Just say NO to Hillary & Edwards

[Talya in CT]

AND YES Obama !

Let's see now...

Hillary voted for the war and she has supported practically every anti-peace, anti-muslim & anti-arab, initiative / action since.

Ditto Edwards.

If either prevails, there will be no peace around the world, or an end to the war in Iraq.

We may have both with Obama.

[redqueen]

1. That's funny.

You are funny.

[Talya in CT]

39. ALERT - ALERT - ALERT !!! THE FREEPER IS BACK

yes it is me Talya again, imagine that, "THE FREEPER" came back to substantiate her position.

So sorry to disappoint all those that called me names and labeled me this or that.

( RedQueen, replying to your post so everyone will read the despicable FREEPER, namely me ! )

They say a picture is better than a thousand words, so here it is...



(fill in the blanks from recent news)

I feel that Senator Clinton lacks the deep resolve needed to repair the fundamental discord between the Islamic world and the west. Which in turn will address the root causes of terrorism in many, but not all, parts of the world.

I see the needed resolve in Obama.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[devilgrrl]

50. Joseph Lieberman - He Rocks!!!!

:eyes:

[Talya in CT]

66. I don't get it

what are you saying ?

[Bucky]

70. And there's a good chance you will continue to not get it

Oh no, I've said too much. I haven't said enough

[AndyA]

2. Your post is just trying to incite anger on this board.

You haven't really contributed anything to DU by making such a post. I'm trying to keep an open mind at this point. I like Edwards best, but I am not going to cast aside the others at this point.

Try it, you might just find the other candidates also have positive things to offer.

[Kolesar]

3. Well, ok, welcome to our forum and all that ...

...but a little material and development of your thesis is would be good. Don't want to be like...upsetting people with a short post...now do we? I've seen people get quite defensive sometimes, you know.

[Lex]

4. Just say NO to flamebait BS.

nt

[Warren DeMontague]

5. Just say no to letting the media tell you who the candidates are. It's Feb. 2007.

Right now, I agree that on the issue of Iraq, Obama is preferable to Edwards, who is preferable to Hillary.

But they are by no means the only options. We'll see what happens.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AlCzervik]

7. ok then, i'm totally convinced, you should be in sales.

[itsmesgd]

8. Edwards was the first to come out and say that his vote for the war was wrong

Plus, he is no longer a senator so he cant "still " be voting for "...every action since".

Dont bring Edwards down with Hillary.

Less negative, more positive for your candidate.

[lancdem]

9. Hillary said she'll end the war with Iraq

So would Edwards. :shrug:

BTW, no president can bring "peace around the world," even Obama, lol. Talk about impossible expectations ...

[Bethany Rockafella]

10. No heart for you.

:eyes:

[Kolesar]

12. well, you need one

[Bethany Rockafella]

16. Why thank you!

;-)

[Bluebear]

24. ...

:spray:

[Pierre.Suave]

11. I see things a bit differently

How about NO to Hillary, Edwards, AND Obama, and YES to Gov. Richardson.

After all, he IS the most experienced candidate.

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/

Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 4 times, former energy secretary, former ambassador to the UN, negotiated cease-fire in Darfur and the list goes on and on.

[skipos]

17. Yep, Richardson is EXTREMELY qualified

and one of the best candidates to repair all of the damage that has been done to our foreign reputation. I am not ready to rule out Obama or Edwards at this point. but I doubt HRC will win me over.

[Pierre.Suave]

25. Personally,

I have nothing against Hillary,Obama, or Edwards, but I dont think they have a chance of winning a presidential election, and we NEED to win this election WHILE maintaining our majority in BOTH the House and Senate.

Other than Edwards, the only other candidate running for office right now that wont be giving up a seat in either house of congress is Richardson.

Plus, Rishardson has more experience than the rest of them combined.

[Breeze54]

26. Gov. Richardson is good but

he also has some issues that I don't agree with. Right now

It's to early yet to be deciding on anyone candidate right now, imho.

