'Danger Signs' as Clinton Supporters Resist Obama

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stinkyattic

I like that. Rice is obviously a highly intelligent and driven person, and academia seems a good fit for her. I am not so much a fan of her in the political arena. Powell, on the other hand, carries himself in a manner that I feel would encourage cooperation between the parties, and has credentials that voters from both parties can both recognize, and accept as qualifications to hold high office.

---

Word madam........ word. :hippy:

Am I alone in feeling that Condi has the potential to be a bit of a loose cannon on the world stage? That's my gut feeling. Although I could simply be mistaking the rumblings of impending lunch for political instinct... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stinkyattic

Am I alone in feeling that Condi has the potential to be a bit of a loose cannon on the world stage?

---

I think they all have that potential to tell ya the trooth. She's seemed to hold pretty well with all the chaos since she's took her position though. Condi has kind of a love/hate thing going with people too though...Powell on the other hand would be an instant win for McCain.

Have a good one!:s4:

I think the democrats will pull it together by the time it counts. Both Obama and Clinton seem to be working pretty hard to make that happen, and I think it will. I'm not sure I agree that Obama did not get his "bounce" --- wasn't McCain polling ahead of Obama before Obama got the nomination? Maybe that was a different poll.

I do not like Condi Rice as a policy maker. I would not like to see her run for office.

I like Colin Powell, but I lost a lot of respect for him as the Bush mouthpeice to the UN making the case for the Iraq war. I remember watching that speech to the UN and thinking, "Man, I'm not sure I believe this WMD thing coming from all these neo-cons, but if Colin Powell says its true, and he has all these satelite photos and intelligence reports, then it must be true."

I do not think Powell is the sleazy tell-all book kind of guy at all, but I hope someday he will write a memoir of some kind about his experience as Secretary of State and his roll in setting the stage for Iraq. Was he honestly convinced of the intelligence he presented? Or did he have doubts and was just following orders like a good soldier? I remember him making the case against taking out Sadam in the first Gulf war, becasue it would lead to a nightmare postwar chaos and civil war that we would not be able to control. And I also remember the so called "Powell Doctrine" of overwhelming force, limited scope, clear objectives, and clear exit strategy. I wonder how he felt about going into Iraq agaisnt his better judgement from 1991, and what he thought when it was clear we did follow the "Powell Doctrine," did not have enough force, the scope spiralled out of control, the objectives kept changing, and there was no way out. Seems like he participated in something that went totally against everything he stood for. I don't know whether to give him credit for being absolutely right in '91 and right in his "Powell Doctrine," or to despise him for not standing by those principles.