Is Obama done,cooked and baked?

Parent Cafe
461

<p>I do not want to hear about any more soiled dresses :p</p>

<p>[Fired up- ready to go](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyJ72iZ3tW4”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyJ72iZ3tW4&lt;/a&gt;)</p>

462

<p>“I actually have my no.1 candidate, and then I have my back up if no.1 does not get the nom. Just so you know, my back up is not in the same political party. I will vote for the candidate who is closest to what I believe in.”</p>

<p>I find it hard to see how this can possibly be the case if you are talking about the four current leaders: Clinton/Obama and McCain/Romney. There is little substantive difference between where Clinton and Obama stand on the issues, and not all that much between McCain and Romney, either. Unless what you believe in does not relate to the issues but to something else (like character, maybe), I don’t see how anybody can feel this way. In other words, if you agree with Clinton or Obama on the issues, you can’t possibly closer to McCain on the issues than either Clinton or Obama.</p>

463

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, that’s the thing. His policies have never been all that clear. Where he is detailed, it’s not clear those plans (as currently laid out) are viable. Do you know his stance on Iran, for instance? I looked at his website, and I certainly may be have missed it, but I saw no mention of Iran. His universal health care plan is not, in actuality, universal. I do think he needs to be clearer on the issues, and now that there’s only the two of them left, he’ll be forced to be clearer and more detailed.</p>

464

<p>Actually they are based on policies. If you research all of the candidates and what they are proposing there is a difference between all of them. Yes, some of it also is about character and personality. Some of it is also based on their experience as a leader.</p>

<p>Here’s a scenario to think about. If my no.1 pick doesn’t get the nom, and I am left with the other candidate that I cannot even consider holding my nose while I vote, I would rather vote for the other candidate…there will never be a perfect candidate, I think every voter will have to compromise on their issues, I am willing to compromise, it is just about how much I will have to compromise.</p>

<p>I am also realistic, that congress will be very powerful in what plans do get implemented…just in the past few years, we have immigration, min. wage, surge, s-chip, etc.</p>

465

<p>I just looked at the front page of Obama’s website (getting ready to read his policies again), and he has a huge picture of John Edwards and Elizabeth, with the repeat of his speech about them yesterday. So I checked Hillary’s page, and she has a much smaller picture, with many fewer words about them. So . . . hmm . . . that suggests to me that Obama wants Edwards supporters more than Hillary does, or maybe Edwards is getting ready to support Obama. Or maybe it means nothing. ??</p>

466

<p>Mini–thanks for that excellent summary. A lot of that gets forgotten, over and over again.</p>

<p>Obama opposed the war from the start, consistently. That alone sets him apart from the other three remaining candidates, all hawks.</p>

<p>As i get older, my criteria for voting has simplified: what vote do I believe will cause, or prevent, more deaths in the world? that really crystalizes things for me.</p>

467

<p>“Though the 2003 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq was inaccurate in a number of respects, it did challenge the notion of any operational ties between the Iraqi government and Al-Qaeda and questioned some of the more categorical claims by President Bush about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD). However, Senator Clinton didn’t even bother to read it. She now claims that it wasn’t necessary for her to have actually read the 92-page document herself because she was briefed on the contents of the report. However, since no one on her staff was authorized to read the report, it’s unclear who could have actually briefed her.”</p>

<p>Mini keeps returning to this point. Are you suggesting that Hillary is lying when she says she was aware of the information in the report? And the report only “questioned some of the more categorical claims” about WMDs? This screed is carefully worded to make Clinton seem more central to the process than she was, to make her seem more out of step with other Democratic Pary leaders than she was, and to be more aware of facts that were only understood later than she was. Don’t get me wrong: her level of support for the Iraq war is a legitimate difference between her and Obama; but she and others are, in my opinion, being overly criticized for decisions that seemed more reasonable at the time than they do in hindsight with a fuller understanding of the facts and the consequences.</p>

<p>And for cryin’ out loud, can people stop talking about Ron Paul? It AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN. Not now, not ever.</p>

468

<p>janieblue:
<a href=“http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/[/url]”>http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>There are a few contrasts between them that we know about on Iran: Obama and Clinton did differ on their attitude toward negotiating with Iran in an early debate. Obama said he would, and differs from those who refuse to talk with our “enemies” while Clinton said, “it depends” (on how the winds of opinion are blowing, I think). I support his policy, which is to engage all players in the/a region in a discussion rather than to demonize those with whom we disagree.</p>

<p>He did not vote on, but stated he opposed, the vote in favor of declaring the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and Clinton voted in favor which I think was a terrible decision on her part (some said it was to court the pro-Israel vote). </p>

<p>I’m guessing Edwards will endorse Obama. One of his (Edwards’) large unions is probably going to do so too (health care workers) if they can before Tuesday.</p>

