Marjorie:

I would add that as or more central to Jesus’ life and ministry than “loving your enemy” was FORGIVENESS.  Yet I have detected not one iota of forgiveness - particularly for Hillary - in the hearts of Tony, MMC, Leefeller, CY, Cyrena or any of the other unrepentant Hillary-bashers here.

Peace.

RE: By Tony Wicher, February 1 at 8:47 pm #
(604 comments total)

” Re: This is why Hillary loses the
That’s what Jesus tells us to do. It is really the only way. 

Well, Obama has precisely said that he will talk directly to our “adversries” (a better term than “enemies) including Ahmedinejad, whereas Hillary has precisely said that this would be naive and immature.”

Wow, isn’t it amazing that Jesus dropped in and told you what to do. But sorry fella, he didn’t stop at my house and give me instructions. So I’m gonna use the brain he gave me and vote for the candidate that I think would do the best job and that would be Hillary Clinton.

Try not to lie about the things you say, she said, and twisting and spinning like a Republican though. Cause if you do that, Jesus might not stop in and tell you what to think next time. I don’t know, cause he never told me personally, but I doubt Jesus likes dishonesty. And for all your sanctimonious drivel, you are not an honest man.

Mike Mid-City…as trivial as I know this may seem, I just wanted to thank you for reminding me of what California’s ‘descriptive’ is. I.E. the GOLDEN State.

Now, I’m a native Californian, born and raised here, and for the life of me, I simply could NOT ‘call this to mind’ a week or so ago, when I was reading news from the “Sunshine State” (Florida) or comparing my own mentality to the “Show Me” State (Kansas), or considering any of the other descriptives of the states. It was like, WHY THE HELL CAN’T I REMEMBER WHAT WE ARE? (and I knew it wasn’t the “Grizzly Bear State”)

Now of course it would have come to me eventually, or I could have even looked it up, and I may have eventually gotten around to that.

That said…YES. Here in our very rainy, snowy, windy state that may not recall the ‘golden’ at the moment, (maybe that’s why I couldn’t remember) Obama is surging up, and we’re glad. Makes me feel like California is making a true contribution to the greater good. Oh yeah!!

All:

Sorry to interrupt the debate.  This is URGENT news.  I kid you not.  Please go to the link after reading this post.

For the past year or more, I have been predicting that the “police state” would begin in NYC, where there has been various “testing” going on towards that end for some time, vis-à-vis law enforcement seeing just how far they could go, and how much they could get away with: increased police drills, random bag checks on the subways, limiting of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, etc.  (Remember the RNC…)

The police state has finally arrived.  This is not a drill.  This is the real thing.  And you can be absolutely certain that it will not stop with NYC.  Other cities will follow suit, all in the name of “safety and security.”  Note that this was NOT a response to any specific threat, or even a perceived threat.  It was done for absolutely NO reason, other than to take a giant step forward toward totalitarianism.

We can continue to debate the merits or lack thereof of Hillary, Obama, McCain et al.  Meanwhile, this will spread, and the consequences will be dramatic.  And if you think I am overreacting, simply remember when I posted this when this comes to YOUR city or town.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/nyregion/02machinegun.html?scp=1&sq=baker&st=nyt

Peace.  (Getting increasingly unlikely…)

New York Sun Editorial - January 9, 2008

In remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Chicago in March, Mr. Obama spoke about his first visit to Israel, in January 2006. “I flew on an IDF helicopter to the border zone. The helicopter took us over the most troubled and dangerous areas and that narrow strip between the West Bank and the Mediterranean Sea. At that height, I could see the hills and the terrain that generations have walked across. I could truly see how close everything is and why peace through security is the only way for Israel,” Mr. Obama said.

Mr. Obama spoke of “a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy.” Quoth he: “That will always be my starting point.” Mr. Obama spoke of the threat of Iran. “President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth. But we know the Holocaust was as real as the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen the pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60 years, it is time to deny the deniers,” he said.

He took Israel’s side against those who would fault it for its actions in Lebanon in the Summer of 2006. “When Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself,” Mr. Obama said. “Last summer, Hezbollah attacked Israel. By using Lebanon as an outpost for terrorism, and innocent people as shields, Hezbollah has also engulfed that entire nation in violence and conflict, and threatened the fledgling movement for democracy there.”

And Mr. Obama rejected the idea, put forth by Israel’s false friends, that America does Israel any favors by exerting pressure in the name of peace. “We should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli Prime Minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States,” Mr. Obama said. “When I am president, the United States will stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel,” Mr. Obama told the National Jewish Democratic Council in February of 2007.

