Clinton Won't Commit to Renew Constitution

Illinois Senator Barack Obama has finally signed the American Freedom Pledge, joining his fellow Democratic presidential candidates in encouraging the restoration of basic Constitutional principles after the battering they have taken during the Bush-Cheney era.

All the Democrats, that is, except New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

The effort to get presidential contenders to sign on the American Freedom Pledge has been promoted by organizations ranging from the Center for Constitutional Rights to Human Rights Watch, MoveOn.org , Amnesty International USA, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Campaign to Defend the Constitution, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and True Majority.

The pledge is anything but radical. It simply asks candidates to affirm a statement that reads: "We are Americans, and in our America we do not torture, we do not imprison people without charge or legal remedy, we do not tap people's phones and emails without a court order, and above all we do not give any President unchecked power. I pledge to fight to protect and defend the Constitution from attack by any President."

The often embarrassingly cautious Obama campaign had been slow to sign on to the pledge. Earlier this week the American Freedom Campaign, which is promoting the pledge, revealed that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Alaska Senator Mike Gravel had signed the pledge, while former North Carolina Senator John Edwards and Delaware Senator Joe Biden had responded with supportive statements. After a release from the freedom campaign noted that Obama and Clinton had not committed to the Constitution, Obama's aides moved quickly.

Recognizing the value of distinguishing their candidate from Clinton, the front runner in most polls, they got Obama to sign the pledge.

The freedom campaign is promising to turn the heat up on Clinton and Republicans presidential contenders -- aside from Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who signed on to a similar American Freedom Agenda statement promoted by conservative defenders of the Constitution.

"We are very pleased that Senator Obama has joined so many of his colleagues in signing the American Freedom Pledge," says freedom campaign co-founder Naomi Wolf. "But we will not be satisfied until we receive a solid commitment from each and every one of the presidential candidates. This is not just another request from an interest group; this is a test of whether our next president will be true to the vision of our Founders. Any candidate who does not express strong support for defending the Constitution does not deserve to be president."

Comments (79)

1. So, commitment to Constitutional balance means taking the advice of all the left wing groups, sponsors and donors mentioned, along with dem control of House, Senate, SC, and WH?

   I'll pass.

   Posted by john maasch at 10/03/2007 @ 12:13pm

2. Anything involving Moveon.org and balance is an oxymoron and it never to be taken seriously..except here, I guess.

   Posted by john maasch at 10/03/2007 @ 12:15pm

3. NICHOLS: ....pledge is anything but radical. ....

   That's why it can always be non-radically used to bite somebody....interesting, such a nice "pledge" to cover all "people", even non-citizens, terrorists, huh?

   Posted by Happy at 10/03/2007 @ 12:19pm

4. well, once she's in office i'm sure she'll make plenty of "Signing Statements".

   good luck.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 10/03/2007 @ 12:21pm

5. Posted by HAPPY 10/03/2007 @ 12:19pm

   don't you realize that includes me?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 10/03/2007 @ 12:21pm

6. So, commitment to Constitutional balance means taking the advice of all the left wing groups, sponsors and donors mentioned, along with dem control of House, Senate, SC, and WH?

   That's a pretty wild interpretation of the article. There's nothing exclusively "left wing" about the pledge, unless being "right wing" means advocating torture, advocating secret prisons in which the accused lack basic legal rights, advocating absolute presidential power (including the power to spy on Americans without having to provide justification), and advocating attacking the Constitution.

   Oh wait, that's exactly what being right-wing means nowadays. My apologies, sir.

   Posted by BlueSpark at 10/03/2007 @ 12:47pm

7. Absolutely, if Mrs. Clinton does not sign this pledge, I will refuse to vote for her if she's nominated, and will work to identify and support a viable 3rd-party candidate, no matter how crazy that seems. If she doesn't sign, and she wins, she represents the continuing threat to our democracy that we're fighting now. Duh!

   Posted by Donald Weed at 10/03/2007 @ 1:26pm

8. does not every president swear to uphold the constitution upon taking the oath of office?

   "We are Americans, and in our America we do not torture, we do not imprison people without charge or legal remedy, we do not tap people's phones and emails without a court order, and above all we do not give any President unchecked power. I pledge to fight to protect and defend the Constitution from attack by any President."

   lets pick this apart...

   We are Americans - ok...thats cool

   we do not torture - sure...although sentencing someone to 15 years for a couple or three crack rocks...or someone for the rest of their life for a crime committed when they were a minor, or electricuting the to death...but sure, ok...

   we do not imprison people without charge or legal remedy - unless they are indeed prisoners of war...

   we do not tap people's phones and emails without a court order - american citizens...

   we do not give any President unchecked power - well sure, but in case of DECLARED war, we do indeed give extraordinary powers...

   I pledge to fight to protect and defend the Constitution from attack by any President. - so the presidential hopefuls...pledge to defend the constitution by attacks from any...president?

   ok...i see why obamahesitated to sign it. he is trained as a lawyer, is indeed cautious (a bad thing?), and despite the noble sentiments behind it...this is a poorly worded, poorly thought out, emotional screed...

   i guess in the end he figured its near meaninglessness and obscurity made it ok to sign it.

   the oath of office is much better worded and will abrogate it anyway...

   "to defend the constitution..."

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/03/2007 @ 1:37pm

9. Oh wait, that's exactly what being right-wing means nowadays. My apologies, sir.

   Posted by BLUESPARK 10/03/2007 @ 12:47pm

   JM is cool with any abomination, that doesn't affect his cash flow.

   Besides, he likes to do business (in China) with those types, distributing commodities (diamonds) harvested under similar regimes. All the moneyed folks do fine there, so why should he care what the govt. does here. (As long as they do it with his grandchildrens money, not his.

   Eric

   Posted by Malcontent at 10/03/2007 @ 2:11pm

10. Ibble,

    I see where you are coming from, but...

    What you describe--bad sentencing, electrocution--would be cruel and unusual punishment (in my view), and certainly not torture.

    Even prisoners of war have rights and at least one legal remedy--the war ends. The "war" on terrorism will never end.

    All the candidates should be against unchecked presidential power, whether during wartime or not.

    But you are right; the pledge is not as well written as it should be.

    Posted by BlueSpark at 10/03/2007 @ 2:30pm

11. Posted by ZERO 10/03/2007 @ 12:16pm

    No need to repeat Zero's Post, but I couldn't have said it better myself.....Hillbillary is already looking past the Dem primaries, toward the general election...The fix is in, it's all over but the coronation.....

    Posted by davebarlett at 10/03/2007 @ 2:37pm

12. Posted by BLUESPARK 10/03/2007 @ 2:30pm

    it just looks all "feely goody" but...yeah, you know...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/03/2007 @ 2:40pm

13. lets pick this apart...

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/03/2007 @ 1:37pm

    Just as you and your buddies have done to all of America the past few years. Let's recognize your analysis for what it is -- sophistry,

    Torture -- you changed the subject.

    Concentration camps -- the hazards of war.

    Spying on citizens -- was that sort of an agreement?

    Unchecked powers -- this is war, people!

    This is dangerous, dangerous crap! We're taking our stand to put an end to this. What do you stand for?

    Posted by Donald Weed at 10/03/2007 @ 3:06pm

14. so the candidates are being pressuered to sign a pledge which, if elected president, they take under sworn oath anyway once they take office - to obey & uphold the constitution?

    can anyone say: waste of paper, time, money, etc.?

    i realize the current tribe has demolished our constitution - and heck, if we all really cared about the constitution, they would have been impeached by now - but now you want me to get all excited about some pledge, which any president has to take anyway if elected, under rule of law, with hand on the bible, in front of the american people, and as expected by the constitution itself?

    what am i missing here.

