10 Questions for Hillary Supporters

1. When did Sen. Clinton cross the Commander-in-Chief threshold?

2. Was it before or after October 11, 2002 when she flunked the biggest foreign policy test of her career and voted to authorize the war in Iraq?

3. How can a candidate claim to be ready on Day One when on Day 646 of her senate career she voted for a war without reading the 90-page National Intelligence Estimate that so convinced senate colleague Bob Graham the war was a mistake?

4. Are you okay with the Clinton campaign darkening Sen. Obama's complexion in its ads and would you be okay with it if that's what it took to win the nomination?

5. Do you think Sen. Clinton's failure to plan for a primary campaign beyond Feb. 5 -- best exemplified by the Iowa insult of Mississippi that she figured would never come back to haunt her -- demonstrates the foresight you want in a president?

6. Do you think Sen. Clinton's top-down, consultant-heavy campaign spending -- that necessitated her $5 million loan to the campaign -- is an indication that she'd be a good steward of the economy?

7. Are you okay with a Democratic candidate suggesting that the Republican nominee would make a better Commander in Chief than her Democratic rival?

8. Do you agree with Howard Wolfson's charge that asking a presidential candidate to release her tax returns is tantamount to Ken Starr's $40M fishing expedition?

9. Do you agree with Mark Penn's suggestion that some states are significant and some states are insignificant?

10. Are you looking forward to another I-was-for-the-war-before-I-was-against-it general election campaign?

Comments

[rubyjewel]

The bulk of Hillary's often trumpeted "35 years of experience" largely includes her "experience" as First Lady of Arkansas, then First Lady of the US. According to Hillary this vital experience is enough to meet the "commander in chief threshold" (her latest, silly meme). I shudder to think that Laura Bush, former First Lady of Texas, current First Lady of the US will someday claim she too is qualified to run for President on the basis of her "experience".

[morgagni]

hey , despite what the Clinton campaign thinks, posting the same thing over and over does not make it true.
Go ahead and look at HRC's speech on the Senate floor--she knew she was voting for a pre-emptive war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. She cast that vote, on the Joint Resolution for the Authorization of the use of Military Force against Iraq "with conviction". And now she tries to say she was voting for diplomacy. At best she was trusting GWB to do the right thing (dumb), at worst, she is a warmongerer just like him.
Then she gave GWB a blank check on Iran, it seems like she has learned nothing. Meanwhile, despite the distortions by Clinton et al., Obama has consistently been calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq not just in 2002, but every year since to today.
HRC and her buddy John McCain will one day have to claim responsibility for all the costs of the war, the dollars and the destruction, but most all the loss of countless lives of people from all countries.
All this and now we are actually not any safer, in fact, we are more in danger than ever.

[whatchamean]

Here are some facts about the Democratic race for a nominee...

