Letters to the Editor
-
Yes she voted for the war
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
21 Democratic Senators voted no. Almost 1/2 the Democrats at the time.
-
@Hutman
What is the "enthusiasm" factor?
You tell me. Obama's fervent supporters and Republicans who want him as the Dem candidate to cream him keep insisting he is all Hope and Enthusiasm. He doesn't enthuse me at all.
I don't think that Hillary's experience is so impressive that it trumps Obama's qualifications.
Then you need to scroll back a few pages where someone went to great lengths to explain it to you.
I also think he has a lot of experience, just not for as long (he's younger so OF COURSE he has less experience quantititatively) and at as high a level.
Experience in what? A watered down nuclear bill? Representing slumlords, using drugs?,accepting Rezzo's help with a fancy home.
Unfortunately for Democrats and fortunately for REpublicans (and Republicans pretending to be liberals) hese are the types of things he will be slammed with as soon as Hillary is out of the way. And I mean for starters.
Whereas they will do what to Clinton , bring up the ever-tired overly-investigaged and nothing found Wastewater again?
But I do think he shows better judgment, is skillful, intelligent, and would make a better leader.
I see no signs of that. When he had the choice or representing poor constituents he instead represented a slumlord. When he had the choice of unifying the Democrats and fighting for us he instead chose to split the vote, make desperate and baseless claims of racism, and run a Republican style campaign of dirty tricks even right down to the Harry and Louise flyers.
He has consistently placed his own self-interest over the interest of the poor, of poor blacks, of all the people Democrats are supposed to care about. He's chosen his own self-interest consistently past and present without much concern for the poor and other liberal interests.
I didn't always think this -- I've grown to like him more as the campaign has progressed. Meanwhile, I've grown to like Hillary less, with her dirty-tricks moves (several ugly ones come to mind), her equivocating on Iraq and torture, her inability to hold Bill back from his ugliest impulses, etc.
Very Republican to play dirty campaign tricks and then accuse your opponents of it. But then Obama's campaign reeks of Rove all around.
I also reject that argument that Hillary will be a better fighter against McCain than Obama will. I think that's a cynical argument to begin with, but I also think it's untrue.
I'm sure you do. But that's not what the record shows. HIllary vs. McCain and Hillary gets the independents. Obama vs. McCain and McCain becomes the centrist candidate and he will.
McCain actually WINS in a debate against Hillary on the subject of torture.
Nonsense. And furthermore he'd paint Obama as a soft-on-terror unpatriotic leftwing Kennedy endorsed liberal in about half an hour.
-
Re: The Iraq War
To Anonymous -
Sunnylo1 is right, and you are wrong. The excuses you give in support of the 2002 vote are too clever by half, the same excuses offered by the Republicans when the house of cards fell.
It may be true that the actual vote was to authorize the use of force in the event that other diplomatic efforts failed, and only with the backing of the UN and with a broad coalition. However, Bush was lying all along in the run up to war, and plenty of Americans and senators knew that. Those "caveats" were really just political cover.
Many Americans, and 23 senators, knew that that vote would be used by the Bush administration to provide cover for the already planned war. The fact that Hillary was willing to trade on this in a cynical attempt to reingforce her position with moderates and conservatives . . . .
And flag burning? FLAG BURNING? Seriously . . . .
Anonymous: 98% bipartisan support? Where do you get your figures? Maybe 98% of Republicans supported Bush's war, but that is hardly bipartisan. Many Americans protested the war, before it even began, when we knew that Bush's war was a foregone conclusion. That is hardly bipartisan support.
-
Hogwash.
21 Democratic Senators voted no. Almost 1/2 the Democrats at the time
A handful of Democrats long-term incumbants and representing strong liberal districts or states didn't vote for Bush to authorize war. ( Either way I guess Mrs. Clinton didn't solely send us to Iraq as the children (and Republicans encouraging them) insist.)
Last: Not ONE of the Democrats voted for the Iraq war, so can that tired lie for good, for Godsakes.
Meanwhile "anti-war" Obama has voted to fund every penny of it.
But this election isn't about Iraq. It's about the American middle-class and the poor and if they will survive or go the way of Brazil and mainland China.
-
@Steve Hall - Please explain why Obama funded every penny the GOP asked for
So for amusements sake let's pretend that the Iraq war (which is a past issue) is the ONLY issue on the table.
If Obama is so against it why'd he vote to fund it to the tune of 300 billion dollars. Hmmmm?
Let's face it, Obama and his nutty supporters want to play both cards every time. He's agaisnt the war - until he votes to fund it. He's black in South Carolina and white in California. He's a Christian evangelical in the south and an athist liberal in the Northeast and California. He's a guy with great appeal to Republicans (actually I might agree with that) and will win cross over votes - but has the endorsements of Moveon.org and Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry.
It's almost comical if there wasn't so much at stake.
-
If Obama were a pair of shoes
he'll be Manolo Blahniks: High-heeled, sexy, fashionable.
If Hillary were a pair of shoes, she'll be Airsole pumps: sensible, comfortable, classy.
Which one would you walk a mile in?
-
To Anonymous
First of all, I am not arguing for Barack on this point. I am specifically criticizing Hillary Clinton for her Senate vote in 2002.
Having said that, I would say that the political situation in October 2002, before we invaded Iraq, was very differnet than January 2005, after we had already been in Iraq for nearly two years. At that point, the damage had already been done. Why do you insist that a vote nearly two years later to fund the ongoing war is the same thing as authorizing the invasion? They are not the same thing.