Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

It is so typical that Obama would try to counteract the Samantha Power revelation with an attack on Hillary. The revelation that what he was promising the American people about withdrawing from Iraq had exactly as much substance and validity as his position on NAFTA in Ohio. Obama's positions were convenient words. Just More Words.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 308/Obama_responds_She_doesnt_have_stand ing_to_question_my_position.html

I have been against it in 2002, 2003, 2004, 5, 6, 7, 8 and I will bring this war to an end in 2009.

I guess he forgot to mention the part about not being in the U.S. Senate at the time of the vote and then saying a few years later that he wasn't sure which way he would have voted. Nope, he probably didn't want them to hear that. And I am absolutely certain that Obama didn't remind the crowds that he voted AGAINST withdraw from the war the first time he had an opportunity to change the direction in Iraq. Nope, that doesn't sound so good when you are trying to convince people to ignore reality and believe your lies.

And so, Senator Clinton used this to try to imply that I wasn't serious about bringing this war to an end. I just have to mention this because I don't want anybody here to be confused.

Confused about what Barack? That what you are promising people is just best case scenario stuff? That all you ever really meant to promise was hope? What does Samantha Power have to say about  it?

He will of course not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US senator. He will rely upon a plan, an operational plan that he pulls together, in consultation with people who are on the ground, to whom he doesn't have daily access now as a result of not being the president. So to think, I mean it would be the height of ideology, you know, to sort of say, well I said it therefore I'm going to impose it on whatever reality entreats me -

SACKUR: Ok, so the 16 months is negotiable?

POWER: It's the best case scenario

POWER: What we can take seriously is that he will try to get US forces out as quickly and as responsibly as possible. And that's the best case, estimate of what it would take.

But isn't that exactly John McCain's position there Samantha? He also will get out the US forces as quickly and responsibly as possible. More working across the aisle I see.

And you can bet that Senator Obama doesn't want anyone to remember that Samantha Power stated quite clearly that what Obama was saying on the campaign trail was based on the "best case scenario" and that people shouldn't take him at his word. Because doing so would be a best case scenario. Because Senator Obama, whether it is his talk about being against the Iraq war all along, or claiming to pass nuclear regulatory regulation that doesn't exist, or claiming that he will reshape NAFTA while at the same time giving assurances to the Canadian government that what he really means is that blah blah blah, wink wink... "I didn't mean a frickin word of it."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/27 /obama-clinton-divide-on-_n_88734.html

"Senator Obama has long said that he would only support Iraq legislation that has an end date for the removal of troops," an Obama aide told the Huffington Post. As for whether the Senator would ultimately support the bill, the aide said, "it will depend on the final version."

In addition to requiring troops to begin leaving Iraq within 120 days of becoming law, the Feingold bill permits funds to be spent only for the purposes of counterterrorism operations, training Iraqi forces, protecting the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, and U.S. troop redeployment.

Lets see.... your main foreign policy wonk says that you aren't going to do what you say on the campaign trail and you say you can't support Russ Feingold's bill because it doesn't have a date certain for the final withdrawal. So which is it Barack? Do you or don't you support Russ Feingold's plan to withdrawal from Iraq? Hillary didn't have a problem co-sponsoring the legislation. So what exactly is your objection to it other than Hillary co-sponsored it? And it will be debated on the Senate floor so you might have to actually take a few days off and go to Washington to do your job. Don't worry, you won't be there long enough for anyone to ask you to Chair a meeting on NATO in Afghanistan.

So don't be confused. Don't be confused. When Senator Clinton is not even willing to acknowledge that she voted for war. She says she voted for diplomacy despite the title that said authorization to use U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq.
 

Yes, look deep into my eyes. Don't trust your ears or your eyes. And whatever you do, don't trust your mind. I Obama, The One, do hereby command you to not be confused with all these facts floating about. I know, if you listen to them you will feel deceived and bamboozled. So don't pay them any attention to them at all. Listen to my voice and my voice alone. Seek truth in me because I am The One.

And don't just take my word for it. Take the word of my spiritual mentor. The All Knowing All Wise Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. :

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12051145 7633523621.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news

On Christmas morning, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. compared presidential candidate Barack Obama's impoverished childhood to Jesus Christ's. "Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people," he then trumpeted. "Hillary [Clinton] can never know that."

Most young people want to grow up to be Just Like Mike. A whole new generation of youngins is now growing up to be just like Jesus, whoops, I mean Barack.

Some of the sermons mentioned Sen. Clinton or her husband in unflattering ways. During that Christmas morning sermon, Mr. Wright declared that Hillary Clinton "ain't had to work twice as hard just to get accepted by the rich white folk who run everything or to get a passing grade when you know you are smarter than that 'C' student sitting in the White House." On Jan. 13, Mr. Wright told the Trinity congregation that some people say, "'Hillary is married to Bill and Bill [has] been good to us.'" Mr. Wright continued, "No, he ain't!" Sen. Clinton's campaign didn't respond to requests for comment.

This from the lips of a man that paid tribute to one of the most vile racists in our country: Louis Farrakhan. Wright had the audacity to say that Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness." This is the same Louis Farrakhan that calls white people white devils. The same Farrakhan that says that Judaism is a gutter religion. The very same Louis Farrakhan that declared that Adolph Hitler was a great man.

As Steve Sailer states so precisely:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/01/omino us-logic-of-obama-wright-farrakhan.html

Farrakhan is radioactive not because he hates whites in general (which he does), but because he hates Jews in particular (which he also does).

Yes the very same Reverend Wright's BFF Louis Farrakhan also said this during his endorsement of Obama:

"This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better," he said. "This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama's audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed."

Does anyone notice the exclusion of a certain color, namely white, that Mr. Racist Farrakhan neglected to mention. But rest assured, it was no slip of the tongue. He meant exactly what he said.

So just how is it that Obama finds himself so intensely endorsed by racists? How can he accept their endorsement but maintain his good standing with the moral center of the country? He does it the old fashioned way, he lies. He claims to have spoken out against the Anti-Semitism of Farrakhan even though I have yet to find a single speech in which he does this. And he has distanced himself from his Reverend even though he prayed with him just before announcing his bid for the presidency. Perhaps the following statement is why Obama has "distanced" himself from his Reverend.

Trumpet Newsmagazine 08/2005

In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just "disappeared" as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns.

So 9/11 occurred because "white" American wasn't paying attention to the "black" concerns of its citizenry. That's an interesting proposition. 9/11 was a racial thing. At least according to Obama's spiritual mentor it was. Sounds an awful lot like Malcolm X's declaration after the Kennedy assassination that:

The chickens come home to roost.

So how is it that Obama can chum around with blatant racists and not feel the brunt of revulsion he so richly deserves for the associations? One has to wonder if the situation was reversed and the KKK had endorsed Hillary that she would be held to a different standard than that of stating that she doesn't agree with their statements which is essentially all Obama has done. Everyone on the planet probably knows that Hillary would be raked over coals in the press over any such association. But not Obama? Just why is that? And shouldn't it be otherwise? If Obama honestly doesn't believe in the position of his Reverend then why hasn't he quit the church? Because the Reverend is the leader of the church and the congregants go there to be led by the leader. In this case, the racist rewarding Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's spiritual mentor. So why none of the outcries that we would normally hear about any other politician? Does Obama's double standard even cover something as extremely controversial as hanging around with racists and racist rewarders? Should we give Obama an award too?

So I don't want to play politics on this issue because she doesn't have standing to question my position on this issue.

Translation for the Obama impaired: I am going to play politics with this to the hilt because it helps me distract people away from focusing on my, well let's just call them inconsistencies. Because I never lie, at least not that I will ever admit to. I'm a lot like Richard Nixon that way. Oh yeah, and I am not a crook. Except for all that money I took from that Rezko fella that bundled it up all so nicely and such. Kinda just like it was Christmas time and he put it in swaddling clothes for me. A bundle of joy that was.

Tags: Barack Obama, Democratic Nominee, Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power (all tags)

Comments

183 Comments

Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

The thing that boils my blood here--and I really think IS the story--is the emerging pattern of hypocrisy by Obama. The Obama campaign repeatedly lately uses general comments that sound good, but are left deliberately open to interpretation. It is just like the garbage that we've been getting from the Bush administration for the last eight years. Whenever they say something you know there is something sneaky and wrong with it--that it is a deliberate attempt to mislead. I had enough of being continually mislead. We don't need another misleader.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-10 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

I'll agree that Bush does it like a professional - P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and No Child Left Behind.  I wonder who sat up all night thinking of the cleverest, most politically expedient titles they could for bad legislation.

by ejintx 2008-03-10 10:48AM | 0 recs
Diarist needs to check his facts

I thought this was pretty much understood by everybody last week, but the NAFTA issue turned out to be total bogus cooked up by the right wing Prime Minister in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/vsu/wmv-hi/m acdonald-obama-memo080303.wmv

It turns out that it was Hillary's advisors who were trying to soothe the Canadians. But somehow, perhaps with coordination with McCain's camp, the conservatives issued a false memo trying to distort Obama's position.

