How many of you Hillary supporters also supported the war? Without a doubt Obama lacks experience and his war opposition was hardly a profile in courage. While a successful war execution could have halted Obama's career trajectory, it wasn't exactly going to stop his political ascent.
That said, I'm having a hard time understanding how Hillary's experience is worth all that much. With all her knowledge (and Shinseki's very prescient warnings) she didn't have foresight to see how this mess would unravel? Or was she simply casting her vote out of political expediency?
I've already voted for Obama in CA, so its not like changing my mind will do much, but I am curious what y'all think of the war, your Hillary support aside.
The only reason I enter this vitriolic anti-Obama hell hole(MyDD) is to see what the latest on the Rezko matter is. I'd like to nominate the best possible candidate for November and so I try to stay educated on this mater. I trust the vicious haters here to bring any mildly relevant Rezko material to the fore. So far, I have seen reasons for disappointment, but not disgust.
Can we agree that broad range voter ratings are pointless? National Journal rates Obama as the most liberal Senator, while whatever you cited says the opposite.
She didn't vote for the energy bill, she voted to cap inerest rates, she voted to strengthen trade policies. NOT Obama, plus everything else.
You realize how silly this game is, right? She voted for the Iraq war the and Bankruptcy Bill in 2001. BTW, both of them voted to strengthen trade policies (in Peru TA and CAFTA).
Her policies for the Presidency are more Progressive on Economics, Global Warming, Jobs, Salary, Jobs Creation, Renewable Energy and Health Care. Many anaylists are saying her advisors are actually more left and Obama's are more Right.
Aside from the issue of mandates, their healthcare policies are identical. Clinton does have more progressive economic proposals, but not by leaps and bounds. There's no different on the environment or investment (job creation).
Um, I don't think anyone is disputing this. Not even Obama supporters. This election isn't being defined by minuscule policy differences between the two, but rather broader issues like process (lobbyist money vs. no lobbyist money) and political tone ('fighter' vs. 'unifier').
... coming out that the Rezko trial, then Hillary should suspend her campaign after Super Tuesday. She will have roughly 1,229 pledged delegates at that point and will be eligible to be nominated if something truly heinous does indeed surface from the Rezko trial. 1,229 pledged delegates, plus all 796 superdelegates, will give her 2,025 total delegates and the nomination. I'm certain that in such an instance (presumptive nominee with Nixon-esque ethical problems), ALL 796 superdelegates will move to Hillary en masse.
But Rezko is not reason enough to continue the campaign, no matter what you hope.
I love how we're holding people personally accountable for EVERY OPINION held by their pastor, friend, etc...
I live in San Diego and its pretty conservative up in North County. I'm a very tolerant, proud and liberal Democrat. But my pastor goes off the rails every once in while when he wanders into his opinion about the war. I'd certainly hate to be held accountable for his view of the Iraq war as being a religious one. Aside from that one zany view he's pretty much a good man who does wonderful things for the community here.
Russert was complete garbage tonight. At first I thought he was rigging it for Obama, but then came up with the ridiculous Farrakhan question. I don't remember Republican candidates being asked about Pat Robertson's or Jerry Falwell's comments.
p.s: Getting the SNL clip out in the open was sheer genius. Man, she's a good debater.
... was garbage. But let's not distort his record on Iraq because of Clinton's abysmal judgment in 2002.
From the link above, which isn't based on something a campaign put out....
As the keynote speaker, Obama was trying to be loyal to the Democratic nominees, John Kerry and John Edwards, both of whom had voted in favor of the war authorization resolution, along with Hillary Clinton. In an interview reported by the New York Times on July 26, on the first day of the convention, he reiterated his opposition to the war but declined to criticize Kerry and Edwards, saying he was "not privy to Senate intelligence reports."
He then continued: "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."
(The Clinton campaign left out that important last sentence when it e-mailed reporters with backup material for the inconsistency claim, which was also made by Hillary Clinton in the televised debate Saturday night.)
In an interview published in the Chicago Tribune the following day (July 27,2004), Obama said that he would have voted "no" on the Senate resolution. But he said he was not in favor of "pulling out now." On the issue of whether to stay in Iraq [in 2004], he said "there's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." The context of his remarks makes clear that he was not referring to the original decision to go into Iraq, but the question of whether to remain.
On the issue of Iraq, we should tell the truth. Same goes for healthcare, where Obama is trying to cover for his crap position.