The
Battle for the direction of America's future is rapidly shaping up!
Division and war mongering vs. Unity and peace!!
From James Joiner for
An Average
American Patriot
The Choice of America's future is War or Peace
this fall!
This morning I woke to hear that Giuliani was dropping out
of the race of the war mongering party and was backing
McCain! After yesterdays developments with the Kennedy trio
throwing their significant weight behind Obama giving him
the backing of experience respected in much of the country
and hearing that Giuliani was dropping out to back the war
monger McCain I was going to discuss the rapidly developing
sides in the direction America is to hopefully take into the
future if we have a choice any more thanks to Bush who has
set the world into action against us regardless of who gets
elected if we even have elections. Very convoluted and
complicated at best! now I just heard that Edwards has also
dropped out and has not yet announced or said who he would
back. I am hoping he backs Obama and that their is an Obama
Edwards ticket The battle for the direction of America's
direction in the future is rapidly taking shape and we must
get involved on the side of Peace and Unity!
Things are moving rapidly! Last night we hear Sen. John
McCain's Florida win essentially turns the GOP presidential
race into a two-man contest between the Arizonan and Mitt
Romney as the campaigns geared up Wednesday for next week's
Super Tuesday races. war or Religion hmm! Former New York
Mayor Rudy Giuliani placed a distant third with 15 percent
of the vote, followed closely by former Arkansas Gov. Mike
Huckabee, who held 14 percent. The win gives McCain all 57
Florida delegates at stake. The victory also is significant
because it proves McCain can win a contest solely involving
Republicans. Florida is a closed primary, so no crossover
voting among Republicans and Democrats is allowed. McCain's
primary wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina were due in
part to the backing of independents who cast ballots in the
GOP contests. However, McCain still finished second to
Romney and Huckabee with conservatives and evangelicals, two
key wings of the Republican Party.
The battle continues between war mongering and Religion with
Repugs
This caught me off guard though! Former North Carolina Sen.
John Edwards will drop out of the race for the Democratic
presidential nomination on Wednesday, a day after his dismal
showing in the Florida Democratic primary. The Southern
candidate, who has run a populist campaign, is scheduled to
make the announcement at a 1 p.m. news conference in New
Orleans, La., where he began his populist campaign, aides
said. New York Sen. Hillary Clinton trounced Edwards and
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama Tuesday, although the victory
does not bring with it any delegates. The Democratic
National Committee stripped Florida of its delegates for
moving its primary to an early date.
Edwards failed to beat either Obama or Clinton in any of the
2008 presidential races, losing in New Hampshire, Iowa,
Nevada and South Carolina. In Florida, Clinton garnered 50
percent of the vote, while Obama racked up 33 percent and
Edwards mustered only 14 percent. as we know, Arizona Sen.
John McCain won Florida's Republican contest, capturing the
state's 57 delegates in the winner-take-all contest. Former
New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is expected to drop out of
the race and throw his support to McCain, as the Arizona
senator's campaign builds momentum going into next week's
Super Tuesday contests. Despite his loss, former
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney told supporters he will stay
in the race, saying America needs someone who has had a job
in the real economy. Giuliani finished a distant third and
former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee finished fourth.
Edwards drops out
* The battle for America's future is shaping up! Unity vs.
war on the lift. War mongering vs. perverted Religion on the
right. Today's revelation about Bush's intentions for the
future make it more critical that the Republicans fight
amongst themselves, Edwards backs Obama defeating Billary,
and Obama gets elected and survives to chart the future of
America!
Four months after announcing troop reductions in Iraq,
President Bush is now sending signals that the cuts may not
continue past this summer, a development likely to infuriate
Democrats and renew concerns among military planners about
strains on the force. Mr. Bush has made no decisions on
troop reductions to follow those he announced last
September. But White House officials said Mr. Bush had been
taking the opportunity, as he did in Monday’s State of the
Union address, to prepare Americans for the possibility
that, when he leaves office a year from now, the military
presence in Iraq will be just as large as it was a year ago,
or even slightly larger. The officials, who spoke on
condition of anonymity, said Mr. Bush wanted to tamp down
criticism that a large, sustained presence in Iraq would
harm the overall health of the military — a view held not
only by Democrats, but by some members of his own Joint
Chiefs of Staff.
