PDA

View Full Version : Clinton determined to wreck own party, compares Obama to Bush


HolmeZz
02-25-2008, 09:05 PM
The irony here is delicious seeing as she was the one who voted to authorize the Iraq war. You can't make this stuff up.

http://www.rep-am.com/news/elections/320684.txt

Clinton says she has experience to guide U.S. policy

By Christopher Stern and Julianna Goldman | Bloomberg News
Democrat Hillary Clinton said Monday she is the only candidate in the presidential race who will be able to reverse President George W. Bush's foreign policy and warned that the U.S. can't gamble on putting the White House in inexperienced hands.

Without mentioning rival Barack Obama by name, Clinton said the country can't afford to repeat the last seven years under the Republican president.

"We have seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience or the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our nation," Clinton said in a speech in Washington. "America has already taken that chance one time too many."

The New York senator is trying to regain her footing in the Democratic nomination race by emphasizing her experience as a senator and first lady, arguing that makes her better prepared for the presidency than Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois.

The two, who are competing March 4 in primaries in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont, also kept up their sparring over trade and past statements about the North American Free Trade Agreement. Trade figures to be a major issue in Ohio, where manufacturing jobs have declined 23 percent since December 2000. Clinton is counting on wins there and in Texas to keep her campaign going after 11 consecutive losses to Obama.

Obama, 46, campaigned Monday in Cincinnati and talked about the economy, trade and health care.

While he didn't directly respond to Clinton, his aides released a statement from an adviser, retired Major General J. Scott Gratian, calling it "ironic" that Clinton compared Obama to Bush "when she voted to authorize the war in Iraq, supports the Bush policy of not talking to leaders we don't like, and gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran and Pakistan."

In Washington, Clinton said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, changes in Cuba, Kosovo's declaration of independence and other recent events demonstrate "how essential it is we have sound strategy and sound leadership."

"The American people don't have to guess whether I understand the issues," she said. The U.S. faces many dangers as well as "unprecedented opportunities," Clinton, 60, said, "if we have the right leadership."

Clinton criticized Obama's positions while mentioning him only near the end of her remarks. She referred to his past statements that he would meet with U.S. adversaries such as the leaders of Iran and Venezuela without conditions and would consider unilateral military action against terrorist hide-outs in Pakistan.

"He wavers from seeming to believe that mediation and meetings without preconditions can solve some of the world's most intractable problems, to advocating rash, unilateral military action without cooperation from our allies in the most sensitive region of the world," Clinton said.

Clinton also tied trade to national security, saying a "level playing field" for U.S. workers and companies "has direct and serious implications for our capacity to operate effectively on behalf of our strategic interests in the world."

StcChief
02-26-2008, 09:31 AM
much as I hate the power hungry crazy Bitch, she looks much better than Obama on Dem side.

Cave Johnson
02-26-2008, 09:59 AM
much as I hate the power hungry crazy Bitch, she looks much better than Obama on Dem side.

Of course you prefer HRC, she supports the failed international policies of W. Duh.

patteeu
02-26-2008, 10:30 AM
Of course you prefer HRC, she supports the failed international policies of W. Duh.

She's only barely different from Obama on that score. I sure wouldn't call her position one of support.

HolmeZz
02-26-2008, 10:39 AM
She's only barely different from Obama on that score. I sure wouldn't call her position one of support.

The only similarity they have is withdrawal, and they even differ on how long that'll take.

The point was the irony in Hillary pointing out how Bush's foreign policy decisions are evidence of inexperience in the White House when she herself supported those decisions.

StcChief
02-26-2008, 10:44 AM
The only similarity they have is withdrawal, and they even differ on how long that'll take.

The point was the irony in Hillary pointing out how Bush's foreign policy decisions are evidence of inexperience in the White House when she herself supported those decisions. Like it or not there will be Military presence in IRAQ for years to come. So the bring 'em all home story by Bark Obama is gonna be flip /flop story later.

HolmeZz
02-26-2008, 10:47 AM
Like it or not there will be Military presence in IRAQ for years to come. So the bring 'em all home story by Bark Obama is gonna be flip /flop story later.

That's not what's being debated. The debate is about an active military presence, not whether we're going to keep some troops there to protect the embassy and US interests.

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 10:53 AM
What is the big deal? Some of us have been making this comparison for WEEKS. Right now it seems to many like a far fetched possiblity at best. But I have no doubt that it will be a very valid comparison on many levels on down the line.

Cochise
02-26-2008, 10:55 AM
he isn't Bush, he's the second coming of Jimmy Carter.

