Clinton as VP?

HyperHulk

Experimental Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Posts
825
Media
1
Likes
14
Points
163
Location
Sydney, Oz
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
As I've been reading commentaries about the campaigns and thinking about this issue of Clinton as VP, I'm starting to lean even more to the idea that she would be better off not running as his VP. I'm not sure the VP position gives her anything more than what a cabinet position would give her.

The VP position also puts Clinton under Obama and I don't think that's where she wants to be. She's been in the shadow of other men for too long. If I was on Clinton's team, I'd advise her to pass on the VP offer (make sure to get the offer to turn down though) and state that she wants to continue serving NY and championing health care. She could take a cabinet position as secretary of health and human services. She gets universal health care passed--a monumental achievement. In the meantime, she positions herself as the person who united the party and gave Obama what he needs to win. She then sets herself up for either another run in 2016 or a Supreme Court justice.

Clinton needs to re-establish herself to the rest of the party. She needs to remove the taint of the most negative aspects of the campaign and she needs to demonstrate some leadership that so far, has been her greatest failing. She has many opportunities to do that now. Let's hope she chooses wisely.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
He delivered. I don't know if you saw his speech in St. Paul, but it was very presidential, in every sense. Others could learn much from him.
I agree with you. Obama looks presidential. So did Reagan. Looking presidential is only half the battle in being a president. Either knowing what to do or having advisers who know what to do is the key.

In the case of Reagen, he, Nancy or someone saw to it that he had the best. Good thing. It is generally accepted that Reagen had Alzheimer's noticeably the last three years of his presidency.

It remains to be seen if Obama will have the best advisers if he wins the presidency which I sincerely hope he does. The draw of luck has a lot to do with how a president is rated by history. The fate of history, that is, what external factors that a president has absolutely no control over. plays such a major factor in how a president is rated after he leaves office.

NOW A COMMENT ABOUT THE PRIMARY SEASON.

Hazel you are now talking about what a poor job Hillary did running a pirmary campaign. Exactly how did you figure that one out. Hillary had the highest negative ratings of any recent candidates for president. Obama won the delegate count by beating Hillary in the caucus states. In the primary states depending on how you count the votes, Hillary may have actually received more popular votes than Obama. I remember you commenting on how bad the super delegates concept was flawed as you falsely assumed the super delegates were going to all vote for Hillary. We haven't heard much from you about this as Hillary in the last nine or so primary states beat Obama in the popular vote enough that she may have won the primary vote for the entire season, not counting the caucus states.

Of course we have to count the caucus states. My statement there was only to show how close the battle for the Democratic nomination was. Hillary had just as many if not more negatives that Obama to overcome. You can't take away the fact that Hillary scored an amazing victory in becoming the first viable woman candidate for president in American history. Amd she almost pulled it off.

THE OBAMA REALITY

The reality is that Obama was wounded with several events the last two months, none of which were caused by Hillary Clinton. Nevertheless, Hillary benefited from them. The reality is that in the last nine states, Hillary was definitely winning. The "look at the new candidate. He is just soo perfect" Obama votes that changed to Clinton in the last primaries will go somewhere. Will they be welcomed back into Obama fold?None of the Hillary votes can be abstain votes. This is the greatest danger Obama faces: Getting the Hillary votes and the former Obama votes that switched to Hillary in the last weeks of the campaign in the Obama column. Can Obama do it? I really think he can IF he can keep his strident supporters like Hazel under control. If Obama loses, we can blame Hazel and the people like him for being so exclusive that no other candidate or candidate's supporters are good enough for them. This "holier than thou" attitude has cost many a politician the election before and may do it again.

I have a hard time believing that such an ardent supporter of Obama would jump ship over a Hillary VP position. i know you have spill a bunch of crap about why you don't like her. But it is a bunch of crap. By your standards for her, every candidate would be disbarred from your support, Obama included. Obama is a great orator. Behind that is a human being frail with mistakes and inabilities to always see things clearly just like every other human being that has lived.

I can't prove it, but I believe 100 percent that it is because you don't like a strong woman especially in politics. It is an issues of being a sexist. As I said I can't prove it, but I believe it as I'm sure many other people here do.

