NationStates Jolt Archive

I will be voting on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5.

I am undecided Democrat.

Next week I expect to vote for either Clinton or Obama.

Give me your best arguments for either candidate -- but remember your audience.

(FWIW, others in my family are also undecided Democrats. My roomate is an undecided Republican that is leaning towards Hillary.)

I will be voting on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5.

I am undecided Democrat.

Next week I expect to vote for either Clinton or Obama.

Give me your best arguments for either candidate -- but remember your audience.

(FWIW, others in my family are also undecided Democrats. My roomate is an undecided Republic that is leaning toawrds Hillary.)

either a clinton or a bush has been in high office since 1980. Think about that for a moment.

Now, as for my serious argument, I have found obama to be the only consistant candidate in his opposition to the war in iraq, I find him to be the most honest and forthright about his past, I find him more experienced and worldly, with a more profound international background than Clinton, I find clinton's carpetbagging offensive to me as a new yorker.

I think clinton has had her eyes on the presidency since 2000 and does not care about anything other than whatever it takes to get it.

In order to help, please feel free to acquaint yourselves with these:

Clinton on the issues: http://www.issues2000.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Obama on the issues: http://www.issues2000.org/Barack_Obama.htm

In order to help, please feel free to acquaint yourselves with these:

Clinton on the issues: http://www.issues2000.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Obama on the issues: http://www.issues2000.org/Barack_Obama.htm

I-i...eiii...shoes? T-that seems familiar. I think...I seem to know that word...it seemed...important, right? But then not, or something?

As far as I'm concerned, I'd go for Obama. The reason is simple: Hillary is going to have a lot more trouble getting independents and Republicans to vote for her. Justified or not, that seems to be the fact of the matter.

So with Obama, you're going to have a fairly comfortable win for the Dems. With Clinton, it'll be close. Especially if the Republicans pick a candidate who can appeal to independents (I understand that's McCain's particular forté).

So really, be pragmatic. Maybe Hillary wants to be Vice President, which would be a great job for her, I think.

I-i...eiii...shoes? T-that seems familiar. I think...I seem to know that word...it seemed...important, right? But then not, or something?

Probably not, elections are won on tapping into people's gut feelings in the end because, frankly, Edwards is the most progressive in terms of issues out of them all - he's let down by the fact that he's a smarmy git.

EDIT: On this, I would bet that TCT, no matter if convinced by this thread to vote for Obama, when it really comes down to it and the tick need to be placed in the box, she'll vote Clinton.

I have to agree with Neo Art's first point, that to elect Senator Clinton, and I really think it's either way for me personally between the two candidates, is to simply continue the idea that this is not a democracy, it's one political family versus another - you may as well be in Pakistan.

I may not feel that Senator Obama can truly engineer the change he describes but the simple fact of his election is enough change for me.

EDIT: On this, I would bet that TCT, no matter if convinced by this thread to vote for Obama, when it really comes down to it and the tick need to be placed in the box, she'll vote Clinton.


Isn't Cat-Tribes a dude?

Isn't Cat-Tribes a dude?

Too late, in my mind s/he's associated as female, I think it's the name.

Nothing will change this.

flip a three sided coin. there all really as not bad as what we can get to be allowed to choose between. i'd lean a little away from hillary because she's a bit to obvious about being bought. obama's a bit of a wild card and either one will probably pick edwards for vp.

i'm favoring obama slightly. all three will get some votes against them on shere prejudice of one kind or another, even edwards as there are still idiots in this world who can't get it through thier thick heads the environment is where the air they breathe comes from.

i mean i HOPE there arn't enough of them to elect whatever the retardlicans pick, but i guess that HAS happened before.

if it was up to me to just appoint a president i'd pick kusenich and gravel, but i know that's not the world we're living in.

hillary isn't unacceptable, just the least likely of the three, as far as i can see at this point, to represent the kind of decisions i would prefer.

i think environment is important so that would favor edwards as much as any of the three, but i'd also like to see us not wimp out and actually put a woman or minority in the oval office.

so again that brings me back to a flip of the three sided coin. i'd take all three over anything on "r as in Ripoffs r us 'ipublican" side.

=^^=
.../\...

Obama.

Why? I think he's better on several things than Hillary, but one of the main reasons is just people-power.

He is less divisive than she is (half the country already hates Hillary), thus will have an easier time beating the Republican candidate.

You also cannot count on the Democrats keeping congress. Obama I think would be more able to get some work done even with a Republican congress. Hillary I don't think would be very effective if we lost congress.

Just my two cents.

Of the two, Obama. Why? Because there is the ever so slight chance that he is as idealistic as he appears and that he hasn't been in politics long enough to have sold the last shreds of his soul to his Corporate Masters. I admit it's a longshot, and I probably won't vote for him, but he's one of the few Democrats I will consider and the only one with that appear to have a hope of contention.

Edit: Another selling point is his lack of foreign policy experience. I want a President that will seek out and assign competent advisors and not sycophantic yes-men who will go along with his preconceived notions of foreign policy.

Of the two, Obama. Why? Because there is the ever so slight chance that he is as idealistic as he appears and that he hasn't been in politics long enough to have sold the last shreds of his soul to his Corporate Masters. I admit it's a longshot, and I probably won't vote for him, but he's one of the few Democrats I will consider and the only one with that appear to have a hope of contention.

Edit: Another selling point is his lack of foreign policy experience. I want a President that will seek out and assign competent advisors and not sycophantic yes-men who will go along with his preconceived notions of foreign policy.

Off-topic but between McCain and Romney I guessing you'd go with McCain - yet if he chose Giuliani or Huckabee as a VP, would that make the difference in terms of making you vote for Obama?

Neo Art, Neu Leonstein, and Callisdrun have already listed most of the reasons I will recommend Obama.

Pragmatically, Obama will draw the swing votes needed to beat the most likely GOP candidate McCain. Furthermore, he'll draw the youth voters into the election in unusually large numbers. Edwards, Hillary, or Paul won't do either.

Qualificationwise, Obama has been in elected office longer than and has a comperable record of public service with both Hillary and Edwards, thus negating Hillary's claim to the experience advantage. Furthermore, his experience having lived overseas gives him a strong unique advantage in understanding the world at large, which is particularly necessary at this point in time.

On the domestic issues, all the three candidates are pretty much the same. On foreign affairs, however, Clinton's support for the Iraq war as well as for dangerous moves against towards starting a war with Iran, bring my opposition. Obama has a much better record on foreign affairs. Seeing as the president's primary job is dealing with foreign affairs, Obama takes the issues concern for me.

Off-topic but between McCain and Romney I guessing you'd go with McCain - yet if he chose Giuliani or Huckabee as a VP, would that make the difference in terms of making you vote for Obama?

In 2000, I would have vote for McCain. I'm don't think I can now, but of the republican candidates, he's one of only two I'd consider. The other is Rudy Giuliani. He has a good sense of humor. That counts for a lot with me. *nod*

I will be voting on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5.

I am undecided Democrat.

Next week I expect to vote for either Clinton or Obama.

Give me your best arguments for either candidate -- but remember your audience.

(FWIW, others in my family are also undecided Democrats. My roomate is an undecided Republic that is leaning toawrds Hillary.)
From Obama's website:

"Senator Obama has been able to develop innovative approaches to challenge the status quo and get results. Americans are tired of divisive ideological politics, which is why Senator Obama has reached out to Republicans to find areas of common ground. He has tried to break partisan logjams and take on seemingly intractable problems. During his tenure in Washington and in the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama has accumulated a record of bipartisan success."

If you, as a Democrat, actually think it's remotely a good idea to for our next CIC to prioritize "reaching out to Republicans" at this point, then there's really nothing I can say to you. Far as I'm concerned, the lesson of the last 8 years is that trying to "find common ground" with the Republicans means giving in to every single thing they want at the expense of our national economy, our security, our civil liberties, and our fundamental human rights. Give as much as you want...they'll be only too happy to take.

Do you really want the next Supreme Court justice appointed by somebody who's so concerned about making nice with the people who appointed Scalito?

Do you trust this champion of "common ground" to stand firm when the Republicans block progressive initiatives?

Do you think that somebody who is prioritizing "bipartisanship" in this manner will be able to fix all the shit that Bush and his Do-Nothing Congress broke?

Yeah, there's a lot of "divisive" issues right now. Like, say, how gay people think they ought to be full citizens of this country, and the Republicans disagree. Or how female citizens think that their bodies are not public property, and the Republicans disagree. Exactly what "common ground" would you like our President to find on these issues?

Lobotomy! Not so you'll vote for DAWKTER RON, but so you'll post on NSG with a portion of your brain missing.

Yeah, there's a lot of "divisive" issues right now. Like, say, how gay people think they ought to be full citizens of this country, and the Republicans disagree. Or how female citizens think that their bodies are not public property, and the Republicans disagree. Exactly what "common ground" would you like our President to find on these issues?

Short-term leases. :)

Short-term leases. :)
You joke, yet you are probably very close to the truth. ;)

Look at what's happened over recent years:

Democrats say, "Hey, what about some health care?" Republicans say, "How about no health care?" Democrats say, "Hmm, how about we meet you in the middle: we'll cut funding for health care programs around the country, but we will still give speeches about the importance of good health care!"

I can totally see that happening on, say, abortion rights.

Democrats: "Hey, how about we keep abortion safe and legal?"
Republicans: "How about we ban all abortion and make sure that contraception is expensive and difficult to obtain?"
Democrats: "Let's compromise! How about we ban abortion and any sex-related health products that you find yucky, but we still allow women to own coathangers?"

I will be voting on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5.

I am undecided Democrat.

Next week I expect to vote for either Clinton or Obama.

Give me your best arguments for either candidate -- but remember your audience.

(FWIW, others in my family are also undecided Democrats. My roomate is an undecided Republic that is leaning toawrds Hillary.)If McCain gets the nomination (which seems likely now), Hillary may not be able to beat him, but Obama seems to be different enough political-wise to have a chance.

I'm British, so it doesn't matter what I think, I don't get to vote for our puppet-master.

I will say that voting for Clinton is like extending the two terms that she already served in the White House.

From Obama's website:

"Senator Obama has been able to develop innovative approaches to challenge the status quo and get results. Americans are tired of divisive ideological politics, which is why Senator Obama has reached out to Republicans to find areas of common ground. He has tried to break partisan logjams and take on seemingly intractable problems. During his tenure in Washington and in the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama has accumulated a record of bipartisan success."