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 10:56 AM
he isn't Bush, he's the second coming of Jimmy Carter.

That is another very good analogy. I think he'll be the COMBINATION of the best of Jimmy with the worst of Georgie...

yikes.

HolmeZz
02-26-2008, 10:58 AM
What is the big deal? Some of us have been making this comparison for WEEKS. Right now it seems to many like a far fetched possiblity at best. But I have no doubt that it will be a very valid comparison on many levels on down the line.

You've already sold out your war beliefs, so I guess it should be expected that you'd sell out your loyalty to the Democratic Party.

If you think these things are helpful to Obama in November, you're stupid.

StcChief
02-26-2008, 10:58 AM
he isn't Bush, he's the second coming of Jimmy Carter.
Jimmie, print more money, which way is the political wind blowin', I carry my own bags when photo op presents itself....

SNR
02-26-2008, 10:59 AM
That is another very good analogy. I think he'll be the COMBINATION of the best of Jimmy with the worst of Georgie...

yikes.That's impossible. Neither Jimmy nor Bush is black.

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 11:02 AM
You've already sold out your war beliefs, so I guess it should be expected that you'd sell out your loyalty to the Democratic Party.

If you think these things are helpful to Obama in November, you're stupid.

I am still antiwar.

I'm just not delusional or BRAINWASHED enough to think than any of the candidates are going to get the all the troops out in the next term. The people selling out their beliefs are those who are hanging their hats on these empty promises that either Democratic candidate will be able to end this war in the next year or two or three or four.

HolmeZz
02-26-2008, 11:03 AM
I am still antiwar.

I'm just not delusional or BRAINWASHED enough to think than any of the candidates are going to get the all the troops out in the next term.

So why did you originally support Obama and give the reason that he opposed the war from the start?

The people selling out their beliefs are those who are hanging their hats on these empty promises that either Democratic candidate will be able to end this war in the next year or two or three or four.

What is Obama promising that Hillary isn't?

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 11:04 AM
That's impossible. Neither Jimmy nor Bush is black.

True dat.

However, this particular candidate is part white himself, isn't he. ;)

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 11:07 AM
So why did you originally support Obama for the reason that he opposed the war from the start?



What is Obama promising that Hillary isn't?

I didn't originally support Obama. Last year, I said he was the most anti-war and that was my most important issue and he would be my candidate BY DEFAULT. Then I watched him over the past year and realized what a preacher man/used car salesman he is and started to reconsider my support of him even by default.

Simultaneously, the issue of the economy and health care started becoming more important to me as I've seen people around me start to really suffer due to the conditions and those issues were enough to convince me not to support Obama.

HolmeZz
02-26-2008, 11:12 AM
I didn't originally support Obama. Last year, I said he was the most anti-war and that was my most important issue and he would be my candidate BY DEFAULT.

So why did being anti-war matter then?

Then I watched him over the past year and realized what a preacher man/used car salesman he is and started to reconsider my support of him even by default.

yeah yeah you have no proof, "we'll see", yada yada yada

Simultaneously, the issue of the economy and health care started becoming more important to me as I've seen people around me start to really suffer due to the conditions and those issues were enough to convince me not to support Obama.

Please tell why you think Hillary's better on the economy and health care.

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 11:18 AM
So why did being anti-war matter then?



yeah yeah you have no proof, "we'll see", yada yada yada



Please tell why you think Hillary's better on the economy and health care.

I liked that he had the foresight that I did to predict the quagmire debacle that I predicted would happen and did happen.

But then I looked at his record once in office when it really mattered and he's supported just about everything DUHBya has wanted regarding this issue. He hasn't been active in calling or working for an end to the war in Congress rather he's been focusing on his initial opposition to the war like that opposition NOW will help end anything.

Again, he's lying through his teeth if he's promising on ending the war and he hasn't even met with the people in the know to even ascertain if it's actually possible at this juncture. So too is Clinton but at least she is saying she will demand they come up with an exit strategy and will work from there.

HolmeZz
02-26-2008, 11:21 AM
She's promising to remove troops from Iraq much quicker than Obama's plan calls for.

Try again.

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 11:32 AM
She's promising to remove troops from Iraq much quicker than Obama's plan calls for.

Try again.

She not promised anything. She wants to start removing troops but she wants the exit strategy from the Joint Chiefs in order how to best ascertain the way forward. She has said numerous times that she realizes the withdrawal will be complicated especially regarding civilian staff and Iraqis who aided the US.

All Obama says is that poetry of being as 'careful getting out as we were careless getting in.' Huh?

