Obama or Clinton

[Gunta]

All the Dems need to do now is run a disabled transvestite.

  I really with Dean would have run.

  Since the Dems barely managed to fill congress (with social conservative dems no less) I think they are going to need a better candidate than Clinton and Obama.

    Discuss the deficiency of the democrats, because it is flagrant to the point of absurdity    

[Raver]

Who have the Republicrooks got thats such a sure thing?

[Lise]

Can someone tell me where does Clinton and Obama stand with the war on Iraq? Do they support it or against it?  

[Sportsdude]

Clinton's never given a plan, she voted for the piece of legislation that made Bush able to attack Iraq. (The war is technically illegal, there never was an official bill).  All she says is that the war will be over by the next president.  She never has said that she made a mistake in basically voting for the war. (again its a long story the war is technically illegal because it never has been authorized by congress)

Obama's been against it ever since it started, he has a plan to move the troops out by '08 ish.
 

[Lise]

OIC. Hm. Where do they stand with this "impending war" with Iran? [FONT size=1](well, it's coming, no?)[/FONT] Sorry, am clueless when it comes to politics in general.

[Sportsdude]

Only people wanting war with Iran is neo cons.

Obama wants to put more troops to Afghanistan.  Same with Clinton.
 

[tenkani]

  Gunta, right on.
The dems are weak-kneed losers by nature.
They have been corrupted by big business just as the republicans have. Sure, the dems are SLIGHTLY less revolting, but they are basically republicans light, minus the killer instinct.

Obama is a bit of a wild card. His rhetoric sounds wonderful, as far as it goes. I in no way would call Obama a radical. If you want a radical then vote for Kucinich. And if Obama is a principled moderate, then Clinton is simply a moderate due to political triangulation, something her husband perfected. I don't believe Hillary truly stands for anything at all. She is just a political animal.

As for their stands on the war, I've heard different things, but it seems that both of them believe in a phased withdrawal over a vague timeframe and don't support any restriction of funding by congress. I thought Obama took a stand on a deadline but the last time I heard him speak it sounded much more vague. Talking about pulling out U.S. troops is not controversial. The Bush admin has done it afterall by saying we will pull them out gradually as we shift responsibility over to the Iraqi's! By calling for a withdrawal over an unspecified timeframe, you're basically pussing out and taking the "politically viable" position, because of course you don't want to undermine your troops or the Iraqi government by setting a deadline.

SD, if you heard Obama give an exact date then I applaud him for that. I hope he sticks by it.
 

[tenkani]

[span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"]Only people wanting war with Iran is neo cons.[/span]

Sort of. Apparently the media doesn't mind too much either generally speaking. It's insanity, but just as with Iraq War II the people who refuse to confront the growing propaganda in support of a war with Iran are going to have blood on their hands as well.

Exlosives that originally came from Iran were used to make roadside bombs, therefore Iran is attacking our troops. Sure, so when Muqtada Al Sadr's army massacres sunnis with American weapons (it's happening right now) it stands to reason that America is responsible for ethnic cleansing?

In this country we are so used to being hypocrites that we don't even notice it anymore.

The rules apply to our enemies but never to ourselves, and we don't recognize the ugly inconsistency because we aren't taught to think critically.
 

[Sportsdude]

 From Obama's website:

Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush's failed escalation policy. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.

Hillary doesn't have any ideas on her site





   

[tenkani]

[span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"]The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.[/span]

Good for him, except for the quote above. We can't provide security for the government and American forces as it is. And he wants to leave a "limited number" of troops behind? Why?? And imagine how shitty their lives are going to be. We can't put a dent in the civil war with 150,000 (roughly) troops so a reduced number will basically just sit there and watch the Iraqis slaughter each other from walled compounds.

So that plan would pretty much negate our ability to directly police Iraq by reducing troop levels, while giving the terrorists a double win:

1. If we pull out most of our troops they can rightfully claim a military victory.
2. Because some troops remain, they will serve as a rallying point. As long as "crusaders" remain in the middle east the struggle will not end.

So, on second thought, NOT good for him. That's a f*cking stupid idea that will put the U.S. troops that remain in the region in even greater danger than they are now and not achieve a damn thing!

They will remain to train the Iraqi military. Oh, you mean the same Iraqi military that is rounding up Sunni civilians and executing them? Do we really want these people to have more training??

 

[tenkani]

Kucinich.
He's the only one with a simple and undeniably effective method for resolving this conflict.
Cut off the funding. Bring the troops home now. Not a year from now. Not leaving a smaller force behind to f*ck things up even worse. Bring home ALL the troops NOW.

= = =

Kucinich Says Support The Troops - Bring'em Home Now![/p] U.S. Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich appeared on CNN clarifying his position to cut off funding to this insane war in order to bring the troops home NOW! Dennis says if you support the troops, then bring them home NOW! Dennis says if Democrats approve Bush's upcoming $160 billion war bill, Bush will keep the troops in Iraq till he leaves office - in other words, the ONLY WAY we can bring the troops home now is by cutting the funding to this war - just like the Vietnam War.[/p] Dennis says, remember, a vote for funding is a vote for more war and occupation.[/p] YouTube.Com Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ako3AZprdjY[/p] Kucinich Website: http://www.kucinich.us[/p]  

[Gunta]

The only way hilary will win is if the electoral college gets drunk and votes for her instead of a repub. The only way obama will win is if MTK resurrection himself, gives a giant speech on equality and then manipulates space time and puts all of us into the year 3000.

  PS, If the Repubs ran Ron Paul, they might have a chance. Even though he is a libertarian scumbag, he is competent and supports small and efficient government.

  Rice may have a chance simply because all the racists in America are more partisan than racist, and would probably vote for her simply because she is a Conservative

  Cheney, no dice, connected to Bushco.

  Giuliani, If Giuliani is elected, it would provide once again that Americans are more concerned with name sakes than actual candidates (Arnold and ventura).

  WTF won't Dean run BYAHHHHHHHHHHHH!?              

[tenkani]

Yeah, Dean seemed like the real deal.
Which is probably why the "liberal media" assassinated him.
 

[Orca]

Just between the two?

Rodham-Clinton in 2008.

Obama after, plenty of time.      

[Russ]

holy Gunta! you are negative ten on your smites.