Since Clinton and Obama are both shooting to win the Washington Caucuses, both arranged Seattle visits within a few hours of each other. Originally Hillary had sent Bill to Tacoma but instead she came to Seattle and Bill got sent to Maine. I decided to shoot up for a night and see both of them.

So tonight, Hillary Clinton had a rally on Seattle's waterfront (in a cruise hanger of sorts) for about 5,000 people. I'll never understand why they have people arrive so early with nothing to do but...stand. Doors opened about 7PM, event was supposed to start at 8, but of course she didn't show up til 9:30 and then talked a while. Meanwhile, all 5,000 people had to do was stand and try to talk to each other over the loud, blaring music.

Someone might have had the bright idea to ask if people knew how to caucus, had questions about where they were supposed to go, etc., since it's more complicated than a primary.

Anyway, Clinton gives a good, fiery stump speech that didn't disappoint. Naturally, she took the opportunity to slam the Bush administration a few times and mention some local facts and thank local leaders who support her. She mentioned Obama only once, saying she was disappointed that his health care plan isn't (in her view) true universal coverage - big applause line.

(I do have some pictures but not up on my website yet.)

Tomorrow - off to see Obama! Clinton will actually have a health care town hall at the same time as his event on Friday here. Given that Obama attracts huge crowds wherever he goes, I wonder if that's a smart idea. Will her town hall seem empty? At least people may get a chance to ask her questions.

Andrew

I'll be looking forward to hearing a report from you on Obama's event.

Here are some pictures for those so inclined:

http://www.portlandbridges.com/00,5D0IMG33167,263,1,0,0-clinton-democrats.html

By the way, she did have a nice catch phrase about Bush:

"The era of cowboy diplomacy is over!"

Andrew

Thanks for being our eyes and ears, Andrew. History is being made right in front of your lens! I look forward to hearing and seeing more of your journey.

Thanks, Littlesongs! I just got back to Portland after a miserable rush hour drive home on I-5 - tried to beat it but Obama went until 2PM and I couldn't get on the highway til 3 (too late in Seattle). Three hours Seattle to Olympia - ugh! Should have just stayed and driven home later on but I needed to get back.

I definitely wanted to experience history - this might have been my best shot. (Considered staying to see McCain at 6PM too but couldn't do it.) I always wanted to go to Iowa or New Hampshire but this was as close as I could get this year!

I'm still processing my Obama pics and will post them in a separate thread. Meanwhile, I'll say that Hillary's speech Thursday night really resonated with me somehow. I think it blew me away - I wasn't expecting that, because I've seen her speak before. Last time wasn't a stump speech, so maybe that's the difference - but this time, some of it gave me goosebumps. I briefly got carried away. I would say my opinion of Hillary increased a bit after seeing her Thursday night.

Andrew

Nice report Andrew!

Love these. It's hard to get to these things. Glad you can and take the time to share it here.

By the way, I also took some (incredibly crude) video with my tiny digital camera. If you can deal with the shaky, poor quality, I put up a clip from the Hillary event on YouTube. In it, she explains what she will do on Iraq in two minutes:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKAExsB5yEM

Andrew

I'm sorry. She doesn't have a f'ing clue. That video is proof.

Anybody that watches it and actually hears what she's spewing should be scared shitless by her.

Andrew, great pictures as usual and for a small camera, the quality of the video and audio isn't too bad!

Let me add this: I'm not for staying over there indefinitely. It's high time the Iraqi's take some responsibility for their country. However, telling the terrorists when we are going to pull out is just flat stupid.

Hey, let's talk about that. I hear this a lot.

The core premise, namely, we cannot trust the planning being done right now is non-rational how?

I've got my ideas, but am gonna hold back outta pure curiosity. Tell me, why does she have no clue?

Skybill, here's the thing: I don't agree with the Democrats on simply withdrawing from Iraq, either. But, I find the Republican position truly scary: sabre rattling, threats, and endless occupation of the middle east, without any attention to our energy crisis just "keep the oil spigots open and pump more oil." It has a wiff of "STFU, we're America and if you don't cooperate, we'll kick your ass." McCain's rhetoric lately shows he as little interest in deviating from that course. Just on Friday he re-affirmed his belief that we'll continue to get into more wars.

What is really needed in Iraq is an honest attempt to stabilize Iraq, without planning a huge, permanent, America-only military dominance of Iraq. We desperately need to get other countries involved; instead, even our closest ally, the UK, has been withdrawing their troops at a time when America has to stretch its military to the limit just to maintain this Iraqi surge. What's wrong with this picture???

