Sometimes It's Not About You Barack

Every now and then my 5 & 7 year old kids revert back to the terrible twos - you know, when they seem to think the entire world revolves around them.  No - make that the universe.  I compliment my 7 year old for being helpful in clearing the dinner table and my son takes it to mean he's not being helpful.  I tell my 5 year old he's so smart to know what 3 plus 3 is, and my daughter gets mad because she thinks I'm saying she's not so good at reading.  Hubby & I try to chat after work and our daughter keeps interrupting, wanting to sing a song she'd just learned.  It's all about me, me, me, me.  I understand that - they're little kids after all and forget sometimes.

This latest back and forth over Hillary's new ad in Texas brings all that to mind in a big way for me.  She talks about her own experience and readiness and it's suddenly all about Sen. Obama.  Nowhere in that ad does Hillary mention him - show his picture or say anything nasty about him and yet he's acting the victim and claiming she's saying nasty things about his abilities.  She's not - she's saying she has the experience and the steady hand we need to lead our nation in these troubled times.  Take a look at the ad...

Make the jump - there's more...

Here's clip of Hillary making the case for her argument that she's the one we want answering that phone at 3 am.  

Good news can wait until morning - when that phone rings in the middle of the night it's usually not good news.  Something's going on in the world and we need someone who's got the strength and wisdom - someone who'll know just what to do and make those split second decisions when she picks up that phone.  Now we all know Hillary's been there when that phone rang at 3 am., and as First Lady she's traveled to over 80 nations to represent us and develop strong relationships with other world leaders.  She's been in the Senate for over 7 years and has served on the Senate Armed Services Committee for 5 years. There'll be no need for on-the-job training with Hillary.

In 2004 Hillary was asked by the Department of Defense to serve as the only Senate member of the Transformation Advisory Group to the Joint Forces Command.   The military wanted her on that committee - she was the only Senator invited to serve on this committee tasked with reforming the Pentagon.

Take a look at their Command mission and strategic goals ...

U.S. Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) provides mission-ready, joint-capable forces, and supports the development and integration of joint, interagency, and multinational capabilities to meet the present and future operational needs.

Four mission areas - joint concept development and experimentation, joint training, joint capabilities development, and joint force provider - support accomplishment of the command's strategic goals:

Providing focused support to win the Global War on Terrorism - USJFCOM's joint enabling capabilities provide combatant commanders and joint task force (JTF) headquarters with the capabilities they need to successfully achieve objectives. The command's support teams serve an important role in determining and documenting gaps in existing and planned service capabilities and recommending appropriate solutions, while also providing immediate support. USJFCOM also searches for opportunities to develop new joint enabling capabilities that can accelerate the establishment and immediate effectiveness of JTF headquarters and related joint organizations.

Providing trained, capable and interoperable joint forces - As DoD's joint force provider, USJFCOM assigns nearly all conventional forces based in the continental United States, providing trained and capable forces to commanders in the field. Building a joint force requires a considerable degree of coordination with active, National Guard and reserve elements of the armed forces to ensure the deployment of a task-organized integrated team. A joint force may also include elements of the U.S. Coast Guard.

Improving global force management and visibility - USJFCOM assists leadership in making proactive, informed force management and allocation decisions. USJFCOM identifies mission risks, forecasts sourcing challenges and projects reserve component unit mobilization and availability. The result is global visibility on unit readiness.

Developing robust joint command and control capabilities - A fully networked joint force is necessary to achieve successful military operations. USJFCOM's goal is to develop a joint force with the ability to fight both as a joint U.S. force and to operate as part of a multinational force with allied, coalition and interagency partners. The command's primary integration effort will yield a joint command and control capability that ensures decision makers receive information when they need it, allowing them to observe, orient, decide, adjust and act faster than their adversaries. USJFCOM will also continue to work to improve current capabilities and address shortfalls through near-term and interim command and control developments.

They sought her out for her knowledge and experience to serve on this committee.  She didn't seek it out and ya know what else - she actually shows up when there's work to be done.  And boy does this lady know her stuff - take a look at part of her address before Center for a New American Security in June of last year ...

I'm a member of the Transformation Advisory Group, which is a part of the U.S. Joint Forces Command. I was asked to join several years ago.

It's a unique advisory group, charged with thinking of new ideas to move our military and government into a more forward leaning, forward thinking posture.

And it's important that we look at the lessons from this group's discussion, that it's not just about what the military can and must do, but how the rest of the government has to be value-added and work together in a much more coordinated way.

Our increasingly interconnected world demands an interconnected strategy that takes into account political, economic, diplomatic and military concerns. When developing military strategy, our military leaders no longer speak of the battlefield, but they talk about the situation. They are much more adept than many people actually understand, that the
battlespace goes far beyond the battlefield. And we need that kind of multidimensional thinking, both inside and outside the walls of the Pentagon.

So let's make an effort to increase the number of soldiers proficient in foreign languages, instead of kicking out interpreters who happen to be gay. Let's be sure our policies reflect concern for the will of governments and the perceptions of peoples. Let's make sure that we look just not at the Quadrennial Defense Review but at a document that looks at all of the government's responses to the threats and opportunities we face.

As for that ad she's running in Texas, it wasn't about BO - it was about her and her readiness to lead on day one.  Sometimes it isn't about some guy when a woman touts her own experience and readiness.  

Since that ad hit the airwaves, BO's been launching a few attacks on her and her record.  Take a look at her campaign's response to those attacks...

Statement from Howard Wolfson in Response to Sen. Obama's Attack on Hillary Clinton

In an effort to deflect attention from voters asking whether he is ready to lead on national security, Barack Obama launched a series of negative attacks against Hillary Clinton today.

In response, Howard Wolfson, Communications Director,  issued the following statement:

Real change isn't attacking NAFTA in Ohio while news outlets report that your chief policy aide told the Canadians your criticism is just rhetoric.

Real change isn't attacking lobbyists while utilizing their services throughout your campaign.

Real change isn't voting against a cap on credit card interest rates and opposing a freeze on home foreclosures on subprime borrowers.

And real change isn't running away from a debate on national security because you don't have the strength and the experience to go toe to toe with John McCain.

As for all the things BO's said about Hillary and her ad in the past 36 hours, I think we need to keep a few points in mind where his own readiness to lead are concerned, given that he's injected himself into this whole thing and tried to make that ad about him rather than Hillary.  There's a big difference between giving a speech as a state senator and giving orders as Commander-in-Chief.  Sen. Obama talks about these issues, but then goes missing in action.

Obama spoke against the Iraq war, but went missing in action in the Senate.  By 2004, he said he wasn't sure how he would have voted and said he basically agreed with how President Bush was conducting the war. In the Senate, Hillary and Sen. Obama have nearly the same voting records on Iraq. He also went missing in action when he missed a vote on Iran

And then there's that Senate Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee he's supposed to be Chairman of.  He was missing in action when he failed to hold a single substantive hearing on a subcommittee he chaired that has responsibility for Europe and NATO and NATO's policy in Afghanistan.  He's admitted he was too busy running for President.

