Which would be worse?

[they don't love you like i love you]

?

[MaxQue]

Option 1.

In fact, that was one of the main reasons I was supporting Obama.

[paul718]

Option 1 because an insufficiently experienced President could do more damage than an insufficiently experienced Senator.

[Iosif]

By 2011 the Senate will probably house Jeb Bush, Beau Biden, Bob Casey Jr. and Caroline Kennedy.

God bless nepotism.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Can't you have neither, or is there some nepotism quota that needs to be filled up that I'm unaware of?

[they don't love you like i love you]

I'm simply mocking the hilarity of outrage against Kennedy's appointment by anyone who ever supported Hillary.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

By 2011 the Senate will probably house Jeb Bush, Beau Biden, Bob Casey Jr. and Caroline Kennedy.

All of whom will have been elected by the people of their states.  It called democracy.

[Beet]

I'm simply mocking the hilarity of outrage against Kennedy's appointment by anyone who ever supported Hillary.

I supported Clinton because she had something else to offer other than being a Clinton.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I'm simply mocking the hilarity of outrage against Kennedy's appointment by anyone who ever supported Hillary.

I supported Clinton because she had something else to offer other than being a Clinton.

She had something to offer at all? LOL.

[Psychic Octopus]

neither. Clinton would have been a good president, yet that is weirder than weird.

[Brittain33]

I'm simply mocking the hilarity of outrage against Kennedy's appointment by anyone who ever supported Hillary.

That's great, but many of us have pointed out many times already the difference between someone working hard for a nomination and fighting for it given certain advantages and someone asking one person to appoint them to office after a lifetime of avoiding politics.

I'm not saying that restoring Clinton to the White House was an unalloyed good--in fact, the insularity of it all was a concern I had to overcome, not a bonus. I still make a distinction between that and between Caroline Kennedy seeking an appointment to the Senate.

If she isn't appointed, but runs for the nomination in 2010 and wins, I won't love it, but I won't tear my hair out over it, either.

So I voted for Kennedy in the Senate, because no one could ever accuse Hillary Clinton of failing to take the political process seriously.

[Beet]

I'm simply mocking the hilarity of outrage against Kennedy's appointment by anyone who ever supported Hillary.

I supported Clinton because she had something else to offer other than being a Clinton.

She had something to offer at all? LOL.

Yes, she was smart, a hard worker, motivated, passionate, and committed to her beliefs, and she had previous experience on government from a WH perspective, which none of the other candidates had. And she had more years of experience in the Senate when she reached across the aisle with conservative Republicans to get things done. And yes she did travel the world as first lady and meet foreign leaders.

[they don't love you like i love you]

And yet she refused to apologize for her warmongering vote.

[Beet]

And yet she refused to apologize for her warmongering vote.

In case you haven't noticed, I don't care about that anymore. The President should always be given the benefit of the doubt in time of war, and back in 2002 there was still potential for Bush to be a good President. Her refusal to kowtow to the anti-American wing of the party is a badge of honor, IMO.

[they don't love you like i love you]

And yet she refused to apologize for her warmongering vote.

In case you haven't noticed, I don't care about that anymore. The President should always be given the benefit of the doubt in time of war, and back in 2002 there was still potential for Bush to be a good President.

Comedy Goldmine material. Especially as there was no war in 2002 and giving Bush the "benefit of the doubt" 2003 onwards on Iraq sure didn't come to great results. It also would've been a lot better had Congress NOT done so in 2002 and told Bush to f**k off (not that there was any chance of that of course, but it's all hypothetical.)

Her refusal to kowtow to the anti-American wing of the party is a badge of honor, IMO.

Wow. Paul Wellstone, Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Barack Obama and many others are apparently anti-Americans.

[Beet]

And yet she refused to apologize for her warmongering vote.

In case you haven't noticed, I don't care about that anymore. The President should always be given the benefit of the doubt in time of war, and back in 2002 there was still potential for Bush to be a good President.

Comedy Goldmine material. Especially as there was no war in 2002 and giving Bush the "benefit of the doubt" 2003 onwards on Iraq sure didn't come to great results. It also would've been a lot better had Congress NOT done so in 2002 and told Bush to f**k off (not that there was any chance of that of course, but it's all hypothetical.)