If you, as a Democrat, actually think it's remotely a good idea to for our next CIC to prioritize "reaching out to Republicans" at this point, then there's really nothing I can say to you. Far as I'm concerned, the lesson of the last 8 years is that trying to "find common ground" with the Republicans means giving in to every single thing they want at the expense of our national economy, our security, our civil liberties, and our fundamental human rights. Give as much as you want...they'll be only too happy to take.

Do you really want the next Supreme Court justice appointed by somebody who's so concerned about making nice with the people who appointed Scalito?

Do you trust this champion of "common ground" to stand firm when the Republicans block progressive initiatives?

Do you think that somebody who is prioritizing "bipartisanship" in this manner will be able to fix all the shit that Bush and his Do-Nothing Congress broke?

Yeah, there's a lot of "divisive" issues right now. Like, say, how gay people think they ought to be full citizens of this country, and the Republicans disagree. Or how female citizens think that their bodies are not public property, and the Republicans disagree. Exactly what "common ground" would you like our President to find on these issues?

The only response possible to that is: do you want more of the same "culture wars" of the last 28 years? Is the "I scream at you and you scream at me" method that has resulted in a great deal of disgust in politics in general (the Democrat's congress has an approval rating lower than Bush's "snake in the grass" rating...) a civilized way to run a country?

That is what the Status Quo Clintonius will continue.

Or maybe we can elect sombody who's shown a willingness to break the mold...

You joke, yet you are probably very close to the truth. ;)

Look at what's happened over recent years:

Democrats say, "Hey, what about some health care?" Republicans say, "How about no health care?" Democrats say, "Hmm, how about we meet you in the middle: we'll cut funding for health care programs around the country, but we will still give speeches about the importance of good health care!"

I can totally see that happening on, say, abortion rights.

Democrats: "Hey, how about we keep abortion safe and legal?"
Republicans: "How about we ban all abortion and make sure that contraception is expensive and difficult to obtain?"
Democrats: "Let's compromise! How about we ban abortion and any sex-related health products that you find yucky, but we still allow women to own coathangers?"



If McCain gets the nomination (which seems likely now), Hillary may not be able to beat him, but Obama seems to be different enough political-wise to have a chance.

Indeed. Can't have a Dem in office if you don't nominate someone who can win the shooting match. I'll tell you right now that I know a bunch of Obama supporters will vote McCain over Billary, starting with myself. And I am disgusted with McCain's selling out to the Christofacists. That should tell you something....

I'm British, so it doesn't matter what I think, I don't get to vote for our puppet-master.

I will say that voting for Clinton is like extending the two terms that she already served in the White House.

This as well. My younger brother put it this way: "I don't want to live in a country that is so boring and unimaginative that they can only alternate electing people named Bush and Clinton."

*snip*

I might not know much about american politics, but I think that was a small attempt to find support from republicans who aren't content with the republican candidate, and from people who doubt between the dems and reps.

Lobotomy! Not so you'll vote for DAWKTER RON, but so you'll post on NSG with a portion of your brain missing.

It has some interesting results, like being totally unrestrained and lack of planning.
Also, they used to perform lobotomies by putting (hammering might be a better word choice) a long needle (called ice-pick) under the eyelid of the patient, pushing it trough the skull (which is very thin above the eye) into the frontal lobe and stirring it around, disrupting the connections between the prefrontal cortex and the rest of the brain.
Haa, the wonders of medical history...

Also, Super Tuesday is my birthday! :)

I might not know much about american politics, but I think that was a small attempt to find support from republicans who aren't content with the republican candidate, and from people who doubt between the dems and reps.

There is a huge and ongoing effort to attract "independents" and "undecided voters." The problem is that the Democrats appear to believe that their best bet is to make themselves appear more Republican, while the Republicans believe their best bet is to become more Republican.

Which is particularly odd when you realize that the most commonly cited "divisive" issues in America are ones where the public overwhelmingly opposes the Republican position. Abortion rights, gay rights, civil rights, health care, social security, wars of aggression, tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, the list goes on...

This is one of the reasons that I'm leaning toward a vote of "No Confidence" in the next election. I don't believe the Democrats are capable of leading, and I loathe where the Republicans are leading.

either a clinton or a bush has been in high office since 1980. Think about that for a moment.

This is a really big one.

It sounds to me like a vote for Hilary would be a vote for "politics as usual", which hasn't been working to well over the years.

That...and for some reason I can't bring myself to trust Mrs. Clinton worth a damn.

This is one of the reasons that I'm leaning toward a vote of "No Confidence" in the next election. I don't believe the Democrats are capable of leading, and I loathe where the Republicans are leading.I fell in that bucket last election. I'm not going to be voting center-right for a long, long time.

This is a really big one.

It sounds to me like a vote for Hilary would be a vote for "politics as usual", which hasn't been working to well over the years.

Which years?

I rather liked back when our budget was balanced, our stature around the world was several steps above "utter laughingstock," and our poverty and crime rates were dropping. I wouldn't mind if that were politics as usual again.

If I thought Hilary Clinton would deliver the "politics as usual" that we had when her husband was in office, I'd support her.

That...and for some reason I can't bring myself to trust Mrs. Clinton worth a damn.
You can trust her to be viciously pragmatic. She knows what she wants to get done, and she knows exactly how to get it done. I find Clinton extremely easy to read. Yeah, she uses all the standard politico-speak, but it's just like hearing somebody speak in another dialect. Once you translate, it's quite clear what she means.

I don't like a lot of Clinton's plans. But I think she can carry through one what she says she will do. I don't think Obama can carry through on any of his grand promises for "change," particularly since his "change" is the same "change" that every president has promised for as long as I've been self-aware.

Let me be clear, I don't support Clinton. I just don't oppose her as strongly as I do some of the other candidates on the field, and I think people criticize her for the wrong reasons.

There is a huge and ongoing effort to attract "independents" and "undecided voters." The problem is that the Democrats appear to believe that their best bet is to make themselves appear more Republican, while the Republicans believe their best bet is to become more Republican.

As opposed to making themselves unappealing to those 20% of voters (5% GOP, 5% Dem, and 10% true ind.) who decide the elections?

Which is particularly odd when you realize that the most commonly cited "divisive" issues in America are ones where the public overwhelmingly opposes the Republican position. Abortion rights, gay rights, civil rights, health care, social security, wars of aggression, tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, the list goes on...

Heh???

Americans mirror the Dems on:
abortion (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=abortion+rights+poll&btnG=Google+Search), health care (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=health+care+rights+poll&btnG=Search), the aggressive war in Iraq (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm), and Bush's Tax cuts (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=tax+cuts+poll&btnG=Search).

Gay and civil rights are a mixed bag depending on what exactly is meant there.

This is one of the reasons that I'm leaning toward a vote of "No Confidence" in the next election. I don't believe the Democrats are capable of leading, and I loathe where the Republicans are leading.

I'll agree. If it is Romney or Huckabee vs Clinton, and Bloomberg doesn't jump in, I will seriously consider staying here in Japan or trying out Canada instead of my planned return in a couple of years, at least until someone decent's elected. McCain would be a Kerryesque hold my nose and vote for the lesser evil.

This is a really big one.

It sounds to me like a vote for Hilary would be a vote for "politics as usual", which hasn't been working to well over the years.
Which years?

At a minimum, 1992-2008, easily arguable as far back as 1980, mayber longer...

It's time we got past 1968...

Which years?

I rather liked back when our budget was balanced, our stature around the world was several steps above "utter laughingstock," and our poverty and crime rates were dropping. I wouldn't mind if that were politics as usual again.

If I thought Hilary Clinton would deliver the "politics as usual" that we had when her husband was in office, I'd support her.

You can trust her to be viciously pragmatic. She knows what she wants to get done, and she knows exactly how to get it done. I find Clinton extremely easy to read. Yeah, she uses all the standard politico-speak, but it's just like hearing somebody speak in another dialect. Once you translate, it's quite clear what she means.

I don't like a lot of Clinton's plans. But I think she can carry through one what she says she will do. I don't think Obama can carry through on any of his grand promises for "change," particularly since his "change" is the same "change" that every president has promised for as long as I've been self-aware.

Let me be clear, I don't support Clinton. I just don't oppose her as strongly as I do some of the other candidates on the field, and I think people criticize her for the wrong reasons.

Let me be equally candid, I'm not quite as happy with either candidate myself. But for some reason, and I know this is going to sound naive and unreasonable, I don't trust her in the slightest. Maybe its her way of speaking, maybe its her campaigning, maybe its the fact that she voted for the Iraq war, I don't know.

Well...the Iraq war has a lot to do with it. From what I hear, and I may be wrong, she voted yes for war because it was safe from a political standpoint (back when everyone was fooled by US intelligence, and there was still a pseudo-patriotic fallout from 9/11). I can't put my faith in someone who'd act against the good of the nation for his or her own political benefit, and then flip-flop later saying she opposes it.

Maybe I really am just uninformed and naive...

Not that Obama is much better...

It will once again be the battle of the lesser of the two evils.

TCT, if you want more of the same then vote Hillary.

If you want someone who does not offer the same then vote Obama. Obama has a better shot at winning this election than Hillary does.

...If it is Romney or Huckabee vs Clinton, and Bloomberg doesn't jump in, I will seriously consider staying here in Japan or trying out Canada instead of my planned return in a couple of years, at least until someone decent's elected. McCain would be a Kerryesque hold my nose and vote for the lesser evil.

I'm fairly sure at this point that McCain will get the nod, though there's still a long way to go.

Here's where I stand in terms of who'd I like to see in office, from lowest to highest:

Huckabee
Romney
McCain and Clinton are tied
Obama

I'm fairly sure at this point that McCain will get the nod, though there's still a long way to go.

Indeed I agree, on both.

Here's where I stand in terms of who'd I like to see in office, from lowest to highest:

Huckabee
Romney
McCain and Clinton are tied
Obama

:) Almost my exact mirror. I'd put Clinton tied with Huckabee.

As I am British, then maybe my opinion does not count as much. But I would suggest Obama for pretty much all the reasons that have been mentioned by most others in this topic so far.

As a sidenote, one of Americas stand-up comedians was over here recently. On a television interview, he was asked what he thought of Hillary Clintons surprise success and how he thought she would fare from there.
Chris Rock, the comedian, then went on to state that Bush has led the people to such a point, that they want to vote for a woman or a black guy.... "Anything but another white guy!" he said.
The joke went down rather well with the audience.

As opposed to making themselves unappealing to those 20% of voters (5% GOP, 5% Dem, and 10% true ind.) who decide the elections?

If those voters actually wanted Republicans to vote for, they'd vote for Republicans. Since we already have Republicans, it seems kind of weird for the Democrats to be trying to make themselves into Republicans in order to gather in "undecided" voters, doesn't it?


Heh???

