Centerfield

It was a lie, and in typical Clinton fashion, she then shamelessly lied about the lie no matter what evidence exists to prove it's a lie. Does she have the charisma to get away with it like Bill did? I guess we'll see. It certainly doesn't help her that the media is trying to get Obama elected.

I think that it is a big deal. She lied, Sinbad challenged her, and then she repeated the lie. It is a combination of dishonesty and horrible judgment in gambling that she would get away with it.

If she had a 5% chance of getting the nomination 3 days ago, I would say she is down to a 2% chance now.

More?

In light of Tuzla-gate (catchy, no?), reporters are going over past statements by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, (and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois) to see if others don't stand more rigorous examination.

One that may get renewed scrutiny is a story she told “Women in Military Service” in 1994 -- that shortly after the end of the Vietnam war, she looked into joining the Marines.

I think Kritter's right on both counts.

Not only do this and her exxagerations about Ireland look pretty lie-like, but Clinton's positions on foreign policy have mostly been about following, not leading. Kinda like Obama's.... But I have more faith in Obama's ability to learn quickly.

It's said how just RUNNING for office corrupts people, never mind actually serving as President....

Yeah, yeah, yeah.....your boy Obama is having himself a great time too and for history buffs you should be ashamed. Tell me please Hillary had zero to do with bringing peace to Bosnia.

Just some thoughts on Obama returning us to our foreign policy past. I think he came up with this just for you Kritter. Anyway enjoy....

Despite the kool aid over hear at Centerfield, it feels like there are many on the near Right that feel much the same as I do near center Left. Frankly, together our nearness painfully reminds me that the real centrist majority in American remains divided between partisan lines. We’re driven largely apart by salary, abortion, gun control, healthcare and civil rights, but a certain sensibility unites us. We have to win in our prospective Parties against the odds created by the more radical influence of the base of our prospective divides. I suspect most near center on the Republican side and those on the Democratic divide do not support Obama despite the Press claims to the contrary. Some simply do not see any great foreign policy difference between Hillaray and Barak so let me digress and I promise I won't call McPeak, Skeletor...

Once upon a time Republicans were rather isolationist. A small number of Americans on the Far Left were also isolationist or sympathized with our enemies. Despite these bastions on the Right and Left, the center was where Democrats and Republican Presidents alike navigated successfully from WWII without major failures.

Vietnam however, rocked the Liberal Consensus, which reigned from FDR to JFK. Under the understood agreement, America would be committed to civil rights, equality, free speech and certain social safeguards while conservatives affirmed the importance of smaller government, fiscal responsibility, capitalism, free markets and Libertarian values. Vietnam however, had brought forth an anti-war movement not seen since WWII. Opposition denounced the flaws of capitalism and swam in dialectic of good collectivism v bad collectivism. Extremes on both the Right and Left eventual met given the relativity of political space and though the main opposition against Vietnam came from Leftist groups, Right wing groups rejected both Federal and Foreign intervention and rejected any strategic alliance with Israel.

The Democratic Party however, still had the legacy of FDR, Truman and JFK. Against the tide of more radical thinking, RFK would have continued the centrist credo of the Liberal Consensus, but he, like MLK were murdered. The promise of a new Democrat RFK gave way to the Carter Doctrine and MLK gave way to Black Liberation Theology. A huge battle was fought in 1968 over how liberal the Party would become. They faced a Nixon, divided and fell. From Nixon’s resignation to Carter’s last days we investigated government (The Church Committee), enlarged social programs without much thought, failed to stimulate the economy and conducted foreign policies that weakened us. Relations worsened between the Soviets and the West. Given their leadership, Democrats needed a Nixonian resignation before a vague sounding Liberal peanut farmer was able to take the South and place a more Liberal candidate in the WH, breaking eight years of a Republican control. During this one term, a new Liberal mindset ran things. In terms of the NSS itself, Carter made few changes. Colored by the Vietnam Syndrome, America, supported Leftist in South America, provoked the Soviets in Afghanistan, pulled the rug from under the Shah without a replacement and failed to inspire just about anyone.IN the end, Cater left a Carter Doctrine to guard the Gulf without much projection of power to back it up.

America waited until a charismatic President connected to our anxiety over fear and uncertainty. Reagan answered our need as the harbinger of assertiveness and confidence. The consequence of Vietnam led to a decade long Vietnam Syndrome, genocide in Asia and nearly the loss of American resolve to end the Cold War. Reagan inspired us to take pride in our American values and restored our credibility in the world as Russia ended its Totalitarian confrontation with the West. Reagan was not afraid to act unilaterally and won a certain peace through verification and a big stick.

Reagan is credited by most for reversing the slide into isolationism and apathy and inspired confidence and resolve. The economy thrives on positive thinking and the Rambo pride and hegemonic speeches of Reagan were effective in jump starting America, despite the deficits it left for Bush senior and Bill Clinton.. Together with the eight Clinton years, America enjoyed a good twenty years of economic growth.

