Comments on: Fiery Clinton Fields Tough Questions at Campaign Rally

[stirg]

You were either not paying attention at the time that vote was made or are choosing to ignore the facts: That vote was an authorization to use force against saddam H. if he did not allow the inspectors to go back in-it was meant to be used as a Big Stick to put pressure on him- not as a vote to go to war, and Hillary clinton after that vote spoke on tape admonishing Mr Bush to use it wisely and for the pupose it was intended...It is on record.so your words are a fabrication, and your recollation of it is faulty, facts can''''t be what you decide they are-its in the public record-and yes, i am against the war, and was against going to war-but that was bushs decision-there was never a vote to go to war...and Hillary does a magnificent job of putting it into perspective..Whats Obamas answer why he has voted to go along with funding the war? Is he not TRULY a man of principle---or just a politician?

[citizen691]

%u201CI made a considered judgment, I didn%u2019t make a speech, I made a decision and it was a decision based on my best assessment on what would be in the interest of our country at that very uncertain time.%u201D

Yeah, that''s right, Hillary: "a considered judgement". It is this judgement (ie: let''s invade Iraq) that the public no longer trusts. I''m not sure what you call this linguistic trick (Non-Sequitar? Noam, Help?), but HIllary is simply stating that she earlier made a statement, and then repeats that same statement, somehow implying that by doing all of the above, her original decision and it''s disastrous consequences are therefore vindicated. What a WONK! She truly doesn''t seem to realize that we are not interested in the chronology of how and when she said what she said. We are interested in the SUBSTANCE of WHAT she said. And she''s basically saying nothing to explain and justify her poor judgement.

Clintons, make way for a new paradigm of reason and peace.

[seanwhit]

see the abc news story regarding the above "mis-statement," she is lying again.

[tristero-2009]

many obama supporters also choose to ignore that she voted to put limits on the president''s authority in iraq and deauthorize the war in ''02 (a bold thing to do in washington at the time) and ''07 or that in her speech at the time of the vote she explicitly says multiple times "this is not a vote to go to war."

[citizen691]

%u201CI made a considered judgment, I didn%u2019t make a speech, I made a decision and it was a decision based on my best assessment on what would be in the interest of our country at that very uncertain time.%u201D

Yeah, that''s right, Hillary: "a considered judgement". It is this judgement (ie: let''s invade Iraq) that the public no longer trusts. I''m not sure what you call this linguistic trick (Non-Sequitar? Noam, Help?), but HIllary is simply stating that she earlier made a statement, and then repeats that same statement, somehow implying that by doing all of the above, her original decision and it''s disastrous consequences are therefore vindicated. What a WONK! She truly doesn''t seem to realize that we are not interested in the chronology of how and when she said what she said. We are interested in the SUBSTANCE of WHAT she said. And she''s basically saying nothing to explain and justify her poor judgement.

Clintons, make way for a new paradigm of reason and peace.

[citizen691]

%u201CI made a considered judgment, I didn%u2019t make a speech, I made a decision and it was a decision based on my best assessment on what would be in the interest of our country at that very uncertain time.%u201D

Yeah, that''s right, Hillary: "a considered judgement". It is this judgement (ie: let''s invade Iraq) that the public no longer trusts. I''m not sure what you call this linguistic trick (Non-Sequitar? Noam, Help?), but HIllary is simply stating that she earlier made a statement, and then repeats that same statement, somehow implying that by doing all of the above, her original decision and it''s disastrous consequences are therefore vindicated. What a WONK! She truly doesn''t seem to realize that we are not interested in the chronology of how and when she said what she said. We are interested in the SUBSTANCE of WHAT she said. And she''s basically saying nothing to explain and justify her poor judgement.

Clintons, make way for a new paradigm of reason and peace.

[whoisobama]

in 2002, dissatisfaction with President Bush and Republicans on the national and local levels led to a Democratic sweep of nearly every lever of Illinois state government. For the first time in 26 years, Illinois Democrats controlled the governor%u2019s office as well as both legislative chambers.

The white, race-baiting, hard-right Republican Illinois Senate Majority Leader James %u201CPate%u201D Philip was replaced by Emil Jones Jr., a gravel-voiced, dark-skinned African-American known for chain-smoking cigarettes on the Senate floor.

Jones had served in the Illinois Legislature for three decades. He represented a district on the Chicago South Side not far from Obama%u2019s. He became Obama%u2019s kingmaker.

Several months before Obama announced his U.S. Senate bid, Jones called his old friend Cliff Kelley, a former Chicago alderman who now hosts the city%u2019s most popular black call-in radio -program.

I called Kelley last week and he recollected the private conversation as follows:

%u201CHe said, %u2018Cliff, I%u2019m gonna make me a U.S. Senator.%u2019%u201D

%u201COh, you are? Who might that be?%u201D

%u201CBarack Obama.%u201D

Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.

[citizen691]

%u201CI made a considered judgment, I didn%u2019t make a speech, I made a decision and it was a decision based on my best assessment on what would be in the interest of our country at that very uncertain time.%u201D

Yeah, that''s right, Hillary: "a considered judgement". It is this judgement (ie: let''s invade Iraq) that the public no longer trusts. I''m not sure what you call this linguistic trick (Non-Sequitar? Noam, Help?), but HIllary is simply stating that she earlier made a statement, and then repeats that same statement, somehow implying that by doing all of the above, her original decision and it''s disastrous consequences are therefore vindicated. What a WONK! She truly doesn''t seem to realize that we are not interested in the chronology of how and when she said what she said. We are interested in the SUBSTANCE of WHAT she said. And she''s basically saying nothing to explain and justify her poor judgement.

Clintons, make way for a new paradigm of reason and peace.

[whoisobama]

In March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman %u201Chis mentor%u201D and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called %u201CBush%u2019s closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War.%u201D Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?

[tristero-2009]

it''s good to see that some people actually know what the resolution (not the "vote to go to war") was for. obama has consistently spun this for his advantage, harming many in his own party who also voted for the resolution.

all he did is make one speech against the war at a protest in a liberal district (i.e. it was politically advantageous for him to be against the war) and if you''re truly opposed to something you do more than make a single speech and forget about it. he did not even attend the rally in washington or any number of the protests that went on in nyc. he did not start a petition or write articles against the war or even organize protests in his district. i was in high school at the time of that vote and had 16 year old friends who did more to oppose the war then he did.