Within the Pentagon, senior officers have struggled to
balance the demands of the Iraq war against the competing
demands to recruit, train and retain a robust and growing
ground force. That institutional tension is personified by
two of Mr. Bush’s top generals, David H. Petraeus, the top
commander in Iraq, and George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief
of staff. General Petraeus’s mission is to win the war;
General Casey must also worry about the health of the whole
Army. “We’re concerned about the health of the force as
well, but the most important thing is that they succeed in
Iraq,” said one senior White House official, adding, “If the
commanders on the ground believe we need to maintain the
troop numbers at the current level to maintain security for
a little while longer, then that’s what the president will
do.” That strong White House tilt in favor of General
Petraeus comes as he prepares to testify before Congress in
April about the next step in Iraq. In September, based on
General Petraeus’s earlier recommendation, Mr. Bush
announced that he intended to withdraw five combat brigades
and Marine units — roughly 20,000 troops — from Iraq by
July. That would leave 15 combat brigades in place.
In his address to Congress, Mr. Bush spoke of those
reductions, but not of any future ones. What a continuing
commitment of 15 brigades — more than 130,000 troops — would
mean for the Army as a whole is said to be a major concern
of General Casey, among others on the joint staff. But
officials said Mr. Bush’s primary concern was not letting
military gains in Iraq slip away, a warning he issued in his
State of the Union address. Mr. Bush hinted in September
that there might be more reductions to come, although he has
never made an explicit promise. The Pentagon has also not
made any promises, although military planners have talked
about wanting to reduce the number of brigades to 12 from 15
by the end of this year, if the security situation improves
enough to permit it. Mr. Bush’s defense secretary Robert M.
Gates has said he would like to cut even further, eventually
dropping to 10 brigades if possible. But Mr. Gates has
avoided using specific numbers in more recent comments, and
says unswervingly that he would be guided by conditions on
the ground. At the Pentagon, officials said the withdrawal
of 20,000 combat troops pledged by Mr. Bush left open the
future of the 7,000 to 8,000 support and aviation troops
that accompanied those “surge” combat forces. If those extra
support troops remain in Iraq even after the withdrawal of
the additional combat troops, then it is possible that the
number of American military personnel in Iraq after the
surge could be higher than before, officials said.
Bush sending signals of no troop reduction in Iraq
** The future is quite clear if left up to Bush and his war
mongering prognosticators! Edwards administers progressive
ideas and has said in the past that as long as he was alive
and breathing the voice of his supporters would be heard in
this campaign. I believe the man and that means he will be
actively supporting and backing Obama or Hillary. I believe
absolutely that it will be Obama as he is the person that
will most likely unite America and bring back support to
average Americans. Anything else would be a vote for a
future of war mongering not healing and if we are lucky,
peace!
I heard the news the morning... John Edwards has dropped out of
the race for President. This is extremely disappointing to me as
I really liked the guy and what he stood for. The only other
candidate I really liked was Dennis Kucinich, another long shot
in the presidential bid but hey, I usually go for the underdog
anyway. I have a soft spot for them, but don't tell anyone.
Honestly, though, I'm very disappointed, aggravated, irritated
and any number of other words you might come up to describe how
I feel right now. Really. This presidential campaign really
seems unfair and built to benefit only the person or persons who
can raise the most money and get the most air time, not the
person or persons who would actually do the best job running
this country. The media ignores all but the most in-your-face,
rich candidates.
I'm disappointed that when my primary day comes around in Texas
(March 4) I will not get to vote for either Kucinich or Edwards.
I really would have liked that chance because I think they, of
all people, would have done their best to change the status quo
in Washington and listened to We, the People of the United
States of America. And that's probably why they have been
ignored and, eventually silenced.
