NationStates Jolt Archive

Before we hammer either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton again, I'd like to remind everyone that both camps are working towards the same goal, and that goal is making sure that the next President of the United States isn't a Republican. We have different ideas of who the best person for the job is, but we all agree that the country cannot afford another four years of George W. Bush.

So let's put aside the intense, personal attacks that we have seen in the past couple days. Either Clinton will win or Obama will win. Either of them are vastly preferable to John McCain.

Hillary Clinton must be hammered. So must McCain. We've had enough warmongers in the White House.

Don't confuse conservatives who dislike Clinton with Obama supporters who are Democrats.

While both campaigns should be weary of too negative campaigning, I've noted this before, the kids are alright. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/30/opinion/pollpositions/main3769985.shtml)
It turns out that voters have handled the sniping and the charges among Democratic candidates pretty well - maybe even better than the candidates. This campaign is still exciting voters. And despite media coverage of a racial undercurrent - and the racial vote divide -- in last Saturday’s South Carolina Democratic primary, more than three in four voters there -- 77 percent - still said they would be satisfied if Hillary Clinton won their party’s nomination, while only a few percent more -- 83 percent -- said they would be satisfied if Barack Obama won.

I would caution that campaigns shouldn't be going around finding groups of voters that 'don't matter' like caucus voters, small state voters, red state voters, African American voters, etc. or campaigning to have their votes over-ridden.

Before we hammer either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton again, I'd like to remind everyone that both camps are working towards the same goal, and that goal is making sure that the next President of the United States isn't a Republican. We have different ideas of who the best person for the job is, but we all agree that the country cannot afford another four years of George W. Bush.

So let's put aside the intense, personal attacks that we have seen in the past couple days. Either Clinton will win or Obama will win. Either of them are vastly preferable to John McCain.

I need a bit more than 'Not a Republican'. Just because I won't vote for either Huckabee or McCain doesn't mean that I'm going to vote for Clinton or Obama either.

Before we hammer either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton again, I'd like to remind everyone that both camps are working towards the same goal, and that goal is making sure that the next President of the United States isn't a Republican. We have different ideas of who the best person for the job is, but we all agree that the country cannot afford another four years of George W. Bush.

So let's put aside the intense, personal attacks that we have seen in the past couple days. Either Clinton will win or Obama will win. Either of them are vastly preferable to John McCain.

Not quite... Obama isn't as partisaned as Clinton, and favors working with the republicans... which is partly why I, as a republican, voted for Obama with an easy conscience.

While I'm not always very sympathetic with the Republicans, I'm dubious about giving Congress and the White House to the same party. Part of the reason Bush was so damaging was because he had a Congress that thought they weren't allowed to vote down Bush budgets and so on. Clinton was kept in check by a Republican Congress, who unfortunately lingered on in the majority until well into the Bush administration.

Democrats have done some pretty damaging things to this country in the past (face it--both parties have). I'm not wild about the idea of handing either faction the proverbial keys to everything.

While I'm not always very sympathetic with the Republicans, I'm dubious about giving Congress and the White House to the same party. Part of the reason Bush was so damaging was because he had a Congress that thought they weren't allowed to vote down Bush budgets and so on. Clinton was kept in check by a Republican Congress, who unfortunately lingered on in the majority until well into the Bush administration.

Democrats have done some pretty damaging things to this country in the past (face it--both parties have). I'm not wild about the idea of handing either faction the proverbial keys to everything.

Despite the whining and gnashing of teeth about 'gridlock', some of our best years were with split congresses and/or opposing parties in the executive and legislative branches. *nod*

Not quite... Obama isn't as partisaned as Clinton, and favors working with the republicans... which is partly why I, as a republican, voted for Obama with an easy conscience.

Isn't as partisan? Pardon me, but for a man who claims to be the new force in politics, Barack Obama is deploying some old, familiar political tricks. Tricks such as donating to the campaigns of the superdelegates. Publicly, the Obama camp is turning up the heat on the superdelegates since they might eventually tip the campaign in Clinton's balance. Privately? He's donated to 47% percent of his superdelegates' campaign funds. Payoffs are the OLD style of politics, gentlemen.

Incidentally, if you're wondering, Clinton has also offered such incentives...but she's only offered them to 17% of her delegates, and her donations are only a quarter of those by Obama.

Shalrirorchia, did you know that the military-industrial complex (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embraces_n_68927.html) loves Hillary (http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/17339/), or that she is clamoring for war (http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_03_27/cover.html) with Iran? (http://www.antiwar.com/solomon/?articleid=10808)

Isn't as partisan? Pardon me, but for a man who claims to be the new force in politics, Barack Obama is deploying some old, familiar political tricks. Tricks such as donating to the campaigns of the superdelegates. Publicly, the Obama camp is turning up the heat on the superdelegates since they might eventually tip the campaign in Clinton's balance. Privately? He's donated to 47% percent of his superdelegates' campaign funds. Payoffs are the OLD style of politics, gentlemen.

Incidentally, if you're wondering, Clinton has also offered such incentives...but she's only offered them to 17% of her delegates, and her donations are only a quarter of those by Obama.
Do you have a source for this? It's not that I don't believe you, I just don't want to have to do the Google search to look up other peoples stuff. I've been burned a lot on that lately...

Shalrirorchia, did you know that the military-industrial complex (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embraces_n_68927.html) loves Hillary (http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/17339/), or that she is clamoring for war (http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_03_27/cover.html) with Iran? (http://www.antiwar.com/solomon/?articleid=10808)

The defense industry embraces -everyone- who is running for President. I am willing to hazard a guess, however, that they have or will put a lot more cash on McCain than either Clinton or Obama.

Furthermore, you persist in spreading this lie that Hillary is hellbent on attacking Iran. She has made no such decision. For you to compare her to the Bush Administration is a misrepresentation of her stances on policy. It's also a continuation of Barack Obama's greatest weakness. He HAS no policy. He gives us glittering generalities and little else.

Furthermore, you persist in spreading this lie that Hillary is hellbent on attacking Iran.

You're the one who persists in keeping your head buried in the sand.

You're the one who persists in keeping your head buried in the sand.

Like Hell I do! I'm not the one who's so wrapped up in the mystique of Barack Obama that I can't see the problems with his candidacy. I'm also not the one who is glazing over the fact that he's paying off his delegates in a degree that Clinton is not. I am also not swayed by his speeches, which are great and rich in theme but thin on substance.

Like Hell I do! I'm not the one who's so wrapped up in the mystique of Barack Obama that I can't see the problems with his candidacy. I'm also not the one who is glazing over the fact that he's paying off his delegates in a degree that Clinton is not. I am also not swayed by his speeches, which are great and rich in theme but thin on substance.

Read my posts more carefully. Just because I prefer Obama to Hillary does not mean I want him for President. I might like him more than the other candidates, but by no means do I like him.

The defense industry embraces -everyone- who is running for President.

That's funny. I didn't see them fawning over Paul or Kucinich.

Read my posts more carefully. Just because I prefer Obama to Hillary does not mean I want him for President. I might like him more than the other candidates, but by no means do I like him.

A lot of people dislike Hillary regardless of how well she may or may not perform. That doesn't make her any less qualified to hold the position.

That's funny. I didn't see them fawning over Paul or Kucinich.

Well, GE (a huge defense contractor :D) owns 80% of NBC. So I suppose that makes sense.

Like Hell I do! I'm not the one who's so wrapped up in the mystique of Barack Obama that I can't see the problems with his candidacy. I'm also not the one who is glazing over the fact that he's paying off his delegates in a degree that Clinton is not.
Still waiting for that link.

Also, one of the things that I've hated the most about the current administration is the 'not as bad as' standard. It's really in the top 3 things that pisses me off because it is a race to the bottom rather than a reach for the top, looking to how bad we can get away with instead of how good we can be.

I'm not defending Obama for contributing to the campaigns of superdelegates, but to slam him for it because she's 'not as bad' is not a compelling argument. Except maybe for a third party candidate.
I am also not swayed by his speeches, which are great and rich in theme but thin on substance.
Speeches aren't for that, they're for theme. They're to make points and rally crowds. Lectures are for detailing plans or outlining strategies. Please don't pretend that a campaign speech is a place for a lecture. Clinton and Obama both have plans available to everyone to read on their websites, as did Kerry when the Bush campaign pulled this empty nugget in 2004. She says he has no plans and then attacks his plans in the same speech (see:They're battle over largely similar health care plans). Stop, it makes us all stupider.

Before we hammer either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton again, I'd like to remind everyone that both camps are working towards the same goal, and that goal is making sure that the next President of the United States isn't a Republican.Firstly, Obama's campaign thesis isn't "Not a Republican", it's "change in the way politics is done". Secondly, why would I care what party a president is? I'm a Democrat, but there are Republicans I would prefer to have running the show than certain Democrats.
We have different ideas of who the best person for the job is, but we all agree that the country cannot afford another four years of George W. Bush.Bush isn't running.
So let's put aside the intense, personal attacks that we have seen in the past couple days. Either Clinton will win or Obama will win. Either of them are vastly preferable to John McCain.I don't consider Clinton to be "vastly" preferrable to John McCain. There are too many important issues where they are identical, and a few where McCain might be better.

Isn't as partisan? Pardon me, but for a man who claims to be the new force in politics, Barack Obama is deploying some old, familiar political tricks. Tricks such as donating to the campaigns of the superdelegates. Publicly, the Obama camp is turning up the heat on the superdelegates since they might eventually tip the campaign in Clinton's balance. Privately? He's donated to 47% percent of his superdelegates' campaign funds. Payoffs are the OLD style of politics, gentlemen.

Incidentally, if you're wondering, Clinton has also offered such incentives...but she's only offered them to 17% of her delegates, and her donations are only a quarter of those by Obama.Consider that the superdelegates we're talking about are fellow democrat office-holder. So Obama's PAC (Hopefund) is more active in trying to get Democrats into office than Hillary's (Hillpac). Obama also does a lot more campaigning for his fellow democrats than Hillary does. It just means he's more involved with trying to get progressive politicians into office. Also, I think most of these donations were made BEFORE he ran for president, and most of Obama's superdelegate endorsements didn't come right away, whereas Hillary's superdelegates are mostly people who thought her nomination would be inevitable, so they thought they would demonstrate some loyalty, which Clinton is known to reward with political favors.


The defense industry embraces -everyone- who is running for President. I am willing to hazard a guess, however, that they have or will put a lot more cash on McCain than either Clinton or Obama.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.asp?sec=D

I couldn't find PAC data, bu Obama's policy is to not take PAC money, so it's not relevant.

