Hillary still sucks, and she's still unelectable.
Keep pissing against the wind. You apparently don't mind wet, piss-soaked feet.
Posted by RAM at February 28, 2008 07:26 AM...and Obama supporters wonder why we find them disgusting, pathetic, angry and juvenile. He really brings out the best in people.
Posted by at February 28, 2008 07:44 AMI'm only an Obama supporter by default.
The rest of you would do well to get with the program unless you're comfortable with the idea of McCain state of the union speeches.
Posted by RAM at February 28, 2008 07:55 AM"...if Sen. Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, the Iraq debate and "contrast" is not going to be as easy as he imagines."
This is so. There's growing awareness of the bipartisan nature of our morbid military keynesian addiction. Perhaps our candidates will discuss it.
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at February 28, 2008 07:55 AMOnce again I'm left asking... If Obama is in such a weak position on the war why hasn't Hillary beat him down over it yet?
Oh wait, probably because her position on the war is even weaker then Obama's.
I'd say the same applies to McCain. Sure, among people who still support the war McCain will be their man.
But you can't seriously be trying to tell me that among people who oppose the war and want to get out now that they'll look over at McCain and go "Well, there's no difference between him and Obama so I'll vote for him."
That's just silly.
Posted by Siberian at February 28, 2008 07:59 AMIs there a point here, eriposte? Do you just feel like continuing to criticize Obama, is that it? He's going to be the Democratic nominee. Hillary's over. If you feel like supplying the right wing with talking points, keep doing what you're doing.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 28, 2008 08:13 AMBottom line, if Sen. Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, the Iraq debate and "contrast" is not going to be as easy as he imagines.
McCain: Iraq was a good idea, and we'll stay there for 100 years!
Clinton: Iraq was a good idea but we'll get out in 16 months!
Obama: Iraq was a bad idea and we'll get out in 16 months!
No contrast? Sheesh.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 28, 2008 08:14 AMHe really brings out the best in people.
In all fairness, RAM, aka God of War, was often "disgusting, pathetic, angry and juvenile" long before this primary race started. As I recall, he's always hated Hillary, too, so it's not surprising that he'd back Obama once Edwards dropped out.
The rest of you would do well to get with the program unless you're comfortable with the idea of McCain state of the union speeches.
Cheney? Is that you? Ah, nothing like threats and fear-mongering to make a person want to vote for your candidate.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 28, 2008 08:27 AMAs others above has noted, the point is it will be easier for Obama to make the "contrast argument against the indefinite Iraq occupation than Hillary.
Unless you imagine that the party that at least tried (however weakly) to tie Iraq funding to a withdrawal schedule should give up on this as a campaign issue for 2008.
Pretty weak, eriposte.
Posted by euzoius at February 28, 2008 08:54 AMJust look at who didn't want the Iraq war on the senate floor for 30 hours and told Harry Reid he shouldn't have brought this up now. Just last year a third of the senate's business was around Iraq war. During that time it's approval plummeted to the teens.
Now, when things are getting better, Democrats want to give this another 30 hours of attention. So Republicans will get about 14 of those hours to speak up and tell the American people about the goods things we've accomplished. And the polls are showing movement, an uptick in support for the wars outcome.
McConnell rules the day again, he outfoxed Reid, who must have thought Republicans would vote down this topic. Now the eggs are on his face and more important matters get sidelined....again for this fruitless arguement.
As far as MCOld goes...he will swab the decks with Obama on this topic. Who are Obama's advisors? Where's their experience? We got another Dan Quale here folks and the Senator Bensen role is being played by McOld.
Posted by peter at February 28, 2008 09:05 AMMcOld can even stand, let alone swab the decks.
Maybe you can volunteer to be the guy who helps pull him off the toilet every day, swabby pete.
Unless he like one of his 30 years younger women "friends" to handle that little "detail".
Tell you what, peter...
How about if we make the 2008 election a referendum on the Iraq war, give McCain the votes of everyone who favors the war, and Obama the votes of everyone who opposes the war. Does that sound good to you?
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 28, 2008 09:22 AM"The rest of you would do well to get with the program unless you're comfortable with the idea of McCain state of the union speeches."
"Cheney? Is that you? Ah, nothing like threats and fear-mongering to make a person want to vote for your candidate."
Isn't it amazing when these people think they can bully you into voting for Obama? They are completely tone-deaf and still haven't realized how that this type of cockiness alienates people from Obama even further.
I recently had some condescending jerkoff threaten me that I better vote for Obama unless I was willing to forfeit my sacred reproductive rights. Ha! As if, at this point, I'm going to listen to these bully boys about what I should do about that.
Posted by at February 28, 2008 09:24 AMAs far as MCOld goes...he will swab the decks with Obama on this topic.
Ha, ha! Like he did yesterday... right?
Obama schooled McOld!
"There was no Al Queda in Iraq until George bu$h and John McCain decided to go into Iraq!"
Posted by Seven of Six at February 28, 2008 09:25 AMY'all are wagering a lot on continued bad news. Just remember that in November.
