How many times can we go around and around on this until somebody jumps off the merry-go-round?

Hillary: I have experience, yo.
Obama: But, not judgment.
Hillary: It's not about words, but actions.
Obama: Like your vote to invade Iraq? That's an action.
Hillary: But, I have experience.
Obama: But not judgment...

You get the picture. It is an infinite loop.

They also made a short video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7DVHh1h3-0&feature=user

Just like to point out...

That in this October 10, 2002 floor speech stating her support for the resolution Hillary Clinton regurgitated the fraudulent Dick Cheney talking point that Saddam Hussein had links to Al Qaeda. Here’s the key quote from that speech…

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical
and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and
his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary
to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members”.

Keep in mind that, unlike the claim that Saddam Hussein still possessed stockpiles of WMD, which was widely accepted as fact (albeit erroneously) throughout intelligence community back in 2002, there was a lot of skepticism and outright disbelief about this alleged link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda EVEN THEN. Both the CIA and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) had reported and published information calling this claim into question prior to Hillary’s speech.

You can read more about it here...

http://100reasonsnottovoteforhillaryclinton.blogspot.com/2008/03/6-she-voted-in-favor-or-iraq-war.html

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Notice this from Chicago Tribune:

"Obama also said for the first time that his private real estate transactions with Rezko involved repeated lapses of judgment. The mistake, Obama said, was not simply that Rezko was under grand jury investigation at the time of their 2005 and 2006 dealings. "The mistake was he had been a contributor and somebody involved in politics," he said."

Ok, this man, Mr. Obama, is capable of repeated bad judgement. How do you know for sure he made the right judgement for speaking out against the war or just happened to be lucky.

You may argue - in terms of national securities, he will not make bad judgement. How? He has a lot of experience dealing with Rezko and still makes bad judgement. He made the judgement to stick with his pastor although he understands his racsit rhetoric. Those judgement calls are truly based on experience. This man has no experience in terms of national securities and you are so confident he will make right judgement call everytime he makes one? - I have a bridge to sell to you!

And again Obama mistates the reality:

Clinton merely authorized the president to be able to go to war if the inspections failed to be conclusive.

Obama on the other hand took a gamble (no other way to put it) that there were no WMDs in the face of the available information and voted to prevent the president for going to war.

That was both irresponsible and poor judgment. That he won a longshot bet is not evidence of good judgement just dumb luck.

Does America want their future in the hands of a longshot gambler? Voting for Obama is like playing the Lottery.

YES SIR! You be the man Senator Obama. Tell them all.

Huh, I thought for sure she voted for the "Authorization For the Use of Military Force Against Iraq". Must have left that last part (if the inspections failed to be conclusive) off.

When you have to spin to make an argument, you know you've lost the battle. She got it wrong. He got it right.

Let. It. Go.

you really should learn to spell judgment before you try to tell all of the great unwashed why Hillary is so good at using judgment.

MKyleM Said:

When is Obama going to realize he has no claim, at all, on judgment anymore?

After having the sense to disinvite Wright from his campaign annoucement/ceremony, he lacked that sense by giving him an official position on his campaign.Last I checked nobody died as a result of that decision.

The attempt by Hillary supporters to equate Rezko and Wright with the fucking war in Iraq is so beyond ridiculous that it doesn't even warrant a response.

She accused him of choosing SILENCE? Whuh?

She can accuse him of plenty of things but not silence. He gave a speech! Ergo, he was not silent.

What a looney thing to say.

Some light reading about Clinton and Iraq from the Grey Lady way back in June 2007.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE3DC1430F930A35755C0A9619C8B63&scp=2&sq=hillary%27s+war&st=nyt

What hyperRevue said.

I am so sick of the Clinton campaign. Every time I read their spin I get a sick feeling. Obama talks sense, he acts sensibly, he's got integrity, he's the leader we need in a time of crisis. Superdelegates, please keep coming on over, it's time to end this and move on to fighting McCain!

