Print
E-mail
Share
iPod
del.icio.us
digg
Newsvine
FacebookSUN ENDORSEMENT:
Clinton the right choice
Hillary Clinton’s vision, experience are what’s needed for America at this time
Fri, Jan 18, 2008 (2 a.m.)
One word can sum up George W. Bush’s presidency: incompetence.
For seven years this nation has been subjected to an administration riddled with abject failures of leadership -- Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war instantly come to mind. We also have had an administration infested with cronyism and drenched in secrecy.
The American people naturally are demanding change, and the 2006 election was the first evidence of this, as Democrats regained control of both houses of Congress. But the Democrats hold a majority too slim to override vetoes, and Bush and Senate Republicans have obstructed Democratic legislation.
This year’s presidential election offers an opportunity to change course and get our country moving in the right direction again. And, this Saturday, Nevadans will have their say.
The Republicans are holding a presidential nominating caucus, but nearly all of the party’s candidates have ignored Nevada. One reason is that the Republicans are having a nonbinding caucus, a straw poll of Republicans that won’t decide anything. Furthermore, the candidates are opting to campaign in the GOP battleground state of South Carolina, which is holding its primary on the same day as Nevada’s presidential caucus, rendering our state’s GOP outcome virtually meaningless.
In stark contrast, Nevada has become a battleground for the Democrats.
The top three Democratic candidates -- Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards -- have vigorously vied for votes here. Edwards is still in the race, but this really is a two-person contest between Clinton and Obama, because Edwards’ campaign hasn’t caught on nationally.
Obama has been in the Senate for just three years, so the question is whether he is the most experienced Democratic candidate to immediately assume the presidency on Jan. 20, 2009. Although Obama is likable, so was the inexperienced George W. Bush before he became president -- and we know where that got us.
Additionally, is Obama the best Democratic candidate to run against whomever the Republicans nominate this year? Although the Republican field has failed so far to dazzle its party’s faithful -- let alone independents or Democrats -- rest assured that if the past is any guide the GOP nominee will do just about anything to keep the White House.
The Democratic nominee will need to be the kind of individual who has been through grueling campaigns and has the mettle not only to stand up to the Republican nominee’s hardball tactics but also to deliver a message of positive change that will take this country forward again.
Clinton has a long and substantial record of leadership fighting on behalf of working Americans and children, and it is this experience and her passion for creating a better country that would serve this nation so well.
Our country needs someone who can be president from Day One after taking the oath of office. Her steadiness and resolve certainly would aid us in reestablishing better relations with other nations after Bush’s go-it-alone foreign policy, not to mention a thoughtful and responsible policy regarding our combat troops in Iraq.
On domestic issues, such as the economy and health care, Clinton clearly has the best command of the issues, as was witnessed in Tuesday’s debate in Las Vegas. For example, in contrast to Obama’s health care plan, Clinton’s would truly offer universal health care coverage. She also has an economic stimulus plan, including tax rebates for working- and middle-class families, that could help jump-start our sluggish economy, which is in danger of heading into a recession. We need someone in the White House who can get our economy back to the way it was when Hillary’s husband, Bill, was president.
Of special interest to Nevadans are the candidates’ views on the federal government’s efforts to bury the nation’s nuclear waste 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The three leading Democratic presidential candidates say they would stop the Yucca Mountain project, but rhetoric can be just that, rhetoric.
Clinton’s longtime opposition stands out.
Despite the fact that her state relies heavily on nuclear power for its energy, and that the companies providing that power desperately want the nuclear waste buried in Nevada, Clinton stood with Nevada when George Bush’s plan for Yucca Mountain went before Congress. Clinton voted with Nevada, and against the dump. Edwards, whose state has nuclear power, voted for the dump. Obama wasn’t yet elected to the Senate, but it should be noted that the energy corporation Exelon, the sixth-largest donor to his presidential campaign, supports a nuclear waste dump in Nevada.
If Nevada is to stand a chance of killing the nuclear waste dump, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is going to need a friend in the White House, and that friend would be Clinton.
As we see it, the only obstacle in Clinton’s way in Nevada is the unfair caucus system that has been set up, specifically the rule that allows on-site voting at casino workplaces on the Strip. Not only is it unfair because it isn’t an option for noncasino workers who can’t get away from work, but it also enables the Culinary Union, which has endorsed Obama, to pressure its members into voting for their union’s endorsed candidate even if they prefer Clinton.
Nonetheless, it is our sincere hope that Nevadans on Saturday turn out for the caucus in large numbers and vote for Hillary Clinton, who stands ready to restore dignity and competence to the Oval Office.
4 years ago we choosed Kerry the so called experience candidate and the Democratic part failed to secure the white house. Hillary has less than 8 years of legislative experience and Obama has 11. Hillary is running on her husbands records and as a former first lady. Being a first lady does not provide the right kind of experience she claim. She did not have a top secret clearance at that time and regardless by law she is not to be more involved in the decision of the president tnan the secretary of state, vice president and other top officials of the president. Most importantly Hillary has refused to release her white house records. All we have is a failed health care.
The decision to endorse Hillary and also decieve your audience by making it look like Obama has less legislative experience which is the only position both hold is flawed. Edward and Obama has more experience than Hillary based on their records. We are electing Hillary and not Bill Clinton. She should run on her record
(Removed by the site staff)
Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.
