Full Version: Dems. content for the long fight
She really has no one to blame but herself.
Judging by this Neanderthal saber rattling, Shrillary Rodham is so desperate she may be losing her mind... Someone tell me how she's different from McCain, again?
QUOTE
(CNN) – Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that her comments that the United States could “totally obliterate” Iran if it made a nuclear attack on Israel had been an attempt to return the United States to Cold War style deterrence.
Responding to accusations from Barack Obama's campaign that she was engaging in the sort of hypothetical thinking she had criticized him for, Clinton said the situations were not equivalent, since the threat from Iran was all too real. “I think in this particular instance of Iran it's a question not of what might be on or off the table concerning a tactical or strategic decision but an effort on my part to get back to what worked during the Cold War which was deterrence,” she told reporters in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
“…Iran is feeling quite powerful. They have been empowered by the actions of the last seven years and they must know there are lines that the world will not let them cross.”
Earlier Tuesday, Clinton told ABC’s Good Morning America that "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran [if it attacked Israel].”"
Responding to accusations from Barack Obama's campaign that she was engaging in the sort of hypothetical thinking she had criticized him for, Clinton said the situations were not equivalent, since the threat from Iran was all too real. “I think in this particular instance of Iran it's a question not of what might be on or off the table concerning a tactical or strategic decision but an effort on my part to get back to what worked during the Cold War which was deterrence,” she told reporters in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
“…Iran is feeling quite powerful. They have been empowered by the actions of the last seven years and they must know there are lines that the world will not let them cross.”
Earlier Tuesday, Clinton told ABC’s Good Morning America that "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran [if it attacked Israel].”"
Smart girl.
Good for her. I think Iran should be obliterated if they attack Israel. I can hardly wait for my primary election! 
Both parties frustrate me for so many reasons. But supporters of both do, too. I don't know many people who think Iraq was a good idea (no matter who voted for it *cough* Hillary *cough*), and yet many of those same people are saying attacking Iran is somehow OK.
Iran is not going attack Israel. Israel has enough nuclear weapons to wipe Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and anyone else in that vicinity off the map. Why is anyone posing this kind of crazy question to Clinton or anyone else? It's pure neocon fantasy.
Also, Clinton--and any other candidate--really ought to think twice about threatening to "obliterate" any other country. Seriously. As the current standoff with Russia shows, countries with real armies and weapons don't take kindly to idle threats.
The US needs Iran's help in Iraq badly. Iran brokered the recent ceasefire between the pathetic Iraqi government troops, many of whom fled to the other side, and Sadr's Mahdi Army. The Bush nincompoops put Maliki up to this battle, and had to have US troops step in when his effort turned into a disaster.
Also, Clinton--and any other candidate--really ought to think twice about threatening to "obliterate" any other country. Seriously. As the current standoff with Russia shows, countries with real armies and weapons don't take kindly to idle threats.
The US needs Iran's help in Iraq badly. Iran brokered the recent ceasefire between the pathetic Iraqi government troops, many of whom fled to the other side, and Sadr's Mahdi Army. The Bush nincompoops put Maliki up to this battle, and had to have US troops step in when his effort turned into a disaster.
Fantomas, you are correct. I will always have a prejudice against Iran due to the hostage situation back in 1979-1980. That country caused us such great embarrassment, which is why it is easy for me, an otherwise peace-loving person, to say something like that about Iran. My emotions got the better of me, which can happen. If they (Iran) could somehow get us out of this multi-billion dollar mess that has been created by the worst president ever, I would welcome them with open arms.
QUOTE(millerbeach @ Apr 25 2008, 04:31 AM) 
Fantomas, you are correct. I will always have a prejudice against Iran due to the hostage situation back in 1979-1980. That country caused us such great embarrassment, which is why it is easy for me, an otherwise peace-loving person, to say something like that about Iran. My emotions got the better of me, which can happen. If they (Iran) could somehow get us out of this multi-billion dollar mess that has been created by the worst president ever, I would welcome them with open arms.
Millerbeach, let me just add that I don't think Iran's clerical regime or Ahmadinejad are anything but dangerous people. The moderate, reformist former president, Khatami, wasn't able to do much of anything, though he did make a major proposal to the US to address Iran's nuclear problems, and the W mafia dismissed the proposal out of hand, which totally embarassed him and underlined for the clerics that they had to take a hard stand. Iran does sponsor terrorism (as does Syria, and the US's good pals Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, etc.), so I'm not saying they should be let off the hook. But to get things together in Iraq, the US needs Iran, there's no way around it, just like to deal with the Palestinian situation, especially in Gaza, the US is going to have to deal with not only the Palestinian authority, but Hamas.
Maddog, I can't read your link, and get servers error messages. 
By Chris Wilson of Slate
Obama should drop out of the race.
Even as Hillary Clinton trails Barack Obama in pledged delegates, the popular vote, and number of states won, she has made it clear that she plans to stay in the race for the nomination. All of which brings me to this logical conclusion: It is time for Barack Obama to drop out.
If Clinton had the good of the Democratic Party in mind, she would have given up her bid the day after the Mississippi primary, which Obama won by 25 points. The delegate math was as dismal for her campaign then as it is now, even after Pennsylvania, and she was facing down a six-week gulf before the next election.
But Hillary Clinton isn't going to drop out. There simply isn't a function in her assembly code for throwing in the towel.
Obama, on the other hand, is fully capable of it. And if he's really serious about representing a new kind of politics, now is the time for him to prove it in the only meaningful way left. Moreover, were he to play it right, dropping out now nearly guarantees that he'll be elected president in 2012. Here's the roadmap:
Obama drops out next week, stating that although he could almost certainly win the nomination by fighting it out until the convention in August, he is simply not willing to drag the party through a battle that will cripple its chances against John McCain. He then pledges to help support Sen. Clinton in her bid—with full knowledge that she will not take him up on the offer.
In one stroke, Obama will regain his messiah creds by making the ultimate sacrifice for the good of the party. His followers will be furious. The mere mention of Clinton's name will provoke unspeakable acts. They will abandon Clinton in numbers sufficient to hand McCain the election in November.
Losing the presidency again after eight years of Bush will ruin the Democratic Party. It will become obvious that Clinton's decision to stay in the race was the turning point in the election. The base will turn its wrath on party leaders like Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, who failed to push Clinton out. Obama, as the de facto head of the party, will broker negotiations to install new leaders loyal to him.
McCain will be eminently more beatable in 2012. Demographics will continue to shift in Obama's favor as his 14- to 17-year-old supporters come of voting age. Anyone foolish enough to challenge Obama for the nomination—and don't rule out Clinton—will go nowhere. Obama's utopian vision for a Democratic party unified around him will be complete.
Obama should drop out of the race.
Even as Hillary Clinton trails Barack Obama in pledged delegates, the popular vote, and number of states won, she has made it clear that she plans to stay in the race for the nomination. All of which brings me to this logical conclusion: It is time for Barack Obama to drop out.
If Clinton had the good of the Democratic Party in mind, she would have given up her bid the day after the Mississippi primary, which Obama won by 25 points. The delegate math was as dismal for her campaign then as it is now, even after Pennsylvania, and she was facing down a six-week gulf before the next election.
But Hillary Clinton isn't going to drop out. There simply isn't a function in her assembly code for throwing in the towel.
Obama, on the other hand, is fully capable of it. And if he's really serious about representing a new kind of politics, now is the time for him to prove it in the only meaningful way left. Moreover, were he to play it right, dropping out now nearly guarantees that he'll be elected president in 2012. Here's the roadmap:
Obama drops out next week, stating that although he could almost certainly win the nomination by fighting it out until the convention in August, he is simply not willing to drag the party through a battle that will cripple its chances against John McCain. He then pledges to help support Sen. Clinton in her bid—with full knowledge that she will not take him up on the offer.
In one stroke, Obama will regain his messiah creds by making the ultimate sacrifice for the good of the party. His followers will be furious. The mere mention of Clinton's name will provoke unspeakable acts. They will abandon Clinton in numbers sufficient to hand McCain the election in November.
Losing the presidency again after eight years of Bush will ruin the Democratic Party. It will become obvious that Clinton's decision to stay in the race was the turning point in the election. The base will turn its wrath on party leaders like Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, who failed to push Clinton out. Obama, as the de facto head of the party, will broker negotiations to install new leaders loyal to him.
McCain will be eminently more beatable in 2012. Demographics will continue to shift in Obama's favor as his 14- to 17-year-old supporters come of voting age. Anyone foolish enough to challenge Obama for the nomination—and don't rule out Clinton—will go nowhere. Obama's utopian vision for a Democratic party unified around him will be complete.
Look, is this Slate analyst serious? I mean, he talks about a McCain presidency and an Obama win in 2012 as if the former wouldn't be a disaster and the second is a sure thing. Where on earth does he come up with either of these suppositions? If Clinton is the nominee, I sure in the hell want her to win it. I refuse to be so cavalier and above it all that I would presume yet another inept, lying, corrupt Republican administration, with deep ties, especially among the neocon crowd, wouldn't continue the crap of the current one, and really, what more do we need to experience to realize that the GOP's ideology leads to FAILURE?
Also, Slate is a "news" organ that also smugly supported W's failed war in Iraq and still refuses to allow a platform to people who had the good sense and vision to see right through Bush's scams. Today we learn that the administration is again gearing up for an attack on Iran. Will Slate and the gullible establishment cheer that on to, despite all we've come to learn about the endless, pathological lying of everyone associated with W?
Also, Slate is a "news" organ that also smugly supported W's failed war in Iraq and still refuses to allow a platform to people who had the good sense and vision to see right through Bush's scams. Today we learn that the administration is again gearing up for an attack on Iran. Will Slate and the gullible establishment cheer that on to, despite all we've come to learn about the endless, pathological lying of everyone associated with W?
I took it as tongue-lodged-firmly-in-cheek but you could be right. Slate may be up to some shady dealings.
Boy, I'll say they may be...they would be the first and only ones that I am aware of that are calling on Obama, who last time I checked still has more delegates than Hillary to do the right thing and step down. Meanwhile the black vote drama continues behind the scenes, and Bill Clintons effect on that..There continues to be so much melodrama in this race. I wish we would just stick to the issues, rather than tearing each other down and apart. I am tired of th emedia giving Teflon John a free ride, while he continually flip flops on major issues...
QUOTE(Maddog @ Apr 25 2008, 04:23 PM)
McCain will be eminently more beatable in 2012.
Just like Bush was eminently more beatable in 2004.
Before the Wright affair had not exploded could Obama have won Michigan?
Hillary Clinton's claim that Michigan's, and Florida's, delegates should be counted from a mythical primary might be an empty one.
How do we know what would have happened had they not moved their primary?
Hillary Clinton's claim that Michigan's, and Florida's, delegates should be counted from a mythical primary might be an empty one.
How do we know what would have happened had they not moved their primary?
It is empty. Obama played by the rules, Hillary did not.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.