quote:

---

Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton launched a trailblazing campaign for the White House on Saturday, a former first lady turned political powerhouse intent on becoming the first female president. "I'm in, and I'm in to win," she said.

In a videotaped message posted on her Web site, Clinton said she was eager to start a dialogue with voters about challenges she hoped to tackle as president affordable health care, deficit reduction and bringing the "right" end to the Iraq war.

"I'm not just starting a campaign, though, I'm beginning a conversation with you, with America," she said. "Let's talk. Let's chat. The conversation in Washington has been just a little one-sided lately, don't you think?"

Clinton's announcement, while widely anticipated, was nonetheless historic in a fast-developing campaign that has already seen the emergence of a formidable black contender, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

---

quote:

---

Daniel Edwards is that sculptor whose work includes a shiny dollop said to be the bronzed poop of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes' baby, the severed head of baseball legend Ted Williams, and a nude Britney Spears in a primal birth position. A few months ago, the Museum of Sex in Manhattan unveiled his latest work: a bust of Hillary Clinton. Cast in the heroic style of the 19th-century statesman found in any City Hall park, it showed the New York senator with a long, elegant neck and solemn expression above two perfectly round, youthful, barely covered breasts. I'd guess a 36B.

"It was a quote by Sharon Stone that triggered it," Edwards explained to me. Stone, an actress famous for exposing a different part of her anatomy, had recently expressed doubt that Hillary could become president because "a woman should be past her sexuality when she runs. Hillary still has sexual power, and I don't think people will accept that. It's too threatening."

Edwards says he wanted to imagine Hillary Clinton as president of the United States and created, therefore, a monumental image. "But that wasn't enough," he explains. "I had to make sure she was depicted as a woman, unmistakably a woman. The way I did that was to be more revealing with her breasts than is normally seen."

Edwards' version of Hillary's breasts is where it all gets interesting. He chose not to depict Hillary with bared breasts, in the classical style of Greek sculpture; his Hillary's bust is upheld by a bustier worthy of Victoria's Secret. "I didn't want the sculpture to be titillating or a piece of graphic realism," he explains. "It's more symbolic of womanhood and to reveal her as a woman."

Hillary's "womanhood" is in need of public revelation? What does that say about her? But, more curiously, what does it say about us that Hillary inspires this casual intimacy? Her life, her looks, her politics, her marriage—and now her breasts—are all daily grist at the nation's coffee shops, still, 15 years after she was introduced to America. According to one accounting, there are 17,000 websites devoted to Hillary Clinton. And there is really no aspect of our collective fears or furies that cannot be grafted onto her character. Did she refuse to meet with mothers of dead soldiers? Did she kill Vince Foster? Did she get two Black Panthers off on murder charges? Did she cause the Enron scandal? Despite their proven falseness, such accusations are routinely made because it's easy to mold the facts and fictions of Hillary's life into any kind of argument you like. Even her body has become a public landscape that most Americans feel quite comfortable trekking across in search of cultural clues about ourselves and our politics. Edwards' sculpture merely makes literal this national impulse.

It all began when the nation had regular debates about her hair, but now we're comfortable in our kitchens and on our talk shows presuming any damned thing we want to about her. Is she gay or straight, closet conservative or secret liberal, snarling she-wolf or one smart cookie baker? It isn't only her career as a public figure that's clay in our hands. No part of her life, however sacred, is off-limits. John McCain once got a lot of laughs cracking this joke: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." Chelsea was still in high school at the time. In 2003 Americans happily participated in a cnn/USA Today/Gallup poll to determine whether Hillary should get a divorce. In the spring of 2006, the New York Times ran a front-page story that employed investigative journalism tactics to extrapolate the potential number of conjugal visits the Clintons' marital bed hosted each month. Using "interviews with some 50 people and a review of their respective activities," the author concluded: "Since the start of 2005, the Clintons have been together about 14 days a month on average, according to aides who reviewed the couple's schedules. Sometimes it is a full day of relaxing at home in Chappaqua; sometimes it is meeting up late at night.... Out of the last 73 weekends, they spent 51 together. The aides declined to provide the Clintons' private schedule."

Damn aides.

When Edwards fashioned Hillary into the image that he thought most telling, he was on to something. Hillary is way beyond something so banal as a politician. The details of her life are familiar enough; perhaps that's why all the profiles of her over the last 10 years have always seemed tedious and repetitive. It's how we shape those facts that's interesting. Hillary herself once said she had become some kind of Rorschach blot in which Americans see many things.

Almost every American has an opinion about Hillary. Consider her poll numbers. Hillary Clinton has favorables in the high 40s right now and unfavorables running about even. Her "no opinion" numbers are in the low single digits, approaching zero. Most politicians start with a huge swath of "no opinion" voters whom they can then try to convert. If Hillary runs, she will need to invent a whole new form of campaign strategy: She will need to flip voters who pretty much hate her.

