The audacity of hoping we don't get attacked again

[MagsDem]

I see BO supporters are up in arms about HRC's new ad that reminds us experience is good thing to look for when picking a president. She does have more experience than he does in almost every respect. Up until 2.5 yrs ago he was nothing more than a state senator from IL. He resume is thin as a razor (and please, no meaningless overblown cut and paste jobs -- we've seen them all before). He's running on hope and change because that's all he has to offer. He can't offer experience. He doesn't have that. And you only have to look to his foreign policy statements to notice it. He doesn't impress with the naivity of saying he will met with despotic dictators when he can't even articulate what the objective of those meetings would be, and how they would benefit the country.

So, why the outrage about reminding people what can happen when you elect an inexperienced leader? Bush sat stunned in a classroom and continued to read My Pet Goat to a bunch of kindergarners, caught like a deer in the headlights. Then he ran around like a chicken shit for 9 hrs instead of offering any leadership. Hell, if he had any experience he would have convened the advisory boards around terrorism or listened to the PDBs before 9/11 ever happened.

You can call it the politics of fear, but when it comes to Clinton vs Obama I call it the politics of pointing out experience over a guy that doesn't have any. She is head and shoulders above him on this issue, and sorry, I don't buy the IWR stuff he throws out there. He wasn't in a position to make a judgement on that, and since he has been he has voted exactly as she has right down the line. In fact I wouldn't be surprised, after watching the debates, if he didn't wait to see how she voted before casting his own each time.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. If Obama's so slow off the starting line...

How come he humiliated the Clinton campaign so quickly over this commercial with his rapid response?

[MagsDem]

3. Says who?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Common sense.

:shrug:

[MagsDem]

26. That IWR talking point is getting very old

You forget, the american people as a whole are NOT against war. They are against losing a war. And the perception now is that the surge worked. If Obama has a plan to use the war to run against McCain you are going to watch him implode as a viable candidate right before your eyes.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. So is the war.

3,973.

It doesn't go away if you just cover your ears and eyes.

[MagsDem]

45. Both of them bear responsibility for that

He gets no credit from me for a vote he never had to take, when he has voted exactly the same as her on every vote he did have to take.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. Sorry, no.

That's just nonsense. Like your post about skin color last night.

[MagsDem]

65. If you're points are solid, why do you have to lie to make them?

1. He has indeed matched her vote for vote on Iraq since entering the senate. 2. I didn't post anything about skin color. Why do BO supporters always play the race card? It's beneath even your poor candidate.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

73. No lies.

1. There opinions on Iraq have been radically different. To qualify your argument since he's been a senator is a shady dodge. Really intellectually dishonest.

2. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4813647&mesg_id=4813647

[MagsDem]

94. Yes lies

1. But votes don't lie. Every vote he has taken in the senate has matched hers on this issue exactly. Odd to say you are against a war you continue to fund and refuse to vote to withdraw from. They are a wash on this issue as far as I am concerned. The dems in the senate could have used their support when they were trying to fulfill their 2006 promise to the voters.

2. 20% of democrats won't vote for him in the GE. I am sure there are lots of reasons for that, including racism. 10% won't vote for her if she is the nominee. I'm sure there are a lot of reasons for that, including sexism. What do you dispute about those statements? The fact is it's going to be damn hard to win in the GE with him when 20% of his own party won't vote for him.

[jenmito]

88. "...the american people as a whole are NOT against war. They are against losing a war. "

THAT is EXACTLY what the Repubs. say! Are you sure you belong here? :shrug: Te majority of Americans ARE against THIS war and believe it wasn't worth going in there in the first place. And he has said many times what his plan is to deal with al Qaeda or anyone else.

And Obama's judgement is good for more than one war. Not only did he correctly predict exactly what would happen if we invaded Iraq, he DID try to get the troops home by sponsoring the "Iraq De-Escalation Act." His judgement is good for the future-for that 3am phonecall.

[MagsDem]

100. Lots of people say it -- because it's true

The majority of people are against the war NOW, because we were losing. They were all for it when we were winning. I wasn't, and you might not have been, but the polls were overwhelmingly in favor during shock and awe.

I predicted what would happen if we attacked Iraq. So what? Hell, Hillary predicted what would happen if Bush didn't keep his word and use the AUMF as a stick and carrot. Have you actually read of listened to what she said AT THE TIME:

"Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

....

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980’s when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."

[jenmito]

168. Sorry, but about half of the Dems. in Congress voted against the IWR. And you left out

some of what Hillary said:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed.
...
President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible."

NAIVE!

(I was against the war from the beginning, too).

[ericgtr]

Only those who see it

the tactics she is using are exactly those of a republican pushing to keep this war going forever based on a premise that never existed. Obama knew that and there is clear evidence of this, even on video with a time line. Every time she puts out an ad like this it just reaffirms her pro position on the Iraq war.

[Tennessee Gal]

12. Are you freaking kidding? What did he prove with that response?

When has he been under pressure to make a significant decision with millions of lives in the balance?

When has he had to cast that type of vote or ask others to cast a vote giving him any kind of responsibility relating to our national security or our safety?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. LOL

"When has he been under pressure to make a significant decision with millions of lives in the balance?"

No, he proved that Hillary's the kind of person who when faced with that significant decision she makes the wrong one.

[Tennessee Gal]

24. And how do you know beyond any doubt that he would make the right decision?

You don't. Why? Because he has not been in that position, but you want to put him there. I don't. I am not comfortable putting him there.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. Because he said so.

He spoke out against it when it happened.

See, Tennessee Gal, you don't have to be an actual senator to express your opinion on a bill, or even a war.

"I am not comfortable putting him there."

And if you're comfortable putting Hillary Clinton there, then I can't help but laugh.

[Tennessee Gal]

71. It is easy to speak out against something when you are not in a

position to actually cast a vote in determination of what the US should do.

He wasn't there. He had no responsibility. He saw none of the intelligence. And once he was in a position to cast a vote he voted the same as Hillary.

Has he made a speech on the Senate floor denouncing the Iraq war and supporting the denial of funding? Has he led a movement in the Senate to end the US occupation? Can you post a link to a speech Obama made in the Senate outlining a way out of Iraq?

[blogslut]

99. Hillary didn't see the intelligence either

And here's the infuriating part. She chose not to read the NIE. She could have read the same intelligence that Dick Durbin read but she didn't. Dick Durbin voted against the IWR. Ask him why.