That subcommittee thing isn't a minor point.  Not sure who the vlogger is here, but s/he's done a find job with this rebuttal to BO's rebuttal...

Meanwhle, Jack is back!

... and he approves this message.

Now a lot's been written about Hillary's amazing experience on the world stage.  Some of these are my write-ups (with loads of links and sourcing) and some were written by her former Chief of Staff (Melanne Verveer), former speech writer (Lissa Muscatine - the woman who wrote her speech for that conference in Beijing where she declared that women's rights are human rights), and others.  Take a look...

Hillary's Irish Legacy - From the Irish Echo (Feb. 27 to Mar 4 Issue)

Why Hillary's Experience as First Lady Matters

Hillary & Benazir Bhutto

Hillary's Standing O At the UN

Hillary's Unprecedented Experience on the World Stage - Melanne Verveer and Lissa Muscatine.

Why Hillary Clinton Will Restore America's Standing in the World - Lissa Muscatine and Melanne Verveer.

There's no doubt about it - this lady knows her stuff when it comes to foreign policy and our national security concerns.  Check out her recent speech at Georgetown University, where she talks with confidence and knowledge of each and every detail on any related matter imaginable when it comes to these important matters.

Then there's an article she wrote recently - Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century - Foreign Affairs (Nov. - Dec. 27th)

Now Hillary just announced another major (huge) endorsement from another big flag officer - but first, take a look at what BO had to say about another person who was loosely tied to our military...

... and I do mean loosely.  We all know how things turned out with that guy - don't we.

And he talks to us about judgment now?

I thought I'd close with Hillary's latest endorsement.  It points to the confidence that he and so many other leaders in our military have in her ability to lead our nation, and serve as Commander in Chief of our armed forces...

General Henry Hugh Shelton Endorses Hillary for President

Senator Clinton today is proud to announce that General Henry Hugh Shelton has endorsed her to be the Nation's next Commander-in- Chief.

One of our nation's top military figures, General Shelton served two terms as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush.  

In announcing his endorsement, General Shelton said, "I've been with Senator Clinton when she has been with our military men and women.  I know from those experiences that she understands the demands and sacrifice of military life. I am confident she will always put the readiness and well being of our troops first.  She is ready to be Commander-in- Chief."

General Shelton joins General John Shalikashvili as the second former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to have endorsed Senator Clinton.  General Shelton is the fourth flag officer to endorse Senator Clinton this week.

The first Green Beret to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton served our Nation with distinction over a career that spanned 38 years.  General Shelton served two tours of duty in Vietnam , and was awarded a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. He was assistant commander of the 101st Airborne Division during Operation Desert Storm in Iraq , and later commanded the 82nd Airborne Division.  Prior to serving as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Shelton commanded U.S. Special Operations Forces.  He served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation's highest ranking military office, from 1997-2001.

General Shelton joins a distinguished group of 28 retired flag officers who have endorsed Senator Clinton to be our nation's next Commander-in- Chief.  In addition, more than 2,000 veterans and military retirees are members of Senator Clinton's national and state veterans' steering committees.  

"I am so proud to have the endorsement of General Shelton.  He has spent his career commanding our country's elite military units.  He commanded at the highest level of our nation's armed forces, while always remaining dedicated to the effectiveness of their combat capabilities and the well-being of their families."

The complete list of general and flag officers endorsing Senator Clinton follows.  

Flag Officers Endorsing Hillary Clinton for President and Commander-in- Chief

1.      General Wesley Clark

  1.      General John M. Shalikashvili
  2.      General Henry Hugh Shelton
  3.      General Johnnie E. Wilson
  4.      Admiral William Owens
  5.      Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
  6.      Lt. Gen. Robert Gard
  7.      Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy
  8.      Lt. Gen. Donald L. Kerrick
  9.  Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath
  10.  Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak
  11.  Major General Roger R. Blunt
  12.  Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.
  13.  Major General Edward L. Correa, Jr.
  14.  Major General Paul D. Eaton
  15.  Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr.
  16.  Major General Antonio M. Taguba
  17.  Rear Admiral Connie Mariano
  18.  Rear Admiral Alan M. Steinman
  19.  Rear Admiral David Stone
  20.  Brigadier General Michael Dunn
  21.  Brigadier General Belisario Flores
  22.  Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote
  23.  Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr
  24.  Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard
  25.  Brigadier General Preston Taylor
  26.  Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
  27.  Brigadier General Jack Yeager


U P D A T E

I just found out BO's spending tons of money in an attempt to deliver a knock out blow to Hillary on the 4th. We can NOT let that go unchallenged folks.

So here's what we do... if you support Hillary - if want to see her become our next President then we have to step it up and help raise as much money as we can in the next two days. It's taken me a couple weeks to raise $5,000 via my HillRaisers link. I think if we all dig deep and send her another donation - WHATEVER AMOUNT - we can pull that kind of money together here on MyDD.

This is a doable goal you guys. Copy the link and send it out to everyone you know - let them know that Hillary needs our help right now if she's going to keep fighting the good fight for all of us.

DONATE NOW!

Here's the URL for that page on her website - https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/form.html?sc=ac0&rc=E5W3

Display:


Hillary's The One We Want Picking Up That Phone (2.00 / 21)

Seriously - there's no comparison folks.  This lady's ready to lead and then some!

Help her get there - DONATE NOW!


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:17:32 PM EST

Re: Hillary's The One We Want Picking Up That Phon (2.00 / 2)

How long does it take to name a crisis Hillary's handled?

Clinton on Fear Vs Hope


by kraant on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:29:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's The One We Want Picking Up That Phon (2.00 / 17)

"How long does it take to name a crisis Hillary's handled?"

Easy. 9-11.

I am a first responder and she was there, quietly and without fanfare taking care of countless issues that arose. She has been there to an outstanding degree for all of us first responders,and the families affected by the WTC disaster, and even years later, as many of us fall ill from the long term effects of that event, she is still plugging for us, quietly and effectively, getting us health care and support. This is why first responders all over the country support Hillary Clinton, she understands our problems and priorities and delivers for us.

The media never gave her any credit for everything she did, because the Republicans ruled everything. If you notice anything at all about how Rudy Giuliani got so much coverage and capitalized on it, first responders do nothing but attack him for the gross underfunding and interference that caused so many of us to be killed that day. We understand what really was going on, and we support Hillary Clinton for being the honest, honorable, dedicated and hardworking leader she was. Real quality, not hype.


by 07rescue on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:06:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's The One We Want Picking Up That Phon (2.00 / 4)

That is easily the best and most substantial post in support of Hillary Clinton on this site. Usually it's just banal repetition of her campaign slogans ("She's ready to lead! She's a fighter with experience! Hey, kids, we can put on a show in my Dad's barn!), a cut'n'paste of Wolfson's latest memo, and a few silly insults of Barack Obama (see the first paragraph of this diary.... virtually the only original material in it).

