Clinton and Durbin argue over Obama's war record

In 2008, the Democrats don?t need to choose the lesser of the evils; this time around, it?s the GOP voters who find themselves in that position. Democrats have a field of qualified, experienced, intelligent, viable candidates, while Republicans are scrambling to determine whose skeletons are least likely to fall out of the closet before the general election.

The Clinton campaign has made a big to-do about Obama?s supposed lack of experience, and his relatively short tenure in Washington, D.C.

Given the corruption that runneth over in the nation?s capitol, I?m not entirely certain that lack of years in Washington is a negative quality. In fact, I think it?s one of Barack?s strongest advantages.

Barack Obama is a candidate that the average American voter can relate to. He wasn?t born into wealth, or a political family, or big business. His mother and grandparents were from Kansas, his father a student from Africa, and he was born in Hawaii, a state known even in the tumultuous 1960s for its tolerance and acceptance of diversity. Like most of us, he went through a phase in which he partied and experimented with drugs, but ultimately his intelligence and drive led him on a path away from temptation and towards great academic success. He was the first African American editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. He established himself as a civil rights lawyer, and taught at the University of Chicago. He got elected to the state legislature in Illinois, fighting for health care and welfare reform and an end to racial profiling by law officers. He won his U.S. Senate seat with 70% of the vote and became a household name after his moving speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

He didn?t spend eight years in the White House as the spouse of the President. He?s been in the Senate only four years shorter than Hillary. He didn?t tour the world as Hillary did in her role as First Lady, he lived abroad, in Indonesia. There?s something to be said of experience, the kind of experience that Senators Biden and Dodd have after decades in the Senate. But Hillary?s attacks on Barack?s experience are unfounded, particularly when her own experience is not so involved as she often makes it seem. There is a great deal to be said for real world experience, the kind that Barack had while Hillary?s husband (not Hillary) ran this country from 1992-2000. Indeed, Hillary has served in the Senate a few years more. But Barack has served as an elected official since 1997, and his understanding of the political process is every bit as developed as hers.

Real world vs. Washington experience is why I believe Barack is the best candidate for the Democratic nomination. Hillary has been in the public eye and Washington for 15 years, and with that comes a degree of protection that makes walking down the street impossible. Barack has spent more time, more recently, with everyday people. Before 2004, he was everyday people. His anti-lobbying stance has helped him elude the number of special interest friends and enemies the Clintons and other Washingtonian politicos have made.

I think Barack Obama is the candidate most likely to bring a fresh, untainted perspective to the presidency. We need that, in this day and age where all the friends in high places and experience cannot guarantee our safety from our enemies or a balanced budget. I?m tired of the old establishment. I don?t feel 20+ years of Bush and Clinton presidencies will bring about any significant degree of change in the way the rest of the world views our nation, or peace in the Middle East. If Hillary Clinton is such a foreign policy expert, why have many of Clinton?s advisors decided to lend their support to Barack Obama and not their former boss?s wife?

Hillary?s campaign has taken ugly turn after ugly turn since Obama?s recent surge in the polls, and I?m not a fan of Democrats who focus to much of their attack on their Democratic colleagues in the primaries. The big picture is, can you beat Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and Fred Thompson? Many feel Hillary has the best chance because of her noteriety across America. I think she is vulnerable to attacks from the GOP that will make the Swift Boat ad look like child?s play.

Republicans HATE the Clintons. They sought to destroy everything the Clintons stood for during Bill?s administration, and they will stop at nothing to destroy Hillary?s chances at the presidency. If she is elected, she will face the same music Bush did, a Congress unwilling to sign blank checks at the president?s bidding. Even if the Democrats maintain a slight majority, it?s clear that a slight majority in Congress, especially if Joe Lieberman is considered part of that majority, is worth little when it comes to controversial legislation.

Barack Obama conducts himself with a calm, collected, level-headed demeanor. He speaks openly and honestly, admitting to past mistakes like his drug use with a frankness Americans aren?t used to hearing from their leaders. He is a deliberate debator, and while many consider the pauses in his speech to be a sign of unpreparedness or stage fright, I believe he is the kind of candidate who likes to think about what he?s saying to you. He?s not spewing talking points hashed by a team of advisors and debate prep staff. He listens, he thinks, and then he talks. He doesn?t have the rapid-fire responses Hillary has, and I believe that helps him avoid damaging missteps in debates and Q&As.

