Hill Bill all the way

[zodiacbud]

I did not vote for Bill. I swore I would never vote for Hill but now that I see how things are going I will work to defeat any Republican and that includes Obama. That man ain't no Dem , I don't give a hoot what any of y'all say. He is not one of us. I will do whatever it takes from my budget or time , that of my family, anything to get Hill Bill back. You think they were bad? Look at the years with Dubya. And you want Obama? Lord help us Jesus. That man is in their pocket . The Republicans I mean .

[LaWood]

Other Demos don't agree:

January 28, 2008
Kennedy Chooses Obama, Spurning Bill Clinton Plea

By JEFF ZELENY and CARL HULSE

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — Senator Edward M. Kennedy, rejecting entreaties from the Clintons and their supporters, is set to endorse Senator Barack Obama’s presidential bid on Monday as part of an effort to lend Kennedy charisma and connections before the 22-state Feb. 5 showdown for the Democratic nomination.

Both the Clintons and their allies had pressed Mr. Kennedy for weeks to remain neutral in the Democratic race, but Mr. Kennedy had become increasingly disenchanted with the tone of the Clinton campaign, aides said. He and former President Bill Clinton had a heated telephone exchange earlier this month over what Mr. Kennedy considered misleading statements by Mr. Clinton about Mr. Obama, as well as his injection of race into the campaign.

Mr. Kennedy called Mr. Clinton Sunday to tell him of his decision.

The endorsement, which followed a public appeal on Mr. Obama’s behalf by Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of President John F. Kennedy, was a blow to the Clinton campaign and pits leading members of the nation’s most prominent Democratic families against one another.
NYT

Senator John Kerry has endorsed Obama. Gov Sebelius, D-Kan, will soon endorse Obama.

[Dardedar]

DAR
Hillary should win and make Obama VP. Then he can get more experience and try a run later.
I like Hillary because I think she would stand up better against the republican lie machine. But if Obama can do the job of getting the religious crazies out of the White House, that is fine with me.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

I will vote for whoever wins the primary, but I think Obama is a mistake. This country is teetering on the edge of becoming a fascist 3rd world wholely-owned subsidy of China and I don't think Obama realizes the seriousness of the situation. Somehow, the next president will have to balance the budget, pay down the debt, transfer as much as possible of the foreign debt back to America (sort of like using a lower interest credit card to pay off a higher interest credit card - still debt, but overall a better situation), while at the same time creating middle class jobs, extending the safety net (healthcare included), reversing the recession, and reversing global warming - AND do it in such a way that people re-elect Dems in congress as well as white house to finish the program. I don't know if Hillary has that in her, but as far as I can see (based on her plans versus his plans), Obama doesn't.

[Betsy]

I find it incongruous that the original poster says Obama is not a democrat when Hillary is - they're BOTH democrats, clearly, but Hillary is the one who voted for the war and to give GWB power to make a move into Iran, among other things. So to say that Obama is more republican than she is ludicrous.

I also don't get the "not enough experience" argument, especially when that's the same criticism that Bill faced in his first run for the presidency. Also, as Obama points out, no one's resume of experience looks better on paper than Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove, yet look at where all that experience got us.

Obama is the man for the job, his resume is almost exactly the same as Hillary's EXCEPT that he was never married to a governor or a president. Their policies are very similar with only technical differences. The primary difference between the two candidates is that the Clintons will not cure the divisiveness in this country, and Obama has the ability to cure that and make Americans work together to tackle the problems that are upon us these days. I also have faith in his judgment, based upon his wisdom regarding the Iraq war in the first place, and his ability to use that judgment in problems such as the ones Barbara poses. He is wise enough to surround himself with people who will work together to solve those problems.

I've already voted, and I voted for Obama. It is my greatest hope that he becomes the next president of the United States.

[Dardedar]

Obama is the man for the job, his resume is almost exactly the same as Hillary's EXCEPT that he was never married to a governor or a president.

DAR
She joined the senate in 2000, he in 2004. As of inauguration that's eight years to his four. And she's on the armed services committee. Plus the policy roles she had during her eight years in the White House certainly seem to raise her resume above the level of "almost exactly the same."

