The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

ErikW65:
I did not refer to the military authorization as a "diplomatic tool". Even the UN has called it "illegal". America has become more watchful toward liars because of this. A half truth is far more dangerous than a bald faced lie. Obama is a liar.

As far as which senators voted in favor of this "law" I would be hard pressed to name all of them. I do know that only a handful of the senators actually read the less than 100 page NIE report BEFORE voting. Obama was not a member of the senate at the time so he was not privy to the document before the vote was taken. Therein is his big half truth aka a lie. So far it's working for him.

There is NO CENTRAL QUESTION. Our troops are in Iraq and have been there since March of 2003 and if America hires another liar we will be there longer for this excuse or that excuse. More lies.

Obama has "rolled over and played dead" since Jan. of 2007 when he announced his candidacy. Do you know of ANY VOTE OR MEETING HE HAS ARRANGED OR ATTENDED on behalf of his senatorial and committee obligations?

Perhaps you have confused my words with my admitted plagiarized words of Joe Wilson. I did not nor do I refer to bush's "war of choice". bush is an idiot AND a liar. Obama is not an idiot but HE IS A LIAR of the most dangerous kind. He tells them with a smile on his face.

Correction: the honorable Sen. Bob Graham is a Democrat.

SeeDoBecome: Oh, so you don't want to talk about Joe Wilson anymore? OK. let's go back to Obama, Clinton, and 2002. Your first post above mentions "the Authorization of Military Force as a diplomatic tool to push the international community to impose intrusive inspections on Saddam Hussein." You, Wilson and Clinton supported the idea that invasion needed to be threatened. Even Hans Blix dropped his impartiality and professionalism, and got drawn into this position. But I digress.

The central question is why invasion needed to be threatened to achieve containment. Some people including Illinois State Sen. Obama said at the time it did not. Everyone else in power fell in line with Bush, except a group of US Rep.s and Sen.s, including Republican Bob Graham of Florida. Graham told Clinton that she should read the classified NIE because it contained reports that strongly dissented from the view that Iraq had WMD. Peter Zimmerman, scientific advisor to the Senate foreign relations commitee, said of the classified NIE afterwards, "'Boy, there's nothing in there. If anybody takes the time to actually read this, they can't believe there actually are major WMD programs."

Your posts seek to forgive Hillary and blame Bush, because it was Bush's "war of choice," as you said. But the only reason he had that choice is because Hillary and some other willfully ignorant senators chose to give him that choice.

The framers of our Constitution knew that presidents would try to grab power like a king. That's why they specifically developed the branches of government, to split up the power. When members of the legislative branch roll over and play dead, when they refuse to do their jobs, and refuse to read the information that the various agencies of energy and state develop, when they give up the powers of check and balance, they fail all of us, including every American that ever believed in the validity of the Constitution of the United States of America.

ErikW65: Joe Wilson is NOT running for President. THE BIG HALF TRUTH obama is pushing is he eludes to his vote against the resolution to use military force in Iraq when OBAMA WAS NOT IN THE U.S. SENATE AT THE TIME THE VOTE TOOK PLACE. All of America would have been against "war" if given the choice. We, including obama, didn't have the choice of yes or no. Bush hoodwinked our congress and senate. Period. Obama was NOT THERE because he didn't assume his office until 2005 when our troops had already been in Iraq for nearly 19 months. So WHO IS LYING TO AMERICA? Is obama just another bush of a different flavor? America has 8 months. We'll see.

Ah, so BOTH you and Mr. Wilson have misrepresented Sen. Obama! Better watch where you cut and paste from!

Seriously, I was surprised Joe Wilson tried make the case that Obama was not really sure if he was against the war. More important than Obama's opposition to the invasion was his accurate prediction of the outcome of the war: "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."

According to Joe Wilson's "What I Didn't Find In Africa" letter, Wilson "did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion."

What I can't figure out about Joe Wilson is this: he knew that Bush was building a case for war by trying to get his hands on any intel, even bad, discredited intel. He knew that firsthand, in Feb. 2002. So, 1) why wait until July of 2003, after the Oct. 2002 vote on the AUMF to say anything? and 2) why take the position that a containment regime needs to be backed up by the threat of invasion?

Something is not right with Joe Wilson, and I'd love to debate him on this! Joe, if you're listening out there, feel free to come aboard!

ErikW65: you can take your argument to
Joseph C. Wilson. Remember Valerie Plames' husband? He wrote it for yesterday's Huffington Post under the title "Obama's Hollow "Judgment" and Empty Record". Wilson is so spot on about Obama so I decided to plagiarize the article during an "Obama moment". Maybe I should call myself "bone headed" so you'll overlook my faux pas. Will you pleeeezzzzz?

www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/obamas-hollow-judgment_b_89441.html

SeeDoBecome wrote, "Barack Obama argues that he deserves the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton doesn't..."
Did Sen. Obama actually say he "deserved" to be elected president, or are you putting words in his mouth and building a straw man argument?

Ironically, it is Hillary who acted like she deserved to be president, with a campaign that acted as if she was invincible, inevitable, and as if the race would be over on Super Tuesday evening.

So you "profoundly resent Obama's distortion of Bush's folly into Hillary's responsibility" do you? Well let me tell you something about responsibility. Votes count. Words that people say have meaning. Your whitewashing of Hillary's bloody spot will not work.

You can voice all the mock indignation and resentment you want. But what it looks like from here is a candidate writhing and whining in pain from having her feet held to the fire!!!

sheridan1: America DOES NOT speak Arabic nor do we want to. Arabic is irrelevant in this election. ===========================================

Barack Obama argues that he deserves the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton doesn't because he possesses superior "judgment," as he calls it, on the key issues we face as a nation. As definitive proof he offers one speech he made in 2002 during a reelection campaign for an Illinois senate seat in the most liberal district in the state, so liberal that no other position would have been viable. When he made that speech, Obama was not privy to the briefings by, among others, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in support of the Authorization of Use of Military Force as a diplomatic tool to push the international community to impose intrusive inspections on Saddam Hussein.

Would Obama have acted differently had he been in Washington or had he had the benefit of the arguments and the intelligence that the administration was offering to the Congress debating that resolution? During the 2002-2003 time frame, he was a minor local official uninvolved in the national debate on the war so we can only judge from his own statements prior to the 2008 campaign. Obama repeated these points in a whole host of interviews prior to announcing his candidacy. On July 27, 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." In his book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006, he wrote, "...on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." And, in 2006, he clearly said, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices."

I was involved in that debate in every step of the effort to prevent this senseless war and I profoundly resent Obama's distortion of George Bush's folly into Hillary Clinton's responsibility. I was in the middle of the debate in Washington. Obama wasn't there. I remember what was said and done. In fact, the administration lied in order to secure support for its war of choice, including cooking the intelligence and misleading Congress about the intent of the authorization. Senator Clinton's position, stated in her floor speech, was in favor of allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to complete their mission and to build a broad international coalition. Bush rejected her path. It was his war of choice.

There is no credible reason to conclude that Obama would have acted any differently in voting for the authorization had he been in the Senate at that time. Indeed, he has said as much. The supposed intuitive judgment he exercised in his 2002 speech was nothing more than the pander of a local election campaign, just as his current assertions of superior judgment and scurrilous attacks on Hillary Clinton are a pander to those who now retroactively think the war was a mistake without bothering to acknowledge Senator Clinton's actual position at the time and instead fantasizing that she was nothing but a Bush clone. Obama willfully encourages and plays off this falsehood.

What should we make of Obama's other judgments in foreign affairs? Take Afghanistan, for example. It has been evident for some time that our efforts there are going badly and that cooperation and support from our NATO allies would be helpful. As chairman of the subcommittee on Senate Foreign Relations responsible for NATO and Europe, Obama could have used his lofty position actually to engage the issue and pressure the administration to take some action to improve our chance of success in that conflict against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Of course, that would have involved holding hearings, questioning administration witnesses, and taking a position and offering alternatives. That is what we expect that from senators in a democracy. It is called oversight.

But, instead, Obama, by his own admission, offers the excuse that he has been too busy running for president to do anything substantive, such as direct his staff to organize a single hearing. "Well, first of all," Obama was forced to confess in the Democratic debate in Ohio on February 26, "I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan." To date, his subcommittee has held no policy hearings at all -- none. At the same time that Obama claimed he was too busy campaigning to do anything substantive, racking up one of the worst attendance records in the Senate, Senator Clinton chaired extensive hearings of the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health and attended many others as a member of the Armed Service Committee.