Furthermore, you persist in spreading this lie that Hillary is hellbent on attacking Iran. She has made no such decision.How the heck would you or anybody know what she's decided? All we have to go on is her voting record and prior speeches, which have been very hawkish, toward Iraq and Iran.

For you to compare her to the Bush Administration is a misrepresentation of her stances on policy.The bigest parallel isn't a matter of policy, but a matter of transparency and accountability.

It's also a continuation of Barack Obama's greatest weakness. He HAS no policy. He gives us glittering generalities and little else.You don't know what you're talking about. Go to Barackobama.com and read the categories under the "Issues" tab. His policies are far more detailed than Clintons, and he's given detailed speeches on almost all of them.

Like Hell I do! I'm not the one who's so wrapped up in the mystique of Barack Obama that I can't see the problems with his candidacy. I'm also not the one who is glazing over the fact that he's paying off his delegates in a degree that Clinton is not.Nor have you provided a source for your accusations.

I am also not swayed by his speeches, which are great and rich in theme but thin on substance.That his speeches lack "substance" is a myth that anybody who actually listens to them knows as such. "Theme" is important. Theme tells us why a person is running for president, and what they wish to communicate. Clinton's speeches are devoid of theme, except the theme that she has "substance" for spouting watered-down, politically safe talking points, and "experience" for being First Lady and a non-notable Senator.

Like Hell I do! I'm not the one who's so wrapped up in the mystique of Barack Obama that I can't see the problems with his candidacy. I'm also not the one who is glazing over the fact that he's paying off his delegates in a degree that Clinton is not.

Instead, it seems to me that you're wrapped up in Clinton's own 'mystique'. Provide some proof that she's the best for the job. Clinton has far less political experience (being the First Lady does not count as such), has a clear Hawk stance when it comes to Iran, and has spent the majority of her campaign attacking Obama's platform. The 'lesser of two evils' speech only works if you have proof that Clinton's any better. So far, I haven't seen any of that. It seems to me you're using one of Clinton's key tactics: You lack any cogent arguments, so you get frantic and lash out at any weakness you can find, hoping it will distract people from your own lacking.

I'm really tired of hearing your emotionally-charged ranting, as it's always the same thing. Obama's the devil, Clinton's the only one who can get anything done. Get your head out of the sand. Or out of Hillary's buttcrack. Whichever it is.

Setting aside for a moment that you're slagging Obama in a thread you made to compel Democrats to not hammer the candidates...
I'm also not the one who is glazing over the fact that he's paying off his delegates in a degree that Clinton is not.
You proved a link in the other thread about this 'buying delegates' thing but since this is your thread I'd thought I'd contain my answers here in the interest of keeping down US Presidential Race Forum pollution...

So I followed the links to read the source (http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=336) for both the CNN and Boston article and it turned up some interesting things, none of which necessarily gets any candidate off the hook.

"Only the limits of human creativity could restrict the ways in which Obama and Clinton will try to be helpful to superdelegates," said Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia. "My guess is that if the nomination actually depends on superdelegates, the unwritten rule may be, 'ask and ye shall receive.' "

This is essentially the problem with superdelegates and the reason the system led to distrust and the transfer to pledged delegates in 1968. Superdelegates failed their first test in 1984 and if the nomination is power brokered I think it will fail that test again.

But the way the system is set up at this point, no candidate can afford not to play this game and hope to win. As I stated before, it's ridiculous to claim the moral high ground by being 'not as bad.' If we haven't learned that from the current administration then what good has her experience been?

"I think Democrats, both regular delegates and superdelegates, see this year as an opportunity to really take back the White House," he said, "and I don't think there's that short-term political concern that money will play that kind of role. It's a much bigger picture at this point."
One would hope.

Yet the Center for Responsive Politics has found that campaign contributions have been a generally reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take. In cases where superdelegates had received contributions from both Clinton and Obama, seven out of eight elected officials who received more money from Clinton have committed to her. The one exception: Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, whose endorsement of Obama was highly publicized, received more from Clinton than from the Illinois senator--$10,000 compared to $4,200. Thirty-four of the 43 superdelegates who received more money from Obama, or 79 percent, are backing him. In every case the Center found in which superdelegates received money from one candidate but not the other, the superdelegate is backing the candidate who gave them money.
Bolding theirs.
That's interesting-there's a bit of a bidding war there.

Also, there's this-
Four superdelegates who have already pledged received the same amount of contributions from both Clinton and Obama—and all committed to Clinton.
It seems that Obama is giving money to superdelegates regardless of whether they are voting for him or not. Who knows why this is happening, there are both cynical and noble spins that could be applied, and I suspect that it's somewhere in between.

Also left out of the discussion-
The money that Clinton and Obama have contributed to the superdelegates who may now determine their fate has come from three sources: the candidates' campaign accounts for president and, before that, Senate, and from their leadership PACs. These PACs exist precisely to support other politicians in their elections—and, thus, to make friends and collect chits. Leadership PACs are supposed to go dormant after a presidential candidate officially enters the race.
Bolding mine. So, they're doing what they were supposed to do...this seems a problem inherent in the system rather than anything one candidate can claim a highground over the other with.

Something else to consider-
Another senator running for office in 2006, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, collected $10,000 from both Clinton and Obama. As a superdelegate, Whitehouse is backing Clinton for the White House. "His decision was based on his relationship with the Clintons. President Clinton nominated him to be United States attorney in 1994, in Rhode Island, and he believes Sen. Clinton is the strongest candidate," said spokeswoman Alex Swartsel, adding that money wasn't a factor in Whitehouse's decision. "We were a top targeted Senate race in 2006 and we received a number of contributions, including those from Clinton and Obama."
Bolding again mine. Both Clinton and Obama have the ability to raise more money than most senators and it's in the best interest of their party that they share some of that love. That it's done in such an influence peddling way is disturbing, but speaks more against the system than the players, especially if both players are participating.
Final note-
Though it might seem undemocratic to allow elected officials who have received money from the candidates to have such power in picking their party's nominee, the process was not meant to be democratic, Arizona State's Herrera said. "If anything, it was meant to take it out of the democratic process. In 1982 [the party] said they needed to have some professionals making decisions here to blunt the potential effects of what they perceived as amateur delegates making decisions—those who vote with their heart and not their head."
I think in 2008 is when they're going to have to temper that, especially if it seems they've exercised that power to ignore the constituency they hope to vote for them in the fall.

Before we hammer either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton again, I'd like to remind everyone that both camps are working towards the same goal, and that goal is making sure that the next President of the United States isn't a Republican.

Well, it appears we are not working towrards the same goal, as my goal is to see a real change in the white house for the first time since the end of the cold war.

We have different ideas of who the best person for the job is, but we all agree that the country cannot afford another four years of George W. Bush.

So let's put aside the intense, personal attacks that we have seen in the past couple days. Either Clinton will win or Obama will win. Either of them are vastly preferable to John McCain.

I will not vote for Clinton. Period. Hands down. No ifs, ands, or buts. End of story.

McCain is vastly preferable. If she gets the nomination, I will be voting for him. I know a number of others who are planning to do exactly the same thing.

Let's also keep in mind that only one candidate's campaign has called for the superdelegates to vote for whomever the pledged delegate winner ends up being, so Obama can't be accused of buying off superdelegates if he is asking them to not necessarily vote for him.

Let's also keep in mind that only one candidate's campaign has called for the superdelegates to vote for whomever the pledged delegate winner ends up being, so Obama can't be accused of buying off superdelegates if he is asking them to not necessarily vote for him.

An important distinction to be sure.

Before we hammer either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton again, I'd like to remind everyone that both camps are working towards the same goal, and that goal is making sure that the next President of the United States isn't a Republican. We have different ideas of who the best person for the job is, but we all agree that the country cannot afford another four years of George W. Bush.


Right, 'cause we're all good little Democrats here, eh? :p

Thanks, but no thanks on the "leave Hillary/Barack alone" suggestion. ;)

On the subject of superdelegates, I ran across this (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/hillary_clinton_campaign_defen.html) when I was looking into this Ickes cat...
Hillary Clinton political adviser Harold Ickes today launched a spirited defense of the ability of top party superdelegates to determine the outcome of the Democratic presidential nomination, contending they’re “more in touch” with voters and issues than delegates recruited by and pledged to a candidate.

Lets look at that last line again:
contending they’re “more in touch” with voters and issues than delegates recruited by and pledged to a candidate.
What the hell? Pledged delegates are assigned proportionately by voters and their votes are determined by the voters. While the delegates themselves are recruited by the candidates, their votes are determined directly by the voters. How much more in touch does he want?

But Ickes went so far as to say that any delegate attending the Democratic National Convention in Denver in late summer—regardless of whether they’re pledged to support a candidate--should look at who would be the best to challenge the Republican ticket led by its presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

“These are not easy judgments to make and reasonable people can disagree, but at bottom, as I told a group of our members of Congress who are supporting Hillary early in the week, our obligation as a delegate, whether you are an automatic delegate, whether you’re a member of Congress, a member of the DNC, or elected from the districts…is to try to decide who will make a good president and hopefully a great president. But very importantly, who will fare the best and carry the ticket in November?”
So not only should superdelegates go against the voters that they are supposed to be more in touch with, but even pledged delegates should think about going against the candidate the voters selected for them. Add to that this:
ckes said he agreed that Obama has “done well” in caucus states versus primary states, but belittled Obama victories in states like Idaho, Nebraska and Kansas, questioning whether the likelihood they would end up on the Democratic column in the fall.
"Who cares what you think, red states...' Because there's never been something like a 49 state sweep before. Well, there have been two landslides in my life time, but shhhhh...nothing changes...

Those two statements, that pledged delegates should vote differently than the voters have chosen and that states like Idaho, Nebraska, and Kansas don't really matter, make the following comically ridiculous-
Ickes also tried to make the case for delegations in Michigan and Florida to count for Clinton, despite party rules that penalized both states for advancing their primary contests ahead of Feb. 5. Clinton was on the ballot in and won both states but no delegates and the campaign maintains those states’ Democratic voters are being disenfranchised. Obama was not on Michigan’s ballot and did not campaign in either state, though Clinton maintains his campaign violated advertising rules by airing a national cable ad.
Oh, these states matter. How are you supposed to build a coalition, to rally support, if you go around drawing lines around who matters and who doesn't?

His defense of Clinton wanting this?