Americans mirror the Dems on:
abortion (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=abortion+rights+poll&btnG=Google+Search), health care (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=health+care+rights+poll&btnG=Search), the aggressive war in Iraq (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm), and Bush's Tax cuts (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=tax+cuts+poll&btnG=Search).

Gay and civil rights are a mixed bag depending on what exactly is meant there.

Like I said.


I'll agree. If it is Romney or Huckabee vs Clinton, and Bloomberg doesn't jump in, I will seriously consider staying here in Japan or trying out Canada instead of my planned return in a couple of years, at least until someone decent's elected. McCain would be a Kerryesque hold my nose and vote for the lesser evil.

If you want another 4 years of failed Bush government, vote McCain. If you want ANYTHING ELSE, don't vote for him. This applies to Republicans and Democrats alike.


At a minimum, 1992-2008, easily arguable as far back as 1980, mayber longer...

It's time we got past 1968...
I could stand to never, ever see 1980s-style government ever again. Complete and utter failure that set the country back by decades...yeah, we've done that already, thanks. The only reason it's not the worst period of recent history is because Dubya stepped up to the plate to make Reagan look less shitty.

But I agree that we need to move the hell on into the 21st century already.

Gay people, women, and non-whites get legal equality. Welcome to the new century.

We are a modern nation. We will have universal health care. Yes, boo hoo socialism red menace blah blah blah communism. Shut up.

Cutting taxes does not magically balance the budget. Knock it off.

Foreign countries will not thank us for waltzing in and blowing up their shit. Quit expecting them to.

Unless the Ghost Of Planets Future decides to visit in the night, most corporations are not going to suddenly wake up and decide to stop profiting from environmentally-shitty behavior. No, giving those corporations more money for doing exactly what they are already doing will not convince them to change.

Seriously, quit cutting taxes. For reals.

Telling teenagers to stop fucking has never solved a single problem in the history of humanity. Let's find something better to spend our money on.

And so forth.

If you want another 4 years of failed Bush government, vote McCain. If you want ANYTHING ELSE, don't vote for him. This applies to Republicans and Democrats alike. McCain is hardly as bad as Bush. He's got a much better environmental record, for one, and a nice, unambibuous anti-torture stance.

*snip*

Same old shit on a different day. Its people like you Botte that makes politics what it is today.

We want change and Hillary is not that force to make changes. If she gets elected, this country will be in the shitter more than it is already.

As to the opening statement...there are republicans (me included in that) who are not happy with the candidates that are running right now. Do you honestly think that if we have a chance, we would vote for a Democrat? You betcha we would.

Telling teenagers to stop fucking has never solved a single problem in the history of humanity. Let's find something better to spend our money on.

Underpopulation?

Let me be equally candid, I'm not quite as happy with either candidate myself. But for some reason, and I know this is going to sound naive and unreasonable, I don't trust her in the slightest. Maybe its her way of speaking, maybe its her campaigning, maybe its the fact that she voted for the Iraq war, I don't know.

Again, I think you have to be clear on what you mean by "trust."

I don't "trust" Clinton to run the government the way I would want it run, because I know (from listening to her) that she doesn't intend to.

But I trust her in the sense that I think she's honest about what she plans to get done. I don't LIKE a lot of it, but I think she's honest about it.


Well...the Iraq war has a lot to do with it. From what I hear, and I may be wrong, she voted yes for war because it was safe from a political standpoint (back when everyone was fooled by US intelligence, and there was still a pseudo-patriotic fallout from 9/11). I can't put my faith in someone who'd act against the good of the nation for his or her own political benefit, and then flip-flop later saying she opposes it.

Absolutely something that pisses me off. And, frankly, I have zero sympathy for the people who claim "everyone was fooled." I wasn't. None of my family was. None of my friends were. We all fucking KNEW the war was a shitty idea from day one, and we said as much.

I don't believe for one tiny instant that Hilary Clinton was fooled. I think she knew exactly what she was doing. I don't LIKE that she did it, but I at least respect the fact that she wasn't one of the goddam morons who actually believed the bullshit that lead us into the war.


Maybe I really am just uninformed and naive...

Not that Obama is much better...

It will once again be the battle of the lesser of the two evils.
Doesn't that make you just want to curl into a ball and sob?

After 8 years of Dubya, I thought I would be happy to see ANYBODY else step up to the plate.

Then the Republicans field a pack of shameless crooks, while the Democrats put forth a right-winger (Clinton) and a GOP enabler (Obama).

Oy.

Same old shit on a different day. Its people like you Botte that makes politics what it is today.

Well...yeah. That's kind of how democracy works. You know, what with people being directly involved in politics and all.


We want change and Hillary is not that force to make changes.

Clinton will change stuff. It might not be the changes you (or I) would like, but it's obvious shit will be changed.

The reason I don't support her is because I don't like many of the changes she'd make, and she also wouldn't change some of the things I want to see changed.


If she gets elected, this country will be in the shitter more than it is already.

Honestly?

I don't think that's possible. I don't think any of the candidates on the field today could possibly cause more harm to this country than has been done by Bush and the GOP Congress.

Even the candidates that I think are slime (McCain, Huckster, etc) will not be able to do more damage. They will be able to fail to repair any damage, and they're certainly going to be able to keep Dubya's Failure Ball rolling, but I don't think they can possibly be worse than what we have.


As to the opening statement...there are republicans (me included in that) who are not happy with the candidates that are running right now. Do you honestly think that if we have a chance, we would vote for a Democrat? You betcha we would.
Darling, you DO have a chance to vote for a Democrat. Don't pretend you don't.

You just don't LIKE the Democrats, because they aren't offering you what you want. You will vote for the Democrats...if they adopt the Republican policies that you want to vote for.

Yes, obviously you'll support somebody who backs what you want. That's a rather silly statement, isn't it? And yes, Democrats tend to be progressive and liberal and back things that you don't like. If they adopted your politics, they wouldn't be progressive or liberal any more.

I'd like to be able to support a liberal. There won't be one on the field this year. I have a 100% chance of being unable to vote for a liberal. If you claim you'd like to be able to vote for a Democrat, then you've got no grounds for complaint because you are 100% likely to have the chance to vote for one.

Now, if you're saying that you'd like to have the chance to vote for a candidate who supports your ideals, and you're saying that no such candidate is on the field, then you can join me over here in the "Let's Get Drunk And Vote No Confidence" Club.

Well...yeah. That's kind of how democracy works. You know, what with people being directly involved in politics and all.

I was not talking about that Bottle. I was talking about the rhetoric. I'm politically active myself but still. The rhetoric is what has politics in this country in the shitter.

Hilary will change stuff. It might not be the changes you (or I) would like, but it's obvious shit will be changed.

For worse and not for the better.

The reason I don't support her is because I don't like many of the changes she'd make, and she also wouldn't change some of the things I want to see changed.

Well bully for you.

Honestly?

I don't think that's possible. I don't think any of the candidates on the field today could possibly cause more harm to this country than has been done by Bush and the GOP Congress.

As opposed to a Democratic Congress that seems to be losing support more rapidly than Bush?

Even the candidates that I think are slime (McCain, Huckster, etc) will not be able to do more damage.

Goes to show naiveness.

They will be able to fail to repair any damage, and they're certainly going to be able to keep Dubya's Failure Ball rolling, but I don't think they can possibly be worse than what we have.

Yea right.

Darling, you DO have a chance to vote for a Democrat. Don't pretend you don't.

Depends on who the nominees are. If its Clinton, we won't do it.

You just don't LIKE the Democrats, because they aren't offering you what you want. You will vote for the Democrats...if they adopt the Republican policies that you want to vote for.

I call bullshit on that. I see you have no idea how many of us decide on who to vote for.

That's a rather silly statement, isn't it? Yes, obviously you'll support somebody who backs what you want.

Not true. McCain has many of my views but I do not trust McCain to run the country. OOPS!!!

And yes, Democrats tend to be progressive and liberal and back things that you don't like. If they adopted your politics, they wouldn't be progressive or liberal any more.

Nice job! Maybe I won't vote for a Democrat ever again since it is apparent you think that all dems have to be liberal and progressive. Guess what? There are Moderate Dems and CONSERVATIVE DEMS just like there are Liberal Republicans (Arlan Specter) and Moderate Republicans as well.

If it's between the two, Obama. He's less conservative than Hillary. (As evidence of this, your Republican friend is considering voting for her.
If it's between the three in the poll, Edwards. He has some progressive ideas.
If it's between any Dem, pick Kucinich.

Again, I think you have to be clear on what you mean by "trust."

I don't "trust" Clinton to run the government the way I would want it run, because I know (from listening to her) that she doesn't intend to.

But I trust her in the sense that I think she's honest about what she plans to get done. I don't LIKE a lot of it, but I think she's honest about it.

That's pretty much where I'm coming from. I'm sure she believes in the stuff she says...but I don't trust her to act in the best interests of the nation.

Absolutely something that pisses me off. And, frankly, I have zero sympathy for the people who claim "everyone was fooled." I wasn't. None of my family was. None of my friends were. We all fucking KNEW the war was a shitty idea from day one, and we said as much.

I don't believe for one tiny instant that Hilary Clinton was fooled. I think she knew exactly what she was doing. I don't LIKE that she did it, but I at least respect the fact that she wasn't one of the goddam morons who actually believed the bullshit that lead us into the war.

I wasn't fooled either, but that's the excuse I'm getting from people. She certainly wasn't fooled either. And that's the problem: in the past she has shown the propensity to act politically first before the good of the country. She couldn't have stopped the machine on her own, sure, but at least she would be following the wishes of her constituents. The fact that she didn't, and she knew the war was a mistake, makes her worse than the goddamn morons.

Maybe I'm making the mistake that politicians are human at heart and have a conscience.

Doesn't that make you just want to curl into a ball and sob?

After 8 years of Dubya, I thought I would be happy to see ANYBODY else step up to the plate.

Then the Republicans field a pack of shameless crooks, while the Democrats put forth a right-winger (Clinton) and a GOP enabler (Obama).

Oy.

Oy, indeed. Not crying, just...tired...

:) Almost my exact mirror. I'd put Clinton tied with Huckabee.

Yech! Clinton's bad but she's not a totalitarian theocrat!

I was not talking about that Bottle. I was talking about the rhetoric. I'm politically active myself but still. The rhetoric is what has politics in this country in the shitter.

Really?

Not the irresponsible tax cuts and out-of-control spending?

Not the failing economy?

Not the baseless war of aggression?

Not the illegal spying and countless illegal activities on the part of the Bush administration?

Not rising poverty rates and declining employment?

Not the extensive corruption throughout all levels of government, or the nepotism, or the selling of indulgences for various corporate interests?