How about that...Prince Harry has been in Afghanistan for the past 4 months!
Sure shows Obama's ignorance doesn't it Seven. They were there when we went in 2003. Whether they were active within their society is another question, but, they were there.
Still putting down our military servicemembers and doubting their skills Seven. They've been doing an outragously good job under some tough circumstances and yet Iraqi's have been meeting benchmarks one by one. The people are settling in some kind of normalcy. Reconstruction is going on at an improved rate. Symphony, movies, parks, circus's, soccer matches...one observer noticed over 50 different soccer matches while doing flying around Baghdad. Train service, commercial air service, bus service, all getting back to normal. All thanks to our military servicemembers and their skill.
Posted by peter at February 28, 2008 09:39 AMThey were there when we went in 2003.
Show me the proof...
Still putting down our military servicemembers and doubting their skills Seven.
You're lucky your not standing close by peter.
Posted by Seven of Six at February 28, 2008 09:47 AMDon't appropriations bills also include funds for Afghanistan and other necessary items for our troops?
the only thing a candidate that voted against appropriations bills would have succeeded in doing is marginalizing themselves.
Posted by Jay at February 28, 2008 09:51 AMHow about that...Prince Harry has been in Afghanistan for the past 4 months!
Says here he's been there since December.
December, it's almost March, what the hell, does it make THAT much of a difference? It's still significant, and well the press seems to have known about this for a while without reporting. Shows dedication...even from the Royal family.
Posted by peter at February 28, 2008 10:06 AM...what the hell, does it make THAT much of a difference?
Obviously you have never been in the field before.
And sorry peter, you are trying to hijack another thread. So I'm getting off.
I apoligize eRiposte.
Posted by Seven of Six at February 28, 2008 10:11 AMHow many Democrats have been saying the last eight years have been awful when refering to the Bush Admin. when in reality he's only been there for a little over seven.
As far as highjacking...I just made an observation...didn't require any response.
Posted by peter at February 28, 2008 10:15 AMeRiposte:
Obama's claim in the last debate that when he made his Iraq speech in October 2002 he was "in the midst of" a "high stakes" campaign for the U.S. Senate is not true. In fact, he didn't declare until January 2003. More sandbag material for the Republicans.
RAM writes:
Keep pissing against the wind. You apparently don't mind wet, piss-soaked feet.
What's three short months Lambert...details.
Posted by peter at February 28, 2008 10:30 AMHey Lambert! I'm a big fan! Sadly, you're not going to find too many people here that are willing to entertain the thought of Obama having any faults at all. Now get in the corner, say two "Hail Michele's" and an "Our Obama, Who Art in Washington" and think about what you've done!
Posted by iamcoyote at February 28, 2008 11:06 AMiamacoyote:
I know. But just as in the run-up to the Iraq war, we can play whack-a-mole and set the record straight.
Posted by Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA at February 28, 2008 11:21 AMBoy, those are some really crucial distinctions you made there, Lambert.
Obama wasn't "really" in the senate race when he with great perspicacity (and against strong majority political and popular opinion in the country) envisioned most of the disasters that came to pass by foolishly invading Iraq.
He definitely should get no credit whatever for his excellent judgment and vision, 'cuz he hadn't yet declared for the senate race, which he did all of 2 months later! Good Christ.
Posted by euzoius at February 28, 2008 11:53 AMpoor pants pissing peter, still whistling past that graveyard
"As far as MCOld goes...he will swab the decks with Obama on this topic."
ROFLOL, really? Obama ripped McCain apart:
Clash on Iraq Could Be McCain-Obama Preview
By Michael D. Shear and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 28, 2008; Page A01
...Speaking to 7,000 voters at Ohio State University on Wednesday, Obama answered McCain's mocking tone with his own.
"McCain thought that he could make a clever point by saying, 'Well let me give you some news, Barack, al-Qaeda is in Iraq.' Like I wasn't reading the papers, like I didn't know what was going on. I said, 'Well, first of all, I do know that al-Qaeda is in Iraq; that's why I've said we should continue to strike al-Qaeda targets.
"I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq." The crowd roared its approval. "I've got some news for John McCain. He took us into a war along with George Bush that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged. They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11, and that would be al-Qaeda in Afghanistan that is stronger now than at any time since 2001.
"So John McCain may like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but so far all he's done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq that's cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars."...
Posted by Gay Veteran at February 28, 2008 12:38 PM"...Sure shows Obama's ignorance doesn't it Seven. They were there when we went in 2003...."
so pants pissing peter, why did Dear Leader repeatedly fail to attack them? he let them go, just like he let Osama escape
"...Symphony, movies, parks, circus's, soccer matches...one observer noticed over 50 different soccer matches while doing flying around Baghdad. Train service, commercial air service, bus service, all getting back to normal...."
We're STILL waiting on your report about your trip to Baghdad. If it is safe enough for McBush to go shopping there then surely it is safe enough for you.
foolish little troll, stay in mommy's basement
Posted by Gay Veteran at February 28, 2008 12:42 PMSafe enough to have theatre performances.
