IF this is a more dangerous time and we need a president who's "ready on day one,"

[jenmito]

why should we elect someone who made the wrong decision when it was most important? Why should we elect someone who didn't read the NIE before voting for the IWR? Why should we elect someone who is running as a past "co-president" when the past president advised her to vote for the IWR? Why should we elect someone who is running on her past experience, claiming this is a different time than when her HUSBAND was president (doesn't that render her past experience obsolete?) Why should we elect Hillary Clinton?

We know Obama has the good judgement to KNOW an unjust war when he sees one, is willing to talk to our enemies rather than talk to them as a reward of some kind, and is willing to tell us what he really thinks. So in these dangerous times, we should elect HIM.

[depakid]

1. Quite the opposite. I don't think we "know" that Obama has good judgment

Indeed, a reasonable person question could well question that judment, based on numerous statements and actions over the past several months (actually, since he's become a US Senator).

[jenmito]

7. Not true. He spoke out strongly against it in '02 as an IL state Senator

and predicted exactly what would happen.

[ccpup]

2. yes, even if he did

in 2004 admit that he wouldn't know how he would have voted had he actually, you know, been in the Senate for that vote. And even if he has voted lock-step with Clinton in the continued funding of it. And even if he is running for President before his butt has even had time to make an indentation in his Senate Seat? And his foreign policy experience consists of a few years of his childhood being spent in some foreign land or that he hasn't held one Policy Meeting as Chair of a Foreign Relations Subcommittee? Or that he has a history of boasting about his political courage but tends to miss important votes?

I mean, really, why let little facts like that get in the way of your decision?

Good luck to your Candidate. And I'm sure we can both agree -- whoever sits in the Oval Office -- that it'll be nice to have a Dem back in charge.

[jenmito]

9. No,

he said that right before giving the keynote speech for two people who voted FOR it, so he had to put it that way in order not to make Kerry and Edwards look wrong. And he's been in govt. nearly 20 years, albeit not in D.C. He had more experience in Washington than Bill Clinton did. Yes, he voted to keep funding the war after your candidate helped make that war happen. No, his foreign policy consists of more than living in Indonesia as I've posted earlier today to someone who ignored it.

But why let the little facts like that get in your way?

I agree with that.

[ccpup]

17. so obama was choosing

political expedience over political courage during his interview in 2004? That sounds like something you'd murder Hillary over!

[jenmito]

21. Yes, for the benefit of Kerry and Edwards.

Would you have preferred he made headlines for coming out strongly against those he was speaking for? How do you feel about Hillary saying she supported Spitzer's position on drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants?

[ccpup]

26. I just find it interesting that

after he's stressed so strongly his opposition to the war -- from the safety of the Illinois Grand Assembly chamber, that is --, that he would (for political expediency) admit to not, truly, knowing how he would have voted had he been privy to the same information Senators like Edwards, Kerry and (gasp!) Clinton had. And he certainly doesn't mention this 2004 change-of-heart now on the campaign trail, does he?

Politics of Hope and Change? Don't know about that. And nice attempt to change the subject back to Hillary. Seems to be what BamaBots do when they're backed into a corner ... much like right wing repuglicans who aren't supported by the facts or are standing there with egg on their face!

[jenmito]

31. Did he say

he WOULD'VE voted for it? No. He didn't "admit" to not truly knowing how he would've voted. He was being diplomatic for Kerry and Edwards' sake. He didn't HAVE a change of heart. Why SHOuLD he mention it? When asked about it he explained why he said what he did.

"Bamabots"? Nice. :eyes: I notice you didn't answer me. I didn't change the subject. I answered you then asked YOU a question.

[ccpup]

40. ''What would I have done? I don't know"

-- Obama in 2004

Indeed, reporters asked Mr. Obama about the Democratic presidential ticket throughout the 2004 campaign, because Senators John Kerry and John Edwards had both voted for the Iraq war resolution. In an interview with The New York Times in July 2004, he declined to criticize Mr. Kerry or Mr. Edwards over the Iraq vote, but also said that he would not have voted as they had based on the information he had at the time.

''But, I'm not privy to the Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know."

...

so, yes, he does explain, but he did, in fact, say he "doesn't know" how he would have voted.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E0DA1430F931A15750C0A9619C8B63

[jenmito]

60. And he EXPLAINED why he said that.

It was to not totally oppose the guys he was speaking for. But you know that.

[ccpup]

63. um, give me a little credit

for actually saying in the Post you're responding to that yes, he did explain himself. But he did say "I don't know" as well.