[Tennessee Gal]

106. She saw more than Obama. He saw nothing.

Easy to take a stance when you saw nothing.

[blogslut]

116. Except, she had a choice

She chose not to read the NIE.

[Tennessee Gal]

124. She still saw more than Obama.

Obama opposed the war and its funding ...

Until he was elected as Senator. Since his election he has voted for war funding each time.

[blogslut]

160. Yes. He has voted for funding

As has Senator Clinton.

You know good and well that if they hadn't they would have been accused of not supporting the troops. Besides, it's Congress that decides to fund or not fund the troops. The Senate just votes on it. I am not bothered by either candidate's decision to fund an ongoing war. It took Congress almost 16 years and 58,000 American deaths to vote to de-fund the Vietnam war.

No, Barack Obama was not a member of the Senate. Hillary Clinton was. She had the same chance as Richard Durbin to read the NIE. Durbin read it and came to the conclusion that the IWR was wrong. Dick Durbin voted against the IWR. Hillary Clinton did not read the NIE. Instead, she spouted the exact talking points made by every right-wing pundit in the land:

"Saddam needs to disarm. We don't know what weapons he has - maybe biological. I looked at the intelligence carefully..."

It's all there: http://youtube.com/watch?v=cZcY6TGfAxE

[Tennessee Gal]

126. You still have not answered this.

Has he made a speech on the Senate floor denouncing the Iraq war and supporting the denial of funding? Has he led a movement in the Senate to end the US occupation? Can you post a link to a speech Obama made in the Senate outlining a way out of Iraq?

[blogslut]

191. Can you for Hillary?

I'm pretty sure that only Congress has the power to legislate the end of the war. Now, I suppose it's possible there could be a joint resolution. Maybe a better scholar than I could answer that. Maybe a constitutional scholar.

As for ending the war, yes, he most definitely has a plan. It's on his site. It is much like John Kerry's was in 2004. Redeploy. Pulls the troops out gradually. Concert effort into political and diplomatic solutions as opposed to armed conflict.

Barack Obama has been speaking against going to war with Iraq since 2002:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po

[Tennessee Gal]

193. I asked you what has he said on the Senate floor since elected.

And what congressional action has he presented or even endorsed since elected to the Senate regarding the Iraq war that would have ended the occupation or even reduced our troop numbers involved in the occupation? You are the one representing Obama's speech prior to being elected to the Senate as a reason to support him now for the presidency. You are the one who is responsible to show that his words prior to being elected match his actions in the Senate after being elected. But then we also know that he promised his constituents to serve a full term before seeking the presidency. He did not fulfill that promise.

[blogslut]

199. Okay

Here is the Senator in 2006:

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-floor_statement_6/

Here he is in 2007:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/03/obama_senate_floor_speech_on_s.html

For memory's sake, here is the original sentiment from 2002:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po

[jackson_dem]

219. Wow. So Obama opposed withdrawing in June of 2006 but by January of 2007 supported it

Anything big happen for Mr. Obama in January of 2007?

[Nexus7]

78. Ummm.. because experience in winning elections doesn't help the country

The current Resident won two national elections (by whatever means), and look where the country is. I'd think twice before equating power at drawing crowds with competence to run a country. Substantive legislative and executive experience count (thanks, Mooney!) for much more.

[Mooney]

129. You should really correct that typo in your last sentence. n/t

[rug]

185. Maybe he should beam an infomercial into Tora Bora.

[ingac70]

All the "experience" in the world....

does not matter when you have a candidate who is willing to attack everyone but those that actually attacked us.

[MagsDem]

7. Good point

[denem]

221. You Sir/Madam, are a moron

with the reading comprehension of a ten year old. Or less.

[anonymous171]

2. I think republicans were defending the "wolf ads"

with those arguments back in 2004. Face it, fear makes people do stupid things, like vote republican.

[MagsDem]

4. Kerry wasn't inexperienced

Obama is.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Clinton thought Iraq was a good idea.

Obama didn't.

[matcom]

6. wasn't she First Lady when they attacked the WTC the first time?

seems to me she doesn't "ask" for trouble, yet "Trouble" finds her!

[MagsDem]

13. And those people were caught and jailed

Come on now, you sound like a rethug with that. Are you suggesting Clinton didn't address the issue of terrorism when he was president?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. I'm suffering from an overdose of irony.

"you sound like a rethug with that"

:spray:

[matcom]

18. nope.

I'm on a mission to make fun of as many hysterical GDP posters as I can tonight through humor and wit, thereby bringing some jocularity to this dark, damp, place.

[Forkboy]

53. Talk about taking on an impossible task.

You'll be here forever. :)

[Window]

186. LOL! Well, you sure made me laugh.

Thanks

[dailykoff]

31. Bingo.

She's "trouble's" girl.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

9. Hillary has shown that she made the wrong judgement on Iraq

AL Queada were in Afghanistan not in Iraq. She and many other congressmen and women are responsible for this mistake.

[MagsDem]

23. And Obama has shown his poor judgement on a host of...

of foreign policy questions. I can't understand why BO supporters cannot acknowledge he is a risky choice in that respect. Bomb Pakistan? Hold no NATO oversight hearings with the subcommittee he chairs? Declare over and over he will meet with the world's worst dictators with no idea what the objective of doing so would be? No stick, just a carrot? Keep contractors / mercenaries like Blackwater in Iraq? All his FP judgment seems poor to me.

Cindy Sheehan was against the war, too. You want to elect her as president?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

40. fundamental difference

I don't think you have got it. AL Queada were in Afghanistan, they had many training camps and these were extending to Pakistan. So what does Mrs Hillary do, bomb Iraq. It's not a case of being anti war or anti Iraq war. There was a distict problem with the Taliban and Al Q in Afghanistan. Her husband knew about it and tried to do something about it. However, she has shown that she cannot be trusted to think for herself.

[MagsDem]

52. Sorry, your post makes no sense to me

Bill Clinton bombed the inspection sites that Saddam would not let the inspectors into. I think you are confused about this issue. That had nothing to do with terrorism.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

212. we are talking about Afghanistan where the terrorists originated not Iraq

Al Q were NOT in Iraq so there was no point in invading it.

[rzemanfl]

46. Cindy would be better than *. Shit, Barney the dog would be

better.

[LaurenG]

10. She will do a fine job if she gets in and so will he

they will grow old quickly though, and they will have so much work to do.
Best wishes and good vibes to the next Democratic presidential candidate, whoever they are!

