The Wrong Experience

The time has come for a much more global view. If we are to keep our country and others safe from what we purport to fear, it is essential that we learn about and work with all nations. Just as in our own country, what we have in common with the world citizens is more than what we don't. That is why Obama's message is so appealing and why I will vote for him. It's time for America to mature.

Hillary's Teary (second) moment was staged. How did the media miss this one? Same set up, intimate setting, close cameras, trigger question. "I said I would not cry." Hillary was coached on this event and was trying to create the New Hampshire moment again but this time with less success. However the blind naive media bought into it again. Trying to depict Hillary has the sensitive type when in fact this was all staged for the media gullible. HOW blind is the media? And how gullible is America to fall for this "cheap soap act again."

This is true. In fact, I think Hillary's potential moment of glory was actually in 2004. Had she mobilized the voters against the war, become the voice of rationality instead of hiding among the suits, she would be recognized now as a great and audacious leader- but she did not. Because it was way too risky, and 2008 looked like a sure thing. But surprise, in 2008, fate had another plan, and it wasn't her.
She missed her moment; it was a moment only open to heroes willing to risk everything for what's right. She wouldn't take the risk.

One more time, Fareed performs a brilliant analyzis. From France, the US policy towards Cuba looks weird and strange; why such animosity against such a small country. On top there is Gantanamo on this island; it is not the best place for US to lecture the world about the good and the evil.

This was the first analysis of its type I've read that nailed not only the core debate among Democrats but the core feeling of America. Quit pandering and start leading! Stop calculating and start listening. I think the Clintons are both great public servants, but one wonders how damaged their worldview and emotional responses are after the years and years of controversy and the win-at-all-costs GOP oppopsition.

Think people think! Clinton can not win. Independents and the right wing absolutely hate the Clintons. There is no reason behind this ideology but it is true. THEY WILL SHOW UP IN LARGE NUMBERS TO VOTE AGAINST HER! Ask any middle to right wing friend you have. Nominating Hillary Clinton is exactly the same as handing the presidency to McCain and electing McCain is very close to giving Bush 4 more years!

Hillary Clinton, under fire about her commitment to civil rights due to Bill going around the country campaigning using racial coding, has lately been loudly proclaiming her fealty to the Democratic Party''s best traditions on human rights.

However, just two years ago, Hillary--the purported "expert" on international relations--said there should be "lawful authority" for torture in some cases.

(See, for example, www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/Hil
lary_and_torture_audio_version.html)

Her stand was opposite to that of every other major Democratic presidential candidate in 2007-2008, and the heat she took for it caused her to make one of her famous "flip flops."

If you don''t have enough of a moral center to oppose torture from the start, how can you possibly lead the Democratic Party, much less the country?

She also wont take a human stance on cluster bombs!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/clinton-obama-and-clust_b_84811.html

Obama voted to ban them and Clinton voted against the ban. Yeay I feel secure knowing we can keep needlessly decimating infrastructure and killing civilians around the world with our military technology. Bring peace and democracy to the world you know? Uhg..

OBAMA 08 ALL THE WAY!

Clinton also wont act on a human level when it comes to cluster bombs: Obama will however. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/clinton-obama-and-clust_b_84811.html

Obama voted for the ban on cluster bombs and Clinton voted against the ban. Yeay! We can continue to use civilian decimating cluster bombs across the world. Thanks Hill! OBAMA 08 ALL THE WAY!

(C orrected from previous version.)

Finally someone noticed the big contradiction between Clinton and Obama on Cuba.

In a contest devoted to change and restoring America's standing in the world, more attention is deserved for a policy that is as damaging as Iraq in international opinion--as reflected for the sixteen year at the United Nations where the vote last October to condemn our unilateral embargo grew to 184 to 4.

Barack Obama has pledged unrestricted family travel and remittances, not just "easing" Bush restrictions of one visit every three years. He also has called for negotiations with Raul Castro without preconditions. Hillary Clinton is Bush light on Cuba, seeming to take her cue from Sen. Bob Menendez and her Miami based Cuban American sister in law.

Both candidates would do well to listen to the 2/3 of Americans who support normalization of relations and the right to travel to Cuba. As a first step let's get back to the non-tourist people to people exchanges that Bill Clinton allowed and neither candidate has so far mentioned.

John McAuliff
Executive Director
Fund for Reconciliation and Development
Dobbs Ferry, NY

director@ffrd.org

PS, the candidates in their own words at http://candidatecubawatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/clinton-and-obama-answers-to-canf.html and http://candidatecubawatch.blogspot.com/2007/12/brown-and-black-democratic-forum.html

Finally someone noticed the big contradiction between Clinton and Obama on Cuba.

In a contest devoted to change and restoring America's standing in the world, more attention is deserved for a policy that is as damaging as Iraq in international opinion--as reflected for the sixteen year at the United Nations where the vote last October to condemn our unilateral embargo grew to 184 to 4,

Barack Obama has called for unrestricted family travel and remittances, not just "loosening", and to negotiations with Raul Castro without preconditions. Hillary Clinton is Bush light on Cuba, seeming to take her cue from Sen. Bob Menendez and her Miami based Cuban American sister in law.

