Clinton emphatically says Obama can win White House »
Posted By JamesMarcus 5 months, 3 weeks ago in NewsHillary Rodham Clinton said emphatically Wednesday night that Barack Obama can win the White House this fall, undercutting her efforts to deny him the nomination by suggesting he would lead the party to defeat. "Yes, yes, yes," she said when pressed about Obama's electability during a campaign debate.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
Submitted By:
JamesMarcus
James Marcus is a writer, translator, critic, and editor. He is the author of Amazonia: Five Years at the Epicenter of the Dot-Com Juggernaut and ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 322
-
0%
libsRfunny5 months, 3 weeks ago
Sounds to me like they decided to kiss and play nicely the rest of the way.
It's interesting to note the reporter said they both would react "forcefully" if Iran attacked Israel, yet, all Obama said was he would "take appropriate action." That's a pretty big gray area and not nearly as specific as Clinton's "massive retaliation" claim.
Reply-
0%
JoseMadre5 months, 3 weeks ago
"take appropriate action."
Is that a code meaning that he will call his Hamas buddies to celebrate?
Reply-
0%
ETproductions5 months, 3 weeks ago
I certainly hope for your own sake that you are just joking, and aren't either stupid enough or hate filled enough to thank that a President Obama would welcome a nuclear attack on Israel. I've heard the Right wing ConMen make some riciculous charges in the past, but this one goes light years beyond the rest in absurdity.
Must be tough when you can't run on your guy's record.
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny5 months, 3 weeks ago
So, anyone who questions Obama is either "stupid or hate-filled"? I would call that a stupid and hate-filled comment.
Reply-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.55 Replies
-
0%
Isoparm5 months, 3 weeks ago
And you have given us a trillions of dollar war that was based on lies, you have tarnished this nation's image around the world, because of the actions you support. Violent radicalism has only increased, and the future of generations to come have been compromised by you. Of course, then there's the economy, . . .
"It's all they have".
Even IF we had nothing, it would still be of more value to the world than what you have given us.
Reply-
-
0%
capecoralM5 months, 3 weeks ago
Silvio Berlusconi, running on his Pro-American agenda, has won a crushing landslide victory in the Italian general election to become prime minister for the third time.
The 71-year-old media magnate defeated Walter Veltroni, the 52-year-old anti-America leader of the Democratic Party, by a considerable margin and has a large enough majority to rule Italy for a full five-year term.
The Germans elected conservative, pro-America Merkel, the French elected conservative, pro-America Sarkozy.
Seems that the everybody hates America chant really has no bases in reality and is nothing more than left wing falsehoods. So who is it the left is concerned about? Hamas? Al Quada? Islamic extremists? hmmm
Reply-
-
0%
capecoralM5 months, 3 weeks ago
The reference to the latest European elections is not to right-wing candidates it is "Pro-America" platforms. Perhaps a viewing of Sarkosy's speech before congress on November 7, 2007 would be worth your time. http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/video_sarkozys...
Reply -
0%
Mdiar5 months, 3 weeks ago
I believe, judging by what many of my European friends have said, the spectrum is more akin to a broader one. The "far right" is further to the right there and the "far left" is further to the left. Also both of our parties are liberal (in the normal usage throughout the world, excluding Canada, US and UK (to an extent). See Australian "liberal" party for an idea on what I mean. Liberalism, according to the general spectrum of the world, is the center. According to the classical definition of "liberal", which is accepted throughout most of Europe when you say "liberal", both US parties are liberal. As near as I can make out we don't have a true left or right wing.
Reply -
0%
Mdiar5 months, 3 weeks ago
Besides, by American terms I'd say Clinton was a right winger as well. That's just me though, I never saw what was really left wing about Clinton.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
newbie04205 months, 3 weeks ago
Uhhhh both parties voted to go to war and both parites continue to fund it.
It's as much a left war as it is a right...
