Foxfyre wrote:blatham wrote:Piece from Haaretz this morning...
Quote:Obama, Clinton and Iran: The vote that made the difference
By Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama
RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE: More and more commentators think Obama has a greater chance of winning.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/950643.html
The article zeroes in on Kyl/Lieberman which is one of those sticky wicket issues that needs to be considered within the light of the larger context of the debate and vote. Hillary actually probably got it right, but I am guessing that few people followed that vote closely enough to know.
From the same article, what is probably most relevant to voters either pro or con depending on one's ideology:
Quote:Either way, here Obama's National Journal rankings on foreign policy votes: 92 on the liberal index - in other words, he was more liberal than 92 percent of senators - and 7 on the conservative index - that is, he was more conservative than just 7 percent of senators. His foreign policy voting record is almost perfectly liberal: only in one case did he vote for the ostensibly conservative position, when he voted against any cuts to budgets for troops deployed in a combat zone.
Clinton, despite a hawkish image, was also fairly liberal on votes concerning foreign policy: more than 83 percent of senators. She was more conservative than just 16 percent of senators. Her vote on Kyl-Lieberman is what made the difference.
Fortunately, I will not find it necessary to make a choice about Clinton and Obama in a voting booth, but it is possible that one of the two of them will be our next president and in the event there is something to Rhonda Byrne's
The Secret, I want to be ready with a preference between the two in case Reality comes asking me to mold it.
Earlier in the year I gritted my teeth and indicated that if one of the Democrats had to be president, I would prefer Hillary Clinton on the basis of experience. More recently, the cynicism of the Clintons as reflected in their campaign strategy, the appealing eloquence and demeanor of Obama, and, in most but not all cases, the positive civility of his supporters have caused me to change my preference.
However, since the last debate and through reading articles (right up to the one you posted) and watching the debate here on A2K, I have yet again changed my preference --- back to Hillary.
It's certainly not a matter of character or likeability, but the fact remains that Clinton's record
is less Liberal than Obamas. I'm not sure whether she voted in favor of Kyle/Lieberman out of conviction or to preserve some connection to the center for the general election, but, in my opinion, it was the correct vote.
I am under no illusion that Hillary is not really a Liberal. She clearly is, but she is less of a Liberal than Obama, and, most importantly to me, more of a hawk.
If Hillary has an in with Reality she better send it to my house today, because I may flip-flop on this again tomorrow.
: The other day,in the midst of a discussion re healthcare plans, I mentioned something re UK and Canadian healthcare plans not covering prostate cancer that I had read in the Albuquerque Journal and said I went back to look for the article to check the source but couldn't find it. Ebeth immediately corrected that wrong assumption and I said something to the effect that I hoped she was right. Walter (and I think maybe one or two othrs) also commented that the statement was incorrect and subsequently found the piece apparently having an online subscription to the Journal that I do not have.