Hillary-hating is such a national pastime, for both Democrats and Republicans, that it should be its own verb: "Hillarating." Typically, even her supporters make the case for her only after plowing through a lot of caveats, lessons learned, and after muttered contempt for some aspect of her person. Hillarating is not like normal political hating—opposing someone's ideology, for example. Loathing Hillary happens on multiple levels, ranging from her marital choices and fashion sense to her ambivalence on torture or support for a flag-burning amendment. And liberal feminists are as comfortable Hillarating as anyone else, perhaps more so.

"The source of the strong feelings goes all the way back to when we were introduced to her as Bill Clinton's copresident," says Nora Bredes, director of the Susan B. Anthony Center for Women's Leadership in Rochester, New York. After the health care defeat in 1993, Hillary retreated into being a wife and then a proper first lady before emerging again "as an international leader and then in the late '90s re-creating herself as a victim of his infidelity and then again stepping out as a candidate for the Senate," says Bredes. "People get uncomfortable when it's not a neat story. Is she a progressive feminist or a cautious moderate? People don't know exactly who she is, and so different reactions are almost invited."

Not since Richard Nixon has the body politic been treated to so many variations on the same person. "The New New Nixon" was introduced with such frequency once upon a time that it became shorthand for a kind of political marketing joke. Hillary has assumed that cultural niche, always inventing a new look and more "humanized" self for each situation. And in turn, we've seized upon various elements of her changeling character to shape, à la Daniel Edwards, our own private Hillarys. She is a Cosmo quiz of an enigma, so let's cut right to the answer key in the back pages and find out what kind of Hillary you see.

---

The rest:

Jack Hitt, "Harpy, Hero, Heretic: Hillary - Why she stokes our deepest fears and darkest hatreds," Mother Jones, January/February, 2007

[ 20 January 2007: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

In a videotaped message posted on her Web site, Clinton said she was eager to start a dialogue with voters about challenges she hoped to tackle as president affordable health care, deficit reduction and bringing the "right" end to the Iraq war.

---

"Right." In more ways than one.

quote:

---

"I'm not just starting a campaign, though, I'm beginning a conversation with you, with America," she said. "Let's talk. Let's chat. The conversation in Washington has been just a little one-sided lately, don't you think?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ForestGreen:
Has anyone here been following the Obama campaign? According to a recent newspaper article, he opposed the Iraq war from day one. He would get my vote over Hillary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

No prominent U.S. politician opposed the Iraq war from day one, and not a single one calls for immediate withdrawal today. Anyway, you don't get a vote.

---

Aw, too bad.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ForestGreen:

Well I was just going on what the Globe and Mail said.

---

Before he was in office, I don't know what Obama was saying, publicly or privately, at the time.

quote:

---

Some people seem to be forgetting that Barack Obama was against the Iraq War before the Iraq War started, as a candidate for Senate, which was a notable and brave position for him to take. He headlined large, antiwar gatherings. At this time, his election to the Senate was by no means assured, and most Dem candidates and Senators were either ducking the question or endorsing the war.

---

Thursday, January 13, 2000
Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq, Oct. 26, 2002

I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

....

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Famous last words.

---

It wasn't a bad speech. But he never actually said that the U.S. should not invade Iraq.

Nor did he ever actually say that in March 2003.

Nor today does he actually say that the U.S. should cease its invasion and occupation immediately.

So I repeat (and I'll add in Al Gore, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, whoever):

No prominent U.S. politician opposed the Iraq war from day one, and not a single one calls for immediate withdrawal today.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
"I'm in."

---

quote:

---

"This is not against the Palestinian people," Clinton said as she gazed over the massive wall. "This is against the terrorists. The Palestinian people have to help to prevent terrorism. They have to change the attitudes about terrorism."

The senator's comments seem as if they were taken word-for-word from an AIPAC position paper. They may well have been, as the lobby packs her coffers full of cash. In May 2005, Clinton spoke at an AIPAC conference where she praised the bonds between Israel and the United States:

"[O]ur future here in this country is intertwined with the future of Israel and the Middle East. Now there is a lot that we could talk about, and obviously much has been discussed. But in the short period that I have been given the honor of addressing you, I want to start by focusing on our deep and lasting bonds between the United States and Israel."

Clinton went on to address the importance of disarming Iran and Syria, as well as keeping troops in Iraq for as long as "it" takes. It was textbook warmongering, and surprise, surprise ­ Hillary got a standing ovation for her repertoire.

---

quote:

---

Hillary Clinton is an establishment elitist, and we are opposed to this institutional baggage.

Demographics aside, one way to theorize about our ideology is that we have seen and rejected the triangulating model of politics. It's not that Clinton wasn't a good President in the 1990s, it's that he failed to enact anything that outlasted him. He got nothing done on, say, global warming, and failed to establish a firm post-Cold War framework that Bush didn't detonate in five minutes. More relevantly, the Clintonistas performed horribly in the 2000s, acting as lobbyists and warhawks, and just generally working against progressives until they realized they couldn't overtly beat us in the PR game.

So it's not surprising that the Hillary Clinton campaign is working to convince the DLC that she'll do the 1990s over again, only this time with an extra helpings of the strategies that failed.

