to recognize the error of his ways. After the 04 elections he apologized for voting for the war, said it was the wrong thing to do, that the country was worse off for it.
Hillary doesn't think there as anything wrong with her vote for the war. Has repeatedly refused to apologize for it.
Even John Edwards has been honest enough to say he made a mistake when he voted for the AUMF. Hillary, not so much.
A woman or a black man couldn't get away with an apology for that vote. Actually, now that I think about, even white men didn't get away with it. Because I don't see Edwards or Kerry in the White House.
Maybe Hillary really believes that it was a vote to empower inspectors in Iraq. It's just that it was never ever a good idea to trust the chimp for even one second. But whatever. If I could vote for Kerry, I can vote for Hillary. In spite of their AUMF votes, neither of them would ever do what the chimp did.
I voted for Kerry because I didn't get the chance to vote for someone who made the right call on the war. I would have rather voted for Dean or Clark... but now you have the oppourtunity to support someone who made the right call, before this thing even started. Who spoke out against it, when it was difficult to do so. That's guts, character and leadership. I'm excited to vote for Barack Obama for president.
I can agree with the first part of your comment. I worked my ass off trying to get Clark some momentum. Also I really liked Dean.
Here's where I disagree with you - "but now you have the oppourtunity to support someone who made the right call" - getting chimpy out was job number one, and the Iraq invasion was the thing that could almost get it done. In 2008, things are quite different. Iraq is a mess, but it's not my most important issue. Why? Because the whole country knows by now that it was a mistake. Therefore I'm not excited by Obama. One policy stance is far from enough for me. While I liked that Dean and Clark knew that invading Iraq would wreak havoc, that alone wasn't enough for me even then. They had excellent stances on all sorts of other issues. Both had spent many years running large concerns - a military base, the state of Vermont. Both had excellent experience in an executive capacity.
Until the day of the caucus, I wasn't entirely sure which way I'd go. I didn't love any of them that much this time around, but in the end, I had to give Hillary credit for all she has done over the years.
I hope if you find your candidate doesn't make it through the primary, that our nominee can count on your enthusiastic support... just as I'm sure you supported Kerry.
My support for Kerry was pretty tepid. I tried, I really did, but I knew he would lose. In the end all I did was vote for him.
There is a big problem this year. It's called sexism. I am extremely appalled at the sexism that has resurfaced. No such thing happened in the Kerry campaign.
Obama will never get my enthusiastic support. Whether he will ever get my vote remains to be seen.
If you believe Senator Obama is responsible for the elements of sexism that have arisen during this campaign cycle... then there probably isn't much I can say to change your mind. I hope that after things cool down you take a moment to re-evaluate him as a candidate, and the choice that you face in the general... and then consider who would do more for women's right. The guy with a 100% rating from NARAL, or the pro-lifer that calls his wife a 'c--t'.
Yes, I do believe Obama has vaguely sexist tendencies. But I also acknowledge that all human beings have failings, along the lines of his grandmother making some cringe-worthy comments about race.
I've already evaluated him as a candidate and found him strongly lacking. That said, Dukakis wasn't ready to be president, either, but I voted for him.
As for women's rights, the people who can do more don't run for the presidency. The only person in this race who can make a difference is Hillary, and that is because she is female and would serve as a role model to girls who have been told that anyone can be president. They might finally believe it. Same for black children if Obama were there. We need a law supporting abortion rights, and that will come from the Congress. Otherwise we are held hostage to conservatives on the Supreme Court until the twelfth of never. NARAL isn't my bellwether; I believe they endorsed Lincoln Chafee and Joe Lieberman. Now, Linc and Lie-berman are pretty good Rethugs, but I wanted Lamont and Whitehouse.
Women's rights are a lot more than abortion rights (and I know you were merely using that as an example). At this point in my life, I have some limits and will no longer necessarily vote for someone who has pissed me off big-time. Obama himself blew past those a long while back.
I understand what you are saying because I have spent many hours trying to convince friends of mine to vote for Gore over Nader, or Kerry over whoever the Green Party candidate was that year. I may no longer be able to do a Dukakis. Kerry lost it for us in 2004 because of his hubris in thinking he had to be the nominee. Obama is pulling a Kerry in 2008. I'm tired of Rethug presidents, but you know, I haven't been able to stop it in decades and I can't now.
I'd like to see you provide some examples of vaguely sexist tendencies Obama has. I don't see them, but obviously you have so I'd appreciate your insight.
Also, you want protections for abortion right, but suggest you might not be able vote for the candidate that will provide that protection. I'm a little dumbstruck by this logic, so please help me out.
I want all rights for all people. I don't single out abortion rights necessarily. Chafee supports abortion rights but I would have voted for Whitehouse had I been a citizen of Rhode Island at the time. I hope that wasn't too dumb-founding for you. Congress and statehouses are more important in the abortion-rights battle, anyway.
There's not much point in me trying to point out examples of Obama's actions. His supporters will not see it the way I do and there will be blood (so to speak). Your tone is a tad insincere, unlike the person with whom I was conversing.
Well, you brought up abortion rights, so I was just following up. Actually, if the Supreme court bans abortion, states won't have any say, so I'd say that the fed plays a pretty hefty role.
I think you won't provide examples of Obama's alleged sexism, because there aren't any. Prove me wrong.
So it's reasonable that you used it as an example.
Here's where you are incorrect: The Supreme Court cannot ban abortion. That would be the equivalent of legislating, and the court doesn't have the right to legislate. The court can uphold or strike down laws, and it can use its interpretation of the constitution in so doing.
The Congress can make laws about abortion that are federal. The states can make laws that are statewide, but also, states are massively important in case of any attempt to make a constitutional ban on abortion. This is why it's important for Democrats to hold statehouses.
I won't provide examples of Obama's sexism because a bunch of you are just waiting to pounce (see below) and I'm not in the mood for it.
My point is that overturning Roe v. Wade with McCain appointed judges would be equivalent to a ban. With McCain in the WH, you can be sure that the blue dogs would roll over and give the GOP whatever legislation they want.
As seen in the case of the arcane federal drug laws, the fed and the courts have decided that federal law trumps that of the states, so so a federal ban on abortions would be the law of the land.
There will not be a federal ban anytime soon. Some blue dogs will roll over for McCain, I agree. In fact, many of them will roll over in November and that's going to help put McCain in the WH. I don't see that it can be stopped at this point. It would be hard for Hillary to beat McCain, and, I fear, impossible for Obama to do it.
anytime soon. Whether Hillary had won, or as it stands with Obama as the nominee, McCain has the albatross of Bush hanging nicely around his neck. New voters, pissed off conservatives and indies along with the reenergized Democratic base will carry us to the White House pretty easily this year.
But that you would vote against what you hold dear based on your personal dislike of the candidate is pretty sad.
Actually, when you accuse Obama of being sexist I think we all have a right to see some concrete examples.
Chirp. Chirp. Chirp.
You don't have the "right" to anything specific from me.
But then don't expect to have any credibility with us.
Don't worry, I wasn't expecting or wanting any.
Then why are you here?
Am I allowed to engage in politicial discussion on this site without having to seek the approval of Obama supporters or having to convince them of my credibility on their terms?
that isn't how a dialogue works.
Again I ask, if you are not looking for any common ground (in your words "on their terms") why are you here? Honest question.
It seems as if you are less interested in "politcal discussion" and more interested in political disagreement.
I'm finding PLENTY of common ground with Hillary supporters. Isn't this a Hillary diary anyway?
Those are different. Pro-Hillary diaries generally show up on progressive sites. Anti-Obama diaries generally show up at wingnut sites like RedState, Captain's Quarters, Ace of Spades, etc., though they've become quite popular at dead-ender haunts like No Quarter, Hillary is 44 and MyDD.
what are you doing here? Big Orange calls!
I just keep each open in a window, with a third currently open to DemConWatch to see the drip, drip in real time.