As a consequence of Obama's dereliction of duty on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a feckless administration has had absolutely no oversight as it careens from disaster to disaster in Afghanistan, including the central governments loss of control over 70 percent of the country and yet another bumper crop of opium to fuel the efforts of the Taliban and their terrorist allies. Of course, if you don't hold hearings, conduct oversight, make recommendations or sponsor legislation, then you have no record to explain or defend and you are free to take whatever position is convenient when attacking those who actually did address issues. Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, Obama holds forth on Afghanistan, chiding the administration and our allies as though he's a profile in courage and not someone who has abandoned his post in establishing accountability.

On Iran and the question of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, the junior senator from Illinois was not quite so clever at avoiding taking a position. He first co-sponsored the "Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which contained explicit language identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. He subsequently claimed to oppose the Kyl-Lieberman sense of the Senate resolution proposing the same thing. Obama's accountability problem here is that he didn't show up for the vote on that resolution -- a vote that would have put him on record. Then he declined to sign on to a letter put forward by Senator Clinton making explicit that the resolution could not be used as authority to take military action. All we have is Obama's rhetoric juxtaposed with his co-sponsorship of a piece of legislation that proposed what he says he opposed.

Obama's gyrations on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are not the actions of one imbued with superior intuitive judgment, but rather the machinations of a political opportunist looking to avoid having his fingerprints on any issue that might be controversial, and require real judgment, while preserving his freedom to bludgeon his adversary for actually taking positions as elected office demands. It is hard to discern whether Senator Obama is a man of principle, but it is clear that he is not a man of substance. And that judgment, based on his hollow record, is inescapable.

Geeez.........Maybe stupidity is terminal?

For all you people with a Hussein problem:
Obama should be proud to be named Hussein
The attacks on Barack Obama's middle name have begun, but the likely Democratic nominee joins a long line of famous Americans with Semitic names, from Benjamin Franklin to Omar Bradley.
By Juan Cole

Feb. 29, 2008 | In Cincinnati, Bill Cunningham, according to the Los Angeles Times, introducing presidential candidate John McCain at a rally Tuesday, "ridiculed Democratic contender Barack Obama for his intention to meet with 'world leaders who want to kill us' and pointedly referred to the Illinois senator as 'Barack Hussein Obama.'" John McCain repudiated Cunningham's low tactics and said that using the middle name like that three times was "inappropriate" and would never happen again at one of his rallies.

I want to say something about Barack Hussein Obama's name. It is a name to be proud of. It is an American name. It is a blessed name. It is a heroic name, as heroic and American in its own way as the name of Gen. Omar Nelson Bradley or the name of Benjamin Franklin. And denigrating that name is a form of racial and religious bigotry of the most vile and debased sort. It is a prejudice against names deriving from Semitic languages!

Christian, Western heroes have often been bequeathed Middle Eastern names. Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, the medieval Spanish hero, carried the name El Cid, from the Arabic al-Sayyid, "the Lord."

Barack and Hussein are Semitic words. Americans have been named with Semitic names since the founding of the republic. Fourteen of our 43 presidents have had Semitic names (see below). And American English contains many Arabic-derived words that we use every day and without which we would be much impoverished. America is a world civilization with a world heritage, something Cunningham will never understand.

Barack is a Semitic word meaning "to bless" as a verb or "blessing" as a noun. In its Hebrew form, barak, it is found all through the Bible. It first occurs in Genesis 1:22 -- "And God blessed (ḇāreḵə) them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth."

Here is a list of how many times barak appears in each book of the Bible.

Now let us take the name "Hussein." It is from the Semitic word hasan, meaning "good" or "handsome." Husayn is the diminutive, affectionate form.

Barack Obama's middle name is in honor of his grandfather, Hussein, a secular resident of Nairobi, Kenya. Americans may think of Saddam Hussein when they hear the name, but that is like thinking of Stalin when you hear the name Joseph. There have been lots of Husseins in history, from the grandson of the prophet Mohammed, a hero who touched the historian Gibbon, to King Hussein of Jordan, one of America's most steadfast allies in the 20th century. The author of the beloved American novel "The Kite Runner" is Khaled Hosseini.

But in Obama's case, it is just a reference to his grandfather.

It is worth pointing out that John McCain's adopted daughter, Bridget, is originally from Bangladesh. Since Hussein is a very common name in Bangladesh, it is entirely possible that her birth father or grandfather was named Hussein. McCain certainly has Muslim relatives via adoption in his family. If Muslim relatives are a disqualification from high office in the United States, then McCain himself is in trouble. In fact, since Bridget is upset that George W. Bush doesn't like her "because she is black," and used her to stop the McCain campaign in South Carolina in 2000, you understand why McCain would be especially sensitive to race baiting of Cunningham's sort. The question is how vigorously he will combat it; he hasn't been above Muslim taunting in the campaign so far. (And the McCains really should let Bridget know that she is Asian, not "black." The poor girl; Bush and Rove have done a number on her, and Cindy's confusion can't help.)

The other thing to say about grandfathers named Hussein is that very large numbers of African-Americans probably have an ancestor 10 or 11 generations ago with that name, in what is now Mali or Senegal or Nigeria. And since so many thousands of Arab Muslims were made to convert to Catholicism in Spain after 1501, many Latinos have distant ancestors named Hussein, too. In fact, since there was a lot of Arab-Spanish intermarriage, and since there was subsequent Spanish intermarriage with other European Catholics, more European Americans are descended from a Hussein than they realize. The British royal family is quite forthright about the Arab line in its ancestry going back to Andalusia.

Obama, being a cousin of Dick Cheney on one side and having relatives in Kenya on the other, is just more and more typical of the 21st century United States.

So, anyway, Obama's first two names mean "blessing, the good." If we are lucky enough to get him for president, we can only hope that his names are prophetic for us.

Which brings me to Omar Bradley. Omar is an alternative spelling of Umar, i.e., Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second caliph of Sunni Islam. Presumably Gen. Bradley was named for the poet Omar Khayyam, who bore the caliph's name. Omar Khayyam's "Rubaiyat," in the "translation" of Edward FitzGerald, became enormously popular in Victorian America.

Gen. Omar Bradley, who bore a Semitic, Muslim first name, and shared it with the second caliph of Sunni Islam, was the hero of D-day and Normandy, of the Battle of the Bulge and the Ruhr.

Would Cunningham see Omar Bradley as un-American, as an enemy because of his name?

What about other American heroes, such as Gen. George Joulwan, former NATO supreme allied commander of Europe? "Joulwan" is an Arabic name. Or there is Gen. John Abizaid, former CENTCOM commander. Abizaid is an Arabic name. Abi means Abu or "father of," and Zaid is a common Arab first name. Is Cunningham good enough to wipe their shoes? Is he going to call them traitors because they have Arabic names?

What about Rep. Darrell Issa of California? ("'Isa" means Jesus in Arabic). Former Cabinet secretary Donna Shalala? (Shalala means "waterfall" in Arabic.)

I won't go into all the great Americans with Arabic names in sports, entertainment and business, against whom Cunningham would apparently discriminate on that basis. Does he want to take citizenship away from Kareem Abdul Jabbar (meaning "noble the servant of the Mighty") and Ahmad Jamal (meaning "the most praised, beauty")? What about Rihanna ("sweet basil," "aromatic")? And Tony Shalhoub (i.e., Mr. Monk)?

Let us take Benjamin Franklin. His first name is from the Hebrew Bin Yamin, the son of the Right (hand), or the son of strength, or the son of the South (yamin or right has lots of connotations). The "Bin" means "son of," just as in modern colloquial Arabic. Bin Yamin Franklin is not a dishonorable name because of its Semitic root. By the way, there are lots of Muslims named Bin Yamin.

As for an American president bearing a name derived from a Semitic language, that is hardly unprecedented.

John Adams really only had Semitic names. His first name is from the Hebrew Yochanan, or gift of God, which became Johan and then John. (In German and in medieval English, "y" is represented by "j" but was originally pronounced "y.") Adams is from the biblical Adam, which also just means "human being." In Arabic, one way of saying "human being" is "Bani Adam," the children of men.

