Woodwork

I suppose there were many that opposed the war, during the run-up to the war --I was one myself. I do not, however, believe that qualifies me to be president. Given the circumstances, I believe the converse is also true; being against the war is not a disqualifier. Moreover, I think it is difficult to read the actors at that time and how they acted with any clarity. Circumstances and conditions were different for each: Hillary, Barack and McCain.

But having entered into the war with a majority of Americans and congress supporting the invasion, I think it is relevant to consider both the politics played and support offered to the reality of the war once it had become a fait accompli –for all candidates including the congress and senate not just those maneuvering themselves into position to become a president.

More important yet, is the character and prescriptions of the candidate’s plans to “win” the war and how they will define “winning”: Because it must be won. That’s part of the job description of a president, it is no longer good enough to be a critic or a cheerleader. They need to be a President and they need to win in a way that will be acceptable to the people who have given so much for this war in life and taxes. There is a wide array of possibilities; winning could envision a number of different scenarios, not all acceptable to all people, but winning it must be.

The surge seems to have stopped the bleeding and there is a very delicate political balance teetering first this way and that. Who, amongst the candidates is less likely to take a misstep and bring it all crashing down and most likely to end this perilous adventure and satisfy the people they represent. Us. They need to represent the American People and America – not just their parochial base.

Hindoo

I don't get it, either. I'm an Obama supporter who would line up behind Hillary Clinton in a heartbeat, if she were the nominee. I never could understand why a supporter of one would savagely attack the other. As far as I'm concerned, there's not a huge difference between them. To me, it's either one or the other, unless you really want a third Bush term.

Woodwork

Hindoo,

I think you hit it, if not directly. It seems that many here see this election as a referendum on Bush; to some, maybe even payback. I take this from the slogan you seem to have adopted from the party. ‘McCain: a third term of Bush.’ It could have as easily been "Obama = Wright," or "Hillary = Bill." All of a piece, to my mind.

But there are those, me amongst them, who did not endorse or enjoy the presidency of GWB but are still looking at this election with fresh and open eyes –to the future...maybe even giving all the candidates a fair look.

I like Obama, he is one of the most stunning men I have ever seen run for any office in my life time. Off the charts. Hillary, for whatever reason, has a particular charm and feminine grittiness that I find irresistible, and I cannot forget the fact that if the Republican Party has had a maverick in my adult lifetime it is without question Senator McCain.

I could envision voting for either one for very different reasons in each case. There’s a lot to consider. But some cannot. Many post on this forum. I believe they have honest reasons for their dogged disdain for the other candidates...albeit, mixed in with a rather large helping of boilerplate, to be sure.

Hanna

"I'm an Obama supporter who would line up behind Hillary Clinton in a heartbeat, if she were the nominee."

Same here! They have a great deal in common policy wise, particularly compared to McCain. If you care about policy even a little bit, a preference for one should lead to a November vote for the other.

poetsheart

Why oh why would Hillary have to bring Bill along? That's always been the deal breaker for me. There are things about her that really impress me. In many ways, she's quite amazing. But Bill......! God, I can't stand the man, and would hate to see him as Co-President---cheating his way into a third term. I also think that he would be the single biggest thorn in Obama's flesh, were he to pick Hillary as his VP (assuming Obama were to win the election---yeah, a big if, I know...). And that's saying a lot, because I believe Drosselmeirer's analysis of Obama's chances for a successful Presidency is spot on.

Having said all this, I'm willing to seriously consider voting for Hillary, should she somehow win the nomination and go against McCain. That's changed drastically from my first stand on this point. It use to be no-way-no-how---LOL! The verdict is still out on my willingness to vote for McCain. Who knows what will happen. November, politically speaking, is a long ways away.

azure_blue

Hindoo- I would like to challenge you on your comment "unless you want a third Bush term." I find it to be, intellectually, the easy way out. The two are different people, with different records, from the same party. Their policies are sometimes in alignment, and sometimes, strikingly opposite. (i.e. Waterboarding, global warming, early on in the Iraq war, campaign finance, immigration, etc.). Hindoo, I have no problem with you disagreeing with the positions Sen. McCain takes, put please keep it to Sen. McCain and the facts. Thanks.

teriwtt

spideygirl - have you stopped to consider for a moment that instead of executing a defense against Hillary, she was executing an offense of the choices she and her husband have made regarding how they want to rear their children despite the rigors of a demanding primary schedule. Think for a second what the pundits would be saying if Michelle had not (and she has spoken to the issue MANY times - even prior to his decision to run - of how important it is to raise their kids as normally as possible) addressed what they value in being sure at least one parent is around as often as possible. They would be accusing the Obamas of neglecting their children for the sake of their own self interests and political ambitions.

By the way, almost every politician I've ever heard run for office, who has small children, has at one point or another, addressed what they have to do to balance life with the responsibilities of having young children. If Bill hadn't strayed, Michelle (and other politicians with young children) would still be talking about the challenges of a political campaign and how it impacts the family. So just because Bill did stray, does it mean that Michelle now has to avoid the topic? Doesn't make sense.

If you go way back prior to Obama's decision to run, he and Michelle both made it clear that a big part of their decision had to do with how a presidential campaign could impact the balanced life they want to provide their young daughters. It would be disengenuous for them to have made such a big deal about it back then, and not follow through. The way I see it, Michelle would have felt compelled to make those comment whether Obama's opponent had a perfect marriage or not - it's part of the Obama's publicly-made promise to each other that they not let the campaign take over their lives so completely that their children were neglected.

spideygirl

azure-blue: "Hindoo- I would like to challenge you on your comment "unless you want a third Bush term." I find it to be, intellectually, the easy way out. The two are different people, with different records, from the same party. Their policies are sometimes in alignment, and sometimes, strikingly opposite. (i.e. Waterboarding, global warming, early on in the Iraq war, campaign finance, immigration, etc.). Hindoo, I have no problem with you disagreeing with the positions Sen. McCain takes, put please keep it to Sen. McCain and the facts. Thanks."

Good post. Unfortunately, the smearing of Sen. McCain has already begun. I frequently hear Sen. Obama using Bush and McCain in the same sentence over and over, to an extent which is really affected. Great strategy for brainwashing the lemmings. You'll be seeing A LOT of that. Watch for it.

Strange that not too long ago McCain was struggling to get a lot of Republicans to vote for him because he is too much of a Democrat. To many Republicans, McCain and Clinton are the two Democrats running for president, and Obama is the one Socialist running.

There are no Republicans running for president. All of the conservatives are pretty much holding their noses in order to tolerate pulling the McCain lever.

To Obama supporters: DON'T DRINK THE KOOL-AID! Wasn't Socialism already disproved in the Soviet experiment? Why go back and try it again?

Hindoo

"Hindoo- I would like to challenge you on your comment "unless you want a third Bush term." I find it to be, intellectually, the easy way out. The two are different people, with different records, from the same party. Their policies are sometimes in alignment, and sometimes, strikingly opposite. (i.e. Waterboarding, global warming, early on in the Iraq war, campaign finance, immigration, etc.). Hindoo, I have no problem with you disagreeing with the positions Sen. McCain takes, put please keep it to Sen. McCain and the facts. Thanks."

Azure_blue: You make a valid point. I don't for a minute think that McCain would be the wall-to-wall disaster Bush has been. I believe he's a decent man, who happens to hold some views I disagree strongly with. When I say he'd offer a "third Bush term," I'm thinking of two areas that really worry me--Iraq and the Supreme Court.

Hindoo

spideygirl--Do you consider it "smearing" McCain to utter his name in the same sentence as Bush's? And do you believe that the "smearing" of Obama has not yet started? Right-wing zealots on CC threads and elsewhere have been spewing a geyser of poison at Obama ever since it looked like he had a chance at the nomination. Give us a break. We've had disastrous leadership for eight years, during which time we've alienated much of the world by launching an immoral war that's slaughtered thousands and put our economy in the toilet. Why don't we let someone with different ideas at least give it a try? I DON'T want to be in Iraq another 100 days, let alone another 100 years!

spideygirl

Poetsheart:"Oh, so you "had to have been there", huh, Spidey? Well, since you were---Uh, I mean, know someone who knew someone who read it in a blog---why don't you prove that Michele Obama's words were a slam against Hillary Clinton? Anything objective and rational will do---an actual video link---you, know---so we can all witness this irrefutable "body language and tone of speech" would be a good start. That we should "take your word for it" against the actual words that came out of Michele Obama's mouth is just not gonna cut it."


It must be very frustrating not to able to control other people's opinions. If only you could sit every person down who interpreted MO's statements that way, you know, all at once, it would be so much easier than trying to take it person by person. How dare someone not accept your spin. Yes, the audacity of hope that everyone will drink the Kool-Aid, and the anger which bubbles to the surface when someone refuses to do so.

spideygirl

HINDOO: "Do you consider it "smearing" McCain to utter his name in the same sentence as Bush's?"

You must have missed my point.

HINDOO: "And do you believe that the "smearing" of Obama has not yet started?"

Yes, HINDOO, I believe the smearing against Obama has started.

Hindoo

Must have. What was it?

Hanna

"I believe he's a decent man, who happens to hold some views I disagree strongly with. When I say he'd offer a "third Bush term," I'm thinking of two areas that really worry me--Iraq and the Supreme Court."

You're reading my mind. Except that I'd expand the second issue to Article III courts in general, not just the Supreme Court.

Hindoo

spideygirl--why do you put my name in all caps? It scares me. It's like you're yelling at me ... Wah!