That's good.
:)

As of 7:15 EST, Hillary's ahead in Texas and Ohio (and RI).

That's not good.
:(

We shall see...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080304/ts_csm/abigvote

That's good.
:)

As of 7:15 EST, Hillary's ahead in Texas and Ohio (and RI).

That's not good.
:(

We shall see...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080304/ts_csm/abigvote


even if she won the big the tonight and all 16 of the states after tonight, she'd still come up short in pledged delegates

http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240

Stick a fork in her.  She's done.  She's been done for a few weeks now, she just can't admit it.  Her campaign is in tatters in Texas, she looks to have blown a 20 point lead there (like I said she would a few weeks ago).

There was an excellent analysis in the Nation about the difference in campaign strategy between Obama and Hillary.  Obama basically did what Howard Dean did in 2004, only he didn't make as many mistakes.  He organized in all 50 states, he campaigned in all of them as well.  Hillary focused only in the key battleground states.  Once Edwards bailed out, Obama picked up almost all of Edwards supporters, and with it, Hillary no longer won anymore based on her name recognition.

even if she won the big the tonight and all 16 of the states after tonight, she'd still come up short in pledged delegates

http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240

Stick a fork in her.  She's done.  She's been done for a few weeks now, she just can't admit it.  Her campaign is in tatters in Texas, she looks to have blown a 20 point lead there (like I said she would a few weeks ago).

There was an excellent analysis in the Nation about the difference in campaign strategy between Obama and Hillary.  Obama basically did what Howard Dean did in 2004, only he didn't make as many mistakes.  He organized in all 50 states, he campaigned in all of them as well.  Hillary focused only in the key battleground states.  Once Edwards bailed out, Obama picked up almost all of Edwards supporters, and with it, Hillary no longer won anymore based on her name recognition.


Well, even if Hillary won the nomination, I'd still vigorously support her against McCain.  I think that boy should try out for the role of Col. Hannibal Smith in the new A-Team movie!  There isn't a new A-Team movie?  Well, they should hurry up and make one so McCain can be in it. 

See, at boarding school, he was nicknamed McNasty for being a beligerent SOB.  At the U.S. Naval Academy barely graduated.  He ranked 894th out of 899, but he DID graduate!  Somehow that appeals to me.  Maybe 'cos I'm a fan of oddball miliatary movies, like The Dirty Dozen, Kelly's Heroes, M*A*S*H*, and Stripes!
  ::)
But McCain definitely reminds me of Hannibal Smith.

Well, even if Hillary won the nomination, I'd still vigorously support her against McCain.  I think that boy should try out for the role of Col. Hannibal Smith in the new A-Team movie!  There isn't a new A-Team movie?  Well, they should hurry up and make one so McCain can be in it. 

See, at boarding school, he was nicknamed McNasty for being a beligerent SOB.  At the U.S. Naval Academy barely graduated.  He ranked 894th out of 899, but he DID graduate!  Somehow that appeals to me.  Maybe 'cos I'm a fan of oddball miliatary movies, like The Dirty Dozen, Kelly's Heroes, M*A*S*H*, and Stripes!
  ::)
But McCain definitely reminds me of Hannibal Smith.


He reminds me of George W Bush.  Privileged son of a self-made man, admitted to a school of privilege where he barely passed, with a career prior to politics that is basically nothing remarkable. At least Bush's daddy kept him out of Vietnam where'd he have been killed for sure.  McCain instead downed several planes before the enemy finally got hold of him.  At least he got taken out of the world of privilege for a little while.  Not that he appears to have learned anything from it.  Probably why he's so cozy with W.  Birds of a feather, flock together.

I went for Obama.

And...I had to use pen and paper to vote! How backwards is that? :D

"For Clinton to make serious headway against Obama in the delegate counts, she needs to win Ohio and Texas by convincing margins – say, in the high 50s. If she falls short but stays in the race, analysts say, she will have to weigh potential damage to the party and to her own political future."

I think she's probably toast. She'll win Ohio by maybe ~ 5% or so, and Texas will be closer probably. She'll be able to stay in the race but in order to really comeback she has to have big wins in TX and OH, which looking at the numbers doesn't look likely at all. Obama is in good shape.

she's winning Ohio so far, Obama has the rest.  Leave it up to Ohio to screw things up again.

"For Clinton to make serious headway against Obama in the delegate counts, she needs to win Ohio and Texas by convincing margins – say, in the high 50s. If she falls short but stays in the race, analysts say, she will have to weigh potential damage to the party and to her own political future."