If you haven't done a diary about this, you should. I've been saying for quite a while, Hillary Clinton may be my second choice in the Democratic primary, but she deserves far better support than she's getting, from Penn and Wolfson down to posters on this site.


by BlueinColorado on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:13:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's The One We Want Picking Up That Phon (2.00 / 9)

Ok I've gotta jump to the defense of my diary here...

There's plenty of information about her experience and her qualifications.  The speeches she's given on these issues shows us she knows these issues inside and out.  Her record on Armed Services in getting benefits and supplies to our troops - and support for their families is unmatched by anyone.

This woman knows her stuff and she's ready to lead.  This BS about demanding examples of what crisis she's handled doesn't have anything to do with what her campaign has claimed.  They've never claimed she's handled those things - only that she's more prepared to do it than anyone else.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:31:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A suggestion, Alegre (none / 0)

I've been scathing about your diaries in the past, so I want to say something constructive this time.

When praising Hillary's experience and accomplishments, I believe it would be much more effective simply to tell the bare story without injecting your own superlatives such as "unmatched by anyone", "knows inside and out", etc.

Case in point: while I despise Rudy Giuliani and everything he stands for, there was one occasion on 9/11 where he did demonstrate leadership.  Amidst the rubble, he gave clear instructions on TV to New Yorkers who were confused about what to do.  "If you live in Manhattan, go home", "if you live outside Manhattan, stay home", etc.  It showed his level-headedness during a crisis.

If you could find a way to relate a HRC story demonstrating, rather than stating her qualities, I would find it much more compelling.  It could be anything: harsh questions to a Bushbot during a hearing, work on persuading others to support provisions of a bill, how she stood up to an injustice back in college, etc.


by corph on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:23:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's The One We Want Picking Up That Phon (2.00 / 8)

Thank you, 07rescue for your service. Maybe you would grace us with a diary that talks further about your comment here? I hope so.


by River103 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:15:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's The One We Want Picking Up That Phon (2.00 / 9)

Great example 07rescue!!!!


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:32:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good answer 07rescue (2.00 / 3)

And something that is not widely known, because the media doesn't like to pass on positive Hillary information.


by georgiapeach on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:38:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's The One We Want Picking Up That Phon (2.00 / 2)

Great response, 07rescue.

Now I would ask kraant: How about telling us about a crisis Obama has handled?


by AnnC on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:52:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's The One We Want Picking Up That Phon (2.00 / 1)

Dear 07rescue,

I am an Obama supporter, but I too am glad to hear your praise of Hillary. I think we can all agree that political discourse tends to paint people with a single-color brush, which obscures the truth that politicians are people, too, with multifaceted talents, motivations, and accomplishments. I have no doubt that Hillary is both a compassionate person and an gifted manager/doer, as you have aptly pointed out in her 9-11 support of early responders. I too think she would bring a level of competence to the White House that would be leagues beyond Bush-Cheney.  However, let's not confuse her compassionate heart or managerial prowess with the "Ready on Day 1" or "3am Phone Call" arguments, for they are completely different. In the case of the latter, the issues are judgment, character, and leadership style. This is where millions of people are casting their vote for Obama instead, because we see Hillary lacking critical ingredients in these areas.

ON JUDGMENT
*    Much has already been written on her vote to authorize the use of the military force in Iraq -- a vote she has only recently claimed to regret. She admits to not reading the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before her vote. For this action, nearly 4,000 of our countrymen are dead, and upwards of 100,000 Iraqis have perished, with millions more displaced, and all for what? Many like Obama clearly saw the writing on the wall before the war started and many tried to tell our elected representatives what a terrible quagmire this would be.
*    More recently, she voted against the banning of cluster munitions in areas of dense civilian population. Why? Probably to keep looking as if she is "tough on terror" instead of doing the right thing. (This reflect both on judgment and character.)
*     During Bill Clinton's presidency, time after time Hillary made terrible recommendations for various posts such as Attorney General - this is all a matter of public record.
*    In her campaign for president, her judgment on who to hire and listen to has been seriously flawed and may now cost her the presidency.
*    Despite her arguments against NAFTA, the record shows that until recently she was a strong supporter of it.
*    But it is has been her own judgment to go negative on Obama and nit-pick things like the plagiarism claim that may have turned many against her as well.
*    Her continual changing of message has muddled her campaign, too, as it appears that she really doesn't know what she stands for (or somehow lacks the ability to communicate it effectively) and so she has come across as more anti-Obama than pro-anything.
POINT: when the going gets touch, Hillary makes the wrong choices, including, importantly, choosing the wrong people.

ON CHARACTER:
Hillary presents a fractured picture when it comes to character. On the one hand, she seems to have the best intentions to fight for democratic principles and family values -- her work on SChip is just one example. But her "win-at-all-costs" attitude has turned many people off.
*    When she circulated patently false and misleading information about Obama's record supporting women's right to choose just before the NH primaries, she was knowingly lying in order to win. She even enlisted a group of female legislators to sign on to the anti-Obama rhetoric, a group that now admits to being manipulated by her. A Chicago-based leader of NOW publicly denounced the tactic as unworthy of a presidential contender, and switched her vote to Obama.
*    Many feminists who once supported Hillary are similarly reacting to her voting record and her negative tactics.
*    Her campaign to seat FL and MI delegates (after she agreed not to) is widely seen as a absurd power-grab. Her "victory celebration" in FL itself left many scratching their heads about her character and mental competence.
*    Her kitchen-sink attacks on Obama are bringing her more disdain, in part because she continues to misrepresent his positions and is increasing playing on fears to get votes, and in part because she doesn't understand the nature of the Obama campaign to change the way government works, thus making her a kind of "anti-Hope" spokesperson, further alienating many and insinuating that Obama supporters are deluded. No, actually, we see pretty clearly: character assassination, smear campaigns, and irrational arguments are part of the "old politics" that we are wanting to leave behind. We expected more from Hillary than to try to lift herself up by putting others down. Bill Clinton has only reinforced the perception with his callous comments.
*    Her dirty campaign and voter-suppression tactics in New Hampshire, Nevada and Iowa are another example of flawed character.
*    Her unwillingness to publish her Clinton-era documents or her tax returns is another.
*    Her huge contributions from the military-industrial and health care industries are another (together with her unwillingness to repudiate at least the idea of lobbyist money and influence).
*    Simply her willingness to let the likes of Penn and Wolfson to so control her campaign shows her lack of both character and judgment.
*    I could go on and on, but you get the...
POINT: Hillary does not live up to the values of fairness, truthfulness, transparency, or integrity that we need in our next president.