Hillary is more than just the "experience candidate," eldorado, and it's completely unfair to compare her to Kerry in that manner. Especially when she's running on the same platform as her challengers. Who's to say that a less experienced candidate would not have done worse? Also, in the great state of Massachusetts, he had never faced a serious contest from the Republican machine. They've been assailing Hillary for decades, and she knows how to beat them. Her husband knows how to beat them. He's the only two term Democratic president since FDR. I think that counts for something, Dusacre, despite any mistakes he made in his PERSONAL life. But Hillary is not her husband, she is just advised by him. Her strength during said scandal is unmistakable, and I don't think we have to worry about her making the same mistake. Back to experience. I don't think there's any way that you can compare Laura or Barbara Bush to Hillary Clinton. She is among the most powerful first ladies in history, and they even campaigned in 1992 as a two-for-one. That's how impressive her resume was back then. Her experience as a public servant goes back to when Obama was in elementary school. She has lived an amazing life dating back to her time with the Children's defense fund, to her work on Watergate and with the Carter administration, to doing nearly as much for Arkansas as Bill, to serving on the board of the Arkansas-based Wal-Mart and trying to reform its environmental practices. As first lady, she traveled to over 80 countries building soft power, something the Bush administration knows nothing of. By the way - time spent as a part-time state legislator, while voting present countless important votes is nothing to brag about.
eldorado, she has a fantastic record in the senate, and is a leader on the environment and public works committee and armed services committee among others. She is recognized as one of the hardest working senators by folks on both sides of the aisle and has been extremely supporting of her constituents in New York. She is working to block Bush from forcing us to stay in Iraq for decades and has fought to get our troops the proper armor and protection they deserve. Her support of farmers and local agriculture is impeccable. What legislative record are you talking about? I think you need to check your facts. Just watch the debates and you'll see that her command of the issues is far and above that of her competitors.
Please go caucus for Obama and tell everyone about Clintons and their record.
Anyone who wants to see the true Hillary, ask her or her supporters why she waffled after initially supporting NY GOV. Spitzer's plan to grant Drivers Licenses to illegal aliens in NY State; remember that terrible debate answer and then the aftermath in which she received a lot of negative airplay. The former President Bill Clinton asked the Governor to pull his plan so Hillary would not have to answer any more questions about it to get her off the hook. Look it up. That is the big supporter of Latinos.
Please call out Obama on his comments in the debate and check with any relatives or anyone else you know in Chicago to see if he has that kind of record there of saying anything to win the moment and move on with your vote to the next audience.
The Clintons record in the White House is they never stayed around to fight for us. They caved in on Affirmative Action and Welfare Reform, and most importantly, their Crime Bill that they brag put so many more officers on the street is also singularly responsible for a generation of historically high incarceration rates for black and brown people in this country. We also have the Clinton years to thank for the mandatory sentencing guidelines, eliminating the discretion of judges, and the disparity in sentencing between crack/cocaine sentences.
We Democrats mobilized to rally around them in 1998 and defend them from attacks, and that was entirely appropriate then. But they are the attackers now, attacking our Union and Obama just to make some kind of triumphant return to the White House; and we have to let them know that we love them but we need bolder, bigger cajones this time around. We need a homerun to sweep in majorities in both Houses of Congress with a message of hope and unity; and then we can claim a mandate to enact sweeping changes in legislation.
The truth that everyone reading this knows in his/her heart is that:
1. Any of our three Democratic candidates CAN win in November.
2. Only one could just as easily lose. (HRC is the only candidate with higher negative ratings than favorable one among all DEM and REP candidates)
3. And only one could win HUGE. (Obama has the biggest margin between favorable and negative ratings among all DEM and REP candidates)
We gotta go for it! This is why the female Senator McCaskill from MO and Gov. Napolitano from AZ along with Native American Sen. Nelson of Nebraska all endorsed Obama last week. No one wants the name Clinton on top of the ballot in their state, except the Republicans.
So please don't stay home. Everyone must go out Saturday and share your views with your neighbors. Go For It. And Ba-Rock the Vote!!!
My guy is Edwards, I also think that your reasoning has merit. These previous comments here seem overblown. All three are heads and tails above what the "R"'s have to offer.
Go caucus. Do it with a good heart. Bring friends with, and support the winner at the end of the primary season.
Go have breakfast, calm down a little.
Let's stay friends.
Not only was GW Bush incompetent, he was a puppet controlled and directed by others when they were interested, ie Iraq.
Who will control and direct Mr. Obama if elected? He does not have the experience or substance or conections to be running the Oval Office? Who will be his "advisors". He has already admitted himself he will need people around him to help him. The media needs to examine who these people will be as Mr. Obama's choice of advisers, who would have far too much influence given his lack of experience, is crucial.
We know his campaign is heavily backed by the nuclear lobby, so assume they will be involved. We know he atttends a very cult like black power church whose minister is a close person al friend of Farrakhan and has gone to Lybia to visit Ghadafi. This man is Obama's personal spiritual advisor, and prayed with the family about his candidacy and dedicated their home and baptised their children and married the Obama's.
Assume he will continue to be Mr. Obama's advisor. Do American's want a friend and admireer of Farakhan advising their President when the middle east is in crisis and the US is at war with Islamic militants?
We know he has had personal dealings involving a 300,000 dollar discount on his home, courtesy of a corrupt influence peddler.
These are serious questions that need to be asked. If Obama had more experience, more of a princpled voting record, and more substance to his candidacy, we could say he would not be that influenced by others. But history shows, and it its fair to say, that will not be the case with someone as inexperienced and unqualified for the job of President as Mr. Obama.
This is not swiftboating. Swiftboating was lies. This is appropriately vetting of a candidate. Obama's voting record is so thin, mostly non-votes of absence or presence, that really no noe knows what he would do as President. A such, I can't imagine why anyone, in good conscience with second thought, would vote for the man.
I applaud your choice, and urge everyone to go and caucus for Hillary. If anyone needs help to get to the caucus, call her campaign headquarters.
Obama is young and has plenty of time to run again later. He'll have a better chance after he has got more experience; now he can better serve the country in some ambassadorial position.
tim_japan ,
You make no sense and it seems that you compare a teenage responsibility with that of a seating president of the united State of America in his second term?
Now we should magically separate Hilleary from Bill? How did Hillary gain her so-called experience in the last 35 years? Was it away from Bills? Remember the Clintons companying years ago saying that “buy one get one free"? Today a pathetic News Paper like Sun endorses the Clinton with a wrong kind of words:” Hillary Clinton, who stands ready to restore dignity and competence to the Oval Office.” It is a joke to ask the Clintons “to restore dignity and competence to the Oval Office “even after Bush. This is the logical equivalence of asking a pig to clean its pigtail. It will just make it messier. After all it is a pig..
