If you have "no place to go," come here!

How can there be more Memorial Days...

... if we don't make the military even larger?

Sounds like somebody explained a few things to Obama once he was allowed to take office. Or he knew them all along. I'm not quite sure which, yet.

No votes yet


Submitted by hipparchia on

obama didn't say it loudly and often while campaigning, but he did mention it occasionally: he was all for increasing the military by about 100,000 and has been from the beginning. it was on the website and it showed up in the occasional newspaper or magazine article, usually buried way down the page. just like his 'i'm not against all wars, i'm just against dumb wars' line, everybody ignored the parts they didn't want to see.

i'd have gone along with his bashing hillary for her aumf vote if he'd actually been anti-war, but he never was.

Submitted by hipparchia on

my impression during the primary was that hillary was actually less pro-war than obama [2% less evil] though i admit i came to that conclusion entirely from reading between the lines on what each of them said and that it could well be just wishful thinking on my part. neither of them was ever staunchly anti-war.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

But it seemed to me at least, that Clinton was more likely to had learned from her mistake on Iraq, whereas Obama, with his shifting words about Iraq, from his claim that he didn't know how he would vote if he'd been in the Senate, to his quote that he didn't see any differences in Bush's current policy(in 2004 I think) from his.

Obama always came across as less reliable, where Clinton came off as contrite about the mistake she made, despite the progblogs claims to the contrary

*Not To Rehash The Primaries

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

In fact, I think her biggest failure in the campaign was not demonstrating deep remorse over abnegating the check-and-balance responsibilities on such a vital matter and with such inhumane and multiply costly consequences.

I'm sure she and her handlers feared that would make her too vulnerable to Obama, but that doesn't impress me much. It also makes it hard for me to be all that sanguine about her as Secretary of State.

Submitted by jawbone on

and thus would have been more respsonsive to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

Plus, she made universal healthcare a centerpiece of her campagng. Mandated insurance but with caps on percentage of income which could be spent on insurance and assistance for the poor, plus she would fight for the public plan (buy into Fed employees' pograms or Medicare). And she said those things will actual enthusiam.

I believe that had she been president, the Dems would have more backbone, would not simply say, oh, yeah another war and expand it into Pakistan. Sure, boss.

But...she's not our president. NTRP is right.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

That she did not and would not get a free ride from the left. Even if one allows that she was no better on policy than Obama, the fact that she'd be scrutinized and criticized could have made a tremendous difference.

I, for one, would have bellyached quite a bit about her health plan (as I understood it), if she got the gig. More progressive than Obama's but hardly perfected.

Submitted by lambert on

At least on health care and HOLC.

Don't know about the empire; probably no change.