Not the complete and utter failure of the "4th Branch Of Government" (the media)?

It's TALKING which is dragging the country down?

Sorry, but I don't think that pointing out problems is what's fucked up our government. Indeed, I think that if more of this "rhetoric" had been voiced over the last 8 years, we might have managed to avert several of the most spectacular disasters we've seen.


For worse and not for the better.

I'm glad you've reversed your position and decided to agree with me.

I'm also glad that you admit that "we" don't simply "want change." Most people want very specific changes, not just some vague "change" of the sort that every single politician promises every time there is an election.


As opposed to a Democratic Congress that seems to be losing support more rapidly than Bush?

1) Congress always has lower approval ratings.
2) They're losing support because they were elected on a mandate to stop letting Bush fuck up the joint, and (in typical Democrat form) they are utterly failing to do so.
3) That said, this Congress already accomplished far, far, FAR more than the Do-Nothing GOP Congress. Isn't that sad?


Goes to show naiveness.

Or, you know, just disagreement.

I know this may shock you, but even non-naive people may disagree with you. *gasp*


Yea right.

Your well-constructed argument has led me to totally reconsider my stance on this issue.


Depends on who the nominees are. If its Clinton, we won't do it.

Like I said. You have Democrats you could vote for, but you won't because you don't like them.

That's fine. Just don't lie and say that you really want to vote for a Democrat but you can't. You can, you simply choose not to.

We're in the same boat on that so far.


I call bullshit on that. I see you have no idea how many of us decide on who to vote for.

I'm saying that you choose who you vote for based on which candidate you believe will be most likely (and/or best able) to carry through with politics that you support.


Not true. McCain has many of my views but I do not trust McCain to run the country. OOPS!!!

What "oops"? That doesn't contradict what I said. If McCain backed everything you wanted, you'd support him. (Assuming you believed him, of course.)


Nice job! Maybe I won't vote for a Democrat ever again since it is apparent you think that all dems have to be liberal and progressive.

Yes, I do think that it would be nice to have at least one political party that is liberal and progressive. If you'd prefer that that party be the Republicans, please feel free to tell them to get on that.


Guess what? There are Moderate Dems and CONSERVATIVE DEMS just like there are Liberal Republicans (Arlan Specter) and Moderate Republicans as well.
Well, technically speaking, in the USA there's nothing BUT conservative Dems. I mean, "liberal" in the USA is "moderate conservative" anywhere else. But I settle for what I can get.

So far.

How do you chose for the lesser of 8 evils here?

How do you chose for the lesser of 8 evils here?

Simple. Eliminate Clinton and you are down to seven. Take out the anti-federalist and anti-constitutionalist Ron Paul and now you are down to 6. Kick out Huckabee and you are down to 5. Guilliani is gone so we are down to 4. Edwards does not have a prayer in hell so now we are down to 3! They are Romney, McCain, and Obama :D

Edwards has dropped out.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/johnedwards/story/0,,2249245,00.html)

FINALLY!!!!!!

But it still puts it down to Romney, McCain, and Obama in my list :D

That's pretty much where I'm coming from. I'm sure she believes in the stuff she says...but I don't trust her to act in the best interests of the nation.

You want to hear something really sad?

I read your phrase "I don't trust her to act in the best interests of the nation," and my first thought was, "Well of course not!"

Like, "What a strange and silly notion, that the elected leader of the United States would put the best interests of the nation first and foremost!"

I'm even more cynical than I thought...


I wasn't fooled either, but that's the excuse I'm getting from people. She certainly wasn't fooled either. And that's the problem: in the past she has shown the propensity to act politically first before the good of the country. She couldn't have stopped the machine on her own, sure, but at least she would be following the wishes of her constituents. The fact that she didn't, and she knew the war was a mistake, makes her worse than the goddamn morons.

I don't know about that. I think the morons have proven to be an amazingly destructive force.

Here's what I think about Clinton:

I think she does, in her way, put the best interests of the nation at heart. But I think she's very utilitarian about it. She believes that she would be a good leader for the nation, so in that sense she believes it is "good for the nation" for her to succeed politically. She is prepared to do what she thinks is necessary to succeed politically.

IF she succeeds politically, I actually think she could do some good. Not all good, and I think there's some shit she'd mess up, but I do believe she could get some good things done.

When it comes to the morons, I know--from painful years of experience--that when they succeed politically they will do nothing but harm.

So if we compare the politically-successful morons with a politically-successful Clinton, I am forced to choose Clinton over the morons.


Maybe I'm making the mistake that politicians are human at heart and have a conscience.

I'm not prepared to let them off the hook like that.

Politicians are human. They have the same moral compass as the rest of us. If they choose to make lousy decisions, then they are people who are making lousy decisions. It's not like they are incapable of doing a good job; they are CHOOSING not to do a good job.


Yech! Clinton's bad but she's not a totalitarian theocrat!
Word.

Simple. Eliminate Clinton and you are down to seven. Take out the anti-federalist and anti-constitutionalist Ron Paul and now you are down to 6. Kick out Huckabee and you are down to 5. Guilliani is gone so we are down to 4. Edwards does not have a prayer in hell so now we are down to 3! They are Romney, McCain, and Obama :D

Edwards has dropped out.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/johnedwards/story/0,,2249245,00.html)

Edwards has dropped out.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/johnedwards/story/0,,2249245,00.html)

Wow, I would've thought he'd stick out Super Tuesday...

Wow, I would've thought he'd stick out Super Tuesday...

It will be very interesting where the votes that would have gone to him go now - my suspicion is to Hillary.

It will be very interesting where the votes that would have gone to him go now - my suspicion is to Hillary.

My suspicion is Obama. One never knows though.

Well, I do not really care to debate. The one difference I would mention is that Clinton gains a substantial amount of campaign funds from military contractors--more than any other candidate, even Republican--and that she has fought Bush to spend more money on the military. She also criticized Obama for wanting to work things out with Castro and Chavez. Rather than talk with them, she recommends "vigorous engagements".

So Clinton seems too pro-war for my taste. Other than that, your vote is your vote. The reason I am not voting for Obama or Clinton is because I did not hear either of them talk enough about cutting spending. And considering Bush and Reagan, I do not trust the Republicans one bit on this issue either, so I certainly will not be voting for them.

It will be very interesting where the votes that would have gone to him go now - my suspicion is to Hillary.

Lord I hope not. Giving Clinthulu the endorsement just might make the difference between her or Obama getting the candidacy and her against McCain is just has too much chance of ending with the U.S. enduring at least four more years of GOP asshatery and dumbfuckedness.

From Obama's website:

Yeah, there's a lot of "divisive" issues right now. Like, say, how gay people think they ought to be full citizens of this country, and the Republicans disagree. Or how female citizens think that their bodies are not public property, and the Republicans disagree. Exactly what "common ground" would you like our President to find on these issues?

QFT. I can't stomach any of the Democrats, let alone Republicans.

Like I said.

LOL. Indeed. My error. Somehow I read your statement as "...the most commonly cited "divisive" issues in America are ones where the public overwhelmingly supports the Republican position."

If you want another 4 years of failed Bush government, vote McCain. If you want ANYTHING ELSE, don't vote for him. This applies to Republicans and Democrats alike.

The problem there is that I see another 4 years of a failed Clinton admin. as being equally as bad and more likely if Clinton wins and less preferable than the Bushlike choice of McCain. Both are bad, but McCain is the lesser of two awfuls. And that's saying something, as I consider him a Christofacist appeaser...

I could stand to never, ever see 1980s-style government ever again. Complete and utter failure that set the country back by decades...yeah, we've done that already, thanks. The only reason it's not the worst period of recent history is because Dubya stepped up to the plate to make Reagan look less shitty.

But I agree that we need to move the hell on into the 21st century already.

Gay people, women, and non-whites get legal equality. Welcome to the new century.

We are a modern nation. We will have universal health care. Yes, boo hoo socialism red menace blah blah blah communism. Shut up.

Cutting taxes does not magically balance the budget. Knock it off.

Foreign countries will not thank us for waltzing in and blowing up their shit. Quit expecting them to.

Unless the Ghost Of Planets Future decides to visit in the night, most corporations are not going to suddenly wake up and decide to stop profiting from environmentally-shitty behavior. No, giving those corporations more money for doing exactly what they are already doing will not convince them to change.

Seriously, quit cutting taxes. For reals.

Telling teenagers to stop fucking has never solved a single problem in the history of humanity. Let's find something better to spend our money on.

And so forth.

A couple of minor economic quibbles, but yes.

Edwards has dropped out.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/johnedwards/story/0,,2249245,00.html)

Damb!

Wow, I would've thought he'd stick out Super Tuesday...

Indeed.

It will be very interesting where the votes that would have gone to him go now - my suspicion is to Hillary.

I'd expect Obama, but wait until ST. Expect a rain on Kingamker's parade if Obama or Billary win it.

It will be very interesting where the votes that would have gone to him go now - my suspicion is to Hillary.
If you traveled back in time to before the year 2000 and told Idealistic Young Bottle that she would one day really wish that the white male would have stayed in the race so she wouldn't be forced to choose the black fellow or the woman, she'd have laughed in your face.

Hopefully Young Bottle can be forgiven. After all, she'd never seen a black candidate or a female candidate, and pretty much everybody acted as though a black candidate or a female candidate would automatically be SOMETHING REALLY REALLY NEW AND SCARY. Perhaps she can be excused for assuming that such a candidate would not be identical to all the existing candidates she's seen recycled time and time again...

Lord I hope not. Giving Clinthulu the endorsement just might make the difference between her or Obama getting the candidacy and her against McCain is just has too much chance of ending with the U.S. enduring at least four more years of GOP asshatery and dumbfuckedness.



That was....without a doubt...the best term I have ever heard to discribe Billary ever. EVER.


I also am amussed that the "Get a Lobotomy and vote for Dr. Paul" has more votes than Hillary.


I say Obama, for all the already mentioned reasons.

4) Pragmatically, Obama is more electable. People seem to have a hard time successfully attacking him-- indeed, certain attacks often seem to rebound on the attackers. (See the Clinton campaign trying to subtly attack him for his teen drug use, and Bill's probable damage to his wife's numbers in South Carolina). Furthermore, he has strong appeal with independents, and even a few Republicans who are tired of their party. Particularly in a match-up against McCain, a strong independent appeal is vital-- and I don't think Hillary can swing more of them than McCain can.

5) Barack has stated that he will meet with the leaders of hostile countries-- a move that Clinton criticized him for. I think JFK got it right when he said, "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."
We've all seen what happened in Iraq when we didn't attempt any serious negotiation; let's not repeat that mistake.