[dailykoff]

22. She's shown a readiness to bomb Iran that Obama hasn't.

They really aren't the same, and Clinton really is a bad choice.

[LaurenG]

27. Well I'm an Obama supporter

but I'm willing to support the dem whoever they are. Hopefully the "b" word (bomb) NEVER enters either of their vocabularies unless we are about to be nuked.

[MagsDem]

30. And when was that, pray tell?

[ingac70]

33. Kyl/Lieberman Amendment.

[MagsDem]

54. Well, one that wasn't to bomb Iran....

and second, he skipped that vote completely. If he felt strongly about it, shouldn't he have shown up for the vote. And you know, if you have to lie about something (she voted to bomb Iran) then you must not have a very good argument to make.

[dailykoff]

58. Nobody said it was.

[MagsDem]

101. "she's shown a readiness to bomb Iran" - not a truthful statement

[dailykoff]

109. "the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power"

means readiness to bomb, sorry. That's from the text of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and there's plenty more in case that isn't clear enough:

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224;

link: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/issues/kyllieberman.html

[MagsDem]

113. So aren't you pissed he couldn't be bothered to show up...

and make a speech against it, and then vote accordingly? Oh hell, no. The audacity of cowardice?

[dailykoff]

118. He effectively voted no.

And no, it doesn't bother me that he didn't show up to speechify. He's made his position clear already and I'd rather he was out winning votes.

[MagsDem]

130. No, he didn't show up to vote

That isn't an effective "no" and it isn't recorded that way either. It is recorded as not voting.

[dailykoff]

134. It won with 76 votes. Obama's was not one of them, Clinton's was.

How much clearer do I have to make it? :shrug:

link to Senate vote: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349

[MagsDem]

144. I just don't agree that he gets points for ducking issues

You claim it was an important vote to you, but when faced with the fact that Obama did not even show up and try to convince people not to vote for it, you say it doesn't matter. I would guess why it's not an argument that has gotten any traction.

[dailykoff]

147. The point is he effectively voted no.

He's a senator with a vote and not voting had the practical effect of voting no.

[MagsDem]

154. No, not voting is not voting

It is very similar to his "present" votes where he was too cowardly to take a stand.

[dailykoff]

158. For you or me. But Obama is a Senator. Not voting meant no.

But spin on.

[MagsDem]

163. How come the senate doesn't record it as a no then?

Are you claiming he is voting no on every vote he has missed?

[dailykoff]

166. I said effectively. Obama is not among the 76 who helped pass it

and Clinton is. That's what the record shows.

[MagsDem]

171. So if it passes and he is not there, is it always a no?

[dailykoff]

174. In this case, his absence had the practical effect of voting no.

Correct.

[MagsDem]

182. Oh, in THIS case... I see

So if he doesn't show up to say, vote on the SCHIP bill, that would be "effectively" a yes? Or would it be "effectively" a no?

LOL -- it sounds like "effectively" to you means however it will make him look best later on. What a crock.

[Voice for Peace]

172. so... Hillary missed the FISA vote

and Obama didn't say he would bomb Pakistan. That's disingenuous.

[MagsDem]

183. Well that missed vote was 'effectively' a no

LMAO. She voted against it previously. Her vote on FISA is on the record.

And oh, pardon me, not bomb, strike against, which of course is "effectively" bombing them.

"What I said was that if we have actionable intelligence against (Osama) bin Laden or other key Al-Qaeda officials ... and Pakistan is unwilling or unable to strike against them, we should," he said.

[Voice for Peace]

192. And you think Hillary would not?

[dailykoff]

47. November 15, 2007

Clinton Flogs Alleged Iranian Role in Iraq - Even More Than Bush

Published on Saturday, November 17, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
by Robert Naiman

In Thursday night’s debate, defending her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment — which critics have charged was intended to escalate towards military confrontation with Iran — Senator Clinton said, “The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has assisted the militias… in killing…Americans.”

This unsubstantiated allegation echoes unsubstantiated claims by Senator Lieberman and the Bush administration that both Lieberman and the administration have claimed would justify U.S. military attacks on Iran. But, as Senator Clinton surely knows, the Bush administration has not produced evidence to substantiate these allegations. Why is she repeating them, now, when even the Bush administration has moved away from them?

On February 12, the Washington Post reported on a much-awaited U.S. military briefing in Iraq that was supposed to substantiate these claims. “The officials offered no evidence to substantiate allegations that the ‘highest levels’ of the Iranian government had sanctioned support for attacks against U.S. troops.,” noted the Post, adding that “the U.S. government has never publicly offered evidence proving the allegations.”

Iraq’s deputy foreign minister said the Iraqi government remains in the dark about the U.S. investigation into Iranian activities in Iraq. “It is difficult for us here in the diplomatic circles just to accept whatever the American forces say is evidence,” he said. “If they have anything really conclusive, then they should come out and say it openly.”

The components of the one device shown at the briefing “require precision machining that Iraq has shown no evidence of being able to perform,” U.S. officials said.

But as NBC reported on February 23, U.S. military officials subsequently admitted that these devices were indeed being manufactured in Iraq. That doesn’t prove that some were not also coming from Iran, but it does undermine the previous U.S. claim that they had to be coming from Iran since they couldn’t be manufactured in Iraq.

Regardless of what was true in the past, U.S. military officials are now saying that Iran has halted the smuggling of bombs into Iraq. “We have not seen any recent evidence that weapons continue to come across the border into Iraq.” Army Maj. Gen. James Simmons said, the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday. “We believe that the initiatives and the commitments that the Iranians have made appear to be holding up.”

It’s very unfortunate, to say the least, that Senator Clinton is still pushing the claim that Iran is responsible for the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq when even the Bush administration is moving away from it. “Aktar maliki min il malik,” as they say in Arabic — more royalist than the King.

link: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/17/5292/

[MagsDem]

56. The vote he was too cowardly to show up for, you mean

[dailykoff]

59. Which had the practical effect of voting "no."

But Clinton DID show up to vote "yes." Why?

[jackson_dem]

220. Obama talked about bombing Iran four years ago when only the neocons talked about it

[Window]

188. That's for damned sure. That is one thankless job that ages the hell out of one.

[Yael]

11. He seems to be beating her 'experience' in managing a campaign

If she ran the country like she ran her bid for the nomination, we would be in a world of hurt in no time flat.

