I am not interested in seeing Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush Jr-Bush Jr-and then Clinton-Clinton?
That's what one would call a duopoly. Two families in power for 24-28 years. Pretty sickening to me.
"Ask yourself," Obama told the crowd, "Who do you trust to end a war: someone who opposed the war from the beginning, or someone who started opposing it when they started preparing a run for president?"
Well Barack, I think you already know how I feel.
Obama used the five-year anniversary of the Iraq invasion to again cast himself as the only true anti-war candidate, one who openly opposed the invasion as a state lawmaker. He renewed criticism of Clinton for voting to authorize the use of force against Iraq.
He wasn't the only "anti-war" candidate. Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich had been anti-war the entire time the war was going on. You may not have voted to go to war, I'll give you that much.
And of course the Clintons have to put their own spin on the story:
Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer responded: "The reality is that Senator Obama took practically no action to end the war until he started his White House run while Senator Clinton has been a consistent critic of Iraq for many years."
That's an outright lie. Hillary voted to go to war and believes in the freaking war on terror, which is a load of crap.
"What we need in our next commander in chief is not a stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality or empty rhetoric about 3 a.m. phone calls," he said. "What we need is a pragmatic strategy that focuses on fighting our real enemies, rebuilding alliances and renewing our engagement with the world's people."
Amen.
I'm not a huge fan of either candidate, but I will do whatever I can to keep the Clintons out of the Oval Office (I know you have some fond memories Bill, but no more from the oral office; Monica is retired from under the table service).
news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
. 
