Hart said he sees in Obama a self-assurance and optimism that reminds him of Reagan -- as opposed to Nixon, who Hart said radiated insecurity to those who met him.

Has Hart considered supporting Hillary Clinton, Obama's rival for the Democratic nomination? Hart pointed to Clinton's vote to authorize the use of U.S. military force in Iraq, contrasting it with Obama's remarks before the Illinois State Legislature. "In 2002, when he (Obama) made that statement I just read, Hillary was voting for the war in Iraq," Hart said. "His judgment was better than hers."

Isn't this really the most important criterion of future expectations, past stances?

I just realized something I didn't know before yesterday: For all the attempts at dismissing Obama's eerily prescient anti-war speech from October 2002, at the time he was already an announced candidate for the US Senate in 2004, so his stance then, had he been wrong, would have doomed his political future. Obama, in a sense, put his entire political career at jeopardy by saying something few other politicians had the guts to at that time.

Thats called leadership at the very time most repressentatives were acting as little more than lemmings, following the trail of fear Bush and his minions sowed during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

Obama showed greater judgment then, and I trust he will continue should this nation vote to entrust him with the Presidency.

-Obama's eerily prescient anti-war speech from October 2002,

Jeebus!

Do they give Obamites white robes to wear now?

21 Senators speechified and voted against the Iraq resolution. Please have your Obamaide watered down a little, 'K? Just for safety's sake.

Where was Hillary at this time? Oh that's right...voting to authorize a war. Or was it only inspectors? Damn bills are just so hard to understand...it takes 4 years and a whole lot of wind-fingering to fully understand it.

Yeah...experience indeed.

21 Senators speechified and voted against the Iraq resolution. Please have your Obamaide watered down a little, 'K? Just for safety's sake.

Yes Corky, and we know who the 21 did NOT include.

And we know why.

And she was wrong.

And she won't say so.

Just one of the reasons people see something in O that they can't find in H.

Don't you find it just a bit cynically opportunistic for someone to base their entire campaign on castigating one of their "friends" votes?

A vote that authorized forced inspections, not the preemptive war the GW gave us. A vote that was not the deciding vote. A vote that actually reflected the wishes of NYorkers who were being told by this admin that Saddam = 911.

A vote that Obama is not even experienced enough to have been in the Senate to actually make himself?

A vote where he would have likely tried to vote, "Present".

Just one of the reasons people see something in O that they can't find in H.

Does anyone think that if Hillary had made a similar speech as Obama did in 2002 that it wouldn't be the chief foundation of her campaign?

Of course it would be. Obama showed wisdom beyond his years because every single thing he uttered about our folly of invading Iraq has come to fruition in spades. America deserves leadership that isn't wrong when yielding the tremendous force of the US military upon perceived enemies who turn out aren't enemies at all, especially when we turn our backs on our REAL enemies and let them reconstitute their forces while our military chases ghosts.

Senator Durbin also spoke on the Senate floor encouraging his fellow Democrats to read the NIE before casting thier votes for the AUMF. Did Hillary heed his advice? No, she didn't, and comparing her words at that time to Obama's only further reinforces who has the right experience, and who doesn't, based upon their views on Iraq before the military was committed.

"People who are disgusted with Bush," she said. "A lot of them are."

She's obviously never read the Retort, home of the "Bush is God" cult.

A vote that Obama is not even experienced enough to have been in the Senate to actually make himself?

Give it a break Corky! Its not Obama's fault that Hillary didn't realize that a resolution entitled Authorization for the Use of Military Force wasn't a bill for inspections regardless of how she tries to spin the ridiculous!

In October of 2002, Obama was already running for the US Senate seat for 2004. By taking his public stance so vehemently opposed to the Iraq War, he risked his entire political future, something Hillary thought she might be doing by taking a similar stance as Obama did. He bet his future on his judgment of this singular issue. What did Hillary risk? Nothing, because she never forsaw that any candidate worthy of election would emerge from the Democratic Party that had the courage of their convictions as Obama did.

It may be a bet she'll wish she never made.

-home of the "Bush is God" cult.

And Obama is His Prophet.

"You know, it's getting a little embarrassing, you stalking me around the threads like this."

Ahhh...Boo hoo hoo for you. Crybaby Corky can't handle the truth when he's busy propagandizing? That's what Hillary pays you for, to take abuse from people who know better. Try speaking truth for a change and you won't have this problem.

"I wouldn't mind, but I hate to be associated with perverts."

I know...you were molested by the truth as a child and you can't help but lash out at the world that done wronged you. LOL.

"A vote that Obama is not even experienced enough to have been in the Senate to actually make himself?"

Yeah, he was too busy working FOR the people of Illinois. Hillary was busy not reading yet voting for bills that authorize preemptive wars.

Experience...LOL

I have noticed that Corky appears to have left his "Obama's conservative" rhetoric idle lately. I guess the National Journal's wildly unscientific ranking of him as the most liberal Senator may have something to do with it.

Funny, they ranked John Kerry the same thing in 2004. Wonder if its a coincidence?

It musta been a JUDGEMENT call!! hahahaha!!

It musta been a JUDGEMENT call!! hahahaha!!

Yeah, just like your judgment call that Americans are really going to care about the political dynamics of Kenya in OUR presidential elections?

You've really fallen off your rocker, haven't you?

Fear won't work anymore Corky. The Empress has no clothes and everyone already can see her nakedness when her shills keep trying to dig dirt on Obama when Billary has veins of muck yet to be dredged into the public's consciousness.

Even responding to you leaves me with a feeling of being filthy beyond belief. Leave me out of your cesspool, I'm not into dirt. (Can you say Kazakstan?)

Jerusalem Post:

But even in this atmosphere Obama stands out - for not only does he theoretically support appeasement, he is actively advancing the interests of Islamists seeking to take control over a state allied with the US


And he sent Dick Morris to Kenya?!

haahahhaha!!

And he sent Dick Morris to Kenya?!

You and Hillary are certainly to peas in a pod! Would you care to explain how Obama sent Morris to Kenya, or would you like to make up more lies to go with your usual steady stream of them?

...members of Obama's foreign policy team have helped fan the flames of this mess. How? Are you sitting down? They got Dick Morris involved in the election.

So unnamed sources connect Barack to that which was done by unnamed members of his foreign policy team, huh? That means him, right?

By that logic, Hillary just called Barack a Nazi.... (you truly are pathetic anymore)

I'm not poll driven, lol!

I was referring to the realclear average that you posted... showing her ahead.

Wow, but Obama is statistically tied with her in Alabama? How amazing is that? You must be so proud.

Ya think he'll get more than 25 percent of the white vote there?

How will the Bradley Effect hang on him in a general election? 5 points, 10, 15, 20?

How many would it take for him to lose the GOP'er?

lose to

lmao!

The Bradley Effect is known for not showing up in polling as you should know. Perhaps it is just more comfortable for you to close you eyes and pretend it doesn't exist.

But I understand why you wouldn't want to talk about it as it might apply to the upcoming general election as it would likely negate any advantage he might have in the polls.

You ARE a romantic, eh?

The Bradley Effect is extinguished because YOU say so?

Forgive me if that isn't quite enough. Not everyone is charmed by Obama's rhetoric, especially not those upon the BE represents.


And if he does get to the WH, the idea that the GOP is going to swoon and roll over like you have is ludicrous.

Like Bobby Kennedy Jr. said, it will be a "fistfight".

One where Obama's kid gloves will be laughed at.

You know, it's getting a little embarrassing, you stalking me around the threads like this.

I wouldn't mind, but I hate to be associated with perverts.

Posted by Corky
* * * *

That's something Nixon would have said.

Sorry ! Chart one the right.

I tend to tilt left....

The answer is clear. Vote Hillary because if you vote Obama we won't have anymore of David Letterman's super funny "great moments in Presidential speachs". All of Obama's speaches will really be great, and not funny at all.

-the most important vote of this millenium (sic)

You know, I think hyperbole must be contagious among Obamites.

Either that, or they get it in pill form with their Official Obama Magic Code Ring Kit.


The senator from the state that was hit on 911, whose constituents were being told daily that Saddam = 911, voted with most other Dem Senators to allow military force to enforce inspections. Her speeches at the time show exactly where she stood on GW and war.

It took a cynically opportunistic President to turn a reasonable and responsible vote into a preemptive war against his express denial to her and others that he would do so.

Now it has taken a cynically opportunistic "friend" in the Senate to base his whole campaign on the myth that he somehow has some special concession on good judgement.

Considering his truly unimportant position and lack of any direct responsibility for National Security at the time of the vote, and considering all the times he voted "Present" there, and that he voted for Dick Cheney's Energy Bill for admittedly Pork Barrel voting reasons, his claim to superior voting judgement rings just a bit hollow.

He is a bit over-proud of his own intellect, which in comparison with Senator Clinton's intellect as the NYTimes noted, and as we see them in these debates, is really no great shakes.

Sorry.

The title of the resolution was THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE IN IRAQ! Only someone brain-dead or a chronic liar wouldn't understand just what this vote was for, no matter how much they try and dissemble later, defacto spitting in the faces of those who've suffered due to an unnecessary rush to a needless war.

Trying to explain away that which is patently obvious only underscores the lengths of dishonesty those doing so are willing to undertake for the sake of not admitting their mistakes publically and with contrition. Such people do not deserve to lead the American people when their own judgment has abused any semblance of trust in both their honesty and in having learned a valuable lesson at the expense of other's children's blood having been needlessly spilled in the process.

Anyone making this case is a reprehensible shill for an unjustified policy, for which many continue to die daily, due to the mistakes of those still living safe and free in their own bubbles of abject fantasy. This nation and the people of the world deserve better and they'll never get it from those who's mindset is so easily corrupted by fear of those that might do us harm instead of facing such threats with calm and rational resolve, not knee-jerk machoism leading to untold death, destruction and the further destabilization of an entire region vital to the world's economies.

Well, as long as you don't stoop to calling me names.....


but, methinks thou dost protest too much.....

and too inanely.

Try and get a grip. You will need it Tuesday.

btw, not that facts are important, but the stated purpose of the use of force in the resolution was to force inspections.

....and, trying to blame Hillary Clinton for the current mess in Iraq, created solely by the policies and decisions of George Bush, is cynically opportunistic, too.

btw, not that facts are important, but the stated purpose of the use of force in the resolution was to force inspections.

I'm sure all the widows, widowers, and orphans will appreciate your understanding of simple english Corky. The more you talk, the more you trash the sacrifices of those who weren't able to vote in Congress, but paid the ultimate price for the blindness of its leadership and of that in the White House.

and a lie.

Amazing what some people will say when they can't argue the facts.

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United
States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery
that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and
a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had
an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was
much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence
reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded
that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs
threatened vital United States interests and international
peace and security, declared Iraq to be in material and unacceptable
breach of its international obligations'' and urged the President
to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution
and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into
compliance with its international obligations'';


It isn't neccesary for you to try to re-write history. No one will believe it.

Why do you continue the personal attacks?

It must be so demeaning for you, you know, being one of the new kind of politics guys.

Know what I mean, Vern?

Clinton/Obama 08!!

Dynamic Duo for President!(tm)

It isn't neccesary for you to try to re-write history. No one will believe it.

You're unbelievable today, aren't you? Did you notice that your post only recites the EVIDENCE for taking military action, where mine gives the DEFACTO wording for projecting WAR upon Iraq? Do you remember Bush making the case that further inspections wouldn't work because Saddam couldn't be trusted? I guess I imagined that too, huh?

You cherry-pick and present non-relevant information as though it negates what comes LATER in the same resolution. People aren't as ignorant nor dishonest as you are Corky and you continue to drag your own name through the mud for the sake of trying to disprove what's already universally accepted as the truth based on FACTS, not dissembling fiction nor faulty memories.

The title says everything to people with IQs above room temperature. Sorry that you and Hillary keep playing to the ignorance of the public instead of admitting that you both were wrong, plain and simple, and people died because of judgments like Hillary's. Trying to throw the blood onto others is as dispicable as it is taking the lowest of roads in running from responsibility for one's own actions.