7) Hillary's general hawkish foreign policy worries me. She seems keen to enable another conflict


These are the three big ones for me, especially the last one. Hillary is about as hawkish as Dick Cheney, which is saying something. She just is trying to hide it as of late. We just had a warmongering asshat administration in power for 8 years, lets not have another on, mk?

Here's some of my reasons for supporting Barack over Hillary:

1) Hillary supports DOMA(which, it seems to me, violates the full faith and credit clause, though I'm Neo Art may correct me on this--and that's aside from the fact that I simply disagree with it.), and she has said that states should be allowed to deny people marriage rights. (Claiming that marriage is a states' right)

2) She voted YES on loosening restrictions on wiretapping cellphones.

3) A big one for me, she voted for the Iraq war-- and, as intelligent as Senator Clinton is, I do not think that she was fooled by the intelligence; rather, I think she saw that supporting the Iraq war was politically convenient at the time. She consciously voted against the nation's best interests in an attempt to secure her own.
Barack, on the other hand, actually had the nation's best interests at heart-- he publicly opposed the Iraq war before it even starting, despite the knowledge that it could potentially destroy his political career.

4) Pragmatically, Obama is more electable. People seem to have a hard time successfully attacking him-- indeed, certain attacks often seem to rebound on the attackers. (See the Clinton campaign trying to subtly attack him for his teen drug use, and Bill's probable damage to his wife's numbers in South Carolina). Furthermore, he has strong appeal with independents, and even a few Republicans who are tired of their party. Particularly in a match-up against McCain, a strong independent appeal is vital-- and I don't think Hillary can swing more of them than McCain can.

5) Barack has stated that he will meet with the leaders of hostile countries-- a move that Clinton criticized him for. I think JFK got it right when he said, "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."
We've all seen what happened in Iraq when we didn't attempt any serious negotiation; let's not repeat that mistake.

6) Barack returns contributions from PACs and special interests, so he won't be in debt to them as president-- and thus he'll actually be able to make decisions for the good of the nation, not just a few special interests.

7) Hillary's general hawkish foreign policy worries me. She seems keen to enable another conflict, this one in Iran. I don't particularly like that idea.

I don't, by any means, agree with Obama on everything, but I think he'd make a far better president than Clinton would.

Obama is not running a smear campaign. I respect that.

6) Barack returns contributions from PACs and special interests, so he won't be in debt to them as president-- and thus he'll actually be able to make decisions for the good of the nation, not just a few special interests.


Minor quibble. I think the only contributions that he's gone out of his way to return are those from Toni Rezco, who's currently under indictment for a variety of charges including influence peddling.

Fell free to correct me harshly if I'm wrong :)

Please consider Obama's push to make the federal govt. transparent and to give the public a chance to weigh in for 5 days on every bill before he decides to sign them or not.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/

While I'm aware my support for him might cause you to go vote for someone else, I'd support Obama. mostly because Hillary scares the hell out of me and along with John McCain is the most openly pro-censorship candidate.

Obama's idealism is refreshing, and is probably my favourite of all the candidates left in the race (and since he's a democrat, that tells you a lot about what I think of the options).

I still don't think he can win, but I'd vote for him.

Really?

Not the irresponsible tax cuts and out-of-control spending?

Not the failing economy?

Not the baseless war of aggression?

Not the illegal spying and countless illegal activities on the part of the Bush administration?

Not rising poverty rates and declining employment?

Not the extensive corruption throughout all levels of government, or the nepotism, or the selling of indulgences for various corporate interests?

Not the complete and utter failure of the "4th Branch Of Government" (the media)?

It's TALKING which is dragging the country down?
I have to agree with Corneliu.

All of those things you mention suck, but the voters don't make decisions based on them because they're caught up in the rhetoric. The democratic process is completely ignoring that laundry list of issues.

That's the problem, and rhetoric is the cause.

well im sure this has all been very helpful.

both obama and clinton would make good presidents who will advance the idea and ideals of the democratic party. either one is a good choice.

as a person who has voted in the past 9 presidential elections im pleased that i will finally have a candidate that i can be proud to vote for.

as i see it clinton is more competent and obama is more inspiring. im going with inspiring next tuesday but i will be fine if the nomination goes to clinton instead.

i find myself increasingly annoyed with bill clinton's role in his wife's campaign but i cant really fault them for doing what works. its the media that insists on reporting everything he says and does while ignoring michelle obama completely.

This as well. My younger brother put it this way: "I don't want to live in a country that is so boring and unimaginative that they can only alternate electing people named Bush and Clinton."
After eight years of Hillary, it will be Jeb's turn. When he's done, Chelsea will be old enough.:p

You joke, yet you are probably very close to the truth. ;)

Look at what's happened over recent years:

Democrats say, "Hey, what about some health care?" Republicans say, "How about no health care?" Democrats say, "Hmm, how about we meet you in the middle: we'll cut funding for health care programs around the country, but we will still give speeches about the importance of good health care!"

I can totally see that happening on, say, abortion rights.

Democrats: "Hey, how about we keep abortion safe and legal?"
Republicans: "How about we ban all abortion and make sure that contraception is expensive and difficult to obtain?"
Democrats: "Let's compromise! How about we ban abortion and any sex-related health products that you find yucky, but we still allow women to own coathangers?"

One of my favorite tactics is when lawmakers mostly made up of attorneys and businessmen with enough assistants and research committees to fill a large stadium craft laws that are shot down by courts in quick and bloody fashion. Which makes the lawmakers look good for trying, but still lets corporate America continue with business as usual with the courts taking the blame. They've done that recently for illegal immigration. *nod*

One has to be impressed with the art of making it look like you're doing something yet accomplishing nothing.

Oh, and some of the best jokes are the ones that are close to the truth. :)

Oh, and some of the best jokes are the ones that are close to the truth. :)Unless they're on me. Then they aren't funny.

Unless they're on me. Then they aren't funny.

But they could be hilarious for those near you. :)

well im sure this has all been very helpful.

both obama and clinton would make good presidents who will advance the idea and ideals of the democratic party. either one is a good choice.

as a person who has voted in the past 9 presidential elections im pleased that i will finally have a candidate that i can be proud to vote for.

as i see it clinton is more competent and obama is more inspiring. im going with inspiring next tuesday but i will be fine if the nomination goes to clinton instead.

i find myself increasingly annoyed with bill clinton's role in his wife's campaign but i cant really fault them for doing what works. its the media that insists on reporting everything he says and does while ignoring michelle obama completely.

actually, this has been very helpful. I appreciate people sharing their views on this issue. Some of those views reflect my own conflicted thoughts, but others highlight new considerations.

I'll try to include some comments of my own soon.

But they could be hilarious for those near you. :)There's this quote, I think its by Mel Gibson:
Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open man hole and die.

well im sure this has all been very helpful.

both obama and clinton would make good presidents who will advance the idea and ideals of the democratic party. either one is a good choice.

as a person who has voted in the past 9 presidential elections im pleased that i will finally have a candidate that i can be proud to vote for.

as i see it clinton is more competent and obama is more inspiring. im going with inspiring next tuesday but i will be fine if the nomination goes to clinton instead.

i find myself increasingly annoyed with bill clinton's role in his wife's campaign but i cant really fault them for doing what works. its the media that insists on reporting everything he says and does while ignoring michelle obama completely.

Only Obama. Clinton would be terrible.. Her only skill is the her ability to manipulate behind the scenes, which is questionable now considering how badly she polarizes the country.

After eight years of Hillary, it will be Jeb's turn. When he's done, Chelsea will be old enough.:p

this is just another reason to hate george bush.

because he weaseled his way into the presidency we CANT have hillary clinton as president.

because he sucks, its a bad idea for her to get the job.

hows about we consider hillary clinton on her own merits and decide if she can do the job and not let the huge mistake of the bush2 presidency decide for us?

Obama.

My reason has little to do with his platform because I have differences with some of the positions of both candidates. It is true I dislike Hillary's health care plan and position on the war more than I dislike any of Obama's positions, but still... Neither one would necessarily make a bad president.

My main reason for picking Obama is that he is less divisive than Hillary. While I agree with Bottle that the Republicans are a bunch of untrustworthy backstabbing bastards, with the country split so dramatically and so evenly, it is absolutely imperative that votes be taken away from the Republican side in order to secure a firm victory for the Dems.

Obama has shown some ability to win over some Republican support. I admit that surprised me. I cynically thought that their hatred for all things Democrat, plus my expectation of racism among them, made me think they would not be receptive to Obama, but that has shown not to be the case in the primaries so far.

Clinton, on the other hand, not only unites the Republicans against the Democrats, she also sends independents towards the other side and splinters the Dem and liberal votes because of her negative image, her highly problematic voting record, and the haunting shadow of Bill (who is just confusing things at this point).

I really consider it much, much more likely that the Republicans would win by a narrow margin again if Clinton is the candidate than if Obama is. And I consider it vital that the Republicans be removed from the White House in order to lessen the unbalancing influence of neocons and the religious right in US politics and law.

My mom, who was there to see the phenomena of Dr. King and John and Bobby Kennedy first hand, thinks that Obama may have similar potential to help clarify Americans' idea of what "American" means in a way that will bridge the differences between us and get us back to a common idea of "We the People." As cyncical as I normally am, I do think that our greatest problem right now is that we are pulling ourselves apart as a society, and so yes, we do need to be brought together at least a bit. I think Obama might be able do that better than Clinton.

I will be voting on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5.

I am undecided Democrat.

Next week I expect to vote for either Clinton or Obama.

Give me your best arguments for either candidate -- but remember your audience.

(FWIW, others in my family are also undecided Democrats. My roomate is an undecided Republican that is leaning towards Hillary.)

Why should I convince you of anything? If you can't make up your own mind given all the information available on the internet and in the news, perhaps you should sit out the democratic process altogether.

My mom, who was there to see the phenomena of Dr. King and John and Bobby Kennedy first hand, thinks that Obama may have similar potential to help clarify Americans' idea of what "American" means in a way that will bridge the differences between us and get us back to a common idea of "We the People." I really liked his stance on lapel pins.

There's this quote, I think its by Mel Gibson:

I thought that was by Mel Brooks.

I really liked his stance on lapel pins.

Hehe. I personally have never gotten the lapel pin thing. Apparently there's something of a fetish for them in Washington. A lot seems to depend on a person's position, yay or nay, in re them.

Obama because it is becoming increasingly apparent that McCain is going to win the Republican nomination and despite McCain being a neocon ass kiss, there is no way Clinton can beat him.

Vote Paul in the primaries, At least he highlights important issues even if his methods for dealing with them are batshit crazy, and the more support he gets in the primaries, the more it will force the candidates that have an actual chance to deal with his issues.