I like that he?s young. I like that he?s new. I like his open-mindedness, his honesty, his sense of humor, his intelligence, his diverse background which has given him an original perspective. I like him, which is a lot more than I can say about many politicians in Washington.

Simply because I?m not supporting Hillary Clinton doesn?t mean I don?t want a woman in the White House someday. But America is at a critical junction, and so much is at stake in this election. I believe now isn?t the time to vote based on gender, race, or religion. It?s time to vote for a change. Out of the entire candidate pool, GOP and Democratic, I feel Obama is the one most likely to bring about change for our nation.

On February 5, 2007, in the Illinois primary, I will proudly cast my vote for Barack Obama, and I encourage each and every one of you to do the same.

P.S. - and as far as foreign policy experience goes I give you the George W. Bush administration as exhibit 1A of it not meaning squat.

See ya in Nevada, y'all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cBtidHIdMA

I wonder how long the media is going to continue to give Hillary a free pass on this. Since losing Iowa she and her husband have consistently employed dirty tactics to attack Sen. Obama while his camp has taken the high road and generally refused to respond in kind. He has repeatedly stated that all the candidates are patriots while Hillary has invoked the failed terrorist attack in France to imply that the nation may be more vulnerable to terrorist attack if Obama is elected. These are Rovian tactics.

We saw it again today on Meet The Press. Rather than simply respond directly to or apologize for the alarming pattern of subtle racially motivated attacks hurled at Sen. Obama (speculating an implied drug dealing past may be exploited by the Republicans, Andrew Cuomo's Shuckin'& Jivin' remark, Pres. Clinton referring to Sen. Obama as a 'kid', Clinton folks stating that voting for Obama would be akin to supporting a 'hip Black friend', condescendingly referring to Sen. Obama as a good speaker), she instead decided to insist that the Obama campaign is responsible for all of this.

Hillary's implication that the outrage the African American community has voiced regarding the racially charged remarks of her campaign is some sort of manifestation of an Obama campaign strategy is almost just as insulting as her recent comments. It is as if the Clinton campaign believes African Americans are not able to think for themselves and can only take cues and do what they're told rather than think independently.
Whatever happened to personal accountability? Just apologize for the gaffs and move forward. No matter who you prefer in this race I think we can all agree that Americans are tired of leaders who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. Hillary's recent posturing and stubbornness to admit wrongdoing is eerily similar to that of George W. Bush. No wonder Karl Rove seems to be endorsing her candidacy.

This is going to get really nasty if Bill Clinton continues to set up an argument between himself and Obama about who cares more about and is more in touch with the African-American community.

p.s. Good to see you here, ObamaGirl! I won't be voting for your candidate but I loved your sexy video.

Hillary/Bill was very combatative this morning, and loaded for bear. As well she should have been. She knows she can go for the jugular with jolly Tim and exactly what he is going to ask as if scripted. So she came prepared with long filibustering speeches. I think what pisses Hillary/Bill off the most is the idea that someone who was 12 years old when she started getting all that experience has generated far more excitement than she has or her husband had when he was at the same point in his campaign. Bill/Hillary Clinton was a very boring, long winded, uninspiring speaker, then, and Hillary/Bill is boring and dull, and equally uninspiring, even though she knows how to take off in an awkward fortissimo the likes of which no one can match.

For them, Senator Obama is still that 12 year old kid for all they care. The idea that he even evokes the name of Martin L. King in any way must incense them, since they feel that they have an inside track to the soul, hearts, and minds of African Americans that no other White person has. They can march into a Black church and exhort "I feel your pain," and expect amens and hosannas up to ying yang. Bill/Hillary was so animated in his "fairy tale" diatribe that one could hope that he wouldn't have a heart attack. He was fuming so hard that his face was Christmas red. It will be interesting if he moves his office out of Harlem if Hillary/Bill does not get the nomination.

After all he put his office there like an anchor baby, knowing that it would serve his wife well in their planned return to the White House. Hillary/Bill knows what she is talking about when she repeats over and over again "ready on day one." She knows that at the very least they already know where the bedrooms and toilets are.

In an appearance on Meet the Press this morning, Clinton argued Obama’s claims he has been consistent in opposing the war was undermined his votes in favor of funding for the war effort.

"Obama, like Clinton, regularly voted to continue funding for troops in Iraq until last year."