ON LEADERSHIP STYLE:
*    It may have been Hillary's secretive divide-and-conquer tactics in the failed Health Care initiative during Bill Clinton's presidency that helped to fuel the Republican comeback that hobbled his second term. But it is her top-down, political strong-arming approach that is the hallmark of old politics that is losing her the election.
*    She fails to grasp how her own actions are only reinforcing the kind of leadership that has typified Washington for so many decades. Closed door, back-room deal-making and negative, aggressive tactics are the hallmarks of the old-style government of non-transparent decision-making. Obama has taken a firm stand on changing all of this and instituting a people's government where transparency is his centerpiece (see, for example, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/techno logy/#transparent-democracy). Obama passed the most comprehensive ethics reform legislation in the U.S. Senate since Watergate.
*    Hillary fails to understand that before you can institute change, you have to win people's hearts AND minds. She has singularly failed to do this, most especially in this campaign. And while both Hillary and Barack show the ability to reach across the aisle, Barack has a better record of building coalitions and his very style and approach is more bipartisan. I've seen very few arguments that claim Hillary is viewed this way, and fewer legislative accomplishments, including fewer bill co-sponsors.
POINT: Hillary, while a competent manager, has a more partisan, top-down, and less consensus-building leadership style that is the hallmark of the "old politics" that so many want to see changed.

Finally, on the "THE 3AM PHONE CALL" issue:
Let's get real ¬¬¬¬-- no president is going to be making split-second decisions on matters of national or international importance in isolation. His or her staff, cabinet, etc. will all be part of any response to a serious crisis. If that is so, then much will depend on the people who will be chosen to surround the next president. If we assume for the moment that competent people are chosen by both camps (and even that is debatable, since Hillary's current foreign policy advisers have largely been hawkish on the Iraq war), that leaves us only with... judgment, character, and leadership style, in order to make our assessment of either candidate's quality of response to a crisis. For many of us who support Obama, we see a more authentic, transparent style; more tempered, considered judgment; and an ability to listen to others, even if he does not agree, leading to a more rational consensus before committing our national resources or fellow citizens' lives.

In summation, HILLARY IS NOT READY TO LEAD ON DAY 1: Her judgment, character, and leadership style are not adequate for leading this country in the direction many of us believe we should go. For all of her gifts, she has time and again failed in her judgment, failed to take strong, unpopular stands, and shown character flaws that should cause us to reconsider her fitness for the highest office in the land. But make no mistake, Hillary still has a vital role to play in the Senate, and will continue to make positive contributions to the well-being of our country for many years to come. Do Obama supporters therefore think he is a "perfect" candidate? No, he has flaws, too, and yes, he is less well known than Hillary and other contenders that have since dropped out of the race. But let's recall that Bill Clinton was largely unknown when at 46 years old he took the reins of this country and helped navigate it into saner, healthier waters. Let's give Obama the same chance.


by TuvanDrone on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:28:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's The One We Want Picking Up That Phon (2.00 / 2)

THE ONGOING argument that Mr. Obama was opposed to the Iraqi Freedom military action is tiresome and inaccurate.  

Mr. Obama was not visable on the national stage at the time of 9-11, and there is little he can do about this.  Mr. Obama was not in the Senate and did not have the opportunity to vote "for", "present" OR "against" the war.  He was was not elected into the Senate until 2004!  

A little history lesson.  Please remember that Colin Powell in 2002, as Secretary of State under our current president, argued before our political leadership that the Sunni Muslim dictator Saddam Hussein and Sunni Muslim terrorist Osama bin Laden were in cahoots!  He presented testimony before the United Nations Security Council that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical weapons, biological weapons (ie: anthrax), and working to create nuclear weapons in Iraq for the purpose of terrorism.  He drew the picture to ask our political leadership to consider a nuclear bomb being detonated on US soil.    Colin Powell had a lot of credibility as he was a General and had served as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.   He convinced our leaders that the best decision to insure our safety from terrorism, under these circumstances was to go directly onto Iraq with military action.  

Presented with this information, our political leaders who had chosen previously to allow the UN to decide, overwhelmingly supported General Powell's recommendations.

Mr. Powell was the first black secretary of state.  He held substantial credibility at the time of this presentation.  Unfortunately, his credibility has been diminished as a result of his part in bringing our country to war.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powel l

I doubt that Mr. Obama would have voted against the war under these circumstances.  He has even been quoted as being pretty wishy-washy on the topic.  "In a meeting with the Chicago Tribune reports at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, "On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago.  There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." (Chicago Tribune, July 27, 2004.)  This was during the time he was running for his first (and only) Senate seat.

Mr. Obama is the worse kind of liar.  One who hides behind a fuzzy truth.  
It is a lie when he says, "I didn't vote for that War!"  He was not in office and was not offered the opportunity.    

He is a Johnny-come-lately, with a swagger big enough to fool many.  However, he is the fool and will be uncovered as such.  

It is almost unbelievable to those of us who do keep track of national and international news, that during this campaign he has been quoted as saying he would "bomb Pakistan" and most recently was apparently unaware that Al Qaeda is in Iraq.

The red phone ad is scary and we do need someone to answer it who is paying attention.  

Vote for Hillary.  She really is prepared and paying attention.

Thank you.


by dianeCrn on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:05:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's The One We Want Picking Up That Phon (none / 0)

It is almost unbelievable to those of us who do keep track of national and international news, that during this campaign he has been quoted as saying he would "bomb Pakistan" and most recently was apparently unaware that Al Qaeda is in Iraq

Well, you certainly have your McCain talking points memorized.

The group in Iraq that calls itself al Qaeda has no more relationship to to the al Qaeda that attacked this country than MacDonald's has to the guy who had a farm.

And neither group was in Iraq before Bush's invasion.

Ironic that the thrust of your unbelievably dishonest post is that "Mr Obama is a liar".

Mr. Powell was the first black secretary of state.

How.... interesting that you would mention his race, which is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.


by BlueinColorado on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:20:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's The One We Want Picking Up That Phon (none / 0)

Don't you understand?? Obama is BLACK, Powell is BLACK, they must agree with each other!

(not racist)


by amiches on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:52:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's The One We Want Picking Up That Phon (none / 0)

Huh?  


Carla
by hillsboroughrules on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:20:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's The One We Want Picking Up That Phon (2.00 / 1)

We profoundly disagree, but I do not have the time to refute all your baseless attacks and mischaracterization of Hillary. Your post is a biased, negative interpretation of her intentions and actions that bears no resemblance to reality. Your post seems deeply and deliberately disrespectful to me, presumes an extraordinary amount with zero direct personal experience to back it up, and I can see we do not agree on the data. We will have to agree to disagree, unpleasantly.

