Tea in China? What the hell?

Anyway, I’ll concede Obama’s position on war funding changed temporarily. Doesn’t change the fact he was against going into Iraq in the first place, though. He probably thought, as many other Americans did, since we already were in we should try and keep the peace in order for a speedy withdrawal. Then, of course, Iraq was treated like a red-headed stepchild for four years before it was evident no one could take care of the situation properly.

This nuance is not as damning as Hillary’s authorization to go into Iraq, so please stop harping on this familiar discord of inaccuracy and spin.

Aegrus:

“When did he say he wouldn’t fund military budgets?

On November 16, 2003 (i.e., before he arrived in the Senate), Obama said: “Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars, I said ‘No’...I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say ‘No’ to George Bush…If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance.”

“The Clinton support of the lie perpetuated by the media in Canada and America regarding Barack’s position on NAFTA is way out of line.”

Unless I missed something during the debate, their positions sounded remarkably similar.  Regardless of whether or not there was contact between Obama’s people and the Canadian government re his position, I do not see what this has to do with the price of tea in China (though, these days, it might…LOL).

Peace.

When did he say he wouldn’t fund military budgets? Military funding is needed in any case. You’re spin is diminishing in power.

Aegrus:

“Funding is not the same as authorizing, Maani.”

Nor did I say it was.  I said it was “enabling.”  Thus, he continuously enabled a “stupid war” that (i) he spoke powerfully against before getting to the Senate, and (ii) he promised NOT to fund before getting to the Senate.

As noted, this makes him a liar and just as politically expedient as any other politician.

Peace.

It’s not unsubstantiated to say both Clintons have divided the nation, and are divisive characters.

A single message means being constant, and not attaching other candidate’s messages to your campaign whenever it suits you. Her messages have changed from ‘experienced’ to ‘ready on day one’ to ‘shame on you’ to ‘fighter’. Which is it? Who is Hillary. Singular messages aren’t necessarily narrow reaches, Maani. I’ve got a new campaign slogan for Hillary Clinton: “I’m a Fighter and a Divider!”

Hillary Clinton’s claims about having 35 years of experience in comparison to Barack Obama is bogus. If all her life experience counts for her nomination, all of Obama’s does too. Just saying she is older does not mean she is more wise. By the way, let me re-iterate Barack Obama is a little bit older than Bill Clinton was when he ran for president in 1992. The experience claim is a fallacy.

The Clinton support of the lie perpetuated by the media in Canada and America regarding Barack’s position on NAFTA is way out of line.

Dismissing what is evident? Her irrelevance is evident. Her losses across the board are evident. Her campaign’s slow death is evident. She’ll press on, though, dismissing every loss as “not counting.” How many do-overs does Hillary need?

Aegrus:

“Who’s campaign lies about Canada NAFTA? Clinton’s.”

Please explain.

“Whose campaign makes bogus statements about experience? Clinton’s.”

Please tell us what “bogus” statements were made by Clinton in this regard.

Whose campaign cannot find a single message to run on? Clinton’s.”

Who said a campaign SHOULD be based on “a single message?”  There are ALOT of critical issues out there.  In fact, I find the whole idea that a campaign SHOULD have “a single message” to be absurd and phony.  Which is why I reject such obvious pablum as “Change we can trust.”  Garbage.  Obama will ultimately be able to EFFECT no more or less change than Hillary (or McCain, for that matter), no matter what people may think.  That is hopelessly unrealistic given 535 members of Congress, and world leaders who have their own ideas about how things should be.

“Whose campaign has been based on dismissing the evident? Clinton’s.”

Please explain what you mean by this.

“Whose campaign continually dividing the country? Clinton’s.”

This is your personal perception, not fact.  There are plenty of people out there who do NOT see it that way, and who, in fact, believe that, despite all the polls, pundits and media folderol, if Hillary becomes president, she will bring the country together no less than Obama.

You make an awful lot of claims that are COMPLETELY unsubstantiated.  This is your pattern.  And it just makes any real arguments you make look weak.

Peace.

Funding is not the same as authorizing, Maani.

Louise:

“The biggest single issue we have confronting us today is the war in Iraq. Which is why the only close to intelligent choice to make is to vote for the ONLY candidate who stated up front the war would be a mistake. And even beyond that he stated why, pointing out what the results would be. And even beyond that ... what he said would happen did happen. He was right.  And guess what!...”

Yes, guess what?  He betrayed his principles and voted for over $300 billion to fund that war - including promising before he got to the Senate that he would vote AGAINST the $74 billion appropriations bill when he got there - and then voted FOR it.  He voted AGAINST Kerry’s resolution to set a time for troop withdrawal (Hillary voted FOR it).

Thus, he is a liar, a betrayer, and a war enabler - even for a “stupid war.”

Nice try, Louise.

Peace.

The economy:
We spend billions every month on the war in Iraq. Billions that if left in the economy could have staved off all the other problems we are fighting now.

The National Debt:
We spend billions every month on the war in Iraq. Billions that we have to borrow from foreign nations, because we don’t have it.

Cost of oil:
We spend billions on the war in Iraq every month, so we can control the oil, which we have lost control of. While still, because of the war in Iraq, we need more and more of.

The falling dollar:
See above.

Health care:
We spend billions every month to fight the war in Iraq. Billions that could be redirected into an intelligent solution to end the lack of health care for millions of citizens.

Health care for the wounded veterans:
See above. Noting that there wouldn’t be a lack of funds, or resources, or adequate care, or even a need for it were it not for the billions we spend every month on the war in Iraq. Which has produced hundreds of thousands of damaged and severely wounded veterans.

Experience:
We spend billions every month on the war in Iraq. A war politicians, using their years of EXPERIENCE encouraged. Caving in to special interests who saw a profit in that war they lobbied for.

