CLINTON vs. OBAMA

[nowensone]

This may come as a surprise to you, but San Francisco gets world and national news, CNN, FOX, New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek and Time Magazines, etc. I (we) don't have to leave San Francisco to see the national opinion polls and the political climate in this country. I was in San Francisco when the midterm elections placed Nancy Pelosi in the speakership of the House - and barring unforseen circumstances - will be in San Francisco when Hillary is placed (back) in the White House.

True, the polarizing effect of HRC will make the race for the Democratic nomination rather close, but she would still edge Obama. In the presidential elections, as "hated" as Hillary migt be, enough people hate Bush and his "war" even more, to give her a shot at ending it. One does not have to be a Rhodes scholar (or even leave San Francisco) to know that a Democrat (as president) will expedite our troops' exodus out of hell...

[Panamaniac]

I don't follow your logic, enough people hating Bush and his war does not equate to a reason that Hillary would be elected, only that someone different than Bush would be elected. And as to a Democrat expediting our troops' exodus from hell, you are aware of HRC's track record around the Iraq war, right? Which further makes that conclusion a little illogical, the haters of Bush and his war would probably be better off voting Obama or someone other than HRC.

[monsoon]

^Panamanic, first warning. If you continue to make posts here that are completely in bold, you are going to lose your access to the coffee house. You might as well go ahead and tone down your signature too.

[Panamaniac]

Panamaniac, while I certainly appreciate your passion and zeal, and the fact that you've brought some lively conversation to the board, don't you think posting in boldface is a little, I don't know, bold?

While I agree with others who have said you need to get around to understand what folks are thinking nationally about different candidates, you cannot discount the amount of diversity a big city has. Even though San Francisco is known elsewhere as a very liberal city, it doesn't mean there are no conservatives and/or republicans in the Bay Area. While New England, where I grew up, has been pretty "blue" in the last few elections, it doesn't mean there aren't any conservatives or republicans there. In fact, one of them is running for president (Romney). Some of Boston's most popular columnists and talk radio personalities are the conservative ones.

[Panamaniac]

^Panamanic, first warning. If you continue to make posts here that are completely in bold, you are going to lose your access to the coffee house. You might as well go ahead and tone down your signature too.

[nowensone]

I know you're alluding to the fact that Hillary voted for the war. But that was based on the bogus information available at the time. But based on today's hindsight, it is generally accepted that it was a huge mistake. Given that fact, most sane people - regardless of party afiliation - would make every effort to get us the hell out of Iraq ASAP. The reason I cited Hillary as the one to do so is because I expect her to win her party's nomination and defeat the GOP candidate.

[atlrvr]

Being president would be a pretty simple job if they had the benefit of hindsight. I like to judge people based on their actions, and not saying what they would have done knowing what we know today. The simple truth is Clinton would have sent the US to war in Iraq...maybe they would have left sooner, but its much easier to criticize the decisions being made when you are 1 or 100 voting, then when you are 1 of 1.

[Gusterfell]

Being president would be a pretty simple job if they had the benefit of hindsight. I like to judge people based on their actions, and not saying what they would have done knowing what we know today. The simple truth is Clinton would have sent the US to war in Iraq...maybe they would have left sooner, but its much easier to criticize the decisions being made when you are 1 or 100 voting, then when you are 1 of 1.

[erdogs]

Clinton would not have gone to war with Iraq, becasue she would not have manufactured bogus intelligence to invent cause for such a war. Pay attention to what George Tenet is saying about the post-9/11 Bush administration.

Clinton has stated that if our troops are still in Iraq when she takes office, withdrawing them will be her first priority.

[Gusterfell]

Tenet never said the intelligence was manufactured. After all, he is the one who put it together. You need to stop repeating this lie.

[Charlotteman]

If folks are sick of the war, why would they support the most hawkish candidate on the Dem side???? Hard to imagine Hillary as a hawk, but compared to the rest of the Dem field, that's precisely what she comes across as.

Panamaniac we can't fault you for living in San Francisco. If I was wealthy, that is exactly where I would live. I live in Seattle, and us blue state people get too comfortable sometimes in our assumptions. The rest of the country is not like Seattle and San Francisco.....as much as we would like it to be.

There are lots of conservatives out there in the country. Lots of moderates out there. And they hate Hillary. In the South they don't just dislike her---they HATE HER. I can't stress this to you enough panamaniac. Hillary is NOT going to be the next president, even if she carries 90% of the vote in San Francisco and Seattle.

[Gusterfell]

If folks are sick of the war, why would they support the most hawkish candidate on the Dem side???? Hard to imagine Hillary as a hawk, but compared to the rest of the Dem field, that's precisely what she comes across as.

[Charlotteman]

When I lived in Florida, mainstream moderates disliked her. Not as vehemently as conservatives, but still a marked discomfort with her.

