Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

National Security - McCain/Clinton - Clinton loses ---McCain/Obama - Obama Wins

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:26 PM
Original message
National Security - McCain/Clinton - Clinton loses ---McCain/Obama - Obama Wins
Edited on Tue Jan-29-08 11:32 PM by FrenchieCat
I am looking at issue by issue, who wins.

First Issue - McCain's forte; National Security, i.e., Iraq War, etc.

McCain’s position:
I’m am a big time War Hero. We were right to go into Iraq. Saddam gone is good. I know what to do to win this war. I wanted to send more troops at the beginning, and I urged for the surge when most were against it. I stood on my principles, and I was right. I want to leave Iraq, but we can leave victorious. It’s important to stay, because if not, there will be genocide, and Al Qaeda will be left to rule Iraq, and turn it into a terrorist state.

Clinton’s position:
Cannot argue about how we got into this war. She has said that she wanted Saddam gone and that he being gone was good. She is forced to move on to how the war was fought. She had a lot of problems with Rumsfeld and how the war was conducted. She will only be in agreement with McCain, cause he thinks that the war wasn’t fought correctly either. Hillary was against the surge, and if the surge is still being portrayed as having been successful, Hillary loses points on a technicality, and it weakens the rest of her argument to get us out of Iraq. McCain will look "resolute" next to her when judged by Repugs, Indies, moderates, and yes the Democrats who are also concerned about National Security.

McCain wins the Iraq War debate, even though most people want out..

Obama’s Position:
Obama argues forcefully that the War should never have been fought or authorized. That as much experience McCain is supposed to have with war, he voted for the debacle that cost trillions and killed hundreds of thousands, while the public marched against it. He demonstrates that the war was based on lies, and there were no WMD. That he, Obama, called it for what it was; a Dumb war, and those who supported it who should have known better. He speaks to his strength of having stood against the conventional tide and he is the Maverick, instead of those who appeased the President's decision for an elective war, something unheard of. He stressed that there were no links between 9/11 and Iraq, but that McCain acted as though there were. He then slides into the fact that our economy is now into a recession because we are being held hostage by the Chinese and other countries we have to borrow money from because of our forced expenditure in Iraq. And so, apart from everything else, Obama’s Iraq War opposition provides backbone to go into the economic issues that progressives want. McCain can talk about Governmental pork....but Obama can point out that the war is the biggest porker. Obama shows without going any further that he has superior judgment on national security decisions. Brings up McCain's statement of being in Iraq for 100 years.

Obama can then move on with the upper hand on how to get out of Iraq. His argument will carry more credibility than McCain’s ...and his argument gets us out of Iraq.

Obama wins the Iraq War debate, and plus we get to get out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. According to you?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. That's how you debate?
That's sorry!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Debate with "Open your eyes & see the TRUTH"?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #11
33. You really aren't good for much, are you........
other than comic relief!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debatepro Donating Member (683 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. At least s/he makes an argument
This just goes to show that at least a good chunk of the Obama haters on this board aren't interested in dialog, discussion, analysis, and arguments with Claims data and warrants.

Go ahead and keep it up... this is why your candidate will lose this election!!!

Congrats!

Great post... we need another rethug v. a flip-flopper narrative like we need a shot in the head..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Thank you for that unbiased assessment.
Why even bother anymore?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. You have a Kucinich Avatar. But why don't you make Hillary's argument for her.....
Why don't ya. I'm ready.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud2BAmurkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. Obama wins on national secuirty? No way in hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. I suspect that it will be Clinton/Clark.
The Surge has worked on a temp basis & the Iraqi Govt is still not functional. Will this Surge
still be considered a success six months from now? If Iraq falls further apart McLame will not seem
to be so correct after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. You don't know if it will be Clark. You cannot predict how the surge will continue to be spinned..
and again, you make my point; Hillary is not Clark, and only how the war is being fought can be argued by Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
34. Clinton's strategy is the same as Kerry's. It didn't work then and it won't work now.
"I'm tough too, but smarter" doesn't resonate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ErnestoG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
4. Excellent post.
Fleshes out nicely how Obama has the advantage here, and how Clinton - too closely tied to defense industry, and seemingly UNABLE to apologize for her IWR vote, is nothing but a liability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ErnestoG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
5. whoops, dupe
Edited on Tue Jan-29-08 11:33 PM by ErnestoG
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
7. If you're going to vote for a hawk, vote for the real one.
If you're going to vote for a republican, vote for a real one.

