If you think Clinton = McCain

check Ol' Joe's records.

From ADA, Joe gets:

75
80
75

for the last three years.



ACLU, Lieberman gets 75%

LCV, Lieberman gets 70%

So this shows that Lieberman is far to the left of McCain, too, but to the right of Hillary.

Lieberman's voting record was quite good.

I've seen the comparison made here today, a few times. But as to whether the claims were made by true Democrats, I have no idea.

Only hysterical Hillary haters who run out of ammunition...or are too lazy to actually look at her record!!!

there is no active dem that is as dishonest/disingenous as John McCain, IMHO

and prevent a catastrophic attack against Iran, are very concerned about what Clinton has said regarding those issues.

Voting records do not say everything. They do not record what a congressperson full views, as it is only those things that came up to a vote.


There is a difference between McCain and Hillary.

Both of the above is a very negative outcome, however.

ok, your analysis is much more insightful.

an arch-conservative who opposes the war is a better candidate.

I have a broader view than that.

A correction (or apology) is in order.

I have never said i would support a conservative candidate.

I was responding to your prior post, also directed at me. Thank you for correcting me.

Now, what about the substance of what I said? If Brownback came out tomorrow and said "bring the troops home", would you vote for him?

Now you seem to be saying that if a person doesn't support Clinton, they support the fundamentalist psuedo-neocons. Is this what you are getting at?
Edited to add, I know your comment wasn't directed at me, but I've been following this discussion and wanted to check it out.

I'm saying that people who claim Sen. Clinton is no better than McCain are wrong. I thought the original post made that very clear.

#16 "so by your reckoning an arch-conservative who opposes the war is a better candidate."

#17 "and if you vote on one single issue then there are many paleo-conservatives you can support.
No candidate is going to run on a platform of demanding that the troops come home on their inauguration day."

#22 "If Brownback came out tomorrow and said "bring the troops home", would you vote for him?"


Now you seem to be saying that if a person doesn't support Clinton, they support the fundamentalist psuedo-neocons. Is this what you are getting at?

Your imaginaiton is getting the best of you.


I oppose brownbeck and mccain and bush and hillary and those who oppose human rights and oppose economic injustice and those who support war.

of a hillary presidency any more desirable. Especially if you have loved ones who might have to go off to war under the belligerant policies she is likely to support.

then there are many paleo-conservatives you can support.

No candidate is going to run on a platform of demanding that the troops come home on their inauguration day.

I don't understand why so many people here just DEMAND that they'll be disappointed.

I do think a war of aggression is a very big deal. It has cost hundreds of billions... what other initiative or program can go forward when the money is sucked into an insane war?

Those resources could have been spent creating a renewable energy nation. It was spent on war.
It could have been spent rebuilding homes in New Orleans and Mississippi. It was spent on war.
It could have been spent providing health care for all. It was spent on war.
It could have been spent providing women access to all forms of birth control, including abortion, It was spent on war.

Then there is the lives at stake. Especially Iraqi lives, as because of US aggression the Iraqi people have suffered greatly. It is criminal, not just mistaken policy.

I've never denied that.

but I'm talking about what it takes to win the NEXT election. Despite what you think, most Americans don't give a shit about the past. They want to focus on what's coming up next.

Anyone who says I think they are the same because I can see their similarities is simplifying.

Both are politicians, both do what they think politically is best. They stand differently on many issues. They stand the same on some. I do not like political politicalizingness of either of them. Yes, politicians must play politics, but I do not like how either of these 2 do.

I do not like the dynasty aspect of the Bushs or the Clintons, they with their recurring advisors. Would McCain continue the rest of the Bush cabinet/advisors? I don't know. Is Clinton saying she will?

the political politicalzingness of them?

I'm not sure what that means.

Are you suggesting that Clinton would keep Gonzales on board?

Clinton administration, and if McCain would use the cabinet/advisors from the Bush/Reagan years.

Political policticalizingness is a made up term to signify someone who does not act out of what they truly feel is right, but acts out of the wish to get re-elected (or elected as the case may be). Politics is about making compromises and working with people you may feel a certain amount of disgust towards (towards their core values). There are ways of going about this in positive manners and ways in negative manner. What are the motivations behind what a person, a politician, says and does?