HolmeZz
02-26-2008, 11:36 AM
She not promised anything.

Yes she has. She's promised troop removal within 60 days of being in office.

I've heard her say it about 2,000 times.

Cochise
02-26-2008, 11:38 AM
Yes she has. She's promised troop removal within 60 days of being in office.

I've heard her say it about 2,000 times.

At the last debate I believe she said it would begin within 60 days, starting with two brigades, unless I'm mistaken.

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 11:39 AM
At the last debate I believe she said it would begin within 60 days, starting with two brigades, unless I'm mistaken.

Yes, that is what she said. She also hasn't promised a complete withdrawal which I am resigned to the fact is going to be the reality no matter who the CIC is. I'm just not going to allow any of these candidates to lie to my face that they can actually end the war without even speaking to those in the military who are currently running it first.

HolmeZz
02-26-2008, 11:43 AM
At the last debate I believe she said it would begin within 60 days, starting with two brigades, unless I'm mistaken.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071016/NATION/110160072/1001

She's promised a withdrawal starting within 60 days and Obama has set forth a phased withdrawal over 16 months.

Yet Meme insists Hillary's not promising anything and that she somehow has a better idea on how to get us out of there.

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 11:48 AM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071016/NATION/110160072/1001

She's promised a withdrawal starting within 60 days and Obama has set forth a phased withdrawal over 16 months.

Yet Meme insists Hillary's not promising anything and that she somehow has a better idea on how to get us out of there.


LOL, the headline even says "SOME" and the article itself says she will have troops remain.

From page 2 of the article which references an essay she wrote:


In the essay, Mrs. Clinton said troops left behind to control terrorism would also provide security for U.S. troops and other personnel in Iraq, and train and equip Iraqi security services "to keep order and promote stability in the country, but only to the extent that such training is actually working."

HolmeZz
02-26-2008, 11:52 AM
It's like talking to a 4 year old.

Here is your original quote:


Again, he's lying through his teeth if he's promising on ending the war and he hasn't even met with the people in the know to even ascertain if it's actually possible at this juncture. So too is Clinton but at least she is saying she will demand they come up with an exit strategy and will work from there.

1) What is Clinton's exit strategy?

2) Show me where Obama has said he won't have an exit strategy for leaving

Cochise
02-26-2008, 11:54 AM
You guys are nuts if you think we're going to be totally gone in 18 months to allow Iraq to descend into genocide. No politician is going to do that and hang the consequences around their own neck.

If one of these two wins, I strongly expect the "well, it looked like we could at the time, but now we just can't do it" defense. After all, I'm sure the war would be a useful a campaign tool in 2010 and 2012 as they expect it will be in 08, which is why they kept it around instead of doing what their mandate was to do

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 11:58 AM
You guys are nuts if you think we're going to be totally gone in 18 months to allow Iraq to descend into genocide. No politician is going to do that and hang the consequences around their own neck.

If one of these two wins, I strongly expect the "well, it looked like we could at the time, but now we just can't do it" defense. After all, I'm sure the war would be a useful a campaign tool in 2010 and 2012 as they expect it will be in 08, which is why they kept it around instead of doing what their mandate was to do

I don't think it. I know it won't be so. I also know that many DEMS feel Clinton's policy is too WH friendly. But I think it's pragmatic considering she's been there many times, has worked on the Armed Serv. Com. and apparently, according to Josh Bolten, DUHbya himself has briefed her on the situation in hopes she would be forced to continue his policy.

I suspect she is one who is cautious enough (given her war vote) to not promise anything too optimistic lest she burned by the Iraq war twice.

HolmeZz
02-26-2008, 12:01 PM
I don't think it. I know it won't be so. I also know that many DEMS feel Clinton's policy is too WH friendly. But I think it's pragmatic considering she's been there many times, has worked on the Armed Serv. Com. and apparently, according to Josh Bolten, DUHbya himself has briefed her on the situation in hopes she would be forced to continue his policy.

I suspect she is one who is cautious enough (given her war vote) to not promise anything too optimistic lest she burned by the Iraq war twice.

So you're saying Hillary is going to be like Bush.

I thought that was your excuse for not voting for Obama.

Cave Johnson
02-26-2008, 12:02 PM
You guys are nuts if you think we're going to be totally gone in 18 months to allow Iraq to descend into genocide. No politician is going to do that and hang the consequences around their own neck.

Is Iraq really at serious risk of genocide at this point? It's a debatable point.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/what-one-iraqi.html#more

Like many people, including yourself, I've been asking myself the question of whether to withdraw from Iraq or stay there until some hoped-for peace is achieved after an indefinite number of more years and deaths.

