Letters to the Editor
-
@ NYAmiga
"The Iraq vote will cost her votes from the purer-than-driven-snow progressives but will pay off in November."
Do you realize that a strong majority of Americans think the Iraq War-- even the initial invasion-- was a mistake at this point? It's hardly only the "fringe".
-
Iraq vote helps Hilary against McCain?
To NYAmiga -
Back in 2002, when Rove and company were using the war on terror against Democrats (e.g., Max Cleland), a vote to authorize force against Iraq may have provided political cover. I'm also pretty sure that explains Clinton's vote.
However, I'm not so sure it will matter much in a general election in 2008. Do you really think that would work to Hillary's favor? Isn't it irrelevant at this point? Do you think that Republicans would really win any votes against Barack because he opposed the war in 2002? Do you really believe that there are any moderates or liberals (or gasp, any conservatives) that would seriously consider voting for Clinton, just because she voted for to authorize force against Iraq?
At this point, with the war already five years old, I find it hard to believe that that 2002 vote would matter much in the general election. The Republicans will try to paint any Democratic candidate in the general election as soft on terror (as irrelevant and non-sequitur as that argument might be), just because they are a Democrat, regardless of their position on the war.
-
Anonymous
Oh right!!! Like Obama's fact checking site is going to AGREE with the New York Times article.
I'll wait for the error correction from the New York Times, thank you very much!
-
Mintosh, why did you just repost the same message you wrote earlier?
Your whole comparison with Nader is pretty silly anyway.
As a third-party candidate, Nader pulled votes from the only candidate with a real chance of beating Bush.
There's no comparsion -- this is not a third-party situation. It's a fight for the top spot in one of the two main parties.
A vote for Nader was a symbolic vote. Everybody knew it. So if you're voting against symbolic votes, perhaps you should be arguing against those who vote Hillary just because she's female.
-
@Silenced, I think you're a pragmatist (?), but I am surprised you aren't voting for either
Mike Gravel, Ron Paul, (or Dennis Kucinich).
-
damnthatxanadu
if the New York Times asks you to jump off a cliff will you wait for the correction?
-
Anonymous, Anoonymous (or whatever), damnthatxanadu
Congrats! You've managed to stir up crap at Salon. I'm sorry things got boring on your Republican blog, but you've really opened our eyes to the strange marriage between racist and sexist comments and your bizarre pro-Hillary arguments. Somehow, you've managed to decry moderates, independents, the center, the far left, and anti-war activists.
Interesting how you manage to encompass all of these positions at once, and anger Salon readers of all stripes!
-
Vote for the person closest to Edwards
And that would be Hillary.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/healthcare-numbers/
-
Voting Edwards
In Arkansas, Hillary should win handily. Edwards will still appear on the ballot, and I intend to vote for him. It's the only protest I have available at the moment. I think the press and media are largely responsible for making this a two person race, and neither of them is a candidate a rational party would run this year. (I would be happy with either as president; the problem is to win the election.)
-
Anonymous
f the New York Times asks you to jump off a cliff will you wait for the correction?
Oh, that's a perfect rejoinder. So, witty! So, much logic there!!!
You know, I imagine that article had to researched fairly indepth and then "fact checked" by some independent fact checkers, so, yeah, I'll wait.
-
Me Too
I don't care about race or gender, and I'm stuck, too.
The Right hates Clinton, of course, and so do the Villagers. And the Villagers love McCain. But it's the Democrat's race to lose in November regardless of which gets the nomination. My pro/con list:
Domestic Policy? Clinton
Foreign Policy (Non-Iraq)? unknown
Foreign Policy (Iraq)? Obama
Debates? Clinton (Barack has been a disappointment here)
Speechy Charisma Stuff? Obama (duh)
Competence? Clinton
Ability to Get Legislation Passed? unknown
Quality of Campaign So Far? Obama
-
Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton
That's really gonna motivate young people and the apolitical to vote in November! Yay. Maybe if we're lucky Jeb will run in 2012.
Jefferson is turning in his grave.
-
The Republicans Will Devour Obama!
This is how the media is bias:
It was proven by Tim Russert that it was Obamas press secretary in South Carolina that invoked racism into the issues when Obama lost in New Hampshire. NOT BILL CLINTON. Yet the media insists on continuing the lies that it was Bill Clinton’s fault.
Also, Michelle Obama “served on the board of TreeHouse Foods, Inc., a major Wal-Mart supplier with whom she cut ties immediately after her husband made comments critical of Wal-Mart at an AFL-CIO forum in Trenton, New Jersey, on May 14, 2007. She was paid $51,200 by TreeHouse in 2006. She leaves the board with an option to buy 2,266 TreeHouse shares at a strike price of $29.65.
Also to NYAmiga:
I get really sick and tired of Obama playing holier than thou when it comes to the Iraq War and the idiots and the bias media that goes right along with it.
We ALL have to remember that we went to Iraq under the pretenses that Saddam Hussein had WMD's. Yes, now we ALL know it was based on lies; however, if those lies were able to have been disproved before the last 6-12 months, then where were the bias media trying to stop Bush? We went there to get Saddam and we got him, remember "Mission Accomplished?' It is BUSH's FAULT we have remained there for an additional 5 years, NOT Hillary Clinton's vote authorizing the war.
She took a stand for what she had every right to believe was the solid truth.
I am relieved that we got rid of Saddam Hussein though, as I am sure everyone is. We would not have if we took Obama's position, or lack thereof regarding the Iraq war. It is real easy to take a stance on something after the fact when you were not there. How can he be so sure what he would do? He also has not said what made him come to that judgment! What set of facts told him that the war was wrong? And if he had solid evidence that the war was wrong, why didn't he provide proof along with his "famous 2004 speech" and stop the war with whatever means necessary. It doesn't look like he has a hard time getting the medias attention! They would have listened, right? (Rolling eyes) He is an arrogant, holier than thou, I can do everything better, liar!
I can hear John McCain now in the General Election IF it is Obama… "Obama over here is so liberal on war, he says he would have voted against it, and Obama says it was a mistake….Well, I don't think it is a mistake my friends, we got rid of one of the biggest dictators, Saddam Hussein! We are facing a national terror threat and threats from Islamic Jihad's, and Obama's liberal attitude on war is not going to keep us safe! I am a war hero, and I would like Obama to tell the soldiers and their families that are sacrificing that they made a mistake….I don't think so my friend"
We ALL know this is how he talks! Obama WILL NOT win the election for the Democrats against the Republicans…Mark my words! Kerry was less liberal and it cost us the last election.
I am not pro-war either but I am not against it IF it is necessary. Obama is so liberal about it he also scares me on the opposite spectrum that Bush does. Hillary is right in the center where all of us want to be and should want to be! That is uniting!
Obama's Moveon.org ANTI-MILITARY endorsers will nail it for the Republicans! Mark my words! Remember people, we got Saddam Hussein and that is worth its weight in gold!