[jenmito]

67. You get credit for

showing his explanation. His "I don't know" was when he didn't want to criticize them.

[Tejanocrat]

3. Obama's "judgment" has lead him to offer the worst health care plan.

[jenmito]

10. I think it's the BEST health care plan.

Do you know yet how Hillary plans on enforcing HER plan? Or Edwards-how 'bout his claim that he'd take away the health care of Congress? :eyes:

[Tejanocrat]

30. I know Hillary's and Edwards' plans are universal (like Social Security) and Obama's isn't.

[jenmito]

33. So you don't have the answer to my questions.

Thanks anyway.

[Tejanocrat]

39. Your questions were foolish, but the answers are that employers will generally pay for insurance,

where people don't get their health coverage from their job, those who can afford the insurance will get cheaper coverage and will get tax incentives to balance to cost, and for those who cannot afford coverage and don't get it through their job, they will get it as a benefit.

Edwards proposal to work on a plan to suspend congress's health coverage until they pass health coverage legislation for US citizens is part of how he proposes to put pressure on those congress members who oppose universal health care; it is not part of his health care plan, it is part of his strategy to pass his health care plan.

[Perry Logan]

4. Obama's followers are a problem. They seem to have swallowed every lie ever said about the Clintons.

[jenmito]

11. Care to point out one lie in my OP?

TIA.

[Perry Logan]

88. You said Osama had "good judgement." That's quite a whopper.

[jenmito]

89. No. That's a FACT.

[Dhalgren]

5. I don't believe that this particular time is a very "dangerous time"

in our history. Quite the opposite, actually. The only thing that makes this time difficult is that our economy has been driven into the ground and our domestic enemies are more active than usual. But since no candidate can actually run and win on opposition to our domestic enemies, it is a moot point in regards the election. Bush proved by his criminality and incompetence that we live in a time of low external risk...

[jenmito]

6. So you don't buy Hillary's "closing argument"?

[Dhalgren]

12. I think that fear-mongering has worked for the last seven and a half

years. It remains to be seen if it will continue to work. 'Experience' can be a positive factor in selecting a person for a political office, but it is only one factor and may not be the most pertinent or important. At this point it doesn't seem to be...

[jenmito]

16. So I take it you're not a Hillary supporter

since she's using the same fear mongering as Bush?

[Dhalgren]

20. I do not support Clinton. If the Democrats manage to hang onto

a majority in both houses, or even grow their majority, then I want a President who will be able (and willing) to take that advantage and run with it for the benefit of the nation and the world. I just don't see Clinton as that person...

[jenmito]

23. Good.

Well, I agree with you on THAT.

[babylonsister]

8. I'd like to know why we should elect someone who is

'lowering expectations' instead of crowing about her 'real' achievements; also, the dirty politicking against fellow Dems is a real turn-off to me. Again, if that's the best she can do, why should she be considered?

I have high hopes for Obama because I think he's genuine, not perfect. I think he wants to uplift our country and relationships with others. I don't want more of the same.

[jenmito]

14. So would I...

and remember she did the same thing with last quarter's money raised? She's doing the same thing. SSDD.

Yes, so do I.

[Dhalgren]

15. I agree. I don't think we really need a "Commander in Chief" right now.

I think we need an honest to god "President" right now...

[ruggerson]

13. Do you think Obama showed good judgement in the McCLurkin affair?

We learn a lot about the character and judgement of candidates when we watch how they run and prioritize their campaigns.

[jenmito]

18. No, but he didn't AGREE with his position and has a clear record of

voting for gay rights. But there's no way you can hold that against him without holding against Hillary all her anti-gay contributors as well as her RW contributors/supporters.

[ruggerson]

22. Ok, pretend you're a lesbian

(just pretend) :)

Obama's campaign just threw you under the bus to exploit the bigotry of a certain sector of African American churchgoers, because his campaign needed those votes in South Carolina.

Having witnessed that, would you trust his judgement to run this country?

Would you trust his judgement to have the bully pulpit to effect change that will impact your family?

Would you want him to own up to his egregious error, apologize for it - so that you would feel BETTER about his judgement?

[jenmito]

24. I wouldn't stop supporting him due to his strong record

of voting for gay rights. I know more than a couple of gay people (men) who of course strongly disagreed with McBigot but still like Obama.

