Obama's new literature - http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/St...

Democratic presidents suck. Independent and Republican voters rule. Clinton was a triangulator, but a bad one. I'll be an awesome one. Who needs democratic voters when I can pander to independents and Republicans even in a democratic primary.

What's not said, Obama bleeds democratic base voters. In the last NPR poll, Hillary held onto all but 9% of democrats. Obama lost 18% to McCain.

Also, not for nothing, but those Democratic Congressman who lost their seats in 1994 contributed plenty to their own losses. Dan Rostenkowski and the Congressional Post Office scandal, anyone? It's not like Bill Clinton was so awful that less than two years in office and suddenly Tom Foley's district decided he sucked because of Bill.

But then political history has never been Barack's strong point.

It’s not like Bill Clinton was so awful that less than two years in office and suddenly Tom Foley’s district decided he sucked because of Bill.

So you read Sirota's interview with Phil Hare in which he blames the loss of congress in 1992 on NAFTA and you think he is a drooling Obama-ite?

How'd Zogby do in CA?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Anonymous Coward, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Here's what I know, that despite George W Bush's incredibly low poll ratings in 2006, he didn't lose Congress all by himself. You may recall Republicans in Congress had their own problems, including sex and corruption scandals. Does that mean that Bush didn't hurt them? Of course he hurt them, but their own problems contributed to the scope of their losses. In fact, exit polls indicated that voters' number one issue was corruption.

Go back to 1994. Right before the election, the Congressional Post Office scandal breaks. Dan Rostenkowski, who was a huge figure in the party, is at the center of it. Turns out Tom Foley had known about it and buried a report on it. Now, did Clinton hurt Congress in 1994? Yes. But was he the only reason why 1994 was a disaster for Democrats? Absolutely not.

And I'll add that had Democrats in Congress not engaged in unity politics with their Republican friends across the aisle on everything from demanding answers on Whitewater to slamming Clinton on gays in the military (thanks, Sam Nunn), that Clinton's popularity might not have been as low as it was in 1994.

That now, more than ten years later, Congressional Democrats and Republicans have decided to blame everything on Clinton (which is awfully damned convenient) doesn't make it true. Clinton had flaws and made mistakes, but the Democratic Congress in the 1990s was just as self-defeating as the current one.

Not every single thing that went wrong for liberals in the 1990s was Bill Clinton's fault. It's just easy for all of the other Democrats to go along with that narrative because it absolves them of any responsibility. And I refuse to let all those other Democrats off the hook so easily.

Passed with majority republican support.
in the house 132 republicans voted yes
104 democrats voted yes
156 democrats voted no

It's about time for me to decide who gets my vote in the primary. I had been hoping that either Clinton or Obama would come out with something clear and bold that would make my decision for me. But neither one has.

I would like to cast my vote to end the war in Iraq. Here's what Clinton is promising:

Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary's First Days in Office: The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration. ...

It might be a promise to start withdrawal and carry it through to completion, or it might be a promise to start withdrawal and then convene to reconsider.

Here's what Obama is promising:

Bring Our Troops Home: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

If I'm looking for a commitment to get the hell out, it appears that Obama has the edge.

Am I missing something?

What do you see that's different?

[And remember, that Iraq is a humongous, monstrous, Clusterfuck of awesome scale and scope. We know it's awful, but exactly how awful it is, we can't know, because, because the Republicans have kept the lid on everything. We're flying blind, and at some point the Iraqis might decide to take matters into their own hands, in which case all the plans will be as nothing.

So, I don't think it makes much sense to worry about the detail. I see "immediately start bringing our troops home" and "ll immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq" as being equivalent.

(Not sure what the word is on permanent bases; readers?)

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

If you want to be optimistic, you can hope that douchebag Michael O'Hanlon is right for once in his horrid criminal life.

Here's what the scumball said today about the Moderate Choices:

“I’m troubled about what they both say about Iraq. He’s the one who wants to get out very fast, unconditionally, and to some extent, he’s pulled her along,” Mr. O’Hanlon said. […]

“Still, if you add up all of their differences, they both fail on Iraq. They both would get out very fast.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/11/ohan...

After some initial reluctance both O and C are clear on opposition to permanent bases.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archive...

Fortunately, we won't have to worry about the world's largest and most expensive embassy. Since the corporations that built it installed a fire extinguishing system that didn't work, no doubt it will burn down all on its own one day -- Krispy Kreme donut shop and all.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Lambert asks: "What do you see that’s different?"

Here's one Obama promise that Clinton doesn't approach: "all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months"

I know Iraq is an awful clusterfuck, but I think you overstate our ignorance/helplessness: "We know it’s awful, but exactly how awful it is, we can’t know, because, because the Republicans have kept the lid on everything. We’re flying blind, and at some point the Iraqis might decide to take matters into their own hands, in which case all the plans will be as nothing."

The Republicans haven't kept the lid on everything. It was possible to know that the invasion was unjustified and illegal, and it rapidly became clear that it was ill-planned. Then came the occupation and a succession of U.S. and quisling regimes--all plainly inept and wrong in spite of efforts to hide the evidence.

So we're not flying entirely blind, and one of the strongest arguments for rapid withdrawal is recognition that the Iraqis will always have the option of taking matters into their own hands. Withdrawal is prudent, and the magnitude of the clusterfuck--with all of its mysteries and imponderables--tells me that the need to withdraw is urgent, too.

If you're looking for a guarantee on getting out of Iraq or on a timetable, then neither Obama nor Clinton is your candidate. Obama has said 16 months in the past, but on Sunday's 60 Minutes, he reserved the right to change his mind if he felt it was needed. You can see the video at http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2.... The counter will read around -6 minutes when he discusses Iraq.

Personally, I think both candidates will do what they can to get the troops out, recognizing the general mess of the place makes that more complicated than I'd like. I'm a Clinton person, but I can't honestly say I think she's better on this issue. It suspect they are practically identical.

Most of the differences are political - experience, style, rhetoric. I think the only major difference between the two candidates on policy is healthcare. Which for me is not only a huge political issue, but also a moral issue. 18,000 Americans will die this year because they lack healthcare. Obama's retreat from universal healthcare is extremely disappointing, especially as it comes in the middle of a democratic primary when it should be easiest to support it.

But if you're an Iraq voter, then I think - with the exception of Obama's 2002 speech - you're looking at pretty much two identical candidates.

For what it's worth, Clinton has introduced legislation to prohibit Bush from building permanent bases in Iraq. I don't know if that matters all that much, Obama is also against permanent bases. In fact, at one of the debates she asked him to co-sponsor her bill. I don't know if he did, but he is against permanent bases.

BDB, I didn't see the 60 Minutes interview. It's disappointing to read that Obama couldn't stand by his commitment long enough to carry it into the election--either as the Democratic presidential candidate or as the one who came in second, but convinced the victor to adopt a stronger commitment.

Is it the consensus of the Corrente brain trust that Obama and Clinton are indistinguishable, except on health care?

there are many and significant differences between the candidates. however, "what matters" in this election isn't always going to be about that. so practically: yes, there is so little difference between the candidates, that the established powers will allow them to express, that it hardly matters which one is chosen to lead us.