MrRain422

It's really impossible to know what he's even talking about in that quote though. Definately need some context to make any sort of real judgement. He could have been talking about the Iraq policy in general, but he may have also been referring to some specific aspect of it in response to a question.

It's only a fair knock if you see the decision to invade and the decision to stay once we already invaded as exactly the same thing. He was opposed to the invasion, but once we invaded, thought it irresponsible to leave at that time in the midst of the chaos we created. I don't see that as a contradiction in the slightest. Edit: The war was going well in 2004?

But where does he say that he's completely supportive of the president? He's talking about one strategic agreement "at this stage". That's hardly the same thing as supporting the policy in general and its a million miles away from being completely supportive of the president.

Can someone explain to me why HRC keeps talking about how well qualified John McCain is to be president? Is this the most short-sighted campaign strategy ever?

I ride to work in one of these beauties:

My favorite actor.

Exactly. The decision to invade is one thing, but what to do once the invasion happened is a different matter. I have no doubt that with better leadership our troops could have been out of there by now, but just because the invasion was wrong doesn't mean it can be reversed just by pulling out immediately. I do think that more could have been done by the Dems in Congress to speed up the end of our involvement in Iraq, and perhaps cutting off funding would have been the right thing to do, but I think the funding issue is a distinct and separate issue from the decision to invade in the first

I'm fine disagreeing on this too. I'm probably coming across as being a lot more worked up over it than I really am. I do feel passionately that Obama is a better candidate. But if HRC gets the nomination, I will likely vote for her as I cannot stand to see another Republican in the White House so soon. But I do see some very important fundamental differences between them and until the nomination is decided, I'm going to be working to convince people that Obama is the guy.

A Velvet Underground song plus my birthday. Been using this handle on all sorts of things for more than 10 years, since I was about 15.

If you're not really into noise, then you might want to hold off on the EPs.

Daydream Nation is fairly accessible, IMO, and a good place to start.

It isn't just about the handling of this war though -- it's also their credibility in regards to how they will use the military in the future. Hillary still refuses to say that her vote was a mistake, only that she wouldn't have voted that way if she knew that the intelligence was faulty. Obama said at the start that the policy of pre-emptive war itself is dangerous (which I also feel), and that we should not invade. Hillary distances herself only from the given reason for the war and the way that Bush has carried out the war, but not the policy itself. To excuse HRC because Obama wasn

You aren't qualified because you aren't old enough. Either way, red herring. Are you suggesting that Obama's and Clinton's credentials on the war are identical?

It wouldn't be an indicator of anything if he hadn't given speeches against the war and appeared at anti-war rallies at the time and the reasons he gave in 2002 for opposing the impending invasion proved precient. It's not as though the fact that he didn't vote for the war is his only anti-war credential, and to suggest that it is is completely disingenuous if not dishonest. HRC, meanwhile, did vote for it and to this day refuses to take responsibility for it.

I'd love to see that quote about being completely supportive of the president. Sure, we don't know for sure that Obama wouldn't have voted for the war if he were in the Senate. But we do know that Hillary Clinton did vote for it. And we do know that, despite it being an incredibly unpopular position at the time, Obama spoke out strongly against the war. Being against the war from the start is not an empty claim -- he was very visible in speaking out about it at the time. He might of voted for the war if he was in the Senate. But he wasn't. I'd rather look at what he actually did rathe

Well, I actually meant as far as our actual policy, not campaign tactics, but it's a fair question. As far as I can tell though, the NAFTA debacle is pretty isolated -- you point to one very valid instance of either not knowing what his advisors were doing when he should have or being dishonest about it. This incident only resonates, as far as I can tell, because it is so rare. The exception to the rule in his case rather than how he generally does business. I can get past it because, to me, it seems to be an isolated incident so I can give him the benefit of the doubt. I never claimed hi

Not sure if this was in response to me, but I never said that an Obama victory would guarantee anything. All I said was, Hillary will almost certainly be business as usual, and that with Obama, there's a chance that things might change.

I don't expect any massive change right away, and maybe not even over the course of two terms as President. I'm talking about a gradual shift that would make a bigger impact long term. The political center in this country has moved too far to the right in the last 2 or 3 decades to overhaul everything immediately, but I think a shift in language, no longer deferring to the talk radio framing of issues, can have a huge long term impact in shaping the future of progressive politics.

Yes, because there are many more issues than just those two that concern me. Any Democrat will appoint better justices than any Republican. But I have no faith at all that Hillary can get a health care package put through. I think Obama has a better chance of getting this done than her. And as great as health care and some better judges would be, I am guaranteed to be disappointed with Hillary's hawkishness, her refusal to completely reevaluate our policy in Iraq, our global relations, her complicitness with business as usual in Washington. The claim that Obama and Clinton are identical

Sure, but if I know that I'm going to be unhappy with a Hillary Clinton presidency, then why not take a chance on Obama? There's a chance I'll be unhappy with what he'll do, but it's guaranteed that she'll disappoint me. So why should I choose certain disappointment over at least some semblence of hope? I also dispute that Obama doesn't have a public record to scrutinize. Is time in the federal government the only thing that we can consider? If you look at Obama's time in the state legislature plus his time in the U.S. Senate, his public record is as long as Clinton's, unless you count h

A friend of mine on another board posted these, and she sums up very well a lot of the reasons why I support Obama over Clinton: And, to me, the definitive word on why Obama's oratory skills are important:

Mantei was released today.

Noah Lowry walked 9 of the first 12 batters he faced today, and no one swung until his 24th pitch. That's pretty awesome.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/2...2/807/36/458633 Great article comparing Clinton and Obama's recent Senate records.

Great, now I can't watch ESPN again for weeks.