It is going to be a hard enough job to elect Obama as it is without telling half of the vote in the Democratic Party to shove off and vote for McCain. We don't want or need any Hillary folks around here.

Obama has major liabilities in Arkansas. The Republicans have done a great job in Arkansas of convincing most white voters that Obama is a Muslim, who put his hand on the Koran when sworn into office of the Senate. No amount of talking from me will convince them otherwise.

Hillary would have carried Arkansas. Right now I would guess that Obama is at about 25 percent here. I have talked with people. I have found one white person who will admit to being for Obama. And most of these white people were for Hillary. The same situation exists for Kentucky, West Virginia and I suspect three or more other states as well in the border and southern states.

On the other hand Mississippi has 37 percent black population. Obama has to only get somewhere around 20 to 25 percent of the white vote depending on the voter turn out of the white vote to carry Mississippi, a state that has not voted Democratic in decades.

This is not being racist. It is being pragmatic. Don't think for a moment that Obama doesn't look at the these kind of statistics in mapping out a campaign strategy.
 
Last edited:

tripod

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Posts
6,687
Media
14
Likes
1,894
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I can't prove it, but I believe 100 percent that it is because you don't like a strong woman especially in politics. It is an issues of being a sexist. As I said I can't prove it, but I believe it as I'm sure many other people here do.

I believe in Obama and am a strong supporter... I LOVE women and think that they are imminently more qualified to hold office... are you dragging out the whole misogyny card again? I am no sexist, I know that you are talking to HazelGod, but that would apply to all of Obama's supporters right?


This is pure shit, you're exactly like Hazelgod, who cares what turns your fucking stomach.

You turn my stomach and have developed into my personal troll... you have won the award for being one of the most rude people I have ever met on this site. I see what you are doing... you are trying to get me to go off and start shouting expletives ('cause you have seen that I have a temper) so you can get me banned. It ain't gonna happen.
 
Last edited:

B_becominghorse

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Posts
1,111
Media
0
Likes
32
Points
183
Location
new york city
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
You turn my stomach and have developed into my personal troll... you have won the award for being one of the most rude people I have ever met on this site. I see what you are doing... you are trying to get me to go off and start shouting expletives ('cause you have seen that I have a temper) so you can get me banned. It ain't gonna happen.

No I'm not, I wrote an appreciation, insofar as is possible under the circumstances of differences, under that thread where we were riffing on the Cain/Abel thing. You should expletives freely anyway, but I don't try to get people banned, even if I think they are idiots. I don't think you are an idiot, but I do think you are thin-skinned. And rude, too. But big deal. Rudeness happens when people are on a discussion board. But we can fight some more if you want. I do think you say asshole things, but not as stupid as marley saying I didn't believe racism and discrimination existed last night when I was talking about Muslim extremism and how racism didn't apply in that case, but he was only interested in making accusations of racism in his delinquent way. FWIW, I wrote this one above before the other, but I don't care how you take it, the bullshit you wrote about Hillary wanting to kill Obama shows how poor your thinking can be. Think of me as your personal troll if you want, I don't give a shit.
 

B_Nick4444

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Posts
6,849
Media
0
Likes
106
Points
193
Location
San Antonio, TX
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Obama Needs a Better Reading List
June 4, 2008; Page A19