1. When HRC was running for the senate in NY she an Wolfson made Lazio's tax returns a key issue.
2. She knows very well that Obama had not contacted the Canadian goverment but pushed the false report anyway.
. In MI and FL, she signed the agreement that they would honor the DNC rules and she stated publicaly that she agreed that honoring the early state primary calendar was a good thing. She left her name on the ballot anyway where the others horored their pledge.
4. Obama has won twice as many states with over 150 more pledged delegates. The large state small state argument doesn't hold up. Obama actually won Texas in that he got more delegates. along with the fact that he won TX,GA, VA, WI, MN along with other states that will prove pivotal to changing the color of swing states. Hillary won NY by a slimmer margin that Barack won IL.
5. He has won 15 of the past 17 states. In the two states that she won, OH and RI, she netted 4-6 pledged delegates. Than will be wiped out after this Tuesday when Obama wins in a landslide.
6. Obama average margin of victory in the 17 he just won was a staggering 29 percentage points!
7. After Tuesday's win in MS, HRC would have to win every other state by an average of almost 70%. The only reason that this race is bein spun to sound close is because it suits the media to keep it going. If Obama were down by this amount, the drumbeat would be loud to drop out.
8. The Democratic party super delegates are not going to reverse the will of the people, it just won't happen, This possiblity is being conjured up for public consumption by th media.
9. The republicans want to face HRC. She as what we in the biz call a "long tail"
10. If HRC's argument for being president is experience, that will be usurped if she were to run against McCain. He will use her own words against her.
11. If she happens to use Rezco against Obama, there are a thousand Rezco's in her past. In fact others that were indicted with Rezco were Clinton donors. That picture of the Clintons standing with Rezco makes for an embarrassing story to have to tell so they are prodding the press to look in to it but will not be bringing it up themselves. If they push it, Obama's campaign will bring up Mr. Hsu. With Hsu, there is no ambiguity.
12. Hillary already has 48% negatives baked in to the cake and if she is the nominee, you will see massive turn out on the republican side to try to thwart her presidency. That means not only a potential White House loss but many house races for democrates in vulnerable districts could be lost as well.
With Obama, you get all of the people that would vote for for a traditional dem plus first time voters, more independents and disgruntled repubs. Turn out for the dems if Obama is the candidate will set records that may never be broken.
13. Once elected, Obama would attract a larger majority of voters thus a better chance of getting important legislation through congress. Repubs who might allign with a Clinton president would jeapordize their next election. It cannot be overstated as to how much they dispise the Clintons. Don't be fooled by their silence today. If she becomes the nominee, the line "unleash hell" from the movie The Gladiator comes to mind.

My credentials for these conclusions are that I am a marketing consultant with 30 years of figuring out who the winners are going to be. There are some times you have to admit that your competition has a better story to tell. In this case, Obama is Coke and Clinton is Pepsi.

Wishing you the best no matter who you have chosen.
-Mike

[MysticMichael]

From one marketing consultant to another - and from one Mike to another - a very cogent and persuasive summary. Well done...

Michael

[Hilleluiah]

1. When did Sen. Clinton cross the Commander-in-Chief threshold?
A little thing called 9/11 showed us what kind of a leader she could be in a crisis situation. She had to make a decision on behalf of her constituents and for good or bad, she was strong enough to make a decision. She attended those funerals; she witnessed first hand what happened on that day; and she vowed to represent the people of NY and she did it to the best of her abilities.

2. Was it before or after October 11, 2002 when she flunked the biggest foreign policy test of her career and voted to authorize the war in Iraq?
Go to the youtube video of her casting her vote on the senate floor and tell me what she said on that day and then tell me if she authorized that war. Again, she was coming from a different perspective as the Senator from NY, where it all began. Would you be more satisfied if she just voted present?

3. How can a candidate claim to be ready on Day One when on Day 646 of her senate career she voted for a war without reading the 90-page National Intelligence Estimate that so convinced senate colleague Bob Graham the war was a mistake?
How can a candidate that was not in office tell me that he voted against it?

4. Are you okay with the Clinton campaign darkening Sen. Obama's complexion in its ads and would you be okay with it if that's what it took to win the nomination?
To be honest, I don't even know what add you're talking about. I saw a split screen on the huffpost, but his camp is the one spreading the picture around. I'm black and annoyed by the way people outside of my race keep being offended for me because of psuedo racial statements or images. I oppose the news media taking every opportunity to show her with her mouth open as if she's screaming, wide-eyed, and old. While his pictures are iconic or nastolgic with him in thinking pose or the light shining down on him. He's a politician, not jesus christ reincarnated.

5. Do you think Sen. Clinton's failure to plan for a primary campaign beyond Feb. 5 -- best exemplified by the Iowa insult of Mississippi that she figured would never come back to haunt her -- demonstrates the foresight you want in a president?
Who predicted that it would go past Feb. 5?

