Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
PM Carpenter, your host. Email: pmcarp at mchsi dot com.
Screenshot 2024-02-20 at 11.46.30 AM
The greatest.


  • ***


« Huckabee Would Speak for a Religious Community of One | Main | Mitt "The Changeling" Romney: Veer Today, Con Tomorrow »

January 14, 2008



Hillary Clinton lost any right to win the Democratic nomination for President when she cast her vote to allow the Commander-in-Chief with an AWOL record to launch his war of choice. Those of us who were not privy to intelligence info knew that there was no case for war. Hillary Clinton's vote was for her own future political ambitions and not for the American people.


Sitting here in central California I knew in 2002 that Iraq was not an a partner with Bin Laden. I knew that Saddam was not an imminent threat even if he did have WMD. Maybe those who are too close to or in Washington DC should get away for a while and see the 'real' picture.

I worry that Clinton would be too quick to launch a military attack in response to an incursion against the US. We need a president who does not feel a need to show they can be tough rather than use good judgment.

I'm looking for someone who has the long term interests of this country as their vision. I see the choice being between Obama and Edwards.

Seth Robbins

I respected what Hillary had been doing for many years, but only at the surface level. It seems very clear to me that she has always had a devious nature to even her best intentioned efforts. The Iraq war vote is inexcusable to me, and the fact that she has never publicly apologized to those families that have lost their children or fathers or mothers to this completely misguided war, is just another reason as to why she is completely untrustworthy. It is very difficult for me to be quiet when she negatively attacks Obama or Edwards and yet claims to be for change and unity!!!??? And people still support her when she is a living lie right in front of them. A contradiction of her own bewildering terms that are only guided by what she thinks is currently in style. I don't hate her, I simply hate what she does politically.

As for Edwards, he does not seem as genuine to me, and he focuses on his corporate lobbyists/special interest group argument far too often. It's been beaten to death by him so that at this point he has become the Rudy of the Democratic side in regards to his campaign strategy. His base is not broad enough.

Obama seems to be the best overall choice, based on his level of intelligence, his life's journey his very hard to ignore, and the immediate impact his presence will bring to the world stage. No more political elitism with the Bush/Clinton trend. And no more angry white men please.

"United" is the first word we should always reflect upon when thinking about what is best for our country, and Barack Obama's very political philosophy is completely reliant on unity as it's driving force for success.

Hillary may feel entitled to this job, at least that is what I consistently end up considering about her when I read about her or watch her speak. Any feeling of entitlement towards a position of power should be seen as the most horrid aspect of anyone's character. It is one of many reasons as to why I firmly believe the GOP will have no problem destroying her in a general election.

On the other hand, there are clearly a lot of Republicans that do not want to say negative things about Barack Obama, because they have actively sought him out to help them work on bills and amendments! There is an extreme contrast that no one should be overlooking.


I think to be fair you have to consider Hillary's position in 2002. At the time she was about to cast her vote, she had no idea how the war was going to turn out. It's not easy trying to figure out ahead of time whether a war is going to be popular several years down the road.


Oh BTW, has Hillary happened to mention how we are gonna pay for the war we already fought? And how we're gonna pay for the rest? And where the men are gonna come from?
Oh, never mind. I don't know why I bother.

andy o'donnell

I find it very interesting that nobody seemed to be offended at the anti feminist sign "iron my shirt" held up in front of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.But "shuck and jive" was noted in horror as anti black.Is it possible that we are being selectively honest depending on the victim of these hate signs and remarks? Would an anti Jesus sign at Huckabee rally be overlooked or an anti Mormon sign at a Romney one.? Surely "iron my shirt" is offensive to all women and especially black women who have been ironing mens shirts (in white households)since the days of slavery?

andy o'donnell

Dear Seth
No need to worry Democrats will have destroyed Hillary long before the Republicans get a chance to do so.Nothing will energize the base of white america more than the fear of a black president.


She had no idea in 2002 how the war would turn out? What kind of moral reasoning prompted that statement? The war was wrong because it was illegal and in violation of international treaties to which the US is a signatory. Case closed. She should have voted "no" to the authorization to use MILITARY FORCE. Same for the Kyl-Leiberman Amendment.

Now that the war is turning out badly it seems the war is "wrong". Had it turned out "well" (Iraq pounded into dust much sooner, and most Iraqis dead or shell-shocked) I guess the war would have been "good" and a darn good idea to boot since it would have secured the talons of America deep in the hide of the Mideast.

With Hillary in the White House we can expect more years in Iraq, Afghanistan and maybe a new war in Iran (if Bush2 doesn't go there first). Also, expect continued loss of freedom in this country as she will never junk the Patriot Act.

The comments to this entry are closed.