Whether by accident or as a signal to voters of a certain intellectual attainment, Sen. Barack Obama allowed himself to be photographed a few weeks ago carrying a copy of "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria. By the looks of it, Mr. Obama is taking this celebrated young author seriously – in the photo he appears to be marking his place about a third of the way through. Mr. Obama was in Montana that day, and you got the idea he was going to kiss a few babies, deliver the usual bromides about "change," and then get back to plumbing Deep Thoughts about our troubling Global Situation.
As it happens, I have been reading the very same book. Since I have more time on my hands than Mr. Obama, I hereby offer him an executive summary.
It used to be, senator, that bright young foreign-policy pundits turned out a predictable product. Every foreign election, every inflation spike or productivity slowdown overseas was plugged into the same master narrative: country X needed to embrace "free trade"; country Y had allowed labor unions to get too strong; country Z needed to cut taxes and deregulate.
Mr. Zakaria cleverly yokes together this favorite pundit hobbyhorse with another: American decline. The problem, he argues, is not that other lands need to learn the laissez-faire way; it's that they have learned it too well, that they're better at it than we are, and that "the rise of the rest" – namely, China and India – threatens to problematize the precious number-oneness of the U.S.
The facts Mr. Zakaria adduces to prove this have an oddly size-ist bias, as they might say on campus. The tallest building in the world is in Taiwan, he writes; the richest human is a Mexican; and China has the world's biggest factories, biggest shopping malls and its biggest casino.
But don't be alarmed, senator. By this reasoning, one might just as well claim that British health care is better than anyone else's because London has the world's tallest hospital building. Or that Falangist Spain was the acme of piety since Generalissimo Franco built the world's largest crucifix. Similarly, Mr. Zakaria's observation that the world's biggest airplane "is built in Russia and Ukraine" – actually, as far as I can tell, it is a Soviet-era cargo plane, and only one of them was built – might demonstrate, by his logic, that the Soviets were the real victors in the Cold War.
Mr. Zakaria's trademark style, in case you happen to be quizzed, is to noodle aimlessly through world history, wondering why the West managed to triumph over the East and expressing amazement at unremarkable things, like the way distant people adopt some Western customs but not all, or the fact that countries sometimes "forge their own ties with one another" without first getting the say-so of the U.S. At one point he opines that "it is difficult today to remember life back in the dark days of the 1970s, when news was not conveyed instantly."
But in the ways that matter, Mr. Zakaria is faultlessly on-message, especially when it comes to the utter and complete righteousness of markets. Beginning in the '90s, Mr. Zakaria asserts, everyone recognized that "there was only one basic approach to organizing a country's economy." That way, naturally, was the laissez-faire way, as implemented by the famous "Chicago boys" and economist-kings like Jeffrey Sachs.
For Mr. Zakaria, the truly enlightened Americans, the ones who understand the coming order, are apparently Goldman Sachs, McKinsey & Company and assorted business chieftains. When Mr. Zakaria writes that Third World leaders "have heard Western CEOs explain where the future lies," he means it not as a sarcastic slap at those CEOs but as homage to their wisdom.
Average Americans, meanwhile, give Mr. Zakaria fits, what with their stubborn ignorance of foreign ways and their doubts about free trade. This attitude, in turn, has opened up "a growing gap between America's worldly business elite and cosmopolitan class, on the one hand, and the majority of the American people, on the other."
A warning here, senator. This is not an idea that will endear you to the people of Montana, or Ohio, or Pennsylvania. Were you to integrate it into your stump speech, you might even deliver the South Side of Chicago over to John McCain.
One more reason to be leery of all this market idolatry: It's wrong. Take the aspect of the "new era" that Mr. Zakaria most admires – "the free movement of capital," the international loans and investments he worships as "globalization's celestial mechanism for discipline." In point of fact, the rise of China and India – Mr. Zakaria's own paradigm cases – was possible only because those countries shunned global commercial credit markets in the 1970s, allowing them to avoid the interest-rate shock of the early '80s.
How do I know this? It's all explained in a far more worthwhile new book, "The Predator State," by James K. Galbraith. At your next photo-op, Mr. Obama, I hope to see you half way through it.
 

tripod

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Posts
6,687
Media
14
Likes
1,894
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Fareed has an awesome show on LinkTV called Foreign Exchange. I have been watching it for years. Fareed is not anti-American... he's just making some observations on the world economic stage that do not paint a rosy picture for America. He is NOT anti-American, he is a highly intelligent journalist with excellent views on the world. I have been a fan of his for several years.
 

HyperHulk

Experimental Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Posts
825
Media
1
Likes
14
Points
163
Location
Sydney, Oz
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
To whom it may concern,

Is it possible to stay on topic with this thread to discuss the idea of Clinton as the VP candidate, pros and cons?

It's easy enough to start another thread to focus on the issue you feel is relevant if it diverges from this thread or take your personal attacks to privates so you can have it out with each other and not involve others in your personal war.

