(Video) Hillary Clinton's double-talk completely exposed

Today, The John Edwards for President Campaign released a video of Hillary Clinton's responses during the latest presidential debate.  You have got to watch this!  Now you know why so many progressives don't even have a clue what she stands for:

And you think Republicans won't expose this in the general election?  What I'm trying to do between now and February 5th is do my part to prevent an eventual train wreck for the Democrats in the general election.  Whether the answer is Edwards or Obama is still up in the air.  One thing is for sure: we need to pick one of those two candidates, and help that candidate defeat Hillary in the primaries.  I do not want another long and painful eight years.  My guess is that none of you want that either.

Comments

[MLP]

Strong stuff, Todd.
Although some might feel that this is an example of in-fighting that will ultimately harm the Democratic chances in 2008, I rather think it is an good example of the disgust that the Dems feel towards what we fear from our own candidates: inaction and corporate ownership.
If we want better from our party, we need more of what you just demonstrated. Our party should be convinced that they want to represent their constituency, not their financial well-being.
Nice job, Todd.

[Robert]

Todd great come back. This is why I enjoy this site. Great context. It is true this might look like infighting. But is it not the job of fellow canidates to say hey wait a second right now you lead in the polls yet no know anything you stand for and you keep changing what you stand for. Like it or not Kerry acted the same in 2004. I agree with Todd. I don't want to see 8 more years of fearmongering, of imperalism. I want someone who has a plan and can express their plan, and will stick by that plan. Compromise is fine but changing from one minute to the next is just plan wrong and bad for the country. this isn't a right wing site but it is a site that allows many views to be expressed a true liberal and progressive format.

[granny]

What I'm trying to do between now and February 5th is do my part to prevent an eventual train wreck for the Democrats in the general election. Whether the answer is Edwards or Obama is still up in the air. One thing is for sure: we need to pick one of those two candidates, and help that candidate defeat Hillary in the primaries.

Bravo! Bravo!, Todd. I absolutely agree. The single relevant issue right now is a viable candidate.

Superior analysis of Obama as a candidate, and the complexities of this election...here (below)
I think it's important reading :

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Thanks for the support, everyone! I've had to clear out my inbox because of all the hate email I've been getting since my comments about Hillary following the debate.

Am I being 100% objective? Well, no person is. But as a citizen activist, it is a DUTY to stand up for something if it is in the best interest of your country and others around the world.

Will things be different under Hillary Clinton? Maybe. But not by much. The way I see it, we don't need slight modifications to the Bush policies -- we need to start from scratch. We need Obama or Edwards. All of us need to watch these two closely in the next debate, which is less than two weeks from now.

[Ted K.]

Horrible outing from Hilly and you can bet she is steaming at Tim Russert.
BTW, Robert, the U.S. does not practice Imperialism.

I could definitely take 4-8 more years of a Rep. in the White House, as I do not like the hike the tax cry coming from all the Dems.

You want spending, vote A DEM in the white house (with a Dem Senate and Dem House) and you ain't seen nothing yet!

[george]

The "tax hike Dems" statement is so non-substantive.

Before you say that you have to explain how you plan to pay for what will be 10 years in Iraq for an average of at least 100,000 soldiers? That's 1 million man years. Where does that cash come from? Your God? It's not free.

Next time you complain about $20 billion for children's health care, do some research to see why that $20 billion isnt already there.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Ted, remember, no president has spent more than George W. Bush, who last time I checked is a Republican.

[Robert]

US does not practice Imperialism. Ted I ask you to tell me when we have not. Websters defines it as the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence. Is that not Iraq and the US?