Thomas Jefferson's first name is from the Aramaic Tuma, meaning "twin." Aramaic is a Semitic language spoken by Jesus, which is related to Hebrew and Arabic. In Arabic, twin is tau'am, so you can see the similarity.

James Madison, James Monroe and James Polk all had a Semitic first name, derived from the Hebrew Ya'aqov or Jacob, which is Ya'qub in Arabic. It became Iacobus in Latin, then was corrupted to Iacomus, and from there became James in English.

Zachary Taylor's first name is from the Hebrew Zachariah, which means "the Lord has remembered."

Abraham Lincoln, of course, is named for the patriarch Abraham, from the Semitic word for father, Ab, and the word for "multitude," raham. Abu, "father of," is a common element in Arab names today.

So, Mr. Cunningham, Barack Hussein Obama fits right in this list of presidents with Semitic names. In fact, we haven't had one for a while. We are due for another one.

A blessed and good one.

Dear VegetablesPlease,

You asked the question, "Where does Obama really stand on the war?"

Please try some meat and potatoes. But this isn't information I cooked up myself, the following is the conclusion to Barack Obama's 10/2/02 speech:

"The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not - we will not - travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain."

I hope that satisfies your appetite for information!

Can't you just imagine McCain being against(I wish)the war. He would be fighting like hell. Forget party of presidency. Everybody would know, for sure, he was against it. I don't agree with his stance now, but I do know where he stands by his deeds. I can respect that. Where does Obama really stand on the war. Who knows?

Posted by: bnw173 | March 3, 2008 07:55 AM

Very interesting comparison; I believe you're right. Thank you.

i am happy that barack is tipping over all of HRC swift boat attacks . while holding the high road .

his 900'000 vote lead
and his 160 plus pledged delegate lead bodes well for him . to win it all .

peace
9

You Might Be An Idiot

If you think Bill Clinton is the one running for president.

You Might Be An Idiot

If you think the tech bubble during the Clinton era had anything to do with him

You Might Be An Idiot

If you think Senator Obama didn't Acheive any results on health care and education during all 7 yrs of serving in the state senate

You Might Be An Idiot

If You Believe anyone who does not share your views might be an idiot

You Might Be An idiot

If you expect anyone to change their views just because they get insulted when they don't.

hilly is a joke. that 3 am ad is her silliest feat, yet. she wants us to believe she will be up at 3 am in the morning in her pantsuit,necklace, earrings, makeup, hair done and glasses ready to answer the phone. (eureka! that's what she means by being Ready!) she chose to act on a fear that is just wrong. children shouldn't be used to scare up votes. someone should have told her 9/11 didn't happen at 3 am. why would anyone call her, anyway? what is she going to do ? suit up? isn't the president just informed by the military people in charge as to what is going on? she acts as if she will be in charge. billy would take that call because that's who would really be in charge. hilly is just a front. obama's ad could have done a better job of countering her ad by showing how incompetent and RECKLESS hilly was in signing to go to war by playing back her own words from the debate where she said she didn't know what she was signing and obama reminded her by stating the title of it to show that it was clearly worded to go to war and a voice over where billy said Bush "duped" hilly into signing. this is a woman that should NOT be answering the phone at 3 am or any other time to be in authority of national security. she seemed to have lost it last week. she was all over the place. she seemed stoned at the last debate; that dead stare at obama and the clenched jaw was weird. on SNL, why didn't she joke about her schizo rants, not revealing her tax returns, billy getting back into the white house? a better skit would be Chelsea being "pimped out". A vote for Hilly is a vote for A Clinton. A vote for McCain is a vote for Bush. Both are a continuation of the past. This Country will collectively Dumb Down if not moved on from the tempestuous times of the Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush era. It is a shame and a disgrace to be so stubborn and locked in the same old people and their ways. Obama can't do any harm to this Country. He sure would be some kind of sadist to go through all of this just for such a stressful low paying job as the one of presidency. Voters must be smarter than a fifth grader and not fall for such sophomoric tactics as those of Hilly. She has had a Mental Breakdown right in front of the whole Country. How can her mood be trusted at 3 am? Which of her Sybil- personalities will answer the phone? TRUST, UNITY, HOPE, CHANGE, FUTURE, BETTERMENT and FAITH again in a Government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE. Not of a Bush or a Clinton, by a Bush or a Clinton, for a Bush or a Clinton. The higher educated seems to be voting for Obama because they have weighed his value; unlike those who rely on the media to spoon feed them information. Hilly puts out a "fear" ad because there are those who will fall for the propaganda. Such a shameful way to get votes. Obama is a timely choice. He has hit a lot on the domestic woes of this Country. Hilly is hooked on a failed healthcare plan and parroting Obama's war position. She has NEVER said a word about what she will do specifically for women, not once! Why vote for a novelty? She should stop the maddness and let the Country move on.

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

Obama has only visited the senate. His goal has been being President. He may have spent some time writing some simple bills or riding others bills. Every one knows the senate was his stepping stone to the presidency. I just question his motives. Finger in the wind politics. Here is my problem with Obama, he lacks conviction (guts, balls). When you are for or against something strongly you fight for it like hell. He is not against the war.
Can't you just imagine McCain being against(I wish)the war. He would be fighting like hell. Forget party of presidency. Everybody would know, for sure, he was against it. I don't agree with his stance now, but I do know where he stands by his deeds. I can respect that. Where does Obama really stand on the war. Who knows?

Everything Hillary Clinton claims about her "35 years" of experience, which allegedly makes her qualified to be our next President is pretty much BS. I'm sure she pretty much knows her way around the inside of the White House significantly better than Senator Obama, but most of what Hillary knows about occupying the White House is stuff that both Senator Obama and his wife can pick up well before inauguration day.

Hillary's claims to "experience" only become more outlandish when she tries to get specific with the kind of experience she supposedly has that make her better qualified than Barack Obama. I'd like to hear a very clear and specific argument for just what Hillary did that makes her more qualified in the areas of Foreign Affairs (she didn't even have a secret clearance and I don't think that either traveling abraod or receiving visitors from other countries for photo ops as First Lady qualifies one to be President. Clinton's claims to being better qualified to deal with America's aoling economy, is probably even more ridiculous than her claims of Foreign Policy experience. The only thing I am familiar with that speaks positively concerning Hillary Clinton on economics was her great money-making scheme (Cattlegate) which sounds very much like a bit of "insider trading that she got away with. When one considers the mess that her campaign has been financially, and the fact that she spent far more than any other Senator during her reelection to the Senate in 2006 (despite having incredibly light opposition, voters should seriously worry about Hillary at the controls of our economy). Add to those concerns, Clintons position on NAFTA; outsourcing American jobs to India and other countries, and the dealings of her campaign staff who are likely to end up in her cabinet and the prospects for our economy are positively frightening.

What Hillary and her campaign are counting on is the old chestnut about if you tell a lie often enough, some people are going to start believing it. Here's hoping the vast majority of voters in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island are a lot smarter than Hillary gives them credit for.

At least Mitt Romney was mature enough to know it was over; to face reality and deal with it as such. Very much unlike certain other people...Uh, Hillary, call your office.

Hillary Clinton = most desperate politician in the last two months since Mitt Romney flushed a chunck of his fortune down the drain to win any surprise victories.

The question for Obama is: If on 911 the SEARS TOWER in Chicago was attacked--as in NYC--and 4,000 Chicago citizens were killed or maimed and a great portion of downtown Chicago was destroyed--as in NYC--and the citizens of Illinois were crying out that this attack could not stand--as in NYC--and thousands of workers and companies were deprived of making a living--as in NYC.AND HE WAS A U.S. SENATOR--which he was not nor was he a STATE Senator-- would he have voted for going to war --yes or no and why????. He did not have any easy vote--in fact he DID NOT HAVE A VOTE AT ALL!! It's wonderful to make pious speeches when you don,t have a vote or your citizens were not personally effectd by what happened. It didn't take much judgement on his part he had nothing invested in that speech but his opinion--which isn't much. ANSWER THE QUESTION OBAMA

Wow, thanks, Kiku, for elaborating on a theme. I was just going to write,
4. Obama can pronounce "Medvedev," (and hasn't already rejected/denounced him in public.)

