<p>Ok, but I don’t remember her saying that it was the secret info that swayed her. Other senators with all her info voted against it as well. There’s no way we out here can know, but it seemed at the time that Bush & Co. were telling all they knew (and more) to try to convince us. Colin Powell was quite specific at the U.N. (never mind that it wasn’t true). But if Clinton says she based her vote on the secret info she was given, then, okay, I’ll cut her some slack. I’ll even vote for her if she’s the Dem. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It didn’t take any guts for Obama to give one anti-war speech. He was running for the state senate from the most liberal district in the country a district represented in Congress by a former Black Panther and where the preacher at the largest church is some nutjob named Jerimiah Wright. His poltical benefactors included a former Weather Underground terrorist and the Hyatt woman who is to the left of Jane Fonda and who threatened to cut off his money if he didn’t speak at the anti-war rally. Yeah, that took big brass ones.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah. 23 of 100 Senators voted against it. 60% of the Democrats voted for it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you recall, George Tenet was CIA Director under Bill Clinton and George Bush. Hillary Clinton was briefed by Tenent, who assured everyone in no uncertain terms that Sadaam had WMD.</p>
<p>Clinton, along with many Senators, voted for the AUMF to put pressure on Sadaam to allow UN inspectors back in the Iraq after a three year absence. That finally happened two months after the vote, when Hans Blix started inspection work in December.</p>
<p>Hans Blix believed he would find WMD. He was 100% sure. It was the only logical explanation for Sadaam absorbing so much heat to keep the inspectors out. Blix was shocked to find nothing. If Bush had allowed the inspectors to finish their work, the invasion wouldn’t have had to happen…but, keep in mind, the inspectors were ONLY there because the AUMF passed by Congress put so much heat on Sadaam.</p>
<p>It’s one big FUBAR failure of American intelligence on the one hand and the Cheney neo-cons WANTING to provoke a war to extend US military power into the Middle East – neither of which was really apparent to the Senate at the time. Remember, you had Cheney feeding a steady diet of lies to Judith Miller and the NYTimes presenting a slam-dunk picture of Sadaam’s WMDs.</p>
<p>idad, thanks for the info and reminders.
So Tenent couldn’t convince 40% of the Democrats, but many would likely vote against Bush no matter what.
The film “No End in Sight” has lower-level intelligence warning upper-level politicos that Chalibi is not credible. The film interviews (among others) a series of former Bush administration officials and retired (“fired”) generals who didn’t get fully on board, each giving their view of what went wrong with the occupation and subsequent war (the invasion itself was militarily effective). It is tragically fascinating.</p>
<p>i’dad,
Here & on the other threads, you register your disgust with the Democratic Party. Lots of the rest of us are also disgusted, or have been so in the past, but many of us happen to believe that if anything, Hillary represents a lot of what’s wrong about the Party. She is absolutely wed to the party, which is what the regulars like – someone with an un-new, predictable party-driven set of policies, someone who knows the machine from the inside, & loves it, which she does. An awful lot of Democrats and Republicans & Independents are just tired of that. </p>
<p>You’ve commented previously (I think) about the party’s obtuseness in failing to see that Northeasteners (Kerry, Dukakis) are not attractive to much of the south & midwest heartland, but does it occur to you that Hillary isn’t, either? Doesn’t matter about Arkansas; her style is mid-Atlantic establishment. Her manner is formulaic. Not only is she not the best the democrats could have offered, she’s also not the best woman, i.m.o.</p>
<p>In terms of actual <em>experience</em>, Joe Biden can run circles around Hillary. In terms of passion & idealism, Edwards has as much as Barack does.</p>
<p>The Democrats tend to choose their own party favorite first, and think about the <em>national</em> electorate second. My honest opinion is that both Hillary & Barack have challenges appealing to a <em>national</em> audience. So what I’m saying is, I can understand your frustration about the way the party operates; I cannot agree that supposedly the party, and the voters, should have backed Hillary in particular with single-minded enthusiasm.</p>
<p>I think she’s effective in the Senate & not yet effective enough as a presidential candidate to catch fire nationally, nor do I think she’s ready to be the chief executive. I also have some doubts about Barack’s readiness; with him, however, I have more faith, because of overall the way he has run his campaign. I think he should have been clearer on Wright earlier; other than that, he has been masterful – using in his campaign the kind of organizational skill he has shown in the past.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Florida. Texas. Tennessee. Clinton is very strong in the South and Midwest.</p>