6. Do you think Sen. Clinton's top-down, consultant-heavy campaign spending -- that necessitated her $5 million loan to the campaign -- is an indication that she'd be a good steward of the economy?
John Kerry mortgaged his house and Mitt Romney spent $35 Million of his own money and no one said boo. I'm confident that she'll have a strong economic team. I can see Alan Greenspan hanging around.

7. Are you okay with a Democratic candidate suggesting that the Republican nominee would make a better Commander in Chief than her Democratic rival?
She said that he would bring a speech and whenever you ask him why he would be a good president, he goes back to the same thing, "I opposed the war in a speech in October 2002. I used good judgement." Well, we're not perfect and we make mistakes. He clearly did not excersise good judgement in dealing with Tony Rezko.

8. Do you agree with Howard Wolfson's charge that asking a presidential candidate to release her tax returns is tantamount to Ken Starr's $40M fishing expedition?
It has that inquesition feel to it. What are you going to do with the information once you get it?

9. Do you agree with Mark Penn's suggestion that some states are significant and some states are insignificant?
No, I think every state matters and they need to fight for every vote. However; the states that she has won are key to winning the election because they are democratic strong holds and the others are swing states. In WY, where there are 59,000 registered democrats out of a population of 520,000; will a democrat win that state? Not likely.

10. Are you looking forward to another I-was-for-the-war-before-I-was-against-it general election campaign?
Are you okay with another candidate being swift-boated in order to win the nomination?

[HunterF]

First off, I am tried of the bickering.

That being said, I have a few more questions.

1. Please define the 35 years of experience Senator Clinton claims to have? 18 years as first lady in Arkansas and however many years as an attorney....and eight years int he senate. This is a mis-representation. Double-speak. Bordering on deception.

Not the kind of behavior I want in a president.

2. How is the issue of asking for her tax returns an inquisition? She certainly had no issues with that in her first senate campaign.

If there's nothing to hide, then there's nothing to hide. Release the taxes. If she doesn't, it makes her look suspect, and McCain will surely use it against her.

I don't think the woman from Obama's campaign should have stepped down after the comment, any more than Wolfson deserves to be crucified. Whether he leaves or is fired, who cares. Where are the tax returns? THAT is the only issue.

It's a false assumption to assume that Hillary's ability to carry Texas or California translates to Obama's inability to carry them against McCain, so let's drop that issue. His ability to organize and win caucuses certainly says something about his campaign's ability to get people moving, and that should not be discounted.

Loos, guys, we (Obama and Clinton supporters) are sounding a lot like Dems and Reps right now. I find the whole thing a huge disappointment, and while I might have been happy with either of the two candidates (Hill & Bar) winning over McCain, I'm beginning to see the vote in terms of who plays dirty, who is not honest with me, and who holds the high ground in terms of behavior. I'm tired of the politics of fear, I'm tired of lies and mis-direction.

If there is one issue that is going to decide the vote for me, it's how the candidate reacts to pressure, how he or she behaves when given the choice between being ugly or being calm, how the candidate stands by his or her principles versus pandering to voters to get elected. I discount McCain, a man I once respected, for embracing the evil that is the far Right.

I am within inches of dismissing Clinton and I would urge her supporters to urge her to elevate her game, to release the tax information, to be honest about her experience, and for both she and Obama to focus on confronting McCain. Let them show us who would be better at shutting him down, not on beating each other to a pulp.

Think about it. Wouldn't that tell you much of what you need to know to make the right choice for our candidate?

Be well.

