My Photo

Welcome to Mannionville

  • Politics, art, movies, television, books, parenting, home repair, caffeine addiction---you name it, we blog it. Since 2004. Call for free estimate.

The Tip Jar


  • Please help keep this blog running strong with your donation

Help Save the Post Office: My snail mail address

  • Lance Mannion
    109 Third St.
    Wallkill, NY 12589
    USA

Save a Blogger From Begging...Buy Stuff


The one, the only

Sister Site

« Cannon fodder | Main | Kingdom of the Crystal Skull »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

lina

If I ever found myself in the same room with Hillary Clinton, I would ask:

(1) Did you consult Sen. Bob Graham (chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee) before you cast your vote on the AUMF? If not, why not? (FYI: Sen. Graham voted "No" and he'd been privy to just about ALL of the Intel.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

(2) Why did you vote "Yes" on the Iranian Republican Guard resolution, thereby putting your foreign/defense policy trust in Bush/Cheney - yet again?

Bob

lina beat me to it. It isn't JUST Iraq. Sen. Clinton is a hawk's hawk. Her statements on Iran are indistinguishable from the statements made by Bush, McCain, Limbaugh, etc. She has received more money from defense contractors by far than any candidate. Obama meanwhile is holding firm in his arguments about diplomacy. This isn't about any one vote.
On domestic policy I see no substantive difference between the two - both are pragmatic centrists who can be counted on to do all the politically safe right things but probably won't go the mats for all the politically unsafe right things. But on foreign policy there is simply no comparison. If you think Reagan/Bush Sr./Bush Jr. are correct in how they dealt with the rest of the world, voting for Clinton is no stretch. If you want a truly progressive foreign policy where might doesn't always trump everything else you have a rare chance to support a candidate promising to bring such to fruition.
And one last point. All my life I’ve heard people (and this is a general statement – I’m saying Lance or anyone here has said this) argue how much they hate sound bite politics. One of the reasons I like and trust Obama is how he presents his ideas. For all the talk about his rhetorical gifts he actually has one serious flaw – he’s not good at the sound bite. There’s a reason for that. He treats complex issues with the respect they deserve and he gives complex answers when need be.
And that is part of his problem regarding foreign policy. He delivers address after address in which he lays out a very progressive vision for our role in the world. The response? The right does as the right always does: “Oh if only I could’ve talked to Hitler there wouldn’t have been a WW II.” Yawn. It’s the Clinton left that disappoints. All I read on pro-Clinton blog after pro-Clinton blog is “I still don’t know what he stands for” and “I’m so sick of hearing about AUMF – he would’ve voted for it too.” No he wouldn’t – it clearly goes against his most basic beliefs regarding our role in the world. Just as Sen. Clinton’s pro-AUMF vote was perfectly in keeping with her most basic beliefs regarding our role in the world.
I hope he develops a better ability to give out sound bite answers, but the pro-Clinton left really needs to stop ignoring his clearly articulated and refreshingly progressive foreign policy views and they especially need to stop acting as though AUMF was an anomaly for Clinton.

Bob

(and this is a general statement – I’m saying Lance or anyone here has said this)
Sorry - I meant to say "I'm NOT saying Lance or anyone....

MaryL

She didn't just vote for the AUMF, she did so without reading the classified Iraq NIE from Oct.'02, which Senator Graham strongly encouraged all senators to read. It is less than 100 pages long, but only six senators read it, while the rest relied on a short summary instead. I'd have more respect for Clinton's judgment if that number of senators had been seven. And I'd support her all the way if she had read the NIE and then voted against the AUMF.

HenryFTP

I started out as an Obama supporter, in no small part because Hillary is my Senator and I, too, was bitterly disappointed that she voted for the AUMF without reading the fully annotated NIE. I agree with Lance that Daschle's leadership was, to say the least, lacking, but on the other hand Hillary is not your common garden variety backbench Senator.

Despite all that, in January she convinced me that she was the President we need in 2009, even if she was dead wrong in 2002. In part she convinced me because I think she would be more effective in getting us out of Iraq than Obama would be. She also convinced me that she would be more effective than Obama in cleaning up the mess that Bush and Cheney have made of our country, both at home and abroad.

I could be all wrong about this, but then I never thought I'd find myself supporting her for President, as I thought she wouldn't connect well with non-elites, she'd be too triangulating, and too insider tone-deaf. Instead, she's the best Democrat I've seen on the stump since Hubert, and I think she connects even better than Hubert -- she's right there with Harry Truman, with an uncanny mastery of policy to boot. She doesn't have the RFK charisma or the JFK rhetoric, but in this election I think she would be the best at reminding everybody why they should vote Democratic, up and down the ticket.

Too bad we won't see it.

