<p><a href=“http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/01/10/hillary/[/url]”>http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/01/10/hillary/</a></p>
<p>Here is Camille Paglia on Hillary. I thought some might be interested in reading this.</p>
<p>I don’t know and that is what frightens me. </p>
<p>I am not an Obama fan or supporter he may have done great things for Illinois, but in 2000 people said that about Bush, huge support, the guy you wanted to have a beer with, crossed the aisle, no national experience…anything ringing bells here, now everyone wants anything that is the opposite of Bush…The only thing that I see different with Obama is he has a D behind his name and not an R. </p>
<p>My true problem with him is his national voting record, especially when he was present but did not vote…I take that as his way not to get caught in flip-flop situation, so as a president is he going to say sorry, I abstain. :(</p>
<p>zoosermom: Thank you for that acknowledgement. That says a lot about your integrity.</p>
<p>I have never seen a politician attacked on a deep level by so many notables. Hillary engenders scorn.</p>
<p>Okay here’s my suggestion we ban together who ever gets the nom for their party insists (grass roots campaign) that their candidates promise at least 50% of the cabinet will have the opp party appointed (and they must at least appoint the Sec of Def or State maybe both from that pool) Works for me</p>
<p>I forgot to mention that post #75 is from Ronald Reagan’s nomination acceptance speech and #78 is from Bill Clinton’s. </p>
<p>All the candidates sound alike - you have to look deeper than speeches to find out what they’re all about.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I disagree. The color of his skin is a very large part of his appeal. He may not go out and say, “vote for me, because I’m a black man,” just as Hillary doesn’t go out and say, “vote for me because I’m a woman.” Rest assured, though, his race is a primary factor in his appeal and in his success. The U.S. endorsing a black president is the very essence of “change.” In fact, I think the only plus Obama might have for us is that electing him might send a message to the rest of the world and elevate us, from where we are now. </p>
<p>1sokkermom: I don’t think there was ever any love lost between Edwards and Kerry. Yes, I think Kerry does blame Edwards for his loss. Truth be told, Kerry couldn’t have won if Jesus Christ had been his running mate.</p>
<p>Back to Obama . . . I just heard him on NPR a little while ago. He is now down in SC, and I heard this voice, but had no idea who was speaking. He changed his entire voice for the SC voters. Unbelievable. He has no connection to the Southeastern U.S. at all; now suddenly, he talks like a Southerner? This guy is way too slick and packaged for my tastes. He was not a few years ago, but his handlers have sure packaged him now. It’s really too bad. He just comes across empty words and seems really phony to me now.</p>
<p>It will, I think, make quite a difference how countries, especially in the middle east, view us.</p>
<p>I have friends who slip into the local accent without any difficulty. They aren’t packaged. I always thought Bush’s “aw shucks” persona for a kid who went to NE boarding schools and colleges was pretty fake too.</p>
<p>Accents are weird, my brother has four kids who all grew up in NH. (He has generic US accent, his wife is from FL but doesn’t sound nearly as southern as she used to.) Only one kid has a NH accent. The others sound like Dad.</p>
<p>Just give me a couple of days in Paris, and my French accent comes back in full force. Sometimes, it only takes reading a book in French to go the trick. A few days back in London, where I spent several years, and the combination of living there and having learned English with a British accent leads to “to mah-toes” and “lorries.”</p>
<p>Yes, marite. I can believe your accent comes back, but that’s because it’s native to you. You lived in London; that’s understandable, too. I didn’t notice Obama speaking like people from NH when he was up there, nor did I notice him speaking like Iowans. Interesting.</p>
<p>And, yes, I’ve always thought the whole cowboy thing with Bush is incredibly fake and phony. I still can’t believe the American public put that man in office-- twice, apparently.</p>