Can Hillary go to the Whitehouse alone and leave Bill behind? She claimed that she will be ready for president the first day. Can she do it without Bill?
I am a democrat, but I will vote republican and even campaign for any republican reader than let the Clintons back in the Whitehouse. If the win the Whitehouse, I will leave the country reader than go through four more years of the Clintons. They are the most shameful people this country can send back to the Whitehouse! My God, eight years of crimes, felonies that shamed all Americans are not enough? You want four more? Is this my beloved USA or some backward country in some remote corner of the world?
You want to know why the Clintons stay 8 years in the Whitehouse. It was because the Democratic Party was behind them. The way Bill and Hillary attack Obama now, giving the support of Obama amount the democrat, the Democrat will no longer be behind the Clintons the way we were in the 90s.
The Clintons have divided the Democratic Party and will unite the republicans in such away that they will not win the Whitehouse any way.
'Swiftboating' means dishonestly destroying someone's well-known strength: for example saying that Kerry, a known war hero, had behaved badly in the war and possibly faked his wounds! Or saying Al Gore was a pathological liar, or that Hillary has no real experience because she was not the person elected to the governorship of Arkansas (12 years) or the White House.
Think Democrats, do you want 4 years of the psycho drama that Hillary and Bill bring to the table. Didn't we have that experience before? They've done it again during this campaign, bringing up the negatives, inserting race, then retracting statements, union busting, misrepresenting records. Don't you all remember the divisiveness that went along with the Clintons that seems to be back again in full force. And when did it start? It started after Obama won Iowa. Then their power dream began to fade. Come on voters, this is not a game and certainly not one about power. We have too many problems to let this continuing backbiting, divisiveness continue. Obama has brought people together, not torn them apart. And most of all, we won't have another soap opera filling the newspapers rather than projects and plans to make people's lives better. Let's get a grip here. We don't have to hear again and again about poor Hillary's misery at Bill's unfaithfulness and the tears about how tough it is. Geez, don't you think you're wages, your future brings more real tears than whether Hillary will get to have her power. Wake up!
Hillary for president!!!
Experience, leadership, intellect and know-how is what the U.S. needs in the years ahead.
The economy is in bad shape and America's goodwill in the world is in ruins.
Hillary Clinton is what the U.S. needs.
Some people keep repeating some problems that occured in the nineties, but I think we shouldn't have been informed about that at all. That was a private matter and we all value our privacy.
The democrats are supportive of Hillary Clinton and if she gets a chance to prove herself so will the Republicans eventually.
Well, here is a link showing Hillary mocking American-Indians on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1Mq8kOXV...
So much for for racial sensitivity, notice that she also has a different accent. That is Hillary pandering to her audience. Is that the kind of leader we need? The Republicans will be happy to see Hillary as the Democratic nominee with all the baggage and scandal from the 90s. I sure hope the Democrats can do better, We do not run a monarchy system in this country.
Also her "35 years of experience" will not stand the scrutiny of the Republicans in the general election. This is resume inflation, and only the Clintons can lie like this publicly! Even Obama has more legislative experience than Hillary.
Debra,
American people are smart and very good people. They will not let the Clintons go back in the Whitehouse. If need be people like Bloomberg will jump in the race. I have great faith in the American people.
tim_japan.
For the Democratic Party, the question is a strategic one: who has a better chance of making the party stronger and winning the Whitehouse? the answer is simple:Obama, not Hillary. the Clintons are the past. Obama and Edwards are the future.
Dutch,
You wrote:"Some people keep repeating some problems that occured in the nineties"
How strange that your post talk about experiece but you don't want people to talk about the 90s. Can we talk about experience and omit time?
Stop repackaging Hillary like a disgusting marketer to sell her to us. Some in the Democratic Party may buy your BS. No matter how you repackage her, you will not be able to sell her in November. Stay in your trance and keep saying: " Hillary Clinton, who stands ready to restore dignity and competence to the Oval Office". The Republican will give you a rude awakening in November if you nominate Hillary.
The Clintons are far beyond their political life cycle. There is nothing you can do about it! So you can repackage her, she may try to reinvented herself with funny smiles, the tricks here and there. The republican and the country will tear your repackaging apart in November and she will be exposed. For the sake of the Party please stop. The Clintons are the Democratic Party’s largest liability. There are not an asset due to the life cycle and their shameful behaviors in the Whitehouse the last 8 years we send them there.
tim_japan, rather than abusing him, calling me delusional. Why don't you just state the facts -If you genuinely believe than Hillary has 35 years of work experience, please state the work experience, First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of United States - whilst doing this she and her husband spent most of their time trying to avoid jail time. Is that the kind of experience she needs to run the White House?
You tell me, who is in right mind will send his young daughter to intern at a Clinton White House? I think for myself and I do not care about endorsements, either for Obama or Clinton. Endorsements do not mean anything to me. I just look at the facts, and I believe the Democratic Party would be making a big mistake if they nominate Clinton, because I can assure you Americans do not want to go through the definition of "IS" and all the garbage of the 90s that most of us would rather forget.
Lets hope this marks the beginning of the end for the Obama campaign. America might finally be realizing that putting the White House in the hands of Barack Obama would only further exacerbate our problems.
I am also glad that the debates are having an effect. Clinton is so commanding, and she is head and shoulders above the other two on policy and issues that matter.
We need a fighter and someone to get things done, not a catchy turn of phrase.
Clinton '08!
tim_japan - amen!
For people who want "change" and "hope" to steer the ship, Obama's supporters are the most caustic people on the web. Their rhetoric and vitriolic spewing is worse than anything Hillary, Bill or their supporters put out there. Or, in the words of my candidate, "that's not change."
This is only further evidence of the superiority of the Clinton ticket.
Yes!!!!!!! Thank you so much Las Vegas Sun!!!