D.
--------------------------
"She is regarded as the most openly empowered presidential wife in American history, save for Eleanor Roosevelt."
--Rajghatta, Chidanand (1st quarter 2004). "First Lady President?". Verve magazine 12 (1) link

[Betsy]

She graduated from Yale; he graduated from Harvard; instead of opting for high-paying lawfirm jobs, she went to work helping underprivileged children, he went to work helping the underprivileged in Chicago; she was married to a governor, he served on the state legislature; she's been in the U.S. senate, he's been the U.S. senate. I don't know off the top of my head what committees they are on, but surely they have both served on committees for pete's sake. Yes, her experience as first lady does make her more experienced, but does that make her the better president? seems pretty simplistic to say so, so I'm sure that's not what you mean. Bill had never been a first lady or even a U.S. senator before being elected president, and that certainly didn't make him too inexperienced for the job.

[Dardedar]

DAR
I don't think he is too inexperienced for the job (although the repub's will spend 100's of millions promoting the idea that he is). I just don't think their resumes are "almost exactly the same" because I think her eight active years in the White House count for a lot. A whole lot.

[Betsy]

Though the real election is nine months away, Sen. Barack Obama would fare slightly better than Sen. Hillary Clinton in a head to head match-up with Sen. John McCain if the general election were held today, a new TIME poll reveals.

Obama captured 48% of the vote in the theoretical match-up against McCain's 41%, the TIME poll reported, while Clinton and McCain would deadlock at 46% of the vote each. Put another way, McCain looks at the moment to have a narrowly better chance of beating the New York Senator than he does the relative newcomer from Illinois.

The difference, says Mark Schulman, CEO of Abt SRBI, which conducted the poll for TIME, is that "independents tilt toward McCain when he is matched up against Clinton But they tilt toward Obama when he is matched up against the Illinois Senator." Independents, added Schulman, "are a key battleground."

http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic ... 23,00.html

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

My reading of that poll was that Obama and McCain were closer - and well within the 4% margin of error. The experience that Bill had was as executive (Govenor) of Arkansas. Hillary did most of his research and crafted some of the legislation he sent to the AR Legislature. In fact, that's what bogged them down over Universal Healthcare. They were used to Hillary doing research, putting together a program, and then Bill shepherding it through. Congress had 16 kitten fits over that presumption of legislative powers (too bad the R-controlled congress under W didn't have the same kinds of fits over his presumption of legislative power) and were perfectly happy to help the Rs destroy our best chance at universal healthcare since Truman. Hillary has been working for the benefit of kids - local, state, national, and international levels - for 35 years. Some of the things she helped craft for Bill to put through helped my kids and are now helping my grandkids. Not to mention helping me when I was a single mom AND helping me when I became a teacher in the state of AR. Even if I hadn't read her plans and found them more complete than Obama's, you might say I owe her.

One thing I am really, really, REALLY tired of - that 'voted for the war' garbage. NOBODY voted for "the war" - the authorization was, should Saddam prove uncooperative (and since Saddam was very cooperative, of course it shouldn't have come up) Bush could send in a team like Isreal did in 1981 to destroy the weapons that the Bush team not only said were there, but that they knew where they were. Bush broke the law. No surprise, I know. He broke it when he was the "uncooperative" one dealing with Saddam. He broke it when he ordered the weapons inspectors out. (Like SCOTUS in 2000 not allowing the FL recounts to continue until Gore was ahead, W couldn't leave the inspectors in Iraq long enough to show there were NO weapons of mass destruction.) And he broke it a 3rd time when he ordered the invasion of Iraq, rather than a military strike on weapons depots. Should he order an attack on Iran without specific approval from Congress, he will have broken another law (Kyl-Lieberman) that Hillary voted for and has been accused of "supporting the war" for. I devoutly hope the next A.G. indicts these guys. If not, I hope any and all Americans "with standing" (personally affected by the Iraq invasion/occupation) file against them. If not for the laws that Hillary voted for, there would be one heck of a lot less to indict them for.

[Dardedar]

DAR
How can any poll have either candidate coming in close to the repub's? Does not compute.

I think Obama's support is largely hype and rather shallow. It could go just as fast as it came (like Guliani's). He is a good motivational speaker and that is great on the campaign trail but that doesn't mean he can deliver the goods. And the expectations are so high, there has to be a hangover after this honeymoon. Repub's would provide the hangover.



One fellow said:
"By the time the November election comes something will have happened that
makes the American people want a tough guy in the White House and McCain
and Hillary are tough guys. Obama appeals to those who think we can rise above
the fear but if we are actually in a state of fear he will be slaughtered."
--Matt

Is he tough enough? Obama says:
"Whoever wins
this Democratic primary...they're the toughest, baddest candidate on the block. And if I
beat Senator Clinton, then I will be more than capable of beating the Republicans."