[ruggerson]

29. I watch people's actions

and I watch how they run their campaigns. For me, it tells me far more than what they may put down on a position paper. How people respond in the rough and tumble of a campaign tells me about their character and their values. In this test, he failed miserably, hence my serious concerns about his judgement.

[jenmito]

32. Oh. And Hillary doesn't give you serious concerns about HER judgement?

Your eyes must be closed.

[ruggerson]

34. What does that have to do with what we're discussing?

I'm not supporting Hillary either.

Every single conversation I have with an Obama supporter ends up like this.

It's like Lewis Carroll wrote the talking points for Obama's campaign.

[jenmito]

41. Oops, I should've asked about Edwards...

How do you feel about his phony line about taking matching funds for moral reasons?

I support Obama and defended his decisions.

[ruggerson]

44. I give up

n/t

[jenmito]

45. How convenient. I answered your question and now you give up.

Typical.

[ruggerson]

46. You didn't answer my question at all

you just started going through a litany of other candidates to throw the discussion off on.

[jenmito]

48. I most certainly did...

you asked how I'd feel if I was a lesbian re: Obama's actions.

[ruggerson]

51. What I asked

amongst other things, was if you were a lesbian, would you feel better about Obama's judgement if he apologized and owned up to the McClurkin mess?

[jenmito]

57. I answered you...

Ok, pretend you're a lesbian

(just pretend) :)

Obama's campaign just threw you under the bus to exploit the bigotry of a certain sector of African American churchgoers, because his campaign needed those votes in South Carolina.

Having witnessed that, would you trust his judgement to run this country?

Would you trust his judgement to have the bully pulpit to effect change that will impact your family?

Would you want him to own up to his egregious error, apologize for it - so that you would feel BETTER about his judgement?

My response was:

I wouldn't stop supporting him due to his strong record

of voting for gay rights. I know more than a couple of gay people (men) who of course strongly disagreed with McBigot but still like Obama.
-------------------------
So I'd look at his voting record and still support him. Especially after denouncing and disagreeing with the guy's views.

[ruggerson]

58. Ok, so you don't think he needs to apologize

that's all you have to say.

We disagree strongly on this one.

[jenmito]

61. Yes, we do...

now how do you feel about Edwards re: MY question?

[ruggerson]

64. I think he was incredibly dumb to take matching funds

as I worry it may cripple him if he gets the nomination.

But then, I'm not supporting him either.

[jenmito]

68. I mean how do you feel about him first saying he'd forego matching funds

and only later, when he saw he was unable to raise as much money as he had hoped to remain competitive with the other two, he claimed he was doing it for moral reasons and he had the nerve to challenge the others to do the same. I know-he's your 2nd choice.

[ruggerson]

70. He probably said it for political expediency

they ALL lie. I'm not so much offended by lying (all politicians lie) as I am when they make conscious decisions to hurt one group of people in the name of vote gathering from another group. There's got to be a better way to get elected than that.

[ruggerson]

28. edited

deleted and moved.

[AtomicKitten]

19. I've had enough of the scare tactics.

I want a leader. Gobama.

[jenmito]

25. Yup. More of the same.

GObama!

[jillan]

27. Even tho I really like Obama, I cannot accept this argument from him. Why?

Because he wasn't in the Senate at that time.

He wasn't listening to the same BS that they were hearing in the Senate - and you don't know if someone would have gotten to him.

Biden was going to vote no, until he was in a special meeting - and was lied to.

How can you say how you would have acted if you were wearing someone else's shoes?

[jenmito]

36. So you don't support Hillary?

[jillan]

38. Hell no!

:P Silly!

Obama is my top choice of the top tier - but for other reasons, not this one.

[jenmito]

42. OK then...

I accept your apology. j/k :D

[Bitwit1234]

35. Since Obama can't even show up to vote what in the hell would he be ready for

to polish Oprah's leash, the one she lead him around with.

[babylonsister]

37. sniffa's right; you need your own blog. nt

[jenmito]

43. What an idiotic thing to say.

She campaigned with him 2 days. Let's talk about Bill's leash and how he keeps hurting Hillary by getting loose.

[Bright Eyes]

47. While Obama is my #3, I think he'd do better then Senator Clinton

Her hawkishness scares the crap out me....

[jenmito]

49. Who are your first two choices?

[Bright Eyes]

52. #1 is Kucinich

#2 is Edwards

I was a big time Obama supporter, but now I feel Obama isn't as progressive as Kucinich or Edwards. I firmly believe we need a real progressive to save America.

All in all, I think Obama would make a good President should he get the nom.