As a candidate, he has chosen to put himself on the record in terms that Israel’s friends in America, at least those not motivated by pure political partisanship, can warmly welcome.
==================================

Sounds like a Zionist to me, and I’m liking it.

I wonder how Obama would have voted had he been in the US Senate at the time of the Iraq resolution? It is one thing to stand on the sidelines and give a great speech but another to take a definitive, well researched and analyzed position in view of the massive intelligence reports, the Powell UN presentation, the fact that 75% of the US population was in support of the war and the consistent deceptions of the Bush administration honchos. Given Obama’s penchant for missing votes, pushing the wrong buttons ( meant to vote the other way but ooops! pressed the wrong button DUUUUH!!) in the Illinois Senate and his over thirty “present” votes (MAYBE VOTES? a true UNITER at work) I wonder if he would have been MIA (missing in action).
For all those who insist on an apology from Hillary Clinton for her vote, I say this: it take more courage of conviction to explain the complex nature of her decision making than to do what is politically expedient (Edwards?). If we are so hell bent on demanding apologies rather than appreciating the reality that was facing our Nation as various factors of such monumental intricacies were being weighed, micro analyzed, balanced, debated and interpreted by the Senate and the Congress and the american public, then we are in fact subscribing to the kind of pseudo therapeutic OPRAH / Dr. PHIL styled “pour your grief out on the public stage” and “you shall be healed” mumbo jumbo.

Tony:

As usual, your comments carry all the truth of much of what passes for it on LieDig.

“Barack voted against the war. Hillary voted for it.”

As noted by others, Barack wasn’t even in the Senate at the time, so he could not POSSIBLY have voted against it.  And once he GOT to the Senate, he voted identically to Hillary on every single bill that continued funding that war.  How does that show him as “principled” against the war: wouldn’t a TRULY “principled” anti-Iraq war advocate vote AGAINST continued funding?  (As an aside, Kennedy voted Yes on EVERY SINGLE funding bill; Obama and Hillary voted Yes on a couple, but No or NV on others.)

Re diplomacy with Iran and other “adversaries,” you claim “Hillary has precisely said that this would be naive and immature.”

No, that it NOT what she said.  She said it would be naive and immature to do so without setting SOME guidelines and restrictions.  And she is correct.

“That vote gave Bush a blank check for war. Everybody remembers that.”

“Everybody” may or may not “remember that,” but it is nevertheless wrong: it did NOT give him a “blank check.”  Have you even read the bill?  I have.  It does no such thing.  It first required Bush to continue to actively engage in diplomacy through the U.N.  And how did he do that?  With the outrageously dishonest presentation by Powell. This was how Bush cynically “used” the resolution.  Are you suggesting that Hillary (and others who voted for the resolution) could have predicted that Bush would do THIS; make a mockery of the first part requirement of the resolution by providing this presentation of outright lies?

“Hillary is just doing Clintonian word-parsing, saying she only authorized him to use force, but he then abused that authority. She can’t weasel out.”

Nope.  You obviously ALSO haven’t read her October 2002 speech on the floor of the Senate days prior to the vote.  If you had, you would know that ALL of the claims that you and other make in this regard are VERY wide of the mark.  Here is the speech:

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

“If she says she believed the patently false “intelligence”, how come Obama wasn’t fooled?”

Because, since he was not a U.S. Senator at the time, Obama wasn’t privy to most of the information that the Senate was given re this vote.

“Why wasn’t Kennedy or Boxer?”

Kennedy and Boxer did argue against the bill and voted against it.  However, as noted, Kennedy went on to be among the most full-throated supporters of continuing to fund the war.  As for Boxer, her voting on appropriations bills to continue funding the war were virtually identical to those of Hillary and Obama.

“Or if she says she trusted Bush not to abuse his authority, that makes her naive and a poor judge of character. I think everybody else in the whole universe knew what was going to happen.”

Apparently, not “everybody else in the whole universe knew” that, or the bill would not have passed by such a large margin.  This may not excuse the votes those Senators (and House reps) made, but it also doesn’t excuse your hyperbole and exaggeration.

As well, let’s not forget that these four (Obama, Hillary, Kennedy, Boxer) - all of whom claim to be civil liberties advocates - voted FOR the Patriot Act and its re-authorization (in Obama’s case, re-authorization only, since he wasn’t in the senate when it first appeared), as well as for unlimited funding for DHS.

