Comments on: Obama Ups the ‘08 Sweepstakes

By: kathleen

kathleen — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:49:31 +0000

If the Democrats do not hold anyone accountable for the false pre-war intelligence. If they fail as the Republican controlled congress did in the completion of Phase II of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. If the Democrats and Republicans confirm that the reasons for the “crisis in confidence” that permeates Americans attitudes towards our representatives and this system are not going be remedied. If they let us know once and for all that it was more important to them to hold a President accountable for lying under oath about a BLOWJOB and they do not plan to hold anyone accountable for the INTELLIGENCE SNOWJOB that has resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of lives. Then I believe our country is ultimately doomed. This is their last chance..the ship is going down!

If they do not INVESTIGATE—DE-ESCALATE..THEY ARE BLOWING THE DOORS OPEN FOR AN INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE IN 2008!

By: kathleen

kathleen — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:41:20 +0000

I just can not forget Obama during the congressional hearings having to do with the selection of Condi Rice and John Bolton for their spots. Obama did not ask hard driving questions of either of them, he rolled over and played it down the middle. He voted for Rice and I believe he voted for Bolton.

However Kerry asked the most hard driving, direct questions of anyone. He voted against both of them. Biden, Boxer, Dodd and Lincoln Chaffee ( I was very sad to see him go) also asked pointed questions of both Rice and Bolton.

OBAMA ROLLED OVER ….

By: GabrielOak

GabrielOak — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 05:17:38 +0000

Gore is the one, if he will go for it. We need someone of truly presidential timber after GWB. And it would be poetic justice. After Reuters said he was out, you had to wonder, who else is there? Maybe, just maybe, Bill Richardson — lots of experience. Not sure he’s electable though. It’s hard not to like Obama, but it’s not his time yet. Ditto for John Edwards, but he has great potential. As for Hillary, she has been wrong on Iraq for years. What a disappointment. My dream ticket is Gore/Feingold (if they would both run).

By: leslie

leslie — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 05:11:45 +0000

…”But Obama did strongly push back against escalation after Mr. Bush’s speech last week. Certainly the fact that Obama was against the Iraq war from the start helps, but he wasn’t in the Senate, so it’s difficult to know what he’d have done if he were.”

It’s not too difficult to imagine what Obama would have done.had he been in the Senate. He was against the war before he won the Illinois primary election. After that, he never mentioned his anti-war position. In fact, he nearly did sommersaults to back away from his “anti-war position”. He’d have done as most of the Senate and voted to give Bush the power that he, in fact, abused. Durbin, OTOH, voted against giving Bush the power to attack. He’s the strong Senator from Illinois.

Edwards, Clark, Feingold, Gore. They are all better qualified that Obama. And all, except Edwards either would have voted against this war, or have spoken out against it from the onset. Edwards has been honest about his change in positions. Obama has not. I’d vote for Obama if I had to, but he’d not be my choice.

By: dlake

dlake — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 02:59:41 +0000

John Edwards = yawn. He had his shot. move on.
O8ama is the guy. It’s easy when you don’t have a job to critique and make noise but, when you do have a job in the Senate, you have to work with your co-workers. And sometimes you have to talk the party line on subjects. You go in front of the cameras and have to say what they want you to so you don’t rile the other side when you need some of them to make a majority for any resolution.
If we had a 61 majority he would be freer to speak out. But, needing the repubs to work with them, he has to be mindful of that so his doesn’t piss off those the dems are working with on the other side to convince them to vote with them.
Obama has worked hard, is very smart and has a deep understanding of the issues. He has something none of the others have. He is destiny. he is the future.
O8ama!!!!!!!

By: Marky

Marky — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 01:06:08 +0000

Steve,
Thanks for offering your criticisms of Edwards. Neither the education vote nor the China vote would sway my opinion of Edwards, by themselves.
I’m curious about the vote on trade with China, because Edwards is somewhat in the anti-globalization crowd today, it seems.

Edwards’ current stance makes up for his earlier support of the war, IMO, but I would like to know what his view of the Patriot Act is today.

By: Eureka Springs, AR

Eureka Springs, AR — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:58:53 +0000

Crazy Horse and Rumi - I just checked back. damn.

A flat beer belated toast to Jane and all her pups.

*salute*

By: peony

peony — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:46:47 +0000

“Now how about Senator Russ Feingold as a candidate?” Neil

A fine man he is, but he’s said he’s not running.
Gore and Clark have strong affinities.
I think hard times are ahead (2008-2011 in particular) and imo Gore has the gravitas and the experience to be Potus during turbulent times.

By: Adigal

Adigal — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:44:54 +0000

I agree with earlier posters – wouldn’t it be nice for our Senators to be concentrating on stopping the escalation, rather than showboating, and looking for money and votes.

By: rogerb

rogerb — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:33:56 +0000

I’m going to work my ass off in the 2008 general election for anyone with a D after their name. With that in mind, my only concern in the primaries is that we not chew each other up. Sure, personally I’d rather see Edwards than Sen. Clinton, but I’d work just as hard for her in the general. Or Sen. Obama or Gore or Clark or Vilsack or whoever. Let’s keep our eyes on the prize here and not get too caught up at this early stage in going ga-ga over one candidate or trashing another.