Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton (positions)

From dKosopedia

Cluster Bombs

Whoever is doing this - GillFlanigan/Noitpecedetartenep/whoever you are - IT IS IDIOTIC TO ATTACK A PERSON FOR NOT SAYING SOMETHING. ESPECIALLY WHEN SO MANY OTHER POLITICIANS ARE SIMILARLY SILENT!!!! Stop with the Clinton bashing, or find some substantiative objection to her. Hairy legs 09:44, 30 January 2007 (PST)

Stop screaming with caps. Makes you appear hysterical. ;) Answer this question: Why won't your candidate, frontrunner Hillary Clinton, talk about cluster bombs? Hmmmmm? Noitpecedetartenep

Please sign your comments. I was 'screaming' because I'm incredibly frustrated... I had addressed this on GillFlanigan's (your?) talk page earlier, and you persisted with the edits. Look - I haven't heard ANY politician talking about cluster bombs... to attack a person for what they *don't* say is not acceptable. Your edits were wildly speculative. I would have let "Clinton's position on cluster bombs is unknown." slide. That is truthful, though it would still be a kind of random thing to say, because I only mention known positions. If you are talking about this vote, I can certainly say she wasn't alone. However, I'd have to investigate further to determine exactly why she voted that way - who knows what deals were made, or what might have been attached to that vote. I hadn't known about that vote, actually - I just googled it. It wasn't a close vote, so it isn't counted as a definitive issue on the sites which track votes in order to shed insight on ideologue. I'm interested in finding out why she voted that way, and I'm going to write to her office and see if I can get some sort of answer. (I've found that most politicians take about six months to answer with even a form letter, though.) What I guess I'm going to have to do is read the amendment, and research further. I'll tell you what - you can editorialize about Hillary and cluster bombs as much as you want, and I won't do a thing - as long as you keep it on the cluster bomb page. (And, if/when I learn more on the matter, I will alter her positions page, or inform you of your extreme error... however my investigations go.) I'm curious, though, why Hillary takes the brunt of your vitriol, when so many other senators also voted 'nay'... Hairy legs 17:42, 30 January 2007 (PST)

I read the transcript, and now I think I can definitely say why Clinton voted 'nay' - the amendment was opposed by the Department of Defense. (I'm sure you're aware that she is very carful about maintaining a 'hawkish' image... she isn't about the go against the Dept of Defense.) Other reasons she could have opposed it: she might believe it is not the senate's place to decide the rules of engagement, she might think that the Arms Export Control Act already has sufficient guidelines, or she might think that this amendment would be impossible to enforce. Whatever her reason, I don't believe that this was a crucial vote - it appeared to be a token one, because the amendment would likely not effect policy. I suggest that you set your sights on some other target - there are plenty of slimier politicians out there, and cannibalism never solved anything. Hairy legs 18:50, 30 January 2007 (PST)

Your advice is rejected. I urge you to give up your support of Clinton and embarce someone more deserving. Noitpecedetartenep

I am not an uncritical *fan* of Hillary, so much as a defender. If so many people (ahem) weren't so unfair to her, I just might back down. Hairy legs 11:22, 2 February 2007 (PST)

She's just another ambitious pol. DanzigMittSteppenwolvez

SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE. (All you have to do is put three or four tildes on at the end - is it that difficult?) An yes, she is an 'ambitious politician'. That is practically an oxymoron. Can you think of any politician who isn't?!?! Hairy legs 11:38, 2 February 2007 (PST)

Crayon - Foreign Policy

Your edits of the 'Foreign Policy' section are a bit too subjective for me. Perhaps we should make a separate 'Hillary Clinton, criticism' page? By the way, she IS in favor of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol - that is in the 'Environment' section. I'd have to look up the other questions, and I don't have the time now. (Not to mention - I doubt most politicians have 'on the record' opinions on those things.) Hairy legs 10:44, 2 February 2007 (PST)

Double standard Hairy Legs. Your defense of Hilary Clinton is something less than objective. Noitpecedetartenep

Ok, so it was slightly colored in the beginning - but I don't do ANYTHING if people remove those remarks of mine - *as some have.* It is good that people keep me in check like that. I have NEVER written anything nearly as subjective as *you*, though. These edits are going way off topic, and it is making the page look ridiculous - let's just stick to the facts... because this is clearly too contentious a page for any sort of speculation or editorializing. (The different perspectives would clash to the point that it would be confusing.) Hairy legs 11:00, 2 February 2007 (PST)

Piston25

To the right of many Americans? What are you smoking? Are you that isolated... that insular in your views? I mean, I WISH that were the case, but it simply isn't. Hairy legs 11:44, 2 February 2007 (PST)

Prove it. Piston25

I'm pretty sure you are the same person as the other usernames that have been editing this page. At least have the decency to use the same username... AND SIGN YOUR COMMENTS. Furthermore, if the congress doesn't actually represent the political spectrum of Americans at all, why even bother with democracy? Hairy legs 11:49, 2 February 2007 (PST)