<p>The only Southern states Obama has won are those states with black primaries: South Carolina, Georgia, Ala, Miss, Virginia. Problem is, there aren’t enough black voters in any of those states to put them in Democratic column in November.</p>
<p>Obama is now consistently losing 60+ percent of the white vote in key swing states like PA and OH. That’s a disaster in November. Look at the Electoral College map.</p>
<p>But, heh. It’s no skin off my teeth. I’ve already written off the Democratic Party, no matter who they nominate. I’ve seen enough to know that any party that inept does’t deserve to win elections. I mean, do we have to look any further than the bang-up job Pelosi and Reed have done consolidating the 2006 gains? 22% favorability.</p>
<p>A winning formula for the Democrats has to include being perceived as stronger than a wimp on national security and being fiscally responsible…something the typical latte-drinking windsurfing tank-riding Democratic Presidential candidates consistently fail to achieve. McCain will carve Obama up into little shreds on national security because he has, literally, no experience. He’s never even been to Europe except for a short stopover at Heathrow.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t really think the Democrats can win in November regardless. Writing off Florida and Michigan was a fatal mistake.</p>
<p>I think Clinton give them a fighting shot because she is attracting white working class voters (Reagan Democrats) including significant support from Republican-leaning women and from Latino/a and from Jewish and from Catholic voters.</p>
<p>Look at this week’s Quinnipaic Polls in Flordia, PA, and Ohio: </p>
<p>[Presidential</a> Swing States (FL, OH & PA) Poll * May 1, 2008 * Clinton Tops McCain In Florida - Quinnipiac University](<a href=“http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1173]Presidential”>http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1173)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is true that only two-thirds of Obama supporters say they will vote for Clinton. But, less than half of Clinton supporters say they will vote for Obama. Less than half.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, I think Obama’s black base is more likely to vote for Clinton than Clinton’s white female base voting for Obama.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There have been several good books written on the failures that led up to Iraq. Even though he’s a Bush ass-kisser of the highest order, even Bob Woodward’s books add a piece to the story.</p>
<p>IMO, the entire news departments of the New York Times and Washington Post should be hung for treason in selling a false story to the American people. That’s why I don’t pay any attention to their political coverage. How do you know when the New York Times is lying? When they are publishing stories. Judith Miller should be rotting in a jail cell for what she did to her country being a sycophant to Cheney/Rumsfeld.</p>
<p>weren’t MN and IA caucus states?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Minnesota and Wisconsin have been Democatic states for the last five elections. Even Michael Dukakis carred them in his landslide Electoral College loss (426-111). If any Dem loses Minn. or Wisconsin, the Dems are burnt toast. Might as well go windsurfing or listen to audio tapes of Rev. Jeramiah Wright sermons.</p>
<p>Iowa is a potential swing. Clinton and Gore carried it three elections in row before it turned back Republican when Kerry was the nominee. However, Iowa’s 7 electoral college votes, added to Kerry’s map, would only give the Dems 259, still 11 short of barely eekking out an Electoral College win. </p>
<p>You could pick up those 11 by flipping Missouri, which has only voted Democratic twice in the last seven elections – Bill Clinton carried it twice. Obama’s chances in Missouri are slim and none. He only carried five counties in the entire state, inc. the two Univ of Missouri counties and the big city counties of St. Louis and Kansas City. He was shutout in the entire rest of the state by Clinton in exactly the same way that the Republican suburban and rural vote typically wipes out Democratic chances in the state. Clinton would put it in play, but it would still be a medium to long shot “get” for the Dems.</p>
<p>Even under that scenario, I would be concerned about New Hampshire flipping back Republicans.</p>
<p>If you can flip Iowa and hold all the Kerry states, inc New Hampshire, you are stuck trying to piece together two or three state wins out west, from the group of Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico. The increasing Latino/a votes gives Dems an opportunity, but they need a candidate who has Latino/a appeal.</p>
<p>Realistically, Ohio and Florida are the whole enchilada for the Dems in 2008. McCain will be smart and pick the very popular Crist from Florida as his running mate, making Ohio critical for the Dems.</p>
<p>I just about bust a gut laughing this week when the Obama campaign’s electoral strategy memo didn’t even mention Ohio or Florida once, but included Texas as a state Obama would put in play for the Dems. Get real. Dukakis probably thought riding tanks would go over big in Texas, too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He lost 64% of the white vote in the Ohio primary. Lost the white vote by 28 points. And that’s just Democrats. Do you think white Republicans are going to propel him to victory in Ohio?</p>
