If Joe Lieberman said the same thing Hillary did about the surge...

[ButterflyBlood]

Would anyone here defend his comments? Of course not.

What I've been saying all along, all Hillary is is Lieberman without a Y chromosome, and people need to realize that. She sounds like Lieberman all the time, also refusing to say that voting for the IWR was wrong. What's the difference?

[Richard Steele]

1. Hoo boy...

:popcorn:

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. The difference is...

She has not yet stabbed the party in the back. Before the 2006 Democratic Primary in Connecticutt, Lieberman was given a free pass as well.

[ButterflyBlood]

4. No he wasn't

That's why he got a primary challenge in the first place, and was ripped to shreds here on the forum constantly.

[rinsd]

9. You really wanna go down this road?

Because Obama's support of Joe-mentum in that fight was not exactly well received.

[sandnsea]

13. Yes, he's respectful of a range of views

That is completely different than being unwilling to make a clear stand on issues and line out policies that more accurately represent the core of the Democratic Party.

[rinsd]

15. chuckle.

I have argued that Obama barely lifted a finger for Lieberman in the Lamont fight(a speech before Lamont was even on the radar and a few grand for Lieberman vs. about the same amount of dough and a mass email for Lamont) though many DUers were very upset with him.

You're touting that friendship as something to be proud of.

[sandnsea]

11. Oh man, she's been handing him the knives

Why do you guys refuse to accept the Clintons lead the party? Bill was at the DLC covention, Hillary is on the Leadership Committee. They have repeatedly stabbed the party in the back. On the yellowcake, "stay the course", no timeline, Iran, nuclear weapons, all sorts of things. They are the problem.

[rinsd]

3. Who was Obama's mentor again?

[wyldwolf]

5. I'll take CT senators for 1000, Alex!

[wyldwolf]

6. self delete

[wyldwolf]

7. ButterflyBlood, would you like to lay out Hillary's and Obama's records side by side...

..and see how alike they are?

[peacetalksforall]

8. I have my own graph with each piece of news about her. It's headed down.

And no up blips of significance.

[terisan]

10. Please provide direct quote of Clinton regarding "surge." If you are referring

instead to what she said regarding new tactics in al Anbar, please let me know. The Surge is a military strategy and is not the same as the new tactics being tried in al Anbar.

I think you may be spreading misinformation.

Additional note: She has 2 complete X chromosomes, Lieberman has one complete X chromosomes, and i incomplete X chromosome.

The difference is she is saying it is too late for new tactics to work throughout Iraq.

[DURHAM D]

12. Hello Blood -

I know you don't want inconvenient facts but here you go anyway:

(1) Hillary spoke only of Al Anbar. She said new tactics (changes prior to the surge) were working in that province (Al Anbar) but it was too little too late.

(2) Fact - the "surge" did not include activity in Al Anbar.

Therefore, she did not not say the surge was working.

I know that Hillary haters, the WH and Drudge have set it up differently but they are liars. What do you call someone who keeps repeating a lie?

[killbotfactory]

14. Al Anbar isn't part of the "surge"?

Even though it is being touted as an example that the surge is working by republicans?

Are you guys kidding?

[Skip Intro]

16. "Obama, Clinton Both Cite Iraq Progress, Say It's Not Enough" WP Headline

In the last two days, Democratic front-runners Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both laid out a surprising position for a pair of Senators who vocally opposed a troop surge in Iraq earlier this year: they've said that, at least in some ways, it's working.

Clinton, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in Kansas City yesterday, said "we've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it's working."

Asked about his rival's comments, Obama, in a conference call with reporters today said "I didn't see the actual transcript of Senator Clinton's speech, but my assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our troops into Baghdad, that's going to quell some of the violence in the short term. I don't think there's any doubt that as long as U.S. troops are present that they are going to be doing outstanding work."

At the same time -- and ahead of the much-anticipated September report of General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq on progress there -- both candidates signaled that no matter what Petraeus says, they are not going to support allowing additional time for the surge to work. Clinton said "we're just years too late changing out tactics," while Obama argued "it doesn't change the underlying assessment that there's not a military solution to the situation in Iraq. The underlying political dynamic has not changed."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/21/obama_clinton_both_cite_iraq_p.html

[sandnsea]

17. Yes, the media twists and spins

any direction the Washington leadership, read DLC Clintons, tells it to. Obama did not cite Iraq progress or say anything was "working"; and specifically said there could be no military solution. But that doesn't fit with the DLC narrative so it doesn't get reported that way. The only time the narrative changes is when the DLC Clintonians tell the media to change it, when they think it will hurt an opponent. Yes, they do have that much power. The question becomes why haven't they used it against Bush for the last 6 years.