    Posted by Scrub at 10/03/2007 @ 3:42pm

15. Posted by DONALD WEED 10/03/2007 @ 3:06pm | ignore this person

    me and my buddies? lol...

    funny when one's words come back the smack one...

    i agree with the sentiment expressed but just find it kind of...i dont know...

    working on the obama campaign, happy to see hillary get bashed, and trying to minimize the negative impact on my man, barry o...

    politics forces all who have the balls and gall to commit to soeone to make difficult contortions fro tie to time...

    i expect senator obama was a bit hesitant because he is indeed cautious (a bad thing?) and carefully considers everything he says and signs onto. a bad thing?

    sounds like a good thing to me for one who wishes to occupy the most powerful office in the world.

    but how can i then still bash 50 foot queenie?

    by the way, my gigantra bashing is not endorsed by senator obama - its my right to free speech which i excercise under anonymity and in private.

    ever worked on a real political campaign? its a trap filled maze. thank god for this virtual space and a little anonymity...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/03/2007 @ 3:58pm

16. under anonymity and in private.

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/03/2007 @ 3:58pm

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Posted by NSA ET AL 10/03/2007 @ 3:58pm | ignore this person

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/03/2007 @ 4:07pm

17. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/03/2007 @ 4:07pm | ignore this person

    that was funny was it not? lol...

    but i was angling more for the fact that although one can say anything one wants, practical considerations make unlimited free speech...unwise...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/03/2007 @ 4:22pm

18. "The American Freedom Pledge"

    The Democrats have supported the White House at every step for years, right up to the present. This 'pledge' is BS.

    Posted by WRoss at 10/03/2007 @ 4:25pm

19. Posted by WROSS 10/03/2007 @ 4:25pm | ignore this person

    it does indeed impress me as little more than feelgood claptrap. not exactly the effin magna carta, but sure...why not?

    if not much more than feelgood claptrap to be abrogated by the presidential oath of office...why not sign it?

    uhh...ok, fine...i'll sign it...

    lol

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/03/2007 @ 4:32pm

20. Anything involving Moveon.org and balance is an oxymoron and it never to be taken seriously..except here, I guess.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/03/2007 @ 12:15pm

    So, JM, you wouldn't back restoring the constitution of the United States if Hilary Clinton were president and wanted to start tapping into your investments into your international business with China, including your peronsal emails etc.?

    I don't want Hilary Clinton or George Bush invading my privacy period. That is what this is all about, not whether a democrat or republican came up with idea. It'a about defending the consitution of the United States which our political leaders swore to do, but evidently forgot that they swore on a bible which makes them not only liars in the face of their fellow countrymen, but in the face of God. Damn blashpemers.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/03/2007 @ 4:34pm

21. IBBLEBIBBLE, if I judged rashly based on your critique of the pledge, I apologize. I'm angry and upset at the prospect of continuing the status quo. I think we need to have a little more passion and less parsing.

    Posted by Donald Weed at 10/03/2007 @ 4:39pm

22. Unchecked powers -- this is war, people!

    This is dangerous, dangerous crap! We're taking our stand to put an end to this. What do you stand for?

    Posted by DONALD WEED 10/03/2007 @ 3:06pm

    You've been smoking too much Weed Donald. Hey, this war was over many years ago, don't you remember W saying the mission was accomplished. Then we were told years ago that the insurgency was in it's last throes, and yet here we are as you said, at war.

    But, exactly who it is we are at war with is the question. We aren't at war with Iraq. We aren't at war with Afghanistan. So, please tell me, who this war is against? Don't give me that terrorist crap either, because if that was the case we would be at war with Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/03/2007 @ 4:40pm

23. Posted by DONALD WEED 10/03/2007 @ 4:39pm |

    i understand...

    i've just seen a lot of claptrap in my time, and have clapped right along, myself...

    no need for apology - i appreciate the irony and try not to take my own flametongued ranting too seriously...lol

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/03/2007 @ 4:59pm

24. Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/03/2007 @ 5:09pm |

    33 point lead? where? according to what poll?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/03/2007 @ 5:15pm

25. Posted by MALCONTENT 10/03/2007 @ 2:11pm

    Eric, having a bad day?

    You know me better than that and you have read enough to know what I really feel on certain issues.....and your "list" anint it.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/03/2007 @ 5:21pm

26. Wolf,

    "So, JM, you wouldn't back restoring the constitution of the United States if Hilary Clinton were president and wanted to start tapping into your investments into your international business with China, including your peronsal emails etc.?