Ken Houghton

The glossing claim that "Obama got it right" has been belied by his own writings.

The reality: Obama, running for re-election in 2002 in a District that would never have supported the war, gave a speech opposing it. In the annals of political courage, this ranks somewhere around John McCain not explicitly voting against the GI Bill of Rights he opposes.

Joe Wilson quotes the rest:

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."

There are plenty of reasons to support Obama over Clinton: you're a more conservative voter than I am (large group of Lance's readership), you like that he has a public transportation policy, you fear putting the smarter Clinton (the one who said "get some form of universal health care before you try for NAFTA") in the White House, you're tired of press reports about Clintons, you believe press reports about Clintons, you think that being a better speaker will make him a better president, you're tired of not having a smoker in the White House, etc.

But his "opposition" to the war is not one of them. Because it wasn't real.

haelig

Having been right once is no guarantee you're going to be right all the time or most of the time or even one more time.

Having been wrong once is no guarantee you're going to be wrong all the time or most of the time or even one more time.

What evidence is there that Obama is going to be right again, let alone right enough more times than Clinton would be to make him the wiser choice for President?

What evidence is there that Clinton is going to be wrong again, let alone wrong enough more times than Obama to make her the more foolish choice for President?

Not much either way. They've pretty much had the same voting record since Obama became a Senator.

Thank you for articulating my reasons for supporting Sen. Clinton in face of her AUMF vote and the above quote pinpoints my problem:

Through today, Obama has yet to prove to me that he walks the walk as well as he talks. Freshman senators such as Webb and Whitehouse haven't been afraid to take stands against the Bush Administration's policies and fight to reform pernicious laws. Why hasn't Obama stood up like them and actually fought for change? Because he is even more cautious and incrementalist than Clinton. At least with Clinton, I *know* where she stands for better and worse, and her past mistakes means that she has a wellspring of experience to draw upon for the future. To me, Obama is little more than smoke and mirrors.

MBunge

Christmas, it's sad reading a really smart person being intentionally stupid to justify holding an opinion. The following being a great example of that.


"Having been right once is no guarantee you're going to be right all the time or most of the time or even one more time.

Having been wrong once is no guarantee you're going to be wrong all the time or most of the time or even one more time."


Seriously? Someone who was RIGHT about a massively important issue shouldn't get a big edge over someone who was WRONG? How the hell can what someone has actually done not be infinitely more important than what that person might or might not do in the future? How the hell can you ever make a reasonable evaluation of ANYONE if their actual behavior and actions aren't considered more determinative than speculations on things they haven't done?

And then there's this...


"So, not knowing, I had to make my choice based on what I do know or at least what I think is the case, and that is that Hillary is more committed to solving the domestic problems I want solved than Obama has appeared to be and, as far as I can tell, she will be more effective at solving them than he will be."


Pardon my French, but upon what the fuck is that opinion based? What the fuck in Hillary's entire life would make anyone think she'll be more "effective" at doing anything than Obama? Show me the tangible accomplishments, not intentions, of Hillary Clinton that far outstrip Obama's. Show me anything in Hillary's public or professional life that outweighs the historic debacle of her health care reform effort. That was the one big thing that Hillary was explicitly put in charge of during Bill's administration and she fucked it up to an astonishing degree. Now, let's look at this campaign. Hillary started out with all the name recognition anyone could have, all the institutional support anyone could want and all the money that anyone could need. Yet, she went from being 30 points ahead to getting beat by a black guy with a funny name. How the fuck is that not a ginourmous indictment of her ability to solve problems and get things accomplished?

Lance, WHAT THE FUCK WOULD HILLARY HAVE TO DO to lose your support? I'm not saying you have to be nuts to support Hillary. I'm not saying there's even anything wrong with supporting Hillary. But the rationale you've offered is nothing more than 10 pounds of shit in a five pound bag.

Mike

MBunge

"But his "opposition" to the war is not one of them. Because it wasn't real."


I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous standard. He was opposed to the war. The fact that once the way got underway he didn't devote his political career to screaming "No War For Oil" every second doesn't change the fact that he opposed the war.

Good grief.

Mike

Scaramouche

"WHAT THE FUCK WOULD HILLARY HAVE TO DO to lose your support? I'm not saying you have to be nuts to support Hillary. I'm not saying there's even anything wrong with supporting Hillary. But the rationale you've offered is nothing more than 10 pounds of shit in a five pound bag."

Offhand, I'd say if =you= ever supported that would be reason enough to abandon her.


David Wilford

My problem with Hillary Clinton's vote on the AUMF in 2002 was that she believed, and still evidently does believe, that it's o.k. to vest the decision to go to war in the sole hands of the President. I am not o.k. with anyone ever again being President who thinks that's a good thing to do. Ever.