<p>The only reason he came within 10% in Ohio is because he got his usual 87% to 92% of the black vote. That’s 18% of the voters in the primary, but only 10% in the general election. The black vote is important to Democrats, but the strength of the racial voting block is exaggerated in the primaries and gets diluted in the general. Democrats lose Presidential elections, not because they fail to get the black vote, but because they don’t get enough white vote.</p>
<p>Let me point out one other problem in Ohio. Kerry lost Ohio in 2004 because he only managed to split the female vote 50/50 with Bush (he won the black vote 86-14). If Obama doesn’t figure out a way to appeal to white suburban and rural women, there are going to be a lot of states that look bad for the Dems. Kerry underperformed Gore because he lost ground with women voters. Al Sharpton may promise blacks rioting in the streets, but the Democrats need to be worried about their female base donning the gas masks and taking it to the streets (metaphorically).</p>
<p>In all of this analysis of who can beat whom, I wish there were more discussion of the issues that will confront the next Prez, and what the candidates say they would do about these issues. For me, the war, the resulting monstrous increase in national debt, health care and energy are far more deserving of discussion than this micro-analysis of who can win.</p>
<p>vossron:</p>
<p>I don’t know what you are looking for. The candidates (some more than others) have incredibly detailed positions and policy statements on every imaginable issue. Have you studied them?</p>
<p>You aren’t going to get that from the national media. You’ve got to do your own homework.</p>
<p>Here’s the link to Hillary’s “issues” page. Click on the issue of your choice and you will go to a page with a short summary plus links to detailed position papers and speeches on that issue. Everything you asked about is covered – some issues (like universal health care) in stunning detail. </p>
<p>[HillaryClinton.com</a> - Hillary on the Issues](<a href=“http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/]HillaryClinton.com”>Issues Archive - The Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton)</p>
<p>Again, with the exception of an occasional Paul Krugman piece, you won’t get ANY discussion of issues in the media. No interviewer ever gives any candidate enough time to actually answer an issues question. They immediately interrupt any intelligent train of thought. You’ve got to research it yourself.</p>
<p>No, sorry, I mean here on CC, e.g., in this thread! ;)</p>
<p>I’ve posted many times on issues. It’s a waste of time. You just get people spouting the CNN talking points.</p>
<p>Here’s a challenge. Spend two or three hours tonight digesting Hillary’s plan to get out of Iraq. Watch the video and read the transcripts of a couple of her major policy speeches.</p>
<p>Then, come back here tomorrow and start a thread on the details of the issues. I guarantee you’ll get six responses saying, “Yeah, but she voted for the authorization bill” as if there is anyone on the face of the earth who doesn’t already know that.</p>
<p>Nobody really wants to talk issues. They just say they do.</p>
<p>For example, here’s a fifteen page white paper on energy independence. Anyone want to read it and discuss?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.hillaryclinton.com/files/pdf/poweringamericasfuture.pdf[/url]”>http://www.hillaryclinton.com/files/pdf/poweringamericasfuture.pdf</a></p>
<p>Hillary is very strong and well thought out on the issues. No doubt about it. So is Obama.</p>
<p>I prefer Obama for his character and integrity. The gas tax holiday and the Wright controversey demonstrate this as do his Iraq war stance.</p>
<p>Re: Post #80</p>
<p>Regarding Hillary’s Campaign ad posted:</p>
<p>This looks like a very costly plan. $150 billion dollars over 10 years!</p>
<p>I think her financing plan is somewhat speculative and doesn’t provide a lot of detail.</p>
<p>“Hillary will finance the remaining $10 billion per year without increasing the deficit by dedicating $2.5 billion in additional savings from closing loopholes for oil and gas companies and dedicating a portion (about $7.5 billion) of revenue from the cap and trade auction.”</p>
<p>That is what she says. Cap & Trade Auction? That has yet to be proven. I’m not sure she can close “loopholes” with gas & oil companies either.</p>
<p>If you want to watch a really good interview on tv, look up O’Reilly’s interview with Hillary Clinton from this past week. I missed all of it live and have had to watch clips on Fox internet, but I first heard about it listening to the NPR guys talk about how good it was. They go into Iraq, Afghanistan, Immigration, the price of gas. She was amazing.</p>
<p>Next week he says he’s going to have McCain. He is trying to get Obama to come on, but Obama says he won’t do O’Reilly until after the primaries are over.</p>
<p>In order to be fair and balanced, here is Obama’s plan.</p>
<p>I don’t see much of a difference, Interesteddad.</p>
<p>[Barack</a> Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Energy](<a href=“http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/]Barack”>http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/)</p>
<p>He will spend $150 billion over 10 years as well. I don’t know where he is getting the $ either. 
</p>