You Must Do More Than Vote 'No' To Become President

The so-called "compromise" supplemental bill that continues funding for George W. Bush's Iraq disaster but does nothing to compel him to change course, passed Congress yesterday with a 280-142 vote in the House of Representatives and a 80-14 tally in the Senate. Fourteen Senators voted against the bill rubber-stamping Bush's failed policy, including Democratic presidential candidates Chris Dodd (D-CT), Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL).

But although they cast the same vote yesterday, the stature engendered by these three candidates could not possibly be more different. On the one hand, you have Dodd, who came out strongly against this bogus compromise early in the week -- as he has dependably done on a host of other important issues -- and who said loud enough for the world to hear that he objected to caving in to Bush, failing our troops and breaking faith with the American people.

In other words, Chris Dodd behaved like a leader.

And, while many will probably say that Senators Clinton and Obama opposing the non-compromise was a product of political calculation -- their campaigns would have been dealt a harsh blow had they gone along with it -- I give both of them credit for voting their conscience and beliefs.

Here's my problem: Neither of them showed me, as a voter, what it will take to get my support when the New York primary happens next year.

The Iraq war is the defining issue in our nation right now, and the response from people who want to be the next president seems an entirely reasonable litmus test by which to measure the degree of support they deserve. Dodd's response was to show leadership before the vote and urge Senate colleagues to follow his lead in stopping the madness of King George.

"Half-measures and equivocations are not going to change our course in Iraq," said Dodd earlier this week. "If we are serious about ending the war, Congress must stand up to this President's failed policy now - with clarity and conviction."



Similarly, while no longer in the Senate and not in the position of voting, John Edwards has made very clear that he too is willing to stake his candidacy on opposing continuation of our involvement in the Iraqi civil war and has also been out in front on letting those views be known.

"The president continues to play political brinksmanship over the war and that has put Congress and the country in an unnecessarily difficult position," said Edwards on Monday. "We need to stand our ground against this president. You cannot negotiate with him. Congress should send him the same bill back to him again and again until he realizes he has no choice but to start bringing our troops home."

And where were Clinton and Obama in the days leading to the vote and when backbone and conviction were the order of the day? Nowhere that mattered.

Senator Clinton issued a press release last night explaining why she voted against the supplemental bill and, on Wednesday, sent a letter to General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asking that Congress be notified of "…any existing plans for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, or provide an explanation as to why such plans have not been properly created."

All well and good -- but what about the major vote on the biggest issue confronting our country? Queue silence and crickets chirping.

And it saddens me that Barack Obama, who I want to support so much, did no better, with a press release after the vote proclaiming "Obama Votes to Demand Changed Course in Iraq," but not much else in advance of the vote everyone was watching.

Obama, as he can do so well, spoke passionately on the Senate floor on Monday, saying that "the sacrifices of war are immeasurable" and "Iraq has not been a failure of resolve, it has been a failure of strategy – and that strategy must change. It is time bring a responsible end to this conflict is now."

Where were his eloquence and leadership in driving both himself and those around him to stand up, be strong and fight this president on this particular vote?

I am by no means writing off the presidential candidacies of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. They're both formidable people, with sharp brains and good hearts, who would both likely become excellent presidents.

But, for this week and for the last month or two, true leadership in the face of troubled times has been shown by Dodd, Edwards and Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who has also been clear in his opposition to the Iraq occupation. These are the people who truly seem to get what Americans said at the ballot box in November and who are willing to put themselves and their aspirations on the line to speak that truth and attempt to persuade others.

It's commendable that Senators Clinton and Obama voted correctly on Thursday -- now they need to begin the real work of catching up to those who are actually leading.

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

Update: Senator Chris Dodd has released a short video, shot on the campaign trail today, in which he informally discusses the disappointing vote in Congress yesterday on the Iraq supplemental bill, saying " I'm not going to stop and I want you to know that."

Please go take a look.