I believe the Democrats - Clinton or Obama - will be confronted with the reality after taking office that they can't simply walk away from Iraq and will find some way to stabilize the place in a more reasonable manner. I think America's allies will start to come around if we drop the "you're with us or you're against us" approach with them. This bullying attitude of the Bush administration has done a great deal of damage to our world prestige, to the point where people can't even imagine anymore a solution in Iraq that involves the rest of the world. Once we finally get a president again who is sane and reasonable, I believe a new approach can be worked out.

The American people really don't want America to fail in Iraq, but they have long since given up on the Bush approach. If it's a choice between Bush's way or the highway, then they want the highway. But I think there's a better way, which will become clear once someone sane gets back into the oval office.

Andrew

Amen!

I was going to add my positive feelings about the speech you saw Andrew. I caught it on CNN and I gotta admit I was impressed. Furthermore, though I do pile on her sometimes, Hillary is not short on ability. She has ideas, solutions, wisdom, drive and brains.

In addressing the pitfalls of a withdrawl, she specifically mentioned folks like interpreters. These were people who were left behind to die when we left Viet Nam. She does understand the past and I do not see her running out willy-nilly with our troops.

Hillary has a grasp on most of reality -- what she does not have is the magic to unite us all.

Setting a timetable and letting the terrorists know, or publishing it in general, when and how we are going to pull out would be akin to publishing a timetable and street route of when an unprotected truck full of gold would be traveling down the street.

For her to say that we are going to start pulling out our troops in 60 days is irresponsible and amongst other things, I don’t think it’s achievable. But what else is new, politicians lie. (edit add: ALL of them)

I've not got any Military experience so I'm just talking from what makes sense to me.

I think we need to start delegating more and more of the responsibilities to the Iraqi Army. If this means we supply them with training and weapons, so be it.

As they assume more and more responsibility then we can start reducing our troops. It might take 6 months, or it might take 3 years.

I'm all for some kind of plan though.

Is the timetable bit the whole enchalada, as in, if we could just not do that, everything else is fine?

No, not really. I think we need to really concentrate on getting the Iraqi's trained and running the show. Then we can begin to send our troops home, when they are not needed any longer.

There are a bunch of US citizens over there as contractors, consultants etc. Whatever is done, we (or the Iraqi's) still need to provide protection to them while they are there.

I'm not sure how I feel about private security firms (pronounced Mercenaries) being over there. If they are providing security to private contractors and the like, then that's OK. If they are carrying out anything that should be "Military", then that's not OK.

The whole region over there is pretty unstable and that is one thing that needs to be changed.

I don't know if economic sanctions against some of the countries would help or not. I think probably not though.

I don't think there is any one simple solution. And I don't think there is any quick solution.

I also think that at some point, the Iraqi's should start footing the bill, or at least contributing to it anyway, for us being there.

Hey...I have to go make some pens for a couple of customers. I'll be back up here at my PC maybe around 11:00.

Enjoy!!!

Ok.

Now, in the context of that speech, she said plan, then get started in 60 days.

Couldn't that planning involve the training, and the getting started mean exactly that?

I think I would go for vague, but not clueless, given our brief discussion.

ABC.

Anyone But Clinton.

Herb

Clinton left a lot of wiggle room to deal with Iraq in her speech. But at least she is committed to a path of withdrawing troops. Obama has said his goal is to get all troops out by 16 months but hasn't said he would do it absolutely no matter what.

Andrew

"ABC"

... Easy as 1-2-3 more states for Obama.

You know, this discussion is exactly what is wrong with nominating Hillary. Clinton solidifies GOP unity and rallies the troops. It would be good for all Americans to avoid that kind of battle. I am not naive enough to expect this current climate of respect for Obama to continue from partisans on the right, but there are a few reasons to believe that he could draw some votes from the GOP base.

The legacy of the Republican Party is deeply rooted in the success of a law nerd from Illinois. This unlikely populist was called on to save the country from itself, and by his service, he changed America forever. I wonder if the die-hard GOP senses this historic parallel in Obama?

Furthermore, I wonder if McCain is paired with a deeply unsatisfactory running mate, will large parts of the party stay home or switch loyalties? If many voters are still on the fence when a zealot is added at the convention, it might cause a stampede. In the end, Libertarians, moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats will have far fewer qualms about an Obama win.

Bill and Herb, I am curious. Is it more of a vote for McCain or Huckabee? Or is it more of a vote against Hillary?

Littlesongs, here's the problem with this analogy (that all Republicans hate Clinton but may not hate Obama): Hillary Clinton is already well caricatured in the minds of Republicans, whereas Obama is still almost undefined, so of course people don't hate him - yet. He's still basically unknown. But that will soon change.