The same goes for all of these other things you bring up.  Of course Obama will have to confer with generals before withdrawing troops.  So will Hillary.  Take a step back and think about reality before buying into all this Clinton spin.

by existenz 2008-03-10 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Diarist needs to check his facts

You make the most ridiculous assertions. Almost funny.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Diarist needs to check his facts

I think I'm firmly on the ground, thanks.

by ejintx 2008-03-10 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Hypocrisy may be Obama's new middle name.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

At first, I thought he was All Talk, No Action.  

Obama Talks Too Much. He's All Hat, No Cattle. Just Words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77XqG8p6- GE

Then the recent news revelations show that it was really Doubletalk.

Obama's Doubletalk Express - The Great Pretender
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suxll18yg i8

by GeekLove08 2008-03-10 02:38PM | 0 recs
Doubletalk Express is Right!

That's about the best description of this hype as any I've seen.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Lies and Trying to Spread Them

The linked story is bullshit.  You guys are so blinded by your "wanting it to be true," that you can't accept the truth now that this matter has been fully revealed.

You are either ill informed, lying, or delusional.

Goolsbee did not call the ambassador.

The consulate called him.

The memo does say that Goolsbee indicated that Obama wanted to strengthen labor and environmental standards.

The PM's office leaked the memo when in fact Clinton's staff is the one that was mentioned by the PM's Chief of Staff.

Get your facts straight.

by upper left 2008-03-11 07:32AM | 0 recs
No it's not the same

The garbage we get from Bush is coming from a Republican retard. Any vague statements coming from Barack Obama are coming from a brilliant progressive Senator from Illinois. Watch your friggin' mouth. Casual comparisons to Bush are not cool. They make you look like a McCain-loving troll.

by Etchasketchist 2008-03-10 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: No it's not the same

Watch your own mouth on my diary. The comparison was apt.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: No it's not the same

I have a vague sense that we are on the same page here...

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-10 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: No it's not the same

You're out of your mind. The lunatics are runnin' the asylum around here. This is what Hillary Clinton has done to you? She's warped your tiny little minds so much that you actually think comparing George W. Bush to Barack Obama is an acceptable and logical thing to do and not completely stupid and asinine. You tippy-type things like "Barack Obama reminds me of George W. Bush sometimes" and you expect people's responses to be "Hmm, good point, I agree" instead of "Oh, you're a crazy person, my mistake, I'll just slowly step away and try not to startle you with too many sudden movements"? You're that far gone, huh? Man, that sucks. I'm sorry she did that to you. Hopefully, someday, you'll get your reasoning skills back to full function. Because they are severely damaged right now, dude. You're head's not right. I'm just lettin' you know. One progressive to another.

For the record, if anybody compared Hillary Clinton to George W. Bush, I would kick them in their rhetorical shins.

by Etchasketchist 2008-03-10 05:05PM | 0 recs
Obama is neither brilliant nor

is he Bush.  But if he does some things that are reminiscent of how Bush would do them, it's a fair comparison to make.  And in fact there ARE some things he does that remind me and others of Bush.  It's why we are concerned about Obama.

Also, there's no call for saying "watch your friggin' mouth" to the diarist.  He/she has a right to his/her opinion.  Write your own diary and hang out there, if this one has you so appalled.

by Montague 2008-03-10 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is neither brilliant nor

You know, now that you mention it, Hillary does some things that remind me of Bush. They're both very different people and not at all alike, but their actions sometimes match up. Like voting for an invasion of Iraq, for example. I bet Bush would've voted exactly the same way Clinton did. That's why I'm concerned about Clinton. The whole bombing-countries-for-no-good-reason thing.

by Etchasketchist 2008-03-11 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario
This diary sounds like something from Free Republic.
by Becky G 2008-03-10 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

You apparently think that delving into the background and substance of your candidate as an attack. And you associate anything that questions him as something coming from the other side. The side your candidate always talks about reaching across the aisle to.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

No, its the Farrakhan crap that gives the impression that you are not serious. This is a hatchet job, pure and simple.

by AHunch 2008-03-10 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

I feel VERY strongly about Obama's association with Wright/Farrakhan. I don't care much for racists, regardless of what race they are.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Then you must be thrilled with the Clinton campaign.

by amiches 2008-03-10 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

I am thrilled that they are not pandering to racists. Yes, I am quite thrilled by that. It's nice to support a candidate that actually has some moral fiber.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

In what way is Obama pandering to racists?

Seems to me, " Jesse Jackson won the primary here in South Carolina in 1984 and 1988," is pandering to racists at its finest.

by AHunch 2008-03-10 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

By not coming out forcefully against people like Farrakhan and his best bud Wright. By nod nod wink winking his way through all of this. By "well I can't help it if they like me" kind of crap.

Just like that. He claims to be against them but yet for such a strong speech giver I haven't been able to find a single speech of his denouncing Farrakhan or Wright.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario
How many times does he have to denounce and reject him until you stop spreading your smears?
You are a dishonest troll entertaining the Obama haters club on myDD.
by marcotom 2008-03-10 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Just exactly how many times has he actually denounced these racists? I have read a few words from a statement he made. And a very dispassionate response to a Tim Russert question. I have NEVER heard him speak with passion about the subject. Not once. He laughs when he talks to people about being bamboozled and hoodwinked. I don't take anything he says about the subject seriously.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Have you gone off your rocker? What does "bamboozled and hoodwinked" have to do with this?

Face it. You are applying a double standard to Obama in this regard because he is black and so is Louis Farrakhan. You have nothing to say about Bill Clinton's 2005 support of NOI initiatives, but you will angrily insist that a black guy "denounce and reject" the support of someone he has no connection to and whose support he never sought.

Whether the Clintons go down in flames in six weeks,  or in November, it will have been because of people like you. Disgusting.

by amiches 2008-03-10 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Did you actually listen to the reply in the debate, or just read it? Honestly, reading it should be enough, but apparently not.

Obama was anything but dispassionate. He strongly, clearly, and unequivocably denounced Farrakhan's hate speech. It was clear he felt very strongly about it. He went into detail about exactly what he denounced and rejected; he didn't leave anything open to interpretation. He was very clear and very strong.

Then of course Hillary had to leap in and insist, several times, that Obama also "reject" (a far weaker word) Farrakhan as well. Somehow it wasn't enough that Obama strongly denounced Farrakhan's hatred, showed clearly how detestable it was... he also had to reject it.

There was a candidate at that debate who gave a dispassionate, rather weak, watered down statement on the subject. It wasn't Obama.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-10 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Yes, I watched the debate and if that is Obama doing passion then perhaps Dracula has some competition for being a lifeless bloodsucker.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 09:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

What am I thinking. I am trying to reason with people that applaud when Obama blows his nose.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 09:22PM | 0 recs
Your diary is slime.

You should be ashamed of yourself.  McCain is loving you people.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-11 03:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Your diary is slime.

How sweet of you to say. Note that when Obama attacks Hillary you don't say the same thing. Never.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-11 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Call out the hypocrisy, Flicker! Great diary. I'm sure you'll get an ear full from the Obama supporters. They don't much care for the veil to be lifted.

by grlpatriot 2008-03-10 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

It used to bother me that the Obama followers said such horrible things. But lately I have considered their reactions as proof that I am hitting on something substantial.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

I'm not sure why "a gunslinger" troll rated your comment. Guess you did hit a nerve.

by grlpatriot 2008-03-10 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

It's kind of a badge of honor. Thanks for the uprate.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 12:09PM | 0 recs
gunslinger lieks to troll

rate anyone who says anything about hilary.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-10 03:21PM | 0 recs
Great Diary! But do me a favor, Flea

break your opening sentence down to 2 or 3.  just simplify a bit.  It will make a great diary even greater.

by earthoat 2008-03-10 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary! But do me a favor, Flea

Great advice. I changed it around a little.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Everything Power said is completely consistent with Obama's position about taking account of what is happening on the ground when he takes office.

Either you don't know this or you are knowingly misrepresenting Obama's position.

Which is it?

by mainelib 2008-03-10 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

You must be referring to what Obama said after Powers said what she did. Because prior to that Obama was criticizing Hillary about her very detailed withdrawal plan.

Wes Clark says it best: The people that know what is going on on the ground are reluctant to make any decisions. They have no plan as Hillary proved. It takes a President to get the job done. It takes Presidential leadership to give the order for withdrawal. And it takes a President to demand that it is followed through.

Next you will be trying to convince people that what Obama said in Ohio about NAFTA was entirely consistent with what his economics advisor stated to the Canadian government.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 11:13AM | 0 recs
I am assuming you liek to ignore

the debunking part of the Nafta story where Canadian government and tv station apologizes.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-10 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: I am assuming you liek to ignore

You mean the scenario that doesn't exist?

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 05:34PM | 0 recs
Here, go nuts:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/5/3130/ 68401

A bit of research before posting is something you shoudl consider.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-10 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Here, go nuts:

A hack job from another news station doesn't prove a thing.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 06:45PM | 0 recs
I see,

but a hack job from the first news station is the HOLY TRUTH.

Based on your demeanor I suspect nothing will really convince you. thats a sad state of affairs.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-10 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I see,

Actually the initial news source is highly respected and I stand by them while they stand by the story. Today Obama finally admitted that the meeting took place but twisted it all around again. But at least he is finally admitting that it took place.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 07:59PM | 0 recs
I am gonna need a link

on that admission with a full context.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-10 08:00PM | 0 recs
I am assuming you mean this


3/10/08 - Sen. Obama: The meeting did happen, they did discuss NAFTA, but advisor just said Obama wanted to make NAFTA 'stronger for U.S. workers.' "So here's what happens. You've got one of my economic advisors goes and visits a Canadian embassy and they're asking him questions and he says, 'Well, Senator Obama isn't planning to repeal NAFTA, but he wants to amend it to make it stronger for U.S. workers.' The Canadian embassy writes it up as, 'Well, maybe Obama is not as tough on NAFTA as you might think.' And the Clintons start waving this and saying, 'See? Actually, he's the one.'" [Mississippi Rally, 3/10/08]

Yeah that sounds horrible like Obama wants to screw over US workers.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-10 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Obama position?  He has a different one whenever he is asked, he is a snake oil salesman.

by democrat voter 2008-03-10 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Is Obama the new Romney?

by cmugirl90 2008-03-10 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Barack Willard Hypocrisy Obama. Has a nice ring to it.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 11:34AM | 0 recs
That sounds so much better than

Hillary "Authorize the War" Clinton

by kindthoughts 2008-03-10 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: That sounds so much better than

Oh... a good one

How about: Barack My friends are thugs Obama

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 06:47PM | 0 recs
well

I'd continue this with you, but I am sure you'll drag me down to your level and beat me with experience.

Maybe a bit of growing up is something you need. And apparently young people do support Clinton based on your comments.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-10 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: well

That's real nice of you. Yep, you Obama followers are real friendly folks.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 08:02PM | 0 recs
dude,

you started the who thing with name calling.

You called Obama a hypocrat and Obama supporters thugs.

Then when I attempted to stop the discussion, you accuse me of being mean.

nice SWITCHEROO!!!!!

by kindthoughts 2008-03-10 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: dude,

I didn't accuse you of being mean. The whole middle name thing was a joke to begin with. If you actually go back to where it started you will see how it evolved. But I doubt any of that makes a bit of difference to you.

I called him a hypocrite, not a hypocrat even though Hypocrats would be a good name for the Obama wing of the party.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Actually HRC is for insurance company boon mandate based Romneycare.

by 1jpb 2008-03-10 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Geez, take a pill. Or call your therapist.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

You probably don't know that the MA mandate plan is out of money, charges some people the mandate fee without returning health insurance, and has only insured half of the uninsured (and many of these were just put into federal programs for which they were already elegible.)

Also, the CA mandate plan was supported by all the big insurance companies, but it went down in flames because it only got 1 out of 11 votes on the committee.

Don't forget Micheal Moore has said the HRC health care plan is no better than the BHO plan.  MM wants a system that does more to get rid of the insurance companies.

by 1jpb 2008-03-10 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

And you probably (APPARENTLY) don't know that the MA plan was put together by Mitt Romney, a Republican. You know, one of those folks Obama wants to get all cozy with.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

You probably don't know that the HRC plan and the MA plan are built on the same foundation.  The same academics' work is behind both plans.

Mandates don't work, the evidence is clear.

They don't even work for car insurance.  There are states with mandated car insurance where 20% of the drivers are still uninsured.

As BHO has been saying, the problem is affordability.  Even with the BHO and HRC subsidies  (which are nearly identical, you can't tell one from the other if you read them side by side) there will be unsubsidized so-called middle income people living pay check to pay check that can't afford health care.  The costs must be lowered FIRST, charging middle class people penalties they can't afford to support insurance companies is regressive.

Why do you think health insurance companies like mandates?  More income.

by 1jpb 2008-03-10 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Obama's plan has one aspect to it and that is affordability. Who could disagree with that? But in itself it accomplishes little. And, in fact Obama's plan MANDATES that parents cover their children.

Hillary's plan is:

   *  Affordable: Unlike the current health system where insurance premiums send people into bankruptcy, the plan provides tax credits for working families to help them cover their costs. The tax credits will ensure that working families never have to pay more than a limited percentage of their income for health care.

   * Available: No discrimination. The insurance   companies can't deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition.

   * Reliable: It's portable. If you change or lose your job, you keep your health care.


http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/hea lthcare/summary.aspx

The American Health Choices Plan gives Americans the choice to preserve their existing coverage, while offering new choices to those with insurance, to the 47 million people in the United States without insurance, and the tens of millions more at risk of losing coverage.

   * The Same Choice of Health Plan Options that Members of Congress Receive: Americans can keep their existing coverage or access the same menu of quality private insurance options that their Members of Congress receive through a new Health Choices Menu, established without any new bureaucracy as part of the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP). In addition to the broad array of private options that Americans can choose from, they will be offered the choice of a public plan option similar to Medicare.

   * A Guarantee of Quality Coverage: The new array of choices offered in the Menu will provide benefits at least as good as the typical plan offered to Members of Congress, which includes mental health parity and usually dental coverage.

Americans who are satisfied with the coverage they have today can keep it, while benefiting from lower premiums and higher quality.

   * Reducing Costs: By removing hidden taxes, stressing prevention and a focus on efficiency and modernization, the plan will improve quality and lower costs.

   * Strengthening Security: The plan ensures that job loss or family illnesses will never lead to a loss of coverage or exorbitant costs.

   * End to Unfair Health Insurance Discrimination: By creating a level-playing field of insurance rules across states and markets, the plan ensures that no American is denied coverage, refused renewal, unfairly priced out of the market, or forced to pay excessive insurance company premiums.

Relying on consumers or the government alone to fix the system has unintended consequences, like scaled-back coverage or limited choices. This plan ensures that all who benefit from the system share in the responsibility to fix its shortcomings.

   * Insurance and Drug Companies: insurance companies will end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions or expectations of illness and ensure high value for every premium dollar; while drug companies will offer fair prices and accurate information.

   * Individuals: will be required to get and keep insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible.

   * Providers: will work collaboratively with patients and businesses to deliver high-quality, affordable care.

   * Employers: will help financing the system; large employers will be expected to provide health insurance or contribute to the cost of coverage: small businesses will receive a tax credit to continue or begin to offer coverage.

   * Government: will ensure that health insurance is always affordable and never a crushing burden on any family and will implement reforms to improve quality and lower cost.

Senator Clinton's plan will:

   * Provide Tax Relief to Ensure Affordability: Working families will receive a refundable tax credit to help them afford high-quality health coverage.

   * Limit Premium Payments to a Percentage of Income: The refundable tax credit will be designed to prevent premiums from exceeding a percentage of family income, while maintaining consumer price consciousness in choosing health plans.

   * Create a New Small Business Tax Credit: To make it easier-not harder-for small businesses to create new jobs with health coverage, a new health care tax credit for small businesses will provide an incentive for job-based coverage.

   * Strengthen Medicaid and CHIP: The Plan will fix the holes in the safety net to ensure that the most vulnerable populations receive affordable, quality care.

   * Launch a Retiree Health Legacy Initiative: A new tax credit for qualifying private and public retiree health plans will offset a significant portion of catastrophic expenditures, so long as savings are dedicated to workers and competitiveness.

   * Most Savings Come Through Lowering Spending Due to Quality and Modernization: Over half the savings come from the public savings generated from Senator Clinton's broader agenda to modernize the heath systems and reduce wasteful health spending.

   * A Net Tax Cut for American Taxpayers: The plan offers tens of millions of Americans a new tax credit to make premiums affordable-which more than offsets the increased revenues from the Plan's provisions to limit the employer tax exclusion for health care and discontinue portions of the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000. Thus, the plan provides a net tax cut for American taxpayers.

   * Making the Employer Tax Exclusion for Health Care Fairer: The plan protects the current exclusion from taxes of employer-provided health premiums, but limits the exclusion for the high-end portion of very generous plans for those making over $250,000.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

The reality is that both plans are deeply flawed but they are both a step in the right direction...the fact that we get all steamed about the health care plans of all things is absurd... neither is going insure everyone from the outset.

by JDF 2008-03-10 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

And yet only one will really try to do so.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

I've heard this "affordability argument by Obama one time too many. He says he's going to make health insurance "affordable" by lowering costs up to $2500 per year. I assume he hasn't checked the price of health insurance lately. My insurance plan cost just under $1000 per month, or close to $12,000 per year, and that's about average. Saving $2500 per year is not going to make health insurance affordable for anybody who can't afford it now.

by bouvougan 2008-03-10 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Thanks for cutting and pasting, as if that proves anything.  The fact remains that mandate health care is regressive and doesn't work.

Kids need mandates because 1) they're too young to decide, and 2) the expanded SCHIP will largely take care of the kids.  (As a side note, did you know that all the big health care insurance companies were in favor of the bill Bush vetoed?  Do you know why they like it?)

If people can't afford health care insurance, charging them a mandate penalty won't help them out, the problem is affordability.  If people can afford health care they will buy it.  They don't need the mandate "gun to the head," there is already the you'll go into bankruptcy "gun to the head," if you have a medical emergency without insurance.

by 1jpb 2008-03-11 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

I wouldn't disagree with that.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

great diary, needs to be said over and over again, this guy is a fraud, I've seen it for months and months.  Wish the media would do some of this excellent analysis.  Of course, that will not happen.  Too bad if our party gets suckered into this guy's trap, but he will not get elected to the WH.  The republicans will use stuff like this to trash the anointed one. Gag.

by democrat voter 2008-03-10 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Thanks for the compliment. I totally agree that the media should be focusing on who this person Obama is rather than the person he claims to be.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

i stop believe in anything that comes out from Obama's mouth long time ago.  But "It didn't happen" on NAFTA gate sealed the deal.

by JoeySky18 2008-03-10 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Maybe he is really from Bizarro world and he means exactly the opposite of what he says.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 11:38AM | 0 recs
What are you going to do with yourself

when Obama wins the nomination?  Go to work for McCain?  Out with it, man.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-11 04:05AM | 0 recs
Re: What are you going to do with yourself

I am working to stop Obama from getting the nomination. Get it?

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-11 06:17AM | 0 recs
HRC Bluster

You can't point to a single Nafta comment where BHO was shown to be wrong.

The CTV report that he denied and said was inaccurate turned out to be totally wrong.  In the end, BHO was right, and CTV got the whole thing wrong.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wir e/sns-ap-democrats-nafta,0,7542882.story ?page=2

by 1jpb 2008-03-10 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: HRC Bluster

You sure know how to tell a BIG lie. Obama was caught not once, not twice, not three times but FOUR times telling a lie about NAFTA.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: HRC Bluster

Then it should be easy for you to link to the quotes.

I'm waiting.

by 1jpb 2008-03-10 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: HRC Bluster

These folks live in a faith-based world.  

by mainelib 2008-03-10 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: HRC Bluster

Read em and weep.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: HRC Bluster

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/

After days of misleading denials, Sen. Obama has finally acknowledged that a meeting took place between his senior economic advisor and Canadian officials regarding NAFTA. But Sen. Obama now claims that the detailed memo obtained by the AP describing the meeting - and Goolsbee's downplaying of Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric - is inaccurate. This is at least the fifth different explanation offered by Sen. Obama and his campaign.

   1. 2/27/08 - `No conversations have taken place' with the Canadian government on NAFTA. "Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue." [CTV, 2/29/08]

   2. 2/27/08 - Obama advisor just said `hello.' "Goolsbee: Canada's consul general in Chicago contacted him `at one point to say `hello' because their office is around the corner." [ABC, 2/29/08]

   3. 2/28/08 - Rice: `There had been no contact.' "The Canadian ambassador issued a statement that was absolutely false. There had been no contact. There had been no discussions on NAFTA. So we take the Canadians at their word...period." [MSNBC, Susan Rice, 2/28/08]

   4. 2/29/08: Sen. Obama: `It did not happen.' Anchor: "So, completely inaccurate, did not happen, end of discussion." Sen. Obama: "It did not happen." [WKYC TV, 2/29/08]

   5. 3/10/08 - Sen. Obama: The meeting did happen, they did discuss NAFTA, but advisor just said Obama wanted to make NAFTA 'stronger for U.S. workers.' "So here's what happens. You've got one of my economic advisors goes and visits a Canadian embassy and they're asking him questions and he says, `Well, Senator Obama isn't planning to repeal NAFTA, but he wants to amend it to make it stronger for U.S. workers.' The Canadian embassy writes it up as, `Well, maybe Obama is not as tough on NAFTA as you might think.' And the Clintons start waving this and saying, `See? Actually, he's the one.'" [Mississippi Rally, 3/10/08]

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: HRC Bluster

1) Even CTV themselves acknowledge that they were wrong.  

2) This supports BHO:
http://abcnews.go.com/Story?id=4365922&a mp;page=1

3) Susan was correct, the Canadians did issue this statement, and the Canadians stand by the statement to this day.  Because the CTV story has been proved wrong.

4) Watch this video for yourself; he was asked a bunch of the specifics from the CTV story, everyone now knows that none of that happened.  BHO denial in this interview has been proved correct.

5) The meeting in Chicago was not the CTV reported meeting.  The CTV story that started all this was denied and should have been denied because it was wrong.  CTV was wrong on where, when, who, what was said, and who initiated the contact.  It makes sense that the BHO campaign and the Canadian government would deny that story, because it was wrong.

You don't have any quotes where BHO is denying something that happened.  He denied things that didn't happen, which makes sense.

by 1jpb 2008-03-11 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Shame on you. Should Clinton rebuke racist like yourself.

"A whole new generation of youngins is now growing up to be just like Jesus, whoops, I mean Barack"

An accidental use of loaded language. I think not. Has Hillary rebuked the 18% of Ohio Hillary supporters who voted for her because of race.

I don't think so. Cut the bullshit.

by sacca28 2008-03-10 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

You are the one that needs to cut the crap. As an Ohio resident I take great offense that you consider Ohioans racists. And I take personal offense that you directly call me a racist.

So what is wrong with the word youngins? Is it supposed to be a code word for something I am unaware of? When my grandmother called my siblings and I youngins was she using a secret code word that I am just now finding out about?

What's your problem?

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

According to exit polls, about 10-12% of the Ohio vote went to Clinton because she is white and her opponent isn't - and that just takes into account those who admitted it to the pollsters.

I think it's reasonable to deduce that a significant portion of Hillary's support came from Ohioan racists.

by amiches 2008-03-10 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

You say: "According to exit polls, about 10-12% of the Ohio vote went to Clinton because she is white and her opponent isn't..."

Why isn't the opposite just as true?  That is, the percentage of the Ohio vote that went to Obama because he is black and his opponent isn't?  You seem to dismiss the overwhelming African-American vote for Obama, the percentage of which is much larger (80-85%) than the white vote for Clinton.  Presumably you are arguing that a vote is only racist when it is cast by a white voter for a white candidate.  Not when it's cast by a black voter for a black candidate.  

by miriam 2008-03-10 01:46PM | 0 recs
RACISM defined

1  : a belief that race is the primary determinant   of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race  

2  : racial prejudice or discrimination  

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

You seem to be a little slow on the uptake.

There would only be racism toward white folks if we saw that black Democrats refused to vote for white people.  But, the opposite is true, black people have been voting for white people since they were allowed to vote.

You are silly to suggest that the AA vote for BHO have never and will never vote for white folks.

by 1jpb 2008-03-10 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

This is the FIRST time I have seen an exit poll state such a thing. When Obama gets 80-90% of the African American vote you don't have people asking them if they voted based upon race. How many of them do you suspect voted for him based on race? Or is it merely a coincidence?

I think you are making a HUGE mistake calling Hillary's supporters racists. This supporter in particular is very upset with the characterization. And this supporter knows other supporters that are as well. And the chain keeps expanding.

The Obama campaign has perpetuated the lie that if someone doesn't support Barack they are racists. It is the most offensive of claims to be made during this campaign, it is as ugly as it gets and it will be undoubtedly be his undoing.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 01:47PM | 0 recs
Check the latest Newsweek poll

16% of respondents say Obama's race is a positive factor in their consideration of him.  8% say it's a negative factor.

by Trickster 2008-03-10 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

This is pretty simple, actually - black people have been voting for white people since 1865. They haven't had much choice.

The difference is one of affirmation. Some black people are voting affirmatively for Barack Obama - i.e. they are voting for a black person, not against a white person. It seems like the opposite dynamic is at play among some whites - they are voting against Barack Obama.

By the way, I don't think women who vote for Hillary because she's a women are sexists, either. But there  certainly are some men who are voting against a woman when they vote Obama - although if the exit polls are any indication, they number far fewer than the above-mentioned racists.

by amiches 2008-03-10 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Ah, but you attempt to use logic with the illogical. A curse we must endure.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: so

I've been trying to figure that one out too. Impoverished compared to whom?

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 01:48PM | 0 recs
Fuller Text

It's hard to see what Obama really said from this diary so here it is...

I was opposed to this war in 2002. If it had been up to me we would have never been in this war. It was because of George Bush with an assist from Hillary Clinton and John McCain that we entered into this war. A war that should have never been authorized, a war that should have never been waged.

I have been against it in 2002, 2003, 2004, 5, 6, 7, 8 and I will bring this war to an end in 2009.

So don't be confused. Don't be confused. When Senator Clinton is not even willing to acknowledge that she voted for war. She says she voted for diplomacy despite the title that said authorization to use U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq. So I don't want to play politics on this issue because she doesn't have standing to question my position on this issue.

by JoeCoaster 2008-03-10 01:54PM | 0 recs
Video

Here is a video that gets into the CIC issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSMQqxPYY NY

by 1jpb 2008-03-10 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Fuller Text

Sorry you were unable to read the comments so clearly presented in this diary. If you feel the need to repeat them because you have a problem reading the hard words well then good for ya.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 02:18PM | 0 recs
Truth, if you care

The HRC campaign, as exemplified by this diary, is all bluster, no cattle.

HRC was a poor white woman?

Why does the HRC campaign resort to making up things like the fake madrassa story?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/o bama.madrassa/

Here is BHO when he was asked by WaPo on Jan 15:

"I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan," Obama said in the statement. "I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree."  

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2008/01/15/obama_decries_farrakhan_stat em_1.html?hpid=topnews

You'll notice he decries every form of racism, hence white folk (like me) are included.

by 1jpb 2008-03-10 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Truth, if you care

I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan

Saying something in a statement and speaking it passionately from your heart are two completely opposite things. Senator Obama chose to make a statement.

And try as he might, all the decrying in the world won't condemn Farrakhan's comments enough because every word out of the man's mouth is racist. If Obama truly condemned this stuff he would quit his church in protest for their endorsement of Farrakhan. That is what people of principle do.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Truth, if you care

By your logic we're still (eight years later) waiting for HRC to reject and denounce Mrs. Arafat:

HRC had listened politely in the West Bank city of Ramallah as Suha Arafat unleashed a torrent of accusations against Israel?
"It is important to point out here the severe damage caused by the intensive daily use of poison gas by Israeli forces in the past years that has led to an increase in cancer cases against Palestinian women and children," Mrs Arafat said.
She added that 80% of water resources were contaminated, and that the ground was full of chemicals banned internationally.
HRC did nothing at the time of the comments.  Then the next day she still didn't "denounce" the comments.
Mrs Clinton was responding to accusations by Suha Arafat that Israel had contaminated Palestinian areas with poison gas.
"Everyone who supports this (peace) effort should refrain from inflammatory rhetoric and from baseless accusations... that could in any way adversely affect what the parties are attempting to achieve,"

Now more than eight years later I demand that HRC must unequivocally and specifically denounce and reject Mrs. Arafat, or else we'll have proof that she hates Israel.

by 1jpb 2008-03-10 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Truth, if you care

Is Suha Arafat an American citizen? Does Suha Arafat vote in our elections?

Kind of a lame comparison you have there. Let me guess: You are one of those highly educated Obama supporters.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Truth, if you care

That's not the point.  She supports people who blow themselves to up to kill people and Hillary gave her a big smoosh on the cheek.

by mainelib 2008-03-10 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Truth, if you care

Actually Susa Arafat like her husband Yasser was against suicide bombings. Perhaps you should research what you are discussing before making wild accusations.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Truth, if you care

Your arguments are funny.

According to you HRC get's a pass as she sat by, in person, during this hateful rant.  By your logic we can all accept the words of Hamas, Hezbollah, Ahmadinejad, etc. because they're overseas.

Silly.

by 1jpb 2008-03-11 07:25AM | 0 recs
Question for Obama Supporters!!

When has Obama ever been in trouble for his position on the Iraq war?

Dean's been trouble.

Gore's been in trouble.

Even a long list of activists have been called "surrender monkeys" and all sorts of other horrible things.

How come Obama has never been attacked for his position on Iraq?

What's the point?

The point is that he managed to be against it just enough to say he could be against it but not enough to be attacked for it at the time.

Clever guy.

He's never been tested.

by Edgar08 2008-03-10 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Question for Obama Supporters!!

He is going to get tested even if the media won't do it's job and test him.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: so

My nephew goes to a private school and his family is by no means rich.

Let's try to find a positive correlation, because just because a person goes to a private school doesn't mean there well-off.

by jaywillie 2008-03-10 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: so

Poor people don't go to private schools. Impoverished means poor. Not not rich.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: so

Where do you come up with this bullshit? I tutor a kid who is as legitimately poor as one can be in America and he goes to a private school on scholarship.

by amiches 2008-03-10 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: so

I got the definition from the Merriam Webster dictionary. Where do you get yours? The mouth of Barack?

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: so

You remind me of that right winger who got down on the boy who spoke out for SCHIP because he went to a private school -- on scholarship, just like Obama.

by mainelib 2008-03-10 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: so

You remind me of some idiot cousin I once had that believed Santa Claus was real and that he came from Mars.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 05:08PM | 0 recs
Troll alert.

Is there any moderator available?

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-11 04:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Troll alert.

Don't tell me you are my long lost cousin.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-11 06:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Would that be hypocrisy like Hillary's so-called foreign policy experience?

You know, the lies about playing pivotal roles in N. Ireland and Bosnia?  The story about negotiating open borders in Kosovo for refugees when those borders were opened the day before her one day trip where she sung with Sheryl Crow and Sinbad?

Would you mean that kind of hypocrisy?  Where people involved say that her role in N. Ireland was "ancillary" and Hillary makes it sound like she played a vital role in negotiating the peace?

Well, I guess that's not so much hypocrisy as it is outright lies.

Of course, I don't see the point to underming Obama.  I mean, the Clinton's are apparently willing to consider him as a VP(nevermind the fact that the person in second place has a lot of nerve to ask the person in first place that question).

And if he's good enough to be Clinton's VP, I guess that means he's ready to become President.

by jaywillie 2008-03-10 02:16PM | 0 recs
Here's a less slanted view

Than what you'll find on huffpo.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarti cle/7369362

by Edgar08 2008-03-10 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's a less slanted view

Less slanted and HuffPo used in the same sentence. Hillaryous!

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

You are surely not so intelligent.

George Mitchell, the dude that actually moderated the peace negotiations stated that Hillary played a helpful role in bringing Protestant and Catholic women together to oppose the war and to seek peace together.

So yeah, she deserves kudos for what she did. It trumps anything Obama has done.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Of course, others say that's a bunch of hooey:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht ml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml

by amiches 2008-03-10 02:50PM | 0 recs
I doubt Bill was in the trenches either

All he did is show up after Mitchell and others did all the work.

No.  Wait.  Bill ASSIGNED Mitchell.  Put together the team.  Granted the visa to Adams.  Etc.

We assume Hillary had nothing to do with any of that.

Hmmmm.

by Edgar08 2008-03-10 03:02PM | 0 recs
Hillary also lied about family leave act

Hillary Clinton also lied about getting the Family and Medical Leave Act passed

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3 /9/111930/6389/50/472849

You know, she could get away with this stuff in the run up to TX and OH.  But there's a long time until PA and she is going to get vetted.

by mainelib 2008-03-10 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary also lied about family leave act

I find it plausible that she encouraged Bill to sign it.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary also lied about family leave act

I hate this, "she didn't have any real involvement in this or that" garbage. KO was all over that tonight. In contrast to my other "kitchen sink" comment, I do think that this represents a serious sexist viewpoint.

(Actually, I do think the repetition of 'kitchen sink' is a bit over the top and mildly sexist, but it doesn't really amount to much, however...)

The idea that just because someone doesn't sign their name to a bill, or spearhead legislation that they are not entitled to any claim of experience is grossly sexist. I used to own a business. My wife did not go to the office everyday, but we were partners on all strategy and major decisions. We discussed everything and I could not have been successful without her council. Society credit me with everything and she is regarded as a housewife. That is a source of frustration for both of us, and I have to defend her all the time, particularly to career women who feel in some way superior. Hillary Clinton I am sure had involvement in all manner of incredibly serious decision making and strategy, and for a knuckhead like Keith Olbermann to denigrate her makes me disgusted.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-10 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary also lied about family leave act

Opps violate one of my own rules here...

No name calling.

I should not have said KO is a "knucklehead"

rephase...

"and for an opinion commentator like Keith Olbermann to denigrate her makes me disgusted."

...there that's better.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-10 09:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Thank you for capturing and expressing my own thoughts in a coherent and clear fashion. And your back up was great! We need to see this candidate for who he really is. And the sooner the better!!! Hillary 08

by susanclare 2008-03-10 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Thanks Susan. But it's going to take a lot of us going after this guy before the media will take notice.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 03:13PM | 0 recs
Glad you've found your mission in life

Trolling for Hillary.  Congratulations!

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-11 04:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Glad you've found your mission in life

Thank you so very much.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-11 06:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

The trouble with Obama trying to poke holes in Hillary's foreign policy experience is that at least she has somthing to poke holes in.  He's got nothing.  He's had one national security job--chairman of the NATO/Afghanistan subcommittee--and he went AWOL because he was campaigning.  Game, set, match.

by Upstate Dem 2008-03-10 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

The march of the monsterettes

by sacca28 2008-03-10 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Christ, what a bunch of bullshit that is. He is in charge of the Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Europe, not "NATO/Afghanistan". His subcommittee does have secondary jurisdiction over NATO ops, which includes Afghanistan, but the hearings on Afghanistan are being held by Sen. Kerry's subcommittee, which deals with that area of the world, and by the full FA committee.

Sen. Obama's subcommittee is not historically an active one - most of Europe consists of US allies. And besides, committee hearing schedules are usually set by the Majority Leader's office and the office of the Chair, Joe Biden in this case. If you're going to talk about Congress, please at least know a few things about how that body operates.

by amiches 2008-03-10 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

That wasn't the reason Obama gave for being AWOL.  He said he was out campaigning.  It appears that you know more about his committee than he does.

by Upstate Dem 2008-03-10 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Admittedly it wasn't a great answer in the debate, but then again I'm not sure that getting into the minutiae of committee structure would have been a good idea either.

Of course, Hillary knows all the stuff I just said, too - so I'd consider it a pretty dishonest attack.  

by amiches 2008-03-10 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

He, She or It is an Obama explainer. When Obama runs out of his turns explaining what he really meant in come the explainers to set everything alright.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Oh, that's a good excuse for not holding a single hearing on NATO and Afghanistan. And invoking Christ! That should make Barack happy.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Actually, it is a pretty good reason, if you bothered to read it and/or educate yourself about how Congress operates.

Tell you what: when Obama is president and you're done volunteering for the McCain campaign, you can set about correcting your ignorance of Congress and your veiled racism at the same time! Two birds with one stone, so to speak.

by amiches 2008-03-10 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

I don't need you to "educate" me about Congress. And screw your accusations of racism. You and people like you are the reason I fight against Obama as much as I do. If anyone is a racist in this conversation it is you.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Well, since you don't seem to have a clue about it works, I'd say someone needs to educate you about Congress.

As far as racism, I don't believe I've said anything racist here. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly brought up Farrakhan, insisted that Obama denounce him forcefully at every turn although the two are not connected whatsoever, repeatedly used Obama's middle name as if to cast doubt on him, and most disgustingly accused black people of being "racist" for not supporting Hillary. To these accusations, your response is always either "I have plenty of black friends" or "YOU'RE the racist".

You know, I live in DC, and have a lot of friends working for HRC. And they are concerned about the kind of tone you've struck here and the tone being struck in the media by Clinton surrogates. I wouldn't be surprised if the race-baiting tactics you've engaged in drive a significant part of Clinton's young staffers away.

by amiches 2008-03-10 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Where have I used Obama's middle name? Name one place. One single instance.

And I have not stated that black people are racist for not supporting Hillary.

You might live in DC and you very well might be one of those people that Obama talks about when he says Washington is corrupt. Because you have taken what I have said and twisted it completely like a frickin expert. And only someone so completely entrenched in Washington could do that with such ease.

I really don't care about what you or your friends think about what I write. I don't work for the campaign. And I write as is my right as an American citizen. I have no tolerance for racists and Louis Farrakhan is a racist. And Reverend Wright's description of a racist as a man that "epitomizes greatness" causes great concern. Since all Farrakhan is is a racist and Wright seems to think that a racist epitomizes greatness I think I have a right to object here. And yeah, Obama considers Wright his spiritual mentor. So there are indeed strong connections between them all.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Scout's Honor, buddy. She can't keep up the racist kitchen sink attacks forever, and when the other shoe drops, staff flight will be the last thing she has to worry about.

by amiches 2008-03-10 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Scout's honor.... now I've heard everything.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Does it ever occur to you that the use of the term "kitchen sink" is a sexist attack?

Just asking...

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-10 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Holy shit, you have got to be kidding me.

by amiches 2008-03-10 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

I might be. On the other hand, tens of thousands of irate housewives might be ready to burn down the convention center for comments like that. We will find out in Denver my friend. Be afraid.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-10 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

I would prefer that no one made threats about the convention even if you are joking. But if anyone has to do it let it be the Obama crowd.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

I'm sorry. You are right.

My real purpose here is to try and tamp down the rhetoric. Sarcasm like this only inflames people.

In seriousness, my point is that people take ideal comments out of context and put meaning in them where there is nothing intended.

Certainly it is right to call out racism and sexism where it truly exists. But to ascribe evil motive to everything and depart from rational calm discussion into name calling and threats only pushes people further into their respective corners and inflames feeling on both sides.

It is late, and I thought I was making a joke, but I agree that given the super heated feeling these days it was a bad idea.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-10 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

I didn't really mean anything by my comment. I just don't want to hear any more threats of violence. I've been called a racist today and I didn't appreciate it. And despite the fact that idiot people can make reckless accusations I still don't want to see harm come to anyone.

Yes, it has been a long day. I know that you were joking. Get some rest.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

See my comment above amiches. I regret the sarcastic joking. I really think there is too much of that going back and forth already and, while I was trying to be funny, I think that things are a little too hot for that kind of humor. Fleaflicker pointed out that it was in bad taste and I agree. I apologize.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-10 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Ha ha ha ha. That was funny.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

eh,... well,  .... only periodically.  that was snark right?

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-03-10 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Well put. And the one instance when he had the opportunity to DO something about foreign policy he was too busy running for President to Chair a single meeting.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

What experience?

Hillary's main role as First lady was playing hostess at countless receptions and receiving lines, and occasionally showing the flag abroad as a kind of celebrity guest.

What kind of security clearance did the First Lady have?

by Lefty Coaster 2008-03-10 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Whatever the case, she has more experience that he does. 5 years on the Senate Armed Services Committee requires her security clearance. It is much more than anything Obama has. Tons more!

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

What kind of security clearance did Hillary have when she was First Lady?

by Lefty Coaster 2008-03-10 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario
To me it is quite obvious that Obama's position on the Iraq war is purely a matter of politics and not exactly driven by some core convictions. If candidate Obama now wants to claim that he has alaways been a firm believer in a futility of Iraq war and strongly/firmly believed that resources should be shifted to the Afganistan war then we probably want to see some evidence of a concerted effort he made in using whatever power he got as a US senator in 2005 in trying to make this happen. But in the senate Obama wasn't exactly front and center in the efforts to bring the Iraq war to an end; not since 2005, and not even after 2006, when democrats won the majorities. At the least he could have brought out the stories about Afganistan troops feeling the weapons shortages in some public hearing for which he had the power. But rather we see that Obama wasn't exactly front and center on anything in his senate carrer (the NYT article from yesterday comes to mind). Instead till recently he appears to have been feeling the wind hedging his bets not sure which way Iraq war will play out by 2008, and not wanting to damage his chances whatever way things turn out to be. Sort of like those "present" votes in the Illinois legislature, trying to maintain viability in the system.
by ScottinNJ 2008-03-10 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

I totally agree with you about Obama. He is using this crisis as a political talking point, or more correctly a speech point. When given the responsibility to actually do something about the war he has taken a pass. When given the authority to Chair meetings about NATO and Afghanistan he took a pass. And even now when it has been exposed that all his talk about withdrawing from Iraq was just talk he has taken a pass on that to.

If he was a wide receiver he would have a good record. Maybe even the league leading record. Unfortunately for him (and us) he is a U.S. Senator.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario
Clearly we see eye to eye on this! I think Hillary Clinton is has gotten it excatly right when she says that on Iraq "all that Obama offers is a speech he gave in 2002" (or something like that). One speech that is over 5 years old, with no follow up action to show for since then in support of whatever was championed in that speech gives one absolutely no credibility on the issue. It just appears, as you say, a convenient talking point given that right now the war is unpopular. If it was a true conviction we would expect to have seen a more focused/concerted effort on the part of "senator" Obama in the interim. Instead he seems to have made many more attempts to fudge his position since the speech in 2002, voting for iraq war funding time and again, not demonstrating any leadership in trying to shift the focus of war to Afganistan. In fact I have seen some quote where Obama is supposed to have said, when the Iraq war seemed to be going well, that "on Iraq mine and Bush's position are essentially the same"! I personally believe that there is no gaurantee that if Obama was indeed in the senate in 2002 he would have actually voted against the war (what he said in his speech front of an anti-war group in 2002 notwithstanding). In fact looking at his wishy washy senate record, the present votes earlier, I would even hazard a guess that if he was in a position to vote in 2002 he would have been extremely sensistive to maintaining his viability in the system and his opposition even at that time would not have been so clear cut. In fact I would go a step further and say that there is no gaurantee
by ScottinNJ 2008-03-10 04:57PM | 0 recs
What is WITH you guys??

I guess he forgot to mention the part about not being in the U.S. Senate at the time of the vote and then saying a few years later that he wasn't sure which way he would have voted.

Well, I was against the war back in 2002, and I certainly wasn't in the senate.  Does that mean my opposition is now factually wrong, somehow??  And his 2004 softening of his opposition was clear even then: he did not want to indirectly criticize Kerry and Edwards during their presidential campaign, and he did add that in his own view, "the case [for war] was not made".

This has been hashed out well enough earlier.  To repeat this now isn't just wrong, it is maliciously misleading!

by amitxjoshi 2008-03-10 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: What is WITH you guys??

What's misleading is Obama saying he had better judgement that Hillary when he announced in October, 2002, that he opposed the idea of going to war in Iraq. Everyone was opposed to the idea of going to war in Iraq, including Kerry, Edwards, and Hillary, all of whom voted for the authority. That's because, unlike Obama, they had been briefed on the threats Saddam posed at the time. Had Obama been in the Senate at that time, exposed to the same intelligence, he, too, would have voted for the authority, as he has suggested.

Curious, though, that in his 2002 speech, Obama said he "knew" that Saddam posed no threat. How could he possibly have known that? Could it have been something to do with his friendship with Tony Rezko who was in touch with Iraqis in Chicago? Rezko's friendship with Iraqi billionaire Auchi?

by Nobama 2008-03-10 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: What is WITH you guys??

You raise a very interesting point. maybe this Auchi connection is about to unfold.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: What is WITH you guys??

Most Democrats voted against the war.  Everyone did not support it.

by mainelib 2008-03-10 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: What is WITH you guys??

I knew it too, because the information was out there.  Mohammed El Baradei, Hans Blix, Scott Ritter...these names ring a bell??

by amitxjoshi 2008-03-10 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: What is WITH you guys??

The vote for AUMF was in October 2002.

Hans Blix's report to the United Nations was on February 14, 2003.

Scott Ritter left the United Nations after the Security Council did not immediately sanction Iraq for kicking out the inspectors in 1998.

Mohammed El Baradei told the UN Security Council that documents claiming that Iraq tried to acquire uranium from Niger were forgeries in March 2003.

So you have one person you reference that was in Iraq before the vote and two that were in Iraq after the vote. So what exactly is your point? That you can recite names? That you can divert attention by citing names of people that had nothing to do with the vote?

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 07:13PM | 0 recs
Good point!

Because, of course, El Baradei, Blix and their staff expressed no opinions whatsoever before the AUMF!  What was a senator to think!

by amitxjoshi 2008-03-10 07:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Good point!
For instance, this interview Blix gave couldn't possibly be a good argument to hold off, could it!
by amitxjoshi 2008-03-10 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Good point!

From the article you source:

HANS BLIX: Well, if the resolution asked us to come to the Council and say, can you say within two months that there are no weapons of mass destruction left in Iraq, I think it is very unlikely that we will be able to say so; it depends so much upon the Iraqi cooperation.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: What is WITH you guys??

So when he said that he basically agreed that George Bush was doing a good job in Iraq that was to not embarrass Kerry or Edwards? And when he voted against Kerry's withdrawal bill, that was what? I guess he was still protecting Edwards? Or was it Bush?

This has been hashed out well enough earlier.  To repeat this now isn't just wrong, it is maliciously misleading!

No, to ignore the reality of it would be to bamboozle the voters and give them the idea that Obama is somehow competent. Holding all those meetings on NATO and Afghanistan demonstrates just exactly competent he is.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Excellent diary, FleaFlicker. Nice to see something honest for a change rather than the BS from the MSM.

When Harry Truman was told, "Give 'em hell, Harry," he just said, "I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell."

Give 'em hell, FleaFlicker!

by Nobama 2008-03-10 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Thanks Nobama. Much appreciated.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Hey flea...
This is the worst case scenario

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Let me ask you...where you you be when those opposed to the real worst case will gather in your town or city in a little over a week? Marking another sad anniversary..
March 2004
March 2005
March 2006
March 2007
March 2008
I will be at the Denver gathering with my presence, my sign and wearing my Obama shirt.
Will you be there in your town with a Clinton sign or shirt? Making visible opposition to Bush...?
Do you have the courage of YOUR convictions?

by nogo war 2008-03-10 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Hey, I will do something. If you don't do what I do it means you have no convictions or pride.

What Crap!

Dude, wear your Obama t-shirt all you want. Just remember every second that you wear it that Obama helped to fund that war you are so convinced he is completely against. And he has voted against withdrawing from that war you are so opposed to. And he is against Russ Feingold's bill to withdraw from Iraq too. Just keep that in mind while you are being so proud of your guy Obama's clear opposition to this war.

I really pity people like you. You believe, you have faith and you have hope. But you cannot see that this war is nothing more than a political platform for Obama. He doesn't care whether it stops or continues as long as he can benefit from it politically. A shame so many are duped by this misleader.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Just remember every second, when you're wearing your Hillary shirt, that we wouldn't BE in Iraq if your candidate had had the guts to stand with Bob Graham and other Democrats in opposing the war. Or that she'd at least have a compelling case to argue that there was convincing justification to go to war if she hadn't just trusted Bush and actually bothered to read the NIE.

Voting against the war would've been better, but I'd let her off the hook if she'd bothered to read the NIE and still believed in the war. Failing to read the NIE and getting us into a multi-trillion-dollar war was a MISTAKE. PERIOD.

That doesn't prove that Obama has better judgement on the war (in my opinion, he does, but it's at least a viable argument to claim that he'd have felt differently if he were in the Senate). But it DOES mean that Hillary Clinton had terrible judgement on the war. His judgement, at worst, can only be as poor as hers.

At least with Obama there's some reason to hope he'd do better, next time. With Hillary, there's none.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-10 09:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

When I hear nonsense like you espouse it makes me a little sad. Surely you don't believe what you say. According to what you write Hillary is the person responsible for sending our country to war. It wasn't any of those other democrats, just Hillary because she voted for the AUMF.

Or then your other nonsense about the NIE. Do you even know what the NIE actually stated?

I won't bother myself to argue with a person whose perception of reality is so twisted that truth has become fiction. Have a nice chat with Don Rumsfeld or someone else that Obama respects.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 09:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Very good ad hominem. Don't attack the facts, logic, or conclusion, attack the poster.

Hillary is not the person responsible for sending us to war. Hillary is partly responsible, however, because she voted to enable the war. She could've taken a stand -- like Bob Graham, for instance. She could've read the NIE and made an informed, if incorrect, decision, like Jay Rockefeller.

She did neither.

Of course I don't know what the NIE stated. Neither does Hillary Clinton. The NIE was and is classified and no aides were allowed to read it for her. The briefings she received as to its contents were the summary documents prepared by the Bush administration.

In voting to authorize military force to George Bush, Hillary Clinton trusted... George Bush.

Senator Clinton also voted against all three amendments to the AUMF. That means she voted against:

"Affirm[ing] that no additional constitutional authority was being ceded to the President outside of that necessary to deal with the threat posed by Iraq."

"Urging to U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution demanding that Iraq grant immediate and unconditional access to U.N. weapons inspectors. Authorized U.S. use of force only if Iraq failed to comply with the U.N. resolution."

"Restrict[ing] the use of force authorization to cover only an immediate threat from Iraq rather than a continuing threat."

A number of prominent Democrats voted for these amendments. Not Hillary Clinton.

Absolutely nothing I've stated has been spin. These are all facts. You can look them up for yourself if you don't believe me.

This is opinion, but it's informed opinion based on the facts: Hillary Clinton voted incorrectly. Had she made a principled stand against the war, for good and informed reasons, perhaps the world would be different today -- and perhaps not. Had she made a principled stand for the war, having read the relevant intelligence information available to her, she would at least stand as a person with conviction about the need for war in Iraq, albeit mistaken ones.

She did neither.

The only defense offered is her remarks about the vote, that she had a great deal of personality difficulty with the vote and it was the hardest decision she had ever made. Of course, if Obama's speech against the war is "just words", then so to should we consider her speech "just words" and give it no credence.

But if we do give it credence, then how is it possible, faced with, in her own words, "the hardest decision I have ever had to make", why did she not take the hour or two necessary to read the AUMF?

Why if, as she says in her own speech, the right and proper thing to do would have been to go to the UN and push for immediate and totally unfettered inspections, did she reject the Levin amendment, which called for EXACTLY that?

The facts are the facts. Senator Clinton voted to authorize the war -- in the company of other Democrats, virtually all of whom have later admitted that their vote was ill-informed and a mistake (unlike Senator Clinton). She did not do the research before making the vote, and again, has not admitted that to be a mistake. She voted against an amendment to do exactly the thing she called for in her own remarks.

Again, I repeat: argue, on the facts, not with pointless ad hominem, no name-calling, no character assassination, how it can be argued that given two candidates, one of whom expressed strong negative opinions about the war, and one of whom voted to allow the war and against all amendments to limit the scope of authority granted by the resolution, against their own stated position on the resolution, that the one expression opposition to the war is to be distrusted when making future decisions as to our conduct in foreign affairs, while the one making a series of bad decisions about the war is the one to be given full trust?

Again, I repeat: Barack Obama has no voting record on the actual authorization of the war. It is possible that in the same situation he would have done the same things in the same way. But we don't know that, and we have some reason to believe he might have acted differently. We know as an absolute fact that Hillary Clinton did the worst that Obama could possibly have done, in that situation.

In one case we have hope of something better, in the other we have a proven track record of failure. Why is it a better decision to vote for someone whose record is known to be very poor than for someone with no record on the issue, if this is an issue that you care about?

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-10 10:10PM | 0 recs
She is disqualified for bad judgment.

Repeated years later with her vote for Kyl-Lieberman, "Bush's wildest dream" (Jim Webb.)  She has learned nothing.  She is a DLC hawk through and through.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-11 04:29AM | 0 recs
Re: She is disqualified for bad judgment.

Enough of the Kyl Lieberman crappola. Hillary is the one that insisted that the war like language be stripped from the bill before she supported it. in fact she introduced legislation with Jim Webb to require bush to seek Congress' approval before taking any military action.

And your guy Obama wrote up a similar legislation with his bud Dodd a few month's earlier.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-11 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

I am not going to argue the Iraq war with someone that has already made up their mind about "the facts."

I find it funny that you support Jay Rockefeller in all of this. He voted exactly the same way as Hillary did. Their only difference is that he is supporting Obama. A closed door briefing is as informative as a reading of a report that was culled together in two weeks. Literally. So please don't make this into something it is not.

I have read Hillary's speech at the time and I know it was a painful decision for her to make. But she actually made a decision. Obama sat on his pompous ass and criticized the war from the outside only to come inside and support the war.

For the record I opposed this war from the start. Completely. But that is the past. What we have now is a war that must end. And the person most qualified to bring that about is Hillary. She is the only person in this race that has stood up to Bush and demanded answers. She is the only person in this race that fought hard to PASS legislation helping the injured soldiers from this war. She is the only person in this race that has confronted the Pentagon concerning their exit strategy.  And she is the only person in this race that has put together a detailed withdrawal plan. She is a proven leader I am willing to follow.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-11 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Are you implying somehow that I've made up my mind about the facts and you have not?

I don't support Rockefeller's vote on the war. I do give him credit for two things: 1) taking the time to read the NIE and 2) stating clearly that his vote was a mistake. I also give him credit for voting for the Levin amendment -- which Hillary Clinton did NOT vote for, notwithstanding that it called for exactly what she called for in her remarks. That's the difference between the two of them, from my perspective. I would feel the same way about it if he were supporting Hillary Clinton.

Bob Graham, who voted against the war, and who was chair of the Intelligence Committee at the time, made it clear in no uncertain terms that the material in the NIE was NOT the same as that presented in closed-door briefings. He strongly urged his colleagues in the Senate to read the NIE for precisely that reason. Most of the material in the "closed-door briefings" leaked to the press immediately; most of the contents of the NIE are still classified. There's a reason one could send staffers to cover the briefings but the NIE was only available to Senators under very strict rules. It isn't because the information was the same, and to argue otherwise is very disingenuous.

Obama did exactly what he could do to oppose the war. He wasn't in the Senate. He put his political career at risk and made a speech that was clearly unnecessary for a state senator to make. Perhaps it was heart-felt and perhaps it was political calculation. Either way, it was a serious risk, and the most he could do at the time.

Once in office, Obama has acted to support the troops and end the war with minimum loss of life and disasterous consequences for Iraq and its people, as has Hillary Clinton. If your position is that Obama has "support[ed] the war" since he entered office, then again, there's no difference between them; they both support the war. Do you really think that's the case, or is that just posturing?

As for fighting for legislation, perhaps you missed the legislation that Obama authored to improve veterans' health care, or the work he's done to provide housing for veterans, or the work he's done to provide care for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury. I am not in any way denigrating Hillary Clinton's record on caring for veterans; perhaps you simply weren't aware that Obama also has an excellent record on veterans' affairs?

As for a detailed withdrawal plan, perhaps you're not aware of Obama's "Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007", which would have capped troop levels and led to full withdrawal by April 2008? Yes, it didn't pass (obviously) but it was a comprehensive withdrawal plan actually introduced to Congress. Perhaps you'd like to point me to any similar legislation offered or sponsored by Hillary Clinton? In the absence of any such legislation, is it possible to conclude that perhaps Obama has "support[ed] the war" a bit less than Hillary Clinton?

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-11 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

Oh this challenge goes to all Clinton folks..assuming you feel strongly enough to take a little time off to visibly gather in your town or city.
Bring your Clinton sign,shirt or banner. After all
if you believe Clinton is sincere in her opposition aren't you strong enough to take abuse from others gathered there?

I doubt if any of you will take the time, let alone feel confident enough in your candidate.
You enable Cheney/Bush by your laziness.

by nogo war 2008-03-10 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Believing Obama is a Worst Case Scenario

I don't have to go anywhere to get abused. I get more than I can ever use by being here.

And just who are you to think you have the right to tell someone they need to get abused for their beliefs?

Nothing against S&M but if it isn't voluntary I don't support it.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-10 07:17PM | 0 recs
They would much rather blogsturbate.

Feebly attempting to destroy the almost certain Democratic nominee rather than actuallly come up out of the basement to organize for the Clintons.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-11 04:33AM | 0 recs
Re: They would much rather blogsturbate.

Nice catch phrase.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-11 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Iraq and Iran

More on Obama's Iraq position from Joe Wilson (3/02/08, Baltimore Sun and Huff Post):

"On July 27, 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."

In his book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006, he wrote, "...on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried."

And again, in 2006, he clearly said, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices."

Obama on Iran and the question of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization:

He co-sponsored the "Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which contained explicit language identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization."

by moevaughn 2008-03-11 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Iraq and Iran

Again, the very, very worst you can say about Obama is that he might have made the same disastrous decisions as those that Hillary Clinton did make. He might have supported the AUMF; she did. He might have gone along with Bush's position on the war in 2004; she did. He didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and-dried; she clearly didn't, or she'd have voted against it. He didn't have the benefit of US intelligence when speaking against the war; by her own choice, neither did she. He voted for the Counter-Proliferation Act, which had similar language to Kyl/Lieberman, which she voted for; the language in Kyl/Lieberman is even more dangerous than that in the Counter-Proliferation Act.

Obama also sponsored legislation to cap troop levels in Iraq and begin a phased withdrawal. Did Clinton do that?

So, by a series of conjectures, it's somewhat possible that Obama might, had he been in the Senate longer, have made the same poor decisions that Clinton actually made It's possible that he might be just as bad as she is. It's also possible that he would have made one or more better decisions about the war.

The best you can hope to do on this argument is show that Obama could possibly be as bad at this as Clinton. That's not any reason to vote FOR her. In Obama's favor are: not voting for Kyl/Lieberman, working towards a phased withdrawal while in the Senate, and speaking against the war during the build-up to it, not on a peacenik war-is-bad platform but on solid reasoning about the importance of Afghanistan vs. Iraq. Those are a reason to vote FOR Obama vs. Clinton; while he might possibly be as poor, there are reasons why he might be much better. Her ceiling on this issue is the same as her floor, and they're low indeed; his floor is as low as hers, but his ceiling is much higher.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-11 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Iraq and Iran

Sen Clinton negotiated to remove the military language in the original Kyl-Lieb. resolution.  The res. had the votes needed to pass; it would have been a lot more militant if Clinton had opted to vote no, rather than voting yes to a preferable negotiated, watered-down, non-binding version.

If O felts strongly about the Kyl-Lieb non-binding res., why didn't he come to the floor and cast a firm NO vote?

Do you support Sen. Obama's earlier vote designating IRG terrorists?

I myself was opposed to the war, but not opposed to U.N. inspections. Were you opposed to the inspections? Hans Blix said the inspectors would not have gotten in without the AUMF.

In H.R. 114/S.R. 45 (signed in fall 2002), the president agreed to, quote (direct):

"work with the U.N. Security Council to meet the common challenge posed by Iraq..."

On 3/7/03 the U.N. inspectors reported there was no evidence of a WMD program and requested more time to complete their work. Bush dismissed their report , broke his promise to work with the U.N., and declared the U.S. forces were on their way.

The responsibility is on Bush's shoulders; he broke the terms of the binding resolution. Sandra Day O'Connor has said there was no blank check. Colin Powell directly told Bush : "You break it; you own it."

I'm not a lawyer, but since the resolution was binding, wasn't the president legally bound to its conditions?

Blaming others for Bush's war is aiding and abetting Bush himself.  Let's get together and go after him.

by moevaughn 2008-03-11 12:18PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------