“People say, ‘Well, they broke the rules,’” Ickes said of the two states. “Hillary’s not a member of the Democratic National Committee. She didn’t vote on those rules.”
I didn't vote on the marijuana rule. I'm using that as my out if someone tries to bust me. (better yet, I did, I voted for legalization...so there)

But she did in fact endorse the decision, back in fucking September when it was made. I've sourced that a few times, but if I have to I'll go dig it back up again.

But then there's Ickes himself-
ckes, who voted for those rules, now says that “as you look down the road, you have to temper (the penalties) with political considerations.”

But as Obama’s campaign notes, Ickes voted for the rules to penalize the two states in August, as a member of the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee.
Good lord, after reading something like that you kinda have to take a shower.

He's got more-
The contest, he said, was “wire tight” and that “the only thing we know is that nothing can be predicted in either campaign.”
Of course, he also said that Clinton will have this wrapped up by June (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/16/clinton-adviser-the-race-will-be-over-in-june/)...

“At or about, certainly shortly after, the seventh of June, Hillary’s going to nail down this nomination. She’s going to have a majority of the delegates,” Harold Ickes said, thanks to a combination of pledged delegates awarded through primary and caucus votes, and superdelegates – Democratic elected officials and party leaders who are free to choose any candidate they wish. Ickes is himself a superdelegate.

Now, what was that someone was saying about the high ground regarding delegates and superdelegates?
“At or about, certainly shortly after, the seventh of June, Hillary’s going to nail down this nomination. She’s going to have a majority of the delegates,” Harold Ickes said, thanks to a combination of pledged delegates awarded through primary and caucus votes, and superdelegates – Democratic elected officials and party leaders who are free to choose any candidate they wish. Ickes is himself a superdelegate.

The WHOLE fucking world laughs when America puts a FUCKING democrat in office, They think we're a joke.


I hope like hell that neither Hilary or Obama get in, because the first thing they'll both do is take away Americas freedom.

John Mcain for president.

Before we hammer either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton again, I'd like to remind everyone that both camps are working towards the same goal, and that goal is making sure that the next President of the United States isn't a Republican. We have different ideas of who the best person for the job is, but we all agree that the country cannot afford another four years of George W. Bush.

So let's put aside the intense, personal attacks that we have seen in the past couple days. Either Clinton will win or Obama will win. Either of them are vastly preferable to John McCain.

Hillary and McCain must be hammered. No mercy for socialists. Or socialists in sheep's clothing.

Wait wait wait, back up.

*rewind*

Arn't we supposed to vote for the people that we think will lead the country the best? The people that we agree with?

Oh wait. Silly me, this is NSG. We only vote for "Democrats". Fuck people, vote for the party! The party can do no wrong! The Party will nominate the best person. And, like good little soldiers, we go and vote for what the Party tells us to. Rite guyz?

I curse anyone who would think a candidate is superior due to their party affiliation. Voting Party before Person is a recipe for bad government and, taken to it's conclusion, Tyranny.


Oh, and on a personal note, if Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, I will be voting for John McCain.

This is something that American politics has over ours: the leader can be judged (potentially) without party bias. Here, its all about party rather than person. In theory, not so much, but in practise, party is all. We don't even get to directly elect our leaders :(

Corrupt, authoritarian warmonger? No thank you to billary.

The WHOLE fucking world laughs when America puts a FUCKING democrat in office, They think we're a joke.


I hope like hell that neither Hilary or Obama get in, because the first thing they'll both do is take away Americas freedom.

John Mcain for president.

Actually, the past two elections were kind enough to poll our European allies about who THEY wanted to see in the White House. It seems the Europeans prefer to work with a Democratic President as opposed to a Republican President.

Wait wait wait, back up.

*rewind*

Arn't we supposed to vote for the people that we think will lead the country the best? The people that we agree with?

Oh wait. Silly me, this is NSG. We only vote for "Democrats". Fuck people, vote for the party! The party can do no wrong! The Party will nominate the best person. And, like good little soldiers, we go and vote for what the Party tells us to. Rite guyz?

I curse anyone who would think a candidate is superior due to their party affiliation. Voting Party before Person is a recipe for bad government and, taken to it's conclusion, Tyranny.


Oh, and on a personal note, if Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, I will be voting for John McCain.
Hey! Don't put me in with a bunch of democrats! Besides, there's plety of third partiers here on NSG (Like myself) the problem is that there's not enough Conservatives. So it seems like theirs way too many Democrats, but I think a lot of people are just fed up with the Republican party.

Hey! Don't put me in with a bunch of democrats! Besides, there's plety of third partiers here on NSG (Like myself) the problem is that there's not enough Conservatives. So it seems like theirs way too many Democrats, but I think a lot of people are just fed up with the Republican party.

There was a time before 2000 when I was willing to vote for a Republican. Not any Republican, mind you. But the right one.

The way in which the G.O.P. exploited the Monica Lewinisky scandal for personal gain began to turn me against them. Bill screwed up, true. But it was a private matter, and should have been handled within the family...not blown up on news coverage for a year where it hurt people other than Bill Clinton.

Then Bush's heavy-handed, illegitimate win in 2000 and his brand of politics finished the job that had already begun. By 2001 I held a negative view of the Party as a whole. My entrenchment on the Democratic side has only intensified since then, as I do not feel the Republicans have anything to offer me....they stand almost completely against my values.

Before we hammer either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton again, I'd like to remind everyone that both camps are working towards the same goal, and that goal is making sure that the next President of the United States isn't a Republican.

Is it? I thought that both camps were working towards someone in particular being the next president of the United States.

Personally, I don't think the letter next to a candidate's name is the most important thing. The most important thing is getting the best person for the job in office, no matter what their party affiliation may be.

We have different ideas of who the best person for the job is, but we all agree that the country cannot afford another four years of George W. Bush.

Indeed. Thank God he can't run again.

So let's put aside the intense, personal attacks that we have seen in the past couple days.

What are these major personal attacks that Clinton supporters constantly complain about? Attacking policy is not the same as attacking the person.

Either Clinton will win or Obama will win. Either of them are vastly preferable to John McCain.

Are they both? I'm not so sure.

The defense industry embraces -everyone- who is running for President. I am willing to hazard a guess, however, that they have or will put a lot more cash on McCain than either Clinton or Obama.

You would be wrong.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.asp?sec=D

Furthermore, you persist in spreading this lie that Hillary is hellbent on attacking Iran. She has made no such decision.

It's really hard to say when she's made it clear that she doesn't think presidents or presidential candidates should talk about such things.

For you to compare her to the Bush Administration is a misrepresentation of her stances on policy.

Not really. They're actually pretty close. She has supported vast increases of power to the executive branch. Her claim is just that Bush wasn't the person to wield that power.

It's also a continuation of Barack Obama's greatest weakness. He HAS no policy. He gives us glittering generalities and little else.

Ah, another person who hasn't bothered to lift a finger to do any research on this.

While I'm not always very sympathetic with the Republicans, I'm dubious about giving Congress and the White House to the same party. Part of the reason Bush was so damaging was because he had a Congress that thought they weren't allowed to vote down Bush budgets and so on. Clinton was kept in check by a Republican Congress, who unfortunately lingered on in the majority until well into the Bush administration.

Democrats have done some pretty damaging things to this country in the past (face it--both parties have). I'm not wild about the idea of handing either faction the proverbial keys to everything.

The best politician is one who cannot do much of anything. When Obama or Hillary wins I only hope the Republicans take Congress.

Hillary Clinton must be hammered. So must McCain. We've had enough warmongers in the White House.

This.


If we dont hammer her people might be misled into believing she does bring change.


And people might be mislead to believe McRambo is moderate.

Why are people so obsessed with party politics that it becomes a priority to make sure that the next President is from their party, regardless of the relative merits of each party?

I'm an independent McCain supporter. I'd be equally comfortable under either a Democratic or Republican administration.

Before we hammer either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton again, I'd like to remind everyone that both camps are working towards the same goal, and that goal is making sure that the next President of the United States isn't a Republican.

I can assure you that the next President of the U.S. won't be a Republican, even if McCain wins. :(

I can assure you that the next President of the U.S. won't be a Republican, even if McCain wins. :(

The funny thing is you hate McCain for all the wrong reasons. :p

I can assure you that the next President of the U.S. won't be a Republican, even if McCain wins. :(

:confused:

:confused:

I concur...

I concur...

Glad I'm not the only one who's confused.

I don't consider Clinton to be "vastly" preferrable to John McCain. There are too many important issues where they are identical, and a few where McCain might be better.


Well, it appears we are not working towrards the same goal, as my goal is to see a real change in the white house for the first time since the end of the cold war.

I will not vote for Clinton. Period. Hands down. No ifs, ands, or buts. End of story.

McCain is vastly preferable. If she gets the nomination, I will be voting for him. I know a number of others who are planning to do exactly the same thing.

While I'm convince Obama is a better choice than Clinton, the McCain over Clinton sentiment baffles me.

Clinton and Obama are nigh identical on the issues and both offer a very stark contrast to McCain.

McCain is extremely conservative and hardly represents major change in the White House.

While I'm convince Obama is a better choice than Clinton, the McCain over Clinton sentiment baffles me.

Clinton and Obama are nigh identical on the issues and both offer a very stark contrast to McCain.

McCain is extremely conservative and hardly represents major change in the White House.

mccain has, imo, ONE selling point.

as a republican he would be a brake on the tendency for the congress to pass unwise, too-costly legislation that a democratic president would tend to let through.

its not enough of a selling point for me, but it IS a selling point.

Regarding Clinton v McCain: if I have to vote for a hawk, my inclination is to vote for the one who hawks better.

On the Iraq issue, Clinton toed the "just wait" Bush line at first, and now toes the "withdraw" party line without offering a timetable. Our politicians did that with Vietnam, and my understanding is that that waffling is what resulted in us dicking around in there for so long while not making any real gains.

McCain on the other hand has consistently and accurately acknowledged that a stronger occupying force using counter-insurgency tactics is necessary to a successful military occupation. My problem with this is that it may not be economically or politically sustainable.


On campaign finance / ethics reform, McCain clearly beats Clinton. On other issues, it's hard to tell, largely because it's so hard to pin down Clinton's true values. She often votes pro-censorship, and I think has been less critical of the administration than McCain on torture issues.

The next president is going to have to deal mostly with practical, pragmatic issues - I think it's a given that most election promises being made won't come to fruition, so at the end of the day, we have to try to assess which candidate has the best practical understanding of reality, and the consequences of their decisions. I'm not saying that McCain would be better than Clinton, but to me, Barack Obama is the only candidate who has demonstrated a consistent understanding of the way the nation and world work economically and politically.