---

But these are stunning:

quote:

---

Critics of birth control say the surest way to avoid unintended pregnancy is to avoid sex. They're right. I've heard a few liberals complain that this message is too preachy and encroaches on the sexuality of teenagers. With all due respect, it's time for Democrats to throw these people overboard. Many profound things are at stake in the abortion debate. Afternoon delight isn't high on the list.

Clinton seems to understand this. In her speech, she recalled campaigning for "teenage celibacy" a decade ago. She emphasized "the important role that parents can play in encouraging their children to abstain from sexual activity. … Research shows that the primary reason that teenage girls abstain is because of their religious and moral values. We should embrace this—and support programs that reinforce the idea that abstinence at a young age is not just the smart thing to do, it is the right thing to do."

...

Abortion is "a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," said Clinton. Then she went further: "There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

No prominent U.S. politician opposed the Iraq war from day one, and not a single one calls for immediate withdrawal today. Anyway, you don't get a vote.

---

Bullshit. Dennis Kucinich calls for immediate withdrawal. And he was when he ran in 2004 too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:

Bullshit. Dennis Kucinich calls for immediate withdrawal. And he was when he ran in 2004 too.

---

That's strong language! Let's look at the facts.

First of all, when I said "prominent", that was deliberate. I wasn't talking about some fringe type who has no chance of winning.

Second of all, Kucinich does not call for immediate withdrawal, but rather for a modified modern equivalent of Nixon's "Vietnamization" plan, which would essentially consolidate the rule of the puppet regime and replace the U.S. occupying army with another occupying army:

quote:

---

... an international security and peacekeeping force to move in, replacing US troops who then return home.

---

These American politicians are such condescending bastards that even the ones who take a relatively non-warmongering stand still feel they have to control the lives and destiny of inferior fanatical warring races abroad. It's an onerous burden to bear, that of the White Man.

ETA: Ken, I was trying to imagine why an obviously very progressive person would consider Kucinich's position as one of "immediate withdrawal", and I had this metaphor kicking around in the back of mind which I finally extracted from that aging brain:

quote:

---

"In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." - Erasmus

---

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

Meanwhile, here is the latest news on the atrocities of the the U.S. and Iraqi puppet regimes and the heroic resistance of the people:

Seven pupils killed in Baghdad schools

quote:

---

Pupils at a secondary school in the mainly Sunni Adil district in west Baghdad were taking a break from lessons when two mortars landed in the yard.

Five girls were killed and 20 other pupils injured as the blast blew out classroom windows, spraying the children with debris and shards of glass.[...]

It was not clear who fired the mortars [...]

A primary school in Ramadi, north-west of Baghdad, was caught up in the violence when a suicide truck bomber attacked a nearby Iraqi security base.

Military and hospital sources said two children and three guards at the base were killed, and 10 pupils were injured.

---

Note the bullshit reporting. Can't figure out who is firing mortars in Baghdad? Also, what is a primary school doing close enough to a military base to be affected by a suicide bomb targetting the base - but of course the report says the kids were "caught up in the violence", which sounds like a euphemism for "friendly fire" to me.

Then this item further down, which would be hilarious if it were in a Peter Sellers movie:

quote:

---

Intense clashes have been taking place in orchards outside the holy city of Najaf, as Iraqi troops backed up by US forces battled several hundred armed men, whose identity is as yet unclear.

---

Took her long enough.

quote:

---

Today President Bush will speak once again to the nation about Iraq. Our message to the President is clear: it is time to begin ending this war. Not next year, not next month, but today. We have heard for years that as the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down. Every year we hear about how next year, they may start coming home. Now we are hearing a new version of that very familiar song from the President. He claims that we can, with slight adjustments, stay the course.

There are more troops in Iraq today then ever before. The Iraqi government is more fractured and less effective. The right strategy before the surge and the right strategy now -- post-escalation -- is the same. Start bringing our troops home.

America needs a president with the strength and experience to end this war. I will be that president. Our brave men and women who wear the uniform of our country deserve nothing less. As a senator and as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have had the privilege of meeting with many veterans in Iraq, here in Iowa and across America. They represent the very best of our country. When called on, they respond, serving with tremendous courage, dedication, and honor -- many of them from our national guard and reserves. And many of them not just once, but with multiple tours of duty.

Each mission they were given, they completed. They conducted a thorough search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- and found none. They removed Saddam Hussein from power -- and brought him to justice. They helped the citizens of Iraq organize elections -- and vote for new leaders. They gave the Iraqi government the space and time to act -- if they chose to do so.

But over the past four years, the situation in Iraq has dramatically deteriorated. The mission today is more about policing a civil war than building a democracy. Our troops now serve alongside Iraqi Army officers and soldiers. Some have their loyalty to Iraq. Others, however, are loyal to sectarian militias -- some of whom serve bravely alongside our soldiers. Others have looked the other way when insurgents plant bombs. Some even have taken up arms against Americans.

And our troops are paying the price. 3,598 of them have lost their lives -- 43 from right here in Iowa. These past three months have been the deadliest quarter on record, with 331 fatalities. One Army chaplain told a reporter that he tries to read a unique passage from Scripture over the body of each soldier who has been killed in his unit. But the casualties have been so heavy, he has nearly run out of suitable verses.

---