:shrug:

To be in the minority of only 9 other Dems in the Senate who opposed this bill hardly makes them sheep. I do give Dodd credit for being among the first to speak out. The former Senator from NC, on the other hand, has no fucking credibility of this issue! We. All. Know. Why.

Therefore others in the congress may have been influenced. But this was all a preplanned show. They should be kissing the leaderships feet (Reid esp.) for letting them vote no, after setting everyone/or majority to vote no. You can bet you bottom dollar Reid did it for Clinton and because he did Obama got the same treatment. Poor Biden - got left out to dry, but he is expendable because he is not in the top 3.

To bad Clinton and Obama aren't showing that they are real leaders rather than someone to hide behind others.

I'll take Edwards anyday over some who can't find much courage to do the right thing.

This was a preplaned vote.

Just wondering if you have any ideas because I sure as heck don't get it.

have a recent transformation about the war to be president. Even if the rhetoric is honest, a good track record and voting history on all the issues must be taken into account.

Honest is better, and courage is a must, I don't see that in Obama or Clinton.

You wording of recent is incorrect - very incorrect. But thats ok.

his apology failed to mention that he was a co-sponsor of the IWR, he was on the Intel Committee, or the fact that he had access to the 90 page NIE document that proved the bushies were lying and yet he still voted yes.

He fails to mention that he was still in favor of the war even when the public knew there were no WMD, or that in 2004 he pushed Kerry not to admit the error of their IWR votes.

I never saw courage in John Edwards, so I suppose we're even.

He seemed to turn out to be a great champion of peace...

As far as voting history goes, why not compare the voting records of Obama and HRC on Iraq? How many times has Obama voted differently than HRC on a substantive matter? ;)

1/10th the substance of Robert F. Kennedy, I'd be supporting him. He doesn't.

Here's a comparison of Clinton's and Edwards' voting records. You supply Obama's, and we'll see how it stacks up.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/apr/05/compare_and_contrast_hillarys_and_edwards_votes_on_iraq

To compare only their voting records in the senate is looking at only part of the picture.

As far as the RFK substance thing, let's face it: if RFK were running today Obama supporters would be writing him off because he wasn't against the war several years prior to the campaign. It is easy to talk about his superior substance four decades later.

Here is a comparison of Obama and HRC's votes on Iraq over the past 2 1/3 years:

==Of the total of 69 votes we compiled -- some significant, some not -- it turns out that the two differed on only one.==

This was done in March. Since then they voted the same way on Reid-Feingold and yesterday. That brings the tally to voting the same at least 71 out of 72 times--98.6% of the time. The lone difference was on the confirmation of Gen. Pace, which was a token vote. Even in the case of the lone difference between the duo it was HRC who cast the nominally anti-war vote against Pace. So we have the irony of Obama tracking HRC 98.6% of the time and the one time he deviated from HRC it was actually to vote with the Republicans.

Given the actual record it is not surprising that Obama supporters whole argument for Obama being the best chance to end the war is based on freezing time in 2002. Nevermind that Obama and HRC vote the same, have the same de-escalation plan that would continue the war with a "residual force." All that matters is that cold October day half a decade ago. We are supposed to rely on that for a faith-based initiative that Obama will be superior on Iraq than a President Edwards or President Dodd or even a President Clinton II.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/29/comparison_of_hillary_and_obama_votes_on_iraq

Edwards left the senate over 2 years ago...none.

Other than two supplementals, Edwards voted either the same as Clinton, or missed the vote except for a few biggies that she got right, and he got miserably wrong:


"While both were initially supporters of granting President Bush the authority to invade Iraq, John Edwards was actually to the right of Hillary for some time. Edwards voted against liberal efforts to: Limit the war authority for just one year, after which the President would have had to seek it again; Call for tax increases to pay for the war effort; Force the creation of a report on the possible manipulation of intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq War. On those votes, Hillary voted the more liberal position.

Then things changed in late 2003: The two switched places, most notably with Edwards voting against the $87 billion appropriation — with Hillary Clinton making up the more pro-Administration half. And as the Presidential campaign progressed, Edwards' attendance for more Senate votes suffered a severe drop."