    I don't want Hilary Clinton or George Bush invading... "

    I think the constitution is doing just fine. My emails and phone calls are being read when I travel over seas as are everyone else... I don't really have a huge problem with that since my calls and emails are all dry boring business correspondence..drty as toast. I am sure it will put the listeners to sleep..

    I understand your point, but I feel the constitution has been under assault for 50 years with endless taxation, social programs that reach into our homes, the whole paternal govt thing is not exactly a Founding Father set up...it occured when politicians figured out they could gain votes with your money.

    You fear BIG BROTHER and I fear BIG FATHER.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/03/2007 @ 5:26pm

27. And why is this even necessary?

    https://www.onefingervictorysalute.com/splashPage.hg

    Dec 5, 2005, 07:53

    Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

    Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

    GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

    "I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

    "Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

    "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

    http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/03/2007 @ 5:33pm

28. [quote]scrub - the current occupant took the same oath of office. see what happened?

    the point of the pledge is to get the candidates willing to premise their campaign on the belief that executive power has been out of control, and that basic freedom has been threatened over the last 8 years, to make public this premise during the crucial primary campaign. the purpose of the pledge is not that it is some sort of legally binding agreement, but that the candidates willing to publicly sign on to it agree to redress the issues to which it pertains. why is that difficult for you to see? [/quote]

    it's not difficult to see, and i appreciate your courteous response.

    but the executive trampling of the constitution didn't start with bush w. clinton was pretty much a serial trampler of executive power as well...and of coruse it goes back to bush sr &*that incredible "conservative" trampler of the constitution himself: reagan. if this all brings about some sort of serious debate about the appropriate balances of the constitution between the 3 branches, and the respect for the rule of law therein, fine, i'm all for it. we all need a good lesson in it.

    on the other hand, when the new president arrives on 1/20/09, the apocalypse will be at his or her doorstep, and that person is going to forget about that pledge as soon as they look in the mirror and say, "so you're the commander in chief".

    maybe i'm just feeling cynical and tired today, but i'm jus' not counting my chickens.

    Posted by Scrub at 10/03/2007 @ 5:38pm

29. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/03/2007 @ 5:15pm | ignore this person

    the poll frank quoted is, of course, the most advantageous, abc poll...the average of all polls gives her a 20.3 lead...not insurmountable over the next four+ months...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/03/2007 @ 6:00pm

30. Here's a couple of good poll collectors, except that the first one doesn't have good Gore polls like the 36% Gore got in Michigan or in NH or the California poll that lists the 25%. It is a big difference if the pollsters include Gore as a candidate without stating that he's not running or ask for a second choice.

    http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

    http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/candidates/Al-Gore.html

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/story/0,,2114538,00.html

    http://tinyurl.com/2hrll9

    http://tinyurl.com/2zctem

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/03/2007 @ 6:01pm

31. Gore said: "Like I said, I'm a recovering politician. But you always have to worry about a relapse."

    And a very interesting article that very well may be happening in all 50 states:

    http://tinyurl.com/2rlvb5

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/03/2007 @ 6:13pm

32. And from out of nowhere...

    "Toni Pena, 36, a homemaker in Odessa, Texas, said she preferred Clinton or former Vice President Al Gore to Obama because "they both obviously would have more experience than he would, being that both of them have been in the White House."

    http://tinyurl.com/yoahpk

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/03/2007 @ 6:32pm

33. er,

    http://tinyurl.com/ys73fb

    http://runalrun.blogspot.com/

    http://tinyurl.com/yulbcm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/03/2007 @ 6:41pm

34. WOLFGANG1, that was such a clever pun on my name. I'll have to remember that.

    If you're asking me who the war is against, I'd say it's against the advance of reason and common sense in the world. If I've confused you too, maybe I should check my Benson & Hedges.

    As for the 33-point lead, take a look at this: Hillary Opens Massive 33-pt Lead [dailykos.com].

    That's why I'm sputtering with frustration. This race is closing down before the polls even open.

    Posted by Donald Weed at 10/03/2007 @ 6:46pm

35. rupertloveshillary [tinyurl.com]

    rupert and hillary...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/03/2007 @ 7:25pm

36. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/03/2007 @ 7:25pm

    come on baby,

    let's do the twist...............................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/03/2007 @ 9:55pm

37. Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/03/2007 @ 10:17pm

    why does murdoch love her so much?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/03/2007 @ 10:52pm

38. Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/03/2007 @ 10:17pm

    but wait.

    murdoch owns foxnews.

    murdoch owns hillary.

    what's he going to do?

    i know.

    he can consult his clarence thomas.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/03/2007 @ 10:54pm

39. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/03/2007 @ 10:54pm

    not baiting RIO, actually - would seriously like to know his take on murdoch's infatuation with gigantra.

    he was part of the great rightwing conspiracy she alluded to years ago...

    so whats the deal.

    calling all con-trolls out there! whats the deal?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/03/2007 @ 11:04pm

40. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/03/2007 @ 11:04pm

    i wasn't bating either. i wrote my post the same time as when you wrote yours. mine took longer because i went back and doubled spaced it.

    make it look more poetic.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/03/2007 @ 11:08pm

41. I've yet to see one of these guys put all their eggs in one basket!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/03/2007 @ 11:06pm

    that's why they own newscorp etc.,

    and we get to talk about them.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/03/2007 @ 11:09pm

42. They look at the Clinton years as basically good ones for the country although they weren't very good for republicans....

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/03/2007 @ 6:41pm

    A large majority of stock owners, aka Capitalists, are Republicans....especially those with above-average portfolios!

    Let's look at how the broad stock market did from the time Clinton began his Presidency (1/20/1993) to the time he left (1/19/2001),....to now (10/3/07):

    S&P 500 - UP from 433 to 1343 (Tripled+)....to 1540 today

    NASDAQ - UP from 697 to 2770 (Quadrupled)....to 2729 today

    DOW 30 - UP from 3242 to 10588 (also Tripled+)....to 13968 today

    Just goes to show FRANKGRITS don't know jackGrits about the Clinton years as "weren't very good for republicans"......

    Those Clinton years were FANTASTIC for all stock owners but ESPECIALLY the Republicans! Reagan laid the foundation for the Peace Dividends but Clinton do deserve credit for working with the GOP Congress on budgets but Clinton DESERVES MOST OF THE CREDIT for NAFTA....a bonanza for `Capital'!

    With Bush very likely to leave behind a War `Dividend', anybody care to guess how the stock market will do in a Queenie presidency?

    Posted by Happy at 10/03/2007 @ 11:11pm

43. Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/03/2007 @ 11:06pm

    yeah...yep...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/03/2007 @ 11:24pm

44. Posted by HAPPY 10/03/2007 @ 11:11pm

    well that depends on how long she's willing to take on more debt in order to fund her iraq project.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/03/2007 @ 11:35pm

45. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/03/2007 @ 11:08pm

    just double space it as you type it.

    hit enter twice

    after each line

    easy, fast...

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/03/2007 @ 11:31pm |

    so you think she's just using murdoch? get his money and either turn on him or turn him to the good side? maybe he's contemplating the implications of mortality...?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/03/2007 @ 11:35pm

46. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/03/2007 @ 11:35pm

    thanks.

    sometimesarunonsentenceworkswelltoo.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/03/2007 @ 11:44pm

47. Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/03/2007 @ 11:43pm

    well...4+ months to go...

    guess she's practicing on getting the cackle under control...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/03/2007 @ 11:46pm

48. I was referring to their politics.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/03/2007 @ 11:35pm

    Excuse me....you mean the Republicans taking control of the House in 1994 but ONLY gained some Senators but NOT control of the Senate? Politics is minor....for you true junkies.....me, I'm ADDICTED to the stock market....unlike you, I put my beliefs ON THE LINE everyday....matching wits with the Heavy Hitters your Hillary is indebted to!