Reasons Obama has better foreign policy experience that Hillary:

9. Here's an international human rights attorney who recently endorsed Obama: http://obamaendorsements.blogspot.com/2008/03/lisa-gans.html

10. Here are the historians for Obama: http://obamaendorsements.blogspot.com/2008/03/historians-for-obama.html

11. He embodies America. His mother is white, from Kansas, his father is black from Africa. he was born in Hawaii, went to school for 6 years in Inodnesia, sought his family roots in Africa (Dreams of My Father). He personifies the American dream to overcome difficulties: his father left the family when he was two, but, with love from his family and a good education, has continued to provide America with dedicated service to improving our government.

8. Obama has the backing of many foreign policy experts. To hear some of them speak, visit Obamas foreign policy forum, parts 1-3 at http://www.barackobama.com/tv/ (scroll down).

Here Tony Lake from Georgetown, who advised President Clinton during Clinton's first term, says:

a) Authenticy, he says what he means and means what he says
b) Obama has a vision for change
c) Obama brings a new face and message that is transformative
d) Experience: older than Bill Clinton was, lived in Indonesia, travelled extensively in Africa, so he knows what the US looks like from the outside;
e) Judgement: Iraq, first with plans to get out; how hie thinks: he listens to others, understands to different dimension of the problem, and the sees with clear judgement a way to approach it.
f) Unifier: he can win in November; this will be needed to bring change that a divisive personality cannot.
g) Obama has a vision of one American

Susan Rice speaks next more about Obama's policies: Obama was the first with a plan to get out of Iraq, but he also has detailed plans on revitalizeing the armed forces, counter terrorism, Pakistan, so he has the means to tackle the challenges. He goes beyond current problems with plans for climate change, energy independency, international collaboration, the Middle East, nuclear proliferation, supporting more democratic states. On Jan 29, 2009, the world will give us one brief look again to see if we can renew our leadership in the world. Obama represents and embodies that leadership. He represents American's ability to change, to grow, to learn, to regain our strengths.

There are many more speakers.

Here's an article on some of his supporting foreign policy experts: http://obamaendorsements.blogspot.com/2008/03/over-70-foreign-policy-experts.html

Reasons Obama has better foreign policy experience than Hillary:

7. Nuclear weapon and material disarmament is a primary concern of Obama's. After visiting Russia, the Ukraine, and Azerbaijan with Lugar (R), he returned to author, with Lugar, the Lugar-Obama nonproliferation legislation. So, he's already started making us safer. http://obama.senate.gov/press/070111-lugar-obama_non/

Reasons Obama has better foreign policy experience than Hillary:

. Committee on Veterans' Affairs: focused on providing our brave veterans with the care and services they deserve.

5. He said that he would talk to foreign leaders with preparation, but not preconditions, the advised foreign policy position

6. He is not beholdant to the military complex for funding, as is Hillary. She has received more funding than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat, so he can make decisions independent of the military complex.

Reasons Obama has better foreign policy than Hillary:

1. Obama holds a degree in foreign policy from Columbia,

2. He is on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, that plays a vital role in shaping US policy around the world.

3. He is on the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that addresses, among other things, issues of immigration and our borders.

It's all over but the crying. But no Kleenex for Penn and Ickes, they made many millions of dollars getting Democrats to hate each other. Thanks Hillary.

So Ed Scott posts in caps because he can't read lower-case print? Terrific. That means he's just another hit-and-run poster who doesn't read the article or any comments prior to his own. Oh wait - he managed to read ErikW65's comment....

Sorry for the double post.

Reply to Ed Scott: I hope, for the sake of those around you, that you never become hard of hearing. Your response will no doubt be to talk loudly so you can hear yourself better.

MAB2,

We're not asking for this year's returns, we want to see last year's. Is it so tough for her to make a copy available for review?

MAB2,

We're not asking for this year's returns, we want to see last year's. Is it so tough for her to make a copy available for review?

Hillary enabled Bush to drive our military into the ditch that is Iraq. No way to force his hand by cutting off all funds, apparently. Still, with full funding, Captains of the US Army are so desperate for supplies that they will use captured Taliban weapons. So, a subcommittee can meet, with Obama there, and make decisions. But W. is at the helm, and his bungling knows no bounds, and can't be affected much by Senate Subcomittee. It is more important for the country to get this done, now.

MSNBC is worse than Fox- take Oberman out and you've got Matthews, who is clinically insane and spits a lot, Russert, a shadow of himself as a journalist now that he wants to just play gotcha' with some people while kissing the rears of others, Pat Buchanan- a man who sees the real problems but thinks they should be solved with racist, sexist, xenophobic solutions, and Rachel Maddow, a preported liberal who is willing to throw all of the liberal policies overboard to back Obama for whatever reason. It tanks in the ratings deservedly and hopefully will be cut off by it's mother company General Electric, the worlds largest defense contractor.

whiterosesforme:
you don't think Obama would lie? His whole campaign is based on an image of someone he is not.

He takes bundled money from corporate backers, just not registered lobbyists

He played the race card by accusing the Clintons of something they did not do:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304&k=5083

He backs off or strengthens his position on everything, including Iraq depending on who he is speaking to and when

He is no more honest of different than any of the other candidates- perhaps that is why he refuses to detail how "CHANGE" will occur?

MEAN OL' HOPEMONGER

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2JpvxoB7uo

Memo to Ed Scott: Stop Screaming! I refuse to read posts written with caps lock on.

Posted by: ErikW65 | March 2, 2008 11:29 PM
__________________________________________MEMO TO ERIKW65: I'M NOT SCREAMING I DON'T SEE WELL AND HAVE TROUBLE READING REGULAR LOWER CASE PRINT. SO FINE DON'T READ IT. SORRY IT ISN'T PC

quote: Speaking of having the time to get stuff done... I hear that Obama didn;t have a chance to run any of his sub-committee meetings relating to Afghanistan b/c he was too busy running for president complaining about how Afghanistan has been handled. That seems far more important to me than taxes.

Yes, Obama thinks that he will be able to get more done as president that as chair of the sub-committee, so he's working hard at running for president.

http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=12051

December 14, 2007
Hillary Clinton's Illiberal Belligerence
by Stephen Zunes

Iran

In response to the Bush administration's ongoing obsession with Iran, Senator Clinton's view is that the Bush has not been obsessive enough. In a speech at Princeton University last year, she argued that the White House "lost critical time in dealing with Iran," and accused the administration of choosing to "downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations" as well as "standing on the sidelines."

She has insisted that "we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran - that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons." Though going to war is still very high on her list of options, apparently supporting a nuclear weapons-free zone for the entire Middle East, normalizing economic and strategic relations in return for eliminating Iran's nuclear weapons capability, and other possible negotiated options are not.

In defending her vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq in 2003, she has claimed that Bush "deceived all of us" in exaggerating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime. Yet, when it comes to the similarly exaggerated Iranian threat, she has again repeated the Bush administration's talking points almost verbatim. Indeed, as recently as last month she was insisting that "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons," even though the consensus of the United States' 16 intelligence agencies was that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program back in 2003.

Senator Clinton was the only Democratic member of Congress seeking the presidential nomination to support the Kyl-Lieberman amendment which, among other things, called on the Bush administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps - the largest branch of the Iranian military - as a foreign terrorist organization. To designate a branch of the armed forces of a foreign state as a terrorist organization would be unprecedented and was widely interpreted to be a backhanded way of authorizing military action against Iran. Indeed, Virginia Senator Jim Webb referred to it as "Cheney's fondest pipe dream."

She initially justified her vote in part because of the Revolutionary Guard's alleged involvement in Iran's nuclear weapons program, a position she has had trouble defending since it was revealed such a program has not existed for at least four years.

In language remarkably similar to her discredited rationalization for her 2002 vote to authorize the U.S. invasion of Iraq, she claimed that it was not actually a vote for war, but simply to give Bush a means "to apply greater diplomatic pressure on Iran." (Fortunately, Senator Clinton's position was too extreme even for the Bush administration, which designated only the al-Quds Force - a sub-unit of the Revolutionary Guards which doesn't always operate with the full knowledge and consent of the central government - as a terrorist organization.)

She has also decried Iran's "involvement in and influence over Iraq," an ironic complaint for someone who voted to authorize the overthrow of the anti-Iranian secular government of Saddam Hussein despite his widely predicted replacement by pro-Iranian Shi'ite fundamentalist parties. She has also gone on record repeating a whole series of false, exaggerated and unproven charges by Bush administration officials regarding Iranian support for the Iraqi insurgency, even though the vast majority of foreign support for the insurgency has come from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries and that the majority of the insurgents are fanatically anti-Iranian and anti-Shi'ite.