Use of Force- Termination: Byrd amendment to Lieberman substitute amendment. The Byrd amendment would provide for the termination of Congressional authorization of the use of force by one year after the resolution's enactment unless the president certifies that extension is necessary or Congress enacts into law a one-year extension of the authorization.

Clinton voted YES Edwards voted NO

Fiscal 2004 Defense Appropriations- Intelligence Funding: Stevens motion to kill Durbin amendment withholding $50 million in intelligence funding until the president submits reports on the role executive branch policymakers had on the development and use of intelligence relating to the war in Iraq. The report would have to be submitted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the House International Relations Committee and the Appropriations, Armed Services and Intelligence committees of both chambers.

Clinton voted NO Edwards voted YES

Stop presuming to know what people would do if RFK were alive. You haven't a clue about people's intentions.

So Richardson's (anti-war) position in Iraq does not matter because he is not on Capitol Hill?

==Stop presuming to know what people would do if RFK were alive. You haven't a clue about people's intentions.==

So they would have one standard for RFK, because they judged that the anti-war and anti-poverty crusader was genuine, and one for Edwards, the anti-war and anti-poverty crusader, because they believed they have a clue about people's intentions and determined that Edwards was a fraud. Ok.

Edwards was voting to the right of Hillary Clinton on the Iraq War except for a couple of supplemental funding bills. He was on the Senate Intelligence Committee. He co-sponsored the damned thing. He fanned the flames for it. He was Mr. Co-sponsor, Mr. Razzle Dazzle em' with my Tough Guy 'Tude...when he knew, had positive proof that the intel was cooked. And he co-sponsored it anyway.

He's never apologized for having that knowledge before he voted for the IWR. He continued to support his vote even after the public was aware that there were no WMD. He told Chris Matthews that he would have voted for it anyway, which was bad enough, but he already knew Saddam had no WMD at the time of his vote!

At no time in his life, was Robert Kennedy as duplicitous as that. Never. John Edwards fraudlently voted for the damned IWR, and then fraudently apologized for his vote by claiming that he had incorrect intel.

He is not even close to the stature of RFK, and you'd be wise to stop trying to put him there.

:hug:

Fantastic points.

I am perplexed at the number of people, particularly on this board, who seem to have no clue what Edwards voting record actually was - how far right on major issues it was.

Thanks for pointing it out.

:hug:

Seasoned, you said it!

Edwards can't hold a candle to RFK.

hiding behind the who Senate on one of the most important votes of this year.

Edwards isn't hiding - he is out leading the way and forcing Obama and Clinton to face the real issues. The issues important to all Americans.

he was just leading in the wrong direction.

Edwards is more of a leader than one who is misleading the public on a "I was the only one crusade", that knowingly misleading the american people knowing full well he has said that he didn't know how he would have voted had he been in the congress.

Yesterday sure shows he is still unsure of how to vote, he have to wait until it was safe and then come out from behind the rest.

That is no leader - that is not the man that can lead this country anywhere. That is not the best choice for 2008.

Edwards voted incorrectly on his war vote........whether for political expedience or not.

I choose the one that voted correctly, period.

John Edwards isn't leading because he has taking on an issue that already had leaders......leaders who were already there prior to him showing up, and prior to the cause being a popular one. Those are the real leaders.

Picking a cause that already has overwhelming majority support by most Americans is not "leading it". Edwards just caught up with the crowd and cut to the front of the line just in time for the photo-op, is all.

It also perverse that Obama's leadership half a decade ago when he was an obscure local politician trumps what he has done ever since he became a national figure with great ambitions. Many politicians have shed their previous courage in pursuit of higher office...

John Edwards is not Robert F. Kennedy, Iraq isn't Vietnam!

When Bobby Kennedy went against the Vietnam War, it was an act of political courage. The country was not as solidly against the war as it is now. Kennedy was actually leading the people, not following them like Edwards.

