Changing Tack
During the recent Democrat debate (if you can call it that) at Dartmouth College, it seems the top three Democrat hopefuls have flipped their positions on troop withdrawal from Iraq. Hillary Clinton, who has been hedging her position on Iraq from day one, said during the debate, “It’s very difficult to know what we will be inheriting.” Perhaps she should have paid more attention to General Petraeus’ report?
Barack Obama followed a similar pattern, saying, “It’s hard to project four years from now.” Indeed, Senator Obama, but you could have given a more specific answer had you been paying more attention rather than criticizing!
John Edwards stated that his position differs from Clinton and Obama in that if elected he would immediately bring home one half the troops stationed in Iraq. Finally, a solid commitment instead of a vague, run-around answer! I hope he means what he says because if elected, he has no room for adjustment.
It’s interesting to note that Clinton did not vote in favor of the Senate action that condemned Moveon.org for the ad they placed in the New York Times calling General Petraeus a liar. Obama did not vote at all, as is his normal practice on proceedings that may be controversial. (He likely worries that his vote may come back to haunt him in the future.) This is nothing new: it was his modus operandi when he was a state senator for Illinois. Edwards, of course, could not vote. However he could have made a strong statement of condemnation – but didn’t. Democrat candidates seem reluctant to criticize Moveon.org for anything. Why? Could it possibly be the $300 million that Movon.org has donated both to individual candidates and the Democrat Party? Those donations come with a price, which was clearly evidenced by a statement made by Moveon.org back in December of 2004: “We bought it, we own it and we’re going to take it back.” I’ll give you one guess as to what they were referring to.
Change for the Better?
Speaking of the debate at Dartmouth, we were promised “change” in Washington, meaning business as usual will cease to be business as usual. Hillary Clinton says her experience is the key. Obama claims his new ideas are the answer. He also claims his refusal to accept money from lobbyists means he is not in anybody’s pocket – hinting strongly that anyone (read: Clinton) who has accepted such funds is beholden to the lobbyist’s client. Apparently potential voters don’t agree, as Clinton is running 20+% points ahead of Obama in most national polls. Still, the only poll that really counts is the election…
The More Things Change…
Recently Barack Obama, as reported in the TimesOnLine, stated Hillary Clinton was not experienced enough to handle the presidency. He said “she worked the system both as First Lady and as New York’s junior Senator.” Bill Clinton jumped in to defend his wife’s abilities (something he said weeks ago he would not do) by saying Obama is “too inexperienced to handle the country’s challenges.” Obama continued the tit for tat by claiming Hillary didn’t know what she was doing when she voted to authorize the Iraq invasion.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been bouncing the experience ball back and forth for some time, but now that Bill Clinton has stepped on to the court, it could be a new game. Is this a good or bad thing? We’ll find out soon enough.
During a forum set up by the Congressional Black Caucus, Hillary suggested that every child born in the United States either be given a $5,000 savings bond, or its equivalent to be used to help with college tuition or the purchase of a home. What Hillary neglected to say was how this would be paid for and what the eligibility requirement would be. There are estimated to be 4 million babies born in the U.S. every year and at $5,000 for each one, that would be an expense to the government (read: us) of $20 billion plus every year. Yes, that’s billion with a “B”. Unsurprisingly, Republicans called it
source :