    Posted by Happy at 10/03/2007 @ 11:50pm

49. Posted by HAPPY 10/03/2007 @ 11:50pm

    careful mr happy,

    sometimes these guys hit foul balls

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/03/2007 @ 11:53pm

50. Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/03/2007

    at whose expense?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/03/2007 @ 11:54pm

51. well...20.4 points is good, but 4 months and a couple of early primary vics can change things...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/03/2007 @ 11:58pm

52. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/03/2007 @ 11:58pm

    hey, no quoting MAASCH!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/04/2007 @ 12:03am

53. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/03/2007 @ 11:58pm

    ojalá

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/04/2007 @ 12:03am

54. Posted by HAPPY 10/03/2007 @ 11:11pm

    yet median income falls since 1970...

    gotta be some payback for schmuk nation at some point...

    the country is better educated than ever before...but the profits keep getting more concentrated...

    sooner or later seems its got to get at least a little redistributed or we end up with "disgruntled nation"...

    and nobody wants that...

    in all fairness, though, i think some folks got spoiled by the economic boom of post ww2...which was unnatural, and unsustainable.

    but disgruntled nation cant be good...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/04/2007 @ 12:41am

55. but disgruntled nation cant be good...

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/04/2007 @ 12:41am

    grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr........................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/04/2007 @ 12:51am

56. Ouch:

    http://tinyurl.com/38fzf6

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/04/2007 @ 02:03am

57. The problem with neo-centrism is that it triangulates on the big lie when the truth is branded as Leftist spin. It occured to me while watching the shrill, hysterical Tucker Carlson, that the worldview had to be portrayed on a Left-Right axis, and an inconvenient truth has to be weighted down with the trapping of partisanship and all the accompanying buzz words. Triangulation is lazy, for short-term gain and ultimately a strategy for immediate power, but not power to accomplish anything, or for sustained effort. It is only a strategy that ultimately undermines meaning. Centrism is triangulating on dangerous propaganda. It legitimizes the big lie. Clinton may win by pandering to a power base that is destroying this country. She will never be loved by the people.

    Posted by Lil at 10/04/2007 @ 08:43am

58. Posted by LIL 10/04/2007 @ 08:43am

    Don't fret it....Speaker of the House Sheehan will keep her in line!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 10/04/2007 @ 09:49am

59. BTW, anybody notice than in NONE of FRANTGRITS posts yesterday...

    did he come up with an "explanation" for why Hillary didn't sign that pledge?!?!!?

    Posted by Mask at 10/04/2007 @ 09:51am

60. BTW, anybody notice than in NONE of FRANTGRITS posts yesterday...

    did he come up with an "explanation" for why Hillary didn't sign that pledge?!?!!?

    Posted by MASK

    Why is it that I'm supposed to vote?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 10/04/2007 @ 10:41am

61. Don't tell me, Mask, that you still are smitten with Pelosi? She is damn near pathetic, eyes darting around in a panic...she is the picture of a deer caught in the headlights. Regardless whether Sheehan nips at her corporate lady suits, something has the Pelosi dame all atwittering.

    Posted by Lil at 10/04/2007 @ 11:07am

62. The Dems need to 86 Pelosi and Reid. Both appear "weak" and incapable. And their pandering to the right is disgraceful.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 10/04/2007 @ 11:30am

63. this report confirms one of my most long-standing and profound misgivings about hilary clinton: that she is salivating over the prospect of inheriting the undue, unconstitutional, and frightening concentration of executive power that the current administration has arrogated to itself. one can only hope that the norman hsu speed bump or something simiar topples this wolf in sheep's clothing candidate from contention.

    Posted by rocal75 at 10/04/2007 @ 11:41am

64. Posted by MTSPENCE05 10/04/2007 @ 10:41am

    Actually, Empty...don't. Don't vote. You might just get a polling place with butterfly chads and would end up voting for Mitt Romney or Lyndon LaRouche!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 10/04/2007 @ 12:06pm

65. Posted by LIL 10/04/2007 @ 11:07am

    LIL, it would be cool as hell if Cindy beat Pelosi. But she won't. And since she (CS) will have NOTHING to run on against Pelosi in 2010....13 months from now, nobody will care and later...nobody will remember!

