suppress active or potential opposition movements against the participating governments.[1]

Due to its clandestine nature, the precise number of deaths directly attributable to Operation Condor is highly disputed. Some estimates are that at least 60,000 deaths can be attributed to Condor,[2] and possibly more.[3] Condor's key members were the governments in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Brazil. The United States government provided technical support and supplied military aid to the participants until at least 1978, and again after Republican Ronald Reagan became President in 1981. Such support was frequently routed through the Central Intelligence Agency. Ecuador and Peru later joined the operation in more peripheral roles.[4] These efforts, such as Operation Charly, supported the local juntas in their anti-communist repression.[5]

Henry Kissinger[edit]
Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State in the Nixon and Ford administrations, was closely involved diplomatically with the Southern Cone governments at the time and well aware of the Condor plan. According to the French newspaper L'Humanité, the first cooperation agreements were signed between the CIA and anti-Castro groups, and the right-wing death squad Triple A, set up in Argentina by Juan Perón and Isabel Martínez de Perón's "personal secretary" José López Rega, and Rodolfo Almirón (arrested in Spain in 2006).[68]

On 31 May 2001, French judge Roger Le Loire requested that a summons be served on Henry Kissinger while he was staying at the Hôtel Ritz in Paris. Le Loire wanted to question the statesman as a witness regarding alleged U.S. involvement in Operation Condor and for possible US knowledge concerning the "disappearances" of five French nationals in Chile during military rule. Kissinger left Paris that evening, and Loire's inquiries were directed to the U.S. State Department.[69]

In July 2001, the Chilean high court granted investigating judge Juan Guzmán the right to question Kissinger about the 1973 killing of American journalist Charles Horman. (His execution by the Chilean military after the coup was dramatized in the 1982 Costa-Gavras film, Missing.) The judge's questions were relayed to Kissinger via diplomatic routes but were not answered.[70]

In August 2001, Argentine Judge Rodolfo Canicoba sent a letter rogatory to the US State Department, in accordance with the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), requesting a deposition by Kissinger to aid the judge's investigation of Operation Condor.[71] On 10 September 2001, a civil suit was filed in a Washington, D.C., federal court by the family of Gen. René Schneider, murdered former Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean Army, asserting that Kissinger ordered Schneider's murder because he refused to endorse plans for a military coup. Schneider was killed by coup-plotters loyal to General Roberto Viaux in a botched kidnapping attempt. As part of the suit, Schneider's two sons filed for civil damages against Kissinger and then-CIA director Richard Helms for $3 million.[72][73][74]

On 16 February 2007, a request for the extradition of Kissinger was filed at the Supreme Court of Uruguay on behalf of Bernardo Arnone, a political activist who was kidnapped, tortured and disappeared by the dictatorial regime in 1976.[75]

So, guilty until proven innocent?

[peequod]

441. In this specific case, yes

I'm not saying HK has been actually convicted of a crime, because apparently, he can't be in our current legal system. He appears to have powerful friends that are shielding him from prosecution. But as you can see, in other countries, who you seem to consider as or more corrupt than our own, at least they--Chile, Argentina, France, and Spain--have attempted legal action against this renown and acclaimed sponsor of murder in his role of Secretary of State. So based on the available evidence, we as Democrats, should treat Henry Kissinger as toxicly guilty and shun him until you, I, and others can fix our legal system so that it can reach into the very highest levels of government if necessary. Next in the docket: Bush and Cheney, among others.

[G_j]

299. not knowing history

doesn't change history

[treestar]

327. Or not agreeing with your interpretation of history

Which a lot of people don't, or he would not be invited to these events.

[G_j]

335. well that's convenient for a lot of people

Cheney gets invited to events also.

[treestar]

355. A war criminal is a person convicted of war crimes

by a tribunal.

That's how society works. Innocent until proven guilty. You're demanding people find them guilty without trial. Or even a warrant of accusation.

People go on a lot about the Hague, so it supposedly functions and there are people before it, some of them convicted. Those are the people the label "war criminal" is for.

