POZ Community Forums
Off Topic Forums => Off Topic Forum => Topic started by: AndyArrow on May 19, 2008, 12:46:13 am
-
After a landslide victory in West Virginia, the Clinton Campaign today announced that former Kentucky Governors Wendell Ford, Paul Patton, John Brown, and Julian Carroll are all endorsing Hillary for President. The endorsements demonstrate the widespread support Hillary continues to receive throughout the Bluegrass State.
Ambassador Joe Wilson and Valerie Plane Wilson believe Hillary Clinton has the strongest plan for ending the Iraq war and are supporting her for President.
-
Meanwhile the Washington Post reported today that Clinton's financial backers have already begun private discussions with Team Obama about folding their operations in with his soon. :)
-
And Obama will probably win but I just love politics so I hope it keeps going! :)
-
Meanwhile the Washington Post reported today that Clinton's financial backers have already begun private discussions with Team Obama about folding their operations in with his soon. :)
You kind of got it wrong. This is the direct quote:
Top fundraisers for Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have begun private talks aimed at merging the two candidates' teams, not waiting for the Democratic nominating process to end before they start preparations for a hard-fought fall campaign.
-
Yeah, but nobody thinks Hillary will win except Hillary and her delusional supporters. You don't actually think that Obama's financial backers are going into those discussion with any other expectation than what I said? THEY are not the ones $20 million in debt. Game over, sweetpea. What are you smoking tonight?
Oh hey, look:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iFR0r8H6W8nb59poWNJ7qF8YApEgD90KABF80
(and this was a week ago)
Barack Obama's wave of superdelegate endorsements puts him within reach of the Democratic presidential nomination by the end of the primary season on June 3 — even if he loses half of the remaining six contests.
The Illinois senator has picked up 26 superdelegates in the past week. At that pace, he will reach the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination — 2,025 — in the next three weeks, when delegates from the remaining primaries are included.
-
I'm not smoking anything Darlin' and I never said she would win.
I just want it to continue also please remember that until the convention the superdelegates declared or not have the right to change their mind. People change their minds all the time. Heck, Barack Obama vote 3 times for gas tax holiday in Illinois but now he thinks it's a bad idea. ;)
Again I'm not saying it's going to happen but that it can.
AA
edited for spelling
-
... still delusional
-
... still delusional
You love it!
Kentucky leaders who support Hillary:
Former Governor and Senator Wendell H. Ford
Former Governor John Y. Brown
Former Governor Paul Patton
Former Kentucky First Lady Judy Patton
Former Governor Jullian Carroll
Former Senator Dee Huddleston
Former Lt. Governor Steve Henry
Former Miss America and Community Activist Heather French Henry
Former Kentucky First Lady Phyllis George
House Speaker Jody Richards
Former Attorney General and State Rep. Greg Stumbo
Majority Floor Leader Rep. Rocky Adkins
State Rep. Joni Jenkins
1st Congressional District
Rep. Fred Nessler
Rep. Brent Yonts
Rep. John Arnold
Rep. Will Coursey
2nd Congressional District
Rep. Dottie Simms
Rep. Larry Belcher
3rd Congressional District
Sen. Denise Harper-Angel
Rep. Mary-Lou Marzian
Rep. Tim Firkins
Rep. Steve Riggs
Rep. Tom Burch
4th Congressional District
Rep. Robin Webb
5th Congressional District
Sen. Ray Jones
Rep. John Will Stacy
Rep. Leslie Combs
Rep. Keith Hall
Rep. Rick Nelson
6th Congressional District
Rep. Harry Moberly
Majority Caucus Chairman Rep. Charlie Hoffman
Rep. Carl Rollins
Rep. Don Pasley
-
Honey, WHO CARES ABOUT KENTUCKY? They don't vote for Democrats in the general election. Nor does West Virginia or *cough* Indiana.
-
Oh quit trying to bust my balloon! At least until June 3rd!
Smooches til then!
AA
-
Honey, WHO CARES ABOUT KENTUCKY? They don't vote for Democrats in the general election. Nor does West Virginia or *cough* Indiana.
Behind my gal Phil'q'aaha amd my man Barry...all the way, baby.
Brent
(Who makes odd comebacks)
-
Honey, WHO CARES ABOUT KENTUCKY? They don't vote for Democrats in the general election. Nor does West Virginia or *cough* Indiana.
You have very short term memory.
Bill Clinton won Kentucky & West Virgina in 1992 and again 1996. :)
-
Nor does West Virginia or *cough* Indiana.
