Hillary says surge may be working, McCain lashes her for flip-flop

[Reaganfan]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/24/mccain-clinton-flip-flops-on-iraq/

Hmm...I find it odd that a pro-surge candidate may be the Democratic nominee

[NDN]

This is exactly why I have the sig I do now. If Hillary keeps trying to have it both ways on Iraq, it's going to bite her in the ass eventually. It's bad enough she has essentially all the Right united against her, she doesn't need to alienate her vaunted Liberal base (or frankly the majority of Democrats period) too.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

WHY DOES HILLARY CLINTON SUPPORT A WAR THAT NOT EVEN TOO MANY REPUBLICANS FAVOR ANYMORE? DOES SHE NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS 2007 NOT 2004 AND THAT IRAQ HAS PROVEN TO BE A FAILURE?

[NDN]

Your frustration is very much understood. You should consider a new SN though.. Does Buzzsaw seem more to your liking?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Your frustration is very much understood. You should consider a new SN though.. Does Buzzsaw seem more to your liking?

Maybe another time. I like Lance. McSteel for now. But seriously I don't know WHAT goes through Hillary's head to make the surge seem kewl. Its like we have Osaka running for president or worse(Worse IMO. I don't see Osaka as being prone to almost fellating neocons)

[NDN]

Your frustration is very much understood. You should consider a new SN though.. Does Buzzsaw seem more to your liking?

Maybe another time. I like Lance. McSteel for now. But seriously I don't know WHAT goes through Hillary's head to make the surge seem kewl. Its like we have Osaka running for president or worse(Worse IMO. I don't see Osaka as being prone to almost fellating neocons)

I'd vote for Osaka or Tomo before I voted Hillary.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Agree 100% with you on that.

[NDN]

If by some hideous collective fluke the Democrats still nominate her and Bloomberg runs, I'm voting for Bloomberg.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Same here. Bloomberg would actually be competent. I could see the man possibly being another Perot(as in being non GOP/dem and having a chance).

[Reaganfan]

Hillary better watch, because if Republicans united massively against Hillary (which they will), and she plays the moderate card (which she is), she will have alot of liberal voters run to third parties or not vote...which could result in a defeat.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Hillary already is having the rest of the dems unite against her. Don't presume she'll earn the nomination.

[Josh/Devilman88]

I want to see an Edwards vs Romney race.. Them are the best two out of all of them...

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Edwards is the worst candidate.

[NDN]

Edwards is the worst candidate.

No, Hillary is worse. Edwards at least seems to have a consistent platform and plan for Iraq, even though his vaguely socialist "man of the people" shtick is annoying. Hillary has no foreign policy or agenda at all other than what's best for Hillary Clinton. That sort of thing is bad enough under ordinary circumstances, it's dangerous now.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Hillary may be worse but I find Edwards' hackish populism to be more personally offensive(Populists in general piss me off).

[M]

Hillary may be worse but I find Edwards' hackish populism to be more personally offensive(Populists in general piss me off).

Yes.

However Obama's naivo-realist foreign policy really grates. I go back and forth between whether he or Edwards is worse.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Edwards is worse. Edwards is second only to Hillary in terms of failure.

[nlm]

Hillary may be worse but I find Edwards' hackish populism to be more personally offensive(Populists in general piss me off).

Yes.

However Obama's naivo-realist foreign policy really grates. I go back and forth between whether he or Edwards is worse.

Eh - Obama is giving the old "thinking outside the box" a try it would seem. Given the foreign policy disaster that the Bush administration has been, and the not so successful foreign policy of Clinton before that - I'm certainly willing to listen to people that are throwing out different ideas.

With the exception of Paul, the balcance of the GOP field seesm to want to continue the Bush foreign policy - not such a wonderful idea (IMO). Hillary seem to want some sort of mid point between her husbands questionable foreign policy and the current disaster - not such a wonderful idea (again - IMO). Obama at least seems to be asking the right question - we shall see how his answers unfold as the campaign heats up.

I think a lot of people are jumping up and down on Obama over foreign policy because the answers he is giving are not really the answers they are used to hearing after 7 years of Bush and 8 years of Clinton. I'm certainly willing to let him flesh out his answers some more. More Clinton foreign policy or even worse - more Bush foreign policy - is certainly not what this country needs.

[auburntiger]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think Hillary really is the best choice for the Dems, especially when it comes to foreign affairs

[Trilobyte]

She only said the surge is working "in some areas" like Al Anbar province, which is true. She has consistently opposed the surge itself. That's not a flip-flop.

[HappyWarrior]

She only said the surge is working "in some areas" like Al Anbar province, which is true. She has consistently opposed the surge itself. That's not a flip-flop.

Thats exactly what I noticed.  She never said it was working as a whole.  To say that there is no progress anywhere would be a complete and total lie.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The surge would actually be a good idea if we had enough troops to do it right.  As it is, it achieves local successes but is unable to achieve anything overall in Iraq.  Plus the problems in the south of Iraq points to the very real possibility of intra-Shiite fighting.

[Eraserhead]

Hillary Clinton will continue the Bush policies in Iraq if elected. No thanks. Obama has new ideas and I'm willing to give him a shot.

[Padfoot]

This is exactly why Hillary can't be trusted with the Oval Office.  She'd be for Iraq what Nixon was for Vietnam; a candidate running "against" the war who winds up dragging it out even longer.  If the Democrats want the upper hand on foreign policy then they need to nominate Bill Richardson.  He's the only credible candidate in that area.  Obama and Edwards are foreign policy noobs.  IMO their inexperience would likely result in even more international setbacks.  Richardson is the man we need to repair our relationship with the rest of the world.