Do you have trouble maintaining an election?

[OOO]

Never seen Network? You should.

 

Yeah, its pretty brilliant. And mostly true, at this point!

[Panther]

oh is that from Network, yeah i have that on my list of movies to see

[mathew]

truth is stranger than fiction

[MrRain422]

I'm suggesting that they won't go about their handling of the war all that differently (I also generally don't think the way they are talking about going about the war is the right way to handle it.)

 

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't in the Senate doesn't work for me. That implies that Hillary only voted for the war because of political pressure and not because she thought it was the right policy. Is that leadership?

[bobbob1313]

To excuse HRC because Obama wasn't in the Senate doesn't work for me. That implies that Hillary only voted for the war because of political pressure and not because she thought it was the right policy. Is that leadership?

I'm not excusing her, but I'm also not excusing him.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

You're not excusing him of what?

[MattZ]

I'd love to see that quote about being completely supportive of the president.

 

I am looking for it but I am having trouble finding it. I know for certain I saw a clip of it at one point (maybe on Youtube?). Can anyone else back me up here?

 

I will report back on this.

 

...I'd rather look at what he actually did rather than speculate on what he might have done. After all, we're all just guessing about that -- we can learn more by looking at the actual record.

 

I guess we are saying the same thing here, and my point is that what he did is a bit flawed since he wasn't in Congress. And we don't have lists of instances where he ran on one issue and did something else in the Senate. Simply because he hasn't been in the Senate long enough.

 

I don't think she has the values that I want, and I don't think she has the ability to stand on principle unless she thinks it will get her elected, which isn't really on principle at all.

 

And again, I guess what I am saying is that with this NAFTA issue (and this doggone quote that I can't find), I am not convinced that Obama isn't the same. I remain skeptical as to whether he is really "different" and frankly whether "different" is even possible in Washington. I will sound like a broken record, but again, getting things done in DC requires compromise and Obama will have to make compromises to get things done. I dont criticize him for it. But I do think it is disingenuous for him to suggest that he can do it differently or that others are at fault for having done so.

 

EDIT: I am perfectly fine to agree to disagree on this stuff. I completely understand where you are coming from. I think this country is well served by either candidate. I suppose it strikes me as odd that you seem to disagree on that, though

[Beltmann]

getting things done in DC requires compromise and Obama will have to make compromises to get things done.

If you're talking about policy compromises, hasn't that already been a cornerstone of Obama's campaign? He's running as someone who will achieve things because he's willing to listen, to reach out, to compromise. And his record as both a state and US elected official bears that out. He has consistently been willing to settle rather than change nothing. Clinton, on the other hand, has been running as a "fighter" who will proudly polarize Washington in order to "defeat" the evil Republicans. And her long record bears that out. That is a fundamental philosophical difference between them.

 

On a theoretical level, Obama's health care plan might be incrementally inferior to Clinton's, yet it also reveals that he has an innate understanding of how things work in Washington. His plan would have a much better chance of actually passing, because it allows for compromises. His record in Illinois shows that he grasps how a stepping-stone that is flawed is better than a perfect package that has no chance of being enacted. (I say this knowing full well that neither plan will actually become law, which is why the debate over their minor plan differences is so silly. What's more relevant is how each proposal indicates which general values a candidate plans to fight for. In that regard, on the matter of universal, affordable health care, I see no difference between Clinton and Obama.)

[EL the Famous]

You're not excusing him of what?

 

thanks. b, i love you kid...but i'm having a hard time following you in this thread.

[MrRain422]

EDIT: I am perfectly fine to agree to disagree on this stuff. I completely understand where you are coming from. I think this country is well served by either candidate. I suppose it strikes me as odd that you seem to disagree on that, though

 

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.

[mathew]

I think it is completely fair to judge Hillary on her husband

[bobbob1313]

You're not excusing him of what?

 

I suppose that could've been worded better, sorry.

 

I just don't think it's valid to point to the fact that he didn't vote for the war. It just seems disingenuous to use that as a point for him. You can point to the fact that he was outspoken about it, but that he didn't vote for it is irrelevant.

 

And didn't he vote to extend the funding recently?

[MattZ]

If you're talking about policy compromises, hasn't that already been a cornerstone of Obama's campaign? He's running as someone who will achieve things because he's willing to listen, to reach out, to compromise. And his record as both a state and US elected official bears that out. He has consistently been willing to settle rather than change nothing.

 

Ok, sure, but then 4 years from now you are going to have a list of issues that Obama campaigned on, and a list of achievements, and the two will differ significantly. And the two will differ because he will be forced to make difficult choices that will look like "selling out" or "folding to lobbyists." That's all I am saying. Obama's supporters seem to argue (for the most part) that he is a clean slate that is free from the toxic stink of Washington. My point is that's not fair because he hasn't been in Washington long enough to get any stink.

 

What if we aren't out of Iraq in 2 years after he is elected? Is he then just another politician who ran on an issue and then got to DC and realized it's much harder to govern from the White House than on the campaign trail? And then isn't that business as usual? And then isn't that an example of yet another politician talking out of both sides of his mouth to get elected? Or do you really think he will be better able to get the troops out than anyone else? I just don't buy that. And if he doesn't get the troops out quickly, is it fair to say that he did so because he didn't want a civil war in Iraq as part of his legacy or because he realized its not quite so easy?

 

Clinton, on the other hand, has been running as a "fighter" who will proudly polarize Washington in order to "defeat" the evil Republicans. And her long record bears that out. That is a fundamental philosophical difference between them.

 

Maybe I am drinking too much kool-aid, but I view Clinton as a battle tested senator who is grudgingly respected by her Republican peers. I think she has learned from her mistake on health care in the first go-round and I think she knows that banging people over the head is not always the best way to get something accomplished but that sometimes it is. I also think she has been around the block long enough to know that Republicans do fight dirty. And I think she knows that no matter what -- if either she or Obama are elected as president -- that the Republicans are going to line up to prevent everything possible. I don't mind a scenario where the Dems are able to fight dirty if they need to. I am tired of the Republicans always being the only ones that bring a gun to a knife fight. Sometimes Dems have been guilty of NOT fighting. Maybe sometimes we need a fighter? Gore didn't fight in 2000, right? Don't we wish he had?

 

And this may be taken as patronizing by Obama supporters, but I really do think HRC respects him and thinks he should be part of her team. I am confident that if she somehow wins the nomination (which I dont think she will do) that she'd want him as her VP or playing a prominent role in her White House. I think their goals are the same and I think she knows how important he is and how the party is better off with the two of them. I dont know if he'd take the offer, but I think it says something about her that she wants him on her team. I don't think it's patronizing. I think she does respect him and know how important he is to the future of the party.

 

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.

 

Amen. We've been around the block on this enough. Thanks for humoring me. I think we agree more than we disagree.

[gogo]

Amen. We've been around the block on this enough. Thanks for humoring me. I think we agree more than we disagree.

This was such a happy meeting of the minds, I had to cut it off here. Start up a new one, somebody!