They all have flaws. Some more than others.

I'm waiting for that dark horse, to come from the side!

[Pierre.Suave]

32. enlighten me

what are these issues?

[Breeze54]

40. What are my issue's

with him?

His stand on Capital punishment, for one.
And his stand on 'three strikes you're out'.
He may be changing those positions. I haven't checked his website this week.

I do like his Green idea's and he could do a lot of good nationally with those.
He is and has been against the war on Iraq from the beginning.
I think he is doing really good things in Darfur too and other places.

He is a great ambassador and I do think he has a helluva lot more experience than HRC or BHO!

Senators rarely get elected as President but Governor's DO get elected! ;)

[Pierre.Suave]

52. name one candidate

More broadly electable than him?

Dont tell me Hillary, Obama, or Edwards, only the Dems like them, we need to get the swing voters in order to win.

[Breeze54]

67. Senator Mike Gravel - D - AK

Why in hell would I even mention HRC? :puke:

I don't know if the candidate we need has announced yet.

It's still to early in the game, imho.

There is one other candidate nobody seems to have heard about.

He says a lot of good things but as far as being electable, that would be tough.
Not from what he says but because of his age...

Mike Gravel (D-AK)

http://www.gravel2008.us/

Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel's speech had the Democratic Party official's undivided attention when he chastised those Democratic candidates who supported the Iraq war resolution. Gravel said those candidates who voted for the war and who are now claiming they made a mistake do not possess the judgment to be president. Candidates who voted for the war in 2002 include Senators Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, and Joe Biden. Gravel criticized them and their Democratic colleagues, who, while in control of the Senate in 2002, "provided political cover for George Asshole to invade Iraq." Edwards has conceded that his vote was a mistake. Some Democratic Party officials, including Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, squirmed in their seats as Gravel, who was one of the architects of ending the draft and the Vietnam War, reminded some of the Democrats present in the Washington Hilton ballroom of their culpability in enabling the Iraq war.

Gravel declared, "anyone who voted for the war on October 11th <2002> based upon what President Asshole presented to them is not qualified to hold the office of the president of the United States." Gravel continued, "The Senate leadership could have refused to even take up the resolution and many Senators who opposed it could have mounted a filibuster, but the fear of opposing a popular warrior president on the eve of the mid-term election prevailed. Political calculations trumped morality and the Middle East was set ablaze. The Democrats lost that election anyway, but more so the American people. It was politics as usual."

Gravel, who was the first major candidate to declare for the presidency last April and was largely dismissed by the Democratic leadership, is now tied with Biden in polls in Nevada, an early caucus state.

=================


AMERICA’S LOST VISION

http://www.gravel2008.us/?q=node/332

By Senator Mike Gravel

February 3, 2007

Winter Meeting, Democratic National Committee

Governor Dean. As a lifelong Democrat––proud when my party did great things and occasionally ashamed when it did the wrong things––I honor and commend your leadership in rebuilding the party in every corner of this nation. Even more, you have my respect for your earlier and outspoken opposition to the Iraq war in your own presidential candidacy.

I plan to speak truth to power today. You, the delegates, have the power to decide who will be the Democratic nominee. I also plan to speak truth to the American people, who have the power to choose the next President of the United State.

But first, I have one small favor to ask of all of you. Whenever anyone raises the question of my age in this campaign, please point out that Washington is in great need of adult supervision.

snip-->

History teaches us that nations fail when leaders fail their people. The decision to invade Iraq without provocation and fraudulently sold to the American people, by a President consumed with messianic purpose, sadly confirms this lesson of history.

The Democrats controlled the Senate on October 11, 2002 and provided political cover for George Bush to invade Iraq. The Senate leadership could have refused to even take up the resolution, or a few Senators who opposed it could have mounted a filibuster.

But the fear of opposing a popular warrior President on the eve of a mid-term election prevailed. Political calculations trumped morality, and the Middle East was set ablaze. The Democrats lost in the election anyway, but the American people lost even more. It was Politics as Usual.