    Posted by Mask at 10/04/2007 @ 12:07pm

66. Ok, so Hillary doesn't sign the constitutional pleadge but enough people get outraged enough to push for impeaching hsuB/cHeney for the very same reasons one would...:

    http://tinyurl.com/2vgcoc

    Where does that leave her politically if she waits too long to backtrack while her competition is hammering her over the head with it? Being attached to hsuB/cHeney in this way will not help her in any logical way.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/04/2007 @ 12:09pm

67. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/04/2007 @ 12:09pm

    Hey, HSUB....27 days left. How long until we get a copy of John Conyers' bills of impeachment? LOVE to read it!

    Posted by Mask at 10/04/2007 @ 12:14pm

68. On cue, several months, if not about a year ago, an 'X' marked the spot for Big Al, the Goricle, to enter stage left, house right:

    http://www.ostroyreport.blogspot.com/

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/25/204659/988

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/04/2007 @ 12:30pm

69. "So, commitment to Constitutional balance means taking the advice of all the left wing groups, sponsors and donors mentioned, along with dem control of House, Senate, SC, and WH?

    I'll pass."

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/03/2007 @ 12:13pm

    Part of being an adult and a citizen in a democratic society is being honest enough to admit that even people you wouldn't generally agree with can have good ideas.

    Respect for our Constitution is not a cheap campaign theme.

    It is our most important conservative value.

    Posted by drhammer at 10/04/2007 @ 12:54pm

70. Google Results 1 - 10 of about 475,000 for John Conyers' bills of impeachment?. (0.27 seconds)

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/04/2007 @ 12:57pm

71. Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/03/2007 @ 5:09pm

    Sorry, Frank, but fuck that noise.

    Are you so impressed by Hillary's political calculus that you don't even need to hear her take a stand on our most pressing issues?

    Are you so smitten that you're willing to accept her campaign gamesmanship, in the belief that once she's done what it takes to become president, she'll return to all your progressive values?

    I guess it's a good thing that you wear your heart so openly on your sleeve.

    (It'll save her from having to tear it out.)

    Posted by drhammer at 10/04/2007 @ 1:09pm

72. DR Hammer,

    "Part of being an adult and a citizen in a democratic society is being honest enough to admit that even people you wouldn't generally agree with can have good ideas. "

    I agree and have agreed with many in this site on certain issue, but have NEVER seen others here do the same with those they usually disagree...all anti repub, anti Bush all the time with 90% here still believing the Bush family is conservative...most of us on the right or libeertarian side just give up and use the site for amusement..

    It is impossible to deal with the Franks, and Willc or even the real loons like Conshamed and expect serious dialog.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/04/2007 @ 1:12pm

73. Cool:

    http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/27434

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/04/2007 @ 1:22pm

74. A straw too many?

    http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/27425

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/04/2007 @ 1:30pm

75. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/04/2007 @ 12:57pm

    No, HSUB...I mean the REAL one that he's going to get to the House floor in the next 3 weeks

    Posted by Mask at 10/04/2007 @ 2:24pm

76. If the candidates(other than Ron Paul) haven't voiced a thought about the loss of constitutional rights,it won't make a rat's ass what they sign

    Posted by robertsgt40 at 10/04/2007 @ 4:08pm

77. Frita,

    "in politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt

    "Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere, so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath, when they speak in condemnation of it." -- Woodrow Wilson

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/04/2007 @ 6:15pm

78. If you don't really trust a candidate to honor his or her oath of office, what is the point of promising to keep one's promise. If you can't trust a candidate to honor their oath of office, which you already know you can't given that they have not tried to impeach the current dishonorable occupant of the White House, they aren't worthy to serve. Guess what... none of these folks are suitable for the presidency.

    Posted by MarkGoldman at 10/05/2007 @ 12:44pm

79. By the way, if any of these folks were themselves honorable to their own oath of office, this discussion wouldn't even be happening.

    Posted by MarkGoldman at 10/05/2007 @ 12:46pm