And it was more than his attitude about the war that made Bobby Kennedy someone to admire. He was the real deal. John Edwards isn't.

Asssesments of their attitudes and whether who was/is the "real deal" are entirely subjective. Using the logic used by some here, RFK would not be considered credible on Iraq. Or is being correct years prior to an election not relevant, except when used to prop up a particular candidate? ;)

the same position as Bobby Kennedy when he turned against the war.

I'll quote rinsd from another thread:

"RFK was not a Senator when the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was passed and he argued with Johnson against ground troops.

snip: RFK came out for withdraw in Vietnam in 1967 shortly after MLK did. When the war was still popular with a majority of the people, some thing that did not really change until the Tet offensive in 1968.

As recently as fall 2004 when we knew there were no WMDs, Edwards stucks to his guns saying he would vote the same way. He just happened to be running for office"


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3283520&mesg_id=3283997

I don't know what the hell you're spouting about RFK and Iraq or how that has any meaning in this conversation. In my opinion, Robert F. Kennedy was the real deal, John Edwards isn't

I welcome politicians who carefully consider legislation, both the pros and cons of it, and mull over the long term effects, what the alternatives are, etc., etc., before making a decision.

That is thoughtful, considered, intelligent leadership. It's more difficult to do, and such people are prone to attacks by "Great Deciders" for being indecisive.

I don't know if that's what Clinton and Obama were doing. But kudos to them for not having a gut reaction "Great Decider" reaction to the legislation, for whatever reason.

Well done.

They didn't lead the opposition in any way. I really didn't expect it from Clinton, but I'd hoped Obama would show something. Very disappointing.

they would want to couple the vote with a strong speech speaking of what was gained in this series of votes and a call not to give up. It's kind of like they opted notto be leaders.

They had to know what the reaction of people like us would be and it's amazing they didn't reach out to us - to thank us for what we did, explain why even though it didn't work, it was important to do and to realistically point out what can be the next step.

Is this too much to ask for?

What a virtue.

It is too bad that no one currently in office wanted to do a filibuster on the bill.

Not really an option (36+ / 0-)

There’s no fancy way to say “no” and I’m not going to try. There's just not enough support to make a filibuster work. You know I’ll filibuster against steep odds – think about what we did on Alito. But a filibuster would be over in about a minute on this bill – we wouldn’t have a fifth of the votes needed for it. This isn’t a one shot deal. We get more bites at this apple. We need to shift our focus. There was very little chance that this was ever going to be the end of it, and we have many avenues available to us to continue the fight. We need to change the political dynamics before we win this, and parliamentary maneuvering can’t do that right now. If it would, I’d be doing that.

by John Kerry

especially because I used your DU JK link to quickly get the Dkos postthe

I'm glad Boxer, Clinton, Dodd, Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Sanders, Whitehouse, and Wyden said NO to the blank check.

At first I couldn't figure out why Coburn would say NO as well, but I think it's because he didn't like other parts of the spending bill.

Enzi must be up for re-election for that senator to say NO and I don't quite know what Burr wanted either to vote nay.

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00181

Still mad though. Congress sold out the American people and now Dems own the damn war just as the Republicans do. We spent so much effort trying to get more Dems elected last year.

That wasn't true in 2003 when Bush and his administration alone determined it was the right thing to do - even though the inspectors were given free rein to look anywhere on an unscheduled basis that no one would have predicted Saddam would allow and there were still ongoing diplomatic efforts.
There were a small number of Democrats praising Bush's decision - but there were others louding speaking up.

That wasn't true in 2004, when our candidate spoke of Bush misleading us into the wrong war. Our candidate allow laid out his plan, which is close to what the ISG recommended last year - the Republicans and their media allies said it was what Bush was already doing - but I didn't see anything about the large diplomatic summit and its obvious thet the ISG sees the distinction as well. He also said no permanent bases in the First debate.

That wasn't true in 2005, when Feingold recommended a flexible target date of December 2006 to be out and Kerry laid out a plan in October 2005 that would get us out ion 12-15 months, demanded we immediately say no permanent bases, and pulll US soldiers off policing and search and destroy. John Edwards in November said the war was wrong.

That wasn't true in 2006, when the first resolution to set a deadline was pushed by the liberal Democrats and the rest of the party voter for a weaker non-binding resolution - but it was clear most Democrats wanted out.

And it is certainly not the case in 2007. Every single Democrat, excluding ex-Democrat Leiberman voted for one of the deadline bills.

I know this was very dissapointing, but realisticly, we did not have 67 votes in the senate or the number needed in the House. We need to look forward and try to persuade as meny Republicans as we can to join us.

It is detremental to the Democrats to say that they are as quilty as Bush. Not only is it false logic - think of it this way - 30% of the country is for the war and NONE of them are winnable by the Democrats. Do you want to convince any of the 70% that we are quilty too - making the war not a voting issue as each side is complicit?

But if we keep capitulating, we will not have the votes, and thus we will look bad in the next election. It's perfectly OK to be mad at Congress for selling out our troops and us.

They will try to add restrictions on non-military funding bills.

What makes us look bad is when Democrats use RW language - like caving in, capitulating, blank check. Bush is the CIC.

Which is too bad.

Even now, Bush is more willing to do diplomacy and he is speaking of Baker/Hamilton and reducing the number of troops. (He's not going to say that he is doing what the Democrats want.) So, one possibility is coopting Bush to do the right thing. (I'm not holding my breath.)

So, can we get to 67 Senators (the House argument parallels the Senate). We have 51, including 2 Republicans. When Johnson returns that is 52. Can we get 15 more Republicans? There are many on the fence who are saying they need to give the surge more time.

Can WE influence them. I think we have been and can. 70% of the country now supports setting a deadline - compared to around about 30% before Senators Kerry and Feingold put their necks out and articulated the reasons this would be a good idea. They are the main people who convinced the country that Iraq is in civil war.

We can make that 70% higher or at least better seen by their Senators and Representatives by writing letters to the editor and trying to communicate the truth. We are at or near the tipping point on this.

This is not easy and may be impossible, but trying is better than throwing your hands up into the air and complaining about the people who are working hardest to find an exit strategy.

Otherwise, what do you do? It will be a year and a half before a new President is in office. That may ultimately be how we get out, but even then none of the candidates say they will immediately leave (though they will start).

Any change that Democrats like Kerry or Reid succeed in getting may push up when the 2008 candidate can get out by improving the situation.

The vote was decided and spun so that they can tell the america people bull.

IF they had stuck together and twisted a few arms like they do when they want free trade past, they could have gotten it done. They didn't want to.

It is plain and simple they didn't want to, and now are trying to say collectively they couldn't.

They could have if they wanted to - and if not they could have sent it back, and sent it back again until they could.

John Edwards is right - Send it back and send it back again.

I had heard that the Republicans and some of the Democrats wouldn't vote for it again and we didn't have even one vote to spare. Former Senator Edwards knew that and he took no heroic measures ever when he was in the Senate.

What would have been better would have been to at least push to have some teeth even if there was no timeline.

sticking his neck out and taking ALMOST ALL the hits for his continual efforts to submit withdrawal plans since fall of 2005.

He has been roundly scorned by both sides and undermined from within his own party, but he has never stopped working on changing minds.

Kerry and Feingold have been constant pressure bearers on Iraq withdrawal without let up.

my opinion of barack- in an ordinary time, i would love to have him for my president. but now- no way. i do not think that he is a triangulater, in the bad sense of that word. but he is a conciliator, a compromiser. he would make a great secretary of state, or even a veep. but i have yet to see him stick his neck out that way a leader has to, especially with the stakes so high.
we need a candidate with guts.

in ordinary times, no.

Kucinich, Dodd, and Edwards have distinguished themselves on this all-important issue.

