Election 2008

[MattZ]

... looks like I got the last word in that other thread. Not sure why it was closed, but I will take it.

[gogo]

Just the standard "500+ posts and we're out". Same thing happens to sports threads, Now Watching, etc. (when I get around to it).

 

Go to it, folks!

[Beltmann]

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

Although Clinton claims not to be able to see the difference, I think there's a huge contextual difference between the initial vote and subsequent votes. The first one could have avoided war; all the rest are made in the entirely separate context of war already being waged.

[MrRain422]

Although Clinton claims not to be able to see the difference, I think there's a huge contextual difference between the initial vote and subsequent votes. The first one could have avoided war; all the rest are made in the entirely separate context of war already being waged.

 

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 place.

[bobbob1313]

Although Clinton claims not to be able to see the difference, I think there's a huge contextual difference between the initial vote and subsequent votes. The first one could have avoided war; all the rest are made in the entirely separate context of war already being waged.

 

I think there is a difference, but I think it is important to note that any chances Obama has had to vote to make a statement about the war, even an empty one (apparently, as I'm not that well versed on his voting history) he has voted to extend it. Again, I'm not saying he would have voted for the war at the beginning, but I think it is misleading to use that as a feather in his cap.

[Beltmann]

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.

Until the president has the power to issue decrees, only a fool would believe that Obama, or any politician, could make their entire campaign wishlist come true, particularly without compromise. I hang out with a lot of Obama supporters, and I don't know a single one that expects him to be a Savior, despite the media narrative suggesting otherwise. All I'm expecting is a good president who fights for the right values.

[MattZ]

I think there's a huge contextual difference between the initial vote and subsequent votes. The first one could have avoided war; all the rest are made in the entirely separate context of war already being waged.

 

I agree with that, Beltmann, but only to a point. Voting to stop the funding of an existing war is also an incredibly unpopular move politically for someone in Congress with a view to run for President. That can't be denied.

 

And I know Hillary voted for funding too -- I don't say that to say she's different. More to say that they're pretty much the same. And that political repurcussions go into these decisions as much as anything.

 

At the end of the day, the troops (and their funding) should never be the pawns by which Congress fights over how to end a war, but some Senators did vote against funding.

[MattZ]

...only a fool would believe that Obama, or any politician, could make their entire campaign wishlist come true, particularly without compromise...

 

Sure, but many recent criticisms of the Clintons tend to resort to buzz words like "triangulation" and to me that's just part of what a pol needs to do to get things done in DC. And what Obama will need to do also. I think we agree there.

 

With 4 more years in the Senate we'd have more evidence of whether Obama really was able to bring people together or whether he'd start to listen to his advisors who tell him he's too "liberal" or too "soft on terror" and whether he'd morph into a more "electable" candidate.

 

I admire your passion and your willingness to go back and forth with me on this stuff. Like I said to MrRain, I think we agree on a lot more than we disagree.

[bobbob1313]

At the end of the day, the troops (and their funding) should never be the pawns by which Congress fights over how to end a war, but some Senators did vote against funding.

 

And note that none of them are trying to be president.

[Beltmann]

I admire your passion and your willingness to go back and forth with me on this stuff.

If only the campaigns could be so civil!

 

I think we agree on a lot more than we disagree.

Without question. On many topics.

[OOO]

What we all REALLY agree on is that the title for my thread was way better than this one.

 

[MattZ]

What we all REALLY agree on is that the title for my thread was way better than this one.

 

 

As an homage to your title, I went with the plainest one possible since there was no way I could compete. True story.

[mathew]

have any of you seen the recent videos of the troops in Iraq completly humilitaing people, the infamous puppy toss and the open firing on civilians

on the highways. Disgusting stuff, I wish Obama would talk about this. Plain and simple the troops are loosing there minds. bring them home

[OOO]

As an homage to your title, I went with the plainest one possible since there was no way I could compete. True story.

 

aww. You're too kind. I'm voting for Hillary now.

[Panther]

The recent meeting that Obama supposedly had regarding NAFTA are pretty disturbing.

From what I gather he basically said oh don

[Beltmann]

The recent meeting that Obama supposedly had regarding NAFTA are pretty disturbing.

From what I gather he basically said oh don

[Beltmann]

And this news article suggests the scandal targeted the wrong campaign:

 

[Panther]

Yea I personally always assume Hillary is lying, maybe that

[bobbob1313]

Guilty by association? Of what?

[Panther]

Oh I just mean Bill Clinton mainly, and all her special interest friends. I know she has done work for the "underdog" but she makes herself very easy to hate considering the people she aligns herself with.

[Panther]

Oh sorry I didn

[MrRain422]

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?

[LouieB]

Here in Chicago (Obama's home town, but everyone knows that...) we get a front row seat to Tony Rezko's ongoing corruption trial, which will (sadly) eventually get mentioned more often than not in the presidential campaign.

 

Things are so corrupt here in IL that these local politics will certainly impact Obama's future no matter what the outcome. I would like to be all rosie about all this, but frankly politics is a dirty dirty business and IL is one of dirtiest places in the country, both city and statewide. The local press continues to hound Obama on his relationship with Rezko and he continues to refuse to answer all questions.

 

LouieB

[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.

 

Ask and ye shall receive:

 

In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said,

[MrRain422]

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.