No Do-Overs

Video Mrs Clinton on Iraq

The Nation: Mrs. Clinton's Iraq Vote 5 Years Later http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080317/cm_thenation/15299575_1

Probably the biggest concession she made to Bush was accepting his argument that war was a legitimate response to the attacks on 9-11, which had occurred just one year earlier. Although she did not explicitly agree with Bush's statements linking al Qaeda to Iraq, she did say her vote was justified by "last year's terrible attacks," and that "in balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am."

Other Senators rejected precisely those arguments. Russ Feingold voted against the authorization to use force in part because of what he called "the President's singularly unpersuasive attempt . . . to interweave 9-11 and Iraq." He criticized the "shifting justifications for an invasion," noting "the spectacle of the President and senior Administration officials citing a purported connection to al Qaeda one day, weapons of mass destruction the next day, Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people on another day."

Ted Kennedy raised a key issue Clinton never considered: going to war against Iraq, he said, "will jeopardize the war against terrorism" - against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. "One year into the battle against Al Qaeda, the administration is shifting the focus, the resources and the energy to Iraq. The change in priority is coming before we have eliminated the threat from Al Qaeda."

While Clinton accepted Bush's claims regarding Saddam's possession weapons of mass destruction, others rejected them. Jim Jeffords, Republican of Vermont said, "There is much speculation about his weapons of mass destruction, but no evidence that he has developed nuclear capability and less that he could deliver it."

Here's the advert:

A Roulette wheel with all the slots saying "WMDs in Iraq" except for one that says "No WMDs". An Obama lookalike spins the wheel and in some ads he comes up a winner and jumps for joy. But in many ads he loses and the next visual is of Chemical Ali's gassed victims with the American flag ghosted over the image.

And the headline:
"Is this how America's foreign policy should be conducted? Sleep tight America, we'll play again tomorrow"

Hello, President McCain.

Was Obama correct to support the Trinity United Church and Reverend Wright for over 20 years? Obama's JUDGMENT is seriusly lacking. Obama as DEM nominee, McCain for POTUS.

quit your yapping, barack. then why oh why did you vote to fund the war from 2005-7?

Apparently she was for the Iraq War after she was for it, but recast it as a vote for diplomacy, but ultimately was against once and for all after she decided to run for president. Or something.

''We have no option but to stay involved and committed'' in Iraq, she said, calling her decision to authorize the President to invade Iraq ''the right vote,'' one ''I stand by.''

Has Hillary run one of the worst campaigns in history?

Your opponent is getting non-stop negative attacks on his pastor.
The fed is bailing out investors on the taxpayer dime.

How do you respond? By bringing up your weakest issue?

Seriously, this should piss all Hillary supporters off. She just gave Obama a free pass to enter the week on.

SCMadden,

Hillary isn't bringing up her weakness, she's attacking Obama's strength. Its a centuries old campaign strategy.

Also, she's pretty much kicking the sh*t out of him while he's down...or she's trying to anyway. We'll see if it works.

I guess I'm trying to say, as a Clinton supporter, I'm not pissed. She's doing what she needs to do: fight.

fogu2. Man, I love the new commenting system.

SCMadden,

I may be wrong, but I'd certainly put money on Obama losing in a blow out in Michigan. The demographics heavily favor Clinton.

I think you have underestimated the hits Obama has taken in the last several days. Wright is a terminal cancer on Obama's campaign and that is something I am not happy about.

You clearly have high regard, as do I, for Obama's initial opposition to the war. Unfortunately, "I told you so" is almost never a campaign winner. We are at war. The public in the general election will not have the attention span for rearguing the run-up. I think this will be especially true, given the fact that Obama repeatedly funded the war and didn't stop funding it until Clinton stopped. So, there really is a disconnect there that McCain will surely exploit and I think he will exploit it successfully.

As far as the argument over exit dates, I think Obama's credibility was turned to dust the minute that video clip of foreign policy adviser Power hit the net. His Condi Rice basically, as I'm sure you know, told a British journalist that Obama's promise of a 16-mo. total exit was essentially rubbish, thus collapsing in ridicule his attack on Clinton for providing no such promise.