Both candidates would do well to listen to the 2/3 of Americans who support normalization of relations and the right to travel to Cuba. As a first step let's get back to the non-tourist people to people exchanges that Bill Clinton allowed and neither candidate has mentioned.

John McAuliff
Executive Director
Fund for Reconciliation and Development
Dobbs Ferry, NY
jmcauliff@ffrd.org

PS, the candidates in their own words at http://candidatecubawatch.blogspot.com/

Finally someone noticed the big contradiction between Clinton and Obama on Cuba.

In a contest devoted to change and restoring America's standing in the world, more attention is deserved for a policy that is as damaging as Iraq in international opinion--as reflected for the sixteen year at the United Nations where the vote last October to condemn our unilateral embargo grew to 184 to 4,

Barack Obama has called for unrestricted family travel and remittances, not just "loosening", and to negotiations with Raul Castro without preconditions. Hillary Clinton is Bush light on Cuba, seeming to take her cue from Sen. Bob Menendez and her Miami based Cuban American sister in law.

Both candidates would do well to listen to the 2/3 of Americans who support normalization of relations and the right to travel to Cuba. As a first step let's get back to the non-tourist people to people exchanges that Bill Clinton allowed and neither candidate has mentioned.

John McAuliff
Executive Director
Fund for Reconciliation and Development
Dobbs Ferry, NY

917-859-9025

PS, the candidates in their own words at http://candidatecubawatch.blogspot.com/

Finally someone noticed the big contradiction between Clinton and Obama on Cuba.

In a contest devoted to change and restoring America's standing in the world, more attention is deserved for a policy that is as damaging as Iraq in international opinion--as reflected for the sixteen year at the United Nations where the vote last October to condemn our unilateral embargo grew to 184 to 4,

Barack Obama has called for unrestricted family travel and remittances, not just "loosening", and to negotiations with Raul Castro without preconditions. Hillary Clinton is Bush light on Cuba, seeming to take her cue from Sen. Bob Menendez and her Miami based Cuban American sister in law.

Both candidates would do well to listen to the 2/3 of Americans who support normalization of relations and the right to travel to Cuba. As a first step let's get back to the non-tourist people to people exchanges that Bill Clinton allowed and neither candidate has mentioned.

John McAuliff
Executive Director
Fund for Reconciliation and Development
Dobbs Ferry, NY

917-859-9025

PS, the candidates in their own words at http://candidatecubawatch.blogspot.com/

Honestly, I know that the media would twist this all around some way to Obama's benefit, but I just would once like to hear a response to Obama's statements regarding Hillary's vote with "Really, you would have not voted for authorizing military force? How would we really know? Whenever your back is to the wall, you are either not there to vote, vote 'present', or say 'I pushed the wrong button'. And as far as the decision itself is concerned, it is all well and good for folks now to look back and say they would not have authorized it, especially for those who did not have to make any decision because - you guessed it, they were not a member of Congress (can you say Obama?). We had been attacked, were being lied to by our President with regard to the threat (and given Sadaam's past, it was certainly believable - he had continued to assert hostile intentions, and refused the weapons inspectors). So while any idiot can look back and say we should not have invaded, most need to dig deep and wonder if they really would have not voted for the resolution themselves.

As for Obama, he did not show up for the recent vote on Iran's military guard - as he seems want to do whenever there is a critical and difficult decision to be made.

I don't expect our leaders to be perfect, but I do expect them to lead. His stance on this vote issue makes me all the more want to support Hillary.

We need real leaders, not empty suits and rhetoric.

Go Hillary Go!!!

Honestly, I know that the media would twist this all around some way to Obama's benefit, but I just would once like to hear a response to Obama's statements regarding Hillary's vote with "Really, you would have not voted for authorizing military force? How would we really know? Whenever your back is to the wall, you are either not there to vote, vote 'present', or say 'I pushed the wrong button'. And as far as the decision itself is concerned, it is all well and good for folks now to look back and say they would not have authorized it, especially for those who did not have to make any decision because - you guessed it, they were not a member of Congress (can you say Obama?). We had been attacked, were being lied to by our President with regard to the threat (and given Sadaam's past, it was certainly believable - he had continued to assert hostile intentions, and refused the weapons inspectors). So while any idiot can look back and say we should not have invaded, most need to dig deep and wonder if they really would have not voted for the resolution themselves.

As for Obama, he did not show up for the recent vote on Iran's military guard - as he seems want to do whenever there is a critical and difficult decision to be made.

I don't expect our leaders to be perfect, but I do expect them to lead. His stance on this vote issue makes me all the more want to support Hillary.

We need real leaders, not empty suits and rhetoric.

Go Hillary Go!!!

May I just remind people this shallo know-all, Zakaria, was one of the original supporters of the invasion of Iraq ?

Be careful about swallowing his wisdom.