<p>Happy to see the thread is bringing about a lot of friendly and certainly interesting debate. One interesting thing I have picked up on is more than a few of you “liking” McCain. I thought he was passable until I hear these words" Who knows, we might be in Iraq another fifty to a hundred years." How does that resonate with you? Do you feel comfortable knowing if this even goes another ten years, it will end up being by far the costliest war in history, that our grandchildren and possibly great grandchildren (according to McCain) will be footing the bill and God knows how many countless generations after them? Do you stop to think what that equates to in terms of human loss? THAT KIND OF STATEMENT SCARES ME MORE THAN ANYTHING OBAMA, HILARY, HUCKABEE AND ROMNEY COULD SAY PUT TOGETHER!! A few words spoke volumes and with someone who is thinking along those lines, (aka Bush times 1000) if that is not a red flag to get him out now, then I don’t know what is. Curious how you all react to this.</p>
<p>"How does that resonate with you? Do you feel comfortable knowing if this even goes another ten years, it will end up being by far the costliest war in history, that our grandchildren and possibly great grandchildren (according to McCain) will be footing the bill and God knows how many countless generations after them? Do you stop to think what that equates to in terms of human loss? THAT KIND OF STATEMENT SCARES ME MORE THAN ANYTHING OBAMA, HILARY, HUCKABEE AND ROMNEY COULD SAY PUT TOGETHER!! "</p>
<p>Before you get all scared, you need to look at the entirety of what he said. He correctly said that people have had no issue with us being in Germany, Japan, or Korea for 50+ years. The reason is that 1) there is no loss of life 2) we are invited by the local government to be there and 3) it served the strategic best interests for the US to be there. He also correctly pointed out that when it was in our best interest to get out of Saudi Arabia or were asked to get out of the Phillipines, we did so.</p>
<p>All he was saying regarding Iraq is that if these SAME conditions existed in Iraq, why would we give ourselves an artificial deadline to get out? It would appear to be extremely foolish and short sighted to ignore these 3 factors and just get out because of some knee jerk reaction. Are the same people making such demands also calling for us to get out of Kuwait or UAE? If not, why not? I would say that the person least capable of being president is one who would ignore these three conditions and pull us out anyway.</p>
<p>“THAT KIND OF STATEMENT SCARES ME MORE THAN ANYTHING OBAMA, HILARY, HUCKABEE AND ROMNEY COULD SAY PUT TOGETHER”</p>
<p>I took the statement to mean that he is going to let events in Iraq determine how long there is a presence and that he will not commit to an artificial timetable.</p>
<p>I said I respect McCain; it does not mean that I have to agree with everything he says or stands for. I also respect Obama, and I do not agree with him on every point. I respect Hillary as well, but there are aspects of her personality and resume that are very problematic for me. I would have a great deal more respect for Romney if he did not run from his record as governor of my own state. Giuliani scares me and so does Huckabee, in different ways. Both, by the way, represents to me the nanny state even more than any of the Democrats. Or rather, Giuliani represents the Father Knows Best approach to governing. Also, I’d rather have Hillary’s tears than his love calls to and from his wife. Nauseating.</p>
<p>Well said, FF. A very succinct and enlightening view. Enlightening, because someone on this thread actually told the whole story, not the 10 second sound-bite that is used out of context 90% of the time.</p>
<p>As to the statement about the war and occupation of Iraq being the costliest war ever in history, I think our grandparents who had to live the events during and after WWII will take a little offense. I don’t see anyone planting “victory gardens” in my neighborhood, and I’m pretty sure we don’t have “meat-less Tuesdays” in any section of the country as of yet. </p>
<p>In real dollars adjusted for inflation, the events and aftemath of WWII far overshadow the current costs we are facing from Iraq. (Remember, US taxdollars re-built most of Europe and Japan. And has FF accurately pointed out, we stayed there for quite a while and remain in most of these locations today, at the cost of our tax dollars. And b4 I get the “cite your references, please” requests, give me some time to do some thorough research. I may even make it a research project for my kids. Extra credit for civics class, I knew this site would help their chances of getting into Harvard! 