[MagsDem]

35. That's another bogus meme

She is something like 80 delegates behind him, and that's because FL isn't being counted. Less than 300K votes separate them in the entire popular vote. So where do you get this idea that he is beating her so badly? It's more like he is winning on a technicality so far because he wants to disenfranchise FL even though he was on the ballot there.

[Yael]

91. What color is the sky in your world?

Seriously! You are saying that her campaign is a well oiled machine and a textbook example as to how to run a campaign?

Surely not....

[MagsDem]

102. Well if it's so bad,then his is only slightly better, right?

I mean if he was such a crack campaigner and she was an utter goof, shouldn't he be winning by more than a few hundred thousand out of 22 million votes cast? Shouldn't he be head by way more than 80 deleglates out of 2300 chosen? Hell, it'd be tied if he wasn't trying to shut down the voice of the voters in FL. She beat the crap out of him there.

Yes, the meme is bogus. If he wins, it will be by a nose at best.

[Yael]

187. PM me on Wednesday and we'll compare notes

I thought I misunderstood you. Apparently you think this is working out well for her. Her 40 point leads have evaporated into losing to McCain by 10.

Oh, and BTW -- Obama is up between 100 and 160, depending on whether you are counting the SDs.

[rodeodance]

36. You are wondering from the OP--stay focused please

[Yael]

93. I'm not wondering anything

I directly addressed her lack of managerial ability as demonstrated in how she ran her campaign.

[Window]

196. Psst...I think he meant wandering

[dailykoff]

14. For the record, Bush wasn't stunned, and neither were the Clintons.

But that's a conversation for another forum. Basically fear mongering about 911 simply draws attention to her own failure to investigate that or any other Bush-Cheney attrocity, in my mind at least.

[Fovea]

15. American campaigning is like modern war

High risk, high stakes, high degree of restraint required. False flags, projection, and even fraud are possible strategies. Getting caught is not allowed however.

The one who comes out on top going into the convention is the superior strategist.
That may or may not mean the best candidate, that is a question of whether you are preparing for the right crisis.

[RiverStone]

19. The audacity of hoping people stop going negative in here...

Come on Mags, no minds are being changed.

Tell me a thousand times what you dig about Hillary, we already know you don't like Obama.

Damn, can't wait until a nominee is known - then 1 more week of vetting, teeth mashing, and temper tantrums.

Only when it stops, can we begin reunification of the party and focusing on kicking that war mongering puke bastard's McCain's ass this fall.

[rodeodance]

48. That would be nice-except there are several threads by Obamafolks mocking Hillary. --before this one

[RiverStone]

119. Gotta begin to stop somewhere...

No more negative Hillary posts from me - and I have never dissed her supporters anyway.

How about you rodeo? Ready to put down the big stick? No worries, it will be sitting there ready to use against the pukes this fall. :hi:

[Window]

194. LOL! Don't y'all know by now you can't win an argument with Mags. LOL!

She will answer every post with the same dumb crap ad nauseam. You would have to bring your lunch and dinner, 'cause she will have you in a thread all day.

[cottonseed]

20. She's being punished for giving Bush authority to go to War.

And that's the way it should be. He was speaking out against this mess, putting his career on the line, while Hillary was cowering in a corner, triangulating, as always. Molly Ivins had a great writeup about it 2 years ago. She was calling for a fresh faced senator, without all the war dung Hillary's now covered in.

[MagsDem]

70. Putting his career on the line?

Obama is so utterly inconsistent in his votes and statements on almost every issue that it is patently clear that is votes and his statements are based on what is the most politically expedient thing to do at the time. What will advance Obama's career.

Sorry, but it's laughable to suggest he was putting his career on the line to speak out about the war at an anti-war rally in his district in the heart of Chicago. Since he has entered the senate, where it is plain to see he has been running for president since day one, he has voted for every spending bill, and against troop withdrawal.

Only in Obama la la land can voting against troop withdrawal be considered as being against the war.

[cottonseed]

122. You're repeating a Hill talking point with no teeth.

The, "but he failed to vote against the funding" argument doesn't seem to be getting any traction. There are decisions, and then there are the biggest decisions of all. Hillary failed in making the one important decision she had the opportunity to make. That is why she is not getting the votes.

[Lucinda]

21. Anytime someone tries to berate voters for making assessments

about who they think would be the best leader in case of an emergency, that person loses any credibility they may have had with me. IMO anyone who doesn't look at those issues in terms of their choice is a fool.

[MagsDem]

72. Nothing in her ad berates anyone

She makes a clear point -- she is more experienced, and that experience is necessary. Where is she berating anyone?

[Lucinda]

97. I didnt say she was. I'm referring to people attacking the ad.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

25. Your "argument" is devoid of fact. It is an opinion piece

coming from a delusional perspective wherein you spend half the time talking about your boy George. Empty, vapid, and useless in its content and function.

[cali]

28. Here's one Obama supporter who has no problem with

that ad. It's pefectly legit to me, and unlike others I don't see it as playing the fear card- at least to any significant degree. Secondly, I just see this ad, and just about everything else coming out of the fractured Clinton campaign, as desperation.

Now to the rest of your shallow and dishonest little post:

Obama has served in the U.S. Senate for 3 years and 1 month. Your claim that he was in the Illinois State Senate 2.5 years ago, is obviously false. It's a small point but it's indicative of your inability to be honest about even the most basic of things. His resume is certainly not thin. You can desperately screech that it is in your shrill way, but that's somply more dishonest crap. Or ignorance.

Your real problem is that Hilly is running around looking like the chicken with the head cut off. She's becoming a late night talk show host. I actually find that sad. It's over, Mags. Anyway, enjoy your last shrill little spews, dear.

[Omega3]

136. "served" well, he's spent at least one thrid of that time running for president so come on, get real

[rodeodance]

32. i really don't know bout the OUTRAGE--but so many get their little highs by mocking Hillary!

[ingac70]

39. "organisms my mocking Hillary?"

What the hell is that?

I must be crawling with little organisms, I've been mocking Hillary since she announced her candidacy.

[Forkboy]

55. It's those little critters what live on your eyebrows.

And I can't believe I just used "what" that way. :spank:

:)

[rzemanfl]

51. Nah! I get my little organisms by not washing my hands. n/t

[ebdarcy]

37. You want to know why people are outraged?

Maybe it's because we've had to live with the politics of fear for the past seven years. We're sick of it. We're sick of being told that if we vote for candidate x, then the terrorists win. We're sick of hearing that if we don't give the telephone companies immunity that we'll get attacked again. we're sick of hearing that torture is necessary to protect our country.

