Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Seattle Streetart Flickr Pool | Romney in Washington »

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

More Boooos for Hillary

posted by on June 20 at 8:46 AM

The question was: Would HRC get booooed at this year’s Take Back America conference in DC (a forum sponsored by liberal activists)? HRC was booed last year.

The answer: Of course..

RSS icon Comments



Posted by Mr. Poe | June 20, 2007 8:57 AM

"The American military has succeeded"?

In what, exactly? Boo indeed.

Posted by Levislade | June 20, 2007 8:59 AM

If Bloomberg runs, I'm throwing my vote away to him.

Posted by seattle98104 | June 20, 2007 9:04 AM

Mrs. Bill Clinton is the only Dem who can win because it appears that only she has the good sense to reach for the center.

Posted by raindrop | June 20, 2007 9:08 AM

i read HRC as human rights campaign there at first and was completely shocked that it would be booed by liberal activists.

Posted by ingopixel | June 20, 2007 9:09 AM


It's Billary.

Posted by Samantha Rwandha | June 20, 2007 9:11 AM

"It is the Iraqi government that has failed to make the tough decisions."

That has become such a stupid sound bite these days. Blame the non existent Iraq goverment.

We didnt destroy their infrastructure? Their economy? Didnt we create one hell of a refugee crisis? We didnt start a war that had no strategic value when it comes to the so called war on terror? We didnt torture civilians? We dont shoot civilians on the road? We didnt bomb cities to the stone age? And now were recruiting Baathists to go after Al Queda. Why didnt we just leave them in power?And now we can blame a puppet goverment for not delivering? There is no goverment in Iraq. There is a green zone where they meet under heavy guard, there are military bases with Burger Kings and Baskin Robbins in them, but outside of that its hell.

Our future president is really lame when it comes to the war. Im sure she'll give Maria Cantwell a cabinet post. Oh well, hopefully she will be good on health care and less tax breaks for the rich.

Posted by SeMe | June 20, 2007 9:18 AM

SeMe- whoever gets elected, there will still be tax breaks for the leaders of the World Bank, only if people don't wake up!

Posted by fanny | June 20, 2007 9:22 AM

Hillary is really mean! First she told the press about my campaign's trying to smear her as a "senator (D-Punjab)" and I had to apologize to Indian-Americans. They are bugging me to apologize directly to them and I don't like it. Hey, I ahve a different kind of politics and this is unfair!
Then she told the press my major donor back in Chicago was indicted and then told them I misreported how many donations he had given me in the past! She is so dirty.

Obviously, she is an ambitious politician who set her sights on gaining POWER for her ends (helping children, trying for health care, etc.).

We don't want any politicans who wants power. That would be bad.

I cna't imagine how she would be against the Republicans. She might call them names too! She's tooooo amibitious!! She would fight them hard!

Don't we need to stop that kind of competitive politics?
Feel good--

Posted by Obambi | June 20, 2007 9:22 AM

Right Obambi, because if we're slamming Hillary that means we're super-psyched about you, right? Because it's 11 months until the primary, and we only have 2 choices? Please.

Posted by Levislade | June 20, 2007 9:36 AM

Josh missed this one, another brilliant move by our future lame president. It even has a guest spot by Johny Saks. Holly crap, she is unstopable.

Posted by SeMe | June 20, 2007 9:46 AM

Eli covered that yesterday:

Yes, I have no life.

Posted by Levislade | June 20, 2007 9:53 AM

Declare victory and get out. We win!

Posted by DOUG. | June 20, 2007 9:54 AM

She's my man. All you people who expect her to break down in tears, and wail about how wrong she was to vote for authorizing the war? You're going to wait FOREVER. That's just not who she is.

I personally LOVE it that she refuses to issue a perfunctory mea culpa. A LOT of us supported the war back in the day. Because we were lied to. By Bush. And the Republicans.

This is sort of like the issue of Bill's... um... personal life. All sorts of people were pissed that she didn't air her dirty laundry in public, and either kick Bill in the nuts or at least appear on Oprah and cry into a tissue for a half hour. She's not built that way. And that's why she will be our first female president.

Posted by Big Sven | June 20, 2007 10:04 AM
"The American military has succeeded"?

In what, exactly? Boo indeed.

Catching Saddam, finding all the WMD's (none), blowing up buildings, killing and capturing as many brown people as possible, escorting Bechtel and Halliburton employees to and from the airport... that was the mission given to them, right?

Posted by jamier | June 20, 2007 10:07 AM

You would think that after eight years of Bush, we would have learned our lesson and start judging presidential candidates according to their stands on issues rather than getting into this pseudo-psychology about who's going to be tougher against the opposition and who needs to apologize to whom for offending their sensibilities. This thread indicates otherwise.

Then again, there are a lot of very entrenched interests who would prefer campaigns remain on the Maureen Dowd level of discourse.

I totally understand where Michael Bloomberg's coming from, even though I think he's either bluffing about a presidential bid or tilting against windmills.

Posted by cressona | June 20, 2007 10:09 AM

I refuse to deal with any of this presidential sweepstakes crap - especially involving HRC - until January, 2008. Until then this side-show distraction is just that: we have dry alcoholic in the Oval Office who likes to start preemptive wars.

Let's deal with that for the next six months, shall we?

Posted by misrule | June 20, 2007 10:10 AM

The vote was to give the prez authority to use force if detection of WMD didn't work. Bush mis-used the authority and misrepresented the WMD potential.
Why is it wrong to be fooled by person with the power and authority to fool you?
The prez is the cmdr in chief and congress should rely on him in that intelligence threat-assessment role. If you disagree, you have to say he should't be the cmdr in chief or we should outlaw all wars, etc.

Bill Clinton or Hillary would have used that authroity appropriately. Bush is the problem, not the limited contingent grant of war authority that Bush abused. For which he should be impeached. Now that's where I disagree with Hillary....and all of them...and I haven't heard Edwards or Obama or Richardson call for hearings on impeachment either ....

Posted by Beth | June 20, 2007 10:36 AM

Very good.

Still better than any of the Reds over on the GWB side.

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 20, 2007 12:00 PM


Posted by Will Dumb | June 20, 2007 12:22 PM

psanrmwf bamklpgn dbmxwyuh febx vuqhwg gbhknlmes fhextrli

Posted by zbfq icen | June 25, 2007 6:00 PM

psanrmwf bamklpgn dbmxwyuh febx vuqhwg gbhknlmes fhextrli

Posted by zbfq icen | June 25, 2007 6:09 PM

psanrmwf bamklpgn dbmxwyuh febx vuqhwg gbhknlmes fhextrli

Posted by zbfq icen | June 25, 2007 6:16 PM

Billary (D-Punjab) can now shop at Kwik-E-Mart. 7-11 is converting eleven, yes 11 stores into Kwik-E-Marts as a promotion for the Simpsons movie. Apu says hello.

Posted by CarlosX | July 3, 2007 6:45 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).