Hunter

[MMF]

Hilleluiah said: 8. Do you agree with Howard Wolfson's charge that asking a presidential candidate to release her tax returns is tantamount to Ken Starr's $40M fishing expedition?
It has that inquesition feel to it. What are you going to do with the information once you get it?
What should be done with that information is a careful "vetting" by the press and voters. It's hardly an inquisition to seek tax records (especially when her opponent has released his). It seems very arrogant to me to refuse to release the documents, especially when you claim to have been a key part of an administration that is famous for sleazy financial doings, when your spouse pardoned the Rodham brothers' clients and when you have all of a sudden so much money that you can write yourself a check for $5 million without blinking. Further information that should be released includes the White House logs that your husband has refused to allow to be examined.
What I want to do with all that information is to review it. Hillary talks alot about "vetting" and "transparency". The fact that she doesn't allow her own finances and history to be reviewed is a huge issue and contradicts all her talk.

[politicalscientist]

Well said. See the New York Times article today detailing the lack of demonstrated performance of Clinton's opponent while in the U.S. Senate. It appears that his only interest in getting elected to the Senate was to get a position from which to run for president. We can ill afford to have such an unprepared candidate become our president.

[Mollye]

Very powerful response! You should counter every accusation on every blog! Impressive.

[jbatch]

Hey Hill:

She cast that vote WITHOUT READING THE NIE REPORT. So what if she included weasel words in a typical attempt to have it both ways. It was a cold, calculated political positioning that put our young men and women at risk.

But the author forogt to include in his list one other fact. Hillary made an identical vote five years later with Iran -- siding with Bush and giving him cover to invade it. Only a near rebellion by the Joint Cheifs prevented it.

So here's another couple of questions:

1) Is experience really that valuable if you make the same mistakes over and over again -- mistakes that are among the worst made in our nation's history?

2) Wouldn't you rather have someone with judgement who makes fewer mistakes and learns form the ones he makes?

[Syco]

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who noticed that

[LunaNik]

Thanks, Hilleluiah! You took the words right out of my mouth.

[ignorantwillyharper]

Are you sure not Bill Clinton, going by the name of Hillaluiah?

[bish66]

Great post, hillaluiah. Right on target. Thanks a lot!

[bish66]

I tip my hat to you, Hilleluiah. Bullseye.

[Hilleluiah]

1. When did Sen. Clinton cross the Commander-in-Chief threshold?
A little thing called 9/11 showed us what kind of a leader she could be in a crisis situation. She had to make a decision on behalf of her constituents and for good or bad, she was strong enough to make a decision. She attended those funerals; she witnessed first hand what happened on that day; and she vowed to represent the people of NY and she did it to the best of her abilities.

2. Was it before or after October 11, 2002 when she flunked the biggest foreign policy test of her career and voted to authorize the war in Iraq?
Go to the youtube video of her casting her vote on the senate floor and tell me what she said on that day and then tell me if she authorized that war. Again, she was coming from a different perspective as the Senator from NY, where it all began. Would you be more satisfied if she just voted present?

3. How can a candidate claim to be ready on Day One when on Day 646 of her senate career she voted for a war without reading the 90-page National Intelligence Estimate that so convinced senate colleague Bob Graham the war was a mistake?
How can a candidate that was not in office tell me that he voted against it?

4. Are you okay with the Clinton campaign darkening Sen. Obama's complexion in its ads and would you be okay with it if that's what it took to win the nomination?
To be honest, I don't even know what add you're talking about. I saw a split screen on the huffpost, but his camp is the one spreading the picture around. I'm black and annoyed by the way people outside of my race keep being offended for me because of psuedo racial statements or images. I oppose the news media taking every opportunity to show her with her mouth open as if she's screaming, wide-eyed, and old. While his pictures are iconic or nastolgic with him in thinking pose or the light shining down on him. He's a politician, not jesus christ reincarnated.

5. Do you think Sen. Clinton's failure to plan for a primary campaign beyond Feb. 5 -- best exemplified by the Iowa insult of Mississippi that she figured would never come back to haunt her -- demonstrates the foresight you want in a president?
Who predicted that it would go past Feb. 5?