The politics of fear have become synonymous with Bush and his cronies, and it's disgusting to watch a democrat do it to a fellow democrat. If Hillary wants to point out his "inexperience", I'm sure her high-priced advisers can figure it out a different way to do it.

[MagsDem]

42. The terrorists DID win because people voted for Bush

You don't think Gore would have kept the focus on terrorism like Clinton did? You don't think he would have read and took more notice of the warnings from the CIA? I sure as hell do. Maybe that's because I live in the Seattle area, and the millenium bomber was caught at the border in WA. I want competent, experienced leadership, instead of someone with an agenda that doesn't match the problems we face.

You can call it the politics of fear, but the fact is there are too many problems in this country, foreign policy issues being only one of them, that call for an experienced candidate.

[ebdarcy]

92. What in my post made you think I was referencing Gore/Bush?

In 2004, the Bush/Republican talking points and campaign implied that if we voted for Kerry, that the terrorists would win. That's what I was talking about. Personally, I don't think the 9-11 attacks would have occurred under a President Gore. And there's no way you should have inferred that from my post.

I think most people are sick of having fear shoved down their throats. I think most people are sick of fear tactics being used to justify atrocities. Most people are sick of fear, and that is why this ad is pissing people off.

And believe me, I don't need you to tell me that the next president will have to deal with some major problems.

[MagsDem]

115. I'm talking about experience vs inexperience

2004 wasn't about that at all. It was about Bush has balls, Kerry is a wussy. She isn't calling Obama a wussy -- she is saying he lacks experience and she is right.

[ebdarcy]

133. I have no problem with her campaigning on experience.

It's a primary. People campaign. And if she wants to campaign on "experience" vs "inexperience", more power to her.

But there is a problem with this ad. This ad is straight out of the republican play book. We're democrats. We're supposed to be better than this. Like I said in my original post to this thread, it's the use of fear tactics that are pissing people off. There are other ways to point out supposed differences in their experience level. She did not have to approve this ad. She's not a republican, and she should know better.

[JimGinPA]

38. Ready To Lead On Day One

:rofl:

[jmg257]

132. "we'll use their guts to grease the treads of our tanks". ring ring...'Hello - this is Hillary...No,

Bill is NOT here!!!"

:rofl:

[Omega3]

146. more class from obamabots, why do you all use that education you're supposed to have and make a

succinent post regarding the issues and policy?

sadly, most obamabots can't do it.

[blogslut]

41. The success of the Obama campaign exemplifies his ability to lead effectively

Well-planned. Well-enacted.

I'll take it. Gladly.

[rodeodance]

43. Stay focused you Have wondered way off the OP topic. thank you.

[KAZ]

60. What are you, the board hall monitor?

[rodeodance]

74. I think he OP deserves a good discussion--not digression.

[blogslut]

69. I'm right on the money

Hillary implies Senator Obama is not ready to lead at 3:00 AM. I say his campaign is a tangible indicator of his ability to lead. His run has been thoughtful, long-term and inarguably strong. He's got money coming out his ears and over a million individual donors. He is affecting the electorate in a positive, exciting way. He's come from status as an attractive but impossible candidate, to being thisclose a nominee. He took almost nothing and turned it into the biggest something the Democratic party has seen in decades.

Hillary Clinton's campaign? Not so much.

[rodeodance]

77. Start your own thread if you want to dicuss that issue. You are wondering again

[blogslut]

84. I am not wandering

My point is valid.

Obama runs a tighter, better, faster ship.

He'll be a leader 24/7/365

[rodeodance]

96. Good, we have established that fact-if you think so valid--then go for it--on a new thread please

I am not wandering
Posted by blogslut


My point is valid.

Obama runs a tighter, better, faster ship.

He'll be a leader 24/7/365

[blogslut]

114. Why?

Aren't we discussing who we want to be President if we are attacked again?

I want the man that has made a phenomenal, unthinkable, strategic journey to the top. I want this guy that for all intents and purposes, gets things done.

Hillary Clinton was wrong on the Iraq war. She doesn't have over ten years of actual legislative experience like Barack Obama has. Her campaign is a stagnant mess, unable to adapt, much less excel. She has lost twelve of 19 states so far. She's a good Senator. She's a great woman. She's a real go-getter but she isn't ready to be President.

EDIT ADD: forgot the word "lost" - as in: Hillary has lost twelve of 19 states so far.

[KAZ]

214. You know what dipshit, we put up with your infantile..

.. posts because you used to keep the "cube-rats" informed on posts in LBN. But during the last 2 months, you sound like a child, and I've given up on you.

Hate to be hard on you Rodeo, but you sound whacked.

[ContinentalOp]

107. It's the same issue!

Leadership, organization, strategy, the ability to persuade others -- these are all important both in campaigning and in governing.

[Omega3]

151. he gives good speeches and runs a good campaign, elect him president!!!!!

[rodeodance]

44. REC

[kid a]

49. You just don't get BO do you. Oh..you'll get BO..You'll have BO

and you'll live with BO for 8 years.

In fact I think you have BO right now and just don't know it.

BO in 08!!!

Now take your fucking fear mongering and stick up your BO ass!

:hi:

[jefferson_dem]

57. Q: How do you know an Obama-basher when you see one?

A: Two small letters - "BO".

[kid a]

66. exactly - and the OP is notorious for using BO instead of Barack Obama

and posting garbage.

I guess she thinks its cute.

I keep telling myself...March 5

[rodeodance]

89. I use BO all the time. Is there a new rule?

[MagsDem]

110. Apparently you must check in with the Obama police daily

... to get a new list of the rules. It's called the Audacity of Arrogance.

[rodeodance]

202. i tire of their ARROGANCE

[jackson_dem]

223. Yup. No one complains about HRC and Obamites say nothing about "Billary"

HRC are her initials, like BO (because Obamites don't like BHO because no one here has ever heard of what his middle name is. Get real. Anyone who uses BHO isn't trying to be slick. Every political junkie here knows his name and no thinking person gives a flip whether his name is BHO or JFK). "Billary" is a right-wing smear name the rethugs created in 1992 that Obamites now use. If any name should be objectionable it should be "Billary".

[kid a]

125. Are you really that stupid?

Body Odor? Hello!

Are you really that fucking stupid.