Though Iran's threat to the national security of the United States is grossly exaggerated, they are a far more powerful country today in terms of their military prowess than was Iraq in 2002, when Senator Clinton supported invading that country because of its alleged danger to U.S. national security. It would be naïve, therefore, to ignore the very real possibility that, if elected president, she would find reason to invade Iran as well.

Memo to Ed Scott: Stop Screaming! I refuse to read posts written with caps lock on.

Pulsamsara-

United in what? He doesn't have a good record of crossing the aisle, he ran a race-baiting campaign, according to the liberal New Republic:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304&k=5083
not to mention frequently using negative female stereotyping, who did he unite? rich white college kids with the African American population- the spoiled kids will forget and leave behind their partners as they have in the past once the novelty wears off.

Look at Hillary's military votes for an explanation of why the military may be voting for her:

http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=12051

Mama Warbucks

Her presidential campaign has received far more money from defense contractors than any other candidate - Democrat or Republican - and her close ties to the defense industry has led the Village Voice to refer to her as "Mama Warbucks." She has even fought the Bush administration in restoring funding for some of the very few weapons systems the Bush administration has sought to cut in recent years. Pentagon officials and defense contractors have given Senator Clinton high marks for listening to their concerns, promoting their products and leveraging her ties to the Pentagon, comparing her favorably to the hawkish former Washington Senator "Scoop" Jackson and other pro-military Democrats of earlier eras.

Clinton has also demonstrated a marked preference for military confrontation over negotiation. In a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, she called for a "tough-minded, muscular foreign and defense policy." Similarly, when her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination Senator Barack Obama expressed his willingness to meet with Hugo Chávez, Fidel Castro or other foreign leaders with whom the United States has differences, she denounced him for being "irresponsible and frankly naive."

Senator Clinton appears to have a history of advocating the blunt instrument of military force to deal with complex international problems. For example, she was one of the chief advocates in her husband's inner circle for the 11-week bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999 to attempt to resolve the Kosovo crisis.

Though she had not indicated any support for the Kosovar Albanians' nonviolent campaign against Serbian oppression which had been ongoing since she had first moved into the White House six years earlier, she was quite eager for the United States to go to war on behalf of the militant Kosovo Liberation Army which had just recently come to prominence. Gail Sheehy's book Hillary's Choice reveals how, when President Bill Clinton and others correctly expressed concerns that bombing Serbia would likely lead to a dramatic worsening of the human rights situation by provoking the Serbs into engaging in full-scale ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, Hillary Clinton successfully pushed her husband to bomb that country anyway.

BEING THE FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY IS TOO BIG OF FOOT NOTE AND FOOTPRINT ON OUR HISTORY TO HAVE IT BE HILLARY "THE MESS" CLINTON. I BEG THE GOOD PEOPLE OF TX OH RI AND VT. VOTE OBAMA ON TUESDAY AND PUT US ALL OUT OF HILLARY'S MISERY. AS A PROUD WASHINGTONIAN I CAN SAY WE DID OUR PART TO SLOW HER DOWN. NOW IT'S UP TO YOU TO SHUT HER DOWN. EVEN STILL SHE ALREADY HAS HER DESPARATE EYE ON PA.
ENOUGH HILLARY. YOUR USELESS BATTLE FOR THE NOMINATION IS A MIRROR IMAGE OF GWB'S IRAQ STRATEGY. WHICH YOU DID INDEED SUPPORT. THE ONE THING YOU FINALLY ADMITTED YOU WISHED YOU COULD TAKE BACK WAS YOUR VOTE TO AUTHORISE GWB TO GO TO WAR. YOUR SECOND SHOULD BE YOUR DECISION TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT. YOU ARE RIPPING THE DEMS APPART WITH THE 40% THAT STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE MESSAGE TO ABANDON SHIP. IT LOOKS LIKE AS LONG AS YOU'VE GOT A FIST FULL OF DOLLARS (EVEN IF THEY COME FROM SEXUAL HARASSING CROOKS)AND AN EYE ON THE PRESIDENCY WE ARE STUCK WITH YOU AND YOUR PATHECTIC SPIN. EVEN THOUGH THE REPUBLICANS PRAY TO GO UP AGAINST YOU. THE POLLS SHOW McCAIN COULD BEAT YOU. EVEN THOUGH SOME 40% OF DEMOCRATS SUPPORT YOU THAT IS ONLY ABOUT 20% OF THE ENTIRE ELECTORATE. THAT DOESN'T ADD UP TO A WIN IN NOVEMBER ESPECIALLY WHEN ABOUT 75% OF THE TOTAL ELECTORATE DISPISES YOU.SINCE YOU'VE RECENTLY ANNOUNCED YOURSELF A HUNTER WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A NICE VACATION AND GO BIRD HUNTING WITH DICK CHANEY.
LEAVE THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE UP TO SOME ONE WHO CAN (AS SHOWN BY THE POLLS) BEAT McCAIN AND GIVE THE WHITE HOUSE BACK TO THE DEMOCRATS. OBAMA 08 A DEMOCRATIC VICTORY.

Re. "Some of Obama's supporters voted exactly the same as Hillary. In fact, the majority of folks at the time did based on the situation at hand."

We should vote for the candidate who succumbed to war hysteria/was duped by a dope, because...John Kerry was also duped, and he supports Obama??

This is the logic of a failed campaign.

Voter turnout for the Dems *doubled* (to 14 million) on Super Tues. 2008 compared to 2000, while the Repubs stagnated (9 million.) What caused this? An energized electorate, full of new voters, turned on by the idea of bringing a change agent to Washington, in the form of the senator from Illinois, Barack Obama.

Maybe the Democrats will succeed in nominating Hillary, and blow off all that new support. Won't that be a great convention, in Denver, on the 45th anniversary, to the day, of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech, if they decide that they can't risk believing in hope, but would rather choose the status quo politics of influence peddling and corruption? Seriously, I think that would be a disaster for the Democrat(ic) Party.

Her campaign said they will be releasing all her past tax returns on or before April 15th. 2006, 2007, etc...

Personally it doesn;t seem like them ost important issue our country faces. Why are you so excited to see them? Will you be reading them in detail to find something?

I would personally find it rather boring and don;t anticipate any terribly exciting findings.

Speaking of having the time to get stuff done... I hear that Obama didn;t have a chance to run any of his sub-committee meetings relating to Afghanistan b/c he was too busy running for president complaining about how Afghanistan has been handled. That seems far more important to me than taxes.

interesting...

I think this whole argument about experience is stupid. From what I have seen to date all you need to be a president of the US amounts to: (a) being US born, (b) being sufficiently intelligent to have amassed some money (c) having some contacts (d) being a good speaker. Once you are the President most of the leg work is done by the advisors, who usually are there to take the blame if something goes wrong; even if it is the fault of the president.
So both Hillary and Obama qualify. The way things are going they would probably have to sit down, in the end, and decide who will be the second fiddle. Why not do it now and save all that money to fight McCain?
Muhammad

Can't Hillary supporters understand? It's not her 2007 tax returns (not due until April 15) that people want to see. IT IS HER 2006 RETURNS! If it is such a "non-issue," why won't she release them?

Why experience is no guarantee of success when it comes to the Presidency. There is a fascinating article that is the cover story for this week's Time magazine. The article goes on to graphically display the level of experience that all of the previous 42 US presidents had prior to winning the Presidency. The following revered presidents all had less experience before winning the presidency than Obama does right now; Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herber Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan.

Plus this whole experience debate between Hillary and Obama is very disingenuous on the part of the Hillary campaign. Obama actually has 3 more years of legislative experience than Hillary does.

The bottom line is both Hillary and Obama are just as ready and qualified as some of the best presidents in the past that we have ever had (I don't consider Reagan as part of that group but he was revered by many).

What really matters to voters is which one can beat Mccain in November. After all that is the prize we all want. There is no glory or purpose for being the Democratic nominee if you can't beat the Republican challenger. Obama is attracting twice the number of voters in RED states to vote for him than the Republicans are getting to come out for their own Republican primaries. Obama has the support of 62% of the independents and Hillary has only 30%. Obama has about 75% of the support of the African Americans and Hillary is in the 20's. Even White women voters are now almost neck and neck in support for Obama and Hillary. I have personally talked to many Republicans that said they would or at least would consider voting for Obama. I haven't personally met any Republicans who said they could cross-over and vote for Hillary. That is a big problem for us in November. Point blank, like it or not Obama is the only one who can win against Mccain.