The other day I met a young Iraqi doctor studying on my Master's degree program. After some conversation about his life and his losses in the war, I described the uncertainty some Americans feel about what the best thing is to do at this point and asked him what he thought. Until that point he had been very calm and matter-of-fact about describing his experiences, but this question obviously shocked him. He regained his composure, laughed a little, and said, "you'll excuse me, but I think your question has such an obvious answer."

He proceeded to explain that there was no more need for Americans to fear leaving a vacuum behind; that the opportunity to avert that had passed several years ago, and that Iran had long since filled the vacuum. Now, he said (to paraphrase), U.S. troops staying in Iraq only prolonged the killing and pain. As an obstetrician, he likened it to labor pains that would eventually cease, but first the foreign body, as it were, had to leave the host.

Naturally one man's perspective shouldn't be taken as "the answer", but I was struck by how little we hear of the opinions of Iraqis themselves on the matter of whether or not we should continue to occupy their country. Efforts to illuminate their perspectives, whether through interviews, Iraqi editorials, or references to Iraqi blog posts are conspicuously absent from the discussion I've observed. Perhaps it's because it seems obvious to some that they'd want us to go, but still I don't see why they would be excluded from the conversation.

While some argue there are greater issues at stake, I'm inclined to agree with my colleague that we may no longer be (if ever we were) able to influence them.

By the way, the Iraqi doctor also felt that Sen. Obama was the candidate most likely to get the U.S. out of Iraq and as such supported his campaign.

Cochise
02-26-2008, 12:02 PM
Well this is part of the problem. You shouldn't promise something just meaning that you will make a half-hearted attempt to do it.

When you promise people that you will do something it means you WILL do it. Well, according to common sense, but in campaign speak it means you will make what technically qualifies as an effort. Both of these candidates know they aren't going to end the war in a year and a half. It's ridiculous to promise that. Hopefully the electorate will hold them responsible for it when it turns out their promise was unrealistic.

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 12:05 PM
Well this is part of the problem. You shouldn't promise something just meaning that you will make a half-hearted attempt to do it.

When you promise people that you will do something it means you WILL do it. Well, according to common sense, but in campaign speak it means you will make what technically qualifies as an effort. Both of these candidates know they aren't going to end the war in a year and a half. It's ridiculous to promise that. Hopefully the electorate will hold them responsible for it when it turns out their promise was unrealistic.

I will. I think it's the first out and out lie that is being told to the electorate especially by Obamessiah. The guy visited Iraq ONE time and that makes him qualified to make that type of promise.

Give me a fuggin break.

He's going to flip/flop on that promise faster than you can say "Amen." Just like he's flipped on the campaign public financing issue.

Cochise
02-26-2008, 12:09 PM
I will.

I find that hard to believe.. they all promised that during the 06 cycle, elect us to end the war, but they kept it warm for next time and no one is angry about it.

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 12:14 PM
I find that hard to believe.. they all promised that during the 06 cycle, elect us to end the war, but they kept it warm for next time and no one is angry about it.

In fairness, it's rather difficult to end the war when you don't have a majority. And Benedict Lieberman does not a majority make...

Thus, I fully expect that if there is a majority in Congress and a Democratic POTUS that more will be done to end the war than was possible from 06-08. But, I still don't believe that it will be ended by the end of the first term of the next POTUS even if it was my man Al. I just don't think DUHbya has left the situation stable and resolved enough to pack it up and just end it any time soon.

Cochise
02-26-2008, 12:15 PM
In fairness, it's rather difficult to end the war when you don't have a majority. And Benedict Lieberman does not a majority make...

Thus, I fully expect that if there is a majority in Congress and a Democratic POTUS that more will be done to end the war than was possible from 06-08. But, I still don't believe that it will be ended by the end of the first term of the next POTUS even if it was my man Al. I just don't think DUHbya has left the situation stable and resolved enough to pack it up and just end it any time soon.

BS, they could have stopped it whenever they wanted to.

I fully expect that you will continue to vote Democrat no matter how many times they lie to you about this or stretch it out for the next election.

HolmeZz
02-26-2008, 12:18 PM
GIVE'ER HELL, COCHISE

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 12:21 PM
BS, they could have stopped it whenever they wanted to.

I fully expect that you will continue to vote Democrat no matter how many times they lie to you about this or stretch it out for the next election.

How? Please enlighten me.