If we had a candidate with name Alfred Incubus Davis Sr. that ran against Hilary, you'd probably call him AIDS and say, "What? Is there a new rule?"

I'm trying to think of a derogatory acronym for Hilary Clinton, but I'd rather not stoop to your pathetic little level.

[rodeodance]

203. Name-calling gets you an IGNORE

[MagsDem]

61. I highly doubt that

I will grant you he may win the nomination. But there isn't a chance in hell he can win the GE. The wailing and gnashing of teeth will go on for months here. Half of you will disappear in shame like folks did that assualted people that didn't care for Kerry, and the other half will blame everyone and HRC's dog for the fact that Obama got beat. Count on it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

62. Gotta Disagree With Ya Here. She Used A Pretty Low Blow With That One.

That's a level none of our dems should go to, and it's something we're ALL sick of already, after seeing all the fear tactic bullshit from the right. I love Hillary, but I don't condone the initiation of that tactic. Obama isn't clean either, because he used the tactic right back against her, but her having been the one to initiate that level definitely deserves a bit more scorn.

[whatchamacallit]

63. This isn't going to work for 2 reasons

1. These crap posts are based on the erroneous assumption that Hillary's "experience" gives her a clear edge in matters of foreign policy. There is simply no proof of this, unless you consider meaningless claims like "She is head and shoulders above him on this issue", proof.

2. You don't know shit. I'm afraid there's no compelling reason to listen to a thing you say.

[MagsDem]

103. George Bush is proof that inexperience is bad for the country

I don't know how anyone can need anymore proof than that.

[ContinentalOp]

117. Not really. The Bush administration has been enormously successful.

They got the war they wanted and had already planned. Their response to Katrina illustrates exactly what Republicans think the governments role should be. They like to pretend that it's mere incompetence because it's a great cover for their incredibly unpopular ideas. It's their neocon policies that are bad for the country, not Bush's lack of experience. As inexperienced as he was he managed to pull off just about everything the neocons had hoped for.

[whatchamacallit]

227. Yep.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

64. Rove and the GOP send s their deepest gratitude to them

[whatchamacallit]

68. Really, how many Obama supporters post with a picture of Hillary with the word "Hype" embedded?

Kind of a 'hater' thing to do.

[rodeodance]

80. I LOVE THAT PIC. WHAT HOOT

[ElsewheresDaughter]

228. well I think it makes a rather truthful statement from my point of view...and thanks for noticing

[mudesi]

67. Are you KIDDING? This is a JOKE, right?

You wouldn't be saying that if it had been McCain who ran that ad.

[MagsDem]

76. McCain doesn't have more experience than Clinton

And he certainly will run these kinds of ads against Obama. Count on it. And so long as things are going better in Iraq by the public's perception, Obama flailing at the Iraq war issue as his ONLY issue isn't going to get it done.

[Mooney]

155. What?

I'm sorry but McCain has DECADES of experience on Clinton. He's a lunatic and I absolutely don't want him for president, but to say that Hillary Clinton has more experience than John McCain is just batty. Even the HRC campaign would never say that in a million years.

[blm]

75. How do YOU think a 9-11 event happened in the first place? What led to that event?

.

[MagsDem]

81. An inexperienced, incompetent president who didn't know...

what he was doing. That IS what led to 9/11. Terrorism against Americans has been a threat since the 80's at the very least. And Bush was simply not up to the job.

[dailykoff]

90. More like an inexperienced electorate who didin't know they were getting hijacked.

Now we know, and we'd rather avoid another such "surprise," thanks all the same.

[blm]

111. You don't think a full public vetting of BCCI matters would've prevented the growth of

global terrorism?

[rucky]

79. BIDEN FOR PRESIDENT! n/t

[laugle]

82. I think it is about time

Hillary brings up national security issues! Obama's lack of foreign policy experience during this very dangerous time in our country, is indeed of great concern to many people!

And to blow it off as "fearmongering" is a dangerous diversion from the very real threats we face as a nation!

[MagsDem]

95. I agree -- it's as if we should just dismiss his lack of experience

Why? Because it's not polite to mention it matters? It matters.

[laugle]

104. I fully expect that McCain

will use this tactic 10 fold and if Obama is the nominee, I think folkes should see just how he will handle this very important issue!!

The problem of no foreign policy experience is, he will need to rely more on advisors' since he has no well to draw on!

When you are a trainee you make mistakes, IMO, we cannot afford anymore mistakes!

[MagsDem]

105. Well if all he can do is squawk "Iraq" in response...

he doesn't have a chance in hell of winning.

[anonymous171]

83. You sound like a republican, just so you know.

[rodeodance]

87. We need a Democrat with strong foreign policy experience in the WH. -Hillary.

[MagsDem]

108. Baloney -- Bush used the same meme Obama is using now

Experience is bad -- it's the same tired politics. I'm a uniter. God, Obama practically lifted it straight from him.

[ContinentalOp]

121. GOOD. It wins elections!

I'm not concerned with memes, campaigns or politics. I'm concerned with policy and I'm concerned about winning. I would rather have a progressive candidate who is smart enough to borrow Republican campaign tactics in order to WIN than a candidate who is stuck using the same techniques that have kept Democrats losing for years.

[Omega3]

161. no crybaby, he just sounds like someone who disagrees with you. get over it. not everyone is in love

with BO. that's the problem with you bo supporters, someone questions his policy and all you can do is get pissy with the OP and then photoshop HC in a costume. real mature. I fear for the future of the dem party if this continues.

[anonymous171]

207. You use an ad hominem attack and then call me immature?

I fear for the Dem party right NOW because of this stupidity.

[MagickMuffin]

85. Facts over substance:

Shortly after his call with National Security Advisor Rice, Bush entered Sandra Kay Daniels’s second-grade class for a photo-op to promote Bush’s education policies. The event was to begin precisely at 9:00, but the call pushed it back to about 9:03. Numerous reporters who were traveling with the president, as well as members of the local media, watched from the back of the room. Altogether there were about 150 people in the room, only 16 of them students. Bush was introduced to the children and then posed for a number of pictures. Daniels then led the students through some reading exercises (video footage shows this lasted about three minutes). Bush later related what he was thinking at the time: “I was concentrating on the program at this point, thinking about what I was going to say . Obviously, I felt it was an accident. I was concerned about it, but there were no alarm bells.”

FACT: they were second grade students reading TO Bush.


Bush was doing exactly what he was told to do, NOTHING.