I realize many Obama supporters want to stay inside the bubble but you all should read this story about how his meteoric rise was actually accomplished. This reporter has known Obama since the early Chicago days and the picture he paints is that of a man with intense political ambition who did not hesitate to step on others to achieve his goals. It's not that pretty.

http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

Obama seeks to reverse everything.
Obama v. Clinton.
The battle continues...
Check out this video. funny...
youtube.com/watch?v=zNfnROOfbU8

She committed that all her tax returns will be made public on or before april 15th (when taxes are due)

And she has already provided ample disclosures as part of her Senate run if folks are interested.

That is a non-issue...

The military endorsements are impressive, to be sure, but WHY WON'T HILLARY SUPPORTERS ANSWER THE QUESTION? Why won't she release her tax returns?

Some of Obama's supporters voted exactly the same as Hillary. In fact, the majority of folks at the time did based on the situation at hand.

I guess Obama should be questioning the judgment of those folks as well.

Jonhn Kerry would be a great example.

"Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, voted in October 2002 to give Bush authority for using military force to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein."

If we wanted to hire a president solely based on their view of the war, then we should have voted for kucinech who actually VOTED against the war. He didn;t just talk about it like Obama.

Obama's voting record on the subject since he has been in the Senate has been virtually identical to Clinton's. Hmmm....

General Henry Hugh Shelton Endorses
Senator Clinton today is proud to announce that General Henry Hugh Shelton has endorsed her to be the Nation's next Commander-in-Chief

One of our nation's top military figures, General Shelton served two terms as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush.

In announcing his endorsement, General Shelton said, "I've been with Senator Clinton when she has been with our military men and women. I know from those experiences that she understands the demands and sacrifice of military life. I am confident she will always put the readiness and well being of our troops first. She is ready to be Commander-in-Chief."

General Shelton joins General John Shalikashvili as the second former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to have endorsed Senator Clinton. General Shelton is the fourth flag officer to endorse Senator Clinton this week.

The first Green Beret to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton served our Nation with distinction over a career that spanned 38 years. General Shelton served two tours of duty in Vietnam, and was awarded a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. He was assistant commander of the 101st Airborne Division during Operation Desert Storm in Iraq, and later commanded the 82nd Airborne Division. Prior to serving as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Shelton commanded U.S. Special Operations Forces. He served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation's highest ranking military office, from 1997-2001.

General Shelton joins a distinguished group of 28 retired flag officers who have endorsed Senator Clinton to be our nation's next Commander-in-Chief. In addition, more than 2,000 veterans and military retirees are members of Senator Clinton's national and state veterans' steering committees.

"I am so proud to have the endorsement of General Shelton. He has spent his career commanding our country's elite military units. He commanded at the highest level of our nation's armed forces, while always remaining dedicated to the effectiveness of their combat capabilities and the well-being of their families."

The complete list of general and flag officers endorsing Senator Clinton follows.

Flag Officers Endorsing Hillary Clinton for President and Commander-in-Chief

General Wesley Clark
General John M. Shalikashvili
General Henry Hugh Shelton
General Johnnie E. Wilson
Admiral William Owens
Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
Lt. Gen. Robert Gard
Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy
Lt. Gen. Donald L. Kerrick
Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath
Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak
Major General Roger R. Blunt
Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.
Major General Edward L. Correa, Jr.
Major General Paul D. Eaton
Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr.
Major General Antonio M. Taguba
Rear Admiral Connie Mariano
Rear Admiral Alan M. Steinman
Rear Admiral David Stone
Brigadier General Michael Dunn
Brigadier General Belisario Flores
Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote
Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr
Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard
Brigadier General Preston Taylor
Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
Brigadier General Jack Yeager

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6280

Eighteen Former Admirals, Generals and Senior Defense Officials on Why They Support Hillary Clinton to be the Next Commander-in-Chief

Eighteen former admirals, generals, and senior defense officials today gave their reasons for supporting Senator Clinton to be our next Commander-in-Chief. In a conference call with reporters this afternoon, some of the nation's most distinguished flag officers testified to Senator Clinton's qualifications, experience, and strength of character.

They are among the nearly 30 general and flag officers who have endorsed Hillary Clinton to be the Nation's next President. Senator Clinton has received five endorsements in recent days, including those of General Henry Hugh Shelton, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William Owens, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Army Major General Antonio M. Taguba. Overall she has the endorsement of two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, five admirals and generals at the four-star rank. They are in addition to over 2,000 veterans and military retirees who are members of Senator Clinton's national and state veterans' steering committees.

The list of those taking part in today's call is below.

General Wesley Clark
Admiral William Owens
General Johnnie E. Wilson
Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy
Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak
Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath
Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.
Major General Paul D. Eaton
Rear Admiral Stuart Platt
Rear Admiral David Stone
Major General Antonio M. Taguba
Brigadier General Michael Dunn
Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote
Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
Brigadier General Jack Yeager
Former Secretary of the Army and Veterans Affairs Togo West
Former Secretary of the Navy, John Dalton

Many of America's top millitary officials are 100% behind Hillary. Check it out.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6298

TESTIMONIALS: Former Admirals, Generals and Senior Defense Officials on Why They Support Hillary Clinton to be the Next Commander-in-Chief

In a conference call with reporters this afternoon, former Admirals, Generals, and senior defense officials today gave their reasons for supporting Senator Clinton to be our next Commander-in-Chief.

Their testimonials highlight Senator Clinton's qualifications, experience, and strength of character.

See below for links to audio of the testimonials and transcripts.

Click here for audio of the testimonials. Transcripts are below.

General Wesley Clark
Click here for audio

Brigadier General John Watkins, Jr.
Click here for audio

Major General Paul Eaton
Click here for audio

Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy
Click here for audio

Lieutenant General Frederick Vollrath
Click here for audio

Admiral William Owens
Click here for audio

Transcripts
General Wesley Clark
Click here for audio
"She has done her homework on national security and I know from my personal discussions with her and with many other friends that go in and brief her in her role in the Senate Armed Services Committee. She knows the facts, she knows the details, plus she has the big picture. She is a strategic thinker but she has the building blocks of the strategy in her personal knowledge. This is someone that when she is president our military is going to respect very highly, and when our Senior Officers brief her and meet with her they are going be very, very impressed by what she knows and the intelligence that she brings to these problems."

Brigadier General John Watkins, Jr.
Click here for audio
"As I think about the challenges facing the nation and having been in uniform for almost thirty years, worked with a number of presidents to include the last four, I can't think of a single person - those generals included - who is better qualified to walk into the Oval Office than Hillary Clinton. I don't make that statement very lightly. She is more qualified, in my view, than her husband Bill was when he entered the office. It is no surprise to me that you would have as many flag officers who serve this country and Secretaries of the Army and Navy who have served this country who would come out and support Hillary."

Major General Paul Eaton
Click here for audio
"On a personal note, I have a Special Forces Captain son and a Sergeant Paratrooper both in Afghanistan and I find Senator Clinton the perfect choice to be their Commander-in-Chief and to display the loyalty to command our armed forces and to rebuild them after the conflicts in which we are engaged right now."

Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy
Click here for audio
"I support her because I trust her. I trust Hillary Clinton because of her judgment and her leadership. I have confidence that she is responsive to the needs of people. I believe that she understands leadership the way we do in the Army and that is that it's about building connections and relationships and establishing guidance and leadership for others.

I think she'll rebuild relationships with other countries that have been suffering for the last seven or eight years; those relationships have really been strained beyond anything I would have anticipated. Another part of Hillary Clinton that I think is just tremendous is that she knows our reality. She is in touch with people, she listens to people. She decides what she believes about policy based on what's right, she has integrity, and on what works, so she's practical."

Lieutenant General Frederick Vollrath
Click here for audio
"I support Senator Clinton because I believe it's time for change in our country, a new direction. And I know change carries with it risks. Senator Clinton is the candidate, in my opinion, with the proven experience that truly understands the risks and how to possibly cope with those risks to get the job done. We shouldn't shirk from change because of the risks, but we absolutely have to have a leader with the proven experience. America, in the area of national defense, must be successful and Senator Clinton has that experience to create change, to understand the risk, and to get the job done."