Change:
We spend billions every month on the war in Iraq. Billions that can never be recovered, no matter what changes occur. We have buried 3973 [as of today] military troops. Dead people who gave their all for an immoral war, based on lies, and encouraged by politicians with years of experience. No change offered by years of “experience” inside the echo chamber that is Washington D.C. will bring those troops back.

The war in Iraq:
A stupid blunder created by politicians who make mistakes and lack the self respect or respect for their constituency to acknowledge their stupid blunder. Or who they were listening to when they decided to make that stupid blunder. Let alone sincerely apologize for it.

Which leads me to only one conclusion:
All things considered. The biggest single issue we have confronting us today is the war in Iraq. Which is why the only close to intelligent choice to make is to vote for the ONLY candidate who stated up front the war would be a mistake. And even beyond that he stated why, pointing out what the results would be. And even beyond that ... what he said would happen did happen. He was right.

And guess what! Even republicans cry when their kids get killed or wounded in the war in Iraq. And even republicans who have paid the ultimate price are beginning to realize all these other problems are spin-offs from the war in Iraq. And even republicans are smart enough to understand we need real change. Well at least some of them. Particularly the ones who are hurting the most. And when it comes to death and the economy the reality of both doesn’t single out repub versus dem.

This election should be a real no-brainer.

Sorry, this is not a turning point in the campaign. Hillary is just running a negative campaign.

Obama victory tonight.

They’re suddenly getting desperate here as their candidate’s hope fade before their eyes, Maani.

“A 40-something doesn’t have what it takes to be a real leader in the political sense.”

FACT: Barack Obama is OLDER than Bill Clinton was during his 1992 campaign for the presidency.

she has destroyed Obama’s chances to win in November.  She can then run again in 2012.  It’s her only chance to become president.  Eight years from now will be too late.  She can prove me wrong by admitting there’s no way to win except by rigging the convention and dropping out.

Pfft, can we even trust her Chimera Campaign? They back out of statements all the time. It’s bullshit to think a politician will ever let the public know when they will pull out of a campaign. Just like Edwards said he would be in it for the long haul the day before he dropped out. Bill Richardson said he’d go all the way to the convention too.

Bunk, nonsense, bullshit. Hillary won’t win the popular vote in Texas. Ohio is on the fence, but I’m not sure if they allow Independents to vote in that state. If they do, forget it. Hillary cannot unite the country. Her campaign is throwing anything and everything at Obama because she is desperate...

Who’s campaign lies about Canada NAFTA? Clinton’s

Whose campaign makes bogus statements about experience? Clinton’s

Whose campaign cannot find a single message to run on? Clinton’s

Whose campaign has been based on dismissing the evident? Clinton’s

Whose campaign continually dividing the country? Clinton’s

Hillary, get real about your campaign or get out of the race. You either run on your merits, or you join the Republican party.

JS:

I hardly think that stating one obvious fact about your opponent amounts to an “endorsement” of them.

You are wildly overreacting here.  Get a grip.

Peace.

“They’re still desperately trying to denigrate Hillary, Maani, even if she has, at 60, the kind of mental maturity and experience-based competence they are incapable of themselves.”

Lets see…isn’t G.W. Bush 61 and McCain 71!  Your argument is pure rhetoric.  You know better.  How many people would I need to qualify your ascertion that plain ol’ being 60+ isn’t necessarily VALID. I’ll agree that Clinton MIGHT be smart enough, but in WHAT way?  And who’s side is she on…? 

BTW Chalmers, in this race, the people aren’t “desperate” Clinton is, and you know it.  The proof is in the pudding.

They’re still desperately trying to denigrate Hillary, Maani, even if she has, at 60, the kind of mental maturity and experience-based competence they are incapable of themselves.

Medvelev in Russia has Putin behind him. Who would Obama have if he was elected? A 40-something doesn’t have what it takes to be a real leader in the political sense. But its not until you are 50 or 60 that you realize that….. the hormonal difference is important.

Having a loud voice, being arrogant or even being a good leader on the battlefied don’t make for success in national or international politics. Those traits lead to serious errors instead. Its not about your dick or your looks. Its patience and strategy.

If you doubt that, then look where GWB has led everyone, uhh. Screaming and howling and sabre-rattling are the paths to disaster in a nuclear world. Already, the USA is failing economically because of its fears and its military arrogance.

The last 7 years have been a self-created failure for the USA. Its politicians have focussed on pandering to the military-industrial complex to make jobs since the decline in competitive manufacturing and the Republicans have been unable to provide any answers.

Instead they have manipulated the electorate through their fears and anxieties. In turn, they have been manipulated by AIPAC which is the most fear-ridden organization of all. If an economic recession doesn’t wake people up then global warming eventually will.

Obama has nothing to offer. That is why he keeps rattling on about change - because the only change there will be with him in office would be that there would be a black president. He has no recipe for change nor any real leadership qualities. He is merely a stage actor and a very conventional lawyer - and utterly beholden to the white establishment.

Anyone seen the video of Sen Clinton basically endorsing John McCain?

I no longer have any lingering doubt; i firmly believe that if she loses the nomination, she will vote Republican in November.

“I have a lifetime of experience.  Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience.  Barack Obama has one speech he made in 2002.” ~HRC

Well, actually Senator, we all have a lifetime of experience. 

I will now stay away from all threads pertaining to this nomination race, because i can no longer even uphold a pretense of civility towards a potential Democratic who publicly endorses (and that’s what it was) the Republican nominee.

(And i just deleted one of the most vile, evil, and foul things i’ve ever said about another human being.)

Weather:

“Obama populating his cabinet w/proven leadership.”

Now how on God’s great earth would you know that, since Obama himself has not said one word about it?  You got a crystal ball or something?

Peace.