There are protocols in which the White House and the Presidents are suppose to follow. Jackie Kennedy always would ask what protocols to follow.

There are very informed people who instruct in times like these, Secret Service has protocols to follow, Intelligence Communities have protocols to follow.

I remember when Bill was elected he had no experience either. OOPS

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

86. The audacity of desperation. n/t

[rodeodance]

98. " desperation"------same ol, same ol worn out word. get creative--find a new word.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

204. How about douchebaggery? Do you prefer that one? n/t

[tabasco]

112. Experience without courage doesn't mean squat.

Clinton was a coward and voted for the IWR because she was AFRAID voters would think she was weak.

I pity the trembling cowards who huddle in fear of terror.

They are pathetic!

[MagsDem]

128. Obama has courage?

How much courage does it take to get up in front of an anti-war crowd in Chicago and spend 10 minutes talking against the war? How much courage does it take to pander to homophobic bigots in SC? How much courage does it take to vote present instead of taking a stand?

Yeah, he's a regular profile in courage all right.

[Tennessee Gal]

131. I want someone to answer these questions.

Has he made a speech on the Senate floor denouncing the Iraq war and supporting the denial of funding? Has he led a movement in the Senate to end the US occupation? Can you post a link to a speech Obama made in the Senate outlining a way out of Iraq?

[tabasco]

139. Hillary is a profile in cowardice.

Obama showed courage at a time when Clinton showed cowardice.

But thanks for playing.

[dailykoff]

141. It takes a lot. He's got it, she doesn't.

Lots of politicians with courage get swiftboated out of office, Cynthia McKinney being a good example, but he's managed to turn the attacks away, so he's also got political skills which Clinton lacks.

[Tennessee Gal]

197. That's it?

Where is the evidence he has any courage other than words? What actions has he taken in the Senate that support what you say?

[dailykoff]

208. Legislation is words, yes. That's what Senators do--write law.

If you want to put it that way, fine.

[WinkyDink]

120. Correction: Bush didn't read; he LISTENED Reading is hard work, yo.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MagsDem]

142. BO supporters have played the race card so many times...

they've probably run out of decks of cards in Las Vegas. Anyone that doesn't support BO is a racist. You really should get a new schtick. For the life of me I don't know why this is consistently allowed on DU. But I can promise you I will alert on it everytime. Eventually you should get TS'ed.

[ProSense]

149. Drug dealer, fairy tale, imaginary hip black friend, gang bang, cult, shuck-and-jive, Hispanics

don't vote for black people, Obama is Somalian, Obama meets with former terrorists, all from Hillary's campaign and surrogates.

links


You're in denial!

[MagsDem]

179. I took the time to click through your links

... but the problem is they don't tend to support what you have posted, and some of them have nothing to do with race. I see you go in big for the unnamed "Clinton campaign official" as well. That's tactic so used up by the right it makes me sick to think any democrat would fall for it.

[ProSense]

184. Phil Singer, Harold Wolfson and Mark Penn are not unnamed officials.

You're in denial!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

153. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4813647&mesg_id=4813647

[jmg257]

127. If it was a campaign for 1st Lady or corporate Walmart lawyer, she would have an "experience" edge.

And maybe then even have better judgement on such issues (though he was a gifted lawyer too). Otherwise, she is just another average politician trying anything they can come up with (real or imagined) to make the next BIG step for more power. She has wanted that PRIZE a long time.

I say "thanks for your service", but no thanks...

We want change - WE want better then that.

[MagsDem]

135. Well, except for the fact that she actually does have SO much more experience

than he does. :) Bush campaigned on change, too. That's what politicians without experience do.

[jmg257]

137. And yet, even with her VAST experience - Obama does it SOO much better! :)

[MagsDem]

143. So much better than what?

[jmg257]

145. Campaign better on "change" and "Hope". "Judgement" too...

[MagsDem]

150. All inexperienced candidates campaign on hope and change

There is nothing in the world new about that. Judgement, I don't agree. I think he's judgement is very bad on most issues. Health care, foreign policy, and putting anti-gay homophobes on stage to spew venom, to name just a few.

In any case, if his campaign is so much better, how come he's only ahead by a nose? Hell, if he'd let the FL voters be heard he wouldn't be ahead at all.

[jmg257]

164. "Ahead by a nose?" He has been whipping her good for a while now.

But besides the great speeches, huge rallies, awesome debates, and overwhelming voter turn-out, he wouldn't have very much at all to run with, I guess. Maybe it is that millions of people just like him?

(and don't forget the Clinton's poor attempt at selling "hope and change" - she couldn't pull that off either.)

[MagsDem]

169. How do you figure that?

Out of 22 million votes cast he has less than 300K more than her, and he is ahead in the delegate count by less than 80. If he wasn't insisting FL voters should not be counted she'd be within 20 delegates of him out of 2200 awarded thus far. You call that a butt whuppin? If he does get the nomination it won't be because people preferred him in overwhelming numbers, that's for sure.

[jmg257]

175. Forget FL - that whole thing is screwed up. Not a good way out of that mess as is.

I call it a butt whipping because he has won so many more states, and the last dozen or so by double-digits. And he most consistently seems to come off better then her. (which is the danger of being #2 of ocurse - you have to throw all sorts of things and hope SOMETHING sticks - so far nothing has)

That and the fact that she was clearly supposed to be a runaway - to have it all wrapped by now (Feb. I think she said), and now she just barely has a chance.

I am thrilled about Tuesday night though - that is going to be something!

Edit: And good luck to you, and her - seriously. It is exciting stuff!

[dailykoff]

138. Let's see, she gave that speech in China, and.. and..

WHAT experience? :shrug:

[jmg257]

140. "Threaded the needle" don't ya know - a crisis in the making if she messed up. I think * even

pulled THAT off. And Nixon too. Although Poppy Bush puked on our Japanese allies...
:puke: Yeech!

[dailykoff]

148. I think she also hosted a few state dinners

if I'm remembering what she said in Cincinatti correctly.

[jmg257]

167. Hey that's important! What if they put the forks on the wrong side...or something? :)

It could mean WWIII!!

[Freida5]

152. He claims to have brillant judgement because he gave a speech against the Iraq war at a peace rally

If a resolution was put forth in the Illinois Senate, he would have voted present and he would have voted with the Democrats to support Bush in Congress because that is what he has done since he got there.

[dailykoff]

157. Obama didn't help drive the bus into the ditch.

Clinton did. Now it's there and has to be sustained.