Thanks

--HH
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
31
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Hazel you are now talking about what a poor job Hillary did running a pirmary campaign. Exactly how did you figure that one out.

Despite having name recognition out of the gate that should have propelled her right into the nomination, she lost it to a virtual unknown. That's usually the best indicator.

Freddie53 said:
Amd she almost pulled it off.

Horseshoes and hand grenades.


Freddie53 said:
THE OBAMA REALITY

The reality is that he won, coming from obscurity to knock off an opponent with the name recognition of one of the most popular presidents in recent history and a fearsome political machine behind her.


Freddie53 said:
I have a hard time believing that such an ardent supporter of Obama would jump ship over a Hillary VP position. i know you have spill a bunch of crap about why you don't like her. But it is a bunch of crap. By your standards for her, every candidate would be disbarred from your support, Obama included.

Believe it. Hillary is pure poison, and I don't want her anywhere near the White House in any capacity...not even washing dishes. You're free to think my reasons are crap if you like, but that only shows how truly blind to reality you have become. Nevertheless, the FACT is that she's an opportunistic, self-interested, thieving liar... this is not in dispute. My standards aren't exclusionary of all candidates, despite your assertion to the contrary.

Freddie53 said:
I can't prove it, but I believe 100 percent that it is because you don't like a strong woman especially in politics. It is an issues of being a sexist. As I said I can't prove it, but I believe it as I'm sure many other people here do.

Again, you're free to believe whatever you like to explain Clinton's loss and widespread unpopularity. Extrapolating that into a sweeping generalization of my personal character, though, is just amusing...and heaven knows we can use all the chucks we can get around here. But if pigeonholing me as a sexist misogynist helps you stomach Hillary's defeat, then you go right ahead.

Freddie53 said:
This is not being racist. It is being pragmatic. Don't think for a moment that Obama doesn't look at the these kind of statistics in mapping out a campaign strategy.

So...if Obama's campaign factors racial demographics into their strategy and decision making without being racist, don't you think it might just be possible that people not liking Hillary isn't necessarily sexist? Are you truly so blind to the festering nastiness that is Hillary Clinton that you honestly believe it was sexism that cost her the nomination?

Quite frankly, all I'm hearing is sour grapes. Hillary would have (blah blah)...Hillary should have (wah wah)...

Here's the Clinton reality: people hate her. Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike, they despise her. Some for rational reasons, others who just don't care for the idea of a woman president. Regardless, she should never have run...she was the only presence with the power to tank the party's virtually guaranteed reclamation of the White House. Everyone knew this...and the fact that she was knocked off by an unknown proves that most people were just itching for someone else to vote for. So why did she run?

Simple: her ego. Because it's ALL about Hillary. She wants the presidency. She's schemed and maneuvered and positioned herself for years, and she thinks she's entitled to it. And quite frankly, that's the last sort of person who belongs in the office.
 
Last edited:

B_Nick4444

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Posts
6,849
Media
0
Likes
106
Points
193
Location
San Antonio, TX
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
To whom it may concern,

Is it possible to stay on topic with this thread to discuss the idea of Clinton as the VP candidate, pros and cons?

It's easy enough to start another thread to focus on the issue you feel is relevant if it diverges from this thread or take your personal attacks to privates so you can have it out with each other and not involve others in your personal war.

Thanks

--HH

sorry dude -- thought I was on another thread (all that alcohol & LPSG do not mix)
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Simple: her ego. Because it's ALL about Hillary. She wants the presidency. She's schemed and maneuvered and positioned herself for years, and she thinks she's entitled to it. And quite frankly, that's the last sort of person who belongs in the office.

I found it very disingenuous to offer up a pseudo-concession then turn around and through her people indicate she's interested in the #2 slot. Now if i can't have #1 I'll take #2? What's that all about except ego and the desire for power/position? And then to announce you will wait four days before endorsing Obama. It's all about her.
 