It's the old republican-lite argument. And you're absolutely correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
10. McCain wants us in Iraq for 100 years. He's NOT going to win against Hillary when Wes Clark is her
adviser. It's just not going to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ErnestoG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Care to think that one out again?
Rethug strategists will pose this:

Clinton was duped by bad intel, and then once it was demonstrated to be so, didn't have the character to admit she screwed up. Who wants that sort of character at the helm of this nation's armed forces?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #10
23. So Hillary can win again based on another man's career?
When does it end? :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. No. She will win from his ADVICE. From our own Tom Rinaldo:

<snip>
Right now this nation may be one major domestic terrorist attack away from ushering in a Rudy Giuliani presidency. Of course that attack may never happen, no matter how often the Department of Homeland Security fiddles with the color codes or issues terror attack advisories, but then again it just might. Lord knows the Bush Administration has been very busy over the last six years increasing America’s enemies and reducing America’s friends. There also is that unresolved matter of pending war with Iran, which George Bush is free to initiate at any time under his own authority, given that the current Democratic Congress is so loath to be seen tying the President’s hands in advance on that one. The Democratic Party’s two preferred strategies for dealing with the Republican Party’s current brand name advantage on National Security (with a partial exception for the war in Iraq hereby granted) is to focus their energies elsewhere or essentially mimic Republicans. Neither is a winning strategy if new security concerns come to capture the public’s attention in 2008.

And this is where General Wesley Clark has been offering the Democrats a way out of the current rigged box. Wes Clark offers Option C: Become the political party that effectively promotes America’s security. The answer is so simple as to be audacious; stop side stepping the challenge, and stop pretending to be something Democrats are not. Embrace the differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party on National Security and show the public that our way will keep them both safer and more prosperous; safer because America will have fewer enemies in the world, more prosperous because our treasury will not continually be drained by endless wars to the advantage of select war profiteers.

Rearranging the identities pegged to the brand names of the Democratic and Republican Parties concerning national security won’t be accomplished simply by hiring better PR firms to design more effective ad campaigns. Symbolism is part of it but it must be backed by substance. People are funny when it comes to matters of life and death; they take it seriously. General Clark has helped provide a historic opening to the National Democratic Party, a chance to redefine itself in the eyes of a critical swing slice of the public after 30 years of Republican battering in the wake of the Viet Nam War. Clark laid his four stars on the table for the Democrats, which in itself conveys important symbolism, but in Clark’s case he consistently backed that symbolism up with very real and ongoing substance.

Wes Clark is not a photo op politician; the uniform of his decades of service is never offered up by him as a political prop. Since entering politics in 2003, General Clark has been in constant meaningful dialogue with the American people regarding matters of national security. His PAC website is called “SecuringAmerica.com” and a quick browse of it offers a more meaningful overview of the challenges facing America in the 21st century than a typical Graduate level class in international relations. In redefining and then explaining the basic elements needed to guarantee America’s ongoing security in the coming decades, Wes Clark paints a very different picture than the one being sold by Republicans, and unlike some Democrat’s mimicry, Clark offers the depth found only in legitimate three dimensional vision. Look no further than Iran to see that difference. <snip>

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13064
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Hillary Clinton is no Wes Clark....and Clark can "advise" Nominee Obama
for that matter.

Again, you are arguing how to fight the war.....and skipping over the important part. The part that makes McCain look inept and no better than Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BenDavid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
13. well hell, that is so far out there it is silly.....All mccain will tell
obama is you can stand there and howl at the moon for you being against the war in Iraq....Your problem Senator Obama is you have to play the cards that were dealt you, and not this old tired "I was against the war in 2002" That does nothing to help solve the problem with our troops in Iraq.....McCain will cut the knees out from obama....

going to be hard for mccain to do this to Senator clinton.....and now ain't ya glad she did not apologize for that vote? uh huh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
R_M Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Obama can be cut at the knees very easily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. You haven't provided enough of a case to make that statement.
It's like saying, it is because it is. Doesn't cut it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. The war has been going on 5 years, because it was started.....
If you think that OBama is going to let go of this, while this old fart that supported the war yammers on, you are wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #13
30. Obama offers up a New face of America to the world....and in fact,
just electing him will change how our enemies view us. They will see it as a fresh start with one who isn't mired in the old conventional thinking of American Might at all cost means that we should bully to get where we want to go.