Fair enough. We disagree, but its a fair disagreement. But could you justify the bolded part of what you said. I know that is common knowledge on NSG, but I don't believe it is true.

While I'm convince Obama is a better choice than Clinton, the McCain over Clinton sentiment baffles me.

Clinton and Obama are nigh identical on the issues and both offer a very stark contrast to McCain.

McCain is extremely conservative and hardly represents major change in the White House.

Regarding Clinton v McCain: if I have to vote for a hawk, my inclination is to vote for the one who hawks better.

On the Iraq issue, Clinton toed the "just wait" Bush line at first, and now toes the "withdraw" party line without offering a timetable. Our politicians did that with Vietnam, and my understanding is that that waffling is what resulted in us dicking around in there for so long while not making any real gains.

McCain on the other hand has consistently and accurately acknowledged that a stronger occupying force using counter-insurgency tactics is necessary to a successful military occupation. My problem with this is that it may not be economically or politically sustainable.


On campaign finance / ethics reform, McCain clearly beats Clinton. On other issues, it's hard to tell, largely because it's so hard to pin down Clinton's true values. She often votes pro-censorship, and I think has been less critical of the administration than McCain on torture issues.

The next president is going to have to deal mostly with practical, pragmatic issues - I think it's a given that most election promises being made won't come to fruition, so at the end of the day, we have to try to assess which candidate has the best practical understanding of reality, and the consequences of their decisions. I'm not saying that McCain would be better than Clinton, but to me, Barack Obama is the only candidate who has demonstrated a consistent understanding of the way the nation and world work economically and politically.

Fair enough. We disagree, but its a fair disagreement. But could you justify the bolded part of what you said. I know that is common knowledge on NSG, but I don't believe it is true.
I probably shouldn't have said "often" because I'm not sure that's true, but she sponsored an anti- flag burning law, and I think she's been active in the video games/movie censorship movement.

edit - plus, her blog and youtube comments are very strictly censored, so that's an indicator of her lax attitude toward speech IMO

Fair enough. We disagree, but its a fair disagreement. But could you justify the bolded part of what you said. I know that is common knowledge on NSG, but I don't believe it is true.

Here's (http://www.physorg.com/news5230.html) something on the video game thing, which is the main thing I've seen NSG people go on. I haven't heard of the flag burning thing. Ah (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2005/12/hillary_clinton_pandering_on_flag_burning/), this is just the first source I hit on the search. There were a lot of them. Didn't know about that. It doesn't please me.

Here's (http://www.physorg.com/news5230.html) something on the video game thing, which is the main thing I've seen NSG people go on. I haven't heard of the flag burning thing. Ah (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2005/12/hillary_clinton_pandering_on_flag_burning/), this is just the first source I hit on the search. There were a lot of them. Didn't know about that. It doesn't please me.

Nor me :headbang:

The WHOLE fucking world laughs when America puts a FUCKING democrat in office, They think we're a joke.


I hope like hell that neither Hilary or Obama get in, because the first thing they'll both do is take away Americas freedom.

John Mcain for president.



Really? You talked ot any forgeiners? They all laugh when we elect republicans. Especially Bush. Twice.


Your lack of understanding of how the world views us is amussing. Please continue.

they both suck........how would Hillary Clinton be the first woman president....Doesnt a women have a .........uh.... Anyway hillary doesnt have one of those "things:D

Before we hammer either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton again, I'd like to remind everyone that both camps are working towards the same goal, and that goal is making sure that the next President of the United States isn't a Republican. We have different ideas of who the best person for the job is, but we all agree that the country cannot afford another four years of George W. Bush.

So let's put aside the intense, personal attacks that we have seen in the past couple days. Either Clinton will win or Obama will win. Either of them are vastly preferable to John McCain.

McCain is not like Bush at all. And he would be far better than Clinton would. You have to give him credit: he wouldn't bungle a war.

While I'm convince Obama is a better choice than Clinton, the McCain over Clinton sentiment baffles me.

Clinton and Obama are nigh identical on the issues and both offer a very stark contrast to McCain.

McCain is extremely conservative and hardly represents major change in the White House.

Tongass covered a lot of this already.

Some points he didn't cover:
First off, it is a very bad sign for a democratic republic to develop a habit of electing the same families to office.
Secondly, McCain was my choice for 2000.

Nor me :headbang:



Nor I.

I probably shouldn't have said "often" because I'm not sure that's true, but she sponsored an anti- flag burning law, and I think she's been active in the video games/movie censorship movement.

edit - plus, her blog and youtube comments are very strictly censored, so that's an indicator of her lax attitude toward speech IMO

Here's (http://www.physorg.com/news5230.html) something on the video game thing, which is the main thing I've seen NSG people go on. I haven't heard of the flag burning thing. Ah (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2005/12/hillary_clinton_pandering_on_flag_burning/), this is just the first source I hit on the search. There were a lot of them. Didn't know about that. It doesn't please me.

Nor me :headbang:

Just to clarify the record, this flag-burning issue is an unfounded smear.

Senator Clinton opposed and has voted against attempts to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning (or any other flag "desecration.") link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/27/flag.burning/index.html), link (http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=3&aid=55396)

What Senator Clinton supported was a very different law that would be similar to the law against burning crosses in someone's front yard. It does not explicitly outlaw all flag burnings — just those intended to “intimidate any person or group of persons.”:

It will not be an easy vote, as evidenced by the carefully worded statement issued by New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer," she said, adopting a position similar to the one taken by her husband, former President Clinton, when he was in office.

Her aides said there is no contradiction in being against the flag-burning amendment and for a flag-burning law.

They say she believes a federal law would not trample First Amendment rights because, like laws against cross burnings, it would ban flag desecration that is deemed to pose a threat to others — and not acts of political expression that are protected by the First Amendment.


link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-23-dems-flag_x.htm?csp=34)

You will note that John McCain was among those that voted YES on the flag-burning amendment. So to hold this issue against Senator Clinton, when Senator McCain's position is worse, is unsupportable.

Obama voted FOR Clinton's proposal. link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP4543:); link (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00188)

J “intimidate any person or group of persons.”:

Which pretty much bans it for millions of americans for it does intimidate groups of people.

Which pretty much bans it for millions of americans for it does intimidate groups of people.

Way to be impervious to logic or evidence. :rolleyes:

1. Feel free to read the actual text of the bill. link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r109:1:./temp/~r109zT1tQ2::)

2. Do note that OBAMA VOTED FOR THIS BILL and McCain voted to support a constitutional amendment to which this bill was an alternative.

Way to be impervious to logic or evidence. :rolleyes:

I just played on what you stated.

Before we hammer either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton again, I'd like to remind everyone that both camps are working towards the same goal, and that goal is making sure that the next President of the United States isn't a Republican. We have different ideas of who the best person for the job is, but we all agree that the country cannot afford another four years of George W. Bush.

So let's put aside the intense, personal attacks that we have seen in the past couple days. Either Clinton will win or Obama will win. Either of them are vastly preferable to John McCain.

Not sure if you're aware, but George W. Bush isn't running for president again. In fact, he can't, cadidates are limited to two presidential terms.

FYI (since you clearly didn't know....)

Not sure if you're aware, but George W. Bush isn't running for president again. In fact, he can't, cadidates are limited to two presidential terms.

FYI (since you clearly didn't know....)

Lies and slander.

Before we hammer either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton again, I'd like to remind everyone that both camps are working towards the same goal, and that goal is making sure that the next President of the United States isn't a Republican.

So are the Republicans, if the turnout numbers are anything to go by.

So are the Republicans, if the turnout numbers are anything to go by.

Thats true.


It seems even the republicans are doing their patriotic duty and making sure a republican is not elected ;)

Before we hammer either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton again, I'd like to remind everyone that both camps are working towards the same goal, and that goal is making sure that the next President of the United States isn't a Republican. We have different ideas of who the best person for the job is, but we all agree that the country cannot afford another four years of George W. Bush.

So let's put aside the intense, personal attacks that we have seen in the past couple days. Either Clinton will win or Obama will win. Either of them are vastly preferable to John McCain.

Please explain to me how John McCain is the second coming of GWB. Other than his stance on the Iraq war, there are very few similarities. I'd like to hear your analysis of why he's such a bad choice. McCain supported a surge much greater than the one GWB employed and he was right. As a matter pof fact he was right from the start that we should have gone in with a force somewhere near 400,000. While I did not agree with the decisions to go to war I do agree with McCain in that the objective in war is to win decisively, quickly, and with as few losses as possible. I guess part of my feeling on this is due to being in the military. If you're going to go to battle you must prepare properly. This was the problem with GWB from the start. So, please explain to me how McCain is Bush. Thank You.

Before we hammer either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton again, I'd like to remind everyone that both camps are working towards the same goal, and that goal is making sure that the next President of the United States isn't a Republican. We have different ideas of who the best person for the job is, but we all agree that the country cannot afford another four years of George W. Bush.

So let's put aside the intense, personal attacks that we have seen in the past couple days. Either Clinton will win or Obama will win. Either of them are vastly preferable to John McCain.

Also, I do not hate Hillary personally. I do admit I think she is a phony and will do anything to get elected. That is my only personal problem with her. all of my other disagreements are based on policy.

Here is a great site regarding the issues and John McCain. As you can see he differs very much with GWB.

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm

Do you have a source for this? It's not that I don't believe you, I just don't want to have to do the Google search to look up other peoples stuff. I've been burned a lot on that lately...

She's actually right. I just looked it up but didn't link it because I didn't disagree. I'm sure I could get it up again if I cared enough. I don't btw :fluffle:

Sorry, wrong forum

I though perhaps there was some room for debate but I see this is the fall in line with Obama or be silenced thread

My bad

The defense industry embraces -everyone- who is running for President. I am willing to hazard a guess, however, that they have or will put a lot more cash on McCain than either Clinton or Obama.

Furthermore, you persist in spreading this lie that Hillary is hellbent on attacking Iran. She has made no such decision. For you to compare her to the Bush Administration is a misrepresentation of her stances on policy. It's also a continuation of Barack Obama's greatest weakness. He HAS no policy. He gives us glittering generalities and little else.

Wow, your words are straight from the talking points. "Glittering generalities!"

You think he has no policy because that's the line the Clinton campaign is employing. "Bwaaak, no policy. Bwaaak, Glittering generalities (spits out feathers)."