Yes, I'm aware of the super-conservative area I live. But, there have been more first-time voters (democrat) here than there has ever been. And my congressman (Joe Donnelly) threw his support (and he's a super-delegate) behind Obama. As did Tim Roemer, a past congressman. Evan Bayh, however (who I really like), threw his support behind Hillary.
-
You have very short term memory.
Bill Clinton won Kentucky & West Virgina in 1992 and again 1996. :)
Yes, and both Clintons are war mongerers that appeal to that sector of the electorate. It amazes me that any progressive can swallow Hillary's disingenuous explanation of her politically expedient vote on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. I mean come on -- EVERYONE knew what that vote was for, and it wasn't to get UN inspectors to look around more. It's as laughable an explanation as her sniper fire lie. For someone who rants about "right wing conspiracies" she sure seems easily suckered by them.
-
Honey, WHO CARES ABOUT KENTUCKY? They don't vote for Democrats in the general election. Nor does West Virginia or *cough* Indiana.
Ahhhh, philly, I am hurt, nobody cares about Kentucky.
Kentucky used to be very Democratic, but in the 80's went over to the dark side. Fortunately, things are slowly improving. Hillary will win big tomorrow and McCain will win by a huge margin in the fall. What we need to work on in Kentucky and really get help from throughout the country is getting rid of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the mastermind of the Republican takeover of KY politics.
-
Yes, and both Clintons are war mongerers that appeal to that sector of the electorate. It amazes me that any progressive can swallow Hillary's disingenuous explanation of her politically expedient vote on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. I mean come on -- EVERYONE knew what that vote was for, and it wasn't to get UN inspectors to look around more. It's as laughable an explanation as her sniper fire lie. For someone who rants about "right wing conspiracies" she sure seems easily suckered by them.
If both Clintons are war mongers what do you make of Barack Obama?
When Barack Obama was running for a U.S. Senate seat from Illinois in 2004, he filled out a questionnaire for the Chicago Sun-Times answering “no” to this question: Would you have voted for the $87 billion supplemental appropriation for Iraq and Afghanistan?
Once elected to the U.S. Senate, Obama repeated voted for a series of war funding measures.
Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government.
Sounds a bit like warmongering to me. :D
Peace & Love!
AA
-
Now you're being as disingenuous as Hillary. Funding troops in the field is different than launching a war, and you know it. Fighting al Qaeda is different than going after non-existent WMD's in Iraq based on flimsy, knowingly hyped intelligence. I'm about to come over there an yank out your tube, queen. No wonder you're voting for her if you're that easily bamboozled.
btw, Hillary's campaign was caught bribing super-delegates today (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/19/superdelegates-turned-dow_n_102450.html).
-
You miss read again, Darlin'
Barack Obama said he would vote against FUNDING when he was running for his Senate seat. Once in office he vote REPEATEDLY for funding. Once he was against it now he is for it. You need to read more carefully before you type.
Hugs!
AA
-
It's still not an appropriate comparison. And Hillary is still bribing people.
-
I'm merely saying that he has changed his position on this and many issues and seems to act more like a typical politic an then you are willing to accept.
In a 2003 forum on health care, Mr. Obama said he supported the children of illegal aliens' receiving the same benefits as citizens, "whether it's medical, whether it's in-state tuition." Asked specifically whether he included "undocumented" people, Mr. Obama replied, "Absolutely."
But in a CNN debate Jan. 21, when Mr. Obama was asked whether his health care proposal covers illegal aliens, he said "no" and that he first wants to cover the U.S. citizens and legal residents without health care.
In 2004, Mr. Obama told an audience at Southern Illinois University, "I think it's time for us to end the embargo with Cuba. ... It's time for us to acknowledge that that particular policy has failed.”
However, he stopped short of calling for an end to the embargo in a Miami Herald op-ed in August. He said he would rely on diplomacy, with a message that if a post-Fidel Castro government made democratic changes, the U.S. "is prepared to take steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo."
Mr. Obama told an AFL-CIO group in June 2003: "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health care plan."
But in one of the debates he said he has never endorsed such a plan.
Sounds like a typical politican to me!
AA
-
Apples to oranges. I'm sure all of our dead soldiers appreciate your deplorably immoral and highly odious comparisons of Iraq with the offspring of illegal aliens and college tuition. Are you even listening to yourself?
-
You miss my point ... I'm not comparing anything to anything.
I'm saying he changes his positions to meet his audience.
I am against the war in Iraq and always have been.
I was against the first gulf war.
I was against the invasion of Panama in 89.
I was against the airstrikes on Libya in 86.
I was against the invasion of Grenada in 83.
-
You were against Grenada? You were like 12! If your issue with Obama is consistency, I'm not sure why that means Clinton is the better candidate. Are you suggesting that she never changes her positions?
Plus is changing a position such a bad thing? We have a President who consistently sticks to his guns! Look at the mess that's got us in. In any event, it's over. If even a former West Virginia Klansman can see the writing on the wall and endorse Obama, game over!
The Wall Street Journal's opinion of Clinton's biggest flip flop:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/8/130258.shtml (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/8/130258.shtml)
-
You were against Grenada? You were like 12!
(http://roissy.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/fascinating.jpg)
-
Actually, I was 13 ... I have followed politics since I was six.
Geopolitics still fascinates me today. I follow the election process going on in Zimbabwe just as closely as I follow the US elections.
I think Angela Merkle would make a much better first President of the EU than Tony Blair.
Changing your position is not a bad thing. Changing your position for political gain is. Barack Obama voted for a gas tax holiday 3 times ... now he is against but he won't explain why it was such a great idea just a few years ago.
I'm not holding Hillary Clinton or John McCain in any higher regard. I am however saying they are all politicans and Barack Obama is no different and I think you are naive if you think otherwise.
I will vote for Barack Obama if he is the nominee but I disagree on many of his positions but less than with John McCain.
AA
-
Yes, all politicians do change their positions from time to time, but I don't believe all politicians are the same. I believe the Clintons (and it's a packaged deal) have some serious integrity issues. They exemplify gutter politics. As crazy and irrational as McCain is, I think I trust him more than I trust either Clinton, even if I agree with her policies more than his. I don't think that because Obama voted for a state gas tax holiday but is now against a federal tax holiday makes him the same as Clinton. I think a gas tax holiday is a foolish and short-sighted political gimmick that will hurt the US economy more than it helps it, so regardless of Obama's past state voting record I'm glad he's against it now!
As an aside, why do you believe Merkle would make a good EU President?
-
I'll add my sustiva tainted 2 cents worth...
I watched Bill Clinton on cspan last night before Hillary came on stage. I think its probably over for her,
but its easy to see how the Clintons want to hang onto the dream. No doubt, their last chance in the forefront of politics.
So its not easy for them to toss in the towel. I understand that.
I also watched Obama at his rally, before the Hillary rally, on cspan. I still just don’t get the Obama craze.
They took questions from the audience and every question was answered by "during my first year" and also involved funding.
One lady ask about college funding for people (like her) that wanted to "go back" to college.
Again, she was answered with a "yes you can" and added funding would be there for her.
If Obama actually did everything he says, and during his first year as he states, and funded it all, well it just looks like empty lip service to me.
Just seems to be a reality check missing here. And a detachment from reality. Its like people aren’t really hearing what he is saying.
They just want to hear him talk and talk. I still just don’t get it.
Like the 80,000 crowd at the rally over the weekend. People bringing their dogs dressed up with Obama signs sitting in the grass all afternoon.
You know, probably only 20% actually could even see him or hear him with a crowd that huge.
Made me wonder, we’re they also giving away free hams???
If this is some sort of fad, what worries me is people drop fads as fast as they take them up.
Bottom line, I REALLY hate to see McCain get in, for 4 more years of further republican HELL. But I see it coming...
-
My partner is one of the many people who will be voting for McCain if Obama is the democratic nominee. One reason for his decision doesn't have as much to do with Obama as his supporters. There is a cult of personality regarding Obama that doesn't sit well with many people. Having immigrated here from Cuba he has a reluctance to vote for someone who's supporters view him as a larger than life. He also resents the people who will be voting for him just because he is black.
Another problem for Democrates is what is being demonstrated by this thread. As Clinton and Obama supporters attack each other it makes both candidates look bad. Republicans are not arguing and tearing down McCain.
Personally I haven't decided who will get my vote.
-
I feel like I'm Alice and I've stepped through the looking glass. Has anyone bothered to read McCain's stand on the issues? Talk about a cult of personality, Grandpa's not a "straight talker" or a "maverick" just because the media says so. Does anyone seriously believe that any of McCain's positions will benefit the uninsured, or people with HIV? John McCain will be four more years of the same and if folks are happy with that then you should vote for him. But please someone point out to me one talking point of McCain's that could convince me to vote for him, one issue that makes him a better choice than either Obama or Hillary. Just one, I'm listening.
He also resents the people who will be voting for him just because he is black.
Statements like this chill me to the bone.
-
Someone who moves from the Hillary column to the McCain column, is on crack. Do you honestly think that she is closer to Saint John than she is to Obama on a VARIETY of issues? Seriously? Leave aside your emotional distress talking points and get to the red meat here.
Factor in that they're gay and with a partner who has HIV (sorry, can't recall if the husband-in-question has it) and you've really got some good times.
-
My partner is one of the many people who will be voting for McCain if Obama is the democratic nominee. One reason for his decision doesn't have as much to do with Obama as his supporters. There is a cult of personality regarding Obama that doesn't sit well with many people. Having immigrated here from Cuba he has a reluctance to vote for someone who's supporters view him as a larger than life. He also resents the people who will be voting for him just because he is black.
Another problem for Democrates is what is being demonstrated by this thread. As Clinton and Obama supporters attack each other it makes both candidates look bad. Republicans are not arguing and tearing down McCain.
Personally I haven't decided who will get my vote.
Dear Ford, I do believe this is the most unnattractive post I have ever read from you. And I realize you are stating so on behalf of your other, but still. I must say that it sounds like your partner who has the race issue here. And what? Now that Americans are finally getting off their asses and paying attention - that constitutes a "cult of personality"? Bah. I don't think the case is that people are getting over hyped now, it's that we've been astonishingly under-involved previously.
-
Given the recent scandal with McCain's advisors, I wouldn't want to be associated with that man or his party in any way.
http://pol.moveon.org/charlieblack/video.html#facts?id=12678-9064 (http://pol.moveon.org/charlieblack/video.html#facts?id=12678-9064)
Edited to add: Be sure to read the documentation.
-
Also, beware of John McCain's *new* sham "progressive campaign"
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5879
-
I hope I express this properly.
Ya know...even though there are plenty of valid reasons to vote for Obama, I have to say there is perhaps a part of me that can understand even the notion of "just voting for him because he is black" as a part of one's decision making process. And it's just this sort of sentiment expressed above that pushes me toward thinking so.
I'm sick to death of hearing "oh, he'll be shot as soon as he takes office" or "oh, people will only vote for him because of his race" or "oh, it will all be about race if he gets in" or "oh, everything he proposes will have to pass or it will be blamed on racism" or "oh, America isn't ready".
America needs to get freakin' ready, ok? It's time. Past time, really.
This great country of mine can be embarassingly juvenile sometimes, and this is one of them. If all this horrible stuff is fated to happen if (gasp) a black man takes office, part of me wants to say "so be it". Because it's always worst at the dawn of significant changes like this. If America needs to have its time to behave like a bratty adolescent about this, then I suppose it's gonna have to happen eventually one way or another, right? So it might as well be now, so maybe we can get past this childishness and grow up already.
-
It ain't called the "audacity of hope" fo' nuffin!
-
i struggled over how to phrase that post above. it's just that part of me hears all this endless, ENDLESS race mess and has to wonder...if we are still truly there at this late day and age, then maybe this is what needs to happen for my country. if it has to be "a thing", then bring it and let's finally move on. please.
-
The REAL McCain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c
-
I relayed what my partner told me, not that I agree with him (now you see why he and I don't discuss politics). This weekend I was talking with a gay coworker who was adamant he wouldn't vote for Obama because he is convinced he is Muslim. ??? Right or wrong, there are people who freely admit that one reason they are voting for Obama because he is black and because it is time for a president who is not a old white man. I'm warning the Democrates, this is the mentality you are dealing with.
As far as what I think, I won't vote for McCain for one major issue: his stance on Iraq. I don't care what his position is on other issues; it is a deal breaker for me. Obama and Clinton are a toss up. They generally are on the same side of major issues. They both make pretty speeches but I think they are, like all politicians, telling me what they think I want to hear. I'm skeptical that either will be able to bring about "the change" that they are promising, mostly because a lot of what they are discussing involve powerful forces that they cannot control, such as the global economy.
I'm trying to decide whether to vote for the Democratic candidate or the Libertarian candidate. Of course the Libertarians don't have a snowballs chance in hell but I'm sick of the two party, us-or-them system in the US. We need a viable third party in the US. I agree with most, not all, of the Libertarian positions and the idea of voting for a principle rather than a person appeals to me. They, like the Democrates, have not chosen a candidate yet, so I'm waiting to see what the options will be.
-
I'm warning the Democrates, this is the mentality you are dealing with.
No offense, but much of this is specific to Appalachia. Not all of it, but it's struck me that it's at a much higher level in that area. You can see it in the primary vote breakdown if you look at a county by county map spanning that entire area, and it goes all the way from down where you live up through Pennsylvania's center.
Maybe a better question to ask is why this type of thinking is so specific to that geographical area.
source (http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20080518/NEWS/805180332/1013)
Of the counties in which Clinton got 65 percent of the vote or more this year in head-to-head match-ups with Obama, all were in Appalachia.
btw, I believe homo-hatin' Bob Barr is going to be the Libertarian candidate now:
http://www.bobbarr2008.com
-
I relayed what my partner told me, not that I agree with him (now you see why he and I don't discuss politics). This weekend I was talking with a gay coworker who was adamant he wouldn't vote for Obama because he is convinced he is Muslim. ??? Right or wrong, there are people who freely admit that one reason they are voting for Obama because he is black and because it is time for a president who is not a old white man. I'm warning the Democrates, this is the mentality you are dealing with.
As far as what I think, I won't vote for McCain for one major issue: his stance on Iraq. I don't care what his position is on other issues; it is a deal breaker for me. Obama and Clinton are a toss up. They generally are on the same side of major issues. They both make pretty speeches but I think they are, like all politicians, telling me what they think I want to hear. I'm skeptical that either will be able to bring about "the change" that they are promising, mostly because a lot of what they are discussing involve powerful forces that they cannot control, such as the global economy.
I'm trying to decide whether to vote for the Democratic candidate or the Libertarian candidate. Of course the Libertarians don't have a snowballs chance in hell but I'm sick of the two party, us-or-them system in the US. We need a viable third party in the US. I agree with most, not all, of the Libertarian positions and the idea of voting for a principle rather than a person appeals to me. They, like the Democrates, have not chosen a candidate yet, so I'm waiting to see what the options will be.
This makes no sense at all. You're taking a couple of people you talk to, to make an informed decision? One mo believes Obama's a Muslim and you've heard people say they're voting for Obama because he's black. Would it make a difference to you if you hear people say they're voting for McCain because he's white? Frankly, I'm surprised this is how you're making political decisions.
Do you even know who the Libertarian Party candidate is this year? It's former Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia. Google him and see how much you guys agree on.
-
No offense, but much of this is specific to Appalachia. Not all of it, but it's struck me that it's at a much higher level in that area. You can see it in the primary vote breakdown if you look at a county by county map spanning that entire area, and it goes all the way from down where you live up through Pennsylvania's center.
Maybe a better question to ask is why this type of thinking is so specific to that geographical area.
You can say that same thing about Obama's support in heavily African American populated areas. No matter how politically correct we are or how much we want to say race doesn't matter, the simple fact is that race is a major factor in this election. Right or wrong, that is just the way it is. Why is he winning the African American vote by over 90%? Obama is winning votes because he is African American, the same as Hillary is winning votes because she is female.
As far as I am concerned there isn't a great deal of difference on the issues between the two. I was at a rally 2 years ago when Obama spoke. He was two hours late and the crowd was very restless. When he took the stage it was instant excitement, he was phenomenal, and I would have followed him and supported him in any endeavor. However, I support Hillary. She is, I agree, a very polarizing figure and Obama seems to be much more the unifier and has the ability to make the country "feel" better. But with such little difference in the two on the issues I chose Hillary because I want a female President, but more importantly looking at things the way they are I want a Democrat as President and I believe she is the Democrat who can win in the fall.
And Ford, I was thinking along the Libertarian lines until I realized that Barr would be the party's nominee and regardless of whether it is Obama or Clinton, it must be a Democrat so I have to vote the party.
-
You can say that same thing about Obama's support in heavily African American populated areas. No matter how politically correct we are or how much we want to say race doesn't matter, the simple fact is that race is a major factor in this election. Right or wrong, that is just the way it is. Why is he winning the African American vote by over 90%? Obama is winning votes because he is African American, the same as Hillary is winning votes because she is female.
Except that's a fallacious argument somewhat because Hillary BEGAN the primary with a 30-point lead among African-Americans.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3907239.ece
However, I support Hillary. She is, I agree, a very polarizing figure and Obama seems to be much more the unifier and has the ability to make the country "feel" better.
.... and I believe she is the Democrat who can win in the fall.
lolwut -- how is she more electable if, by your own standards and admission, Hillary is more polarizing and Obama more of a unifier? Sorry, there's a bit of cognitive dissonance in your post, woods.
-
Except that's a fallacious argument somewhat because Hillary BEGAN the primary with a 30-point lead among African-Americans.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3907239.ece
So you are saying she lost that lead and now only has less than 10% support among African Americans because African Americans support Obama strictly on the issues. I don't think so.
-
So you are saying she lost that lead and now only has less than 10% support among African Americans because African Americans support Obama strictly on the issues. I don't think so.
Did you even READ the article?
-
Step away from the watercooler kids, numbers don't lie.
The latest national numbers from Gallup show some startling movement towards Obama among Dems who have been among Hillary's most reliable supporters.
It finds that Obama is now tied with Hillary among whites (47%-47%); leads her among women (49%-46%); edges her among Dems with a high school graduate or less (46%-47%); and leads her among Hispanics (51%-44%).
Those groups, obviously, have been the bedrock of Hillary's candidacy. The only major demographic group that Hillary gets 51% or more of are women aged 50 and older.
These numbers suggest that Obama's support is broadening daily, and that the party's rank and file -- in addition to its institutional players -- appear to be coalescing behind him.[/i]
-
Did you even READ the article?
Yes I read the article, not once, not twice, but several times. Sullivan, a columnist, does address the tactics used by the Clinton's, and how Obama has improved his percentages among certain white voting groups. All I am saying is that race, as gender and for some sexual orientation, is a factor among how some people vote. In a perfect world I would hope it wouldn't, but the fact remains it does. Will it keep me from voting for Obama when he runs in the fall, of course not. Let's just realize though that race has played a factor and will even more so.
These numbers suggest that Obama's support is broadening daily, and that the party's rank and file -- in addition to its institutional players -- appear to be coalescing behind him.[/color][/i]
This is good, just as Clinton's numbers would improve if she were going to be the nominee.
-
Yes I read the article, not once, not twice, but several times.
Oh come now -- you hadn't done so when I asked that question. A mere 4 minutes had elapsed from the time I threw it up and the time you first replied.
Otherwise you don't seem to accept Sullivan's argument that the Clinton's race-baiting throughout the campaign has pushed their 30-point lead among African Americans to what it is now.
In fact, it also pushed a lot of white voters over to Obama, myself included. I was sitting on the fence previous to the SC primary. Which begs the question -- why do their tactics horrify me so much but seem to just slide off of others backs?
-
Do I accept ..."Sullivan's argument that Clinton's race-baiting throughout the campaign has pushed their 30-point lead among African Americans to what it is now." No I don't. A factor yes, but the sole reason no.
-
This makes no sense at all. You're taking a couple of people you talk to, to make an informed decision? One mo believes Obama's a Muslim and you've heard people say they're voting for Obama because he's black. Would it make a difference to you if you hear people say they're voting for McCain because he's white? Frankly, I'm surprised this is how you're making political decisions.
Do you even know who the Libertarian Party candidate is this year? It's former Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia. Google him and see how much you guys agree on.
I'm not making my political decision based on race and sex. Lots of people, particularly in my area of the country, are. Whether it is Clinton or Obama I want the Democrates to win. You can't just write people off as being Appalachian hillbillies because these people vote. Once the Democrates chose a candidate they need to make a better effort at winning over the people who don't think a racial minority or a woman can lead.
As far as voting Libertarian, as I said it would be more about the principle than the person. It would be impossible for a libertarian to win this election. I assume you are referring to Bob Barr not being "gay friendly". He writes that he would support getting rid of "Don't ask, don't tell" and letting gays serve openly in the military. I don't know his history extensively so maybe there is something you are referring to that I'm unaware of.
My problem with the Libertarian philosophy has to do with my belief that there are services that the government needs to regulate. These primarily include military defense, law enforcement, fire protection, healthcare and public education. Of course no party completely reflects my thoughts on the issues. I do think we need more Libertarian principles in our government.
As I said, I haven't decided who I will vote for. I'll probably end up caving and voting for the Democratic candidate just so McCain doesn't keep us in Iraq.
-
I assume you are referring to Bob Barr not being "gay friendly". He writes that he would support getting rid of "Don't ask, don't tell" and letting gays serve openly in the military. I don't know his history extensively so maybe there is something you are referring to that I'm unaware of.
Bob Barr authored and sponsored the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
“The homosexual agenda calls for taking these so-called marriage licenses to the mainland and the other 50 states, the other 49 states, and trying to force these other states, the citizens of these other states, to accept their bizarre view of marriage.” [CBS This Morning, 12/4/96]
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/13/barr-dont-ask/
Authoring something like that is the very antithesis of libertarian priciples, so in most ways I'd view him as a chameleon.
It's nice that he's finally "evolved" in his opinion about gays serving in the military, but you're probably going to want to do some research on his other views.
Oh, and Barr introduced a resolution to impeach Bill Clinton BEFORE Monica Lewinsky even came to light.
But hey, what a little fun? Barr, an outspoken foe of abortion (like any good dashboard tin saint of family values in the Republican Party) was later exposed to having paid for his first wife's abortion in 1983, and later refused to answer questions about cheating on his second wife to be with what turned into his thrid wife.
Quality guy there.
-
He sounds like a hypocritical, opportunistic ass. Defense of Marriage is the complete antithesis of libertarian philosophy as is being against choice.
-
He sounds like a hypocritical, opportunistic ass. Defense of Marriage is the complete antithesis of libertarian philosophy as is being against choice.
As a Georgian, I am quite familiar with Barr. And yes, he is.
Huh...typical: "Defense of Marriage" from someone on his third wife. What a "bizarre view of marriage". Nearly all of these assholes who spout off about the "sanctity of marriage" are on wife # whatever (not counting whatever whores they are banging on the side). Yet nearly all of the sheep bleating along with them remain stunningly (read: willfully) silent about this glaring dissonance.
-
Going on a tangent, I wish the California gay marriage decision had happened after the election. It is such a wedge issue and I hope it will not be as effective this time around.
-
Yes, all politicians do change their positions from time to time, but I don't believe all politicians are the same. I believe the Clintons (and it's a packaged deal) have some serious integrity issues. They exemplify gutter politics. As crazy and irrational as McCain is, I think I trust him more than I trust either Clinton, even if I agree with her policies more than his. I don't think that because Obama voted for a state gas tax holiday but is now against a federal tax holiday makes him the same as Clinton. I think a gas tax holiday is a foolish and short-sighted political gimmick that will hurt the US economy more than it helps it, so regardless of Obama's past state voting record I'm glad he's against it now!
As an aside, why do you believe Merkle would make a good EU President?
The gas tax holiday isn't designed as a long term solution. It in fact would expire after summer. It was merely to be set in place to achieve some short term relief for some at the very bottom of the economy. Which is why Barack supported it repeatedly in Illinois when I lived in Chicago.
If you really believe that Barack Obama is so above board and different from other politicans you might be interested in reading in exactly how he was able to purchase his very large Georgian manor with the help of Chicago slumlord Tony Rezko who exploited the black community that Barack represented.
Angela Merkel was able to push through Germany involvemen in Afghanistan even though the Bundestag was heavily divided.
When Israel was attacked by Hezbollah in Lebanon she had the German Navy intervene on Israel's behalf to help end the conflict.
She has managed to push through Climage Change Policy in the EU reducing gas emissions by 20% by the year 2020.
She also got the member states to agree to increase renewable energy production by 20% by the year 2020.
These are just a few of the reasons I think she would make a good EU President.
AA
-
No offense, but much of this is specific to Appalachia. Not all of it, but it's struck me that it's at a much higher level in that area. You can see it in the primary vote breakdown if you look at a county by county map spanning that entire area, and it goes all the way from down where you live up through Pennsylvania's center.
Maybe a better question to ask is why this type of thinking is so specific to that geographical area.
Adding on to this post of mine, here's a dkos posting that just went up with accompanying county-by-county maps showing what I'm referring to:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/20/162117/922/561/519120
-
The gas tax holiday isn't designed as a long term solution. It in fact would expire after summer. It was merely to be set in place to achieve some short term relief for some at the very bottom of the economy. Which is why Barack supported it repeatedly in Illinois when I lived in Chicago.
It's a dumb policy. It will at most save $25-30 (in total, for the entire summer). That's not a relief to anyone, especially when gas prices could very well surge to $5 a gallon this summer. And I'm not sure it will be a relief for the people who will lose their jobs after highway projects will go unfunded. And this notion of a special tax on oil companies is a nonstarter and Clinton knows it. She is pandering. But I guess it worked.
High oil and gas prices is a long-term problem, but the debate is all about a short-term band-aid. ???
If you really believe that Barack Obama is so above board and different from other politicans.
Where and when did I say that? I did say that I probably trust crazy and irrational McCain (or just about any other major national politician) more than I trust Clinton. But nothing about Obama being so above board and different from other politicians.
-
It's a dumb policy. It will at most save $25-30 (in total, for the entire summer). That's not a relief to anyone, especially when gas prices could very well surge to $5 a gallon this summer. And I'm not sure it will be a relief for the people who will lose their jobs after highway projects will go unfunded.
Since I drive more than 300 miles several times a month for medical coverage it will make a difference for me. Clinton's policy was completely different from John McCain's in that hers funded the highway projects my taxing the windfall profits the engery companies are recieving.
One of Barack Obama's key Indiana Campaign managers is a lobbiest for a large engery company who is against taxing these windfall profits.
AA
-
huh? One obscure campaign manager in Indiana (*cough*) coerced the impressionable Obama into this policy? What meds are you today, dear?
-
huh? One obscure campaign manager in Indiana (*cough*) coerced the impressionable Obama into this policy? What meds are you today, dear?
I never said this is why Barack has changed his energy policy. I'm simply stating who is helping manage his campaign. Here are few more examples:
Barack Obama has a political machine funded and run by a standard Beltway group of lobbyists, P.R. consultants, and hangers-on. For the staff post of policy director he hired Karen Kornbluh, a senior aide to Robert Rubin when the latter, as head of the Treasury Department under Bill Clinton, was a chief advocate for NAFTA.
Obama’s top contributors are corporate law and lobbying firms (Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden, Arps, where four attorneys are fund-raisers for Obama as well as donors), Wall Street financial houses (Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase), and big Chicago interests (Henry Crown and Company, an investment firm that has stakes in industries ranging from telecommunications to defense). Obama immediately established a “leadership PAC,” a vehicle through which a member of Congress can contribute to other politicians’ campaigns—and one that political reform groups generally view as a slush fund through which congressional leaders can evade campaign-finance rules while raising their own political profiles.
Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert had praised Obama for his efforts in helping win Illinois its $6.2 billion in the massive, earmarklarded 2005 transportation bill. (Illinois’s most extravagant project funded by the bill was the Prairie Parkway, a controversial regional highway that would run through Hastert’s district and, in fact, has significantly increased the value of real estate he owns along the proposed route.)
-
I have no clue what point your trying to make with that drivel. It's also proper netiquette to source any claims one makes.
-
You are the one who brought the idea of one obscure campaign manager changing Barack's positions.
I'm stating that he has many lobbyists working for and advising his campaign just like a typical politican.
-
You are the one who brought the idea of one obscure campaign manager changing Barack's positions.
I'm stating that he has many lobbyists working for and advising his campaign just like a typical politican.
Well, of course he does -- but you are making insinuations that he's offering the some quid pro quo so pony up and prove it.
-
In other words Andy, provide links that would make true these claims.
-
I made no such insinuations ... you inferred on your own.
This started as my simply stating Hillary will Kentucky (which she has) why not just point out that in all likelihood Barack will win Oregon and get even closer to the nomination?! :)
Hugs!
AA
-
(http://www.siskiyous.edu/class/engl12/cowboy.jpg)
-
Old Latin Saying
Garrula Lingua :D
-
SUCH devoted Democrats!
source (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/20/politics/main4110009.shtml)
In Kentucky, just 33 percent of Clinton voters said they would back Obama in the general election if he is the Democratic nominee - 41 percent said they will vote for McCain, and another 23 percent say they won't vote.
compared with:
Oregon voters felt differently on that question, according to the exit poll. A majority of Clinton and Obama voters in the state would be satisfied if their opponent got the nomination. And 68 percent of Clinton voters say they will back Obama in the general election if he is the nominee and 80 percent of Obama voters say they will back Clinton in the general election.
-
I made no such insinuations ... you inferred on your own.
And that was exactly the intention. Come on, Andy. It was quite clear what you were trying to suggest in your post above. You were framing it to make an insinuation of palm greasing. Own up to it.
-
My intention was NOT to insinuate "palm greasing". It was to show how his campaign runs and operates.
"His campaign is run by a standard group of beltway lobbyist" Meaning they are all three run this way.
I have said that I voted for Hillary and if Barack is the nominee I will vote for him over John McCain but he is still just your typical politician and I think people need to remember that.
They are all three cut from the same cloth.
AA
-
Just for some appropriate closure about Kentucky:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=M8J9laUNgL4
-
The Daily Show: West Virginia Voters "No Interviews Please!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wk25Am6Jo0s
-
In Kentucky, just 33 percent of Clinton voters said they would back Obama in the general election if he is the Democratic nominee - 41 percent said they will vote for McCain, and another 23 percent say they won't vote.
That stat doesn't surpise me at all.
If we weren't just coming off of 8 years of Bush and McCain hadn't taken to hugging every Bush policy and was more centrist like he used to be, I wouldn't be voting for Obama either and would probably be fine just staying home. But I can't not vote for Obama because even though I like McCain personally much better than Obama, Obama will hopefully advocate policies more align with my beliefs.