We the real Democrats, Uniters and those against Yucca Mountain support Hillary 100%! We love you and thank you!
Viva Hillary!!!!!!!!!
There is no doubt that Obama is inspirational and breath of fresh air. However, his appeal is that he is not a typical politician, will rise above Washington politics and thus will change Washington. The facts show this may not be entirely accurate. My point is only that all politicians are politicians, not that he is worse than Clinton. Clinton has not claimed to be as pure and Obama has. For the most part, he is an unknown quantity, and I believe his record on integrity deserves scrutiny in light of whether the facts support who he says he is.
1. When Clinton indicated that Obama's campaign was touting the race issue, he said such an assertion was "ludicrous." Then it came to light that his campaign distributed a memo to the media that hyped that Clinton was making comments that could be construed as race-related. That is certainly proliferating race even though he originally stated such an assertion was "ludicrous." Seems like a misrepresentation and political maneuver to me. Further, he said "“If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading or in some way is unfair, I will speak out forcefully against it." And, it doesn't sound like this Press Secretary was fired. Similarly, his preacher mentioned Lewinsky the other day. Inappropriate just like Bob Johnson's comment. Both Obama and Clinton apologized, but his campaign attests to no "dirty politics" until he was called on it. In the same vein, Obama's statement of not being a COO is worth considering too. He said that he will run the government by having good people who will be accountable to him, but do his actions support that by not firing the Press Secretary and not distancing himself from the preacher?
2. He says his biggest legislative achievement is ethics reform, but it hasn't even been passed yet. Even though it may not be his fault, he is claiming credit for something that hasn't happened yet. Its misleading. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/010...
3. Obama says he is above the use of lobbyists, but thats not true.
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=213&pid...
4. As to honesty and sincerity, there is a potential issue regarding Obama's ads and being transparent about his donors. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/010...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/94900
5. Regarding his position with nuclear power and Yuca mountain, his relationship to Exelon Corp. should be examined. http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/7509662.html...
All politicians are politicians - what is better "the devil you know or the devil you don't know"? Not only does Hillary have the competence and know-how to make change, she can beat the Republicans. Obama is an unknown. If anyone thinks the Clintons have played "politics" with the primary, just wait until the Republicans get involved. Think about Obama vs. a McCain? Obama will look a baby - he has zero foreign policy or national economic experience.
Thank you for the Endorsement. I believe she is the most qualified and ready to lead this nation after George Bush's fiasco of 8 years. Beware of a republican in a democrat's clothing -- there is NO real hope or change there. Why would the republicans go for a fake republican when they will have a real one in GE? It is a losing proposition all the way. The republicans in GE can easily turn the independents against this fake republican. We have to come together for our core democratic principles and values.
Tim_Japan, very interesting. You want me to let go of the 90s - But that is the Clinton experience. That is their record. What happened to running on your record. If you are talking about snorting Cocaine, who best to tell us about that than Bill. - "I smoked it and I did not inhale"
At least Obama had the courage to tell the truth, the Clintons have always lied to the American people - Marc Rich Pardon Scandal, Monica Lewinsky, The blue dress .. Get real, some Democrats may want to sweep this under the carpet, but you can be sure that Independents, and Republicans will not forget the Clinton White House of the 90s. The General election is a different ball game, and we don't need to remind Americans of the Clinton Whitehouse of the 90s. We need fresh blood and minds, so any day, Obama, Bloomberg or Edwards will do better than Hillary with the general public.
For those who don't know, here are some short highlights of Hillary's foreign policy experience, and a list of 32 ambassadors supporting her:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan...
Here is a neat list of some of Hillary's accomplishments before and after her time in the White House:
http://1950democrat.livejournal.com/2185...
And here is a longer piece quoting many sources about Hillary's accomplishments for women and children, much of it overseas:
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/12/18/...
"The Las Vegas Sun, however, said Clinton has the right blend of vision and experience, and an edge over Obama."
What experience ? Experience through osmosis ?
Experience having resided in the White House ?
Clinton's 'Experience' is a fallacy.
It makes for a nice campaign slogan but that is all it is.
If Clinton could translate her so called 'experience' into sound judgment she would not have voted us into Iraq. It's said over and over - and it's still the TRUTH.
The bottom line is that no other Democratic candidate will mobilize Republican voters to go to the polls in November like Hillary Clinton. Even of Republican voters are not fully supportive of their nominee, having Hillary on the November ballot will be enough to have them go out and cast their vote for McCain, Huckabee, or Romney.
Given Huckabee's recent statments about how he would use God's laws to change our Constitution, and the likelihood that he'll win South Carolina, voters need to really think about the consequences of having Hillary as the nominee.
Wonderful endorsement! The real thinking, working people know who can get the job done, and it is Hillary Clinton.
This is not American Idol, people, this is President and Commander in Chief!
You do not want a n00b in that job. No way.
First Read
January 18, 2008
"Reuters/C-Span/Zogby poll has Clinton up by five points, 42%-37%. But a caveat about the Nevada polls: We just don’t know who will actually show up at these caucuses. If Iowa was difficult to poll, Nevada might to 10-times harder.
Clinton picks up an endorsement from the Las Vegas Sun, while Obama gets one from the Reno Gazette Journal.
Do note, however, that the Sun’s editor, Brian Greenspun, is a HUGE Clinton supporter. "
The endorsement was a done deal way in advance
NEW YORK OBSERVER (from last May)
"For the Clintons, an Editor and a Friend
by Jason Horowitz
May. 1st, 2007, 12:06 pm
It wasn’t until after Hillary Clinton’s most recent visit to Nevada this Sunday that I noticed this, but as one of her donors based there told me, she was the beneficiary of a fund-raiser hosted for her at the local Four Seasons a month ago by two supporters named Brian and Myra Greenspun.
Brian Greenspun is the editor of the Las Vegas Sun, one of the city's two daily newspapers.
