Hillary sucks.

...which is one of many reasons not to vote for her.

Anyone and anybody who voted for this disastorous war will not get my vote.

Hillary distorts everything. Takes credit for the good and can't remember the bad.

A little more of this and Hillary will be history.

In that oct, 10, 2002 speech she also said that there were Al Qaida training camps in Iraq where terrorists practiced hi jacking planes, a qoute often falsely credited to President Bush.

A little more of this and Hillary will be history.

Posted by reznwerks

2 or 3 crying episodes from now?

Corky...

Obama has been consistent ever since his election to the Senate. I don't know how anyone can make a claim to the contrary. Obama didn't agree with the war from its inception, but once arriving in Congress, he understood his responsibility were greater than just voting no on funding. He, like many other Democrats, were not going to punish the troops in the field for George Bush's obstinance. He took the responsible position of taking care of the troops while trying to pin Bush down with timetables and other impediments. It is not Obama's fault that the Democrats don't have the political muster to bring about a change in the Bush doctrine.

And its hard to make this case without pointing out that even in 2005 Hillary WAS AGAINST timetables, finding it an unwise drag on Bush's Imperial Presidency. And btw, can you find one statement from Hillary before 2006 that shows her dissatisfaction with how Bush screwed up the war?

Would you have voted for the $87 billion supplemental appropriation for Iraq and Afghanistan?

Where did Obama say he would not vote for ANY war funding, ever? It seems to me that question addressed that specific bill.

Why do you consistently try to distort facts Corky?

In 2004, Sen. Obama said he didn't know how he would have voted on the Iraq War resolution. When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.' [New York Times, 7/26/04] -- Note: No one disputes that Senator Obama opposed the war from his "vantage point" as a part-time state senator in Illinois. The point we are making is that Sen. Obama acknowledged that he did not know how he would have voted had his vantage point been from the U.S. Senate.

In 2004, Sen. Obama also said there was little difference between his position and George Bush's position on Iraq. In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, "On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. [ ... ] There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." [Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04]

Until he ran for president, Sen. Obama supported every funding bill for Iraq, some $300 billion. [2005 Vote # 117, HR1268, 5/10/05; 2005 Vote # 326, S1042, 11/15/05; 2006 Vote # 112, HR4939, 5/4/06; 2006 Vote # 239; 2006 Vote # 186, S2766, 6/22/06; HR5631, 9/7/06]

Sen. Obama waited 18 months to give his first speech on the Senate floor devoted to Iraq, in which he opposed a timeline for withdrawal. Obama said "I'm also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them." [Obama Speech, 6/21/06]

Sen. Obama didn't introduce legislation to end the Iraq war until he started running for president. [S. 433, introduced 1/30/07]

But, but, but...she represents 35 years of change!

Changing her rhetoric, ideology, policy positions, voting record, and even speaking accent...

...its actually called pandering, but it passes as experience in today's world.

This is why it's difficult for a US Congressman to become president. Too many pesky little votes to have to rationalize after the fact.

Oorah: Thompson's got this covered. The only paperwork in DC with his name on it are bar tabs. McCain, on the other hand, has too many earlier videos of him drooling over Rummy and Deciderer-in-Chief for their brilliant war stratergification to explain away if he makes gets the nomination.

-in 2005 Hillary WAS AGAINST timetables

"Sen. Obama waited 18 months to give his first speech on the Senate floor devoted to Iraq, in which he opposed a timeline for withdrawal."

Both politician's records are a mixed bag on Iraq.

It is Obama's claim of purity on the subject that is in question.

Hmmm on Meet the Press on Sunday Hillary said Obama "never" took the Senate floor to speak out against the war and he never introduced legislation. Looks like she was distortging the facts again.

Fact is Obama was a freshmen senator at the time and we all know what kind of pull they have. Once Obama announced his candidacy he was given more face time than that of a normal freshman senator.

Keep on twisting those facts to your favor, Corky.