I despise Cheney as much as the next liberal but insisting others accept my characterization of "war criminal" would make me look nuts.

[G_j]

361. OK, for you,

we'll just call him a POS sociopath.


<>
NOV. 27 2002 6:36 PM

On Memorial Day 2001, Kissinger was visited by the police in the Ritz Hotel in Paris and handed a warrant, issued by Judge Roger LeLoire, requesting his testimony in the matter of disappeared French citizens in Pinochet's Chile. Kissinger chose to leave town rather than appear at the Palais de Justice as requested. He has since been summoned as a witness by senior magistrates in Chile and Argentina who are investigating the international terrorist network that went under the name "Operation Condor" and that conducted assassinations, kidnappings, and bombings in several countries. The most spectacular such incident occurred in rush-hour traffic in downtown Washington, D.C., in September 1976, killing a senior Chilean dissident and his American companion. Until recently, this was the worst incident of externally sponsored criminal violence conducted on American soil. The order for the attack was given by Gen. Augusto Pinochet, who has been vigorously defended from prosecution by Henry Kissinger.

Moreover, on Sept. 10, 2001, a civil suit was filed in a Washington, D.C., federal court, charging Kissinger with murder. The suit, brought by the survivors of Gen. Rene Schneider of Chile, asserts that Kissinger gave the order for the elimination of this constitutional officer of a democratic country because he refused to endorse plans for a military coup. Every single document in the prosecution case is a U.S.-government declassified paper. And the target of this devastating lawsuit is being invited to review the shortcomings of the "intelligence community"?

In late 2001, the Brazilian government canceled an invitation for Kissinger to speak in Sao Paulo because it could no longer guarantee his immunity. Earlier this year, a London court agreed to hear an application for Kissinger's imprisonment on war crimes charges while he was briefly in the United Kingdom. It is known that there are many countries to which he cannot travel at all, and it is also known that he takes legal advice before traveling anywhere. Does the Bush administration feel proud of appointing a man who is wanted in so many places, and wanted furthermore for his association with terrorism and crimes against humanity? Or does it hope to limit the scope of the inquiry to those areas where Kissinger has clients?
<>

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2002/11/the_latest_kissinger_outrage.html

[treestar]

366. Is it possible to disagree with someone, and even think they are evil

without their having to be convicted as a war criminal?

I am amazed how the worst possible label must be used or I guess the person is OK with what they did.

A civil suit charging someone with murder could be one of those crazy civil suits. The courts have them. The person would have to prove their accusations.

You are simply taking ever accusation as true. It would have to be proved for a person to be labeled "war criminal?"

[G_j]

371. FYI,

https://books.google.com/books?id=rOFfRDKKwScC&pg=PT79&lpg=PT79&dq=kissinger+syd&source=bl&ots=ZYQkwBjwja&sig=AMo-Ng_E0xUTM5iZfOUPdTV96O4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ACQtVb3wMYyXNoeIgbAC&ved=0CEIQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=kissinger%20syd&f=false

[treestar]

398. That's not a real trial

Even if he makes what you consider a convincing case, that's trial by media/reporter. And so you cannot expect to see the defendant jailed and removed from all polite society.

[bvar22]

475. You are reaching, but missing.

Anybody alive through the 60s and 70s knows EXACTLY what Kissinger is,
and "War Criminal" and "Murderer" fits him perfectly.
Just because he has the protection of the American elites and was never charged does not change that he Is/Was a War Criminal that belongs in the Hague, not out schmoozing with
America's elite.

[Rex]

484. Maybe treestar was not around then or doesn't read any books about contemporary history.

Amazing that anyone would defend a known warmonger and still call themselves a liberal...I guess there are exceptions in every group.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

289. One word for you: Yalta. N.T.

[Art_from_Ark]

314. Yalta was a wartime strategy meeting

Hardly the equivalent of a birthday party.

[malaise]

292. The truth is the truth n/t

[marym625]

301. The All Hillary All The Time

Don't you dare say anything bad bullshit that we are seeing is really just outright wrong. If people want to defend her policies, votes, stance, etc, they should. But the obvious and blatant push to disallow any disagreement for any reason is undemocratic to say the least.

[Adrahil]

302. Nothing wrong with GOOD arguments. This isn't one.

Talk about her position on TPP and you're making a good argument. Fluff like this is silly and it should be called out.

[marym625]

305. I am advocating for good argument, discussion. 100%

And if you feel that this argument is fluff, then absolutely call it out.

However, someone that has strong feelings about the horror that Kissinger caused, and finds the use of him in a way to show how great it is to reach across the isle in an attempt to gain votes, as abhorrent, that is a valid argument for the poster. It is by no means the main reason I will not back Clinton in the primary, but it sure as hell doesn't help. It's not much different than doing the same with dubya, imo.

[Agschmid]

330. Yup.

[paulbibeau]

303. Yes.

[NCTraveler]

339. So many truly great people you can't support due to the simplicity of your mindset.

Such a shame.

[treestar]

411. This ^^^

And they could support someone who then later agrees to meet with Kissinger or some other "bad" guy. Or they simply don't know as the person never had the opportunity to meet/shun Kissinger.

[Douglas Carpenter]

353. politics is what politics is

[JDPriestly]

356. And there is more.

Hillary was warned not to vote for the Iraq War Resolution. And she knew that the economic cost of the war could push us into recession.
But did she organize Democrats in the Senate to vote against the Resolution or to insist that Bush raise taxes to cover the cost of the War? No.

Here you go. Watch this.

I am not a member of Code Pink by the way. I just saw this on the internet some years ago and was appalled.

[KoKo]

388. ...!

[LanternWaste]

369. I used to based my presidential preferences on a little more than a picture, too.

I used to based my presidential preferences on a little more than a picture, too.

[heaven05]

375. I hear that!!!!!!

I'll vote for her IF nominated, but I do have my reservations. Hell, the politics she and her husband hold, does not include a lot of the 99.9%

[LovingA2andMI]

376. Hillary Clinton’s Progressive Problem explained.....

‪#?From‬ Writer and Monthly Commentator on Independent Underground News & Talk/IU Radio LIVE Program - Marc Polite at Polite On Society!

"Now that it is official that Hillary Clinton is running for President, it is time to ask piercing questions. This announcement came as expected, so there is not much in the way of excitement around it. Democrats for the most part are expected to fall in line.

Already, this early the browbeating has begun, at least directed at the progressives that still orbit around the Democratic Party. Instead of focusing on continuing to apply pressure on varying progressive causes, the emerging narrative is to focus on who is most electable.
There are a few problems with that strategy. It subverts the nascent progressive strides that are being made, particularly when it comes to the living wage movement.

The Clinton’s who are neoliberals, here and abroad, are fundamentally at odds with the emerging voices around labor issues and standard of living for working people. TPP ring a bell to anyone?

Furthermore, as the establishment candidate, Hilary Clinton has little to say about the aftermath of Ferguson and the issue of police brutality. How she will get that base of support behind her, should be a cause of concern for Democratic strategists. But, that is their concern, not that of the movements.

For example, the Black Lives Matter movement which has sprung up in the second term of President Obama. It’s not up to the movement or its supporters to figure out a way for the Clinton candidacy the capture their thunder, so to speak."

‪#?Perfect‬!

Read More Here: http://www.politeonsociety.com/…/hillary-clintons-progress…/

[Faux pas]

380. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[Lunabell]

383. I Agree'

And let's not forget how she treated Barack Obama in 2008. When asked if he were a Christian she said something like, "I'll have to take his word on it.". She was pandering to the worst of her base instead of calling out the question for how stupid it was. Oh, I'll hold my nose and vote for her if sh is the nominee, but I won't like it!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

384. Yeah, fuck those people that cozy up to mass murderers...

Like this guy:


Or this guy


Or this woman:


Or this guy:


Or this guy:


Or even this guy:


Posting photos out of context... Now where have I seen that done before?

[LynneSin]

392. If I was to not vote for a democrat who has stood next to Kissinger and smiled

I probably wouldn't be able to vote for the rest of my life.