The paper disclosed its editor's political activity in an April 17 blog post that said that the Greenspun family, "which publishes the Las Vegas Sun, donated a combined $31,400 this year to the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton." (Greenspun’s official title is “President and Editor.”)
Senators Barack Obama and Chris Dodd also received donations from the family, but, according to the paper, "Sun Editor Brian Greenspun is a close friend of President Bill Clinton, the senator's husband."
Given the fact that Nevada is going to hold one of the country's earliest and potentially most influential primary contests, that seems like a pretty useful friendship for the Clintons to have."
Speaking of judgement PulSmsara:
In 2004, Sen. Obama said he was willing to support more troops in Iraq, said withdrawal from Iraq would be 'a slap in the face' to the troops fighting there." "Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said Saturday he would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the president and military leaders believe will stabilize the country …'A quick withdrawal would add to the chaos there and make it 'an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity,' [Obama] said. It would also damage America's international prestige and amount to 'a slap in the face' to the troops fighting there, he said." [Christopher Wills, "Obama Willing To Support More Troops In Iraq," The Associated Press, 9/19/04]
In 2005, Sen. Obama said that 'U.S. forces are still a part of the solution.'" "I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq….First and foremost, after the December 15 elections and during the course of next year, we need to focus our attention on how reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw.'" [Obama speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 11/22/05]
In 2006, Sen. Obama opposed Sen. Kerry's amendment to withdraw troops, saying he opposed 'a precipitous withdrawal of troops.' Sen. Obama voted against an amendment by Senator Kerry requiring the president to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq in 2006 and have complete withdrawal by July 1, 2007. "But having visited Iraq, I am also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this administration. It could compound them… A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility" [2006 Vote # 181, S2766, 6/22/06; Obama Remarks, Congressional Record, 06/21/06]
----
If you're looking for a way to denigrate Hillary, you can find better reasons than lack of experience. Using that talking point just displays your ignorance. Most people who hate the Clintons know very little about them.
Good article. The logic is clear.
actually we all know too much entirely about the Clintons and the Bushes--
Dear Dusacre,
Get a life. Enjoy your weekend!
I can live a happy life with all of the candidates as president. I wonder if you can with either one of the candidates as president.
Stop bashing Hillary Clinton if you don't want her to come out stronger. That seems to be a reaction that normally occurs with her.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for the best candidate in the field.
Obama definetely has my vote in 2016.
Oprah clearly stated she was an Obama supporter--
Are you saying tim_japan -- that someone declaring their support for any candidate is the same thing as a Major Newspaper Editorial in an early Caucus/primary state that does not mention that the Editor was "on the team" of a particular candidate??
Newspapers/TV may have an ideological point of view - but other than FOX (Roger Ailes/Giuliani) there is not usually a PERSONAL connection to this degree --
I don't think that many of the readers of the LVS endorsement knew in advance this was a done deal --
Maybe you did -
tim_japan -- pretty hostile and defensive reaction
I was merely reprinting an article about the connection between the LVS and their foregone conclusion endorsement--
I think this is somethng everyone reading the encorsement should be aware of
Then draw their own conclusions --
I totally disagree with your choice. I also think you are missing the forest for the trees.
1.) Hillary Clinton voted for the war, without reading the NIE. Her judgement was to try to protect her right political flank at the cost of American Lives and dollars. This is not the stuff that Presidents are made of. It takes the Iraq War off of the table for contrasting our Democratic candidate against the War Mongering Republican Candidate.
2.) Your logic of choosing Hillary over Barack is also flawed when you make a decision to support her based on fear of what the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy would "do" to Barack. Fear is a faulty way to come to a decision, plus it will be 2004 Kerry/Edwards redux for the attacks that will come that say "She was for the war before she was against it". Barack Obama is the only one that will have any credibility with the American public, as well as the wider foreign policy goals of repair of America's moral standing with other countries. Why? He is the only one that has been consistantly against the war from BEFORE it started.
3.) The DLC. During Clinton's Presidency in the 90's we lost the house and the Senate. Why? Because the DLC triangulated and dilluted all of their candidates in the minds of the American Public because as a party, we lost our identity in the 90's due to the "third way" policies of the DLC.
3.) Healthcare Reform. She already blew it on that one, and because of her mistakes we most certainly lost at least 10 years of healthcare reform. How many people have gone bankrupt in those 10 plus years because of a broken healthcare system?
4.) Corporate influence. She is funded by more Corporations and lobbyists than all of the other candidates combined....
5.) Bill Clinton. Need I say more? He is the biggest threat to a Democratic White House. Hillary and Bill will rally the base of the GOP to get out and vote, even though that don't have a serious Candidate.
There are MANY more reasons I could list. The MAIN reason though is her Iraq War vote. That immediately disqualify's her in my book.
I could list many more reasons, but I am too tired to actually type them all into this post.
I didn't say the endorsement was "dirty" - I said it was a foregone conclusion
and that it was
you may want to "temper" down (losing your temper doesn't help your candidate)
FOR YOUR INFORMATION, I AM AN INDEPENDENT, AND I SEEK FACTS BEFORE MAKING JUFGMENTS.
here is an artile from Time/CNN stating the facts. These are well established media with seasoned editors. They made a case for the experience issue in question. What is most troubling is the fact that the Las vegas Sun editoria is so misleading by clouding the facts. They mentioned of Clinton sudden change of strategy towards Irag when she infact voted for it. They also ignored the fact , that no matter how Hillary try to decieve the American people about her recent vote to designate the Iranian Revoultionary Guard as a terrorist organization without actionable intelligence counts to her poor judgement and her War mongering intentions or probably her desire to score political points.
I commend Obama and Edward for their ability to fight against the establishment. Bill Clinton has buiilyt and establishment within the Democratic party. It's like a Mafia and besides the country has had enough of 3 decades of the same leadership. The so called subprime loan and the problem we faced today are a result of the Clintons and Bushes decades of government.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/articl...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=...
These are facts
FOR YOUR INFORMATION, I AM AN INDEPENDENT, AND I SEEK FACTS BEFORE MAKING JUFGMENTS.
here is an artile from Time/CNN stating the facts. These are well established media with seasoned editors. They made a case for the experience issue in question. What is most troubling is the fact that the Las vegas Sun editoria is so misleading by clouding the facts. They mentioned of Clinton sudden change of strategy towards Irag when she infact voted for it. They also ignored the fact , that no matter how Hillary tried to decieve the American people about her recent vote to designate the Iranian Revoultionary Guard as a terrorist organization without actionable intelligence counts to her poor judgement and her War mongering intentions or probably her desire to score political points.
I commend Obama and Edward for their ability to fight against the establishment. Bill Clinton has buiilt an establishment within the Democratic party. It's like a Mafia and besides the country has had enough of 3 decades of the same leadership. The so called subprime loan and the problem we faced today are a result of the Clintons and Bushes decades of government.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/articl......
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=......
tim_japan go get some other work to do. Do you have a job. I noticed you have posted more than anyone on this blog trail. I must admit your judgement may just be as good as Hillary. Clouded
Nothing Short of Revolution.
Something is happening in America. It is clear that Americans want to change the fundamental way our government functions. Americans want to see BIG changes in policy, BIG changes in spending, Big changes across the boards. Nothing short of a Tsunami of public outcry will change the way we function as a country within our borders and on the global strange. Nothing short of a landslide victory for change will move anyone in Washington to be able to or be willing to do anything major to change the direction we are going.
I am almost positive that the democrats will win the election in November but it's also clear to me that without a major mandate in the vote, it will be meaningless for change. We need a candidate who has the power to create that mandate. A candidate who can unite democrats, independents and some republicans to join in this cause of change.
Hillary Clinton is not that candidate. Hillary Clinton represents the old establishment in Washington even if she has only been there officially for that past 7 years. She and everyone one around her including her husband and Madeline Albright are past their prime of energetic enthusiasm to lead in bold new ways. They think their way is the only way. A tried and vetted track of success and practices.
Has the SUN lost it's mind - Clinton is the right chocie and she's what we need right now!!! Who paid or intimidated you folks. Did Billy Clinton scare you. You have got to be kidding - I thought the Sun was a wee bit smarter that this choice. If that's how you feel, we're all going to hell in a hand bag - Hillary's hand bag. Wake up SUN -
As I see it, Obama's support comes from those who were in diapers while Hillary was already well underway in getting things done. In fact, the only change that Obama was orchestrating as Hillary became a change agent, was getting change back on his drug purchases.
I really believe that those who support Obama are mostly ideologically confused. After all, Obama cited Ronald Reagan as an exemplar of change of the kind that he envisions for himself. While Reagan may be admired as a savvy politician who was able to cobble a coalition that included Democrats, this isn't why Obama admires Reagan.
Obama admires Reagan because he agrees with Reagan's basic frame that the 1960s and 1970s were full of "excesses" and that government had grown large and unaccountable. Those "excesses," of course, were feminism, the consumer rights movement, the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and the antiwar movement. The libertarian anti-government ideology of an unaccountable large liberal government was designed by ideological conservatives to take advantage of the backlash against these "excesses." It is extremely disturbing to hear, not that Obama admires Reagan, but why he does so. Reagan was not a sunny optimist pushing dynamic entrepreneurship, but a savvy politician using a civil rights backlash to catapult conservatives to power. Those who support Obama because they think he is like Reagan are voting in the wrong party. Get your facts straight. Every time a Republican leaves office, he leaves us with the same kind of economic fall-out that we are experiencing right now. He leaves us with enormous debt, with the results of a 'trickle-down' economy that benefits only the rich, with a stripping of the middle class, and with an enriched military-industrial complex. Reagan should NEVER be cited as an example of a change agent by ANY Democrat, EVER.
Hillary on the ballot in November=Republican victory
This is a great endorsement. As a shift worker on the Strip, I believe Hillary will repair the economy and create opportunities for the middle class. She is also the only candidate who will stop nuclear storage at Yucca Mountain. Caucus for Hillary, and ignore the baseless Obama smear ads.
Thanks to the Las Vegas Sun editorial board for rehashing Hillary Clinton's campaign points. Heaven forbid they offer any independent thought. It sounds as though they might as well be on the campaign. Tell me a reason Nevadans should support Clinton, OTHER than the canned responses that the Clinton campaign have already given.
Obama has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from Exelon, a major atomic energy company that supports storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Obama also adopted a resolution in the Illinois state Senate in 2002 that asked Congress to approve Bush's recommendation for the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Obama supports Yucca Mountain, and he takes money from the nuclear power lobby. We cannot trust him.
Obama is not an "operating officer," by his own admission. He's just a rhetorician and he knows it. For those of us who have dealt in these circles, we know what happens when such speakers TALK about what they are going to do: NOTHING. He's just a big talker, a blatherer, a rhetor, a go-tell-it-on-the-mountain style preacher, and not an active agent in political change. Proof in point: 130 "present" votes since he's been in the U.S. Senate. That's real action for you. IF you want a president that loses papers handed to him and admits that he's not an "operating officer," you may also be someone who voted for George W. Bush. We had this sort of laissez faire, part-time president, part-time hunting and fishing fool before, and it has been a complete DISASTER. Obama comes from a tradition where TALK is everything.
For Democrats, Obama is the Candidate of Confidence, Clinton the Candidate of Fear:
As Democrats debate on this campaign and on the future of our party, the tone among Clinton supporters has come to differ sharply from that of Obama supporters. While Obama supporters exude confidence, excitement, and the will to win, Clinton supporters seem increasingly defensive; increasingly gripped by the fear that, in debating as we are now, we are fragmenting the party and playing into the hands of the Republicans. Clinton supporters cast Obama as a dangerous interloper who threatens to rip the Democratic Party apart, as an irresponsible dreamer, as a pied piper who is leading the children away to certain disaster. His supporters are cast as misguided idealists, as starry-eyed adolescents who need to give up their "false hopes" of something better than politics as usual and face dull, mediocre "reality." Surely our unruly behavior is already putting the Democratic campaign at serious risk. Surely even now the Republicans must be watching and grinning as we divide so that they can conquer. "Shhhh...," we are told by Clintonistas, "Be careful what you say.... The Republicans are licking their lips right now."
I say if they're licking their lips now they'll be eating crow come November. For any Republican who might be tempted to put tongue to lip, think again: I and other Obama supporters will vote for Hillary Clinton in November if she wins the Democratic nomination, as I should expect Clinton supporters will do in kind if Obama is the nominee, because we intend to win. The United States and the world can't stand another four-to-eight years of Republican insanity. Hillary Clinton is not my first choice among Democrats, but she beats any Republican by far. In the meantime, let the debate continue: Debate is, after all, the essence of that clever little Greek idea for which our party is named. We have the advantage; we can afford a healthy debate. With a field of candidates such as ours compared to the assortment of flawed specimens running for the Republican nomination, and with our enthusiasm compared to the mood of bitterness and gloom among Republicans, I'd say it is we Democrats who should be licking our lips.
Clinton talked about being an operating officer and also stated that she will manage the economy. Well respected economist have disputed these facts in recent days. The president does not manage the economy, The Fed does as well as the senate which will is also an important arm of goverment. The president job is not to shuffle papers but rather be of sound jidgement and bring to able to bring together the best minds. Our best minds with Hillary will be the same old people and the fact that she will be this great socialist and manage the economy. Do the Feds
Clinton talked about being an operating officer and also stated that she will manage the economy. Well respected economist have disputed these facts in recent days. The president does not manage the economy, The Fed does as well as the senate which will is also an important arm of goverment. The president job is not to shuffle papers but rather be of sound jidgement and be to able to bring together the best minds. Our best minds with Hillary will be the same old people and the fact that she will be this great socialist and manage the economy and do the Feds job. Magdalene Albright did a great service during her time , but times have changed in the dynamic world that we live in
Biggest Clinton Fraud so far...WATCH THE VIDEO. This is real. It is very emotonal..
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I&a...
Obama needs at least eight years as an APPRENTICE to someone like Hillary Clinton, time enough for the wetness behind his ears to dry.
Those who don't value experience are likely those who do not have any. They cannot value what they don't know. Likewise, they grossly under-rate its importance.
Obama, having no real record of doing anything, is a blank slate onto which people, mostly young people, can project their own fantasies. The over-riding fantasy of this up-and-coming generation, is the sense of entitlement, the sense of getting what one wants and getting it immediately, without really working for it. This trend has been well-documented. When they enter the workforce, this new group expects to start at the top and not have to work to excel. They believe they are OWED advancement and success.
Thus, this group of voters are projecting their own fantasies of easy advancement onto Obama, who has also been given special, kids-glove treatment. In Obama, they see the personification of their own fantasies of immediate gratification.
Also, might they relate to a candidate that admittedly is disorganized and "loses everything?" After all, that is a trait of adolescence, especially of adolescents on drugs.
SHOCKING VIDEO HILLARY DOES NOT WANT YOU TO SEE
...
Biggest Clinton Fraud so far...WATCH THE VIDEO. This is real. It is very emotonal..
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I&a......
Eldorado,
Learn how to read and listen. Clinton talked not about managing the economy, but about managing the GOVERNMENT, which is, afterall, the JOB of the president. If you want a RHETOR-in-CHIEF, then start a petition to initiate the creation of this post. If you want a COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, then vote for someone who is COMPETENT and not admittedly DISORGANIZED and full of nothing but SPEECHES. This isn't a job for a TALKER. This is a job for a DO-ER. Nothing on Obama's resume indicates the ability to do things, least especially his 130 "present" votes in the U.S. Senate. I submt that he voted "present" so that he was exactly what is now: a completely blank slate onto which people could PROJECT their own beliefs and fantasies, rather than someone who actually HAS committed to and done things of significance. Hillary was already changing things in the world while Obama was making change for drugs.
America is not a monarchy!
The last 20 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush mis-leadership has resulted in scandal, impeachment, war, polarity, an evisceration of the middle class, inflation, loss of jobs, unprecedented corporate greed, and it has left a mountain of debt for the younger generations. Leaders from the baby boom generation have created a poisonous mental state upon this country.
Hillary Clinton is a continuation of this destructive selfish path. A shrewd, calculating Machiavellian, she peppers her speeches with the words "I" "personal" and "me". She vehemently supported this now trillion dollar war in Iraq and she is deeply entrenched in the pockets of special interest money, an area that her husband turned into an art form. Let's move beyond this generation that pits one side against the other, as the country continues to spiral as a global leader.
Hillary, Bill, Bush, they all contribute to the same sad depressing state of affairs that afflicts this divided county.
Let's be clear, Bill Clinton benefited from a breakthrough technology with the computer industry, as groundbreaking as the light bulb or telegraph. He just happened to be there when it happened, and took full credit for it. Herbert Hoover or Jimmy Carter would have looked good in the '90s. Clinton didn't create 23 million jobs, a new technology created 23 million jobs. Clinton's legacy is that he was a champion focus group watcher, he weakened our defenses, took campaign money from the Chinese government, and is an outrageous miscreant who blew his seed all over the Oval Office. There's not enough space to analyze Bush and his spending or how his administration has turned us into a fearful nation of bed-wetters, easily distracted by non-events like "swift boat" and Hillary's tears. We've become pathetic, Wall Mart shopping retards. Both these families (Bushes, Clintons) are weird and low end. This pattern must not continue!
It's time the younger generations fight for a candidate like Obama that can at least change the mentally ill political culture that the baby boom generation has cultivated, while they deal with the crap storm of debt they'll be inheriting.
If you want endorse Clinton, fine. But show that you have some vestige of independent thought. This is verbatim regurgitation of Clinton talking points. Did you just outsource the whole endorsement and have a Clinton staffer write it for you?
Clinton supporters, America is great because it allows everyone to vote, even stupid people. So you will have your vote for the SOS Bill/Hill represent. But there are so many people who will overcome your vote, that we all lose. If you think Republicans don't see a field day with the 'resume' of these dear(?) folks, you're on some powerful trip. I voted for old Bill and for every other Democrat for over 30 years and I can't imagine making a Clinton vote this time. I don't want another Bush in the White House and that is what Clinton is but in Democratic clothing. She voted for the war, voted for the bill sponsored by Bush to step up the war mongering on Iran, she can't admit her mistakes and she slanders any opponent in her way to the Power House. Sound like anybody?
Want to know if Hillary Clinton can handle the White House, keeping this country on task through thick and thin--through anything? People forget that she has accomplished what few people, including the younger, Obama-backing generation have yet to learn--staying power under extreme circumstances. Her decision to stay with her husband, passed all the publicity of his personal mistakes, SAYS MUCH! She did what she felt was right according to her own personal morality and for her family. That, my friends, is something we don't see much anymore! What a wonderful example? Imagine my youthful friends! Someone who can think through just cutting your losses and running. An intelligent fighter who happens to also be a woman! Someone who can use experience to push forward!!!
Davek11, You have no idea what you're talking about. My guess is that you are about 20-25 years old, have very little education, and are enamoured of Obama because you believe his RHETORIC of 'change change change' when indeed he's demonstrated no EVIDENCE of having accomplished anything of the sort. My guess is that you are a Generation Y kid without real political or other experience and no idea about what happened either in the 60s, 70s, 80, or even the 90s. You don't know that people benefited GREATLY during the Clinton administration, and not from RHETORIC, but from real improvements in their lives. They suffered greatly under Reagan-Bush and were left with the very kind of nightmare that we have now, when Bill Clinton took over and turned it all around. People who lived through this period know that the proof is in the pudding and not in the WORDS on the LABEL.
Bill Clinton left the government with a record surplus. Bush turned it into a record deficit. Obama hasn't a CLUE about what to do about this. I don't want a KID running the country, one who is admittedly NOT an "operating officer" and is admittedly DISORGANIZED and LOSES EVERYTHING. I don't want him losing my country. He can learn to handle things first and get his sh*t together first, while a person of proven competence to actually enact change is at the helm.
Give me a break, you Generation Y people. Should we raise the voting age while you people finish college:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/...
"walden9 - you are so right on. These guys were in diapers when our people were working hard and fighting all the hard fights. Then Mister Wonderful just wants to float in and take everything over." -tim_japan
Wow. Talk about a sense of entitlement!
Speaking as someone who was not in diapers, who has never voted republican, and who voted for Bill in '92 and '96, if Ms. Clinton is nominated I will hold my nose and vote Republican. The Clinton's and Terry MacAuliffe and the rest of that crowd are corporatists and as a group are the single most divisive group after the Bushies.
And as for your kool-aid comment remember: projection is a horrible thing.
And she bodly used the Karl Rove politics of fear in New hamshire talking about an the fear of another attack by terrorist when a new president is elected such as the recent attack in London. This is something that we decry in politics. It is true that there is always going be an imminent attack. There was an attack on the World trade center when Clinton and Bush took office respectively. Intelligence agency always speculate that such attacks will may occur. In the US, Madrid and London we have survived those attacks and triumphed over the terrorist. It has nothing to do with the President elected on day 1. What gives Hillary the qualifications to stop the unexpected on day 1 more than her other rivals. Why the politics of fear that we all decry. Any president elected will get all the intelligence briefing and support that they need on day 1
The Clintons are angry and worn out. Both of them are behaving as though the next Presidency is somehow owed to Hillary, and many Hillary backers are enabling this: "It's her turn." The Clintons, post Iowa, have demonstrated in clear terms that they are not a break from the past, but that they are indeed THE past. Hillary's unwillingness to get behind real ethics reform, apologize for her vote on Iraq, articulate a Social Security policy, turn down PAC money, and NOT misrepresent her opponents record and views are all hallmark signs of veteran, tired politician. Her main argument against Obama is essentially that his hope and ideas are naive. What a shallow and sad argument with which to attack bigger ideas. Nevada voters, help those of us in the States to come demonstrate the courage to not just take the known quantity, but to vote for the most compelling ideas and yes, hopes. Let's give Obama a chance to help all of us "change the world."
The notion that Hillary is a "corporatist" is another rhetorical ball-of-nonsense that is completely at variance with the facts. As a matter of FACT, something that Obama supporters are loathe to consider, Hillary has the MOST PROGRESSIVE VOTING RECORD among the remaining candidates for the Democratic nomination. I wouldn't want something so annoying as facts to upset the foregone conclusions of people used to hurling and receiving epithets and phrases without THINKING or considering the evidence, but here is a little lesson for all of those who call Hillary a "corporatist" or "corporate Democrat," or worse:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/0...
There you will see that by all progressive standards, Hillary outstrips Obama and Edwards (and outstripped all other contenders, other than the elf).
Thanks, Tim!
http://www.legitgov.org/comment/rec_repo...
For anyone who thinks that funding translates directly into policy, try thinking again.
One thing we may count on, Tim. The caucus in Nevada is at 11:00 AM on a Saturday. Most of the Gen. Y people won't be out of bed till it's over.
Judging from some of the comments made thus far I beginning to smell some wolves in sheep's clothing, Republicans masquerading as Obama supporters for they have the most to gain. They know they can't beat Clinton in the November general election, but they are confident they can defeat Obama no matter who they nominate due to his lack of experience. Remember folk's Obama has been a US Senator for only three years and much of that time was spent campaigning for President. One other thing, I detect that the bloom is starting to fall from the Obama rose.
Reeda, you are exactly right. That's why the CORPORATE media are giving Obama a free pass, that and the patronizing of race. They know that Obama would be SNACK FOOD