I think she's probably toast. She'll win Ohio by maybe ~ 5% or so, and Texas will be closer probably. She'll be able to stay in the race but in order to really comeback she has to have big wins in TX and OH, which looking at the numbers doesn't look likely at all. Obama is in good shape.
the thing that worries me is that she'll stay in the race because of some remote chance she might pull off a miracle, meanwhile she keeps going negative and weakening obama for the general election. we already saw she'd rather see mccain win than obama, she should have probably just run as a republican to begin with. ::)

Well looks like Hillary pulled it off big tonight, it looks like the race won't be decided till at the convention itself.  :-\\

Well looks like Hillary pulled it off big tonight, it looks like the race won't be decided till at the convention itself.  :-\\
oh goddammit. did she win ohio? kee-rist.

i'm REALLY starting to find her distasteful.

oh goddammit. did she win ohio? kee-rist.

i'm REALLY starting to find her distasteful.


Well if she wins the nomination, it looks like you might have to swallow a no-thank-you portion, distasteful or not. Don't forget about the prize: the White House. Democrats need to take this election. The world needs them to win.

Well if she wins the nomination, it looks like you might have to swallow a no-thank-you portion, distasteful or not. Don't forget about the prize: the White House. Democrats need to take this election. The world needs them to win.
that's not even so much what i'm worried about. i read somewhere else on this very board that clinton's idea is to scuttle obama so that even if he wins the nomination, he loses to mccain and clinton gets a chance to run against an unpopular opposition incumbent rathan than a popular democratic incumbent in four years. obama still has a big lead in delegates but hillary's ugly smear tactics have besmirched him enough that he's going to have a tougher time winning the general election anyway.

honestly i think i'd rather see mccain get elected than clinton. she'll be unpopular among conservatives -- just because she is -- and she'll be unpopular among democrats because she's basically a republican. so if she wins she'll probably keep the war going four more years and in 2012 the republicans will be able to pin it on the democrats, the democrats will be demoralized, and the republicans will be in a position to elect another weirdo like jeb bush, say. if mccain wins at least the failures keep getting blamed on the people who are actually guilty of them.

right on.

last  night we switched on the results...watched for about ten minutes and then switched to UFO Hunters.  I couldnt.

He reminds me of George W Bush.  Privileged son of a self-made man, admitted to a school of privilege where he barely passed, with a career prior to politics that is basically nothing remarkable. At least Bush's daddy kept him out of Vietnam where'd he have been killed for sure.  McCain instead downed several planes before the enemy finally got hold of him.  At least he got taken out of the world of privilege for a little while.  Not that he appears to have learned anything from it.  Probably why he's so cozy with W.  Birds of a feather, flock together.


Yeah I am sure that Senator McCain felt quite privledged to have his aircraft hit by a missile while on the deck of the USS Forrestal (while he was still in it), and when the North Vietnamese were beating the cr@p outta him on a regular basis for 7 years straight.

But heck he's a republican, so we have to demonize him.



But if I take your style of analysis, I guess we could apply it to Mrs. Clinton too.  She also was the child of a self-made-man who went to name-brand  school(s).  Although we all must agree that she got good grades, but unlike McCain, her schooling did not carry the possibility of people shooting at you.

Obama... obviously a self-made-man and very charismatic.  And it is the source of his wide appeal over his democratic rival.

But if I take your style of analysis, I guess we could apply it to Mrs. Clinton too.  She also was the child of a self-made-man who went to name-brand  school(s).  Although we all must agree that she got good grades, but unlike McCain, her schooling did not carry the possibility of people shooting at you.

Obama... obviously a self-made-man and very charismatic.  And it is the source of his wide appeal over his democratic rival.
i believe i can agree with you on all of this. ;)

tia and lyricboy agreeing: truly an occasion of some note. 8)

honestly i think i'd rather see mccain get elected than clinton. she'll be unpopular among conservatives -- just because she is -- and she'll be unpopular among democrats because she's basically a republican.


One can support Obama without being unreasonable and almost irrational.

I'm not voting for McCain, Clinton or Obama.  I really just do not like any of them.

There is a rumored Ron Paul-Bob Barr ticket going around.  Supposedly, Paul is going to meet Barr "to discuss a possible independent or third-party ticket".  Here is hoping.

One can support Obama without being unreasonable and almost irrational.

I'm not voting for McCain, Clinton or Obama.  I really just do not like any of them.
oh oh -- looks like GW's gonna have to vote for nader!  :o

One can support Obama without being unreasonable and almost irrational.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rALzakmAmm8

Yeah I am sure that Senator McCain felt quite privledged to have his aircraft hit by a missile while on the deck of the USS Forrestal (while he was still in it), and when the North Vietnamese were beating the cr@p outta him on a regular basis for 7 years straight.

But heck he's a republican, so we have to demonize him.


sorry, just using the same analysis of his service the Republicans used for analyzing John Kerry's war record.  But he's a Democrat so he couldn't have volunteered based on anything but desire for personal glory and show boating.


