Hillary and Jeb have something interesting in common

[cali]

Both are inextricably linked to family members who were presidents. In the case of the latter, it's both a father and brother, but it's w. who looms over Jeb's candidacy just as Bill looms over Hillary's. Of course I think Bill is far more of an asset than w. but, it's interesting to watch this play out.

[merrily]

1. Both very wealthy, too.

The Iraq invasion is a campaign obstacle for both.

And so on.

[misterhighwasted]

6. Why did Bernie vote to fund the war he voted against?

Hard to say. Perhaps there was some enticement there to bring military contracts to his home state. That would the be "good economics" he promotes, I suppose.
Sanders grabbed some of that economic goodness that trickled down from that war he opposed but somehow changed his mind & funded in the end.
Money changes everything.

[el_bryanto]

9. Or alternatively once having committed troops

to a conflict he didn't support, he didn't want those troops to be without the weapons and body armor that they needed?

Oh wait, I forgot - that's not the narrative you Hillary supporters want to support. I guess it is easier to make up a caricature of Sanders rather than try and grapple with his actual record.

Bryant

[misterhighwasted]

16. Guess Bernie evolved when he saw the "economic" benefits to his state.

Of course he wanted the war funding. Unfortunately, bernie didn't just vote out of concern for the troops, he voted for the whole package which included that enonomic benefit for VT.
Follow the money. Bernies hands are as dirty as the rest.
Bernie economics 101.
There it is, plain as day.

Have fun digging Bernie outta that truth.

[el_bryanto]

17. Yes something is certainly plain as day. nt

[MADem]

28. Yes. His votes didn't make any difference, anyway. His war vote, or his funding votes.

It's easy to vote strategically, to create a narrative, when there are no consequences to your vote. He could have easily voted against funding the war on principle, and it wouldn't have mattered--but he didn't, because he know what the optics would look like. Also, it would get in the way of what was at the time a burgeoning relationship with Lockheed Martin (who went from "scum of the earth" to "good guys" in two shakes of an F-35's tail!).

[misterhighwasted]

31. THIS is the real story on his war funding.

To spin it as anything else is foolishness.
Thanks MADem.

[cali]

13. your question puzzles me. firstly, it has zip to do with the op

Secondly, it's off the wall to claim that he did so for monetary gain. Thcould irdly, my op is not a slam against Clinton. Fourthly, you couldn't be more defensive, so calm down.

But because you can't seem to figure out the simple and obvious answer to your oh so sincere question on a matter you're clearly troubled about:

He voted to fund it because he felt it was wrong to leave troops who were already committed, stranded in a war zone.

You might try to not let yourself be overwhelmed by emotion.

[misterhighwasted]

19. Haahaa cali. Your just full of personal insults today.

That's your defense?
Suprised you haven't used you "reading comprehension" personal insult.
But I'm betting it'll show up.

Bu bye. I'm off to work.
Have a very nice day.

[cali]

26. don't start a fight you can't win, dear friend

[misterhighwasted]

34. Haaha. Oh Geez, Cali throws down the gauntlet..

"Don't pick a fight you can't win"?
Ooooonnoooooo! Big ol bully.

[merrily]

14. Crummy post. Once Congress votes to send troops into harm's way, you don't cut off funds.

They just about cremated Kerry for that during the 2004 campaign, whereupon Kerry stopped voting against funding.

It's hysterical that you attempt to smear Sanders with a comment like "Money changes everything."

Your irony meter must be not only broken but smashed to smithereens.

I've never learned a single thing from any of your posts. I guess that makes you an excellent candidate for ignore.

[valerief]

27. You don't have to look far to find the answer. It's right here at this link.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-iraq/#iraq-war-spending-bills-to-aid-veterans-and-vermonters

Between 2003 and 2011, the United States Congress tried to pass ten different bills to fund the Iraq War, one per year. Bernie voted against six, and voted for these four:

2006: Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery
2007: Department of Defense Appropriations Act
2008: Supplemental Appropriations Act
2011: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

Why did Bernie vote in favor of those four bills?

First, it may help to explain why he had voted against the other six. The Bush administration, backed by a Republican-controlled Congress, made a habit of funding its occupation of Iraq on an emergency basis in order to minimize congressional scrutiny, circumvent legal limits on the federal government’s debt ceiling, and understate the true cost of the war.

The first time Bernie voted for an Iraq war spending bill was in 2006, when the bill included funding for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. The second time, in 2007, he did so because he managed to insert an amendment into the bill giving a $1 million grant to the Vermont Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) to help returning veterans cope with their health care and mental health needs upon returning home. The third time was when the 2008 legislation incorporated a massive expansion of G.I. Bill benefits that Bernie co-sponsored — and which the Bush administration opposed — that guaranteed full scholarships to veterans, including activated National Guard troops and reservists, with three years of service attending any public, in-state university and expanded benefits for students at private colleges and for graduate schools. Finally, in 2011, he voted for another spending bill, with the understanding that it would fund the conclusion to the war in Iraq as President Obama removed U.S. troops from the country.

[hifiguy]

2. Both owned by the tenth-percenters lock stock and barrel, as well.

[misterhighwasted]

3. I see some have quietly rephrased the "dynasty" meme.

It's now morphed into "inextricably linked to family members".
Bill Clinton is indeed an asset, but This is very much Hillary's campaign. She's not bound to Bill or any who came before her. Her Presidency will be her legacy. Her personal campaign for human rights & equal rights is about to become her legacy & the 2016 Presidential win will finally give her the blank slate, the palette to bring that fight for human rights to completion.

Jeb wishes for war & exclusion.
The two of them are on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Rephrasing the dynasty meme isn't helping you any either.
Try again later.

[cali]

7. that wasn't even close to being my point. in fact, I don't think you

can credibly make the argument that Hillary is part of a political dynasty, whereas Jeb is.

Don't quit your day job, dear friend. Your mind reading skills suck. But you are a textbook case of projection.

All and all; nice verbal belly flop.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

11. Sometimes I cynically wonder if Jeb! is being run just to stoke distaste for any 'dynasty' candidate

Prescott + George HW + George W + ____?____; governors, presidents, senators; power and wealth; corruption, treason, war profiteering and an inbred goatfucking gene pool, that's a dynasty. Bill and Hillary have a long way to go to make that grade.

[cali]

15. yep. when charlotte runs for office it will be fair to call it a dynasty

[misterhighwasted]

21. Lol..geez you're already getting worked up over Charlotte??

A baby??
Oh ya, that "inextricable family thingy.."

[quickesst]

29. . "I see some have quietly rephrased the "dynasty" meme."

Finally found a dictionary?

[misterhighwasted]

35. The book of personal insults has been updated.

Guess it gets the post count up anyway.

[davidn3600]

41. Sorry, but Hillary is linked to Bill

She's married to him! And no question she benefited from his coattails.

[Starry Messenger]

4. And they are both carbon-based life forms.

[cali]

5. yes, but guess what? that has jackshit to do with the race. what I refer to, most decidedly does.

I've noticed that political analysis seems to be something you have a great deal of trouble understanding.

[Starry Messenger]

8. Awww.

[misterhighwasted]

10. Well when someone disagrees with your opinion post it can only be because

"political analysis seems to be something you have a great deal of trouble understanding."

Throw out a personal insult that has absolutely no truth to it.
You owe an apology for that response.
Personal insults & flame. Must be a slow post count day on DU.

[Starry Messenger]

12. Don't waste any sweat on it, misterhighwasted.

To be so sensitive that one must post every thought one has on DU every 10 minutes must be a terrible burden for some posters.

[cali]

18. SM has of late, been tossing personal insults at me like confetti

including her snide comment in this thread. And you dished it out too in your comments to me. I give back what's flung at me.

Don't like it? don't start a pie fight.

[Starry Messenger]

20. LOL.

"personal insults at me like confetti"---please. I almost never reply to your OPs.

[misterhighwasted]

22. oooh weeee! confetti is for parades & parties and Hillary's 2016 well

..deserved beautiful, honorable, righteous Presidential Win!!
..alas the burn will be nothing but a wiff of smoke. Pfffftt.
C'mon, where's my "reading comprehension" insult?

I really have to get to work..been a blast. Love ya

[cali]

23. lately you sure have been- inanely and nastily.

[Starry Messenger]

42. Nope.

[misterhighwasted]

25. Ya Starry, stop being inanely already

[cali]

24. lol. I joked about how the Clintons AREN'T close to being a dynasty

and you oh so lamely tried to pretend I'm worked up about it.

Isn't it a bit uncomfortable to contort yourself into that pretzel?

[Starry Messenger]

43. *Yawn*

[azmom]

30. Their family links will most certainly

Be used against them. I personally don't want another Bush in the White House because of W.

[mylye2222]

32. We can ad more links

They share the same donors

They both didnt wanted W leaving the WH in 2004, despite for separated reasons.

[bigwillq]

33. No more Bush. No more Clinton.

So over both of those families.

[DanTex]

36. It is kind of embarrassing as a nation that we are probably going to have Bush v Clinton again.

Like you say, I think Bill is an asset and W is a detriment, but still.

[MisterP]

37. a few hundred deaths apiece in Central America ...

[Kingofalldems]

38. So what's your point?

I am sure DU members knew this already.

[cali]

39. that it's not only unprecedented but a big factor and interesting

[merrily]

40. John Adams and John Quincy Adams, but Q did not run against another similar candidate.

Neither did Dimson.