[Freida5]

159. Bush drove the bus.

[dailykoff]

162. And Clinton handed him his license.

Inexperience, bad judgment, or cowardice, take your pick.

[MagsDem]

170. Hardly, but your imagination has taken hold, so I guess that's it

"Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

....

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980’s when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."

[dailykoff]

176. She could have voted against it. She voted for it.

Actions speak louder than words.

[MagsDem]

181. Actions do speak louder than words

And Obama just doesn't have any "actions" that would merit a vote for president as far as I can see. About all he has are words and platitudes. That's kind of the point of the thread. :)

[dailykoff]

206. He's got loads of experience, but he's running on judgment.

Hillary is running on experience and she lacks both.

[mtnsnake]

216. Hillary has more judgment & experience in her pinky toe than Obama has in his entire body

Hillary is running on experience and she lacks both.

You're a bright one

[Forkboy]

156. This post is a step up from the 7th level of Dante's Hell you visited last night..

[Voice for Peace]

165. I have not yet heard a good argument in support of Hillary's experience.

I'd like to hear one, truly.

What has she done that makes her so much more qualified?

[galadrium]

173. Well she's held elected office for less time than Obama...

I cant believe the Obama campaign practically concedes the experience argument.

[Voice for Peace]

177. It is mystifying, frankly.

The only thing I can think is that when Bill was president, she was actually president instead, because he was busy doing other things.

But even if that were true, I'd still have to question her judgement.

I suppose she does know better than Obama where the phone is in the white house.

[galadrium]

178. When it used to ring at 3 AM I seriously doubt it had anything to do with national security

[Voice for Peace]

190. LOLOL! good point.

[SayitAintSo]

180. Love your title! < hope floats >

Good points too.

[muffin1]

189. Sorry, sweetie

I could let the Iraq vote go, but the Kyl/Lieberman vote? Fool me once...
Barack Obama offers the most sharp contrast to John McCain at a time when people are fed up with the status quo. He was against the Iraq vote, AND against the Iran vote. He offers change and hope. Senator Clinton (and by the way, I LOVE her), does not. Personally, I would be happy with either one of our choices, but he is more electable, IMHO.

[kid a]

195. you are so right.. watch this >>>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo

[adapa]

211. I don't see much thinking going on in the Obama camp- and I am hoping for real solutions

[jeffrey_X]

198. lol at comparing Bush to Obama

what a crock of shit.

Vote Hillary or McCain if you want war!!!

[milkyway]

200. Hillary's experience is a myth. I notice the OP gave zero examples of her experience,

for good reason, of course. She comes up lacking compared to most of our Dem candidates in this campaign, and certainly compared to McCain. She's had less than one-and-a-half terms as Senator and has no executive experience.

The two large projects on a national scale that she has had to manage have been healthcare in the early 90's and this campaign. Both have been spectacularly mismanaged failures.

And during the debate when she was asked about a crisis that had tested her, the best she could come up with is to imply when her spouse fucked around on her. She has lots company on that, but most others don't claim it on their presidential resume.

And sure, you could say that Obama has even less experience, but he's not basing his campaign on it. Also, he's proven to be a much better manager than Hillary during this campaign.

If she's such an experienced, savvy politician, why is she losing to a guy her campaign characterizes as a neophyte? The entire premise for her campaign collapsed as soon as she lost Iowa. If she's so good, how did she lose?

[Danger Mouse]

201. Fearmongering and comparing Obama to Bush.

You're in fine form.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

205. Obama has more legislative experience than Hillary.

And I don't kow how Hillary voting for the IWR has shit to do with protecting us, considering Iraq was never a threat in the first place and had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

[mmonk]

209. You've got a lot to learn

as do a lot of Americans shielded from the bare truth of American foreign policy, terrorism as pretext and tactic and much more. If we don't really change direction from this forceful imperialism to something more engaged with the rest of the world and reality, we're going to continue this slide morally, and strategically.

[gravity]

210. Obama is the first Democrat that I want to get attacked

because it always backfires.

Playing the FUD card just plays right into Obama's game, and he will handle it fine.

[LadyVT]

213. Totally agree. The world community sees this. Many of us are hypnotized.

[mtnsnake]

215. He's running on hope and change because that way he doesn't have to explain anything

Awesome post, btw :thumbsup:

[1awake]

217. Just like so many other threads as of late

we are treated to more backstabbing from among our own. Some of you who take things to this degree.. how can you ever call yourselves Democrat ever again.. let alone a friend.

Disgusting...

[AtomicKitten]

218. Maybe Hillary can match her pantsuits to terror alerts while she plays the fear card.

[rodeodance]

229. as usual --an obamakiddo wants to play cards instead of engaging with a serious issue!

[JTFrog]

222. Terrorists! 9/11! Baby Jesus!

:hi:

Lois is that you?!?

[rodeodance]

224. There are real threats out threre--Many belittled HRC ad here. Not wise.

You can call it the politics of fear, but when it comes to Clinton vs Obama I call it the politics of pointing out experience over a guy that doesn't have any. She is head and shoulders above him on this issue, and sorry, I don't buy the IWR stuff he throws out there. He wasn't in a position to make a judgement on that, and since he has been he has voted exactly as she has right down the line. In fact I wouldn't be surprised, after watching the debates, if he didn't wait to see how she voted before casting his own each time.

[MadHound]

225. No, this isn't about the politics of fear, it's about the politics of stupidity

Hillary made a cold, calculated decision to prosecute a war against a group of people who hadn't done us any harm. Most of the people aboard those flights were from Saudi Arabia, yet who did we invade? Oh, yeah, Iraq, even though no Iraqi nationals were on board.

Look, I understand you Hillary supporters are desperate and all, throwing anything and everything out there, hoping it will stick. But playing the patented Bush fear card is sad, just sad, and frankly after having lived through eight years of the fear card being continuously played, having Hillary play it simply is one more reason not to vote for her.

Oh, and look how that whole lack of experience thing worked out for JFK. He actually had a "red phone" moment, a President with about as much experience as Obama does. And frankly he did great. After all, it isn't always about experience, most of the time it's about judgment and intelligence, both of which Obama has tons of. Hillary on the other hand, mmm, not so much.

[dcindian]

226. Hillary has already shown her inadequacies

When the call came Hillary decided murdering more then a hundred thousand innocent human beings was the answer.


she has been weighed, she has been measured, and she has been found wanting.