Hillary is far more qualified to serve on day one than either Obama or McCain, on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts.


by 07rescue on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:23:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's The One We Want Picking Up That Phon (2.00 / 1)

From Dr. Carolyn, a Canadian physician along who with other doctors from Canada assisted in NYC the aftermath of Sept. 11

A Letter to Senator Clinton

-excerpt-

I met you at Ground Zero on September 12th, 2001. In fact, my medical team of five Canadians literally bumped into you in our haste to make it to Stuyvesant High School where the casualties of the WTC terrorist attacks were accumulating.

When I caught my balance amidst the crowd of people, I realized that it was you standing in front of me. I will never forget that moment. You were very composed with only a single secret service agent beside you, completely camouflaged as an ordinary citizen. When my group realized who you were, we stood still. I was speechless and already overwhelmed by the chaos around us. The only words that I could manage to form were: We are Canadians. We came from Canada to help.

You shook each of our hands and thanked us. The momentum and courage that your simple gesture gave us was very much appreciated.

When I reflect on that week, a flood of memories returns to me. First, unlike any other of your political colleagues at the time, you were walking about, without any lights or cameras, reassuring the people that you represent that you were there to help. You were vulnerable, ready and willing to have anyone approach you in person _ unlike President Bush.

In fact, because the current president is so afraid of getting assassinated _ that is what the police told us on September 15th, 2001 - the medical triage had to shut down for _security reasons in preparation for his arrival on Friday, and might I add three whole days after the attacks. At the time, our triage was taking care of between 50 to 70 patients an hour. We had over 200 medical volunteers working around the clock to help. As far as we know, all of our patients were injured volunteers. We would patch up whomever we could and help them get back to the fevered search for potential life.

The stories of injured fire fighters and other rescue workers obsessed about getting stitched up, or having their eyes flushed from the acidic smoke, as quickly as possible in order to continue looking for a loved one, are too numerous to recount. However, when President Bush came to Ground Zero, the Triage was closed down and we all were forced home.

Six years later, you helped me again - though this time not in person. Somehow, I still remain ashamed that I ever got sick after helping. My lungs have never been the same as when I crossed the finish line at the Ironman Canada ultra distance triathlon on August 26, 2001.

Because of you, Senator Clinton, thousands of WTC volunteers have free medical care for their rescue-related illnesses. I was absolutely astonished when American volunteers that I still keep in touch with told me that I could also get help despite being a Canadian. To be honest, I refused any assistance for several years. For one, I am not bitter and choose not to define my life by September 11th. Even if I knew that I would get as sick as I have, I would help again. My quality of life compared to many of the great people that I met during that dark week six years ago is actually pretty awesome. I remain grateful for what I have and not bitter about what I do not.

-cont'd-
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/05/ letter-to-senator-clinton/


by durendal on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:51:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's The One We Want Picking Up That Phon (none / 0)

What you have written is just supposition and pure propaganda, not truth in any way.  You can have Obama, but I will NEVER vote for that impostor.  Not now, not ever, so you are a total waste of time.  I disagree with everything you have written here, ride Obama for your hopes and dreaming, but you are actually placing your own thoughts on him, he has never proven any of this stuff, its all just so many words and insults.  Over the Iraq war?  Obama has not displayed any kind of courage on this issue, he has been against the war then for the war then against the war, but really this is a red herring, this is Bush's war, not Hillary's and to suggest otherwise is just so much spin by the bots such as yourself.  There is no possibility Obama will be president, none. No one that blames America first can win the presidency.  It just won't happen.  Dream on with your dream candidate. It would be difficult for Hillary to win the WH but it would be impossible for Obama to do it.


democrat voter
by democrat voter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:56:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's The One We Want Picking Up That Phon (2.00 / 1)

I just want to add to the commenters who have thanked you for coming forward and sharing your very personal experience! And thank you sincerely as well for your brave service as a first responder!

I knew Hillary was there, but those of us not there have no comprehension of what actually was happening on the ground.  What I think we can all attest to is that Rudy certainly got a lot of positive press coverage from being there.  And you know, I think you also used a key word in talking about how Hillary was there "quietly" doing what she was doing.  I think that's one quality that has allowed so many to overlook her vast contributions to our country--because she's simply been quietly accomplishing so much, but not getting a commensurate level of press for those accomplishments. (And I would further add this is a common characteristic among accomplished women I know--women are generally known for just rolling up their sleeves and getting the job done, but often without fanfare. And I think this epitomizes Hillary.  For every speech in China about Human Rights and Women's Rights--I'm sure there are a dozen other accomplishments we never hear about and don't know about until we go digging.  And even sometimes with digging, can't really find easily.) Anything we can do to bring such instances to light would undoubtedly help her now!  Thank you again!  (And I'll also add--although new to this site myself, I'd second those who've suggested you begin a diary to share of your important and enlightening insight!)


HRC: "...not a vote to rush to war--it...puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President, we say to him 'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.'"
by ChargedFan on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:45:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's The One We Want Picking Up That Phon (2.00 / 0)

I agree and posted a diary for the first time in my life on this.  

"Obama Talks Too Much. He's All Hat, No Cattle. Just Words."
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/2/11183 /18202
(I couldn't figure out how to embed the video-- but I'm still learning.)


by GeekLove08 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:00:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you so Hillary partisan that you wont evaluate (1.33 / 3)

The other candidate?
Read Obama's article written for Foreign Affairs Magazine in July.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701fa essay86401/barack-obama/renewing-america n-leadership.html

We don't need Hillary to play the big bully. We have one of those in GWB. I suggest you compare and contrast our current president's handling of the Iraq war, and Hillary's handling of her own campaign:

1. Both were arrogant enough to think that they will just walk over the competition.

2. Both had the unfounded confidence that once they beat the so called opposition they will be greeted with flowers, no matter what it takes to win.

3. Both did not do any grass root work to find out what the ground reality is.

4. Both are adament that their strategy was sound.

5. Both never anticipated a long drawn out battle.

6. Both surround themselves with 'yes-men'.

7. Both are reluctant to change their strategy because that would be tantamount to accepting that there was/is something wrong with it in the first place.

The list can go on and on.


by mageduley on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:30:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How many rings does it take to pick up the phone (none / 0)

But it's the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it's a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate's message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating.
The gap in hard work between the two campaigns was clear well before Feb. 5. Mrs. Clinton threw as much as $25 million at the Iowa caucuses without ever matching Mr. Obama's organizational strength. In South Carolina, where last fall she was up 20 percentage points in the polls, she relied on top-down endorsements and the patina of inevitability, while the Obama campaign built a landslide-winning organization from scratch at the grass roots. In Kansas, three paid Obama organizers had the field to themselves for three months; ultimately Obama staff members outnumbered Clinton staff members there 18 to 3.
In the last battleground, Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign was six days behind Mr. Obama in putting up ads and had only four campaign offices to his 11. Even as Mrs. Clinton clings to her latest firewall -- the March 4 contests -- she is still being outhustled. Last week she told reporters that she "had no idea" that the Texas primary system was "so bizarre" (it's a primary-caucus hybrid), adding that she had "people trying to understand it as we speak." Perhaps her people can borrow the road map from Obama's people. In Vermont, another March 4 contest, The Burlington Free Press reported that there were four Obama offices and no Clinton offices as of five days ago. For what will no doubt be the next firewall after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22, the Clinton campaign is sufficiently disorganized that it couldn't file a complete slate of delegates by even an extended ballot deadline.