FOR a MISTAKE to become President, IMO. :eyes:

John Edwards is and has been an extremists when it comes to this war on both ends....

he was not only "for" it when it was political expedient back in 2002.....he was "for it" so much to the extreme that he co-sponsored the blank check and wrote op-ed (making Bush proud) in support all the while sitting on the intelligence committee (meaning he had access to intelligence that contradicted itself). Even after the WMD had not been found, an entire year after his vote, he still supported the war, and articulated that he had NOT been misled on television both on MTP and Hardball.

than, in late in 2005 (three full years after his initial strong and vocal support), once the country turned against this war in the majority, and he had been part of a losing team in an election, he flipped.....and issued a Mea Culpa stating that he had been misled......

So now that it is politically expedient and popular to be against the same war 5 years later, so he is.....again to the extreme but totally diametrically opposite to where he once was....preaching from the sidelines(as he has nothing to lose and no votes to make) as though he was never complicit in how we got to were we are to begin with.

Do you hold John Edwards to a higher standard that you do for yourself. Do you not make mistakes, and do you think everyone should hold them up against you all the time for everything. It would be a really sad world if everyones mistakes are held up constantly and not forgiven.

I have no problem with Edwards vote - he didn't make the Bush Admin march into Iraq, he didn't have an incompetant like Rumsfeld running things.

So I guess basically it is flat out just time to get over it.

it is deed and actions of a not so distant past directly affect the now.

Obviously, you don't give a shit, and so that is your relative right to "Move on", but it is not your right to "order" others to do the same. You don't have that kind of standing.

And no, I've never made a mistake that helped cost lives and billions/trillion treasure and then was asked to be rewarded for it cause I found the error in my ways three years after the fact --sorry.

John Edwards is to be held to the highest standard as he is running for the highest office in the land. It's really just that simple.

telling us to get over it. How condescending. How presumptuous.

John Edwards knew the IWR was based on NOTHING. He had the same damned NIE documents in front of him as Durbin and Graham. This was the biggest, gravest, most important vote in his short Senate career, and he got it tragically wrong.

Get over yourself.

They are in panic mode right now...

Obama and Hillary waited until it was safely passed to vote.
Obama and Hillary did not say one word against IWR-2007 until it had been passed and they voted.

The Democrats had no power to change the outcome of that vote. Obama and Clinton voted NO, which was appropriate. No amount of screaming about it would have changed anything.

On the other hand, if Edwards, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, had not co-sponsored Lieberman's resolution in 2002, if he had waved warning flags about the cooked intel instead of cheerleading it right into an administration website, if he'd chosen any one of the several better alternative resolutions, he might have had a chance to stall Bush's actions and save thousands of American and Iraqi lives.

Even if he couldn't have stopped or stalled Bush, he'd still have been able to walk away from this tragic event with a good conscience, because he did the best he could. But he didn't do his best. Every single thing that he chose to do with that IWR was wrong. Not a mistake. Knowingly wrong.

Don't play games. This is the present. This is how they act right now. This is what they believe right now.

They voted no. Period.

The bill could not have been stopped. Period.

They are just as "anti-war" as Edwards, no matter how much he struts around on the sidelines.

And today that's exactly what we have. You're definitely the one playing games here.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/1/135422/4038

Obama and Hillary tacitly supported the IWR-2007.

Obama and Hillary waited until it was safely passed to vote.
Obama and Hillary did not say one word against IWR-2007 until it had been passed and they voted.

And this is all while Bush's and Republican approval is in the toilet and Edwards is strongly speaking out against it and the majority of the nation (rather than 10% of the nation) is opposed to this war.

That is way things stand in the present day.

No matter what was said before the fact, he voted NO. No matter why, he voted NO.

Hillary and Obama tacitly supported the IWR-2007.

Obama and Hillary waited until it was safely passed to vote.

And this is all while Bush's and Republican approval is in the toilet and Edwards is strongly speaking out against it and the majority of the nation (rather than 10% of the nation) is opposed to this war.

That is way things stand in the present day.

I'd take RFK over Obama any day...