Posted by peter at February 28, 2008 01:03 PM"...and Obama supporters wonder why we find them disgusting, pathetic, angry and juvenile. He really brings out the best in people."
...We are blessed to have a member of the "California Golden Shower" branch of the democratic party post here, and should not discriminate against him/her/it.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 28, 2008 01:13 PMSiberian,
The answer to your question is not the she was a weaker stand against McCain than Obama on this issue (in terms of public perception) but the Clinton Rules that are consistently enforced by the corporate media. You assume Obama is actually "winning" on his own. He's being propped up by the media.
Posted by Nathan at February 28, 2008 01:13 PMHe's being propped up by the media.
"It's the media's fault" is a lame excuse. A presidential candidate which lets the media frame the race is going to lose. That's what happened to Gore and Kerry. A crucial part of running a successful campaign is providing a positive narrative of the candidate for the media. The Bill Clinton and Bush II campaigns did a very good job manipulating the media. That Obama is getting generally better media coverage than Hillary Clinton is not an accident, but rather is the product of smart campaign strategy which will serve Obama well in November.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 28, 2008 01:21 PMKeep thinking that CA, you'll be crying on some Wednesday morning in November. Think of it as the 1976 election with an extra week to campaign...Ford wins.
Posted by peter at February 28, 2008 01:27 PM...We are blessed to have a member of the "California Golden Shower" branch of the democratic party post here, and should not discriminate against him/her/it.
Heh. I was thinking the same thing, TIKI!
Posted by iamcoyote at February 28, 2008 01:41 PMAt the same time Obama was making that speech, the Chicago City Council was voting not to go to war. (Obama's district encompassed Chicago when he was in the Illinois Senate). So don't give him too much credit. He was just getting in front of his District, which is bluer than blue.
It would have been shocking if he had said anything other than what he said.
Posted by Moon at February 28, 2008 02:49 PM"There's growing awareness of the bipartisan nature of our morbid military keynesian addiction. Perhaps our candidates will discuss it."
Why would they? Hillary never saw a military action she did not enthusiastically support, Obama wants to bomb U.S. allies, and both of them have plans to beef up the military by 100,000 troops or so.
In other words, they are as addicted as anyone else - bipartisanly, of course.
Posted by Shirin at February 28, 2008 02:54 PMAt the same time Obama was making that speech, the Chicago City Council was voting not to go to war. (Obama's district encompassed Chicago when he was in the Illinois Senate). So don't give him too much credit. He was just getting in front of his District, which is bluer than blue.
It would have been shocking if he had said anything other than what he said.
What abject nonsense, Moon.
Obama was (less than) 2 months away from beginning a run for a statewide federal office, in a state that (like every other one) had a clear majority backing Bush's rash and reckless attack on Iraq.
Great talking point, though.
Posted by euzoius at February 28, 2008 03:06 PM"McCain: Iraq was a good idea, and we'll stay there for 100 years!
Clinton: Iraq was a good idea but we'll get out in 16 months!
Obama: Iraq was a bad idea and we'll get out in 16 months!"
You clearly have not listened carefully enough to Clinton or Obama if you think their plan is to get out of Iraq in 16 months.
Hillary has stated clearly that she believes the United States should continue its "political as well as military mission in Iraq" for the foreseeable future. She has even specified what that "military mission" will consist of, and in some cases where she intends to place troops. And FYI, the "mission" will include several combat roles.
Obama has described a similar plan, including, of course, combat roles.
So no, there really isn't all that much difference among the three.
Posted by Shirin at February 28, 2008 03:07 PM"Obama...with great perspicacity (and against strong majority political and popular opinion in the country) envisioned most of the disasters that came to pass by foolishly invading Iraq."
And since that wonderful day, he has stated numerous times that he might very well have voted for the AUMF, in 2004 he said he was pretty much in agreement with Bush on Iraq, he has voted in lockstep with Hillary on Iraq, and in fact made a speech opposing setting a withdrawal timetable. Furthermore, if you look with any care or in any detail at all at his "withdrawal" plan, you will see that it is not a withdrawal plan at all, but a plan to continue the occupation at a less visible level.
So no, he definitely should get no credit whatever for his "excellent judgment and vision" when he has not done one thing to back it up with action.
Posted by Shirin at February 28, 2008 05:46 PM"I've said we should continue to strike al-Qaeda targets."
Oh yeah! That sounds like a withdrawal plan, now, doesn't it? How many combat troops do you think he will keep in Iraq in order to "continue to strike Al Qaeda targets"?
Posted by Shirin at February 28, 2008 05:50 PMMoon, I second what euzoius said. Last I checked, elections for any U.S. Senate seat are held on a statewide basis, which includes some pretty conservative places in Illinois outside of Cook County. Don't kid yourself, Moon. It took some cajones for Obama to come out against the war while running for U.S. Senate.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 29, 2008 01:06 AM