Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Though he claims otherwise (Mainly because it is polite to not rub people's faces in things) his speech was clear on the issue at the time.
He would have voted against the war.
That speech was a risky one at that time, it wasn't made because he was taking a popular stance.
Anonymous: By your post you proved that a Phd doesn't give you good judgement or for that matter common sense.Obama would be a disaster and you 30 something's who think you know it all will be a major part of his disaster.I've seen elections since FDR, you are still wet behind the ears when it comes to knowing what going on in the world.
but please, please ask yourselves...if Michelle was running in place of Barack ("proud" comment notwithstanding), do you REALLY think she would have the following HE does?
If you at all suspect she wouldn't have the same numbers, don't just shrug and say, "Oh well! Women just need to let such sexism slide once in a while." Because we are ALWAYS asked to do this.
This is why no one bats an eyelash when men of ALL races joke about women in the White House, on many public forums.
First, pretty much everything has got he has got. His healthcare plan is slightly more realistic, his immigration plan is pretty much the same, but on foreign affairs he is actually the stronger of the two.
There policies are so similar that they are almost interchangeable.
So then he's not really any more of a change candidate than main-stream, boring, establishment Hillary, right?
Except on the biggest issue of them all. Lobbying reform.
Obama is anti-lobbying firms, Hillary is not. Now Obama's stance is questionable (He doesn't take money from lobbying firms, but he doesn't object to their staff donating) but Hillary's stance is clear as daylight - she won't reduce the power of lobbying interests in America.
And that, though it is a wild hope, though it is a promise he is likely to break, even some progress towards reducing the power of lobbies in America, would be a change for the better.
You think that's going to happen? You're so sweet.
But if you do compare their plans on this:
Hillary - http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/reform/
Barack - http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/
They are pretty similar - no bid contracts, transparency, etc. Barack's is, for once, much more specific than Hillary's.
Plus, what do you think of Barack Obama's campaign donating money to the campaigns of various superdelegates, presumably to get their votes? :)
Here's one bit where I take issue with HRC: foreign policy.
http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=284561
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=256838
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071027/FRONTPAGE/710270355
Though he claims otherwise (Mainly because it is polite to not rub people's faces in things) his speech was clear on the issue at the time. He would have voted against the war.
HE WASN'T A SENATOR ACTUALLY IN THE POSITION TO DO SO (in NY, a year after 9-11 no less).
"Would have" is not a solid argument.
More like pragmatic. You have one candidate who has put distance between himself and the lobbies, and another that has outright stated that she sees nothing wrong with them.
I will trust Obama's promises on that before I will trust Hillary's.
There are other reasons to pick Obama over Hillary, for one thing, foreign policy.
Lets be honest here, you run on the strength of your foreign policy, and then you call the guy with the world's second biggest nuclear arsenal "soulless" you ain't bright.
Then there is the charisma. Obama is charismatic, as the last week has shown rightwing attacks on him have more rallied people behind him than done the reverse.
Now her stated policy is nearly identicle to Obama's, Obama's is slightly better, but there isn't much in it. So we are left with who do we believe. And here is the thing, why scapegoating should be a more important issue to the electorate: Do you really trust the candidate most likely to push the scapegoat issues?
I'm actually in my mid-30s, and very liberal. I am also so tired of the recent Republican administrations, and am trying to learn from the disatrous elections you speak of. I'm not thrilled about every aspect of Clinton and do think Obama's heart is in the right place, but also agree wholeheartedly that she is the more solid, dependable choice. Four and 8 years ago I might have been entranced by Obama's message (and I was a Dean fan the last time!), but I know that it takes certain qualities to actually get things done.
Lets be honest here, you run on the strength of your foreign policy, and then you call the guy with the world's second biggest nuclear arsenal "soulless" you ain't bright.
But he is soulless. I'll take her "soulless" over Bush's looking into his soul anyday. But Bush isn't the issue. Foreign policy is.
Obama:
On September 24, 2004, Barack Obama--the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Illinois, and a shoo-in favorite--suggested “surgical missile strikes” on Iran may become necessary. “[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq, Obama told the Chicago Tribune.
"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse,” he said. Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if “violent Islamic extremists” were to “take over.”
This is what you're supporting?
""If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said."
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801
Considering that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, borders on India, which has nuclear weapons, and a long history of hostility towards Pakistan and Islamic extremists who believe in martyrdom could well nuke the place starting what amounts to the end of times?
Yeah. I do support what he had to say there.
Of course, this is an extreme case and the major crux of his Pakistan policy would be to avoid this situation.
Oh, and considering that Medvedev is currently the next guy to run Russia (Which is a major exporter of oil amongst other things,) pretty much on Putin's say so, whatever your feelings on Bush, if you think calling Putin soulless is a bright move, frankly you are an idiot.
She sacrificed any potential close relationships with Russia for the sake of scoring a cheap debating point against a candidate who isn't even running.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