In the actual election, Obama is probably the best candidate I can see, he's relatively new blood (please, can we not be run by the same two families for 30 years? 230 years ago we threw a war over shit like that.) and supports transparency in government, He has a history of challenging the status quo, esp. w/regards to governmental corruption and technology/copyright law. If you want to end the RIAA reign of terror, Obama is far more likely to do somethign about it than any of the other candidates.'

Clinton on the other hand has a history of flagrantly upholding the status quo, as much as it may seem 'new, different and refreshing' to have a woman president, she doesn't actually stand for anything new different or refreshing. She's consistently apathetic towards governmental transparency and especially corruption and political donations.
And right now, we need something new, different and/or refreshing

Here's my skewed view, Cat-Tribe.

You have a choice between the first Black President or the first woman President. Which, while in itself, isn't a good enough reason to vote for either one of them, is certainly valid as a consideration.

I think that "The First" of any group needs to be a special person. They have a lot of historical weight to carry.

When looking at Hillary I just don't see much she has to be proud of - nor any great reservoir of character that she can rely on. Tales told by people who haved worked with over the years are very unflattering in concern to her pettiness and temper. Nor has she accomplished much on her own. Having a former first-lady as a President is the ultimate example of riding on coat tails.

Obama, on the other hand, is entirely self-made. Although young and not greatly experienced, he does have the advantage of being untainted by the political process. He's basically a clean slate. Add to that his hopeful and optimistic message, obvious charisma and excitment and I think he's got a slightly better shot than Hillary at winning the general election and actually being a President that most Americans could actually like.

Give me your best arguments for either candidate -- but remember your audience.

it is high time that hawaiians got themselves some presidential representation

After eight years of Hillary, it will be Jeb's turn. When he's done, Chelsea will be old enough.:p

AAIIIEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's this quote, I think its by Mel Gibson:
I thought that was by Mel Brooks.

It's a variation of an old standard.

this is just another reason to hate george bush.

because he weaseled his way into the presidency we CANT have hillary clinton as president.

because he sucks, its a bad idea for her to get the job.

hows about we consider hillary clinton on her own merits and decide if she can do the job and not let the huge mistake of the bush2 presidency decide for us?

I like George the First. I disliked Billary the First. I dislike George the second. And I still dislike Billary this time around (call a pickle a pickle, since they're running as a team again...). So lay the blame where it belongs, at their own feet.

Here's my skewed view, Cat-Tribe.

You have a choice between the first Black President or the first woman President. Which, while in itself, isn't a good enough reason to vote for either one of them, is certainly valid as a consideration.

I think that "The First" of any group needs to be a special person. They have a lot of historical weight to carry.

When looking at Hillary I just don't see much she has to be proud of - nor any great reservoir of character that she can rely on. Tales told by people who haved worked with over the years are very unflattering in concern to her pettiness and temper. Nor has she accomplished much on her own. Having a former first-lady as a President is the ultimate example of riding on coat tails.

Obama, on the other hand, is entirely self-made. Although young and not greatly experienced, he does have the advantage of being untainted by the political process. He's basically a clean slate. Add to that his hopeful and optimistic message, obvious charisma and excitment and I think he's got a slightly better shot than Hillary at winning the general election and actually being a President that most Americans could actually like.

Good points.

it is high time that hawaiians got themselves some presidential representation

Indeed. :) Rock the Luau vote!

Indeed. :) Rock the Luau vote!

i just wanna see someone sworn in to the presidency while wearing an aloha shirt. i was informed* that this was one of obama's campaign pledges.

* and by 'was informed' i mean 'made up', but he should do it anyways

Funny how the completely democratic primaries effectively left only two candidates for an overwhelming majority of voters.

I'd recommend Obama, but only because he is more charismatic than Clinton. That may seem incredibly shallow, but I think charisma is an underappreciated trait in a leader. We all vote for the charismatic one, and are more likely to admire them as president (cf. Kennedy/Reagan), but then deny it means anything. However both are Democrats, and as long as one of them wins in November, I will be happy. Since you're still undecided, I imagine you will, too.

i just wanna see someone sworn in to the presidency while wearing an aloha shirt. i was informed* that this was one of obama's campaign pledges.

* and by 'was informed' i mean 'made up', but he should do it anyways

That would be AWESOME!

And this is going to be terrible of me, but it'd be a lot more awesome than seeing Billary decked out in a hula outfit

I will be voting on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5.

I am undecided Democrat.

Next week I expect to vote for either Clinton or Obama.

Give me your best arguments for either candidate -- but remember your audience.

(FWIW, others in my family are also undecided Democrats. My roomate is an undecided Republican that is leaning towards Hillary.)

I would try and get you to vote for Obama.

I personally have no major concerns with him being in office, whereas Hillary's foreign policy is highly suspect.

Obama has opposed the Iraq War from the start, and you can see videos of him, on Youtube, advising that we not invade, and that we could potentially unleash a civil war. If only Obama had been in office then!

Obama also has the diverse experience necessary to excel in diplomacy and foreign policy. One parent black, the other white, one a Muslim, the other an atheist (not 100%), and he is a Christian. He has relatives still living in Africa. He has lived abroad. All of these things, give him experience, and understanding of other people. It is this understanding, combined with charisma and intelligence, that would make him best diplomat as a president, and also make him likely to be the best on foreign policy.

Of course, there's much more to discuss, especially domestic issues, but I'm sure others will cover that. Ultimately, Obama is wise and knows how and where to act, and is likely to be the most convincing diplomat of all our potential presidents. On the other hand, Clinton is a warhawk who authorized the invasion of Iraq, and apparently, still has not said it was a mistake.

Vote Paul in the primaries, At least he highlights important issues even if his methods for dealing with them are batshit crazy, and the more support he gets in the primaries, the more it will force the candidates that have an actual chance to deal with his issues.


Ron Paul, and other second-tier candidates, strike me as being like the Shakespearian fools. No one really takes them seriously, so they can be honest about the way things actually are.
Now, Paul is also nuts, like Mondoth said. But this campaign needs him as Twelfth Night needs Feste.

I have to agree with Corneliu.

All of those things you mention suck, but the voters don't make decisions based on them because they're caught up in the rhetoric. The democratic process is completely ignoring that laundry list of issues.

That's the problem, and rhetoric is the cause.

I disagree that "rhetoric" is "the cause", but that's not why I'm posting.


The ideas in your post are why Obama will win the primary, and also why I prefer Clinton.

90% of the pro-Obama arguments I hear in the media, from people, and in this thread are in the vein of "Obama is inspirational/Obama is charismatic/He promises change". Meanwhile, most of the anti-Clinton arguments are along the lines of "I can't explain why, but I just dont' like her/she doesn't seem trustworthy". Both of those are based on rhetoric and empty "gut" feelings. Meanwhile, Clinton supporting arguments, in the rare moments they are heard, seem generally pragmatic and reasoned.

[note: I'm not saying Obama supporters are unreasonable, or that Clinton supporters are reasonable! There are reasonable people on both sides! Just making a point about the default arguments that keep getting put out there.]

That's not what we need right now. People voted based on rhetoric and their gut, and picked the guy they "could have a beer with" rather than the "kind of geeky" Gore or Kerry. Bush is very inspirational and charismatic to a certain group of people.

What we need is someone serious about running the government. It's been run into the ground and made ineffectual and useless. The most obvious and infuriating example is Katrina, but any of us could tick off a laundry list of ways that our government has been systematically dismantled (with hostility, at that). My number one priority is to get someone in there who can get our administrative branch up and running again, and give us back our standing in the eyes of ourselves and the rest of the world. Someone who knows how to get things done.

As much as some people try to irrationally dismiss Clinton's experience as first lady and in her general political life, the bottom line is that she has experience behind-the-scenes of a presidency and experience with being directly involved with the very top echelons of political life (and in the harsh public eye) that Obama simply can't have. He would be a capable administrator and has sufficient experience, but he just can't match her. That's a legitimate point of difference.

Plus, she's seen the absolute worst that the Republican attack machine has ever thrown at a person, and seen it for decades straight, and she's come out the other side of it not only alive, but BETTER. Obama doesn't know what even the tip of a Swiftboat tastes like yet. Is he going to be able to stand up to it?

Obama's policies are a bit wishy-washy compared to Clinton's. She generally lays out thoroughly thought-out (but perhaps overly focus grouped and far from ideal) and serious plans, while he often puts out some wispy, half-measure ideas against them. One big example is his health care plan. He's too scared to mandate that it be universal, while Clinton is not. Combine that with the fact that one of his main campaign pillars is bipartisanism, and you start to wonder just how malleable his policies are, and how committed he is to anything.

I believe Obama will be president, but we would be better off with Clinton, even though I disagree with her on a LOT. I wouldn't even call myself a Clinton supporter. She is just my preference in the current field. I don't think I have to pick between a lesser of two evils, but between two OK candidates that I would feel good, but not great, about voting for.

Of the two, Obama. Why? Because there is the ever so slight chance that he is as idealistic as he appears and that he hasn't been in politics long enough to have sold the last shreds of his soul to his Corporate Masters. I admit it's a longshot, and I probably won't vote for him, but he's one of the few Democrats I will consider and the only one with that appear to have a hope of contention.

Edit: Another selling point is his lack of foreign policy experience. I want a President that will seek out and assign competent advisors and not sycophantic yes-men who will go along with his preconceived notions of foreign policy.
Did LG just make a serious post?

*waits for world to implode*

Meanwhile, most of the anti-Clinton arguments are along the lines of "I can't explain why, but I just dont' like her/she doesn't seem trustworthy".

I don't like Clinton because, like McCain, she has often and openly supported broad censorship of media based on offensiveness (particularly with violent video games).

This general distrust of individuals and disdain for individual freedom is why I oppose Hillary Clinton.

I don't like Clinton because, like McCain, she has often and openly supported broad censorship of media based on offensiveness (particularly with violent video games).

This general distrust of individuals and disdain for individual freedom is why I oppose Hillary Clinton.

That's where it started for me. Then when she voted for the war, it sealed it. I refuse to believe that a woman that intelligent was fooled by those intelligence reports. She had to have voted that way because it was the politically safe thing to do.

So Cat Tribes, how'd you decide?

So Cat Tribes, how'd you decide?

Well, it was a tough call and I will be thrilled with either Clinton or Obama getting the nomination.

Nonetheless, I had to choose. I was persuaded in part by arguments made in this thread. I was also impressed by the breadth of support for Obama. (I mean from Neo Art to Llewdor to Corneliu to Daistallia to Lunatic Goofballs to Free Soviets to ..... Whew!!)

Anyway, I voted for Obama.