That isn't my only reason for ultimately making my own decision to vote for Obama in the Wisconsin primary back in February, but it certainly did inform it.

Bob

“The reality: Obama, running for re-election in 2002 in a District that would never have supported the war, gave a speech opposing it. In the annals of political courage, this ranks somewhere around John McCain not explicitly voting against the GI Bill of Rights he opposes.”
Wow. I mean, just WOW. Let me get this straight: in 2002, at which point there is no question Obama had his eyes on the White House he took a stand which the equally ambitious Sen. Clinton reversed – because having her eyes on the White House and buying the neocon con – ie it would be a quick war that would pay for itself – she thought being in favor of a war she expected to be a cakewalk would be a resume builder. And you take that to prove he’s a calculating panderer. Well ok, he calculated, he pandered. At least his calculated pander didn’t cost a couple hundred thousand brown people and 4,000 Americans their lives, leave a country in ruins and bankrupt our economy.
If you’re gonna pander and calculate, give me the calculating panderer who doesn’t leave a couple hundred thousand dead people in their wake.

Lance

MBunge: Seriously? Someone who was RIGHT about a massively important issue shouldn't get a big edge over someone who was WRONG?

So I guess I should be supporting Ron Paul over Hillary then?

Lance

Oh, and MBunge? The reason for this post was to answer Falstaff's question about why I supported Hillary despite her war vote, not why I support her at all. And since he asked politely I didn't mind devoting a post to filling my five pound bag with only 8 pounds of shit, I think. I didn't measure.

Since you're asking like a drunken frat boy trying to bully a pledge away from the keg, somehow I don't feel as obligated to try to fill another bag for you. Go look up her record instead of repeating what every Hillary hater has been saying over and over again since day one.

Bob

“Joe Wilson quotes the rest: 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."
Reading is fundamental. In other words, once the troops are in the field and the war is on you can’t just say – oops, my bad – and withdraw em all. Unless you wanna leave something like ethnic cleansing in your wake. This is why it’s so damned important to have made the right call in 2002 – once the war starts stopping it bears its own negative consequences.
“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."
And that proves what? I’m getting tired of trying to hold your hand and explain simple, clear language to you, but by 2006 an anti-war stance in the Democratic Party was hardly a risky stance to take, so wtf are you implying about Obama’s quotes? What it sounds like to me is he was trying to be careful and not piss off all the Democrats who had supported the war – he’s throwing caveats around to mollify them. He is NOT saying gee, on second thought I should have supported the war. If he’s the panderer you earlier claimed who the fuck is he pandering to here?
I’m not gonna bother with the NIE report as MaryL already had it so deftly, but think about the ways in which MaryL’s comment dovetail with this.

“There are plenty of reasons to support Obama over Clinton: you're a more conservative voter than I am (large group of Lance's readership),”
Yeah, you’re so progressive the candidate offering a truly progressive foreign policy is reduced to a pandering flip-flopper who now regrets opposing the war – even though there is no truth to any of that.
“But his "opposition" to the war is not one of them. Because it wasn't real.”
Not in DreamLand, but here on planet earth it was and is real.

Lance

And, folks? I think the health care debacle back in the day is legitimate grounds for criticism, but when you raise the issue, please try to remember that there is such an organization known as the Republican Party and that Congress was full of people who call themselves Republicans at the time, plus there were a whole of conservative Democrats who voted against Hillary Care, one of whom is now an adviser to Obama, and when you bring it up as an example of how Clinton screwed the pooch, please explain how she was supposed to make all those Republicans and conservative Democrats vote her way, besides winning them over with the purity of her heart and the righteousness of her cause?

Bob

“MBunge: Seriously? Someone who was RIGHT about a massively important issue shouldn't get a big edge over someone who was WRONG?”
Lance: “So I guess I should be supporting Ron Paul over Hillary then?”
Ahh, no. I thought the point of your post is why you supported Sen. Clinton in the Democratic Primary in spite of her AUMF vote. Her only serious challenge in the primaries came from Sen. Obama. Thus it’s really a choice between those two, who have strikingly similar domestic agendas but vastly different foreign policy views, and the war in Iraq is a starting point for a discussion on said differences. There are enormous domestic policy differences between Ron Paul and Hilary Clinton.

Bob

Lance: “please explain how she was supposed to make all those Republicans and conservative Democrats vote her way, besides winning them over with the purity of her heart and the righteousness of her cause?”
1. By not holding secret meetings
2. By not having “the Big 5” insurance companies co-write the legislation
3. By not freezing out other key players (like say the reps from the literally hundreds of other insurance companies with a stake in this – either don’t let the insurance companies in – the approach I’m sure most of us would prefer – or be open and don’t make it obvious you’re gonna screw hundreds of companies with paid lobbyists, connections on the hill, etc.)
4. By not producing a plan so convoluted all its opponents had to do was accurately explain to engender fear of it all across the nation
5. By not confusing a plan to provide basic health care with a plan to create quotas for medical schools, hospital staffs, etc, which took what should have been a health care plan and turned it into an affirmative action plan (and to be quite clear, I support affirmative action – it just had no place in this plan)
6. By communicating openly and directly with the American public, something the plan’s opponents had no trouble doing
7. By not creating an employer-first type of coverage, extending to every workplace in America. Now the local house painter who gets on a roll and needs to hire an assistant has to provide health coverage from day 1 – a prohibitively expensive requirement which is about as anti-entrepreneurial as you can get.
8. By not answering a reporters question re: #7 at one of the first press conferences she held after releasing the plan by saying “I can’t be concerned with every small business in America.”

Daniel

"Some very smart folks in the blogosphere, bloggers who follow these things in more depth than I do, have argued that Obama's are definitely better, but as far as I've been able to judge "better" turns out to mean that they think outside the usual boxes and will therefore help Obama change the foreign policy CW in Washington, which would be great, but which also strikes me as more of the hopeful thinking that has been the basis of a lot of the pro-Obama argument in the blogosphere."

This was pretty much the clincher for me, and it's been pretty well borne out by the way her campaign has been run. I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs of all of the Clinton and Obama policy advisors, but it was pretty clear when she put her political team together that she had a bunch of losers on her hands. I mean as a Democrat who came of age at the very end of the Clinton years, I've got a large collection of the political equivalent of Arizona Cardinals jerseys.

I know we're not supposed to take anything from the way a campaign has been run, but the 2008 Clinton campaign was abysmal. Her advisors didn't know the rules, invoked strategies best described as abjectly stupid, and seemed more interested in advancing themselves than getting their candidate elected. I realize that election campaigns aren't a good indicator of what a future administration will be like, but at a certain point you have to start suspecting that she just isn't a great judge of people.

MBunge

"Since you're asking like a drunken frat boy trying to bully a pledge away from the keg, somehow I don't feel as obligated to try to fill another bag for you. Go look up her record instead of repeating what every Hillary hater has been saying over and over again since day one."


Dude (how's that for a frat boy), this isn't about Hillary. There are legitimate reasons for preferring Hillary to Obama or any other candidate, though now that Obama's is almost certain to win, continuing to promote Hillary over him is a bit counterproductive from the Democratic perspective.

This is about you dismissing Hillary's support for a war that's gotten thousands of Americans killed, tens of thousands wounded and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by shrugging your shoulders with a "Hey, you can't be right about everything" attitude.

This is about you saying Hillary will be more "effective" at solving problems than Obama and my wondering upon what the fuck that opinion is based. Is Hillary smart? Sure. Is she a hard worker? Yup. But what tangible things has Hillary achieved in her public life that set her in any way above Obama? Neither of them have a resume to compare to Joe Biden or Chris Dodd or Barbara Boxer, but what actually stands out on Hillary's resume over Obama when it comes to getting things done? As I wrote before, how can can anyone look at their respective campaigns and come away thinking Hillary is better leader or manager?

Mike

David Parsons

One of my objections to Mr. Obama is that he campaigns left from where he governs, and he's currently campaigning far to the right of Ms. Clinton (who's no great shakes in the liberalism department.) I am not very pleased that Ms. Clinton allowed herself to be bamboozled into voting for the "yes! we're a rogue nation and should be dragged before a war crimes tribunal!" bill, but she's done just as much as Mr. Obama (who /wasn't even in the senate at the time of his speech/) to get us out of that mess since then.

When the election started, I wasn't intending to vote for any Democrat because of the shameful buckling on torture and the two bagmen that Maximum Leader Genius stuffed the supreme court with, but I slightly favored Mr. Obama because of the whole unity pony bit.

* And then he consorted with homophobes.

* And then his campaign started with the misogynist smears.

* And then his campaign went into a full-court press to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan (with the /enthusiastic/ support of the Obamasphere, which has the respect for the vote that used to be confined to the elder Mayor Daley and the entire Republican Party.)

* And, the crowning glory of this whole contemptable campaign was the base libel that Mr. Obama's campaign launched against Ms. Clinton last weekend.

Right now, Ms. Clinton's stupid vote on the AUMF (for whatever reason) is insignificant compared to the disgusting tactics coming from Mr. Obama's campaign (and his supporters. Mustn't forget his supporters.) And I say this in full awareness of the disgusting racist and anti-islamic bigots who are attempting to fasten themselves, limpet-like, to the Clinton campaign. Ms. Clinton is a center-right politician, but Mr. Obama? He's the American version of Tony Blair, and everyone knows how well his third-way rhetoric turned out.

lina

I'll take Ron Paul's foreign policy over the Clinton-Lieberman foreign policy any day. And the families of the 4,000 dead and 30,000 wounded American soldiers probably would too. And the couple hundred thousand dead and wounded Iraqis, along with the 6 million displaced Iraqis, probably would too.

David Wilford

Right now, Ms. Clinton's stupid vote on the AUMF (for whatever reason) is insignificant compared to the disgusting tactics coming from Mr. Obama's campaign (and his supporters. Mustn't forget his supporters.)

The vote on the 2002 AUMF is hardly insignificant, given the consequences of handing over the war powers of Congress to a President who was more than happy to opportunistically pull the trigger later. It was not only stupid, it was a grave mistake that we're still stuck with.

Obama at least did the right thing when he could have ducked the issue, like so many other politicians did who weren't willing to ask the truly tough questions about the war or refuse to be intimidated by the GOP waving the bloody 911 flag while braying for regime change in Iraq.

That matters, and matter far more than the guilt-by-association baloney regarding one homophobe in the black community, the baseless charges that Obama's campaign has been engaged in misogyny, and the issue of Florida and Michigan where it was those own state's fault for being penalized for leapfrogging the dates everyone else in the Democratic Party agreed on, including Hillary Clinton. As for the latest bit where Hillary Clinton said something thoughtless, Obama let that slide although it's understandable how some folks might be upset about the suggestion that the contest could be affected by Obama's assassination.

Me, I'm looking forward to hearing Obama speak at the DNC in Denver on August 28th, the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech on the Mall in Washington, D.C. Because Obama does powerfully represent that dream, and we can all be proud of that and how the Democratic Party was open to it.

starfleet_dude

Right now, Ms. Clinton's stupid vote on the AUMF (for whatever reason) is insignificant compared to the disgusting tactics coming from Mr. Obama's campaign (and his supporters. Mustn't forget his supporters.)

The vote on the 2002 AUMF is hardly insignificant, given the consequences of handing over the war powers of Congress to a President who was more than happy to opportunistically pull the trigger later. It was not only stupid, it was a grave mistake that we're still stuck with.

Obama at least did the right thing when he could have ducked the issue, like so many other politicians did who weren't willing to ask the truly tough questions about the war or refuse to be intimidated by the GOP waving the bloody 911 flag while braying for regime change in Iraq.

That matters, and matter far more than the guilt-by-association baloney regarding one homophobe in the black community, the baseless charges that Obama's campaign has been engaged in misogyny, and the issue of Florida and Michigan where it was those own state's fault for being penalized for leapfrogging the dates everyone else in the Democratic Party agreed on, including Hillary Clinton. As for the latest bit where Hillary Clinton said something thoughtless, Obama let that slide although it's understandable how some folks might be upset about the suggestion that the contest could be affected by Obama's assassination.

Me, I'm looking forward to hearing Obama speak at the DNC in Denver on August 28th, the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech on the Mall in Washington, D.C. Because Obama does powerfully represent that dream, and we can all be proud of that and how the Democratic Party was open to it.

actor212

Obama has never, NEVER, voted against the war in Iraq nor against any AUMF "Sense of The Senate" against Iran.

He is a warmonger of the worst kind, because he has profited off the backs of dead Americans (check out the fundraising Rezko did from Nadmhi Auchi in 2004...$2.5 million for Obama's Senate campaign!).

LC

I didn't think I could forgive Hillary (or Dianne Feinstein) for voting for the war because both women are old enough to remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution - so they know that Presidents will lie if they have to in order to do what they want to.

And, like you, I do not know why she voted for the resolution.

But my choice is between Hillary and Obama.

Obama called the war "dumb" in one sentence in one speech that got very little coverage (at an occasion where he was not even the main speaker) given in a safe district. To me, that's about as relevant as the fact that I figured the WMDs were the equivalent of the Gulf of Tonkin.

What I see in Obama is a man totally uninterested in details (the list of his gaffes - 10K dead in a tornado, 57 states, Sunrise vs. Sunshine, etc., etc.)and outright lies about his family (that "uncle" who helped free Auschwitz, for one;his willingness to thrown the woman who raised him under the bus to gain some racial cred - even then lying either in his book or his speech since the two give two different versions - etc., etc.)

I see a man who has used race to tar his opposition and the Rulz to beat that person (just as he did to win his legislative seat).

His votes since joining the Senate have been identical to Hillary's. Most of his advisors used to be Clinton advisors.

And, quite frankly, I don't think there is a single domestic issue I care about that he cares about enough to fight for.

In short, Hillary's my candidate because she does care about the details (she knows whom she is giving a speech to and shows them respect by studying ahead of time who and what matters to them), because she is willing to fight in the face of vicious and enormous odds.

And no Dem. President has been perfect. FDR tried to stack the Supreme Court and authorized the internment of American citizens of Jap. origin. Truman authorized the dropping of two nuclear bombs on civilian populations (and we are the only nation on the planet that has ever used an atomic weapon). JFK authorized the Bay of Pigs and an increase in troops in Vietnam. Johnson passed civil rights legislation and anti-poverty laws but expanded the war in Vietnam.

I will not vote for McCain in Nov. But nor will I vote for Obama. He is even less qualified to be Pres. than the Shrub and, quite frankly, I have come to believe he is little more than a political Elmer Gantry.

This has not been an easy decision. The liberals who could not bring themselves to vote for Humphrey against Nixon share part of the responsibility for the 40 years of divisive politics that have followed. But I suspect there is more of Nixon in Obama than in McCain.

Finally, as a woman, I feel that voting for Obama would be the equivalent of taking back a man who has abused me because he's said he's sorry. Dumb. plain dumb. And dangerous to my health.

G

Here's my latest video, "American Idol Obama vs. Supergirl Clinton"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8oHLJSvrFA&eurl

It is about our "presumptive nominee" and why Clinton is a stronger candidate against John McCain.

I would appreciate your support in publicizing the video on your blog, if you feel it is appropriate. If you do, can I request that you ask your readers go to youtube and RATE, COMMENT, and mark the video as a FAVORITE to help further promote the video.

Thanks for your support.

GeekLove
http://comealongway.blogspot.com/

Vadranor

"But all her votes since have shown that she has realized it and her statements on the campaign trail have pretty much been promises to rectify her mistake and not to repeat it. That's been enough for me."

Lance,

How do you square her vote in support of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment with the above paragraph? My problem with Clinton is not that she voted for AUMF in 2002, but that she does not seem to have learned anything from the experience.

In addition, she panders on a number of other foreign policy issues. She has a position on Jerusalem that is to the right of Olmert. She will keep the same failed policy on Cuba.

Bob

David parsons: “Right now, Ms. Clinton's stupid vote on the AUMF (for whatever reason) is insignificant compared to the disgusting tactics coming from Mr. Obama's campaign (and his supporters. Mustn't forget his supporters.)”
You know, now that I think about it, you’re right. So a couple hundred thousand Iraqis are dead, many hundreds of thousands more wounded, 4,000 Americans dead, tens of thousands wounded, a countries infrastructure in ruins, our economy falling….its INSIGNIFICANT compared to….well, I’m not sure what exactly. Obama is somehow guilty of all sorts of vague, nefarious charges. Shit, I don’t know, he’s gonna put gays in concentration camps, and he hates women, especially strong, intelligent, independent women (which is why he married Michelle, lord knows she’s a meek, submissive woman of the 50’s) and – look, it’s Rev. Wright!

KC45s

Elmer Gantry Obama! That's my band name.

Interesting post and very interesting comments, Lance. I don't agree with all your points, either, but I do believe you tried to explain your mind in good faith. Revisit this topic in a couple of years when things have calmed down.

And really, the person above who mentioned the "gaffes." Sigh. While I know a certain minority of Clinton supporters want to search Obama's scalp for the number of the beast, can't we grant that today's "gaffe" might have a semi-logical explanation? Part of the Auschwitz complex--Auschwitz II--was also called Birkenau. If I'd been campaigning for months, saying about a million words per day, I just might be capable of slipping up and confusing "Birkenau" with "Buchenwald." Of course, allowing for this sort of mistake would grant that Obama is a human being.

It's bad enough that conservatives make campaigns about this kind of grotesque bullshit. Sad to see Dems and liberals doing the same thing to their own.

HenryFTP

Mr. Obama? He's the American version of Tony Blair, and everyone knows how well his third-way rhetoric turned out.

Exactly what all my Labour Party friends over in Blighty say about Obama. The praise of Reagan turned on all the alarm bells with them because of Blair's affinity for Thatcher.

Blair, however, had the good sense to surround himself with people like Gordon Brown, John Prescott and David Blunkett, who before they went Whitehall native in office gave Blair important street cred with the Labour Party base. With the base secured, he was free to woo Middle England swing voters with "New" Labour/ "Cool Britannia" rhetoric (basically code for "I'm really a Tory, but a compassionate and competent one").

For all the helpful posters here and elsewhere who are pointing out how stupid we all are, thanks, but unless I'm mistaken the tactic of hitting us all upside the head with a two-by-four doesn't seem to be working very well, and from the looks of things you're blistering your hands. Obama needs to secure the Democratic Party base the way Blair did. Winning Colorado is not going to do us any good if we're losing Pennsylvania and Ohio.

dan

Ok, I'll grant you Edwards, but it is incredibly disingenuous to equate supporting Clinton in the primaries with voting for Kerry.

I voted for Dean in the '04 primaries, but y'know what, he wasn't running in the general. Kerry was the best we anti-war folk could hope for. I wasn't going to vote for Nader or Badnarik. I was going to vote for the candidate with the most chance of victory that hewed as close as possible to my belief. That meant Kerry, despite the fact he was pro-war.

I don't know why that's so hard to fathom.

lina

"Winning Colorado is not going to do us any good if we're losing Pennsylvania and Ohio."

Obama is in no danger of losing Pennsylvania. The Rendell/Nutter machine won the state for Hillary, and it can win the state for Obama.

Ohio is not needed if Obama wins Iowa, Colorado, NM and Virginia. He also has a shot at Missouri.

The road to the WH for Obama is not through Appalachia.

MBunge

"Finally, as a woman, I feel that voting for Obama would be the equivalent of taking back a man who has abused me because he's said he's sorry. Dumb. plain dumb. And dangerous to my health."


Anyone who would compare the seriousness of domestic violence to the conduct of the Obama campaign has their head up their ass. Do feminists really want to promote the idea that women are that weak and irrational?

Mike

Jason Morris

I'd say the AUMF vote was the main reason I didn't vote for Clinton in the primary, but here's another reason I couldn't vote for her:

Obama voted to ban Cluster Bombs from civilian areas.

Clinton voted against the ban.
More info here:
http://tinyurl.com/p5hue
And here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/clinton-obama-and-clust_b_84811.html

David Parsons wrote:
"* And then his campaign started with the misogynist smears."

Do you have any proof of this? Could you at least link to some of smears? I've heard about how "Obama is a misogynist" for months now,haven't seen any concrete evidence to back it up. I can't say I've heard his surrogates(like Axelrod) engage in misogynist smears either. Sure, Obama isn't perfect, I don't see him as the messiah, and I don't agree with everything he says or does.

But a misogynist is someone who actively hates and subjugates women. When has Obama done that?

Jason Morris

I'd say the AUMF vote was the main reason I didn't vote for Clinton in the primary, but here's another reason I couldn't vote for her:

Obama voted to ban Cluster Bombs from civilian areas.

Clinton voted against the ban.
More info here:
http://tinyurl.com/p5hue
And here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/clinton-obama-and-clust_b_84811.html

David Parsons wrote:
"* And then his campaign started with the misogynist smears."

Do you have any proof of this? Could you at least link to some of smears? I've heard about how "Obama is a misogynist" for months now,haven't seen any concrete evidence to back it up. I can't say I've heard his surrogates(like Axelrod) engage in misogynist smears either. Sure, Obama isn't perfect, I don't see him as the messiah, and I don't agree with everything he says or does.

But a misogynist is someone who actively hates and subjugates women. When has Obama done that?

lina

Jason Morris: Don't you remember he called that reporter "sweetie?" That's certainly egregious enough to usher in two or three McCain supreme court appointments.

calling all toasters

Lance--You know why I still count it against Hillary? Because I have not doubt that she wouldn't get us out of Iraq. Even now, she is reflexively hawkish: Kyl-Lieberman, obliterating Iran, etc. Not to mention her ridiculous macho posturing in the campaign. A vote for Hillary is a vote for a Republican foreign policy, plain and simple.

And, FWIW, I favored Clark and Dean over Kerry and Edwards in '04, in large part due to their opposition to the war.

HenryFTP

lina:

I was pleased to see that you and the Obama team have neatly rearranged the geography of Virginia to remove the Appalachians (the Blue Ridge and the Alleghenies) from the Commonwealth. Perhaps you can also arrange to remove Tidewater as well, where ex-Navy aviator John McCain will make serious inroads in an area that the Democrats need to carry in order to win the state.

For Virginians, John McCain is not nearly so polarizing a figure as George Allen was.

I grew up as a Democrat in Northern Virginia. The Democrats have not carried Virginia since 1964 -- not even Jimmy Carter, who carried all the other states of the Old Confederacy and all the border states, managed to carry Virginia. If a key element of the Obama strategy for the general election is Virginia in preference to the Rust Belt, all I can say is, lots of luck, guys.

lina

HenryFTP: African American voters in Richmond and latte sipping Northern Virginians will put Virginia in the win column for Obama. Virginia is a purple state about to go blue this Nov. The swing area will be Loudoun County, and it will go for BHO. Count on it. Kaine, Warner and Webb will deliver the Old Dominion this year.

Ralph Hitchens

I guess I find your affinity for HRC strange because you are obviously a highly intelligent and otherwise sensible chap, and therefore ought to think the way the rest of us HIAOSC's think. I mean, really! Mrs. Clinton's much-cited "experience" is as a housewife and corporate lawyer, apart from six years in the Senate. Where, I'll admit, she's established herself pretty well as a good bipartisan type, proving once again her ability to successfully infiltrate "old boy's clubs" as she first did at the Rose Law Firm. But how she can reconcile being a liberal Democrat with her years of silence on the WalMart board of directors is beyond me. And now here she is, failing against a charismatic fellow who not only wears his liberal heart on his sleeve but also has ice water in his veins, who has run a near-flawless campaign, and you're still in her corner? Beggars the imagination, it does.

MikeT

Man, what's up with the name calling? I for one appreciate Lance taking the time to civilly explain his position, and I'd like to offer a response in kind.

I supported both candidates going into this thing, but I had a slight preference for Obama, partly for strategic reasons (I thought the pre-existing dislike so many have for Hillary would make the general election more of a challenge for her) and partly because, in comparing their records and policy proposals, on the balance, I preferred his.

Like Lance, I was worried that she'd run to the macho side in order to not appear "weak and feminine", and I saw her vote on the AUMF, and the subsequent refusal to apologize for it as confirmation of this tendency. The same with Iran. And I didn't think we needed another president who found it that hard to admit a mistake.

And I never really bought the experience argument. I was open to persuasion that being First Lady counted somehow, but I still haven't heard her give an accounting of her accomplishments in that office that is born out by contemporary accounts. Because that was my pre-existing prejudice, many of her later moves on NAFTA, etc. struck me as an attempt to claim credit for the good things that her husband did, and ditch the unpopular ones, but only after the fact.

So, I didn't like her as much as I liked Obama, but I thought she would probably make a good president and was prepared to support her. All she had to do to convince me was get the nomination. But she went into the race running on experience, and competence, and the ability to work within the system to make change happen, and she lost. If you're running an insurgent campaign, you can maybe make that narrative work for you, but not when you're running as the establishment. Her team helped write the rules, and, by those rules, she lost.

And that is why I'm not a Hillary supporter. Really, it all comes down to confirmation bias. The arguments she's making now are only persuasive to people who were already supporting her. The rest of us just aren't buying it.

Obama, on the other hand, seems to have an ability to persuade those who disagree with him, and I think that will serve him well in the general and as president. But, again, I have to consider confirmation bias there. I've been wrong before, and about some fairly serious (to me) things.

As for Kerry, I voted for him in the general, but I never liked him in the primary. I wanted to pull out my hair when people would tell me that they personally found him annoying, but they were going to vote for him because they thought he was "electable".

Kim

Ralph
The only experience she has is as a housewife? WTF.

Scout

While the supporters on both sides of the Obama/Clinton grudge match have been pretty harsh on the opposition, it has been educational to watch the actual campaigns and surrogates at work because there have been definite differences in style. Kitchen sink vs high road comes to mind.

So far the people who have posted here leveling accusations of sexism and misogynism and whateverallthehellelseism against Obama his own self as well as his campaign have yet to provide links to actual examples of such.

Lance, you are a great writer and a smart guy. I respect so much of what you say, but your support of Hillary even now, after the excremental campaign she ran, wonders me. I'm just glad you recognize that voting for McCain or sitting out in Novemeber as some sort of "protest" would be tantamount to teh crazy.

Madison Guy

If Hillary was dreaming of an assasination the night I saw her in Madison, she sure didn't show it. Here we are, in the sixth year of a cruel and pointless war that looks as if it will go on forever. We were lied into the war by men, the war was started by men, bungled by men -- and now the guys can't agree on how to stop it. So who is accused of harboring dreams of violence? A woman who wants to end it. Hillary Clinton, of all people, is the person accused of hoping to benefit from the violent death of someone else. Go figure.

Alan

We are so doomed.

Hillary Clinton is not the enemy.

Barack Obama is not the enemy.

Who do we need to concentrate on? Who do we need to summon all of our vigor to oppose?

For those of you who support womens rights but find it difficult to support Obama should he become the Democratic presidential candidate, may I remind you that McCain has pledged to continue packing the Supreme Court in the same way that Bush has.

"While many supporters of Hillary Clinton – especially middle-age white women – have told pollsters that they won’t vote for Barack Obama if he wins the Democratic nomination, that position might ensure that a core feminist principle, “reproductive rights,” will be struck down by the Supreme Court.

In other words, to show their anger over the defeat of a female presidential candidate, Clinton supporters might end up contributing to a historic defeat for feminist rights, including the possible outlawing of abortions in many states."
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/051308Parry.shtml

Best regards,
Alan

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Data Analysis

  • Data Analysis

Categories

October 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

Movies, Music, Books, Kindles, and more

For All Your Laundry Needs

In Case of Typepad Emergency Break Glass

Be Smart, Buy Books


Blog powered by Typepad