Hillary Clinton has been beating down on McCain's idea of staying in Iraq forever. Senator McCain was not talking about staying there forever with the current atmosphere. He was talking a military base just like the ones we have in Germany, Korea, and Japan. The liberal groups and DNC have picked on this for obvious reasons. Here is the problem. Senator Clinton has proposed this 3 years ago. Apparently McCain has been very consistent on this for years. He talked about it in 2005 and Senator Clinton was asked about it and here is what she said then, before she decided to run for President:
"Senator McCain made the point earlier today, which I agree with, and that is, it's not so much a question of time when it comes to American military presence for the average American; I include myself in this. But it is a question of casualties," said Clinton. "We don't want to see our young men and women dying and suffering these grievous injuries that so many of them have. We've been in South Korea for 50-plus years. We've been in Europe for 50-plus. We're still in Okinawa with respect to protection there coming out of World War II."
Before you Clintonistas jump up and down and try to rationalize her conflicting positions, her campaign is backing away from the 2005 statements and has said that the situation is now different.
"As both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have noted, the situation in Iraq has dramatically deteriorated since 2005 and now we are in the midst of sectarian violence. While she has always supported a limited number of residual forces protect our embassy and go after terrorists, unlike Senator McCain, Senator Clinton will start bringing our troops home when she is President and end the war."
There you have it. NAFTA, the vote for the war, and now staying in Iraq.
For reference check out these sites:
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 26
What are you suggesting? 'If you want us to vote Obama don't tell us about Clinton statements that are in conflicts with her current positions'?
First, when she doesn't want to take responsibility for something she's saying, she will attach her opponents name to suggest that she isn't alone in her view (i.e., she can't be blamed for it because Obama also is mentioned in the same sentence). Trouble is, she is presuming that her opponents agree with her (and in many cases don't). Certainly they don't agree with her statements from 2005, but how can you argue it since she now has attached Obama's name to her sound bite. She is very clever in this regard.
The second situation in which this "tell" shows is when she doesn't actually have an opinion of her own and she's trying to ride the coattails of others. She's most often used this to ride the coattails of her husband, but has also used it to subsume the policies of her opponents or others. She is actually quite adept at this deflection.
I wonder if the media has paid any attention to this "tell?" It certainly would be interesting to document how she uses this literary ploy in a quantitative sense.
The last time this happened, it was Ted Kennedy vs Jimmy Carter.
Also on position she wants to align herself with her opponent on current issues (i.e. she quickly said "me too" after McCain proposed the gas tax). That way the debate won't be on those issues but on the details of the issues (i.e. universal healthcare). She wants to do that because she targets 'low information' voters. You can meet plenty of them on gather. The type who hear tax break on gas, and that is sufficient to them. They won't seek out any more information regarding the issue. A tax break is a tax break. Does not matter if 300,000 people lose their jobs.
Similary mandate on healthcare means just that. Does not matter if I will be forced to pick up healthcare while others are handed healthcare. Does not matter if that won't pass either.
On these Iraq statements however, she has some explaining to do. Either she is dishonest or need to provide explanations on what prompted the change other than 'I need to win the democratic primaries, the war is unpopular, and these damn liberals, moveon.org type would have crucified me'
The Candidates in that election were Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and John Anderson.
Reagan won by quite alot.
The latest poll show that Hillary would win again McCain by 12, Obama would win by 11. There is absolutely no difference then.
Regarding Obama voters, they usually don't vote. He has been able to bring them out in this primary and that's part of his appeal. She has taken larger states but some of those states, put Mike Gravel on the ballot and the democrats win. California polls, a state Hillary won, are showing Obama doing better than her when facing McCain. New York, CA, MA will NEVER go Rep.
Official Texas results:
Delegates - Obama 99; Clinton 94
Popular vote -- Clinton 1,459,814; Obama 1,358,785 (a little more than 100,000 votes difference)
I was saying Carter beat Kennedy. Good point. That's why she needs to get out because she won't win it. The only thing she can do is help McCain win so she can run in 2012, which is pretty obvious. But guess what, we will be waiting for her in 2012.
That's my girl! Hillary Clinton.
My main question: who is digging up dirt on Hillary from Team Obama? Are you kidding me. The first thing I would have done is get tapes from at least the Sunday big shows: Meet the Press, This Week, ... and digg it out. How come they did not see this. Maybe they did and are releasing it now.
He said, if that's what this was about Clinton should be the nominee because she can play the game better. This is what political strategists would advise Obama to do because that's what they were taught. That's what the playbook says to do.
That was an excellent answer. Want to play the same old game, she is your girl. Her answer on the gas tax is straight from the playbook she has memorized during spring training. Her answer on Iraq occupation is from the playbook too until she found out the war is unpopular. Coach called a timeout. Went to the next play in response: oppose the war and call for a phase withdrawal play.
The only way to change the dynamic is to change the way the government works. That means starting with integrity, honesty, and transparency. Clinton clearly has none, which is a shame because she does have skills. However, her true colors came out when she got behind, and now the majority of Americans say they cannot trust her. That's a pretty good reason not to vote for someone.
More importantly, there are excellent reasons to vote for Obama. Not only does he have the integrity that Clinton and others lack, but he thinks. He listens and he thinks. So we have a pretty clear choice between someone who manipulates and misrepresents (and occasionally lies outright) versus someone who is honest and who thinks and listens. Hmmm.
Abstract- Rove/Cheney/Bush are rookies and the synthesis of the following chapters will prove just that.
Chapter 3: I will go to the canadians give them the wink wink. The Obama camp will meet with them and I will blame them.
The red phone, the day before election mailers,
She has written a lot of stuff. If one attends the evil academy of politics then can study nasty campaingn
I did notice that Nancy Pelosi is also a HUGE target of the Right Wing Smear Machine. Is the Right worried about a Dem Woman president. I also noticed accolades for Mushroom Condie. Check out the pro Condie blogs, it defies logic, the National Security Advisor whose job was to check bush's war LIES, helped spread them instead. They want her for V P!
Even the successful Bill Clinton administration is a target. Some reject the surplus Bill left, with smoke and mirrors, they portray the surplus as a smoke and mirror ploy. Nothing good can come from a Dem President.
Traveling back in time four years, you'd have a hell of a time convincing anyone bush would drag us through hell. Kerry flip flopped, can't have that.
The Republicans have always depended on the "low-information voter". Now, apparently, Hill has decided to go the same route. Maybe not intentionally, but she is going that way now since Barack seems to attract "high-information voters" and Hill is having trouble getting HIVs to vote for her.
Who do you want running this country? Someone endorsed by the LIVs or someone endorsed by the HIVs.
This is one reason why Hill does not do well in caucus states, and why Hill thinks that caucus states are undemocratic. Just the time it takes to caucus deflects LIVs. So, the majority of caucus goers are HIVs.