Reply-
0%
wtagg5 months, 3 weeks ago
Considering the admin will only accept funding with no strings attached, I would say they have more power currently over the process than does congress. Congress supported the based on information provided by the admin. Can you imagine a large corporation pursuing a $500,000,000,000 project based on that quality of information? Can you imagine a large corporation continuing to pursue a $500,000,000,000 project based on knowing that the quality of information was so poor?
Would you allow a popular vote of the people on the subject? Would the admin? Probably not.
So, are you suggesting that the congress and the admin are performing equally as well and that you are happy with both?
Reply-
0%
newbie04205 months, 3 weeks ago
"Congress supported the based on information provided by the admin"
First off the whole world believed it and was provding the info, not just the big bas bush admin. Even if you don't believe that isn't it Congress' duty to make sure the info given to them is valid before they vote on it? Since it's war shouldn't them dems have questioned it even harder?
They wanted this as well.
"Would you allow a popular vote of the people on the subject? Would the admin? Probably not."
That is why we have elected officials, to prevent mob rule.
"So, are you suggesting that the congress and the admin are performing equally as well and that you are happy with both?"
Please explain how in the world you came to this conclusion?
Reply-
-
0%
newbie04205 months, 3 weeks ago
So let me get this right, when Bush-according to you, violates a UN charter, he's a war criminal, but when Saddam does it he's a freedom fighter or something?
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?...
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/CIA/us-c...
http://malaysia.usembassy.gov/wf/wf1007_kayrepo...
"The interim findings of David Kay and the Iraq Survey Group make two things abundantly clear: Saddam Hussein's Iraq was in material breach of its United Nations obligations before the Security Council passed Resolution 1441"
Reply-
0%
djn3nunez35 months, 3 weeks ago
"but when Saddam does it he's a freedom fighter or something?"
Nice case of circular logic you've got going there.
Saddam should have been overthrown by his own people and never given support by any American Administration. Like the USSR we should have taken a hands off approach to both Iran and Iraq during their war. It would have been less costly and Saddam would not have been able to survive it.
The fact remains that the weapons inspectors were not allowed to complete their assigned tasks because of GWB's invasion plans, not anything Saddam did to disrupt them.
Reply-
0%
newbie04205 months, 3 weeks ago
"The fact remains that the weapons inspectors were not allowed to complete their assigned tasks because of GWB's invasion plans, not anything Saddam did to disrupt them."
I take it you missed this:
Saddam "cleverly exploited" sanctions in a variety of ways, granting "oil and humanitarian supply contracts to those willing to bend the rules in Iraq's favor."
8) There has been lots of evidence that Iraq infiltrated UN inspection and intelligence teams. Why are people surprised the UN didn't find any WMD?
9) The UN recognized that Iraq was engaged in illicit activity and was not disarming by passing 18 resolutions demanding that Iraq did so. Are we going to believe Saddam Hussein over the world community
10) With extensive business interests in Iraq, why are people surprised that countries like Russia, France and Germany opposed war with Saddam Hussein's regime?
Reply-
0%
wtagg5 months, 3 weeks ago
"8) There has been lots of evidence that Iraq infiltrated UN inspection and intelligence teams. Why are people surprised the UN didn't find any WMD?"
Another extremely remote possibility was that there weren't any.
So, the cost of 4000 precious servicemen, $500 billion, 10's of thousands of casualties, an overburdened military, a significant dent in our economy, driving the price of one of our primary energy sources, tens of thousands of Iraqi, a huge burden on our Vet Admin, the destruction and rebuilding of the Iraqi infrastructure, etc... were all because of an ooops, we'll try harder next time and we should accept that rational?
Unfortunately, our ability to interpret information hasn't really improved since that moment and is unlikely to improve.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
StarLord5 months, 3 weeks ago
Two wrongs do not make a right, which the USA is learning to its sorrow.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Dionys5 months, 3 weeks ago
"First off the whole world believed it and was provding the info, not just the big bas bush admin"
The Bush administration told somewhere around 953 seperate lies they knew at the time were either lies or shaky 'truths' based on 'evidence' they knew was falsified.
Seems like a big bad administration to me. With an emphasis on the big -- in spending. I don't understand how any RepugnantCon can support such an incredible build up of government and spending.