The Republican sleaze machine hasn't even begun to smear Obama yet. But believe me, they are working on it. I think if Obama is nominated that we will see swift boat-style sleaze that dwarfs anything we've yet seen - and by the end, Republicans will rally against Obama just as much as they may against Clinton.

I'm already seeing hints of what is to come. A family friend who hates Obama has been forwarding me anti-Obama propaganda (including the infamous pack of lies known as "Who is Barack Obama?" that claims he won't swear over a Bible even though we have pictures of him swearing over one in 2005 in front of Dick Cheney!). She's also sent me hate-filled nonsense about how Obama is some sort of closet Islamic terrorist sympathizer who hates Jews. In the minds of some of these people, all Muslims are terrorists who hate America. I fear that this kind of nonsense will spead and take on a life of its own, as it appeals to people's basic fears. Remember, they made a decorated Vietnam veteran like John Kerry look like some sort of lying coward in Vietnam. If they can do that, think of how nasty it could get when you throw race and a funny-sounding name like "Barack Hussein Obama" out there.

Andrew

NFH!

Nobody for Huckabee!!!!

Andrew, you make very valid points. I think both candidates will have a hellish uphill climb. The minders let us down in 2004. Kerry went into dissertations when he needed to hammer talking points.

For instance, whenever there was any discussion of Viet Nam, he simply had to say, "I served with honor." Over and over and over and over and over, using the truth in the same way that the GOP used lies.

Explaining it -- and everything else until he was blue in the face -- only put red states on the map. People want it quick and simple and real. Or quick and simple and bullshit. If you get the first two right all of the time, you will fool all of the people some of the time.

This election is not 2004. It is not a time to stand by silent when the other candidate is sporting an electric Quasimodo during a debate. Or carefully frame a disapproving approval -- or was it an approving disapproval -- of the war for hostile crowds.

The party needs fresh legs, no fear and a whole lot of unity. I think the risk of losing whole segments of the Democratic base to please an establishment choice is what they face. If the primaries and caucuses can't sort it out, a handful of folks could be given a make or break decision for the fall.

In different ways, it seems both parties may have painted themselves into a corner.

Yeah, like you're really a republican, Trixter.

You bash Mr. Huckabee, Mr. Giuliani and most any republican, regularly.

You've been outed as a democrat operative once again.

Herb

You think that analogy was terrible? Here's a worse one...

Carter wasn't a bad guy, but he turned into a cartoon caricature.
Gore wasn't a bad guy, but he turned into a cartoon caricature.
Kerry wasn't a bad guy, but he turned into a cartoon caricature.

Kennedy wasn't always a great guy, but he had teflon power.
Reagan wasn't always a great guy, but he had teflon power.
Clinton wasn't always a great guy, but he had teflon power.

One needs to lean less toward a cartoon and more toward a hot skillet candidate to win in America. Unless, you are a cartoon who takes the IHOP hostage for eight years.

"Setting a timetable and letting the terrorists know"

What terrorists? Saddam wasn't one. He had no WMDs. The terrorists we CREATED over there after Bush lied are no threat to the US mainland.

Bush HOSED us. We need to cut our losses and bring the money HOME. My children's future is dim.

Let Bush and his cronies bare all the responsibility if the mid-east implodes.

The mid-east have been involved in wars for thousands of years. We're not gonna stop it.

So until these so-called terrorist start to develop long range missiles that can hit the mainland, we should be gone.

Skeptical writes:
Let Bush and his cronies bare all the responsibility if the mid-east implodes.

Unfortunately, they would be long gone, retired to their mansions and ranches to clear brush, while they make a mint on occasional corporate speeches and board memberships. But if the Middle East implodes, we all suffer. Like $10/gallon gas? An economic depression? That could very easily happen. Like it or not, we are addicted to foreign oil. Oh, ride a bike you say? Our food supply is based on foreign oil! Most of our food supply now contains corn, which is grown with...petroleum-based fertilizer!

Our next president should start a crash program to wean American off of foreign oil, in partnership with industry (which is the only way the Manhattan Project and the Apollo Program ever succeeded). And that will still take years to improve America's security.

In the short-term, we cannot afford to let the Middle East explode.

Andrew

well . . . we did decrease our gasoline consumption from 1% from a year ago.

"Our next president should start a crash program to wean American off of foreign oil, in partnership with industry"

I know just the guy for this: Al Gore.

What terrorists? Saddam wasn't one. He had no WMDs. The terrorists we CREATED over there after Bush lied are no threat to the US mainland.

I know just the guy for this: Al Gore.

With statements like these, I wonder who it is that's drinking Kool-Aid.

I dunno, a statement like this one is mighty sound:

"Our next president should start a crash program to wean American off of foreign oil, in partnership with industry (which is the only way the Manhattan Project and the Apollo Program ever succeeded). And that will still take years to improve America's security.

In the short-term, we cannot afford to let the Middle East explode."

I read it twice and I have no purple mustache.

Have to agree there.

Solid. Damn solid.

x2 on that statement from me too.

Let's stop exporting the Alaska oil and use it in our country.

I would be a start.

HERB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I said it before and I will say it again because YOU DON'T READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can't be a Republican because I don't believe in the HUCKster.... RIDICULOUS!

I'm behind McCain!!!!!!!!!!! CAN YOU READ THAT??????????????????????

The HUCKster is a EVANGELICIAL fun"DUH"MENTAL Christian and the fire and brimstone squawkers are what they are.... EXTREME RIGHT!
If the HUCKster wouldn't ram it down everyone's throat he might have gotten the nod. But like 90% of America we do believe what the EXTREME right believes.

"I'm behind McCain!!!!!!!!!!! CAN YOU READ THAT??????????????????????"

So, you must really like what Bush has done. McCain = a third Bush term.

We could only hope McCain Does as good as President Bush.

Nwokie writes:
We could only hope McCain Does as good as President Bush.

So, a $20Trillion national debt when he leaves office? Maybe Americans fighting in two more countries? Iran and - ?

Andrew

"...does as good as Resident Bush."

that theres some real good english you is using okie

Author: Herb
Friday, October 12, 2007 - 11:33 am

"I love Ann Coulter, even though she holds back a tad more than I'd like."


Ann Coulter, Feb. 1 2008:

"...if you're looking at substance rather than whether it's an R or D after his name, manifestly,
if (McCain's) our candidate, then Hillary's going to be our girl, Sean, because she's more conservative than he is. I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism.
I absolutely believe that.

...

"Moreover, she lies less than John McCain. I'm a Hillary girl now. She lies less than John McCain.
She's smarter than John McCain,so that when she's caught shamelessly lying, at least the Clintons know they've been caught lying. McCain is so stupid, he doesn't even know he's been caught."



McCain's going to be the GOP's person, Herb. Do you agree with Coulter? Time to back HRC?

The Democratic campaign commercials in the fall against McCain will be easy, given how many soundbites the Republican talking heads have so graciously provided. All we need is them talking then an announcer saying, "See - even the Republicans hate McCain."

Andrew

Yet another reason to celebrate.

(raising decaf)

*clink*

Vit...
Believe what you wish about McCain as another bush clone but I'm NOT buying it. You can run whatever you want by me on this board but I do NOT believe it for a minute. The ONLY thing that bothers me about McCain is his temper. As we get closer to November we will see if John has a meltdown. If so then I will be forced to make another choice.

I'd be less concerned about his temper and more concerned about his shared views with Bush on continuing the war in Iraq and the support of tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of our national debt.

Why would you support anyone who will be endorsed by Bush himself?

continuing the war in Iraq.

No more than Hillary. ONLY Obama wants them out tomorrow.....

The Mother Of All Heists

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/19/60minutes/main2109200.shtml

"Believe what you wish about McCain as another bush clone but I'm NOT buying it."

Trixter,

Get used to this. Whenever you tout McCain's vitues, I'm gonna send you this link:

http://www.negative273.com/Images/bush-mccain.jpg

If he's not a Bush Clone, He sold his soul to the Devil.

C'mon Trixter. You know very well that out of the 3 viable candidates, McCain will be there the longest, no question.

All I need to know is that there's no way I could support anyone who Bush endorses. What does that say about the endorsee?? MORE OF THE SAME!!!

Has Bush given McCain his support? I've not seen any press on that. If that is true then I might have to lean towards Obama......

""McCain did get a boost, though not a full endorsement, Sunday from the party’s biggest voice, President Bush.

In an interview that aired on “FOX News Sunday,” Bush said he believed McCain is a “true conservative.”

“I know him well. I know his convictions. I know the principles that drive him and no doubt in my mind he is a true conservative,” Bush said, adding: “He is very strong on national defense. He is tough fiscally. He believes the tax cuts ought to be permanent. He is pro-life. His principles are sound and solid as far as I’m concerned.”"

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/11/2-new-endorsements-give-mccain-more-co nservative-backers/

I highly doubt Bush will give either Clinton or McCain his endorsement when it comes down to crunch time.