<p>I was just listening to NPR this morning, where they were discussing the Michigan delegates-- similar issue as with Florida. They said the Clintons were working, as we speak, on getting all those delegates to count. Some woman from Michigan called in and was very upset, because her state Democratic party had told her that in order to cast a vote for Obama in that primary, she essentially had to vote “undecided.” Now that seems to be working against them. So, yeah, it’s another slippery move on the Clinton’s part, for sure.</p>
<p>Not only did she support the invasion; as late as February 2005 (more than two years after the vote) she praised the success of the aggressive, hostile occupation from inside the Pork Zone itself.</p>
<p>I know about the huge numbers of people who protested the war all over the world including the US. I was also strongly anti-war. </p>
<p>But if I remember correctly the public opinion polls in the US were very strongly pro-war. Why shouldn’t they have been? We had just finished a successful war in Afghanistan. We were told that Saddam had WMD that could be deployed against us. Saddam was a muslim ruler who liked to taunt the US. So, of course public opinion was strongly pro-war. </p>
<p>And that is the main reason why many of the Democrats voted for the war. They didn’t want to take the political risk that the war would be waged successfully, that WMD would be discovered and Bush would be vindicated. Hillary knew she wanted to run for President. A vote against a popular (and potentially successful) war would have made her look weak, very weak, on defense. A woman, no less! My point is that Obama was NOT harboring serious ambitions to become President at that time because he would have supported the war then. </p>
<p>Even today, I am not sure if Obama’s opposition to the war won’t make him look weak on defense. See how the exit polls show that many more voters think Hillary would be a stronger commander-in-chief. In a general election matchup against McCain, his anti-war position could still be a huge vulnerability, regardless of how the war turned out. </p>
<p>People want their President to be more of a hawk and less of a dove. The last real dove we had was Jimmy Carter and people would say “look how he turned out”.</p>
<p>I like Obama, but I doubt that I will ever vote for him. He is a huge-government liberal (politically, pretty FAR left and authoritarian); whereas I am a moderate-libertarian. The two don’t mix well! I’d love to hang around him, but don’t want him as President.</p>
<p>He’s much less huge-government liberal than HRC who would mandate health insurance and garnish the salaries of those who refused. I don’t see the authoritarianism in his approach.</p>
<p>By the way, just saw a Breaking News that Hillary is making a loan of $5 million to her campaign because her donors are maxed out. As this stretches out, she may have to borrow from Romney.:)</p>
<p>“And that is the main reason why many of the Democrats voted for the war. They didn’t want to take the political risk that the war would be waged successfully, that WMD would be discovered and Bush would be vindicated.”</p>
<p>Many “experienced Democrats” voted for the war because they believed it was necessary. If they were for military attacks on Iraq in January/February 1998, why shouldn’t they have been in 2002, when the same guy (George Tenet) was selling the same (but updated) pile of horse manure than they fell in the first time?</p>
<p>Just kidding - but am I the only one who doesn’t really like Obama’s manner of speaking? Yes, he uses all this lofty language & has a nice way of turning a phrase sometimes, but I don’t really like to listen to him that much. His pauses are too long & I don’t like the way he punches the last word of each sentence. The way he says “toe” for “too” and “Clintn” for “Clinton” has started to annoy me.</p>
<p>Sorry to be negative, but I think this whole Obama thing is just a desperate grasp at something - anything - different by the dems & a large part of it is ABH: “Anybody But Hillary”. Perhaps Obama has been sort of “built up” as this great alternative because of a “guilt factor” over not going with Hillary. (Easier to break up with someone if you convince yourself that you have this “great” girl/guy waiting in the wings - whether that 2nd person is really wonderful or not!).</p>
<p>Geez, are we going to be voting on the way someone pronounces words or shapes sentences as opposed to what those words and sentences actually contain?
Why should I or anyone feel guilty about not going with Hillary? Oh, I know, I am a traitor to my gender.</p>
<p>“Geez, are we going to be voting on the way someone pronounces words or shapes sentences as opposed to what those words and sentences actually contain?”</p>
<p>It’s as good as any. There are vanishing points on the horizon. The further one is away from two folks walking down the same road at similar speeds, the closer together they seem, until one fades into the other. ;)</p>
<p>You know, as of January 2009, we won’t be entertained by GWB’s mispronunciations, as recorded by Jacob Weisberg of Slate.com any longer. Enough to make you pause, no matter where in your sentence you happen to be. :)</p>
<p>No, I wouldn’t vote for someone (or not) based on his speech patterns or pronunciation. (Can’t wait until I don’t have to hear GWB say “nucular” any more!). </p>
<p>I WOULD vote for someone (or not) based on what those words actually said! Haven’t heard Obama say anything much beyond “change” and “hope” and other grandiose concepts. He rarely says anything really specific about his PLANS. I’ve tried to listen to him quite a bit as I really do try to be knowledgable about all the candidates, but Obama just isn’t getting thru to me for some reason.</p>
<p>Since he speaks in such generalities, the listeners are free to project anything they want into what they’re hearing (especially when they so much WANT him to be some great alternative!).</p>
<p>mini - Guess I’m too obtuse for your last remark! Help!</p>
<p>(Obama’s plans are varied and extremely detailed - if you want them, go to his website. I don’t particularly recommend them, though - his so-called health plan, for example, adds 40 million people to a system which already has longer waiting lists for surgery than in Canada, and is a giant boondoggle for the health insurance companies, who are licking their chops. Hillary’s is even worse, and will penalize workers for not paying for care that might not be able to access in any case.)</p>
<p>Let me be clear, though: I voted for Obama, and his voice played a major role in my decision.</p>
<p>It means that when it comes to their positions on things that really matter to me, Obamadama and Hil are closer to GWB than they are to me, and their positional differences pale into insignificance.</p>
<p>mini - if you don’t recommend Obama’s “plans”, then why did you vote for him??<br>
You said his voice played a role in that decision - THAT’S why you voted for him??</p>
<p>Seems like a candidate’s plans would be a better basis for deciding whom to vote for. But that’s just me.</p>
<p>Because I believe very strongly in the value and power of symbolism - I have two daughters, of two different races - and I also think he gives very good “voice” to that symbolism. I have very low expectations of Presidents (based on my experience of them), and listening to Obama’s voice, especially when there is little policy content (there’s LOTS of other content), will be a great pleasure over the next four years. </p>
<p>(Hillary has symbolic value, too, as a woman - but she has virtually no independent experience “as a woman” - she would never have been elected as a carpetbagger senator from New York if it wasn’t for her husband, her major initiatives prior to that, from what I can tell, were generally speaking failures, and, as to her use of her so-called knowledge-base - well, her stances on Iraq through 2005 are very telling.)</p>
<p>It stands for A LOT. It stands for crossing racial divides and, by extension, other divides as well. It stands for recognition that there is a world, and a world of value, outside of the U.S. It stands for extended opportunities for all based on the content of the character. It stands for a government that is more than a bunch of policy compromises. It stands for the new, and the young, in a world besmirched by the old, and tired, and worn (that’s me. ;)) </p>
<p>As to what he can accomplish, eh. Can’t be much more than a world of global pollution, global warming, genocide, and exploitation given to us by Clinton/Gore. My expectations are very low. If I can feel good every once in a while because of watching the guy talk, I’m satisfied.</p>