Clinton and Obama

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Obama raised $32 million in one month:

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Obama raises $32 million in January « - Blogs from CNN.com

[Cathan]

Personally... I could care less about race between those 2 candidates. The more I watch Obama the more I like the guy (despite the rumors of him not putting his hand over his heart for the pledge of allegiance).

I think I like him for 2 reasons. For one he's the guy I hope wins so there isn't another Clinton in the white house And from what I hear about his term as senator he did almost nothing. As a republican I can get behind a democrat that does nothing to raise my taxes. I'm all over that shit!!!

[The Hiram Key]

Originally Posted by Havelock

Obama's a good man. I disagree with him on a lot of issues, and think he's dangerously naive on foreign policy, but I greatly admire his boundless optimism and decency. If he were elected, I'd have no problem being proud of who I worked for.

I concur whole-heartedly, however I strongly, VERY strongly believe he is not the right candidate for the job. He is alot of things, not the least of which is a demi-god like personality (his followers are being referred to as cult like more and more), he is an incredible public speaker, he wants to do good, and he is generating a huge amount of new interest in politics, pulling record turn outs whereever he goes.

Sadly, none of those things means he will be a good president, or will know what to do when Iran nukes Isreal (it's going to happen), or when Russia starts reclaiming the iron curtain countries (it's already underway) or when China says "Fuck you America, we own 64% of your entire country, and we are now foreclosing, bitches" or the sea levels rise 3 feet in 6 months and billions are left homeless.

I would absolutley love to hear him tell me whats going to be done, but I don't think he will have any earthly idea what to do. And I want someone in charge who will.

[mek]

Originally Posted by The Hiram Key

I would absolutley love to hear him tell me whats going to be done, but I don't think he will have any earthly idea what to do. And I want someone in charge who will.

Who exactly is the ideal president for your doomsday scenario? Jack Bauer?

[Ancalagon]

Sadly, none of those things means he will be a good president, or will know what to do when Iran nukes Isreal (it's going to happen)

The only way I'm able to sleep at night is by convincing myself that you don't REALLY believe shit like this. Because if you do, I can only imagine that the great unwashed with, perhaps, even less knowledge than you, REALLY believe shit like that. And that is scary.

Look, guy, Iran is not nuking Israel. Not tomorrow, not within the year, not within the decade, probably not within the next hundred years. You have been deceived and deluded into thinking Iran is a nation run by crazy Ahmadinejad, with his finger on the big red button that he can press at any time. First of all, Iran does not have nuclear weapons and, according to our own government's estimates, will not until 2013 if it resumed work on them today, which it won't. Second of all, Ahmadinejad is not the supreme leader of his country; in fact, in the grand scheme of things he has comparatively little power. He absolutely does not and would not have his finger on any sort of big red button.

You need to realize that regimes, above all, want to preserve themselves. The supreme council of Iran LIKES being on top; they like the benefits that redound to them through exercise of total power. They are well aware that if they nuke Israel, they will be utterly ANNIHILATED. Like, utterly. You may think them as one-dimensional religious nuts, but that is a very shoddy caricature. They will not sacrifice their country and the rulership thereof to nuke Israel.

Now, if Israel is fucking stupid enough to attack preemptively, all bets are off. Though again, Iran has no nuke at present and will not in the foreseeable future, so even still.

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Originally Posted by The Hiram Key

I would absolutley love to hear him tell me whats going to be done, but I don't think he will have any earthly idea what to do. And I want someone in charge who will.

[I'm Rich Bitch]

[Araxen]

How can anybody take Hilary seriously after last night? She completely floundered on Iraq and she went so far as to say when she voted for the Iraq War she didn't believe we would actually goto war. How can people believe her bullshit? She's lucky Obama let her off the hook and didn't press it further and call her her the Iran vote too.

[Astrocreep]

Thats Obama's big weakness, he is trying too hard not to be the guy who bullies the woman and because of it he is letting golden opportunities like that slip by.

[Laerazi]

Originally Posted by Araxen

How can anybody take Hilary seriously after last night? She completely floundered on Iraq and she went so far as to say when she voted for the Iraq War she didn't believe we would actually goto war. How can people believe her bullshit? She's lucky Obama let her off the hook and didn't press it further and call her her the Iran vote too.

No, I was under the impression that she didn't expect Bush to continue pushing the war long after it should have ended. From the question, it sounded like she allowed Bush to pursue war if necessary (without consent from the UN); this is not equivalent to advocating the war as it has played out.

Obviously, Obama was against the war from the start; but was it a completely informed decision, or was he just lucky in how the war has turned out? Had we killed Hussein and stabilized Iraq and already withdrawn troops, it would be thrown in his face that he didn't want the war to occur. That said, I think it's always safest to not advocate war.

Regardless, I wouldn't mind either candidate for President, and either Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama tickets would get my vote.

[Araxen]

He was running for office at the time. It wasn't exactly the the safest position to take at the time.

January 31, 2008

OCTOBER 2002: I WAS VOTING TO AVOID WAR: Clinton: Authorizing Military Force In Iraq "Would Be More Likely To Avoid War." Clinton defended her vote backing military action against Iraq saying it was a message to the United Nations and President Bush, not just Saddam Hussein. "I ultimately decided voting for the authorization would be more likely to avoid war than not," Clinton said. "The idea there was a regime . . . with this kind of weaponry and this kind of intention could not be ignored. I (voted) saying to the president, 'We expect you to do everything you can to work with the (U.N.) Security Council.'" (Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, 10/12/02)

MARCH 2007: I WAS VOTING FOR COERCIVE INSPECTIONS: Bill Clinton: Hillary Voted For "Coercive Inspections," Not War. In response to a question from one about explaining Hillary Clinton's Iraq vote to undecided voters, Clinton said he had re-read the Iraq resolution, and that Hillary Clinton had voted only for "coercive inspections." Clinton justified his wife's refusal to apologize for her vote by explaining that she was acting out of concern that future presidents might need similar language authorizing "coercive inspections to avoid conflict." (The Hill, 3/23/07)

APRIL 2007: I WAS VOTING FOR COERCIVE DIPLOMACY: Hillary Clinton Called Her Iraq Vote one for "Coercive Diplomacy." According to USA Today, speaking of her Iraq vote, "Clinton says that vote was not a misjudgment, but a vote for 'coercive diplomacy' -- a stick to get weapons inspectors into Iraq — and it's a tool she says presidents must have. 'When somebody disagrees with me, or if they want somebody who has apologized for their judgment about the use of coercive diplomacy and the role that that plays in furthering American national interests, they have other people to vote for,' she said." (USA Today, 4/12/07)

APRIL 2007: I WAS VOTING FOR INSPECTORS: Hillary Clinton: When I Voted For The War I Believed I Was "Giving The President Authority To Put Inspectors In Iraq." At an event in New Hampshire, Clinton faced a young woman who said she had traveled from New York to ask the senator whether she had read a 92-page intelligence document before her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war. "I was thoroughly briefed on it. I was briefed on it," Clinton said repeatedly, as the woman tried to interrupt her. "I think it's such a difficult thing to go back in time and say what everyone was thinking." She added, "What I will say is I believed that what we were doing was giving the president the authority to put inspectors in Iraq. That's what we were told privately. That's what we were told publicly." (Associated Press, 4/15/07)

JUNE 2007: I WAS VOTING FOR INSPECTORS AND WAS FOOLED: Clinton Said She Was Duped By President Bush; Said That She "Did Not Count On" President Not Allowing Inspectors To Finish Their Job. Asked if she regretted not reading the National Intelligence Estimate before voting for the war in Iraq, Clinton said, "I was thoroughly briefed. I knew all the arguments. I knew all of what the Defense Department, the CIA, the State Department were all saying. And I sought dissenting opinions, as well as talking to people in previous administrations and outside experts. You know, that was a sincere vote based on my assessment that sending inspectors back into Iraq to determine once and for all whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and using coercive diplomacy was not an unreasonable act. What I did not count on, and what none of us did who voted to give the president authority, is that he had no intention to allow the inspectors to finish their job. (Hillary Clinton, NH Debate, 6/3/07)

IN NEWS REPORT AFTER NEWS REPORT: VOTE WAS CONGRESS BACKING WAR

"Congress Backs War On Iraq; Bipartisan Vote Gives Bush Broad Power; President Lauds Clear Message Sent" (Los Angeles Times, 10/11/02)

"Congress OKs War Bill ; Dems Join Vote To Back Bush On Iraq" (New York Post, 10/11/02)

"Congress OKs War Power; The resolution lets Bush use force in Iraq" (Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/11/02)

"Iraq Resolution Approved; Congress Gives Bush A Free Hand To Wage War" (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 10/11/02)

"Bush Wins War Vote" (Boston Herald, 10/11/02)

"Congress OKs War On Iraq; Days Numbered For 'Outlaw State,' President Bush Says As He Gets Approval To Attack With Or Without U.N." (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/11/02)

"Bush Gets Authority For War On Iraq" (Newark Star Ledger, 10/11/02)

"A Step Closer To War; House, Senate Approve War Powers" (Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 10/11/02)

"Iraq Attack OK'd On Hill Solid Support In Senate, House" (New York Daily News, 10/11/02)

"Congress Signs Off On War; A Lopsided Vote Gives The President The Go-Ahead To Use Military Force Against 'The Continuing Threat' Of Saddam Hussein" (Grand Rapids Press, 10/11/02)

"Congress Gives Bush War Powers" (Hartford Courant, 10/11/02)

"War Looming With Vote; Decision Likened To Gulf Of Tonkin" (Knight Ridder, 10/11/02)

Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In |

[The Ancient]

Originally Posted by Laerazi

No, I was under the impression that she didn't expect Bush to continue pushing the war long after it should have ended. From the question, it sounded like she allowed Bush to pursue war if necessary (without consent from the UN); this is not equivalent to advocating the war as it has played out.

This is a cop out. Is she saying she wanted to destabilize the region and then leave right away? Yeah, that's a good platform...

[Laerazi]

It's a non-issue for me, regardless; Hillary wants to end the war as does Obama. I'm not expecting the next president to be flawless, nor do I expect that every decision they make to be. I would, however, like a President that can adapt to a situation if mistakes are made (unlike Bush). Both Obama and Hillary seem capable for this position.

That said, I'm not completely biased towards one candidate or the other; both Hillary and Obama have their pros and cons, and I think it's stupid to nitpick either one of them to death, rather than taking in everything as a whole.

This is a cop out. Is she saying she wanted to destabilize the region and then leave right away? Yeah, that's a good platform...

You honestly think the people that allowed Bush to enter the war expected it to turn out like it did?

[The Ancient]

Originally Posted by Laerazi

You honestly think the people that allowed Bush to enter the war expected it to turn out like it did?

You honestly think Bush expected it to turn out like it did? The problem is the number of people who turned a blind eye to the consequences of our actions and the incredible risk we undertook by starting this war. The fact that it didn't go like some people hoped it would isn't an excuse. Especially when there were people who were saying something like our present situation would happen.

[Sunder]

Originally Posted by The Ancient

You honestly think Bush expected it to turn out like it did? The problem is the number of people who turned a blind eye to the consequences of our actions and the incredible risk we undertook by starting this war. The fact that it didn't go like some people hoped it would isn't an excuse. Especially when there were people who were saying something like our present situation would happen.

That's all very true. The problem now isn't, who's to blame for what vote and which decision made on a dartboard. What we as Americans have to ask ourselves now is this: Where do we go from here?

Do we continue down a failed path of foreign relations that did not bring dignity and respectability back to the Office of the President? Do we continue to give huge tax breaks to the richest of Americans and leave the rest of America to twist in the economic winds? Do we cast our vote for the failed policy decisions of George W. Bush by electing another Republican to office? Or do we vote for change?

This message brought to you by Obama '08