http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-campaign_04mar04,0,5412950.story

Here’s some important passages:

“Obama and his campaign had initially denied a Canadian television report from late last month that Obama’s top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, had met with Canadian government officials in Chicago and told them Obama’s call for reopening labor and environmental rules in NAFTA was merely campaign rhetoric.”

and

“He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.”

I don’t particularly care which one of the Democrats wins, as neither is really ideal. Obama has some shit to answer for too though.

And as for reviewing the intelligence? You know it was all doctored and hand picked.

Having not read the 2002 NIE on Iraq myself, I can’t say for sure. But I know I’ve heard it said that the meat of the NIE did not change. What did change, and wildly so, were the conclusions of the NIE. If Clinton or her staff had studied the NIEs, that should have raised red flags.

Besides all that, you don’t need secret intelligence to know that Iraq is historically a divided nation, and that previous attempts to occupy the area were quagmires for Western powers like Great Britain. There are also opinions from the leaders of the first Bush administration that said invading Iraq would be a big mistake. Clinton should have asked herself what had changed since 1992 that would make an invasion more favorable now.

You and I both know that Hillary has far more experience at the Federal level than Obama. There’s a big difference between being a legislator and being the president.

I’m not convinced there is a huge difference between being a state senator and a U.S. senator. As far as presidential experience, I don’t believe being first lady is the same thing. They’ve both met with foreign leaders, and wasn’t her big health care initiative a huge failure?

What has Clinton done that is so great? She has been upfront about who she is and what she stands for. Whether good or bad. If we elect her or McCain, we know exactly what we are getting. If we elect Obama, its a roll of the dice.

So, she is all talk and no results?

What about Obama’s political positions are unclear?

You and I both know that Hillary has far more experience at the Federal level than Obama. There’s a big difference between being a legislator and being the president. If you are going to say they are equal on that front, why hold her accountable for NAFTA?

What has Clinton done that is so great? She has been upfront about who she is and what she stands for. Whether good or bad. If we elect her or McCain, we know exactly what we are getting. If we elect Obama, its a roll of the dice.

And who cares about Hillary’s tax returns? Why do you assume that its bad if she doesn’t show them? I don’t see you posting yours on here, so maybe your opinions are null and void.

Obama released his returns, it’s a gesture of openness. They are running for public office, not me. And for the record, I take more of an issue with her response, which was a pathetic lie “I’m too busy” as if she doesn’t have people that handle her taxes for her.

I don’t think its fair to call Hillary out on NAFTA and act like Obama wouldn’t have done the same thing at the time.

That may be true, but she should at least have the integrity to admit she was wrong then and has changed her mind. It’s like it would kill her to avoid showing any weakness. In contrast, Obama admits he was wrong to get entangled with that Rezko slum lord guy. It’s certainly better than Clinton claiming she secretly opposed it while publicly supporting it up to at least 2002.

They call out Hillary on Iraq, but at the time she was making the popular decision. Its stupid, the American people wanted the war because of the propaganda machine, and now that its gone bad they are going to go after her like she should’ve resisted them.

In the terms you describe, it shows that Hillary lacks the ability to lead. If she thought Iraq was a bad idea, she should have come out and said so. She could then vote for the war and say she was just pleasing her constinuency. She didn’t do that, until last night she hasn’t even admitted her vote was a mistake.

Why can’t we just focus on what needs to be done with the war, not the childish notion of who started it?

It’s a question of judgement. She fell for the war hype without as much as a peep. And worst of all, she didn’t even review the intelligence estimate before voting to give authorization for the war. If Clinton won’t even do her homework before invading another country, why should we trust her to head military?

Its certainly easy to be ideological when you haven’t been around in the government for very long. Theres a really big difference between ideology and practicality. She is right, the dude is completely all talk.

Obama’s been a legislator for just as long as she has been, just not at the national level. The Clinton’s have both staked their political fate on walking the centrist line.

As for ideology vs. practicality, I want to know what’s Clinton’s done that’s so great. It’s just conventional wisdom that she is more experienced and has greater achievements. They are both light weights in that category from where I’m sitting.

And who cares about Hillary’s tax returns? Why do you assume that its bad if she doesn’t show them? I don’t see you posting yours on here, so maybe your opinions are null and void.

You love Obama so much, but half of the things he seems to be winning on aren’t really fair, like NAFTA and voting for the Iraq war. I don’t think its fair to call Hillary out on NAFTA and act like Obama wouldn’t have done the same thing at the time. She can’t come out and say now that she doesn’t support that decision because it makes her look weak and like a “flip-flopper”. But its easy for Obama, since he’s new and can just take whatever the current most popular stance is because he wasn’t there. They call out Hillary on Iraq, but at the time she was making the popular decision. Its stupid, the American people wanted the war because of the propaganda machine, and now that its gone bad they are going to go after her like she should’ve resisted them. Obama, again, wasn’t there to vote on it. Its a stupid issue to be even talking about. The wide majority of the Congress voted to give Bush the means to go to war. Why aren’t they all out of office now? Why can’t we just focus on what needs to be done with the war, not the childish notion of who started it? On many things, I actually agree with McCain’s stance on Iraq, so I’m not bothered that Hillary has a similar view.

This is what kills me: “Obama just has the more ideologically pure stance on these issues and it helps.”

Its certainly easy to be ideological when you haven’t been around in the government for very long. Theres a really big difference between ideology and practicality. She is right, the dude is completely all talk. Just go to his campaign website. The first thing you see is all this stuff about hope and believing. I can’t find the article right now but I have read his door-to-door people are instructed not to talk about any of Obama’s actual policies, but to only reiterate stuff about hope and change. I don’t dislike him, and I sincerely hope he means what he says, but he sounds like a freaking cult leader sometimes.