Well, it was a tough call and I will be thrilled with either Clinton or Obama getting the nomination.

Nonetheless, I had to choose. I was persuaded in part by arguments made in this thread. I was also impressed by the breadth of support for Obama. (I mean from Neo Art to Llewdor to Corneliu to Daistallia to Lunatic Goofballs to Free Soviets to ..... Whew!!)

Anyway, I voted for Obama.

Okay then. Thanks for voting for the right person.

That's where it started for me. Then when she voted for the war, it sealed it. I refuse to believe that a woman that intelligent was fooled by those intelligence reports. She had to have voted that way because it was the politically safe thing to do.
Well, to be fair, Saddam Hussein was intentionally feeding the west false intelligence about his weapons programs.

He didn't think he'd get invaded if he didn't take aggressive action (and he hadn't) because the west just doesn't do that. But he wanted the world to think he had advanced weapons programs to discourage Iranian ambition.

Unfortunately for Saddam, the US does do that. The invasions of Panama, Grenada, and Nicaragua should have served as lessons.

Did LG just make a serious post?

*waits for world to implode*

;) The world imploded a long time ago.

Well, it was a tough call and I will be thrilled with either Clinton or Obama getting the nomination.

Nonetheless, I had to choose. I was persuaded in part by arguments made in this thread. I was also impressed by the breadth of support for Obama. (I mean from Neo Art to Llewdor to Corneliu to Daistallia to Lunatic Goofballs to Free Soviets to ..... Whew!!)

Anyway, I voted for Obama.

Excellent. And indeed Obama gets a wild variety of support. :)

Well, to be fair, Saddam Hussein was intentionally feeding the west false intelligence about his weapons programs.

As were the INC - "Curveball" anyone?

He didn't think he'd get invaded if he didn't take aggressive action (and he hadn't) because the west just doesn't do that. But he wanted the world to think he had advanced weapons programs to discourage Iranian ambition.

Unfortunately for Saddam, the US does do that. The invasions of Panama, Grenada, and Nicaragua should have served as lessons.

And unfortunately for both Iraq and the US, the planning for the war was abominable.

(And just out of pure curiosity, why lump Nicaragua in there? The US occupation happened at a very different point in US history. Nothing particularly very wrong with the example, but rather incongruous to have 1989, 1983, and 1909.)

(Lordy, I can smell it coming. Here we go - round 1639054673203629047650923619 of the great OIF debate. LOL Sorry Cat.)

Anyway, I voted for Obama.

Thank GOD!!!

Now, if you're saying that you'd like to have the chance to vote for a candidate who supports your ideals, and you're saying that no such candidate is on the field, then you can join me over here in the "Let's Get Drunk And Vote No Confidence" Club.

What's your favorite beer? I'll pick up the keg on my way.


Incidentally, before I realized that I forgot to register for my absentee ballot, I was really considering deciding who to vote for by means of a game of beirut

What's your favorite beer? I'll pick up the keg on my way.


Incidentally, before I realized that I forgot to register for my absentee ballot, I was really considering deciding who to vote for by means of a game of beirut

Hmmm? What's "beirut"? Never heard of it?

Hmmm? What's "beirut"? Never heard of it?

It's the capital of Lebanon.

It's the capital of Lebanon.

LOL Well, yeah, I know Beirut, Lebanon, of course.

But the question was directed towards Sarkhaan's reference to deciding things "by means of a game of beirut".

Anyway, I voted for Obama.

Yay!

Not sure how I missed this thread until now, or I probably would have made some arguments of my own, but I'm glad to hear it.

Ugh. I literally hated reading this thread, but I care about the state of politics so I felt compelled.

How is wanting to work with half of the country becoming a Republican. Obama has one of the best ratings among the field from the HRC. He has an outstanding record on supporting Gay Rights. He's got an outstanding record on supporting a woman's right to choose, voting down bans of all types and attempts to force young women to inform their parents of their decisions. He's been a liberal support of human rights. He's been clearly anti-war. He's been anti-tax cuts for the rich. He's been in support of universal health care. I challenge anyone to show ANYTHING in his history that suggests he's remotely in support of Bush-ite ideals.

He simply avoids the kind of divisive attacks used in this thread (usually) and wishes to get the country working together and suddenly he's a Republican? I wonder if I can slam my head into the desk enough for that to be a reasonable argument.

Ugh. I literally hated reading this thread, but I care about the state of politics so I felt compelled.

How is wanting to work with half of the country becoming a Republican. Obama has one of the best ratings among the field from the HRC. He has an outstanding record on supporting Gay Rights. He's got an outstanding record on supporting a woman's right to choose, voting down bans of all types and attempts to force young women to inform their parents of their decisions. He's been a liberal support of human rights. He's been clearly anti-war. He's been anti-tax cuts for the rich. He's been in support of universal health care. I challenge anyone to show ANYTHING in his history that suggests he's remotely in support of Bush-ite ideals.

He simply avoids the kind of divisive attacks used in this thread (usually) and wishes to get the country working together and suddenly he's a Republican? I wonder if I can slam my head into the desk enough for that to be a reasonable argument.

Indeed, indeed, indeed. As Cat pointed out he draws together "Neo Art to Llewdor to Corneliu to Daistallia to Lunatic Goofballs to Free Soviets to ..... Whew!!"

Actually, that brings me to what seems to be the real dividing line - the potential handover from the boomers (Clintron) to the next generations.

Indeed, indeed, indeed. As Cat pointed out he draws together "Neo Art to Llewdor to Corneliu to Daistallia to Lunatic Goofballs to Free Soviets to ..... Whew!!"

Actually, that brings me to what seems to be the real dividing line - the potential handover from the boomers (Clintron) to the next generations.

Yes. That's among my favorites points about him. He's Pepsi, so to speak. The choice of a new generation. A bit sweeter, but doesn't go as well with Rum as old Coke.

I loved the debates. In 2000 I used to love McCain, but he's lost more than a few steps. Watching him debate proved to me that he's really not all there anymore. He openly declared a direct quote to mean the opposite of what it said. The moderators kept calling him on it, but he just kept on keeping on.

Obama and Clinton were much more friendly which is certainly a better way to go. They were actually pretty complimentary of one another and he even said she should be on anyone's short list, referring to her qualities as a politician.

The big gaff by Clinton is that she keeps claiming in that debate that she's got her own campaign to avoid dealing with the issues of her husband being a bit of a wildcard lately and the questions about it just being a continuation of his Presidency and the domination of the White House by Clintons and Bushes. Then in the middle of answering those questions she starts bragging about how good the Clintons have been for this country while citing his Presidency. You can't have it both ways.

The other big one was when she was asked if voting for the war is a mistake and she just plain changed the subject and was all over the map. Wolf Blitzer kind of nailed her by misrepresenting her position to force to give a real answer, that still wasn't particularly clear.

I honestly think she's gonna end up being the candidate and I really hope she manages to get back on top of her debate skills. She's not Bill, not so charismatic. She has to be able to defeat people on points, because people aren't just going to like her for who she is.

How is wanting to work with half of the country becoming a Republican.

Isn't it obvious? If you aren't adamantly opposed to everything the "others" have to say, you've obviously joined them.

Sort of like how commenting positively on someone's leadership ability means you agree with all of their policies.

I honestly think she's gonna end up being the candidate and I really hope she manages to get back on top of her debate skills. She's not Bill, not so charismatic. She has to be able to defeat people on points, because people aren't just going to like her for who she is.

I don't think she'll get it. Obama has more pledged delegates, more money to take into the remaining states, more supporters who haven't given the max amount of money, and more of Edwards' supporters seem to be going his way.

But Hillary has more super delegates right?

also - i hate mainstream media

But Hillary has more super delegates right?

also - i hate mainstream media

Indeed, and now the numbers have been revamped and they're showing her with more pledged delegates as well.

Bleh.

I think a lot of superdelegates will likely wait until they see the swing of the popular vote, though. From what I understand, most of them have not committed to a candidate.

I have to admit I think he's certainly starting to look like he's got a decent chance. One thing I do worry about is a lot of people supporting Obama would never support Hillary and either will vote for someone else or not vote at all. I don't think that's vere true in reverse. People talk about how some of Obama's supporters are so angry toward Hillary and not the other way around. I don't see how people don't notice what this should be telling them?

Even many staunch liberals vehemently dislike Hillary. It's hard for me to imagine her winning, but certainly if she's going to, she really needs to be able to make a clearer case for herself. Or, here's a though, say she was wrong about supporting the war. It's one of the biggest reasons people don't trust her.

Even many staunch liberals vehemently dislike Hillary. It's hard for me to imagine her winning, but certainly if she's going to, she really needs to be able to make a clearer case for herself. Or, here's a though, say she was wrong about supporting the war. It's one of the biggest reasons people don't trust her.

I'm not sure I qualify as a "staunch liberal", but I really don't care for her candidacy, for a number of reasons. Part of it is Iraq, but that just goes along with her hawkish stances in general. She's much more authoritarian on a number of issues. She has point-blank stated that national security always comes before human rights - and seemed proud of it. She is likely thoroughly in the pockets of various special interests - including the military industrial complex. (Isn't it interesting that the military industry has overwhelmingly given to Clinton, while the soldiers themselves have overwhelmingly given to Obama?)

And, while I admit that I may be reading this into comments that weren't necessarily meant that way, I believe that she and Bill have been making both gender and race an issue where they shouldn't be.

If Clinton gets the nomination, I might vote for her. But it would be the "hold my nose and pick the lesser of two evils" type of vote.

I'm not sure I qualify as a "staunch liberal", but I really don't care for her candidacy, for a number of reasons. Part of it is Iraq, but that just goes along with her hawkish stances in general. She's much more authoritarian on a number of issues. She has point-blank stated that national security always comes before human rights - and seemed proud of it. She is likely thoroughly in the pockets of various special interests - including the military industrial complex. (Isn't it interesting that the military industry has overwhelmingly given to Clinton, while the soldiers themselves have overwhelmingly given to Obama?)

And, while I admit that I may be reading this into comments that weren't necessarily meant that way, I believe that she and Bill have been making both gender and race an issue where they shouldn't be.

If Clinton gets the nomination, I might vote for her. But it would be the "hold my nose and pick the lesser of two evils" type of vote.

Of course she's authoritarian. She's one of those I know what's good for you better than you do types. She's proven this repeatedly. It's something I don't like about the Christian Right, and it's definitely something that doesn't qualify her for the liberal camp. She treats people as if they can't be trusted. Her "it takes a village" speeches are thinly-veiled admissions that she believes that if the majority thinks it's right, then the minority have to live with it. It's any means to an end stuff, it also presupposes that such power given to representatives will be wielded responsibly. If the last 7 have proven anything, it simply hasn't been.