Given the extreme importance of any decision to go to war, and I am anguished to say this, it’s my opinion that anyone who voted for the war on October 11––based on what President Bush represented––is not qualified to hold the office of President.

Political leaders must bring two qualities to any public office:
political integrity and moral judgment.

If political calculations trump morality and occasion substantial loss of human life, it reveals
the sense of moral responsibility these candidates are likely to bring to the office of President.

Saying “I would not have voted for the resolution if I had known the mess it would create”––or worse, saying “the decision was right but Bush botched the job”––is inadequate rationale for a person who may hold the most powerful political position in the world. Presidents have moral responsibility for the life and death of millions of people.

Politics as Usual is not acceptable for the presidency.

I feel I am entitled to raise this issue because when I served in the Senate, during the Vietnam War, I spoke truth to power.

I officially released the Pentagon Papers, and as a result, Richard Nixon sued me all the way to the Supreme Court.

I successfully filibustered to force an end to the military draft.

I filibustered alone and with others to end the appropriations for the Vietnam War. Those are my credentials.
I’ve been there and know how hard it is to oppose the majority of your peers.

In this campaign you will hear from many who would be President. Judge us not on how much money
we raise from those who buy influence. Rather judge us on what we have done. And judge us on the solutions we offer.

I have unreserved faith in the American People and my presidential candidacy will champion empowering We, the People with real power, the central power of all governments! Lawmaking.

Thank you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More at Link! Awesome speech!!

Gravel said those candidates who voted for the war and who are now claiming
they made a mistake do not possess the judgment to be president.

I AGREE!!!

[Warpy]

30. I live in Richardson's state

New Mexico, and I'd love to see him as Secretary of State. He would be a fine representative of this country abroad, something we desperately need after so many years of belligerent neocons.

I don't think much of him as a chief executive, though.

It's certainly hard not to like a man who goes through life looking like an unmade bed, and he knows how to speak plainly. Those are things in his favor. He's sort of the anti uptight neocon.

If he's the nominee, he'll get my vote as any pro choice candidate will.

[bklyncowgirl]

38. "Goes through life looking like an unmade bed" I like that description.

I don't have a favorite candidate but he's one that I'm looking at.

If I hire someone, I'm going to give the job to someone who has experience that shows he or she can do the job I have in mind. My problem with all of our top tier candidates is that I just don't see that sort of experience in Senators Clinton, Obama or Edwards.

Richardson does have that experience but I kind of wonder if he has the telegenic personality that can really take off.

[Breeze54]

46. Richardson could be ’08’s most dangerous candidate

http://www.examiner.com/a-523409~Ed_Morrissey__Richardson_could_be__08_s_most_dangerous_candidate.html

snip-->

This record gives Richardson an incredible amount of applicable experience for the presidency. He has extensive foreign-affairs experience; he has plenty of contacts in Congress and a long history of working between the legislative and executive branches; and most of all, he has solid executive experience that all of the other main candidates for the nomination lack. In fact, compared to Richardson, the rest of the pack look like amateurs playing at national politics.

Richardson should worry Hillary Clinton based on his extensive experience. However, his experience with the Clintons also might give Hillary Clinton a different set of vulnerabilities, depending on whether the former baseball player will go hardball in the primary race.

Even the fact of his candidacy makes a case for his readiness to dish on Hillary Clinton. He’s just young enough at age 60 to have waited for 2012 or 2016 to avoid going against Hillary Clinton, and yet he chose to run against his former boss’ spouse. That indicates that Richardson doesn’t feel especially loyal to either Clinton on the national stage and hints that some fireworks may await us on the primary trail.

The Democrats have no one else with a resume to match Richardson, with the possible (and extreme) exception of former Vice President Al Gore. The Democrats certainly have no other candidates with Richardson’s experience and his certified centrist appeal.