But if I take your style of analysis, I guess we could apply it to Mrs. Clinton too.  She also was the child of a self-made-man who went to name-brand  school(s).  Although we all must agree that she got good grades, but unlike McCain, her schooling did not carry the possibility of people shooting at you.


As for Hillary, somehow I doubt she was a legacy which is exactly what Bush and McCain were.  They weren't admitted to college based on merit but based on birthright. The fact that is was a name brand school has nothing to do with it.  I have a feeling that without someone behind them, they could not do better than a community college when they finished high school.

that's not even so much what i'm worried about. i read somewhere else on this very board that clinton's idea is to scuttle obama so that even if he wins the nomination, he loses to mccain and clinton gets a chance to run against an unpopular opposition incumbent rathan than a popular democratic incumbent in four years. obama still has a big lead in delegates but hillary's ugly smear tactics have besmirched him enough that he's going to have a tougher time winning the general election anyway.

honestly i think i'd rathhttp://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?action=post;quote=1568663;topic=31409.0;num_replies=18;sesc=2f724922eb1c7d74f36d1bcbde90219d
Post replyer see mccain get elected than clinton. she'll be unpopular among conservatives -- just because she is -- and she'll be unpopular among democrats because she's basically a republican. so if she wins she'll probably keep the war going four more years and in 2012 the republicans will be able to pin it on the democrats, the democrats will be demoralized, and the republicans will be in a position to elect another weirdo like jeb bush, say. if mccain wins at least the failures keep getting blamed on the people who are actually guilty of them.


I don't even think Hillary has been that smeary. She's been very assertive, but not insulting. It shouldn't be considered an insult for her to call into question the validity of Obama's overly sentimental campaign rhetoric.

I was watching a Canadian political satire show last night called This Hour Has 22 Minutes, and there's a character named Mrs. Enid, who is basically a cynical old Newfoundland woman who rattles off her blunt opinions about the modern world as she hobbles around the park. One of her lines was very funny and it went something like:

That fella has so many feel good phrases he could write a Chicken Soup for the Presidential Candidate's Soul. If Hillary and Obama were looking at a sink full o' dishes, Hillary would have the cups washed and dried before Obama was finished yammerin' on about giving hope to the cutlery.

I don't even think Hillary has been that smeary. She's been very assertive, but not insulting. It shouldn't be considered an insult for her to call into question the validity of Obama's overly sentimental campaign rhetoric.

I was watching a Canadian political satire show last night called This Hour Has 22 Minutes, and there's a character named Mrs. Enid, who is basically a cynical old Newfoundland woman who rattles off her blunt opinions about the modern world as she hobbles around the park. One of her lines was very funny and it went something like:

cute satire, but i do think it has been rather extreme. the 3 am phone call ad strikes me as beyond the pale -- really, it smacks of the tactics employed by the other side -- and endorsing mccain over a member of her own party is going to give people, if they're paying attention, the idea that clinton cares more about her own political fortunes than she does about the fortunes of her party. i mean, no, it's still not as bad as bush saying mccain had an illegitimate black baby but by the standards of the democratic primaries, which tend to be a lot more above-board than the republican ones, it's pretty nasty. and i think you'd be hard-pressed to look at any of obama's rhetoric against hillary and find anything quite so questionable.

I don't think it's nasty. It's not even a personal attack. It is a fear tactic. It's asking the question 'if it's a matter of national security, wouldn't you rather have someone with lots of experience?' Now, one can certainly question the morality of relying on electors' fear of something to gain votes, but you can't call it a personal attack. It just isn't.

I think the most personal it's ever got is the plagiarism thing. She criticised him for reusing someone else's lines and she got pretty clever about it with that little one-liner, but that's not a personal attack. A personal attack implicates one's personal life, not his professional practices.

Yeah I am sure that Senator McCain felt quite privledged to have his aircraft hit by a missile while on the deck of the USS Forrestal (while he was still in it), and when the North Vietnamese were beating the cr@p outta him on a regular basis for 7 years straight.

But heck he's a republican, so we have to demonize him.



But if I take your style of analysis, I guess we could apply it to Mrs. Clinton too.  She also was the child of a self-made-man who went to name-brand  school(s).  Although we all must agree that she got good grades, but unlike McCain, her schooling did not carry the possibility of people shooting at you.

Obama... obviously a self-made-man and very charismatic.  And it is the source of his wide appeal over his democratic rival.

I don't want to hear a peep from McCain foes about his war record.  Can you imagine what it's like to rot away in a stinking POW camp month after month year in year out?  I don't think so.  I don't think any of us can.  They can--and should--shred McCain's political career, but if they go after his military service, they're going to make themselves look like the Swift Boat a-holes. 

And Geroge HW Bush was not "self-made."  Accomplished certainly, but not self-made. 

Hillary might still get shot at, I'm afraid.