Major Mudd

Just Browsing
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Posts
43
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
91
Location
Boston
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Simply put, Hillary Clinton is a liar.
A trojan horse for the REPUGNANTCAN party.
Her role is to make the Democrats look so bad that it only serves
to benefit John McCain and the REPUGNANTCANS.
As HazelGod put it, and I agree, she is a vintictive liar and a political insider that will say or do anything to get what SHE wants, which is not in the best interests of the american people, but herself.
Hillary's supporters are for the most part, bigots..male and female,
angry middle aged divorced, man hating women, most of which know nothing about real issues, but only care that she's a woman whose husband cheated on her.
Right..and as if that wasn't part of the plan way back when. Puleeese!
The whole thing is a joke.
 

playainda336

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Posts
1,991
Media
223
Likes
2,364
Points
443
Location
Greensboro (North Carolina, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Clinton should be the nominee. She has the most popular votes.

For Obama's sake, he better hope she graces him with her name for VP. Otherwise he will lose in a landslide in November.

I don't think Hillary should help that guy at all.
If Hillary supports Obama and you support Hillary, why don't you support Obama? It only makes sense. :confused:
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
281
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Simply put, Hillary Clinton is a liar.
A trojan horse for the REPUGNANTCAN party.
Her role is to make the Democrats look so bad that it only serves
to benefit John McCain and the REPUGNANTCANS.
As HazelGod put it, and I agree, she is a vintictive liar and a political insider that will say or do anything to get what SHE wants, which is not in the best interests of the american people, but herself.
Hillary's supporters are for the most part, bigots..male and female,
angry middle aged divorced, man hating women, most of which know nothing about real issues, but only care that she's a woman whose husband cheated on her.
Right..and as if that wasn't part of the plan way back when. Puleeese!
The whole thing is a joke.

Tell me you forgot to register to vote.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
From an African-American who wants to see Hillary as the VP...
I've always thought an Obama/Clinton alliance (or vice versa) would have been perfect for the Democratic ticket. But now, seeing how so many people continue to have an obsessive dislike for her, I REALLY hope she gets it. That way I can sit back and watch a few annoying loudmouths eat a little crow or overact as if she's the key to the destruction of humanity.


sargon20: Not for anything, but name me one person in the political spotlight that isn't in it for the power? And don't say Obama, because if he wasn't in it for power then he would probably work for Greenpeace or something. Using this argument to further insult Hillary Clinton is a little weak.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
From an African-American who wants to see Hillary as the VP...
I've always thought an Obama/Clinton alliance (or vice versa) would have been perfect for the Democratic ticket. But now, seeing how so many people continue to have an obsessive dislike for her, I REALLY hope she gets it. That way I can sit back and watch a few annoying loudmouths eat a little crow or overact as if she's the key to the destruction of humanity.


sargon20: Not for anything, but name me one person in the political spotlight that isn't in it for the power? And don't say Obama, because if he wasn't in it for power then he would probably work for Greenpeace or something. Using this argument to further insult Hillary Clinton is a little weak.

She's been too willing to do whatever it takes to win while not sticking to her ideals. Iraq case in point. I've said it before and I'll say it again if I could I would fire/impeach/imprision everyone associated with it. I would not be considering a promotion for her. Ted Kennedy knew enough not to vote for it which he now calls the most important vote of his entire political career while Hillary wants us to forget it and move on.

I intend to pull 'D' for whatever to counter McCain. But putting Hillary on the ticket would not be a good idea as you would be getting the loose cannon Bill as well. I like Bill but during this campaign it was like he wanted it as bad as Hillary.


The Guardian -- Carter says an Obama-Clinton ticket would be a big mistake: Former president Jimmy Carter said that putting Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Democratic ticket with Barack Obama would be "the worst mistake that could be made." Carter said that "if you take that 50% who just don't want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don't think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he's got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds."
What's new: Analyzing Clinton; Carter calls dream ticket a mistake - On Politics - USATODAY.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:

B_becominghorse

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Posts
1,111
Media
0
Likes
32
Points
183
Location
new york city
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
The Guardian -- Carter says an Obama-Clinton ticket would be a big mistake: Former president Jimmy Carter said that putting Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Democratic ticket with Barack Obama would be "the worst mistake that could be made." Carter said that "if you take that 50% who just don't want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don't think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he's got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds."
What's new: Analyzing Clinton; Carter calls dream ticket a mistake - On Politics - USATODAY.com

Carter continues to prove why he was such an atrociously ineffectual president. He'd better thank God for Nixon, because only after pure evil can you get somebody like that who doesnt' know what the fuck they're doing.