After twelve years of Reagan/Bush however, the Republican administrations with huge deficits, unresolved domestic issues and global uncertainties, allowed a Democratic candidate to wrestle power away from the Right, by pushing the Democrats in moving away from the Left and restoring for eight years a more centrist ideology. Though clearly left of center, the Clinton administration followed a NSS consistent with its predecessor. In fact, according to Samantha Powers, Clinton was one of the few US administrations that ever intervened to prevent genocide.

Clinton clearly understood the growing threat of Islamic extremists and a plotting Saddam, an ineffectual Sharif and allies unwilling to share responsibilities or confront extremism, made the difficult tensions in the Gulf worse. Clinton’s administration ended their days with an understanding of how a good economy enhances soft power and that hard power, our military strategy and effectiveness of our alliances had to change to meet the growing threats. Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, China, Syria, Libya, Africa all presented serious strategic considerations for Western security as did the growing number of extremist groups reaching operational capable and likely to cause serious harm to American interests.

At that moment, in that time, Democrats and Republicans largely agreed that Western hegemony and national self-interest was worth both defending and promoting. Although Bush called that attitude rather arrogant, it made sense. Iin the past a bipolarity had driven the concept of hegemony in a Cold War of posturing. Within this bipolar matrix, Soviet and Western security forces keep relative guard against third-party threats, In numerous cases both the US and the Soviets created terrorists and conflicts that were intended to cost each other dearly for interventions and support of oppression.

The old Democratic notion on foreign policy followed by most Presidents of both Party’s have almost always governed with a centrist view.. These general security considerations of a centrist consensus are espoused in each administration’s NSS. Despite the Bush Doctrine’s present score card,, the Bush NSS was an interesting departure from Clinton’s, promoting human rights and a neo-internationalism that caught Democrats by surprise. The Left considers such internationalism a pretense for American domination. In fact, it is rather Jeffersonian and America has been served greatly by the promotion of Democracy. Actually, such promotion of Liberal Democracy and Constitutional process was what the French Revolution unfortunately lacked, but Liberal advocacy is essential to “guard the approaches of our nation”.

You win some, you lose some, but no matter how you spin it, a hegemony that reflects the ideals of Liberal Democracy that we, Europe, South America, Russia and India profess to support, is the only way for peaceful cooperation. Through centuries of war, the great nations have emerged generally committed to Constitutional Process and Democratic, Liberal Ideals, Now add to the world wide populations of poor people, conflict and various strains of despotism, extremism, criminality and terrorism. We need to actively thwart these threats and Reagan, Bush senior and JFK would all have seen the need to advance Liberal Democracy using both soft power and hard power.

McCain has won his battle on the Right, but moderate and conservative Democrats feel driven from the Democratic process. The more Liberal wing is locked in a struggle with the more conservative wing. If this is a battle over the soul of the Party, the DNC seems ready to sacrifice their centrist credential for a more liberal domestic and foreign policy. Today Obama declares that despite all the evidence otherwise, this is not true. Despite how much the policy positions are similar, Obama and Hillary have a very different view of national security. In truth there is the more Liberal approach of Obama along with his attendant foibles that question any delivery and a more Centrist candidate burdened by her Press coverage and resentment of the Obama-supporting Left, who loath both determination and her record on matters of civility and national security. This has been her cross to bear for years compounded by sexism, media’s Goliath characterizations justified the promotion of her status as the front running return of the Clinton Referendum in the Post 9/11 world.

It was never a sure thing Hillary would win. But one thing seriously concern; the crap’s gonna blow. Obama telling us all he would return to the sound policies of JFK, Reagan and Bush senior is deflection at best, outright lying at worst. A conflagration of powerful stresses on energy demand, natural resources, and the environment will intensify the conflict of interests in the world. What we need now are not false words uttered to get elected. The struggle in the Democratic camp is over the nature of American self-interest. We have two contrasting visions of the future. Those supporting Obama largely feel the notion of the hegemony of Liberal Democracy is the devil in disguise and the root of the anger in the world against us. On the centrist Democratic divide stand a dwindling group that knows full well what JFK, FDR, Truman and even Bill Clinton stood for. As the scrutiny over Obama’s past statements, present advisors and associations to many advocating an anti-American and anti-Semitic lines, Barak Obama declares he will uphold the NSS of the past. I find his assurance rings hollow. The question is whether the majority of Americans do as well. Take a look at Obama's new Dignified Foreign Policy. We are fast returning to the Carter Days despite Obam's hailing Reagan abd Busg senior. JFK is spinning in his grave.

The "hear" was just for you Brian....LOL

Max, this thread isn't about Barack Obama.