The guy shows up everywhere. What was Hillary to do - slap him across the face.

The more I see the negativety against Clinton vs the positivety of her supporters the more I actually want to support Clinton.

I'm tired of this negativety bullshit.

I've read that when people post hateful things it's usually because they have nothing else better to offer. Perhaps I'm starting be believe that. I'm trying to be a more positive person and leave the hate behind me.

Is Clinton the best choice? I don't know.

But I wonder what our country would have been like if we would have gotten Al Gore elected back in 2000 and been able to continue on those 8 years of Bill Clintons policies. I think Obama is taking this country in the right direction and I do not want to do anything whatsoever that could possibly stop that change and put another GOP into the White House again.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

393. Agreed.

Find me a DUer that would post vitriol against Jimmy Carter based on the pic I posted of him with Kissinger. Nary a one. But Hillary? zOMG!!! She's hanging out with mass murderers!!!!!11!1one

As there's only one Dem candidate right now, I haven't decided who to support in the primaries, but I do know that I'm not going to spend my time talking negative of that one candidate. Especially one has high profile as Hillary. But the shit stirrers make me want to throw my support behind her more and more.

[LynneSin]

440. I'm starting to like Hillary even more because of the haters here at DU

We have two groups here at DU

One is a bunch of glum people sitting around talking about all this negative shit about how the all this negative stuff is going to happen if so-in-so gets elected from our own party. They cite document after document and votes from decades ago and flash photos from all over the place that it's just going to be hell on earth and how can I compromise my vote and my integrity over someone so awful as this ZOMG!!!!

Then I have this other party and they sit around talking about a person's accomplishments and how this person wants to continue on with all the great stuff that Obama has already started. Sure they know the person is flawed but they are excited to go out and campaign about her and they are all happy smiley people whose enthusiasm is spreading like wildfire. I see all their happy posts on facebook and well reading them actually makes me happy and I'm still waiting to see if Biden runs.

So I have to ask - even as an undecided, who do I want to hang out with.

I'm tired of the negative crap. We had a good thing with Bill Clinton then came Bush who put an abrupt stop to it. This isn't why I think we should elect Hillary but why we should NOT elect a republican. We are starting to have a good thing with Obama and I'm not ready for that to end and it will end abruptly if a Republican gets in the White House.

[bvar22]

474. I didn't know Carter was running for President!!!!

Thanks for the update!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

478. No, he was just a sitting president.

Popular on this board, too. Hanging out with a mass-murderer. But HILLARY? She turned me into a newt!

[saidsimplesimon]

385. I'm not happy, just ask Mr. Soros.

[dirtydickcheney]

395. Does the Democratic Party realize how vulnerable they are to losing if HRC is the nominee?

She's not exactly someone that gives "warm fuzzies" like Bill Clinton.

I remember in 2008 that the reason I didn't vote for her in the primary was because I remember hearing a study that (I remember) 44% of the population would not vote for her "under any circumstance".

I don't think that's changed significantly.

[riqster]

399. I would love to vote FOR a Dem, instead of AGAINST a Repub.

Rarely happens.

[countryjake]

404. Thanks scarlet! All these yrs later & the party's still on...

same as it ever was.

[Enthusiast]

405. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

[DrBulldog]

416. So two disparate political figures hug. Really? That's your criterion?

I think it's time you start thinking about something else.

[Cheviteau]

419. I hate people who want IT ALL.

Then vote for a fucking republican, dipshits.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

426. Post of the YEAR , CLASSIC guilt by association! ALL American politicians

have been around this guy at one time or another

talk about REACHING


Hillary HATERS are going to have to get up earlier in the morning than this

[Yavin4]

427. America was built upon mass murder

You, me, and every American benefits daily from the outright slaughter of Native Americans and African slave labor.

To disqualify a candidate simply because they hugged Henry Kissinger is absolutely hypocritical.

[bvar22]

489. NO!

Some of us are aware of our murderous past, and are working to move the Democratic Party and our Government in a new direction.
Hillary is NOT that new direction.

