I only said the temperament angle was my own view, I am well aware of what was said during the campaign. For what it's worth I don't think Hillary is any stupider than Obama. But she is certainly more Hawkish than he is. That's temperament, not smarts.
As for the caution angle - Bush was definitely gung-ho about war - whether in A'stan or Iraq. Long term planning or exit strategies were not actively considered - things were simply expected to fall into place. Everything seemed to happen on a "seat of the pants" basis and numerous accounts have told of the utter confusion and chaos within the admin that followed the invasion of Iraq, something they had supposedly "planned" for.
We have not seen that kind of activity with Obama. By all accounts this administration takes time reviewing options and formulating decisions, even if those are decisions we may not agree with.
They may be losing support but it's not evident in Congress. 41 GOP senators and 197 congressmen - 100% of the caucus voted against repeal. So whoever GOProud and LCR are leaning on, it's not their own party.
What "support" did Bush in 2002 need that Clinton did not have in 1998? Hillary knew her vote in '02 was a vote for war, she said it herself at the time, during her speech in favor of it.
To pretend that she was merely misled by Bush and din't believe he would actually invade without "firm proof", is attempting to pull wool over our eyes. IIRC there was an amendment brought up during the vote that would have made the invasion dependent on another vote from congress following the inspectors report. Clinton voted against that one..
I think the difference is not so much "superior judgement" as temperament. Obama is (and was) expected to be far more cautious than Clinton, and both would have been more cautious than Bush. When it comes to foreign affairs and invading/bombing other countries that's about as much as we can hope for. That the C-in-C proceeds as cautiously and carefully as can be hoped for.
See, that's the confusing bit, that's not clear at all. Essentially your point is she voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq, but was not actually being in favour of invasion - just for more inspections. I mean that's an argument I would buy if I considered Hillary to be a) really that stupid, b) had heard her teeth-gashing when Bush decided to invade while the inspectors were still doing their thing.
I think the lesson we can glean from the 2008-2009 economic crash is that states in which the government was well vested in the economy (Germany, China, France, Scandinavia) tended to weather the downturn relatively well, whereas states which took a more "hands-off" approach (US, UK, Ireland, Baltics) did much worse.
To that we can add exporting countries did a lot better than importing ones. Essentially this can be explained that once the recovery/stabilization began exporting countries were better poised to take advantage of it than countries based on consumption.
Well, they won sort of by default because the DoJ didn't contest the case - no witnesses, no testimony, no defense other than "this is for congress". So this victory is the result both of a tiny few gay republicans and a democratic DoJ.
Because you know for sure it wouldn't have worked out that way during 2004-2008 (tarheels point).
Laws of War. The US is in a state of war with AQ and allies (declared shortly after 9/11). That gives the legal authoritah for military action, regardless of their citizenship (see american citizens fighting for Germany during ww2).
Ofcourse who is a member of AQ or allied group is sort of open to interpretation.
A bit is also hyperbole. Taking 2.2 billion out of Food Stamps over ten years is hardly going to effect a program that costs around 60 billion over the same period. And the money is also going to be spent on food in the end.
Ofcourse if there are better options for raising the money, then i'm all for it. But I havn't heard the alternatives.