Barack on the issues including policy statements and voting record (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm). This is an independent site by the way.

Policy from his website (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/). The information is there but you just refuse to look for it.

Sorry, wrong forum

I though perhaps there was some room for debate but I see this is the fall in line with Obama or be silenced thread

My bad

Um ok...based on what? The fact that the record of Hillary Clinton and her attitude and the fact that she is doing all she can to win, including trying to get FL and MI delegates seated, is open to full scale attack?

I have not seen much from the Clinton supporters here bashing Obama.

Still waiting for that link.

Also, one of the things that I've hated the most about the current administration is the 'not as bad as' standard. It's really in the top 3 things that pisses me off because it is a race to the bottom rather than a reach for the top, looking to how bad we can get away with instead of how good we can be.

I'm not defending Obama for contributing to the campaigns of superdelegates, but to slam him for it because she's 'not as bad' is not a compelling argument. Except maybe for a third party candidate.

Speeches aren't for that, they're for theme. They're to make points and rally crowds. Lectures are for detailing plans or outlining strategies. Please don't pretend that a campaign speech is a place for a lecture. Clinton and Obama both have plans available to everyone to read on their websites, as did Kerry when the Bush campaign pulled this empty nugget in 2004. She says he has no plans and then attacks his plans in the same speech (see:They're battle over largely similar health care plans). Stop, it makes us all stupider.

Let's not forget all the money she gets from lobbyists. No one can deny that she takes huge contributions from them. Also, our girl sounds like this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080220/pl_nm/usa_politics_dc;_ylt=AjXrLXINZjFPZ8tlMHus79Os0NUE) yahoo news account. "Bwaack, generalities." Can you say talking points!?

Actually, the past two elections were kind enough to poll our European allies about who THEY wanted to see in the White House. It seems the Europeans prefer to work with a Democratic President as opposed to a Republican President.

Well that settles it. Europe wants a Democrat so what else can we do?

This.


If we dont hammer her people might be misled into believing she does bring change.


And people might be mislead to believe McRambo is moderate.

I'd like to make a request because I'm getting right pissed here. CAN WE STOP WITH ALL THE F*CKING LAME NAMES? YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH A POLITICIAN WITHOUT CALLING THEM BILLARY OR MCRAMBO! Now I'll go back to being my usual self and just have fun again. Whose with me on this?

Edit: This doesn't mean I hate you Knights, you are just the last one to do this.

She's actually right. I just looked it up but didn't link it because I didn't disagree. I'm sure I could get it up again if I cared enough. I don't btw :fluffle:

Oh man, that's pretty last week. I already looked it up and responded to it somewhere. I don't feel like finding out where. Short story is: Finding something she's "not as bad" at is Bush politics; made out to be more than it is (candidate PACs are created for the express purpose of contributing to party campaigns, many of the super delegates have received donations from both candidates, some received money quite some time ago, etc); was more of an indictment against the superdelegate system, etc.

So let's put aside the intense, personal attacks that we have seen in the past couple days. Either Clinton will win or Obama will win. Either of them are vastly preferable to John McCain.
And a conservative is preferable to all of those idiots.

Actually, the past two elections were kind enough to poll our European allies about who THEY wanted to see in the White House. It seems the Europeans prefer to work with a Democratic President as opposed to a Republican President. They're easier to suborn.

The Europeans were better, and better off, when they kicked out ther Chamberlains and replaced them with Churchills. Now that the luluboomers are invading, they could use another politician who points out the obvious a full decade before the "Peace in our time" folks catch on. Again.

Sorry, wrong forum

I though perhaps there was some room for debate but I see this is the fall in line with Obama or be silenced thread

My bad

If you wish to debate then do so. Otherwise you can cry a river about your lack of freedom of speech elsewhere. Bring substance to this discussion and maybe we can talk. If you haven't noticed there are a lot of people, myself included, who have been pushing for McCain as well. So we're not just plugging for Obama as we've made notes on McCain as well. As a matter of fact I have listed both McCain and Obama on the issues with their voting records. I'll even link Hillary here. (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm)

Here is a great site regarding the issues and John McCain. As you can see he differs very much with GWB.

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm

Where exactly are these vast differences between McCain and Bush of which you speak.

Also, I do not hate Hillary personally. I do admit I think she is a phony and will do anything to get elected. That is my only personal problem with her. all of my other disagreements are based on policy.

What policy disagreements do you have with Clinton that you agree with both Obama and McCain on? In other words, where is this area of agreement between Obama and McCain that is based on policy?

Where exactly are these vast differences between McCain and Bush of which you speak.



What policy disagreements do you have with Clinton that you agree with both Obama and McCain on? In other words, where is this area of agreement between Obama and McCain that is based on policy?

First I have to ask if you actually read my link. Anyone who can respond that quickly to my post doesn't seem like they actually read the link. Just be truthful about this. I am not running away right now, but I need to go to bed. 0530 on the wake up is early for me. I promise to come back tomorrow when I get my first chance to answer your questions. Good night all.

What Senator Clinton supported was a very different law that would be similar to the law against burning crosses in someone's front yard. It does not explicitly outlaw all flag burnings — just those intended to “intimidate any person or group of persons.”:That's fuzzy language, and it does more than that if you read the text of the bill. (Banning demonstrations under certain circumstances, 2 years in jail, etc.) It may not be blatantly unconstitutional, but it imposes ridiculously harsh penalties, and is generally a stupid bill.

Obama voted FOR Clinton's proposal.Well he probably shouldn't have done that then. I guess that makes my point on that issue moot.

In any case, it won't matter how any of us vote if Hillary has her say, because:

1) http://delegatehub.com/

2) Obama's PLEDGED delegates are now reported to be receiving phone calls from the Clinton campaign. Watch for the story to break soonish.

First I have to ask if you actually read my link. Anyone who can respond that quickly to my post doesn't seem like they actually read the link. Just be truthful about this. I am not running away right now, but I need to go to bed. 0530 on the wake up is early for me. I promise to come back tomorrow when I get my first chance to answer your questions. Good night all.

Yes, I read your link. I have read it before (and even linked to it myself). I also re-reviewed it and looked at GWB on the issues before responding to you.

ok, I'll answer very quickly from my site. But then I really need to hit my rack.

Bush vs. McCain

Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)
# “Family Conference” if daughter wanted an abortion. (Jan 2000)
# Abortion OK if raped; and no testing for rape. (Jan 2000)
# Supports fetal tissue research; against over-intensity. (Jan 2000)
# Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions. (Jan 2000)
Wants Roe vs. Wade made irrelevant, but would not repeal it. (Aug 1999)
# Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
# Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
# Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
# Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)
Inter-racial dating ban is idiotic and cruel. (Feb 2000)
Would be “comfortable” with a gay president. (Dec 1999)
Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
# We don’t need laws against Spanish language & culture. (Mar 1999)
# Affirmative action OK for specific programs, but no quotas. (Jul 1998)

That's it for tonight

Regarding Clinton v McCain: if I have to vote for a hawk, my inclination is to vote for the one who hawks better.

I'm curious: do those who claim Clinton is a hawk do so based on her voting for the war in Iraq, or has she participated in other hawkish behavior?

I'm curious: do those who claim Clinton is a hawk do so based on her voting for the war in Iraq, or has she participated in other hawkish behavior?

It's more than that.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) accused the Bush administration of playing down the threat of a nuclear Iran and called for swift action at the United Nations to impose sanctions on the Iranian government.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903220.html

You know she's a hawk when she wants to go to war with Iran more than Bush does.

It's more than that.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903220.html

You know she's a hawk when she wants to go to war with Iran more than Bush does.

This is bullshit.

Since when does urging UN Sanctions amount to wanting to go to war?

ok, I'll answer very quickly from my site. But then I really need to hit my rack.

Bush vs. McCain

Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)
# “Family Conference” if daughter wanted an abortion. (Jan 2000)
# Abortion OK if raped; and no testing for rape. (Jan 2000)
# Supports fetal tissue research; against over-intensity. (Jan 2000)
# Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions. (Jan 2000)
Wants Roe vs. Wade made irrelevant, but would not repeal it. (Aug 1999)
# Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
# Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
# Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
# Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)
Inter-racial dating ban is idiotic and cruel. (Feb 2000)
Would be “comfortable” with a gay president. (Dec 1999)
Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
# We don’t need laws against Spanish language & culture. (Mar 1999)
# Affirmative action OK for specific programs, but no quotas. (Jul 1998)

That's it for tonight

You are going to have to be more specific about where above McCain differs from Bush.

I get the difference on stem cell research, but otherwise McCain has adopted the Republican line on abortion.

Where exactly are these vast differences between McCain and Bush of which you speak.



What policy disagreements do you have with Clinton that you agree with both Obama and McCain on? In other words, where is this area of agreement between Obama and McCain that is based on policy?

I did the first part so here's where I disagree with Hillary.

Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)

Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004) Especially if the fetus is viable at the time of the crime.

# Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness. (Mar 2007)
# Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)

NAFTA and her support for this policy in support of her husband. She likes to run on his strengths but not his weaknesses.

Telling kids about gay couples is parental discretion. (Sep 2007) Allowing ignorance to remain through selective means is not good in working towards full equality for all people. Children should be introduced to alternative lifestyles making hate crimes and bias less prevalent in American society. If we deny equality to some we deny equality to all.

# 2004:defended traditional marriage; 2006:voted for same-sex. (May 2007)
# Federal Marriage Amendment would be terrible step backwards. (Oct 2006)
My problem is two fold here. 1. she was for it before she was against it. What made her change other then political opportunism? 2. The federal government, or all government for that matter, have no place in the marriage business. All relationships should be civil unions as that is what marriage is in the eyes of the law. Marriage to them is nothing more than a contract to be honored. Let religious institutions decide on who they would like to let marry, as marriage is a religious institution.

Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002) Crime is crime no matter who it is against. Making crime specific to sexual orientation, race, etc. is a step in the wrong direction. Punish people for the crimes they commit no matter who it is against.

FactCheck: Yes, Bush shrunk CPSC; but it shrank before Bush. (Dec 2007)

1976 Rose Law: Fought for industry against electric rate cut. (Jun 2007) She always talks about supporting the working class, but energy costs are a primary concern, especially to this group.

# Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
# Rated 35% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)

# Tap into churches to avoid more Louima & Diallo cases. (Mar 2000)
# Supports citizen patrols & 3-Strikes-You're-Out. (Sep 1996)
# Supports “Three Strikes” and more prison. (Aug 1994)

Reduce sentencing disparity for crack, but not retroactively. (Dec 2007)
My issue is with the retroactive portion of this, not the ultimate goal for today.

