In my political calculus, having voted for the war automatically disqualifies a candidate from my support. I am pretty ignorant on a lot of fronts, and I admit to taking a reactionary position here, but for me, the war is the defining issue of our time. It was launched on patently flimsy evidence in a pro-war political climate.
A Democratic Senator voting for the war either thought it a good idea or would not stand for principle in a matter of life and death. The bad judgment on the one hand or the cowardice on the other are too much for me to forgive.
Regarding Barak Obama, I hope he is made of stern stuff, because the next president of the United States is going to have a rough time of it.
I think saying that Hillary Clinton voted for the war is distorting the truth a bit. The vote was to authorize the use of force to back up the UN as they tried to use diplomacy to resolve the Iraq weapons situation. The UN asked for it. Like it or not, force is a necessary component of diplomacy—it just wasn’t foreseen by many that Bush would become a borderline war criminal and abuse that authorization.
So if Obama is so prescient for having not supported the war, even though he wasn’t in a position to vote for or against the war, then Hillary Clinton should get just as much of a boost from actually seeing the healthcare crisis looming and trying to do something about it way before it was on every other Democrats agenda and pre Michael Moore’s film that placed the topic higher in most people’s agenda. (the previous thought was my wife’s,but its a good one).
I’ve only beens slightly convinced that Obama is made of stern stuff, much less has a plan for many of the critical issues facing our nation, while I do believe Hillary Clinton has such plans and I know her toughness and grit have been tested thoroughly.
Still, all that being said, I am totally down with Obama should he get the nomination. I think having a President who actually has actually lived abroad and has his particular world view would be great.
You are right that Clinton deserves a lot of credit for her work on health care, way before it was the problem it is now. I saw a chart of inflation-adjusted health care costs, and it dipped substantially during the Clinton administration. Her foresight was not only prescient, but effective.
As for being unable to see where President Bush was headed, I think there was enough evidence to warrant caution. Anyone doing due diligence in the summer of 2000 would have read Cheyney’s opinion s of executive privilege with regard to the Iran-Contra affair would see a red flag. I did not do this diligence, and made every effort to cut our President a break.
My opinion of this administration was cast in stone when Jose Padilla was arrested and not charged with a crime. Holding a citizen without charges flatly contradicts every principle on which our government holds its charter, and it happened before the AUMF vote. Since that time, it is obvious that they have been governing without regard for the law.
In that light, our congress, and especially the Democrats in our congress, as the supposed opposition party, and more especially the Democratic leadership in our congress, have been, since June 2002, derelict in their duty. Hillary Clinton was in that group the whole darn time. Barack Obama, not so much.
Sadly, no one is running on my “Heads on Pikes” platform. The thing I would most like to see is a long, sobering look at what happened to the executive branch under President Bush, preferably with indictments. Without that, I am afraid we will just let it happen again.
Leave a Comment
Search Halfass
WTF?
Halfass is the website of a husband, father, technologist, international civil servant and man of good cheer living in Vienna, Austria. About Halfass
What I'm Doing...
enjoying a little bit of red wine on the terrace with 1 of my 3 ladies -- the one I married! Wonderful. 8 hrs ago
I assure you that I am packing Danish butter. Don't try me. 13 hrs ago
This weather really exposes the tramp stamps, arm boils, prison tattoos and onion toes of Vienna's populace. 13 hrs ago
7 responses so far ↓
1 david // Feb 27, 2008 at 10:22 am
yo call me while ur in the states
2 Elliott // Feb 27, 2008 at 3:48 pm
She voted for the war.
3 scotty // Feb 27, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Obama wasn’t even in a position to vote for or against the war…
4 gammypoo // Feb 27, 2008 at 6:38 pm
!
5 Elliott // Feb 27, 2008 at 8:20 pm
In my political calculus, having voted for the war automatically disqualifies a candidate from my support. I am pretty ignorant on a lot of fronts, and I admit to taking a reactionary position here, but for me, the war is the defining issue of our time. It was launched on patently flimsy evidence in a pro-war political climate.
A Democratic Senator voting for the war either thought it a good idea or would not stand for principle in a matter of life and death. The bad judgment on the one hand or the cowardice on the other are too much for me to forgive.
Regarding Barak Obama, I hope he is made of stern stuff, because the next president of the United States is going to have a rough time of it.
6 scotty // Mar 4, 2008 at 7:17 pm
I think saying that Hillary Clinton voted for the war is distorting the truth a bit. The vote was to authorize the use of force to back up the UN as they tried to use diplomacy to resolve the Iraq weapons situation. The UN asked for it. Like it or not, force is a necessary component of diplomacy—it just wasn’t foreseen by many that Bush would become a borderline war criminal and abuse that authorization.
So if Obama is so prescient for having not supported the war, even though he wasn’t in a position to vote for or against the war, then Hillary Clinton should get just as much of a boost from actually seeing the healthcare crisis looming and trying to do something about it way before it was on every other Democrats agenda and pre Michael Moore’s film that placed the topic higher in most people’s agenda. (the previous thought was my wife’s,but its a good one).
I’ve only beens slightly convinced that Obama is made of stern stuff, much less has a plan for many of the critical issues facing our nation, while I do believe Hillary Clinton has such plans and I know her toughness and grit have been tested thoroughly.
Still, all that being said, I am totally down with Obama should he get the nomination. I think having a President who actually has actually lived abroad and has his particular world view would be great.
7 Elliott // Mar 4, 2008 at 8:42 pm
You are right that Clinton deserves a lot of credit for her work on health care, way before it was the problem it is now. I saw a chart of inflation-adjusted health care costs, and it dipped substantially during the Clinton administration. Her foresight was not only prescient, but effective.
As for being unable to see where President Bush was headed, I think there was enough evidence to warrant caution. Anyone doing due diligence in the summer of 2000 would have read Cheyney’s opinion s of executive privilege with regard to the Iran-Contra affair would see a red flag. I did not do this diligence, and made every effort to cut our President a break.
My opinion of this administration was cast in stone when Jose Padilla was arrested and not charged with a crime. Holding a citizen without charges flatly contradicts every principle on which our government holds its charter, and it happened before the AUMF vote. Since that time, it is obvious that they have been governing without regard for the law.
In that light, our congress, and especially the Democrats in our congress, as the supposed opposition party, and more especially the Democratic leadership in our congress, have been, since June 2002, derelict in their duty. Hillary Clinton was in that group the whole darn time. Barack Obama, not so much.
Sadly, no one is running on my “Heads on Pikes” platform. The thing I would most like to see is a long, sobering look at what happened to the executive branch under President Bush, preferably with indictments. Without that, I am afraid we will just let it happen again.
Leave a Comment