Obama is definitely "self-made," but he's no saint.  If he's the nominee, of course the Repugly-cans are going to rip him a new one ever hour of the day, but I hope the liberals don't get all indignant when they find out the ugly truths about Mr. Obama. 

I don't think it's nasty. It's not even a personal attack. It is a fear tactic. It's asking the question 'if it's a matter of national security, wouldn't you rather have someone with lots of experience?' Now, one can certainly question the morality of relying on electors' fear of something to gain votes, but you can't call it a personal attack. It just isn't.
well, i think using fear tactics is "nasty," don't you? whether it's a personal attack may be a matter of semantics, it's calling someone incompetent. if someone called me incompetent i'd take it as a personal attack.

and while we're at it, let's just go there: how does being married to someone in political office count as experience? it's more than a little suspect to cite that as bona fide experience on the same level as holding elected office, because last i checked no one consented to having ms. clinton create public policy while she was first lady. before you accuse me of being sexist plainly anyone paying attention would feel the same if the roles were reversed and a first husband were making policy on the coattails of a presidential wife. it goes one of two ways -- either (1) hillary actually did gain "experience" while she was in the white house, which means she was actually making policy decisions as an unelected non-official, which is patently undemocratic and goes to my point that she seems interested in aggregating political power for herself no matter what the will of the people is, or (2) she was playing the proper role as the spouse of a political official, which was to support him while he was doing his job but without actually making decisions that affected the nation. in which case, last time i checked she held the same properly elected office that obama does. (and yes, i think we all know eleanor roosevelt was actually president all throughout the mid-40s but i don't think she ever tried to put it on her resume as though she'd been elected to do so.)

i'm sorry, take from that what you will and accuse me of being sexist if you like, but claiming "experience" because you're married to a public official just strikes me as inappropriate. one way or another, someone who makes that claim in a democracy is being disingenuous.

The telphone ad was straight outta the Jesse Helms playbook.  Makes me wonder if she didn't hire Dick Morris on the sly.  Don't say she wouldn't hire him again after all that, 'cos she would, and don't say he wouldn't take her money, 'cos he would take candy from a baby!
:P

well, i think using fear tactics is "nasty," don't you? whether it's a personal attack may be a matter of semantics, it's calling someone incompetent. if someone called me incompetent i'd take it as a personal attack.

Did she use the word incompetent? I don't think so. That's pretty strong language that you're putting in her mouth, and had she said that, then it would have been personal, but she didn't. She's pointing out his lack of administrative experience with those commercials. That's always been part of her argument of why she would make a better president than him.


and while we're at it, let's just go there: how does being married to someone in political office count as experience? it's more than a little suspect to cite that as bona fide experience on the same level as holding elected office, because last i checked no one consented to having ms. clinton create public policy while she was first lady. before you accuse me of being sexist plainly anyone paying attention would feel the same if the roles were reversed and a first husband were making policy on the coattails of a presidential wife. it goes one of two ways -- either (1) hillary actually did gain "experience" while she was in the white house, which means she was actually making policy decisions as an unelected non-official, which is patently undemocratic and goes to my point that she seems interested in aggregating political power for herself no matter what the will of the people is, or (2) she was playing the proper role as the spouse of a political official, which was to support him while he was doing his job but without actually making decisions that affected the nation. in which case, last time i checked she held the same properly elected office that obama does. (and yes, i think we all know eleanor roosevelt was actually president all throughout the mid-40s but i don't think she ever tried to put it on her resume as though she'd been elected to do so.)

i'm sorry, take from that what you will and accuse me of being sexist if you like, but claiming "experience" because you're married to a public official just strikes me as inappropriate. one way or another, someone who makes that claim in a democracy is being disingenuous.


Considering all the work she did in trying to get universal healthcare instituted in America as first lady, and all the times she went abroad to represent the United States in goodwill, I would choose option one. And to accuse her efforts as undemocratic is just ridiculous. Saying it proves she's power hungry, well there you might as well be a stock writer for the GOP. I think I saw a book about that once... Is that a Rush Limbaugh blurb on the cover?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/TruthAboutHillary.jpg

Nobody called Nancy Reagan an undemocratic, power-hungry bitch for spearheading the Just Say No campaign. But I think you are forgetting that Hillary's political experience goes far beyond her time as US first lady. It started in University, and hasn't stopped since.

Did she use the word incompetent? I don't think so. That's pretty strong language that you're putting in her mouth, no, she was just saying that if you elect obama, your kids will die.  ;D the images she used in that commercial were crystal clear.