[jenmito]

69. Thanks for answering...

although I disagree about your 2nd choice.

[Bright Eyes]

81. Whats wrong with Edwards? NT

[jenmito]

85. He's a phony.

For a FEW reasons.

[jefferson_dem]

She thinks voters have forgotten this hideous display - -

www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8

[grasswire]

50. ready day one = Biden

Seriously. The turn-key candidate.

[ruggerson]

53. Bingo

n/t

[Nedsdag]

54. First and foremost,

No first-term president has the "experience" to be president. They either do or don't come up to the job in the process of doing it.

Second of all, the so-called "day one" pledge is nothing but a crock. There will be pitfalls within the first few months of ANY new president's administration. If Hillary and her minions truly believe that things will be smooth sailing within the first month, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

[Bill Todd]

55. Obama's 'good judgment'

hardly indicates that he recognizes the Iraq war as anything like 'unjust', at least as of when I went to hear him speak last week. He said that his primary concern about it was the number of U.S. casualties, and his second the $9 billion/month cost - eminently pragmatic rather than moral reservations about a war that he clearly only seems to believe was ill-advised rather than both morally and legally wrong.

So while I suspect that he'd be a pragmatic improvement over the current crowd of weasels and possibly even a half-decent progressive in some other areas, I'm not going to be supporting him in our primary next month. As for what we need in 'these dangerous times', I'll suggest that it's mostly a less arrogant attitude toward the rest of the world - which would go at least a long way toward decreasing the threat.

- bill

[babylonsister]

56. I like Obama precisely FOR his 'less arrogant attitude toward the rest of the world'.

And FWIW, did you have a one-on-one with Obama to discuss Iraq, or did you hear a speech where he had to squeeze a lot into a little bit of time?

[Bill Todd]

62. He didn't seem to consider himself pressed for time

since he included several folksy anecdotes (at least one of which was quite lengthy).

As for Iraq in particular, I heard what he chose to say, and he said it very clearly (which, to his credit, is the way he seems to say most things). If you have a statement of his to offer up in rebuttal, by all means do so; if not, exactly what do you feel that you have to contribute to this particular portion of the discussion?

- bill

[babylonsister]

66. Here's my rebuttal, and there's no need to be so condescending.

This is from September and lots has changed, but his concern hasn't here. But yes, lots can happen in three months.:eyes:


http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/_in_speech_today_obama_will_slam_dc_pundits_and_polls_for_supporting_invasion.php


“Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year – now. We should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to discuss the process of our drawdown. We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later. But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.”

“Some argue that we should just replace Prime Minister Maliki. But that wouldn’t solve the problem…The problems in Iraq are bigger than one man. Iraq needs a new Constitutional convention that would include representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government. The United Nations should play a central role in convening and participating in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new accord on national reconciliation is reached.”

“The President would have us believe there are two choices: keep all of our troops in Iraq or abandon these Iraqis. I reject this choice... It’s time to form an international working group with the countries in the region, our European and Asian friends, and the United Nations…. We should up our share to at least $2 billion to support this effort; to expand access to social services for refugees in neighboring countries; and to ensure that Iraqis displaced inside their own country can find safe-haven. …. Iraqis must know that those who engage in mass violence will be brought to justice. We should lead in forming a commission at the U.N. to monitor and hold accountable perpetrators of war crimes within Iraq.”


“I’m here today because it’s not too late to come together as Americans. Because we’re not going to be able to deal with the challenges that confront us until we end this war. What we can do is say that we will not be prisoners of uncertainty. That we reject the conventional thinking that led us into Iraq and that didn’t ask hard questions until it was too late. What we can say is that we are ready for something new and something bold and something principled."

[Bill Todd]

74. That wasn't condescension:

that was a direct challenge to provide some substantive rebuttal rather than merely attempt to cast nebulous doubt.

Unfortunately you don't appear to have risen to the occasion, since the issue was not about whether Obama opposed our presence in Iraq (his statements about that are clear) but about whether he in any way recognized the war as being 'unjust' (the OP's characterization of his position which I challenged and to which challenge you supposedly responded) rather than merely as being ill-advised - at least I can't find anything in your quotation which suggests the former rather than the latter.