Obama: sorry to tell you, politics as usual. Nothing special.

Ok, the ap is reporting that clinton said that we cannot win in iraq. That is a really dumb statement. I respectfully disagree and I hope obama doesn't say the same thing. If we make a political offensive and pull out, iraq will settle down and we will have won. The minute we leave, the place won't be a tinderbox of violence anymore. They hate us. It doesn't take rocket science to figure this one out. And she wants to be commander in chief and is ready from day one? What an idiot.

What Michigan polls? I'd be interested, but I haven't seen any.

Pucka,

Why so hostile? I don't get it. I think its great to have an edge, but, my god!

Why don't you just come back with an argument instead of senseless attacks?

Hi, Marginal Player, and others,

I am not youthful. I am white. I am a woman. I am for Obama. I don't find Reverend Wright's sermon particularly hateful - I find it angry, because I remember seeing "colored" and "white" restrooms, and I have been in the workplace during my growing-up years, and have seen who works in the mailroom and who has a "professional" job. I agree with Obama that things have changed enough to take the next step. But I was smart enough to know that there were not enough questions asked before we went into war. My father, a WWII hero, and someone who stayed long enough in the military to serve in Vietnam, said something like "Don't allow war except after every last alternative is explored. When you go into a war, there are many good people, but there are many people who are not good - who use war as a license to do terrible things. War always involves atrocities. War is a last resort." Even if Saddam had WMD, and even if he had been capable of a threat, there were other options available before we went to war. But Hillary authorized war. Hillary was wrong. Her judgment was wrong. And forgive her? She did it again with Kyl-Lieberman. I cannot forgive her.

I don't believe you are a white woman. I have heard of "black face" , but don't remember hearing of "white face" Oh my, I'm starting to sound like Sen B.O. "I was never aware of hearing
him say those things, which I find so offensive"
now that I"ve been caught out.

Hillary, what am I gonna do??

he voted to fund the war.

Neither Hillary nor Barack have great credibility on war-and-peace issues, although Hillary clearly is in the lead in having a bad record. Her vote to go to war (and that's exactly what it was, despite her obfuscations of the fact) was repulsively motivated by the perception that it was good for her career to support a popular war. It is to Obama's credit that he spoke against the war at that time, that is, when popular wisdom held that such a position might kill political ambitions, especially Presidential ambitions. In this Hillary was joined by many other Democrats who had political ambitions that they put above morally obvious decisions, including John Edwards. Edwards at least has acknowledged subsequently the error of his ways. Barack loses credibility by his repeated votes to continue funding the war and by his threatening words against Iran. Hillary, of course, goes Barack one further by voting to support Leiberman on implicitly backing war against Iran. Barack disappoints by calling Afghanistan "the good war" in distinction to Iraq's being "the bad war." What's good about attacking the Taliban? I'm not sure, as the Taliban never attacked NY or Washington and surely don't have the capacity to do so today, and Osama and his crew are long gone from Afghanistan. Further, the Afghan people are taking the brunt of this war, and they aren't responsible for much, having been the victim both of Soviet and American aggression. One is reminded of the time 100 years ago when Britain and Russia cynically played "the Great Game" over Afghanistan (and to a lesser extent, Persia). On balance, Barack's history is better than Hillary's on war-and-peace issues, but he sure hasn't been very good either. As to McCain, his enthusiasm for war is truly mad and he lacks either Hillary's or Barack's ability to sound negative about war. Truly, we have no good options in any of the three. I suppose Nader is the only one saying reasonable things about war-and-peace, although Barack has left enough wiggle room that one might be able to justify a vote for him. The only advantage in Barack in relation to Nader is that Barack still has a chance of winning the Presidency. The audacity of hope, indeed. Hillary and McCain are hopeless. At least Barack leaves some room for hope, even if that hope seems an unlikely bet.