Considering all the work she did in trying to get universal healthcare instituted in America as first lady, and all the times she went abroad to represent the United States in goodwill, I would choose option one. And to accuse her efforts as undemocratic is just ridiculous. Saying it proves she's power hungry, well there you might as well be a stock writer for the GOP. I think I saw a book about that once... Is that a Rush Limbaugh blurb on the cover?if she's making policy as an unelected official, that's undemocratic. i remember people complaining about it in 92, that's a big part of the reason why the plan didn't go through, i think. and if rush limbaugh seized on that argument, maybe that's just because it was a decent argument. if she's acting powerhungry, she's probably powerhungry. i mean, threatening to fiddle with superdelegates strikes me as a bit like using the florida legislature to tip the balance to bush in the 2000 election. just because she's a woman or a democrat doesn't mean she's immune to being powerhungry and just because rush said something doesn't make it untrue. that's guilt by association, the same fallacy right wingers commit when they say it isn't true that the administration flew the bin ladens out of the country just because michael moore said they did.

Nobody called Nancy Reagan an undemocratic, power-hungry bitch for spearheading the Just Say No campaign.
i did.

no, she was just saying that if you elect obama, your kids will die.  ;D the images she used in that commercial were crystal clear.

if she's making policy as an unelected official, that's undemocratic. i remember people complaining about it in 92, that's a big part of the reason why the plan didn't go through, i think. and if rush limbaugh seized on that argument, maybe that's just because it was a decent argument. if she's acting powerhungry, she's probably powerhungry. i mean, threatening to fiddle with superdelegates strikes me as a bit like using the florida legislature to tip the balance to bush in the 2000 election. just because she's a woman or a democrat doesn't mean she's immune to being powerhungry and just because rush said something doesn't make it untrue. that's guilt by association, the same fallacy right wingers commit when they say it isn't true that the administration flew the bin ladens out of the country just because michael moore said they did.


She isn't threatening to fiddle with the superdelegates. That isn't how it works. The race will go on, and at this point NEITHER candidate can possibly achieve the more than 2000 delegate count required to sinch the nomination. So it's going to be up to the superdelegates anyway.

why? why is she still in the democratic party?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOytXkCw0NY

???

why? why is she still in the democratic party?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOytXkCw0NY

???


Ouch!!!  Now she's saying only she and McCain are qualified to be President.  If she thinks that's a politically sound statement I've got news for her.  Obama may be a bit "green" but he's got bipartisan appeal.  Something she lacks.  Maybe it's her personality. :-\\

Well, like I have said before. If you're angry about her playing to her own strengths (i.e. her experience), and to Obama's weaknesses (i.e. his lack of experience), then I don't really know what you expect in a race for the candidacy. It seems a bit naive of you.

As far as Iran goes, I think they've more than proven their stance as an agressive non-ally of not only the US, but of other countries as well. Am I the only one who remembers their seizing of an entire British naval crew last year? So if you're criticising her for being concerned with US national security, and you think that national security is somehow a Republican thing, then I would also suggest a bit of naivité on your part. No Democrat will win the presidency if s/he's weak on security issues. Think about that.

wow, dude, you really seem to be following hil right into the arms of the republican party. and you guys accuse us obamaheads of drinking the kool-aid. ;D from what i know of you, mcdonald, seeing you talk about the "iranian threat" is quite startling. we all know the games they play, the ME countries and the western powers, the brits skirt into iranian waters, iranian puddlejumpers veer threateningly close to american battleships, they're gathering intelligence about each other and testing one another's boundaries. sometimes the game gets screwed up and the iranians capture some western guys or the western guys capture some iranians. but it's all part of a larger game that's really more procedural than having to do with "national security" or iran as the next big bad hitler. i wont accuse you of being naive even though you're willing to do so; i think you know all this and have just chosen to forget it for the moment for some reason.

i understand (sort-of) what you're saying about experience -- although i notice you're not really bothering to justify how being the spouse of a president qualifies as experience. (i mean, my dad's a project manager for the london underground; does that mean i should start responding to RFPs claiming i can help engineer their next buildout? cuz dad talks about it sometimes at the dinner table?) still, seeing hillary endorse mccain over her own party and engage in the sort of belligerent war-mongering talk that bush has been using has left me convinced that a vote for her will be a vote for four more years of war. particularly after seeing this last set of comments by her i'm getting more and more inclined to stay home or vote nader if she gets the nomination. i will NOT cast a pro-war vote. no fudging way.

wow, dude, you really seem to be following hil right into the arms of the republican party. and you guys accuse us obamaheads of drinking the kool-aid. ;D from what i know of you, mcdonald, seeing you talk about the "iranian threat" is quite startling. we all know the games they play, the ME countries and the western powers, the brits skirt into iranian waters, iranian puddlejumpers veer threateningly close to american battleships, they're gathering intelligence about each other and testing one another's boundaries. sometimes the game gets screwed up and the iranians capture some western guys or the western guys capture some iranians. but it's all part of a larger game that's really more procedural than having to do with "national security" or iran as the next big bad hitler. i wont accuse you of being naive even though you're willing to do so; i think you know all this and have just chosen to forget it for the moment for some reason.

i understand (sort-of) what you're saying about experience -- although i notice you're not really bothering to justify how being the spouse of a president qualifies as experience. (i mean, my dad's a project manager for the london underground; does that mean i should start responding to RFPs claiming i can help engineer their next buildout? cuz dad talks about it sometimes at the dinner table?) still, seeing hillary endorse mccain over her own party and engage in the sort of belligerent war-mongering talk that bush has been using has left me convinced that a vote for her will be a vote for four more years of war. particularly after seeing this last set of comments by her i'm getting more and more inclined to stay home or vote nader if she gets the nomination. i will NOT cast a pro-war vote. no fudging way.


Oh believe me, I don't think Iran poses any real threat the actual security of the US, but I don't pretend that they're a friendly country by any means. That would just be ignorant.

8 Years of behind the scenes experience in the White House is a hell of a lot more than a short senate career. But if you want to know Hillary's contributions to the Democratic party, to US democracy, and the role she played as First Lady, just read a bio like on Wiki or something. There's no reason why anyone should have to regurgitate any of that.

Also, I was against starting this war and I am against aggressively continuing it... but the US has to finish what it has started. You can't just yank out all the troops at once right now. That would cause an even bigger disaster. The President of United States of America made a (fraggin' whore of a stupid) decision on behalf of the American people and now , like it or not, the country is responsible for cleaning up after itself. I'm not saying continue combat, but provide security and train the new Iraqi government to protect itself.

Oh believe me, I don't think Iran poses any real threat the actual security of the US, but I don't pretend that they're a friendly country by any means. That would just be ignorant.agreed

8 Years of behind the scenes experience in the White House is a hell of a lot more than a short senate career. But if you want to know Hillary's contributions to the Democratic party, to US democracy, and the role she played as First Lady, just read a bio like on Wiki or something. There's no reason why anyone should have to regurgitate any of that. well i've been thinking of picking up obama's book in lieu of making a contribution to his campaign, i think i'll run up to border's right now and do that. i have a feeling that he didn't spring from the womb and fall into the senate seat in a spray of amniotic fluid, the way he's being portrayed. of course they both have a history that precedes their tenure in the senate.

Also, I was against starting this war and I am against aggressively continuing it... but the US has to finish what it has started. You can't just yank out all the troops at once right now. That would cause an even bigger disaster. Like it or not, the President of United States of AMerica made a (fraggin' whore of a stupid) decision and now, like it or not, the country is responsible for cleaning up after itself.
i thought that for a while, too, but with the stories about abu ghraib, the blackwater massacre, and the whole dispiriting litany of such similar stories up to and including that bastard pitching that dog off a cliff, i've come to the conclusion that the US presence in that country is hurting far more than it's helping. there are just too many people over there who think they're getting revenge for 911 and have trouble discriminating one muslim from another, and they seem to be engaged in some sort of project of exacting reprisal over there. the idea of withdraw makes me queasy as well, and i really dont see many pretty solutions, but no one is calling for "yanking the troops out right now" -- well people might be, but not credibly. everything i read says that withdraw can't take less than a year no matter what the circumstance. there's just too many people and too much equipment, and it all has to be pulled out along one road.

there's  something about hillary's talk that reminds me of nixon's election platform. he ran on "peace with honor" and then discovered, once he got into the white house, that the dishonorable course had already been taken and surmised that the only thing to do was to keep along it until somehow it became honorable again at the end of it. but that just isn't going to happen.

anyway, the other part of it is practical -- the US can try and finish what it started -- and i hate that formulation; it's hard for me to think of this as america's doing when i'm an american and i and most of my friends were fighting this kicking and screaming from the get-go, and now the pissants who forced this on us are insisting that we take ownership of it... but the fact is, for america to fix what the republicans and neo-cons (for the large part) has done is going to create massively more expense and more massive miltiary intervention and even if that's the right thing to do it might not be possible. the pursestrings are empty, the military's falling apart and i just dont see how years of additional massive intervention in iraq, even if it's the right thing to do (which i doubt) is going to be possible without completely destroying the USA.

It is apparent that Hillary is starting to get a bit nasty in her campaign. And it is obvious that negative ads work-unfortunately. I do think that calling someone on their record is fair game in politics but saying that only she & McCain are qualified to be Commander in Chief is just going a bit overboard in my book. And what kind of "experience" has she really had? As First Lady, she did NOT negotiate with heads of states or leaders of the world. Her husband did. She did watch how a leader worked, but she was NOT the leader. It is like her "experience" was through osmosis. Unless someone is an incumbent, I don't think anyone has the "experience" for this job-but their lifetime experience can help them with the job. I think she is just going to get dirtier and dirtier-taking a page from the Republican playbook-which is sad and I think it is really going to hurt the party. If they blow this opportunity to take the White House, I doubt the Dem Party will recover from it-and this country will be in a whole lot of hurt.



Cat

It is apparent that Hillary is starting to get a bit nasty in her campaign. And it is obvious that negative ads work-unfortunately. I do think that calling someone on their record is fair game in politics but saying that only she & McCain are qualified to be Commander in Chief is just going a bit overboard in my book. And what kind of "experience" has she really had? As First Lady, she did NOT negotiate with heads of states or leaders of the world. Her husband did. She did watch how a leader worked, but she was NOT the leader. It is like her "experience" was through osmosis. Unless someone is an incumbent, I don't think anyone has the "experience" for this job-but their lifetime experience can help them with the job. I think she is just going to get dirtier and dirtier-taking a page from the Republican playbook-which is sad and I think it is really going to hurt the party. If they blow this opportunity to take the White House, I doubt the Dem Party will recover from it-and this country will be in a whole lot of hurt.



Cat


hear hear.

i think it's going to be fine, the republicans are too far up against the ropes for hillary's malfeasance to overcome the dems' lead, i hope and believe. (i read somewhere recently that challenging parties dont win elections, incumbent parties lose them, and the republicans just arent a sellable product at the moment.)

but i shudder to think what she's going to put the party through in the meantime and how much she's going to undermine obama before he gets into office and faces a prespammersitely difficult job in a difficult situation. i'd be tempted to say maybe he should take her on as a running mate after all is said and done but i'll tell ya, i've really been sickened by her conduct and i think she should bundle up ari leiberman and they should both trundle off to the political party they plainly actually belong to.

and yes, negative ads work, unfortunately. as long as we let our fears rather than our hopes guide us we're gonna get the craven government we deserve. so here's to hoping optimism wins out.

It is apparent that Hillary is starting to get a bit nasty in her campaign. And it is obvious that negative ads work-unfortunately. I do think that calling someone on their record is fair game in politics but saying that only she & McCain are qualified to be Commander in Chief is just going a bit overboard in my book. And what kind of "experience" has she really had? As First Lady, she did NOT negotiate with heads of states or leaders of the world. Her husband did. She did watch how a leader worked, but she was NOT the leader. It is like her "experience" was through osmosis. Unless someone is an incumbent, I don't think anyone has the "experience" for this job-but their lifetime experience can help them with the job. I think she is just going to get dirtier and dirtier-taking a page from the Republican playbook-which is sad and I think it is really going to hurt the party. If they blow this opportunity to take the White House, I doubt the Dem Party will recover from it-and this country will be in a whole lot of hurt.



Cat



Well, I'm re-considering.  I might vote for McCain.  See, one way out of this recession would be World War III--between universal conscription and emergency war time productivity...oh, wait a minute, we're broke and we don't have a production economy anymore.  We can't afford WWIII.  I'm still thinking like I live in a Firs World country!
::)

What I peronally hope for is a Clinton-Obama ticket. With that you can't really lose. Why shouldn't Obama wet his heels a bit before he just wakes up one day in the WH?

And what are you trying to say when you say that being a First Lady brought her no experience. If she were as power hungry as people accuse her of being, don't you think she would have utilised those 8 years in the WH to learn the max that she could? What the hell do you think she was doing there... baking cookies? Not bloody likely.

If you're thinking that she's contributed nothing to the success of Bill's political career, I say you're deluding yourself.

I say let Obama be VP, and if the Hillary-Obama team can keep it together for two terms, Obama's a shoe-in for Pres afterwards and we can keep this Democratic thing going for at least sixteen years (if we play our cards right).

Hillary is not some sort of Republican-wannabe monster. That's only what people are telling themselves to justify their willingness to ignore all that's missing from the Obama campaign (experience being one of them, lack of specific platform goals and propositions being another).

I seriously worry about whether or not Obama will be able to meet the astronomical expectations people seem to have for him, because if he cannot... the Democrats (all of us) can kiss a second mandate goodbye.

What I peronally hope for is a Clinton-Obama ticket. With that you can't really lose. Why shouldn't Obama wet his heels a bit before he just wakes up one day in the WH?

And what are you trying to say when you say that being a First Lady brought her no experience. If she were as power hungry as people accuse her of being, don't you think she would have utilised those 8 years in the WH to learn the max that she could? What the hell do you think she was doing there... baking cookies? Not bloody likely.

If you're thinking that she's contributed nothing to the success of Bill's political career, I say you're deluding yourself.

I say let Obama be VP, and if the Hillary-Obama team can keep it together for two terms, Obama's a shoe-in for Pres afterwards and we can keep this Democratic thing going for at least sixteen years (if we play our cards right).

Hillary is not some sort of Republican-wannabe monster. That's only what people are telling themselves to justify their willingness to ignore all that's missing from the Obama campaign (experience being one of them, lack of specific platform goals and propositions being another).

I seriously worry about whether or not Obama will be able to meet the astronomical expectations people seem to have for him, because if he cannot... the Democrats (all of us) can kiss a second mandate goodbye.


If Obama doesn't become the nominee for President or Vice President I say bring Bill Richardson in as Vice-President.  He's probably the only one who can do the job and do it right.

What I peronally hope for is a Clinton-Obama ticket. With that you can't really lose. Why shouldn't Obama wet his heels a bit before he just wakes up one day in the WH?

And what are you trying to say when you say that being a First Lady brought her no experience. If she were as power hungry as people accuse her of being, don't you think she would have utilised those 8 years in the WH to learn the max that she could? What the hell do you think she was doing there... baking cookies? Not bloody likely.

If you're thinking that she's contributed nothing to the success of Bill's political career, I say you're deluding yourself.

I say let Obama be VP, and if the Hillary-Obama team can keep it together for two terms, Obama's a shoe-in for Pres afterwards and we can keep this Democratic thing going for at least sixteen years (if we play our cards right).

Hillary is not some sort of Republican-wannabe monster. That's only what people are telling themselves to justify their willingness to ignore all that's missing from the Obama campaign (experience being one of them, lack of specific platform goals and propositions being another).

I seriously worry about whether or not Obama will be able to meet the astronomical expectations people seem to have for him, because if he cannot... the Democrats (all of us) can kiss a second mandate goodbye.



It seems that what I said in my last post others have also said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_s_experience_2;_ylt=AjW2bp7DCJbRY2D8puP4R20E1vAI


NANCY BENAC of the Associated Press said it much better than I did-which is why she gets paid for saying it and I don't.



Cat

It seems that what I said in my last post others have also said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_s_experience_2;_ylt=AjW2bp7DCJbRY2D8puP4R20E1vAI

NANCY BENAC of the Associated Press said it much better than I did-which is why she gets paid for saying it and I don't.

Cat


That was a great article. But it seems that what it is saying is that a). Hillary absolutely did play a role in foreign policy during Bill's tenure as president even though b). not everyone agrees on the gravity of said role when it comes to a few key examples. It's far from disproving Hillary's claims of foreign policy experience. In fact, it even supports them a bit.

I would like to point out that all save one of the quotes the author uses to contradict Senator Clinton's claims comes directly from Obama campaign advisors.  And the one that didn't came from Brian Feeney, a former colleague of the guy supporting Hillary's N.I. claim (John Hume). I guess it comes down to Feeney's word against Hume's, the only difference is that Hume won a Nobel Peace Prize and that not very many people outside of N.I. have really ever heard of Brian Feeney. For all we know, he could be an Obama supporter as well (the article doesn't say).

And what kind of "experience" has she really had?

1977 - Hillary Clinton founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund.

Late 1977 - President Jimmy Carter appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation, which is a private, non-profit corporation established by the United States Congress to seek to ensure equal access to justice under the law for all Americans by providing civil legal assistance to those who otherwise would be unable to afford it.

1979 - Her husband, and Governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, appointed her chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee, where she successfully obtained federal funds to expand medical facilities in Arkansas' poorest areas without affecting doctors' fees.

1982 - Hillary chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee from 1982 to 1992, where she sought to bring about reform in the state's court-sanctioned public education system. In one of the most important initiatives of the entire Clinton governorship, she fought a prolonged but ultimately successful battle against the Arkansas Education Association to put mandatory teacher testing as well as state standards for curriculum and classroom size in place.

1985 - She introduced Arkansas' Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth, a program that helps parents work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy.

1986 - She became the first female of Wal-Mart's board of directors and successfully pushed them to adopt environmentally-friendly practices.

1987 -  From 1987 to 1991 she chaired the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, which addressed gender bias in the law profession and induced the association to adopt measures to combat it.

1993 - Her husband, now the President of the United States, appointed her head of the Task Force for Health Reform. This project failed, but can be counted as experience because it's an experience that hopefully taught her what no to do.

1995 - Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Hillary helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice which implemented the mandates of the Violence Against Women Act and subsequent legislation.

1995 - She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.

1997 - Along with Senator Ted Kennedy, she was the major force behind the State Children's Health Insurance Program, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage.

1997 - She initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act which was a largely successful attempt to correct problems that were inherent in the foster care system that deterred the adoption of children with special needs.

2001 - Working with New York's senior senator, Charles Schumer, she was instrumental in quickly securing $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site's redevelopment.

So she has had a lot of experience in getting things done. She's made changes to women's right, children's right, health and education. She has done a fair bit in her career.

obama takes wyoming!

too bad, very sad. :P

i believe i can agree with you on all of this. ;)

tia and lyricboy agreeing: truly an occasion of some note. 8)


http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/occasion6.gif http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/wav.gif http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/walk.gif