It's nice to see Obama give a nod to the U.N. in this particular case, though yet again possibly merely pragmatic rather than principled (since the U.N. could obviously be of some help in extricating us from our involvement while minimizing risk to the Iraqi population). It would be far nicer to see him willing to wind down our military establishment to the point where we'd *have to* work with the U.N. to engage in the kind of activities that we chose to pursue essentially unilaterally in Iraq - but winding down the military even just to a level of overwhelming superiority doesn't seem to be on his current agenda (since in the same speech he proclaimed his intention to ensure that U.S. military might remained 'the greatest in the history of the world').

And it would also be nice not to see him characterizing (in your quotation above) our entry into this disaster as being simply due to a failure to 'ask hard questions', since plenty of people (including the large percentages of Democratic House and Senate members who opposed the Iraq War Resolution) were indeed asking those questions (Paul Wellstone, for example, observed that invading Iraq without U.N. approval would violate international law back at the time the IWR was being debated). The problem was that so many others refused to *listen* to them because they found it politically inconvenient, and sweeping that under the rug does not strike me as the best way to ensure that the same thing won't happen again the next time some arrogant demagogue confronts similarly wimpy nominal opposition.

But, once again, feel free to provide direct evidence that he is more of an internationalist than is apparent from the material that I happen to be familiar with: I may not vote for him next month, but I'd like to be able to do so without hesitation next November should he become the nominee.

- bill

[babylonsister]

79. I'm plum out of suggestions. What or who is yours?

Try to convince me you have a better choice. I am amenable, sort of.

[Bill Todd]

82. That's fair enough

and while I'm not all that much for proselytizing, a serious request deserves a response (even though my original contribution to this thread was only a reality-check on a specific comment about Obama rather than any exhortation to vote for someone else).

With Gore apparently not running I've gravitated to Edwards as someone who offers the kind of international restraint that I'm looking for: not just a better attitude when it's convenient, but a better attitude even when we think that we're right and that the rest of the world is wrong. I just don't get the same vibe from Obama, who may be all for being a good neighbor in theory but seems committed to maintaining a more-than-sufficient military presence not to need to be if it doesn't suit us.

The other thing I like about Edwards is the depth and clarity of nearly *all* his proposals, again as contrasted with Obama's (which seem crafted to allow people to read whatever they want into them with a fair amount of latitude). He's got an 80-page synopsis at his Web site called plan-to-build-one-america.pdf, with more depth if you want it on individual Web pages there: they suit me pretty well, but only you can say whether they suit you.

What I don't like about Edwards is some of his record prior to 2004, but then I didn't appreciate Gore all that much until his last 6+ years: I believe Gore has grown immeasurably in stature during this period, and that the same is true of Edwards (who was much more a political neophyte before 2004 than Gore was before 2001 and therefore more susceptible to growth).

I distrust virtually all politicians enough to feel that almost anyone's still something of a crap shoot, let alone think that I can advise someone else who may be right for them. So just dig around, listen to the reasons that a bunch of people give for supporting a variety of candidates, and make the best call that you're able to.

Good luck,

- bill

[Progressive Radical]

59. Both of them suck. n/t

[babylonsister]

72. You might also. Do you have anything positive to say, about anyone? nt

[Progressive Radical]

73. Yes, I do.

The actual candidate who is consistent and who actually advocates for progressive causes.

That would be Dennis Kucinich.

[babylonsister]

76. You're not immune. Links to your assertions? No passes on DU. nt

[Progressive Radical]

83. Immune from what?

[UrbScotty]

65. Let's not forget IWR supporter John Edwards (nt)

[jenmito]

71. I'm not. He co-sponsored it! That's even worse.

I just wrote about Hillary because she's the one with this "I'll be ready from day one" BS.

[annie1]

80. but why an attack on her for it? you could go after all of the people...

that voted yay on it but you decide to attack her. go after everyone who voted on it.

[jenmito]

86. Like I already explained,

she's the one with this "I'll be ready from day one" BS.

[annie1]

78. and Biden

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

75. Clinton and Obama are not the only people running.

[annie1]

77. srsly.

[hayu_lol]

84. It is always interesting to watch a thread collapse into chaos...

and finally have nothing to do with the topic theme posted by the OP. This is another such thread.

Any of our three leading candidates are capable of taking over from day one of the new administration. Any of them. The current three top leaders are all very bright. Are quite capable of taking the first steps required to control of the process of governing.

Will any of the three make mistakes? Sure. They will all probably fail to watch the move out of BushCo with the resulting theft and damage that move will do.

Aside from that, all three are capable of governing from day one.

The usual sniping and bitterness in this thread have nothing to do with the topic as written by the OP.

[jenmito]

87. They're the only ones who raised enough money to be competitive.