Reply -
0%
wtagg5 months, 3 weeks ago
"First off the whole world believed it"
Could you please provide some evidence to support this claim? I would even accept evidence that half the world believed it.
"That is why we have elected officials, to prevent mob rule."
So, why bother having an election at all? Is that not mob rule or as I would then to call it, majority-rule. Mob rule does not necessarily mean majority. If 51% say stay in Iraq forever, I would accept it. I don't think that number is possible in a vote on the subject.
But if you want to support the liberal policies of the current administration, that is your right. Please don't attempt to call yourself a conservative. You can call yourself a republican, since there isn't anything really conservative about that.
Reply-
0%
newbie04205 months, 3 weeks ago
"Could you please provide some evidence to support this claim? I would even accept evidence that half the world believed it."
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iraq-WM...
"The intelligence communities of every major country were confident that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before 2003. These include the United States, Canada, France, the United Nations, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Australia, Japan, even Iran and a slew of others. It was a working assumption that such WMD was in Iraq, so much that I never heard accusations that it wasn't true until the political war heated up in March, 2003."
"So, why bother having an election at all? Is that not mob rule or as I would then to call it, majority-rule."
Do you really need me to explain the difference btween mob rule and a democratically elected republic? WOW
And for like the hundredth time:
I have never voted repub or dem in my life.
Reply-
0%
V78385 months, 3 weeks ago
I'm surprised that this link was provided as proof. I am Canadian and an outside observer to American politics. When Bush was looking for support for the Iraq War, Canada expressed strong opposition and refused to participate. France was in a similar position ... do you remember Freedom Fries. The French position was not popular with certain groups in the United States, leading to campaigns for the boycotting of French goods and businesses and the removal of the country's name from products. I'm sure if you look to outside news sources you'll find that the majority of the world was against this action.
Reply-
-
0%
StarLord5 months, 3 weeks ago
No, it's not the sole point. The world believed that Iraq had WMDs based on US lies.
Even then, most of the world did not believe that military action was the appropriate response.
hence, the UNSC voted down the resolution.
hence, Bush is a war criminal, as it quite clearly states in the UN Charter (Which the US signed as a charter member), that going to war without UNSC approval is an act of aggression and a war crime.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
wtagg5 months, 3 weeks ago
To quote from your article, which is at least part opinion:
" In early 2001, an Iraqi defector claimed that two functional atomic bombs were in Iraq's possession, minus the fissile core. He further proved credibility by saying that when UN inspectors were present until 1998, there were 47 nuclear program sites, and now there are 64, and more in progress."
How does that comment further prove credibility? Part, if not much, of the article is based on these leaps.
I think that Colin stated that it was with 100% certainty that a nuclear program and WMD existed. That comment points to either total incompetence, which I find hard to believe, especially with Powell, or at least an attempt to influence a decision with information that they did not have total and complete confidence, and doing so does not reflect well on our country.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
newbie04205 months, 3 weeks ago
It's like debating with a wall. Here's your quote:
"Please don't attempt to call yourself a conservative"
Again, please cite where I have EVER called myself such or make a claim to be one. PLEASE.
"So, have you ever voted?"
As far as local politics yeah, multiple parties.
As for President, I have voted for Nader since I was old enough (28 now)
If I could have I would have voted for Perot.
Not that I agree 100% with everything both of them said, I believe dems and repubs work together to control us and the only way to change that is to take them out of power.
Real CHANGE.
Something neither Obama, Hillary or McCain would know anything about.
Reply-
0%
wtagg5 months, 3 weeks ago
Wow, apparently you are interchanging "Please don't attempt to ", which is an action that hasn't occurred yet, with "You", which makes the sentence a statement. Had I said, You call yourself a conservative, you would be spot on the money. I didn't.
"Something neither Obama, Hillary or McCain would know anything about."
Well, this is a sentence that we both equally understand and agree with, though Nader isn't my choice. I do agree that there is nothing to be gained with continuing with the status quo currently in DC.
