Posted on February 1 at 11:27 a.m.

FYI:
In Barack's own words:
"So it’s not clear to me what differences we’ve had since I’ve been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test." [The New Yorker, 10/30/06]

"Not only was the idea of an invasion increasingly popular, but on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." ["Audacity of Hope," 2006, p. 294]

ONE VOTE and then you discount Hillary and Bill's strong contributions here and globally. Peace AND prosperity here, Peace in Northern Ireland & the Balkans, Bill's Global Initiatives, Hillary's Women's Rights Advocacy, even speaking to the Leaders of China, in Shanghai. Obama does not have the stature worldwide that Hillary and Bill do. Talking a good game isn't enough. The Clintons walk the walk.

On 2008 Election

Posted on January 17 at 11:20 a.m.

Respectfully, you can't really believe that Barack can restore our image better than the Clintons. Wake up...are you deaf and dumb. The world respects and admires the Clintons. THEY ALREADY HAVE THE EAR OF THE WORLD LEADERS AND THE ESTABLISHED RELATIONSHIPS THAT CAN EXPEDITE IMPORTANT POSITIVE ACTION. What are you thinking? You must be a product of the current trend of "what's in," not what's real and important. If you think, as I do, that we need a world leader, Hillary is in the best position herself (and with her "team" including Bill) to be that influential leader. We found out what mistakes can be made by a "rookie" when Bush was elected. YOU ARE RUNNING THE RISK OF HAVING ANOTHER REPUBLICAN ELECTED BY ENDORSING OBAMA. Can't you think clearly? The election can be affected somewhat like Nader in 2000-- the law of unintended consequences. We need to win the general election. Endorsing Obama is hurting, not helping. I'm very disappointed. Your endorsement is like a preference for a rookie rather than a veteran, even a Hall of Famer. Yes, he has potential; but HE IS NO JOHN KENNEDY. Wake up and smell the coffee. I'm dumbfounded by your endorsement of Barack. SUPERFICIAL, NOT READY FOR PRIME-TIME. You must recognize that talk is cheap. ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. Bush also SAID the "right" things--"uniter not a divider," "no child left behind," etc. With Barack, WHERE'S THE BEEF?
Professionalism must trump "rookie" Barack. He will, hopefully, be ready in 2016. You WANT TO BUY INTO ROMANCE, NOT REAL TALENT. Barack TALKS "HOPE." Blacks, women, the underprivileged, etc. HAVE HOPE. What is needed is the FULFILLMENT OF THEIR HOPES. Hillary has it. Barack is still a bit naive. He needs cliches, like Bush needed--preferring the process to be a superficial popularity contest.
A brief period in the Senate, plus arrogance, does not qualify Barack. How could you?! You also are contributing to Barack's silly effort to destroy the "village" (the Democratic Party) in order to save it. Barack's "House divided" speech obviously didn't apply to his current efforts (and your efforts, I guess) to divide our party. YOU should have waited and supported whomever wins the nomination, period. Fantasyland is not the answer. Life's too short to be little; and Barack and his "team" have attempted to diminish the Clintons--PETTY.

**************

On For President: Barack Obama