Neither do the Republicans have anyone in their committed field of candidates who can match this resume, either. And that should worry the GOP, if Richardson gets close.

The GOP has a significant edge in experience at the moment, but it is an edge that will evaporate if Richardson takes the Democratic nomination. Will the Democrats be smart enough to take advantage of it? <--snip


:shrug:
I don't know if the democrats will be smart this time.
That remains to be seen... Here's to hoping!!!

[Pierre.Suave]

79. I sure hope so

I really do.

[Cobalt Violet]

61. No, Say yes to Kucinich.

He has no problem deciding where he stands issues. I rather know what I'm getting instead of someone prepackaged by the media.


http://kucinich.us/issues

[Sara Bradi]

72. I am thinking Sherrod Brown of Ohio...not for 2008 of course

He just started as the junior senator from Ohio, and boy is he kicking ASS.

[MeDeMax]

75. I love Sherrod's no nonsense approach

the rest of congress should take his cue.

He is very clear on where he stands, it has always been with the troops and with the Americans.

Go Sherrod !

[Sara Bradi]

76. He stood up to Bill Clinton on trade agreements

when it was really unpopular and un-expedient to do so, that's the kind of candidates we need.

I haven't ruled anyone out for 2008.

[MeDeMax]

80. yep Brown's the man, I am keeping an open mind too -- n/t

[saltpoint]

13. I'll say 'yes' to either of them if they're our nominee.

Ditto Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Gravel, Clinton, Kucinich, Gore, Clark, and so on down the list.

Our nominee is going to be one of the announced or potential candidates. It is NOT going to be everybody's first choice.

[brazos121200]

14. You say "If either prevails, there will be no peace around the world"

How do you know this? Are you psychic? Hillary has said that if she knew then what she knows now she never would have supported giving the president authority to go to war, and that if she had been president she never would have started the war in Iraq. Edwards is now against the war. People learn, people change. Some just take longer than others to figure it out. Let's not condemn everyone who is not as smart as we are. Especially let's not attack each other in the Democratic party, let's save our attacks for the Repubs.

[asjr]

15. Now that you have gotten that off

your chest, why don't we wait about saying no. I am going to listen to any Democrat running and find out all I can about each one without listening to the RW pundits, newscasters, talking show hosts, Tweety and Tim Russert.

[asjr]

20. I just now noticed. Someone gave me

a heart! Thank you!

[Talya in CT]

53. that is a very reasonable statement asjr nt

[saracat]

18. I like all our field and see no reason to promote one by bashing others!

And I will not allow one vote to cancel out all the positives of other candidates.One could also argue that Barak didn't have a vote for IWar so it doesn't matter what he said. I like the guy anyway but all our candidates have virtues and all would be great presidents.

[Talya in CT]

54. I am not bashing them Sara please my other posts here

[kanrok]

19. I hereby change your name to "Flambata"

You are welcome.

[Missy M]

21. I don't think there has ever been peace around the world....

yet Obama may make it happen. That's quite a feat for one guy.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LSK]

23. its definately primary season

:rofl:

[Breeze54]

27. Tayla is entitled to her opinion.

Welcome to DU, Tayla! :hi:

[Talya in CT]

56. Thank you Breeze of fresh air

:hi: :hi:

[Rockholm]

28. Enough of these redundant posts!

The friggin' PRIMARIES are a year off. Is this what I can look forward to for the next YEAR?

[Breeze54]

68. The next year and a half!!

:)

[Rockholm]

74. Ugh.

[etherealtruth]

29. I won't say NO to any of them

[SlowDownFast]

31. Post 'n' Run?

I'm not a big Hillary or Edwards fan, but perhaps next time you could stick around awhile to check the line you baited...

[AlCzervik]

36. i refer to them as rings and runs.

[Bucky]

71. Interesting thought: What else do you refer to as "the runs"?

Not that I'm drawing any parallels.