That's the thing she keeps saying clearly about her Iraq vote. She says it was a wise decision to put the war powers in the hands of one individual, but that one individual just used it badly. She said, were she President, gving her war powers would have been a good decision. There's a reason why the President is checked by Congress. She seems to think that's only for people like Bush. It's Bush-ite thinking.

Well, it was a tough call and I will be thrilled with either Clinton or Obama getting the nomination.

Nonetheless, I had to choose. I was persuaded in part by arguments made in this thread. I was also impressed by the breadth of support for Obama. (I mean from Neo Art to Llewdor to Corneliu to Daistallia to Lunatic Goofballs to Free Soviets to ..... Whew!!)

Anyway, I voted for Obama.

Good. Obama's the better choice, IMO. I just didn't want to mention that initially in case a crazy conservative's endorsement of Obama would make you more likely to be against him.

Besides, there were plenty of other folks making the same points I would have.

Yes. That's among my favorites points about him. He's Pepsi, so to speak. The choice of a new generation. A bit sweeter, but doesn't go as well with Rum as old Coke.
As an appalling aside, you know Pepsi doesn't work as a mixer the first time you try mixing it with Crown Royal (Rye and Coke does not work with Pepsi).

Good. Obama's the better choice, IMO. I just didn't want to mention that initially in case a crazy conservative's endorsement of Obama would make you more likely to be against him.

Besides, there were plenty of other folks making the same points I would have.

It's overwhelming the effect of Obama, really. I've seen so many conservatives endorse him despite his stance on typically devisive issues. The cynical part of me wants to think this is an attempt to get a weak candidate up there to lose. Lots of conservatives wanted to see Kerry be the candidate.

However, really, I think we're seeing why he's so popular in my home state. If he get the delegacy, and I hope he does, it's going to be interesting to see how the election goes. Given how overwhelmingly better he is at campaigning than McCain and how many people dislike McCain despite being Republican, I'll really be interested in seeing the next few months of those two are the delegates. If Obama can really transcend the way he seems to, perhaps this will again be the country I used to be so proud of.

Given how overwhelmingly better he is at campaigning than McCain and how many people dislike McCain despite being Republican, I'll really be interested in seeing the next few months of those two are the delegates.
McCain alienates Republicans mostly, I think, through his opposition of things like small government and free speech.

From the Republican point of view, the nanny state has generally been the domain of the Democrats, but McCain looks like a staunch supporter.

And, since the Democrats haven't really supported the nanny state since Walter Mondale, they all look better to the Republicans than McCain does (hence the Ann Coulter endorsement of Hillary).

David Frum's new book (Comeback) gives a lot of credit to the Democrats for doing a far better job in recent years of identifying what's wrong with the country.

If Obama can really transcend the way he seems to, perhaps this will again be the country I used to be so proud of.

That's very much what I'm hoping for too.

Wow, we agree on something. If you need me, I'll be hiding under my desk.
It's the wonderous power of Obama. He brings people together.
I tend to like Pepsi better by itself
And here our agreement ends. It was fun while it lasted.

As an appalling aside, you know Pepsi doesn't work as a mixer the first time you try mixing it with Crown Royal (Rye and Coke does not work with Pepsi).

I wasn't kidding. There is a huge difference. It's too sweet. I tend to like Pepsi better by itself, but not with alcohol. /threadjack

Wow, we agree on something. If you need me, I'll be hiding under my desk.

Only Saint Obama can save our economy, our nation, our people, and our souls.




















Sorry, couldn't resist.

That's very much what I'm hoping for too.

Setting aside the spamming of these topics with logical fallacies by the new Eut, I really don't know for sure if he'll actually be successful, but I've seen what he can and did do in my home state. My entire family fights bitterly over Bush and Bill Clinton and Hillary and various others, but universally supports Obama. He's been very good for our state and it's been interesting how effective his politics have been. I'll admit I didn't think it would translate so well and so soon to the national stage, but it seems to be very effective there as well. It's quite exciting, particularly after the national scene has been so generally disappointing for more than a decade.

Only Saint Obama can save our economy, our nation, our people, and our souls.

It really is a shame you don't have more faith in your ability to approach an argument reasonably. Logical fallacies aren't going to convince or even amuse anyone here.

And just out of pure curiosity, why lump Nicaragua in there?
That was an accident - an edit left half finished.

Hmmm? What's "beirut"? Never heard of it?

It's a drinking game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_pong), sometimes called beer pong (the name Beirut comes from the fact that you get "bombed" when you play, beer pong from the use of ping pong balls). If I sunk an even number of cups, Hillary. Odd number of cups would have been Obama.

It really is a shame you don't have more faith in your ability to approach an argument reasonably. Logical fallacies aren't going to convince or even amuse anyone here.

I don't know how he meant it, but the way I took it was "Let's not get too hasty."

And if that was his meaning, he has a point. Yes, Obama has a wonderful way of getting people together to follow him, but we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves and presume he can fix everything. That's not to say he'd be a bad leader--I certainly don't think so-- but on the same token let's not act as if he's the Messiah, which we're starting to.

And if that was his meaning, he has a point. Yes, Obama has a wonderful way of getting people together to follow him, but we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves and presume he can fix everything. That's not to say he'd be a bad leader--I certainly don't think so-- but on the same token let's not act as if he's the Messiah, which we're starting to.

Agreed. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I'm much more suspicious of a immaculate politician than one who is mildly soiled. With the one who has made a few mistakes, you know what they did wrong, it's in the open. With the flawless one, I get the feeling he or she is hiding something really big. Not always true, but it's my gut reaction.

Anyway, since Cat-Tribes has already voted, what's happening now? Need help with any other decisions, Mr. Tribes? (Paper or plastic? Coke or Pepsi? You name it, we'll opine on it.)

Whom should you vote for? Beats me. But Politico is a great newspaper.

But Politico is a great newspaper.
And, rolled up, it makes a great deterrent from fornication, both with a/some parter(s) and yourself.
...and sometimes, it's an encouragement.

I don't know how he meant it, but the way I took it was "Let's not get too hasty."

And if that was his meaning, he has a point. Yes, Obama has a wonderful way of getting people together to follow him, but we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves and presume he can fix everything. That's not to say he'd be a bad leader--I certainly don't think so-- but on the same token let's not act as if he's the Messiah, which we're starting to.

You obviously haven't been following all the threads where he's been jumping in with that sort of crap.

Meanwhile, I don't see anyone treating Obama as a Messiah around here (although I did see one guy at a rally who did). It's a shame that politics has gotten so bad that actually having a politician some of us feel we can support (instead of holding our noses and voting for the lesser evil) automatically comes across as holding him up as a Messianic figure.

You obviously haven't been following all the threads where he's been jumping in with that sort of crap.

Meanwhile, I don't see anyone treating Obama as a Messiah around here (although I did see one guy at a rally who did). It's a shame that politics has gotten so bad that actually having a politician some of us feel we can support (instead of holding our noses and voting for the lesser evil) automatically comes across as holding him up as a Messianic figure.
Well, considering that Bush's "base" seems to think he is (or was, or could have been) their messiah, maybe some people have come to believe that all American voters think the same way about their candidates. So that's another thing I can dismiss by blaming Bush (just like today's bad weather). ;)

I'm guessing you didn't vote Ron Paul, but I really wish you did.

Obama is a warmonger and a hypocrite. Thanks for speeding up the end of America.

I'm guessing you didn't vote Ron Paul, but I really wish you did.

Obama is a warmonger and a hypocrite. Thanks for speeding up the end of America.

Do you honestly believe that Ron Paul would be any better for the people of this country? Because that is what counts.

Do you honestly believe that Ron Paul would be any better for the people of this country? Because that is what counts.

Of course he is! Who needs money or individual rights?

Of course he is! Who needs money or individual rights?
You make it sound like Paul would get rid of those. He's the only one giving both of those back.

Do you honestly believe that Ron Paul would be any better for the people of this country? Because that is what counts.
Yes, I do.

Learn about Paul, and you'd easily see why. He talks about freedom, liberty, and peace. That's what America wants, what America needs, and what Ron Paul is offering.

You make it sound like Paul would get rid of those. He's the only one giving both of those back.

He would. He's tried. Multiple times.

In fact, taking away individual rights is so important to him that he tries it every year.

At least he only tried to bankrupt the majority of US citizens twice.

Yes, I do.

Learn about Paul, and you'd easily see why. He talks about freedom, liberty, and peace. That's what America wants, what America needs, and what Ron Paul is offering.

Bush talks about those things too. And, just like Paul, his record makes it clear that it's all talk.

Yes, I do.

Learn about Paul, and you'd easily see why. He talks about freedom, liberty, and peace. That's what America wants, what America needs, and what Ron Paul is offering.

You are wrong on all counts. The only powers that Ron Paul cares about restricting are the powers of the federal government. The state's can take away what ever rights they want. But god forbid the Feds do anything, especially anything helpful to people's lives (Social Security, regulation, welfare, medicaire, etc.).

As other poster's have shown, Paul actively supported bills that would basically give States free reign to violate the 14th Amendment, and oppress their citizens.

America may want those things, but Paul ain't offering.

The only powers that Ron Paul cares about restricting are the powers of the federal government.

...unless we're talking about the federal government making medical decisions for women. Then, he'll vote for it!

You know, I'm not going to bother arguing since no one on here seems to see outside of their own little liberal box.

I'm guessing you didn't vote Ron Paul, but I really wish you did.

Why vote for an idiot?

Obama is a warmonger and a hypocrite. Thanks for speeding up the end of America.

he is? Prove it.

You make it sound like Paul would get rid of those. He's the only one giving both of those back.

WOW!!! That maybe true but then again...when one looks at certain areas of the country...

You know, I'm not going to bother arguing since no one on here seems to see outside of their own little liberal box.

I'm not liberal :D

I'm guessing you didn't vote Ron Paul, but I really wish you did.

Obama is a warmonger and a hypocrite. Thanks for speeding up the end of America.

ron paul wasnt ON the democratic ballot.

Well last time I said pistachios...oh wait politocos, well I guess ots still cashews. Seriosly everyone I liked dropped out. Perhaps nuts make good leaders.

You know, I'm not going to bother arguing since no one on here seems to see outside of their own little liberal box.

So....reality is liberal?

So....reality is liberal?

More like: "I'm going to haul ass before I get metaphorically pounded into the ground like a tent peg. That way, I can call it a strategic retreat."

;) The world imploded a long time ago.

Pics or GTFO lol

Pics or GTFO lol

This oughtta do
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y79/Goomg/other/053513cc.jpg