Admiral William Owens
Click here for audio
"In this world that we face today, very complex as all of us know, I think experience will be really at a premium, especially at the level of the Commander-in-Chief. There's not time to learn. The phone rings and you have to be ready. You have to ready with intuition, with experience and with skills. And this world will have the complexities that perhaps we've never before seen. I've been impressed with and admire Hillary Clinton for her work in the Senate. And we need people with great judgment. I think she brings the best of talent, intuition and experience to handle these unknown threats in the future."

LAURA BUSH FOR PRESIDENT! 25 YEARS EXPERIENCE!!!! FIRST LADY OF 2D LARGEST STATE AND USA!!! SLEPT NEXT TO THE RED PHONE!!! KNOWS HOW TO ANSWER PHONE!!!VISISTED LOTS OF COUNTRIES, WORE FUNNY HATS, HAD TEA WITH MANY QUEENS. Yep, Experience you can count on .... NOT.
Yes We Can!

"We're still waiting to hear Sen. Clinton tell us what precise foreign policy experience that she is claiming, that makes her prepared to answer that phone call at three in the morning,"

She got a lot of calls that time of night from Bill's bimbos looking for for their $20.

One of Britain's most influential black figures today accused Barack Obama of cynically exploiting America's racial divide and gave warning that he could prolong, rather than heal the rift.

Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, claimed that the Democratic front-runner would ultimately disappoint the African-American community and dismissed the notion that he would be "the harbinger of a post-racial America" if he becomes the country's first black President.

Writing in Prospect, the monthly current affairs magazine, Mr Phillips suggested that guilt over transatlantic slavery was behind Mr Obama's support from middle class whites.

"If Obama can succeed, then maybe they can imagine that [Martin Luther] King's post-racial nirvana has arrived. A vote for Obama is a pain-free negation of their own racism. So long as they don't have to live next door to him; Obama has yet to win convincingly in white districts adjacent to black communities," he wrote.

Mr Phillips compared Mr Obama to Bill Cosby and Oprah Winfrey, prominent black "bargainers" - those who strike a deal with white America not to make an issue of historical racism if their own race is not used against them.

But, in a warning to the Democratic candidate, he added that Cosby now cut a "sad and lonely figure" because he had abandoned the moral weapon used by figures such as Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X and Jesse Jackson in insisting that "in the end, salvation for blacks won't depend on the actions of whites."

"In truth, Obama may be helping to postpone the arrival of a post-racial America and I think he knows it," Mr Phillips wrote. "If he wins, the cynicism may be worth it to him and his party. In the end he is a politician and a very good one: his job is to win elections."

He added: "If he fulfils the hopes of whites, he must disappoint blacks - and vice versa."

Mr Phillips said that there was no "British Obama" in part because the black British community was much smaller and therefore less likely to produce such high-achievers, and because "Black Britons can't bring centuries of white guilt to bear with the devastating impact that African-Americans have done for two generations".

The equality chief, a former Labour politician and broadcaster said he did not expect Mr Obama ultimately to win the Democratic nomination, although he conceded it was possible. However, if he did come to power, Mr Obama would not emulate JFK, he predicted, but Bill Clinton, with all the "charm, skill and ruthless cynicism" that entailed.

Mr Phillips is no stranger to controversy, having drawn criticism for past comments on multiculturalism in British society. Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, once said he was a prime candidate for the far right British National Party and his appointment to the CEHR was bitterly opposed by a number of black organisations.
===========================================
How can a Brit see the truth but the American blacks cannot?

It strains belief, doesn't it, even for the strongest Hillary supporters? She says she is "too busy" to share LAST YEAR'S tax returns, that she'll look into it, etc. How much times does it take to ask an assistant to pull the Clinton's 2006 tax returns out of the file, copy them, and share them? What on earth is it they do not want everyone to know? Obama, Dodd, Edwards and Kucinich were all fairly busy, but their tax returns were shared. Come on, Hillary supporters, explain this for us, will you?

"Would you let Hillary get away with these answers? Would you even consider a woman with a resume as thin as his for any top office? Obama can be a great leader one day. Just not now. A few years as vice-president would fill that resume nicely."

Posted by: krogersmd | March 2, 2008 07:34 PM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thank You Clinton Staffer - What a wonderful way to try and slam Senator Obama - We need him now and besides Hillary already has her VP - Bill Clinton!!

OH AND WHERE ARE HER WHITE HOUSE RECORDS? WHERE IS HER "Foreign Policy" Experience?? Where are her Tax Records? Why Won't She Release them??

We certainly don't need another Fraud and Liar in the WHite House... NOT ANother Clinton!!

If she wasn't married to Bill and assumed the Clinton Name - she would even be a Senator!! Sorry - She should be running on her OWN Record - Not Bill's!!!

what constitutes "35 years" of "experience" for clinton? sure, maybe one learns a few things being first lady, but both candidates are lawyers foremost and both are qualified.

however, hillary's reliance on her husband's carte blanche and connections are more of a hindrance and distraction, and she comes off as dishonest claiming such a vast resume.

who cares what obama's middle name is? this country is a melting pot and he has clearly risen to the top by his own hard work, not associations with others.

Here is an excellent article from Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson delivering a blistering denunciation of Obama's foreign policy stance (or lack of):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/obamas-hollow-judgment_b_89441.html

Voters should also compare the responses of Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama to questions posed by readers of the Houston Chronicle:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5581823.html

I would have to say that Clinton's responses are considerably more informed and substantive.

This is a great example of biased press coverage. The online and press media outlets didn't cover Clinton's allegations (that others have said, too) that Clinton is claiming that Obama's " entire campaign... is only based on the fact that I gave a speech in opposition to the war in Iraq..." It's dead silence when it comes to airing any Clinton points against Obama.

But then, the same press that ignored Clinton's criticism of Obama then publishes Obama's response to Clinton's criticism.

It's cognitively dissonant when we see this sudden airing of a snappy response of Obama to a Clinton criticism, when the press didn't even cover the Clinton criticism. There's no context for why they are even publishing Obama's push-back against Clinton.

The coverage of this Democratic Primary is so uneven it's journalistically bizarre. I've started watching TV news again because of the biased and filtered (even censored) information coming from the pro-Obama media outlets.

TV news -- CNN, MSNBC and even Fox News -- has now become more rigorous, well-framed, detailed, informative and accurate and balanced sources of information about the Democratic Primaries than the Washington Post or NY Times. How odd is that????

to whiterosesforme:
I just watched the video you recommended. How is Obama getting away with this? Why isn't the media all over it?? Oh, wait...

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/29/obamas-nafta-double-talk-confirmed-ctv/

A two timing Obama, lying to Ohio

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_555128.html

A good analysis of the situation in Ohio. A must read for all. Remember the person who wins Ohio will win the nomination and the general elections. Take it to the BANK...

People of Ohio and Texas and Vermont and Rhode Island...please watch the CTV report before you vote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LtbLEKHsi0
The problem with this report is that CTV is a credible source.

I don't think Sen. Obama would lie to the people. Perhaps there's an answer somewhere.

If this quote was about Hillary, It would say she was desperate:
Speaking this afternoon at a local high school, at the start of a packed town hall meeting, Obama was unusually blunt and emphatic,

Here's another one of his "I want it both ways" quotes:
He continued, "I have to say that when it came to making the most important foreign policy decision of our generation, the decision to invade Iraq, Sen. Clinton got it wrong." How about Jay Rockefeller whom Obama boasts endorses him. Rockefeller read the entire report, and still voted for the war. Which one got it wrong?

And the biggest Pinocchio of all...
"Now in the last few days, Sen. Clinton goes running around telling people that the entire campaign, according to her, is only based on the fact that I gave a speech in opposition to the war in Iraq from the start," Obama said. "That that is the only basis of my campaign, and on the other hand she has, supposedly, all this vast foreign policy experience."

We don't really know how Senator Obama would have voted. He wasn't a US Senator then. He SAYS he would have voted against the war, but let's look at what else he says. He SAYS our distraction from Afghanistan is costing us dearly, but apparently not enough to distract himself from the campaign to d something about it. He SAID he would use public campaign financing, but now that he may really have to, he breaks his word. He SAID he denounces Louis Farrakhan's anti-semitic remarks but gave a gosh-what-am-I going-to-do-tell-him-he-can't-say-I'm-a-good-guy shrug when he's asked about it during the debates. When pressed by Clinton, he says he will reject Farrakhan, but I haven't heard him speak about it again. He said he would give six months notice to Mexico and Canada regarding changes to NAFTA, but then met with Canadian leaders to say he didn't really mean it.

Would you let Hillary get away with these answers? Would you even consider a woman with a resume as thin as his for any top office? Obama can be a great leader one day. Just not now. A few years as vice-president would fill that resume nicely.

People of Ohio and Texas and Vermont and Rhode Island...please watch the following news report before you vote.

Google - CTV, NAFTA, Obama

The problem with this report is that CTV is a credible source.

I don't think Sen. Obama would lie to the people. Perhaps there's an answer somewhere.

the funniest thing about this race is that Obama is more like Bill Clinton than Hillary could ever hope to be.

a bunch of war hawks endorse clinton and that is supposed to be a good thing? besides General Clark doesn't exactly evoke images of Schwartzkopf or Powell.

i am a republican, but i like Obama generally speaking. his lack of national political experience is not particularly troubling when you consider the number of governors (state level officials) who go on to be great presidents (recently Clinton, Reagan). I actually find it funny that all three of the candidates we have left are all Senators and thereby Washington insiders (I'm purposely discounting Huckabee since McCain's death is the only way he wins the republican nomination).

Hillary has the distinction of being the only first lady to ever be subpoenaed (white water).

HRC has 8 years of experience as an elected official, so where is her 35 years of experience coming from?

BHO has 11 years of experience as an elected official.

Well, I don't think there is any question about who will be the next president of the United States. Karl Rove, the strategist of all Bush campaigns, and the architect of the Neo-Con empire, just declared on the NYT that he supports Mrs. Clinton... So she will be the Next President, because Karl Rove never loses an election... All the dirty Clintonians can rejoice with their bad jokes and American-Idol-like politics based on personal accusations... The Clinton Mafia and the Bush Neo-Con gang are together now! As Karl Rove endorses Clinton, nobody can stop our Iron Lady to finish their common job of destroying our country...

What I don't understand is why a man with the same name as our greatest Arab friend for the past half century--King Hussein of Jordan--should be so villified. I hope it's the same dolts who thought "Freedom Fries" put the Frogs in their place. Please don't let there be two groups of such xenophobic, racist, bigotted, idiots. The one that the Republicans has been pandering to is more that a purportedly civilized society should be forced to endure.

Obama has been saying from day one, that
Hillary's experience as former first lady
was nothing but a glorified tea party...
That tells me all I need to know about
Obama.

In the debates, he always agrees with Hillary. You get him away from the national media, and into a group, he reverses everything he has said.

If you don't know it by now, let me say it
"Hillary is a fighter", and she is capable
of making her own decisions and I will support her until she is in the White House!

To dyck21005 (poster above): You are obviously a campaign intern for Hillary. Based on your writing and analysis, I'd say you are likely an unpaid volunteer.

Oh, Boo Hoo, Hillary supporters.

Get used to saying "President Barack HUSSEIN Obama"!

Hillary Clinton whines about the media, but they have done her huge favors.

First, NOT challenging her "experience" claim which was obviously the empty campaign tactic of taking your weakness and massaging it into your strength- by repeating over and over, untruths. (Hillary's weakness is her INexperience, so we'll claim she is exceptionally experienced in order to compensate, and we'll repeat it over and over, until everyone believes it and we're no longer challenged on it).

Secondly, if she were anyone but a Clinton, this race would have been over last month. Who can lose 11 contests in a row and still claim relevance? A Clinton.

Barack Hussein Obama is not only ashamed of his name but also his heritage. Have you noticed how he has kept Rev Jackson and Al Sharpton away from his campaign. The cartoon on SNL was very funny.

Hussein Obama is so mean. And his backers are just losers, like Kerry and Kennedy. His wife always hates, she hates everything, she hates being an AA.

30 general and flag officers who have endorsed Hillary Clinton to be the Nation's next President and Commander-in-Chief. Senator Clinton has received five more endorsements in recent days, including those of General Henry Hugh Shelton, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William Owens, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Army Major General Antonio M. Taguba. Overall she has the endorsement of two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, five admirals and generals at the four-star rank. They are in addition to over 2,000 veterans and military retirees who are members of Senator Clinton's national and state veterans' steering committees.We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, among party's most respected voices on foreign policy after 35 years in the Senate and stated that as a senator, Clinton joined the Armed Services Committee in 2003, a post that burnished her national-security credentials. She is conscientious, she took hold and showed a good understanding" of security issues. Hillary Clinton has done her homework on national security, She has the big picture and is the most qualified in the race to be Commander-in-Chief.- General Wesley Clark. I think Hillary Clinton is the best person and the best prepared to be Commander-in-Chief.- Admiral William Owens. I support her because I trust her, I trust her judgment, She knows our reality, She'll give us missions that make sense.- Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy. Obama said he felt his strongest foreign relations experience came from spending four years overseas as a child, Obamas has spent his time on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on speeches and inspirational trips than on investigations and aggressive oversight. Obama took charge of the European affairs subcommittee didn't seize the opportunity to scrutinize the Bush administration. The too busy senator did not lead a single policy hearing on ANY of the hot topics in the panel's jurisdiction: missile defense, counterterrorism and concern over the waning commitment of European countries to NATO etc... Obama cannot be trusted with the future of our Great but Troubled country! The debate showed Obamas extreme lack of foreign affairs issues, he agreed with ALL of Hillary answers, why? Because he just doesn't know. Ex; Amazingly the question of Russia and Obama had no clue! Hillary showed that she knew the upcoming president of Russia and the issues about him in addition to many others issues like Cuba etc... We cannot afford a bobble head in the White House. We MUST have experience to deal with what we already know and of course what we don't. Mainstream media is helping hide his corrupt campaign finance donors, awful voting record in the senate and true lack of experience with dealing with foreign leaders. Most all foreign leaders respect the Clintons, on day one Hillary has a better chance of bringing those leaders to talk than Hussen Obama the media made fairy tale.

Obama Flip-Flops
1. Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support
2. Public financing Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.
3. The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."
4. Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."
5. Decriminalization of marijuana While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.

Cuba just got a 'new' (very experienced) Castro. Russia just got a 'new' Putin (Medvedev). The U.S. should fall into line now and get a 'new' Clinton?

Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.

Texas Primary Prediction Time!

Who do you predict will win the Texas Democratic Presidential Primary?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1793

.

Ohio Primary Prediction Time!

Who do you predict will win the Ohio Democratic Presidential Primary?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1794

.

Like all previous elections, this election is about imagery -- gotchas, glamour, and glitz -- and emotion. We dumb Americans want to be entertained by the candidates. We do not look up information on our own. We wait for the debates and the television ads. We wait for the messages from the candidates. We are in passive mode.

We do not care about the voting record or the proposed policies of the candidates. We care only about being passively entertained by the candidates. Whoever entertains us best gets our vote. This behaviour leads to electing flawed politicians who commit tragic mistakes. Prior to World War II, we ignored the realities of the world. League of Nations? No American cared. Hitler built a military machine. No American cared. We dumb Americans entered isolation mode.

Then, World War II occurred, killing large numbers of Americans. This corrective calamity brought America out of its isolation. We Americans then engaged the world -- from 1945 to the present day.

In 2003 and 2004, we Americans liked the imagery of the pro-war Republicans. The problem is not the war. The problem is war on the cheap. No American bothered to examine whether war on the cheap works. We dumb Americans liked the imagery and the emotion projected by the pro-cheap-war Republicans. We gave control of the government to them in 2004. We applauded Washington as it sent a too small military force of 170,000 soldiers to invade and occupy Iraq. The result is a horrific disaster.

Yet, where is the corrective calamity? It would be Iraqi refugees' killing American voters in, e.g., Europe. We American voters are 100% responsible for the actions of our government in Iraq since we determined its policies at the ballot box.

Perhaps, this 2nd corrective calamity will change how we Americans vote. If the Iraqi refugees kill enough Americans, then we will stop using imagery and emotion to select flawed politicians.

Most American voters are very dumb. They say, "If his speech causes me to feel good, I will vote for him. I do not know his voting record. I do not understand his proposed policies. However, his charisma is mighty fine. I will vote for him."

What magnitude of a corrective calamity is necessary to change the thinking process of a moronic voter?

reporter, USA, http://theclearsky.blogspot.com/