[mike_c]

429. rec'd, but I disagree with you....

I will never vote for her, under any circumstances. All the folks making light of that pic with Henry the Knife are missing the point entirely, or more likely just avoiding it. HRC has put her own stamp of approval on crimes against humanity, unnecessary wars, the Patriot Act, Wall Street financiers, and enough other RW causes to make her association with Kissinger almost beside the point. Her vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq alone demonstrates that she's unfit for office. I will never forget the democrats who betrayed the peace for that little bit of political expediency (and likewise, always remember the ones who did the right thing instead).

[samsingh]

442. i love Hillary. I hate kissinger. he's a piece of shit and you are right a mass murderer.

[blackspade]

443. I feel the same way.

[Thespian2]

445. Yep.

What you said.

[rury]

446. I'm with you!!

Hillary gets my vote in the general election in order to stop the Republikkkans.
But in not in the primary. If she has no opponent I'll write somebody in.
And I will not at ANY point be donating money to her campaign, phone-banking or knocking or doors for her.

[Octafish]

450. That IS the thing, scarletwoman.

Personally, I also like my candidate unsoiled by the stench of sulfur.

How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World

A trove of secret documents details the US government's global push for shale gas.

—By Mariah Blake
Mother Jones | September/October 2014 Issue

EXCERPT...

Clinton, who was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, believed that shale gas could help rewrite global energy politics. "This is a moment of profound change," she later told a crowd at Georgetown University. "Countries that used to depend on others for their energy are now producers. How will this shape world events? Who will benefit, and who will not?…The answers to these questions are being written right now, and we intend to play a major role." Clinton tapped a lawyer named David Goldwyn as her special envoy for international energy affairs; his charge was "to elevate energy diplomacy as a key function of US foreign policy."

Goldwyn had a long history of promoting drilling overseas—both as a Department of Energy official under Bill Clinton and as a representative of the oil industry. From 2005 to 2009 he directed the US-Libya Business Association, an organization funded primarily by US oil companies—including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Marathon—clamoring to tap Libya's abundant supply. Goldwyn lobbied Congress for pro-Libyan policies and even battled legislation that would have allowed families of the Lockerbie bombing victims to sue the Libyan government for its alleged role in the attack.

According to diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, one of Goldwyn's first acts at the State Department was gathering oil and gas industry executives "to discuss the potential international impact of shale gas." Clinton then sent a cable to US diplomats, asking them to collect information on the potential for fracking in their host countries. These efforts eventually gave rise to the Global Shale Gas Initiative, which aimed to help other nations develop their shale potential. Clinton promised it would do so "in a way that is as environmentally respectful as possible."

But environmental groups were barely consulted, while industry played a crucial role. When Goldwyn unveiled the initiative in April 2010, it was at a meeting of the United States Energy Association, a trade organization representing Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and ConocoPhillips, all of which were pursuing fracking overseas. Among their top targets was Poland, which preliminary studies suggested had abundant shale gas. The day after Goldwyn's announcement, the US Embassy in Warsaw helped organize a shale gas conference, underwritten by these same companies (plus the oil field services company Halliburton) and attended by officials from the departments of State and Energy.

In some cases, Clinton personally promoted shale gas. During a 2010 gathering of foreign ministers in Washington, DC, she spoke about America's plans to help spread fracking abroad. "I know that in some places [it] is controversial," she said, "but natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel available for power generation today." She later traveled to Poland for a series of meetings with officials, after which she announced that the country had joined the Global Shale Gas Initiative.

CONTINUED...

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

People like Kissinger don't mind killing millions to get what they want for themselves and their chums.

So, looking on the bright side, they have that interest in the extraction industries in common.

[DeSwiss]

457. !

Drinking water is overrated......

[ucrdem]

455. Foreign policy is HRC's bete noire, and I'm very interested in hearing how her views

have evolved since 2008, when they basically sank her in the primaries. She said not a word about it in her video, which is fine, but I think the OP is expressing a reservation many of us share. So I think it's a fair point.

[wundermaus]

476. welcome to neo feudalism

Have not been happy for a very long time...