Obama has worked long hours on non-prolification issues.

Obama at the helm sends a signal that we are ready to do business differently throughout the world.

Also, Clark might just be Obama's Veep choice. It's not like Clark is going to say no if asked, once HIllary loses the nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlackVelvet04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. and you have knowledge of what our enemies will think....
how?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Cause I"m not stupid, I read. You should try it sometimes.....
If you read a couple of Obama's 20 California Newspaper endorsements, you'd realize that this is what is being said everywhere!



The Early Word: Obama’s Foreign Policy Nod
By Ariel Alexovich

Congressman William Delahunt of Massachusetts, a leading Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is set to endorse Barack Obama today. He told the Boston Globe he was impressed with Mr. Obama’s willingness to talk with America’s enemies and with his original opposition to the Iraq war.
“If Barack Obama is elected president, I daresay America will present a new face to the world, will restore, simply by his election, hope - not just within the United States, but from all corners of the world, that America’s claim to moral authority is back on track and that our leadership in world affairs will see a renaissance,” Delahunt told the Globe.

Delahunt’s endorsement - Obama’s first from the Massachusetts congressional delegation - will be made as Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton of New York spar about their respective foreign policy credentials. Clinton has argued that her experiences during her husband’s presidency, including extensive international travel, make her the better candidate to deal with foreign leaders and potential terrorist threats.

But Delahunt, declining to criticize Clinton by name, dismissed that notion. “Please do not equate experience with judgment. That’s what this is about,” Delahunt said. Voters should not “confuse experience with time in Washington,” he said, noting that John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton all had limited direct foreign policy experience before taking office.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/the-early-word-obamas-foreign-policy-nod/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlackVelvet04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #32
38. So you were basically parroting someone else's opinion?
That's isn't very factual, it's just an opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 03:36 AM
Response to Reply #38
41. No, please know that I always come up with my own opinion......
it's just good that I'm able to find a great many people with the same one that I have. It means that there is indicators that allows us to come to the same conclusions. Doh! :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
agdlp Donating Member (363 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
18. Obama 9 absent Sentate Votes on National Security
And the pattern is..absent vote on general election issues: Immigration /Iraq

10/16/2007 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008 NV
10/03/2007 Border Fence and Customs Appropriations NV
09/26/2007 Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding Federalism in Iraq NV
09/26/2007 Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps NV
07/26/2007 Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act NV
07/26/2007 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations NV
07/26/2007 Border Fence and Customs Appropriations NV
07/26/2007 REAL ID Funding NV
07/19/2007 Sense of the Senate on Guantanamo Bay Detainees NV
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. If you think that Wins McCain the IRaq argument, you are wrong.
Even our troops want out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
agdlp Donating Member (363 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. Obama flip-flopping on Cuba: 2004 supporting normalization - December 2007 against normalization
a 2004 questionnaire, Sen. Obama supported normalization of relations with Cuba:

http://www.iviipo.org/2004queries_primary/Obama-respons...

Q: "Do you support normalization of relations with Cuba?" Obama: "Our longstanding policies toward Cuba have been a miserable failure, evidenced by the fact that Fidel Castro is now the longest-serving head of state in the world. If our isolationist policies were meant to weaken him, they certainly haven’t worked. I believe that normalization of relations with Cuba would help the oppressed and poverty-stricken Cuban people while setting the stage for a more democratic government once Castro inevitably leaves the scene."

But in a December debate, Sen. Obama revealed that he now opposes the normalization of relations with Cuba:

MODERATOR: Normalize relations, whether or not Fidel Castro isn't... OBAMA: No, but there are two things we can do right now to prepare for that and that is loosen travel restrictions for family members, Cuban-Americans who want to visit, and open up remittances so that they are able to support family members, many of them who are fighting for their liberty in right now. MODERATOR: But for now...OBAMA: I would not normalize relations, but those two things, those two shifts in policy would send a signal that we can build on once Castro's out of power."

http://www.hd.net/brownandblack.html
---------------


Our main goal: Freedom in Cuba
Aug. 21, 2007

By BARACK OBAMA

When my father was a young man living in Kenya, the freedom and opportunity
of the United States exerted such a powerful draw that he moved halfway
around the world to pursue his dreams here. My father’s story is not unique.
The same has been true for tens of millions of people, from every continent
– including for the many Cubans who have come and made their lives here
since the start of Fidel Castro’s dictatorship almost 50 years ago.

It is a tragedy that, just 90 miles from our shores, there exists a society
where such freedom and opportunity are kept out of reach by a government
that clings to discredited ideology and authoritarian control. A democratic
opening in Cuba is, and should be, the foremost objective of our policy. We
need a clear strategy to achieve it — one that takes some limited steps now
to spread the message of freedom on the island, but preserves our ability to
bargain on behalf of democracy with a post-Fidel government.

The primary means we have of encouraging positive change in Cuba today is to
help the Cuban people become less dependent on the Castro regime in
fundamental ways. U.S. policy must be built around empowering the Cuban
people, who ultimately hold the destiny of Cuba in their hands. The United
States has a critical interest in seeing Cuba join the roster of stable and
economically vibrant democracies in the Western Hemisphere. Such a
development would bring us important security and economic benefits, and it
would allow for new cooperation on migration, counter-narcotics and other
issues.

Advance political reform

These interests, and our support for the aspirations of the Cuban people,
are ill served by the further entrenchment of the Castro regime, which is
why we need to advance peaceful political and economic reform on the island.
Castro’s ill health and the potentially tumultuous changes looming ahead
make the matter all the more urgent.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has made grand gestures to that end
while strategically blundering when it comes to actually advancing the cause
of freedom and democracy in Cuba. This is particularly true of the
administration’s decision to restrict the ability of Cuban Americans to
visit and send money to their relatives in Cuba. This is both a humanitarian
and a strategic issue. That decision has not only had a profoundly negative
impact on the welfare of the Cuban people. It has also made them more
dependent on the Castro regime and isolated them from the transformative
message carried there by Cuban Americans.

In the ”Cuban spring” of the late 1990s and early years of this decade,
dissidents and human-rights activists had more political space than at any
time since the beginning of Castro’s rule, and Cuban society experienced a
small opening in advancing the cause of freedom for the Cuban people.

U.S. policies — especially the fact that Cuban Americans were allowed to
maintain and deepen ties with family on the island — were a key cause of
that ”Cuban spring.” Although cut off by the Castro regime’s deplorable
March 2003 jailing of 75 of Cuba’s most prominent and courageous dissidents,
the opening underscored what is possible with a sensible strategic approach.

We in the United States should do what we can to bring about another such
opening, taking certain steps now-and pledging to take additional steps as
temporary openings are solidified into lasting change.

Cuban-American connections to family in Cuba are not only a basic right in
humanitarian terms, but also our best tool for helping to foster the
beginnings of grass-roots democracy on the island. Accordingly, I will grant
Cuban Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to
the island.

But as we reach out in some ways now, it makes strategic sense to hold on to
important inducements we can use in dealing with a post-Fidel government,
for it is an unfortunate fact that his departure by no means guarantees the
arrival of freedom on the island.

Bilateral talks

Accordingly, I will use aggressive and principled diplomacy to send an
important message: If a post-Fidel government begins opening Cuba to
democratic change, the United States (the president working with Congress)
is prepared to take steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo that
has governed relations between our countries for the last five decades. That
message coming from my administration in bilateral talks would be the best
means of promoting Cuban freedom. To refuse to do so would substitute
posturing for serious policy — and we have seen too much of that in other
areas over the past six years.

We must not lose sight of our fundamental goal: freedom in Cuba. At the same
time, we should be pragmatic in our approach and clear-sighted about the
effects of our policies. We all know the power of the freedom and
opportunity that America at its best has both embodied and advanced. If
deployed wisely, those ideals will have as transformative effect on Cubans
today as they did on my father more than 50 years ago.

2007 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miamiherald.com

------------------------

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,165537...

Conventional political wisdom in the bellwether state of Florida has always focused on Cuban-Americans, especially those influential exiles who take a hard line against any U.S. engagement with Fidel Castro's Cuba. Cross them, says the presidential candidate handbook, and say adios to the Sunshine State's 27 electoral votes.

So why would Barack Obama — who is scraping to keep up with Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination — ignore that seemingly golden rule? Why, in a Tuesday op-ed piece in the Miami Herald, would he challenge the Cuban-American elders and call for dismantling President Bush's hefty restrictions on Cuban-Americans making visits and sending money to relatives in Cuba?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. Good. This wins us the Cuban Votes. Fidel only has a little time
left to live. Folks want to visit their family. They are not pleased with Bush on his stance.