Agree with everything vinylBoy said.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
She's been too willing to do whatever it takes to win while not sticking to her ideals. Iraq case in point. I've said it before and I'll say it again if I could I would fire/impeach/imprision everyone associated with it. I would not be considering a promotion for her. Ted Kennedy knew enough not to vote for it which he now calls the most important vote of his entire political career while Hillary wants us to forget it and move on.

I don't think she's been veering off from her initial ideas and goals. I'm not willing to cast her entire career as a politician down the tubes just because she initially voted for the war in Iraq. Somewhere down the line, every politician that's still in the spotlight supported some portion of the war (Afghanistan or Iraq). Both were equally flawed and did not create the desired result. If that's the case, then I'd be all over Obama for supporting Afghanistan because we didn't find any WMDs, capture Bin Laden or Al Qaida.

At the very worst, we can at least say that most people were tricked into going to war based on the information that was given by those who wanted it the most, being the Bush Administration. If that's the case, then we hold everyone accountable for their actions and weigh them accordingly. Clinton just had a vote. She doesn't have the jurisdiction to move any soldiers or plot out any real military strategies. Same with Obama. All he can do is say what he supported and what he didn't since he didn't get a chance to vote. That's why it's easier for me to excuse them for their roles in this mess than Bush. Their administration calculated the whole thing, and have the power to correct things at this very second and choose not to.

I intend to pull 'D' for whatever to counter McCain. But putting Hillary on the ticket would not be a good idea as you would be getting the loose cannon Bill as well. I like Bill but during this campaign it was like he wanted it as bad as Hillary.

I've always joked about paying extra taxes to make sure the President could have better looking interns to choose from during those intense oral moments. But I digress... Having Bill Clinton back in the White House as "first man" wouldn't be such a travesty. If anything, we'll just force him to use a chastity belt.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
....I'm not willing to cast her entire career as a politician down the tubes just because she initially voted for the war in Iraq. Somewhere down the line, every politician that's still in the spotlight supported some portion of the war (Afghanistan or Iraq). Both were equally flawed and did not create the desired result. If that's the case, then I'd be all over Obama for supporting Afghanistan because we didn't find any WMDs, capture Bin Laden or Al Qaida.

At the very worst, we can at least say that most people were tricked into going to war based on the information that was given by those who wanted it the most, being the Bush Administration. If that's the case, then we hold everyone accountable for their actions and weigh them accordingly. Clinton just had a vote. She doesn't have the jurisdiction to move any soldiers or plot out any real military strategies. Same with Obama. All he can do is say what he supported and what he didn't since he didn't get a chance to vote. That's why it's easier for me to excuse them for their roles in this mess than Bush. Their administration calculated the whole thing, and have the power to correct things at this very second and choose not to.

You simply cannot compare Afghanistan with Iraq. The two are entirely different though we know the King of Error Bush marketed Iraq as a war on terror. It really wasn't. Afghanistan we knew bin Laden was hiding out. We knew had terrorist training camps. We knew had a government that harbored bin Laden.

Iraq will go down as one this country's greatest mistakes and the invertebrate Democrats abdicated their constitutional duties to balance the power of the executive branch.

The titans of Wall Street that were responsible for billions of loses for their companies in the mortgage meltdown had to step down and it did not matter how much money they earned for the company before. Congress and the White House are responsible for trillions of dollars lost and tens of thousands of lives and they get to WALK away from the disaster? Hillary gets a promotion for it? NO NO NO!! Hell no!!!

Congress is still abdicating it's constitutional duties by not impeaching Bush AND Cheney. I'm not even sure your average congressman even knows they are public servants and have constitutional duties. There only duty in their minds is getting re-elected.

Carter continues to prove why he was such an atrociously ineffectual president. He'd better thank God for Nixon, because only after pure evil can you get somebody like that who doesnt' know what the fuck they're doing.

Agree with everything vinylBoy said.

Thanks to Hillary's Iraq vote she won't have to worry about getting a Nobel Peace Prize like Carter. :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator: