Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
Does anyone think that VP Clinton is a good idea? I just can't imagine her wanting that powerless position and she'd most likely be a thorn in Obama's side. Why are people pushing this (Didn't I read that Nancy Pelosi suggested it)?
It would be a consolation prize for those slightly less than 50% of democrats who favored her and are pissed off that she lost. I wouldn't be heartbroken if he chose her, but I'd rather he didn't.
People are pushing this with the idea of getting all her supporters and all of Obama's to vote for the Democratic ticket--nobody wants disappointed Clinton supporters to go over to McCain (well, nobody not Republican!).
Also, she's thrown out some hints, it has been reported, that she'd consider taking the spot. It isn't always powerless (viz: Cheney) and it might be a springboard to further presidential aspirations, should the next four or eight years go well.
I think it would mollify many people. If Clinton had gotten the nomination and chose Obama as her VP, I'd feel better than if she chose someone that I didn't like.
But an Obama is no Bush (although some can probably see some Cheney in Clinton).
I just thought of a reason that Clinton might want to be VP, which is if he chose someone else to be VP that person would be in a strong position to challenge Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2016.
But I could see Obama as VP patiently waiting his turn. Clinton on the other hand has already spent 8 years being second fiddle to Bill.
I was going to make the point that she's not that old, so waiting wouldn't be the worst possible choice . . . but in fact she is 61 or so, and eight years would make her a little old for the pursuit (though of course that's not stopping McCain).
#6 "Obama is no Bush"--boy, ain't that the point!!
The question in my mind is "Could Clinton work WITH Obama or just try to do her own thing. I get the feeling that Obama's term/s would be MUCH more productive without Hilary, but I expect many want him to take her to help get the votes. Unfortunately she is still playing hard ball and might be willing to throw the game to McCaine just to spite Obama if needed.
The biggest scare I have is that Obama is the most likely Presidential Candidate since the Kennedy's to be assassinated. He IS change and many people don't like it. It is always possible Clinton could help things along.
I think that if Obama knew for sure that he'd win without her, he'd never even consider Hillary for VP.
His whole campaign has been about change, about doing away with the "old" Washington. Hillary Clinton IS the old Washington. He's about renewing confidence, she's about instilling fear. The only thing they really have in common is their tenaciousness. Other than that, they couldn't be more different.
So that's what Obama has to determine: Can he win without her on the ticket? Can he win without all her staunch supporters?
If the answer is yes, it's goodbye Hillary. I think she would be a wet blanket to him if she were in his administration.
If Obama does not choose Clinton, he needs to choose someone who is clearly a better choice. I would love to see him choose Bill Richardson, but I could live with Clinton.
Dear God, let him choose Hillary. She and Michelle will then provide endless material for late-night comics, and we are going to need to laugh.
An Obama/Clinton ticket seemed much more likely before she started trying to destroy his campaign (and his entire life) by being nasty. In the early days of this campaign, we all (okay, those of us who live in my house) assumed it would end up being the other way around, a Clinton/Obama ticket. However, with Obama's strong surge, and Clinton's desperate bile-spewing, I can't believe she even has the nerve to suggest herself... Why would you want to run with the person you just spent the last several months denigrating? Why would Obama want to choose someone to support him who just spent the last few months bad-mouthing him?
P.s. I am aware that politics and common sense are not remotely synonymous.
There is another consideration: Obama is against "politics as usual", and Clintonian triangulation.
Bringing in Hillary as VP would signal that he is adapting to the center.
Rather, for clarity, let us have someone like Dennis Kucinic (Sp?) as VP. Or Noam Chomsky. Maybe a lady from Code Pink.
Let's have a real, Left,anti-war, anti-corporate, anti-racist, no-nonsense administration, so that we can get a taste of genuine Leftist political policies, domestic and foreign.
That would help clarify things.
I just can't see Hillary, especially with Bill tagging along. Why would anyone willingly bog down the ticket with that baggage?
For the record, my choice for v.p. would be Jim Webb. I've been fairly impressed (as much as I can be by a politician) most times I've heard him interviewed. A Southern white, military background, who votes his conscience and was against the Iraq adventure from the beginning. I think it would be a good match.
There are several reasons why Hillary is a BAD choice for Veep. First is that a Black Male/White Female ticket would not play very well in most of the country, especially the South. I live here, I have learned in the last 17 years how much strain and tension still surround the issue of race. It would be asking too much of some people. People we need to beat McCain in the fall.
I really think Obama needs to pick a white male politician of good standing to be his Veep. Is Bill Richardson "white" enough? Perhaps picking him would pull in the Hispanic vote. What about John Edwards from my state, NC? He could help Obama with the health care issue by pulling him a little left. Or, as #17 makifat points out, Jim Webb, who I just did a little research on.
Second, Hillary would be a huge thorn in Obama's side. With Bill along for the ride, of course. Too much baggage. Too much need for power on her part to play the role. She needs to bow out gracefully and throw her weight behind Obama and whoever he picks.
Both Obama and McCain will be telling us a lot about them by who they choose to put on the ticket. Interesting times are ahead, for sure.
Webb was on the NPR programs "The Diane Rehm Show" and "Fresh Air" last week, for anyone interested in looking him up.
Theoretically, I think Richardson would be a good choice, but I'm afraid a lot of people would be scared off by a Black/Hispanic ticket. Sad, but that's the way it is.
Doug, you stole my thunder about triangulation. Obama rejects it because while it may yield solid political results, many of us would also suggest it's a cynical, dishonest and generally crappy way to govern. It belongs to the political culture Obama wants to change. How successful he would be is to be seen, but it would be a lot harder with Hill and Bill whispering in his ear.
Readafew, #9, a lot of rank and file democrats are watching how the endgame unfolds to see what Hillary does. We all know one option for her is to covertly help McCain, or just play Achileus and walk away, washing her hands of any further support for Obama, thus if he loses in 2008 opening the field for her in 2012. See rejection of triangulation above. This would be just one more in a long series of mistakes and miscalculations. She would anger Democrats so much that she would have to run as a Republic in 2012 if she wanted to be President.
I, personally, would rather see someone else as VP. I can definitely agree that Bill Richardson would make an excellent Vice President.
Some of the leaders in the Senate have had as much power as Presidents, she could work toward attaining the stature of LBJ or Richard Russell, another way to bring the country together.
The majority of the country, Doug, would reject your vision of leftism. What is wanted is fidelity to reality, and justice. Not manipulating the perception of reality for the purposes of aggrandizing the oligarchy. We will create our own perception of reality is not exactly a winner when discussing methods of governance. Case in point: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
For Obama, this is going to be like a chess game: what move leads to what and puts him where?
Hillary would help him win votes but would be against his principle of 'change'.
Richardson would be a great choice for his principle and some extra votes but not in a state he needs.
Webb is right for Obama's style but does he need Virginia? And can the Democrats afford to lose the senate seat?
Ed Rendell, PA's governor, would help Obama win a state he desperately needs. But Rendell--a HUGE Hillary supporter--didn't have many great things to say about Obama as recently as a week ago.
That's what it comes down to: What can Obama NOT afford to give up?
Personally, I would prefer that he leave Hillary behind--that he focus on the ideas and the principles that got him where he is in the first place. If he knew there would be no animosity from Hillary (and especially from her supporters) I think that would be an easy decision.
But it's a little like sports: the closer you get to winning a championship the more careful you are about not screwing it up. It may come down to that--is Obama trying to WIN or is he trying NOT TO LOSE?
Bill Richardson certainly has credentials in areas where Obama is lacking, but I think makifat is correct in stating that most of the country isn't ready for that much change all at once! Plus, all of Richardson's experience didn't get him very far in the primaries.
Karenmarie, I don't think the Dems have much chance of winning the South in any case. For example, you might think Obama would do well in MS, which has the highest concentration of African Americans (36%), but look at the 2004 exit polls for that state. Kerry got 90% of the African American vote, but Bush still won by 60% to 40%.
A site called 270toWin.com offers interactive electoral college maps that you can play with. Fascinating stuff - you can turn individual states red or blue, and see how that affects the results. They also show the electoral results going clear back to 1789. If you scroll down, you will see links to current polls.
Combining that site with some population statistics here makes for some very interesting speculation. You can filter by a variety of factors including age, race, ethnicity, income, etc.
For those of you who don't think Clinton should be on the ticket, I would like to see anyone describe a credible scenario where Obama reaches 270 electoral votes without MI, OH, PA, and FL.
Richardson might be the best of both worlds--he is hispanic, but, to be brutally honest, with a name like Richardson, many people will not pick up on it.
Webb would be an excellent choice in many regards. That would take of the whole military thing, which McCain will pull again and again. (I hear his new backdrop is a Hanoi prison cell.) It would help with the south, but frankly I dont think a democrat NEEDS the south to win...if he can take the West, which is a likely possibility.
Unlike Doug, who I imagine does not WANT Obama to win, I think chosing the least popular segment of the Democratic party would be a huge mistake.
I don't know the person, but here is the job description.
--Same age, maybe a bit older, or like LB Johnson more "seasoned" than old. Grizzled.
--Must be centrist, but can appeal to left on certain issues (abortion, health care, gay rights) but not alienate the right on others (strong military, pro-family, pro-gun)
--Seen as a friend of Labor
--Better a Governor than a Senator.
--From the South or the West
Well, the question then seems to be, will Hillary's supporters get behind Obama or support McCain? I tend to think the former is much more likely than the latter, so then it boils down to whether the Dems can carry MI, OH, PA, and FL, or any other combination of states that will nail the 270 electoral votes. For example, though Clinton carried NY in the primaries, I think there's a pretty good argument for Obama taking the state in the actual election. Ditto California and other large states that traditionally vote Democratic.
And then there's the wildcard factor of the unaffiliated voters and even, gasp, disillusioned Republicans who would rather support Obama than McCain.
Sure is going to be interesting between now and November. I wonder how the debates will go and how much influence they will have?
There's a huge difference between Clinton beating Obama in a Demo primary in a state vs. McCain beating Obama in the presidential race in that same state. I know some demos in those states have told pollsters that they would vote for McCain over Obama, but that's just talkin' and when it comes down to the vote they will have gotten over the loss of their preferred candidate.
But to reiterate my main point, and I guess peeve, is that to equate Obama losing a state in a primary really has very little bearing on whether Obama will win or lose that state in the main event.
hmmm....my first reaction is: Hillary has been divisive and she is "old Washington;" no way. Where's the "change?" Plus he'd have to put up with her & Bill.
Then again, if he wants to give the message that he can play ball with anyone in Washington, thereby giving credence to the idea that he can actually get things done, then maybe he should put her on the ticket. Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.
I still hate the idea, but I'd vote for him either way.
Obama wins NY and CA with no problems, and he may be able to take MI. I grew up in western PA and still have family there. They will not vote for Obama under any circumstances. Ohio is demographically similar, but a bit more conservative. McCain takes FL, unless Obama figures out a way to relate to the elderly, Jews, and the more rabid elements of the Cuban community.
Webb's...er...imaginative literary career is sure to be resurrected, and is not likely to appeal to disaffected Clinton voters.
And then, considering that McCain has hired some of the people Bush used to attack him in SC in 2000, you have to assume that they are already preparing the push polls, the lists of "felons" to be purged from voters' rolls, the lists of known Dem voters to be challenged at the polls, the bogus flyers telling people their polling places have been relocated, and the plans for sending the oldest and the least reliable voting machines to precincts with high concentrations of African American voters, in limited quantities to guarantee very long lines.
One of the problems with electoral democracies which do not have proportional representation, is that all parties have a strong motivation to move towards the center. (I think pure proportional representation is a bad idea, by the way, for various reasons.)
Thus we get political parties which compete with each other, but not on the basis of clearly differentiated programs.
I live in the United Kingdom, where the Labour and Conservative parties are practically identical, for this very reason.
It means all government policies are a kind of mish-mash of socialist/radical and individualist/traditionalist ideas, with the former predominating by osmosis among the people who operate the state.
Although, as Arctic-Stranger shrewdly guessed, my suggestion of Dennis Kucinic for Obama's VP was maliciously motivated, I would still like to see a clear fight between Left and Right, because this would raise political consciousness and understanding. Split-the-difference politics allows in people who in fact have no convictions, except their conviction that they should be the equivalent of the Vicar of Bray.
As it is, campaigns tend to center around personalities and spurious non-issues. One of Obama's points of appeal is that he has indicated that he does not want to engage in this sort of idiotic pseudo-politics. (And yet, in his appeasement of various rabid ethnic lobbies, like the Cubans, he seems to be just another pandering politician. I suppose I can hope that he is lying about what he really believes, as some liberals here apparently hope also.)
that's a great point...the idea that since Obama will have to play ball in Washington, why not start now.
It would make for a great commercial if Obama does go with Hillary.... "From the beginning, Hillary Clinton and I never saw eye to eye on everything. And in Washington, I know I can't expect to agree with everyone either. Our team has diversity...and that will only make us stronger."
Those thoughts frighten me--the idea that no ideas are going to influence THIS state or THAT particular group of voters.
What you DIDN'T tell us is who you'd choose based on those issues. Does the Pennsylvania governor help win PA if he's on the ticket? How about Ohio's governor? Or, for that matter, could Richardson be the difference that helps them win a key state like Florida?
Governing isn't about two (or more) competing ideologies, it's about staying ahead of the curve as much as possible and crafting solutions to problems as they arise or become apparent. Ideologies are very constraining in what one can think and how one can approach a problem. What happens to a conservative who points out positive aspects of a liberal program, or vice versa - they are irrationally shredded by their comrades, not just for going off the reservation, but for accepting any of the enemy's points. Anyone who has watched BushCo for the last seven years and is not aware of this fact has not been paying attention. The BushCo/Rovian ideology has led us from one disaster to another. Being intellectually required to think one way or another does not provide solutions, it creates disasters.
This is a primary difference between the right, center and left. The right and left are constrained by "acceptable" sets of solutions that must be consistent within the ideological framework. The center doesn't care much about ideologies and consistent thinking, they are interested in solutions and will try one thing and then another until they hit something that works. If a right wing solution doesn't work they are less likely to return to that well for a second attempt, especially when the failure is nearly catastrophic and places the entire ideological agenda in danger as have the ideologies of Reagan/Bush. The same can be said for the left. when their solutions don't work, or create unforeseen problems, they are abandoned by all but the loyalists and something else is tried.
The thing ideologues despise the most about the center, the lack of a formal framework for their ideas, plans, etc. is exactly what makes the center strong.
For general purposes as a pet would you rather have a purebred afflicted with problems associated with inbreeding, or would you rather have just a plain, ole, good natured Heinz 57 varieties mutt?
Me, I prefer the mutt.
Ideas and policies that are neither Left nor Right may be just the right ones. The market vs the state, force vs diplomacy, tradition vs innovation ... only a real ideologue will always in principle come down on one side or the other of these dichotomous choices.
The problem with our kind of politics is that you seldom hear ideas discussed at all.
We need a real discussion of where the world is going, and what our reponse to it should be. American foreign policy has been adrift since Communism collapsed. This is understandable -- things are changing very rapidly.
I suppose Presidential campaigns are not the place to expect deep thinking about foreign policy, so we will probably hear nothing but superficial platitudes.
To quote my brother, a one time political operative for the Republican Party, "Murray, you are listening to what they say! That is a mistake. Watch what they do!"
>30 jasonseidner: jasonseidner
I didn't say I approved of the attitudes of the voters in Appalachia meets rust belt; I said that is where they are right now. They have come a long way, but they still have miles to go.
Once when I was in high school, I was out shopping with my Mom in a town ~20 miles from home (no shops in my teensy home town) and we saw a Job Corps bus carrying mostly black kids. My Mom got totally hysterical and insisted we go home immediately because they were "coming to riot". We raced home, and my Dad and all the other men got out their guns and marched around to defend the town! It did no good to point out that (a) the bus had a great big Job Corps sign on the side, and there was a Job Corps camp nearby, (b) the passengers were riding along peacefully, and (c) there were no TV stations within 100 miles. (If the Job Corps riots in the forest, does anyone see it on TV?) This hostility was especially odd because I grew up in a county that was and still is >96% white. Where did they get these attitudes toward people they had never encountered?
I hope I have overcome the worst of those dreadful attitudes that were all around me until I left for college, but you never know. I would have loved to see Barbara Jordan run for President, or she would have been a fine Supreme Court justice, but she was before her time. (Heh - I never realized, until I went to the look for the Wikipedia link, that she was gay. She could have set all kinds of precedents.) I would have voted for Colin Powell if he had run in either party, but he wasn't interested, and then he let the Bushies drag him through the muck with his big Iraq presentation at the UN.
I do think Obama is an inspiring speaker, but it takes more than eloquence to be a good president. I am a bit too skeptical of all politicians to see him as some kind of messiah. And his message of stopping the hostility and working across the aisles? Great idea, but I've got news for you - both Clinton and McCain were doing that before Obama's arrival on the senate floor. It isn't hard to look up the the bipartisan legislature they have sponsored.
At the moment I am more than a little annoyed at the media and the Obama supporters for their personal attacks on Clinton, and for their insistence from Iowa on that she was done and might as well quit now. Some of the accusations were right out of the Karl Rove playbook. I will readily admit that Obama himself did not engage in this, but keeping the candidate clean while the supporters trash the opposition is a standard tactic.
Yesterday on NPR's Political Junkie segment, Ron Elving said this was the closest primary finish ever, since primaries replaced the party hacks in the smoke filled room. So, like it or not, the woman has a substantial base of support. And the drawn out primary season energized voters who never cared before, because the later states have always been irrelevant to the process.
As far as this fall, I am a nonaffiliated voter, and I have voted third party more often than I have voted for either of the two major parties. I don't know yet what I will do this year. So far I haven't seen any third party candidate I would vote for, even as a protest. If Obama runs way ahead in Oregon, as I expect he will, I may write in Clinton. But with Supreme Court seats at stake, I will vote for Obama if Oregon looks like it will be close.
We need spell check here. Or I need to write in Word, and spell check before I post. Whatever.
That's right, let the guy next door vote for Obama. Cast that protest vote, get McCain elected. Let him name those three Supreme Court justices.
There is real life altering stuff going on here. This isn't a game. Find someone you can support and vote for them. It doesn't matter who. Just remember it was the protest vote, or the Green vote, or the they're all alike vote that gave us eight years of BushCo.
>23 oregonobsessionz: "For those of you who don't think Clinton should be on the ticket, I would like to see anyone describe a credible scenario where Obama reaches 270 electoral votes without MI, OH, PA, and FL." -o.o.
Hillary guarantees none of those states, and, given the state of our economy--yes, the economy will be the number one issue this year, not Iraq--there is no reason to believe that, after five months of McCain and Obama campaigning head to head, MI and OH will swing Republican. Likewise, PA will likely swing our way, as Rendell and the Democratic apparatus which comes with him has/have promised to work their respective hearts out for the winning Democratic candidate. FL will be hard to win, but, let's be frank: the FL legislature is 2/3 Republican, and the state has a Republican governor. There's simply no reason to believe that Obama will win FL, with Clinton or without.
Hillary does not like to play second fiddle, but, in all honesty, Bill has proved himself to be a constant nuisance for both Obama and Hillary since this campaign began in earnest. Selecting her would be a gamble, a gamble which Obama by no means needs to make.
Given the polarized nature of this race, there is only one woman who Obama could select with a name than does not begin with Hillary and end with Clinton: Nancy Pelosi. Unfortunately, there's no reason to believe that Pelosi would be willing to give up the power that comes with being the Speaker of the House to be Obama's V.P.
Out of the nationally known male Democrats, Richardson is the strongest candidate. He has both executive and diplomatic experience, and will strengthen Obama's base in the Hispanic, Catholic and Southwestern center to center-left voting blocs. Previous posters (I don't remember who, and I'm too lazy to scroll up and find out) have suggested that a Hispanic V.P. would be "too much" for some prospective voters to handle. Personally, I think it's fairly absurd to believe that there are people out there who are so "mildly racist" that they would be willing to consider supporting a black Presidential candidate, but would refuse to do so if he added another minority figure to the ticket. We won't win the Dixiecrats. We haven't won them since '68. Fortunately, the Democratic coalition has expanded in recent years, and, as such, we no longer have to consider pandering to the worst elements of that bloc. We can win without them, and we will, so long as we avoid taking this campaign in a direction in which we actively pursue segments of society which will never, ever back a pluralistic political party.
Don't blame me for 2000; I was very pleased to vote for Gore. One of the few times I could actually vote "for" someone, rather than hold my nose and vote "against" the worst alternative.
Geneg is right: taking the "I just won't vote" approach is a vote in itself. That's why I hope (and that's the key word--hope) Hillary comes out and campaigns for this party whether she's on Obama's ticket or she isn't.
That's one thing the Republicans do well that Democrats need to copy: no one is bad-mouthing McCain from within. (Limbaugh maybe, but that's the media) But no one from within the active party itself--from Huckabee to Thompson to Gulliani to Romney--no one says things to undermine their nominee once they know who it is.
Think about it: even throughout the whole primary season, no one took shots at Bush's mistakes so as to get a quick jump on the field. They know that in the end, THE PARTY COMES FIRST. PERIOD.
And yes, I realize that this year is a unique situation, but Hillary is showing that even when it's VERY over it's still about her--she still won't get off the stage. We still have to wake up tomorrow and then on Saturday and wait for her to do it at her pace. And then it STILL won't be about Obama. It will then be about "will he choose her?" It will still be all about HER.
The best thing she can do for both Obama and the party is to say, as publicly as possible, that she wants all of her supporters--each and every one of them-- to support Obama NO MATTER WHO he chooses as his running mate. She should tell these supporters that the best thing they can do FOR HER is to get out in November and vote for the Democratic party. And she has to mean it, sincerely. If she does that, if she pledges her support no matter who Obama picks for VP, then we'll know that it wasn't all about her.
And then, if Obama actually DOES pick her, it will come off as unified as opposed to looking like they really gave him no choice.
According to some sources, Clinton is asking Obama for a bribe so that she can pay off her 20-40 million dollar campaign debt in exchange for her support. If she ran the country the way she ran her campaign, we'd be looking back at the Bush deficit like they were the good ol' days.
Lunar, for once (ahhhhh, savor the moment) you and I agree on something. I wonder how much, in each voter's mind, watching Hillary implode after Super Tuesday played a role in their choice.
>39 Lunar:, 40 I could be wrong, but I'm almost positive that a handful of journalists have confirmed that it is illegal for Obama to help Clinton settle her debt with the money that he has already raised on the campaign trail. If that is true, this should really be no problem. He'll agree to attend a certain number of private fund raisers for her (and/or ask his supporters to donate to her campaign, which we, of course, will not), and she will be forced to agree to attend a certain number of campaign events as a form of reciprocation...
edit: In other words, a little "I'll scratch you're back, if you scratch my back" could be exactly what we need for reconcilation at the top level. Once she is on board, her most vocal surrogates (Lanny Davis, I'm looking at you) will be reigned in, and the bulk of her suppporters will come to find that Obama's policy positions are very, very similar to those supported by Sen. Clinton.
After just now watching her speech, I was most impressed by how she put party unity ahead of personal loyalties. I thought the most important line in the speech was "looking back at what might have been will keep us from moving forward to what can be" or something to that effect. She was definitely telling her supporters to close ranks against the real competition, Sen. McCain. How successfully she can pull this off depends on how active she can be in the process going forward. I thought her speech was probably as good as she could give, considering who she is.
It occurred to me also, that the most important thing to come out of eight years of Bill Clinton may not have been anything Bill did, but that if he had not been in the White House, she would not have had the opportunity to run a strong, viable campaign. Now, before you take that somehow as if it weren't for her man, she could not have been important, I'm saying that without eight years as first lady, only those in Arkansas would be familiar with her. Bill brought her (as much as she brought him) to the national stage. The next woman will break that last barrier without help from her husband. And I, for one, don't think it will be too much longer before another politically strong woman is successful in her bid for the White House.
Maybe one thing Dubya did for us was make us desperate for a capable leader, no matter what race, gender, etc. Hey, whatever it takes. One comfort I found in the dark days recently was that I'm unlikely, in my lifetime, to see a worse president. I don't think there's been one in the lifetime of the USA. (No, not even Harding or Buchanan.)
I was very impressed by Senator Clinton's speech. I thought she did a nice job of balancing recognizing what she and her supporters have accomplished along with fully supporting Obama in the election. I think she would make a good VP and feel it would help her even more with her next presidential run(assuming Obama wins and she wants to run again in 4 to 8 years) because she would have more experience in foreign relations, progressing the fight for health care, etc. Either way she was classy and eloquent in defeat and I feel that when the dust settles in November, the Dems can look back and say she played a huge role in uniting the party and helping Obama win.
It was a strong speech, the kind of speech which most Obamistas were hoping to hear on Tuesday. It will be very interesting to see the response of the more hardliner rank and file Clintonistas...
The things that Sen. Barack Obama has said this week, especially to the Israeli lobby, signal for me that there is not really going to be as much of a difference from the status quo for which he originally advocated at the beginning of the primary season. And, it is sad because really the world has been behind him because of his original campaign promises.
So, even though I doubt that he will name Sen. Hillary Clinton has his running mate, I do see him appoint her as his Attorney General, and possibly appointing Pres. Bill Clinton as either his Secretary of State or to the Supreme Court.
If you asked me to pick a dream ticket that would totally turn things on their ear, I would choose Rep. Ron Paul as his running mate.
I'm pulling for Ron Paul as a 3rd party candidate. Excellent flypaper for the right-wing loons much like Nader was for the left-wing loons in 2000.
If by "right-wing loons" you mean "anti-war conservatives," they're not likely to vote McCain anyway, regardless of who else is running. However, if you're looking for someone to siphon off votes from McCain, Bob Barr's your guy. The people managing his campaign and other Republicans have discussed their desire to make sure that McCain loses because they believe that an Obama administration would force the Republican Party back to its "core principles," whatever that means.
I was just being facetious, more or less. I wouldn't put all anti-war conservatives in the Paul camp.
As I mentioned to someone else earlier today, I'm distrustful of zealots. The Paul people must certainly fit that designation.
I don't know much about Barr, but anyone who wants McCain to lose, for whatever reason, is ok in my book.
Oh. boy! the enemy of my enemy is my friend, right makifat? This is now, always has been, and ever after will be a major policy loser. This country has gotten itself so wrapped up in its socks with this philosophy that we've fallen over several times. Check out the history of our relationship with Central and South America. We've been politically associated with some of the most despicable regimes on earth because they "hated Communism". Most of the time they were treating their countries like stations along the Gulag. but, hey, they were against Communism, so they must be our friends. Blah!
Bob Barr is the official Libertarian Party candidate. If you are familiar with the moon shine Lunar is selling, you know right smart all you need to know about Bob Barr.
I would just rather have Obama as President than McCain. Who said anything about "enemy of my enemy" or Central America?
But thanks for the history lesson.
To be fair, you did say that Barr was okay in your book if he indeed wants/can help cause McCain to lose, so I don't think the whole "enemy of my enemy" reference is unjustified.
On the other hand, no need to look to Central America for examples of this backfiring (I mean you, Ralph Nader supporters--have the Republicans ever thanked you for your help in putting Dubya into the White House?).
Not to be too Machiavellian about it, but there are instances where the end can justify the means. ;)
"If you are familiar with the moon shine Lunar is selling, you know right smart all you need to know about Bob Barr."
Dude, Barr is a fake libertarian who claims to have had a conversion on the road to Damascus. He's a Republican that voted for the PATRIOT Act and the Defense of Marriage Act and there are already libertarian websites popping up that are anti-Bob Barr, like BadBarr2008.com. You should know your facts before you start putting me in the same boat as a facist. Barr represents the watering down of the Libertarian party and just the other day he insulted his more principled predecessor nominees by saying that, unlike himself, they weren't very good candidates.
#54 duly noted, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
All I really know about Bob Barr is that he is the Libertarian Party Candidate for President. I guess I erroneously ass-u-me d without having facts in mind that all Libertarians are alike.
As I'm sure you are already aware the entire Libertarian project seems somehow unreal and as a result I don't spend much time learning all the ins and outs of the various factions. But if everyone can believe and act as they will, what difference does it make whether you agree or not?
If the Madame Senator's last name was not Clinton she would not be a Senator or canidate for President. IMHO. However, she was a fantastic candidate and how was she not respected?! She got the popular vote (controversial I know but still people could have not voted for her) and she is still a top canidate for VP or cabinet member, and she was seen as a very strong leader and good spokesperson. Of course pundits took shots at her, but they do that to everyone. A pundit's job is to be divisive and edgy it seems and they all tried extra hard for this one.
#57 Well, it was Otis Redding and he was demanding sex, but whatevs.
>57 oregonobsessionz: I was with Wilson for most of the way, but the following quote is astonishing: "If Sens. Obama and McCain want the backing of Sen. Clinton's supporters, as they have both made clear they do, then each of them will have to find a way to show women real respect: by advocating policies that benefit women and families and by advancing women's leadership in their own campaigns and potential administrations."
I find that statement at odds with reality. On the most important women's rights issue, Obama is unrepentantly on the side of women; in fact, he was endorsed by the most reputable pro-choice group in America, NARAL, before the primary contest even ended. Likewise, it is common knowledge (between male and female Obama supporters, anyway) that he has supported the following from the very beginning of his campaign: universal health care; a stronger role for the government in fighting AIDS/HIV, cancer and the like; stronger laws regarding domestic violence (he recently co-sponsored the Violence Against Women Act); and a serious effort to enforce the Equal Pay Act.
It is easy to understand why Wilson and others would believe that Clinton would make these issues a greater priority, but to act as if Obama and Clinton have widely divergent policy positions is so bizarre that I can't help but wonder whether Wilson has even made an effort to engage Obama's policy positions or consider the arguments of his female supporters...
>46 TamaKalyanii: "The things that Sen. Barack Obama has said this week, especially to the Israeli lobby, signal for me that there is not really going to be as much of a difference from the status quo for which he originally advocated at the beginning of the primary season. And, it is sad because really the world has been behind him because of his original campaign promises." -kwamikk
We will see. Within 48 hours of the speech, he explained his most controversial statement of the night (a reference to an undivided Jerusalem) directly to the Israeli press by stating that he does not want to see a permanent and literal walled division of the city (e.g., Nicosia, Cyprus).
More importantly, we will not have change in Israel and Palestine by simply dissolving our favorable relations with Israel. Obama is in a very tough position on this issue, and, in the end, his engagement with American Jewish citizens is not likely to soil his reputation in Palestine: after all, given the experiences of last sixty years (some perpetuated by Israel, others, of course, by movements within the Palestinian population itself), the Palestinians are not given to really trusting anyone...
The issues which matter (Palestinian water rights; the removal of roadblocks, and, yes settlements in the West Bank; food aid for Gaza, regardless of its government; financial support tied to the creation of schools and hospitals; the fate of East Jerusalem; and a formal agreement regarding the 800 pound gorilla, refugee rights/the right of return) can be addressed without giving AIPAC the veritable bird.
Peace will be had by listening and speaking to both sides of this issue, treating both sides with respect and providing sound support for negotiations which attempt to resolve the issues mentioned above...
Here is some vice-presidential advice from a conservative curmudgeon that you liberals would do well to heed:
(Gene will enjoy this guy -- Fred -- , who is probably his long-lost twin brother.)
I've tried this three times now, so I'm going to make it short and (maybe) sweet.
First, the Vice-Presidency, as envisioned as a role within government is a nebbish. However, the veep can contribute as a consultant to the President, and, as we have seen can wield a lot of political power in his/her own right. So while the veep is mostly president-in-waiting, it is crucial to pick the right person.
I like Jim Webb. A lot. However, I have heard him say he really is not interested in the veep slot, but when the country calls, I don't see Jim Webb turning aside.
He has military experience of a kind neither Obama nor McCain can boast. He should be a conservative star because he shares one of the traits of leadership coveted by the Ancient Greeks (the model of good governance among small "c" conservatives) he says what he means and means what he says. How refreshing it would be to have a distinctly apolitical person in the highest reaches of governance. I think he would be perfect to plug in Obama's lack of military experience.
However: he was/is a "Reagan Democrat". WTF is that? A socially conservative Democrat? A fiscally conservative Democrat? How about a Republic? Where does he stand on social issues? This is equally as important a consideration in choosing a President-in-Waiting as his military experience. Anyone know what he would do with "Willie Mays, Martin Luther King, Olatunji"? It's great to have a straight shooter as a possible veep, but which target is he shooting at?
The aforementioned notwithstanding (you try to get nine syllables out of two words) I like Sen. Webb quite a bit and his earnestness as a talking head really gives me warm and fuzzies, but what is he going to do about social and fiscal issues? I don't trust "Reagan Democrats". Can he convince me he is right for the job?
Sorry, Doug, but I couldn't get through the first 2 paragraphs of "Fred". Reminds me of someone who would bottonhole me at the bus stop. And shallow as I am, the photo doesn't look like anyone I need to be getting advice from...
I'm pulling for Webb, and think he would help give the Dems a truly electable ticket. I base this only on what I've heard from him. He may be a self-described Reagan Democrat. I don't know what that means, and don't really care. What people call themselve and how they act are usually two different things - remember "compassionate conservatism"?
If the fact that Webb has written some steamy novels is the best the other side can come up with- well, good luck to them.
As far as Fred is concerned, I think he's pretty spot on (as the Brits would say, I reckon) in both articles I read by him. I hadn't thought about Saigon as a retirement option, but I used to know a thing or two about the town (I could get from the American Embassy to the Cholon racetrack and a few spots in between). However, I think a year in Vietnam is plenty for anyone, and, well, I've already put in my year.
Obviously you think having military clout is the key to beating McCain. (I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying.) My position has been about who can help Obama win the key states--Ohio, Fla, Pa, Mich, etc. But maybe you're right. Maybe taking away McCain's military edge ultimately makes those "key states" a non-issue. I'd like to know what others think.
I'm looking for someone to supplement Obama in areas in which he has little experience, as well as another non-pol (no one, I repeat, no one holding elected office in the Federal Government is NOT a politician.) It's just that some have figured out how to seem to have transcended politics, something a non-politician would never be able to do. This is what has attracted so many to Obama and another apolitical politician on the ticket would seal the deal.
No matter how hard he tries, McCain is not going to shake Bush, especially when Bush includes McCain when stealing credit for that which both opposed.
I understand the need to attract different states, but once elected, now what? Does the veep spend the next four to eight years in the Executive Offic Building stewing over his lack of influence? I really think George Bush used (or was used by?) his VP exceptionally well. He was given serious responsibility to manage. I would like to see a veep who can be given aspects of governance to manage and do it. The executive is not what it was even fifty years ago. I think presidents need to choose their veeps with an eye toward a close working relationship.
Of course there is the President-in-Waiting aspect and I think this trumps all other considerations.
I agree that the VP is more than just someone to be there should anything happen to the president; I'm more concerned with Obama WINNING. It would be terrible if Obama lost by a few key states because Webb didn't help win votes from the undecided.
So that's what I want to know: not so much who would be the best choice at BEING vice president but who would be the best choice at winning the election? (And if your answer's still Webb just tell me why you think that.)
I don't know that Webb would be the best choice. With the exception of a couple of people, I am pretty agnostic when it comes to whom should be the veep. I would like to see John Edwards as AG, what a bully pulpit for him.
I don't like the idea of selecting a veep simply because they can help (maybe) get you elected. Believe me, I understand the importance of Obama being elected. I stand second to no man (or woman) in understanding this. But, I also feel that the veep must be committed to more than just winning a state or two, especially states that are a gamble. Come 1/20/09 the veep MUST be ready to step in. To me, it helps to spread the political largesse around by choosing a veep that can help be elected. I'm just saying that's not the most important consideration. After all our current President and Vice-President are both from Texas, so choosing Cheney was not a geographic or state consideration by Bush, but purely political, and it didn't hurt him at all.
Oh, no, Cheney is from Wyoming! if they were both from Texas that would be illegal.
And to think some people accuse me of sarcasm.
Not just illegal, unconstitutional. If he met the Texas residency requirements for holding office in Texas, then he was "from" Texas. But it never ceases to amaze me how people who believe in "absolute" truth are just as willing to rationalize the relative as the rest of us, even, actually, moreso when it suits their purposes.
#6 You make it sound like Obama has already won both the November General Election and his Re-Election bid in 2012. That is counting your chickens before they hatch,. First he has to WIN in November. And right now it is too close to call however I don't mind telling everyone here I plan on Voting for McCain. I have to agree with what the Media is saying about him that he is too inexperienced, he was the #1 Liberal in the Senate, he talks a lot without really saying anything. And if he wasn't an African-American he wouldn't have won all the Souhern States by such large margins like he did. He also pissed off a lot of the White Voters when he said they cling to Religion and Guns. Plus he also attended the Church in Chicago with Reverend Wright for 20 years.
I was gone for a few weeks, and out of the loop, but did I hear that McCain hired Guilini's former campaign manager?
Now there is a Bold Move!
>72 beatles1964: "I have to agree with what the Media is saying about him that he is too inexperienced..."
"...he was the #1 Liberal in the Senate..."
"...he talks a lot without really saying anything."
Examples, please (in context).
"And if he wasn't an African-American he wouldn't have won all the Souhern States by such large margins like he did."
The Republicans wouldn't have won every Presidential election in the South since 1968 if it weren't for their Southern strategy which preys on the fears and bigotries of Southern whites. Are you seriously bemoaning the fact that racial politics are still a factor in the South? Come on!
"He also pissed off a lot of the White Voters when he said they cling to Religion and Guns."
Beatles, name a President in the post-war era who hasn't pissed off a large segment of voters with either a bold straightforward statement or, as in this case, an off the cuff remark.
You can't. Every man, woman and child has had his or her gaffes.
"Plus he also attended the Church in Chicago with Reverend Wright for 20 years."
A man with all the charm of Billy Graham, a spiritual adviser to every President since Truman (yes, that includes Reagan, Bush and Bush).
Is this really the best you can do?
And it may be a cheap (and borrowed) point, but Barack's experience level is about the same as Abraham Lincoln's when he became president, and most folks think he did pretty well in the job.
Conversely, all that experience of being governor of Texas didn't exactly prevent Bush from . . . well . . .
BGP is right--please show us examples of Obama "talking a lot without really saying anything". (And for that matter, show me something McCain said on the same topic that HAS substance. I'm guessing you can't.)
What amazes me is that so many members of the fear-based GOP can actually be worried that Obama's "lack of experience" poses a threat to the country's future if he's elected. We've got 6 months left under the worst president in our nation's history and instead of feeling embarrassed for their party the GOP tries to worry people about "how bad it could get" due to Obama's inexperience.
But that's their style--if you can't say something good about your own team then say bad things about your opponent. What a sad platform.
Does anyone see Obama driving the foreign policy of the US as we speak.
Obama: I would chase Al-Qaeda into Pakistan, if necessary.
McCain: How naive.
Admin: Has been chasing Al-Qaeda into Pakistan ever since Obama brought it up.
Obama: I would sit down with Iran and Korea and everywhere else we need to talk.
Admin: Just concluded an agreement with N. Korea and for the first time in over thirty years we are talking face-to-face with Iran.
Obama: I will withdraw from Iraq and post our troops in Afghanistan, two brigades at least.
McCain: I'll see your two brigades and raise you one.
Admin: No response.
Obama: I will withdraw from Iraq as much as possible.
McCain: The surge is working
Admin: Negotiating a "time horizon" (WTF) for withdrawal.
None of these are coincidences and all are changes in American foreign policy effected after Obama stated them as policy positions.
Obama is already leading this countrry in foreign policy while McCain just sputters.
McCain believes he 'wins' on war, so he can't afford to suggest anything that would wind down the war in Iraq or ratchet down tensions with NK and Iran.
"The Surge" is McCain's Viagra.
At first I thought this might be a partisan site, but then I saw it was the National Review. Whew!
It hard to believe that some of these people actually get paid for writing this drivel.
I don't like the fact that he says he would sit downwith terrorists without any kind of preconditions, that scares me. He's been flip flopping saying Iran isn't a threat to the U.S. than later on changes that statement saying Iran is a great threat to the U.S.
We shouldn't pay much attention to what politicians say when they are running for office. What they say is calculated with an eye on its possible effect on the electorate.
My personal hope is that Obama begins to think about the enormous responsibility which will fall on his shoulders should he be elected President -- responsibility for the fate of the world, not just America -- then he will act in a responsible manner. This will no doubt infuriate the Code Pink hate-America types, which will be an extra added benefit.
What about his wife Michelle saying, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country". When the Senate was voting he said Present 93 times instead of Yea or Nay. During the New Hampshire Primary on tv a group of people was asked to name one thing Obama has done and not one person could name anything he had done. I would've voted for Hillary over McCain in November because I think she would've been a better President.But now since it's between McCain and Obama I think McCain is the better choice. If Obama wants to get the Women Voters he should appoint Hillary as his VP even though he would have to put up with Bill.
i like 'green zone of the mind', nice.
"When the Senate was voting he said Present 93 times instead of Yea or Nay".
John McCain: Missed 374 votes (61.8% of total)
Barack Obama: Missed 263 votes (43.5% of total)
#89: Yes, the Illinois State Senate, which is what you are talking about.
Here's a fact check on the "present" vote issue. I'm sure doing some research would benefit you.
I see a lot of reasons why you want to vote against Obama, but no reasons why you want to vote for McCain. I wonder why that is.
What about his wife Michelle saying, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country".
Maybe before she was only normally proud of her country,
Frankly #90 I don't like the vibe I get from your statement insinuating I'm Racist. At least that's the way I'm taking it.I would not hesitate to vote for either Condoleeza Rice or Collin Powell if they ever decided to run for President of the United States.
Rather than jumping to unwarranted conclusions (which nicely deflects your lack of knowledge that Obama's 'present' votes were in the Illinois State Senate), perhaps you could, as #90 indicates, state your specific reasons for preferring McCain over Obama. Then there might be something to discuss beyond the Clinton/McCain talking points you offered in your earlier post (#86).
I don't like the vibe I get from your statement insinuating I'm Racist. At least that's the way I'm taking it.
*sigh* No, I wasn't implying that, and I find it a little strange that you jumped to that conclusion. I was truly curious as to why you have so many things to say about Obama and not one thing to say about McCain.
So what ARE you saying? You said that "during the New Hampshire primary on tv a group of people was asked to name one thing Obama has done and not one person could name anything he had done." Is this the way you come to conclusions? Do you make your choices at the supermarket because on tv you saw a group of polite, enthusiastic kids yell out, "More Ovaltine please!" ?
Give us a REAL reason why you're against the guy.
I'm Sorry I jumped to that conclusion, Medellia12. I just felt that wasn't any other way for me to take statement.
No, I don't come to my conclusions from Supermarket Tabloids. When that happened it said something about Obama that not one person could name anything he had done. I watch the news on tv which mainly consists of Fox News withThe O'Reilly Factor, Greta Van Sustern, and the rest of the Fox News programs. I don't even bother watching the local News Stations or anyone else like CNN, MSNBC, etc.
Well, that explains a lot right there. Anyone who is getting news from only one source is probably getting a less than comprehensive overview.
You not only get your news from one source--you get it from a oneSIDED source. (And you don't have to answer the question I guess--you have nothing against the guy, just the party he belongs to.)
I read newspapers too, but as far as news on tv goes it's Fox News. They've been Number 1 in the ratings for so long they must be doing something right. If I'm channel surfing I might stop on CNN for a few minutes. I used to be a registered Democrat until 2004 when I switched to the Republicans. Fox News tells it like it is and not trying to appeal to people on either the Left or Right Politically. O'Reilly and others do a lot of good. You don't hear other News channels going after judges who are soft on criminals, who are trying to get Jessica's Law passed in the rest of the country. People don't want to go on The O'Reilly Factor not just because they can't stand Fox News but also because they ask tough, probing questions not a bunch of soft, easy questions.
Fox News tells it like it is and not trying to appeal to people on either the Left or Right Politically
huh? because Fox say so?
No, not because of that. If you have ever watched any of The O'Reilly Factor you will notice how the person being interviewed always tries to avoid giving O'Reilly a straight, concise answer. A lot of other news stations, newspapers and magazines all try to appeal to either the Left or Right Politically and they only tell the side of the story they want to cover.
I've watched the show, I am not impressed. With one guest he will call them on logical argument fallacies and then with the next guest use those same fallacies to make his 'point'. The more his guest holds a position he doesn't like the more 'loaded' his questions are. If any one actually catches him with wrong data or bad assumptions he blows them off, either it is only their 'Opinion' or he changes the subject or changes the argument parameters to make his answer 'right'.
I will agree the man does some excellent interviews followed by ones of complete horseshit and many of his viewers shallow the thing whole. However he is NOT balanced, nor 'fair' in his reporting.
Your breakdown of Fox and its objective style is brilliant--perhaps you can write a report about it next year when you start 9th grade.
OK, Codyed, I'll nibble at your bait. Is this like the classic ambiguity of the letter of recommendation that says, "I cannot recommend this candidate too highly..."?
I'm Sorry I jumped to that conclusion, Medellia12. I just felt that wasn't any other way for me to take statement.
You were clearly reading Medellia12 wrongly. Could it be that you are wrong about some other things as well? (The beginning of wisdom is knowing what you don't know.)
I am voting for Obama because he comes from Chicago, and the Cubs are from Chicago. I don't even need Fox News. I only watch ESPN...and Leno.
And if someone thought you were racist for not voting for Hope and Change, why should you care?
Because I'm a sensitive person by nature and I do care about what other people say or think about me.
I'm also very thin skinned too so it doesn't come natural to me just to shrug something off and not let it bother me.
First, no one is calling you a racist. That idea never occurred to me, or probably anyone else here from reading what you wrote. You can not like Obama without being a racist.
That said, you made some statements about him. Some of them were factually wrong, and people pointed that out. Ouch. Some of them were your particular spin on things, and people pointed out another way to spin things. And an obvious question was asked; if you feel so strongly against Obama, are you really FOR McCain? Are you just railing against someone you don't like, or do you have a positive solution.
By the way, this is kind of the way things work here. Say something here, and someone will challenge it. That is a given. There is another forum, Political Conservatives, where you can write anti-Obama diatribes and people will just nod their heads approvingly. This is not that forum.
Pro and Con is not a good forum for the thin-skinned or faint of heart. We can all feel "hurt" when someone challenges us, but it also keeps us on our toes and gives new perspectives. If it's too much, you might want to find a more congenial forum.
And yes, if FOX News is your primary source of information, be prepared to be challenged. "Fair and Balanced" sounds nice, but it's advertising and it's a lie. When reality doesn't conform, they are not above blatant distortion.
And in truth, I made fun of you because on one hand you say with conviction that you think McCain is better than Obama--then you back that with a childish defense of "If FOX says McCain is better than it HAS to be true. I don't care what anyone else says." It's like if you were saying that the Pacific Ocean was the biggest ocean and I said, "I don't know...I was on a boat in the Atlantic once, and believe me, it's HUGE..."
After fourteen years of Republic control, and eight years of a Republic president, look around. If it all works for you, if you are better off than you were when all this started, if you believe that BushCo is a successful presidency, if you believe Iraq was a smooth move, if you believe the most important things happening are the removal of pagan Christian symbols from malls at Christmas time, if you think we are electing a president based on posture during the Pledge of Allegience (a highly questionable assault on our liberties in the first place), or lapel pins, or Obama's Islamic tendencies, and the question of whose bum is prettier, Lindsey Lohan's or Brittany Spears, then by all means vote for McCain.
If, OTOH, you believe $4.25 is too much to pay for gas, privatizing profit and socializing loss is wrong, attacking Iraq was a mistake because it took our eye off the ball, casting about trying to find a hook when there isn't one (I heard this morning the admin says Colorado oil shale is the way out of this gas crisis?????), choosing to drill our way out of the current oil crisis just like Reagan did thirty years ago, the reason we're in this predicament now, choosing solutions to problems based on ideological reasons rather than actually solving the problem pragmatically, leading through arrogance rather than leading through diplomacy, worshiping at the feet of Hubris, and that having once known that Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border, but having forgot that (same problem with the difference between Shi'a and Sunni) are wrong, then McCain is not your man.
As far as Fox News is concerned, they are a large part of what is wrong with the polity of our country. They are a mouthpiece for the right wing, just as MSNBC is a mouthpiece for the left (see Keith Olbermann's screed against Hilary for not dropping out as an example). If you wish to discuss in Pro and Con issues of concern, it is imperative that you either generate your own ideas, or find NEWS and make your choices based on what's happening, not what you are being told in opinion pieces. Opinion is fine for shaping one's own ideas, but to follow it without some idea of who is paying for the opinion and the actual facts on the ground upon which the opinion is based is a huge mistake. It's why we are here today.
Thin skin doesn't cut it. Thicken up or be reduced to the sidelines at best, leave at worst.
Anyone out there with thin skin in need of toughening up needs to find a few political forums on USENET to participate in. That'll do the trick. Just don't forget to bring your flame retardant gear.
What about the Media bias in favor of Obama? The vast majority of news stories during the Democratic Primaries was in favor of Obama and against Hillary. How do you explain the bias? I felt the same way in '92 when Bush's dad was running for Re-Election. I thought that 12 years in a row of the Reagan-Bush era was enough. But you have to say since 9/11 America has been safer and the intelligence has uncovered numerous plots and attempts to attack America since then. As far as removal of pagan christian symbols at malls during christmas time, but it's OK for other religions to have displays during the christmas holidays, not wanting people to say Merry Christmas but Seasons Greetings, Happy Holidays, etc., wanting to remove the word God as in God We Trust from our currency, not wanting to say the word God as in One Nation Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance is the work of the ACLU. Bush has fought the ACLU on these and many other things too. I do agree I need to get thicker skin so I won't be so easily offended from other people.
It was also the ACLU that made a Judge in Texas several years remove the stone monuments of The Ten Commandments outside the Court house. But if it had been anything else it would've been OK according to the ACLU.
Believe it or not, the ACLU is your friend.
As far as the "Assault on Christianity", I will put my Christian cred against anyone's here. It's just that when I read my Bible, I believe what it says, not what someone else tells me it says.
How are they our friend? By wanting to remove the word God from everything? By trying to undo what the Founding Fathers thought was important enough to put in the Constitution? Are they trying to save us from ourselves? No, I don't believe for one second the ACLU is our friend. If you're angry at the Assault on Christianity you should be mad at the ACLU.
The 'media bias' claim is wearing thin. After months of being called 'Hussein' and wading through the muck of Rev. Wright et al., Obama finished ahead of Clinton and is leading nationally versus McCain. Of course, it is still early in the election campaign and things could change. But it is interesting that all the arguments against Obama (not experienced, not ready, is a closet Islamist, hasn't done anything in his life, etc.) have not enabled McClinton to gain a decisive and expected advantage. I doubt that 'media bias' explains this alone. This is an unusual year and all of Hannity's horses and men have not yet been able to put the Republican party back together again.
The assault on Christianity is a strawman set up by the right to make us ignore their hands being incessantly in our pockets.
The ACLU is what has kept the first amendment active and vibrant since the fifties, the first time it was attacked (in my lifetime).
This conversation comes to you via the ACLU.
What else do you want people to call him? After all he does have a Muslim middle name.
Why should liberals be ashamed of his middle name? You would think liberals would be thrilled to have someone in the White House with a name like Barack Hussein Obama.
When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s I do remember hearing great things about the ACLU and how they were defending our Freedoms and Rights whenever they got challenged by somebody else. But sadly that isn't the case any more because today you only hear negative things about the ACLU. How they are fighting to take away things they once believed in and fought for years ago. Just along as it isn't President Obama.
Another strawman, who said liberals are ashamed of Obama's middle name? It is Hussein. So? This is typical Republic BS. It's the same thinking that gave us Bush.
I think the thing I dislike the most about Republics is their high-handed treatment of people who see through their arrogance and hubris. They think I am stupid and treat me that way. Boy, if there was ever an elitist political party it's the Republics. Their general attitude is you are too ignorant to understand what's going on, just let us handle it and all will be well. Well, we did and it ain't. Whose stupid now, codyed?
Well the name Hussein for many obvious reasons has negative and bad feelings attached to it.
You're missing the point. 'Media bias' is not the reason why Obama is leading in the polls.
#128: But sadly that isn't the case any more because today you only hear negative things about the ACLU.
No, you only hear negative things about the ACLU. And, as suggested before, it's likely because you only get your news from one source.
No it's not only Fox News that you hear from saying the ACLU is trying to get rid of the word God from In God We Trust, etc. It's everywhere. In the past I think it's been in U.S. News & World Report, newspapers, Time Magazine, etc. So it's not just Fox News.
When liberals get defensive when someone evil like myself happens to bring up his unmentionable middle-name, then that says to me that liberals are ashamed of his middle-name because of what it connotes.
If liberals weren't so ashamed of Obama's middle-name, then they should have no problem with embracing it.
But Media Bias does have something to do with it. Mostly the Media is trying to swing the Voters around to Obama and will not be happy until they put him in the White House. They have been shoving Obama down our throats for a long time now. The Media Bias against Hillary was because she is married to Bill and they don't want another Clinton in the White House.
#135: When liberals get defensive when someone evil like myself happens to bring up his unmentionable middle-name, then that says to me that liberals are ashamed of his middle-name because of what it connotes.
The alternate explanation, of course, is that we're aware that the average Joe is going to break out into a cold sweat at the mention of the word 'Hussein,' and we're against this sort of manipulation of people's primitive emotions. I'm not ashamed of his name, but I am ashamed at the xenophobia of my countrymen.
...But you already know this.
Now there is a reason not to vote for the man. His name. Forget that McCain goes to Baghad and is escorted to the market by soldiers on the ground and helicopters over head, and says, "Hey, this place is safe!" or that he has no idea that Czechoslovakia no longer exists, or that Al Queda is Sunnai, not Shia. Or that he says he is not good at economics, then denies saying it, then denies denying it. No, that stuff does not matter.
#138: Now there is a reason not to vote for the man.
Who needs one more reason? Beatles1964 has a zillion of them. None of them grounded in policy, of course, and no reasons to vote for McCain. But, hey, um...you know... *trails off*
John, Paul, George, Ringo and codyed, tell me why I should be "afraid" or "ashamed" of a name that a substantial portion of people in the world share? What does something Obama had no control over have to do with his suitability to be President?
I'm telling you, this is the same craziness that got us BushCo.
I know that the best defense is a good offense, but you guyz don't have game at all.
The media is attracted to smart, intelligent people, not nimnuls who insist on running everything into the ground while using propaganda to hoodwink us. Only the hoodwinked think Hussein is a problem for Obama. I, personally, don't want anymore sheep running my government. Am I calling you sheep? Undoubtedly, if you continue to act like sheep.
...But you already know this.
Why would I know. I don't know. If I did know you, then maybe I would be a little cautious of your delicate sensibilities.
There is no sense of shame about it. Only the sense of shame that comes from the fact that the only thing the opposition has left is to shout "HUSSEIN!" ove and over so that the mouth-breathers that form the base can revel in one of the last acceptable prejudices in America and claim that it's a reason to vote against him. There's an entire thread about this if his name such a big deal to you.
As for why Obama gets the media attention: he's interesting. McCain is not.
Conservatives didn't want Bill Clinton in the White House and they went after Hillary as well in the 1990s. So I suppose the "media" was only doing the bidding of the Republican party in giving Obama its wet kiss of approval. I think I'm getting your logic now.
#141: I assume that you know it, because you're an intelligent person, thus I automatically assume that you can intuit the other side's argument. My apologies if I overestimated you. I'm afraid my sensitivities aren't too delicate--perhaps you misread the name on some of the posts above.
"They have been shoving Obama down our throats for a long time now."
Get an informed opinion, then you might not feel so helpless.
Some of the comments strike me as deflection. As I said before, if one were not ashamed of Obama's middle name, then he or she would have no problem mentioning regardless of any disapprobation exhibited by his hateful detractors.
How I wish in the 2000 /2004 elections the Dems had constantly referenced "George Bush - born in New Haven, Connecticut" to counter all the "man of the people" b.s. But I'm sure that those responsible for such things thought it would be childish and irrelevant.
Unfortunately, the other side is not above such idiocy.
Say it with pride, Gene!
Hussein! Liberate yourselves, liberals. Shout his name at the top of your lungs--Barack Hussein Obama.
Now, doesn't that feel good? It sure makes me feel good inside.
Sidney. Like the wimpy cousin in Tom Sawyer. Sidney. John SIDNEY (Read wimpy tattle-tell) McCain.
Damn, at least Hussein looked as good in a beret as GWB did in a flight suit.
Now we are getting the real reasons people vote!
What I really enjoy about this thread so far, or at least since I started joining in, is that most assume I'm a McCain supporter.
The Media is so Anti-Clinton it was so obvious. They have done everything they can to help Obama get elected in November except give him the keys to the front door of the White House. And I think they would do that too if it were possible. And they are so ga-ga over Obama. Why haven't they given him too many hard questions, huh? And I seem to remember Obama saying at one of the Press Conferences during the Democratic Primaries "I've already answered eight questions". Do we need a President like that who says, I've already answered eight questions.
Any bets on how many more posts before codyed questions Obama's patriotism because he didn't stand appropriately for the Pledge of Allegiance or wear a flag lapel pin. I'm always leary of a snake oil salesman hidiing behind the Bible and/or the Flag.
Speaking of the Bible - maybe the beatles should read and contemplate the meaning of Chapters 5 and 6 of Matthew. Ofr course I know that Jesus was not an Orthodox (or any other kind of Christian) but His words should have some relevance in Christianity. After all they are perfect!
#155: Do we need a President like that who says, I've already answered eight questions.
Heck no--we need a president who complains about how the media is biased toward the other guy! (See: Clinton, McCain.)
#153: Silly Codyed. We all know that there are no McCain supporters. Just Kool-Aid drinkers and those who are agin 'em.
"Do we need a President like that who says, I've already answered eight questions."
That's more than the current President will usually answer, in his invitation-only public appearances.
Have you even been paying attention, huh?
He walked away from the Press Conference after only answering eight questions. If he is elelcted in November I can just imagine one of his Presidential State Of The Union Addresses, I've already answered eight questions the Press Conference is over and he walks away from the podium. We don't deserve or need the kind of person for President who says. I have already answered eight questions.
>153 codyed: Perhaps, but only because you are reveling in a false controversy.
A 'State of the Union' address is not a press conference. You might have noted that Obama excels at speech-making, so I doubt he'll come up short in this area as president.
Medellia12 Kool-Aid drinkers is something Bill O'Reilly says all the time on The O'Reilly Factor on FOx News.Is that where you got that from?
They don't do Q&A at State of the Union addresses.
Seriously, have you ever seen a Bush press conference? He usually warms up by insulting a few reporters (remember when he heckled the blind guy for wearing dark glasses?), makes a few malapropisms, then gets pissed off and leaves when they ask "hard" questions.
But then, Presidentin' is "hard work" (compared to having Poppy's buddies take care of things for you).
Do you really think that phrase is original with O'Reilly?
Are you remotely aware of where the phrase comes from?
Yea if we're lucky he might answer nine or ten instead of only eight. And you can bet there wouldn't be any questions that are too hard for Obama. We wouldn't to tax his brain too much by making him think too hard.
"We wouldn't to tax his brain too much by making him think too hard."
Pot, meet kettle.
#166: We wouldn't to tax his brain too much by making him think too hard.
Hahahahahahahahaha. Yes, because Obama is clearly unintelligent.
>163 beatles1964: Google "Jonestown Massacre." Jim Jones loved him some good Kool-Aid--he loved it to death.
No. because I know it came from James Jones and Jonestown when he made his followers drink Kool-Aid and Cynaide.
> 163 Do you know what the allusion embodied by "Drink the Kool-Aid" is? It's not original with Billy boy.
160 > since you only seem to be attacking Obama, I am going to assume you are leaning toward McCain if not then I am sorry. Do you know McCain is against the decision to grant prisoners in US Custody the right to Habeas Corpus? He is in favor of holding someone indefinitely just because of suspicion. Because without a court of law to make the decision, that is all they are suspicions.
I think I'm beginning to see the 'reasons' why beatles opposes Obama. He won't answer more than 8 questions at a press conference and the media wants to hand him the keys to the Kingdom.
>176 theoria: i.e., Clinton lost, he or she is bitter, and, instead of engaging politics rationally, she or he would prefer to lash out at Obama in any way she or he can.
Sad, but probably true.
So it's okay that Obama has a deep reluctance to explain himself to the press, and, by extension, the American people. Let me get this straight--it's bad when Bush does it but okay when Hope and Change does it?
I know it's not original to O'Reilly. All those people at the Jonestown Massacre drank the Kool-Aid laced with Cyanide because James Jones told them to do it.
>178 codyed: All politicians have held brief press conferences at varying points within their respective lifetimes.
When it comes to Obama, have you really been reduced to parroting GOP memes? You're better than that.
(late edit: grammar)
The Media was insisting that Hillary leave the Primaries before they officially concluded which I doubt they would've done to Obama if the shoe had been on the other foot. I think the Media would've been insisting on Obama sticking it out to the bitter end.
>183 beatles1964: Again, Beatles, we return to a very simple point: politics is a rough game.
Clinton's a tough woman. She played it out to the end, but she lost.
The funny thing is that, somehow, Life Goes On.
Are you going to spend the rest of your life being bitter?
After the absolute and utter disrespect the media got from BushCo who can blame them if they are a little gun shy. They'll come around, and you know what? I doubt Obama will try to bully them into submission the way BushCo did. If you think the media is unhappy with Obama, ask them what they thought about Bush. Bunch of spineless wimps.
You have a point. The 'media' likes a winner. In December 2007, when Clinton was presumed to be the winner, she was puffed up by the 'media' (Hillary and the Seven dwarfs). When her inevitable victory was delayed in Iowa, the 'media' jumped on a new bandwagon. A similar pattern can be seen with the coverage of GW Bush. During the days of Bush's 90% approval ratings, the 'media' played cheerleader (see Judith Miller of the 'liberal' NY Times); but once they sank under 40%, the knives came out.
But the point here is that the media follows rather than leads.
"I have time for one more question. Yes, Samantha."
Samantha tilts her head to one side, smiles, and asks, "why are you so dreamy, Sen. Obama?"
>187 codyed: "It's funny you should ask that, Samantha... You want to know the truth? I derive my strength from my Arabic middle name, and, of course, the fact that I am an America-hating secret Muslim."
#184 Generally I'm not one to hold a grudge but in this case I might just make an exception. No, I don't plan on being bitter for the rest of my life. I think my bitterness will disappear if Obama loses to McCain. Then I'll be quite happy.
I heard that McCain might be looking for a Democrat to be his VP. Here's a thought, if he can chose a Democrat to be his VP why not make it Hillary? Then that would make Hillary supporters like myself feel much better.
If you are pinning your hopes on ANY politician, you are in very deep trouble. I mean, I want Obama to win, but will that make me happy? Maybe for a day or two.
Get a real life.
Awesome! The Conservative Dream Ticket!
I truly hope they go for it. Then John will be the one wandering into the White House kitchen and seeing Bill, in his boxers, gazing into the fridge....
>190 beatles1964: "Here's a thought, if he can chose a Democrat to be his VP why not make it Hillary?" -Beatles
Hillary loathes McCain's politics. It's shocking that I have to be the one to say this, but Hillary has principles. She would never, ever consider serving under him.
>189 beatles1964: "No, I don't plan on being bitter for the rest of my life. I think my bitterness will disappear if Obama loses to McCain. Then I'll be quite happy." -Beatles
Wow. The only way you can have closure is to see the other guy (some would call him "the winner") defeated by a man who opposes Hillary on every major political issue (excepting, of course, such trifles as the utterly asinine "gas tax holiday").
How sad. How truly and utterly sad.
It just dawned on me what's going on here. Fuxnoise has been pushing Hilary in the Democratic Primaries and the fabfour, in his own words, "drank the kool-aid", becoming a Hilary supporter in the process. Now I'm a little confused on this point: did the moptops from Merseyside (I know, I'm getting a little tired of it to and vow this is my last time) fall for this ploy innocently believing that Fox News really supports Hilary or does he realize Fox desperately wanted Hilary because they felt they could beat her with their shit machine. The right has no program for dealing with Obama. This is evident in McCain's constant gaffes, flip-flops, chasing Obama's lead and has only one issue: the surge worked.
Tell us, oh Beatles1964, which is it? You think Hilary is the better candidate, as Fox wanted you to believe, or are you aware she was being set up by the right because they figured to slaughter her with their typical slimeball politics?
BTW, her electability issues are one of the reasons she's NOT the candidate.
#189: Ever hear that phrase, cut off your nose to spite your own face?
Based on how simple you sound, I'm guessing that the reason you support McCain is because that's the name of the company that makes Ellio's Pizza.
Seems to me the media have been unusually generous to both Obama and McCain.
John Dickerson at Slate wasn't all that impressed by McCain's "Obama Love" ad, but he has a few things to say about Obama too.
#197 For your info. I wasn't even aware of that before you mentioned it and besides I've never even had an Ellio's Pizza before. And I'm not that shallow a person to vote for someone just because of that. And if Obama is so smart how come he didn't even know there was 50 U.S. States not 57 when he said that he had visited all 57 States. I guess he was absent from school the day they covered how many States we have. I guess that's why they only ask him soft, easy questions and nothing too hard.
I supported Hillary because I agree with what she had to say and also felt she would make a much better President than Obama. In fact, I still feel the same way. And no one is going to convince me otherwise or to change my mind and vote for Obama in November.
Obama is going to raise taxes if he wins in November and we'll wind up paying even more $$$ for gas should he win. Do you want to pay more for gas, more taxes.
Well, I don't.
Democrats love to raise taxes when they get someone in the White House and that is just what Obama will do to everyone. Just wait and see. Everyone that loves Obama right now won't later on once people really find out what the real Obama is like.
You obviously don't have a clue about any of the candidates other that what you've heard on idiot television, and you mindlessly parrot the same old canards that have been around forever.
Oooh! More taxes! Nothing amuses me more than the chumps that repeat this line endlessly in complete ignorance of the fact that the wealthy get so many tax breaks already because the government knows that the ignorant masses will take up the slack.
Most of the posters on this forum have been quite gentle with you, a self-described "thin-skinned" and "sensitive" person. But if you keep acting like a child at the adult table, I hope you are prepared for the inevitable hurt feelings that come when the gloves come off.
On another (or rather, the original) topic: Since they loathe Obama with a vengeance, I can't help wonder why the Hillary dead-enders are so eager for her to be on the ticket with him. These people must be completely cracked.
OK, you've made your point maybe I do need to do a little bit more research before I say something someone is going to bite my head off for. I know that if I should decide to leave this group because of hurt feelings people might think good riddance to beatles1964 and my constant attacks on Obama. Besides they might relish that fact. I think maybe I should quietly sit on the sidelines for awhile and keep my opinions to myself. Since everyone already knows how I feel about Obama.
Listen, you should most definitely feel free to share your opinions, but be willing to back them up when challenged. Original thoughts are always (well, usually) welcomed, but if you come in stating that everything you know you got from FOX News, you're basically just painting a target on your back.
You're right, you made your point about Obama. Lots of folks (myself included) don't see it as an informed opinion (which isn't to say that and informed opinion has to be pro-Obama), but Pro and Con is kept alive by divergent opinions. Like someone said, if you want to go on an anti-Obama rampage and expect everyone to agree with you, you might try the Political Conservatives group.
And with that, I believe I will relegate myself to the sidelines as well. Peace and happy weekend!
>201 beatles1964: "Democrats love to raise taxes when they get someone in the White House and that is just what Obama will do to everyone." -Beatles
Yes, he does want to raise taxes on people making more than $200,000 a year, but, and I really hate to break this to you, Hillary--gasp!--wanted to raise taxes on upper class Americans too! Clinton is also, by the way, a dyed in the wool Democrat. Perhaps you missed that as well?
Anyway... If you want any of us to take you seriously, perhaps you should compare the Obama and Clinton political platforms point by point before you choose to condemn something that both candidates agreed upon. And, for that matter, it would serve you well to compare the McCain and Clinton political platforms point by point. They are not, in any respect, political allies. They will never work together on more than an issue-by-issue basis, and, the sooner you come to that realization, the better off you will be.
And remember: it's not hard to do this research--the bullet points are all present on each candidate's respective website.
Your other option? Continue to spout unsubstantiated nonsense. Just be prepared for the rest of us to call you out.
Where did you get the 57 states nonsense? Show me the exact quote. I'm assuming you can't. You're like the whisper-down-the-lane blogger from hell... you spin what was already spun.
And please change your name--you're an insult to The Beatles. How about Rick Astley?
#206: No, that one's real.
But obviously, he meant 47.
Beatles here is a good look at Obama/McCain on taxes from a fairly balanced source.
Coming from Fox News I know you may be terminologically challenged so let me tell you that what is referred to as the Estate Tax (the name it held for the first 200+ years of our happy republic) is called in Newspeak the Death Tax. So don't get confused if the article doesn't reference the "Death Tax". When you see Estate Tax think Death Tax.
Fox News' propensity for Newspeak is part of the reason why Fox News takes it so hard on the chin here, they are so blatantly a propaganda outlet for Rupert Murdock's brand of Fascism that it just screams from their mouths. It would be better to watch CBS News than to get your "news" from Fox News. Now, this part might be hard to swallow, but if you are really interested in what"s really going on, give NPR a listen.
Why is Fox News so opposed to NPR? Because NPR, although they have come close sometimes, haven't swallowed Billo's kool-aid and by blatantly telling the truth undercuts Fox's propaganda machine. Have you never asked yourself why the right-wing is so opposed to NPR? Truth tends to render propaganda ineffective and sometimes silly.
I know you've been told that perception is what is really important, but think about it. When perception wanders off from reality it comes crashing back. Hard. With major problems. The current housing and oil crises are cases in point. Ignore the truth in favor of "perception" (read propaganda) long enough and it all goes to hell.
It's far more important these days to seek out the facts and form your own perceptions than to have someone build a perception for you, especially when it's created from whole cloth.
No one here minds you being for John McCain, or for that matter opposed to Barack Obama. We just want you to be sure you know why you hold the position you do, and so far you've been short on particulars. I'm telling you, you've GOT to get off the Fox News tip and bone up on what's really going on if you wish to execute your civic duty to vote as an informed citizen. If, after all your studying and digging and getting real information and cogitating over it you decide to vote for McCain, then hey, go for it. All we ask is that YOU know why you are voting for him, not because someone told you to.
As far as thin skin/thick skin no one here (I think) necessarily wants you to leave or particularly enjoys beating up on you, we just want you to contribute based on your own thoughts and ideas (this is where I mostly come down) or on fact based comments
Consider this "tough love" in it's truest sense. Education is seldom easy, but once you've got it, it's yours (until you brain gives out anyway).
Had you come in here thinking Keith Olbermann was the bee's knees you would get the same treatment with regard to propaganda and reality.
Beatles – You have made some ridiculous statements here, and I have become more exasperated with every post. I have tried to keep my hands off the keyboard, but I have to tackle a few statements that others haven’t addressed.
At #120 But you have to say since 9/11 America has been safer and the intelligence has uncovered numerous plots and attempts to attack America since then.
Safer compared to what? Oh sure, every few weeks the Bush administration trots out some vague story about foiled terrorist plots, but of course they can’t discuss any details because that would “reveal our methods” or whatever. Sometimes it seems like “#3 leader of al-Qaeda” must be the most dangerous job in the world – we have captured and/or killed dozens of people with that title! Meanwhile, in 2005 the Southern Poverty Law Center described nearly 60 terrorist plots by domestic right wing groups within the preceding 10 years.
After the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, al-Qaeda made several successful attacks on US embassies, military installations, etc. overseas, but it took 8 years for them to develop and implement a successful attack on US soil. In September, we will observe the 7th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So are they shut down, or just busy planning? And how many people do you suppose have joined al-Qaeda because we bombed their cousin’s wedding or tortured their brother at Abu Ghraib, or simply because they can’t find any other job in war-torn Iraq?
You will never hear this on the Fox network, but several plots were disrupted during the Clinton administration.
Frontline, The Man Who Knew contains a timeline of al-Qaeda activity
Wikipedia, Bojinka plot
Global Security, The Millennium Plot
Another Frontline program, Trail of a Terrorist
I don’t see The 9/11 Commission Report in your library, but I would recommend that you read it. This was a consensus document, so it contains “just the facts”, omitting any information that might be considered controversial. For all its limitations, it does contain a history of Islamic terrorist activities in the US. You can download the report at no cost here. You might also want to read The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11.
I think Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are the bee's knees--but of course they are on opposite ends of the political spectrum ;-)
(And sometimes I watch the BBC news and read stuff on the net to supplement the brilliant duo aforementioned.)
Beatles at #160: We don't deserve or need the kind of person for President who says. I have already answered eight questions.
Answering 8 questions would be an improvement over the current incumbent, wouldn’t it? Most of Bush’s public appearances have been open only to registered Republicans. Questions from the public (if permitted at all) are submitted in writing before the event. And don’t forget, Bush snubbed veteran reporter Helen Thomas for over 3 years, after she asked “tough questions” about Iraq.
And at #199: And if Obama is so smart how come he didn't even know there was 50 U.S. States not 57 when he said that he had visited all 57 States
OK, fair enough. Obama did say that, and it was pretty dumb – if not quite on the level of Clinton’s statement about landing under fire in Bosnia. But if you are going to vote against Obama for that mistake, then you can’t possibly vote for McCain either.
- He can’t seem to wrap his brain around the fact that Czechoslovakia ceased to exist as a country in 1993.
- He has repeatedly stated that Iran (mostly Shiite) is supporting al-Qaeda, a Sunni terrorist group. In reality, Iran is supporting Shiite extremists in Iraq and other countries.
- McCain is fond of stating that offshore oil drilling is so safe that not even hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause spills. In fact, the oil slicks after Hurricane Katrina were large enough to be seen from space! Photos documenting the spills are easy to find, for example here and here.
Beatles -The real reason I am taking you to task on this is that you have repeatedly claimed to be a Clinton supporter. Tell you what – I am a real Clinton supporter (Hillary only, not that buffoon she married), and I am offended to be in any way associated with anyone spouting the right-wing garbage you are throwing out here. I suspect that someone at Fox “got the memo” saying that the best way to criticize Obama, given the Republican party’s sorry history of late on that “race thing”, is to pretend to be a Clinton supporter.
As several others have pointed out, all opinions are welcome here on Pro & Con. Liberals who want discussions without dissent can go over to the Progressive & Liberal group, and conservatives looking for unanimity have Political Conservatives. Those who engage here on Pro & Con do so because we want to challenge, and be challenged by, intelligent people who hold divergent opinions. Personally I wish more of the conservatives would participate here, but some of them are rather prickly about being challenged, so they stay over on PC.
Do feel free to stake out any position that YOU believe in. But do your homework, come prepared, and expect to be challenged. When someone forwards an email with salacious allegations, check the facts before you forward it or post it here. Start with Snopes.com and FactCheck.org. Snopes maintains an entire page on politics and another on Obama rumors they have checked out. But don’t stop there. Google is your friend.
You might take Doug as an example. I don’t often agree with him, and Gene or BGP will occasionally have to slap him upside the head when he lapses into expounding on All liberals…(whatever), but I very much appreciate the fact that Doug reads widely, and he shares so many thought provoking articles here.
Thanks for the clarification. That video, however, shows that Obama just said it wrong--that he was talking live and said 57 instead of 47. Beatles' belief that he "didn't know how many states there were" based on that misstatement shows how the prejudice cart is way in front of the horse.
If I typed the sentence 'I was in Chicaho last week" I would hope you were smart enough to realize that I typed it wrong instead of saying, "You can't even spell Chicago... I guess you missed that lesson." The ability to discern what you see from what it actually means come with BEING AN ADULT.
In the end, what you remind me is that even though I read newspapers and articles online and watch many different networks and weigh their perspectives after watching the debates, etc, etc, my vote will be countered by dingbats like you--people who vote for this person over that person and make comments like, "I dunno...he smiles weird. I don't trust the guy."
To me, that's one sad realization.
Thanks for the clarification. That video, however, shows that Obama just said it wrong--that he was talking live and said 57 instead of 47. Beatles' belief that he "didn't know how many states there were" based on that misstatement shows how the prejudice cart is way in front of the horse.
Yes, of course. But analytical thought is just no fun, Jason. Everyone knows that.
#206 I will not change my user name, so just get used to it. I don't see how I'm an insult to The Fab Four and I can't understand where you're coming from or why you would say a thing like that. I still love to listen to their music, watch the films A Hard Day's Night, HELP!, Magical Mystery Tour, Yellow Submarine. I am not saying anything against The Beatles nor their music or what they accomplished nor would I ever do anything like that. My opinions of Obama have nothing to do with The Beatles.
Well who doesn't just love those lovable mop-tops?
If the beatles were alive today (or at least the creative ones), they would be voting Obama!
Youze guyz needz to leave the boy alone. He's one of the good guyz, a Cowboy fan. Antagonizing him isn't going to help us or help him see the light and come out of the dark.
Hey, one-half of the Lennon-McCartney team is still alive today.
Just out of curiousity what does that make Lennon and McCartney then? geneg Thanks for sticking up for me. I really appreciate it. At least I have made one friend and ally in this group. Of course, George was an excellent writer in his own right too. I don't mean any thing bad by my previous comment. It just seems that John and Paul got a lot more publicity than George ever did.
you must REALLY like Taxman, geneg!
Of course there is always....
"Why don't we do it in the road...."
Seriously, does anyone know anyone who has actually bought a Paul McCartney album since, say, 1980?
Edmund Spenser wrote the songs! Or Ben Johnson.
This will be one of those interesting discussions they will have in 500 years. And McCartney will probably still be around (a head in a jar, perhaps) to sue anyone who suggests such things.
To be honest, Flaming Pie (from 1997 I think) is probably McCartney's best solo album to date. And I have quite a few others--Band on the Run, Ram, Tug of War, Driving Rain, to name a few. The thing I've always liked about him is that he's not afraid to put out mediocre stuff--he doesn't just sit there because he can't match his previous work. I thought he was finished after Pipes of Peace...that he couldn't write a good song anymore let alone an album. Flaming Pie really surprised me. Even if you think McCartney's overrated you should try listening to it.
As for the REAL topic, I was just making fun of NOWHERE MAN back at #215 who defends himself like a kid being made fun of on the bus.
Somebody once asked Paul McCartney what was the greatest thing that had happened to him as a member of the Beatles and he said, "I got to write music with John Lennon". I think that just about says it all.
No, not Taxman, nor even Little Girl (a much better song for it's lack of stridency), but I was thinking of having them all pulled out after the Savoy Truffle. But, Something in the way he moved me made me a big fan of George over the other three. My guitar gently weeps for him, when I feel a little blue.
Several years ago David Letterman, I think it was the fortieth anniversary of the Beatles first Ed Sullivan show, played the clip of the boys doing I Want to Hold Your Hand and while John and Paul shook their heads and moved around, George just stood stock still, looking at the audience with a kind of deer in the headlights look, obviously amazed at where he found himself and what he was doing there. He just looked so much like a little boy in wonderland. I recorded that clip and kept it for several years, watching it often.
I still put George third--not because that's the designated order, but because I think George was just very very good vs. incredible.
I've told people for years that John was by far the most creative--he could make something amazing out of absolutely nothing. Paul, on the other hand, stayed within framework, limiting how long it could be, how it had to balance itself, etc. John was more creative, but Paul could do more within the limits he imposed. To me, that is the greater talent.
I think George was lucky enough to have such talent to learn from.
My, I drift away from this thread for a while and find it in the throes of Beatleology. (At least no one has suggested vice-president Starr.)
There are a lot of crap books about the Beatles but if you're looking for a very smart and well-written work with lots of trainspotting detail to keep you happy on a long winter night, check out A Revolution in the Head by Ian MacDonald. It's the gold standard for Beatling.
Sorry we went off on a tangent. Someone asked, "Why should we vote for McCain?" and then the topic shifted seeing as how there was NO REPLY.
Apparently we should vote for McCain because he's not Brittney Spears. Or something.
Now every time I see his face, I imagine the words "Dang kids!" issuing from his mouth.
To stay on topic, you should've capitalized the words "something" and "imagine".
But yes, the 'dang kids' image is prevalent.
But I thought Britney Spears was a Republican. Wasn't there a big fuss in 2004, where they invited her to the GOP convention, because she had said everyone should be supporting Bush, but then they had to uninvite her because the religious types objected to her kissing Madonna or whoever?
I doubt Ms. Spears, in her sober moments, has given much thought to the question of "party affiliation". She just reminds me of some dolt who votes for whoever Daddy tells her to vote for. Actually, I wonder if she's ever seen the inside of a voting booth.
But again, I do love the desperation in the McCain camp that they have to make commercials dissing Obama because he's "young and hip". Who needs young and hip when we have "old and crotchety"?
I like the analogy someone in the NYT made last weekend, that it was like Dennis the Menace running against Mr. Wilson.
One of the clear signs of dissing an opponent is that you don't really have anything good to say about yourself.
Which leads us to McCain's platform...
#233--the Spears quote in support of GWB and sounds curiously like something GWB might say himself--'I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support him, you know, and be faithful in what happens.' Kind of sad, pathetic, funny all at the same time.
Apparently though she could teach McCain a few things about loyalty.
Well I see what happens around here in this group when I decide to keep my big mouth shut and quietly sit by on the side lines as "Tumbling tumble weeds blow by". This place is like a Deserted Old West Ghost Town without beatles1964 around to stir things up and make a little controversy.
Well, I just thought I would blow back into Town again and say "Howdy to Y'all". And hope Y'all don't decide to give me a Necktie Party or to Tar and Feather me and ride me out of town on a rail. Happy Trails.
The weirdest thing has happened to me that I don't understand. Maybe one of you can explain to me why this group has mysteriously disappeared from the list of groups I am a member of. You know I didn't leave the group.
Is there any plausible explanation why this would happen?
You know I think Hillary went above and beyond the call of duty to do what she was required to do for Obama. Personally I feel if I had been in Hillary's position I would've just gotten by with doing the bare minimum that was required of me. Just enough to squeak by and say I did what I was supposed to do. Nothing more and nothing less.
Beatles, had Hilary taken that approach, it would have been the end of her political career as a Democrat. The mission here is to elect a Democrat President of the United States and both she and Bill know this.
Had Hilary won the nomination she would NOT have won the election. the Republicans spent the last four years creating their anti-Hilary campaign. That's why they were pushing so hard to get her nominated. Democrats know this, and among other reasons this is one reason why Hilary was not nominated.
It is far more important that we elect a Democrat, than that we elect a symbol. Although, it seems that if we do elect a Democrat we get the symbol to boot.
Obama/Biden is not a good choice for the Republicans.
Although, I have seen the occasional McCain/Schrute bumper sticker and can see how it certainly makes sense, but it's probably a loser for the Republicans.
I'd be interested to know if anyone has ever had this same problem occur to them as well. And what causes it and what can be done to fix it so it doesn't happen again to me in my other groups I am a member in too. I guess I could always just click on the join button again and that would take care of my not being listed as memeber in this or any other group if this ever happens again to me sometime in the future.
I think she would've given MCain a run for his money and possibly even beaten him. I mean she didn't get 18 million votes for nothing you know. Those 18 million votes have to say something about her a Presidential Candidate. Obama didn't even get THAT many votes himself.
I have not had that problem, beatles. You might want to report it to Tim.
I know, that as moderator of the group, I have done nothing to your membership status.
I wasn't saying anyone here had done anything to do with it. I just thought I would mention it here to everyone about it suddenly disappaearing from the list of my groups. I just felt it was strange how that happened. OK I'll get in touch with Tim. I know some of the earlier discussions here got a little bit heated but like everyone else I was just expressing my opionions and also any misgivings I have about an Obama Presidency.
Heated is fine, and I don't remember you being abusive verbally. Check with tim, this has not happened to me.
I have a strong suspicion that anyone who thinks Hilliary Clinton had a change in hell of wining lives nowhere near the midwest or any other neocon enclave. These people hate her, for no justifiable reason, but there it is. The Republicans are sorry she isn't VP because she would have been the rallying point of their offensive, as hatred for her is already so deeply ingrained.
I want to just say that many threads eventually die a natural death, and it would make sense for this one to do so, now that the original question is moot. Hillary's not going to be the VP, we know that, and given the larger picture, it would be helpful if her supporters would get behind Obama and get him elected--whatever your feelings might be, he's sure a lot closer to her politically than the alternative. And I don't know how likely it is to happen, but I sure would like to see her as the Attorney General or Secretary of State, for example. Maybe?
This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.