SIX RINGS? PICK UP THE PHONE ALREADY HILLARY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99oat5t-w 9w


by mageduley on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:26:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How many rings ? (2.00 / 1)

I love your description of the Obama campaign.  I really do believe the marketing for Mr. Obama has been professional.  Providing Mr. Obama stays on the script... you know the one...   he does great!  

However, we really should be talking about the individual candidates and their qualifications to lead our wonderful country.  

Mr. Obama is simply unprepared for the national stage at this point.  His speech is tired and I have heard it over and over and over...  

Unfortunately, when he answers questions on national and international issues he is too often found to be inaccurate.  It must be embarassing to be caught in the media flap about such things as "bomb Pakistan."  You gotta ask, did he really say "Bomb Pakistan" while running for president???  Did he really say he would draw down troops from Iraq and return them if al Qaeda were to pop up there?   Jeeze.. he needs a better tutor on the road...  Somebody needs to show him how to google the news...

Hillary Clinton is one of the most remarkable women in the world.  She has prepared herself for the role of President of the United States her entire life.  This is demonstrated in the way she is able to dialogue about the issues before audiences around the country at Universities, Union Houses, Health Care Associations and as an active informed Senator.  

By the way - 6-rings is perfect if the person who answers is able to be thoughtful, informed, and correct.

thank you.


by dianeCrn on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:02:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How many rings ? (1.00 / 0)

You gotta ask, did he really say "Bomb Pakistan" while running for president?

No. He said he would not allow Pakistan to protect Osama bin Laden. Remember him?

Though your recitation of talking points from the McCain campaign is, once again, revealing. I don't think you quite get what's going on in the ME. But then, neither does your candidate, John McCain.


by BlueinColorado on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:08:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How many rings ? (1.66 / 3)

Really uncalled for. Calling someone a Repub because she's asking questions about your candidate's readiness for office? This is not a good trend.


by River103 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:35:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How many rings ? (none / 0)

Have you read her comments?


by BlueinColorado on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:47:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sometimes It's Not About You Barack (2.00 / 10)

Those who can - do.

In this case, those who can't tear others down and play the victim.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:28:41 PM EST

Re: Sometimes It's Not About You Barack (2.00 / 0)

But in this case, those who "could" have voted against the Iraq war, "didn't".


by amiches on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:43:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sometimes It's Not About You Barack (2.00 / 5)

Remind us again... what exactly was BO doing back then?

Besides making that speech that he took off his website 7 months later?

Oh yeah - he was in the IL state legislature.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:33:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sometimes It's Not About You Barack (1.75 / 4)

I don't get it...is that supposed to be an attack? Of course he was in the state house...I guess we can add "state legislatures" to the list of meaningless things as defined by the Hillary campaign. And you guys wonder why your brand of campaigning has led to the dissolution of the grassroots across the country.


by amiches on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:50:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sometimes It's Not About You Barack (2.00 / 2)

Can someone please get rid of this "River" person? Troll ratings aren't for comments you disagree with.


by amiches on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:19:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sometimes It's Not About You Barack (1.00 / 1)

"...your brand of campaigning has led to the dissolution of the grassroots across the country."

I TRd you because this statement is false, over the top, baiting, and you know it. That's trollworthy.


by River103 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:59:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sometimes It's Not About You Barack (2.00 / 1)

No, it isn't. The dissolution of the grassroots by DLC types, of which Hillary is one, is covered extensively in a book written by the guy who runs this site. Have you ever read it?


by amiches on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:25:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sometimes It's Not About You Barack (none / 0)

Even Kos has admitted he voted for Obama although Obama's positions are to the right of Hillary.
So Kos bashed the DLC in his book - but still voted for a Centrist this year.
That's called - profits over principle.
Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:25:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sometimes It's Not About You Barack (none / 0)

Source


by amiches on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:08:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sometimes It's Not About You Barack (none / 0)

Please define right and left as in:

"to the right of Hillary."

Also please tell us how you come to the conclusion that obama is more of a "centrist" than is Clinton.


Hillary Clinton is not a monster,....as far as I know.. We are all Hussein JUNIOR.. ///.. FEINGOLD/BOXER 2016
by Its Like Herding Cats on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:57:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not in the slightest. (none / 0)

You can't think of everything on a left-right axis.  The netroot's aim isn't to pull the party to the "left", and you can vote for a candidate without agreeing with all their positions.  As far as I can tell Markos is voting against the Penn-McAuliffe-Carville axis more than anything.

Besides, how much do you think Markos is getting paid for his vote?


by corph on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:30:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sometimes It's Not About You Barack (none / 0)

Amen Alegre, great diary. If Mr. All Knowing Obama was so prescient, why the praise of Bush's nomination of Rumsfeld? Why didn't he know his financier and buddy Rezko was a slumlord?
Did he know his own constituents, many of them  poor were freezing, without heat during a brutal Chicago winter?

The only reason Saddam let the UN inspectors back in was the threat of force.

It wasn't Hillary who pulled the inspectors out of Iraq.

From Col. Pat Lang, USA, RET. a bona fide heavyweight with serious creds - a former Green Beret, who was in charge of intel in the ME for the DIA. He also brought and taught Arabic and ME Studies to West Point. And no one has done more to discredit the neocons than he.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Patrick_ Lang

From Drinking the Koolaid, 2004
-excerpt-

First, there was the consistent refusal to provide witnesses and information to the U.S. Senate, especially regarding the projected costs of the war and the lack of opportunities to question key players such as General Jay Garner, who was appointed by the Defense Department to be the first head of the U.S. provisional authority in Iraq. There was also the subtle hiding of the objections of the Department of Energy and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) in the NIE of October 2002. One congressional source explained that the classified NIE was made available in its entirety to only a select few members of Congress. There were verbal briefings and an elaborate process to access the document in a secure location. But it was never clear that the 27-page unclassified version that was available to every office was missing any crucial information.

There were also false statements to Congress about providing the U.N. inspectors all the intelligence that might have helped them locate the Iraqi WMD and programs. Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan has accused the administration, and especially CIA Director Tenet, of withholding information because "the truth" -- that the United States had withheld the locations of 21 high- and middle-priority sites -- might have slowed down the drive for war. The truth might have convinced Congress to take action to delay military action until the inspections were completed.