6. Do you think Sen. Clinton's top-down, consultant-heavy campaign spending -- that necessitated her $5 million loan to the campaign -- is an indication that she'd be a good steward of the economy?
John Kerry mortgaged his house and Mitt Romney spent $35 Million of his own money and no one said boo. I'm confident that she'll have a strong economic team. I can see Alan Greenspan hanging around.

7. Are you okay with a Democratic candidate suggesting that the Republican nominee would make a better Commander in Chief than her Democratic rival?
She said that he would bring a speech and whenever you ask him why he would be a good president, he goes back to the same thing, "I opposed the war in a speech in October 2002. I used good judgement." Well, we're not perfect and we make mistakes. He clearly did not excersise good judgement in dealing with Tony Rezko.

8. Do you agree with Howard Wolfson's charge that asking a presidential candidate to release her tax returns is tantamount to Ken Starr's $40M fishing expedition?
It has that inquesition feel to it. What are you going to do with the information once you get it?

9. Do you agree with Mark Penn's suggestion that some states are significant and some states are insignificant?
No, I think every state matters and they need to fight for every vote. However; the states that she has won are key to winning the election because they are democratic strong holds and the others are swing states. In WY, where there are 59,000 registered democrats out of a population of 520,000; will a democrat win that state? Not likely.

10. Are you looking forward to another I-was-for-the-war-before-I-was-against-it general election campaign?
Are you okay with another candidate being swift-boated in order to win the nomination?

[Revrob56]

True feminists,
How can you allow Hillary and her gang to slam a true feminist like Samantha Power and wage a scorched earth me or Mc Cain campaign, destroy the hopes of all the young and formerly uninvolved voters, and condemn our children to more unnecessary deaths in Iraq and have more parents grieve their unnecessary loss. For what? a woman president who has become one of the good ol boys. There are better womwn out there. Is it worth the cost?

[hillarysupporter]

Its awfully easy to write a letter and say you're against the war. But when you have to Actually Vote,
chances are Obama would have voted the same way as Clinton. Most votes were to protect our country, based on the information they were given. Too bad the information was incorrect.

[remedy]

Amazing how some members read the information and voted agaisnt it. Must have been obvicious to them that the information was incorrect. The fact is HRC has planned on running for president for years. That vote on that day was simple, she simply couldnt run for president one day and have voted agaisnt it and risk another strike of some kind, Thus being seen as "weak" on national security. As so often with the Clintons their decisions are based on whats best for them "politically". I think the fact they are claiming Obama would now make a good VP only proves the point once again. Theyve already claimed hes not ready for that red phone moment and yet their willing to make him VP to win votes. So her first decision as president which is picking a vice president that can take over is a failure by their own admission. Hypocrasy has no bounds for the two from Arkansas.

[silenttristerosempire]

Too bad she didn't even bother to read the NIE. In her cas we KNOW how she voted. Stop making excuses for a War enabler. In case you haven't heard thisx unneeded war has killed and displaced million of civilians and has caused Al Queada to grow past 911-era strength. Someon needs to be held accountable for this unmitigated disaster. Let's start with flippant pro-war DLC centrists who vote based on polls rather than facts

[LawOfAttraction]

Wishful thinking.
Obama was a college professor that taught advanced constitutional law; he eats, breathes and sleeps civics, the constitution and policy in general.

The nail in the coffin for your specious argument is that he made those statements publicly when he was running for re-election, at a time when the war was very popular amongst the sheeple.

It's silly to attempt to extend your candidate's overwhelming ignorance and stupidity to envelope a prescient and wise one like Barack Obama.

And for the record, after seeing her fear mongering ad and hearing her smear Barack with lies and then the death gurgle of her campaign, her glowing endorsement of John McCain over her fellow Democrat - she's lost my vote for Senator here in New York.

I don't care who runs against Hillary, as long as they are a Progressive, they'll get my vote.

That traitorous slag has got to go.

[shotgunjohnny]

its awfully easy to vote for a war while giving a speech suggesting that you may not be for it, and then pretend you didn't know what you were voting for later. moreover, the suggestion that the war was justifiable in the presence of valid intelligence is patently false. to suggest it is, is for spineless dems to try and pass on their own failures of judgment onto Bush and Rummy, which is disingenuous to say the least. too bad no one in Congress or the DoD even had foresight to ask the questions regarding planning the post-invasion, questions that were out there being asked but answered by our elected reps.

[JavaCityGal]

Let's be real. Bush et al had an agenda and those that voted for the Iraq war blindly trusted Bush because they were afraid of being labeled unpatriotic. Lack of courage is not an excuse to send our milary into harms way. Clinton did not read the intelligence report., She did not ask for proof of WMD. She not ask ask what our objective in Iraq war. She did not ask what our exit strategy was. Lack of critical questioning and courage is not fit to be commander in chief.

[LawOfAttraction]

Hear, hear!

[bish66]

1. I think that Sen. Clinton has not crossed the Commander-in-Chief threshold YET, but the endorsement from dozens of highranking army generals and admirals indicate that they think she already has. And I take their word on this issue.

2. She gets lots of criticism for her vote back then. If my memory serves me well, a number of Democrats voted for the war back then. Does not make it better or right, but shows that it was not her ALONE.

3. I would like to ask the Clinton haters to remember the political climate back then. Many people had doubts, especially the French and the Germans. French fries were re-christianed "Freedom fries" and the climate was in favor of that war. If she had voted against the war (and she clearly expressed her concerns), people would have killed her as unpatriotic. That does not make it right, but explains a lot. She cast her vote based on the information provided by CIA and other information gatherers. Maybe she read the National Intelligence Estimate, maybe not. Maybe reading it would have influenced her vote, maybe not. Again, she was not the only Democrat that voted for the war.

4. I thought that half-African-American Obama was proud of being black. What happened? Michael-Jackson-Syndrome?

5. She knew that the primaries were no winner-takes-all, but somehow, she did not realize it truely. You can blame her for making mistakes, but you have to credit her for turning her campaign around in record time. That's the quality that I want to see in a leader: you may make mistakes, but you have to have the energy to correct these mistakes and you have to have the stamina to go the distance. By coming back, she proved to be THE candidate.

6. She spends a lot on consultants. So does Obama. She managed to win Texas and Ohio despite the fact that Obama had the momentum and the money. And she managed to build an online donation machine from scratch in no time at all and that machine delivered 35 million dollars. This is less than Obama raised, but his machine is up and running for months. So, yes, she definitely showed that she is able to turn around a sagging campaign and she will be able to turn around a sagging economy.

7. Oh, what an ugly foul! McCain is one of the top Senators, full of experience and if you stop thinking in rival camps, he is a leader. Compared to him, Obama is even more of an empty suit than usual. Hell, I would have voted for McCain, if he had won the nomination in 2000!
No, when it comes to National Security and military strength, McCain is the better leader than Obama, maybe even better than Clinton, but she is better in all other respects: health care, education, immigration, and the economy.

8. I thought Ken Starr was the posterboy of Hillary haters. So how can it possibly be hurtful to compare Obama to Starr?

9. I do have to agree with Penn. Some states are more important. To win the election, you have to win certain states and since each state has a different number of votes in the electorial college, some of them, California, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Florida and many others are more important than, say, Idaho, Alaska, Vermont or Alabama. No state is irrelevant, as Obama's camp claimed concerning Florida and Michigan...

10. You talkin' 'bout ma man Obama? The guy who simply votes present or not at all when controversial issues are on the agenda? The guy who would have gained some experiences in foreign politics, if only he had found the time to chair just ONE meeting on the Afghanistan cmmittee? The guy who votes for "gun control", but tells voters in Idaho that he will not take away their guns? The guy who criticizes NAFTA, while his advisor assures Canada that this was just words? The guy who fights for universal health care... sort of...? The guy who blasts Clinton repeatedly because of her vote for the Iraq war, but admits that he might have cast the same vote, if he had been in the Senate back then.