McCain's stance is no different from Bush's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
R_M Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. I have noticed that he skips out on controversial votes.
It's a clear sign of indecisiveness, a.k.a Weakness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Why don't you show me McCain's votes first.
And Obama is also on the same committees that Hillary is on. So I'm not sure where she gets her "foreign Policy" experience in where she is that much more than Obama.

She didn't have NS clearance or attend NS meetings when she was first lady.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
agdlp Donating Member (363 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
19. Obama 9 absent Sentate Votes on National Security
And the pattern is..absent vote on general election issues: Immigration /Iraq

10/16/2007 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008 NV
10/03/2007 Border Fence and Customs Appropriations NV
09/26/2007 Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding Federalism in Iraq NV
09/26/2007 Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps NV
07/26/2007 Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act NV
07/26/2007 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations NV
07/26/2007 Border Fence and Customs Appropriations NV
07/26/2007 REAL ID Funding NV
07/19/2007 Sense of the Senate on Guantanamo Bay Detainees NV
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
28. Obama hits McCain with this argument. Hillary has a harder time because Bill was ultimately
responsible for Somalia.

Obama does a "BAM" on McCain with this.

In 1993, Sen. John McCain led an effort to cut off funds immediately for military operations in Somalia after a firefight in Mogadishu killed 18 U.S. troops. The former prisoner of war in Vietnam brought a hush to the chamber floor when he asked what would happen if Congress failed to act and more Americans died.

"On whose hands rest the blood of American troops? Ask yourself this question," said McCain, R-Ariz.

Congress ultimately agreed to back President Clinton's request to give him until March 1994 to get troops out, with funding denied after that date. In 1999, Congress passed similar legislation prohibiting money spent to keep U.S. troops in Haiti after May 2000.

"When Americans are imperiled, ultimately the president has to bear that responsibility," Clinton said at the time of the Somalia vote.

Now, McCain -- a GOP presidential contender for 2008 -- says setting a date certain on the war in Iraq is like sending a "memo to our enemies to let them know when they can operate again."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200705030009

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 02:00 AM
Response to Original message
35. Biggest Foreign Policy Blunder in History = Clinton + McCain
1.1 MILLION Iraqi Civilian Deaths Confirmed by Brit Poll Firm - WAKE UP CALL
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2790044
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windbreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 02:17 AM
Response to Original message
36. I would hope that after 8 yrs of *...that the voters will resist a McCain
presidency with a passion...he IS after all...A REPUBLICAN...do we really believe that Katrina/9/11/Iraquamire/(plus knowing he wants to attack Iran)/the economy wouldn't matter at all?? seriously questioning this...and to top it off...why in the hell would we elect a 72 yr old REPUBLICAN named McCain who changes his stance more times than he can keep track of???...please, please don't tell me that Americans, no matter what party they are from, are still that stupid...wb
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. It doesn't work that way.
McCain is not Bush...and/or unless one is able to clearly show how he is, he can beat the shit out of his opponent. I have been watching him ever since I suspected that he would win the GOP Nom.

Here's my prediction here....back in the first week of December, before his miraculous resurrection!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3805809

McCain constantly talks in a manner of authority, and unless can challenge him in a way where there is no denying that he was wrong (based on what most people think), it becomes a debate.....not a fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windbreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 02:48 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. Correct...McCain is NOT *
Edited on Wed Jan-30-08 02:49 AM by windbreeze
however...he IS still a REPUBLICAN, and * did NOT get us into the fix we are in single handedly, he had lots of help by his party members....I will defer to you, Frenchie, because I know you are far more politically savvy than I am...in fact, there is no comparison ...but I have a feeling that McCain will never be president, that it is NOT to be...However, it will be interesting to watch what happens from here on out....wb
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 02:59 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. Did you read that prediction at the link that I posted, Windbreeze?
I just read it again, and I'm shocked how spot on I was.

I hope that McCain will never be President, but I do believe that Obama has the best chance of getting us there with a clear majority, and with coattails. Many don't believe that this is the case because of his race, but they are underestimating this man's appeal, strength and charisma. Some people have it, and some people don't. Obama has "it".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windbreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. Yes
I did....and I was blown away.....LOL...that is exactly why I said I can't compete with you on the "savvyness" level...I really don't believe McCain is electable....but that could just show what I know too....I am still floundering around out here after Clark...not knowing what to do...and not comfortable in any camp...wb
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windbreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. Sorry for double post, I had a glitch....n/t
Edited on Wed Jan-30-08 12:52 PM by windbreeze
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC