The bhutto assassination makes it all the more clear that good judgment is necessary

We need a president who puts thought behind the decisions he or she makes and has exhibited good judgment. We need a president who can recognize that actions have consequences; a president who thoroughly analyzes the facts and circumstances before making decisions that can not only effect the lives of american citizens, but the international community as a whole.

Unfortunately, that candidate is not Hillary Clinton. Not only did she exercise poor judgment in authorizing the war in Iraq, she still, to this day, refuses to admit that her vote was a mistake. She won't even deign to admit that she made a mistake and has learned from it like other candidates. And what did she do to top that mistake in judgment? She voted for the Kyl/Lieberman amendment and tried to paint it as a "diplomatic move" when she caught heat from members of her own party and the media.

Oh she's ready to take charge on the first day alright, as are all of our candidates, but do we really want her brand of "leadership"? In light of what happened today and the increased instability of Pakistan where Al Qaeda have now regrouped (thanks in no small part to this country's failure to catch Bin Laden and crew as a result of our diversion into iraq) and the fact that civil war is now a possibility in a country with nuclear weapons and terrorists who want to cause harm to the west, Hillary is not the person we need to assume the position of leader of the free world. Her past deeds and missteps which have continued even during the campaign season coupled with current events should steer any thinking person away from her candidacy.

I remain an anyone but Clinton voter. I hope and pray she loses Iowa and New Hampshire. I will support whoever is the ultimate victor. Unfortunately my vote in the primary won't matter much because I am a resident of Michigan, but I will work tirelessly for whoever wins the general unless its CLinton. While I'll hold my nose and vote for her, I can't be enthusiastic about her candidacy enough to give up my time and effort to work for her as i did for Kerry last time around.

We need a principled leader with the courage to make the RIGHT decisions in the face of crisis.
Hillary is NOT what our country needs at this point in history.

Barack - right about Pakistan, thoughtful, intelligent...

Dodd - also admitted that Iraq was a mistake. Voted appropriately on Kyl/Lieberman as did Biden. Mature, rationale, a fighter...

Richardson, less so.

Edwards - while not a lot of foreign policy experience, he is intelligent and rationale.

Hillary's real foreign policy experience came from her years in the Senate, not as trucking around as first lady. When she needed to make real decisions on foreign policy matters, she consistently blew it!

I cannot vote for her as a result.

I am pretty much decided on Biden at the moment. I really like his approach.

IF Hillary wins I will campaign for her because she is a better choice then any republican.

1st choice = Kucinich: Because, as he pointed out in one of the debates, he consistently "gets it right the first time" on issues most vital to the nation: i.e. the ME wars, civil liberties, health care, you name it. The Little Guy from Ohio stands head and shoulders above the rest of the pack and deserves the support of every Democrat who resonates with the FDR & JFK legacies.

2nd choice = Edwards: Because of his populist vibe and drawing a clear line in the sand with Corporate greed and corruption.

3) Next would be Biden or Dodd.

support of a war he claims to be vociferously against. Go figure.

Based on your comments, I think you might like Biden. He has his bad votes (like all of the candidates), but he has been right about many things, Pakistan being one.

How dare you use bhutto's assassination as a campaign slogan?

Whatever candidate you are supporting, this is no help.

I don't see a campaign slogan in the OP.

I see lots of discussion about her assassination, with no scolding on DU today

Why pick this thread to scold?

touting why some candidate or another is better or worse because of Butho's assassination.

It is disgusting.

with regard to world crisis is relevant and extremely important. It needs to be discussed along with all other matters including domestic issues.

No, I will not give it a rest. I'm sorry if the truth is hard for Hillary supporters to handle. Unless you are OK with her vote for the Iraq war and refusal to say it was a mistake as well as her Kyl/Liberman fiasco.


also, clinton voted with the republicans against a bill proposed by dems to stop the use of cluster bombs near civilian targets.

See below:

The Senate on Wednesday rejected a move by Democrats to stop the Pentagon from using cluster bombs near civilian targets and to cut off sales unless purchasers abide by the same rules.
On a 70-30 vote, the Senate defeated an amendment to a Pentagon budget bill to block use of the deadly munitions near populated areas. The vote came after the State Department announced last month that it is investigating whether Israel misused American-made cluster bombs in civilian areas of Lebanon.



http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00232

Be informed in your choice for president.

I'm going right out and vote for candidate X because, when political assassinations are rampant, that's the candidate I can trust.

:eyes:

I don't give a flying fuck about Hillary. But trust me, whatever candidate you are supporting just lost my vote based on this miasmic putrid and ghoulish OP.

You want to flame me instead of addressing an important issue. So I guess global instability is not an issue in the upcoming presidential elections? I guess that the fact the bush and cheney have caused global upheaval over the last seven years and that the next president is going to have to attempt to "fix it" is not an issue for you? Have you ever traveled outside of the US? Ever spoken to someone from another country? I have and our reputation in the world has been significantly harmed. We are in serious trouble globally. If something should happen to the US or our interests in the upcoming year we will be lucky to get any real assistance from outside of our borders.

Go ahead and live in your dreamworld.

I hope you are in the minority.

... your hole is deep enough.

The Bhutto assassination was a direct result of political instability in Pakistan, which is a region of vital importance to defeating radical Islamic terrorism. To measure a candidate's potential based on his or her response to this event is not denigrating to the death of Bhutto in any way, shape, or form.

It is a given Bush won't fix anything before he waddles out of the White House with his tail between his legs, so the job of fixing the political instability in Pakistan will ultimately fall on the next President of the United States. Therefore, it is absolutely appropriate to judge potential candidates within the scope of this tragedy.

You probably want to stay as far away as possible, because they're using this to prop up the fear of the world and only Republicans can save you. They are in an interesting win-win situation with world events. If something bad happens, they say the world is still scary and you need us. If something good happens, they say it's because of the progress made on the war on terra, and you need us.

A rational mind might look and see the objective reports coming from the intelligence quarters in even this administration on lockdown of all bad news. They say terrorism has multiplied exponentially since Dim Son took over, that Iraq diverted focus from the actual threat, and the our national security has holes a truck filled with explosives could drive through. But that would take a media that was fair and balanced and an electorate not raised on pablum spewing from the picture box.

Doing what's right gets around the hard idea of "good judgment" and "right decisions" by putting restrictions on judgments and decisions. Judgments and decisions must be based on doing what's right for the little people or the weakest in our society.

Instead nearly every politician in America wants to do what's right by their Wall Street donors....Then you have days like this and days when hurricanes hit and the little people are out of luck because our government doesn't care about the little people.

We need a constitutional amendment to change the way campaigns are funded so that we can become a democracy again. BTW, that's the right thing to do.