Voting for funding of the war does not make one in favor of the war. Mrs Clinton knows this, but can't offer any other rebuttal.

Obama is being the adult of the two in the race. I personally condemn the manner in which Hillary chooses to conduct her campaign. Hillary, the Clinton she is, makes a mistake and the first person she seeks to cast blame on is her enemy. What will she do if her Hillcare Health Care doesn't go as planned? Blame the Republicans! Now do a quick rewind with Obama in the White House.....imagine how much faster and how much more peaceful America will be on the road to Universal Health Care? If this poor showing of character is any indicator of how Hillary Clinton will conduct herself in the White House if she should win, the prospect of change looks dim.

So, Durbin. When Obama condemned Hillary for voting to designate the Iranian Republican Guard a terrorist organization -- a vote he himself ducked -- was he correct, given that you cast the same "yes" vote as Hillary. If so, then you are no less the warmonger than Obama would have us think Hillary is.

Sit down, shut up and keep picking up the slack left by our ersatz junior senator as you've done the last two years.

There is nothing finer than watching these liberal Iraq War defeatists squabble about one anothers [war record?]

This is like, a, a....willing suspension of disbelief...

Paulo

Yep,ready from day one. After she extinguishes all American hope of getting an ethical leader, Hillary is ready to take control, destroy incriminating records, line her pockets, get those special interests and corporations taken care of, broker up some big overseas deals and do what Bush Sr tells her to do.

We are America...not our president...not our congress. We give them permission to represent us.
It is called Democracy. I hope (pray) that all voters use their intelligence to make the vote that will help all of us.
I only ask that we avoid our past mistakes. I didn't see either, until election two...I switched parties.

Truthfully,

Jeff

After watching the Clintons in NH and Hillary on MTP today,it is so clear that the nightmare will continue for all of the country if Hillary is elected. It makes no sense for the Dems to pick her. There was a long list of better candidates and now there are still 3 on the list that are better. Clinton is the one thing the Republicans agree on and if she is the nominee they will vote against her with more enthusiasm that they have for any candidates on their side. I will vote for Obama but any of the Dems left would be fine Presidents and the Bush/Clinton nightmare can finally end!!

I love the way Hillary has beautifully played the racial fear notes from the Republican song book: the guy is black, the guy is a criminal, the guy will not work hard (only dream like MLK). Go Hillary!

Bill and Hillary need to win this election on her own record. Long ago, she should have said, "I trusted President Bush to use good judgment and he did not." That way, her vote for the resolution wouldn't be perceived as a bad one (in the aftermath of a terrorist attack it's not out of line to rally around the president) and she could move on.

Instead, she's complaining that Obama didn't try to cut the funding off to the troops. Yeah, like anyone with serious presidential aspirations would do something like that.

Obama was right to support the troops since he can't, as a Senator, singlehandedly bring them home; and he's right to put the Maliki government on notice as to what he will do if he is elected president.

As Bill and Hillary try to find a weak spot in the Obama campaign, they dig a bigger hole for their general election hopes. And using surrogates like Robert Johnson, the founder of BET, which has poisoned the black community, to do their bidding is a big loser. (See other SWAMP posting.)

Here's how the Clinton do it. This story was suppressed until after the NH primary, and only came out today (Sunday Jan. 13:

"NY TIMES, January 13, 2008
Drunken Driving Charge for Clinton Aide

By SARAH WHEATON
Sidney Blumenthal, an unpaid senior adviser to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, was arrested the day before the New Hampshire primary in Nashua, N.H., on a charge of drunken driving, according to the police.

Mr. Blumenthal was a top aide to Bill Clinton during his presidency, advising him on relations with the news media and policy matters. The police in Nashua said he was arrested early the morning of Jan. 7.

“Mr. Blumenthal’s vehicle was seen traveling at a high rate of speed through our city streets,” said Sgt. Dennis Linehan of the Nashua police. After failing sobriety tests, the police said, Mr. Blumenthal was arrested and released on bail later
that morning.

He faces arraignment in Nashua District Court on Jan. 31 on the charge of
“aggravated driving while intoxicated,” which was applied because Mr.
Blumenthal was driving at more than 20 miles per hour over the posted speed limit, the police said.

The Clinton campaign confirmed that he was an adviser and but would not
comment."

NOW--how did the Clintons keep this story QUIET for the 48 hours before the
voting on Jan. 8? This was a story that should've been big, not dominating
perhaps, no, but big, at least on New Hampshire TV on Monday Jan. 7 and Tuesday Jan. 8. Yet there was NOTHING. Perhaps this story is also part of the secret behind Hilary's "tears" on Monday? Part of the pressure, something she knew had happened but which the public didn't know, and she feared it was going to come out?

Well, the latter point is speculative. But in any case, there is a real scandal here regarding the suppression of a story, a
la Chappaquidick (though not nearly so bad, of course). But we'll never see it
investigated.

Hillary is my carpetbagging NY senator - she came from Arkansas to push out other women who could have run - ie Nita Lowy -

Now she won't take any responsibility for her failed vote for the Iraq War Resolution.

Remember, she brought us this mess in Iraq and she will not take any responsibility for her vote.

For her, spinning is better than saying I am sorry or I was wrong.

Go back to sleep Hillary.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Subject: Watch out Freedom of the Press if Hillary gets elected , if she wants to Deny Barack his right to speak of his Opinion likening himself to MLK or JFK

I don't think the issue is about race issues, as much as it is the fact that Clintons are denying Barack the right to say a simple message of hope , liking himself to the Movement of MLK and JFK , as a Inspiration of Hope , so the Clintons instead of attacking Barack on him personal point of view , should have instead gave people their own version of their message of hope being a similar liking to someone they felt association with , like who , I don't know , maybe they feel they are the best there is , that there just is no way to improve on the Legitimacy of the Clinton political war machine . I mean if Hillary is willing to deny Baracks comments , challenging his freedom to speak about MLK and JFK , then what do Ordinary Americans get to look forward to if she is President ???????????????Freedom of the Press will be censored for sure !!!!!!!!!!!


The Clintons started this issue with their comments attacking Barack , instead of sticking to their own message of hope , and all because the polls were saying Barack was winning and they panicked , and the polls were wrong , so what does that say about someone that will attack someone over a poll thats wrong ??????
This is the same result of how mis information that Hillary got she says , that got us into the Iraq war isn't it ???? So will Hillary make the right decisions if the Information is being mis-interpreted and she mis reads the Intelligence Report and attacks a country , so this attack on barack is no sign she has the experience to make the right decisions .

What Hillary is saying here about ;
"If you are part of American political history, you know that speeches are essential to frame an issue, to inspire, and lift up," Clinton said. "But when the cameras are gone and when the lights are out, what happens next?"
Is the job of the president to rally the Congress together for bipartisan achievements , and her record does not support a bipartisan achievement , and she can't point to her husbands record of this , because hes not running , so how can she is a Uniter with all this controversy and our Freedom of speech that she seems to want to censor Baracks rights too claim that he is and would be a Uniter of the Common goals of our country ???
And it looks like the Clintons panicked under the pressures of the polls , and started to wage the attack Barack campaign , that really turned out to be a non issue , if they were to have stayed still as the polls were wrong anyway , so trying to run a campaign by the way the polls read is why the Clintons panicked and choose to attack Barack ?? , is this the kind of Leadership Experience we as nation of united people that are wanting change , to unite us together , it looks kinda hard to accomplish with this kinda approach ????
Thanks and have a Great day . in the Uniter USA . Tony Newbill Wickenburg , AZ

Clinton, Obama spar on race, experience
She says his campaign 'distorted' her statements on Martin Luther King
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22636939/
NEW YORK - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested Sunday that Barack Obama's campaign had injected racial tension into the presidential contest, saying her comments about Martin Luther King's role in the civil rights movement had been "distorted" by Obama's supporters.

"If you are part of American political history, you know that speeches are essential to frame an issue, to inspire, and lift up," Clinton said. "But when the cameras are gone and when the lights are out, what happens next?"

Yet another example that Clinton's campaign is trying to undermine Obama's campaign. Just as she is trying distort his position on Iraq when he clearly showed better judgement in 2002 besides trying to distort the fact that she has "35 yrs" experience. Clinton went into politics in 2000 AFTER Obama became a state senator in 1996! It is amusing to observe Hillary and even the GOP candidates hopping on the "CHANGE" wagon eons after Obama originally deployed it as his theme for campaigning. Hillary will use all tactics available no matter how staged it looks. It was pathetic to see that Clinton staffers placed a bunch of young people behind her podium at her NH victory speech whereas her true nature is to surround herself from relics of the 1990s as she did in the Iowa concession speech. Does she really think that switch in backdrop would escape the notice of voters and insult our intelligence that she's has younger voters in mind? Distorting Obama's record, slapping on 'CHANGE' to the 'EXPERIENCE' slogan after advice from pundits and observations from polls yet again shows that she will use all available tactics to win the race... maybe she learned quite a bit from Mr Rove....

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari
for Landmark Right to Petition Case

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2008-01-13.htm

1. Barack Obama’s unequivocal opposition to invading Iraq in October 2002 and his prescient remarks about problems that would arise if invasion occurred:

On October 2, 2002, when majority of the Americans supported invasion of Iraq, Barack Obama gave a passionate speech against the war. He was a senator in the Illinois State Senate at the time, a rising star with a stake in his political career as much as any other politician. In fact, this was preceding his run for the U.S. Senate beginning 2003.

Here are some excerpts from his speech, but here’s also a link to his full speech: http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

“After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

2. On October 2, 2002, Senator Obama Also Predicted the Type of Problems If We Invaded Iraq:

“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. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.”

3. Clintons’ swiftboat tactics accusing Obama that he insufficiently decried the pro-Iraq war dems (including Hillary?):

Obama refused to attack Kerry and Edwards on their Iraq war vote when prodded by New York Times on July 26, 2004. This is also the time when on behalf of Kerry, he gave the now famous speech during the Democratic National Convention (July 26-29, 2004). His generous statesmanship is now being twisted by someone who supported the Iraq war then later claimed that he opposed it from the beginning:

4. Bill Clinton Claims He Opposed War From Beginning – A Patent Lie:

On November 27, 2007, while campaigning for his wife in Iowa (whose Iraq war vote she refuses to apologize for), Bill Clinton said he had been against the Iraq war "from the beginning."

"Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning," said Clinton, "I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers."

In 2003, while delivering commencement remarks at Tougaloo College in Jackson, Miss., he said:

"I supported the President when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

5. "Rhetoric: Sen. Obama Promised To Oppose Iraq War Funding, Then Voted For Every Iraq War Funding Bill

Reality: Obama Has Remained Consistent in Opposing a Blank Check for Iraq

Since Obama Has Gone to Washington, Every Senate Democrat Has Voted For Every Iraq Funding Bill Until President Bush Vetoed A Timetable For Withdrawal. Since Obama came to Washington in January of 2005, every single Senate Democrat has voted for every single Iraq funding bill that has come to the Senate floor until President Bush vetoed a timetable for withdrawal. [HR 4939, Vote 112, 5/4/06, Passed 78-20, D 43-0; R 34-20; I 1-0; Vote 261, HR 5631, Bill passed, 100-0; D: 44-0: 55-0; I: 1-0] 54-0; I: 1-0; 9/29/06; Vote #366, Conference Report adopted 93-0: R: 51-0; D: 41-0 (ND 37-0, SD 4-0); I: 1-0; 12/21/06; Vote #126, HR 1591, Passed 51-47: R 2-46; D 48-0 (ND 43-0, SD 5-0); I 1-1; 3/29/07]

After Bush Vetoed A Timetable For Withdrawal, Obama Voted Against A Motion To Concur In House Amendments To $120 Billion Emergency Appropriations Bill; Obama Opposed Supplemental Because "It's Time To Change Course." Obama voted against the Reid, D-Nev., motion to concur in the House amendments to the bill that would appropriate $120 billion in fiscal 2007 emergency spending, including $94.4 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama said in a statement, "This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new one. And I am demanding a new one. We must fund our troops. But we owe them something more. We owe them a clear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war. We need a plan to compel the Iraqi people to reach a political accommodation and to take responsibility for their own future. It's time to change course. I opposed this war in 2002 precisely because I feared it would lead us to the open-ended occupation in which we find ourselves today. This President has led us down a disastrous path and has arrogantly refused to acknowledge the grim reality of this war, which has cost us so dearly in lives and treasure. After he vetoed a plan that would have funded the troops and begun to bring them home, this bill represents more of his stubborn refusal to address his failed policy. We should not give the President a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path. With my vote today, I am saying to the President that enough is enough. We must negotiate a better plan that funds our troops, signals to the Iraqis that it is time for them to act and that begins to bring our brave servicemen and women home safely and responsibly." [Vote 181 Motion agreed to 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10 (ND 32-10, SD 5-0); I 1-1, 5/24/07; Press Release, 5/24/07]

Obama Said That He Would Judge A Benchmark Supplemental On Its Merits, Would Oppose "Giving George Bush A Blank Check." Stephanopoulos asked Obama: "So does that mean next week or the week after when the war funding bill comes forward it doesn't have the time line for withdrawal but it does have benchmarks, you vote for it?" Obama said, "It's going to depend on what the bill looks like. I don't believe in giving George Bush a blank check." [This Week, 5/13/07]

SEP 2003: Obama Said $87B Is A Blank Check. "State Senator Barack Obama…said today that there should be 'no blank check for Iraq' in response to the Bush Administration's request for $87 billion from U.S. taxpayers. 'We should not have gone there in the first place,' Obama said. 'We should not stay there without an end in sight.' Obama challenged the Congress to 'stand up to the misplaced priorities of this Administration' by delaying the $87 billion for Iraq until the President provides a specific plan and timetable for ending the U.S. occupation, justifies each and every dollar to ensure it is not going to reward Bush political friends and contributors, and provides 'investment in our own schools, health care, economic development and job creation that is at least comparable' to what is going to Iraq. 'It's not just Iraq that needs rebuilding. It's America, too,' Obama said. [Press Release, 9/28/03]"

No one becomes black or white by choice. Hence, to try to take advantage of ones race is absurdity or distancing oneself from what everybody wants.

Obama's a likeable guy, but give me a break. What did he DO in the Senate to influence US Policy in Iraq? Just like he did as a state legislator, he ducks tough votes (a la Iranian Guard/Terrorists). And on the domestic front, referring to universal healthcare as "govt mandates" (which is total bs) is a page out of the Repubs playbook; and his economic plans for recovery are similiarly miserable. I appreciate the fact that everyone wishes we were out of the ugly reality created by Bush and the corrupt Repubs & for the most part hapless Dems, but wishing doesn't make it so. And so far I haven't seen much evidence of Obama getting much DONE.

Hillary Clinton has nothing left to criticize Obama over, except his doing the right thing by voting for the funding of our troops. This quite obviously does NOT equal support for the war in Iraq. Only a Clinton could twist it into such a thing.

I'm extremely fascinated by the fact hat HRC would go down this road as a tactic to hurt Obama.

I don't know about others, but I find her position(s) on Iraq not especially reassuring.

If you go to http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

you can see her voting record and her statements about the Iraq war.

Once you get past the political rhetoric of bashing Bush, I don't see anything that leads me to believe she would do anything dramatic.

In addition to voting for the war, she has been inconsistent. She has constantly made comments about agreeing with Bush about removing the troops too quickly from Iraq.

At this point, she was set a GOAL of having the troops out by 2013, but would NOT pledge to that date.

I don't see where that date is significantly different than most of the candidates, many of the Republicans included.

So on the issue of Iraq, what is she proposing to give us that the others won't?

Barack Obama TOOK A STAND against the IRAQ INVASION when it MATTERED.

Hillary Clinton PLAYED politics when it MATTERED.

Everything else is just BUNK !

The comment Posted by: nunya | January 14, 2008 1:54 AM is interesting but not quite relevant to this topic.

Hilary Clinton's EXPERIENCE: here is the exact quote from her speech on October 10, 2002, to support Bush's plan. She backed her backing of Bush primarily on the basis of...get ready for it...her long EXPERIENCE in the White House:

"This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation."

Obama should REALLY use this one the next time Clintzilla trumpets her "experience" as a qualification for the Oval Office!!

What you see is what you get. Hillary is now saying she thought she was voting to put the inspectors in, not to go to war. If she is this dumb how could she be president? Everything I read is that Obama voted against the war, but after we went to war, he voted to fund it. We can't send our service people to war, and not back them up. I respect Obama for supporting the troops. I guest Mr Obama knew what he was voting for, and did the right thing.

Everyone coming together is a good thing ! Everyones favorite candidate was being defended , and that shows great spirit in the debate over the contest . America is alive and well showing its will to survive , but can we ask which Candidate has what it takes to Unite Congress together to commit to getting done the work of the people that matters most in Washington ?
Thanks and have a Great day , Tony Newbill Wickenburg, AZ