) Am I happy America is spending an estimated trillion dollars + over this mess? No. But the rhetoric has to stop, and some real debate, to include addressing the consequences of every and any action we consider, needs to be accomplished. Without emotion and knee jerk reactions (which got us into this mess in the first place), but with a realistic review of all the options.</p>
<p>bulletandpima:</p>
<p>Obama’s reasons for opposing the war in Iraq were mine, too. </p>
<p>
<br>
[Obama</a> highlights initial opposition to Iraq war - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/03/obama_touts_initial_stance_on_iraq_war/]Obama”>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/03/obama_touts_initial_stance_on_iraq_war/)
I made a case similar to this on CC at the time.
The parallels with Japan and Germany are not appropriate. In both cases, not only did the Allies defeat a leader, but the whole country as well. Both had been brought to their knees. In Iraq, only Saddam had been eliminated. The country still had plenty of resources despite the years of sanctions. US funds in Germany and Japan (not to mention other countries) were used to rebuild, not to destroy as was done in the early phase of the Occupation of Iraq. As well, Germany and Japan were not surrounded by countries ready to support enemies of the US.
Finally, in Germany and Japan we were clear whom we were fighting. Who are our enemies in Iraq? One day it’s the Sunni Baathists, another day is the Shiites’ Sadr militia. Iran has benefited enormously from our entanglement in Iraq. The Taliban is as strong as it ever was. So is Al Qaeda.</p>
<p>You are right we need to review our options we a clear head. But getting in is always so much easier than getting out!</p>
<p>I guess I didn’t state my point accurately. My post was not about the reasons that led us into the war (which has been and will be argued for decades to come), but to show that the statement made by ctmomof3 about how this would be the costliest war in history. Actual dollars, probably. But in today’s dollars, the cost of WWII is much higher.</p>
<p>As someone who actually was in Iraq, I can say that some of your other points are not the case, but I’d rather get back to the OP and discuss the effects of Obama’s plan to begin immediate withdrawal of troops and what the consequences will be. Easy words to say, but what happens when the country falls into anarchy within months of departing? Will we have to go back, and do we want to?</p>
<p>If I entertained greater hope that staying longer would prevent anarchy, I’d support staying longer. Saddam kept Iraq together through his ruthless policies that favored the Sunni minority. Once he was gone, and with the incredibly stupid de-Baathification program of Bremer, the Shiites got the upper hand. Gen. Petraeus rightly says that success has to come through a political solution. I don’t see one on the horizon.
The parallel that comes to mind is not Germany or Japan, but Yugoslavia after Tito. Tito did not get as bad press as he should have because he was not a Soviet puppet. But under his ruthless regime, the lid was kept on ethno-religious conflict. When he was gone, ancient resentments came to the fore. Clinton got a bad rep for staying out of the conflict for as long as he did. I am not sure whether the NATO intervention was the deciding factor in ending the war in Bosnia or whether it had run its course on its own. It may be that the war in Iraq will end when it has been de facto partitioned. This was a solution proposed quite some time ago.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She sure did, and it worked in NH. :)</p>
<p>bluebayou: The fact that Hillary is a woman is definitely working in her favor (though she has never said “vote for me because I’m a woman.” If she has, can you provide a link, because I’d love to see it.) The fact that she’s a woman has been greatly working against her, too. If she were a man, she wouldn’t get nearly the grief she’s been getting. So far, the color of Obama’s skin has been working for him, with no negatives associated with that. Why do you think everyone says all the African Americans in SC will be voting for him? Because they agree with him on the issues?? I doubt it. Why do you think he’s been endorsed by the rock star, Oprah? </p>
<p>I don’t think the charmed candidate’s life he’s been living will last, and not because of any race issues… Eventually, people are going to want to know what his detailed plans are-- and that will be true whether he’s white, black, purple, or blue. Unless he can come up with some viable detailed plans on the big issues, and start talking about them, I think his popularity will fade. Of course, I could be wrong. After all, this country did put in our current “leader.”</p>