469

<p>patient: Thanks for the link. I did find that after going back in again. Obama’s stance on Iran was, in fact, similar to Edwards, who also wanted to directly engage Iran, negotiating with those leaders who met certain criteria (complying with international rules, recognition of rights of Jews, and the state of Israel, commitment to promise of diplomacy), and-- like Obama suggests-- offering incentives as well as pressure to stabilize that region. </p>

<p>I think you’re right about Clinton. I’m sure she does what she needs to do to protect the NY (heavily Jewish) votes she’s courting. She’s not gonna say or do anything to hurt that, and certainly not before NY gets to vote in the primaries. </p>

<p>Regardless, I’ll probably end up backing the person Edwards backs, because that would suggest to me a cabinet position within that administration (in the event that person gets elected!). I’d like to see Edwards have some influence to help implement his ideas/proposals.</p>

470

<p>“This screed is carefully worded to make Clinton seem more central to the process than she was, to make her seem more out of step with other Democratic Pary leaders than she was…”</p>

<p>Oh, no. I think she was perfectly in step with the other “experienced Democrats” who were sold the Clinton/Tenet Big Lie in January 1998 (and who called for military action against Iraq then). That’s why she didn’t need to read the intelligence report - she either knew it was more of the Big Lie, or had already been sold it. </p>

<p>But the point is, either way, she touts her “experience”. I think it is her very experience that disqualifies her for the Presidency. Others may come to different conclusions.</p>

471

<p>So you do think she was well aware of the contents of the intelligence report?
Or you think the intelligence report itself was untrue? I’m sorry, I just don’t find your argument very persuasive. But keep making it–that’s how we do politics in America.</p>

472

<p>Interesting OpEd piece in today’s WSJ, (from an Obama supporter):</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120173880879730385.html[/url]”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120173880879730385.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

473

<p>“So you do think she was well aware of the contents of the intelligence report?”</p>

<p>I haven’t a clue. (My instincts are that she was not in on her husband’s post-genocide Big Lie in 1998, and hence was bamboozled along with Levin, Gore, Lieberman, Dodd, Biden et al.) All I can take is her statement at face value that she didn’t bother to read it before voting for war. I’m sure she had her reasons. But it is hardly the kind of “experience” I’d want as a President.</p>

474

<p>Obama’s campaign raised $32 million in January! Record-breaking.</p>

475

<p>Mini, do senators really read intelligence reports? Do presidents? </p>

<p>I thought that is what aides are for.</p>

476

<p>No. In fact, aides do not have access to top classified intelligence reports. No aide could have briefed Hillary on its contents because they did not have access to it. </p>

<p>Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee are PAID to read intelligence reports. Whether they do or not is an open question. Except in the case of Hillary. She didn’t, and voted for war and the aggressive, hostile occupation. That’s what we know about her erstwhile “experience”.</p>

477

<p>

</p>

<p>Indeed. This is a Clinton behavioral trait. We should consider, at least black folks should, that Bill Clinton was the president who began America’s “Dialog on Race”, and yet the Clintons race-baited and otherwise showed abuse of race in some of the same underhanded and slimy ways that blacks have complained about for ages. They appealed to the very worst inclinations of white Americans simply because they knew it would help them acquire office. That is pretty atrocious.</p>

<p>During the Lewinsky nonsense, blacks supported Clinton arguably more than anyone else. Jesse Jackson, being the paradigm of virtue that he is, was Clinton’s ‘moral advisor’ at the time. Yet now they are just “those folks” to the Clintons, to be dismissed in cheap fashion, merely for political gain.</p>

<p>Were Hillary a true leader, her principles would never have permitted her campaign to attempt to marginalize so many of her own people. Her campaign deliberately sought to cause whites to turn against Obama because of Obama’s race. Real leaders do not do this. Dictators do. I think should blacks, indeed should anyone, continue to support the Clintons, they deserve the Clintons. (Har har)</p>

478

<p>Hillary’s KoolAid is laced with a strong, amnesia inducing drug. And it must taste amazing too, given how people keep running back for more.</p>

479

<p>"that Bill Clinton was the president who began America’s “Dialog on Race”,</p>

<p>JFK, RFK, LBJ and Eleanor Roosevelt might disagree.</p>

480

<p>I refer, of course, to Clinton’s initiative to lead America [“in</a> a great and unprecedented conversation about race.”](<a href=“http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03EED6133FF936A25755C0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2]“in”>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03EED6133FF936A25755C0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2) The point of this was to help the country overcome racism. It was commonly known as Clinton’s “Dialog on Race” and it is entirely incongruent with the Clintons’ current behavior. Indeed, their behavior reflects many of the problems that Clinton’s dialog aimed to help us overcome.</p>