You need to be the one justifying why the name of RFK keeps coming out of your mouth when folks are discussing John Edwards wrong vote and overeager support on Iraq when it was politically safe to do so....versus his current overeager support against Iraq and his finger pointing against other Democrats when it is politically safe to do so.

Why do I keep bringing RFK up? He is probably the most revered anti-war candidate in history. Under the convenient "2002 forever" standard set up Obama supporters even the great RFK would not pass muster! Why? Because he was wrong at some point in the past. That's it. Game over. The rest of his record does not matter.

RFK shows the absurdity of the "2002 forever" standard. That standard would not be so vital to Obama supporters if there was any daylight between him and HRC on Iraq since then. They have voted together on Iraq 99% of the time (the lone exception is on confirming Gen. Pace, on which Obama differed from HRC by voting with the Republicans) and their plan to de-escalate the war with a "residual" force remaining in Iraq is essentially the same.

Speaking of suspicious conversions based on political expediency, how about flirting with both parties in 2001 and then joining a party in 2003--the party that happened to offer you a chance to become president? Nothing fishy there, right? But Edwards is a total fraud doing anything to gain power.

That's gotta be a first.
I need a drink.

But, when you're right, you're right.

:toast:

"Bunker Boys" is a pejorative term used to describe the cowardly behavior of certain types, usually field officers, during Vietnam. These individuals would cower inside reinforced bunkers while the bullets were flying and the mortars were dropping. AFTER the action was over, they would make an appearance prancing around the battlefield pretending to be brave heroes, posing for the cameras, and recommending themselves for medals. The grunts in the holes knew them for what they were.


Dodd, Kerry, and Feingold STOOD UP and fought during the battle while Clinton and Obama cowered in the bunker.

Obama and Clinton stood up only AFTER the battle was over.
Obama and Clinton are "Bunker Boys" deserving nothing but contempt. :thumbsdown:

to Kucinich, then to Edwards, then to Dodd. I won't vote for any of the rest of them in the primaries. Joe Biden, if he had any chance at all, just kissed the nomination goodbye.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our second quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

(I'm trying to get in as #1000)

I appreciate the "no" votes. I don't appreciate the lack of leadership by these two who would like to lead our nation. No surprise with Senator Clinton, no leader she IMO but Senator Obama, I gotta say I expected more.

Funny to see a certain few swarm members overlooking this main point in order to continue reliving their pathetic 04 pimary battles with their old nemisis, Edwards. Talk about living life through the rear view mirror! Oy!

Julie

Keep trying to sidetrack discussions Julie. It won't work.

Coupled with some projection.

Very telling.

How go the 04 primaries?

Julie

PM Skinner and verify since you're so goddamned interested in Clarkies.

I'm not projecting anything. You used the same stupid label about Clarkies in another thread, one started by a disrupter spouting long debunked lies about General Clark. The one you pulled out the popcorn for.

Go get some fresh air, some new ideas, and some other group of supporters to zealously follow.

The swarm group that never offers a logical defense beyond "he's sorry" defense for John Edwards, but instead just keep dogging out DU members instead? That group of swarms?

it is not to relive the 2004 primary battle that the candidate I most admire in my lifetime convincingly won.

My concern was that I really think many people didn't understand that it was extremely unlikely that we could get the numbers to override a veto.

I think Edwards was playing politics on this - he knew that we certainly would not keep all 51 Senators sending the bill back repeatedly. As the time when the money was needed, more would vote for the funding and we couldn't even lose one. This meant he did not have to even consider how the public would react if the war was funded with 150,000 troops in Iraq. Consider, what if Bush canceled monthly checks for soldiers and vets saying the Democrats cut off the money - how would that look.

Edwards was NOT one of the people who have lead on getting out. Kerry and Feingold were and they took the heat for it. I also think Reid - who I never particularly liked - deserves credit for getting all the Democrats behind him voting for a deadline. We needed that to be the story, but the story was Edwards attacking the Democrats in the Senate.

If Edwards was leading he was leading for Edwards, not the Democrats and not the troops.