Peace.

Thank you for thinking and speaking in this manner:

“What a difference it would make if someone attempted to win, not by defeating the enemy, but by transfroming an enemy into a friend.”..........

              ............Redeem, Metamorphose, Transform….........

Our work is, indeed, laid out for us….As we think, so we become…
Perfect symmetry, after all…..

Tony:

As usual, your comments carry all the truth of most of what appears on LieDig.

“Barack voted against the war. Hillary voted for it.”

As noted by others, Barack wasn’t even in the Senate at the time, so he could not have voted against it.  And once he GOT to the Senate, he voted identically to Hillary on every single bill that continued funding that war.  How does that show him as “principled”: wouldn’t a TRULY “principled” anti-Iraq war person vote AGAINST continued funding?  As an aside, Kennedy voted Yes on EVERY SINGLE funding bill; Obama and Hillary voted Yes on a couple, but No or NV on others.

Re diplomavy with Iran and other “adversaries,” you claim “Hillary has precisely said that this would be naive and immature.”

No, that it NOT what she said.  She said it would be naive and immature to do so without setting SOME guidelines and restrictions.  And she is correct from a geopolitical point of view.

“That vote gave Bush a blank check for war. Everybody remembers that.”

“Everybody” may or may not “remember that,” but it is wrong: it did NOT give a “black check” to Bush.  Have you even read the bill?  I have.  It does no such thing.

”

My dog peed on the IRS agent’s leg….......Whatta dog!

Ah Tony…

You figured it out. I do admire you hanging in there though, for as long as you did.

I tried too, generally giving anyone the benefit of the doubt, always wanting to presume that they are rational and based on logic.

NOT the case with Chalmers. Therefore, he does turn out to be a major waste of time and energy. As long as it’s just his own, no biggie. It’s only when anyone gets sucked into his personal desperation, and begins to waste their OWN time and energy, that it becomes problem.

So, to put it simply, there is no advantage to any communication with Chalmers aside from what one might get from consistently ramming ones head against a brick wall.

Idiot!  He wasn’t even in the Senate!

He SPOKE OUT against the war as a candidate for the Illinois Senate.

His actual voting record on Iraq is identical to Clinton’s.

Tony Wicher,
“Well, Obama has precisely said that he will talk directly to our “adversries” (a better term than “enemies) including Ahmedinejad, whereas Hillary has precisely said that this would be naive and immature.”

Yes, yes, yes!!!!  We just don’t pay attention to the words.  Obama’s choice of words is brilliant and direct evidence of a true orator.  He is a uniter, not a divider; there is no other candidate out there to match him in this.  That said:  I pray he can take us far from the fascism rampant in our government today.  I remain cynical of all of the chosen.  This is truly a crap shoot!

You’re a crackpot.

I’m not going to waste any more time on you, Chalmers.

By Tony Wicher, February 1: “Barack voted against the war. Hillary voted for it. The base of the Democratic party is anti-war. Therefore Hillary loses. Obama brought this out in the latest debate and he will continue to hit this point hard. Hillary’s vote on the war was a mistake, and she has never admitted it. In my opinion, she voted for the war for the same reason the rest of the pusillanimous Democrats did - political expediency. They were afraid of the “soft on terrorism” charge the Republicans would level against them…”

That “the anti-war base will never forgive the Democrats” is naive. If they want to avenge themselves, then MoveOn should have endorsed McCain or Romney, uhh. As it is, we are merely back to the same old Hillary bashing that people indulge in to justify their own shameful failures to do anything themselves in the past six years.

Its not fair, Tony Wicher, to say that “they (the Dems) were willing to go to war rather than risk this”  as the country had already been led into a revenge-based war, as erroneous and false at its rationale was, first bombing the uninhabited mountains of Afghanistan, then WMD’s in Iraq. As you might remember, the words of the howling opportunist were “You’re either with us or against us” . That was accompanied with all manner of intimidations and very real coercions.

Blaming it all on Hillary but not Obama is trite as he has simply eventually avoided voting for someone else’s war. He has done little to oppose it and his “I don’t oppose all wars”  was his own pathetic version of pandering to political expediency in Washinton and the polictically correct elsewhere in the country. Perhaps he is only actually running on a leash held by his Neocon controllers anyway?

Surprising, though, that MoveOn had come up with this endorsement in perhaps less than 24 hours from polling its members/subscribers. I don’t know what that really means and someone should investigate it!!!

Its disappointing, though, that an anti-war organization should accept and endorse such duplicitous drivel as BO’s “the crucible of the sword” and “I don’t oppose all wars” never mind his intentionally offensively derisory reference to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount as “...a passage that is so radical that it is doubtful whether our own Defense Department would survive its application” !!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPUe6T8RVXs

As much as such words are also found in Buddhist, Hindu and Daoist and even Islamic and Jewish religions, it is the central text of the Christian bible and their enlightened leader’s core statements regarding his philosophy of peace, tolerance and service to others. Obama has insolently repudiated that for the sake of military service for whatever reason his country chooses. Thus “I don’t oppose all wars”  really IS his philosophy and intention.

That is more in common with a budding “first emperor” as China sadly experienced some 2,300 years ago ref. “Qin Shi Huang”). He too had humble beginnings and suffered some oppression at first. He was also a legalist and cold-blooded ruthless manipulator who cost the lives of millions in his “unifying” China. Don’t forget that Obama is like France’s Sarkosy, another Neocon (Austrian) and he is also not deeply rooted in American culture.

That vote gave Bush a blank check for war. Everybody remembers that. Hillary is just doing Clintonian word-parsing, saying she only authorized him to use force, but he then abused that authority. She can’t weasel out. If she says she believed the patently false “intelligence”, how come Obama wasn’t fooled? Why wasn’t Kennedy or Boxer? Or if she says she trusted Bush not to abuse his authority, that makes her naive and a poor judge of character. I think everybody else in the whole universe knew what was going to happen. That exchange between her and Obama in the debate last night shows how really incoherent her thinking is. Nobody could understand what she was trying to say.

No, Hillary’s judgment was distorted by political expediency. The Democrats, including her, that voted for the war did so because with the 2002 midterm election approaching, they feared the “soft on terrorism” label and were willing to go to war to avoid it. I’m not even saying Hillary and the rest of them aren’t “sincere”. It’s just the way they think as politicians. Such thinking creates problems; it does not solve them.

Hillary can be forgiven, but nobody who voted for the war deserves to be President.

That’s what Jesus tells us to do. It is really the only way. 

Well, Obama has precisely said that he will talk directly to our “adversries” (a better term than “enemies) including Ahmedinejad, whereas Hillary has precisely said that this would be naive and immature.

Obama has said that he does not oppose all wars. But he has also said that he wants to change the mindset and the policies that lead to war, and that the army is only one tool in the diplomatic toolkit. Let us hope that he continues to judge wisely.

One can only hope this is true.  I’m concerned that Obama is not strongly anti-war, just smart enough to pick his battles.  We need someone who has the courage to risk diplomatic confrontation with the enemy. It’s far to easy to think as a super power we can enforce our will militarily, and bully our way to world leadership.  What a difference it would make if someone attempted to win, not by defeating the enemy,  but by transfroming an enemy into a friend.

The endorsements pouring in for Obama are confirming the obvious; Clinton has too much baggage and won’t be able to bring the independent’s on board in order to defeat McCain or Romney. Obama represents real change, and no going back to either Bush or Clinton eras. Clinton like so many other Democrat’s gave Bush his opening by voting to allow Bush carte blanche to do as he pleased in Iraq. That folks is a show stopper. She compounded the problem by voting for the Iran resolution. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. If somehow she does beat Obama, I will vote for her of course but I will be sweating bullets that McCain especially doesn’t topple her. That would be a tragedy for the country to have four more years of Bush policies in effect.

The only reason I don’t come out with an endorsement is that I don’t want to throw the election into complete turmoil. 

I suggest everyone just go along with the newspaper editors, in all their wisdom, movie stars, big pols, and drop-outs. I won’t complicate matters. 

When I wanted to select a contractor to install my new boiler, I picked the one my dog liked best and the boiler has worked like a charm for years.  And the guy didn’t even cheat me.  Too bad ole Carl’s gone. Whatta dog!

Barack voted against the war. Hillary voted for it. The base of the Democratic party is anti-war. Therefore Hillary loses. Obama brought this out in the latest debate and he will continue to hit this point hard. Hillary’s vote on the war was a mistake, and she has never admitted it. In my opinion, she voted for the war for the same reason the rest of the pusillanimous Democrats did - political expediency. They were afraid of the “soft on terrorism” charge the Republicans would level against them, and they were willing to go to war rather than risk this. The anti-war base will never forgive them and they will never trust her. They are going to Obama en mass.