But Bartcop opines:

"Hmmm, Obama seems to think the GOP slime machine will play fair like Hillary did.
One thing's for sure: When the GOP slimes you, they don't kid around.

They made Gore a delusional serial liar.
They made Kerry a coward who stole his medals.

Imagine what they'll do to a new guy who happens to be black.
The whore media will elevate the allegation that Obama is a Muslim to a fact."

DAR
How stupid and gullible are republicans? Almost half still think that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11, that's how stupid and gullible.

Certainly a similar list could be made for Hillary, but here is a list of reasons to not support Obama:

Ten reasons I don't like Obama

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

My dislike of Obama - and yes, I'm partisan as hell and will support him if he gets the nomination - has been slow growing. Mostly I'd hear the "Obamarama" stuff and think, "huh?" But the "Yes, We Can" is what finally got me. Obama is a changling - he's whoever you want him to be. Into MLK, well, of course, he's the new MLK. Like Camelot, he's the black JFK. So to pull in the Latinos - can you do Cesar Chavez? Give me a minute to translate "si, se puede" into English and "yes, we can". When and if Obama shows me who he IS and not push the "I am who you want me to be" button he might get my heart as well as (preferred diety forbid Hillary loses to him) as my vote. Until then, I'm with Hillary - I know who she is and who she IS is one tough lady who's been fighting off corporate-owned media attacks for 35 years while working her tail off for kids - food, shelter, education, safe childcare, foster family adoption - the works. My kids owe her, my grandkids owe her, and dern tooting I owe her for all she's done and tried to do.

[Tony]

Hi folks, its been a while.

Barb, you wrote:

Obama is a changling - he's whoever you want him to be.

HA! Politicians suck, and they want to be what we want them to be of course. That's the problem of democracy recognized all the way back to Plato. The fault in this is ours, not thiers. If we demanded honesty, likely, we would get it. Noone will ever win an election by not telling people what they want to hear, sans a dramatic change in the public at large. But you are really, REALLY, going to argue that Hillary is less of a waffle then anyone major Pol other than Romney?? That defies credulity. The Clintons are renowned for waffling. When Bill lost the Govenorship and both were seen as too liberal, they modified. Hillary quit being Hillary Rodham-Clinton and became just Mrs. Clinton. Tons of changes were made to regain the Governership. Same in 1994. Clintons won as left of center folk, and after the Newt 'revolution' all of a sudden Bill's talking about an 'end to big govt.' and 'reforming' welfare etc. They are THE most crass politicians of their generation. Obama simply has not had the chance to yet demonstrate such waffling abilities. He may prove to do so, in time, but now? phhhhppthhh.
As for the war, you can rationalize all you want to and it won't do any good. Everyone knew at the time what that vote on Iraq meant. I might remind you that many democrats, at least in the House, opposed it, eyes wide open. Edwards at least stood up and said it was the mistake it was. Hillary just relies on apologists, or revisionists. She supported the war when many of us were trying to stop it. Obama did not (granted he was not in Congress then, but had he done what Hillary did, I would not be voting for him either). Hillary was part of the problem on the war, just admit it, and vote for your candidate. Don't muddy waters you can't muddy.
Hillary is super waffle. And she was no ally in stopping the war. She still has not called it a mistake, like Edwards did, and she does not deserve a single genuine anti-war vote. She'll not get mine, that's for sure.
[/b]

[Tony]

In anticipation of further apologies from Hillary partisans, the authorization for war in Iraq was very broadly defined, just what Bush wanted. It gave the President authority "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq"

That is a quote (The Times London, Oct. 12, 2002). And everyone understood just what it would mean. I can provide a ton of documented quotes to prove that too. That is why so many genuinely anti-war Democrats opposed it. A majority of Democrats in the House I might add, including Dennis Kucinich and Nancy Pelosi, and why 21 Dems in the Senate voted against it, including Ted Kennedy. Now, the question is: Why did Hillary not see what all those Dems who opposed the war authorization bill saw?? Was this a terrible miscalculation or what? Either way, Hillary people can't squirm out of this one. Was she just less competent than the 156 members of Congress, most of them by far Democrats, who opposed the war authorization? If that's your defense, ok, I'll go along with it.

But my guess is, Hillary was being Hillary, at the time it was dangerous and took real courage to vote against the war. So, with eyes on the White House, she waffled, thinking it would hurt her much more to oppose the war. Well, I'm damn sure going to do everything I can to make sure it does indeed hurt her. I'm shocked so few of my fellow anti-war Dems agree with me on this. But then, we like to rationalize waffling. Makes us feel better about our poor options. Ah democracy!

[Phalcon]

Vote for Hillary? No thanks.

I'd rather vote for Satan (or McCain - note: may be one and the same, hmmm...)

Forget Mamma and vote Obama!

Ain't democracy great! (LOL)

I'm new to the board, so hello to all!

Peace,
Phalcon

[Savonarola]

I'm new to the board, so hello to all!

Welcome, welcome. Be sure to check out the Information and Help Forums to take advantage of all of the features of this board. Feel free to ask questions.

--Sav, Mod@Large

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

The Authorization to Use Military Force was not, and those voting for it said it was not, an authorization for war. What they couldn't say, because it wasn't PC, is that they'd just authorized W to send in strike forces to blow up weapons depots like the Israelis did back in 1981. The whole world, including the U.S. told Israel, "tut, tut, you should do things like that" (although Cheney did send a thank you note to the Israeli prime minister in 1991), so we couldn't OFFICIALLY say that's what we were authorizing.

W was going to attack Iraq anyway. Thanks to that law - which he broke when he kept adding demands during negotitaions with Saddam, broke a 2nd time when he pulled out the weapons inspectors, broke a 3rd time when he invaded Iraq instead of sending in strike teams to destroy weapons depots, and is currently still breaking a 4th time by continuing the occupation - we have something we can legally nail him on - IF we quit accepting the neocon/corporate media meme that it authorized the invasion. As long as we accept their meme/frame, we can't use that law. Stop accepting their meme, start putting together court cases with people who have legal standing (all Reservists and Guards (all of them suffer financial ills resulting their deployment, especially extended and multiple deployments), all the injured, the families of all the dead, the diagnosed PTSD folks who've committed violent crimes victim or and families of those who've suicided) and get ready to hit these war criminals with about 100,000 court cases as of 1:00 p.m. January 20, 2009.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Oh and both Hillary and Obama have been voting for occupation funding because they both know that mf (W) will most certainly leave our kids hanging in the wind. He sent them over there undermanned, undersupplied, underarmed, and underarmoured - he doesn't have any problem leaving them that way and blaming the Dems.

[Tony]

Barb wrote:

The Authorization to Use Military Force was not, and those voting for it said it was not, an authorization for war. What they couldn't say, because it wasn't PC, is that they'd just authorized W to send in strike forces to blow up weapons depots like the Israelis did back in 1981.

No you are wrong. This is total revisionism-ALREADY-and the damn thing only happened 5 years ago.

Look at this from the NYTimes BEFORE the authorization for war, when Congress was trying to work out the wording. It's title: "THREATS AND RESPONSES: CONGRESSIONAL MEMO; Lawmakers Quibble Over the Words of War"

First line: "It is a tall order for a few short paragraphs. A Congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq is expected to justify a war, brush back enemies, seduce allies, display unity and lend support, if qualified, to the president." NYTimes September 25, 2002.

The article goes on to describe the haggling over the wording. Bush pushed for very vague wording, he got most of it. Which is why so many Democrats, OTHER THAN HILLARY CLINTON, voted against it. Because they understood, as anyone should after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, that such broad wording could mean almost any type of war Bush wanted. Bush was satisfied. He got what he wanted. Nobody seriously thought at the time this did not authorize an invasion. That's just a new invention of Hillary apologists and/or the unthinking froofy left. If you didn't know what the hell they were voting on in authorizing war in October 2002, you were either criminally myopic or just plain stupid, or both. I remember just what was happening when the vote took place. We got what was expected, thanks in part to Hillary.





Barb wrote

W was going to attack Iraq anyway. Thanks to that law - which he broke when he kept adding demands during negotitaions with Saddam, broke a 2nd time when he pulled out the weapons inspectors, broke a 3rd time when he invaded Iraq instead of sending in strike teams to destroy weapons depots, and is currently still breaking a 4th time by continuing the occupation - we have something we can legally nail him on - IF we quit accepting the neocon/corporate media meme that it authorized the invasion. As long as we accept their meme/frame, we can't use that law. Stop accepting their meme

Give me a break. This is a pipe dream. The bill was vague enough to justify an invasion and that was anticipated. If you want to remomve Bush, by all means, impeach his ass for holding Jose Padilla in a military brig for 3 1/2 years with no Constitutional Rights. That should be a hell of a lot easier than the imaginary posturing you are advocating.

You imply that the invasion was not expected, that the force bill did not authorize an invasion. Then how come the Washington Post on September 28, 2002 reported on testimony in Congress about what could be expected in an invasion of Iraq? One General Joseph Hoar claimed that it was likely the US would face serious casualties, possibly facing 12 Iraqi Divisions in Baghdad. Was this because an invasion of Iraq was NOT expected? Umm, no. It was.

Still not convinced: NYTimes September 27, 2002, again, before the authorization for war, Nicholas Kristoff writes a column titled "Fighting Street to Street." Where he clearly expects an invasion of Iraq if war comes when he writes in his FIRST line: "To understand why an invasion of Iraq may not be the cakewalk that the White House expects, pay $20 (round trip) and board an Iraqi Airways flight that soars from Baghdad straight through the American-enforced "no-flight zone" to Basra on the southern tip of Iraq."
Clearly Barb, many people understood an invasion was in the offering.

Still not convinced? This from the UK Guardian October 4, 2002 again, BEFORE the vote to authorize force:

George Bush is bent on war against Iraq. All the world knows it, from Blackpool to Baghdad, and from Paris to Moscow. That is why the manoeuvring over United Nations resolutions and arms inspections has an unreal quality. It is just possible that UN-approved coercive inspections, of a kind that would so humiliate Saddam Hussein that he might fall without war, can prevent a conflict. But, aside from this thin chance, international diplomacy now is less about preventing war than about preventing an open break between America and Europe and Russia.

See, everyone it seems except Hillary and current revisionists now knew, or had a good reason to expect the kind of war we got.

How about this headline from the Washington Times, October 6, 2002: [/b]War would liberate Iraq, not conquer, adviser says

Come on, and you are going to say Clinton did not know what she was authorizing. Or the world didn't know what Bush was asking for and got? Or that Bush did something unexpected when he invaded? That's just total BS.
If you claim Hillary was colosally stupid and uninformed in voting for the war rather than an accomplice...ok, I can buy that. Either way she doesn't deserve to be President.
Your proposed lawsuit is a joke. All you have to do is google news stories from back then to see that Bush got what he wanted, and almost everyone with functioning braincells knew what he got and suspected what was coming.
Where do you get all this stuff anyway?

Still not convinced? This in a report on Bush's speech to the nation on the eve of the vote for authorizing military force:

He never described how long the United States would be willing to occupy Iraq or hold together a country that has long been divided by rival tribes and rival religions, and where the riches will go to those who sit atop Iraq's oilfields. But he spoke of maintaining a "unified Iraq," and said "if military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy and create the institutions of liberty."

NYTimes October 8, 2002.

Are you really going to maintain that the invasion came as a surprise to anyone other than the blind or incompetent or the complicit? It was just about airstrikes huh? yeah right.

Want some more evidence of how wrong you are? This headline from the UK Guardian, October 12, 2002, once again, before Hillary voted for the war:

US plans military rule and occupation of Iraq: Saddam would be replaced by Pentagon general

Still not convinced? Look at what Patrick Leahy had to say about the war resolution he opposed and Hillary supported:

This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses, is nothing more than a blank check. The president can decide when to use military force, how to use it, and for how long

USA Today October 11, 2002.

Who turned out right on that? Certainly not Hillary.

Quit apologizing for Hillay! She helped bring you this war.

[Dardedar]

Barb wrote:

The Authorization to Use Military Force was not, and those voting for it said it was not, an authorization for war. What they couldn't say, because it wasn't PC, is that they'd just authorized W to send in strike forces to blow up weapons depots like the Israelis did back in 1981.

TONY
No you are wrong. This is total revisionism-ALREADY-and the damn thing only happened 5 years ago.

DAR
I read all of the examples you find so convincing but I don't find them as persuasive as you. Of course a lot of people knew Bush was a warmonger who wanted to attack Iraq. Here he is drooling about it 2 years before 9/11:

Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author, journalist [and Bush’s presidential ghost writer] Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”

LINK

Read Barbara's claim carefully. It is regarding what those who voted for the resolution understood it to mean, not what a bunch of cherry picked headlines and pundits thought it might mean. Of course people are going to differ on this but it's easy to go hunting and after the fact find people who turned out to be right. These people made the mistake of taking Bush at his word, trusting him. He lied. Every time he said war would be used only as "last resort," and he said that a lot, he lied.

Perhaps Kerry's comments regarding the resolution would be useful here:

***
John Kerry (senate statements regarding Iraq vote)

• In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

• If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

• When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region.

• Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

• Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

• The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.