What?

Somewhat interesting article:

From the U.K. Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3433485.ece

Yeah, so is the $20 million Bill Clinton got from the Emir of Dubai as a "buyout" of a previous business deal, even though many suspect it was more of a political move than anything else. Meanwhile the Clintons won't release their tax returns.

Dude, don't you get it? No one here is defending (or accusing for that matter) the Clintons. The point is that Obama is no different. Just because he has the ability to draw in crowds doesn't make him any better or worse than any other politician, including the Clintons. Now, with all of them on the same playing field, who is the better candidate?

Obama. He's not perfect, but he's a hell of an improvement.

Exactly. Well said!

...but don't expect the Obamabots to break their spells and ask any real questions. They're all just politicians (not saviours), who have to make these kind of deals to have any hope of competing on the national stage. It's just a fact of modern political life. It doesn't mean they can't still be good politicians, as a matter of fact it likely recommends their wheeling and dealing ability to be wily negotiators internationally on behalf of America.

So it all comes back to No Country for Sam's point - - who is the better candidate, and who has the best policies? These are the questions that must be asked - - it's not enuf to be part of a cult of adulation...

As Obama said, he was never for the war unlike Hillary Clinton who is too stubborn to admit shes wrong when she agreed with Bush to invade Iraq. Im still guessing why a few of the Hillary supporters are still voting for her when she is basically a republican disguised as a liberal. Not just the Iraq war issue but her working for Walmart as their lawyer

Obama. I like his health care plan more (no mandates please) and his history of trying to help the poor. He recently proposed a bill in Congress for a Global Poverty Act. I also feel that Hillary would have a very difficult time talking to foreign leaders, particularly in the Middle East. They suppress women's rights over there and would not treat her with the respect she deserves. Plus, I have a big problem with her still trying to act like she played no part in the Iraq War starting. She still won't admit her own culpability and tries to keep blaming Bush. Take a little responsibility Hillary! Also, she recently voted in favor of military action against Iran. I am vehemently anti-war and this is the second time she's gone with the righties on cranking up a war. Obama voted "no" to the Iran issue.

I loathe Hillary Clinton, but even I take offense to this reasoning. People in this country do not respect the rights of women or minorities. I guess we should refrain from promoting meritorious women and minorities so as to not offend bigots that exist in this country.

Have you seen the documentaries done on women's rights in the Middle East? They're practically non-existent and it's a damn shame. Perhaps that's why we should elect her then, just to bust that door down and force them to start respecting women in those countries. It would be a huge start in the right direction.

You people keep mentioning how she voted yes for the war...

Didn't almost EVERYONE vote for the war?! Like, EVERYONE?!

Yeah, and almost everyone (on the left side of the aisle) has admitted they were WRONG. She still hasn't. She just blames it on Bush. "He lied, blah blah blah blah..." The other Democrats out there that voted for it have, for the most part, admitted they were wrong.

Obama didnt vote for the war plus like redbird said that alot of the senators admitted that they were wrong. Whats worst about Hillary is she was the biggest supporter of Bush among democrats. She has held many conferences on the same subject but since Bush isnt as popular anymore, she feels the need to jump off the train and go with the more popular consensus

If anything, I might hold Obama in a lower regard for voting against the war.

your statement makes no sense since you are trying to argue that everyone voted for the war and why we are picking on her. We dont care if you think lightly on someone voting against the war because it has no emphasis on Hillary's being pro-war

Why is that? Because it was popular to vote for it? It was shameful how much cheerleading was going on, even in the so-called "liberal" media in the run-up to and start of the war. Barack is absolutely right. It should have never been authorized or waged.

It was the right thing to do.

If that's the case, we should have invaded Sudan. But we won't. Because that's not what it was about at all.

I don't care that you're attacking her.

But everyone voted for the war. So she shouldn't be in the wrong.

I didn't say that that's what it was about. I didn't even give a reason for the war. I just stated that voting FOR the war, WAS the right thing to do.

Expain to me how going to war with IRAQ in 2002 was the right thing to do? Of all the problems or places we had reason to go after, we choce Iraq.

Explain how its right and saying its popular isnt an answer,

Not everyone voted for it. Ted Kennedy didn't. Robert Byrd didn't. If those old farts could tell that it was wrong, the other Congress members should have stood up for what they believed rather than following the popularity polls from their constituency. So no, it wasn't the right thing to do. It was the popular thing to do. There is a huge difference.

The popular thing to do now is vote Obama.

Is there is difference there?

Kinda like the popular thing to do in December was vote Clinton, right?

23 senators and 133 House members voted against it.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberall ... ayVote.htm