This is gonna be a bold statement, but I think if Bush was allowed to run for a third term, and Hillary was the Dem nominee, Bush would win a razor thin victory. That's how much chance I think Hillary has in 2008. Even as hated as GWB is, when the chips are down I would think Hillary is distrusted even more.

[erdogs]

He has said he told Bush personally that the intelligence was wrong well before Bush used it to build a case for the war. He insisted that the "uranium from Africa" claim be stricken from two prior presidential speeches before Bush used it in his State of the Union. He has seconded Richard Clarke's claim that Bush and Cheney were insisting as early as 9/12 that a link between 9/11 and Iraq be established . Making a case for war based on claims and assertions you know are untrue is manufacturing intelligence. End of story.

[Gusterfell]

An excerpt from this interview with CBS correspondant Scott Pelley. It includes a statement that the administration wanted a link to Iraq the day after 9/11. It includes Bush making up scenarios in which a link exists, despite the complete lack of evidence. It includes Cheney manufacturing intelligence on Iraqi nukes, and I bolded the quote you asked for on the uranium statement. Bush knew it was untrue when he made the claim. If that isn't a lie, what would you call it?

The truth of Iraq begins, according to Tenet, the day after the attack of Sept. 11, when he ran into Pentagon advisor Richard Perle at the White House.

"He said to me, 'Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday, they bear responsibility.' It's September the 12th. I've got the manifest with me that tell me al Qaeda did this. Nothing in my head that says there is any Iraqi involvement in this in any way shape or form and I remember thinking to myself, as I'm about to go brief the president, 'What the hell is he talking about?'" Tenet remembers.

[snip]

"The president, in October of 2002, quote: 'We need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work.' Is that what you're telling the president?" Pelley asks.

"Well, we didn't believe al Qaeda was gonna do Saddam Hussein's dirty work," Tenet says.

"January '03, the president again, [said] quote: 'Imagine those 19 hijackers this time armed by Saddam Hussein.' Is that what you're telling the president?" Pelley asks.

"No," Tenet says.

The vice president upped the ante, claiming Saddam had nuclear weapons, when the CIA was saying he didn't.

"What's happening here?" Pelley asks.

"Well, I don't know what's happening here," Tenet says. "The intelligence community's judgment is 'He will not have a nuclear weapon until the year 2007, 2009.'"

"That's not what the vice president's saying," Pelley remarks.

"Well, I can't explain it," Tenet says.

Tenet says he sometimes warned the White House its statements were false, but he admits that he missed a big one in the 2003 State of the Union address, when the president said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The CIA had knocked down that uranium claim months before. The agency even demanded it be taken out of two previous presidential speeches. How did it get through the third time?

[erdogs]

Sorry about going off topic metro.

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_to...m?doc_id=230707

The British government has said repeatedly it stands by intelligence it gathered and used in its controversial September 2002 dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes. It still claims that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger.

[nowensone]

This is gonna be a bold statement, but I think if Bush was allowed to run for a third term, and Hillary was the Dem nominee, Bush would win a razor thin victory. That's how much chance I think Hillary has in 2008. Even as hated as GWB is, when the chips are down I would think Hillary is distrusted even more.

[Panamaniac]

...And, I will give consideration to a certain GOP candidate as well though I am still waiting to learn more on that person.

[nowensone]

^ Wow. No, not McCain. I prefer not to reveal my opinions before they are fully formed, though you could probably guess based on posts in a couple of other politically themed threads here.

[erdogs]

^ Wow. No, not McCain. I prefer not to reveal my opinions before they are fully formed, though you could probably guess based on posts in a couple of other politically themed threads here.

[monsoon]

Fred Thompson?

[JDC]

When I lived in Florida, mainstream moderates disliked her. Not as vehemently as conservatives, but still a marked discomfort with her.

This is gonna be a bold statement, but I think if Bush was allowed to run for a third term, and Hillary was the Dem nominee, Bush would win a razor thin victory. That's how much chance I think Hillary has in 2008. Even as hated as GWB is, when the chips are down I would think Hillary is distrusted even more.

[nowensone]

^ I also like his inexperience, but he is quickly becoming seasoned - the HRC rivalry is going to age him by the time everything is said and done. And frankly, her handling of the rivalry does not speak too well of her IMO, I suppose that could just be bias though. What I am more interested in is what we keep hearing about lately, by seemingly everyone

[kayman]

Did anyone catch Obama's interview Tuesday with Meredith Viera on the Today show? I heard that he announced his universal healthcare plan as part of his presidential campaign.

[michaelskis]

Did anyone catch Obama's interview Tuesday with Meredith Viera on the Today show? I heard that he announced his universal healthcare plan as part of his presidential campaign.