In 2002 we were only about a year removed from 9/11, an act of war against the United States. The rest of what you're saying is only with hindsight.

Bush could have used Congress's authorization to keep pressure on Saddam to allow full inspections. After 1 year of inspections, no weapons of mass destruction would have been discovered. Then, if Clinton had had her way, the authorization would have expired. The entire episode would have been a big foreign policy win for Bush.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow. Paul Wellstone, Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Barack Obama and many others are apparently anti-Americans.
[/quote]

Barack Obama??!? LOL. He switched his position on the war every calendar year. And yes, I disagree with those other politicians you named on that particular vote, knowing what we did then. Of course if we had known then that the war would have been started on such flimsy bases and been so grossly mismanaged then no one would have voted for it.

[they don't love you like i love you]

And yet she refused to apologize for her warmongering vote.

In case you haven't noticed, I don't care about that anymore. The President should always be given the benefit of the doubt in time of war, and back in 2002 there was still potential for Bush to be a good President.

Comedy Goldmine material. Especially as there was no war in 2002 and giving Bush the "benefit of the doubt" 2003 onwards on Iraq sure didn't come to great results. It also would've been a lot better had Congress NOT done so in 2002 and told Bush to f**k off (not that there was any chance of that of course, but it's all hypothetical.)

In 2002 we were only about a year removed from 9/11, an act of war against the United States. The rest of what you're saying is only with hindsight.

Bush could have used Congress's authorization to keep pressure on Saddam to allow full inspections. After 1 year of inspections, no weapons of mass destruction would have been discovered. Then, if Clinton had had her way, the authorization would have expired. The entire episode would have been a big foreign policy win for Bush.

This whole scenario involves trusting Bush which in itself is beyond idiotic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow. Paul Wellstone, Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Barack Obama and many others are apparently anti-Americans.

Barack Obama??!? LOL. He switched his position on the war every calendar year. And yes, I disagree with those other politicians you named on that particular vote, knowing what we did then. Of course if we had known then that the war would have been started on such flimsy bases and been so grossly mismanaged then no one would have voted for it.
[/quote]

Obama has never said he would've voted for the war resolution. And condemning people for doing the smart thing, wow. Not to mention also calling them anti-American. Are you saying you'd rather have that disgusting pile of garbage Coleman than a living Wellstone?

Anyway, the whole point is moot. Your beloved queen and heroine will never be President because of that vote, and she brutally paid the price for it. And simply knowing that makes me happy. Actions have consequences.

[Sam Spade]

I think most of the outrage surrounding Caroline Kennedy is that she just came out of nowhere to get this Senate seat.  That Senate seat is truly cursed: first Bobby, then Hillary, now Princess Caroline.  Poor New York.

We did have Moynihan in that seat.  Miss him enormously.

[Keystone Phil]

I think most of the outrage surrounding Caroline Kennedy is that she just came out of nowhere to get this Senate seat.  That Senate seat is truly cursed: first Bobby, then Hillary, now Princess Caroline.  Poor New York.

We did have Moynihan in that seat. 

And Buckley. 

[Beet]

This whole scenario involves trusting Bush which in itself is beyond idiotic.

He was the President, it was a year from 9/11. 70% of people didn't approve of him because they felt that trusting him on the war was "beyond idiotic."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course not, I would prefer Wellstone. The problem is not that they voted against authorization, the problem is the incessant obsession with one bloc of the Democratic party on "opposing the war", which has a large anti-American element. Why are they anti-American? Well there are a lot of activists out there who tend to blame the U.S. for international problems, ranging from AIDS and Darfur to global warming to Iraq, as a first instinct.

Of course, John Edwards was okay with the anti- war crowd because he "apologized for his vote on the war." Never mind that Edwards' apology means nothing. Never mind that it does not get our troops home 1 day sooner or save 1 life. Never mind that Edwards is a complete phony (which should have been apparent even before his adultery became public) and only apologized to further his own political career. That action made him "okay" while Clinton was "not okay."

What is the real issue here then? The real issue was not Edwards's principle or lack of principle on the issue of the war, the real issue was that Edwards kowtowed to the anti- war special interests and made them feel important, while Clinton did not. The "war vote" was just a red herring.

Now take Obama. Obama was not even in the Senate in 2002. Yes he gave a (moderately) anti-war speech in 2002, but he also represented a very liberal state Senate district. He never had to take any responsibility. This is like the passenger in a car criticizing the driver for taking a wrong turn when the passenger has no idea of how to arrive at the destination himself. By 2003, all anti- war language had disappeared from Obama's website. By 2004 and 2005 Obama was saying that his position on the war was the same as Bush's, and that he "could understand" people who voted for authorization. He said he couldn't be sure how he would have voted. Personally I am 80%-90% confident he would have voted Yes. He never once voted differently from Senator Clinton on a single roll call relating to Iraq.

And yet for the "anti-war" crowd Obama was somehow worlds different from Clinton. No. That is dishonest. The activists just used the war issue as an excuse to pretend like they had a legitimate reason for favoring Obama. The real issue was that they wanted to wrest control of the party- it's all about control.

Hence, all the disappointment when it turns out Obama is his own man and not owned by them, which should have been obvious all along.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is an unproven assertion BRTD. Obama built up the Gary Hart/Jesse Jackson coalition which as we saw existed in 1984 well before "the war" was on anyone's minds. That was the fundamental reason for his victory. Anyways, who says being President at this moment in history is a great thing anyway? With the economy the way it is, I'm not entirely sure Obama's jobs is as enviable as it may seem.

[they don't love you like i love you]

This whole scenario involves trusting Bush which in itself is beyond idiotic.

He was the President, it was a year from 9/11. 70% of people didn't approve of him because they felt that trusting him on the war was "beyond idiotic."

I was not one of those 30%, hopefully you weren't either. It was obvious what Bush's partisan goals were at the time with the attacks on Democrats like Max Cleland and whatnot. It was also obvious from day one how horrible Bush would be. I mean I recognized all of this, why couldn't anyone in power?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course not, I would prefer Wellstone. The problem is not that they voted against authorization, the problem is the incessant obsession with one bloc of the Democratic party on "opposing the war", which has a large anti-American element. Why are they anti-American? Well there are a lot of activists out there who tend to blame the U.S. for international problems, ranging from AIDS and Darfur to global warming to Iraq, as a first instinct.

You're referring to a tiny portion of the fringe left and no major wing in the Democratic party. And honestly there's probably just as many on the fringe right, it's just the left faction has been more obvious lately thanks to Bush.

Of course, John Edwards was okay with the anti- war crowd because he "apologized for his vote on the war." Never mind that Edwards' apology means nothing. Never mind that it does not get our troops home 1 day sooner or save 1 life. Never mind that Edwards is a complete phony (which should have been apparent even before his adultery became public) and only apologized to further his own political career. That action made him "okay" while Clinton was "not okay."

Oh come on. You're saying that everyone should've recognize Edwards as a phony pre-adultery but that no one could've told how much of a disaster Bush was? Hell I'd still take Edwards a million times over Bush today.

And you're over-simplifying things. Rather people had faith Edwards would end the war, while they didn't with Hillary. Just look at Eraserhead's posts on the topic. His biggest concern was that she wouldn't end the war and also attack Iran.

Also note that even post-2004 John Kerry has hardly been demonized by the left. He's still very liked and respected on DailyKos, DU, etc.

What is the real issue here then? The real issue was not Edwards's principle or lack of principle on the issue of the war, the real issue was that Edwards kowtowed to the anti- war special interests and made them feel important, while Clinton did not. The "war vote" was just a red herring.

I explained this above. Hillary wasn't exactly assuring people she wouldn't continue the war indefinitely.

Now take Obama. Obama was not even in the Senate in 2002. Yes he gave a (moderately) anti-war speech in 2002, but he also represented a very liberal state Senate district. He never had to take any responsibility. This is like the passenger in a car criticizing the driver for taking a wrong turn when the passenger has no idea of how to arrive at the destination himself. By 2003, all anti- war language had disappeared from Obama's website. By 2004 and 2005 Obama was saying that his position on the war was the same as Bush's, and that he "could understand" people who voted for authorization. He said he couldn't be sure how he would have voted. Personally I am 80%-90% confident he would have voted Yes. He never once voted differently from Senator Clinton on a single roll call relating to Iraq.