Establish right to education from pre-school thru college. (Jun 2007)
College should be made affordable for those who are qualified to go. Our culture seems to think everyone belongs in college and this is not true. Many students would benefit from trade schools rather than college. We need all sorts of people to make America work, not just college educated people.

Boycott violent media and products. (Aug 1999)
There are far more prevalent causes of violence. Notably: Family violence, violence in their community, substance abuse, etc. It should be the job of parents to monitor their children's video game and tv viewing. Hell, even cheap tv sets come with a v-chip at this point.

Change what kids see in the media. (Jun 1995)
As a libertarian I think personal choice trumps government regulation.

Defended outsourcing of US jobs to India. (Oct 2005)

$5M in New York state "pork barrel" bills thru 2004. (Oct 2006)

# Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
# Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
How does making a legal product make you culpable for a crime committed with your product. Are we going to allow lawsuits against Cutco knives? After all people do murder each other with knives.

# National security is more important than human rights. (Nov 2007)
# FactCheck: Yes, in 2006 cohttp://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=13469661
jolt.co.uk public forums - Reply to Topicndoned exceptions on torture. (Oct 2007)
# Torture cannot be American policy, period. (Sep 2007)

Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)

# Oppose granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. (Nov 2007)
# FactCheck: Denied saying licensing illegals "made sense". (Oct 2007)

Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)

Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)

# Biggest mistakes: mishandling healthcare; believing in WMDs. (Apr 2007)

Focuses on increasing relationship between US and Israel. (Oct 2000)
We have a bad relationship with Israel? That must be why Muslim extremists exist.

That does it for my disagreements with Hillary.

I did the first part so here's where I disagree with Hillary.
*snip*
That does it for my disagreements with Hillary.

Thanks, I'll try to get back to you on some of those details.

But you aren't answering my real question: Why would you support Obama and then vote for McCain over Clinton?

Just areas where you disagree with Clinton aren't enough to explain this if those are also areas where you disagree with Obama and/or McCain.

Where are the areas where you disagree with Clinton but agree with both McCain and Obama? In fact, where are these areas where Obama and McCain agree at all?

I wish I could draw a Ven diagram here to illustrate the issues for which I'm looking.

You are going to have to be more specific about where above McCain differs from Bush.

I get the difference on stem cell research, but otherwise McCain has adopted the Republican line on abortion.

Ok, line by line. There's more to the position than stem cells and abortion.

Bush vs. McCain

Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)
# “Family Conference” if daughter wanted an abortion. (Jan 2000)

That he'd leave it up to the family to decide on abortion is different from Bush

# Abortion OK if raped; and no testing for rape. (Jan 2000)

Bush believes in no abortion period. Further, McCain is pandering to the conservative base on the abortion issue. Look at his voting record as opposed to his current stump speeches. He's quite moderate.

# Supports fetal tissue research; against over-intensity. (Jan 2000)

# Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions. (Jan 2000)
Wants Roe vs. Wade made irrelevant, but would not repeal it. (Aug 1999)
Difference here as well.

# Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
# Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
# Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
# Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)
Inter-racial dating ban is idiotic and cruel. (Feb 2000)

Would be “comfortable” with a gay president. (Dec 1999)

Could you see Bush being comfortable with a gay President?

Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)

More fiscally responsible than Bush

# We don’t need laws against Spanish language & culture. (Mar 1999)

Bush pushed for an amendment to make English the official language.

# Affirmative action OK for specific programs, but no quotas. (Jul 1998)

Bush wants to see Affirmative action go away.

Thanks, I'll try to get back to you on some of those details.

But you aren't answering my real question: Why would you support Obama and then vote for McCain over Clinton?

Just areas where you disagree with Clinton aren't enough to explain this if those are also areas where you disagree with Obama and/or McCain.

Where are the areas where you disagree with Clinton but agree with both McCain and Obama? In fact, where are these areas where Obama and McCain agree at all?

I wish I could draw a Ven diagram here to illustrate the issues for which I'm looking.

Yes, a Venn diagram would be helpful.

I don't like Hillary and I think she's a big fake. Her personality, vernacular, and accent change based upon who she is talking to. Those are the reasons I don't like her personally. The other were all reasons I disagree with her.

When I have time I'll try to give you what you are asking for.

Ok, line by line. There's more to the position than stem cells and abortion.

I think you are overrelying on on-the-issues, but that is neither here nor there. Unless otherwise noted, my comments regarding Bush are quotes from George W. Bush on-the-issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/George_W__Bush.htm) and my comments regarding McCain are quotes from John McCain on-the-issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm).

I've re-organized some of your points. I sincerely hope I haven't mangled any of your thoughts in doing so.

Bush vs. McCain

Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)
Supports fetal tissue research; against over-intensity. (Jan 2000)

# Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)

Bush: #First president to fund embryonic stem cell research. (Oct 2004)

As I said, there is a difference here. But it isn't as big as you seem to imply.

# “Family Conference” if daughter wanted an abortion. (Jan 2000)

That he'd leave it up to the family to decide on abortion is different from Bush

# Abortion OK if raped; and no testing for rape. (Jan 2000)

Bush believes in no abortion period. Further, McCain is pandering to the conservative base on the abortion issue. Look at his voting record as opposed to his current stump speeches. He's quite moderate.

# Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)

# Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)


This is not accurate regarding either persons position. And I find the argument that we should somehow discount what McCain has said because he is just "pandering" to be illogical and offensive. Regardless, where are these moderate votes of which you speak?

Bush: #Supports GOP abortion plank but disagrees on exceptions. (Feb 2000)
#No tax money for abortion, but no Pro-Life Amendment either. (Sep 2000)
#Supreme Court is wrong: leave abortion to the states. (Jun 2000)

McCain: #He has subsequently said that he was speaking about the need to change the "culture of America", and supports the repeal of Roe vs Wade.
#I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that I support the rights of the unborn.
#If Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion outlawed, McCain said he believes doctors who performed abortions would be prosecuted
#McCain said he thought Roe v. Wade should be overturned and said he would support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in danger.
#Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record


# Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions. (Jan 2000)
Wants Roe vs. Wade made irrelevant, but would not repeal it. (Aug 1999)
Difference here as well.

Um. That is a difference between two statements made by McCain. As I noted above, he has made it quite clear that he would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Bush also believes in the incest & rape exceptions, so there is no real difference here.

Would be “comfortable” with a gay president. (Dec 1999)

Could you see Bush being comfortable with a gay President?

Bush: #Bush claims gay tolerance but record differs. (Oct 2000)
#Tolerance & equal rights, not gay marriage & special rights. (Oct 2000)

McCain: #Don't ask, don't tell is working; don't tamper with it
#Leave gay marriage to the states
#Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation.
#Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage.
#Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.

Do I think that if asked directly Bush would lie and say he is comfortable with gays? Yes, I do. Do I think that means anything substantive? No.

Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)

More fiscally responsible than Bush

It would be hard to be less fiscally responsible than Bush. But do you know what Bush's position was on this particular $40B?

# We don’t need laws against Spanish language & culture. (Mar 1999)

Bush pushed for an amendment to make English the official language.

Bush: #English-plus, not English-only. (Aug 1999)
#Bush firmly rejected “English-only,” which has caused problems among Hispanics. “I support English-plus, not English-only,” said Bush. “English-only says to me that if Hispanic happens to be your heritage, you’re not part of the process.” Source: Mike Glover, Associated Press Aug 6, 1999

# Affirmative action OK for specific programs, but no quotas. (Jul 1998)

Bush wants to see Affirmative action go away.

Re Bush:
#For affirmative action, but not quotas or preferences. (Apr 2000)
#Reach out to minorities, but without quotas. (Jun 1999)

McCain: #Rated 7% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance

My points above are not that you should like Bush -- heaven forbid -- but that the points on which you say McCain is unlike Bush aren't 100% accurate. McCain and Bush agree on the vast majority of issues and there differences are -- with a very few exceptions -- minor.

That's fuzzy language, and it does more than that if you read the text of the bill. (Banning demonstrations under certain circumstances, 2 years in jail, etc.) It may not be blatantly unconstitutional, but it imposes ridiculously harsh penalties, and is generally a stupid bill.

Well he probably shouldn't have done that then. I guess that makes my point on that issue moot.

I agree that the law was a bad idea, but it is moot because Obama voted for it and McCain wanted a constitutional amendment instead. So Obama is not better and McCain is worse.

In any case, it won't matter how any of us vote if Hillary has her say, because:

1) http://delegatehub.com/

2) Obama's PLEDGED delegates are now reported to be receiving phone calls from the Clinton campaign. Watch for the story to break soonish.

"OMG, Hillary's stealing the election!!!!" :rolleyes:

I did the first part so here's where I disagree with Hillary.

Unfortunately, on-the-Issues over summarizes and oversimplifies votes and positions. It also often fails to give similar information about all the candidates on a specific issue or vote, so it is difficult to judge whether this is logical to hold against a particular candidate.

Nonetheless, a lot of the places where you say you disagree with Senator Clinton, Senator Obama has taken the same position. It is not logical to hold it against her, but not him.

Similarly, on some of the issues where Obama and Clinton do disagree, McCain is on or beyond Clinton on the issue. So it makes little sense to support McCain over Clinton on the basis of these issues.

Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)

OBAMA VOTED THE SAME WAY.

Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004) Especially if the fetus is viable at the time of the crime.

We don't know how Obama would have voted on this issue, but I doubt his position is different. This may have been one of those occasions where he just didn't vote. Regardless, this is vast oversimplification of an issue that split largely along party lines.

# Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness. (Mar 2007)
# Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)

OBAMA VOTED THE SAME WAY.

NAFTA and her support for this policy in support of her husband. She likes to run on his strengths but not his weaknesses.

She has said NAFTA was good in principle, but badly implemented, and would change it drastically.

Telling kids about gay couples is parental discretion. (Sep 2007) Allowing ignorance to remain through selective means is not good in working towards full equality for all people. Children should be introduced to alternative lifestyles making hate crimes and bias less prevalent in American society. If we deny equality to some we deny equality to all.

What she said in full:


Q: Last year some parents of second graders in Lexington, Massachusetts, were outraged to learn their children's teacher had read a story about same-sex marriage, about a prince who marries another prince. Would you be comfortable having this story read to your children as part of their school curriculum?
A: With respect to your individual children, that is such a matter of parental discretion. I think that obviously it is better to try to work with your children, to help your children the many differences that are in the world and to really respect other people and the choices that other people make, and that goes far beyond sexual orientation. So I think that this issue of gays and lesbians and their rights will remain an important one in our country. Tomorrow we're going to vote on the hate crimes bill. We haven't been able to get it passed, and it is an important measure to send a message that we stand against hatred and divisiveness.


Clinton's overall position on gay rights is essentially the same as Obama's. Senator McCain, on the other hand, is anti-gay-rights.

# 2004:defended traditional marriage; 2006:voted for same-sex. (May 2007)
# Federal Marriage Amendment would be terrible step backwards. (Oct 2006)
My problem is two fold here. 1. she was for it before she was against it. What made her change other then political opportunism? 2. The federal government, or all government for that matter, have no place in the marriage business. All relationships should be civil unions as that is what marriage is in the eyes of the law. Marriage to them is nothing more than a contract to be honored. Let religious institutions decide on who they would like to let marry, as marriage is a religious institution.

1. Look up the details. This is not a fair characterization of her positions.

2. Obama and Clinton's position on this issue are nigh identical. McCain is anti-gay-marriage.

Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002) Crime is crime no matter who it is against. Making crime specific to sexual orientation, race, etc. is a step in the wrong direction. Punish people for the crimes they commit no matter who it is against.

Obama supports this. (We could get into a separate debate about the merits of hate crimes laws because I think you misunderstand them. They don't punish people based on who a crime was against, but rather on a difference in the crime committed)>

FactCheck: Yes, Bush shrunk CPSC; but it shrank before Bush. (Dec 2007)

WTF is your point here?

1976 Rose Law: Fought for industry against electric rate cut. (Jun 2007) She always talks about supporting the working class, but energy costs are a primary concern, especially to this group.

Meh. Do we hold every legal position that Obama ever took on behalf of a client against him? What about that Chicago slum-lord?

# Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)

Before Obama was in the Senate, but McCain voted the same way.

# Rated 35% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)

Are you objecting this rating is too low or too high?

No rating for Obama. McCain is rated 61%, also indicating a mixed business voting record.

# Tap into churches to avoid more Louima & Diallo cases. (Mar 2000)
# Supports citizen patrols & 3-Strikes-You're-Out. (Sep 1996)
# Supports “Three Strikes” and more prison. (Aug 1994)

Reduce sentencing disparity for crack, but not retroactively. (Dec 2007)
My issue is with the retroactive portion of this, not the ultimate goal for today.

Not sure what your point is here. Not sure how this differs from Obama and McCain.

Establish right to education from pre-school thru college. (Jun 2007)
College should be made affordable for those who are qualified to go. Our culture seems to think everyone belongs in college and this is not true. Many students would benefit from trade schools rather than college. We need all sorts of people to make America work, not just college educated people.

Obama has said something similar. You are reading too much into these little snippets.

Boycott violent media and products. (Aug 1999)
There are far more prevalent causes of violence. Notably: Family violence, violence in their community, substance abuse, etc. It should be the job of parents to monitor their children's video game and tv viewing. Hell, even cheap tv sets come with a v-chip at this point.

Not that I agree with Clinton here, but a boycott is significantly different than government action. A boycott is individuals taking action collectively to protest something. What she actually said is that parents should take action regarding their own kids:

There is an opportunity for more parents to act as consumers. Let people know you’re not going to buy products that support shows and things you do not believe in. Don’t buy those violent video games no matter how much your child begs.
Source: School safety discussion in Tonawanda NY Aug 5, 1999

McCain's position on this is very much in favor of government regulation of violate video games and media.

Change what kids see in the media. (Jun 1995)
As a libertarian I think personal choice trumps government regulation.

Nothing in the connected quote says anything about government regulation as opposed to a change in culture.

Defended outsourcing of US jobs to India. (Oct 2005)

Again, look at what On the issues actually quotes her as saying:

"Outsourcing will continue," Mrs. Clinton said in New Delhi. "There is no way to legislate against reality... We are not in favor of putting up fences." Hillary acknowledged the pressures to curb outsourcing: "I have to be frank," she said. "People in my country are losing their jobs, and the US policymakers need to address this issue."
Source: Condi vs. Hillary, by Dick Morris, p.165 Oct 11, 2005

$5M in New York state "pork barrel" bills thru 2004. (Oct 2006)

Meh. No similar figures are given for Obama and McCain.

# Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
# Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
How does making a legal product make you culpable for a crime committed with your product. Are we going to allow lawsuits against Cutco knives? After all people do murder each other with knives.

OBAMA VOTED THE SAME WAY.

# National security is more important than human rights. (Nov 2007)
# FactCheck: Yes, in 2006 cohttp://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=13469661
jolt.co.uk public forums - Reply to Topicndoned exceptions on torture. (Oct 2007)
# Torture cannot be American policy, period. (Sep 2007)

Not sure what you are disagreeing with here.

Actual quote: "Q: What is more important, human rights or national security?
A: The first obligation of the president of the US is to protect and defend the US. That doesn't mean that it is to the exclusion of other interests. "

Obama's question was slightly different, leading to a slightly different answer, but this is hardly a major policy difference.

On torture, the issue is the following: "In an interview with the New York Daily News in October 2006, Clinton condoned torture, saying, "In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President. That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law." But in a debate in New Hampshire last month, Sen. Clinton shifted her position, when offered a similar ticking time bomb case, responding, "As a matter of policy, torture cannot be American policy, period." To our ears, that sounds like a reversal. "

Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University Oct 30, 2007

Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)

OBAMA VOTED THE SAME WAY. (So did McCain)

# Oppose granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. (Nov 2007)
# FactCheck: Denied saying licensing illegals "made sense". (Oct 2007)

She has made clear that, in the absence of comprehenisve immigration reform, she does not support granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. What she once said was she understood how that idea could "made sense" to some governors, however.

For what is worth, Obama supports driver's licenses for illegal and McCain oppposes them.

Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)

OBAMA VOTED THE SAME WAY. (So did McCain)

Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)

OBAMA VOTED THE SAME WAY. (So did McCain)

# Biggest mistakes: mishandling healthcare; believing in WMDs. (Apr 2007)

Are you disagreeing with her that these were mistakes? Or are you holding the fact that she admits to mistakes against her?

Focuses on increasing relationship between US and Israel. (Oct 2000)
We have a bad relationship with Israel? That must be why Muslim extremists exist.

She said "increase the relationship" between US and Isreal. She didn't say we have a bad relationship with Isreal. What she literally said was:

CLINTON: My positions for more than 20 years have been to do everything I could to support Israel and to increase the relationships between the US and Israel. I’ve worked on everything from the National Council of Jewish Women’s program to bring a preschool instruction program for children of the US, to speaking out, time and time again, about violence and terrorism.

That does it for my disagreements with Hillary.

Which you are more than entitled to. I do think some of my comments above should make you question your position -- especially regarding McCain over Clinton.

Just to clarify the record, this flag-burning issue is an unfounded smear.

Senator Clinton opposed and has voted against attempts to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning (or any other flag "desecration.") link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/27/flag.burning/index.html), link (http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=3&aid=55396)

What Senator Clinton supported was a very different law that would be similar to the law against burning crosses in someone's front yard. It does not explicitly outlaw all flag burnings — just those intended to “intimidate any person or group of persons.”:

It will not be an easy vote, as evidenced by the carefully worded statement issued by New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer," she said, adopting a position similar to the one taken by her husband, former President Clinton, when he was in office.

Her aides said there is no contradiction in being against the flag-burning amendment and for a flag-burning law.

They say she believes a federal law would not trample First Amendment rights because, like laws against cross burnings, it would ban flag desecration that is deemed to pose a threat to others — and not acts of political expression that are protected by the First Amendment.


link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-23-dems-flag_x.htm?csp=34)

You will note that John McCain was among those that voted YES on the flag-burning amendment. So to hold this issue against Senator Clinton, when Senator McCain's position is worse, is unsupportable.

Obama voted FOR Clinton's proposal. link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP4543:); link (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00188)

Even if I opposed flag burning (which I don't), I'd oppose a constitutional amendment banning flag burning just on procedural grounds. The constitution isn't the proper place for a legal restriction on people's freedoms. The farthst I'd go would be excluding flag-burning from the constitutional protection of free speech. That would then allow legislation banning flag burning, but it would not require it.

I don't see how Hillary's position here isn't opposition to flag burning. She placed limits on it.

Unfortunately, on-the-Issues over summarizes and oversimplifies votes and positions. It also often fails to give similar information about all the candidates on a specific issue or vote, so it is difficult to judge whether this is logical to hold against a particular candidate.

Nonetheless, a lot of the places where you say you disagree with Senator Clinton, Senator Obama has taken the same position. It is not logical to hold it against her, but not him.

Similarly, on some of the issues where Obama and Clinton do disagree, McCain is on or beyond Clinton on the issue. So it makes little sense to support McCain over Clinton on the basis of these issues.



OBAMA VOTED THE SAME WAY.



We don't know how Obama would have voted on this issue, but I doubt his position is different. This may have been one of those occasions where he just didn't vote. Regardless, this is vast oversimplification of an issue that split largely along party lines.



OBAMA VOTED THE SAME WAY.



She has said NAFTA was good in principle, but badly implemented, and would change it drastically.



What she said in full:


Q: Last year some parents of second graders in Lexington, Massachusetts, were outraged to learn their children's teacher had read a story about same-sex marriage, about a prince who marries another prince. Would you be comfortable having this story read to your children as part of their school curriculum?
A: With respect to your individual children, that is such a matter of parental discretion. I think that obviously it is better to try to work with your children, to help your children the many differences that are in the world and to really respect other people and the choices that other people make, and that goes far beyond sexual orientation. So I think that this issue of gays and lesbians and their rights will remain an important one in our country. Tomorrow we're going to vote on the hate crimes bill. We haven't been able to get it passed, and it is an important measure to send a message that we stand against hatred and divisiveness.


Clinton's overall position on gay rights is essentially the same as Obama's. Senator McCain, on the other hand, is anti-gay-rights.



1. Look up the details. This is not a fair characterization of her positions.

2. Obama and Clinton's position on this issue are nigh identical. McCain is anti-gay-marriage.



Obama supports this. (We could get into a separate debate about the merits of hate crimes laws because I think you misunderstand them. They don't punish people based on who a crime was against, but rather on a difference in the crime committed)>



WTF is your point here?



Meh. Do we hold every legal position that Obama ever took on behalf of a client against him? What about that Chicago slum-lord?



Before Obama was in the Senate, but McCain voted the same way.



Are you objecting this rating is too low or too high?

No rating for Obama. McCain is rated 61%, also indicating a mixed business voting record.



Not sure what your point is here. Not sure how this differs from Obama and McCain.



Obama has said something similar. You are reading too much into these little snippets.



Not that I agree with Clinton here, but a boycott is significantly different than government action. A boycott is individuals taking action collectively to protest something. What she actually said is that parents should take action regarding their own kids:

There is an opportunity for more parents to act as consumers. Let people know you’re not going to buy products that support shows and things you do not believe in. Don’t buy those violent video games no matter how much your child begs.
Source: School safety discussion in Tonawanda NY Aug 5, 1999

McCain's position on this is very much in favor of government regulation of violate video games and media.



Nothing in the connected quote says anything about government regulation as opposed to a change in culture.



Again, look at what On the issues actually quotes her as saying:

"Outsourcing will continue," Mrs. Clinton said in New Delhi. "There is no way to legislate against reality... We are not in favor of putting up fences." Hillary acknowledged the pressures to curb outsourcing: "I have to be frank," she said. "People in my country are losing their jobs, and the US policymakers need to address this issue."
Source: Condi vs. Hillary, by Dick Morris, p.165 Oct 11, 2005



Meh. No similar figures are given for Obama and McCain.



OBAMA VOTED THE SAME WAY.



Not sure what you are disagreeing with here.

Actual quote: "Q: What is more important, human rights or national security?
A: The first obligation of the president of the US is to protect and defend the US. That doesn't mean that it is to the exclusion of other interests. "

Obama's question was slightly different, leading to a slightly different answer, but this is hardly a major policy difference.

On torture, the issue is the following: "In an interview with the New York Daily News in October 2006, Clinton condoned torture, saying, "In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President. That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law." But in a debate in New Hampshire last month, Sen. Clinton shifted her position, when offered a similar ticking time bomb case, responding, "As a matter of policy, torture cannot be American policy, period." To our ears, that sounds like a reversal. "

Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University Oct 30, 2007



OBAMA VOTED THE SAME WAY. (So did McCain)



She has made clear that, in the absence of comprehenisve immigration reform, she does not support granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. What she once said was she understood how that idea could "made sense" to some governors, however.

For what is worth, Obama supports driver's licenses for illegal and McCain oppposes them.



OBAMA VOTED THE SAME WAY. (So did McCain)



OBAMA VOTED THE SAME WAY. (So did McCain)



Are you disagreeing with her that these were mistakes? Or are you holding the fact that she admits to mistakes against her?



She said "increase the relationship" between US and Isreal. She didn't say we have a bad relationship with Isreal. What she literally said was:

CLINTON: My positions for more than 20 years have been to do everything I could to support Israel and to increase the relationships between the US and Israel. I’ve worked on everything from the National Council of Jewish Women’s program to bring a preschool instruction program for children of the US, to speaking out, time and time again, about violence and terrorism.



Which you are more than entitled to. I do think some of my comments above should make you question your position -- especially regarding McCain over Clinton.



I thank you for giving me some food for thought. Hillary admitting she was wrong is just a joke. At the point which she said this there was no doubt she was wrong. Sure, she's great at looking at things in hindsight , it's her foresight I question. She is clearly a smart woman and this we cannot deny her. I just think she relies too much on polls, focus groups, etc. for her policies. Barack Obama is IMHO a better leader than she is. He has the ability to work across party lines moreso than she does. She is divisive, and will only lead to more gridlock in Washington. What we need is someone who can get people of different ways of life to work together. I do not believe that person is Hillary.

I think both of you are misunderstanding what the "hate crimes" issue was in the Senate. The federal bill was about offering financial to local governments faced with unusually expensive prosecutions: Laramie, Wyoming and Jasper, Texas were both nearly bankrupted by the cases that "put them on the map"; and also investigatory assistance in cases involving hate groups that operate interstate.
The "Family" groups blanketed Congress with petitions and e-mails by telling their constituents that the federal government was going to declare it "hate speech" to preach "Biblical truth", and blah blah blah: actually most of this propaganda was a recycling of pieces that had been directed against the Canadian government when it was considering "hate speech" legislation a few years ago (that legislation, carefully worded to require actual incitement to violence as a precondition, did pass, and there have been no pastors thrown in jail for preaching on Sunday from the Bible), and was totally irrelevant to the American legislation, which would not have established any new crimes at all, or enhanced sentences for any existing crimes, or anything else.
The "Family" wanted it blocked because they do sometimes employ skinheads and ship them interstate (the guys who left me unconscious on railroad tracks were, I believe, from the American Family Association, which was conducting a political campaign, marred by other acts of violence and vandalism, against a local non-discrimination ballot proposal) and might sometimes end up being investigated themselves.

Excellent point(s).

I would note I was merely making a side-comment on the general issue of hate crimes legislation, which I support (in addition to the specific instance you are talking about). ;)

(We could get into a separate debate about the merits of hate crimes laws because I think you misunderstand them. They don't punish people based on who a crime was against, but rather on a difference in the crime committed)
I think both of you are misunderstanding what the "hate crimes" issue was in the Senate. The federal bill was about offering financial to local governments faced with unusually expensive prosecutions: Laramie, Wyoming and Jasper, Texas were both nearly bankrupted by the cases that "put them on the map"; and also investigatory assistance in cases involving hate groups that operate interstate.
The "Family" groups blanketed Congress with petitions and e-mails by telling their constituents that the federal government was going to declare it "hate speech" to preach "Biblical truth", and blah blah blah: actually most of this propaganda was a recycling of pieces that had been directed against the Canadian government when it was considering "hate speech" legislation a few years ago (that legislation, carefully worded to require actual incitement to violence as a precondition, did pass, and there have been no pastors thrown in jail for preaching on Sunday from the Bible), and was totally irrelevant to the American legislation, which would not have established any new crimes at all, or enhanced sentences for any existing crimes, or anything else.
The "Family" wanted it blocked because they do sometimes employ skinheads and ship them interstate (the guys who left me unconscious on railroad tracks were, I believe, from the American Family Association, which was conducting a political campaign, marred by other acts of violence and vandalism, against a local non-discrimination ballot proposal) and might sometimes end up being investigated themselves.

Even if I opposed flag burning (which I don't), I'd oppose a constitutional amendment banning flag burning just on procedural grounds. The constitution isn't the proper place for a legal restriction on people's freedoms. The farthst I'd go would be excluding flag-burning from the constitutional protection of free speech. That would then allow legislation banning flag burning, but it would not require it.

I don't see how Hillary's position here isn't opposition to flag burning. She placed limits on it.

Um. We seem to have a disconnect here.

I wasn't supporting either flag burning or laws against flag burning. I oppose both and especially object to a constitutional amendment on the issue.

What I was responding to was the smear against Clinton that she is pro-censorship because she sponsored the above referenced law that would make flag burning under some circumstances a crime. I don't agree with that law., but it is neither an across-the-board ban of flag burning nor a constitutional amendment.

But it isn't a fair issue to hold against Clinton because (1) Obama supported and voted for the same law and (2) McCain actually sponsored the Constitutional amendment against flag-burning.

I thank you for giving me some food for thought. Hillary admitting she was wrong is just a joke. At the point which she said this there was no doubt she was wrong. Sure, she's great at looking at things in hindsight , it's her foresight I question. She is clearly a smart woman and this we cannot deny her. I just think she relies too much on polls, focus groups, etc. for her policies. Barack Obama is IMHO a better leader than she is. He has the ability to work across party lines moreso than she does. She is divisive, and will only lead to more gridlock in Washington. What we need is someone who can get people of different ways of life to work together. I do not believe that person is Hillary.

I agree you should support Barack Obama. I do too.

My issue is with the idea that one would support McCain if Obama doesn't get the nomination. To me, Obama is perferable to Clinton who is preferable to McCain.

This particular strand of the Democratic Primary debate is so much more intelligent than the one I've been in that I feel like I'm sitting at the kids table (and not undeservedly so in many respects...)

I agree you should support Barack Obama. I do too.

My issue is with the idea that one would support McCain if Obama doesn't get the nomination. To me, Obama is perferable to Clinton who is preferable to McCain.

It is logically possible depending on how you prioritize the issues. If "fresh leadership" is your most important consideration - then Obama wins and McCain & Clinton are both seen as status quo.

If Obama is out & if your second most important issue is fiscal responsibility, you may believe that McCain is better suited to reducing the deficit than Hillary.

In this scenario, the decision is logical.

This particular strand of the Democratic Primary debate is so much more intelligent than the one I've been in that I feel like I'm sitting at the kids table (and not undeservedly so in many respects...)

Well, we're missing a few key players in the debate that brings it down to a banal level where the focus is on emotions rather than ideas. I've always respected TCT, who is a respectful and thoughtful debater. Watching the debate right now it doesn't seem like she's differentiating herself much from Barack. Hopefully this question on immigration will give them an opportunity to show their differences.

It is logically possible depending on how you prioritize the issues. If "fresh leadership" is your most important consideration - then Obama wins and McCain & Clinton are both seen as status quo.

If Obama is out & if your second most important issue is fiscal responsibility, you may believe that McCain is better suited to reducing the deficit than Hillary.

In this scenario, the decision is logical.

To me leadership, intelligence, and the ability to bring people together is more important to me than age or years of service. Our founding fathers didn't have all that much experience in running a government, but they set up a pretty good system. Obama has the ability to bring people together like Hillary cannot. At this stage of the game these qualities are so much more important than years in office, etc.

Well, we're missing a few key players in the debate that brings it down to a banal level where the focus is on emotions rather than ideas. I've always respected TCT, who is a respectful and thoughtful debater. Watching the debate right now it doesn't seem like she's differentiating herself much from Barack. Hopefully this question on immigration will give them an opportunity to show their differences.

I don't suppose you'd want to take it to my Peanut Gallery (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=550217) (the real time comments on the debate), I'm so alone...

I don't suppose you'd want to take it to my Peanut Gallery (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=550217) (the real time comments on the debate), I'm so alone...

Ahh, why not?

Ahh, why not?
Don't know. With all the threads on the subject I thought there'd be more interest in the debate. And back in 2004 these peanut galleries were a lot of fun, I just misgauged the interest.

I don't suppose you'd want to take it to my Peanut Gallery (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=550217) (the real time comments on the debate), I'm so alone...
The thread-title wouldn't have suggested to me what it was.