Reply -
0%
scott42615 months, 3 weeks ago
Good God, man! Ya gotta quit smokin' that stuff! You're gonna blow a gasket!
Oh, and BTW: everything you write screams the neo-conservative talking points....so even if you choose not to label yourself (and I agree to an extent that labels are stupid), we know you are. And if you have never voted Republican....hey more power to ya! Knock yourself out....
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
spkguy5 months, 3 weeks ago
newbie0420
"First off the whole world believed it and was provding the info, not just the big bas bush admin."
First off, Iraq had nothing to do with 911, period! The links that the Bush administration made between 911 and Iraq where false if not down right lies! And those are the facts, period!
BTW: Your two closest allies did not agree with the Bush administration and both chose to not support the invasion
and occupation of Iraq.
Reply-
-
0%
spkguy5 months, 3 weeks ago
Canada, and Mexico, although I should have said three...
"This tension in Canadian policy priorities came out most clearly one year ago at the UN Security Council, when Canada put forward a compromise resolution over Iraq and worked closely with our third NAFTA partner, Mexico, as well as Chile, to avert war (both countries had a seat on the Security Council). Its neighbours' unhelpful meddling only angered the Bush administration. We only suspected then what we know now: the U.S. decision to force Saddam Hussein out had been made much earlier; the Canadian proposal never really had a chance."
http://www.pugwashgroup.ca/events/documents/200...
Reply-
0%
Mdiar5 months, 3 weeks ago
Thanks. My only disagreement is considering Mexico and Canada our two closest allies. Canada certainly is. Mexico is certainly an extremely close ally. I'd say the UK is a closer ally though, if not as near. Overall Iraq was a failed decision and a blunder and we'd have done well to consider the possibility that Iraq lacked WMDs or the capacity to produce such, a bit longer.
Reply-
-
0%
spkguy5 months, 3 weeks ago
"BTW: Your two closest allies did not agree with the Bush administration and both chose to not support the invasion."
Sorry for not being clearer, I sould have inserted "of" then the statement would be technically correct.
"BTW: Two of your closest allies did not agree with the Bush administration and both chose to not support the invasion.
That would have been correct.. All good though, thanks for comments and insights.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
djn3nunez35 months, 3 weeks ago
"Uhhhh both parties voted to go to war ..."
Not quite, they did abdicate their constitutional responsiblibty and gave the President (the rope?) the chance he needed to determine if a war was necessary. As the facts have played out our current President is now a war criminal for fixing those facts. Every congressman/women who voted to give him the power to decide should resign in desgrace for they have disgrace our nation and destroyed another.
Reply-
0%
newbie04205 months, 3 weeks ago
Pepole like you make me laugh.
Saddam was a war criminal. We should have finished this the first time. You know, when he invaded Kuwait and lobbed some SCUDZ into Israel?
Saddam also wanted to switch his oil over to the Euro to attack our economy, something the President has a duty to protect.
I don't like Bush but one thing I do agree with this admin on is Iraq and stabalizing the ME.
Reply-
0%
djn3nunez35 months, 3 weeks ago
"Saddam was a war criminal."
So when Ronnie Raygun took Iraq off the nations who support terrorist in '82' and allowed Iraq to purchase the technology to produce Chemical and Biological weapon and gave the Iraqis intel on Iranian troop positions to better target his chemical attacks and sold missiles to Iran(thus selling weapons for profit to both sides during the war), makes Ronnie what?
"We should have finished this the first time."
Read it and weep
Reasons Not to Invade Iraq, By George Bush Sr.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/ira...
"Saddam also wanted to switch his oil over to the Euro to attack our economy,"
No need to attack our economy now is there?
"...this admin on is Iraq and stabalizing the ME."
Destroying Iraq has desabalized the region and Iran has move influence than ever. The strategy was flawed from the begining.
People like you don't make me laugh at all.
Reply-
0%
newbie04205 months, 3 weeks ago
LOL
You give me a link to a story that has been removed from the original source (from a conspiracy nut website at that) and tell me to "read it and weap". Insted of countering my point of saddam attacking our economy you make fun of our economy and you expect me to take you seriously?
What, exactly was you plan after 9/11?
Catch Osama and forget about the rest of the ME?
Reply-
0%
Dionys5 months, 3 weeks ago
I'm pretty sure he asked you to "read it and WEEP."
As for a plan post-9/11, I personally think it would have been great to actually go after the person responsible for the attack, rather than engage in an aggressive, imperialist pre-emptive attack on a country that had nothing to do with it and which was frankly not destabilizing the middle east any more than Israel does.
Perhaps we should have also gone after the Saudis, since they provided nearly every 'terrorist' with their passport as well as financial support.
But then we would have been going after Bush's best friends and some of his biggest financial support.
Reply -
0%
djn3nunez35 months, 3 weeks ago
RU saying George Bush Sr. didn't write the article?
There is nothing funny about how GWB's strategc blunder has crippled the largest ecomony in the world.
Plan.
Yes capture or kill those resonsible for the 9-11 attacks. Use the bipartisn spirit that we had in this country to begin the monumental effort to make the US energy independent. Certainly not invade and occupy an oil rich Arab nation that did not participate in the 9-11 attacks thus giving bin Ladin and other Radical Muslim groups fuel for the firey hatred of the US foriegn policies over the past 70 years or so.
Reply -
-
baddad59Comment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
-
-
0%
djn3nunez35 months, 3 weeks ago
With friends like that who need enemies? Oh wait, he was both.....nevermind.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
scott42615 months, 3 weeks ago
I gave you a plus, but I would hardly call today's Republican Party the center of anything. I would agree the Democrats are in the center, though I think it does depend on the issue as to whether the party is to the left or to the right.
Come November, the Republicans will finally realize the they are nowhere near the center. They drove off the cliff long ago.
....and America is finally waking up to that dismal fact.
Reply-
0%
Mdiar5 months, 3 weeks ago
Ehhh, I like to think the Republicans came into power because we thought we were getting centrists. The Republican Party, as a whole, is fairly moderate. Its just that the leadership of the GOP suddenly became right wing. The actual populace, those who determine whether the GOP succeeds or not, is far from right wing among the GOP.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
gamahuche5 months, 3 weeks ago
Not so, AG, quite absurd of you to say so, if I may say so.
They have the 80% negative ratings of the current catastrophe.
I am doing my best to refrain from mentioning geriatric has-been wanna-be's till another thread.
OOPS, it just slipped out.
Reply -
-
baddad59Comment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
vidman045 months, 3 weeks ago
Especially after all these years of their Bush bashing, calling him every name in the book...damn hypocrits
Reply -
0%
Isoparm5 months, 3 weeks ago
Actually he was talking about the absolute absurdity of someone jumping from "take appropriate action" to somehow equating this with collusion with terrorists. This a perfect example of the black or white, us vs. them, mentality of a natural conservative. This is a gray-scale universe, and it doesn't give a da*n about our politics, or our labels.
Reply-
0%
ETproductions5 months, 3 weeks ago
As an honest fiscal conservative, I would like to point out that these new ConMen that came in with their Godlike hero, Ronald Reagan are NOT conservatives. There is nothing conservative about the biggest increase in the deficit in history or the biggest increase in government or somehow finding a Unitary Executive (dictator) written into the Constitution.
Ronald Reagan, by the way, converted the USA from the largest lender nation to the largest debtor nation in his two terms and launched the deficit, which had been flat in terms of percent of Gross National Product ever since we paid down the debt on WWII, on its crazy spiral toward Mars. It's upward assent has now reached escape velocity.
Reply-
0%
AntiNeoCon5 months, 3 weeks ago
ET - you are a true republican, one who deserves respect. It was Ronald Regan that began the downfall of the party with the trickle down theory that failed so miserably. It seems the NeoCons chimed in and took over the party, thats when I left.
I did make the mistake of voting for Reagan the first term but it was apparent he was bankrupting us before his second term began. It seems there may be a movement now to recover the party from the NeoCons, that would be a giant step forward.