[Talya in CT]

69. I have explained my reasoning and rationale, with pics

[Beaverhausen]

33. How do we know Obama was against the war?

He wasn't in the senate at the time, so he wasn't able to cast a vote.

Are there any records of his writings or statements at the time that show he was against it since 2002?

[NYCGirl]

42. Yep, here's a speech he made in 2002:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

[Beaverhausen]

47. thanks!

:hi:

[Breeze54]

44. Yes!

Go to his website. He made a great speech against the war in Iraq!

Iraq

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/iraq/index.html

In October 2002, before being elected to the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama made a speech opposing
the Bush Administration's plan to go to war in Iraq because he felt it was an ill-conceived
venture which would "require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undermined cost,
with undetermined consequences."

================

Barack Obama's Iraq Speech

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech


(Delivered on 26 October 2002 in Chicago at Federal Plaza at an anti Iraq war rally organized by the ANSWER coalition.)

Iraq Speech

by Barack Obama


Good afternoon.

Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

He couldn't vote against the IWR but he did speak out!

[Beaverhausen]

48. Thanks for posting that

:hi:

[onehandle]

34. Bush and Gore are exactly the same.

I've heard that one too.

[paulk]

35. just say no to Talya in CT

for posting flamebait!

[BuyingThyme]

37. If this is flamebait, then we need more flamebait.

Welcome to DU, Talya in CT!

[Talya in CT]

57. thank you, pleased to be here

[WI_DEM]

41. How about everybody saying "yes" to someone they can get behind

and people writing substative posts about their candidate rather than hit pieces on others?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DainBramaged]

45. Hahahahaah Freeper in Paradise HAHAHAHAHAHA

[bigwillq]

51. Hello.

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

Who is your choice for Prez then? :shrug:

[Talya in CT]

62. Ans : my choice is anyone who will light a candle of real hope...VERY GRAPHIC PICTURES WARNING !!!

Hillary supports the apartheid wall



more... http://wake-up-america.net/apartheid_wall.htm

Edwards says Iran cannot be allowed to go nuclear, but this handsome trial lawyer cannot explain how "Made in USA" cluster bombs and phosphorus munitions burned thru the lungs of lebanese children



more... http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2006/07/26/israel-drops-white-phosphorus-bombs-on-children/

Hillary, Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, Obama or whoever gets elected - there will be no security for my children if I don't speak up in the face of glaring injustice.

DOES ANYONE STILL NOT UNDERSTAND WHY I SAY NO TO Hillary & Edwards ?

Thanks BigWillQ, good to be here.

:hi:

[CatWoman]

55. can I say no to you instead?

[Talya in CT]

58. of course you can, but do so after reading my posts here and seeing the pics

[H2O Man]

59. Legalize Lonnie

Anderson's hair.

[CatWoman]

60. nooooooooooooo!!!!!

That hair is positively EVIL!!!

EVIL I tell you!!!

:hi:

[Pyrzqxgl]

63. Something that should be removed by the moderator is what I'm feeling right now

go play in someone elses sandbox.

[Dr Fate]

64. I'm not ready to toss out Edwards at all. But we agree as to Hill & Obama.

I think Edwards has learned his lesson- I accept his apology and explanation.

Hillary? She has neither apologized nor explained herself in an honest, acceptable manner.

Obama? We agree- he is fantastic.

[Talya in CT]

65. I am a little torn on Edwards

his message is too focused on domestic issues, I can't help but wonder if he will be capable of making tough foreign policy decisions.

I feel we have some really tough foreign policy choices ahead of us, both for our own security and to have credibility around the world.

Thank you for responding.

[w4rma]

73. I'll definitely say no to Hillary. I like Edwards, and don't think he's a warmongerer as too many

think he is. Last month, he said he was flat wrong to have supported the IWR. The guy is honest.

[Bridget Burke]

77. I thought "just say no" was insipid when Nancy Reagan said it.

The phrase hasn't improved with age.

[Little Wing]

78. Can someone explain why this is flame-bait?