The war was exactly one of the reasons he won the 2004 primary! Probably the main reason in fact, not that he was the only anti-war candidate, but that he latched onto the issue soon enough.

And yet for the "anti-war" crowd Obama was somehow worlds different from Clinton. No. That is dishonest. The activists just used the war issue as an excuse to pretend like they had a legitimate reason for favoring Obama. The real issue was that they wanted to wrest control of the party- it's all about control.

Hence, all the disappointment when it turns out Obama is his own man and not owned by them, which should have been obvious all along.[/quote]

I haven't been complaining too much about Obama, I think one should at least wait until he takes office. Most of the stuff (Warren, etc.) is rather pointless and won't affect anythingll  anyway. Unlike Hillary's war vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is an unproven assertion BRTD. Obama built up the Gary Hart/Jesse Jackson coalition which as we saw existed in 1984 well before "the war" was on anyone's minds. That was the fundamental reason for his victory.

Uh, "the war" was certainly on people's minds when he rose to prominence. And while it's impossible to prove, it seems likely given the results and the closeness. Plus Hillary's disaster in caucuses.

Anyways, who says being President at this moment in history is a great thing anyway? With the economy the way it is, I'm not entirely sure Obama's jobs is as enviable as it may seem.

Oh that's a copout. By that logic I should've voted for McCain.

[Beet]

It wasn't obvious from day one how horrible Bush would be. He ran a centrist enough campaign. He didn't do anything crazy in 2001. The first sign of trouble didn't come until the State of the Union address in 2002. But by October 2002 most of the things that Bush is now unpopular for had not yet occurred. Anyone who says now that they could have predicted back then how unpopular Bush would be now or how many things would have gone wrong with the war is either inflexibly partisan or being unrealistic. In April 2003, most people thought he was a genius.

The other thing you have to think about is that Clinton was the Senator from New York. The biggest events of the 9/11 attacks happened in New York City. It was her duty to do everything she could to make sure that another terrorist attack did not occur, as New York City would likely once again be the target. Even the serious possibility that Iraq was giving WMD to terrorists had to be taken as a real threat. When you have the President of the United States telling you this you cannot ignore it and still be the responsible Senator from New York.

Edwards was obvious because he was a DLC Democrat while in the Senate and to some extent during his 2004 campaign, and in 2007 suddenly reinvented himself as a fire-breathing populist. But even if you thought he was genuine his apology was just a symbolic gesture that didn't really do anything.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This part just shows how completely out of touch and paranoid some of the fears were. The only way Clinton would even consider attacking Iran is if they were on the verge of testing a nuke, and if that were to come about then Obama would be considering it as well. Given that Clinton and Obama
1) gave pretty much the same answers in debates as to what they would do going forward,
2) voted the same way on virtually all Iraq/Iran related bills
the supposed chasm of difference between them was manufactured and absurd.

I do think it's ironic that Obama campaigned in the primary on the war but in the general election had to campaign and win on the economy-- largely due to the march of events. Obama was forced to admit that the surge "succeeded beyond our wildest expectations." The economy was Clinton's primary area of focus from the beginning and she was proven prescient.

In any case, the primary over. What's the point of going through all this again? As for your sarcasm about my "queen and heroine", look at how many pro-Clinton comments I made here in 2007... very, very few. It was her strong performance in the actual debates and the insanity of the anti-Clintonism in the primary that drove me firmly into her camp. Never in the history of Clinton's political career have her detractors been proven right on anything regarding her personal motives.

[Aizen]

Oh God, the last four presidents being Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton of course. Thankfully Hillary was rejected.

[Beet]

Oh God, the last four presidents being Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton of course. Thankfully Hillary was rejected.

Nice to know the President's name matters more to you than their qualifications. You guys are disgustingly shallow.

[Aizen]

Oh God, the last four presidents being Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton of course. Thankfully Hillary was rejected.

Nice to know the President's name matters more to you than their qualifications. You guys are disgustingly shallow.

I'm not happy with Kennedy becoming a senator because of her name but it isn't as bad as when Hillary took the seat. At least Caroline was born in New York and actually lived there unlike Hillary who just flat out carpetbagged. Both are/were undeserving of the seat though. Unlike Chuck Schumer. Now there's a guy who deserves a New York senate seat.