The March 7, 2003, appearance by the chairmen of UNMOVIC (Hans Blix) and the IAEA (Mohamed ElBaradei) before the U.N. Security Council was a disaster for the neoconservatives. The Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had "accelerated" cooperation with the United Nations, said Dr. Blix. Blix told the Council that Iraq had made a major concession: they had agreed to allow the destruction of the Al Samoud ballistic missiles. "We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks," Blix said. "Lethal weapons are being destroyed. . . . The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament -- indeed, the first since the middle of the 1990s."

http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol11/0406_l ang.asp

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~

The ten al Samouds that were destroyed in Feb. of 2003  - which were in violation of UN Resolutions were upwards of a million dollars apiece. And since they were manufactured during sanctions, their cost was considerbly more to Saddam.
(Being much more difficult during sanctions to secure the materiels and maufacture them.)

Blix, ElBaradei and the rest of the UN inspectors would not have been allowed back into Iraq without the threat of force. Simple. The mission was of disarming Saddam of WMD's achieved.

Again from PL

"Blix came down hard on the Iraqis, and we actually were in the process of destroying all these Al Samoud missiles," says Greg Thielman, the former head of the WMD section of INR. "As soon as the Iraqis agreed to do that, I sighed a big sigh of relief. I thought, the U.N. inspectors are working; we've stared Saddam down; we've forced him to do what he desperately didn't want to do, in that area of activity that was of most concern to us." Thielman believes that the Al Samoud incident shows that the administration was so intent on war that this compliance with the inspections "made no difference."

But it was after the next presentation, by IAEA chairman Mohammed ElBaradei, that "all hell broke loose" in Washington. ElBaradei, in his statement, sank the U.S. intelligence community's prestigious NIE, President Bush's State of the Union address, and Colin Powell's February 5 address to the U.N. Security Council with one blow. ElBaradei was calm in what he had to say: "Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents, which form the basis for reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are, in fact, not authentic." The Niger yellowcake documents were forgeries. Then, ElBaradei told the press that an IAEA staff member had, in fact, used the common search engine Google to determine, within hours, that the Niger documents, which had been passed on to the U.S. embassy in Rome through an anonymous source, were fakes! Members of Congress then began to grumble. In light of the contradictions, a bill was introduced demanding that the administration disclose the intelligence reports that were the basis for the statements made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell about the Iraqi WMD threat. It was still locked in committee when the war began.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~
IT WAS Bush who pulled the weapons inspectors, despite El Baradei speaking to the UNSecurity Council,and the whole world on  Mar. 7, 2003. He blew the 2002 NIE out of the water.

"In conclusion, I am able to report today that, in the area of nuclear weapons -- the most lethal weapons of mass destruction -- inspections in Iraq are moving forward. One, there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related activities at any inspected sites. Second, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990. Third, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment.

Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminum tubes in question. Fourth, ... there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.

After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq. . . . I should note that, in the past three weeks, possibly as a result of ever-increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been forthcoming in its co-operation, particularly with regard to the conduct of private interviews and in making available evidence that contributes to the resolution of matters of IAEA concern."

A few days later, Bush pulled the inspectors.

On Mar. 16, 2003 Cheney went on MTP with Russert and did his best to discredit ElBaradei.
The following day the bombing began.


by durendal on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:39:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But then again, (2.00 / 0)

those who could have taken a stand on the Senate floor, have not. Not one speech, not one vote against funding, not one bill introduced to bring the troops home and end the war. Nada.


by georgiapeach on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:42:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But then again, (none / 0)

When the bus is already in the ditch, the situation is different. You're comparing apples to oranges.


by amiches on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:33:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But then again, (none / 0)

Not really. Probably closer to comparing different kinds of oranges. Because the fact is that on any day at any time members of congress could have made the steps to end the war in Iraq, to stop the invasion, escalation, and all that those entail. So, not two unlike premises at all, except the one was part of starting the ball (or orange in keeping with the metaphor) rolling while the other allows it to keep on its roll.


by River103 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:36:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sometimes It's Not About You Barack (2.00 / 0)

Such as John Kerry, who many, many of us here on this site worked hard for 4 years ago? I took him at his word 4 years ago, that he voted for the resolution to use force (not the war) based on the information he saw, and I take Clinton at her word.  I wish we could have taken Bush at his word, and that he would have worked to have the weapons inspectors stay and do their jobs, as the resolution stated.


by AnnC on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:01:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sometimes It's Not About You Barack (none / 0)

Hmmmmm. You mean like your candidate who continues to fund the war in Iraq? Huh.


by River103 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:27:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sometimes It's Not About You Barack (2.00 / 0)

Sigh. So desperate.
"There's something horrible and undefeatable about people who have no life except the worship of power. People who don't want the meeting to end."
by campaignmonitor on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:33:03 PM EST

You Read Fast (2.00 / 4)

Or did you even bother to read it?

I'm guessing - not.  Or you'd know that this is about Hillary's massive amount of experience, and her readiness to lead on day one.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:10:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Read Fast (2.00 / 0)

I'm getting the impression that you're a little insecure about people reading your diary.


by animated on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:04:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Read Fast (2.00 / 2)

I've noticed that non of you have anything substantial, like why Obama would be the one who you would want in a crisis situation, to say.  The problem with Obamaniacs is that they spam with empty comments, basically to interupt and take up space.  Your kind of comments do nothing to make people think Obama is preferable.


by Scotch on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:47:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Read Fast (none / 0)

Nothing substantial, huh?

On the other hand, if I was like "Woot! Woot! Hillary is 44!", you'd be all over it.


by animated on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:57:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Read Fast (none / 0)

I think we've made our case quite substantially, and that a majority of Dem primary voters agree.


by amiches on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:22:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Read Fast (none / 0)

Majority of Dems? Not so sure. WIth the help of Inds. (for now) and Repubs (for now) yep.


by River103 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:29:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL! You're Kidding - Right? (2.00 / 4)

He made one speech that he was pushed into giving from a safe distrcit.

A speech he was so committed to that he took it off his website 7 months later.

A speech he was so committed to that he said right after he joined the Senate that he thought Bush was doing a good job in Iraq.

A speech he was so committed to that he said 6 months later that he didn't have the info those in the Senate had, so he had no way of knowing how he would have voted.

A speech he was so committed to that since joining the Senate, he's voted in lockstep with Hillary on Iraq but for one vote - the confirmation of Casey... he supported him and Hillary opposed him.

And if you'd bothered to click on that video of him in my diary you'd know he had no problem with Rummy before the guy took his post at DOD.

Judgment - riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:24:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

memes (2.00 / 1)

You do understand that outside of college towns most voters are not interested in "memes" and who's better at pushing voters to the polls, right?  They are only interested in who's better equipped to do the job.
Of course, when the most significant line on your resume is your quest for the job itself and the biggest crisis you've faced is the latest ad from your opponent, well I guess it does come down to your meme crafting ability.

National security is not just a "meme".  It actually has substance and significance to those who make true sacrifices for it or see the genuine need for it.  

Hey, I was right about the Iraq War myself in 2002, right down to what was going to happen.  I guess I show the "judgement" to be president.  


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:45:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey, me too!!!! (none / 0)

"Hey, I was right about the Iraq War myself in 2002, right down to what was going to happen.  I guess I show the "judgement" to be president."

GREAT COMMENT!  


by Shazone on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:35:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: memes (none / 0)

Me too! Who woulda thunk it? Of course, I was fighting cancer at the time, and wasn't able to do much else besides watch cable and surf the net. Time was a luxury that I had then, but a lot of people working every day didn't. Most of what they knew going into Iraq was the mindless repetition by the MSM about WMD's and mushroom clouds, and George Bush's lie about Saddam Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in. They know now that they got fooled, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to rub it in their face.


by georgiapeach on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:50:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: memes (none / 0)

Are you saying that we shouldn't hold Hillary accountable for her vote because she was "working every day"???

All I can say is, wow - that's an interesting new talking point for Hillary supporters. Hope it works out for you.


by amiches on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:36:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What? (2.00 / 0)

I wasn't even talking about Hillary. I was talking about voters, who have to work for a living and don't have the luxury of a lot of time on the internet or in front of the television. All I can say is, wow. Must be hard to be an Obama supporter, having to work overtime to try to turn any and every comment into a statement either for or against a candidate.


by georgiapeach on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:26:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What? (none / 0)

I work all day and I was out in front of the Bangor federal building with hundreds of people on one of the coldest days of that winter trying to stop the war.

Most Democratic voters were against the war. So were most Democratic Senators. The Democratic chair of the Senate Intelligence committee was against it.

But HRC was not and she has not admitted her error yet.  


by mainelib on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:29:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: memes (2.00 / 1)

hey, I'm all for holding politicians accountable for their votes.  That's why I read the Clinton voting statement to understand her decision.  

the only place her judgement differs from Obama's at the time is this --
She was in a position in Congress to understand Bush had more than enough Congressional and public support to do whatever the hell he wanted.  He was going to get his authorization regardless of her vote or any other Democrat's.  

So, she made the decision, as laid out clearly in her VOTING STATEMENT, that Hussein should not get the message that a partisan split would rescue him, nor should our troops get the message that they were not supported in what their Commander in Chief might send them to do.

This is the type of complex decision making a president is expected to make.  Obama made a decision that made him look smart.  Senator Clinton made a much more difficult decision that balanced a number of factors.  Bush then led us into a poorly conceived and conducted war.  

There was nothing Clinton or any Democrat could have done to stop it.  Everytime Obama uses the "I was right from the beginning" argument I see a opportunist willing to exploit a soundbite built on bullsh!t.  


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:56:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: memes (2.00 / 0)

"National security is not just a "meme".  It actually has substance and significance to those who make true sacrifices for it or see the genuine need for it."

Thanks for a voice of sanity on this discussion, the people who bleed over the policy decisions of our government thank you very much.

I simply cannot believe people will elect someone with zero appropriate qualifications to competently manage the office of the presidency. It is incomprehensible to me that they will be so casual and blase' about other people's lives. I guess for me it does get personal, because if Obama is elected, my life and so many others' will be placed at risk for his incompetence.


by 07rescue on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:35:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you keep saying it (none / 0)

trash only trash, can't do anything else, the bots always talk trash, that's all they got.  The Iraq vote, so were you so against the war?  What did you do to stand up to Bush, were you a senator who had the NY people wanting her to vote the way she did, she did what she thought was the right thing, just because Bush did the wrong thing, that was never her fault and you and Obama's claim that it proves something is just plain garbage.  Like all the bots, you have nothing but insults in your sling, no experience, no record, just rhetoric, just words.  Just lies.


democrat voter
by democrat voter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:39:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sometimes It's Not About You Barack (2.00 / 8)

Great diary. Hillary has the experience and the gravitas.


by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:37:46 PM EST

Re: Sometimes It's Not About You Barack (2.00 / 6)

Absolutely Mike - no doubt in my mind that she's ready to tackle the tough issues that come her way.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:48:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yet another great diary alegre..... (2.00 / 4)

Thanks you so much, you fine, fine Clintonite!


by River103 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:38:36 PM EST

Re: Yet another great diary alegre..... (2.00 / 4)

My pleasure River!  Writing these diaries is a labor of love.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:11:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm pretty sure River 103 (2.00 / 2)

didn't mean that comment as a compliment Alegre. But I'm going to give you one. I was a JRE supporter in 2004, and had high hopes for him again this year. After he dropped out, I had to decide which of the two remaining viable candidates to get behind. Before Iowa, Obama was my strong second choice, and Hillary was way down the list. Then she won New Hampshire, and I started to become disturbed by the way the Obama supporters acted toward's Edwards supporters, and toward's HRC herself. Then came S.C., and all the accusations of race baiting and dog whistles, which I felt were a stretch. Then the memo came out of the Obama campaign about looking for something to use in this manner came out, and I was more disturbed still. These things started to push me in HRC's direction. But what helped to seal the deal was the almost daily positive Hillary diaries that you were posting on dKos, and the fact that you stayed positive no matter how much heat you were taking. I confess I was like a lot of other people, and my perceptions of Hillary were colored by her media coverage. But you and others like you have helped to put a human face on the candidate. The more I have watched her and listened to her, the more I have come to like and admire her. So ignore your naysayers, and keep up the good work.


by georgiapeach on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:06:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm pretty sure River 103 (2.00 / 1)

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Of course I meant it as a compliment! I adore alegre. What's up with your questioning of my intentions?


by River103 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:11:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If you are sincere, (none / 0)

then I apologize for questioning your motives. But the premise of my comment stands, either way. The dedication that she has shown to her candidate is admirable, and the generally positive tone of her diaries and comments is appreciated.


by georgiapeach on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:31:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Total agreement and (2.00 / 1)

apology accepted. alegre is amazing and her tireless work is much appreciated by me here and other places. Peace and happy trails!


by River103 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:43:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Right back atcha. eom. (none / 0)


by georgiapeach on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:27:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sometimes It's Not About You Barack (2.00 / 6)

obama needs to stay in the senate where his style of ducking tough decisions is tolerated. he's not ready for an executive position, because he can't execute. we don't need a commander in chief who issues statements explaining his position instead of making the tough calls.


by campskunk on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:44:22 PM EST

Re: Sometimes It's Not About You Barack (2.00 / 3)

Yeah... maybe he could go for Harry Reid's job as Majority Leader ;o)

(Ok so I'm a cheeky monkey)


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:49:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sometimes It's Not About You Barack (2.00 / 5)

 
  Never before have so many owed so much to one woman. GO HILLARY !!!
Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime
by gunner on