Reply
-
-
0%
aniokly5 months, 3 weeks ago
He is friends, close friends with a known Terrorist, a Syrian Businessman, and an Irani businessman. Is it any wonder why he wants us out of Iraq? The only question is, does he want us out of Iraq, because his Arab friends. who he owes millions of dollars to, want us out too? You cannot put lipstick on this pig.
Reply-
0%
willottica5 months, 3 weeks ago
Oh my god! He's friends with businessmen??? Everyone, run for the hills!
Ani, your comments are always absurd, and this one is right up there.
I won't address the terrorist comment, mostly because you didn't... kinda like me saying McCain takes Viagra to try to keep up in the fantastic orgies his wife sponsors... It's completely unsupported, most likely made up.
Reply -
-
-
-
0%
newbie04205 months, 3 weeks ago
So do you ever have anything constructive to add to discussion or do you just go around insulting people?
Reply -
AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Dionys5 months, 3 weeks ago
"You want to talk about being friends with Arabs? look at Bush and Cheney - Haliburton moved to Dubai. "
Don't forget BushCo's long standing close family ties with the Saudis -- the very people who provided nearly every terrorist with passports, citizenship and financial support.
Not to mention the very same people who often bailed out every single one of Bush's failed companies.
Reply
-
-
0%
gamahuche5 months, 3 weeks ago
"You cannot put lipstick on this pig."
Do you do this before or after you shave it - every day or is once a week sufficient?
A video is available, perhaps, for the hysterically pleasurable viewing of the propellerite masses?
Reply -
baddad59Comment removed: User banned.
-
0%
lum-chate5 months, 3 weeks ago
I'm very pleased ABC finally cornered Obama about his illicit friendships & associations with known evil-doers. ABC sure has it all over NBC who constantly shower us with Matthews & Keith Overbite!
Reply -
0%
Blackacereturn5 months, 3 weeks ago
ani You are and idiot, I guess the 60% of the American public is in bed with these people too. Obama is doing what your president refuses to do, he is taking the American peoples request into consideration after all it's their country not bushes or his!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
ETproductions5 months, 3 weeks ago
linsRfunny lied: "So, anyone who questions Obama is either "stupid or hate-filled"? I would call that a stupid and hate-filled comment."
No, anyone who says he would welcome a nuclear attack on Israel is those things. You ConMen sure do have trouble keeping people's quotes straight, don't you.
Reply -
0%
StarLord5 months, 3 weeks ago
It's not someone who questions - questions are always good, at least in my mindset.
It's the irresponsible and mischevious accusaion that Sen. Obama is sympathetic towards terrorirst groups that earned my neg, and I suspect, ET's comment.
Reply -
0%
djn3nunez35 months, 3 weeks ago
"So, anyone who questions Obama is either "stupid or hate-filled"? I would call that a stupid and hate-filled comment."
I don't know I think this is a pretty stupid question:
"Is that a code meaning that he will call his Hamas buddies to celebrate?"
I think we all know what kind of code that type of question is!
Reply -
0%
Blackacereturn5 months, 3 weeks ago
LibsRfun - Do you really think you are making any sense?
ET said "I certainly hope for your own sake that you are just joking, and aren't either stupid enough or hate filled enough to thank that a President Obama would welcome a nuclear attack on Israel."
And your reply is: "So, anyone who questions Obama is either "stupid or hate-filled"? I would call that a stupid and hate-filled comment."
And i am saying WHAT? You need to reread this or you stand to appair as ET has suggested here. Et is telling you that she doesn't President oboma will not stand for this and you feel she is attacking you. Your reply however makes ET's qustion Valid.
Reply
-
-
0%
JoseMadre5 months, 3 weeks ago
I certainly hope you aren't stupid enough to believe that Obama has a chance. Just his associations with anti-Semites will cost him New Jersey and hurt him in New York and Pennsylvania. Those coupled with his friendship with William Ayres, who was involved in the bombings of the Capitol, the Pentagon and the NYPD and has never even so much as apologized, will bury him. Talk about giving McCain the Office on a silver platter!
Reply
-
-
-