Personally, I think all of the primaries and caucuses should be
held on the same day throughout this country. That gives every
candidate equal opportunity to be voted for, at least, and every
voter the opportunity to vote for the person they think is the
best candidate.
I have written, in the past, the I didn't know who I would vote
for when the time comes. Unfortunately that decision has been
made for me and I will vote for Obama, who I do find to be an
inspiring and exciting candidate on many levels, though
certainly not my first choice. I do think he will be able to
bring about some change in this country.
For an interesting look at which candidates have raised the most
money and from whom, here is an interesting website:
www.opensecrets.org
In peace,
Amy
Know
a blog that deserves to be featured on the Blog World
Report? Contact
Robert.
Obama Says Clinton Would Be a Step
Back
From NY Texan for
BlueBloggin
That’s the truth. Everyone looks back to the Clinton
years as the good old days, because we where not in a war and the
economy was stable. America
was respected around the world then, and gas was $1.75, at most. Now
that was President Bill Clinton, who will not hold a cabinet
position in a President Hillary administration. So, if anyone thinks
voting for Hill to get Bill will bring back the 1990’s, they are
very uninformed, and really does want to go backwards.
Hillary Clinton is the establishment and the old guard. She is
banking on two things to get her in the White House, Bill and women.
Two really bad reasons to elect a president, or maybe those are her
excuses to not accept change.
DENVER (AP)
— Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said Wednesday, a Hillary Rodham
Clinton presidency would be a step back to the past, turning her
husband’s image of a bridge to the future against her. The former
first lady decried the tenor of his comments in an interview with
The Associated Press.
“I know it is tempting - after another
presidency by a man named George Bush - to simply turn back the
clock, and to build a bridge back to the 20th century,” the Illinois
senator said in Denver.
“… It’s not enough to say you’ll be ready from
Day One - you have to be right from Day One,” he added in
unmistakable criticisms of Clinton, who often claims she’s better
prepared to govern, and her husband, who pledged during his own
presidency to build a bridge to the 21st century.
In his speech, Obama depicted Clinton as a
calculating, poll-tested divisive figure who will only inspire
greater partisan divisions as she sides with Republicans on issues
such as trade, the role of lobbyists in politics and national
security. At the same time, he elevated McCain, fresh off victory in
Florida’s crucial primary, as the likely Republican nominee.
Why Obama and not Clinton
From
Katharine O'Moore-Klopf for
EditorMom
Because life around my house is so
hectic these days, other bloggers keep beating me to the
punch in articulating why I will be voting for Barack Obama
rather than Hillary Clinton. I applaud
this open letter to Clinton, though I've backed Obama from
the start:
... What is different? [Obama]
calls me to my best. You ask me to excuse your worst. When
he speaks, he is inclusive. He calls Americans as a
collective to stand for better things. You tell me what you
will do with the singular “I”. I have had enough of the
singular. I have had enough disenfranchisement. I don’t want
someone to do FOR me, I want to work toward a goal WITH
someone. I want to see the rest of this decade and the next
become a time in our country where we all sacrifice time,
talent, and effort as a group to make this country better.
I want to pick up a newspaper and read what we have done to
make this world better, not what we’ve done to hurt others.
And I want the leader, the President, to lead that call and
that charge. He will make mistakes. He will have the
old-guard scorched earth remaining Rovians to contend with,
as would you. But in this time, in this era, what I see is
you and Mr. Clinton climbing into the gutter with them, and
I see Mr. Obama stepping over them onto the next step toward
a better country and a better life. ...
Obama Pulls to 6 Points of Clinton
Nationally
From Christopher for
From the Left
Sen. Barack Obama has now cut the gap with Sen. Hillary Clinton
to 6 percentage points.
In the latest
Gallup tracking poll three-day average conducted Tuesday
night shows the gap between the two candidates is nearly within
the statistical margin of error. A far cry from the once
commanding 20 point national lead Hillary Clinton had as
recently as November.