"McCain, on the other hand, has too many earlier videos of him drooling over Rummy and Deciderer-in-Chief for their brilliant war stratergification to explain away if he makes gets the nomination."

Isn't McCain the only candidate who went on record criticizing the Rumsfeld strategy? Are we re-writing history for convenience sake again?

Anyone and anybody who voted for this disastorous war will not get my vote.

Posted by moremusicnow at 2008-01-15 11:44 AM |

But funding it is not a vote for it. I get it. lol





"Obama has been consistent ever since his election to the Senate. I don't know how anyone can make a claim to the contrary. Obama didn't agree with the war from its inception, but once arriving in Congress, he understood his responsibility were greater than just voting no on funding."

There's a term for what you do Tony. I think it's called plausible denial. The fact is, Tony, that Obama is the only senator running that has the luxury of not having been forced to decide/vote.

The fact is, Tony, that we'll NEVER know how Obama would have voted. And that is the FACT.

Hillary will be the dem nominee and Fred Thompson will be the republican nominee. Neither party is going to allow their base to become fragmented.

It is Obama's claim of purity on the subject that is in question.

Only with those who buy the Clintonian spin instead of researching the truth for themselves.

Obama was speaking about his then CURRENT position on Iraq with our troops in harm's way. In this he was aligned with Bush because at that time everyone believed Bush was listening to his military leadership and trying to do the proper things. Same goes with being against timetables. No one realized that Bush was trying to commit our troops to a decade of continuous rotations while Iraqis play political games amongst themselves.

You're trying to hold being a responsible, sane representative on his constiuency against him, and that's just wrong. Make your points based on common sense, not embellishments.

And on an even larger point, does anyone here remember Obama making it a campaign point to openly discuss what Hillary WON'T BE ABLE TO DO to the extent the Clintons continue to preach more about their perceptions of why people SHOULDN'T VOTE for Obama, while spending scant time giving
America reasons to vote FOR Hillary outside of her being the wife of Bill and a woman? Obama's campaign is built upon giving people hope that united, their government can work again.

Hillary keeps trying to say the dream is an illusion. Which is change and which is status quo?

The fact is, Tony, that we'll NEVER know how Obama would have voted. And that is the FACT.

Yeah, I guess the fact that without access to classified intelligence debunking the White House's claims of Saddam's threat, Obama surely would have voted for the war if he'd been in the US Senate even though his mentor didn't. Obama's speech is an exact deconstruction of Bush's case, so how can anyone claim not to know where Obama's vote would have lain?

I guess you didn't see his speech in October of 2002, nor his follow-up in March of 2003. Just words, no actions there whatsoever. I guess going on the record at the time just isn't the same as being asked the question years in the future.

-Hillary keeps trying to say the dream is an illusion. Which is change and which is status quo?

Hillary keeps saying that nice speeches alone won't get it done, and that her experience in the US Senate, along with her 35 years of successfully fighting for the rights of children and women, for human rights, better qualifies her than his years in a state legislature.

But as that falls short of falling on one's knees in the face of the Prophet Obama, it isn't politically correct, I know.

.......Hillary voted for the war knowing full well the justification was based on lies........

.......no one who did that will get my vote........

Hillary can't win a general election. Voting for her in the primaries are the same as voting for an evil war machine republican.

Corky...

Please tell us how Hillary was gaining so much "experience" 35 years ago when she was in law school? By this metric, Obama has over 24 years of experience, much of it on the street organizing poor people and building coalitions to move government. Which has more relevance to campaigning and leading this nation that we currently see?

A grass roots organizer or a self-avowed policy wonk who believes her time has come?

Hillary is toast. She is not an electable option because of several things, mostly because she is a Clinton, much like a Kennedy is a Kennedy. Enough is enough is enough.

TOAST!!!