While Edwards choose a six year campaign for the Presidency, the Senate seat he choose to give up has voted for Bush on everything.

So Hilary and Obama are villains for voting correctly, Dodd is a hero for the same vote they made and Edwards who abandoned his Senate seat to a Republican who always votes wrong is a hero.

uh huh...

Oh wait Edwards is a hero for wanting us to submit the same funding bill over and over that had no more teeth to ending the war than this one does. That is heroic.

Oh wait again, not one mention of the Clinton-Byrd bill to withdraw the war authorization, a bill that might actually mean something.

I never thought I would be posting defending Clinton and the thought that anyone would have to defend Obama for the making the right vote versus the non-voting Johnny Come-lately Took-Years-To-See-The-Light Edwards is absurd.

It isn't as if HRC and Obama are running for the local school board. The presidency requires leadership. If they lack it they would make poor presidents.

The only time Edwards was in a any capacity to lead anyone on anything, he pulled out all the stops and cheerleaded Lieberman's Iraq War Resolution to the point that his speech landed on team bushie's website!

Woo hoo, I'm so NOT impressed.

That is a very shaky premise, at best. You are saying someone who has the bully pulpit of being a presidential candidate can't lead people? If so, why do people flock to hear candidates speak?

The country was already against the war before he became a candidate. Listen carefully now, I'm saying that John Edwards, as a presidential candidate, isn't leading anyone anywhere, whether he has the capacity to do so or not.

When he did have the chance to be a true leader, he failed....miserably.

pointing his fingers at members of Congress who have less to answer for than he does.

Where was he before the country turned against the war? Where were his calls for protests and action when it wasn't politically safe? In his short-lived senate career, he was voting to the right of Clinton on the Iraq War, when he had the evidence that proved it was all a lie.

Obama was anti-war before it became popular. Obama voted NO to a troop funding bill that may NOT make him popular with the average American voter.

With Clinton's, Obama's and Dodd's no votes, John Edwards lost whatever edge he had as an anti-war candidate.

Obama and Hillary waited until it was safely passed to vote.
Obama and Hillary did not say one word against IWR-2007 until it had been passed and they voted.

And this is all while Bush's and Republican approval is in the toilet and Edwards is strongly speaking out against it and the majority of the nation (rather than 10% of the nation) is opposed to this war.

That is way things stand in the present day.

The country's leading him. Big whoop, Edwards' thinks the war is wrong. Now. So does more than half the country.

No matter how you try to spin this, Obama and Clinton voted NO to a bill that was never going to be stopped anyway. They can count votes you see.

Obama has nothing to prove, whereas, Edwards still hasn't come clean about the NIE documents he read in 2002.

Obama and Hillary tacitly supported the IWR-2007.

Obama and Hillary waited until it was safely passed to vote.
Obama and Hillary did not say one word against IWR-2007 until it had been passed and they voted.

And this is all while Bush's and Republican approval is in the toilet and Edwards is strongly speaking out against it and the majority of the nation (rather than 10% of the nation) is opposed to this war.

That is way things stand in the present day.

all day long, but it's only the way things stand in your mind. Bush's approval is in the toilet, and brave John Edwards takes a stand against him. Wow!

It doesn't matter if Hillary or Obama painted their opinions in neon and plastered it on Bush's ass. The votes weren't there to stop the supplemental. The votes weren't there for a filibuster. THE.VOTES.WERE.NOT.THERE

Obama and Hillary waited until it was safely passed to vote.
Obama and Hillary did not say one word against IWR-2007 until it had been passed and they voted.

And this is all while Bush's and Republican approval is in the toilet and Edwards is strongly speaking out against it and the majority of the nation (rather than 10% of the nation) is opposed to this war.

That is way things stand in the present day.

:rofl:

I know the media has already picked Hillary to represent us, so that's obviously the wrong pick, but does Dodd resonant much with other folks?

He doesn't get much press attention that's for sure, but I wonder how popular he'd be if he did? It's a shame we're stuck in a MSM world.