With Sen. Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy expected to
campaign for Barack Obama in California this weekend, poll
numbers could remain even more fluid by Super Tuesday.
"We Will Never Forget You" John
Edwards Tells the Homeless
From Lydia Cornell
I
had the honor of interviewing John Edwards, his
courageous wife Elizabeth and their daughter Cate on
three separate occasions for our radio show. You can
hear these interviews in the archives at
Basham and
Cornell Progressive Talk
I am very sad that he has decided to leave the
campaign. His impassioned plea to help the poor
deeply affected me. I think Edwards is one of the
most committed public servants today, and I hope he
becomes Attorney General— or even head of the FCC
— as my friend and fellow blogger Mike says.
Barack
Obama: "John Edwards has spent a lifetime giving a
voice to the voiceless."
At each stop on his camaign tour John Edwards
describes the dismay he felt when visiting a
homeless shelter that must turn away 70 families
each month for lack of space.
"Children. Living on the street in America," he
says, pausing to let the image sink in. "All while
Exxon-Mobil makes $40 billion. Last year, 37 million
people in this country, about the population of
California, went hungry. In the richest nation on
the planet."
The Associated Press via Yahoo:
Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential
race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in
which he steered his rivals toward progressive
ideals while grappling with family hardship that
roused voters’ sympathies but never diverted his
campaign, The Associated Press has learned.
John ran a good campaign and vowed to stay in it all
the way to the convention, but apparently that’s not
going to happen. John’s populist message scared the
daylights out of the wealthy elite and the corporate
media, which ultimately hurt his coverage. We wish
him and his family all the best.
____________________________________________
Edwards leaves the race having made
a big impact on the two remaining candidates. His
populist rhetoric forced his rivals to compete for
union support, and he was the first out of the gate
with detailed plans for universal healthcare and
education, putting pressure on the field to match
him. The former trial lawyer arguably won a majority
of the debates, time and again challenging his
opponents to refuse money from lobbyists and speed
up their plans for withdrawing combat troops from
Iraq.
What his exit will mean at the polls is less clear.
On the one hand, it should help Obama consolidate
the sizeable anti-Hillary contingency of the
Democratic Party. At the same time, however, he drew
more votes from Clinton than Obama in the first four
contests — blue-collar white workers — so it could
also help her fend off Obama, whose recent
endorsement by Ted Kennedy should help with
organized labor. Edwards announced no plans to
endorse, but he has made his preference clear over
the course of the campaign, dubbing himself and
Obama candidates of change and Clinton the face of
the "status quo." And if anyone should pay close
attention to the race that Edwards has waged, it's
Obama: if he doesn't win the nomination, four years
from now he could be in John Edwards' shoes.
John
Edwards Drops Out of Race. Where Will Edwards Supporters Go?
From James for
Genius of
Insanity
As most of you know, John Edwards has left the 2008
presidential race. I for one want to congratulate Edwards on
running a great campaign and for raising poverty into the
spotlight that it deserves. I've liked him since the 2004 race
and upon seeing him at a Kerry/Edwards event in Denver realized
that he was one of the better and passionate speakers in
politics. However, when I heard Obama speaking at the 2004
convention I thought, "This guy is something special and I
wouldn't be surprised to see him president one day."
So the questions now are, where will Edwards supporters go and
who (if either) will he endorse?
I have a feeling that Edwards would endorse Barack Obama and
here's why. Like Obama, Edwards was an agent for change away
from the entrenched politicians, special interests and the
status quo in general in Washington D.C. Plus, I remember in one
of the debates Mr. Edwards came to Obama's defense several times
when being attacked by Hillary. Perhaps I'm reading too much
into that but I just have the feeling that Edwards is more like
Obama than HRC.
My guess is that Edwards supporters will split. That being said,
I have a hunch that Obama will get about 2/3 of the Edwards
people. Yet what do I know? I will say though that I was an
Edwards supporter for a time and I broke for Obama when I saw
the hand-writing on the wall that Edwards was fading. I would
rather shave with a piece of broken glass than support HRC. I
read on "The
Fix" blog run by Chris Cillizza that one voter witnessed
three out of four Edwards supporters breaking for Obama during
the realignment.
I have great respect for John and would love to see him run as
Obama's V.P. or as an Attorney General in an Obama
administration. Hell, I'd like him to serve in
any capacity in an Obama
administration because I know that he was much to offer this
country and I'd hate to see his voice silenced with this end of
his campaign.
So here's the question to you Edwards supporters? Who do you
prefer between the two and who will you vote/caucus for? Or will
support a third party or simply not vote at all? Or are you now
undecided? Inquiring minds want to know!!
BTW, Hulk Hogan endorsed Obama--I had to laugh at this
because I was a big, BIG WWF wrestling fan when I was a kid and
even when to a live event here in Denver once with my Dad. Hulk
of course was my favorite wrestler. Obviously "The Hulkster's,"
"endorsement" is pretty much meaningless but I had to add that
to the blog for some levity. Although it might help to get out
of the steroid vote. Sorry Hulk, I love ya but I couldn't
resist.
Oh yeah, one more thing. N.O.W (National Organization for
Women) has stated that Senator Kennedy
betrayed
(the exact words were "ultimate
betrayal") women by simply endorsing Obama!!!! They also used
the word
"abandoned!!!"
I'm a
huge supporter of a woman's right to choose but it is
ABSURD
to say that Ted Kennedy is betraying
WOMEN!!! Are you kidding
me?? Kennedy has worked for woman's rights for
DECADES and now that he
dared choose someone else to support in this campaign besides a
woman, he's persona nongrata?? It is ridiculous to assume that
non-support of a female candidate means non-support of women's
issues.
Unfolding even as this bitch types
From Shark-Fu for
AngryBlackBitch
Lawd!
Florida… Senator John McCain won it all from the Florida
Republican Primary yesterday. Now, the same pundits who were
questioning his sanity are praising his tenacity. All questions
about political mental soundness have now shifted to Rudy Giuliani.
Mitt says he won’t quit, but clearly Super Duper Tuesday is a make
it or break it day long multi-state deal for him.
And a bitch can’t be the only political junkie who noticed the
subtle verbal indication that a certain Huckster is in the running
for Senator McCain’s next in line should the GOP ticket wrap itself
up February 5th.
Cough.
Dropping out… Rudy Giuliani, having run the most random and illogical
campaign of my lifetime, is expected to
drop out and endorse McCain.
Regarding the Edwards announcement, a bitch is beyond impressed with
his request for a poverty pledge from Senator Clinton and Senator
Obama. News outlets are reporting that Edwards is asking both
candidates to pledge to make the war on poverty a serious focus of
their administrations should they be elected.
In our nation’s history poverty is the only war we appear to be
comfortable losing.
What I like about Edwards request is that it is completely doable.
More to the point, most policy issues require that poverty be
factored in.
And domestic tranquility requires that poverty be addressed.
Universal healthcare would redefine poverty in America. We, as a
people, would be able to tackle illness and disease
proactively…dramatically cut the cost of medical care for every
citizen…improve our fellow citizen’s ability to participate in
society…and remove the price tag from wellness and the privilege
from health.
Living wages and labor issues are rooted in the war on poverty. My
own Great Grandfather stood with his union brothers and walked the
line to demand a living wage, dignity and job protection. Not a damn
thing has changed but the date.
Poverty is at the core of the new educational segregation. School in
poor communities struggle while schools located in wealthy
communities flourish and I’m not so concerned with the fact that
many Americans think that’s right…I’m more troubled with how can
anyone with a clue could think that crap is beneficial!
Affordable housing, environmental responsibility, corporate
responsibility, support for independent farmers and agricultural
workers…foreign aid, dismissing the debt of third world countries,
committing to viable anti-hunger programs and establishing
international relationships built on respect rather than power….all
of this is worthy of our attention, focus and commitment.
John Edwards should be commended for reminding us all that combating
poverty is central to our nation’s security and future.
We can no longer afford to simply be pleased with a slight reduction
in poverty rates.
We must act.
We must commit.
And we must demand a like commitment from those who seek the honor
of representing us in government.
Today I hear that John Edwards is dropping
out of the Democratic race, following the withdrawl of Rudy Giuliani
from the Republican race yesterday. Apparently Edwards was hoping
that in a meaningless primary in Florida (no Democratic delegates
will be seated) that voters would feel free to vote for him. Maybe
they did, but clearly not enough of them did.
Edwards has always been a tireless advocate for the poor and the
disenfranchised. It is significant that he will make his withdrawl
speech in New Orleans, which has never received the kind of help
from the Federal Government that President Bush promised right after
Katrina.
So the candidates who remain are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on
the Democratic side and John McCain and Mitt Romney for the
Republicans Yeah, I know that there are still other Republicans
running, but they won't win. Huckabee's shoe-string campaign
couldn't afford even a narrow loss last week in South Carolina, but
that's what they got. Ron Paul is only still running because he has
the opposite problem from Huckabee-- a lot of money to spend and no
sizeable base of support within the GOP. After millions of people
gave him a ton of money a few weeks ago, Paul pretty much has to
keep running because otherwise those Paul supporters would be
furious with him for wasting their donations, and something tells me
they're not the most forgiving type. It's conceivable though that he
could still run in the General as a Libertarian.
Being a Democrat, I'm going to focus on our side. I may put up a
post on the Republicans later this week.
I do feel that on the Democratic side, we are left with on balance
two candidates who I could support. Right now I am for Obama (I was
for Richardson but he quit), but while I've been critical of Hillary
in the past I won't have any problem supporting her if she does win
the nomination. Obama's commitment to get us out of Iraq is much
more believable, and if there is one good thing about his meteoric
rise from just being a community activist in Chicago, it's that he's
not all that far removed from ordinary life as lived by ordinary
people (and if he doesn't remember what that was like you can be
sure that Michelle Obama will yank him back to reality in a hurry.)
Beyond that, he's right when he talks about moving beyond 'red'
states and 'blue' states and remember that we live in the United
States. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have been marked
by hyper-partisanship which has resulted in one party being shut out
of the process when one side has complete control, and gridlock when
that is not the case. I personally think that all began with Newt
Gingrich and his politics of slash-and-burn campaigning, but
regardless of how it started, there is no question that things are
more charged than they have been in the past. The atmosphere in
Washington today, far from being an honest debate on the issues with
the idea of reaching a solution to the problems facing the country
and its people, is now about playing a game of 'one-upsmanship' and
'gotcha' against the other side. To be blunt, I believe that
President Barack Obama could change that while President Hillary
Clinton could not.
People need to face reality. A vote for Hillary Clinton in the
primary is a vote for Ralph Nader in the general election.
Listening to radio interviews with Ralph Nader over the past year or
so, it has become apparent that Nader is much more likely to run an
independent presidential candidacy if the money people succeed in
getting Clinton the Democratic nomination. Nominating someone as
right-wing as Ms. Clinton would practically force Nader to run.
Also, there are plenty of liberals like myself who will refuse to
vote for a Republican, even a Republican like Hillary Clinton who
pretends to be a Democrat. Some will vote for Nader. Personally, I
will vote Green to use my vote to help build a third party (second
party?) alternative to the right-wing garbage flung at us by many of
the Democrats and all of the Republicans. Nevertheless, Nader has
enough name-recognition to capitalize on the nomination of Clinton,
should it occur.
What gets bizarre is seeing highly partisan Democrats who rant on
about people who voted for Nader yet are pushing people out of the
Democratic Party by supporting Clinton.
A choice between Clinton and McCain is no choice at all. It would be
better to let Clinton lose and try to nominate a Democrat in 2012.
Military Support for Obama?
From Station Agent for
Ice Station Tango
Here's some anecdotal evidence from Charlie
Rose's State of the Union panel that suggests young people
serving in Iraq dig Obama.
Obama takes on Bush / McCain /
Clinton All at Once
From Ron Chusid for Liberal
Values
It’s time for new leadership that understands that the way to
win a debate with John McCain is not by nominating someone who
agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq; who agreed with
him by voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on
Iran; who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of
not talking to leaders we don’t like; and who actually differed
with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing
positions when the politics of the moment changed.
We need to offer the American people a clear contrast on
national security, and when I am the nominee of the Democratic
Party, that’s exactly what I will do. Talking tough and tallying
up your years in Washington is no substitute for judgment, and
courage, and clear plans. It’s not enough to say you’ll be ready
from Day One – you have to be right from Day One.
This is excellent, and what we will need to continue hearing
between now and Super Tuesday. Obama shows how he will differentiate
himself from John McCain by showing both how he is different from
Hillary Clinton, as well as showing how Hillary Clinton represents
just a continuation of the Bush/Clinton Dynasty.
One place where the conventional wisdom and most pundits got it
wrong this year is in claiming there is not much difference between
the Democratic candidates. There is a tremendous difference between
Obama and Clinton.
Alex Knapp, in commenting on the same speech, gets it right:
Now that Edwards is out of the race and John McCain is the
GOP frontrunner, one of Obama’s great strengths in the campaign
is his foreign policy positions. Bush’s foreign policy has
become rather unpopular, and the fact of the matter is that
McCain’s foreign policy is Bush-plus (Bush isn’t hawkish enough
for him), and Hillary Clinton’s, frankly, isn’t much
different–especially if we judge by her campaign advisors, her
Senate voting record, and her husband’s record while in office.
It’s worth noting that while it’s a fashion among the
punditocracy that there’s “hardly any policy difference” between
Clinton and Obama, that isn’t exactly the case. True, large
portions of their domestic economic policies are similar, but on
crucial issues like civil liberties and foreign policy, there
are important differences. Unfortunately, these aren’t exactly
covered well by the media. Or at all.
If McCain is the Republican nominee he has an excellent chance to
beat Clinton on both experience and integrity. Whether or not it is
true, the race will pit the straight talker McCain versus Hillary
Clinton, who has been widely branded as a liar and cheat by even her
own party. By adopting a variety of dishonest tactics, and showing
her true colors, Clinton saved herself from certain defeat for the
nomination but might have made a general election victory
unobtainable for her. Even without losing on the character issue,
Clinton has far less to offer voters who desire a change in course
than Obama does.
Update: Via
Memeorandum I find that Pamela at
The Democratic Daily cites this speech as a some sort of
evidence that Obama is engaging in the politics of personal
destruction. Such Clinton supporters frequently attempt to create a
false equivalency between criticism of a candidate on issues and
principles as Obama has done and outright lying about the opponent’s
position and race baiting like the Clinton campaign.
In answer to the question she poses to Senator Kennedy, there are
significant differences here between Obama and the Clintons. This is
why Kennedy decided to get off the side lines, and why so many
honest Democrats have been outraged by Clinton’s tactics. As
Alex Knapp also said about today’s speech, “I think that this is
an excellent attack, both in the fact that its substantive and
there’s nothing really unfair about it.”
Pamela also repeats the other common Clinton talking point that
“Obama speaks in platitudes on the issues, Hillary Clinton offers a
clear, substantive vision of her plans for the future of our
nation.” Obama does speak more in poetry than verse in such campaign
events, but he has also laid out detailed plans as to what he would
do. One major difference between Obama and Clinton comes down to
judgment. From Iraq to health care to her various nanny state ideas,
Clinton has a history of displaying poor judgment. She’s a
self-professed government junkie who doesn’t understand the limits
of government power as Obama does. It is also significant that
Clinton supporters see Obama’s speeches as “platitudes” rather than
principles. It is the easy abandonment of principles for political
expediency which characterizes the Clintons and is why it is time
for an end to the Bush/Clinton dynasty.
Barack
Obama: "John Edwards has spent a lifetime giving a
voice to the voiceless." 