Corky, I could care less if you vote for Obama in the primaries (I would hope you would support him if he won the nomination, but could understand why you wouldn't if he did), and I don't ask that you worship him (I don't think anyone really thinks he is the second-coming, well maybe there are some crazy people). What I do ask is that the we stop twisting facts and manufacturing lies. How about we just talk up each others candidate rather than tearing the other down and giving the repubs traction. I am willing to call a truce if you are. No more denigrating opponents, no more personal attacks, just straight up honest discussion about the candidates and their positions.

Deal?

"Hillary keeps saying that nice speeches alone won't get it done, and that her experience in the US Senate, along with her 35 years of successfully fighting for the rights of children and women, for human rights, better qualifies her than his years in a state legislature."

LOL. Classic BS.

Her Senate record is a joke. She's never written or sponsored a bill. She's done about as much as Paris Hilton for human rights. As for women and children, what has she done exactly that makes her different than any other candidate? She panders to the special interest groups real well, then spins it to make it look like there was a reason. And the spin changes with the audience.

She wants to occupy Iraq and bring troops home. She wants to expand the role of government in health care, but she gets all her support from the industry she supposedly wants to regulate.

Change indeed. I'd rather have empty speeches than blatant double talk.

She's done about as much as Paris Hilton for human rights

I call bull shit.

Spell it out then, Taxman. Lets hear about this spectacular human rights record.

Corky-

Thanks for the laugh. I recommend everyone go to the link and see exactly what she has done. A whole lot of nothing. If you need someone to champion something meaningless and purely symbolic, she's your senator.

Corky, I was referring to legislation that actually matters.

Really, though, thanks for the laugh.

LOL

2 of her bills have passed:

S.CON.RES.27 : A concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of "National Purple Heart Recognition Day"

S.RES.21 : A resolution recognizing the uncommon valor of Wesley Autrey of New York, New York.

Now that's one hell of a record.

LOL

S.CON.RES.27 : A concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of "National Purple Heart Recognition Day"

Thanks Hillary.
Sincerely, John "Reporting for Duty" Kerry

If you want to thank someone for a laugh, try your mirror. Just don't be too depressed at what you see there.

Picking out the everyday resolutions that Sens sponsor out of 146 and ignoring the important ones only makes you look silly. Even your mirror thinks so.

oops...missed a few:

S.RES.222 : A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.

S.RES.141 : A resolution urging all member countries of the International Commission of the International Tracing Service who have yet to ratify the May 2006 amendments to the 1955 Bonn Accords to expedite the ratification process to allow for open access to the Holocaust archives located at Bad Arolsen, Germany.

S.RES.92 : A resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional release of soldiers of Israel held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah.

So she sponsored 5 successful bills adding up to absolutely nothing of substance according to your own link.

It's always "35 years of experience" with Hillary.

How about somebody asking her why she was working for Barry Goldwater 44 years ago. That wasn't "experience"?

She was working for the man opposed to Lyndon Johnson and Civil Rights, yet she has the nerve to give credit to LBJ for civil rights more than to Martin Luther King.

Corky,

"If you want to thank someone for a laugh, try your mirror. Just don't be too depressed at what you see there."

What a little crying bitch you are. Are you going to call my mom a name, too? Typical Hillary lover. Attack the messenger. And you know nothing about me. Care to explain?

"Picking out the everyday resolutions that Sens sponsor out of 146 and ignoring the important ones only makes you look silly."

I sifted through all of them. These are ALL the ones that made it out of the Senate.

No cherry picking.

Care to explain?

Or do you want to keep throwing rocks from afar?

She was working for the man opposed to Lyndon Johnson and Civil Rights, yet she has the nerve to give credit to LBJ for civil rights more than to Martin Luther King.

Did Goldwater oppose civil rights? Here is what wiki has to say:

Goldwater supported the Arizona NAACP and was involved in desegregating the Arizona National Guard. Nationally, he supported the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax. However, he opposed the much more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964; he argued that, among other things, it unconstitutionally extended the federal government's commerce power to private citizens in its drive to "legislate morality" and restrict the rights of employers. Since conservative Southern Democrats were the main opponents to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and previous civil rights legislation, Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Act, in which he was joined by only four other non-Southern Republican senators, strongly boosted Goldwater's standing among white Southerners who opposed such federal legislation.

I love when you use someone's own link against them and the best they can do in response is say you must ugly.

Corky, care to compare photographs?

Kev

When your sainted Obama has more experience in the Senate, when he has the respect of even Repubs for being a "workhorse instead of a showhorse", when he finally manages to convene the little committee he was finally given charge of, get off your knees long enough to get back to us.

I'm still waiting for that supposed human rights record there, Taxman. I've got Paris Hilton's philanthropy resume ready to compare.

Are you scared Hillary might lose? You should be.

Corky-

"When your sainted Obama has more experience in the Senate, when he has the respect of even Repubs for being a "workhorse instead of a showhorse", when he finally manages to convene the little committee he was finally given charge of, get off your knees long enough to get back to us."

That was your response? What a bunch of crap.

Obama has already sponsored better legislation. See posts above from Tony Roma.

By the way idiot, I'm not for Obama. Way to assume even though you're clearly not good at it. Next time try responding to what I actually write.

I love Hillary's minions. They're so easily rattled by the truth. Then they lash out with the blind tirades and enough vitriol to make Karl Rove wince.

My favorite part:

"when he has the respect of even Repubs for being a "workhorse instead of a showhorse""

Because you REALLY care what the republicans think? Is that really guiding you here? I'll bet it is.

LOL.

Priorities.

The Oligarchy wants our choices to be kept on their straight and narrow path. What is important to them is they have the politician in their pocket, not what party they belong to.

Even though Bush is like a rock (only dumber), the Clintons cannot be depended on to withdraw from Iraq.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but nothing of importance gets done in Washington without bi-partisan votes.

The idea that Repubs are going to roll over for Pres Obama the way some of you have is laughable.

Clinton has gained the respect of both Party's Senate members.

Corky,

You can't think of a way to attack me better than that? I realize that attacking me is all you've got, seeing as how you won't respond to her record as linked and posted above. And I don't need to Wiki her yet again to know she's got nothing to be proud of in the Senate. Hell, you can't even give me something that YOU are proud of. What does that tell people?

Try making something up about me to attack again, or try responding to the points at hand. As a Hillary lover, I'm sure I already know which is coming. Your track record is perfect, after all.

Anyone who has to frantically apply a label to someone before attacking is just pissing against the wind anyway.

when he finally manages to convene the little committee he was finally given charge of, get off your knees long enough to get back to us.

Yeah, having meaningless pony shows is REALLY important in dealing with Iraq, a tanking economy, ethics reform, making sure the troops are taken care of and other issues of more importance to the American people.

No, we should follow Corky's logic and hold sub-committee hearings on Europe. Maybe the French will cater it, and the Swiss will bring chocolates.

"Clinton has gained the respect of both Party's Senate members."

LOFL.

This just keeps getting better and better. Its like watching a snake eat itself.

You are easily entertained if that bit of well-known information tickles you so.


Stay away from clown masks, we don't want you to hurt yourself.

Still sitting on that post, I see.

Does it get lonely up there?

What was it Sam Rayburn said about it takes a carpenter to build a barn, but any jackass can tear one down?

Corky logic:

more = better

obstructed = respected

non-support = support for immediate opponent


Wow. Someone has been officially indoctrinated into Washington politics. Excuse the rest of us for not wanting to wade eyeball deep through the mud. It just makes it so you can't move.

"it takes a carpenter to build a barn, but any jackass can tear one down?"

It doesn't take a jackass to tear down a house of cards. Just a little wind.

It doesn't take a jackass to tear down a house of cards. Just a little wind.

A fart will do....

So, when's the last time you voted, Kevin?

Who do you support now?

Or is it more comfortable for you hiding up there on that turtle post, tossing turtle farts at those who take a stand?

At least you remind both TR and I of farting, lmfao!!

Corky-

I know you can't respond to all the substantive things above, but openly looking for a straw-man to attack is sorta silly, don't you think? Its just like an actor calling for a line in the middle of a play.

And don't get too carried away trying to congratulate yourself on "taking a stand". Taking a stand for the status quo just isn't the same as taking a REAL stand.

Kevin KO1 Corky. I declare Kevin23 the winner of this debate and the lose to be Hillary. Hillary is just another corporate shill. Voting for a woman just because she is one is a poor reason.

And unlike some people (Corky) who like to pretend they are doing something important by perfectly imitating a sheep, I don't live under the delusion that I know anything other than what I can find real evidence of.

At the moment, I like McCain and Obama. Neither is remotely perfect. But at least I don't get sick to my stomach when they talk about changing Washington.

I'm an independent, Corky. Voted in every election. Never voted straight down party lines in my life. And I'm proud of it!

Thank you Birdman!

I'll now retire for lunch.

"I think that nominating Hillary Clinton would be a disastrous mistake."

"If we nominate Hillary Clinton, then I assume that the Republicans will go after her, and that they will not restrict themselves to attacking her policies and her record."



Does anyone really think that the Republicans will go any easier on any of the other candidates, or that they will find less dirt. I live in Chicago and in 2006 when the stores broke about Barak's investment scams people here started questioning him and not whether or not the story was true.


The Republicans are staying away form this stuff right now but you have to know they are going full force at who ever the Dem's put up. I understand the point that she has people that will never change there minds about her. The opposite maybe true for Barak. He runs the risk of losing supports around the country that may change their minds once all the slimming really starts (and it will no matter what) .




My only point is that no matter who comes up on either side this thing is about to get a whole lot uglier. So who do you think is strongest canidate. Who is able to take on slime.

2 of her bills have passed:

S.CON.RES.27 : A concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of "National Purple Heart Recognition Day"

S.RES.21 : A resolution recognizing the uncommon valor of Wesley Autrey of New York, New York.

Now that's one hell of a record.

LOL

Posted by kevin23 at 2008-01-15 01:59 PM


lol, almost as great as senator kerrys record of naming a mass. building, save a whale day and world population awareness....

The dems sure do know how to find the DOERS. Doers like Obama who often vote "present" when the issue is particularlly politically sticky.

If precedent is your guide, you go with the teflon candidate...Obama. If your main concern is resiliency to an underhanded attack, you go with the teflon candidate as well. Guys that handle attacks with dignity and restraint, like Obama thus far, are the ones that are tougher to attack. Republican candidates have all made statements on television to the effect that Obama is charismatic and has tapped into something primal with his message. On Clinton, they are not so nice. More are eager to get dirty with her, and they know she'll be there in the mud. "Republican playbook" this, and "page out of Dem hand book" that. Blah blah blah. People resent it.

So I'm not getting this argument of electability due to some vastly superior politikin' ability.

Anyone got anything better than baseless "doom and gloom" predictions as to why Obama is not better than Hillary? The way I see it, he's just a kindler, gentler Hillary anyway, policy-wise. And he's not indebted to special interest money. Add that he gets a free pass on Iraq (looking to be the only legitimate public opponent of the approval) and he's looking a hell of a lot better than Hillary.

I think something stinks in the democratic party, right now. Hillary is capitalizing on something the media might be afraid to talk about. What is it? Race? Or is there an older contingent that resents youthful rebellion? I have no idea. Maybe I never will. But the good bet should be Obama...the cynical bet being Hillary. Life is sometimes stranger than fiction.

Today Tuesday the Jan 15, 2008. Ex president Clinton was on Al Sharpton program defending himself. He said his grandfather owned a food store and it was before food stamps, so his grandfather would give blacks food on credit.

"This is a racist issue".

Why....
Think for a second this sentence " Before food stamps". That means we now all depend on food stamps right?

-I like McCain and Obama

You mean the, John "Another Hundred Years in Iraq" McCain? That one?

So much for your heart-felt disdain for the status quo, eh?


-Voted in every election

How many times did you vote for George Bush?

(if you multiply that number by 1000, that's how many days until your political opinions become relevant again)

I think something stinks in the democratic party, right now. Hillary is capitalizing on something the media might be afraid to talk about. What is it? Race? Or is there an older contingent that resents youthful rebellion? I have no idea. Maybe I never will. But the good bet should be Obama...the cynical bet being Hillary.

Its the generational change that always happens. Obama is next and Hillary is a blast from the past. Obama is about building coalitions, Hillary's about destroying opponents, be they Republicans or Democrats, standing in her way. Hillary promises to competently manage a disfunctional government, Obama wants to break the mold and start anew. Obama is about energy and enthusiasm, Clinton is about slow and steady.

Its simply about moving into the future or trying to relive the past with a new figurehead in charge. Both have merits, but only one way opens new horizons, and guess which one that is?

Obama good!

Clinton bad!

Ugh!

btw, the Nevada NEA hasn't even endorsed Clinton.

They want parity for their workers with casino workers, that's all.

They want parity for their workers with casino workers, that's all.

They agreed to the program Corky. They created it for the very purpose they now oppose it.

"This (caucus) plan was created by some of the same people who are plaintiffs in the suit against it," he said. "It's not that they didn't like the plan when Clinton was ahead."

You're incapable of being honest about anything Clinton related aren't you?

The TU President is Hillary's campaign head in Nevada. Yeah, she's impartial.

btw, the Nevada NEA hasn't even endorsed Clinton.

They did team up with Clinton activist to file the complaint though.

I thought you would be for teachers and school workers having the same access as casino workers.

Actually it isn't just casino workers, it is anyone who works within 2.5 miles of where the caucus is being held.

"But, but, but...she represents 35 years of change!

Changing her rhetoric, ideology, policy positions, voting record, and even speaking accent...

...its actually called pandering, but it passes as experience in today's world.

Posted by kevin23 at 2008-01-15 12:31 PM"

Romney is a she? Who knew?

Corky-

You are TERRIBLE at assumptions. Yet you make them at every turn.

It gives everything you say a taint of horse manure.

John McCain suffers for his stance on the surge, but he was against going in Rummy-style from the start. He's been honest and consistent, even if equally wrong.

Never voted for W.

Sling some more mud though. It really suits you.

"Obama good!

Clinton bad!

Ugh!"

Frustrating when you have no answers, isn't it? I've yet to hear why she's better. All I got was questions about my voting record and another attack on your imaginary version of me.

Nothing of substance ever comes out of your mouth, Corky. But if it does, I'll tell you why your wrong. Lets face it, you and the facts don't get along.

Scanning this thread begs the question.....does the Hill-arious campaign know just how awful and terrible of a job the WhineCork(tm) is doing in her shilling for Hillary? They are going to remove you from the payroll WhineCork(tm)......just PATHETIC I tells ya. Hell you may never be able to get up off the mat ever again.

Fact is, when you come on a thread and attack me out of the blue, especially using some new fake handle, you can expect to be treated like the troll that you are.


What is 23 anyway, your age or your IQ?

maybe hillary should try crying again, .. ;)

she has no business running the country, she cant even keep her husband satisfied, let alone a country... she is nothing more than a power hungry liberal beast thats just wanting to live off her husbands name, the only thing she is quaified to do is "Iron my Shirts" and i bet she would suck at that too...

if you look in her past its full of deception and lies... why let in another political dragon, who will just lie and cheat and twist everything....

Of course, it isn't the Ill. state house, but the US Senate will have to do, lol.


Have you read any of the bills there? Have you read what they were for?

This is what passes for experience?

Give me a fucking break.

Everything she says is patronizing, untrue or most often - both.