I'm not going to make excuses for these folks because worse than not ending the war, they've given DUHbya just about anything he wanted regarding the war. Spineless weasels. Thus, they all deserve to be canned. But, I think if the situation changes where they have the majority and the POTUS and they still don't do anything to clean up the mess then I'll quit the party without reservation.

Especially if we have entrusted the clean up to an idolatrous fraud.

Cochise
02-26-2008, 12:27 PM
How? Please enlighten me.

I'm not going to make excuses for these folks because worse than not ending the war, they've given DUHbya just about anything he wanted regarding the war. Spineless weasels. Thus, they all deserve to be canned. But, I think if the situation changes where they have the majority and the POTUS and they still don't do anything to clean up the mess then I'll quit the party without reservation.

Especially if we have entrusted the clean up to an idolatrous fraud.

You've got battered wife syndrome... you have been meritlessly supporting the same bunch of schmucks for your whole adult life. Of course they come home drunk and with Bush's lipstick on their collars and give you a black eye, and you just apologize that you let dinner get cold... believe what they say, dutifully sniff the wilted flowers they brought you of new promises to change. They know you're always going to be there, that's why they don't have to listen to you and can just treat you however they want. It'll happen again and again because core supporters like you won't leave, they know it and you know it. Their promises to end the war are like so many of those non-binding congressional resolutions they are so fond of.

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 12:33 PM
You've got battered wife syndrome... you have been meritlessly supporting the same bunch of schmucks for your whole adult life. Of course they come home drunk and with Bush's lipstick on their collars and give you a black eye, and you just apologize that you let dinner get cold... believe what they say, dutifully sniff the wilted flowers they brought you of new promises to change. They know you're always going to be there, that's why they don't have to listen to you and can just treat you however they want. It'll happen again and again because core supporters like you won't leave, they know it and you know it. Their promises to end the war are like so many of those non-binding congressional resolutions they are so fond of.

Actually, you haven't heard a word I've said. I don't believe they are going to end the war this term. I do hope they close Gitmo, I hope they reverse some of the Patriot Act, I hope they start drawing down troops and begin to lay the groundwork for an eventual complete withdrawal in the next 4-5 years at the most optimistic scenario.

I have no illusion that the mess took 8 years to create so it could take at least that long to correct. One thing I also would like for them to do is thorough investigations of possible crimes that were committed in the WH concerning the orchestration and operation of the war. I do not believe an Obama presidency will do this. I think Clinton would.

Cochise
02-26-2008, 12:41 PM
I understand... you're complaining about Bush lying and getting us into a mess and then supporting people who are lying about their intentions to get us out of it.

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 12:50 PM
I understand... you're complaining about Bush lying and getting us into a mess and then supporting people who are lying about their intentions to get us out of it.

Perhaps you are addressing this to the wrong person. I am not supporting either of the two Dem candidates at this point. I think Clinton will do the best job trying to address the Iraq situation but I see her as keeping the troops there longer than I'd like to do it.

I think it will take Obamessiah just as long but for different reasons. He has no foreign policy experience and the European Affairs subcommittee he's chairman of in Congress hasn't even convened a meeting since he began to chair it. And how stable is Europe right now compared to Iraq? He can't even find a way to chair a meeting about an area that is not going to cause him to lose sleep at night. This hands off approach is probably what will happen in Iraq when he gets in there and realizes the military isn't buying into his 'hope and change' and can't find a way to magically fix the situation for him.

I have no illusion here. I'm not holding water,er, Koolade for any candidate this election.

patteeu
02-26-2008, 01:03 PM
The only similarity they have is withdrawal, and they even differ on how long that'll take.

The point was the irony in Hillary pointing out how Bush's foreign policy decisions are evidence of inexperience in the White House when she herself supported those decisions.

I agree that that part is ironic.

I guess the level of similarity or lack thereof must depend on your perspective.

penchief
02-26-2008, 01:29 PM
he isn't Bush, he's the second coming of Jimmy Carter.

You may be right. But if Obama truly is that, I'll bet he's going to be coming with more gusto than Jimmy Carter came with. He'll also be coming with a more sophisticated knowledge of what he's up against (the right-wing greed-establishment's attack machine, enabled by the bought and paid for corporate media). Carter was the first victim of the Reagan Revolution. The American people may ultimately be its last. I can't speak for the rest of the world.

If you want to know what Ronald Reagan's real legacy is, just take a good look at the state of the world today. Bush is the fulfillment of Reagan's corporate neo-con dream.

penchief
02-26-2008, 01:36 PM
That is another very good analogy. I think he'll be the COMBINATION of the best of Jimmy with the worst of Georgie...

yikes.

On what basis are you making these observations? You've been trying to undermine Obama with no more information than I have. What information do you have that allows you to proceed with a smear campaign instead of cautious skepticism? Or even the other side of the coin, cautious optimism?

Mr. Kotter
02-26-2008, 01:41 PM
You may be right. But if Obama truly is that, I'll bet he's going to be coming with more gusto than Jimmy Carter came with. He'll also be coming with a more sophisticated knowledge of what he's up against (the right-wing greed-establishment's attack machine, enabled by the bought and paid for corporate media). Carter was the first victim of the Reagan Revolution. The American people may ultimately be its last. I can't speak for the rest of the world.

If you want to know what Ronald Reagan's real legacy is, just take a good look at the state of the world today. Bush is the fulfillment of Reagan's corporate neo-con dream.

:rolleyes:

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 02:07 PM
On what basis are you making these observations? You've been trying to undermine Obama with no more information than I have. What information do you have that allows you to proceed with a smear campaign instead of cautious skepticism? Or even the other side of the coin, cautious optimism?

Well, the fact that he's been the chairman of a foreign policy subcommittee that provides oversight to NATO and hasn't even convened a full meeting of that committee since he took over in Jan. 07. He has not visited Europe other than a stopover in London. He has found campaigning for HIMSELF to be more important than US policy in Europe and within NATO.

This fact does not give me hope. He's got little foreign policy experience to begin with. The fact that he wasn't even interested and involved enough in his own subcommittee gives me a good glimpse as to what to expect from him regarding Iraq.

Hence, no cautious optimism, no optimism, only caution.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece

penchief
02-26-2008, 02:09 PM
That's impossible. Neither Jimmy nor Bush is black.

Which is a good thing, IMO.

Isn't it wonderful that the candidate who most represents the mood of the people is an African-American? Do you really understand just how much change that represents? Do you realize that this country might finally be able to transcend race? The established power-quo will never again be able to use race to divide the people of this country. And vice-versa (people like Al Sharpton will lose their steam).

Not only that, those who want Hillary to win for similar reasons will only be further enabled. To me, race is a bigger divider in this country than gender. And the election of an African-American as president would blow the top off the glass ceiling for women, IMO.

I also believe that Obama offers the American people an opportunity to rebel against the anti-democratic policies that have been established by the power quo ever since Reagan. The Reagan/Bush goon mentality that has thwarted progress in this country might finally have a chance of being swept away.

That said, I think Obama has proven throughout this campaign that he is as qualified as anyone else running for the office.

patteeu
02-26-2008, 02:26 PM
In fairness, it's rather difficult to end the war when you don't have a majority. And Benedict Lieberman does not a majority make...

Thus, I fully expect that if there is a majority in Congress and a Democratic POTUS that more will be done to end the war than was possible from 06-08. But, I still don't believe that it will be ended by the end of the first term of the next POTUS even if it was my man Al. I just don't think DUHbya has left the situation stable and resolved enough to pack it up and just end it any time soon.

The dems had a majority and the truth is that they never needed a majority to end the war. Refusing to provide funding requires only 41 votes in the Senate and a simple majority in the House. The actual majority that they've had since 06 in both houses made it even easier.

penchief
02-26-2008, 02:41 PM
You guys are nuts if you think we're going to be totally gone in 18 months to allow Iraq to descend into genocide. No politician is going to do that and hang the consequences around their own neck.

If one of these two wins, I strongly expect the "well, it looked like we could at the time, but now we just can't do it" defense. After all, I'm sure the war would be a useful a campaign tool in 2010 and 2012 as they expect it will be in 08, which is why they kept it around instead of doing what their mandate was to do

I tend to agree. But when I read between the lines I hear Obama say that it is more important to change the "mindset" that led to Iraq. And I don't think he's just referring to Hillary in order to win the democratic nomination. I've been reading between the lines that he's referring to the bigger picture.

I think he's refuting the ways of the Bush Administration and the corporate mindset. And I think that he's sufficiently veiling his criticisms in a way that allows him to win over independents, moderates, and even some conservatives.

penchief
02-26-2008, 02:57 PM
She not promised anything. She wants to start removing troops but she wants the exit strategy from the Joint Chiefs in order how to best ascertain the way forward. She has said numerous times that she realizes the withdrawal will be complicated especially regarding civilian staff and Iraqis who aided the US.

All Obama says is that poetry of being as 'careful getting out as we were careless getting in.' Huh?

I disagree. Obama says he wants to change the mindset that would 'lead' the people of this country to invade and occupy a sovereign nation without satisfactory evidence. He wants to end the mindset that would do such a thing entirely for reasons of hubris. He says he wants to change the mindset that would 'lead' the people of this country into an endless occupation and the senseless murdering of other innocent people on behalf of enriching those who have privilege to power (i.e. exploitation and manipulation).

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 03:12 PM
I disagree. Obama says he wants to change the mindset that would 'lead' the people of this country to invade and occupy a sovereign nation without satisfactory evidence. He wants to end the mindset that would do such a thing entirely for reasons of hubris. He says he wants to change the mindset that would 'lead' the people of this country into an endless occupation and the senseless murdering of other innocent people on behalf of enriching those who have privilege to power (i.e. exploitation and manipulation).

Obama sure has some lofty goals...

those stated and those projected upon him. :doh!:

jettio
02-26-2008, 03:27 PM
Making the right moves in foreign policy is not that complicated.

All it takes is intelligence, morals, honor and an ability to hire the right people.

B*sh does not have any of those qualities.

Hillary has intelligence, but she voted for a dishonorable war that she knew was immoral and unnecessary.

The only reason she voted for it, is because she thought it would be a rout and that she could not run for President if she had voted against what she thought would be an immoral and unnecessary smashing success.

A lot of people have died because of B*sh's lack of intelligence, morals and honor.

Hillary was smart enough to know better but not honorable enough to make the moral decision.

Hillary should also be embarrassed by the fact that Obama has better advisors on foreign policy. Just like everything else in this campaign, Obama has done a better job picking better people.

penchief
02-26-2008, 03:59 PM
Obama sure has some lofty goals...

those stated and those projected upon him. :doh!:

Well.... we can keep going on in the same direction or we can take our chances with a fresh path. Even if the person leading us on that new path doesn't know exactly where he's going, it doesn't matter. At least, we know that he's trying to lead us on a new path. If I were leading I wouldn't exactly know how it was going to end either. I would, however, know when the old path was worth leaving at any expense.

penchief
02-26-2008, 04:45 PM
Well, the fact that he's been the chairman of a foreign policy subcommittee that provides oversight to NATO and hasn't even convened a full meeting of that committee since he took over in Jan. 07. He has not visited Europe other than a stopover in London. He has found campaigning for HIMSELF to be more important than US policy in Europe and within NATO.

This fact does not give me hope. He's got little foreign policy experience to begin with. The fact that he wasn't even interested and involved enough in his own subcommittee gives me a good glimpse as to what to expect from him regarding Iraq.

Hence, no cautious optimism, no optimism, only caution.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece

I can see why that would be a source of concern but not necessarily a reason to justify a negative campaign against him. Is that the only reason you believe he needs to be derailed?

Coach
02-26-2008, 05:16 PM
The war in Afghanistan was the right choice to do it, and it still should be, since we still have not caught the bastard(s) who is responsible for it.

The war in Iraq was a disaster from the start, which should have never been waged.

HolmeZz
03-03-2008, 06:33 PM
To take KO's point, here's a statement she made this past weekend that basically sums up this topic:

"He [McCain] will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Sen. Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002," she told reporters.

Cochise
03-03-2008, 06:47 PM
To take KO's point, here's a statement she made this past weekend that basically sums up this topic:

"He [McCain] will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Sen. Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002," she told reporters.

Is that wrong?

HolmeZz
03-03-2008, 07:04 PM
Is that wrong?

Factually, of course. If Hillary has 'lifetime experience' she can run on, certainly so does Barack.

In terms of politics it's wrong too. I'm not party hawk, but generally you don't want to put yourself and the candidate from the other party on one rung, and then the person who's actually leading in the race for your nomination on one below.

BucEyedPea
03-03-2008, 08:36 PM
Factually, of course. If Hillary has 'lifetime experience' she can run on, certainly so does Barack.
She has only a few years experience over him. I don't see how she can claim giving advice as a First Lady, even if more active in policy, as experience in holding any power because the buck didn't stop with her. That makes it easier to give advice. Cripe we all do that here.

HolmeZz
03-03-2008, 08:45 PM
She has only a few years experience over him.

He actually has more time spent as an elected official. It's a silly argument for her to make anyway.

SBK
03-03-2008, 08:47 PM
Is there anything I can do to help Hillary with such a worthy mission as destroying the democrat party?

NewChief
03-03-2008, 09:01 PM
He actually has more time spent as an elected official. It's a silly argument for her to make anyway.

That's what I don't get. Her stupid 3am line that keeps getting played as some awesome line. Why would I want her answering the phone at 3am over Barack? For the life of me, I can't figure out a single good reason. Is she going to follow it up by saying that Barack is praying to Mecca at 3am or something? I just don't get her using that as some kind of trump card. Not to be sexist or anything, but I don't think that most Americans probably see Hillary as the answerer of executive emergencies as one of her strong suits as a potential President. Her strengths, to me, would be her policy positions and ability as a politician, not as some Executive superhero ready to spring into action and save the day at a moment's notice.

a1na2
03-03-2008, 09:03 PM
Is there anything I can do to help Hillary with such a worthy mission as destroying the democrat party?

I sent a $1.00 contribution to her campaign. Cost them more to respond than it was worth to them.

Will that destroy the party? Probably not, but it made me feel good to participate!

HolmeZz
03-03-2008, 09:06 PM
That's what I don't get. Her stupid 3am line that keeps getting played as some awesome line.

Her campaign was on conference call and they got asked what crisis moment Hillary had dealt with that would speak to the validity of the 3 AM ad. They couldn't come up with anything.

ClevelandBronco
03-03-2008, 09:40 PM
Her campaign was on conference call and they got asked what crisis moment Hillary had dealt with that would speak to the validity of the 3 AM ad. They couldn't come up with anything.

I imagine that the only 3 a.m. experience she knows much about is wondering where the heck Bill is.

banyon
03-03-2008, 09:42 PM
I imagine that the only 3 a.m. experience she knows much about is wondering where the heck Bill is.

Wait is that original material?

Cause that's a pretty good burn! ROFL

a1na2
03-03-2008, 09:43 PM
I imagine that the only 3 a.m. experience she knows much about is wondering where the heck Bill is.

When did he ever show up that early? I'm pretty sure he did as much as he could while she was out and about with Vince Foster.

ClevelandBronco
03-03-2008, 09:49 PM
Wait is that original material?

Cause that's a pretty good burn! ROFL

It is. If Letterman calls I'm willing to relocate.

jAZ
03-04-2008, 08:10 AM
To take KO's point, here's a statement she made this past weekend that basically sums up this topic:

"He [McCain] will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Sen. Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002," she told reporters.
How f*cking stupid and selfish do you have to be to fill up McCain's cauffers with ammuntion like this in order to come from behind to win your own nomination.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/01/politics/fromtheroad/entry3896372.shtml

March 1, 2008, 5:34 PM
Clinton Says She and McCain Offer Experience, Obama Offers Speeches
Posted by Fernando Suarez| 17

(CBS)
From CBS News' Fernando Suarez:

FORT WORTH, TEXAS -- Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presumtive Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack Obama simply offers more rhetoric. “I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.” Clinton was referring to Obama’s anti-war speech he delivered in Chicago before entering the United States Senate.

Criticism has been leveled towards Clinton as well, though, especially her claim that she is ready to be the commander-in-chief on "day one." When asked at the press conference if she could name a particular instance in her past that equips her to deal with a national security crisis, Clinton balked, saying, “Well, I was involved in a lot of the decisions that were made. Again, you are looking at it from the wrong perspective,” Clinton said. “You know, no one who hasn’t been president has done that, so that’s not the right question. The question is, what have you done over the course of that lifetime to equip you for that moment?”

Texas voters will go the polls on Tuesday to give her the answer.

SBK
03-04-2008, 11:27 AM
How f*cking stupid and selfish do you have to be to fill up McCain's cauffers with ammuntion like this in order to come from behind to win your own nomination.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/01/politics/fromtheroad/entry3896372.shtml
March 1, 2008, 5:34 PM
Clinton Says She and McCain Offer Experience, Obama Offers Speeches
Posted by Fernando Suarez| 17

(CBS)
From CBS News' Fernando Suarez:

FORT WORTH, TEXAS -- Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presumtive Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack Obama simply offers more rhetoric. “I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.” Clinton was referring to Obama’s anti-war speech he delivered in Chicago before entering the United States Senate.

Criticism has been leveled towards Clinton as well, though, especially her claim that she is ready to be the commander-in-chief on "day one." When asked at the press conference if she could name a particular instance in her past that equips her to deal with a national security crisis, Clinton balked, saying, “Well, I was involved in a lot of the decisions that were made. Again, you are looking at it from the wrong perspective,” Clinton said. “You know, no one who hasn’t been president has done that, so that’s not the right question. The question is, what have you done over the course of that lifetime to equip you for that moment?”

Texas voters will go the polls on Tuesday to give her the answer.

Keep it up Ms. Clinton! :clap: