It's one thing for Obama to scold Hillary for her Iraq stance in Dem primaries. It will be entertaining to see how he handles McCain in a debate on the issue.

I'm looking forward to it too! Here's what he had to say today:

"I honor John McCain’s half century of service to this country and you know, he has done some heroic stuff,” he started pleasantly enough. “But his basic proposals are to perpetuate the failed Bush domestic policies and the failed Bush foreign policies,” ...

“Awhile back [McCain] was interviewed and he said, ‘You know what? I’m not really good with the economy.’ He said, ‘I bought Alan Greenspan’s book. I’m reading up to find out what’s going on.’ You don’t need to read Greenspan’s book, you need to go to Nicky’s Diner and talk to folks and find out what’s been happening in the economy here in the United States of America,” Obama said, referring to the local diner where earlier in the afternoon he met with four locals to talk about middle class tax fairness. “You don’t need to read a book. Talk to some of those workers who’ve been laid off. Talk to those retirees who are, have to figure out how to pay for the heating bill. You know, John McCain used to oppose the Bush tax cuts. He said it was it was irresponsible to cut taxes for the wealthy when we were going into war. And then he started running for president and suddenly he’s for ‘em. I’m happy to have that debate, because he was right the first time and he is wrong now and we are gonna convince the American people that we need a new direction.” ...

“I am happy to have a debate with John McCain about fiscal responsibility,” he continued. “He goes out there and complains about earmarks, but it was his party, the Republican Party under George Bush and a Republican Congress, that presided on the biggest increase in pork barrel spending that America has ever seen, and that is what we’re gonna change when I’m president of the United States of America.”

“And when it comes to foreign policy, John McCain says he wants to fight a 100 year war! ‘A hundred years,’ he said. ‘As long as it takes.’ That is not designed to make us safer. That is simply stubbornness. That is designed to try to make a bad decision look better,” Obama declared.

Here's the link I quoted in my last post: http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/02/09/obama-on-mccains-iraq-position-simply-stubbornness/

Re: "Obama is of the essence of "cool." Hillary is its anthithesis. She is so very "un-cool.""

Agreed. He does seem like the kind of guy you'd like to have a latte with.

RE: Your discussion and comments about HRC's Iraq authorization vote, I'd like to respond.

First, a question: Are you or have you ever been a union member? I ask this because it goes directly to point.

There is a direct analogy to HRC's vote for the "authorization" and what union members do when they take a vote to "authorize" a strike. The analogy is important and speaks to HRC's understanding of what authorization has come to mean, legally and in past practice.

Union members aren't voting to strike when they "authorize a strike." They are giving notice to the employer and their bargaining committee to find common ground and come to a resolution. They are particularly putting their employer on notice that the terms of the agreement are unacceptable and need more work.

When an employer and a union can find common ground -- frequently more often than not -- a strike is avoided. But this depends largely on the employer's willingness to "bargain in good faith". Strikes result, most often, when employers play hardball.

George Bush chose to misuse the authorization he was given in good faith. Now, you might say, "Yes, but everybody knew we couldn't trust George Bush," to which I ask this: Did we? If "everybody" in Congress assumed that he could not be trusted, then what does the rule of law really mean? Why bother having a president at all if "everybody" walks into a decision already believing that one side is trustworthy and the other is not?

If everybody believed that George W. Bush was untrustworthy and unbelievable when that authorization vote was taken, then everybody must have logically had to believe that CIA intelligence estimates, findings of inspectors, Saddam Hussein himself, and the thousands of reports were unbelievable, also. Can you honestly say that if you were in HRC's position you would have voted against this authorization? I can't, because I don't know what information she had at the time. Neither does Barack Obama. BTW: Obama has said he doesn't know how he would have voted on that authorization had he actually been in the U.S. Senate when the vote was taken.

And then McCain says, "I'm sorry, my young friend, but what do you know about war? What do you know about the priorities of defending this country? You plan to just abandon our ally in Iraq, to allow Iraq to become a failed state from which terrorists can launch attacks on our homeland? That shows that you are simply unfit to be commander in chief," etc. blah blah blah. It's crap, agreed, but it's also theater--the two of them standing on the same stage, with all their personal baggage and aura, going at each other. I know liberal Dems think it's a slam dunk, but I'm telling you, a lot of swing voters are going to look and say, "maybe that guy isn't ready for the job." Of course, Obama could just refuse to debate McCain. That might work.

I know the real thing when I see it, too: you are a sexist clown. There is a room in hell where demons will piss acid in your face forever.

Obama has said he doesn't know how he would have voted on that authorization had he actually been in the U.S. Senate when the vote was taken.

-- ljwalker53

you should close that quote by adding what Obama said. He said he didn't know how he would have voted based on the intelligence reports at the time, which he did not at that time have authorization to read.