Obama is not a saint, Hillary is not the devil, so stop treating them like that.

[silenttristerosempire]

3. She didn't have time to read the 90 page NIE. She was too busy grooming herself to be the next President.

[JavaCityGal]

1. She didn't say that she hasn't crossed YET. She said that she's already crossed it. How does a speech in China and traveling with Cheryl Crow make one commander in chief? Do endorsements prepare you to answer the red phone? Ring Ring Ring. There's a crisis in the White House and Hillary has answered the phone. She doesn't know what to do, so she frantically calls all her endorsements.......

2. Are you saying that is was okay for her to send our armed forces to their deaths, without even bothering to read the intelligence report, because the "other senators" did it too? That is NOT commander in chief, that is commander in sheep.

3. You're actually proved my argument for me. She simply did not have the good judgement to know that she was making the wrong decision. And if she did, then she didn't have the courgage to stand up for it. Not sure what's worse, being careless or being a coward.

4. This statement is nonsense. Did you have a real point?

5. She did not come back. On Tuesday, she net something like 5 delegates, and did not widen Obama's delegate lead. She did not have momentum, she had preception. Not to mention that Obama has already stopped her today with a complete landslide in WY. So much for comeback.

6. Her campaign was completely mismanaged and completely lacked any realistic strategy. For the inevitable candidate with all the power, name recognition, money, powerful friends and double digit poll leads -- she lost it all and is no fighting for her life. Her campaign is the largest organization that she has ever run and it's a failure, incompetent staff, infighting and all. About the economy, have you looked into her record in NY. Because she promised my home state 200,000 jobs and instead the state lost 30,000 jobs. If she can't bring jobs to NY, how will she bring jobs to the nation? She cannot be trusted with the nations economy, she couldn't even run her campaign finances.

7:. You miss the point. What she did is like a Yankees star pitcher suddenly start pitching for the Red Sox in the middle of the World Series. It show no loyalty for her own Democratic party. If her own party can't trust her -- how can the country?

8. Agree with you here. To bring up Ken Star is much more of negative to the Clintons and that was a dim witted move. Does her campaign really want to remind the country of blue dresses, cigars and impeachment hearings?

9. Traditionally blue states will vote Democrat as they always do. Can you see California and New York voting Republican in the general? No, blue states will vote for the Democrat, Obama. But Obama's additional advantage that Hillary doesn't have -- is the ability to increase the Democrat vote -- from both new voters, and voters in red/purple states that have shown to vote for Obama but not Hillary in overwhelming numbers.

10. Ah, where to start here, you've given me so much ammo. Voting present is a strategy used when you want the majority party to discuss the issue. Stop just regurgiting others talking points that you don't understand. Your gal has no foreign policy experience -- she does lies that she does. Many real foreign policy experts are coming out now and saying that . NAFTA - you're behind the times -- Clinton actually framed Obama, her camp was the one that said the NAFTA statements. Univeral health care -- he has already gotten healthcare for thousands of children in his home state. Has Hillary? No -- there is no universal healthcare in NY. Actually her first healthcare reform was a miserable failure -- what makes you think this will be any different? About Iraq -- Obama did not admit anything of the sort. He merely said that he wasn't privy to the intelligence report, and if he was, he would have read it. Unlike Hillary who skipped it.

Thank you bish66, for giving me this opportunity to let folks know the truth. Word of advise for you -- know your candidate and the issues before just copy and paste their talking points -- makes you look uniformed.

[LawOfAttraction]

JavaCityGal...I.. I think I love you.... lol..

You analysis was spot on.

I was about to write most of what you wrote, but you summed it up so beautifully, including dismantling the solipsist talking points, that my work was done for me.

Thanks for the assist, SuperGal. ;-)

[bish66]

Dear JavaCityGirl, thank you for taking the time to reply to my post in detail. Replying to your reply stands under a bad star, because my browser crashed twice... :-( and since only Jesus saves... my reply was gone. I do not take that as an omen, though.


Whoever will pick up the phone, he/she will ask advisors for advice. Clinton has a number of seasoned diplomats on her team and a number of military leaders. She is a member of the Armed forces committee, so I am sure that she will surround herself with good people.
Obama's SENIOR Foreign policy advisor selfdestructed while abroad, promoting her new book... But he has good judgment, right?

Hillary had to vote on the Iraq War and that vote went 77-23. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237)
Her concerns were clear by the speech she gave back then, urging the President to use this vote wisely.
Among the prominent warmongers were John Edwards, John Kerry, Dodd, Bidden and a certain Tom Dashle. Kerry, Dodd and Dashle are in the Obama camp. But they have good judgment, right? And he had good judgment to employ Dashle and embrace Kerry and Dodd, right?

To err is human, how you correct your mistakes is that matters.

You point out that Obama won the caucus in Wyoming and I congratulate him for doing so. But what will it be worth in November?
Let"s say Obamania raises the number of registered voters some 10%, from 59.000 to 65.000 and 100% of them cast their vote for Obama.
Let"s say that only 50% of the registered republicans vote for McCain.
He still would win the state 67.500 to 65.000. Close, but in winner takes all, that does not matter.
Let"s say, Obama wins Wyoming, Idaho and Montana. That would net him 11 votes in the Electorial College. Since he will lose Massachusetts" 12 votes, that leaves him with a net loss of 1 vote, if he wins Wyoming, Idaho and Montana. IF...
Will he lose Massachusetts? He already did last month, despite the fact that he spent a lot of money, had the organisation from his friend Patrick, was endorsed by him and BOTH senators. The most liberal state and the most liberal candidate fails to win...

You claim that Obama will win the blue states, like New York or California, because žTraditionally blue states will vote Democrat as they always do." Like California in 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988? Lots of Hispanic voters, McCain comes from neighbouring Arizona, lots of rural areas, the endorsement from Schwarzenegger?
And New York had a republican governor for a long time and a republican mayor of New York. Upstate and rural New York is conservative, so these two states might easily turn into swingstates.
As a candidate, you have to win the strongholds and the important swing states. Of the states that Kerry won in 2004, she won California, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Michigan and New Hampshire for 137 votes. Obama won most of the others for 96 votes, Pennsylvania and Oregon still coming up. She won the important swing states of Florida and Ohio and winning either of them would have given the White House to Kerry. Add these 47 votes in her column and she looks real good.
You argue that the voters in the states that Hillary won will vote for him, if he is the candidate. True, but wouldn"t the voters in the states that Obama won support Hillary, if she is the candidate? No? Why not?
If she is the democratic candidate, all democrats should come out to support her.
As soon as a candidate is named, some people will be hurt, because there can only be one candidate and Obama ruled out to run on a ticket with Clinton, no matter where his name will appear. Since it is a close race, people should get together, instead of fighting it out.

So, yes, we will see a split in the party that will cost the Election. Sad, but true.

Unless we find some common ground and common sense. Their programs are not that controversial, the differences are in the details. Their voting record on Iraq is nearly identical and he "conceded that his position on the war is not the "polar opposite" of Clinton's." (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/05/obama_slams_cli.html)

Her strong point is that she has more experience (six years more in the senate, 8 years traveling as a first lady and as an inhabitant of the White House, not much, you might say, but nevertheless much more than his experience), his strong point is his charisma. She is conservative in many respects, he has the most liberal voting record in the senate. She wins the big states, he wins the smaller ones. She is good in blue, he is great in red. If she wins Pennsylvania, then she just have to be the candidate, together with him as junior partner. Otherwise, the republicans will win.

P.S. There is no žTruth" about candidates, only spin.